90 replies to this topic

[Fire for Effect]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Eh. I think you'd be better off with that argument over here: http://mwtactics.com/

that would be "identical" as a goal and we already have megamek

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Shall we start working out optimal skill packages or would you prefer lifepaths? While we're at it, dig out the Solaris box set dueling rules.

ah yes the solaris box a very "special" thing, I though I was the only one who has bought this one

lets see my 2750 has 160 pages a few for the RPG and a few naval warships

my 3025+3026 has 360 pages that is about the size of the 3039. Star League stuff and rules were missing in 3039 IIRC.


damn always if you need something you cannot find it....

[Quincy80]

"An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts."

HEAP is a perfectly good fluff and logic based argument for having Autocannons doing increased damage to internals or already damaged armour. Explosives always do more damage if they penetrate before exploding.
Unfortunately, this same argument would work for missles. Do they need a buff as well?

[Fire for Effect]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

BT is not a sacred text.

we could ask Jordan what he thinks it is his after all but I think he would disagree

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

(We could also get into an argument about whether BT is really so perfectly balanced in and of itself, but for all our sakes, let's not.)

It is good enough that it has worked quite well for 25 years... some changes were made that are questionable. initiative anyone? but the basics are quite well ironed out.

[Fire for Effect]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Seems to me that it's more like we're all standing around a restaurant that's being built and arguing over whether it should serve meat or veggie burgers when it's done.

A remarkably fitting comparision. for some reason makes you hungry for more... I fear we have only seen the land on which it is built a few scraps of the foundation....

[Nekki Basara]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

ah yes the solaris box a very "special" thing, I though I was the only one who has bought this one

lets see my 2750 has 160 pages a few for the RPG and a few naval warships

my 3025+3026 has 360 pages that is about the size of the 3039. Star League stuff and rules were missing in 3039 IIRC.

All the TRO 2750 mechs are in TRO 3039 since they Draconis Combine had those versions in that war. The SL special rules were left out because they had been superceeded and rather dramatically changed in places. Warships were moved to TRO 3057.

Sadly I never got the Solaris box, I just managed to find the rules somewhere second hand. Got the map set though, which was nice. RPUK still stock it.

[Fire for Effect]

Quincy80, on 06 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

"An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts."

HEAP is a perfectly good fluff and logic based argument for having Autocannons doing increased damage to internals or already damaged armour. Explosives always do more damage if they penetrate before exploding.
Unfortunately, this same argument would work for missles. Do they need a buff as well?

not the fluff text, only mechanics do count you know hard numbers not soft words . the reasons why something works is mood anyhow, since especially the ballistics physics in BT is bogus. you either penetrate and do damage or you ding and make a scratch you do not scrape off a ton of armor if you do not penetrate . But thats ok sicne that way even small mechs have a chance to damage the large ones.

Does the OP know Renegade legion? that had a similar idea of different weapons doing different damage.

[Fire for Effect]

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

All the TRO 2750 mechs are in TRO 3039 since they Draconis Combine had those versions in that war. The SL special rules were left out because they had been superceeded and rather dramatically changed in places. Warships were moved to TRO 3057.

I cannot find the damn thing (3039) still use the original 3025 and 3026 for reference.

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Sadly I never got the Solaris box, I just managed to find the rules somewhere second hand. Got the map set though, which was nice. RPUK still stock it.

was an interesting thing Solaris box but not really accepted, found almost noone who wanted to use it. But i agree the contents were good of the box.

[fil5000]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

not the fluff text, only mechanics do count you know hard numbers not soft words . the reasons why something works is mood anyhow, since especially the ballistics physics in BT is bogus. you either penetrate and do damage or you ding and make a scratch you do not scrape off a ton of armor if you do not penetrate . But thats ok sicne that way even small mechs have a chance to damage the large ones.

Does the OP know Renegade legion? that had a similar idea of different weapons doing different damage.

See, the issue you've got here is you keep assuming that the dev's goal is to stick as close to the TROs and other sources as possible and only deviate when there's no other way around it. Their actual goal is "make a game that as many people want to play as possible and will throw money at". Now it may be that deviation from the original rules will push some people (perhaps like yourself) away - however if it actually makes the game fun and interesting and means that configuring a mech is more than "Hey, these medium lasers are pretty sweet, I'll just throw as many as I can in and oh hey, looks like I win" and more like "Ok, big laser to punch through armour, then an LB-10X or maybe some SRMs as critseekers, or hell, maybe even a machine gun", or even better "I know my buddy's running an Atlas with a bunch of large lasers, so if I take a Jagermech with some AC-2s, he can open them up and I can knock them down all from a nice safe distance" then people are going to find it more interesting and will play for longer/throw more money at it and generally keep the game going. That last sentence is terrible, but if anyone can parse it I will send you a biscuit.

I'm glad you actually expanded on your "UM NO" from before as that was both utterly uninformative and thoroughly rude.

[Fire for Effect]

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

See, the issue you've got here is you keep assuming that the dev's goal is to stick as close to the TROs and other sources as possible and only deviate when there's no other way around it.

well thats what they said...

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Their actual goal is "make a game that as many people want to play as possible and will throw money at".

i sincerely hope not since we do not need another minecraft, world of tetris or barbieland

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Now it may be that deviation from the original rules will push some people (perhaps like yourself) away - however if it actually makes the game fun and interesting and means that configuring a mech is more than "Hey, these medium lasers are pretty sweet, I'll just throw as many as I can in and oh hey, looks like I win" and more like "Ok, big laser to punch through armour, then an LB-10X or maybe some SRMs as critseekers, or hell, maybe even a machine gun", or even better "I know my buddy's running an Atlas with a bunch of large lasers, so if I take a Jagermech with some AC-2s, he can open them up and I can knock them down all from a nice safe distance" then people are going to find it more interesting and will play for longer/throw more money at it and generally keep the game going. That last sentence is terrible, but if anyone can parse it I will send you a biscuit.

actually I think there is nothing wrong with your last sentence. Exactly what you write is possible if you keep close to the original ruleset. If you deviate you get into dangerous water which most of the time leads to desaster most MW up to date had severe lacking in that respect, making Laser DOTs is a good odea and fits remarkably well in. they can fiddle as much as they want with things like torso rotation speed and modules but adding new armor types or shields *shudder* will with a high probability topple the whole pyramid since these are not in canon and will severely unbalance the entire well balance...

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

I'm glad you actually expanded on your "UM NO" from before as that was both utterly uninformative and thoroughly rude.

since that was the (felt at least) 100th post to changes of the original ruleset my answers got shorter and shorter....

I am steiner we are not rude we are direct....

[TDucats]

You guys are idiots the rules for a turn-based hex-grid tabletop game translate perfectly to a real-time squad-based FPS. The paper game has been around 25 years, and I can only assume during that quarter decade it's become a paragon of balanced, well-thought-out mechanics with no weapons or mechs that are over or under-powered.

[Fire for Effect]

No need to get personal, but at least that atempt of an insult was not filtered.

Perfect no, noone said that, but it worked well for said years. Never change a running system. Invention of a new armor type would be a tremendous change. And Mech by mech comparison is not exactly useful you have to compare forces, seldom you are alone... if you are something went wrong.

[fil5000]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

well thats what they said...



i sincerely hope not since we do not need another minecraft, world of tetris or barbieland



actually I think there is nothing wrong with your last sentence. Exactly what you write is possible if you keep close to the original ruleset. If you deviate you get into dangerous water which most of the time leads to desaster most MW up to date had severe lacking in that respect, making Laser DOTs is a good odea and fits remarkably well in. they can fiddle as much as they want with things like torso rotation speed and modules but adding new armor types or shields *shudder* will with a high probability topple the whole pyramid since these are not in canon and will severely unbalance the entire well balance...





since that was the (felt at least) 100th post to changes of the original ruleset my answers got shorter and shorter....

I am steiner we are not rude we are direct....

They're running a business here, man. They doubtless love the tabletop and the previous mechwarrior games, but they have to make money or the game gets switched off. We absolutely need this to be the Minecraft of Mechwarrior games or in 12 months time there's no one playing - and by that I mean it needs to have mechanics that are fun and that people actually want to play. Again, if it's Laserboat: Online, no one will bother playing the thing.

And no, it's NOT possible with the existing ruleset. The existing ruleset is turnbased, and even if you get into the Mechwarrior rules rather than the BT ones, it's still far too granular to carry across usefully. Take jumpjets - in tabletop you can leap over a mech and turn around so you're pointing directly at their rear armour. If they put this sort of functionality in game it's going to be down to the ability of whoever's driving the mech to make that maneuver, in tabletop it just happens because you say it happens. In tabletop, shooting stuff is down to a dice roll. In game it's down to whether or not the player can put his crosshair on the target. You can't say that the mechanics for one are appropriate to the other. They've already announced that they're going beyond the tabletop stuff by putting in the various skill trees, it isn't unreasonable for people to talk about other changes to the mechanics.

And no, you were rude. When someone makes a lengthy, reasoned post about a gameplay mechanic issue and you respond like a five year old who's been asked if he wants broccoli, it's rude.

(That right there: me being direct).

[Terminal Blue]

There needs to be a camp for TT rules loyalists, I swear.

It's a damn sim not a board game. The only dice I want involved are the fuzzy ones hanging from the cockpit mirror.

[Pht]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

I had a thought about a possible mechanic for balancing weapons, particularly in terms of giving them more clearly-defined roles. How about different weapon types doing more or less damage to armor vs. internal structure?

Actually, in the parent gaming system, there's already something like this present, if in a slightly different way ...


Weapons that can generate a lot of fire (missiles, small lasers... anything that has a high ROF or can be put on in large groups) .... while they don't usually have as good an individual chance of getting through armor due to lower damage... they DO have an overall better chance when used in large groups... and once your target is stripped, any of those weapons will totally own the larger weapons; because the insides of a 'mech are relatively "soft" so big damage matters less than just ... pruning off the internals.

[Supraluminal]

Pht, on 06 July 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Actually, in the parent gaming system, there's already something like this present, if in a slightly different way ...


Weapons that can generate a lot of fire (missiles, small lasers... anything that has a high ROF or can be put on in large groups) .... while they don't usually have as good an individual chance of getting through armor due to lower damage... they DO have an overall better chance when used in large groups... and once your target is stripped, any of those weapons will totally own the larger weapons; because the insides of a 'mech are relatively "soft" so big damage matters less than just ... pruning off the internals.

May I suggest that you read to the bottom of my post?

[Terminal Blue]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

I am steiner we are not rude we are direct....

This is a pretty terrible excuse for responding to a well thought out post with kneejerk negativity, by the way. Hats off to you.

[Pht]

Silly me. I missed the bottom of your post.


Really, if the manage to get the system ported over from the parent game, there's no need to buff crit-seeking weapons any more, especially if the advanced stuff is added from tactical operations. The parent game is already deadly enough when you allow penetrating hits on any section of the 'mech.... If memory serves, that is what gave rise to the name "deathtech" or something like that, in relation to allowing the golden bb to strike anywhere.

[Supraluminal]

Pht, on 06 July 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Silly me. I missed the bottom of your post.


Really, if the manage to get the system ported over from the parent game, there's no need to buff crit-seeking weapons any more, especially if the advanced stuff is added from tactical operations. The parent game is already deadly enough when you allow penetrating hits on any section of the 'mech.... If memory serves, that is what gave rise to the name "deathtech" or something like that, in relation to allowing the golden bb to strike anywhere.

I would actually rather not see through-armor criticals, it's too much randomness for my tastes. I think crit-seeking in the sense of exploiting breaches that have been blown open in armor is a good mechanic, though.

[syngyne]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

well thats what they said...

They actually have said almost the opposite. I can't find the direct quote, but Paul (I think) stated that this is not going to just be a straight real-time conversion of the TT game. TT is used as a starting point, not as an inviolable set of parameters they have to work within.

Edit: If you want something that's going to be an online translation of the TT rules, you should give MW:Tactics a spin.

Edited by syngyne, 06 July 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Good suggestion. Unnecessary mechanic.


People are inventing problems that don't exist.