90 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

I would actually rather not see through-armor criticals, it's too much randomness for my tastes.

With the basic system, I would agree with you... which is why I mentioned the stuff from TO; which makes the penetrating hits system a lot more sensible. Gauss rifles and ac20s get a better chance of blasting a hole through armor; smaller weapons don't. It all depends on how much damage hits any one armor section in any one instance - big damage, better chance of penetration.

Watching heavy gauss slugs bounce off of pristine armor all day is just as nonsensical the basic armor penetration setup is... Some things really do "swiss cheese" targets.

syngyne, on 06 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

TT is used as a starting point, not as an inviolable set of parameters they have to work within.

Um, when you say "I'm making a mechwarrior video game" ... it actually ... you know... has a meaning that the name carries with it? which, if you ignore, ... means you're engaging in false advertising, which I don't think that PGI wants to do.

If there is no unchanging standard that PGI works within, than they could give us a combo of raxhephon and escaflowne and call that mechwarrior...

Quote

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

From what I gather it's not going to be a port of the parent gaming system. It's some sort of weird card gaming setup. I was expecting 3d megamek in realtime too; but it's apparently not to be.

[fil5000]

crabcakes66, on 06 July 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Good suggestion. Unnecessary mechanic.


People are inventing problems that don't exist.

Laser weapons have literally ALWAYS wound up being the best choice in every single Mechwarrior game to date. His suggestion offers one possible way for the devs to avoid that happening here and meaning that mech loadouts that aren't just "Medium Laser x 10000" become something that is worth considering. Admittedly, yes, this is not a problem that exists because at the moment the whole GAME doesn't exist, so I guess you can just dismiss it like that if you don't really like discussing things.

[Fire for Effect]

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

really? that is a surprise who would have thought that.

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

I am talking about mechanics it is very well possible, hitting is your job anything else is mechanics and can be very well taken from the ruleset.
10 seconds is much to play with that should suit your needs; you can decide as designer to keep the gun trained on the enemy for 10 seconds to do the stated damage or it is just one shot and then recycle time. And no we want to stay away from the MW ruleset *shudder*
the heat buidup and the relative damage, tonnage ratios ect. are tried and work so should remain unchanged.

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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,

and the problem is? thats the point of a simulator

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

I already have done that, as already said hitting when and where the enemy is your job the effects are determined by mechanics. (and fuzzy dice in your cockpit )

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

thats ok that is your pilot and gunnery skill.

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

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).

If you think that is rude *grin* you should come to germany and make a nice vacation. We have no disney land (sadly) but very interesting highways (Autobahn), there you can see what is rude...

[Supraluminal]

Pht, on 06 July 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

With the basic system, I would agree with you... which is why I mentioned the stuff from TO; which makes the penetrating hits system a lot more sensible. Gauss rifles and ac20s get a better chance of blasting a hole through armor; smaller weapons don't. It all depends on how much damage hits any one armor section in any one instance - big damage, better chance of penetration.

OK, this is outside the range of my tabletop knowledge. Seems reasonable I suppose, but still not super-appealing to me.

Quote

Um, when you say "I'm making a mechwarrior video game" ... it actually ... you know... has a meaning that the name carries with it? which, if you ignore, ... means you're engaging in false advertising, which I don't think that PGI wants to do.

If there is no unchanging standard that PGI works within, than they could give us a combo of raxhephon and escaflowne and call that mechwarrior...

I was going to argue about this, but 1) I'm tired of yelling about what amounts to religious fundamentalism in another guise, and 2) I saw the link to your manifesto in your sig. Jiminy Christmas, man. I didn't read enough of it to determine what if any positions you were advocating in it, but regardless I'm not about to try and get in an argument with you. Rhetorical ability aside, you'd win on sheer volume alone I have no doubt.

Edited by Supraluminal, 06 July 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Fire for Effect]

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Laser weapons have literally ALWAYS wound up being the best choice in every single Mechwarrior game to date. His suggestion offers one possible way for the devs to avoid that happening here and meaning that mech loadouts that aren't just "Medium Laser x 10000" become something that is worth considering. Admittedly, yes, this is not a problem that exists because at the moment the whole GAME doesn't exist, so I guess you can just dismiss it like that if you don't really like discussing things.

fil is correct pulse lasers were incredibly powerful compared to other weapons. But then one would change pulse laser to allenviate the problem not add armor that could have unforeseeable effects on the game...

[fil5000]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

really? that is a surprise who would have thought that.




I am talking about mechanics it is very well possible, hitting is your job anything else is mechanics and can be very well taken from the ruleset.
10 seconds is much to play with that should suit your needs; you can decide as designer to keep the gun trained on the enemy for 10 seconds to do the stated damage or it is just one shot and then recycle time. And no we want to stay away from the MW ruleset *shudder*
the heat buidup and the relative damage, tonnage ratios ect. are tried and work so should remain unchanged.





and the problem is? thats the point of a simulator



I already have done that, as already said hitting when and where the enemy is your job the effects are determined by mechanics. (and fuzzy dice in your cockpit )




thats ok that is your pilot and gunnery skill.



If you think that is rude *grin* you should come to germany and make a nice vacation. We have no disney land (sadly) but very interesting highways (Autobahn), there you can see what is rude...

Right, this multiquoting is making it difficult to respond so I will keep this brief. A turn based board game really, REALLY has limited things you can bring into the realtime world. If an AC-2 has a recycle time the same as an AC-5, -10 and -20 then there's literally no point in taking it ever. Engaging at range is the only thing it brings you, and that can be quickly negated because stuff like movement mods and cover mods just don't work in a realtime environment. You clearly don't agree, which I find baffling, but continuing this is going to get us nowhere.

I have been to Germany, I know plenty of Germans - rudeness is not a national characteristic there. To suggest that yours is a result of being German is a lazy excuse, and also insulting to your countrymen.

[Amechwarrior]

crabcakes66, on 06 July 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

People are inventing problems that don't exist.

I think he was trying to address the problems of taking the lore and stats from a turn based system and applying them into a realtime game. Problems like projectile flight time, rate of fire, crosshair based aiming and all the other things you don't have to consider for balance in a turn based game you must address in a game like this. Lasers being instant hit and what looks like pinpoint accurate vs ammo limited, non-instant flight time projectiles will force changes from the lore.

His idea is in the same spirit as the TT. Low damage weapons and missiles are the first thing people cut out of 'mechs in MW3/4/etc. It is all CERLL/Gauss/ERPPC because that is what works. In the TT these numerous smaller weapons offered increased chance to hit an exposed area and score criticals. How many chances to score that crit can you get with one LBX/20 slug vs a cluster? His proposal is an idea to give the less efficient weapons a second chance in the mechlab and hopefully a more diverse battlefield. Looking back at previous MW titles and how they were played online and you can make a list of problems that do exist in MW that don't in TT Battletech.

Edited by Amechwarrior, 06 July 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[Terminal Blue]

So, wait... Fire for Effect is saying that broken mechanics shouldn't be fixed because they might break the mechanics?

Edited by Terminal Blue, 06 July 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Supraluminal]

Alright, I'm off to go swimming. Try not to turn the thread into even more of a tire-fire than it already is while I'm away!

[Khaymaer]

Terminal Blue, on 06 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

So, wait... Fire for Effect is saying that broken mechanics shouldn't be fixed because they might break the mechanics?

Correct. I thought he was a clever troll, but then I realized he was serious.

~K

Edited by Khaymaer, 06 July 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[Terminal Blue]

I think I need to lie down for a while.

[Voyager I]

He is living proof that being articulate does not correlate with being intelligent.


But I guess we already had politics to tell us that one.

[Fire for Effect]

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Right, this multiquoting is making it difficult to respond so I will keep this brief. A turn based board game really, REALLY has limited things you can bring into the realtime world.

you are correct we already agreed on that. but there are similarities such as core mechanics, heat builtup and so on.

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

If an AC-2 has a recycle time the same as an AC-5, -10 and -20 then there's literally no point in taking it ever. Engaging at range is the only thing it brings you, and that can be quickly negated because stuff like movement mods and cover mods just don't work in a realtime environment.

we will see I would love to see what they come up with AC wise...

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

You clearly don't agree, which I find baffling, but continuing this is going to get us nowhere.

I think wwe are talking about different things the whole time I am talking about CORE mechanics that you should never ever change you think I wish to copy everything 1:1 from TT to 3D sim (heavy emphasis on simulation) just adding a new armor type IS changing a core mechanic that would have an unforeseeable effect on balance.

fil5000, on 06 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I have been to Germany, I know plenty of Germans - rudeness is not a national characteristic there. To suggest that yours is a result of being German is a lazy excuse, and also insulting to your countrymen.

I ment actually specifically the german autobahn (highway) not germany or germans as a whole I think nowhere in the world you will find such a high concentration of rudeness as on german highways (no speed limit in large parts) naturally most cars there are from germany but not all, the difference of nationalities considering rudeness is also quite low there.

[Fire for Effect]

Terminal Blue, on 06 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

So, wait... Fire for Effect is saying that broken mechanics shouldn't be fixed because they might break the mechanics?

nope he does not say that; he says do not change things if change is not necessary, especially if it has effects that you cannot fathom. If you think that laser are too powerful change the laser mechanic within the scope of the ruleset (sure you can do that) but do not fiddle with armor...

[fil5000]

Why are laser mechanics fair game but not armour? If you're changing a weapon, you're changing the effect it has on armour, so you're already changing the armour mechanic by proxy. Giving a weapon two values, one for armour damage and one for internal damage is not a massive change to what is already there.

[Pht]

Supraluminal, on 06 July 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

OK, this is outside the range of my tabletop knowledge. Seems reasonable I suppose, but still not super-appealing to me.

I forgot to mention, they also added another set of rules; basically, once you determine that you've gotten a hit on some internal equipment, you go to another set of tables and roll again, to see if you blazed the paint off of the equipment, through to "destroyed it," with multiple hits at low levels still ultimately destroying whatever is hit. This would be the "expanded critical damage" setup.

Quote

I was going to argue about this, but 1) I'm tired of yelling about what amounts to religious fundamentalism in another guise,

If thinking that when you say something that actually has a meaning that can be determined ... you actually mean what's necessarily implied ... is religious fundamentalism...

Let us make the most of it!

Quote

and 2) I saw the link to your manifesto in your sig. Jiminy Christmas, man. I didn't read enough of it to determine what if any positions you were advocating in it, but regardless I'm not about to try and get in an argument with you. Rhetorical ability aside, you'd win on sheer volume alone I have no doubt.

Actually, the part of that post that touches on the topic is not too long...

Spoiler

Quote

The cornerstone of the foundation

Just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Obviously, what follows, of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.

If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game. Yeah, there's my darned non-postmodern view on truth popping up. Don't worry, you'll get used to it, I do it a lot... or you may start frothing at the mouth and go insane. You have been warned (again).

Foundation Proper

Where can we validly go to to define the Battletech Universe, and from within that definition, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat? There are three different sources that are usually appealed to.

First, there are the previous MechWarrior video games. Positively, these are useful as examples of how others have tried to implement what it is like to pilot a BTU BattleMech in video game format. However, as far as actually defining the BTUniverse (and within that what it is like to pilot a BattleMech) the previous MW video games are not very good.

First of all, they are derivative instead of foundational works as far as concerns the BTUniverse - they looked elsewhere to get their definition(s), and at times these places were not always the best choices. They are also to some extent built game play upon arbitrary assumptions and concepts that are not always consistent with each other from game to game... meaning that there is no valid reason to choose one idea from any game over another - we may as well flip a coin!

---

Second, there are the Battletech novels and the short stories and "in universe" lore in the various source books for the tabletop game of Battletech. This "story" source is the genesis for much of the BTUniverse lore/information and it is usually more consistent with itself. It can be helpful in knowing conceptually, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, because it is largely free of any limitations that the various game formats necessarily impose.

That said, because of the lack of strict restrictions due to format "fiat" characters and concepts creep in at places - a tool used by authors to achieve their desired outcomes and to otherwise embellish their stories - which means the story overrides all other considerations, so care must be used in deciding what concepts to use. There is also the problem that while this story source is good at giving the concepts of what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, it does not give usable clear definitions in hard "black and white" of how these concepts work.

---

Third, there are the rules that make up the Battletech tabletop game. This system(1984) was released before the novels by two years(1986), and the novels, "fiat" excluded, have not contradicted what the TT system rules "aim at." This system was, as far someone who was not involved in the origination of BT can tell, the genesis of much of the mechanics that exist in the the BTUniverse.

The various rules that make up this system are usually "hard numbers in black and white" and they lay out a fairly comprehensive baseline for BattleMech behavior and performance, and also piloting duties; and as far as seems humanly possible they are not contradictory of each other - or the "story" source either. The downside of these rules that make up this system is that they sometimes do not indicate exactly what it is they are intended to emulate. They also at times make compromises specific to the tabletop turn-based gaming format. The form of the rules do not always work in a video game format - they require translation at times.

Edited by Pht, 06 July 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[fil5000]

Pht, on 06 July 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Actually, the part of that post that touches on the topic is not too long...

Spoiler

[b][u]

Dude, that's 750 words of your opinions about space robots. If you don't think that's "long" then I don't know what to tell you.

[Nekki Basara]

The expanded crit rules looked interesting but just another layer of complication I couldn't be bothered using.

Handy we have a computer for that I guess.

[Pht]

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Handy we have a computer for that I guess.

Amen to that...

[Terminal Blue]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

nope he does not say that; he says do not change things if change is not necessary, especially if it has effects that you cannot fathom. If you think that laser are too powerful change the laser mechanic within the scope of the ruleset (sure you can do that) but do not fiddle with armor...

My mistake. What else does Fire for Effect say? Are we... talking to Fire for Effect right now?