59 replies to this topic

[Buck Rogers]

Converting the "1 round = 10 seconds" into real time is a big problem.

For instance, in MW3 a machine gun fired quite fast. You'd burn through your 200 rounds (at 2 damage each) in a very short while. A MG boat could take down anything fairly easily. The MW3 MGs were overpowered.

In the tabletop, 200 "rounds" (if going from the fluff these should be called 'bursts' rather than singular 'rounds') would last you 200 turns, which translates to over 30 minutes of continuous real time firing, correct?

In MW4 they addressed this so that the MG did something like 2 damage over 10 seconds, exactly as the rules state. However, tactically, that made them fairly useless cause while in the TT you might take a MG 'pot shot' at someone in range, in a real-time game you tend to not want to hold the reticle over the enemy and pump fire into him for 10 seconds - let alone 30 continuous minutes.

The MG represents a really good singular problem with converting the TT rules to real time.

[trycksh0t]

Table Top rules are a great starting point, but strict adherence wouldn't really make for a fun simulator. I fully expect TT rules to be bent for a lot of things, but that's okay as long as it still feels right.

[miscreant]

For game balance, perhaps a limited number of respawns per round - in previously selected mechs from your lab, you could theoretically create the concept that you were issued one of your owned mechs...as absurd as the idea is that a mech could drop that quickly, but there could be 1 minute delay between respawns. The games would last longer and might make the end game more interesting, regardless of the game mode.

Edited by miscreant, 06 July 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[DerMaulwurf]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

The two aren't mutally exclusive. TT is (mostly) balanced. You can make a digital version of TT which would be perfectly balanced using TT rules. It isn't until you start changing the game to fit your idea of what the game should be (So, things like pin-point accuracy) that you start breaking the TT rules, at which point things need to be changed to account for these changes.

TT is not some magical world, It does correspond to real-time. A round is an extension of X seconds of real time. MUXs have shown this to work in action.

I agree and would like to add that some balance problems in previous installments of MW were actually caused by deviations from the TT (heat system, coolant flush,...).

[Dodger79]

Furniture, on 06 July 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Tabletop balance has been maintained over decades of gaming. I don't think it is bad for them to try and keep as true to tabletop as possible. Need I remind you that all of the things that contributed most to game imbalanced through all of the recent MW titles has been because they DEVIATED from the talbetop source material? For example, coolant flushing and unrestricted customizing in MW3. Or the shuffle of weapon DPS in MW4 that caused more problems than it ever fixed. Already, we have a potential problem with MWO because of the rumor of the double-armor value, but no double ammunition-per-ton to make up for it. What good is an AC/20 that damages its opponent like an AC/10 would in tabletop, but only gets 5 shots per ton? Let's think twice before making too many changes.

This. The ACs are an excellent example. Only 10 shots for an AC20 are ok if you can take out light Mechs and severely damage mediums with one hit, while heavies and assaults can survive several hits (as long as you don't hit them in the same spot everytime). But if for example a Jenner can survive 2-3 hits from an AC20 and it packs only 5 shots/ton, it's rather useless and one should spent the weight and space for lasers and heatsinks.
Same with Gaussrifles in tabletop and novels it is a very hard hitting long range weapon. But if you count in several missed shots due to range and movement it's no longer the feared sniping weapon known from the BT-universe when it doesn't cripple a light Mech with a hit or two while having only 8 shots/ton.

If i take a look on the so far announced Mechs i think (with no knowledge of the beta and only having watched the videos) this is something the devs have to adress, because many of the Mechs rely heavily on ammo-feeded weaponsystems.

[Buck Rogers]

miscreant, on 06 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

For game balance, perhaps a limited number of respawns per round - in previously selected mechs from your lab, you could theoretically create the concept that you were issued one of your owned mechs...as absurd as the idea is that a mech could drop that quickly, but there could be 1 minute delay between respawns. The games would last longer and might make the end game more interesting, regardless of the game mode.

NnNnnNnNnnNnnOooooooooooooo! "Respawn" dumbs down people and teaches them that dying doesn't matter. World Of Tanks has done a lot of things wrong. Permadeath for the match is not one of them. In fact, I hope that death is handled exactly or close to exactly how it is in WoT. When your mech is disabled, you should be able to quit the match, go back to the mech hangar, and take out another mech for a completely new match. Death should mean "You're dead for this match bro. Go play another match in a different mech." not "Your mech died and now the fun has too!", and definitely not "You died? Time to try landing on that Atlas's head yet again! I'm sure it'll work this time! FOR THE LULZ!"

If there is Respawn in some game modes, there better darn well be match permadeath in others, otherwise this isn't Mechwarrior.

[Dodger79]

Buck Rogers, on 07 July 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

NnNnnNnNnnNnnOooooooooooooo! "Respawn" dumbs down people and teaches them that dying doesn't matter. World Of Tanks has done a lot of things wrong. Permadeath for the match is not one of them. In fact, I hope that death is handled exactly or close to exactly how it is in WoT. When your mech is disabled, you should be able to quit the match, go back to the mech hangar, and take out another mech for a completely new match. Death should mean "You're dead for this match bro. Go play another match in a different mech." not "Your mech died and now the fun has too!", and definitely not "You died? Time to try landing on that Atlas's head yet again! I'm sure it'll work this time! FOR THE LULZ!"

If there is Respawn in some game modes, there better darn well be match permadeath in others, otherwise this isn't Mechwarrior.

+++++++++
qft

[Project_Mercy]

Buck Rogers, on 06 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Converting the "1 round = 10 seconds" into real time is a big problem.

I understand what you're saying, but the problem that you're addressing isn't caused by converting to a round-length. It's caused by pin-point accuracy or aiming of shots.

MGs were never meant to be a powerhouse. From a fluff perspective, their existance on mechs was to provide that mech with a cheap/easy/heatless way to deal with infantry and vehicles. From a TT BT perspective, their existance was to provide a heatless weapon to try to headshot/critshot people. It serves the same purpose as any of the other low-damage, wide spread weapons (AC/2s, SRMs, LB-X rounds, etc).

As far as the TT is concerned, it's extremely difficult to target your weapons. You're shooting at something as big as a barn, and if you even HIT the barn, that's considered good. For you to actively TARGET a spot (like 'shoot at a leg), something that we in MechWarrior games take for granted, that imposes a (potentially large, depending on the tech level and equipment involved) penalty to that shot, which makes it more likely that you'll completely miss the barn.

TT is designed around "if I throw enough darts, I'll eventually get a bullseye". So far, the MechWarriors have not done this. It causes a massive breakdown in a fundamental weight/slot vs reward system of Battletech.

THIS is the reason that MW's have traditionally had to diverge from the round system. The issue is, many of the designers at this point said "Eh whatever, we're throwing this out, we might as well throw it all out and resdesign it around "something cool"." And that's how we end up with MW4.

I view it much like the Unseen designs. You need to look at the key indicators of what something is supposed to be, and make sure those translate into the new system you create. Which is basically saying the same thing as the people who have said "Support the fluff, but bring out gameplay."

Personally, I'd rather get rid of point-point accuracy. To me, that's not Battletech. If you read the books, it takes a lot of effort to do it, and as often as not they miss. It's the massively exceptional pilots that get it to work.

[grimzod]

Ter Ushaka, on 06 July 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Out of bordom, I decided to wade into the forum, run this up the flagpole, and see what sticks to be saluted. What do you feel is more important, rigid adherence to the BT tabletop rules, or bending/breaking some rules to make the game balanced?

TT rules are balanced.

[River McCain]

I say carry over as much of the original rules as will make a balanced game, then make the rest up as you go.

[1stStrike86]

Sadly, i never played the TT, but IF the TT wasn't already balanced, this would be the chance to do it

[Buttlord]

Considering the tabletop game is a unbalanced mess, this is a pretty dumb question.

Also, even if the TT were perfectly balanced, the TT is a turn base strategy game, this is a real time shooter. Converting the rules of the first to apply to the latter would just turn it into a awful mess.

The TT is a good starting point for things like mech speed, weapon damage, and such, but from there on it needs to be balanced in order to make a enjoyable game.

Edited by Buttlord, 07 July 2012 - 06:04 AM.

[StoneRhino]

Hm, a game that has been balanced over 25 years now versus someone developing the computer game version making up their own rules, lets think about that for a second, shall we?

What seperates Battletech from any other game that use "mechs" such as Heavy Gear? The storyline, the artwork, but also the rules. The storyline and artwork are easily handled in the game, but even then it seems that they are working their own angle on the art. The rules on the other hand do not just keep the game organized and flowing. No, instead the rules help define how the units perform, how the weapons work, which in turn helps to develop the pace of the fight. It creates a feel to the game that is unique to Battletech.

The weapon ranges have been defined. What weapons on what units have also been put out there. What the different units are, how they move, how much armor have all been taken care of. What the developers needed to do is define how those rules that define Battletech operate in a 3 dimensional game world, which is to help express the ideas of each unit, each weapon, and each piece of gear, not to "balance" it as they feel.

There are a stack of books maybe 10 feet away from me that define the game. There are some bits and pieces in different books that modify the game's rules for the scale of combat. I know there are rules, mainly in the RPG that allowed for different weapons to be fired more then once per turn. This really leaves nothing for the developers to need to work on.

The question is why is there no reason for the game to be modified by the developers? Because its not really their creation, they are really just putting together an object that has defined parts and a set of instructions, they just need to assemble it, not put in an extra window, not to make it smaller or wider.Just assemble it so that people can play it. So those people can pay you for putting the effort into assembling it. If the rules are modified because the developers wish it for no particular reason at all then they might as well have saved themselves a lot of time and made their own mech game. The game becomes nothing more then a generic mech game with a well known label on it. A generic mech game isn't a bad thing, but trying to pass one off as a mechwarrior game is a bad thing. The problem with any mechwarrior game comes when people other then the Battletech developers start tweaking the rules. Each tweak, each bit changed moves the game from being the 3 dimensional representation of Battletech where each person represents a single unit (I'll be honest, I'd love to rip your face off with a demolisher if they add vehicles) to just some generic mecha game. When people attempt to pass off their own creation/reboot/ revisioning of something that is well known they are committing fraud.

The game, meaning Battletech, is rather balanced except for the guass rifle. All balance issues comes from messing with what is balanced. Remove the rules that balance the game and you have a different game then what most are expecting, or should I say wanting? I don't want anyone's spin on the BT universe. I want a digital gaming experience that represents the Battletech universe. Of the MW games that I have played I would say that the Virtual World game was the most honest BT sim ever. The next would be MW3, but the coolant flushing was lame, as were the infinite pulse lasers of slow doom being raked over the cockpit just so you can't see a damn thing. Unlimited modifications is part of the BT universe like it or not. Thats how you get crap like the swayback, or a thunderhawk using arty instead of a gauss rifle, catapults with ppcs and so on. Some might suggest that it removes the omnimech's advantage. The problem there is that mw games have not represented enough of a constantly flowing world to make that advantage useful.

If we were to see a MW game that was done the way that Planetside 1 and 2 are, then we could see how an omnimech would be useful hardware as people would be able to quickly change out gear while standard mechs are lucky to be repaired just as fast. It would be similar to Planetside 1's certification system where if you were to change a cert(skill) for another y ou would have to wait 6 hours. A six hour wait time for a mech to be modified into your own personal variant would be a pain, but it would represent the difference between a standard mech and the omni mech. I wish MW online was that game. I would love to see a game where players could be a pilot, a mechwarrior, a BA user, running a vehicle (with or without friends as crew) and even infantry all fighting for worlds all connected to the same universe(server) like Planetside. Maybe in 10 years we can have that game.

[BluefireMW]

The most important part is that the balance between weapons of Battletech Universe stay in balance as it is BattleTech.
A Weapon does 5 Damage in Battletech it should make the same amount as other weapon which does 5 damage.
AC 5 and Med Laser as example.
There are nice Recycle Times in Solaris VII you can take, to make it fit better in a continous game with less then 10 second
Rounds or almost realtime playing.
Till now it looks like it's closer to Battletech as the other games were before... hopefully it will be in future, too.

[CaptainNapalm]

i belive that the TT rules ain't that good. I've been playing table top war games including BT for 30 years and have a cabinet full of beutifuly painted mechs and generaly realy enjoy BT, but...its not that good of a system. the projectile weapons don't behave as gas expansion projectile weapons realy do, the missiles worst of all. If you base your conversion on the TT game then most 8 on 8 mech fights are over in less that 2 minutes in real time with a couple shattered war machines left standing. the speed of these machines is unbelivable and poorly represented in all the games i've played, wich is good because i get sick of japanese style twich games in a big hurry; eg. armored core.
i don't read fiction based on games because i find they tent to be poorly written by second rate authors that, as some one mentioned, never let game mechanics or common sence get in the way of thier intended lame drama. so i would say over all make a fun game. keep fathful to the ideas of the TT game withrespect to the details but the rules should be adjusted as required to make a better video game experience. i have done a 10 page rewrite of battle tech table top combat rules to make it more realistic and less clunky with all the random table rolls. i do this with many game systems. most of them are written by colledge english majors that happen to be complete nerds and know squat about combat, never having engaged in so much as a bar fight.
that being said the BT universe represents one in wich technology is usualy coppied or reverse engineered with less than perfect results due to 100 years(!) of thermo-nuclear war followed by nearly 300 more years of conventional war. small wonder targetting systems are of poor quality, they nearly blasted them selves back to 1920.
so i say , do as thou will piranha. oh and i agree hartily with buck rodgers, 1 death per match.

[HANGMAN1962]

well if you hold to tt/canon rules as much as possible it will keep balence as there are core canon rules just for keeping balence.

thats why there wont be all assualt battles as its based on tt/conon rules of company battles.
a company is based on 3 lances of mixed wieght class's, 1 lt/2md/and a hvy or aslt.
now times that by 3 and you have company.
balence is achieved problem is solved.
rinse repeat now you have bothe teams formed, mwo match may now begin!
and no i'm not a beta tester just "ran"company sized bt/mw tt matchs on the weekends off and on for 25+yrs is all.

sincerly the"hangman"

[HANGMAN1962]

now if thay use battlepoint values it will balence even more.

[Bobfrombobtown]

EDIT: Ok tables don't seem to work properly here. So there goes my fancy table idea.

Edited by Bobfrombobtown, 07 July 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[HANGMAN1962]

well soleris7 rules are part of bt/conon just optional rules.
more depth to the core rules hehehe

[Schtirlitz]

It is impossible to abide all table top ruled in computer pvp game.
Game balance comes first.