57 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 10:15 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind that actually

That's only because your aim is so bad RNG might actually improve it......

[Wolfways]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

That's only because your aim is so bad RNG might actually improve it......

lol good one

[Bishop Steiner]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

lol good one

[Ghogiel]

You never go full TT.

[MauttyKoray]

Nope, don't want. Video Games will NEVER reflect a Table Top perfectly...EVER.

Same as with the Warhammer 40k TT and its video games like the RTS Dawn of War. The first mimic'd the TT/RTS hybrid fairly well, however the DoW2 style gameplay focused much more on RPG mechanics and unique characters.

Neither ever reflected the TT perfectly other than the LITERAL video game translations of the TT turn based format.

The biggest problem is NONE of you (devs included apparently...) understand how to 'translate' things like TT mechanics into realtime counterparts. Which is why stuff like the weapon stats are all screwy.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 17 February 2016 - 11:28 PM.

[Revis Volek]

MauttyKoray, on 17 February 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

Nope, don't want. Video Games will NEVER reflect a Table Top perfectly...EVER.

Same as with the Warhammer 40k TT and its video games like the RTS Dawn of War. The first mimic'd the TT/RTS hybrid fairly well, however the DoW2 style gameplay focused much more on RPG mechanics and unique characters.

Neither ever reflected the TT perfectly other than the LITERAL video game translations of the TT turn based format.

The biggest problem is NONE of you understand how to 'translate' things like TT mechanics into realtime counterparts. Which is why stuff like the weapon stats are all screwy.

OH man, Well please sir, hand out some lessons from your cloud of judgment and tell us how you would do it BETTER since you have it allll figured out already.

Why arent you working at PGI again?

[Chuck Jager]

MauttyKoray, on 17 February 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

Nope, don't want. Video Games will NEVER reflect a Table Top perfectly...EVER.

Same as with the Warhammer 40k TT and its video games like the RTS Dawn of War. The first mimic'd the TT/RTS hybrid fairly well, however the DoW2 style gameplay focused much more on RPG mechanics and unique characters.

Neither ever reflected the TT perfectly other than the LITERAL video game translations of the TT turn based format.

The biggest problem is NONE of you (devs included apparently...) understand how to 'translate' things like TT mechanics into realtime counterparts. Which is why stuff like the weapon stats are all screwy.

Did a google for open source game engines

Have fun, and I will be the first inline as a F2P player

[MauttyKoray]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 11:27 PM, said:

OH man, Well please sir, hand out some lessons from your cloud of judgment and tell us how you would do it BETTER since you have it allll figured out already.

Why arent you working at PGI again?

I have little coding or video game development/design knowledge or experience, however I can do intermediate math and simple problem solving couple with common sense.

You want a TT realtime translation? Sure...

NOTE: This is to all the people who always say you can't translate TT to realtime, or make that stupid excuse about 'firing your weapons only once every 10 seconds' crap.

Let's use PGIs own current weapon stats, however re-translated from TT values for a realtime setting. (BT uses 10 seconds to measure a 'turn' so we'll use that) I won't say ANY of these are perfect/usable as is , but as I stated I'm going straight off PGIs existing weapon stats and simply modifying them to reflect the TT.

I must also note that these changes would A| Spread damage more, and B| Probably require a return to closer to TT armor values as well as C| A rebalance of the ammo/tonnage ratio. I'm not gonna touch these honestly, everything I'm providing is a 'proof of' sort of thing and in no way a full working balance overhaul.

(ONLY IS WEAPONS USED FOR EXAMPLE)

AC2 - (10.08s) 14 shots over 10 seconds = about 0.143 damage per shot
Would need a major rework to make effective/not silly, probably change to a 1 sec cooldown to at least make each shot 0.2 damage. The weapon would basically turn into a machine gun AC. /shrugs

AC5 - (9.96s) 6 shots over 10 seconds = about 0.83 damage per shot
Modifying this to 1.5 second cooldown (used 30 seconds/3 turns for rounded number) would shift the damage to 0.75 (higher fire rate = lower damage per shot) for a more uniform damage. Alternatively a 1.75 second cooldown would be 0.875 damage and place it at a median cooldown between the AC2 and 10. (my preference is the 1.5 cooldown)

AC10 - 4 shots over 10 seconds = 2.5 damage per shot
Pretty simple and straight forward.

AC20 - (5shots/20s used) 2.5 shots over 10 seconds (20 damage) = 8 damage per shot
Another simple one.

The trick at this point would be differentiating the UACs and ACs. I've never liked the current mechanic personally and always thought standard ACs should have used the burst mechanic with UACs doing a bit less single shot damage but with the ability to refire at chance of a jam. But, that's nothing to do with this.

Continuing on with Lasers! (Using TT damage values, will also do MWOs for comparison where applicable.)

ERLL - (8dmg/turn) 3 shots over 10.25\s (1.025 turns) - 2.73 damage per shot, 0.218 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO (9dmg) - 3.075 damage per shot, 0.246 damage/0.1 seconds

LL - (8dmg/turn) 3 shots over 9.5\s (.95 turns) - 2.53 damage per shot, 0.253 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO (9dmg) - 2.85 damage per shot, 0.285 damage/0.1 seconds

ML - (5dmg/turn) 4 shots over 12.6 seconds (1.26 turns) - 1.575 per shot, 0.175 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO - same

SL - (3dmg/turn) 4 shots over 9.75 seconds (.975 turns) - 0.731 per shot, 0.0974 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO - same


Pulses have really annoying duration...makes the damage calculations awkward.

LPL - (9dmg/turn) 4 shots over 12.43 seconds (1.243 turns) - 2.796 damage per shot, 0.417 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO (11dmg) - 3.418 damage per shot, 0.51 damage/0.1 seconds

MPL - (6dmg/turn) 4 shots over 11.4 seconds (1.14 turns) - 1.71 damage per shot, 0.285 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO - same

SPL - (3dmg/turn) 5 shots over 11.5 seconds (1.15 turns) - 0.69 damage per shot, 0.138 damage/0.1 seconds
- MWO (4dmg) - 0.92 damage per shot, 0.153 damage/0.1 seconds

These numbers all seem ridiculously tiny, but remember that changing armor/internal structure back to lower numbers would have to be used as a starting point for these damage numbers. In contrast something like an LL does 24 damage over roughly 10 seconds now, versus the just over 8 damage in the same amount of time. Working on finally having a decent heat management system after this would go a long way as well as tweaking laser heat and balancing ammo/ton to make them a valuable but expensive weapon for tonnage and promote mixed builds over pure laser/ballistic boats. Afterwards the minor tweaking of armor values, 1.25x or 1.5x, would be able to manipulate the TTK further with additional ammo tweaks afterwards to cover any outlying weapons.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 18 February 2016 - 02:34 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

It's like if EA bought the rights to Zelda and was making a Legend of Zelda game, turning it into an FPS giving link nothing but a bow and calling it a Zelda game BECAUSE LOOK IT HAS LINK IN IT SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY A ZELDA GAME. Sure in essence it's a Zelda game but without certain aspects it's just a knock off that no one wants to play but you have to because EA owns the damn rights to it.

Sry but thats exactly what MECHWARRIOR always was, they made a stompy robot FPS of battletech.
And Mechcommnder made a RTS out of Battletech.

You really need to wait for Harebrains Battletech then if you probably look for a more Battletech game.

This isn't battletech online, its just Mechwarrior like mechwarrior always was, aside fom lacking a PvE campaign. And aside from a fre by balance differently chosen values for weapon heat and damage its very much MW as MW always was.

There is also a lot of "Warhammer" games out there yet NONE of them does what the TT does. ranging from RTS, TBS, FPS and others. In fact I guess Space hulk and Bloodbowl were the only games that accurately reflected their TT counterpart.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 February 2016 - 02:45 AM.

[MauttyKoray]

Lily from animove, on 18 February 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

Sry but thats exactly what MECHWARRIOR always was, they made a stompy robot FPS of battletech.
And Mechcommnder made a RTS out of Battletech.

You really need to wait for Harebrains Battletech then if you probably look for a more Battletech game.

This isn't battletech online, its just Mechwarrior like mechwarrior always was, aside fom lacking a PvE campaign. And aside from a fre by balance differently chosen values for weapon heat and damage its very much MW as MW always was.

There is also a lot of "Warhammer" games out there yet NONE of them does what the TT does. ranging from RTS, TBS, FPS and others. In fact I guess Space hulk and Bloodbowl were the only games that accurately reflected their TT counterpart.

One of the huge issues MWO faces is that previous Mechwarrior titles were campaign/PVE based, sometimes with a multiplayer but it wasn't the main draw. Plus they were all titles that were produced, released, and then maybe patched if needed for major issues. In contrast MWO is a constantly updating and evolving game, in which new content and features are released over time which will skew the balance when they are first released, or do so because a counterpart which provides an alternative option is not yet available (i.e. - IS ERSL and ERML don't exist which cause a larger gap between standard SL and ML and the clan ERML and ERSL.)

[STEF_]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

This is verbatim the convo i had in another thread and i will quote myself from that one.


Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:


Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".



What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.


]Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:
A game based on the BT IP and therefore adheres to the background/lore.[/color]




Where in that does it say it has to adhere to lore and background?

Hate to break it to ya but we missed that boat already, If you are here for lore you are not gonna be a happy camper.


It no different then when Michael Bay said, im making Transformer movies. They arent really like the show, they arent verbatim like other stuff, they dont make the characters look exactly the same(close but not identical) he has taken some liberties but its still "A TRANSFORMER MOVIE" still part of the franchise and still tote the A TRANSFORMER movie title around.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

I know of exactly ONE person who has demonstrated better knowledge of Btech lore than I, and that's Strum Wealh. I live this IP above literally any other, even Star Wars and Dragonlance.

That said.... C this being a Battletech GAME simply means it's BASED on Lore and the intellectual property of that title. Not that it's some slavish mimicry of it, any more than any other MW of MC title was.

I wish it could be. And there are things that COULD be closer. But FPS reality also means changes. I got news due folks. HBS' upcoming game? Will almost certainly have deviations, too.

Deal with it
Or don't let the door hit you. Huge difference between constructive criticism and useful suggestions, and totally unrealistic blue sky mining nonsense that people know realistically will not/can not happen, butts just really whining and crying and trying to time up the forum community.

Naaaaaaaaaaa, I'm not talking about lore (and yes, of course, we missed from the beginning).
I would like to have "the feeling" of a BT match when I drop.
Some examples.
-Lights scouting and fast; here scouting doesn't exist.
-Assault very slow and powerful....but sadly pgi put a very high engine cap in every mech, so banshee at 73.3 kph, or battlemaster at 82kph......it sounds ridicolous to me. I don't have the feeling of piloting a huge robotic war-machine.
I had it with mw2/mw3.
-Economic: medium mechs should be the go to mech, because they should be cheap to buy , to repair and rearm....but.....there is no repair nor rearm!!! You know: after a match, we should PAY the repairs and the lost weapons.
There is no economic decision at all.

So, yes, minimum viable product philosophy.
It's more about "the feeling", "the sensations", the "give a mech a role, a fluff".
Here mechs are all the same. Even a lolcust can do the dmg of an assault...and MUST do it, because it's all about the dmg and kills.

I care lore only when I read my books and booklets.

[wanderer]

Quote

Why arent you working at PGI again?

They'd never fire Paul, and that's who you'd need to replace to fix things.

Otherwise, I'd happily do it- heck, it wouldn't be my first gaming company, and working on a game I like and want to improve? But the culture is at the top, and the top isn't changing.

[Coralld]

Stefka Kerensky, on 18 February 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

Naaaaaaaaaaa, I'm not talking about lore (and yes, of course, we missed from the beginning).
I would like to have "the feeling" of a BT match when I drop.
Some examples.
-Lights scouting and fast; here scouting doesn't exist.
-Assault very slow and powerful....but sadly pgi put a very high engine cap in every mech, so banshee at 73.3 kph, or battlemaster at 82kph......it sounds ridicolous to me. I don't have the feeling of piloting a huge robotic war-machine.
I had it with mw2/mw3.
-Economic: medium mechs should be the go to mech, because they should be cheap to buy , to repair and rearm....but.....there is no repair nor rearm!!! You know: after a match, we should PAY the repairs and the lost weapons.
There is no economic decision at all.

So, yes, minimum viable product philosophy.
It's more about "the feeling", "the sensations", the "give a mech a role, a fluff".
Here mechs are all the same. Even a lolcust can do the dmg of an assault...and MUST do it, because it's all about the dmg and kills.

I care lore only when I read my books and booklets.

We use to have RR but PGI removed it because all the Heavy and Assault pilots complained about it costing to much to repair. At one point the RR was reasonable some what and only needed miner tweaking but no, can't have it because people HAVE to run their Assaults and Heavies.

[STEF_]

Coralld, on 18 February 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

We use to have RR but PGI removed it because all the Heavy and Assault pilots complained about it costing to much to repair. At one point the RR was reasonable some what and only needed miner tweaking but no, can't have it because people HAVE to run their Assaults and Heavies.

Yea, the whine was hard since the beginning and we have an easy andb bad game mechanics.
We can't have it because people HAVE to run their Assaults and Heavies, going yolo and with nonsense builds, which they couldn't do with a right and sane economics.

[Revis Volek]

Stefka Kerensky, on 18 February 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

Naaaaaaaaaaa, I'm not talking about lore (and yes, of course, we missed from the beginning).
I would like to have "the feeling" of a BT match when I drop.
Some examples.
-Lights scouting and fast; here scouting doesn't exist.
-Assault very slow and powerful....but sadly pgi put a very high engine cap in every mech, so banshee at 73.3 kph, or battlemaster at 82kph......it sounds ridicolous to me. I don't have the feeling of piloting a huge robotic war-machine.
I had it with mw2/mw3.
-Economic: medium mechs should be the go to mech, because they should be cheap to buy , to repair and rearm....but.....there is no repair nor rearm!!! You know: after a match, we should PAY the repairs and the lost weapons.
There is no economic decision at all.

So, yes, minimum viable product philosophy.
It's more about "the feeling", "the sensations", the "give a mech a role, a fluff".
Here mechs are all the same. Even a lolcust can do the dmg of an assault...and MUST do it, because it's all about the dmg and kills.

I care lore only when I read my books and booklets.

You want IMMERSION, weather the lore is there or not you want to FEEL like you are ACTUALLY in a mech in a large battle rather then a Arena match.

I understand that and i agree we dont need lore to feel immersed into the game, we just need things that make you feel like you are actually PLAYING A ROLE.

I really think this game just needs some RPG elements added, like Character creation, ACTUAL ROLES, Pilot Skill trees instead of mech skill trees, etc., etc..

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Johnny Z, on 17 February 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:

To me the calls for stock mode run along the same lines as all the calls for VOIP. Not a huge change at all.

+1 for comm wheel.

About TT rules in a 3D real time game. Get real.

Proper Stock Mode is a big deal. It`s changing game play completely. Almost everybody likes it, if tried. Those who scream the most loud against it, I believe never played game in Stock Mode.

Actually MWO is based on TT BT. Get real. You think that from where they sucked all stats, build rules etc., that you can see in lab.
The thing is that some of us fell that things could be fallowed little better to reflect BT and would lead us to better overall game play.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 18 February 2016 - 12:50 PM.

[STEF_]

Revis Volek, on 18 February 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

You want IMMERSION, weather the lore is there or not you want to FEEL like you are ACTUALLY in a mech in a large battle rather then a Arena match.

I understand that and i agree we dont need lore to feel immersed into the game, we just need things that make you feel like you are actually PLAYING A ROLE.

I really think this game just needs some RPG elements added, like Character creation, ACTUAL ROLES, Pilot Skill trees instead of mech skill trees, etc., etc..

100% this.

Immersion is what would make mwo great, not lore or weapon tables or such...