52 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

Should Catalyst+PGI+HBS+someone else make a new BT ruleset to be used in this kind of game because shoehorning TT rules where you act as a commander into MW-type games is basically silly and asking for trouble.

But it feels like wasted effort and a nightmare to do so noone would do it.

What do you think?

You can run BT with the Shiloette Core (Heavy Gear) rules - when you use the right math.
You can reduce the number of missiles per SRM 6 launcher towards 6 or 600 - the only thing that might matter is the playability.

We are not talking about rocket science - although it might be little harder then converting "inch per millisecond" into "kilometer per day" - but the methode is the same.

Important is that you keep the logical integrity.
Stuff like doubling armor and increasing shots per time frame on a "feel" basis doesn't work.
Keeping heat dissipation rate on CBT level and adding the "internal" heat capacity at the top of the 30 point heat threshold doesn't work.

To sum up weapon damage per volley turning 2 PPCs in a long range AC20 doesn't work

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 January 2017 - 05:33 AM.

[Mystere]

Karl Streiger, on 16 January 2017 - 05:28 AM, said:

when you use the right math

And this is why I think almost all of these balancing discussions are just exercises in futility. There is barely any math going around. Almost every freaking suggestion is based on "feel" instead of some kind of real balancing equation.

It's no wonder then why STEM-based education is not very popular in certain places. It lacks "feel".

Edited by Mystere, 16 January 2017 - 08:33 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Mystere, on 16 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

And this is why I think almost all of these balancing discussions are just exercises in futility. There is barely any math going around. Almost every freaking suggestion is based on "feel" instead of some kind of real balancing equation.

It's no wonder then why STEM-based education is not very popular in certain places. It lacks "feel".

need to check if we are all death and hell did freezes over - but it seems like i hace the same opinion as a parrot

you don't have forgotten the "not to spreadsheet but to feel" statement, didn't byou?
yep math is a very bad balancing concept that seems to be completely the opposite of gaming.

[Mystere]

Karl Streiger, on 16 January 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

need to check if we are all death and hell did freezes over - but it seems like i hace the same opinion as a parrot

you don't have forgotten the "not to spreadsheet but to feel" statement, didn't byou?
yep math is a very bad balancing concept that seems to be completely the opposite of gaming.

???

In any case, when I mentioned "math", I was actually thinking of an N-dimensional problem space, and most certainly not "spreadsheets".

Edited by Mystere, 16 January 2017 - 09:38 AM.

[Xocoyol Zaraoul]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

To quote the old saying: For balance, core rule ignore.


This game would still be a Mechwarrior game if IS has ST death proof XL, and the LBX10 deals more than 10 damage, and the IS LBX20 gets 9 crit slots, instead of 11.

You're totally right, because It's all about the asthetics and Fluff/Lore that makes a Mechwarrior game a Mechwar.... Um... Oh yeah we don't have any Fluff/Lore. At All.

There's literally more fluff written in a single website short story on a new mechpack than there is in the entire in-game client...

[SuomiWarder]

Short answer to OP is 'No': Catalyst or whoever does not need new MechWarrior rules because the games they publish are played on a table. Anyone making a computer based MechWarrior / BattleTech game will have to take liberties and change things. Like the old Xbox MechWarrior game (can't recall the name they used, but there were power ups you could run over and other arcade type stuff).

By the way, the actual MechWarrior rules for role playing individual people in the B Tech universe use the main B Tech board game/miniatures rules for mech and vehicle combat.

[Bombast]

Xocoyol Zaraoul, on 16 January 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

There's literally more fluff written in a single website short story on a new mechpack than there is in the entire in-game client...

Too bad this game never got a hardcore enough userbase willing to make their own TRO, like HBS's Battletech did.

Not that it should be necessary - MWO should have done something by this point. Just a shame the fans never pitched in when it became apparent it wasn't happening.

http://www.sarna.net...al_Readout_3028
https://community.ba...ms/threads/1273

[Brain Cancer]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

This, a thousand times this!

A literal translation of TT is not what many people have been asking for, people who are being derided as "TT grognards" by the "gameplay above all else" crowd. <smh>

You can tell pretty easily that not only did PGI not even translate things over, they weren't even trying for the spirit of it.

Of course, that's the difference between Harebrained and PGI. The former is Battletech gameplay translated lovingly as possible to a computerized format, the latter is an ever-more-divergent variation that butchers things repeatedly due to "coding limitations" or worse.

[Mystere]

Brain Cancer, on 16 January 2017 - 11:19 PM, said:

You can tell pretty easily that not only did PGI not even translate things over, they weren't even trying for the spirit of it.

Of course, that's the difference between Harebrained and PGI. The former is Battletech gameplay translated lovingly as possible to a computerized format, the latter is an ever-more-divergent variation that butchers things repeatedly due to "coding limitations" or worse.

So-called "coding limitations" are a really sore spot for me. I've fired people and replaced consultants for such things. And if they happened to be not working directly under me, I got them replaced anyway. <shrugs>

Bombast, on 16 January 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...al_Readout_3028
https://community.ba...ms/threads/1273

Heresy! Burn them!

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

This is the first multiplayer only FPS Mechwarrior game.

Wrong, See :Multiplayer Battletech: Solaris
Multiplayer Battletech: 3025

from the old Kesimi web service and AOL.

oh, by the way, they used the core battletech rules, and no one complained, you just dealt with it, and moved forward.

[Mystere]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 January 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

Wrong, See :Multiplayer Battletech: Solaris
Multiplayer Battletech: 3025

from the old Kesimi web service and AOL.

oh, by the way, they used the core battletech rules, and no one complained, you just dealt with it, and moved forward.

Which reminds me, what rules did those Battletech Centers use?

Edited by Mystere, 17 January 2017 - 01:31 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Mystere, on 17 January 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

Which reminds me, what rules did those Battletech Centers use?

Dont remember, but you played by game and it was a pretty penny.

[Tarl Cabot]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 January 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

Wrong, See :Multiplayer Battletech: Solaris
Multiplayer Battletech: 3025

from the old Kesimi web service and AOL.

oh, by the way, they used the core battletech rules, and no one complained, you just dealt with it, and moved forward.

And GEnie EGA MPBT 3025. It had Solaris where you could battle one another but then that would fall more inline with MW games, but then the later MPBT did not change much, so it was still there. Not just TT rules but Solaris rules with delays and such but the heatscale size was slightly modified. No energy duration though, it was hitscan except SRM/LRMs which were 2pt/5pt clusters hitscans. No mechlab either so those 3025 mechs did not have their armor frontloaded. Jump Jets, iirc had the same distance as height.

In MPBT Solaris when the Grasshopper was introduced no one really liked it, they preferred their catapults or marauders. In that game, though it was slower paced, you learned to twist so your opponent could not hit the same spot twice, no cooldown timers and PPC/LL/LRMs had longer cooldown timers than MWO.

In early closed beta, people complained it was taking too long to kill a mech so cooldown/delay were decreased (ROFL) then they were dying too fast = double armor/structural....

Was the early beta always 8vs8 or was it 4v4 @ any point?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 17 January 2017 - 06:18 PM.