52 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

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?

Honestly...
The problem isn't having shoehorned tabletop rules.. It is creating their own interpretation of those rules.

For example, weapon rating is loose categories of Damage and Heat Over Time.
PGI used "MUST BE THIS DAMAGE and THIS HEAT for EVERY SHOT!"
Bam! Problems arise!

AC/20 can do approximately 20 damage within 5 seconds or less and up to 40 damage in a ten second period at high risk of jam.
PGI: Ignore this, AC/20 does 20 damage every time and can do it once every 4 seconds, instantaneously, and can pump out 60 damage within 8 seconds.
BAM! Problems arise! Must ghost heat. Such bandaid.

"ECM works at 180 meters and no more and only against specific types of missiles and jams sensors only within this range"
PGI? "ECM prevents sensors from detecting the 'Mech at anything above 220 meters, preventing ALL missiles from locking on, AND will prevent the enemy missile user from being able to use any missiles at all at less than 180 meters" BAM! Problems arise!

The problem isn't tabletop rules.
The problem is the translation using made up rules.

Now, if they did a translation filtered through lore, we'd have something much more tennible.
For example, to begin with we could have weapon and equipment variants with different effects and catering to different playstyles.
We could have a decent time to kill without having to resort to double+ armor/structure.
That in turn would make XL engines less critical to success, and excessive hardpoint inflation less useful.
Alpha strikes would be exactly as they are described; desperate acts made by desperate people in desperate times at their own risk.
ACs wouldn't be front loaded Mech Rifles.... at the same time they would also be much more useful and their Accurate Ranges would make some ******* sense. After all, an AC/20 delivers damage 10 times faster than an AC/2 at the cost of accurate range due to that heavy barrage of armor piercing high explosive dakka that people love to hear.
Lasers would not only be fairly useful without laser vomit, they would also have very short beam times as well as be affected from anything such as dirt/smoke particles to anti-laser aerosol consumables.
PPCs would be front loaded SIEGE CANNONS, as they are in lore.
Gauss Rifles would punch holes through 'Mechs...and land in other 'Mechs.

'Mechs like the Panther would be extremely different and still extremely useful when compared to the Firestarter.
The Marauder IIC wouldn't outright "kill" and "replace" the Warhawk.
The Awesome and the Victor comparison would be a debate of FLD and armor versus DPS, diversity and mobility rather than "Victor is outright superior."
Debates over whether or not Clan omnis should be unlocked would fly right out the window, 'cause 1) all 'Mechs would be locked to their structure and 2) Endo is freaking hard to come by.

But best of all...
The game would actually be fun... even with the obvious one shot kills that could arise.

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Gameplay. Which is why MWO does not have 2000 meter range mech machine guns.

BT has them.
But they don't do anything to 'Mech armor unless at sub 100 meters.

Bombast, on 15 January 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Or autocannons who's range is the horizon.

ACs in BT have a max range of over 2,000 meters.
But between the spray of ACs

and the size of the targets (average 'Mech is 12 meters or smaller, with none being above 15 meters), recoil, minimal convergence, etc... the expected accurate ranges without undo additional difficulty are given as pretty slim.



Starting with a 30mm chain gun (BT's MGs range from 12.5mm to 20mm for 'Mech machine guns which are typically Gatling Guns, Chain Guns and "Heavy MGs". BT's Heavy MG is up to 40mm).

It then goes into a 40mm Autocannon (a good AC/2 size; BT's current AC ranges are 20mm to 203mm and even the 203mm isn't a one shot gun). and then a 105mm Howitzer.

Edited by Koniving, 15 January 2017 - 09:24 AM.

[El Bandito]

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

The problem isn't tabletop rules.
The problem is the translation using made up rules.

It's both. PGI is not doing a good job of implementing balanced and meaningful gameplay, but also many of the core rule of BT does not fit within the scope of a MP only FPS game. Of course, all this talk is kinda pointless since PGI had stuck to its own brand of mechwarrior, and is not gonna be doing something too drastic to change that.

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

BT has them.
But they don't do anything to 'Mech armor unless at sub 100 meters.

And considering the fact mechs are all we have, that point is moot.

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

ACs in BT have a max range of over 2,000 meters.
But between the spray of ACs

and the size of the targets (average 'Mech is 12 meters or smaller, with none being above 15 meters), recoil, minimal convergence, etc... the expected accurate ranges without undo additional difficulty are given as pretty slim.

And we are not rolling dice.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 09:20 AM.

[Mystere]

Bombast, on 15 January 2017 - 09:10 AM, said:

How is it positively affected? What does multiplying ranges do for gameplay besides turning MWO into an optometrist's test?

And assuming you mean ultra realism, what happens to smaller autocannons when the AC/20 becomes the longest range weapon in the game? Why can we only use LRMs and SRMs when Arrow systems are the only missiles that actually make sense? What will we do with lasers that have damage bleed as soon as they leave your mech and can only tickle things beyond a couple hundred meters?

Who said anything about ultra-realism? My exact words were:

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Use real physics everywhere it can be applied for starters.

<smh>

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Because at that range engagement would become ridiculous for the average player. I am already having issue fighting other mechs beyond 800 meter range due to my less than perfect eyesight, and 200+ ping. More than that, it is gonna take AGES to walk from one side of the map to the next, on a mech. Modes such as Conquest and Assault would become ridiculous, and good luck trying to corner that last mech running away, or hiding to preserve its KDR.

WoT and WT with their massively larger player population both seem to disagree with you.

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2017 - 09:22 AM.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

WoT and WT with their massively larger player population both seem to disagree with you.

MWO and WoT are very different type of games. For starters, WoT is not a niche mech game. It is a WWII tank based game that is easily related to gamers all around the world.

Second, the game play is vastly different. MWO, and older Mechwarrior games are far more mobile than WoT could ever become. In WoT, one must stop and wait to get any sort of accuracy for their shots. And not only that, WoT's weapon types are very limited in scope. Just cannons, mostly. There are no flamers to heat up the tank, no missiles to suppress the tank, no lasers to do instant damage. Which results in a very different type of game.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[Koniving]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

And we are not rolling dice.

Neither was this.

(Skip to 7 minutes.)
But it is an autocannon, it is a PINPOINT weapon, and it is affected by things such as speed, range, enemy mobility, etc.
Everything that the BT dice attempts to account for with its roll.
There's a reason that BT only lets you choose where you are aiming if the pilot is incapacitated or the mech is shut down, it is because it is assumed that the 'Mech will attempt to evade or block your attack with its limbs or use structures and other obstacles for cover.

Also in BT, you must stop and wait for greater accuracy in your shots.

I should also point out that Tabletop admits that all damage is heavily front loaded to "streamline" gameplay and that (to paraphrase the tech manual) its front loaded nature, ranges, etc. should NEVER be taken as "How Battletech Works", that you should use tabletop as a guideline and combine it with the lore.

And if you do, you will end up with a 'Mech game that plays out much like War Thunder.
You know, just putting it out there.

Edited by Koniving, 15 January 2017 - 09:34 AM.

[Bombast]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

Who said anything about ultra-realism? My exact words were:

You still haven't pointed out what it would add.

Quote

WoT and WT with their massively larger player population both seem to disagree with you.

Both games play significantly different than MWO. Uniform weapon performance, armor mechanics, limited mobility, the ability to expose oneself without automatically receiving damage, RNG, and slower overall gameplay all contribute to WoT's ability to use larger maps (Though combat ranges typically are the same as MWO). Perhaps the biggest contributor, however, is that WoT uses tanks that can't fly or climb sever terrain, which allows them to craft more interesting maps, while jump jets, even MWO hover jets, forces MWO to have more nebulous maps, lest they all make jump jets mandatory.

And War Thunder... that's arguably a different genre, despite how it often feels. On the Arcade to Simulator scale, MWO and WoT sit firmly on the Arcade side, while WT tap dances merrily between the two.

Edited by Bombast, 15 January 2017 - 09:34 AM.

[El Bandito]

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

Neither was this.

But it is an autocannon, it is a PINPOINT weapon, and it is affected by things such as speed, range, enemy mobility, etc.
Everything that the BT dice attempts to account for with its roll.
There's a reason that BT only lets you choose where you are aiming if the pilot is incapacitated or the mech is shut down, it is because it is assumed that the 'Mech will attempt to evade or block your attack with its limbs or use structures and other obstacles for cover.

Also in BT, you must stop and wait for greater accuracy in your shots.

I should also point out that Tabletop admits that all damage is heavily front loaded to "streamline" gameplay and that (to paraphrase the tech manual) its front loaded nature, ranges, etc. should NEVER be taken as "How Battletech Works", that you should use tabletop as a guideline and combine it with the lore.

And if you do, you will end up with a 'Mech game that plays out much like War Thunder.
You know, just putting it out there.

Ah, War Thunder, the arcadey version of WoT. I prefer plane fighting in that game. Let it be known to all that I am not against any convergence based mechanic in MWO, and I actually endorsed such mechanic way back in 2012. However, PGI tried it, had issues with it, and scrapped it. So I do not think they will attempt it. Again.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 09:36 AM.

[Mystere]

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

Now, if they did a translation filtered through lore, we'd have something much more tennible.

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>

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2017 - 09:50 AM.

[SiR SockMonkeyDonkey]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

Then the question becomes, which audience is the game aimed at?

I't is aimed at the one keeping the lights on! wich may rotate through the generations if it can to stay alive... I remember a game called "Ashron's Call" once the most played game for a bit in the 90's! but it failed to have programming that could evolve. So it is just trash today. Free game are by all means not free at all. MWO is evolving well for being as old as it is ;P

[Hit the Deck]

Koniving, I agree that developers should interpret the lore/fluff and make their own rules from that for their own MW games. Basically what this thread is about!

Still, sadly there are things like IS vs Clan which doesn't make sense to implement in this kind of PvP FPS MW game (also, what Bandito has said in his reply to you).

Edited by Hit the Deck, 15 January 2017 - 11:16 AM.

[Red Shrike]

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

There are more to Mechwarrior fans than table top rule pushing grognards, you know. This is the first multiplayer only FPS Mechwarrior game. It is stupid to be bound to some antiquated rules that has nothing to do with video games, let alone a FPS arena battler game. I have played the series since MW2, and I say balance > all in an MP only game.

People are deluded if they think by breaking away from certain rules, the game is suddenly not Mechwarrior anymore. The game will still have the mechs, the weapons, and the settings from the BT universe, which is all that matters, cause that's all there is right now.

So if you were to replace or ditch every single rule in the book, what would a game like MWO look like?

[El Bandito]

Red Shrike, on 15 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

So if you were to replace or ditch every single rule in the book, what would a game like MWO look like?

No one said PGI should ditch every single rule in the book. Don't exaggerate. They should however, discard or modify rules that are causing balance issues and gameplay issues.

And as I said before, even with ST death proof IS XL, or 9 slot IS LB20X, MWO will still be a Mechwarrior game. Just like many of the previous Mechwarrior games. Also:

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

The game will still have the mechs, the weapons, and the settings from the BT universe, which is all that matters, cause that's all there is right now.

Finally, just to make it clear to everyone--for MWO to thrive, it needs constant influx of new players, and have them to stay. Almost all of those newbies trying out MWO do not give a lick of care about some ancient TT rules and how much of it is being followed. When they first play the game, they will only focus on two questions:

1. Is it fun to play?

2. Is it balanced?

Those two questions are what PGI should be focusing on (and I suspect that they are), not how faithful to the TT rule MWO is.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 12:51 PM.

[Red Shrike]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

No one said PGI should ditch every single rule in the book. Don't exaggerate. They should however, discard or modify rules that are causing balance issues and gameplay issues.

Then tell me what these rules are and how you would modify them.

[El Bandito]

Red Shrike, on 15 January 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Then tell me what these rules are and how you would modify them.

I'll have to hold off for now. It is 5 AM here in Ulaanbaatar and I need sleep.

[Red Shrike]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

I'll have to hold off for now. It is 5 AM here in Ulaanbaatar and I need sleep.

No worries, it can wait.

[Tarl Cabot]

Red Shrike, on 15 January 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Then tell me what these rules are and how you would modify them.

Really?

MWO has modified many of TT/SIIV rules already, from construction rules to critical hits to weapon delays, but there are still several outliers, such as to how engine destruction is handled. PGI had noted in a few posts, especially the patch that saw cXL receive its first penalty with loss of a side torso, the 20% heat penalty.. And it is also likely, in that vein that they set up the isXL engine, since it is likely back then they also had the goal to introduce actual engine crits.

A refresher
https://mwomercs.com...tober-road-map/

Quote

Destruction of a Clan Side Torso

Although we hope to eventually put in a full engine critical hit system that would affect both IS and Clan 'Mechs, we are going to start out with a change to place some penalty on a Clan 'Mech that loses a side torso. Essentially, there needs to be some penalty for losing 2 critical engine slots. Using the tabletop game as a guideline, we have decided to not make movement a part of the penalty but to save that for some future implementation on the effects of heat on your 'Mechs functionality. A Clan engine has a total of 10 critical engine slots and the destruction of a Side Torso in a clan ‘Mech means the loss of two of those slots, or 20%. With this in mind, we have decided to implement a rule that the destruction of a side torso in a Clan 'Mech will result in a loss of 20% of the engines internal heat sink capacity. By way of example, a Timber Wolf with 15 internal engine heat sinks will lose the cooling equivalent of 3 of those heat sinks. A small penalty, but we feel that heat sink loss along with the loss of everything in that torso and arm will be enough.

Several months later PGI adds the 20% movement penalty instead of actually implementing a working Heat Scale with at least movement penalties. All the current HS does is put a cap how how often a mech can continue to heat up while firing weapons that either results in a shutdown and CT damage or override, keep moving and if stay over 100% damage to random non-cockpit sections.

Now PGI plans on increasing the heat penalty instead of using the TT rules as a guideline to flesh out and normalizing how the loss of 2 and 3 engine slots from the a ST destruction is handled.

And using TT rules as a set in stone rule instead of as a guideline, shown how it would look below. And that rule is missing components, other aspects, that would make it more acceptable.

Quote

Base TT game before the introducing of Star League/Clan tech

STD - 6 engine slots and 50% of the slots destroyed (3 slots/shielding), mech is out of the game. RPG brings in cost to repair, rolls for complete or partial repairs, etc.

• isXL 12 engine slots/50% wtg savings. 6 CT & 3 in each side torso. One ST gone, taking 25% of the engine shielding.
  
• cXL 10 engine slots/50% wtg savings. 6 CT & 2 in each side torso. One ST gone, taking 20% of the engine shielding.
  
• LFE 10 engine slots/25% wtg savings. 6 CT & 2 in each side torso. One ST gone, taking 20% of the engine shielding.

[A Man In A Can]

Red Shrike, on 15 January 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

So if you were to replace or ditch every single rule in the book, what would a game like MWO look like?

Hawken.

[FupDup]

It's important to note here that when talking about the "target audience" of MWO, that there are two other BT-themed games in development right now.

There's the HBS "Battletech" game (why the heck did they name the game the same name as the freaking IP), and MW5. It's pretty much guaranteed that HBS' game will satisfy the people that want something close to the TT rules/feel, judging by their various updates they post. MW5's direction can't be fully predicted at this time but it will probably be more grognardy than MWO.

[El Bandito]

Red Shrike, on 15 January 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

No worries, it can wait.

*The below comments are based on current balance, and the notion that PGI will not do any serious mechanics overhaul in the future.*

Aight, so there are obviously certain gameplay rules such as movement/initiative/attack phase we can ditch from the start, since MWO is not a dice rolling TT game. Same thing with hit modifiers, and hit location rolling, since we got no delayed convergence in this game.

Now we get to the balancing part. Since PGI wants symmetrical balance in terms of number of mechs both IS and Clans can bring in a match, the Clan tech must be balanced against IS tech. In all cases, Clan tech must be nerfed, or IS tech must be buffed to achieve that. PGI tried to buff IS mechs using quirks instead, but all it led to was nearly 3 years of cluster f*ck of buffing and nerfing of quirks, then buffing heavily then nerfing heavily of quirks. No, it is much simpler to balance the techs first and then use quirks to bring up underperforming mechs from both sides. Which means TT weapon stats must be modified. Of course, that means many Clan tech/weapons will perform slightly worse than that of IS counterparts, which might draw lore fans crazy, but most players who are trying out MWO for the first time wouldn't give a damn--they just want a fun and balanced game. As do I. Not to mention that it is cold day in hell before PGI is willing to try 12 vs 10.

As for the extent PGI should go to modify the weapons, there are lots of arguments about that. I personally would go as far as to not only modify damage/cooldown/heat etc... but to actually include the reduction of weight/slots to balance certain weapons. Can't increase them, for the fear of breaking stock builds. TT neckbeards are very touchy about PGI messing with their stock builds--never mind that they are just the tiny minority of the player base, and stock builds are stripped and modified as soon as they are bought. Weight/slot reduction, on the other hand, does no harm except to open up more options--though it is also unpopular among neckbeards.

Currently one big issue is the balance between CXL vs. IS XL debate. There are many ways to make them roughly even in power but so far PGI has failed to implement satisfactory balancing. The issue stems from the TT rule of engine crits, which MWO does not have, which in turn completely shafts IS XL, in favor of Clan XL. So that's another TT rule that is impeding proper balance.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 January 2017 - 03:52 AM.

[Red Shrike]

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

Aight, so there are obviously certain gameplay rules such as movement/initiative/attack phase we can ditch from the start, since MWO is not a dice rolling TT game. Same thing with hit modifiers, and hit location rolling, since we got no delayed convergence in this game.

A grain of salt tends to be healthy, but at times I'm unsure whether this game wants to be a stompy mech game or a CSGO twitch shooter.

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

Now we get to the balancing part. Since PGI wants symmetrical balance in terms of number of mechs both IS and Clans can bring in a match, the Clan tech must be balanced against IS tech. In all cases, Clan tech must be nerfed, or IS tech must be buffed to achieve that. PGI tried to buff IS mechs using quirks instead, but all it led to was nearly 3 years of cluster f*ck of buffing and nerfing of quirks, then buffing heavily then nerfing heavily of quirks. No, it is much simpler to balance the techs first and then use quirks to bring up underperforming mechs from both sides. Which means TT weapon stats must be modified. Of course, that means many Clan tech/weapons will perform slightly worse than that of IS counterparts, which might draw lore fans crazy, but most players who are trying out MWO for the first time wouldn't be a damn--they just want a fun and balanced game. As do I. Not to mention that it is cold day in hell before PGI is willing to try 12 vs 10.

Honestly, I think quirks were bad business from the get-go. When I think of a quirk, I think of something like a HUD flicker every now and then that the techs have been unable to fix. (You know, an actual quirk)
Quirks in MWO on the other hand are just flatout buffs. And the fact that they're on a mech basis means they're even more susceptible to over or under buffing.

Spoiler

I sometimes wonder why certain mechs are perceived as underperforming. I guess it has to do with hardpoint placement being so-called sub-optimal or having the wrong types of hardpoints.

Spoiler

When dealing with custom loadouts, it quickly becomes apparent which weapon loadouts are the best, and the mechs that can't mimic that loadout or a similar one, quickly fall behind. Or at least, that's how I perceive it. But this has very little to do with balance.

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

As for the extent PGI should go to modify the weapons, there are lots of arguments about that. I personally would go as far as to not only modify damage/cooldown/heat etc... but to actually include the reduction of weight/slots to balance certain weapons. Can't increase them, for the fear of breaking stock builds. TT neckbeards are very touchy about PGI messing with their stock builds--never mind that they are just the tiny minority of the player base, and stock builds are stripped and modified as soon as they are bought. Weight/slot reduction, on the other hand, does no harm except to open up more options--though it is also unpopular among neckbeards.

Say what you will, but stock builds are what make a mech (imagine the Warhammer if it wasn't designed for dual PPC). And even if you were to strip it completely, stock allows you to work from something.
Also, if you do end up breaking stock builds, you also end up breaking more than just the stock build. You might just break every Warhammer build with PPCs in the arms.

Personally, I'd implement the exponential heatscale penalties as seen in MW4. Making heat above 60% either very frustrating or very dangerous. No more running at 99% heat.
As for the neckbearding, I don't care much, so long as you don't force me to play any builds I don't want.

El Bandito, on 16 January 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

Currently one big issue is the balance between CXL vs. IS XL debate. There are many ways to make them roughly even in power but so far PGI has failed to implement satisfactory balancing. The issue stems from the TT rule of engine crits, which MWO does not have, which in turn completely shafts IS XL, in favor of Clan XL. So that's another TT rule that is impeding proper balance.

I suppose you could ditch that rule and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Personally, I don't mind it much, just means I need to take less hits, and I mostly use STD engines anyway, so...

People are a little obsessed with living forever, in any game for that matter. They'll cower in a corner until the baddie stops shooting at them or until he's surrounded because he failed to show courage and support his team when he was needed the most.

There are ways to make MWO more like the BT game a lot of people dream of, it's just that PGI continues to either not care or miss the mark completely. (Koniving at the top of page 2 makes a compelling argument)

Edited by Red Shrike, 16 January 2017 - 03:50 AM.