Anyways, normally I'd agree with you, but I'd like the Devs to see at least some of these comments... The comments they've made so far show no indication that they're even aware of this.
We are very well aware of this.
It comes down to what's right for the game overall. Adhering to TT rules would sink us from the get go. Not paying attention to the reasoning for rules from TT would also put us in hot water. Every decision we make is weighed against these two lenses and we run with what we determine will make the game the most fun and accessible at the same time.
Well, to be more specific: That the hit-tables (after to-hit is done) are there to simulate how well a 'Mechcan concentrate it's weapons fire, not how well a pilot can handle his 'mech...
You know, the pilot thing (which we can and SHOULD get to handle as much as possible for our format ) and the simulation of the actual BattleMech and what It does.
Quote
It comes down to what's right for the game overall. Adhering to TT rules would sink us from the get go. Not paying attention to the reasoning for rules from TT would also put us in hot water. Every decision we make is weighed against these two lenses and we run with what we determine will make the game the most fun and accessible at the same time.
I'm not so much interested in adhering to the letter of the rules and the compromises they make specific to that medium as looking at the performance baseline the rules establish and than taking that baseline and sticking it into the video game in a way that makes sense for the format...
Which I think is just another way of saying what you just said.
Thank God 'Mechs are built on the k.i.s.s principal... it makes you guys job easier in building a BattleMech Piloting Game...
There's nothing artificial at all about simulating how well a BattleMech can converge all of its weapons onto the target that the MechWarrior has under his reticule. What *is* artificial is zero convergence - all weapons hitting a single point - in a game that's supposed to be simulating what it's like to be a pilot in a BattleMech.
Except its next to impossible to do without frustrating the playerbase. May I also point out that zero convergence has been in all the recent MW titles. Make the weapons all have accuracy tables like WoT and you may be able to recreate some of what you have suggested here.
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
I think this shows some expectations that simply do not fit with the genre at all.. and as far as "skill?" Been over that, in depth: LINK Gunnery skill in a BattleMech simulator (vs fps style aiming direct control) isn't a bad nor an overly simplified thing.
You must of glossed over where I said I was open to accuracy being affected by the experience of your pilot. However, if skill at aiming isnt in the game, then what the hell is the point of playing? How are you going to separate the good players from the bad? Indirectly aiming? Sorry, no thanks.
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
No, they can't.
So?
While I may of embelished the point a little, I think you missed the point entirely. http://science.howst...se-missile3.htm
So a cruise missle can hit a single car garage from 1000 miles away but a mech cant hit what its aiming at from a couple hundred meters away, 1000 years from now? Sorry I can only suspend disbelief so much.
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
Why?
Because I just dont believe its feesable to include everything thats in the lore and make the game playable or fun. (I wouldnt mind being wrong on this point either)
Except its next to impossible to do without frustrating the playerbase.
How do you know this? Anecdotal?
Quote
May I also point out that zero convergence has been in all the recent MW titles. Make the weapons all have accuracy tables like WoT and you may be able to recreate some of what you have suggested here.
Yes, I know all of the previous MW games dropped the ball here. I do find it a bit ironic that you'll accept less accurate weapons that you directly control when you don't accept weapons that are nearly ludicrously accurate that the unit you're piloting can't get all aimed at a single point. What's the functional difference?
Quote
You must of glossed over where I said I was open to accuracy being affected by the experience of your pilot. However, if skill at aiming isnt in the game, then what the hell is the point of playing? How are you going to separate the good players from the bad? Indirectly aiming? Sorry, no thanks.
I don't want to clutter this thread up any more than is absolutely possible; I have already been over what you're asking about here, in detail, and I linked you to it in the post you're replying to here. The link is even in my sig line as "Gunnery skill."
Quote
While I may of embelished the point a little, I think you missed the point entirely. http://science.howst...se-missile3.htm
So a cruise missle can hit a single car garage from 1000 miles away but a mech cant hit what its aiming at from a couple hundred meters away, 1000 years from now? Sorry I can only suspend disbelief so much.
So, you can't accept a single quirk that can legitimately be called foundational to BattleMech combat, a quirk which is almost the key balancing component of the system? ... You do realize that besides this one quirk, 'Mechs can use, say, the lowly IS medium laser to hit targets 35 Miles away, on the horizon, when the 'mech is in the hands of a capable and patient pilot? That small lasers can, in space, hit things 1.2 Km out?
I don't see why there's the overwhelming need to have pixel-accurate weapons fire; especially when it's such a massive bugaboo in balancing (see the mw4 combat system).
Quote
Because I just dont believe its feesable to include everything thats in the lore and make the game playable or fun. (I wouldnt mind being wrong on this point either)
I agree with this concept; I just don't think it validly applies to such a foundational core mechanic of the combat.
The random spreading of shots across the target ISN"T part of the lore. It's just part of the TT rules because for a dice based game it makes sense. It doesn't make sense for a video game, some inaccuracy due to player and target movement or environmental interaction/damage should be enough to make the game enjoyable.
Taking the TT rules and not looking at what they mean for the game in question is foolish. Saying that weapons on arms or even tosos don't converge on a point is also not mentioned anywhere in the TT rules or fluff AFAIK. That's like saying a weapons based in a mechs head is more likely to hit the targets head because it's higher...
Give some credit to mech manufacturers in the 31st century. While they may be working with weapons that have shorter ranges than our modern day ones, they havn't forgotten the principle of turret. While mechs may not have complete 360 degree turret systems on their torso weapons, there's no fluff basis for saying they can't rotate a few degrees in order to hit a target. The random hit table is simply there for game balance, NOT as a resource for how mech weapons actually operate in "the real world" Taking the balancing systems out of context would be a mistake by the developers, and I am glad to see that they recognize that as well.
Very enjoyable read, makes me feel safe that this game and beloved title is in the best hands possible. Can´t understand how people continue to argue about how things should be done the right way in the hope to shift the balance to their favor (which everyone sees as the only truth). I think that devs can decide for themselves what ideas and suggestions they want to assimilate and people can start to relax a bit more here.
Yes, I know all of the previous MW games dropped the ball here. I do find it a bit ironic that you'll accept less accurate weapons that you directly control when you don't accept weapons that are nearly ludicrously accurate that the unit you're piloting can't get all aimed at a single point. What's the functional difference?
I'm just trying to be reasonable. Id prefer neither, but I try to make concessions, knowing not everyone has my opinions or ideas on how MWO should be played.
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:
I don't want to clutter this thread up any more than is absolutely possible; I have already been over what you're asking about here, in detail, and I linked you to it in the post you're replying to here. The link is even in my sig line as "Gunnery skill."
I read what you posted. Where do you think I got the indirect fire comment from
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:
So, you can't accept a single quirk that can legitimately be called foundational to BattleMech combat, a quirk which is almost the key balancing component of the system? ... You do realize that besides this one quirk, 'Mechs can use, say, the lowly IS medium laser to hit targets 35 Miles away, on the horizon, when the 'mech is in the hands of a capable and patient pilot? That small lasers can, in space, hit things 1.2 Km out?
I don't see why there's the overwhelming need to have pixel-accurate weapons fire; especially when it's such a massive bugaboo in balancing (see the mw4 combat system).
Well you call it foundational, yet none of the MW titles used this "foundation" and I've played them all. Functionality at the expense of gameplay I cannot accept. But I wouldnt even be opposed to any of the ideas you have posted, as long as the determining factor of who wins and loses comes down to who is the better pilot. That is my number 1 concern.
And you make my point for me concerning the fact that IS Med lasers can hit from 30 plus miles away. They shouldnt have ANY problem hitting stuff right in front of them, with accuracy.
Thank you very much to the devs for taking time to whet our appetites. I can't wait to see the questions you chose and the answers to said questions next Wednesday, and the SURPRISE after that. (Man, I hope it's more than just on thing )
The random spreading of shots across the target...
"Random spreading" Isn't what I'm advocating.
The TTR implementation uses dice as an RNG, that's the *mechanic.*
The concept that this mechanic is after is de-concentration of weapons fire because BattleMechs, while supremely capable, can't get all of their weapons to hit a single point. This is borne out by the lore all over the place.
The concept is what I'm after; and the hit tables, to me, only work out to provide a performance baseline, in black and white instead of in arbitrary terms with unknown consequences, for battlemech weapons convergence. If, in the VG, the baseline that is derived (and it doesn't have to be an RNG) is something that can be achieved with a minimum of fuss by some other mechanic, the more's the merrier.
Quote
It doesn't make sense for a video game, some inaccuracy due to player and target movement or environmental interaction/damage should be enough to make the game enjoyable.
Advocating that 'Mechs spread their weapons fire in some manner or the other doesn't mean it has to be nonsensical, random, or mysterious to the player.
Quote
Taking the TT rules and not looking at what they mean for the game in question is foolish.
Of course it is. And I'm not doing such. Slow down a bit man... You do realize that In this thread I've not said much in the way of content?
You might check out my sig links.
Quote
Saying that weapons on arms or even tosos don't converge on a point is also not mentioned anywhere in the TT rules or fluff AFAIK.
What *is* directly stated, in the combat sections of the novels and source, is that weapons fire *virtually always* spreads across a target that is not immobile (when the character or situation is not an author fiat).
Quote
Give some credit to mech manufacturers in the 31st century. While they may be working with weapons that have shorter ranges than our modern day ones, they havn't forgotten the principle of turret.
Actually, the weapons ranges are, if anything, longer. You would get a kick out of some of nefber's posts on this forum...
Well you call it foundational, yet none of the MW titles used this "foundation" and I've played them all.
... and as I posted... they screwed up in not doing so.
Fuller response (probably much) later.
Quote
And you make my point for me concerning the fact that IS Med lasers can hit from 30 plus miles away. They shouldnt have ANY problem hitting stuff right in front of them, with accuracy.
Being able to hit something is not the same as being able to get multiple independent weapons to hit the exact same point on something.
In other words, the weapons are that accurate, but the 'Mechs can't converge them with that sort of precision.
Guys I know its picky & you are all doing a great job of keeping us informed whilst still making a game we are all looking forward to SO I thank you for that BUT
can we please check spelling - eg ISN news feeds with Melissia Steiner-Davion - it should be Melissa
spelling mistakes even in this developer interview which the devs apparently wrote answers to which means a spell checker should have found them
I know you are all human so mistakes can happen but spelling mistakes to me show a lack of accuracy & attention to detail which can reflect on the game itself true or not & given there have been quite a few lately .....
Kidding aside, enjoyable read guys. You decision to go forward with targeting being completely in the player's hands has mollified one of my greatest fears (select target, set auto-attack, hope you get enough hits to win).
LocationSome place with other Ghost Bears. A dropship or planet, who knows. ((Winnipeg,MB))
Posted 11 January 2012 - 05:14 PM
One thing I think too many people seem to completely ignore in MW vs TT targetting is this.
I am going to give an example of my thoughts first as it was in MWLL that I actually had these thoughts. The random targetting in TT, aside from as stated above that it is a dice based board game, is actually not just random shots, or the mech DI computer being stupid and missing the shot.
Play MWLL, why MWLL? Because it has a lot of enviromental assets kicking around the levels, trees, small mech sized hills, buildings, etc that the previous incarnations of the franchise just could not do, we will be seeing this in even more plentiful amounts with MWO as they have a professional paid, 40h a week team to do this stuff, and Bryan going you, make this building, now you make this tree! MWLL works with a 3d artist going, i want to make this mech, i want to make this building, as it is all volunteer.
I remember the game where the spark of targeting thought came to be, it was a map called sandblasted, anyone who has ever played MWLL for more than a few rounds will know this map as it is one of the most played since i think even it launched Dec 09. This map has a bunch of rocks that a half a mech to a mech and a half high as well as a good bit of hillish terrain. As I was trying to hit my target the rocks kept getting in the way, my needing to maneuver around the rocks and then compensating my aim got in the way, the enemy sliding behind cover of hills or rocks got in the way. THESE are all what the modifiers try to mimic in table top. Most MWLL players do not have 100% pinpoint accuracy due to all of these situations. To the average player, who would be considered a average mechwarrior in BTU has good accuracy but the needing to compensate for all these factors makes it often very challenging to hit the right torso ALL THE TIME, right arm, center torso and left torso can just as easily be hit in the heat of battle.
Battletech the board game would be no damned fun if you had to roll to see if the trees got in the way of your medium laser, to roll to see if the rocks in the area are used for cover, yes some areas give a modifier, ie if you are in a light forest +1, heavy woods +2, these are ADDING to it. You are in a wooded area which means it is has a lot more trees then the average plain hex.
Also if you READ the novels, pretty sure a lot of the time if the pilot is wanting to aim for the arm, well they aim for the arm. Sure missiles stray a lot, but so do they in MW games, rarely do they all hit on spot if ever. I know most of my time in MWLL my lasers will score a line across the whole torso as I am aiming. Yes a few players have the skills to aim damn well. But these are the elite mechwarriors of the game. The people who play a lot, they have invested in the time to become that good.
So, please, no more of TT vs MW in aiming. It is the same damn thing, just TT has to make it so you do not have a dozen dice rolls to just have one pilot hit another mech. It is simplified in to one dice roll. and it is the whole thing of dice being random. It would also add dice rolls to see if your lasers hit both the right torso and center torso, so it was simplified again so it only hits one location as it would bog down the game to do it any other way.
Cockpit bob, maneuvering, terrain, trees, adjusting aim, enemy maneuvering a lot of things make the real time MW games work like the Table Top, you just have to open up your eyes to realize it.
Sorry Paul and Mods, I was not sure what thread to post it in, so i just tossed my few Keresnkys in here.
Damn excited for this game! SUMMER IS NOT SOON ENOUGH! THIS IS BATTLETECH!
**Maybe I should have found a new thread, I was just starting to heal the pinky pie shaped bruises Paul gave me during my 'stay' in the 'fan' room of The Tank, now I have a few more o.O
It comes down to what's right for the game overall. Adhering to TT rules would sink us from the get go. Not paying attention to the reasoning for rules from TT would also put us in hot water. Every decision we make is weighed against these two lenses and we run with what we determine will make the game the most fun and accessible at the same time.
Have to totally agree on this. I'd rather you manage to capture the spirit of the game and what it means. Versus following the table top rules line by line and delivering an unplayable game. A turn based game versus a real time game is a different beast, something all the players need to keep in mind.
It seems Mechwarrior Online has been inspiration to others - ok its a 3D Browsergame and probably not related to the BT Universe: http://www.mechtactics.de/
6
Pht, on 11 January 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
The comments they've made so far show no indication that they're even aware of this.
) and the simulation of the actual BattleMech and what It does.
