68 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

I know about the RPG-elements being added in, but the crux of the whole discussion is "Will aiming matter?"

The user Beo Wulf stated that the Dev's said, in an interview, that there will be no inherent inaccuracy added to aiming, but did not identify the interview. If we can find that interview, then this topic would be closed and solved.

[Omigir]

Prosperity Park, on 22 January 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I know about the RPG-elements being added in, but the crux of the whole discussion is "Will aiming matter?"

The user Beo Wulf stated that the Dev's said, in an interview, that there will be no inherent inaccuracy added to aiming, but did not identify the interview. If we can find that interview, then this topic would be closed and solved.

So.. off that idea, becuase you level up your gun in CoD MW3 to reduce its spread and make the gun more accurate, CoD is an RPG?

That is rediculious...

But I will read though the interviews and find this quote...

Edit:

First thing I found in Q&A1, still have more to read though

InnerSphereNews, on 16 November 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

</P>
Targeting in the table top game had no group fire, and damage from each weapon was randomly distributed across different areas of the 'Mech. Will you be "rebooting" group fire? PS: Do you like my location?


[GARTH] He says he's on top of the TNT roof with binoculars, I think we should answer that.

[PAUL] I won’t answer squat unless he has a gun.


Okay seriously, the topic of pin-point accuracy/concentrated damage is something we are going to have to watch very carefully. There’s no real reason why lasers shouldn’t be pin-point accurate and ballistic shot munitions shouldn’t do area damage. We could go into numerous physics debates discussing how particles (including energy) disseminate over distance but that is not going to be conclusive to balanced gameplay. As for group fire, there’s nothing really wrong with the model and it provides a means of making a MechWarrior® tactically think about what gets fired and when. Needless to say, gameplay tuning will drive how we approach targeting and concentrated/area damage.

I am reading through, having trouble finding things I know, or thought I knew that I read,

Edit #3: found this in the Q&A, sort of having to do with targeting:

Q. Will LRMs in MechWarrior® Online™ be guided or unguided?

A. LRMs will be semi-guided. What the heck does that mean? You will be able to lock on to your target but it doesn't mean the actual missiles will home directly to the target. The chance of missing will still be part of LRM gameplay. Use of the Artemis IV system and subsequent munitions, will narrow the area of damage by focusing the flight paths of the missiles. We're finding that this is a good balance between gameplay and staying true to the BattleTech canon.

Edited by Omigir, 22 January 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Applejack]

No way this isn't going to be a video game. I don't think MWO is going to be a simulator.

[Omigir]

o__O Applejack, i dont now if your being serious or just dont know what a simulator game is.. but you might want to know what your saying before you say it.

Simulators are kind video game. Just like FPS, RTS, RPG etc etc

n__n glad I could help!

[Applejack]

You play games to have fun.
You play simulators to express a simulated environment in which the intention is to train/learn the player by putting them in a scenario intended to reflect reality. Having fun is not a part of a simulator's design, though it is entirely possible.

I recognize that a game can designed as a "simulator game", however,
simulators and games are not exactly interconnected. One may have a simulator that is not a game, and one may have a simulator that is a game. While MWO may be a "sim game", I don't think that is marketable.
I believe MechWarrior: Online will be, in all practical terms, a Mecha FPS.

Edited by Applejack, 22 January 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Omigir]

Applejack, on 22 January 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

You play games to have fun. You play simulators to express a simulated environment in which the intention is to train/learn the player by putting them in a scenario intended to reflect reality. Having fun is not a part of a simulator's design, though it is entirely possible. Simulators and Games are not exactly interconnected. I believe MechWarrior: Online will be, in all practical terms, a Mecha FPS.

SimCity, the Sims, Railroad tycoon, Ace Combat, Hawks, WoT, EvE online < in some reguards>, Sid myers Pirates... should I keep going? These are all simulators n__n and they are all made to be fun.

Better yet: http://en.wikipedia....ion_video_games

Edited by Omigir, 22 January 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[Applejack]

I edit my posts alot. I know it's asking a bit much, but could you wait at least 15 minutes before replying to my posts?

[Omigir]

Applejack, on 22 January 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

I edit my posts alot. I know it's asking a bit much, but could you wait at least 15 minutes before replying to my posts?

I will try but I cannot make any promises. As far as FPS mecha .. I agree there are some FPS eliments in any of the mechwarrior games, but by no means are they anny less simulator.. You ditch the Sim eliments and you end up at the 'unplayable game' (MechAssault).

Aegis Kleais™, on 22 January 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Labels are misleading because people assume something can only be 1 of something. That if you're labeled as a "Sim" there couldn't possibly be some form of Action/Adventure/Insert_Genre_Here in the game because it was already classified as a Sim. Labels are for people who see their possibilities as black or white and not the hundreds of shades of gray in between.

Many games these days fall into 2 or 3 difrent forms of pre established reas of what ever time of product they are, that does not make the label any less valid.

Just like there are certian words that describe you Aegis! like 'human' or 'earthling' or 'north american' <just guessing here really! but all of these are descriptive words. Without descriptions no one knows what anything is! Like if I handed you a gray orb and said 'eat it' you would ask 'what is it?' If I said 'Apple' that would describe it, but if I said, 'It is an apple, a kind of fruite covered in gray colored candy called caramel' you wold know exactly what it was n__n

[ice trey]

Of course, it should be a sim,

That said, though, while I'm sure there are some people that actually want it to be random hit locations, I think that's an extreme minority. I think that what we're hearing about that is an exaggeration put out there by the FPS players and the old Multiplayer base of Mechwarrior 4 (The ones that actually liked the system, rather than the huge numbers of people that just got fed up with the mechanics in multiplayer).

I think that what we're hearing about is an expanding reticule (See: Stalker, Vampire Bloodlines, Counterstrike) where accuracy is not pinpoint and movement reduces the stability - and therefore the accuracy - of the shot. This is what I want to see.

I want to see this because it helps to prevent stuff like jump sniping, legging from the opposite side of the map, and the ilk. Mechwarrior is not as fast paced as an FPS, so running and dodging behind cover is not as effective. Being able to place pinpoint shots from barely inside of visual range makes for a poor game mechanic and turns the game into a snipers' wet dream. Meanwhile - every other design type from the short-ranged punch of the Hunchback to the speedy back-stabbing strikes of the Jenner are immediately rendered obsolete.

"Balance" might not be realistic, but this is a game, and an unbalanced game means that you get shoehorned into taking the exact same "best" combination of equipment every time, or you resign to losing all the time. "You can either be a poptart sniper or you can die a lot" sounds like a terrible system - and likewise, why I hated MW4 multiplayer.

MW4 single player, however, was fun as hell.

Edited by ice trey, 22 January 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[Omigir]

ice trey, on 22 January 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Of course, it should be a sim,

That said, though, while I'm sure there are some people that actually want it to be random hit locations, I think that's an extreme minority. I think that what we're hearing about that is an exaggeration put out there by the FPS players and the old Multiplayer base of Mechwarrior 4 (The ones that actually liked the system, rather than the huge numbers of people that just got fed up with the mechanics in multiplayer).

Random hit locations? What are you talking about exactly, in MW4, I hit what I aimed at with 0 deveation save for balistics/missles which took time to travel to target. There was nothing random about it..

other then that it just sounds like you are talking about reticle bloom, standard in most shooter games. When you jump, your grouping goes huge, when moving slow or croutching it tightens up becuase you are stable and able to controll your weapon.

[KingCobra]

I want a Wii Version of the TT game so i can simulate throwing my Mechwarrior Minni's at the wall when i get toasted in battles

[ice trey]

Omigir, on 22 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

other then that it just sounds like you are talking about reticle bloom, standard in most shooter games. When you jump, your grouping goes huge, when moving slow or croutching it tightens up becuase you are stable and able to controll your weapon.

Cone of Fire, Expanding Reticle, Reticle Bloom... it seems like every time it's brought up someone has a new term for it.
But you get the idea. I don't want pinpoint accuracy in Mechwarrior Online, because I feel that pinpoint accuracy is one of the leading reasons why Mechwarrior 4 Multiplayer was heavily preferential to sniping, making most any other tactic disproportionately difficult to be successful at, if not impossible.

That and Coolant tanks refilling each time you die. Horrible idea, that. Made autocannons useless, outright.

[Undead]

Prosperity Park, on 22 January 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I know about the RPG-elements being added in, but the crux of the whole discussion is "Will aiming matter?"

Are there actually people on this site who want aiming not to matter? I can tell you right now if aiming doesn't matter and the game randomly determines whether or not I hit things, no matter how much I love BT, I will not play it for a single second.

[fallonsky]

Prosperity Park, on 21 January 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

So... tabletop = fishing?

lol hi five bro

[Graphite]

DEVASTATOR, on 22 January 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

You have no idea what wer're getting just like the rest of us have no idea.

No idea? That just isn't true, is it?

Quote

What I know perfectly well is thsat the Devs will be deviating dramatically from the PnP version far more than they will be staying true to it. Unless you think they'll implement dice, turn based movement, use the exact damage points, armor values, etc. from the TRO's (which never worked in any PC game). Its nice that thye say they'll being staying as true to PnP as they can. I think most of us know that this means they'll be deviating a lot from the rules to ensure a playabkle game as there's no other way to do it.

What on earth are you talking about? You just chastised me for saying MWO won't have those things, remember?

Quote

I've no doubt we'll see things common to the PnP verison inn the game. Every MW title has had some of this in it.

No doubt, as they are both representations of the same thing and the devs have already said they're using the TT game rules where they can.

Quote

And since you're once again starting your posts with baiting this'll be thread #3 where I don't respond to your comments any more. One day you'll figure out how to conduct yourself online.

Sorry you feel that way. There are more mature ways to handle opinions different to your own.

Prosperity Park, on 22 January 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Targeting Computers are Clan Tech (Clan Mongoose, specifically) and the Inner Sphere won't have them until the 3060's

So, if you want to Leg somebody, you need a Targeting Computer, and the Devs would have to exercise a little liberty in the BattleTech canon to get those bad boys distributed throughout the Inner Sphere in 3049.

True....
It doesn't sound like the devs will bend canon if they don't have to, so I guess we won't have TCs in MWO. But it is a sim where the player can aim at a body part, so I don't think they'll wipe that away.

Edited by Graphite, 22 January 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So we have come full-circle.

Graphite, on 22 January 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

It doesn't sound like the devs will bend canon if they don't have to, so I guess we won't have TCs in MWO. But it is a sim where the player can aim at a body part, so I don't think they'll wipe that away.

You can't "aim at a body part" without a Targeting Computer accourding to TableTop rules, which the Devs say they will try to follow as closely as possible...

THEREFORE

The Devs have to make a choice:

1.) They can allow targeting of specific body parts without a Targeting Computer, which will break canon, but they are allowed to break canon here-and-there for gameplay purposes.

2.) They will give us all Targeting Computers, which, for 3049, is a violation of canon, but they are allowed to break canon here-and-there for gameplay purposes.

3.) They will not allow us to target specific body parts without a Targeting Computer, but Targeting Computers will be available as an optional equipment/modules... which, for 3049, is a violation of canon, but they are allowed to break canon here-and-there for gameplay purposes.

4.) They will not allow us to target specific bodyparts, meaning no Targeting Computers; your shots will automatically disperse themselves across the target you are currently locked-onto using a random-number-generator to simulate the effects of dice rolls. Firing without a target-lock means your shots will go somewhere randomly in front of you but not exactly where your reticule is pointed because firing accurately at where your reticule is pointing requires a Targeting Computer (which is unavailable).


Options 1 and 2 will support a Simulator-like environment because your direct actions dictate the results. Option 4 supports a RPG-environment where chance and accumulated XPerience overrules your hand-eye-coordination. Option 3 is a mix, obviously.

From the results of the poll, it seems like the greater MWO community wants the Devs to break canon when it comes to targeting.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 22 January 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Dragon Lady]

Well, I'm hoping that they might use the compromise between RPG and FPS that was in the original Deus Ex: the character's skill, perhaps combined later with a targeting computer, determines how steady your targeting reticle is. Early in your career, your best chance of hitting is aiming at your target's center of mass. Later in the game, your aim is steady enough to have a reasonable chance of hitting what you're aiming for.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Undead, on 22 January 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Are there actually people on this site who want aiming not to matter? I can tell you right now if aiming doesn't matter and the game randomly determines whether or not I hit things, no matter how much I love BT, I will not play it for a single second.

i don't anybody is asking for tab targeting. I think the idea was more that once you got the reticle on target and pulled the trigger, ie got a hit, THEN the random generator took over (as in the TT) to determine where the damage actually occurred.

Boils down to those of us who are too old to compete at a twitch level. For me it's a combination of age (40+) and the fact that due to family obligations I am a casual gamer. So I plan to get hosed. A lot. I average a .8 KDR in most FPS games. Would be quite happy with that here. So yea if they went "random" with hits, that would only help me.

It isn't likely to happen, and I am not campaigning for it. Just saying some of us wouldn't mind it and it isn't because we ate paint chips as kids.

Dragon Lady, on 22 January 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Well, I'm hoping that they might use the compromise between RPG and FPS that was in the original Deus Ex: the character's skill, perhaps combined later with a targeting computer, determines how steady your targeting reticle is. Early in your career, your best chance of hitting is aiming at your target's center of mass. Later in the game, your aim is steady enough to have a reasonable chance of hitting what you're aiming for.

Yea what she said. Player skill matters. Character skill could matter. Gear (computers/sensors) could matter. Weapons themselves could matter.

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 22 January 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[Graphite]

Prosperity Park, on 22 January 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

From the results of the poll, it seems like the greater MWO community wants the Devs to break canon when it comes to targeting.

Er, of course... I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point?

I'm sure the devs will allow individual locations to be targeted. Previous MW titles have been FPS games, not RPGs, there's no reason to think they'll change now.

We know BT mechs have locations that can take damage individually, so we can expect to see that, but not allowing a shot to hit where the player aims in an FPS would be ridiculous! It's something that just can't use the TT version rules without hurting gameplay (see my sig).
I'm willing to bet aiming at locations is allowed.

Edited by Graphite, 22 January 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Konrad Holstead]

Definately simulator type! ... but the conditions need to apply to weapon accuracy, meaning if you move and turn, or are hit, the shot will go near where you aim but not exactly. Something like an aiming "circle". It's been used in other games and i think it works quite well. Also you could easily figure in the MechWarrior's gunnery skill into that, making the circle smaller for good gunners.

Played MechWarrior 3 long time ago and it was horrible. The best tactic was to shoot off the legs, and it was all too easy because of perfect accuracy. It was stupid, not fun at all.

Also make sure the mech shakes and rumbles -alot- to give it the real metal feel!

Edited by Konrad Holstead, 22 January 2012 - 06:15 PM.