67 replies to this topic

[stun]

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

What am I trying to get at? ... first that you have to know what you're aiming at doing in a video game format - no aim = ugly mess gets built.

So, if MW is a video game about simulating what it's like to pilot a BattleMech ... and you don't know what it's like to pilot one ... you see?

Of course, I'm sure that professional game developers always plan before designing, or at least a large portion of it. Or in fact, anybody that builds or designs anything for that matter, see what I mean about being vague?

Who really knows what its like to pilot a battlemech? No, actually I really dont see. Are you referring to people that have played previous mw titles or have piloted a battlemech on real life?


But again, you brought up good topics in your post, I didnt mean your whole piece is like that, just parts.

Edited by stun, 04 February 2012 - 04:32 PM.

[El Loco]

Thanks a lot Morashtak for cleaning up that brick wall of words!

As to the content of PhT's tractate, yes... I know (and I guess most of the other future players do, too). The thing is... most of us are grown ups, we know that the virtual world never can recreate the real world, not even close. Personally, I can live with a faulted sim that is somewhat FPS-ish. I want to feel the BT universe... I don't need it to be perfect. Why someone would want to compare the TT to a video game is something I can't really understand. You have a lot more parameters to mess around with in a video game, whereas the TT puts the emphasize on giving an accurate feeling of strategy and tactics in the BT universe. Rules, that apply for the TT (for various tactical and strategic reasons) don't necessarily have to apply for MWO.

We all know that we're discussing a ScienceFiction universe, built over 30 years. Many of us are with BT for way over a decade. Why do you have to try and make a 'scientific' approach on the matter? Nobody knows what it is like to pilot a 'Mech, because they don't exist. Nobody can imagine how you reload a Gauss rifle without destroying it's delicate coils, simply because no such technology is available today.

In the end, everyone wants a game that fullfills his/her expectations. Mine orient themselves on the currently available hardware and software, the huge universe built around the 'lore', and my personal experiences with playing the TT, reading the novels, and playing previous 'Mech games.

[Mims]

This is good stuff, But not everyone can understand every bit of it at all at once and see the picture. Its so good that I cant even break the paragraphs down into summaries. however OP you could. just basicly a list of points you were making that complements them.

[Pht]

stun, on 04 February 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Of course, I'm sure that professional game developers always plan before designing, or at least a large portion of it. Or in fact, anybody that builds or designs anything for that matter, see what I mean about being vague?

... no, I don't really see what you're thinking is vague. The text is very clear in what it says... and I don't think that the Developers are going at it haphazardly - I'm thinking more of the community and how we express our ideas and such - they're haphazard - and it seems the expectations we have are too.

Quote

Who really knows what its like to pilot a battlemech? No, actually I really dont see. Are you referring to people that have played previous mw titles or have piloted a battlemech on real life?

Who really knows? I guess that depends on what you mean by "really." But in the sense that matters here, the people that created the BTUniverse and who maintain it "know" what it's like as much as can be known.

In specific, I would say cray (Mike miller) from the BattleTech forums who did the Techmanual and Classic Battle Tech companion writeups probably knows more than most people what it is said to be "like" to pilot a BattleMech - those two writeups contain a mountain of information about 'Mechs, their capabilities, and such.

Quote

But again, you brought up good topics in your post, I didnt mean your whole piece is like that, just parts.

Oh, I didn't think you thought the whole thing was vague.

El Loco, on 04 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Thanks a lot Morashtak for cleaning up that brick wall of words!

As to the content of PhT's tractate, yes... I know (and I guess most of the other future players do, too). The thing is... most of us are grown ups, we know that the virtual world never can recreate the real world, ...

Um ... I had hoped it would be obvious that I'm not interested in a MW game that recreates the real world; I specifically said more than a few times that "Simulation" in this case is not a simulation of the "real world" and I even mentioned that a part of the attraction of an MW video game is the escapism factor.

Quote

I want to feel the BT universe... I don't need it to be perfect. Why someone would want to compare the TT to a video game is something I can't really understand.

If you feel this than you've missed one of the main points of the OP - that the BT universe is expressed in the tabletop system; and that it's the only valid place to go to to look for how 'Mechs, in hard numbers and data, behave... unless babcock and weismann roll in and start posting... lol.

Quote

You have a lot more parameters to mess around with in a video game, whereas the TT puts the emphasize on giving an accurate feeling of strategy and tactics in the BT universe. Rules, that apply for the TT (for various tactical and strategic reasons) don't necessarily have to apply for MWO.

Which paramaters are you referring to that the TT doesn't address? Surely you must have some in mind if you can say this. Speaking of which, which rules that apply for the TT "don't necessarily have to apply" ... and why don't they?

Quote

Why do you have to try and make a 'scientific' approach on the matter?

It's not a scientific approach - observe and experiment and theorize - it's a rational structure, which is a wholly different animal.

Quote

Nobody knows what it is like to pilot a 'Mech, because they don't exist. Nobody can imagine how you reload a Gauss rifle without destroying it's delicate coils, simply because no such technology is available today.

Um .. So?

Quote

In the end, everyone wants a game that fullfills his/her expectations. Mine orient themselves on the currently available hardware and software, the huge universe built around the 'lore', and my personal experiences with playing the TT, reading the novels, and playing previous 'Mech games.

As do mine. I wonder how much your expectations and mine differ!

[Pht]

Mims, on 04 February 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

This is good stuff, But not everyone can understand every bit of it at all at once and see the picture. Its so good that I cant even break the paragraphs down into summaries. however OP you could. just basicly a list of points you were making that complements them.

I'm sorry mims, but i can't see any way to break it down more without doing irreparable harm to what it's expressing.

Believe it or not, I condensed that OP for about a week and a half from what it was...

You might have more luck if you print the post out ... I find I have an easier go of it with long articles on paper vs on a computer screen.

[Intelion]

Quote

.. they're a tool that can be misused, just like any other. This community seems to have a love-crush on physics engines for ... everything

I read the whole post, I'm still trying to understand where the point of the whole post is, convergence?
But anyway back to my quote:

Physics is important ... without it we had some fireballs, magic suit etc. to be short ... (after so long read) without physics we ended on fantasy universe ...

EDIT: wrong account :/

As for expectations for the game I think there should be an optimum for a given boundaries. In case of MW game:

1.) BT Storyline (mentality of clan people, of DC people, relations etc. ) +
2.) Physics (how could a PPC work? how could a myomer work, etc.) +
3.) BT TT boundaries (weapons, what is typical AC, what is typical Atlas etc.) +

1 > 2 > 3 ...

Edited by Intelion, 04 February 2012 - 05:19 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Pht, we disagree because our beliefs as to how this game should be approached are fundamentally different. I've read your post and I'll basically copy my opinion on what constitutes the two major schools of thought in this game. I feel like it is the best answer to the points you made. I was going to answer them individually, but again, most of what I would have said is found here:

GaussDragon, on 23 December 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

Let me start off by explaining how I see the distinctions between MechWarrior and BattleTech and how these distinctions (that I perceive) colour my thinking. MechWarrior is a series of computer games that is based off the greater BattleTech universe. This is how I see MechWarrior and that's why I classify myself as a MechWarrior fan more so than a BT fan, however I'm completely aware that the two are mutually inclusive to a high degree since one is a byproduct of the other. Because MW is an interactive game and not just fiction per se, it can/sometimes has to take liberties in order to make the game work. Technical limitations aren't what they used to be however I think the MW series of games should be granted a degree of artistic license in order to suit the mood and feel of the games that are made.

With that said, I think the two major camps are divided by philosophical differences stemming largely (for the sake of overall simplicity here, I'm well aware that there are tons of little permutations) from these:

BattleTech adherents: MechWarrior as an extract of BT needs to be CANONICAL, and that is the overall priority. All other considerations have to be taken as largely secondary.

MechWarrior adherents: MechWarrior is a game, and therefore everything is subordinate to balance and gameplay. It is obviously rooted in the BT universe, but for the sake of certain gaming fundamentals, some aspects of canon or lore may have to be sacrificed in order to allow the game to play better.

I consider myself a member of the MechWarrior camp. I believe MechWarrior was a game that was made with some artistic and pragmatic independence from the IP that spawned it. Look at MechCommander and MechAssault, these are games that are rooted in the overall BT universe but at the same time, they are works of art unto themselves, and I believe their names say a lot about this. They're mech games, but they have obvious differences that the developers had the freedom to make in order to make something different.

As a self-labelled MechWarrior, I have no problem with more of the lore and fictional tech elements making their way into the game, as a MechWarrior, I've already subscribed to the overall BT universe implicitly. However, these elements need to be implemented in balanced, fun and innovative ways, and if they have natural unbalancing effects, the developers should make use of artistic license to modify these elements so that they fit into a gaming environment more organically.

We also have to recognize that the nature of the BT universe, when ported to game, has a lot of natural/inherent imbalance. Are at all surprised that when we ported this universe to a game, that a lot of imbalances emerged, and alpha-striking laser boats dominated the fields? There's a huge variety of weapons but when putting them in a game setting, some just naturally stand out more than others. It's up to the devs to use artistic/pragmatic license to change some of these features in order to make them work as a game. MWO is not only a game, it is a game rooted in a very expansive set of fiction, it's also a business, and it's incorporating a F2P model that is going to have to take into account all of the pre-existing challenges, the challenges to making this game balanced increase exponentially with all these factors layered upon each other. None of these considerations were even remote in the minds of the authors who penned some of the early fiction decades ago that makes up the base of the IP's overall canon.

I notice a lot of commenters here seek immersion via simulation, I seek immersion via flow of game. EVE may have been immersive, but when I was mining asteroids, you can bet your *** I was reading a book every time. I believe some simulation elements have the effect of actually detracting from immersion or attention to the game. We all play games for different reasons and derive fun and satisfaction from different aspects but for me, personally, I always found the idea of a simulation based on things that don't exist to be oxymoronic.

At the end of the day, BT, MW and even MA adherent will at least try this game. We're all here because we've become enamoured with the idea of 100 ton mechs striding across the battlefield, armed to the teeth. I think we'll all probably be pretty happy with this game in the end so long as PGI doesn't design mechs that go ice skating all over the place like their oriental cousins

In regards to your point about "motivation" here's how I see the the whole immersion thing:

I'm not in it for the simulation per se. I like MechWarrior because I like the game, the idea and the general story (though some parts of it are terrible), but I can't bring myself to 'suspend disbelief' when my cockpit is essentially a monitor sitting on top of an Ikea computer desk. That's why immersion arguments don't resonate with me as much. I want to be enthralled more than I want to be immersed.

[Pht]

Intelion, on 04 February 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

I read the whole post, I'm still trying to understand where the point of the whole post is, convergence?

What's the main point? I would guess that it is that when we say "MechWarrior" we're actually saying something that has, contained within it, an inherent meaning and content that comes with it.

We can't say "Mechwarrior" and validly mean something that is contradictory to that meaning. If we can say something means anything we want it to ... than it means *nothing at all* ... for to have a meaning, an idea/definition must also say what it is not. "Dog" cannot also mean "cat, horse, car, fireball (add meanings out to infinity)" and have any content.

Quote

Physics is important ... without it we had some fireballs, magic suit etc. to be short ... (after so long read) without physics we ended on fantasy universe ...

EDIT: wrong account :/

As for expectations for the game I think there should be an optimum for a given boundaries. In case of MW game:

1.) BT Storyline (mentality of clan people, of DC people, relations etc. ) +
2.) Physics (how could a PPC work? how could a myomer work, etc.) +
3.) BT TT boundaries (weapons, what is typical AC, what is typical Atlas etc.) +

1 > 2 > 3 ...

By physics I meant "physics engine," the video game kind.

GaussDragon, on 04 February 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Pht, we disagree because our beliefs as to how this game should be approached are fundamentally different.

Apparently so...

Quote

but for the sake of certain gaming fundamentals, some aspects of canon or lore may have to be sacrificed in order to allow the game to play better.

What gaming fundamentals?

Quote

I consider myself a member of the MechWarrior camp. I believe MechWarrior was a game that was made with some artistic and pragmatic independence from the IP that spawned it.

What do you mean by "artistic?" As for pragmatic independence - What do you think should be independent, and why?

Quote

As a self-labelled MechWarrior, I have no problem with more of the lore and fictional tech elements making their way into the game, as a MechWarrior, I've already subscribed to the overall BT universe implicitly. However, these elements need to be implemented in balanced, fun and innovative ways, and if they have natural unbalancing effects, ...

We also have to recognize that the nature of the BT universe, when ported to game, has a lot of natural/inherent imbalance. Are at all surprised that when we ported this universe to a game, that a lot of imbalances emerged, and alpha-striking laser boats dominated the fields?

What natural imbalances? Can you actually list the imbalances that *are inherent* the TT system?

As far as the alpha striking laser boats - of course they dominated. The weapons de-convergence didn't get modeled, the heat system didn't get fully ported over, and lasers were made "sticky" - ie, hit what you click on, regardless - all errors that cropped up due to not porting over the inherent balance of the system that underlies the TT.

Quote

I notice a lot of commenters here seek immersion via simulation, I seek immersion via flow of game.

What's the difference? ... what does "immersion via flow of game" mean?

Quote

personally, I always found the idea of a simulation based on things that don't exist to be oxymoronic.

Simulation just means to imitate something, which means it doesn't contradict what you appear to be saying here... besides which, MW does "exist" ... to say something exists mean it has being in any form, and mw exists as an idea. Perhaps you meant "something that doesn't imitate current or historical technology?"


Frankly, what you're really getting after is not defined clearly in the post you've quoted... All that I can get out of it is that you don't think MW should be what it's name intrinsically means.

Quote

In regards to your point about "motivation" here's how I see the the whole immersion thing:

I'm not in it for the simulation per se. I like MechWarrior because I like the game, the idea and the general story (though some parts of it are terrible), but I can't bring myself to 'suspend disbelief' when my cockpit is essentially a monitor sitting on top of an Ikea computer desk. That's why immersion arguments don't resonate with me as much. I want to be enthralled more than I want to be immersed.

enthralled
adjective
having the mind fixed on something <gave her speech to several hundred enthralled listeners>
Synonyms absorbed, deep, engrossed, enthralled, focused (also focussed), immersed, intent, observant, rapt

I don't understand what you think is the difference between enthralled and immersed... they're synonyms.

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Cruiser]

To me your whole post came off as the Borg trying to explain why we should let ourselves be assimilated into the collective.

English is not my primary language, so I won't be attempting to do some sort of word-feud or bickering about the concepts that you bring into play in your pseudo-philosophical essay (also because it's 2:20 AM), but I will try and shortly contract what I got out of the post.

Basically, I didnt feel that it added much to what is already being discussed on the forums. Your essay does come off as slightly arrogant though (as you indeed posted that some would view your post as). If we start with the end of your post: Basically it comes off as you conclude that the TT system is the best thing to use because of the extensive material that is available on what Battlemech combat is like. While I am sure that the TT system is probably the most extensive source on the subject, it is also important to remember that any system can be improved. Since the TT system was not made for videogames it will bascially be down to each videogame designe to decide on how to best implement the most "fun" playing experience. This perception of "fun" is inherently subjective and that will lead to fractioning of "Objective truth" of MW.

I agree that it's best for any material to stay true to it's source, but sometimes, bending the rules are necessary to achieve the best experience. This especially holds true for videogames where some concepts have to be weighted and considered by different individuals and then implemented in the best way possible in the videogame. I would also want a perfect MW game, but perfection is not something that just comes rolling just like that, and especially not in a case like MW which is a genre that holds pitifully few examples compared to for ex. FPS shooters.

You should probably be happy that the guys at Piranha are very dedicated fans that are trying to capture the true spirit of MW, but at the same time (as is visible from the updated mech designs) are not afraid to improve upon the formula wherever they deem it necessary.


And for some less interesting matter:

To me, your post pretty much sounded like you told us that the TT system is the "objective truth" of what makes a good MW game, and any who dares to disagree with that objective truth with their subjective opinion is just being arrogant for not submitting themselves to the greater "fun". Especially the fact that you take your time to define concepts such as objective truth and then proceed to use pseudo-paradox argumentation to counter any attempt to disagree with the essay bears in itself quite a bit of arrogance. As if you perceive us as a group of children that you have to define "truth" to before you make your grand statement of what is truth.

It probably was not the intention of your essay, but that was what it read like to me.

[Ryutono]

Your a lawyer , ain't ya


Ryutono (RedRonin) Rick

[Pht]

Cruiser, on 04 February 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

If we start with the end of your post: Basically it comes off as you conclude that the TT system is the best thing to use because of the extensive material that is available on what Battlemech combat is like. While I am sure that the TT system is probably the most extensive source on the subject, it is also important to remember that any system can be improved.

... It's the best system because to do otherwise is to be completely arbitrary and wind up with a bumper crop of unintended consequences and a game that disrespects it's lore, the say way shadowrun did, to mention one... and besides which, it's the only *valid* (as in rationally) place to go to define MW.

Yes, things can be improved ... what's your point?

Quote

Since the TT system was not made for videogames it will bascially be down to each videogame designe to decide on how to best implement the most "fun" playing experience. This perception of "fun" is inherently subjective and that will lead to fractioning of "Objective truth" of MW.

That the TT system was not made for video games does not mean that it cannot be implemented in a video game in a "fun" way; this reasoning simply does not follow; it's not a necessary conclusion from what you've said.

Quote

To me, your post pretty much sounded like you told us that the TT system is the "objective truth" of what makes a good MW game, and any who dares to disagree with that objective truth with their subjective opinion is just being arrogant for not submitting themselves to the greater "fun".

... um, how it could not have been obvious that I said that the TT system is the place to go to define MW validly is beyond me.

As far as the "greater fun?" ... where on God's green earth did you find that In my post?

Quote

Especially the fact that you take your time to define concepts such as objective truth and then proceed to use pseudo-paradox argumentation

"Psuedo-paradox?" ... something is either paradoxical or it isn't. My arguments do not contradict themselves - and I don't think I even used literary paradox - where something looks paradoxical to make a point but in reality is not paradoxical.

Quote

...to counter any attempt to disagree with the essay bears in itself quite a bit of arrogance. As if you perceive us as a group of children that you have to define "truth" to before you make your grand statement of what is truth.

It probably was not the intention of your essay, but that was what it read like to me.

In general western society adheres to the irrational idea that it's absolutely true that there's no absolute truth; this idea is endemic, and so I felt it necessary to point out the destructive nature of that kind of thinking. If I simply was out to be a weenie (ninja bot is overkill) and put people down, I would have simply assumed everyone was too ignorant or stupid to realize how that kind of thinking destroys and not cared to address it.

[Pht]

Ryutono, on 04 February 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Your a lawyer , ain't ya


Ryutono (RedRonin) Rick

No, I'm not. I haven't sold my soul to the devil...

[El Loco]

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Um ... I had hoped it would be obvious that I'm not interested in a MW game that recreates the real world; I specifically said more than a few times that "Simulation" in this case is not a simulation of the "real world" and I even mentioned that a part of the attraction of an MW video game is the escapism factor.

A good simulation will take you to the point where you think it is real. And I'll grant you a point here, if that was what you wanted to express.

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you feel this than you've missed one of the main points of the OP - that the BT universe is expressed in the tabletop system; and that it's the only valid place to go to to look for how 'Mechs, in hard numbers and data, behave... unless babcock and weismann roll in and start posting... lol.

I happily admit that I'm disagreeing with you in this point. The BT universe, in my opinion, is not expressed through the rules of the table top system. The TT's main purpose is to be a tactic and strategic game, whereas the BT universe goes way beyond that (giving, among other things, culture, history, and therefore reason and meaning to the confrontations). The TT, therefore, is rather rigid in applying rules to something that is highly volatile. Sure, the data sheets of the 'Mechs give us an understanding of how the 'Mechs are configured and their other technical capabilities, but the TT doesn't even closely grasp the pilot as pivotal element as it allots only two simple stats to him.

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Which paramaters are you referring to that the TT doesn't address? Surely you must have some in mind if you can say this. Speaking of which, which rules that apply for the TT "don't necessarily have to apply" ... and why don't they?

For example using different sensors. Playing the TT you can't just say you switch to thermal or magnetic sensors, because there aren't any rules for how to handle this information. In a video game you can. Humidity is another parameter. In the TT it is neglected, but it has an immense effect on the damage output of beam weapons (especially lasers), as they are coherent bundles of light, elevated in their energetic level. This means, the more particles there are between the beam's points of origination and destination, the less damage it will cause. The first parameter can easily be implemented into a video game, wheres the second is more educated... but just to give you two ends of a wide range.
What not necessarily has to apply for a video game? Line of sight. You basically don't need any rules for a line of sight in a video game... either you can see a target, or you can't. In terms of elevation and line of sight... the TT doesn't account for the scenario, that you can bend your 'Mech over over an edge and at least fire some of your weapons at an opponent. In the end I'll most likely end up giving almost exclusively examples where the pilot is neglected in the TT, but is a prime parameter in a video game.

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

It's not a scientific approach - observe and experiment and theorize - it's a rational structure, which is a wholly different animal.

You're right... it is far from it. But the scientific method requires a rational structure backing your experiments, observations, and resulting hypotheses. This structure is called the null hypothesis. Research is a rational structure in itself... but this whole thing is way off topic. What I meant was simply, why do you have to mechanize the whole process? Others have formulated it different: What is the purpose of your OP? After all the replies you have given so far, I haven't come across a simple, clear statement as to what this thread is supposed to achieve (and please don't reply 'It's supposed to start a discussion on the topics I addressed in my OP').

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Um .. So?

Just saying. It is futile to argue the topic "How does it feel like to command a 'Mech", simply because nobody knows. It is furthermore futile to address how technology we don't have nowadays would work under given assumptions. It is all speculation... and every system that tries to order those speculations doesn't magically transform them into hard facts.

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

As do mine. I wonder how much your expectations and mine differ!

I'd say not too much... but that shouldn't come as a surprise as we're all talking about something that has accompanied our lives for years.

Anyways... I prefer a game that is true to the universe (i.e. its history, culture, mannerisms, and alike) over a game that is true to game mechanics of a TT game created some 30 years ago. And the reason is simple... the universe is vivid, has character, and characters I have come to like. The TT on the other hand is a set of rules, most of which can be outruled by instating house-rules. It's comparable to playing with a two dimensional object and ending up with a three dimensional object... it adds perspective. But if we start with a three dimensional object and play with it, the result might blow our minds.

[Liam]

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

What's the main point? I would guess that it is that when we say "MechWarrior" we're actually saying something that has, contained within it, an inherent meaning and content that comes with it.

We can't say "Mechwarrior" and validly mean something that is contradictory to that meaning. If we can say something means anything we want it to ... than it means *nothing at all* ... for to have a meaning, an idea/definition must also say what it is not. "Dog" cannot also mean "cat, horse, car, fireball (add meanings out to infinity)" and have any content.

Well thats why boundaries need to be defined, before you start with concept.
Extrapolation of ideas, and convergence of thoughts. As for community ... many users have their own thoughts on how MW should be and how not ... because of individual perception of each user. The only one way to make a good MW game to think as collective to share ideas, to analyze them reject them renew them etc. it is convergence spiders web.

In my opinion things like TT weapon stats are less important than how they appear in BT universe, how powerful they are, how difficult they used in BT universe etc. ... with respect to physical background.

Edited by Liam, 04 February 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Pht]

El Loco, on 04 February 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

I happily admit that I'm disagreeing with you in this point. The BT universe, in my opinion, is not expressed through the rules of the table top system. The TT's main purpose is to be a tactic and strategic game, whereas the BT universe goes way beyond that (giving, among other things, culture, history, and therefore reason and meaning to the confrontations). The TT, therefore, is rather rigid in applying rules to something that is highly volatile. Sure, the data sheets of the 'Mechs give us an understanding of how the 'Mechs are configured and their other technical capabilities, but the TT doesn't even closely grasp the pilot as pivotal element as it allots only two simple stats to him.

Here's the thing though: the story source gets it's mechanics from the TT... and as far as can be seen, the TT system actually gave the original definition on what it's like to pilot a mech, in hard data terms, to the novels. It preceded them... and since that time, outside of author fiat, the novels and story source haven't shown battlemechs behaving differently than they do in the TT.

As far only assigning two simple stats to the pilot - yes, and in geometry euclid deduced quite a large amount of things from just a few presuppositions.

Quote

For example using different sensors. Playing the TT you can't just say you switch to thermal or magnetic sensors, because there aren't any rules for how to handle this information. In a video game you can. Humidity is another parameter. In the TT it is neglected, but it has an immense effect on the damage output of beam weapons (especially lasers), as they are coherent bundles of light, elevated in their energetic level. This means, the more particles there are between the beam's points of origination and destination, the less damage it will cause. The first parameter can easily be implemented into a video game, wheres the second is more educated... but just to give you two ends of a wide range.
What not necessarily has to apply for a video game? Line of sight. You basically don't need any rules for a line of sight in a video game... either you can see a target, or you can't. In terms of elevation and line of sight... the TT doesn't account for the scenario, that you can bend your 'Mech over over an edge and at least fire some of your weapons at an opponent. In the end I'll most likely end up giving almost exclusively examples where the pilot is neglected in the TT, but is a prime parameter in a video game.

Sensor switching - what rules do we need from the TT in order to implement this? as far as the behavior of the sensors, that's laid out in the story source. Humidity in the form of rainfall and snow is handled in the rules - and besides which, even if it weren't, why would *not* adding this into the game cripple the simulation aspect... or be not "fun?"

I have not said that the rules from the TT *must* be ported over, wholesale; so why the LOS comment?

Quote

You're right... it is far from it. But the scientific method requires a rational structure backing your experiments, observations, and resulting hypotheses. This structure is called the null hypothesis. Research is a rational structure in itself... but this whole thing is way off topic. What I meant was simply, why do you have to mechanize the whole process? Others have formulated it different: What is the purpose of your OP? After all the replies you have given so far, I haven't come across a simple, clear statement as to what this thread is supposed to achieve (and please don't reply 'It's supposed to start a discussion on the topics I addressed in my OP').

Um, science is an irrational process as far as finding truth. It's useful, yes, but not a truth finder. The purpouse of my OP? ... I'm tired of people who arbitrarily - for no good reason - "poop on" the BT lore and the parent system. People are going to disagree... I understand that. It would be nice if they'd do so for valid reasons.

As far as what it's supposed to achieve? ... I already posted that in the OP. I guess you missed it.

Quote

Just saying. It is futile to argue the topic "How does it feel like to command a 'Mech", simply because nobody knows. It is furthermore futile to address how technology we don't have nowadays would work under given assumptions. It is all speculation... and every system that tries to order those speculations doesn't magically transform them into hard facts.

It's not futile to argue that when we say MW it has a meaning and content, and that said content [i]tells us what it is like to pilot a 'Mech[/]. As far as "pointless" ... Part of the appeal of MW is escapism. If we all wanted MW to be like our normal experiences it would be filled with lawyers, stupid laws, taxes, butt heads, and family we simply must put up with.

Quote

I'd say not too much... but that shouldn't come as a surprise as we're all talking about something that has accompanied our lives for years.

Anyways... I prefer a game that is true to the universe (i.e. its history, culture, mannerisms, and alike) over a game that is true to game mechanics of a TT game created some 30 years ago. And the reason is simple... the universe is vivid, has character, and characters I have come to like. The TT on the other hand is a set of rules, most of which can be outruled by instating house-rules. It's comparable to playing with a two dimensional object and ending up with a three dimensional object... it adds perspective. But if we start with a three dimensional object and play with it, the result might blow our minds.

I've not said that we should use the TT because it is a set of rules - I've said that we should use it because it is the set of rules that have defined how 'Mechs behave and can perform in the lore. It's a false dichotomy to try and say that the lore and the TT are somehow "against each other."

[Pht]

Liam, on 04 February 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Well thats why boundaries need to be defined, before you start with concept.

I laid out that boundary - where I addressed the motivation for creating MW in the first place.

Quote

As for community ... many users have their own thoughts on how MW should be and how not ... because of individual perception of each user. The only one way to make a good MW game to think as collective to share ideas, to analyze them reject them renew them etc. it is convergence spiders web.

Um, yes, people have ideas on what MW should be - that doesn't mean they're all equally valid. When we say "MW" it has a meaning that is not subjective.

My question to you us how ... by what standard... would you judge the various ideas that people have? If there's no objective center, there's no valid reason to choose one way over another, and we fall down to the level of deciding things by counting noses that agree and such.

Quote

In my opinion things like TT weapon stats are less important than how they appear in BT universe, how powerful they are, how difficult they used in BT universe etc. ... with respect to physical background.

How do you know how powerful they are in the universe - know it in a way that is useful for making video game back-end rules?

[Ravn]

Sounds like someone has a degree in philosophy. That and a dollar will get you a Jr. Cheeseburger in life.

[Liam]

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

My question to you us how ... by what standard... would you judge the various ideas that people have? If there's no objective center, there's no valid reason to choose one way over another, and we fall down to the level of deciding things by counting noses that agree and such.

The judgment is in Dev's hands

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

How do you know how powerful they are in the universe - know it in a way that is useful for making video game back-end rules?

Books and TT as "preference" not by values but by effectiveness subjective feeling. Guass > ER-LL but is heavy ... etc.

[Pht]

Ravn, on 04 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Sounds like someone has a degree in philosophy. That and a dollar will get you a Jr. Cheeseburger in life.

Your point?

Liam, on 04 February 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

The judgment is in Dev's hands

As far as what gets actually done in a video game? Yes. Of course, the developers usually come from the video game community and are, to some extent, influenced by the community (the must be at some level - they want to get our money, you know).

Quote

Books and TT as "preference" not by values but by effectiveness subjective feeling. Guass > ER-LL but is heavy ... etc.

... ?

[Volume]

I actually read about 70% of it and tried to give it a shot, but I WANT to be able to control weapon convergence, I WANT to be able to aim, to track targets, I WANT the game to have that raw physical skill and endurance of a pilot. I know it's too much to have a 360 degree view compressed or something, but maybe field of view zoom should be dynamic and modifiable. Maybe sensors and such just being line of sight is fine.

They've actually been going with the mantra of "This is not your father's MechWarrior" yet still wanting to stay true to the tabletop for the most part, but they will rework things that aren't fun, and RNG-based "did my shot hit" is not fun for a fanbase who is used to things going where they aim.