53 replies to this topic

[MookieRah]

It sounds like, on top of implementing slope into the calculation, it would add a lot of work with mech balancing to deal with the slope mechanic. I think the ballistic physics should definitely be there, and deflections possible on crazy angles; however, slope of the armor shouldn't be taken into account. It's too much dev time for something that wouldn't bring much to the table, especially considering you'd have to balance it out with another mechanic.

[reinhardt steiner]

Wow dude, you're pretty freakin' agro there. Maybe you should take your meds or something. Have you considered seeing a mental health proffesional? Are you scared of math? Is that why the board games bother you. If you need a calculator for subtraction, I'm sure somebody would let you use one. So much pain in your soul. Tell me, what happened to you? Did a board game scare you as a kid? Did you eat a mech miniature and need surgery? Your points became invalid when you used them to attack. Most of us are here because we like the BattleTech/Mechwarrior games. If you are just here to rage on people go back to 4chan.

Edited by reinhardt steiner, 03 November 2011 - 09:59 AM.

[wanderer]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 09:41 AM, said:

So a Mw4 style hardpoint system precludes Urbanmechs from mounting the AC-20.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Would you care to share how you came to that incredibly personal arbitrary decision?

Sure. MW4 specifies both type and maximum size for equipment installed in a given "hardpoint". Battletech never has, instead using the critical spaces system that's been in since the inception of the game. This means that if you use hardpoints, the inevitable result will be many attempts to build a canon production variant will result in MWO being unable to do so, as what would be a perfectly legal construction instead becomes a "this equipment cannot fit/is an energy weapon going into a ballistic slot/no no no" situation. A classic example is the Hunchback- which can't be built in MW4 to many of the "Swaybacks" dating back to TRO 3025 because it's hardpoints simply won't fit the weaponry. It won't fit the 8 medium lasers and one small of the -4P, for example. Or the missile racks on the -4J/-4SP.

It's less flexible than the real game is with regards to construction, and I dislike that idea severely. A Battletech sim should not prevent itself from actually being able to build canon examples of Battlemechs.

[wanderer]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Doesn't matter. All of the boardgame fanbois will rage if their medium laser does 4 or 6 points of damage instead of 5. You can't reason with them so there's no point in attempting it.

<- boardgame fanboy

Not at all. Even in the boardgame, weapons degrade in damage after you hit their long range- which is actually their maximum effective range, not the maximum range they can deal some level of damage. The tournament-level rules simplify a lot, but as I've noted before there ARE rules in there that make weapons fire more complex and "crunchy".

When I see things like "regenerating armor/shields" or "sloped armor, let's be WoT"....THAT does irritate me. This is Battletech, not HALO, not arcade-game-jump-sniping MW4, but a Battletech sim. It should feel like one.

[Dihm]

The problem with dealing with a more intricate armor/ballistics system is that none of the mechs were designed with this in mind. If the mechs were designed based on reality, they wouldn't look the way they do.

Abstraction will be part of this, even if it is a "sim".

And seriously, lighten up on the aggro.

[Adridos]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

Wow, that's not how the WoT ballistics model works at all. I've been playing that game for about six months.

In WoT each gun has a maximum armor penetration value and there's some +/- variance to that, a little wiggle room if you all. This is then rolled against the armor it's striking and the "effective armor value" it rolls against is a calculation of the thickness, slope (which increases thickness), and angle (which can further increase thickness).

There's a little RNG magic in there but it's absolutely nothing like what you described.

I didnt want to say, that its luck based on that you have 50 % you hit them to penetrate and 50% not to. It was just a dramatised idea. By luck centric I mean there cant happen something like this: Two tanks face eachother. Same type, weapon, crew, just about everything. They fire at the same time, yet theres a chance the first will win, the second will win, or both of them go bye bye. This is possible with WoT mechanics and increases with high vs low level fights.

[Gaius Cavadus]

wanderer, on 03 November 2011 - 09:57 AM, said:

Sure. MW4 specifies both type and maximum size for equipment installed in a given "hardpoint". Battletech never has, instead using the critical spaces system that's been in since the inception of the game. This means that if you use hardpoints, the inevitable result will be many attempts to build a canon production variant will result in MWO being unable to do so, as what would be a perfectly legal construction instead becomes a "this equipment cannot fit/is an energy weapon going into a ballistic slot/no no no" situation. A classic example is the Hunchback- which can't be built in MW4 to many of the "Swaybacks" dating back to TRO 3025 because it's hardpoints simply won't fit the weaponry. It won't fit the 8 medium lasers and one small of the -4P, for example. Or the missile racks on the -4J/-4SP. It's less flexible than the real game is with regards to construction, and I dislike that idea severely. A Battletech sim should not prevent itself from actually being able to build canon examples of Battlemechs.

So give the Urbanmech's right arm's ballistic hardpoint enough space to mount an AC-20. It is an actual variant of the mech so it makes sense. This is exactly what MekTek did when they implemented the Urbanmech into MW4M.

I understand you don't like the idea of restricted mech customization and obviously prefer every single mech being a completely generic gunbag with nothing to differentiate it from any other mech of it's weight besides silhouette but that doesn't mean you can just throw arbitrary values into a construct as if they actually justify something when any other arbitrary set of values easily refutes your conclusion.

[Shepherd]

On the note of customization - MW4's system failed greatly in that it didn't account for anything other than weapons. When you add ECM, BAP, etc, where does that go? When you add extra ammo for your weapons.. where does that ammo go? How about heat sinks? Do they go anywhere?

It also doesn't really give a good representation of the relative sizes of these weapons. A Gauss rifle is way larger than 3 times bigger than a medium laser.

I respect that MW4's hardpoint system was trying to make each mech unique by restricting what types of weapons could go where in a logical way. But I don't respect that it threw out the need to physically place all equipment and ammo in the mech and how it tossed the size difference of the weapons. I would like to see a hybrid of the critical and hardpoint system that makes you physically place every item you select for your mech, but that still requires weapons to go in logical places (i.e. on a catapult, lasers in the torso, missiles in the ears. We don't want mechs to be generic, but we do want the customization to actually account for all of what is going on.

re: armor - sloped, classic torso sections, etc -
I actually think that the classic armor sections NEEDS to be maintained. Mechwarrior features way better accuracy than battletech. If the armor was segmented any further you'd have pretty weak amounts of armor over each spot (however you defined the size of each spot). It's easy enough to aim that you could punch through armor and mess up internals pretty easily. We need the larger sections to counterbalance the ease of aiming relative to classic battletech. Sloping and all of that.... lots of effort, little realized gain I think.

[God of War]

the MW4 hardpoint sys simply sucked!
i´m down with the classic construction rules!

and the intgration of sloped armor is neither intressing in terms of backround nor for gameplay.
Basic Armor in BT is aplative armor so there is no need for a thickness stat or for a penetraion stat for the weapons.
If you want to see how a screwed up slope-mechanic kills a good game take a look at World of tanks!

[Orzorn]

Shepherd, on 03 November 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

On the note of customization - MW4's system failed greatly in that it didn't account for anything other than weapons. When you add ECM, BAP, etc, where does that go? When you add extra ammo for your weapons.. where does that ammo go? How about heat sinks? Do they go anywhere?

This, THIS is why Mechwarrior 4 was so notorious for boating weapons. You didn't have any chance of critical hits even though your mech is stuffed full of ammunition. You couldn't stack weapons like that in other mech games as well because a single critical hit and you'll have a thousand rounds of autocannon ammunition explode underneath you.

Quote

I respect that MW4's hardpoint system was trying to make each mech unique by restricting what types of weapons could go where in a logical way. But I don't respect that it threw out the need to physically place all equipment and ammo in the mech and how it tossed the size difference of the weapons. I would like to see a hybrid of the critical and hardpoint system that makes you physically place every item you select for your mech, but that still requires weapons to go in logical places (i.e. on a catapult, lasers in the torso, missiles in the ears. We don't want mechs to be generic, but we do want the customization to actually account for all of what is going on.

Totally agree. I made a post a long time ago on the Mektek forums describing a similar system. It had both hardpoints and criticals, so that a mech isn't automatically some sort of omnimech even if it isn't, but also so that they still have to place everything and run the risk of critical hits.

Edit:Oh yeah, you already know, you're kilo. Durp

Edited by orzorn, 03 November 2011 - 10:30 AM.

[Odin]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Many of the boardgame rules are really poorly done and translated to a virtual space in an even worse state. Most are simply abbreviated concepts meant to be calculated quickly and by hand which leads to over simplification. Below are many of the TT rules and concepts which simply need to be thrown out or completely rethought.

• Mech customization based on critical slots. Hardpoints are the way to go. Only CBT purists would argue for the awful crit slot system. Because a Firefly really has as much physical space in the RT as an Atlas, amirite?
  
• The entire ablative armor concept. Seriously, we need to move on to a real ballistics model whiich takes into account slope, angle, armor thickness, and penetration values. The sectional hitpoints need to be the internal structure's integrity, not a pool of armor.
  
• The classic armor sections. These need to be thrown out entirely. Hitting an Atlas in the crotch and the forehead yet the damage going to the CT is stupid and always has been. Mechs should have a few dozen hit boxes each with their own independent armor thickness values and independent structural integrity pools inside of them.
  
• Weapons having a maximum range. Yes, because there's a magical barrier at 400m where light simply ceases to exist for a medium laser. We need maximum effective ranges with damage dropoff beyond them.

Those are the big ones for me. Feel free to add to this list of board game rules which need to be tossed in the trash in order to make a good simulation experience.

Excellent!

The orginal MechWarrior boardgame is a roll the dice affair.
Thats history.

There is no place for this on PC, the King of gaming.
A full blown modern Mech game transcribed into a real time environment is PC Gaming!

You could declare your target, roll the dice, and take a sh*t.
Having done that, coming back (ancient times later) marveling over, why that **** PPC doesn't hit.
Not so on a brand new Mechsimulator*; you either hit the other guy or you don't, but what ever it may be, one of you is cooking in a split second ... is toast.
Next target.

Its a matter of where you point your aim.
Damage done, received, should be a matter of your pilot skills (RPG stats) and of what you achieve in real time.
A hit is a hit. No one should take you that.
In no way gaus shells cease to exist after 1200 meters, or well, what ever they write down in the books.
The boardgame can't be translated one on one into this MechWarriorOnline.

Mechcommander, was a game for this.

Just my 2 cents

















* stop freaking out if your read the word SIMULATOR

[wanderer]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

So give the Urbanmech's right arm's ballistic hardpoint enough space to mount an AC-20. It is an actual variant of the mech so it makes sense. This is exactly what MekTek did when they implemented the Urbanmech into MW4M.

I understand you don't like the idea of restricted mech customization and obviously prefer every single mech being a completely generic gunbag with nothing to differentiate it from any other mech of it's weight besides silhouette but that doesn't mean you can just throw arbitrary values into a construct as if they actually justify something when any other arbitrary set of values easily refutes your conclusion.

That's also why I gave the example of the Hunchback in there. Battletech isn't built around hardpoints. The criticals system also doesn't just take the spacing for weapons into account, but everything else. 'Mech mounts Endo-steel or Ferro-fibrous armor? An XL vs. a standard engine? CASE? Heat sinks that are external vs. being part of the engine's cooling system? All of that is accounted for in BT construction, and some of it is unchangeable, which does provide limitations in and of itself. Less so in 3025 tech models, which rarely tend to be filled up...but by 3049, the stuff coming off the line often strains that to the limits. MW4 also let me dump enough heat sinks on a model that in Battletech would have been impossible to do- so for me, that system is broken on both sides of the fence. I want a Battlemech, and that means a system that treats it like one.

[Dihm]

• The critical slots aspect of equipment and structure needs to be taken into account in the damage model. I'm open to any way that can be pulled off to accommodate the spirit of the source material.
  
• The distinction between a standard mech and the omni-mech needs to be retained as well. There is a reason that mechs weren't modified/customized on a large scale in the lore, the cost was way too prohibitive (make this the pay part of free to play?).
  
• Mechs need to retain some aspect of their "personality", I'd love to see mechs restricted heavily to their established variants. Also helps the game balance.
  
• WoT style ballistics just won't work though (see my above post).
  
• Weapon effectiveness fall-off/bullet drop should handle most of these "max range shouldn't exist" issues. Lasers loose effectiveness the more air they pass through, bullets lose accuracy the farther out they get, missles can't lock on at ranges beyond what the targeting computer can handle.

[summonerpilot]

OK guys, I just have to say this...

realism != good gameplay.

To me, it sounds like the suggestions in the initial post are about realism, rather than good gameplay. And frankly, I think they'd make the game a lot less fun. Good gameplay is subjective of course, but I've personally found that the more games strive for realism, the less I enjoy playing them.

Like any game, Battletech made tradeoffs to make the game more fun. Yes, the original rules were balanced for a tabletop game, and you don't have the same restrictions with a computer doing the math. That doesn't justify tossing the old ruleset in the trash, though. There's something to be said for creating a faithful adaptation, and I'd hope that's the goal of this game rather than creating a "next-generation giant robot simulator" - which seems to be what the OP is advocating.

Edited by summonerpilot, 03 November 2011 - 10:56 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I'll give you that there are TT rules that don't make sense given a real time sim. Even more TT rules that could be done better with the computing power we have. However you have to be really careful or you end up with a game that is a robot game using battletech skins, not a battletech game. For all its flaws, the TT system has a certain feel to it and a real battletech game should try and replicate that feel. Its kind of like watching movies not shot at 24fps. It may be technically better, but it doesn't feel right.

1) I'd agree with just simply because I think previous MW games haven't done enough to restrict modification. hardpoints would be easier to control.
2) I totally agree its old school boardgame, but changing the armor model to a penetration model would make it cease to feel like battletech. It also has tendency to make small weapons useless.
3) This I could totally see improved. Model what systems are where so when you hit you can hit the correct system. Know where the ammo is stored on a mech? Aim for it.
4) as others have said, there are already rules for this.

[greyseer]

cavadus, on 03 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Many of the boardgame rules are really poorly done and translated to a virtual space in an even worse state. Most are simply abbreviated concepts meant to be calculated quickly and by hand which leads to over simplification. Below are many of the TT rules and concepts which simply need to be thrown out or completely rethought.

• Mech customization based on critical slots. Hardpoints are the way to go. Only CBT purists would argue for the awful crit slot system. Because a Firefly really has as much physical space in the RT as an Atlas, amirite?
  
• The entire ablative armor concept. Seriously, we need to move on to a real ballistics model whiich takes into account slope, angle, armor thickness, and penetration values. The sectional hitpoints need to be the internal structure's integrity, not a pool of armor.
  
• The classic armor sections. These need to be thrown out entirely. Hitting an Atlas in the crotch and the forehead yet the damage going to the CT is stupid and always has been. Mechs should have a few dozen hit boxes each with their own independent armor thickness values and independent structural integrity pools inside of them.
  
• Weapons having a maximum range. Yes, because there's a magical barrier at 400m where light simply ceases to exist for a medium laser. We need maximum effective ranges with damage dropoff beyond them.

Those are the big ones for me. Feel free to add to this list of board game rules which need to be tossed in the trash in order to make a good simulation experience.

1. Crit slots were designed to facilitate custom mech construction rules, not customization of existing mechs. When you're designing a mech from scratch, the physical layout of the mech hasn't been determined, so the "cavity" into which you place your weaponry hasn't been sealed around by armor plating yet.

Customization of existing designs has always been one of those bits of hand-waving most GMs do when addressing the matter. We generally adhere to a method that states "as long as it matches the basic silhouette, it's good." Thing is, not all weapons will match a silhouette due to the varying crit sizes.

This is why OmniMechs were such a huge leap forward in technology. No longer did you have to fiddle with the inner workings of a battlemech in order to swap out those lasers. Now you had a core chassis that supported customization "out of the box." And per the fluff, the omni-systems were a lot like hardpoints.

But to answer your question: yes, a Firefly CAN, theoretically, have as much space in the RT as an Atlas. It's just gonna end up radically changing the mech's silhouette, and thus make that weapon easier to hit. Consequently, this is represented in the rules by the larger number of crit slots a weapon takes up. You hit the RT, then your chances of hitting that BigAssWeapon™ are much higher because it's there for all to see.

Assuming the chassis can support the weapon's weight (which is still the limiting factor), you'd basically need a mech construction facility to perform the modification. But because this isn't fun for the players of games like MechWarrior, field customizations were introduced and made a lot simpler than the tabletop rules. Remember, size can be accommodated by changing the physical appearance of the mech (look at the old school Charger vs. the variant with the AC/20).

Ironically, you're calling the TT rules oversimplified, but this is a case where the real time rules had to be made simpler.


2. Irrelevant to me. Whether or not this is introduced, it will be calculated by the game engine, and most players will be happily blasting away without giving slope, angle, or penetration a second thought. These are fast battles where you pull the trigger as soon as you "feel" you have your target locked. You're not gonna be doing mental calculus to assess the effectiveness of your shot.

3. They do already in the TT game. What you're crying foul against is another simplification done for the past MechWarrior games. The base slots are: Head, Center Torso, Center Torso Rear, Left Torso, Left Torso Rear, Right Torso, Right Torso Rear, Left Arm, Right Arm, Left Left, and Right Leg. Each section has its own armor values and internal structure values. That's what you're asking for, isn't it? Or do you just want more of them? I can support a more granular damage model if that's what you're saying.

Just be aware that your example doesn't support your point. In TT Battletech, a head shot (yes, a head shot, not just cockpit shot) is distinctly different from a center torso shot.

4. There is no barrier. The maximum ranges were a limitation of the targeting computers, not the weapons themselves for the most part. Weapons just could not get a stable enough lock on the target, and so the computer would not allow said weapon to be fired outside of the maximum range. In a setting where military hardware was expensive and hard to come by (at least, per old Succession Wars fluff), this made sense. Don't waste your ammunition.

There are many rule sets that incorporate a damage dropoff once past the maximum range. Some of these were experimental, and others were homegrown house rules. But it WAS there to supplement the fluff.

Thing is, this was changed for the MechWarrior games in order to give the players more control. They wanted to give you the feel of firing a weapon regardless of target or range, so the concept of a targeting computer NOT letting you fire was tossed out the window. It's my understanding that many previous incarnations of MechWarrior incorporated a damage dropoff already. If so, what you want is probably already on the drawing board.

Now, I can understand your desire to not see "bad" rules make it into the simulation. But your selection of "bad" rules isn't very well thought out or researched. And it doesn't really support your point.

Edited by greyseer, 03 November 2011 - 11:57 AM.

[ethnic minority]

I pretty much agree with all the op's points, though armor slope and thickness is better suited in a true realism game like red orchestra than in an action sim like mechwarrior - although seeing a shot glance off a slope would be very cool.

I would definitely like to see a damage falloff system for weapons, instead of simply seeing the shot disappear after a given distance. It's aesthetically ugly and unimmersive seeing a shot just disappear into thin air. Moreso, allowing weapons to surpass their max effective range allows for suppression/spammy playing, which is just as valid a tactic and allows for very pretty desert-storm-esque light shows. I'd definitely like to see autocannons not only lose damage over range, but also have AC rounds drop after max effective range.

Also, don't know why people are interpreting the op's post as abrasive - yall need to chill

[Coalbiter]

The lack of significance toward quantified armor slope and penetration isn't just because of a kludge for a board game; tactical armor in BattleTech is made out of exotically treated steel with plates of ceramic that are essentially as hard as, but more resilient than, diamond (blocks of boron nitride, which is almost as hard as diamond, in a webbing of buckeytubes that are sometimes referred to as "woven diamond fibers"). Penetration of a substance with Mohs Hardness 10 is going to be exceedingly difficult, to the point where the attachments points on the armor are going to give out first.

Edited by _15811, 03 November 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[Stormwolf]

The tt construction rules are one of the core essentials for a Battletech game, even MW4 had them in a dumbed down sort of way.

I think that TacOps would translate well into the videogame. Things like direct and glancing blows would really add to the combat, just imagine a laser shaving off some armor on a mech.

Also things like ECM where you can select Ghost Targets to confuse the enemy would be grand addition (a great gimmick for a Raven).


Completely changing these sorts of things will only remove it from Battletech.

True, not everything can be translated (or translated well), but the core of the game is good and balanced.

[yingjanshi]

So TacOps (the Advanced rulebook for BattleTech) does have optional rules for limiting the crit space of a 'Mech based on weight class, but it would invalidate a LOT of canon designs. Especially IS 'Mechs with both Endo and Ferro.

And ALL of the various incarnations of MW have dumbed down the construction rules (to various degrees). The number one error they've all got is that none of them take the diffilculty of the customization in to account. Most of the kinds of changes you make in the various games should probably be done in an actual 'Mech factory on not in the field (if you can possibly help it). What they should do is take the salvage & customization rules from StratOps (the Advanced Aero book) in SOME form. Perhaps make it so in addition to having to buy weapons, you'd have to rent a facility that depending on its level would either increase or decrease the difficulty of the job. Also you'd have to hire a tech crew. Green techs would be cheapest and Elite the best. Every job would tech time, and it would have to take into account the difficulty, if the techs screwed it up you might go into your next battle with say a large laser that generates 20% more heat or take a bit longer to recharge.

I've never liked the way MW4 did it. It was just too restrictive. I've always thought they did it so they wouldn't have to make any changes to the 'Mechs images. So from the example above about the Catapult, sure it might be weird to see PPC beams coming out of a LRM15 rack but really if those beams are coming at me I'm not going to be that concerned about a graphic issue.

I think they should include the salvage & customization rules. You should have to deal with differing facility and tech levels. And you should have to worry about design balance. Sure if you free up the space and tonnage you can replace a Medium Laser with a PPC but you have to worry about design balance. That 6 tons and 2 slots extra throws the gyro off.