53 replies to this topic

[Gaius Cavadus]

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.

Edited by cavadus, 03 November 2011 - 08:48 AM.

[AJC]

well i can say one thing in that unless you want to be constantly sniped and turn the game into a sniper fest no max range pretty much does just that and every incarnation of battletech even the the most of the video game adaptations had it so that games wouldn't degenerate into boring sniper fests that pretty much turn everyone except those who want to play that away from the games.

it's already bad enough with what count for sniper weapons in previous games do you really want that for every big gun making it so the only way to play is to be a sniper or hide?

yes the max range makes no sense but it's there to keep the game from turning into a stale thing revolving around one style that never really changes.

Edited by AJC, 03 November 2011 - 08:58 AM.

[gilliam]

I'll grant you the critical system and fixed locations that are on the tabletop by nescesity, can be done away with for a video gaame, but I can't agree with armor. I don't see what's wrong with ablative armor.

[Adridos]

Everything that isnt luck centric should be good. Armor slope, and things like that are good until they implement the WoT mechanics which are luck based (1 direct hit is 50/50 chance youll knock him out, he does you).

[Gaius Cavadus]

AJC, on 03 November 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

well i can say one thing in that unless you want to be constantly sniped and turn the game into a sniper fest no max range pretty much does just that and every incarnation of battletech even the the most of the video game adaptations had it so that games wouldn't degenerate into boring sniper fests that pretty much turn everyone except those who want to play that away from the games. it's already bad enough with what count for sniper weapons in previous games do you really want that for every big gun making it so the only way to play is to be a sniper or hide? yes the max range makes no sense but it's there to keep the game from turning into a stale thing revolving around one style that never really changes.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "...maximum effective range with damage dropoff"?

That means that any further beyond the maximum effective range a weapon strike travels the less damage it does. You could make this penalty either severe (quick and large damage dropoff) to weak (slow and smaller damage dropoff) to anything inbetween. Obviously this would have to be play tested for balance. Obviously this would not apply to any missile systems as it's completely non-sensical in that aspect.

I find it absolutely unacceptable that projectiles, missiles, photons, and plasma magically disappear into the void after X meters. That's insanely lazy and sloppy simulation design.

[Gaius Cavadus]

adridos, on 03 November 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

Everything that isnt luck centric should be good. Armor slope, and things like that are good until they implement the WoT mechanics which are luck based (1 direct hit is 50/50 chance youll knock him out, he does you).

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.

[Phytochrome]

In real life, lasers diverge as they travel forward, so there's your rationale for making lasers less dangerous at range, as cavadus says. Having lasers simply disappear at max range would be nonsensical.

Regarding adapting tabletop rules, it should be pretty clear that being true to the spirit of the game background is more important than adapting tabletop rules faithfully. Mechwarrior should be about giant robots and dice-rolling shouldn't come into it.

If we're concerned with minimum ranges, then consider this idea: give precision long-range weapons (PPCs or Gauss rifles, perhaps) a much slower, smoother reticle track. This would simulate the mech locking down its torso (or entire body), the better to stabilise itself and point this precision instrument at the target. Additionally, it would make it much harder to track nearby, quick-moving targets.

I would say that the developers shouldn't be afraid to modify weapon functions in order to provide interesting gameplay.

As far as armour goes, I'm mainly interested in how damage will be represented visually - I want to blow plates of the stuff off enemy mechs, and leave scars with laser fire. Flyingdebris' concept art seems to feature modular armour plates which could provide an opportunity for this kind of location-based damage modelling.

[reinhardt steiner]

1. The limiting factor for a Firefly is weight. Every weapon or system has a weight element and a critical slot element. It is a game and the laws of physics are simplified for that purpose. An IS Gauss Rifle weighs 15 tons, so putting it on a 20 Ton mech is impractical. I'm not saying it couldn't be changed, but it isn't as broken as you think.

2. Here there is room for improvement. A video game can make these calculations, most table gamers aren't going to do calculus for every weapon hit.

3. A hit on the head is a hit on the head, even in the board game. Have you ever played the board game? Right now you sound like a moron. You don't like board games. Got it. That's fine. You want to disparage them because they aren't your thing. How very internet of you.

4. The military uses two numbers to describe range. The maximum range, which is the maximum distance that a round will be lethal, and maximum effective range, which is the maximum distance where it can reasonably be expected to hit what it was aimed at. I know for a generation raised on shooters where you can pick someone off with a pistol at 200 meters in Call of Duty the idea that physics don't work that way can be strange. That bullet doesn't disappear, it just has almost zero chance of hitting what you aimed at.

5. Instead of trying to pick fights in general discussions, put these "ideas" in the suggestions forum.

Edited by reinhardt steiner, 03 November 2011 - 09:31 AM.

[VYCanis]

1.Construction rules should stay similar to TT, as that is how the core game is balanced. Similar, not identical. With numerous limitations in place.
2. No, because mechs from the get go vary so much in overall shape that trying to balance armor angles too will become a nightmare.
3. Damage locations tie into construction system. can't totally chuck that out either.
4. Only point i will fully agree with you on

And no, it would not turn everything into a snipe fest. not any more than the average battlefield tank battle turns into a snipefest.You can shoot as far as you want in those games, Actually hitting at that range though, that was the tricky part.

I'd rather see weapons have more believable behavior and be balanced around more believable variables. So that an ac2 and an ac20 "can" both shoot across a map, but between ballistic drop, projectile speed, rate of fire, damage per shot, recoil, and overall accuracy,its going to be the ac2 thats actually good at it. A bunch of small lasers can be banked to could shoot as far and as hard as an er large, but between beam duration, ludicrous amount of crits/weight taken up, heat produced, and damage fall off, the er large laser will still be better at it, at long range. An srm pack can smack a mech across the same distance as an lrm, but the former is a direct fire critseeker meant for direct engagement, where as lrms are meant for bombardment and fire support type actions.

seriously, you just balance weapons so that the relationships between each other are preserved, and keep the ability to focus fire down, make aiming at extreme ranges a bit difficult, and you don't need to have weapons that have the range performance of oversized nerfguns. and if anything it would make information warfare aspects even more important.

ER variants of weapons would simply have far less damage drop off, or have other characteristics that make them easier to hit with at longer range. Short range versions of weapons would have the opposite be true.

TL-DR i am a firm believer in "if you can see it, you can shoot it,"

Edited by VYCanis, 03 November 2011 - 09:39 AM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

VYCanis, on 03 November 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

Stuff.

Ya got me, I LOLed. It was awesome how you used completely unrealistic TT rules translations to prove how silly they reinforce more realistic damage and ballistic models.

Anyways, good joke post

Edited by cavadus, 03 November 2011 - 09:36 AM.

[wanderer]

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.

So in other words, you'd like to pretty much toss out the boardgame entirely, since you're saying "forget the internal structure system, the armor system, and the hit location system".

Now, #4 I'll go with- because there's rules for damage dropoff in the boardgame already for fire beyond normal range bands- which is more complex, but easily handled with a simulator like MWO should have.

Just put in cone-of-fire stuff and you've neatly removed the whole sniping locations at superlong ranges problem. It even makes extreme-range fire more reasonable, as said cone means you may very well fire at obscene ranges...but you'll miss more often than not and deal reduced damage, which fits things just fine in the BT universe.

And the heck with specific-location stuff and hardpoints. That's 100% Mechwarrior 4 stuff, and if I wanted that, there's plenty of servers to go out and play arcade games on vs. an actual Battletech simulator. Space limitations like you're describing would render many canon designs impossible...like my personal favorite, the AC/20 Urbanmech.

[Dihm]

You may get a better response and traction if you come off less hostile.

[Gaius Cavadus]

wanderer, on 03 November 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

Space limitations like you're describing would render many canon designs impossible...like my personal favorite, the AC/20 Urbanmech.

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?

[reinhardt steiner]

Dihm, on 03 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

You may get a better response and traction if you come off less hostile.

I don't think he was interested in a better response. Trolls will be trolls.

[Dihm]

So I figured, but I thought I'd try to be helpful

[Gaius Cavadus]

Dihm, on 03 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

You may get a better response and traction if you come off less hostile.

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.

Just look at that one dude who's all up in arms because the crotch and head aren't two different hit locations. Unless he meant cockpit... which is not the same as the head (particularly when I referenced the Atlas). In all of the video games a shot to the crotch and a shot to a portion of the head that isn't the actual cockpit both deliver damage to the center torso which is beyond inane and makes me LULz.

I want a good simulation, not another sloppy translation of a thirty-old boardgame meant to be calculated out by hand. I'd argue many of the posters around here need to come clean with themselves and realize they should stick to Megamek and leave MWO well enough alone.

Edited by cavadus, 03 November 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[Belial]

I say this as a fan of pretty much every medium MW has been in, including the stigmatized MechAssault. As much as I love TT (playing MegaMek with some bots at this moment), I've always had a bit of a dislike for the slots system of CBT, because a configuration on a 35-ton Jenner can be transferred over to a Wolfhound verbatim, so to speak. Yet the two 'Mechs obviously have contrasting designs and weapons hardpoints. Uniqueness in chassis means nothing unless the weight itself is different,

MW4's Mechlab felt like the right idea but was still a little limited. And yes, I realize that there are configs out there like a Catapult that has dual PPCs in place of the missile racks. I think it's somewhat idiotic and makes the Catapult feel less unique. It's a missile carrier, hence it's name.

And as I type this 14 new posts have been added. Gosh I'm slow...

[CobraFive]

Mech customization based on hardpoints rather then criticals I agree with. Something like MW4, maybe more indepth, like the MekTek addon was like.

The armor concept: No! Don't include slope in any form. A Jenner shouldn't bounce an AC/20 off his head because the angle was weird. The 'mechs were NOT designed with angles in mind and some designs will become far more effective then they're supposed to be, an example off the top of my head is the bushwacker, has extremly sloped armor, and would be far more powerful then its weight class should be allowed. On top of the fact these types of hit detection systems don't increase out perception of realism anyway. A defelcted shot always just becomes a "***!" moment. Moreover, if we use pentration rather then ablation, Assaults will dominate everything. Why take anything less then an Atlas when nothing but a hunchback can even do damage at all? We'll get into the situaiton of WoT, where more often then not an enemy you are paired against is invincible to your weapons, or you are invincible to him. Its not really conductive to skillful play IMO.

As for armor sections. Dynamic damage would be badass, don't get me wrong. If they can pull that off, go for it! but it might be a bit much for the scope of this game, especially considering that everything needs to run lag-free. SO if they go the traditions Head/CT/LT/RT/etc... route that's fine. Dynamic damage would be icing, though.

And lastly, max range vs effective range. Max range doesn't kill it for me, I mean, we've dealt with it fine till now. But an effective range with damage and/or ballistic dropoff would be pretty cool. Again though, these kinds of things eat power in a multiplayer setting. If they have good netcode I'd love to see a more detailed ballistic/range system, but more important to me is running smooth, good hit detection, and little lag.

So overall: I agree on all points EXCEPT armor sloping/removing ablation system, but I also don't agree any of the listed features are important to maintaining a realistic sim feel.

Edited by cobrafive, 03 November 2011 - 09:50 AM.

[Creel]

The maximum range issue has always been explained as more a limitation of targeting systems than of the weapon itself. Throughout the fluff you'll find references to the Clan's better targeting leading to longer ranges. The surprise at the range of the clan's weapons wasn't that they could travel farther, but that they could hit consistently at that range. a cone of fire implementation along with MOA calculations would go a long way toward accurately representing this for ballistic weapons. Missiles, of course, have a very definite hard limit based on the distance that they can travel and still maneuver within their powered envelope. Lasers should also be subject to cone of fire accuracy issues, as well as diffusion over distance.

[Gaius Cavadus]

cobrafive, on 03 November 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

The armor concept: No! Don't include slope in any form. A Jenner shouldn't bounce an AC/20 off his head because the angle was weird. The 'mechs were NOT designed with angles in mind and some designs will become far more effective then they're supposed to be, an example off the top of my head is the bushwacker, has extremly sloped armor, and would be far more powerful then its weight class should be allowed.

You know can just adjust the maximum available armor thickness up or down to create an "effective armor thickness" that would be roughly commensurate with the spirit of the lore, right?

Meaning you can reduce the thickness of the Bushwacker's armor to account for slope so that it's effective armor is roughly identical. It's not like any of this stuff would happen in a vacuum.