310 replies to this topic

[Azantia]

Zakatak, on 18 May 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Until we play it, we have no idea what it will be like, and neither do you. Unlike MW4, where are alot of other ways to die now. Ammo explosions, excessive overheating, shots to the side torso (assuming the enemy has an XL engine).

None of us have an idea how it plays until we play it. If we join the beta, and it does end up like MW4, well, that is what beta's are for. PGI can lower the armor values should they choose to.

State your source to the above please, as this has not been confirmed to my knowledge.

And you said there are alot of ways to die! Ammo explosions and overheating? Those are in TT too, and you could overheat and die in mechwarrior 4. Likewise if you hit people enough in the "side torsos" with heavy damage weapons after the torso was destroyed, it would kill them in mechwarrior 4 as well. And no, it wasnt from bleed over as they could still be green in the CT.

Edited by Azantia, 18 May 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

State your source to the above please, as this has not been confirmed to my knowledge.

And you said there are alot of ways to die! Ammo explosions and overheating? Those are in TT too, and you could overheat and die in mechwarrior 4. Likewise if you hit people enough in the "side torsos" with heavy damage weapons after the torso was destroyed, it would kill them in mechwarrior 4 as well. And no, it wasnt from bleed over as they could still be green in the CT.

Well hopefully if a side torso is destroyed, you could shoot through it to hit the CT components directly. I don't know if that will be the case, but I'd like it better than (assuming) no damage bleed, and internal armor divisions.

[Zelekin]

Indeed, as far as I know the engine upgrade system has been only described in minimal detail, stating that it is possible, essentially. I use indeed too much.

[Arikiel]

The pacing of a board game and a video game are different. A single turn in TT can take minutes. The equivalent to a single turn in a real time video game takes seconds. For matches not to be over ridiculously quickly some adjustment between mediums will be necessary. As long as they remain true to the intent of the source material it's fine to have such minor modifications.

[Azantia]

You call doubling armor and ammo minor?

People cried foul at LRM RANGES, but this is minor right? /boggle

Edited by Azantia, 18 May 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Zephram Zaphod]

There are a lot less ways to die too.

Losing both legs doesn't take you out, heck it doesn't even knock you over. No damage transfer so you can get shot infinite times in the arm and left torso without dying. Doubling of Armor making it so that people can survive things they really shouldn't.

I don't think the answer is to double armor and ammo, the answer is to make aiming more sluggish so that it requires actual good timing and movement tactics can actually have a much larger affect and actually be viable and skill based.

As to the comment that ballistic weapons are worthless? No they're not. Heat Sinks take up a lot of crit spaces, especially doubles. There's only so many an IS mech can take. Energy, Ballistic, Missile weapons all have their place on the battlefield, it's give and take. What might work well for one mech doesn't work well at all for another.

I do fear for the AC-20 though when a Jenner can survive it easily.

[Zelekin]

Zephram Zaphod, on 18 May 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

There are a lot less ways to die too.

Losing both legs doesn't take you out, heck it doesn't even knock you over.

I must be behind, last I heard losing both legs did result in destruction. Such is the nature of the internet, an online equivalent of "I heard from one guy that..."

Edited by Zelekin, 18 May 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Zephram Zaphod]

Bryan posted a list of things that will kill you. It was very short and losing both legs wasn't on it.

[Zakatak]

I know it is cool to be the guy that says "if you get shot at, it is your fault because you lack skill, and you need to pay the consequences!"

But as mentioned above, turns that take minutes on TT can take seconds in VG. If the armor values remain the same as they do in CBT, then kills may be scored with a lucky twitch reaction. I know the argument is that "if you need to more time to react to your target, you lack skill", but the counter argument is always "if you have more armor, aiming and proper shot placement becomes more important". Neither argument is a clear winner, but I would side with the latter.

[Azantia]

Zephram Zaphod, on 18 May 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

There are a lot less ways to die too.

Losing both legs doesn't take you out, heck it doesn't even knock you over. No damage transfer so you can get shot infinite times in the arm and left torso without dying. Doubling of Armor making it so that people can survive things they really shouldn't.

I don't think the answer is to double armor and ammo, the answer is to make aiming more sluggish so that it requires actual good timing and movement tactics can actually have a much larger affect and actually be viable and skill based.

As to the comment that ballistic weapons are worthless? No they're not. Heat Sinks take up a lot of crit spaces, especially doubles. There's only so many an IS mech can take. Energy, Ballistic, Missile weapons all have their place on the battlefield, it's give and take. What might work well for one mech doesn't work well at all for another.

I do fear for the AC-20 though when a Jenner can survive it easily.

I didnt even take into effect the "no damage bleed over" into the double armor argument....that makes it worse. Ha.

A turn in tabletop is 10 seconds......just to clarify...

[SuomiWarder]

Okay people, after scanning the various posts I think everyone missed an important game design issue here.

The TT rules for weapon damage, shots and armor were made on the assumption of a certain number of hit happening per use of the weapon. This used a bell curve 2d6 roll with a target number of around 6 to 8 being common. With 2d6 the odds of rolling less than six are about 28%. So with the needed to hit number varying with range and pilot skill, let's be generous for attackers and assume the usual miss rate is maybe 35% at moderate ranges.

That means there is a free 35% armor bonus built in compared to weapon damage that will be caused. Or put another way, the designers expect at least 35% of your shots to miss and cause 0 damage. Even with LRMs, that home in on targets.

In actual computer game play, players do much better at hitting a 'Mech at medium ranges than a 35% miss rate. Not to mention that some of a locked LRM shot almost always hit regardless of player skill.

Thus one would expect a player controlled computer game version to up the armor values simply to try to "match" the damage probability a 'Mech would expect to take in the TT game. Therefor upping armor does not somehow destroy the integrity of the overall BattleTech experience but instead strives to achieve parity with the expected outcomes (within reason of course, a +400% armor boost is obviously beyond what the TT odds of missing would call for).

Edited by SuomiWarder, 18 May 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Zelekin]

I see. I do think I agree with the TT side of the debate on this one, losing both legs certainly seems like it should destroy you. If it doesn't destroy you, the question is what does it do?

More on topic with armor, i'd say i'm willing to try more armor simply because I don't think getting one shot by a barrage of weaponry from one teeny tiny slip up is fun. Certainly, it would be, indeed, my fault and can be seen to be a lack of skill.

But it just seems like an iron grip on the more lightly armored mechs, they may have mobility to mitigate this but the miss chance of table top isn't in people aiming a joy stick, and Zephram's solution of more "sluggish" mech controls does sound like one solution, but in the end i'm simply willing to see what will be done.

[Zakatak]

I would also like to point out that "having lots of armor" isn't what made MW4 the laughing stock of Mechwarrior and neither is it what defined the game. There were plenty of other factors, mainly lack of atmosphere or immersiveness, the cartoony color palette and lackluster models, pinpoint accurate weapons, limiting mechlab.

Just because MWO has a one or two factors in common with MW4 doesn't mean it will be MW4.

Edited by Zakatak, 18 May 2012 - 10:41 PM.

[Arikiel]

Ever play a game of TT where your Lance's main Assault Mech was effectively taken out in the very first round of fire by a lucky CT crit which causes you to fall down, then writhe in agony as you spend the rest of the battle trying to stand up, essentially making the rest of the battle one sided without your biggest unit and futile for your team? Do you really want that experience in MW:O where you're piloting a single Mech and happen to be that unlucky pilot? Different platforms require different adjustments to run smoothly.

[Zelekin]

And SuomiWarder, I don't know what thread you're reading, but dice and RNG have at least been mentioned in a variety of posts. Unless you are referring to a very specific mechanics set.


EDIT: My silliness is making me say that while I think you did mess up in that part of your assumption, the rest of your post is reasonable.

Edited by Zelekin, 18 May 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[trycksh0t]

SuomiWarder, on 18 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Okay people, after scanning the various posts I think everyone missed an important game design issue here.

The TT rules for weapon damage, shots and armor were made on the assumption of a certain number of hit happening per use of the weapon. This used a bell curbe 2d6 roll with a target number of around 6 to 8 being common. With 2d6 the odds of rolling less than six are about 28%. So with the needed to hit number varying with range and pilot skill, let's be generous for attackers and assume the usual miss rate is maybe 35% at moderate ranges.

That means there is a free 35% armor bonus built in compared to weapon damage that will be caused. Or put another way, the designers expect at least 35% of your shots to miss and cause 0 damage. Even with LRMs, that home in on targets.

In actual computer game play, players do much better at hitting a 'Mech at medium ranges than a 35% miss rate. Not to mention that some of a locked LRM shot almost always hit regardless of player skill.

Thus one would expect a player controlled computer game version to up the armor values simply to try to "match" the damage probability a 'Mech would expect to take in the TT game. Therefor upping armor does not somehow destroy the integrity of the overall BattleTech experience but instead strives to achieve parity with the expected outcomes (within reason of course, a +400% armor boost is obviously beyond what the TT odds of missing would call for).

That is, possibly, the most well thought out statement I've seen in this thread so far. I commend you, sir, on your level headed and well-thought arguments behind possible justification of increased armor levels. Not only will I throw you a like, I'm going to point at this post as an example of "Now, that's how you make a point."

[Zephram Zaphod]

Targeting should be more sluggish in my opinion. These are Battlemech's not Gundam. They are BattleMechs not Destroids or Variable Fighters so they shouldn't be as responsive as a mouse pull.

There is also the fact that range is a factor in TT but there are other factors. Movement for example or intervening trees and other terrain elements as well as the movement of your target. If they were truly trying to retain a TT feel then it would be harder to hit than it apparently is according to the video's the targeting reticule should be less responsive. This would be good for the immersion factor as well in my opinion and greatly differentiate skill levels amongst pilots.

Once targeting doesn't become point and click interface (how boring is that?) then armor doesn't need to be doubled anymore, ammo can return to normal values, and all is well with the world for everyone.

[Azantia]

trycksh0t, on 18 May 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

That is, possibly, the most well thought out statement I've seen in this thread so far. I commend you, sir, on your level headed and well-thought arguments behind possible justification of increased armor levels. Not only will I throw you a like, I'm going to point at this post as an example of "Now, that's how you make a point."

35% armor bonus is NOT double armor.

I would be much more amenable to a 35 or even 50% armor bonus, but 100% bonus is crazy.

but its clear that the vast majority of people posting here want double armor. I take that to mean alot of things, but I will keep that to myself, I dont want my opinions to rub off in an unhealthy way on my in-game unit.

suffice to say, me and "people" in the world, generally do not see eye to eye, why should this be any different.

Double armor or no, I receive the same handicap, so I guess while annoying, it just means, as someone said "more well placed shots" to take someone down. still disappointed but more disappointed in the community support for this idea now than the original disappointment with the system. Good luck to all, I will see you on the battlefield.

Edited by Azantia, 18 May 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Zelekin]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

35% armor bonus is NOT double armor.

I would be much more amenable to a 35 or even 50% armor bonus, but 100% bonus is crazy.

Doesn't seem that he said it was doubled, just that it was increased.

EDIT: unless you are, in a way, declaring your position and declaiming the current model of double armor. Sorry, may have misinterpreted your post as you misinterpreting his post. ha.

Edited by Zelekin, 18 May 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Gauge]

I've never been a TT player, but the reactions to the possible doubling of armor values seem crazy to me... I just don't understand.
So even if we use the straight tabletop math, and an Atlas will take 16 PPC hits to the center torso to go down... why is that inherently bad? Is it because that's the improper number of hits it takes in the lore for it to be destroyed?

Other than that, I can't think of why else it's such a big deal... twice as many shots to kill an Atlas, but it's twice as many shots to kill everything, so it really shouldn't change much of anything except to lengthen a fight. How does it skew the game towards heavies and assaults? They take twice as many hits to kill, but so do you, so if you're good, you can stay alive twice as long, which still lets you take them out with the same margin of error.

Someone mentioned that a turn in the tabletop game is about 10 seconds of 'real world' battle time passing. But how many turns does a game go for? Because if it's 30 or less, that means we're talking about matches of under 5minutes... which don't sound terribly satisfying to me...