310 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

So then lasers no longer have infinite range then or just lose damage per range a lot faster? Do ballistics still travel past max range then drop?

Edited by ManDaisy, 22 May 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[Bryan Ekman]

ManDaisy, on 22 May 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

So then lasers no longer have infinite range then or just lose damage per range a lot faster? Do ballistics still travel past max range then drop?

Basically true.

[Pht]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 May 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

...Since so many of the TT rules are designed to work around simulating skill and randomness...

The only stuff representing any "human skills" are the piloting/gunnery rolls.

All of the rest of them (granted, I can't recall every single one, but I've seen nearly every single one at some time or another) are there to represent things *other* than the pilot or the pilot's skills and those that impact a MW video game *should* make it over, if possible, in some form, if time and resource constraints allow for it. These other rules simulate how the 'mech performs, how it interacts with the environment, and other such assorted things.

Quote

we end up with a situation where there is no 1:1 mapping of damage/hit points from TT to live simulation.

Why? ... because the turn-based system has virtually no effect on the weapons damage/armor/damage resolution systems; the values can be very easily used in real-time.

Quote

Using the TT 100% does not make for a fun or balanced live simulation game.

If you mean by this, using the exact form of the rules from the TT, sure, I agree with you 1000%.

However, this seems more and more to mean "ignoring what those rules contain for (unexpressed or possibly arbitrary? Who knows but you, the developers?) unknown reasons."

Quote

... We're still balancing everything.

You're wasting man hours and money on something you didn't even have to do.

Quote

Right now we are running 2X Internal Structure and Armor.

I can only imagine the balancing nightmare that this has touched off with trying to get the weapons damage set up right so that one class or another of mech or weapon doesn't wind up beng completely useless in the niche it's supposed to fit into in the lore.

Say, does rogaine work? ... and you might want to lay off the salt!

Edited by Pht, 22 May 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[Sassori]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 May 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

While I appreciate the passion here, the intensity needs to be turned down a bit.

From Day 1 our goal was to take the TT rules and create a game that reflects the spirit of those rules. Since so many of the TT rules are designed to work around simulating skill and randomness we end up with a situation where there is no 1:1 mapping of damage/hit points from TT to live simulation.

Using the TT 100% does not make for a fun or balanced live simulation game.

The final numbers are not in yet on damage or hit points (armor/internal structure). We're still balancing everything. Right now we are running 2X Internal Structure and Armor.

Here's my person OP on the state of the game.

The game feels good and mostly balanced. Mechs die fast or slow, depending on the number of players, and the skill present on the battlefield. I've seen 5 second engagements, and 2 minute engagements. Some lucky shots, a LOT of skilled shots. Missiles need some love, mostly in the accuracy department. All beam/projectile weapons just received a nerf via adoption of true TT ranges. This has a major impact on the small laser boats that are floating around FNF Beta.

Well at least range has been toned down, small laser boats were viable? That's kind of wierd... their range is miniscule. Glad to see that true range adoption happened in any case.

As for the Armor, I still believe you're going about trying to balance it backwards. Trying to balance for pin point accuracy in battle tech is a fools errand imho but it's your game. It's just a shame because pin point accuracy inevitably leads to boating which leads to a whole host of other problems which leads to having to adjust weapon damages, armor ratings, etc...

So much hassle could be avoided.

[Kudzu]

TheVirus, on 22 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

If you want a game of luck stick to your dice rolling, decent gamers want to hit what they fire at.

Go talk to some professional gamblers (or hop on megamek and find some of the top players on the campaign servers) then get back to me about how much they depend on luck.

Quote

Imagine you're 1 vs 1 some guy to win a match for your team, both crit and looking for a kill shot. You fire dead CT but you miss (because of your silly lucky hits idea), he fires seconds later and kills you. Can you imagine how frustrating that would be?

I'm more imagining how everythings going to look after people get a dozen games under their belts and no one misses, ever... and how that will immediately make any mech that relies on sp[eed for protection absolutely useless.

Quote

It turns a game of skill into pure luck. It's plain stupidity.

Pointing and clicking is NOT a game of skill.

Bryan Ekman, on 22 May 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Using the TT 100% does not make for a fun or balanced live simulation game.

No one is asking for that, but when you leave out one of the major factors from the TT (missing/weapon spread) you shouldn't be surprised that you have to constantly adjust every other setting to try to make up for it.

How long did it take, on average, for people playing in the office to adjust to waiting an extra second or two for the convergence to line up?

Edited by Kudzu, 22 May 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[Riin Suul]

Pht, on 22 May 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

snip

You're wasting man hours and money on something you didn't even have to do.

I can only imagine the balancing nightmare that this has touched off with trying to get the weapons damage set up right so that one class or another of mech or weapon doesn't wind up beng completely useless in the niche it's supposed to fit into in the lore.

snip

um... they dont need to balance? TT rules probably don't fit a video game terribly well in many cases...

also... if they double ammo amounts, and double armor amounts, there is no problem with weapons damage, it just takes longer to kill something... for EVERYONE, with EVERY mech, and EVERY weapon, this is not a balance issue, it is a design choice

[Sassori]

Riin Suul, on 22 May 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

um... they dont need to balance? TT rules probably don't fit a video game terribly well in many cases...

also... if they double ammo amounts, and double armor amounts, there is no problem with weapons damage, it just takes longer to kill something... for EVERYONE, with EVERY mech, and EVERY weapon, this is not a balance issue, it is a design choice

No it doesn't. It takes a Jenner firing into your back the exact same amount of shots to kill you with double armor as it does with normal armor: 1-2 shots. 4 Medium Lasers into your rear will destroy you even with double rear armor. Once the armors gone you start losing gyro and engine.

[Pht]

TheVirus, on 22 May 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

If you want a game of luck stick to your dice rolling, decent gamers want to hit what they fire at.

... this is what we get when one side or both sides talk past each other.

Virtually NOBODY wants MW to be purely a game of luck; I've been in the MW scene for a decade and STILL haven't seen someone who wants this.

I think what's not understood is that those things OTHER than the piloting and gunnery stuff in the TT represent the performance capabilities of the battlemechs and how they interact with each other and their environment... they also happen to include how well the 'Mech can handle the weapons mounted to it - how well the 'mech can hit what the pilot is indicating with the reticule. It's the 'mech that does the actual calculations and physical aiming, not the pilot; and because the 'mechs are built and programmed to NOT be allowed to choose targets with the reticule OR track them with the reticule, that the 'mech does the actual calculations and aiming to hit what's indicated does NOT equate to a point-click-forget style of gameplay.

Understanding serves us better than letting our emotions run away with us...

[Kudzu]

Christopher Dayson, on 22 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

As for the Armor, I still believe you're going about trying to balance it backwards. Trying to balance for pin point accuracy in battle tech is a fools errand imho but it's your game. It's just a shame because pin point accuracy inevitably leads to boating which leads to a whole host of other problems which leads to having to adjust weapon damages, armor ratings, etc...

So much hassle could be avoided.

It's almost like several of us pointed out this exact problem 7 months ago...
http://mwomercs.com/...__hl__expanding

[Calvin Vakarian]

Kudzu, on 22 May 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Some of us want the game to actually resemble Battletech rather than a point and click Zynga game. Not having pinpoint accuracy is a part of BT, much like force powers are a part of being a Jedi or warp drives are a part of Star Trek.

Quick edit:
You would be amazed at how many of the problems past MW games had that would disappear once you remove pinpoint accuracy.

Strange, I thought this game was called Mechwarrior Online, not Battletech Online. You people really need to deal with the fact that tabletop rules do not mesh very well with a first person shooter perspective.

Kudzu, on 22 May 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Pointing and clicking is NOT a game of skill.

Neither is a game that depends on the randomness of a dice roll.

Christopher Dayson, on 22 May 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

No it doesn't. It takes a Jenner firing into your back the exact same amount of shots to kill you with double armor as it does with normal armor: 1-2 shots. 4 Medium Lasers into your rear will destroy you even with double rear armor. Once the armors gone you start losing gyro and engine.

Would you mind explaining to me exactly how 4 medium lasers kill someone with double armor just as fast as if he had normal armor? I think you really need to show your work on this one.

Edited by Calvin Vakarian, 22 May 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Bryan Ekman]

I'm most definitely not interested in engaging in a war over BT vs MW, or people's personal interpretation of the TT rules. As it stands several comments on this page alone make me wonder if they have even played the TT game, as almost everything is simulated using random dice: missile, hit locations, etc etc.

Since this thread is degrading into a pointless carousel of personal opinions that have no bearing on the game itself, I'm electing to use my moderation abilities and locking this thread.

I have made a statement as to how MWO is being developed. You can like it or not, disagree or agree. That is absolutely your right. Arguing endlessly over it with no possible positive outcome is pointless.

Quote

How long did it take, on average, for people playing in the office to adjust to waiting an extra second or two for the convergence to line up?

None, because it's not even in the game yet. I picked on this one (sorry in advance), because it demonstrates how people are using inappropriate and broad assumptions about MWO to support their personal opinions.