Jump to content

Table Top Vs Online


373 replies to this topic

Poll: TT VS Online (599 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the game try to balance more towards the tabletop version

  1. Yes (246 votes [41.07%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.07%

  2. No (286 votes [47.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.75%

  3. It is (44 votes [7.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.35%

  4. Whats the tabletop version (23 votes [3.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.84%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#141 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 05:48 PM

View PostRyolacap, on 30 December 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

What you want has no bearing on the basic math in the game, it could all still be accomplished without breaking the basic mechanics. What some don't seem to understand, you can keep the core rules and variables in the game and change the rules and variables that effect the core WITHOUT making a single change to the core. Make changes to the things you are adding NOT the things that are already there.


Math is not magic. You cannot simply say "because math!" and wave away all the information you have been given (and have ignored) about why the game is the way it is today. Your criterion for what to keep is arbitrary. There is no reason to keep the specific damage numbers and discard rates of fire (rather than the converse) save your personal, aesthetic preferences. You're solidly in the minority of whatever proportion of people care enough to vote on this poll for a reason. You're not convincing people because your arguments are not convincing - not because they're "ignorant," as you claimed on the last page. By the way, the way ECM works in MWO is very close to the way it works in tabletop - if you're using the correct rules for the equivalent game format,which I have never seen a book-waver do.

View PostFelix, on 30 December 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Really, I know that we cant keep the tabletop as a 1:1 transfer due to times, our being better shots with our weapons and the like.

But PGI really should START with the tabletop as a 1:1 translation and then balance the item they include from there.


PGI agrees with you! That's exactly what they did - started alpha testing with 1:1 conversions whenever possible and then started tweaking from there. The current state of the game is not, as some of the book-wavers will tell you, a totally arbitrary and unnecessary decision which PGI made by way of "trying to be creative" (exact quote) that ended up ruining a "proven money-maker." (also an exact quote.)

Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 05:51 PM.


#142 Felix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 656 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:03 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 30 December 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

PGI agrees with you! That's exactly what they did - started alpha testing with 1:1 conversions whenever possible and then started tweaking from there. The current state of the game is not, as some of the book-wavers will tell you, a totally arbitrary and unnecessary decision which PGI made by way of "trying to be creative" (exact quote) that ended up ruining a "proven money-maker." (also an exact quote.)


They should have kept on with that, the most recent additions (mainly Double Heat sinks and ECM) have no basis for how they worked in Tabletop at all.

#143 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:17 PM

View PostRyolacap, on 30 December 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Accepting half of a game engine and rejecting the other half causes issues, which it obviously has. The rules as there, the balance is there, and has exsisted for 30+ years. Turn based games are based on real time events. Time, in turn based games, typically have zero influence. Time is obviously also in a real time game, but just because the segments of time don't match it does not mean you throw a huge portion of rules out the window. Instead wouldn't make sense to adjust the rules that are added as opposed to messing with rules that have worked for 30+ years.


MWO has been around for 30+ years? Oh I see what you are saying, you are saying that this is computertop. The only thing that changed is the table turned into a computer! But the computer is on a table, and there's multiple computers/tables. The world has become a confusing place.

Edited by Indoorsman, 30 December 2012 - 06:18 PM.


#144 Ryolacap

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 184 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:26 PM

View PostFelix, on 30 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:


They should have kept on with that, the most recent additions (mainly Double Heat sinks and ECM) have no basis for how they worked in Tabletop at all.


Yes, and just because pgi said well we tried does not mean they thought of every way or gave every avenue a try. It can be done. The vote is pretty darn even, especially when you consider most don't actually know what is being said. Most who have commented on their vote for no have been way off on the reasons for following the bt rule for a bt game. Sorry but yes, if you vote no because you want cool effects, no dice rolling or you wouldnt want 10 second rounds then yes, you are ignorant (it's not an insult. Look it up)

It's funny how people are starting to realize, hey wait this is great but.....


All these problems wouldn't exist otherwise....

The point ends up being; port the rule book or don't but ultimately the end result will be the long way around the mechanics you initially ignored

Edited by Ryolacap, 30 December 2012 - 06:51 PM.


#145 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 30 December 2012 - 06:55 PM

View PostRyolacap, on 30 December 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

The vote is pretty darn even, especially when you consider most don't actually know what is being said. Most who have commented on their vote for no have been way off on the reasons for following the bt rule for a bt game. Sorry but yes, if you vote no because you want cool effects, no dice rolling or you wouldnt want 10 second rounds then yes, you are ignorant (it's not an insult. Look it up)


So the OP is saying that the votes are pretty darn even because us no voters don't know how to vote right. Can we get a poll going on if we know how to vote properly? Pretty sure we can assume that whatever % of the no voters are ignorant, an equal amount of yes voters are ignorant too. The results when I posted showed ~50% more no votes than yes.

#146 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 07:10 PM

View PostFelix, on 30 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:


They should have kept on with that, the most recent additions (mainly Double Heat sinks and ECM) have no basis for how they worked in Tabletop at all.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. Certainly double heat sinks have been tweaked away from strict adherence to tabletop, but ECM functionality is very close to the tabletop rules - if you're using the correct rules, that is. The Battletech Tactical Handbook contains rules for double blind combat: exactly the format we're using here, however the rules get adapted. In those rules, ECM does indeed interfere with sensor detection and lock-on weapons. Certainly, the function is not exact (you can't dumbfire streaks for example,) but given the implementation of LRMS, it works very well and in the same role it's intended to fill in the tabletop game.

View PostIndoorsman, on 30 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

So the OP is saying that the votes are pretty darn even because us no voters don't know how to vote right. Can we get a poll going on if we know how to vote properly? Pretty sure we can assume that whatever % of the no voters are ignorant, an equal amount of yes voters are ignorant too. The results when I posted showed ~50% more no votes than yes.

Actually, if you look at his skewed poll (why is there an "it is" option in an either-or question? If you think it's already balanced according to the tabletop, you'd answer "no" to the poll question, and if you don't care, you probably don't think action needs to be taken) he's solidly in the minority. Only 35% of respondents actually voted with him - that's not very strong, and not a strong sample to determine overall player opinion anyway. That's because the poll by its very nature selects for those of us who care about the issue one way or another. The only strong conclusion we can draw from this poll is that only a small number of people view the ruleset from a different Battletech game to be authoritative for this Battletech game.

#147 Felix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 656 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 07:19 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 30 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I'm afraid you're wrong there. Certainly double heat sinks have been tweaked away from strict adherence to tabletop, but ECM functionality is very close to the tabletop rules - if you're using the correct rules, that is. The Battletech Tactical Handbook contains rules for double blind combat: exactly the format we're using here, however the rules get adapted. In those rules, ECM does indeed interfere with sensor detection and lock-on weapons. Certainly, the function is not exact (you can't dumbfire streaks for example,) but given the implementation of LRMS, it works very well and in the same role it's intended to fill in the tabletop game.


Bull.

I use doubleblind rules when I play and I promise you I have never had a mech have ANY problem blasting an enemy mech he could see.

Want to take away target sharing? thats fine, Artemis controls? Golden, thats what its supposed to do. But when I can stare at a mech and unable to get a lock at all or target it? You just went into a pants on head tard mode because NO WHERE in ECM does it do that.

#148 Ryolacap

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 184 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 08:00 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 30 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:


That's because the poll by its very nature selects for those of us who care about the issue one way or another. The only strong conclusion we can draw from this poll is that only a small number of people view the ruleset from a different Battletech game to be authoritative for this Battletech game.
.

So now the rules to battle tech are not the rules to battle tech, and you don't know what ignorance means hmmm...

I actually think its because you are getting too specific and are hung up on the little tid bits like ECM specifics, where I am talking basic core game mechanics.


How in the world is a yes, no, it is, or I have no clue even close to being skewed.

I am saying 100 people 250 1/3 are looking at more than just the idea of a 10 second round, that they understand the idea that a PPC ported directly from the game or AC20 ported directly from the game, are not cohesive, when you ignore the other mechanics around the reason such values were given are ignored. They are not cohesive, proven by the constant need to change values, so there is absolutely no argument, no stance against this fact. A fact caused by mucking around with the rules in the first place. It's a fact, there is no way you can argue otherwise, because you are proven wrong everytime they change a value they think is out of balance, it's a fact. Please continue to try to say otherwise so you can once again be proven wrong again when they change the heat of PPCs, (due to screwing with heat sinks) which will inheritly decrease the value of balistics even more, so next be looking for those values to change.


Every comment on voting no has been about the abstract time in a round or other mechanics not intrisic to the game, so I can only presume that most vote no because of not understanding, we are not talking about shooting weapons every ten seconds or rolling dice.
We are talking about values that blow up overheated trial mechs, makes balistics not worth the tonnage and the srm6 cat a alpha shot monster (I've 1 shotted commando to where only their legs were left)

Edited by Ryolacap, 30 December 2012 - 08:50 PM.


#149 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:33 PM

There are about 150 posts in this thread; the vast majority of them are repeat posters: you, me, Merc, Tigre, Ridcully, and a few others. You don't have enough data to make any definitive conclusions from that small a sample, given your questionable choice of responses and the self-selected nature of the respondents. Furthermore, I've barely touched on the ten-second turn, instead offering you concrete reasoning which you have been unable to fairly refute.

Ignorance is not disagreeing with you; ignorance is not knowing how things work - things like statistics and logic.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 09:56 PM.


#150 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

Your choice of possible responses, inadvertently or otherwise, put all the people who agreed with you in one category, and spread out the ones who didn't agree with you into three others. Whether or not you intended to do so, you diluted the data that contravened your opinion - and still got an overwhelming majority of "no" votes. Now you continue to ignore objections for which I can only assume you have no good answers in order to characterize the mass of countervailing opinion as being "ignorant" because a few people used the 10-second "canon" turn as an example. I can understand why you would prefer to focus on refuting this argument, but it is hardly the strongest objection that has been raised against you.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 09:54 PM.


#151 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

View PostFelix, on 30 December 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:


Bull.

I use doubleblind rules when I play and I promise you I have never had a mech have ANY problem blasting an enemy mech he could see.

Want to take away target sharing? thats fine, Artemis controls? Golden, thats what its supposed to do. But when I can stare at a mech and unable to get a lock at all or target it? You just went into a pants on head tard mode because NO WHERE in ECM does it do that.

Go back to your rulebook. Take a nice, deep, cleansing breath. READ it. Note that ECM interferes with lockon weapons, which in MWO includes LRMS (I covered that, if you look at what you quoted;) remember that it makes it hard to get a lock with most non-visual sensors. Next, take note that you can still manually target and shoot at ECM covered 'mechs with weapons that do lock on in MWO. The only differences in general ECM function in this regard is that lock-on weapons cannot be dumbfired under ECM - the system is still interfering with nonvisual sensors, including those linked to your tracking and target analysis software. You may now smack your forehead, say "oh!" or "I see!" or otherwise reconsider your opinion.Thank you. ;)

Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 10:11 PM.


#152 Felix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 656 posts

Posted 30 December 2012 - 10:26 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 30 December 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Go back to your rulebook. Take a nice, deep, cleansing breath. READ it. Note that ECM interferes with lockon weapons, which in MWO includes LRMS (I covered that, if you look at what you quoted;) remember that it makes it hard to get a lock with most non-visual sensors. Next, take note that you can still manually target and shoot at ECM covered 'mechs with weapons that do lock on in MWO. The only differences in general ECM function in this regard is that lock-on weapons cannot be dumbfired under ECM - the system is still interfering with nonvisual sensors, including those linked to your tracking and target analysis software. You may now smack your forehead, say "oh!" or "I see!" or otherwise reconsider your opinion.Thank you. ;)


Except (Guardian) ECM has never given lock on weapons problems other than the more advanced systems like Artemis, others like LRMs, and Streak SRMs still work perfectly fine in real battletech (which I classify MWO at this moment about as high as I classify MechAssault). But sure, lets say it makes it hard, but it never, ever, made it impossible like the MWO ECM does.

As I said, they could have made (Guardian) ECM work just fine under the current rules, if they wanted to make it a bit more powerful they could have increased lock on times, but the way they have it right now is bumbfuck-tarded. I prefer to see the systems fixed and the gamer made fun for more than one group of players personally, but if you just wanna nod your head along with whatever PGI throws into the game, thats on you.

#153 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,303 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:28 PM

OK, one more time. Guardian systems interfere with non-visual sensor lock-on, which in MWO is required to use LRMS and Streaks. Therefore, it blocks those weapon systems - the deviations you are... complaining... about are with those missile systems, not ECM itself. You're right that ECM never made actually locking on impossible, but neither does this ECM - it simply increases the difficulty by reducing the detection range. It's a powerful system, to be sure, and slightly altered from the tabletop - but it's balanced against its counter, and additional problems with the system stem from other things, such as the netcode.

Making statements to the effect of how if only they'd try the "real rules" it would work ever so well simply ring false. The ECM system we have is a direct result of small changes made to other systems (LRMs always homed, but they didn't always all hit, or hit at all; the targetting systems were imprecise - even after the recovery of a full Star League tech base.) You're using a rulebook that doesn't really apply here to beat people over the head, and it's not going to work. If you dislike the way ECM works in this game, then give reasons why you believe it's not working for this game. Anything else borders on an exercise in mental illness.

Heck, folks aren't even citing the right rulebook. There are multiple rulesets for BattleTech to deal with different situations:

"In contrast to playing [regular] BattleTech, where decisions such as weapons fire and heat management have been generalized, the 'Mech duel system makes the MechWarrior "ride the red" and drive his BattleMech harder and faster than ever before." -Solaris VII Gamemaster's Book

This reference is "canonical," and tells us a couple of things: first, that the BattleTech rules from the core game are generalizations; and second, that a "canonical" ruleset does exist for the kind of game we're playing, where MechWarriors are making second-by-second decisions. These rules contain many things that should be familiar to players of MWO, including targeting interlock circuits and variable weapon delays. Heat is also much more of a factor in this ruleset, often spiking to dangerous levels when high-heat weapons are fired - causing the Mechwarrior to wait before being able to safely fire the weapon again. That should sound very familiar.

This last bit is a little beside your point, I know - I bring it up only to underscore the concept that book-wavers' choices of which rulebook to hit people with is often arbitrarily based on aesthetic preferences. Your reasoning doesn't hold up even aside from these rules, for reasons which have been explained in this and other posts - and not refuted. The way ECM works now is a reasonable counter to LRMS. It is not broken, it is not "********," and it has a balanced counter in TAG. The only remaining problems with ECM concern the near-invulnerability of light 'mechs abusing lag shields, which PGI hopes to have fixed sometime in the coming month.

Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 11:37 PM.


#154 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:36 AM

View PostRyolacap, on 30 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

How in the world is a yes, no, it is, or I have no clue even close to being skewed.


Because it shouldn't be a yes or no question in the first place. It should be like this other poll of the same question in disguise: http://mwomercs.com/...bletop-and-mwo/

Of 44 voters:
14(31.8%) MWO should be more like TT.
7(15.9%) MWO should be less like TT.
23(52.3%) MWO is fine as is.

Of the people that voted as playing TT there were 8 that said make MWO more like TT, 1 that said make it less like TT and 12 that said MWO is fine as is.

Both this poll and my ninja poll say the same thing, over half the voters like the feel of the game as is. Of the people who want change, more want it to be more like TT than less like TT. A majority of the forum disagrees with you!

#155 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:57 AM

I ask again - what in terms of 3D combat or real time has changed that a weapon that dealt 10 damage over 10 seconds suddenly needs to deal 20 heat more in 10 seconds to deal 30 damage, while another weapon that dealt 15 damage over 10 seconds only produces 1.5 heat more in 10 seconds to deal 37.5 damage?

Explain it to me.

#156 BerryChunks

    Dezgra

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:02 AM

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Here is an issue I have with most people's reaction to holding on to TT rules. They don't understand the Table Top game and so make assumptions about it, usually incorrect assumptions. To address specific arguments against working closer to TT.

1. "To slow. This is a FPS and so weapon fire rates can't be the same as a Turn in TT is 10 seconds."

It could very much work, what is lacking is imagination. Everyone assumes that in that 10 seconds each mech fired each weapon once. So the assumption is 1 bullet came out of a machine gun every 10 seconds? Silly when you think about it that way, right? What people need to understand is that you don't slavishly keep Damage, heat, ammo the same and then change rate of fire. That is just silly.

Instead PGI should have kept it so that weapons average out to TT values over that 10 seconds. I said it in closed Beta, I will say it again.

AC 20 - RoF 5 seconds - Heat 3.5 - Dam. 10 (double amount of "Shots" from a ton)

Med Laser - RoF None (Depress button turns beam on). 10 seconds of firing does 5 damage and generates 3 heat.

PPC - RoF 5 seconds - Heat 4.5 - Dam 5

Now your armor doesn't have to be doubled since values are still the same as TT. In addition forcing weapons to spread damage out between shots means 20 damage won't go to one section from an AC 20 unless they are very good shots. Notice we are still rewarding aiming skills.

2. "You can't randomize shooting, it removes the skill."

No it doesn't. You don't even have to randomize heavily, but you make certain weapon mounts work better than others for convergence. Many, many, many, modern games use randomization to determine where a weapon shoots. Hell, another mech game Hawken does. The longer you depress the firing button the more random it gets.

I am currently playing Borderlands 2 on a regular basis and having recoil drive my gun off target and making my shots less accurate adds a good deal to the game. The weapons are "balanced" by this. I have a character with a rotary barreled mini-gun style rifle with 140 ammo capacity. That gun is perfect for chewing up large heavy health targets because the accuracy isn't so much needed as it continues to fire but the amount of shots it can put out is important. The firing circle goes from pencil eraser sized up to drinking glass sized.

Other weapons work great in bursts. Using that we can "randomize" without using dice. This makes continuous pinpoint shots less likely as bullets and beams sway off target from one moving weapon platform to the other.

3. "TT doesn't properly reflect physics or a FPS experience."

No, but it actually does a better job of roughly representing it than any MW computer game so far. Many of you seem to forget that the mech you are driving around should be bouncing you all over the place. I have yet to see a game that would properly "jiggle" the reticle/cockpit/pilot around. The reason behind the Mechwarrior mythos is that the battlemechs can go where normal combat vehicles can't and act in ways they can't.

What we get in all MW games is a tank with extra turrets. This is done for simplicity and I understand, but I REALLY wish the would add the shake of running around in a giant mecha in. If running really wrecked someone's aim the way it does in TT you would require a LOT more skill to pop those shots into the CT of even an Atlas. Standing still makes you a better target but also gives you easier shots.

Instead we all have super shocks that make our ride smooth and our reticle doesn't bounce unless we step on a slight bit of terrain. This is yet another thing that gives us "Super Aim" and makes armor values ridiculous compared to the weapon damages.

4. "Why not just go play TT if you like TT that much."

I do! There are, however, times when I want to do more than just look down at my forces on the table. I want to view it from the cockpit. I still want it to be Mechwarrior though, and not Hawken/Gundam/Shogo. I want my mechs falling apart because 3 generations or more have used them in battle. I want gritty teeth shaking, "Oh no... my heat is too high!" combat. MWO comes close but still lacks a few things.

5. "If they followed TT it would be unbalanced."

I'll point out again. If they followed TT:

* When you ran your aim would be off a bit, so Jenners circling you at 140 KPH would have a hard time hitting you just like you would have a have a hard time hitting them.

* Instead of just blowing you up, heat would affect your Reticle and movement speed. Your accuracy would degrade as you built up more and more heat and your mech systems started to fail under the stress so heat management would be even more important.

* Weapons would be fairly accurate, but not pinpoint accurate. Boating 10 of something would not be any better than firing 10 times with 1 of the same weapons. RNG would not determine if you hit or miss, but might determine how far a shot drifted OR cockpit shake and non-ultra smooth ride would make it harder to hold your reticle on target.

* ECM would not stop LRMs from direct firing all by their lonesome, nor would it stop Streaks from firing, they just wouldn't "Lock On". ECM wouldn't "hide" mechs from "radar"

* Physical attacks would prevent mechs from wanting to "hug" bigger mechs in an attempt to avoid their fire.

*Mechs could fire behind them with backward mounted weapons or "flip arms" if they lacked lower actuators to bring those weapons to fire upon those that are behind them.

* A BV system would determine what types of mechs you faced based off of what mechs were on your side and the skill of who was piloting them.

* Off board artillery could called in on "clumps" of mechs making the "blob up and FF" "tactic" less desirable as well as slow heavily armored mechs.


Some of these probably just haven't arrived like Physical Attacks/Knockdown and artillery, but others are noticeably lacking and would help balanced certain things out without having to go, "Lets give someone boating more heat for no logical reason. ". Sticking "closer" to TT values and rules weeds out some of the issues and causes others, but the TT rules have a lot of balance from the years of playing and it seems silly to throw those out because, "Those don't work in a sim based off of them."

6. "The rules don't matter as long as the flavor is there."

Sorry, the flavor is a direct result of those rules. That flavor came from those core rules. That is the reason certain things were written the way they are. The rules were written and then the reasons for them explained away in the mythos/flavor/fluff/canon. Why can't a battlemech do X? Because it is a machine that has been through countless battles and been patched together by technicians that only basically understand how it works... which means the rules don't let you and that is our excuse for that. :angry:

I don't care if you change the AC 20. I do care if you make a Large Laser do more damage than an AC 20. I do care if you make the AC 20 not require ammo. Just because I say I want things close to TT doesn't mean I am going to force you all to fire once every 10 seconds and have virtual dice popping up on screen. It means I want a simulation where the AC 20 is the premier short range, big damage, weapon. It means I want a simulation where "Fire Support" means something as does "Recon Lance". NOT "Big stompy robots FPS". Because I can mod the skins in CoD or some other game engine and have "Big stompy robots FPS". without having Mechwarrior/Battletech easily enough.


Mother of god... A sensible post about damage values /10 seconds rules and how to apply it in a real time environment. LOL I cant believe you played Shogo too. That thing was intense. Tsunami 2265 was also pretty ridiculous. Fun, but ridiculous.

I feel that I'd like TT brought to life in MWO, not just TTONLINE. Some things will need to change, in order to make the game great. Some things cant translate, so we must invent or recreate.

Your fair points about how weapon systems behave for fast moving targets and attackers is a good one.

I'd like to bring up an issue about the hardpoint system at this time. It allows boating in a way that is antithetical to Battletech. The two with the biggest Issue that Im aware of is the Awesome (considered lackluster), and the dragon (not even a priority target). They have hardpoints that more or less realistically reflect their designs. Dragon has 2 in the arm, 1 shoulder energy, 1 right arm energy. Awesome has 1 head, 2 shoulder, 1 arm, and 3 missile left torso (8V). Now, ridiculously, I can stuff 3 LRM 15's in that torso area, which breaks with the design of the unit and the concept of mechs having a few weapons. However, the hardpoint in the arm limiting to 1 PPC or 1 laser or whatever, is actually correct. Same goes for dragon. The hardpoints correlate to the proper number of weapons the mech should have, and how it balances dropping sizes in weapons in some areas to get a bigger weapon in another area.

With the hardpoint system, however, CERTAIN mechs have a huge advantage, and can boat like mad, stocking up on huge numbers of weapons that are also the most efficient (im looking at you LRM20's and Medium lasers).

The hardpoints here do not accurately reflect the mechs design. They have too many in the wrong places, or just in general.

IF hardpoints were balanced against the designs of stock mechs, boating wouldnt be an issue, DHS could be unnerfed, and Ravens wouldnt be running dual AC5s and 4 medium lasers using a Lag shield to keep themselves alive with no armor allocated on them at all.

people wouldn't be able to load 6 SRMs on a catapult and XL speed engine around getting cheesy easy kills.

Edited by BerryChunks, 31 December 2012 - 03:14 AM.


#157 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,213 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:09 AM

I just want the Double Ammo and really Double Heat Sinks.

#158 Chrithu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,601 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:42 AM

View PostPht, on 26 December 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

It seems the to-hit modifiers for the individual weapons and the hit-tables have not been implemented and that has led to drastic consequences for combat (dual reticles, doubled armor, weapons damage vs armor ratios out of whack, etc).

Namely, these two mechanics describe the combat capability of the 'Mechs. Kinda hard to make a game that simulates combat in a BTUniverse Mech... without simulating the 'Mechs combat performance... it's ability to get its weapons aligned to hit the target that it's mechwarrior is indicating with his reticule on the hud in the cockpit.



Waaaaaiiiit!! Are you suggesting to have dice rolls decide wether I hit or not? I hope not. If so pls, be so kind to move over to MWTactics I am sure they have stuff of that kind over there.

Other than that I am pretty sure to have read that there indeed is a mechanism that has the weapons need time to align so their "projectiles" paths cross at the target currently under the reticle there is just noo visual feedback yet that would tell the pilot if the weapons are aligned or not. At least I've read that this time was changed for specific weapons on various patches. I'd have to look that up.

#159 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:49 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 31 December 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

I ask again - what in terms of 3D combat or real time has changed that a weapon that dealt 10 damage over 10 seconds suddenly needs to deal 20 heat more in 10 seconds to deal 30 damage, while another weapon that dealt 15 damage over 10 seconds only produces 1.5 heat more in 10 seconds to deal 37.5 damage?

Explain it to me.


It will be so nice when they take away the Gauss vs PPC argument from you guys. Aren't they attempting to do that this next patch?

#160 Shootanoob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 248 posts
  • Locationin a Jenner right behind you

Posted 31 December 2012 - 04:05 AM

Why does an eagle fly better than a rock? Because a bird is no rock, that's why.

Want to say: you can try all you want, but one is TT and the other a MMO - they're just different. I guess, you can try to some point to make them feel more or less the same, and that's what the game does for me already. But make them exactly the same, well, I think that's plain impossible.

Edited by BigPuma, 31 December 2012 - 04:06 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users