373 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 31 December 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

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?

Yes, it would be really nice when that happens. But if it's really just one more point off... It may still not be enough to invalidate the point, my friend.

I am on the other hand looking forward to the Jagermech and trying to see people explain why a mech that used to produce no heat when standing still can now overheat in about 6 seconds. That shall be fun, too.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nauht, on 26 December 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

You have to remember they started with TT values. Everything thats changed since then has been due to gameplay feedback.

They found out early on that TT armour values don't work. No-one liked being shut out of a match in he first 30 secs due to one alpha, hence double armour values. Weapons have been tweaked due to gameplay balance as well. Otherwise we'd be back where we were in CB with the SL reigning supreme. You never needed (and didn't want ) to run the LL now.

The game has evolved for the better for an online competitive environment.

I was a big supporter for sticking to TT in the early days but realise now that sticking to it strictly doesn't work for a FPS game.

Still having trouble fully believing some of their rational, since every other MW game used stock (or similar) armour to damage specs, usually with higher than TT rates of fire, and never seemed to have that problem. MW3 in particular (though it had it's own issues, lol).

That said, I don't mind the armor change, but I don't feel that they ever "balanced" the CORE mech and weapon designs to begin with (elseways, why would LRMs, ACs, PPCs and such STILL be getting tweaked), and THAT, more than anything (speaking game mechanic wise, not netcode, or matchmaking) is where the issue is.

The values and tweaks should have been set for basic 3025 tech as the measuring stick for the game, and THEN, all new tech introduced and balanced around THEM. As it is, since no "standard" was ever achieved in CB, we have been riding a yo-yo of buff/nerf that is completely unneeded, and has left many weapon values and usefulness all out of whack.

PPCs are (along with Gauss) considered the most effective direct fire weapons in canon. Every other version had them working well (even the snowball launcher of MW2). They are one of the most frustrating weapons to this day in MWO, tantalizing you with 2-3 insta-kill cored mechs one match, and then blasting 80 times for nearly no damage in the same exact scenario the next.

Most of the stock designs are worthless in MWO (comparatively speaking to boats and such) and some are downright unplayable. The Marauder considered the "most effective mech of the succession wars" would spend the entire game in heat shutdown. The Warhammer, even worse.

There are still a lot of reasons to enjoy this game, and enjoy it I do, but 90% of the bitching about trial mechs would be made moot if they had simply built the game around balancing and making 3025 tech fully playable, and then added the "advanced" tech as just that... rare, super expensive upgrades, that were mostly balanced by availability, and extreme cost (along with some give and take like XL engines and Gauss being fragile, etc).

[Bishop Steiner]

keith, on 26 December 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

pls wait while i turn my mech 60 degrees to get into a firing arc. next let me get out a dice to see if my hand will press the mouse to hit u in the head. an online FPS game should not be balanced towards a broad game. too many different factors play into it, lag and playerskill are the main ones

I do believe that is a ridiculous argument.

No is is clamoring for 10 second fire cycles, movement arc limits, or "dice rolling". When people clamor for TT, we tend to be referring to basic weapon values and effectiveness. 4 previous iterations of this game managed to largely duplicate TT armor, damage and such, without "being no fun". Some advanced tech like ECM and Active Probes have always translated poorly, and those indeed do need "virtual world" rethinks, as my above post said, most of the core "design elements" off TT should be used as the measuring stick, then tweaked as needed to reflect the differences in fire rates, and then ONLY after the core stuff was "finalized" should new tech and features have been added, and those tweaked around the core tech, not a constant dance of tweaking everything, which then breaks something else requiring it to be retweaked, etc ad infinitum.

[Ryolacap]

You're right I did a poor job on the poll, I did pretty quick. But I think it is more skewed towards the "no's" because I didn't explain what I was taking about well enough. There are still people posting about 10 rounds and dice rolling. Where I talking about what Bishop Steiner says above.

[Liam Neeson]

inb4 how do you even compare a tabletop (turnbased) strategy game with a fps/sim game? Just how.

In anticipation of any counter arguements, I will also say: what about pilot skill? You cant seriously compare a dice roll and to hit% to actually aiming and positioning oneself on a battlefield. Silly TT fans.

[steelblueskies]

Sephlock, on 27 December 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

A few things:

1: My computer is on a table, so this technically is a table top game regardless of any changes they make.

2: Although it would cause a massive pewter apocalypse as figurine sales would drop like a rock, they should just release a perfect 1 to 1 rendition of the tabletop game for PCs. Sure, they'll go bankrupt, but then they can release the source code and we can play Battletech online for free forevermore!

one day some clever fellow will realize just exactly the market for this if done fully and with a good clean, efficient ui.
megameks been trying, but 1- isn't complete and 2- urg ui.

no need for 6 mapsheets to pull off a space/air/ground+naval double blind match off for a single mapsheet worth of operational ground theater space. and gods forbid its space+air+ground and needs to encompass artillery or cruise missile ranges( defined in terms of 0-12 game boards/mapsheets of range).

of course then microsoft will release a new derpy version of their os and make it no longer work properly.


--------------------------------

that said i'm generally less concerned with specific numbers than with capturing the impression those rules+values present. i can cope with not copying the letter of the law fairly well, but you hork the spirit of the thing and you might as well call it something else.

it's rather like motorcycle helmet laws. when the letter says one must wear a helmet firmly secured to ones person, strapping it to a knee was a valid letter of the law interpretation, but rather missed the spirit.

--------------------------------
edit for comments i missed.

player skill. i find it endlessly ironic that the only skills the skill commentators seem to value revolve around aim.

you aren't doing the shooting as opposed to directing the control systems to try to hit something you've indicated.

one of the best interpretations of the way the machines work according to the combined weight of tt rules, is as fairly intelligent systems being directed.

Spoiler

"DIAGNOSTIC INTERPRETATION (DI) COMPUTER
The unsung hero of the BattleMech is the diagnostic inter-pretation (or DI) computer. This little gem pretty much acts as
the ’Mech’s autonomic and higher nervous system, and is the
last component that I want to talk about before describing how
BattleMechs are brought to life. The short form is, the DI comput-er is a network of distributed computers that monitors and coor-dinates the basic functions and components of a BattleMech.
By Whatever Means Necessary
When I described several components earlier, such as the ar-mor and internal structure, I think I mentioned they were webbed
with optical data lines and sensory fibers. If I didn’t, well, they are.
The DI computer uses these lines and fibers to keep tabs on the
health of these components, tracking a ’Mech’s integrity and
feeding it to the battle damage assessment computer (BDA) for
the warrior’s information.
But the DI is more than a status indicator. It can also use these
lines and webs as a back-up data feed to other components. For
example, if a BattleMech’s forearm is nearly severed, the DI com-puter can determine the status of the hand actuator dangling by
a thread of armor through data lines in the armor. The BattleMech
wouldn’t be able to do much with the hand because the forearm
myomer groups and structure are destroyed, but it wouldbe able
to communicate with the hand…
I probably could’ve picked a better example. At any rate, this
“bypass capability” enables BattleMechs to continue functioning
even when suffering from massive internal damage.
The DI computer itself is quite damage tolerant as well. While
it does have some key hardware in the cockpit, many of its com-ponents are scattered throughout the BattleMech closer to the
systems they control. These sub-processing units are heavily
redundant and able to take over for damaged counterparts. For
example, DI processors located in the engine may end up coordi-nating leg actuators after a “Golden BB” lobotomizes leg DI pro-cessors without harming the actuators.
Manager
The DI computer is the manager for all the systems in a
BattleMech. Each component has its own controlling computer,
brought together by the DI system. For example, the DI distrib-utes orders to actuator MCUs that create smooth limb motions.
It also compares the health of multiple systems to keep com-ponents from damaging themselves, like changing engine op-eration when the ’Mech suffers from heat sink damage. Or it can
override the “common sense” of the individual components. For
example, when the MechWarrior demands it, the DI computer
will run the engine hot even when the engine control computer
wants nothing more than to cool down.
So, when a MechWarrior jams the throttle forward, it is the DI
computer that adjusts the engine power, applies the gyro and co-

ordinates actuators. When a BattleMech gets shot up, it is the DI
computer that reconfigures leaking heat sinks, bypasses severed
myomer fibers and routes power to disconnected weapons.
Security
The DI computer handles other ’Mech functions, too, but the
last one I’m going to point out is security. This typically involves
the MechWarrior thinking his way through several commands
while wearing a neurohelmet, as well as voice recognition or oth-er codes. The DI computer even determines whether or not to fry
a would-be thief with the neurohelmet, which reflects an Inner
Sphere MechWarrior subculture paranoid about “Dispossession.”
The Clans tend to skimp on this aspect of ’Mech security, since,
according to them, there are no thieves in Clan society. Even if
someone didsteal a Clan ’Mech, the MechWarrior will simply be
assigned another one.
ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!
Ahem, excuse me. I always wanted to say that. I’m a Frankenstein
fan—that’s a story that just gets better with age…
So, you’ve got all these separate components. The structure, ac-tuators and myomers for mobility; the protective armor; the bal-ancing gyroscope; the fusion engine; the commanding cockpit;
and the managerial DI computer. If a neurohelmet isn’t a direct
brain-machine link, what actually brings all those systems to life?
After my last topic, you shouldn’t be surprised: it’s the DI
computer.
BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots, with most of
their intelligence embodied in the DI computer network. But
they are not truly autonomous. Partly because they have so
much firepower and could cause so much destruction if some-thing went wrong, virtually all of the higher decisions are left
in the hands of MechWarriors. MechWarriors decide when the
BattleMech moves, where the BattleMech moves to and whom
the BattleMech shoots. Frankly, it isdifficult to code all that deci-sion-making for computers, at least in real-world environments.
This, despite claims to the contrary by…are they here? Kaumberg
Komp Quarterlyjournalists?
Anyway, the Terran Hegemony managed independent op-erations for its WarShip-sized Caspar robots, but even those
had shortcomings that precluded their use in ’Mechs. So don’t
worry, folks; the MechWarrior isn’t just a safety system preventing
BattleMechs from taking over us puny organics.
But BattleMech computers do handle an incredible amount of
lower-level decision-making. The T&T system, for instance, sorts,
processes and interprets sensor data for the MechWarrior, who
only has to look at his screens or HUD to get a concise picture
of the battlefield. When targeting, a MechWarrior merely uses a
control stick to aim a crosshair on a display that shows the enemy.
It is up to the BattleMech to actually aim the weapons with all the
calculations that entails.
It is also mostly up to the BattleMech to compensate for the
recoil of its autocannons or the blasts of hostile fire while moving
in the direction a MechWarrior sets. Yes, a MechWarrior can cor-rect the BattleMech on its balance, such as telling the BattleMech
when to ride with the blasts rather than leaning against them,
or when to throw itself off-balance and into another BattleMech,
but a lot of the decision-making gets done by the DI computer.
Speaking of movement, this is another task that the BattleMech
sweats over. As massive as BattleMechs are, they cannot depend

on blind, crushing feet to create good footing. Even tanks,
which have better footing and lower centers of balance than
’Mechs, will slip and slide in muck or on ice. Each footstep
is chosen to compensate for outside forces and in anticipa-tion of the terrain as best possible, which the DI computer
carefully observes through a BattleMech’s many sensors.
BattleMechs will also attempt to move their limbs and torso
to avoid collisions with terrain, like trees. The nimble twists of
a light BattleMech slipping through a forest are not merely
the action of a talented MechWarrior, but the ’Mech’s own DI
computer attempting to avoid the trees.
Of course, we’ve all seen vids of BattleMechs crashing
through forests, or clipping a building, or falling into a ravine.
This is because BattleMechs are war machines and must accept
some risk to carry out the commands of their MechWarriors.
When a MechWarrior is aiming at a target, his commands take
priority and the BattleMech will swing its arms through the
side of a building if that is what’s required to fire on the target.
Once the MechWarrior releases the weapon controls, the DI
computer will resume avoiding solid objects as best it can.
This self-determinant behavior is even more pronounced
in IndustrialMechs, where the IndustrialMech will steer itself
around objects while carrying out general directional com-mands from the pilot. But because battles can move any-where, BattleMechs give MechWarriors direct steering control
with the blind faith that their MechWarriors won’t run them
offa cliff—or at least, if they do that, the MechWarriors have
a good reason. BattleMechs will give collision warnings, but
won’t override the MechWarriors.
This is partly why it takes so long to produce a good
MechWarrior. Such warriors have to learn how to think for
their machine and yet learn how best to use the machine’s
own intelligence. Yet the ’Mech’s own intelligence is why nov-ices learn to operate ’Mechs quickly. Pardon the heresy, but
it probably also accounts for incidents like the Black Pearl’s
last combat, where her ’Mech fi red weapons even after the
pilot had died. Well-trained ’Mechs can make some surprising
independent decisions.
Hand actuators are another area where BattleMechs make
decisions, especially in modern ’Mechs, which have more so-phisticated actuator routines. As I said earlier, a MechWarrior
uses point-and-click commands with his aiming controls for
most hand actuator operations. Older ’Mechs depend more
on mimicking the motions of the MechWarrior’s hands, but
any ’Mech must do that for complicated motions like com-bat engineering."

there's quite a lot more to that sourcebook fictional introduction to one of the rulebooks section on mech construction rules. but in poring through tons of the bt universes materials it really does help tie quite a lot of disparate elements of the spirit of the thing together that actually seems to fit an astronomical allocation of the rules.

the skills therefore inherent are more those of handling training an animal like a dog for combat operations.
you learn it and it learns you and you train one another to some greater or lesser degree to function as a unit together, with all the plucky quirks therein described.

you do not aim an attack animal, you command and direct it in a fashion rational and intelligent, and with all due interest in proper positioning and tactical effect towards strategic goals.

trying to vie for aiming a dog makes.. well.. little sense, unless you are directly throwing it javelin esque.

herein lies the rift wherein people mistake fps mechanics common in personal body level combat and control with what this is.

which is a realtime combat sim using a specific breed of equipment inherent to a specific universe and it's stories, heritage, and lore.

that said i still don't believe in a fiat 1 for one translation. keep the spirit, do not throw it away for the true first person shooter happy crowd.

Edited by steelblueskies, 31 December 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[Roughneck45]

Dice rolls =/= player skill, and never will.

It should be inspired from tabletop, but never a straight port. They had all tabletop values when the closed beta first launched, and it was TERRIBLE. Any changes they make should be to balance their game, not to take another games ruleset and call it balanced in an entirely different system.

[MustrumRidcully]

Liam Neeson, on 31 December 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

inb4 how do you even compare a tabletop (turnbased) strategy game with a fps/sim game? Just how.

In anticipation of any counter arguements, I will also say: what about pilot skill? You cant seriously compare a dice roll and to hit% to actually aiming and positioning oneself on a battlefield. Silly TT fans.

Why does a different effect of pilot skill necessitate an AC/2 dealing 40 damage and 20 heat over 10 seconds rather than 2 damage and 1 heat and consuming 20 shots rather than 1,while a Medium Laser deals 12.5 damage and 10 heat over 10 seconds rather than 5 damage and 3 heat? Explain it.

The weapon are not balanced for considerations of player or pilot skill: They are balanced on stats like damage, heat, ammo/ton, weight and crits.

[Void Angel]

MustrumRidcully, 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.

I have; you keep ignoring the information.

Jason Parker, on 31 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

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.

The mechanic is called weapon convergence, and only affects the arms. For torso weapons, your weapons will fire a little off at most ranges - but it's not hard to compensate once you get used to it. The obvious effect is that arm weapons are more accurate, so you have an incentive to put direct-fire weapons on your vulnerable arms.

Bishop Steiner, on 31 December 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

I do believe that is a ridiculous argument.

No is is clamoring for 10 second fire cycles, movement arc limits, or "dice rolling". When people clamor for TT, we tend to be referring to basic weapon values and effectiveness. 4 previous iterations of this game managed to largely duplicate TT armor, damage and such, without "being no fun". Some advanced tech like ECM and Active Probes have always translated poorly, and those indeed do need "virtual world" rethinks, as my above post said, most of the core "design elements" off TT should be used as the measuring stick, then tweaked as needed to reflect the differences in fire rates, and then ONLY after the core stuff was "finalized" should new tech and features have been added, and those tweaked around the core tech, not a constant dance of tweaking everything, which then breaks something else requiring it to be retweaked, etc ad infinitum.

If you are going to participate in an argument, it is often useful to listen (or read) carefully in order to avoid making a mistake in your argument because you missed something. For example - the examples of 10-second turns and dice-rolling originated (and are still offered) to illustrate one of the ways in which your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The "core design elements" are balanced only for the tabletop format, and cannot be arbitrarily ported into this game without alterations - alterations which all previous Mechwarrior games have also made. Further, even canon BattleTech rulebooks admit that these rules are "generalizations" which are intended to portray the net result of second-by-second decisions MechWarriors make in combat. The ruleset for more closely simulating 'mech combat in which split-second decisions matter has altered the weapon stats in a way nearly identical to PGI's solution to the same problem.

The book-clubbing crowd has repeatedly ignored contrary data, hand-waving away the fact that what they're demanding was actually tried - then discarded for a better system. Saying, as some have in this very thread, that "well, that doesn't mean they tested every option" is a pure argument from silence. "You can't prove that I'm wrong, so I'm right!" Claims that the changes are not balanced (not like the Holy Word of Fasa!) simply ignore the reality that we are currently engaged in beta testing to determine the proper balance. Arbitrarily selecting some of the core rules as inviolable while admitting others cannot or should not be implemented in this format is, well... arbitrary.

If you have concerns with balance, by all means voice them - but do so on their own merits. Draping yourselves in the vestments of The Prophet Weisman, oh he is wise, halleleujah, in order to lend credence to your views is transparently silly and, if you haven't figured it out now, rather annoys the rest of us. I love tabletop, too - but I can easily distinguish between different game formats. You guys are the King James Only crowd of MWO. Please get your theology straight - tabletop is tabletop, not "BattleTech As We Were Meant to Have It."

Edited by Void Angel, 31 December 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Void Angel, on 31 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I have; you keep ignoring the information.

No, you have not provided the information. I am still waiting. Explain what factors in the real time 3D environment are relevant here, how do they interact?

You're only argument seems to boil down "the game designers thought this worked better". But are we actually observing this in gameplay? Is the PPC as popular as, say, the Gauss Rifle or the Medium Laser?

What advantages does the ER LL have in a 3D environment with real time, mouse aiming and convergence over a Gauss Rifle to justify its weight and its heat production?

Or why would a mech that needs with full movement and full firepower t least 30 seconds before it first runs into a potential shutdown suddenly need to shutdown within 9 seconds?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 December 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Void Angel]

All the answers to your questions have been given to you - you simply close your ears and mind to that which you do not wish to hear. Only one of numerous arguments and rebuttals of your and others' reasoning has anything to do with whether "the game designers thought this worked better." And there is a world of difference between "we already tried this and it didn't work" and "the game designers thought..." Or, perhaps closer to the point there is only one word for the difference: sophistry.

You've been given rules that justify heat spiking and heat as a limiting factor in a weapon's effective rate of fire (as opposed to its maximum rate.) You've ignored it. You've had it pointed out to you by myself and many others that the balance of even the game rules you insist upon depends on rules such as hit probabilities which simply do not translate to a mouse-aim interface. You ignored all that, too. Since you did ignore all the previous reasoning, you think you can hand-wave away the very valid objections to your argument which are made on the grounds that weapons are still being tweaked and modified - witness the projectile speed increases of the PPC. The fact that weapon balance is still being hashed out doesn't magically mean that the weapon balance we already found didn't work... will work. You're trying to play this game:
And you suck at it. That about covers everything you just claimed you haven't been given anything on.

Your sole tactic of debate now seems to consist of summarizing opposing viewpoints incorrectly, then dismissing those viewpoints in order to claim that you're "still waiting" for answers to your insightful questions and unassailable logic. Enough. Go back and read the numerous explanations of all your questions on this and other threads; frankly, I tire of repeating myself.

Edited by Void Angel, 31 December 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Pht]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1665690

Trauglodyte said:

The issues with ECM that you speak of, and what so many people complain about, is the byproduct of taking a table top system based in a top down (ie, the eye of god) view point, and putting it into a e-world with 3d rules.

----

If your mech was equiped with ECM in TT it wasn't invisible because you're sitting at the board looking at the opposing player move his mech.

----

And in TT, ECM didn't affect missiles because all missile systems were based on to-hit roles within line of sight (with the exception of indirect fire and C3).

No.

----

You didn't use double-blind rules, did you?

----

Um ... In TT ECM blocks Artemis IV, Narc effects, messes with Advanced Tactical Missile (ATM) systems, makes Improved (IFF reading) Swarm missiles act normal Swarms, and normal Swarms act like normal LRMs. Angel ECM can do all of that plus block Artemis V systems, Streak missile systems. ECM *should* cut units off from the in-game extras from the virtual C3 setup that's been built in.

Quote

Because of this, PGI had to make certain adjustments to the system to make it a valid and desirable piece of equipment.

ECM doesn't need to be tweaked for real-time first person. Besides the stuff I mentioned above, it should also:

Cut off C3, C3i, Active Probe effects (AP's can gather more info in the advanced TTRs and also they can spot hidden units); Cut off drones from their controllers or vise-versa, cut off 'Mechs from satellites, command HQ units, Command console equipped 'Mechs; Blind most satellites, and make any of the various 'Mech stealth equipment much more effective at hiding the "Mech it is mounted on. ECM units can also be tuned to counter enemy ecm units and can be tuned to generate fake Ghost targets.

ECM basically makes your 'Mech a walking electronic "black hole" ... for the space and tonnage it takes, it's an obscenely useful piece of equipment in the TT and would be such if ported properly into the real-time first person VG format.

-------------------------------

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1665715

Davers said:

There had to be changes. Pilots are way more accurate in MWO than in TT.

----

TT is a game of wildly inaccurate mechs that walk up and kick each other.

No, the pilots aren't - and shouldn't be. The previous games and the current game have not simulated the weapons handling ability of the 'Mech. In a 'Mech, you indicate a target; you track that target with the reticule, you decide when and under what conditions to fire - and the BattleMech does all the rest! It is this "all the rest" that has simply been left out of every MW video game implementation so far - and this "all the rest" is the 'MECH's combat behavior/performance.

----

The 'Mechs in TT were not and are not wildly inaccurate. They are capable of using a vanilla medium laser to hit a 'Mech sized target 35 miles away on the horizon 5 out of every 18 shots; if you give that vanilla succession wars 'Mech 30 seconds or so to get a good fix and the ML is mounted in an arm and braced up on a building or some such to steady it, you can knock the +8 LOS range modifier down to a paltry +3.

The 'Mechs and weapons are way more accurate and precise than their pilots... just like most guns are more accurate than their users.

Quote

Mechwarrior is not Battletech.

Nobody said it was. People have said that MW is and should be based as closely as possible on BT.


----------------

Mercules: The reticule doesn't bounce. The Pilot might bounce up and down in his cockpit, but the reticule stays put; it is an aimpoint indicator for the 'mech; it doesn't dance around to show you the "center" of your weapon's spread of fire; that would go counter to it's job as an indicator of where to aim. Quality of weapons concentration is indicated by color coding the reticule.


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1667724
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1667826

verybad said:

The Tabletop game is VERY unbalanced if you allow custom mechs. This game allows custom mechs. Ergo, balancing following the tabletop version would make this game more unbalanced.

----

You can do that in TT, you shut down from firing all of them like he does. You don't ahve a chance of blowing up in TT however, because there;s no ammo. So what's the problem?

Not every concept of a Mechlab setup suffers from this problem... I think you have, from time to time, seen my straightened out Mechlab concept - if you haven't, its linked in my sig. Agreed, though, a Mechlab that's not setup with the appropriate restrictions makes for some pretty obscene unbalancing.

----

Even though you wouldn't run the risk of blowing up, you can actually degrade the coolant running through your 'Mechs cooling systems and your pilot can actually suffer damage from the obscene levels of waste heat.

Mercules: VB is right; but I think you misread his post. Allowing full-up construction, MW3 style, destroys balance and renders all 'Mechs into walking bags of guns.

Edited by Pht, 31 December 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Pht]

Ryvucz, on 28 December 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Are you sure? Topic looks like the poster wants Table Top values, the link I provided is a much closer iteration of the Table Top game so many people complain MWO doesn't have. It's even turn based!

Do you want the atlas to be 100 tons, be named the atlas, carry an ac20, medium lasers, and lrms?

If you do, you "want tabletop values."

It seems your standard for what you will and will not accept as valid for the VG format is ... variable.

Void Angel, on 28 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I think I have whiplash.

People are going from "You changed [insert equipment list here] and now it's not Battletech, because you changed the rules!" straight toto to (they don't rake in the Holy Tabletop Rules that you're asking be converted!) and back to at speeds which should come with an epilepsy warning.

You complain about people engaging in fallacious thinking and than you engage in false thinking yourself;

I've not changed my position *once* in the seqence you've listed out. Nor have I equivocated on the definition of any of the words nor idioms I used, either.

Complaints of whiplash now replace valid argumentation?

Quote

I'm getting dizzy just trying to keep track of which personality is talking from sentence to sentence. Playing semantics about "well, MechCommander is a top-down format, and that's not what we're asking for," is transparently disingenuous.

Funny. I haven't posted anything like what you're attributing to me here. Maybe you could actually refute the content of what I posted?

By the way, semantics is necessary and valid; otherwise, all your posts, as far as anyone should think, mean nothing.

Quote

The way that you ignore being told that the tabletop equipment values didn't work and go right back to claiming that the tabletop values will work just fine, if only we'd all just try them is crazy. Literally; it fits one of the two general criteria for mental illness.

... and disagreeing now means not that you're disagreeing, it means that you're ignoring what everyone's posting ... and everyone should accept that it's crazy ... merely because you post that it is?

Quote

Additionally, aside from unimportant issues such as practicability, your point isn't well-taken in the first place. The feel of this real-time 'mech simulation isn't going to be enhanced or degraded by how many points of heat my laser generates, or whether LRMS home, or even how ECM disrupts my ability to lock onto targets.

Interesting ... so, if firing six large er lasers made your 'Mech cooler, and if LRMS launched into firing patterns of "my little pony" and exploded like fireworks, and ECM made any target 'Mech carrying it glow bright red with "SHOOT ME" on everyon'es hud ... that somehow wouldn't change the feeling of the game? I mean, if how these things can change in any way and not change the "feel" of the game ... as you've just posted...

Quote

The feel of this 'mech simulation is determined by how well it simulates the 'mechs we know with the weapons and equipment we know

How do you know them?

Quote

Put down the rulebook for the other game, and stop hitting with it.

Make a valid argument based off of true premises and I might.

[Pht]

Void Angel, on 29 December 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

A 3D 'mech simulation game is nothing more than a glorified tabletop dice-roller

No. It is not.

Quote

- even though the latter contains mechanics that cannot be used in the former.

Which ones? Besides the already acknowledged change from turn based to "real time?" Do you know even a single one? Or are you speaking of you know not what, and hoping that nobody's going to call your bluff?

Quote

In the second instance, "Battletech game" can only refer to a game made with a 1-1 conversion of the tabletop rules -

The word Battletech can also refer to the entire lore. You've made a false conclusion.

cleghorn6, on 29 December 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

I see the fundamental problem with doing a slavish TT conversion is that the TT rules include balancing factors for things like pilot skill, environmental factors affecting the pilot (heat being the key one) and a couple of other things like that.

... How is it that people are somehow magically blind when it's repeatedly posted that none of the pilot skill rolls belong in the MW video game format?

Odd. I seem to have recalled posting multiple times that anything we can control from our computers that the 'Mechwarriors in the BTuniverse can control ... we should be given control over. Besides which, removing these factors you mention completely would not unbalance the TT combat system as it would be used in the real time VG format.

Quote

... you are still going to have people skilled enough to put every shot into the same location, ...

No, it will NOT. People do not seem to understand that the hit location tables from page 119 of total warfare and pages 76-77 of tactical operations represent the ability of THE 'MECH to concentrate it's weapons, NOT the Mechwarrior.

The rule representing the 'Mechwarrior's skill in concentrating their weapons fire onto a single location is the called shots rule:

CALLED SHOTS
A called shot is similar to an aimed shot, though less narrowly targeted. An aimed shot is an attack against a specific hit location and can only be made against an immobile target. An attack “aimed” more generally, representing the pilot’s skill at directing his attack against a desired general area, is a called shot. Called shots can be made against active, mobile targets.

The only other rule that addresses when you get to "pick your part" :

AIMED SHOTS
Players may make aimed shots against units that are shut down or whose warrior is unconscious, using any weapons other than missile launchers and LB-X autocannon fi ring cluster munitions. When firing on an immobile ’Mech, the attacking player can make an aimed shot by naming a target location. Against any hit location except the head, the player makes the to-hit roll using the standard –4 to-hit modifier for fi ring at an immobile target.

There is no simulation of the 'Mech's combat capability where the hit-tables are ignored.

... I find it ironic that this has been ignored for so long, while people constantly wish for and compain when the don't get "epic combat," instead of UT style insta-gib fests - this is the very rule that makes it possible. So far, even doubling, possibly tripling (I forget the exact MW4 armor values atm) the armor values STILL has not resulted in the desired gameplay. You would think someone would have realized this obvious fact by now.

Void Angel, on 29 December 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

So in order to keep the offensive equpment looking more like the tabletop mechanics, we add rules about hit locations and armor values, plus add an RNG to mouse aiming?

No. You simulate the performance of the myomers, the joints, the battle computer, the sensors of the 'Mech; and so actually simulate the combat capability of the 'Mech; and we have the end result in hard numbers, already built.

Mechwarriors don't somehow magically physically aim every weapon on the 'Mech - they pilot their 'Mech, and choose where they want it to try and get it's weapons to hit; they track the target with the reticule, they choose when to fire and under what conditions to fire - the 'Mech does ALL of the rest to bring the weapons to bear.

Why is it that everyone is so keen on ignoring the half of the equation that makes the game Cool?

Edited by Pht, 01 January 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 30 December 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

Here's variables affecting the 1+1=2 equation

TT
take turns
multiple mechs
roll dice
top down view
board, figures, tiles

MWO
real time
one mech
aim
first person
mouse, keyboard, computer

You've listed nothing that says the combat system under the TT can't be used in real time.

turn based vs real time: overcome. If you have a desire to change recycle times, adjust heat up or down.

Dice: don't implement anything that represents the skill of the 'Mechwarrior. DO implement the mechanics that represent the 'Mechs combat capability, and how the environment effects the 'Mech and it's weapons.

top down vs 1pv = how this could be a problem is beyond me...?

aim: ditto comment about dice.

board/mouse keyboard/figures/computer/tiles - again, this doesn't require one to believe it's impossible to convert the combat system over.

Tarman, on 30 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Bolded for wtf factor. This is the very most important part of all of this endeavour. It's a game. They're supposed to be fun, or they have no point in existing.

Games are fun because we enjoy the way their rules play out. All the rest is window dressing by comparison.

Quote

The basic game is the same. Get giant robot, put weapons on it, fight other giant robots. The flavour is the same.

Would you have a problem if they took gundam: wing, and relabled it as Mechwarrior? it's " Get giant robot, put weapons on it, fight other giant robots" too, you know.

Quote

Atlas is an Atlas, it kills everything and eats all the weaponsfire.

Cool. Now, describe what an atlas is, why it "kills everything" and "eats weaponsfire" - but do so with zero reference to the rules.

Quote

I still would like TT people to look at the vast imbalances of TT ITSELF...

Ok, well, *what* "vast imbalances" are you referring to? Can you actually give a solid example?

Quote

...before they decide it is some kind of perfect blueprint for all time and all purposes.

Nobody's posted anything like this.

Quote

know the entire universe is made of math, but in this case it had to be shuffled a bit.

... as if nobody's already mentioned that somethings can be and probably should be changed and already mentioned how they could be converted over without throwing off the balance of the TT combat system.

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

You've listed nothing that says the combat system under the TT can't be used in real time.

turn based vs real time: overcome. If you have a desire to change recycle times, adjust heat up or down.

Dice: don't implement anything that represents the skill of the 'Mechwarrior. DO implement the mechanics that represent the 'Mechs combat capability, and how the environment effects the 'Mech and it's weapons.

top down vs 1pv = how this could be a problem is beyond me...?

aim: ditto comment about dice.

board/mouse keyboard/figures/computer/tiles - again, this doesn't require one to believe it's impossible to convert the combat system over.

Each individual thing, is a difference which may seem small at first glance. You know what compounding means?

Real time vs turn based isn't just about damage and heat values of weapons. There is reaction time, critical thinking and decision making being compressed from "however long it takes" to "who can do it faster".

Don't implement anything representing the skill of the mechwarrior? You ARE the mechwarrior in this game. In TT you're some guy in a dropship in orbit being like hey guys shoot @ that guy, hence dice rolls to determine how well your "pilots" do their jobs.

top down vs 1pv = knowing where everything is and you being the team vs relying on what you can see and what your team can see. You rely on your team, you are a small part of the battle and not half of it. You have maybe 6 average weapons per mech vs top down having 50+ weapons at your disposal to shoot @ exactly where you know the enemy is.

aim allows you to deal all your damage to one location if you are skilled enough. But you said earlier to not implement anything representing the skill of the mechwarrior. Ditto with aim you say. LOL

MWO is a first person shooter, TT was basically a fancy form of chess. You really cannot mean to translate chess into a first person shooter w/o changing things. If you were to take Starcraft and turn it into an FPS you would not say: well a firebat does this much damage and has this much range, PERIOD. Oh it doesn't work? Don't change it, Starcraft was a balanced RTS!

I really can't understand the foundation of any argument for TT was balanced and we must stick to it, other than nostalgia.

Edited by Indoorsman, 31 December 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[Sikosis]

keith, on 26 December 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

pls wait while i turn my mech 60 degrees to get into a firing arc. next let me get out a dice to see if my hand will press the mouse to hit u in the head. an online FPS game should not be balanced towards a broad game. too many different factors play into it, lag and playerskill are the main ones

All I have to say to that is . . . .B.S.

at the speed of calculation that modern computers can function taking the core of the table top game and putting it into fluid motion would not be difficult, it wasn't at the start. . . then PGI started screwing with stuff and taking things in perverted grossly out of balanced and vastly distorted directions, that has led to "corrections" based on errors of focusing on symptoms of problems they've created by simply ignoring TT all together

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 31 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Each individual thing, is a difference which may seem small at first glance. You know what compounding means?

Even fully "compounded" these things do not equate to what's being attributed to them... arrange them as you wish, the conclusion that these things make it impossible to convert over the combat system from the TT into realtime is still not valid.

Quote

Real time vs turn based isn't just about damage and heat values of weapons. There is reaction time, critical thinking and decision making being compressed from "however long it takes" to "who can do it faster".

"Critical thinking and decision making" - these would be represented in the TTR by pilot skill rolls and the human player's skills. In MW these things are done by the ... human player at the computer. No negation here.

Quote

Don't implement anything representing the skill of the mechwarrior? You ARE the mechwarrior in this game. In TT you're some guy in a dropship in orbit being like hey guys shoot @ that guy, hence dice rolls to determine how well your "pilots" do their jobs.

You see to have taken this out of context. All that it means is that you do not implement the dice rolls - piloting and gunnery skill rolls that represent the "human factor" in the TT game - from the TT in the VG; they don't belong.

Quote

top down vs 1pv = knowing where everything is and you being the team vs relying on what you can see and what your team can see. You rely on your team, you are a small part of the battle and not half of it. You have maybe 6 average weapons per mech vs top down having 50+ weapons at your disposal to shoot @ exactly where you know the enemy is.

... which in no way means that the combat system can't be converted into real time first-person.

Quote

aim allows you to deal all your damage to one location if you are skilled enough. But you said ]earlier to not implement anything representing the skill of the mechwarrior. Ditto with aim you say. LOL

I presume you haven't been doing anything more than skimming my posts; or did you miss the multiple mentions that there is what the mechwarrior does, and what the 'Mech does?

Of course if you give to the player at the computer a godlike ability to control what the 'Mech controls - the actual convergence of the weapons onto any given point - the system will break - but it is not right to give the player in a MW video game nonsense magic control over what the 'Mech does in the lore.

Why even have the 'Mech on the screen if we don't simulate it's ability to bring its weapons to bear? ... I thought people around these parts were against this type of anime-super-insano aiming stuff.

Quote

MWO is a first person shooter, TT was basically a fancy form of chess. You really cannot mean to translate chess into a first person shooter w/o changing things.

Now all you have to do is quote me from somewhere, anywhere, that I've actually posted that we should "translate chess into a first person shooter w/o changing things" ... or does the content of what's actually been posted mean anything at all?

Quote

I really can't understand the foundation of any argument for TT was balanced and we must stick to it, other than nostalgia.

Let me guess - you're not familiar with the details of the combat system in the TT, are you?

Edited by Pht, 31 December 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[BerryChunks]

Sikosis, on 31 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

All I have to say to that is . . . .B.S.

at the speed of calculation that modern computers can function taking the core of the table top game and putting it into fluid motion would not be difficult, it wasn't at the start. . . then PGI started screwing with stuff and taking things in perverted grossly out of balanced and vastly distorted directions, that has led to "corrections" based on errors of focusing on symptoms of problems they've created by simply ignoring TT all together

That's what I've been saying. If you create a problem, you don't change other things that arent issues to solve the problem. You change what's causing the problem.

It's like western medicine all over again.

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Even fully "compounded" these things do not equate to what's being attributed to them... arrange them as you wish, the conclusion that these things make it impossible to convert over the combat system from the TT into realtime is still not valid.

That's not the conclusion. You can make a TT2.0 in realtime, it's possible and probably as easy as all you people say it would be. But this isn't TT, it's a first person shooter, you are in the minority and choose to ignore the hard evidence of this very poll. The conclusion is that those things compounded mean you must balance this game by its own standards independent of TT aside from heirarchy.