373 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

I am not sure we must have another one of these. Isn't it getting a bit tiring and repetitive? WIll you not always end up with forgetting something?

Amen. Also, I think we'll be getting the kind of balance you're looking for out of the current system of weapon tweaks. The devs have told us that the sub-par performance of standard 'mech variants is on their radar. (For those of you who might not know, most standard variants are overarmed - they generate so much heat firing their weapons that they cannot effectively use their entire armament. This is fine for some 'mechs who have dedicated weapons arrays for different ranges, but many 'mechs will simply overheat and melt down into commemorative ingots.) It's a priorities of work issue; they view the netcode as their top priority and weapon balance as the next priority after that. So long as they keep the trial 'mechs in mind as they balance weapons, it should turn out ok.

[TigrisMorte]

Ryolacap, on 30 December 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

At first first I thought it was resistance that kept people ignoring the obvious, now I am pretty sure it is mostly ignorance. 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. What does have influence in a turn based game are the values are given to each variable, they depend on those variables to balance the game and are based on a constant time. 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. You can add all kinds of stuff to make the game fun, but the base should remain the same, changing something like heat sinks can effect everything down to the effectiveness of the ac20, which was given characteristics specificity associated to the tabletop game. Making a ppc or srm more powerful, weakens balistics even down to the value of ammo. All of which was previously balanced. There are some who will never fully understand, and the game is ultimately fun, even if flawed.

Ignorance is bliss I guess ....

Bing, flippin', O

[TigrisMorte]

Roughneck45, on 05 January 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

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

For that reason alone, pure tabletop rules will NEVER work for an action game.

Everything should be inspired by tabletop, but it doesnt have to be 100% the same.

Dice rolls simulate pilot skill. That is why you fail.
And please advise where any have called for "pure" tabletop.
"inspired by" means "we took names and dates then made something totally different. Aren't we special!"

[TigrisMorte]

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.

It is really easy. A turn is ten seconds so everything that happens int that turn has .1 the effect per second or .0001 per millisecond if you want that level of division.
What is absolutely astounding is that any think there is a significant difference in the math of a simulation of activity simply because the presentation medium has changed.

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 05 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

I'm noticing a trend, anybody posts anything and Pht quotes them, asks them a generic question and then assaults their character if they are a repeat poster in this thread.

Rylo is a repeat poster; I haven't questioned his character, YOU are a repeat poster, I haven't questioned your character ... in fact, void is the ONLY poster in this thread who's character I have questioned - because of his obvious and blatant double standard in how he's been handling my posts for several pages. For instance, he's accused me multiple times of pulling quotes out of context, in references to posts where I've quoted his entire post in my reply, and replied to his entire post in detail - he accused me of ignorance and yet didn't (and maybe even doesn't at this point) know that I don't just want the - his words - "equipment numbers," in the game, but also the rules... when in my first post on the front page of this thread I clearly indicated weapons numbers and the combat rules should be used ...

He put the shoes on; I've merely pointed it out... in fact, it's so obvious, I wonder that it's even necessary to point this out to anyone who's read this thread.

... and yes, I read through the entire thread just to see if I was wrong and if there was any validity to his accusations... and his acccusations aren't valid.

Quote

Also there's the fact that no MW game has met his standards, he's obviously a TT fanatic.

... and? That describes a sizable chunk of the MW video game playing public.

Quote

I don't think he realizes this game has a big learning curve already and that complicating things further would only make this game less successful.

... and what have I actually posted that gives you this idea?

There's nothing hard about "when I try and shoot something moving fast, or shoot while I'm running/jumping in my mech, or shoot at a target really, really far away, or try and shoot things while my 'Mech is seriously overheating.. things are harder to hit."

Besides which, I've been posting for quite some time now that the aiming reticule should be color coded for quality of weapons concentration - red for "most will miss" to gold for "most will hit."

Quote

They can't afford to go the Über simulation route, they have to do what will make money.

BT 'Mechs are built on the concept of K.I.S.S - a game that imitates what it's like to pilot one wouldn't be hard at all, especially when you realize that we have no analogue controller for the neurohelmet (no, the emotive and OCZ brain-machine controllers don't replicate this ... ) ... 90% or more of 'Mech piloting is achieved through three controls - a weapons control joystick, which is aim and click to fire on the main hud, a throttle, and left/right/jump controls.

A game that imitates what it's like to pilot a Battlemech wouldn't be "too scary hard."

Quote

As this badly worded poll is still able to show, a majority do not want this game to be more like TT. I'm pretty sure of the people that do, few would want what Pht is trying to suggest.

The poll is not showing that the majority don't want the game to be more true to the tt. It's only showing that the people voted one way or another, and we don't even know if they still hold those positions; and even if we (irrationally) assume that they do, it's still irrational to say that the poll applies across everyone who plays/would play this game.

Edited by Pht, 08 January 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[Helbourne]

People need to just accept the fact that the TT game influence is not going away. It is known that the devs are fans of the TT, novels and previous video games. Poll all you want, twist the numbers any which way you like, it will not change the fact that TT is here to stay.

[Pht]

Sandslice, on 05 January 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I get what you're saying. All I'm doing is trying to find a... iono, either a happy medium, or a compromise, between the FPS crowd and the simmers.

It would be great if this were possible, but the two sides are mutually exclusive (besides being ignorant of each other's true positions and needlessly antagonistic).

The TT side wants (the implementation varies) the BattleMech's aiming performance/capability to be simulated, because they want a game in which they can pilot a simulated BT Battlemech.

The FPS side wants a game in which there is no simulation of the Battlemech's aiming performance/capability. Yes, some of them want the weapons to, say, spread fire (lbx cluster), or have travel time (ballistics), etc, but they want direct control of the aiming of the weapons; and usually it's said that they want this because they think player skill would be removed from the equation by having a BattleMech sim game simulate the 'Mechs weapons handling performance.

There is no way you can compromise between mutually exclusive positions.

Quote

With grouping, I was suggesting "use the weakest" as a simple weakest link principle: if you want to improve your good weapons, ungroup the bad.

Oh, I understand using the least-accurate weapon in any weapons group to set the accuracy of that group; I even agree with that. In fact, that's exactly how the TT does weapons grouping. I was pointing out another factor that would affect the idea of cones and weapons groups.

Quote

With target movement, I would still leave it to the pilot for two reasons: video gaming skill, and for when the Warhawk and its targeting computer equipment is available. The tarcomp can then have the gameplay features of giving you a leading aim point (as seen in MW2, if I recall,) as well as putting a target mark on a hit location (not to mention being immune to ECM.)

Which means there's no simulation of the BattleMech's weapons handling. Which means it's not a MW video game.

As far as the "skill" - the skills involved change from calculating weapons lead to calculating how well or poorly your 'Mech can calculate the lead and other factors; there's no less skill involved. Instead of holding a rifle and having to calculate it's capabilites, you're piloting a 'Mech, and for the best results you have to know it's capabilities; and that's a pretty compellingly interesting and fun thing.

Ryolacap, on 06 January 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

That is an assumption, I could do a better job with a poll now that i have all the sides. The poll is actually weighted towards the No due to them being clumped into one catagory too much. Most I think put no due to 10 second rounds and dice rolling yet very few said yes for ten second rounds and dice rolling the yes's were generally for stats, then there is PHT (gawd love em). But that to, is an assumption. Reading the posts you can pretty much assume it to be true though.

Purely IMO, but I suspect that most of the people on these forums have never even played Megamek, much less read total warfare/techmanual/tactical ops/strat ops - so a lot of people are making very uniformed responses. Many people are condemning a thing they are flatly ignorant of because of ideas they have that are based upon demonstrably false stereotypes.

I think it is not surprising that most of the people who know and played the TT game and the MW video games are the ones, to varying extents, who want the game to stick closer to it's roots.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 06 January 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

I am so tired of these threads. If you want to play TT so bad, http://mwtactics.com/ http://www.mekwars.org/ http://www.mekwarslegends.com/ There you go! Your TT experience online.

I don't think that the MW video game should be the tabletop in online form - I know of nobody else that thinks the MW video game should be the TT online...

Who, exactly, are you arguing against?

MW= real time first person armored unit combat piloting simulator ... different format, not turn based, and first person, meaning no usage of the pilots gunnery or piloting skill dice rolls.

FrostPaw, on 06 January 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

You can't balance real time with turn based dice rules.

Yes you can.

Edited by Pht, 08 January 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[Pht]

Reginald Fu Manpewpew, on 06 January 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

I was appalled that in Dawn of War and Spacemarine that I was not required to create an army list and and deploy the whole lot at the beginning. All this building troops and vehicles is nonsense. In fact why can I build an Avatar when I play Eldar? I should have to take an Exarch from one of my Aspect Warrior units and have the entire 7 day ritual where he/she becomes the Young King and is sacrificed to awaken the Avatar for war. Clearly table top should be the be all and end all of spin off video game design.

Warhammer 40K tabletop morphs not only in its rules but in its lore from ... what, minute to minute now? ... and their setups aren't justifiable at all ... not in the least, not even in their own lore.

BT tabletop is nothing like the ever-changing quagmire that is WH:40K. Your comparison isn't valid.

[Pht]

Void Angel, on 06 January 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

The people who bring up the 10-second turns in standard battletech are attempting to use what's called a clear case example to demonstrate the foolhardiness of slavishly copying the entire ruleset.

Virtually nobody is pushing for anything like "slavishly copying the entire ruleset." I have yet to see a single poster who wants what you're alluding to here.

Even I have said the recycle time can be changed and how it should be done - for that matter, I've also pointed out multiple times to leave out the pilot's P&G skill rolls.

Edited by Pht, 08 January 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 08 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Virtually nobody is pushing for anything like "slavishly copying the entire ruleset."

Care to make a list of the things this game is lacking/doing wrong, and how to correct them in your opinion. Since you've made comments about peoples' ignorance in the past I propose a simple format.

1. WHAT is wrong? WHY is that bad? HOW to make it right.
2. Repeat
3. Repeat

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Pht, on 08 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Virtually nobody is pushing for anything like "slavishly copying the entire ruleset." I have yet to see a single poster who wants what you're alluding to here.

Even I have said the recycle time can be changed and how it should be done - for that matter, I've also pointed out multiple times to leave out the pilot's P&G skill rolls.

So because you personally haven't seen it, it's never happened?

I have seen. I have seen posts amount to "MWO so be a direct translation of CBT"

[Kraven Kor]

Trauglodyte, on 26 December 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Can you imagine if MWO was 100% equal to TT? It would be boring to no end.

Oh, come on, I'd be rolling around laughing over the bumbling, constantly falling over hilarity that would be TT movement rules if truly enforced in MWO (run full speed on pavement? Fall, skid, into water... three damage rolls and a breach roll...) Trying to run up that one hill in River City? YOU GON ASPLODE!

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 08 January 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Care to make a list of the things this game is lacking/doing wrong, and how to correct them in your opinion. Since you've made comments about peoples' ignorance in the past I propose a simple format.

1. WHAT is wrong? WHY is that bad? HOW to make it right.
2. Repeat
3. Repeat

I already pointed this out in the second post on the first page of this thread.

They didn't use the foundational TT combat system rules, and because the foundation is broken, everything else is suffering - starting with doubled armor values and endless tweaks to the weapons that will effectively never stop for as long as they are supporting the game.

How to correct this problem - use the hit-location tables and the to-hit system minus the pilot's piloting and gunnery skill rolls; which means you *can* go back to the TT weapons damage values, the TT armor numbers, and the entire TT damage system, which, with the addition of the advanced rules from maxtech/tactical operations is pretty robust.

SJ SCP Wolf, on 09 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

So because you personally haven't seen it, it's never happened?

No, I don't think it's never happened because I've never seen it. I was just pointing out that I've been engaged in every one of these TT/MW threads that I've seen, and I've never seen anyone propose that we should just do TT in 3D.

Quote

I have seen. I have seen posts amount to "MWO so be a direct translation of CBT"

First, ... where? Got a link? ... Second, ... "amount?" If the language in their posts didn't mean it, as much as one would like it to, it just doesn't mean it.

[Craftyman]

There are certain tabletop mechanics that make sense and transfer over very well to a video game. But mostly the mechanics become lost in translation so i don't think we should dogmatically try and fit tabletop's ruleset into MW:O's.

Sometimes its a matter of square peg and round hole and it's just not going to fit no matter how right it feels, so you have to invent new game mechanics and tweak old ones so that they are near unrecognizable.

I'm glad the majority agree with me, I voted 'no'.

Edited by Craftyman, 10 January 2013 - 05:27 PM.

[Craftyman]

Pht, on 08 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Virtually nobody is pushing for anything like "slavishly copying the entire ruleset." I have yet to see a single poster who wants what you're alluding to here.

Even I have said the recycle time can be changed and how it should be done - for that matter, I've also pointed out multiple times to leave out the pilot's P&G skill rolls.

I see people ACTIVELY TRYING to keep MG's a worthless weapon because it wouldn't stick to canon for it to damage a mech (when in fact they do damage mechs). It has me completely stumped.

[Pht]

Craftyman, on 10 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

There are certain tabletop mechanics that make sense and transfer over very well to a video game. But mostly the mechanics become lost in translation so i don't think we should dogmatically try and fit tabletop's ruleset into MW:O's.

Sometimes its a matter of square peg and round hole and it's just not going to fit no matter how right it feels, so you have to invent new game mechanics and tweak old ones so that they are near unrecognizable.

*Which* of the TT mechanics are "square pegs in round holes?"

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you can't tell us which won't fit, and than validly tell us why they won't fit, why should we accept your claim?

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

I already pointed this out in the second post on the first page of this thread.

They didn't use the foundational TT combat system rules, and because the foundation is broken, everything else is suffering - starting with doubled armor values and endless tweaks to the weapons that will effectively never stop for as long as they are supporting the game.

How to correct this problem - use the hit-location tables and the to-hit system minus the pilot's piloting and gunnery skill rolls; which means you *can* go back to the TT weapons damage values, the TT armor numbers, and the entire TT damage system, which, with the addition of the advanced rules from maxtech/tactical operations is pretty robust.

I don't see any such list, I see a stance. And once again you gave your stance: Because TT. That is how simple your stance is. You say everything is suffering because they are having to tweak it, but what multiplayer game doesn't have lots of support/tweaks early on. Eventually most multiplayer games find very good balance and there are fewer tweaks.

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

*Which* of the TT mechanics are "square pegs in round holes?"

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you can't tell us which won't fit, and than validly tell us why they won't fit, why should we accept your claim?

You shouldn't say us, because the rest of us agree with him. You should say "If you can't tell ME, then I won't accept your claim". That would be the truth of the matter.

-

I feel like I need to mention again that this game doesn't have Battlevalue, which gave weight to each individual weapon/component/mech/engine. The combined point total of the mechs on one team with all the weapons/equipment/engines was the same point total as the enemy team. This meant TT didn't need balance the same way MWO does. MWO doesn't match teams based on their engine sizes/weapons loadout/equipment. The reason I bring it up is because you didn't even mention BV in how to make things work exactly like TT. You would need BV so that you wouldn't HAVE to tweak anything, and really that's the only reason TT is balanced.

[Iwaslost]

Pht, on 26 December 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

It seems the to-hit modifiers for the individual weapons and the hit-location 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.

Otherwise, the game has been pretty good.

PS: One need NOT make all the weapons fire every ten seconds. If you want to control refire rates and keep the balance, tweak heat values on the weapons. It's the heat output that controls refire rates for every weapon in the TT. Fire faster than every 10, add heat - slower, less heat.

People already complain about heat. Could you imagine if they changed it more?

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 10 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

I don't see any such list, I see a stance.

... and the difference between what you're calling a "list" and a "stance" ... is ... ?

Pht, on 26 December 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

It seems the to-hit modifiers for the individual weapons and the hit-location 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.

I'd also like to know how you can say that in this I did not list out what was wrong... and how I have not since been listing out how to fix it in most of my posts in this thread.

Quote

And once again you gave your stance: Because TT. That is how simple your stance is.

"Because TT" has no content and is not what I have been posting. You've used a phrase that is itself devoid of content into which anyone can place their personal prejudices and presume it somehow equates to what I've been arguing.

If you want to really defeat what someone's arguing you have to go against what they've been posting, not an empty-suit phrase.

Quote

You say everything is suffering because they are having to tweak it, but what multiplayer game doesn't have lots of support/tweaks early on. Eventually most multiplayer games find very good balance and there are fewer tweaks.

Even if every single other game was subject to endless tweaks forever it still wouldn't mean that it's proper and Ok. If there is never a set and unchanging foundation all of the combat system built thereafter is subject to unintended consequences - namely - for example, heat-bugging in mw4 - the MW4 dev team swore the bug didn't even exist until one of them was invited onto a server playing the colseium map and he suffered obscene abuse from the entire opfor who were ALL heatbugging. These types results are inevitable when your game system is an incoherent mess.

Quote

You shouldn't say us, because the rest of us agree with him.

"Us" as in everyone reading this thread.

Quote

You should say "If you can't tell ME, then I won't accept your claim". That would be the truth of the matter.

If he can't validly make his argument even *he* shouldn't accept it as being true.

Quote

I feel like I need to mention again that this game doesn't have Battlevalue, which gave weight to each individual weapon/component/mech/engine. The combined point total of the mechs on one team with all the weapons/equipment/engines was the same point total as the enemy team. This meant TT didn't need balance the same way MWO does. MWO doesn't match teams based on their engine sizes/weapons loadout/equipment. The reason I bring it up is because you didn't even mention BV in how to make things work exactly like TT. You would need BV so that you wouldn't HAVE to tweak anything, and really that's the only reason TT is balanced.

Every one of the BV (and CV, the old version) systems was built not to balance the TT combat system. They were built to try (it's a vain attempt, imo) and establish a formulaic one way applies to everything "human effect" balancer for TT combat... and every single implementation of it has failed at this goal - and always will. The only way the human factor can be balanced out is to have a GM who knows the system, who's word is accepted, who can simply say "No, you can't. Because I say so." It's just like telling your kid he isn't allowed to get cookies out of the jar - so he gets the neighbor kid to get them out of the cookie jar for him.

Wholly besides this, You appear to have made the claim that using the to-hit and hit location tables will somehow result in "unbalanced" gameplay...

What kind of balance are you referring to? ... and if everyone were to be on the same page as to what you mean by balance, can you demonstrate your argument in logical form? If you can't do so, can you at least provide a solid example how how these two mechanics without BV are unbalanced?

IE: can we actually get what you're really saying out on the table?

Iwaslost, on 10 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

People already complain about heat. Could you imagine if they changed it more?

Heat is supposed to be a MechWarrior's worst enemy... it can literally kill you if you don't keep it under control.

Edited by Pht, 11 January 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 11 January 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I'd also like to know how you can say that in this I did not list out what was wrong... and how I have not since been listing out how to fix it in most of my posts in this thread.

"Because TT" has no content and is not what I have been posting. You've used a phrase that is itself devoid of content into which anyone can place their personal prejudices and presume it somehow equates to what I've been arguing.

If you want to really defeat what someone's arguing you have to go against what they've been posting, not an empty-suit phrase.

I guess you forgot the part where you called your opponents(the no voters) stupid. You made this harder on yourself by doing so. I don't see a numbered list, all I see are 2 very long sentences.

You didn't post any reasons this game should be more like TT. All you did was say:

Quote

They didn't use the foundational TT combat system rules, and because the foundation is broken, everything else is suffering - starting with doubled armor values and endless tweaks to the weapons that will effectively never stop for as long as they are supporting the game.

So in otherwords you said: They didn't use TT rules which is causing everything else to suffer cause they aren't TT values and endless tweaks will never make them TT values for as long as they are supporting the game.
Then you say:

Quote

How to correct this problem - use the hit-location tables and the to-hit system minus the pilot's piloting and gunnery skill rolls; which means you *can* go back to the TT weapons damage values, the TT armor numbers, and the entire TT damage system, which, with the addition of the advanced rules from maxtech/tactical operations is pretty robust.

So in otherwords the way to correct not using TT rules and values is to use TT rules and values. How ingenious. I mean seriously, DUH. How is what you said intelligent? I ask WHY, and you basically say BECAUSE. That's why I summed up what you said into: "Because TT."

Pht, on 11 January 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

"Us" as in everyone reading this thread.

If he can't validly make his argument even *he* shouldn't accept it as being true.

No it is you who has proving to do, because you are in the minority. People who are against having this game use TT values are defending the system AS IS. You are saying to CHANGE the system and make it like TT, another reason it is you, not us, who has proving to do. Saying it is not like TT and here's how to make it like TT, is not proving anything.