373 replies to this topic

[Mongoose Trueborn]

You TT guys don't want a video game. You want an interactive movie that never has the same ending. If you could actually drive a mech you wouldn't want what you ask for.

Now go do my taxes and I will let you group with me to raise your win %.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 14 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You TT guys don't want a video game. You want an interactive movie that never has the same ending. If you could actually drive a mech you wouldn't want what you ask for.

Now go do my taxes and I will let you group with me to raise your win %.

LOL How would you know What I'm Asking for?

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 13 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Well, "what you want" and "the differences between MWO and TT" appear to be basically the same thing.

I can understand if you disagreed with me; what annoys me is that you're not even disagreeing with what I've been posting, for the most part - you've been disagreeing with strawmen.

Having something wrongly attributed to you and getting (verbally) clubbed for that thing gets annoying after a while, even to someone with the thickest skin.

Quote

I understand you want Microsoft Mech Combat Simulator, ...

If you're making reference to the MS flight sims, and the fact that they are and can be obscenely complex to master and play:

Pht, on 05 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

I do not believe a simulation video game is one intended to simulate real life - I believe it just means that you're trying to imitate something faithfully.

I can also pull multiple quotes of myself (from before and outside of this thread too) pointing out that imitating a BT 'Mech wouldn't make for an obscenely complex game; and showing what backs up this claim.

Quote

but most of the rest of us want Mechwarrior Online.

... Which is the heart of the argument - a disagreement over what the word "MechWarrior" means in reference to the video game.

To quote myself again:

Pht, on 12 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

"Way back when" some people decided it would be cool to "be" the MechWarrior themselves; and the most capable means they had at hand for suspending their disbelief for a bit of MW escapism were video games.

So, just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Obviously, what follows, of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.

If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game.

Furthermore, the novelists have been *forced* to make the way they write the 'Mech combat up to comply with the boundaries set by the tabletop rules system; to the point they complain about it and call it "heavy handed," so appealing to the novels and the fluff text doesn't work as a counter argument either, because those sources also comply with the TT system.

This seems to be the point You and I are mainly disagreeing on.

You seem to think MechWarrior Means something other than this.

Why?

Edited by Pht, 15 January 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[Pht]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 14 January 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

this is the problem. the other side of the argument put their fingers in their ears and scream "IM RIGHT" while the TT guys do the same

... and those few that actually want to know the other side and interact with it get lost in the chaff and must instead just be obscenely persistent in the hopes that some lurkers might actually read things.

Lorren Jaffray, on 14 January 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

We started with table top rules and they didn't work at all, not even close.

They didn't.

There was no use of the hit location tables and no use of the to-hit mechanic and modifiers; these are central to the TT game.

They did start with a bunch of the weapons and armor values, but not the combat system.

[Pht]

Void Angel, on 14 January 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

And that is why I'm checking out of this conversation. Basically you have three general opinions here: Tabletop is the key to game balance; Tabletop has to be followed in order for this to be a "real" Battletech game; and "put down the rulebook for the other game and stop hitting."

The first opinion is not terribly defensible - even its advocates (with the possible exception of the Black Knight up there) admit that the rules can't be slavishly copied.

The position that the TT combat system should be used is eminently defensible; (the second position is being argued by nobody)if only those who disagreed with it would actually, say, pick a rule and either make a logical argument (IE, say, a syllogism) as to why it won't work - or at least an example why it wouldn't work, instead of endlessly just repeating "it won't work."

It's kind of hard to defend something when it's not even being attacked. I pity the strawmen around here - they're getting slaughtered.

----

Said black knight who has repeatedly said to not use the pilot skill rolls, because they don't fit the format.

Quote

But if you don't copy all the rules (accepting for the sake of argument that Tabletop was perfectly balanced,) you have to demonstrate why some specific rules (typically the weapon stats) are balanced without the random hit tables and range to-hit modifiers. That's a difficult proposition, given that we've been told that they tried a direct conversion in closed beta and discarded it as unworkable. So this option boils down to either a belief that they could have "gotten it right" if they'd just tried harder or been less incompetent (I have seen the exact word used) - or else it's just a back door to the second opinion:

Nobody's been arguing that it's "perfectly" balanced. Not even me.

They didn't try a direct conversion in the closed beta-which I was in. The two rules I've been mentioning reatedly never got used.

What was done was less of a direct conversion and more of a mashup of weapons and armor numbers into an entirely different combat system.

Quote

The second opinion is that somehow the artistic flavor of the Battletech universe, which encompasses reams of fiction, background data, and visual art, is (often irretrievably) compromised by not slavishly copying some or all of the tabletop game rules. This opinion presents even more difficulty to its proponents, since they're attempting to enforce an artistic impression as the only reasonable belief on the subject. No amount of argumentation will "prove" a subjective, non-falsifiable claim that just boils down to "but it doesn't feel like real Battletech because ECM didn't work that way in the board game."

You STILL have no idea what I've been arguing.

Stating that the lore exists inside of the boundaries set by the boardgame constraints and that if we wish to know how (in a form useful for making a video game) a 'Mech performs in combat, we must go to the boardgame that forms those constraints is not an "aesthetic" argument.

However, if you insist on tilting at this windmill, I think I'll actually go get the answer directly from the horse's mouth in a public forum that I can quote from, instead of just in a PM.

The combat behavior of the 'mechs exists inside of the boundaries set by the boardgame. The guys at fasa/fanpro/wizkids/catalyst have been doing it this way for years.

...

You have an odd way of "checking out."

Edited by Pht, 15 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Spriggen]

I voted for "Whats the tabletop version" because I bet the tabletop wouldn't have the lag I'm having from playing MWO...

Edited by Spriggen, 15 January 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Void Angel]

I'm not sure why I have a notification for this thread; Pht is belatedly cut-and-paste quoting again. How odd. I'm just going to assume that he's claiming that: he's never been given a logical reason for his position being wrong; it's perfectly reasonable to completely convert the tabletop to this format, random hit tables and all; and that everyone who disagrees with him is being logically inconsistent. Add in a dash of hand-waving away some portion of an argument and then reiterating a demand that he be provided with arguments he's already been given (and is pretending don't exist) and presto! He wins the internet!

I shall refer him once again to The Black Knight and unfollow the topic again in the hopes that this time it will stick.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 January 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[Pht]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I'm not sure why I have a notification for this thread; Pht is belatedly cut-and-paste quoting again. How odd.

Yes, because using blockquotes in context and quoting YOUR ENTIRE POST is somehow ... taking things out of context!

Quote

I'm just going to assume...

Instead of quoting something I've posted that you disagree with and refuting it - Like, say, the blurb about what the MW game and genre is.

Quote

...that he's claiming that: he's never been given a logical reason for his position being wrong;

----

it's perfectly reasonable to completely convert the tabletop to this format,

----

random hit tables and all;

----

and that everyone who disagrees with him is being logically inconsistent.

----

Add in a dash of hand-waving away some portion of an argument

----

and then reiterating a demand that he be provided with arguments he's already been given (and is pretending don't exist) and presto! He wins the internet!

Nobody has yet managed to provide a coherent counter argument yet... in fact, feel free to make a liar of me by, say, using the link or quote functions.

----

I've not said that it's - your words - "perfectly reasonable to completely convert the tabletop to this format."


Yet again accusing me of something I haven't posted - that we should "completely convert the TT over when I've said dozens of times now to not use the pilot skill rolls.

----

So far, yes, the counter arguments have been. Again, feel free to use the quote or link function to make a liar of me.

----

I've not been ignoring any part of anyone's arguments. Funny, coming from someone who's virtually admitted that he's not reading my posts by repeatedly posting things like "just going to assume..." or some variation of the "just assuming what you've posted instead of reading it.

----

Do you actually *have* a post in mind? Does it even exist? Can you remotely remember enough of my posts to quote me where I'm somehow "hand waving" away an argument? If you don't, how can you claim I'm doing something you don't even remember seeing me do?

Edited by Pht, 15 January 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[Pht]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 14 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You TT guys don't want a video game.

We DO want a video game.

Specifically, a first-person real time armored-combat piloting simulator, based upon the BTUniverse.

Many will quibble over what to use to define the BTUniverse, but that's the end desired.

Quote

Now go do my taxes and I will let you group with me to raise your win %.

NO EIC for you!

[Indoorsman]

Pht, on 15 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

I can understand if you disagreed with me; what annoys me is that you're not even disagreeing with what I've been posting, for the most part - you've been disagreeing with strawmen.

Having something wrongly attributed to you and getting (verbally) clubbed for that thing gets annoying after a while, even to someone with the thickest skin.



If you're making reference to the MS flight sims, and the fact that they are and can be obscenely complex to master and play:



I can also pull multiple quotes of myself (from before and outside of this thread too) pointing out that imitating a BT 'Mech wouldn't make for an obscenely complex game; and showing what backs up this claim.



... Which is the heart of the argument - a disagreement over what the word "MechWarrior" means in reference to the video game.

To quote myself again:



This seems to be the point You and I are mainly disagreeing on.

You seem to think MechWarrior Means something other than this.

Why?

You're the one trying to redefine MechWarrior not me. There are already previous MechWarrior games to compare to and you keep using TT as the definitive source/answer/example/reason/scripture. Call this a strawman, but what you are asking for is first person tabletop.

I see TT as a reference point for MWO, you see TT as the foundation for MWO.

That is what I disagree with, and that is not a strawman.

---

You quoted something you said on the first page a while back to show that you'd been saying it all along. Well, how many views does this thread have and that one post doesn't have a single like? Now look at the next 2 posts after yours. Now re-read the rest of the first page of this thread noticing what people "like". This game would not be successful if it simulated first person tabletop.

[Tarman]

Indoorsman, on 15 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

You're the one trying to redefine MechWarrior not me. There are already previous MechWarrior games to compare to and you keep using TT as the definitive source/answer/example/reason/scripture. Call this a strawman, but what you are asking for is first person tabletop.

I see TT as a reference point for MWO, you see TT as the foundation for MWO.

That is what I disagree with, and that is not a strawman.

---

You quoted something you said on the first page a while back to show that you'd been saying it all along. Well, how many views does this thread have and that one post doesn't have a single like? Now look at the next 2 posts after yours. Now re-read the rest of the first page of this thread noticing what people "like". This game would not be successful if it simulated first person tabletop.

Dude give it up for your own sanity; your brain will bleed and you still won't get through to the holy rollers. This is not a real debate, this is a religious belief and therefore cannot be gainsaid even by such trivial things as the current state of the actual game or common sense. You cannot debate with true believers because by their lights you are already wrong beyond redemption. The ancient texts are not to be questioned, heretic!

[Indoorsman]

Tarman, on 15 January 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Dude give it up for your own sanity; your brain will bleed and you still won't get through to the holy rollers. This is not a real debate, this is a religious belief and therefore cannot be gainsaid even by such trivial things as the current state of the actual game or common sense. You cannot debate with true believers because by their lights you are already wrong beyond redemption. The ancient texts are not to be questioned, heretic!

You're right.

[Sandslice]

If nothing else, the one place where this game would do well to study and adapt the tabletop rules is in the information systems, starting on p219 of TacOps.

Yes, the double-blind and hidden record sheet rules, which would provide a great framework for how spotting, targeting, sensors, and ECM can interact with each other in a sane, balanced way. Most of the work of creating a good "information warfare" system will already be done, ECM becomes a tactical decision to have on or off even at long range, and we can focus on bug fixes and weapon tweaking.

[Mercules]

Lorren Jaffray, on 14 January 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

We started with table top rules and they didn't work at all, not even close. So we moved away from them and while ECM and lag shield suck, for the most part the game works pretty well. What are we even talking about here? We have our answer. What we currently have (non table top balance) is better than what we had (table top balance) so why are we even talking about this? I'm surprised the vote is as close as it is considering the idea of basing an action game on a board game is counter intuitive AND you can't spend much time on these forums without getting tired of hearing about table top.

We didn't start with TT rules. We started with a page from the TT rules listing the values of weapons. We started with some Mech record sheets. We started with Weapons that create far more heat and damage than they ever did in TT because they fire at least twice as fast if not four times as fast. We started with TT value for ARMOR though and they found out just how quickly it goes away when the shots are pinpoint accurate, all converge on one location and happen 2-3 times as fast as normal.

From there we changed armor, heat, rate of fire, range, and the way things act. I like some of the changes they made and think others were totally silly. We have never had anything close to TT values.

Here is what would be close to TT values, Divide heat/damage from the tables by the RoF you give the weapon. if it fires twice in the 10 seconds TT uses then it does half the damage and heat each shot. Leaves the values more or less in tact and suddenly stock mechs don't overheat like crazy and we can have TT armor values. They never even came close to that in Closed Beta so you can just forget that argument.

Mongoose Trueborn, on 14 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You TT guys don't want a video game. You want an interactive movie that never has the same ending. If you could actually drive a mech you wouldn't want what you ask for.

Now go do my taxes and I will let you group with me to raise your win %.

No, I want a Video Game that plays like I am the Mechwarrior in control of my mech. Yeah I want it to be Mechwarrior because that is what it says on the box and Mechwarrior means it lives in the BT world that is defined by the BT rules. You know, where ECM doesn't erase a mech from Radar without the scanning mech being in close range to the jamming ECM.

Indoorsman, on 15 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

You're the one trying to redefine MechWarrior not me. There are already previous MechWarrior games to compare to and you keep using TT as the definitive source/answer/example/reason/scripture. Call this a strawman, but what you are asking for is first person tabletop.

I see TT as a reference point for MWO, you see TT as the foundation for MWO.

That is what I disagree with, and that is not a strawman.

---

You quoted something you said on the first page a while back to show that you'd been saying it all along. Well, how many views does this thread have and that one post doesn't have a single like? Now look at the next 2 posts after yours. Now re-read the rest of the first page of this thread noticing what people "like". This game would not be successful if it simulated first person tabletop.

1. Those previous Mechwarrior games? Yeah... based off TT Battletech. So the root of it all actually is TT. Those video games obviously had to convert things for the Real Time aspect of a FPS style Simulation game. In some cases they converted things pretty faithfully. In others they dropped the ball and those were some of the major complaints of players when it came to balance in the games. Convergence being one of the worst culprits and hitscan weapons being the next.

I think MWO took a good approach to Lasers. They have the feel of BT lasers where as in previous games they were just to potent to NOT use them. 4 Medium lasers was better than an AC 20 for instant big hit damage and that just didn't work out with the mythos.

2. No, we are not asking for FPS TT. We are asking to pilot a Battlemech and be a Mechwarrior. Which means we are asking to pilot that thing defined by those rule books over there on my shelf and not defined by internet wisdom of generic pew-pew thought. We want the world and setting intact and that was all based of specific lore which all comes from those rules. You can't ignore the rule completely, make up the **** you want, and have Mechwarrior... you have a mecha game, but not mechwarrior. Some things obviously have to change, but some shouldn't. AC 20 should be the big brawler weapon of choice... is it? Nope... and that means something went wrong in the translating it to FPS.

3. Forum is a biased sample ergo any "survey" in it is simply fun and has no actual value as data.

Sandslice, on 15 January 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

If nothing else, the one place where this game would do well to study and adapt the tabletop rules is in the information systems, starting on p219 of TacOps.

Yes, the double-blind and hidden record sheet rules, which would provide a great framework for how spotting, targeting, sensors, and ECM can interact with each other in a sane, balanced way. Most of the work of creating a good "information warfare" system will already be done, ECM becomes a tactical decision to have on or off even at long range, and we can focus on bug fixes and weapon tweaking.

And that is all most of us who played TT want. We want them to start with the framework which has been tweaked and balanced over the years. Use the values of the weapons as a starting point but don't get this, "Medium Laser does 5 damage each shot." mentality. No... Medium Laser does 5 damage in 10 seconds of time IF it hits. If you make it fire 4 times in 10 seconds then it should do 1.25 damage per shot. That is the sort of "closer to TT" we are talking about(at least I am).

ECM has a working framework but they borked it overlooking some important parts of the Double Blind rules concerning ECM. They also borked LRMs and SRMs so that when they introduced ECM it had a large effect on those systems than something that is balanced around 1.5 tons and 2 crit slots SHOULD. They have picked pieces here and there but not kept the balance correctly and that is why we are having to re-balance EVERYTHING.

MGs do X damage over a period of time comparable to doing 2 damage over 10 seconds... but none of the other weapons do, they do about twice to three times as much. This is why MGs suck. Not because MGs suck, but because everything else is artificially inflated including the armor they are firing at.


Basically MWO is to TT what Chess is to playing the same game without any pawns. Yeah, a lot of the same pieces are there and it seems like it should feel the same, but it really isn't all that balanced. The advantage of going first is MUCH greater without pawns on the board.



Oh, one last thing as to the person mentioning the Charger not being a balanced mech. Ehem... BV changes all that. Normal Charger is like the same BV as some Locusts. If you compare it directly to another Assault Class mech (who would be silly enough to use that as a matchmaking tool?) it seems worthless, but it is a slow scout mech and it works for it's intended purpose.

This is what I mean by following TT. In TT BV determines what the forces are made up of, not the mech's class or weight. They could save so much headache in Match Making if they implement BV as part of it. If they did then some Awesomes might be matched against a 'phract or Catapult, instead of an ECM Atlas. 4 lights on your team might mean you end up facing a lot of Mediums on their side and you have a couple heavy hitters to back up those light mechs.

Edited by Mercules, 15 January 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

The heat will dissipate just fine if you only fired 1 time every 10 seconds. People only get hot and whine about heat because they want to fire every 2 or 3 seconds.

[HC Harlequin]

Mercules, on 15 January 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

AC 20 should be the big brawler weapon of choice... is it? Nope... and that means something went wrong in the translating it to FPS.

This. The fact is that the AC20 isn't even the 2nd or the 3rd best ballistic weapon.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 January 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

LOL How would you know What I'm Asking for?

yeah that generally involves reading and not making things up as you go along
Not possible here

[MustrumRidcully]

HC Harlequin, on 15 January 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

The heat will dissipate just fine if you only fired 1 time every 10 seconds. People only get hot and whine about heat because they want to fire every 2 or 3 seconds.

People fire every 2 or 3 seconds because the weapon stats allow them to, and they optimized their builds for the heat load possible that way, ensuring they deal more damage in the same time period as someone that tries to fire his weapon every 10 seconds. The result - stock mechs suck, because you can do a lot more damage with less weapons and more heat sinks, and they get killed by those with a far more efficient build

[MustrumRidcully]

Void Angel, on 14 January 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

And that is why I'm checking out of this conversation. Basically you have three general opinions here: Tabletop is the key to game balance; Tabletop has to be followed in order for this to be a "real" Battletech game; and "put down the rulebook for the other game and stop hitting."

The first opinion is not terribly defensible - even its advocates (with the possible exception of the Black Knight up there) admit that the rules can't be slavishly copied. But if you don't copy all the rules (accepting for the sake of argument that Tabletop was perfectly balanced,) you have to demonstrate why some specific rules (typically the weapon stats) are balanced without the random hit tables and range to-hit modifiers. That's a difficult proposition, given that we've been told that they tried a direct conversion in closed beta and discarded it as unworkable. So this option boils down to either a belief that they could have "gotten it right" if they'd just tried harder or been less incompetent (I have seen the exact word used) - or else it's just a back door to the second opinion:

I would just like to point out:
Weapon stats are in fact, in the table top, also balanced around the idea of random hit locations. The rules tend to "err" on making weapons that have a long range or a long single hit damage being much more expensive (in terms of weight and critical slots) than a weapon setup that can deliver the same damage at shorter range or with lower single hit damage.

So let's say a table top fan realizes this. And then he acknowledges that without random hit locations, that this must be compensated in some way. And then he checks - is it? And if it is, is there still consistency - is a good mech buidl from the table top still a good mech build in MW:O?

I think the answer is "No" to both.

[Pht]

Indoorsman, on 15 January 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

You're the one trying to redefine MechWarrior not me. There are already previous MechWarrior games to compare to and you keep using TT as the definitive source/answer/example/reason/scripture. Call this a strawman, but what you are asking for is first person tabletop.

"First person tabletop" - Your words, exactly, and they mean you're saying that we should use the entire TT system, and not in real time, and with the P&G rolls. You've specified no modifiers on this; it simply means, the ENTIRE TT system; no exceptions.

This is what I mean about the strawmen. If you're going to attribute something to someone, it should be something they've actually done/said/posted.

I suspect you'd go stark raving insane if I repeatedly just posted that your idea was that we should have prettier wolfenstein 3d with 'Mech skins.

Quote

I see TT as a reference point for MWO, you see TT as the foundation for MWO.

That is what I disagree with, and that is not a strawman.

---

This is, I suspect, the real thing that's the point of contention that all the other arguments spring from. If we can hash this out to at least the point where we can repeat back to each other our positions on this topic, in a form that we would recognize as our own... even if we disagreed ... we'll have at least gotten somewhere.

I've already posted my reasons (so far) for why I consider that the TT is the foundation for the Combat (and other) behavior of the 'Mechs. I'd really like it if you could directly intereact with that blurb and point out what you disagree with.

Besides which, I'd like to know what your other reasons are for disagreeing on this issue... it's kind of hard to assess unexpressed reasons for a position someone holds.

-----

Speaking on this topic, of what controls the BTU lore; Instead of just guessing or relying on opinion, I used the BT forum's function where you can ... actually ask the people who's paid job it is to know these things; in a forum section established for getting "official answers from the developers of the universe."

Here's the reply, so far:

Quote

Re: Mech Behavior/performance, ETC, What source is definitive?

« Reply #1 on: 15 January 2013, 18:45:59 »



Quote from: Pht on 15 January 2013, 18:14:14[indent]

Quote

Hey, first of all, thanks for your time & reading this.

The question is:

What written BattleTech materials are considered canonical and used to form the boundaries in which novelists and sourcebook writers stay?

[/indent]
The rule for continuity review of new material is that:

1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.

So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error.

Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews.



Quote[indent]

Quote

For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?

[/indent]
That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions. (Not directly - such continuity commentary is subject to editorial / line developer oversight. See point 5, above.) As it stands, Tech Manual has the current descriptions of how BattleMech weaponry and movement is controlled and writers stick to that.



Quote[indent]

Quote

Or, for example, the Boardgame Rules don't do PSR's for falling over until *after* the 'Mech has taken fire; thus suggesting that the 'Mech has been able to handle the recoil from firing it's own kinetic based weapons and the "knock" generated by taking incoming weapons fire without any interaction from the Pilot (no PSR when these events happen, only after) - thus seemingly indicating that the 'Mechs are able to "handle" this recoil and knock without pilot input? ... essentially meaning that the combat rules would establish the 'Mech's behavior/performance, where those rules touch on these topics?

[/indent]
Well, here you run into an issue where fluff and rules collide, and the rules don't exactly take precedence when writing. The rules on combat turn sequence are not necessarily representative of the actual flow of time in the fictional world of BT. In this case, the rules are an abstraction meant to keep game play organized, sane, and methodical, without translating directly into real world effects.

For example, the rules indicate weapons fire is handled at the same instant in each turn, and THEN damage is applied. This can result in oddities such as one 'Mech blowing another 'Mech's arm off, but the amputee 'Mech still gets to shoot its amputated arm's weapons because damage is resolved AFTER everyone fires "simultaneously." But in fiction, a writer would not be expected to describe every 'Mech on a field firing all their weapons in the same clock tick of a 10-second period, then seeing all the damage manifest afterwards, then make appropriate PSRs. In the novel, the damage would happen more organically and the MechWarriors would be firing at their own pace.

On the other hand, a writer would generally be expected to adhere to descriptions of damage effects in the rules: when an engine is hit, heat flares. When a gyro is wrecked, the 'Mech can't remain standing if it has to make any PSRs. Since the fluff and rules are fairly in agreement about damage effects, the fluff would also be referenced if the author had continuity problems with his draft. (For example, an author that described finding big hydraulic pistons under a 'Mech's blown-off armor would be reminded that 'Mechs use myomers, as described in Tech Manual's fluff.)

In your specific example of handling their own weapon recoil, yes, BattleMechs can handle that without too much MechWarrior input. As noted in Tech Manual, the Diagnostic Interface computer is pretty good about keeping a BattleMech upright. It will be especially good about its own weapons since it knows their recoil values, from what angle and elevation the recoil will occur, and knows when the recoil will occur - the DI computer is, after all, the computer that is overseeing the activation of the weapons once the MechWarrior points-and-clicks with the trigger. The DI computer (and MechWarrior) will have more trouble with the unpredictable onslaught of an attack, which will erratically shed tons of armor (losing about a ton is the minimum to trigger a PSR) and possibly structure, hence the PSRs if enough damage is inflicted.

If that doesn't answer your questions, or raised new ones, feel free to ask away.

Which pretty much puts the nails into the coffin, as it were.

Those who are most familiar with the BT lore and fasa/fanpro/wizkids/catalyst have suspected this for quite some time; it may have been mentioned officially elsewhere, but this answers it, in black and white.

Final appeal is the line developer; and the line developer pretty much goes with the TT rules, where they are clear on a topic. Otherwise, they use the aforementioned TechManual sourcebook "fluff" on the topic to clarify things.

----

Quote

You quoted something you said on the first page a while back to show that you'd been saying it all along. Well, how many views does this thread have and that one post doesn't have a single like? Now look at the next 2 posts after yours. Now re-read the rest of the first page of this thread noticing what people "like". This game would not be successful if it simulated first person tabletop.

"Likes" or polls on a forum does not dictate what people would or would not do.

Besides which, as I've said before, the MW video game series could be so much more - it could essentially create it's own following - it doesn't have to be a slave to the "all games where weapons are fired must be clones of Wolf3D."