373 replies to this topic

[Pht]

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

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.

Actually, I would say leave the damage values alone; it's not necessary to tweak them in order to bring faster firing weapons "to heel."

I think what is often missed on this topic is that there IS a Rate Of Fire in the TT other than every 10 seconds - effective ROF and weapons balancing is established by heat buildup.

The proper question isn't, can it fire every 10 seconds, but, "can I fire this turn without (exploding my ammo, disabling my 'mech, cooking myself, rendering my 'Mech virtually unable to aim it's weapons).

If you fire every turn and ignore the heat buildup, your mech (and likely YOU) are reduced to an immobile, quivering, smoking target that can't hit the side of an overlord dropship.

For everyone who wonders what kind of skill there is in a 'Mech piloting sim -this is one of the biggies - how much heat can I trade-off for how much benefit?

This is how heat establishes weapons balancing in TT for every weapon.

So, there's no need to tweak the damage values. Use the heat penalities for balancing and tweak up the heat values on weapons you want to fire faster than every 10 seconds. If you do this you won't even have to mess with the heat-dumping system.

What about weapons with zero heat? They are balanced by giant size and weight, exploding ammo, and ammo dependency.

But, but MGS! ... yes, what about them... if you make them fire faster than every 10 seconds, make them run hotter.

This also has the added advantage of keeping the damage values, so you don't wind up needing to tweak the armor/critical damage application systems or numbers.
----

Huge, giant YES to using the advanced rules in the conversion. They cover a lot of things that people think the TT leaves out, like range, or how weapons apply damage, etc.

Just about the only rule that I'm of the opinion to leave out would be the direct-blow rule.

BTW, they've also already put in rules for simultaneous movement, and for making "opportunity shots" too. I'll have to go re-read them, but if memory serves, these two pretty much destroy the "can't convert to realtime" argument.

Edited by Pht, 16 January 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Helbourne]

Yeah what Pht has said. Pht and I are on the same page.

Pht, what is this 'direct-blow rule' you are talking about?

Edited by Helbourne, 16 January 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Pht]

Helbourne, on 16 January 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Yeah what Pht has said. Pht and I are on the same page.

Pht, what is this 'direct-blow rule' you are talking about?

If you roll really good your weapon does more damage.

It's the flip side of the "glancing blow" rule.

I'm not sure if it would be wise to use the direct-blow rule with the expanded critcal damage/critical assessment/floating criticals stuff; it might result in insta-death gameplay.

[Helbourne]

Pht, on 16 January 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

If you roll really good your weapon does more damage.

It's the flip side of the "glancing blow" rule.

I'm not sure if it would be wise to use the direct-blow rule with the expanded critcal damage/critical assessment/floating criticals stuff; it might result in insta-death gameplay.

Okay... Yeah I agree, it would be wise to leave that rule out of the video game. We don't need a undamaged assault mech getting cored by a single medium laser hit.

Its good for epic story telling for RPGs. It would be too much for this video game.

Edited by Helbourne, 16 January 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

PHT, develop your own "video game" the way you want it. You and your handful of friends can play it until your eyes bleed.

The rest of us will enjoy MWO in a true video game format where the results aren't dictated by a dice roll.

[Pht]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 17 January 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

The rest of us will enjoy MWO in a true video game format...

What is a "true video game format?"

Do you even know what you mean by this phrase you've used?

If you do know what you mean by this phrase, and you've got the decency to post it, do you even know the counter-position, as it's actually been posted, well enough to show that what you mean by your phrase is actually a more desireable result? Or will it wind up being what it's been so often - nobody explains what they mean by the ambiguous phrases they use AND they continue to misprepresent the position opposite of theirs?

Quote

...where the results aren't dictated by a dice roll.

I'd like to know who you're intending this to be against.

Nothing I've posted says or means that "results are dictated by dice rolls."

As a matter of fact, were the game setup to do what I've been saying it should do - simulate the 'Mechs - it would mean that player skill would count for MORE than a setup with no simulation of the 'Mechs...

Or do you seriously expect people to believe that it takes more skill to manipulate an aimpoint, track a target, and time weapons velocity than it does to manipulate an aimpoint, track a target, and keep track of internal heat buildup, what kind of movement your mech is doing at the moment, environmental factors, and track what weapons are at their optimum rated ranges?

----

I wonder how long before most of the people around here realize that just because they post the words "DICE!!!" and "RANDOM!!!!" doesn't mean their conclusions will be accepted by anyone.

It's like people only care about their ideas just enough to, in essence, throw some mud at the wall and hope it sticks, instead of actually destroying the position that is opposite theirs by knowhing it better than those promoting it...

... and than showing how said position is fallacious and/or counterproductive to getting to the desired result.

[Sean Casey]

I think in some ways the issue is keeping the damage and heat per shot the same instead of changing the damage and heat per shot to match TT damage/heat per 10 seconds. This would then allow all sorts of varied fire rates and still retain the balance of TT and allow original armor values. The super fast convergence we have doing help the situation, but if damage/heat was adjusted to match per 10 seconds instead of per shot, it wouldn't be a huge issue either. And it would fix the heat issue since we still dissipate the same amount per 10 seconds as we woul din TT (DHS's excluded)

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 17 January 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

PHT, develop your own "video game" the way you want it. You and your handful of friends can play it until your eyes bleed.

The rest of us will enjoy MWO in a true video game format where the results aren't dictated by a dice roll.

I like pht's response to this. You should explain. We can wait while you formulate a response.
Or figure out what YOU meant in the first place so that you even CAN

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 18 January 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Pht]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 January 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

I like pht's response to this. You should explain. We can wait while you formulate a response.
Or figure out what YOU meant in the first place so that you even CAN

It's not that I even really mind that he's disagreeing, and somewhat vehemently, and even with a little bit of snark.

It's just that I dont' even recognize the position that's being attributed to me as being ... my position. Heck, even the position of anyone else that wants to follow the TT on simulating the 'Mechs.

I am actually finding myself ticked off that the people who disagree with my position and others who hold somewhat similar positionswon't even make their own arguments!

Most of the time you just see someone post that they disagree - and some ambiguous reason why... and that's IT.

Nobody seems to give enough of a (self-censoring) about their own ideas and position enough to spend enough time to even read and comprehend ONE post by those disagreeing with them well enough to refute them, and refute them WELL.

What the heck, you care enough to snark and flame strawmen, collectively, in hundreds if not thousands of posts, but not, collectively, enough to actually ENGAGE?

Darnit. I want a real fight, not a "who can snark and yell the loudest and light off the biggest strawman" fest. Make a fool of me by showing how my posts are logically fallacious - if you can do that, you, by definition, WIN.

[/rant]

Edited by Pht, 18 January 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

If they don't make their own arguments, their position cannot be disproven, and they feel safe and content with it. They don't want to be challenged.

They miss that without arguments, their position can also not be shown, and thus is meaningless. All that is left to us is point out that they brought no arguments and ignore them from then on. They are clearly not interested in figuring out the truth (which may actually be their position, but who would know without valid arguments for it?).

[King Arthur IV]

didnt they start with tt rules and stats? and the hunchback was like op as ***? 150kph hunchy......

[MWHawke]

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.

Are you referring to the gunnery skills of the pilot?

[Joseph Mallan]

Pht, on 16 January 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

If you roll really good your weapon does more damage.

It's the flip side of the "glancing blow" rule.

I'm not sure if it would be wise to use the direct-blow rule with the expanded critcal damage/critical assessment/floating criticals stuff; it might result in insta-death gameplay.

Glancing Blows (Victor Steiner-Davion rule) never should have been added to TT along with Death by Jump Jet(Natasha Kerensky Death) or the Kellhound Mind Tricks! That crap should have stayed in the novels.

[Pht]

King Arthur IV, on 19 January 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

didnt they start with tt rules and stats? and the hunchback was like op as ***? 150kph hunchy......

They used only the stats. Not the combat system.

MWHawke, on 19 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Are you referring to the gunnery skills of the pilot?

No. Most certainly I am not. The stuff I've mentioned are what describes how your 'Mech performs in combat and how it relates to whatever conditions it's in when you try and make a shot.

The pilot's gunnery dice rolls have no place in a MW video game.

Joseph Mallan, on 19 January 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

Glancing Blows (Victor Steiner-Davion rule) never should have been added to TT along with Death by Jump Jet(Natasha Kerensky Death) or the Kellhound Mind Tricks! That crap should have stayed in the novels.

Glancing blows I can stand if only because of how the rule is set up - it just represents a hit that barely makes contact and in the tt system only happens when you meet the bare hit number, instead of exceeding it.

Direct blow I detest not only because it's so deadly but because it makes the weapons somehow "magically" do more damage vs armor that hasn't somehow become weaker.

Death by JJ ... meh. Don't really care one way or another.