Jump to content

Table Top Vs Online


373 replies to this topic

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

Should the game try to balance more towards the tabletop version

  1. Yes (246 votes [41.07%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.07%

  2. No (286 votes [47.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.75%

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

    Percentage of vote: 7.35%

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

    Percentage of vote: 3.84%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

View PostThe Cheese, on 27 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

I didn't read the whole thread, because I don't need to.

This isn't tabletop battletech. If you want that, play that.


see mercules' post two or so up. He addresses this concern.

#62 8RoundsRapid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 301 posts
  • Locationupriver

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:55 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPC - RoF 5 seconds - Heat 4.5 - Dam 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Best post on the subject to date. I was gonna put something down similar to this, but this is way better than what I had in mind.

#63 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:57 AM

Quote

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

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


there you go "The Cheese" dont need to read the whole thread.
If THATS TLDR then youre on your own

#64 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:02 AM

View PostBaliel, on 27 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I like TT and I like MWO. However I realize that they are two separate entities, as it should be. TT rules and the mechwarrior universe should be a template from which to deviate in order to create an enjoyable game.


I agree, but at some point deviation leads to it no longer being in the same mythos as TT. It also leads to things like throwing out years and years of balancing already tried and tested. Yes, it is not the same medium, but it is blatantly obvious that using part of a set of values as if set in stone and then not using the rest of it leads to... not functioning. This is one thing PGI did. They kept values from TT but then upped the RoF which threw the heat balance off.

Edited by Mercules, 27 December 2012 - 09:03 AM.


#65 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:27 AM

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:


I agree, but at some point deviation leads to it no longer being in the same mythos as TT. It also leads to things like throwing out years and years of balancing already tried and tested. Yes, it is not the same medium, but it is blatantly obvious that using part of a set of values as if set in stone and then not using the rest of it leads to... not functioning. This is one thing PGI did. They kept values from TT but then upped the RoF which threw the heat balance off.


then told us rather than even letting us test that 2.0 dhs would break the game. Not that they couldnt again fix RoF to make that less so or change hardpoints on mechs to make that less so or up armor (again) to make that less so, etc

#66 MustrumRidcully

    Member

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

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:43 AM

True to the vision for me is not the same as a slave to the original ruleset, which is why I said yes.

True to the vision is for me that heat management is important, but it'S more about avoiding a shutdown after 4 alpha strikes. It's about constant penalties you have to consider when you make your shots. It's also about stock designs working within their original expectations, and not appearing considerably overgunned for their heat dissipation cabilities, or considerably undergunned (there is no danger of that currently).

Other things MW:O already does pretty well. Weapons have approximately the ranges they should have, for example. The customziation limitations via hard points make it more likely (but not always perfectly so) that custom mechs still fit their visual aesthetics.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 27 December 2012 - 09:50 AM.


#67 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:47 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 27 December 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

True to the vision for me is not the same as a slave to the original ruleset, which is why I set.

True to the vision is for me that heat management is important, but it'S more about avoiding a shutdown after 4 alpha strikes. It's about constant penalties you have to consider when you make your shots. It's also about stock designs working within their original expectations, and not appearing considerably overgunned for their heat dissipation cabilities, or considerably undergunned (there is no danger of that currently).

Other things MW:O already does pretty well. Weapons have approximately the ranges they should have, for example. The customziation limitations via hard points make it more likely (but not always perfectly so) that custom mechs still fit their visual aesthetics.


Yes, exactly. A heat scale with minor set backs as you gain more heat is TT true and not in MWO and is one of the things that unbalances the game. Their really is no reason not to move in, Alpha-Alpha-Alpha, move out of combat and cool down. In TT at least that second and third would have some consequence like either having a harder shot or not being able to maneuver well enough to break contact because the heat is slowing you down.

#68 verybad

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,229 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:57 AM

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.

#69 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:18 AM

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:


Yes, exactly. A heat scale with minor set backs as you gain more heat is TT true and not in MWO and is one of the things that unbalances the game. Their really is no reason not to move in, Alpha-Alpha-Alpha, move out of combat and cool down.


Like that one guy's 6 PPC Stalker lol

#70 verybad

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,229 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:22 AM

View PostMechwarrior Buddah, on 27 December 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:


Like that one guy's 6 PPC Stalker lol

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?

#71 MustrumRidcully

    Member

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

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:28 AM

View Postverybad, on 27 December 2012 - 09:57 AM, 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.

A lot of the balance issues in MW:O are on the weapon level, not the mech level. Mechs are also a problem, but come later.
The biggest imbalance example is always what rates of fire do to weapons. A Gauss Rifle can deal 30 damage in 10 seconds for the price of one extra heat sink, a PPC must spend 10 heat sinks for 10 extra damage. Same deal for the AC/5 - double its damage from 5 to 10 in 10 seconds by investing 1 heat sink. Even the uber Medium Laser needs now 4 tons to double its damage from 5 to 10. And this isn't even the most extreme case possibly,b ecause an AC/5 can fire even faster than twice in 10 seconds.

Custom Mechs in the table top were primarily imbalanced against stock mechs. Their weapon and heat sink loadout would simply be optimzied more, just as their weapon location. For example, the Hunchback 4P puts several medium lasers in one side torso. There is no good reason to do this except for the story beyond the Hunchback. RUleswise, spreading the weapons (and maybe putting more in the arms) would have been better.
That certain 3050 mechs still only used mix technology (ER Lasers but single heat sinks for example) is also entirely a story hindrance, and no no one would build a custom mech with single heat sinks if he could have double heat sinks (though there may be good reasons to stick to LLs instead of ER LLs - ER LLs after all pay a price for their range, they are not just Clan-Powergamer's-Wet-Dream ER LLs.)

But the differences between a custom-made 80 ton PPC boat with 3025 Tech and the stock AWS-8Q are not that big in the Table Top. And certainly not as big as they are in MW:O.

#72 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:36 AM

View Postverybad, on 27 December 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

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?


didnt know I said there was one... I was using it as an example of there being no point in NOT running mechs like that

also; never said you couldnt do it in TT, dunno where that even came from

If people think the builds are bad now they could stand a try at building mechs with the TT setup; where there are no hardpoints lol

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 27 December 2012 - 10:37 AM.


#73 Darwins Dog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,476 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:09 AM

^^^^^
Pretty much what all of the above said. Different game, different rules. TT battletech is still out there, and there are plenty of people still actively playing it. It is a great game. If someone made an online computer version of it, I would probably play it. MWO is not that game, and shouldn't have the same rules.

#74 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:34 AM

View Postverybad, on 27 December 2012 - 09:57 AM, 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.


No it isn't. I don't know where you get this idea unless you are unable to use Battle Value tables/calculations.

Oh wait... that is TT and wouldn't eliminate most of their matchmaking issues in a flash. <- sarcasm for those unable to detect it accurately.


View PostDarwins Dog, on 27 December 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

^^^^^
Pretty much what all of the above said. Different game, different rules. TT battletech is still out there, and there are plenty of people still actively playing it. It is a great game. If someone made an online computer version of it, I would probably play it. MWO is not that game, and shouldn't have the same rules.


There is an online computer version. Google Mega Mek. ;)

MWO is in the same universe and should abide by the same "mythos". Changing it radically changes the world and the setting.

#75 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,268 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

View PostLycan, on 26 December 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:


I have moved along.

I moved along long before you graced these forums, and the game, with your presence.

I do still stop by to try and give an opinion on things.

Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't.

::shrug:: No skin of my nose either way.



Already gone and just waiting for the game to go into Open Beta.

It is more of the type of Battletech/Mechwarrior game that I've been looking for.

It's not going to stop me from stopping in here from time to time to give my opinion though.

So basically, you come to the forums of a game you don't play, hold forth on its gameplay, and expect us to take you seriously? Get over yourself and stay gone.

PS: Slavishly copying the rules is not a prerequisite for following the "Battletech Mythos."

Edited by Void Angel, 27 December 2012 - 11:59 AM.


#76 Kain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • LocationZenith-Jumppoint, Tukayyid

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:18 PM

I love them both, but you can not merge a complete tabletop turnbased system into an realtime online action game/sim/fps.

You will just have to find a balance between the Battletech TT rules/ Universe/Lore/Canon and the Online Mechwarrior action-based gameplay.

Needless to say, they still need to keep true to the Battletech Universe.

But if they just copied the TT rules, lights would be shot to pieces in seconds by heavier mechs. (with the current netcode/lagshield i really would love to see that though :-) )

But if PGI wants to bring some balanced gameplay between the weight classes, you sadly cannot just copy the rules from TT without modifying them and think about balance issues,definitely when it is an online multiplayer game where you can not control the opponents, or define different mission parameters like the single player MW games.

If you want Battletech TT, just play MegaMek, or join Mechwarrior:Tactics,Closed Beta (or wait for OB, it is still heavy under development) ;)

Edited by Kain, 27 December 2012 - 12:19 PM.


#77 Cerlin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 922 posts
  • LocationCalifornia or Japan

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

AS many other better than me pointed out, tabletop was only balanced when to-hit is dice and RANDOM. That cannot be random in this game with a user aimed system, so it cannot be tabletop. The only way I could see it working is an Eve online style target and fire, which would drive away "harder" gamers.

#78 Helbourne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

This not a reskinned CoD. Go play CoD squint your eyes until you see everyone as battlemechs. This is not Hawken, Go play that if you want super fast paced twitchy FPS.

Edited by Helbourne, 27 December 2012 - 04:39 PM.


#79 Merky Merc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 871 posts
  • LocationRidin down the street in my 6-4

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

View PostHelbourne, on 27 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

This not a reskinned CoD. If you want that go play LL or just go play CoD and squint your eyes until you see everyone as battlemechs.


Wat.

#80 The Cheese

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,558 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:46 PM

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

You didn't bother to read any of the arguments for keeping certain things close to TT but want to comment? Good job, way to contribute to the discussion. Let's ignore the fact that you use the same old platitudes of, "If you want to play TT go play TT." and brilliant observation that, "This isn't TT." :P

Fine, you got me. I read your post because it was recommended as a good one.


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

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

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

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

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

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

PPC - RoF 5 seconds - Heat 4.5 - Dam 5

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

What's the difference between 6 and half a dozen? I can't really argue with this (aside from the 10 second round for laser hold, what were you thinking there? How would that handle pulse lasers?) aside from saying that it's just another way of reaching the same result. What advantage is there in going with your system over the current one we have?

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

Some weapons are already randomised. The flight path of every single missile you fire and every single pellet from your LBX, and I suspect, the Machine gun.
Lasers are incredibly hard to keep on a single chassis segment of even a slow moving target due to their DOT mechanic. There's a randomisation effect right there.

In fact, the only weapons NOT affected by some form of randomisation are ballistics (except for MG and LBX) and PPCs.

Your view of aiming randomisation is already in the game. Anyone who uses it as a reason against TT rules is unobservant.


View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

TT does a better job of representing physics or an FPS experience than MWO? I can't even wrap my head around this one...
Anyway, this would do exactly what you had a counter argument against way up in point 1. Cockpit bouncing while moving would make gameplay frustratingly slow. Also, can you imagine a Jenner reliably landing a shot at 130km/h if that mechanic were in place? I can't. Can you imagine anyone playing a Jenner if they had to slow to 50km/h every time they wanted to have a good shot at hitting something? I can't. When the net code is fixed, all that will keep lights alive is speed and good piloting.


View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

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

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

This isn't really a counter argument. This is an opinion on the feel of the game.

View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

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

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

* When you ran your aim would be off a bit, so Jenners circling you at 140 KPH would have a hard time hitting you just like you would have a have a hard time hitting them.
Lights are insanely dangerous because of the netcode, not because they are unbalanced. It's easy to hold a reticule on a light's in-game model. The problem is that the hitbox isn't where the model is.

* Instead of just blowing you up, heat would affect your Reticle and movement speed. Your accuracy would degrade as you built up more and more heat and your mech systems started to fail under the stress so heat management would be even more important.
Not sure how this is balance related.

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

* ECM would not stop LRMs from direct firing all by their lonesome, nor would it stop Streaks from firing, they just wouldn't "Lock On". ECM wouldn't "hide" mechs from "radar"
I'll give you this one. ECM needs tweaking. Just so you know though, LRMs can be dumbfired.

* Physical attacks would prevent mechs from wanting to "hug" bigger mechs in an attempt to avoid their fire.
So does staying with your team. Not an argument against having physical attacks (I don't want them, but that's another thread), just that this isn't a balance issue so much as a play style issue.

*Mechs could fire behind them with backward mounted weapons or "flip arms" if they lacked lower actuators to bring those weapons to fire upon those that are behind them.
Again, how is this a balance issue?

* A BV system would determine what types of mechs you faced based off of what mechs were on your side and the skill of who was piloting them.
ELO, phase 3 and all that.

* Off board artillery could called in on "clumps" of mechs making the "blob up and FF" "tactic" less desirable as well as slow heavily armored mechs.
Already mentioned as a future planned feature. Also, not a balance issue.

Some of these probably just haven't arrived like Physical Attacks/Knockdown and artillery, but others are noticeably lacking and would help balanced certain things out without having to go, "Lets give someone boating more heat for no logical reason. ". Sticking "closer" to TT values and rules weeds out some of the issues and causes others, but the TT rules have a lot of balance from the years of playing and it seems silly to throw those out because, "Those don't work in a sim based off of them."
You say it yourself. It would make some problems go away, but bring new ones. Those problems would have to be made to go away somehow. Gasp! They would have to change the rules! Wait... Isn't that exactly what they're doing?


View PostMercules, on 27 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

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

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

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

Hyperbole. Nice.


It seems to me that what you're really saying is that "I want things to work the way they do with TT rules." rather than "I want to use the TT rules". They are not the same thing. I think most of the conflict around this topic comes from people not being clear about what they mean when they say do/don't stick to TT.

I think you're misunderstanding something. I don't resist a direct TT translation because I don't think it'd work (Not saying I think it would, just that it's not my reason for resisting). I'm resisting it because Mechwarrior is no more TT than WoW is Warcraft 3. There is reason to make the rules for each of them different. That being, different game types (in this case, real time FPS vs turn based tabletop) are much more effective at conveying the feel that the designers want it to when the set of rules used for each type are specifically designed for them rather than adapted from another form of the game.. You know how TT makes you feel. It makes you feel that way because of the lore and because of the rules.
MWO cannot follow the same rules as TT and make you have that same feeling. The games are fundamentally different.

There. Happy? Contributions.

Edited by The Cheese, 27 December 2012 - 06:55 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users