373 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Actually, I think what a lot of this crowd really wants is to use the tabletop rules selectively as a club to beat people with while they argue for the game they want - instead of the one we have. Case in point: there's no practical difference between tuning heat generation/dissipation to limit the practical rate of fire for weapon-heavy loadouts, and tuning weapon cooldowns to preserve their damage/per turn according to the "real" rules - just as you pointed out, Cheese. But the real motivation comes out once you start questioning the premises - what we're seeing here is a burning desire to re-create the glory days of 'Mechmas Past.

Your post was well-supported and logical. It won't phase the hard-core book-wavers - their logic is laid over the emotional foundations of their desires. But hopefully it'll convince some undecided people that they really don't want to be the Battletech equivalent of the people who insist that 2nd Edition is the only real Dungeons & Dragons game.

I, for one, am just sick of it. Even having it pointed out that the Devs began internal testing with pure TT values and had to give it up because it wasn't working well doesn't put a dent in their Armor of Waving the Rulebook Around. So be it. I'll still oppose them for the sake of truth and the cause of not being asinine.

[GuardDogg]

Well if they replace the game away from Tabletop, they may as well resort to the card game.

[SirLANsalot]

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

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

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

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

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

There needs to be more of you. Since you decided to start using your BRAIN when thinking about how to implement TT rules to a FPS game....(Hint: It doesn't work).

Biggest case I always bring up when debating this point is look at the Warhammer 40k TT and then the RTS computer game. Relic games didn't use ANY of the rules that TT uses when making Dawn of War, they used the Lore to make a game and even then didn't stick 100% to it. Case in point, the Lazcannon, a gun in TT that is devastating and quite awesome, in the computer game....not so much. Another example is the bolter, a gun that can't even hurt a tank in TT, but in DoW it can. So too should PGI do the same with MWO, and use the TT rules/weapons as a guidline, but do not stick to them like glue. If XX guns needs changed to make it viable or nerfed, but it would change it so it acts differently in TT, then for gods sake DO IT. This is not Battletech Online, its Mechwarrior Online.


To hit exists in this game, its called your mouse. Rate of Fire never doesn't exist in TT but it dose here, again many of hte basic things you know in TT will never happen. Why do you think stock TT mechs SUCK BALLS? Its because there made for a system that DOESN'T EXIST in normal TT those stock mechs work fine but here, where things happen in milliseconds, the mechs overheat and blow up.

[Lycan]

Void Angel, on 27 December 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

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."

Not really.

I try very hard not to comment on game play as I haven't experienced it for myself.

What I do try to do, like in this thread, is give an opinion on how things might/could work.

Whether you take me seriously or not is up to you.

PS: Yes and no. (See, I can comment on this without experiencing the "game play" that is MWO).

The rules are what makes the game different from the myriad of other "mecha" games out there. It's what the first Mechwarrior game used and its successors (to an extent) have tried to emulate to a greater or lesser extent.

It what defines the weapons and how they work, the social structure of the universe (not that that has any bearing at the moment), the way battlemechs work etc.

If you remove those, or drift to far from them, then the game begins to resemble something else other than what it says it is/was going to be. At that point, it just becomes an attempt to cash in on the name and nothing more.

[Vapor Trail]

Besides your double negative... rate of fire DOES exist in TT. Every weapon had the same technical rate of fire, one "shot" per "round".

Or one "shot" per ten seconds.

This is why a stock Awesome 8Q works pretty much exactly like the TT version does with regards to heat when you keep the rate of fire of the entire weapon loadout down to about 8 shots every thirty seconds or so.

Aiming of course, would be a different animal altogether though...

[Tarman]

Lycan, on 27 December 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Not really.

I try very hard not to comment on game play as I haven't experienced it for myself.

What I do try to do, like in this thread, is give an opinion on how things might/could work.

Whether you take me seriously or not is up to you.

PS: Yes and no. (See, I can comment on this without experiencing the "game play" that is MWO).

The rules are what makes the game different from the myriad of other "mecha" games out there. It's what the first Mechwarrior game used and its successors (to an extent) have tried to emulate to a greater or lesser extent.

It what defines the weapons and how they work, the social structure of the universe (not that that has any bearing at the moment), the way battlemechs work etc.

If you remove those, or drift to far from them, then the game begins to resemble something else other than what it says it is/was going to be. At that point, it just becomes an attempt to cash in on the name and nothing more.

The feel of the game is what needs to translate, not the entire set of numbers from the board game version. And if you haven't actually PLAYED this game, then no, you really can't comment on the feel of the game, because that's what the gameplay is, actually playing the game. You're working with dry-burro theorycraft instead of getting some metal boots on the ground. Get into a mech and drive it around, then get back to us about the feel. To me it's Mechwarrior. Not perfect even of itself, but actually a lot closer translation than the last video game version.

[Indoorsman]

OMG my signature

I voted NO of course!

[DocBach]

SirLANsalot, on 27 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

To hit exists in this game, its called your mouse. Rate of Fire never doesn't exist in TT but it dose here, again many of hte basic things you know in TT will never happen. Why do you think stock TT mechs SUCK BALLS? Its because there made for a system that DOESN'T EXIST in normal TT those stock mechs work fine but here, where things happen in milliseconds, the mechs overheat and blow up.

One of the biggest reasons TT stock mechs suck balls is because they were made to have some kind of weakness. Some of it has to do with implementation of heat for sure, but customization and optimization in the Mechlab is one of the reasons stock mechs are so outclassed.

[Ryolacap]

It probably needs to be pointed out that indeed there ARE rules from tabletop game in the FPS, careful how far from the center you stray, in your defense of tabletop rules not working, several things will be coming in the future that emulate the tabletop rules, knockdowns being one.

The discussion is how far off from Tabletop the developers should go, since a conversion from 3^rd person hex based, dice rolling cannot be a 1to1, its more about the effectiveness of premade mechs, and weapons designed for a TT game being changed so much that they are no longer as effective as intended, IE the AC20 going from a brawling weapon to a cleanup weapon, SRMS being super high damage because of super close 100% hits, or how bad premades are (maybe premades were made to fight premades though). Should we use the premades as a template to bring the game in line with the tabletop maybe not in a 1to1 conversion but so thing work more like they were intended? I would love to see a premade vs premade fight.

Issues I see are mainly aim and/or cooldowns.

Did they ever do all cooldowns being almost equal in testing, not 10 seconds mind you but every weapon at 2 seconds or between say 2-3 seconds.

Edited by Ryolacap, 27 December 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[BerryChunks]

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

This is bordering one of the rules seen in this link, maybe change the title?

http://mwomercs.com/...ing-ettiquette/

Ryvucz, on 26 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

This is bordering one of the rules seen in this link, maybe change the title?

http://mwomercs.com/...ing-ettiquette/

you're right. TT is better.


I'd also like to know who thinks that LRM being "dumbfire" capable is a reasonable workaround for ECM. They dont even arm as dangerous until a minimum distance, and you're saying we should be dumbfiring them if theres ECM around? With their spread, and relative slow speed to a ballistic or energy? fml.

Edited by BerryChunks, 27 December 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

the more table top componants the better... however you must adapt to a real time computer game and not rely on the numbers game made for cards and novels by people who never saw in 30 years time a computer that could play all of the ideas out as a simulator experience. i'm sure those creators would've tweaked things to make things work better had they have known.

[Void Angel]

Ryolacap, on 27 December 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

It probably needs to be pointed out that indeed there ARE rules from tabletop game in the FPS, careful how far from the center you stray, in your defense of tabletop rules not working, several things will be coming in the future that emulate the tabletop rules, knockdowns being one.

The discussion is how far off from Tabletop the developers should go, since a conversion from 3^rd person hex based, dice rolling cannot be a 1to1, its more about the effectiveness of premade mechs, and weapons designed for a TT game being changed so much that they are no longer as effective as intended, IE the AC20 going from a brawling weapon to a cleanup weapon, SRMS being super high damage because of super close 100% hits, or how bad premades are (maybe premades were made to fight premades though). Should we use the premades as a template to bring the game in line with the tabletop maybe not in a 1to1 conversion but so thing work more like they were intended? I would love to see a premade vs premade fight.

Nobody on the "Put the rulebook for the other game down and stop hitting us with it" end of this debate is claiming that the tabletop game rules don't work in any instance. Nor are we really having a discussion about how far away from a total tabletop conversion the Devs should go - except in a very general and almost accidental way. What's happening with nearly all these threads, which are regurgitated by the same vocal minority over and over and over, is that a certain class of player (or flipping EX-Player who still Has An Opinion to Validate) wants to wave the rulebook around and hit us (and the Devs) with it whenever the game isn't made how they want it.

The rest of us are basically telling these people "No, that's not the rulebook for this game, so stop hitting and go to your room if you can't play the game we've all agreed to come play."

[Pr8Dator]

VeeDog, on 27 December 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well if they replace the game away from Tabletop, they may as well resort to the card game.

I actually played and immensely enjoyed the card game! LOL! Its the next best thing to Magic the Gathering for me.

[TigrisMorte]

Sorry, "not a board game" folks. This is a board game. Virtual map and computer shaking the dice does not change that.

The only significant adaptation required was to deal with getting better at aiming more quickly than a Table Top pilot would.
And guess what, Table Top had rules to simulate that too!
So add in more movement related shake, increase the size of the maps, adjust the damage/heat the same as you adjust the rate of fire, and decrease the to hit boxes as required. Bingo FPS based upon Battletech, Mechwarrior, rather than Mech Brawler Online.

Like "Mech Brawler Online" great. Nothing wrong with that. This game as they made it is fun. It just is not Mechwarrior.
Sorry if that disillusions you and your love of sub 300 meter brawling.

[Ryolacap]

No one is questioning if this is or is not a boardgame, you would have to be pretty brain dead to think as you sit at you computer you are moving around little plastic pieces and rolling dice. This is a discussion on the direction of the online game and how the board game mechanics, relate to the FPS mechanics.

Here is the thing, the rules of the board game ARE in this game, so if someone tries try to argue that they dont work, then the online game is fundamentally flawed or that person is simply wrong.. The problem comes in, when you start adapting the rules to a turn based game, how far do you go. The problem I see is, the online game throws out basic sets of rules that the board game was balanced and based around but holding true to the rules which relied on those set of rules to work. So an AC20, SRM6, or really any of the weapons do not function as they did, in the perfectly balanced (or perfectly imbalanced) board game, so other things need to be changed to fix it, which is fine, but I think what is being said, is just follow the blueprint closer (the board game) and you wont have to change anything. For example, Just because something is turned based doesnt mean it doesnt take time into account, No you cant have every weapon shoot every ten seconds but the game was balanced to have every weapon shoot with the same ROF.
My interpretation of people wanting the board game to be followed more closely is not, "they want the game THEY want, but rather, "here is the blueprint for the game, find a way to follow it and it will be perfect."
It'll probably turn out fine, but I bet, it will end up the long way around to get the same place.

Edited by Ryolacap, 28 December 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Void Angel]

Actually Ryolacap, that's exactly what the guy above you is questioning:

TigridMorte, on 28 December 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

Sorry, "not a board game" folks. This is a board game. Virtual map and computer shaking the dice does not change that.

The only significant adaptation required was to deal with getting better at aiming more quickly than a Table Top pilot would.
And guess what, Table Top had rules to simulate that too!
So add in more movement related shake, increase the size of the maps, adjust the damage/heat the same as you adjust the rate of fire, and decrease the to hit boxes as required. Bingo FPS based upon Battletech, Mechwarrior, rather than Mech Brawler Online.

Like "Mech Brawler Online" great. Nothing wrong with that. This game as they made it is fun. It just is not Mechwarrior.
Sorry if that disillusions you and your love of sub 300 meter brawling.

Sorry, Tigger, but that's just not correct. Both the board game and the computer game are simulations; it does not follow that they are both the same kind of simulation. Your reasoning is that "board games have maps and randomly generated numbers; computer simulations have maps and randomly generated numbers; therefore, this is a board game." This is the classic fallacy of the undistributed middle. You're assuming a step you haven't justified:"all games with maps and randomly generated numbers are board games," which is simply false. Further, your reasoning overstates your case considerably - the only random numbers we use are for internal component criticals.

As for the rest of your reasoning, well, wow. Just... wow. You seem to be claiming that just slavishly converting the tabletop game rules into a 3D, real-time format will balance everything out. This fits with your erroneous conception of this game as a glorified tabletop game I suppose, but it's still wrong. I've been told by people who were in the closed beta that PGI started their internal testing with a 1-1 conversion, but things didn't work, so they made adjustments to make things fit - which is how we got to where we are. So you're asking for something that hasn't worked to be re-implemented for purely ideological reasons.

Then there's your assertion that everyone just fights at 300m or less. That's just not true. I myself am leveling up a fire support mech with LRMs as my primary armament. I see long-range combatants on both sides of my matches with regular frequency - even to the point of yelling at them for scattering out and sniping opportunity targets instead of following the group so they can be protected and focus their fire. Before you even go there, ECM doesn't stop me from pelting things with missiles, now that they buffed TAG.

So, sorry to disillusion you, with your love of fallacious argument, but that nonsense isn't going to fly. There's a huge difference between Mechwarrior Online and http://mwtactics.com/. It's a difference of kind, not of quantity.

Ryolacap, on 28 December 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

No one is questioning if this is or is not a boardgame, you would have to be pretty brain dead to think as you sit at you computer you are moving around little plastic pieces and rolling dice. This is a discussion on the direction of the online game and how the board game mechanics, relate to the FPS mechanics.

Here is the thing, the rules of the board game ARE in this game, so if someone tries try to argue that they dont work, then the online game is fundamentally flawed or that person is simply wrong.. The problem comes in, when you start adapting the rules to a turn based game, how far do you go. The problem I see is, the online game throws out basic sets of rules that the board game was balanced and based around but holding true to the rules which relied on those set of rules to work. So an AC20, SRM6, or really any of the weapons do not function as they did, in the perfectly balanced (or perfectly imbalanced) board game, so other things need to be changed to fix it, which is fine, but I think what is being said, is just follow the blueprint closer (the board game) and you wont have to change anything. For example, Just because something is turned based doesnt mean it doesnt take time into account, No you cant have every weapon shoot every ten seconds but the game was balanced to have every weapon shoot with the same ROF.
My interpretation of people wanting the board game to be followed more closely is not, "they want the game THEY want, but rather, "here is the blueprint for the game, find a way to follow it and it will be perfect."
It'll probably turn out fine, but I bet, it will end up the long way around to get the same place.

Here, I'll post it again.

Nobody on the "Put the rulebook for the other game down and stop hitting us with it" end of this debate is claiming that the tabletop game rules don't work in any instance. Nor are we really having a discussion about how far away from a total tabletop conversion the Devs should go - except in a very general and almost accidental way. What's happening with nearly all these threads, which are regurgitated by the same vocal minority over and over and over, is that a certain class of player (or flipping EX-Player who still Has An Opinion to Validate) wants to wave the rulebook around and hit us (and the Devs) with it whenever the game isn't made how they want it.

The rest of us are basically telling these people "No, that's not the rulebook for this game, so stop hitting and go to your room if you can't play the game we've all agreed to come play."

[Ryolacap]

Void Angel, on 28 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Actually Ryolacap, that's exactly what the guy above you is questioning:

Sorry, Tigger, but that's just not correct. Both the board game and the computer game are simulations; it does not follow that they are both the same kind of simulation. Your reasoning is that "board games have maps and randomly generated numbers; computer simulations have maps and randomly generated numbers; therefore, this is a board game." This is the classic fallacy of the undistributed middle. You're assuming a step you haven't justified:"all games with maps and randomly generated numbers are board games," which is simply false. Further, your reasoning overstates your case considerably - the only random numbers we use are for internal component criticals.

As for the rest of your reasoning, well, wow. Just... wow. You seem to be claiming that just slavishly converting the tabletop game rules into a 3D, real-time format will balance everything out. This fits with your erroneous conception of this game as a glorified tabletop game I suppose, but it's still wrong. I've been told by people who were in the closed beta that PGI started their internal testing with a 1-1 conversion, but things didn't work, so they made adjustments to make things fit - which is how we got to where we are. So you're asking for something that hasn't worked to be re-implemented for purely ideological reasons.

Then there's your assertion that everyone just fights at 300m or less. That's just not true. I myself am leveling up a fire support mech with LRMs as my primary armament. I see long-range combatants on both sides of my matches with regular frequency - even to the point of yelling at them for scattering out and sniping opportunity targets instead of following the group so they can be protected and focus their fire. Before you even go there, ECM doesn't stop me from pelting things with missiles, now that they buffed TAG.

So, sorry to disillusion you, with your love of fallacious argument, but that nonsense isn't going to fly. There's a huge difference between Mechwarrior Online and http://mwtactics.com/. It's a difference of kind, not of quantity.


Here, I'll post it again.

Nobody on the "Put the rulebook for the other game down and stop hitting us with it" end of this debate is claiming that the tabletop game rules don't work in any instance. Nor are we really having a discussion about how far away from a total tabletop conversion the Devs should go - except in a very general and almost accidental way. What's happening with nearly all these threads, which are regurgitated by the same vocal minority over and over and over, is that a certain class of player (or flipping EX-Player who still Has An Opinion to Validate) wants to wave the rulebook around and hit us (and the Devs) with it whenever the game isn't made how they want it.

The rest of us are basically telling these people "No, that's not the rulebook for this game, so stop hitting and go to your room if you can't play the game we've all agreed to come play."

I am not talking about you, and you do not speak for the entire board, FYI this is MY post, so yes it might get hijacked, but it IS about us “really having a discussion about how far away from a total tabletop conversion the Devs should go”. I don’t mind either way, as long as the end result is relatively balanced; I simply question whether a closer 1to1 would have worked right off the bat. They might have tested certain factors in a 1to1 conversion but that does not mean they traveled down every avenue, to stick closer to the rules, one of which might have worked.

Personally I kinda like the way they did certain things, but like I said before balance on certain equipment is off. It is, period. It must be because they are still tweaking.

[Void Angel]

They're still tweaking because it's still beta. They'd be tweaking the tabletop rules, too - in fact, that's exactly how we got here. As for trying to pretend that I'm attempting to "speak for the entire board," please. If that's the clumsy best you can do with a straw man, stop now.

As for tabletop rules... they're not balanced for this format. They're not, period. The differences in the format make sure of that, but that's not even the most important problem here. The problem is the assumption that The Holy Word of Fasa has been given us as the perfect Way of Battletech in the sacred Battletech Master Rules. Those rules are just mechanics. They're important to tabletop play, but they are not necessary for the "feel" of a Mechwarrior game. What's necessary for the feel of a Mechwarrior game is the look and feel of the game - and only generally the specific, nuts-and-bolts function of specific rules. We have a good Mechwarrior game - we have the big, lumbering assault 'mechs, and the tiny, quick scout 'mechs, and PPCs, and Lasers, and Gauss Rifles and missiles and autocannons, and heat sinks... 'Mech construction is very close to the tabletop, and the differences don't detract from the feel of the game as being Mechwarrior.

But you're not really about having a balanced game, and the demand for a conversion to the "real" rules just rings false. Listen to yourself! "Actually, the devs started with a 1-1 conversion, and it didn't work for them, so they tweaked it into what eventually became what we have today." "But, but, they can't have tested everything! There must have been some way to make it work, if only they had tried harder! They still could! Look, here is my wonderful plan!" This isn't about game balance and aesthetics - this is about ideology for you. The "blueprint" you want followed is for a different kind of game. It's like insisting that a house be built to the specifications of a ship.

Edited by Void Angel, 28 December 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ryolacap, on 28 December 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

I am not talking about you, and you do not speak for the entire board, FYI this is MY post, so yes it might get hijacked, but it IS about us “really having a discussion about how far away from a total tabletop conversion the Devs should go”. I don’t mind either way, as long as the end result is relatively balanced; I simply question whether a closer 1to1 would have worked right off the bat. They might have tested certain factors in a 1to1 conversion but that does not mean they traveled down every avenue, to stick closer to the rules, one of which might have worked.

Personally I kinda like the way they did certain things, but like I said before balance on certain equipment is off. It is, period. It must be because they are still tweaking.

I saw a 1 to 1 interpretation of BattleTech as a video Game. It was, perfect to what a video game of TT should be. It did not make it passed Beta cause FASA closed its doors while the game was in closed Beta. This isn't that game, nor do I want it to be. Balance of certain equipment to TT... goes without saying. Why try to balance a real time game to one that can take 10 hours to play 0:01:20 of combat. Balancing this to TT is only going to come by feel. Does it feel right? That is the dynamic I want, I want to feel TT in real time. We're close, not their but close.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 December 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 27 December 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

One of the biggest reasons TT stock mechs suck balls is because they were made to have some kind of weakness. Some of it has to do with implementation of heat for sure, but customization and optimization in the Mechlab is one of the reasons stock mechs are so outclassed.

I'll also Add this to Docs post. The Trial Mechs are geared for a move/fire ONCE/vent system. The DEVs have made this game a Move/fire,fire, fi/Vent system. Trial Mechs have been made to suck by the DEVs. They have chosen to use an arbitrary cyclic time used for a game that takes 10-15 minutes to simulate ONE ten second turns. Remember You fire (and stuff) Half turn. I fire (and stuff) half turn. 4 seconds to vent heat would fix the heat system to feel like the original games. Both TT And MechWarrior titles.