219 replies to this topic

[Jeff K Notagoon]

8RoundsRapid, on 04 January 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Heres the deal: every time you say or read the word 'mechwarrior' or 'jenner' or 'catapult' you are referencing the tabletop game. Every mech in this game appeared first in the tabletop game. Every weapon you will fire or have fired at you comes from tabletop. Every piece of mech gear comes from tabletop. EVERYTHING in this game (except for the execution) comes from, and is based upon, tabletop battletech. If you don't want to hear or talk anymore about tabletop, then you can't talk about MWO. Which I think would be best for all of us.

Honestly.

just because they first appeared in game X doesn't mean that they need to be balanced the same as game X when they appear in game Z.

[8RoundsRapid]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 04 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

just because they first appeared in game X doesn't mean that they need to be balanced the same as game X when they appear in game Z.

I understand that. I thought this thread was about Tired of Tabletop Even Entering the Discussion...

Anyhoo, this is boring already.

[Kraven Kor]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 04 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

just because they first appeared in game X doesn't mean that they need to be balanced the same as game X when they appear in game Z.

No, but nor does it mean it is automatically bad if they do?

I mean, rebalance where things are simply broken in context of real-time action and stuff, but why discard the core weapon weights and mech construction rules?

Alter rate of fire, heat, range, etc. Fine. Hell I'd love to see Autocannons have more realistic ranges (and maps that made such useful) but would that be "more fun" or "better" than the 600m range on AC/20 as it stands?

And again, the OP started with a very hyperbolic statement; hyperbolic replies are only natural

[BerryChunks]

Tired of people using red herrings to say that MWO isnt related to TT at all. I didn't realize the Atlas wasn't a TT mech.

[wintersborn]

I now understand that MechWarrior was a TT game but you have to understand that this it has to stand on its own as a video game. It is a Online Mech shooter and the overwhelming majority of video gamers are not hear because of a TT game from way back. They are here to play a Mech Shooter and don't care how the TT game was balanced or designed etc. If this game is not fun to look at and fun to play it will fail in the long run as a video game.

There will not be much of a MechWarrior IP as a video game if they chase all the new customers away with a Mech Shooter that does not play well because it clung to some board game rules.

It should have a base design from the TT game but to break it because of that is not good.

Those of us that try the game judge it against other video game Shooters not on how accurate it is to a board game.

[Chaldon]

wintersborn, on 04 January 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Honestly where does it state that this is a Table Top Video Simulator ?

Priceless.

I'd rename the topic to this if the thread wasn't already on page 3

[Kraven Kor]

I think there is only one mech, in the entire history of Battletech, that did not originate in Tabletop.

The beloved Uller, IIRC.

Which was introduced in a MW Game, then showed up in the TT game later.

The only piece of equipment from a MW game that did not originate in TT was the Coolant Flush (which most TT folk hated.)

Literally, every other mech, weapon, faction, or piece of equipment originated in Tabletop.

[Ptom]

You must gather your premade before venturing forth.

[Pht]

hammerreborn, on 04 January 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

So we shouldn't have a targeting reticle,
our weapons should have chances to veer off and miss wildly, heat levels should effect accuracy, it should be harder to hit a moving mech (netcode aside) and every shot will happen once every 10 seconds? Sounds like an awesome first person shooter sim.

The 'mechs use reticles in the lore. The weapons virtually never "veer off and miss wildly." Yes, heat levels should affect how well or poorly the 'Mech can bring its weapons to bear - here's the main reason why:

"Incidentally, myomers impose one of the primary limitations on the temperature a BattleMech can operate at, because as the myomers heat up, they become more resistive, less efficient, and less predictable at the same time. The acti-strandular materials in Myomers do not respond well to high temperatures. If Myomers become too hot, they will actually cook themselves, which results in the black smoke seen rising from extremely overheated battlemechs in combat."

http://www.sarna.net...gy#Heat_sources

It depends on what you mean by "harder to hit a moving mech."

No, recycle times don't need to be limited to 10 seconds. If you want a weapon to fire faster, give it more heat, slower, less heat.

A MW video game is not a first person shooter sim; in the vein of UT, or quake.

It is, by by definition, a first-person real time armored combat unit piloting sim - and yes, there are a couple of significant differences.

Kraven Kor, on 04 January 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

TT mechanics have to be adjusted to fit the real time gameplay.

The real question that everyone's avoiding like the plague is... WHICH mechanics, and WHY.

Atlas3060, on 04 January 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

The way that PGI is doing this seems like a fair compromise. They're using the TT rules as a basic starting point and adjusting it from there.

Have they? Where is the simulation of the to-hit mechanic that tells you how accurate each weapon is, and how range and other environmental factors affect the 'mech's combat ability? ... Where's the simulation of the fact that a BTU mech can't get multiple weapons to hit a mobile mech sized target on a single armor panel IE, the hit-location tables... you know, the main factor that differentiates MW from any number of anime mecha games and allows for epic gameplay?

I'm very happy that they said they wanted to do so, but somewhat annoyed that virtually the entire combat system got left by the wayside, when all that actually had to be left behind were the piloting and gunnery skill rolls.

Edited by Pht, 04 January 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[8RoundsRapid]

Chaldon, on 04 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

Priceless.

I'd rename the topic to this if the thread wasn't already on page 3

I think your original thread title is much better.

I mean, look how much action you got in this ridiculous POS thread, that none of us should've ever posted in because of its utter mind numbing ignorance. I'll even kick you down a few likes, amigo.

[Jeff K Notagoon]

Kraven Kor, on 04 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

No, but nor does it mean it is automatically bad if they do?

I mean, rebalance where things are simply broken in context of real-time action and stuff, but why discard the core weapon weights and mech construction rules?

the core of the game is giant robots shooting at other giant robots. weapon weights and whatever are the nitpicky details. complaining about the details is like complaining that super mario in all the new games is taller than the 16 pixels he was in the original game.

Edited by Jeff K Notagoon, 04 January 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[AlexWildeagle]

As someone whose been playing since the mid 80s I don't mind the changes. I do mind the inconsistency of changes. They modify direct fire weapon systems but not missiles and wonder why LRM boats are born. They have to jack ECM to try and balance the situation which causes even more issues.
They double armor value with no sense of balance between mechs.

I don't mind change, this old dog can learn new tricks. But you have to actually think how its going to apply and realize they may not be able to use the same brush stroke for all mechs and situations.

[Pht]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 04 January 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

the core of the game is giant robots shooting at other giant robots. weapon weights and whatever are the nitpicky details. complaining about the details is like complaining that super mario in all the new games is taller than the 16 pixels he was in the original game.

... and you're quite certain that the stuff that's being complained about is all "nitpicky details?

[Kraven Kor]

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

The real question that everyone's avoiding like the plague is... WHICH mechanics, and WHY.

Obviously anything that involves the "Piloting Skill" goes right out the door. Anything that operates on the "To-Hit Roll" as well. Some of that just has to be removed wholesale; I don't think any of us would like it if we were constantly falling on our faces due to a failed roll in the background when changing elevations.

They had to remove (or, rather, just never add) melee attacks, then remove collisions entirely due to code issues. Don't like it, but I understand why they did it.

Again about the only thing sacrosanct is the overall mech construction rules (so canon units actually work in MWO with no / minor adjustments) and the general intent of given weapon systems (so heat needs to be higher on energy weapons, lower on weapons that use ammo, AC's should be "long range / low damage" scaling to "short range / high damage." The exact numbers don't much matter, so long as the "feel" of it matches up.

You have your folks on here who probably froth at the mouth at even my recommendations for where TT rules should stand in MWO, that want the nothing but stock mechs, and would probably opt to have permadeath or 6 weeks in a trial mech to buy a new mech every time you get a custom mech blown up.

[BerryChunks]

Pht, on 04 January 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

The 'mechs use reticles in the lore. The weapons virtually never "veer off and miss wildly." Yes, heat levels should affect how well or poorly the 'Mech can bring its weapons to bear - here's the main reason why:

"Incidentally, myomers impose one of the primary limitations on the temperature a BattleMech can operate at, because as the myomers heat up, they become more resistive, less efficient, and less predictable at the same time. The acti-strandular materials in Myomers do not respond well to high temperatures. If Myomers become too hot, they will actually cook themselves, which results in the black smoke seen rising from extremely overheated battlemechs in combat."

http://www.sarna.net...gy#Heat_sources

It depends on what you mean by "harder to hit a moving mech."

No, recycle times don't need to be limited to 10 seconds. If you want a weapon to fire faster, give it more heat, slower, less heat.

A MW video game is not a first person shooter sim; in the vein of UT, or quake.

It is, by by definition, a first-person real time armored combat unit piloting sim - and yes, there are a couple of significant differences.



The real question that everyone's avoiding like the plague is... WHICH mechanics, and WHY.



Have they? Where is the simulation of the to-hit mechanic that tells you how accurate each weapon is, and how range and other environmental factors affect the 'mech's combat ability? ... Where's the simulation of the fact that a BTU mech can't get multiple weapons to hit a mobile mech sized target on a single armor panel IE, the hit-location tables... you know, the main factor that differentiates MW from any number of anime mecha games and allows for epic gameplay?

I'm very happy that they said they wanted to do so, but somewhat annoyed that virtually the entire combat system got left by the wayside, when all that actually had to be left behind were the piloting and gunnery skill rolls.

I'll make it so simple that a ****** can even understand it.

A small laser does 3 damage.

a mech with 6 tons of armor will probably have 12-16 points of armor CT.

that means it requires 3-5 direct hits to get rid of the the armor in that location. With aiming limitations, you'll hit all over the mech, thus requiring slightly more shots.

Now, we make all lasers be consistent low damage that you must track over time. This behavior of lasers is simulating the DICE ROLL of TT. Fine.

Now, we DOUBLE all armor. Instead of that single small laser require 3-5 direct hits, which must now be held on target the entire time to get the full damage function to a single spot, you have to hit 6-10 times and do the same thing. Thats 24-32 points of CT armor now. Remember that. Weapon damages were balanced against armor. Now we have the same damages and double armor, because half the firing time, even though these two things DO NOT come out even.

Much more time required to penetrate that armor.

Suppose that guy took an AC20, which despite having to punch through the same double armor, will deliver 20 damage instantly, so aiming on target is far less of a factor.

What do you think this does to the balance of small lasers against AC20s. small lasers weren't that good in TT to begin with, but useful for rounding out that last .5 tons, or for small mechs.

PGI "Simulated', as you are so fond of stating this is a simulation and not a TT dice roll game, The effect of lasers hitting random spots with dice rolls, by turning them into Damage Over Time weapons.

THen, when people argue that it shouldnt be TT, and people shouldn't want it to be more like TT, because its fine "as is" and it is a sim game, you're basically saying that the PGI conversion of TT dice roll for weapon hits for lasers is not based on TT.

The irony.

You know the reasons missiles take that zigzagging path in the sky is to randomize the locations hit by said missiles, just like if you rolled for where those missiles hit in TT?

Edited by BerryChunks, 04 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[Indk]

You should play TT first imo.

I understand its a game and things are going to be different but 25+years of refinement shouldn't be overlooked. TT should always be discussed, that doesn't mean blindly do everything TT does.

[8RoundsRapid]

AlexWildeagle, on 04 January 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

As someone whose been playing since the mid 80s I don't mind the changes. I do mind the inconsistency of changes. They modify direct fire weapon systems but not missiles and wonder why LRM boats are born. They have to jack ECM to try and balance the situation which causes even more issues.
They double armor value with no sense of balance between mechs.

I don't mind change, this old dog can learn new tricks. But you have to actually think how its going to apply and realize they may not be able to use the same brush stroke for all mechs and situations.

Please don't ruin this wonderful thread with your well thought out and reasoned reply, sir.

PS, your post is probably the closest approximation to my own feelings as they pertain to MWO and the conversion of TT rules to this medium.

[Kraven Kor]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 04 January 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

the core of the game is giant robots shooting at other giant robots. weapon weights and whatever are the nitpicky details. complaining about the details is like complaining that super mario in all the new games is taller than the 16 pixels he was in the original game.

No, it's more like complaining that they changed the Halo Pistol from the "God of all Sniper Weapons" to "Just a Pistol."

These Giant Robots come from Battletech, and there has to be a certain level of staying true to the original, and in my opinion, the mech construction rules overall are a big part of that.

[Pht]

Kraven Kor, on 04 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Obviously anything that involves the "Piloting Skill" goes right out the door. Anything that operates on the "To-Hit Roll" as well. Some of that just has to be removed wholesale; I don't think any of us would like it if we were constantly falling on our faces due to a failed roll in the background when changing elevations.

They had to remove (or, rather, just never add) melee attacks, then remove collisions entirely due to code issues. Don't like it, but I understand why they did it.

As I already mentioned, the piloting skill rolls and gunnery skill rolls have no place in an MW video game.

The "to hit" mechanics OTHER than the pilots gunnery rolls represent many things; the accuracy of the invidiual weapons; the effect that distance to target, or target evasion, or internal heat buildup, or environmental conditions, has on the 'Mechs targeting ability, and so on. These are fine to use in the real time conversion.

"constantly falling on our faces" - You don't "constantly fall on your face" in the TT game. you only fall if you do something really stupid, or your gyro gets messed up, or you get a leg blown off, or if you lose so much weight so quickly that your gyroscope system can't compensate for it AND you, the pilot, don't catch the 'mech.

BerryChunks, on 04 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

I'll make it so simple that a ****** can even understand it.

A small laser does 3 damage.

a mech with 6 tons of armor will probably have 12-16 points of armor CT.

that means it requires 3-5 direct hits to get rid of the the armor in that location. With aiming limitations, you'll hit all over the mech, thus requiring slightly more shots.

Now, we make all lasers be consistent low damage that you must track over time. This behavior of lasers is simulating the DICE ROLL of TT. Fine.

They didn't simulate the 'Mechs capability to handle its weapons (lasers included). They simply hitched the weapons directly to the reticules and stopped; there is no resolution for hit/no hit given conditions for each weapon, and there is no "what did I hit" resolution. It is because of this factor that they wound up having to double the armor.

Quote

PGI "Simulated', as you are so fond of stating this is a simulation and not a TT dice roll game, The effect of lasers hitting random spots with dice rolls, by turning them into Damage Over Time weapons.

I've not been - mainly - "on" about simulating the weapons as much as simulating the layer between the actual phyisical aiming and the player - the MECH.

It is the MECH that does the physical aiming and it is the 'mech that does the math from sensor inputs that decides where to physically aim the weapons to hit what the pilot is aiming at with the reticule, and because BT mechs aren't gundams they don't put every weapon fired onto a single tiny point.

[Kraven Kor]

I fell over plenty in TT from "not doing anything stupid" - any elevation change caused a piloting roll, running on pavement? Piloting roll (and skidding! Fun!) For how "maneuverable" mechs were, and how they were touted as being "better in rough terrain than conventional vehicles" - they sure fell over a lot in my experience.

It wasn't that the roll was ever hard for most basic maneuvers; it was that sometimes, you rolled boxcars. When you rolled boxcars, IIRC, you fell. Period. Could be mis-remembering but I do recall some seriously frustrating moments in TT dealing with some piloting roll stuff