1063 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Terror Teddy, on 26 February 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

Technically speaking shouldn't ECM be able to completely screw up weapon convergence?

ECM in the lore isn't capable of blocking enough of a 'Mech's sensors to make it have trouble converging it's weapons onto the target indicated by the pilot.

ChrisOrange, on 26 February 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Also you guys are STILL doing this weird dance around battletech.

Not everyone is "dancing around" battletech.

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

It's like a love triangle between Gameplay...BT...and skill.

People seem to get confused over the fact that skill in a MechWarrior video game should be skill in piloting the 'Mech and knowing how well or poorly the 'Mech can use it's weapons to hit what you're indicating it should hit.

It is quite common for people to think they should be in direct control of the weapons aiming in an MW game ... instead of in direct control of a BattleMech (and the Mech is in direct control of the weapons).

Quote

Just cut out the BT from this whole discussion and choose gameplay above all then we can reach real suggestions. Think outside of the box and pretend BT/TT doesn't exist.

If we took this standard seriously the game could be sudokuwarrioronline ... and nobody would be able to argue with the developers that they had gotten it wrong.

[Pht]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

May I suggest that you spend time on researching how "advanced" the (fictional) "game world" a.k.a. Battletech Universe really is in terms of weapon accuracy?!

But that would make sense and wouldn't be arbitrary... it would mean there's a standard to be followed... some people might have to give up their pet ideas about things!

Quote

Hint: Even after the idea of "Lostech" was somewhat reduced (when the Clans entered the scene) the Battletech Universe is very prominent for fielding weapons...

No. It isn't. Most of the weapons have a zero to hit modifier - it means they can be used to hit a mech sized target 35 miles away, if you have some patience.

That's nothing even remotely like inaccurate.

[Pht]

Le0yo, on 26 February 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

this is a FPS sim...

The MW video game genre is not an FPS sim.

It is a first person armored combat sim.

The one thing that runs through all of the FPS games is that you are in direct control of the aim of the weapons in the game - whereas in an FPACS you are in direct control of an armored combat unit.

Expecting to have direct weapons control in an MW video game is like expecting to have direct control of the aim of the main guns on a battleship in a battleship sim (NM that since WW2 the computers have controlled the aiming of the weapons).

Quote

...don't care for all this dice rolling rubbish.

... and others "don't care for all of this rubbish" about turning an MW video game into yet another FPS "pretty face" when it could be so much more.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

I enjoy a lot of tabletop games myself. (Although unfortunately Battletech is not among them, but only because the people I game with don't play it.)

You can usually get a good game on http://megamek.info/ from the guys over here: http://bg.battletech...board,29.0.html - if not from them, they can at least point you to where to get a good game going.

Quote

And I've played plenty of TT games that were adapted to video game, and video games that were adapted to TT. There's always changes with the basic systems, because they're two completely different mediums.

It's entirely possible and not even really hard to convert the TT to the first person real time armored combat sim genre.

You just drop the piloti's gunnery skill rolls and piloting skill rolls and implement the rest of the rules in real time.

Tarman, on 26 February 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Format change is a big deal despite what some people want to think. You HAVE to change some things when you change format, or they just don't work.

so, besides dropping the already mentioned piloting and gunnery skill rolls, WHAT rules/mechanics from the BT TT game do you "have" to change?

Do you know even one?

...

Are you even familiar with the BT TT combat rules/mechanics?

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

You see, you're constantly coming back to a comparison between the particular rules/mechanics of the TT vs. a VG. My angle still isn't about the premise of the gaming universe as a whole, or is it?

Let's be honest here: The reason why the previous installments of MechWarrior games didn't really simulate a BattleMech isn't so much a reason of being unable to make an interesting real-time game that keep these premises up, but rather because our hardware wasn't able to provide a good enough representation and the current implementation is overall much easier ... and now - due to acclimatization of the target goup - the curruent implementation also is somewhat "holy" for some of you just as much as you imply the TT game is "holy" for me (at least that's the impression I get from the highly agressive stance you and others have shown so far).

AMEN.

[Maliconus]

DOOMMED...He called it and in 50 years I wont be playing MWO cause of weapons balance.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

I've never played battletech in any format so I'm not concerned about comparing MWO with them, as long as others don't force the comparison.

... and I expect so many other critics are in the exact same boat - of course, that doesn't stop people from somehow being able to post that converting over the TT into first person real time format would somehow suck - even though they don't know what they need to know in order to even make that criticism.

Connatic, on 26 February 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

To me this doesn't make it feel any more like "Battletech". If I recall correctly, Alpha strikes didn't work that way in the Table Top either.

Alpha strikes still use the hit location table.

The only way they are different than "normal" chain firing is that the shot uses the worst modifier in the group of weapons you're shooting to determine if your 'mech is able to overcome whatever is occuring when you pull the triggers and make the shot.

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

That's the logical hole. This isn't the tabletop game. The tabletop game is a slow, random, figure game.

The game is only slow because you have to do all of the rules and stuff in your head - which doesn't apply to the computer format.

It is not a "random" game - it is a game of percentages. This is like saying that the outcomes in a casino are random - they aren't. Just ask the house!

In fact, you can get your to-hit modifier down to two or less on 2d6 - that's a 100% hit rate.

what game ISN'T a figure game, in some way or another?

[Pht]

... and now to catch back up where I was before...

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

Nope, you still don't get it.

Just for you, Doc Holliday(even though I've already done this, just in slightly different format) - and I would do it quote box by subject followed by reply but this forum only allows ten quote boxes per post, so I broke up the text with "----" to make things very obvious.

Mchawkeye, on 30 November 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Okay...I can really appreciate the depth you have just gone into there.

I understand what you are saying but some things speak to me:

Your use of hexes, amongst other things, suggest that you are more concerned with the TT rule set than a simulator. You seem to be simulating the TT rather than a mech.


----



I have said before, and will happily say again, the TT rules were designed for a TT game, they were not designed for a Video game;


----


appropriating the inherent randomness from that rule set and featuring it into a simulator will make for a very frustrating simulator.


----


The challenges from TT rules and VG rules are very, very different; they came to those conclusions for the sake of the wargame balance; to adhere to those rules in the VG would be to ignore fundamentally what those rules were designed to do in the first instance; that is to say, a VG with those rules would be unbalanced.

Here he's made the mistake of thinking we should simulate a "RL" Mech or "how a RL mech would be if we made one."

This is irrational on two counts - first, the game is MechWarrior, which by they very definition of the name of the game genre is based in the BattleTech lore, not on "RL."

Second, there are no RL Mechs to be simulated that are even remotely like BattleMechs in the BT lore. You can't simulate something that doesn't even exist.


----


... and as I have said before, you don't use the MechWarrior Piloting Skill Rolls or the MechWarrior Gunnery Skill Rolls in the MW video game format. I have also said that besides these two rolls, you can easily convert over the entire combat system into a real time first person format.

I outlined the basics of the conversion here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

His argument is fallacious because you *can* convert over the combat mechanic from the TT into a real time first person armored combat simulation.


----

Randomness requires unpredictability.

Inherency = a fundamental component that a thing would not be itself without.

You can mathematically predict, given the TT combat system/rules how many of your weapons are going to hit, depending on what situation is occuring when you "take the shot."

The TT game is not inherently random.

Furthermore, it would not make for a "frustrating simulator" game because the situations that make it harder and easier for your 'Mech to hit the target you are indicating for it are easily grasped and intuitive.

For example:

If your 'Mech is moving quickly, instead of slowly, it will have a harder time making the shot you are indicating

If your 'Mech is suffering from a high buildup of waste heat, it will have a harder time making the shot...

If you are trying to shoot at a target that is beyond the range the weapon you are using is designed to work optimally at, your 'Mech will have a harder time making the shot.

----

"The challenges from the rules are ... different" - they are not different in a way that means that they cannot be converted to the first person real time armored combat format - both are trying to resolve combat; and in the case of the BT TT combat mechanic, it converts over to FPACS easily and retains the desired TT gameplay balance (all 29 years of testings worth).

Than he claims they would be unbalanced - and doesn't say WHY they would be, or give an example of how they would be unbalanced.

Quote

While I have no doubt that what you describe would be an accurate representation of piloting a battlemech from a TT point of view,...


----


....it would make for a deeply annoying game; I think people need to feel in control of their mech, not as you suggest, simply give the mech a decent idea of what you want to achieve and let it sort of the rest.


----


There are places where Mechwarrior will need to move away from the TT and this is one of those things, I think.


----


Following from your example at the end of your post, if I had six lasers at a paltry 210m, all of them should hit. They are lasers. and I can spit 210m accurately.


----


Now if the ranges were to change between the TT and the VG (which I really hope the do) your example might be resonable (say 800-1000m?) if not I, and I suspect many others, will call it broken and go back to playing with ourselves.

It would give an accurate representation of what it "would be like" to pilot a BattleMech from the BTUniverse/lore, not just merely "the tabletop" - which is the entire POINT of the MW video game genre.


----


He claims it would be annoying - and I guess that he means it would be annoying because he (wrongly and falsely) thinks it would make people feel "not in control of their 'Mech."

Which is totally backwards. The Major difference between having the BattleMechs behave as they do in the BTUniverse/lore and the current and past MW video games...

...is that all of the MW video games have stupidly given people direct control of a weapon or a group of weapons - instead of direct control of a BattleMech.

The irony of his reply is that if they were to port over the TT combat mechanic to the first person real time armored combat format... it would actually put us in direct control of BattleMechs, as they "exist" in the fictional BTUniverse/lore ... for the first time ever!


----


"He thinks" - he hasn't given any other reasons beyond those he's mentioned - all of which have been validly addressed.


----


No, all six lasers at 210 meters should not always hit - he has forgotten or is not aware that BTU lasers have to have an "on time" to do their rated battlefield damage - and that those lasers are having to target an armored unit that is not a slow moving steady target who's outline on the battlefield relative to your unit that doesn't change much, if at all.

Wholly besides this, the fact that BTUniverse/lore battlemechs aren't capable of the level of precision that people (falsely) think they should have with multiple weapons is THE MAJOR reason that "epic combat" is possible in the BTU/lore - if it were not for the use of the hit location table, the game would be nothing more than an game of instant-death "who twitches bestest firstest."


----


The ranges in TT aren't short anymore. They extend out to the horizon (Line Of Sight and Extreme range rules, Tactical Operations).

Edited by Pht, 01 March 2013 - 06:05 PM.

[Pht]

Garth Erlam, on 26 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

You still have yet to show anything supporting that. All of my experience shows the exact opposite. Builds that rely purely on maximum alpha damage get a few lucky kills here and there, but against a well-played balanced build they always succumb to their weaknesses.

To highlight this, the top three 'builds' of the game don't stack the same weapons - in fact, many of the top 5 utilize 3+ different weapon types.

"Top 3" in *what?*

Kills?

Usage?

Damage outupt?

----

Beyond that, how do you *know* they are what they're presumed to be?

I presume you're going to refer to statistics (from the servers)?

Statistics can and often have supported mutually contradictory statements (witness political polling, for example)...

So how are we to know how much validity to give your statement if we don't even have knowledge of how the statistics are setup - much less we don't know how reliable the collection of them is?

Edited by Pht, 01 March 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Pht, on 01 March 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

No. It isn't.Most of the weapons have a zero to hit modifier

~hrrm~ If weapons (as a whole, including the technology for target aquisition and aiming, not just the raw physical concept) actually were accurate, they'd be able to hit targets at larger combat ranges.

Quote

- it means they can be used to hit a mech sized target 35 miles away, if you have some patience.

Actually no, going by lore, none of the mech-mounted weapons could do that ...

Quote

That's nothing even remotely like inaccurate.

Not being able to hit with a "perfectly" directional weapon like a laser at ranges beyond 450m in a standing mech against a standing target (within reasonable time frame) is the epitome of inaccuracy for the weapon (system) involved.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 02 March 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Pht, on 01 March 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

ECM in the lore isn't capable of blocking enough of a 'Mech's sensors to make it have trouble converging it's weapons onto the target indicated by the pilot.

Which actually gives us a problem.

All weapons converge on targets by use of sensors. A rangefinder is a sensor and in many respects similar to the TAG system.

All your weapons tell you at what range they are from an object and by that simple estimate one should still be able to give direct targeting with for example LRM's as long as you keep your reticle on the target.

After all, if you cannot block all sensors then you should be able to use laser guided missiles to the target.

Now, that said, the ECM might still have the ability to block the signal from missiles to mech and vice versa when within range of the ECM but they could just as well be laser guided and looks for a spot or lock on to the last available co-ordinates the target had before they lost contact.

Now we cant even shoot LRM at a stationary enemy while keeping him in our sights due to ECM doing just what you say the lore is incapable of.

[Nechuchadnezar]

Significant deviations from BT canon comes about when you convert a TT turn-based game to a first-person style simulation. I was taken back at the double armor, same weapon damage when I first logged on, but it allows for lengthier battles. Take that away, and I will bring back my twin AC20 K2 and dominate Atlases all day long. There are necessary evils that all Mechwarrior games have had to overcome but this game has take on gourds more with stride. Some of your arguments don't jive though and actually contradict one another:

-Double armor but you complain about boating...(guess what, either way, people will boat)
-Hardpoint limitations being tolerable but at the end mention limiting further...
-Large weapons not powerful...well, neither are any of them stacked up to double armor...
-Small weapons nerfed because of hardpoint...didn't we just go over how you wanted to further hardpoint restrictions?
-Grouped weapons dominate...listen closely to this...in TT, you have all the time in the world to fire the 18 different weapons that the Atlas carries, but in a fast-paced FPS style sim, you have less time to hit 6 different group weapon buttons. People boat for simplicity and speed.
-Your final point is moot since you correctly mention that "over the top" combinations are already slated from later years in CBT canon.

When you talk about cone of fire, you suggest pin-point accuracy via singular weapons, but spray with multiple? How does that work? Weapons in different locations would always have the same trajectory. Obviously there should be gun location sensitive convergence/trajectory....ie...left arm and right torso fire is going to converge different than two mounted side by side and head vs. arm trajectories are going to carry out differently over distance, or any other combination and I fully support that. The thing you have to understand is the programming of the physics involved...your hit box is going to be constantly changing and the coding that would be required to have weapons do what in real life would happen is staggering to think about. It will take time.

Just my two cents...

[Terror Teddy]

Nechuchadnezar, on 02 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

-Grouped weapons dominate...listen closely to this...in TT, you have all the time in the world to fire the 18 different weapons that the Atlas carries, but in a fast-paced FPS style sim, you have less time to hit 6 different group weapon buttons. People boat for simplicity and speed.

THIS.

A turn in the boardgame is simulated in this game as a stretch of ten seconds while the actual turn can take a lot longer in checking terrain, modifiers, movement and finally deciding how to split targets and shoot the guns.

In this game we have what, a split second to decide if we take the shot or not? That can never be simulated in the boardgame how a split second decision makes us shot EVERYTHING with a slim chance of hitting rapidly moving targets.

That there is precicely the cone of fire, hit modifiers or pilot skill checks that are done in the boardgame in a turn - we do that in a split second.

I dont have time to ponder if i whould use my SL or my PPC or take the PPC on the right mech over THERE and my 2ML on the other mech over THERE because HE is easier to hit.

If you want that then you go and play Mechwarrior tactics which is shaping up nicely - and takes a bloody long time to play and I can shoot 3-4 targets with split weapons and coordinate fire with a lance - THIS game dont have that luxury because you wont see me shoot 4 different targets in 10 seconds.

[P e n u m b r a]

I would not bother they do not understand the differences with a real time sim to table top

[Pht]

Terror Teddy, on 02 March 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Which actually gives us a problem.

All weapons converge on targets by use of sensors. A rangefinder is a sensor and in many respects similar to the TAG system.

All your weapons tell you at what range they are from an object and by that simple estimate one should still be able to give direct targeting with for example LRM's as long as you keep your reticle on the target.

After all, if you cannot block all sensors then you should be able to use laser guided missiles to the target.

We don't know (at least that I am aware of) how the missiles in the lore track. We just know that ECM can't stop the non-advanced form of missile tracking they use.

Artemis IV, streak (if you're using advanced ecm) stuff is blocked and those missiles are forced to act "normally."

[JokerVictor]

This entire thread is now irrelevant. LOL P2W

[Rebas Kradd]

JokerVictor, on 04 March 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

This entire thread is now irrelevant. LOL P2W

I thought you said you were leaving the game.

[JokerVictor]

Rebas Kradd, on 04 March 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

I thought you said you were leaving the game.

Gotta flame out first, duh.

[Pht]

Der Geisterbaer, on 02 March 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

~hrrm~ If weapons (as a whole, including the technology for target aquisition and aiming, not just the raw physical concept) actually were accurate, they'd be able to hit targets at larger combat ranges.

This is why I was specific - I meant the weapons only; in particular the plus or minus to-hit modifiers attached to each weapon. In order to get some working idea of how accurate any individual weapon is you'd see if they can hit something at their maximum range with any kind of repeatability... and they can. Which entirely leaves out the 'Mech's ability to converge the weapons, or the pilot's ability to put the reticule in the exact spot they want and pulling the trigger at the right time.

About the ranges - have you read TechManual or Maximum Tech? The 'Mechs have been capable of using their weapons out to very long range for quite a while now.

Quote

Actually no, going by lore, none of the mech-mounted weapons could do that ...

Yes, going by the lore, the *weapons* can, and the *'Mechs* can too.

Any mech with an arm-mounted medium laser can brace that arm on something of the appropriate height - say, a building, for -2, and spend about 30 seconds giving their battle computer the time to chew on a good "fix," for -3.

The range modifier for line-of-sight shots is +8, but using the above (yes, it has limitations - the target must stay in your front firing arc, and you can't move for thirty seconds) you knock that to +3 - so missing is usually a factor of pilot error, or the target adding extra modifiers - but if someone is dumb enough to stand still for 30 seconds and let you get a bead on them... it is possible.

Tactical ops, page 84 and 85, for reference.

Quote

Not being able to hit with a "perfectly" directional weapon like a laser at ranges beyond 450m in a standing mech against a standing target (within reasonable time frame) is the epitome of inaccuracy for the weapon (system) involved.

Of course this will happen, if you do something ********, like toss a +7 or +8 into the equation from a mental midget klutz pilot.

Without the pilot - just considering the weapon and the 'mech, you *might* have a +3 to overcome, ... maybe.

[Pht]

Nechuchadnezar, on 02 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Significant deviations from BT canon comes about when you convert a TT turn-based game to a first-person style simulation.

You and many others claim this.

You and nobody else has ever even given an example of what rules won't convert over and why they won't. It didn't even happen in the closed beta forums, and not for lack of trying to politely ask people to do so.

Far less has anyone managed to demonstrate why, logically (say, use a syllogism) the TT rules won't convert to real time.

This idea - this emperor - is stark raving naked... and I have been all but begging someone, anyone, to point out, either in example or in valid logical argument - why they should be agreed with.

People seem to be happy with "I think it's so, I've posted that it's so, and people agree that it's so - therefore it is so" - and they seem to think everyone should agree with them on this basis.

Quote

I was taken back at the double armor, same weapon damage when I first logged on, but it allows for lengthier battles.

... and completely destroys the weapons damage vs armor balance of the parent system, requiring endless tweaking.

Quote

-Grouped weapons dominate...listen closely to this...in TT, you have all the time in the world to fire the 18 different weapons that the Atlas carries,...

No.

You don't.

You've apparently made the mistake of thinking that the ten second turn means the weapons in the lore actually all fire on a ten second recycle - they don't - and we don't know their actual recycle times.

The actual "firing weapons" part of a turn takes a lot less than ten seconds.

----

You seem to have totally missed that there is no simulation at all in this game of how capable the 'Mech's are of using their weapons - that we have a MW video game in which Mech combat ability is not simulated (at any level).

Terror Teddy, on 02 March 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

If you want that then you go and play Mechwarrior tactics which is shaping up nicely

If you want quake 3, go play quake 3.

[/sarcasm]

Hey, if you think it's ok that you can validly use this form of strawman argument ...

Le0yo, on 02 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

I would not bother they do not understand the differences with a real time sim to table top

... coming from someone who, I suspect, is incapable of making a valid argument from true premises as to why you can't convert the rules from the TT into a first-person real time armored combat simulation...

In fact, do you even know the combat rules from the TT? If you don't, how can you say they won't convert over to real time?



... bueller ... bueller ... bueller...

Edited by Pht, 04 March 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Teralitha]

Mechs like the dragon, and the atlas have a variety of hardpoints and nothing can really be 'boated' on them and for the most part these kind of mechs are the choice of the seriously skilled pilots who dont like the easy way out.

In retrospect, the mechs with a single hardpoint type or several of the same type can boat weapons creating devastating alphastrikes and are generally the choice of the lazy.

This normally wouldnt be a major issue but these boat mechs are 'too' good. Throw ECM in the mix and it amplifies these mechs effect on the game, and some of them are just not realistic.

For example... the 9 laser hunchi. So how many of them are in the shoulder? What do you think would really happen when you fire all those lasers mounted together in the same location? It would generate so much heat the mechs shoulder would melt itself. The internals of a mech would take damage from that much concentrated heat. Though the rest of the mech wouldnt feel the burn as much as that shoulder would.

Lets face it... this is not a mech simulation. If it really was, pilots would be dying alot just from heat exposure inside their own mechs. Internal structures would be warping and melting from the intense heat some grouped weapons would produce. Grouped missle launchers fired nonstop would explode once the temperature around the launcher got so high.

Boat mechs need to be changed or removed. Spread out the hardpoints, or change the hard point types so they cant create boats. Let there be skill in the game again. Let there be actual heat management. Heck, the trial mechs are more realistic to what this game should really be like than any crazy custom optimal boat build.

I know the devs are trying to make trial mechs more like the useful custom builds, but instead they should be making custom mechs more llke trial mechs.

There is a reason why some players would love playing a trial mech only game mode. Because they know that to be succesful in a trial mech, it really does take skill. Theres no cheese. And that makes for a fun game. I hope you get that message devs... No cheese = more fun.

Edited by Teralitha, 18 March 2013 - 10:19 PM.