Board game is board game, first person sim is first person sim. Get over it

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
novakitty
08/24/02 11:15 PM
209.242.100.230

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The cooldown it referres to is that of the specific components, not the net heat of the entire mech. They attempted to make an environment that would make players rethink their tactics by microanalysing some of the concepts. Feel free to hate it, but I have rarely had as much fun as watching a players standard munch-pulse mech find itself effectively outgunned by stock designs half its weight.

If you do not like the rules, fine.

But what do you mean by an AC/2 doing as much damage as a PPC? A machinegun gets to fire every round, and can only do 8 damage max, ACs have some delay to them. Maybe an AC/5 could do as much as a PPC, but I do not remember its delay offhand.
meow
Moraelin
08/25/02 03:04 PM
80.134.253.160

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Which means that the cones *should* be there for BT, since "Get[ing] the real weapon's data and calculat[ing] the angle of that spread" leads to a very wide cone indeed.




Yes, and that would lead to a very crappy player experience. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, to have any chance at all of missing a 10m tall mech at 30m range, in 640x480 you'd need to have an about 200 pixel circle instead of a crosshair. That's a whole bloody third of the screen.

At which point it's not just inaccuracy, it's a case of basically having no controll over the game. It's a case where most players, myself included, would just pop the CD out and throw it into the garbage bin.

Things which more or less work in a board game, a la "oops, head shot with a PPC -- bang you're dead" translate into a mightly crappy simulation experience. It translates into "why the **** do I even bother, if it's purely random anyway?"

And what for? Just to keep happy a bunch of people who can't aim anyway? Yeah, ruining everyone's aim too has got to be an improvement.

In reply to:

Also, you are here making a large mistake. Going with reduced damage instead of chance-of-missing leads, on the macro scale, to precisely the same result in terms of total damage/total rds fired @ certain range.




No, it does not.

First of all, because again: please do the maths. There's _no_ way to achieve precisely the same results by fudging the numbers only based on distance, when the original formula was based on distance _and_ pilot skill _and_ cover _and_ the target's distance moved _and_ the shooter's movement _and_ the shooter's heat. Basically you're trying to tell me that you can make a 1 variable function behave exactly like a function of 5-6 variables, and sorry, I don't buy that. There's no maths in the world which can make that work.

In the board game, the exact same +1 penalty for shooting a PPC at 2 hexes might transform a "need to roll 11" into "need to roll 12" in some situations. (Cover, heat, very quick target.) Which transforms a 1/12 chance into a 1/36 chance. So if we're talking averages it should mean the average damage drops by two thirds. But in other situations, like firing from a stationary mech against a stationary mech, in the clear, it might merely turn a "need 4 roll" (91.6% chance) into a "need 5 roll" (83.3% chances). In which case, to achieve the exact same results as the board game you'd need to only reduce the damage done by only 9%.

So which of them do you take? The reduction by 66%, or the reduction by 9%? Neither of them produces the exact same results as the board game in all cases.

Second, because it still transforms a probability game into a deterministic one. Things which have a chance in the board game because of the probabilities (e.g., going at high speed and up close against someone with PPC's) would still not work.

Whereas in the board game I might think "ok, if I dash at full speed with this here Locust, he'll have like 1 chance in 12 to hit me, maybe it'll work." Now try simulating that with accurate aim but reduced PPC damage. Whoppee. I'll "only" take half of two PPC's (maybe even full damage, since he'll likely shoot me half-way through the move), which is still enough to cripple my Locust. Boohoo. It still didn't work like in the board game, after all.
---
Moraelin - The proud member of the Idiots' Guild
Tron
09/14/02 10:10 AM
209.246.81.143

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My own personal gripe: Why can't the video games keep the damage-to-armor at the level of the board game? 2 PPC blasts to the arm of a Panther should remove the arm. Some people argue that dealing damage as does the board game would make combat too fast and bloody. I always thought mech combat was supposed to be fast and bloody.


Why must we rehash this arguement? Ever since FASA authorized the creation of a computer simulation of Battletech every single designer from the guys who did the Tesla Pods, to Activision to FASA Int and to Microsoft have looked at the boardgame for reference.

Ultimately every sinlge one of them drew the same conclusion that boardgame dynamics sucked out the fun factor.

Damage values were so high and aiming was so easy that it would take less than a minute for someone to die (all varying on where they were aiming)

The only time someone followed the damage values as best as possible was with the Mechcommander series where they could generate formulas that would create misses simulated in the boardgame.

Could you imagine if the boardgame was structured that mechs could out right destroy each other in two to four turns from long range? That wouldn't be fun at all. That's why they keep screwing with the damage and armor values.

Mind you I actually like games like Counterstrike with its one to three shot kill ability; but I prefer mechwarrior having mech battles that are somewhat drawn out so you can think of different tactical options.

Oh and just to clarify something. I read an interview by activision that one on one mech duels lasted merely a minute.

I have no problems with light mechs or even some medium mechs dying this fast but in the boardgame a sole Assault mech could absorb hits from an entire lance and still take a beating the next turn. The way the games were structured prevented assaults or heavies from being anywhere close to being as survivable.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."-Kosh

We are a race that has the ability of going beyond the boundries placed on us. The question we should ask ourselves then is whether or not we should go beyond those boundries?


Edited by Tron (09/14/02 10:17 AM)
NathanKell
09/14/02 04:50 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Two things:
1. Turns are 10 seconds, so your "could absorb the fire of a lance for two whole turns!" equates to 20 seconds.
2. A floating reticle will allow for the misses required to keep the damage/armor paradigm the same.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Tron
09/15/02 12:16 AM
64.152.172.44

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Read it over again. Four mechs in 20 seconds is very different from one mech doing that very same thing in a sim with ten more seconds added.

Also a floating reticle would sort of solve that. Some people want minimum ranges and varying to hit mods with particular weapons. Such an extreme isn't impossible to do but the amount of work needed to do that is impractical and would probably cause more troubles in online games.

Microsoft had the right idea by giving Heavy Guass the same range profile as the large laser and gave it a base damage value that reflects its strong hitting power.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."-Kosh

We are a race that has the ability of going beyond the boundries placed on us. The question we should ask ourselves then is whether or not we should go beyond those boundries?
ChalengerII
09/17/02 04:50 PM
62.254.0.4

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
An idea
Ok i am going to get grilled for this but having played most of the mech warrior games and the odd tank sim on the internet I have found (well seen) a way of making it VERY hard to hit a fast manovering object at range without that floating rectangle. You simply give all weapons a travel time. I took this idea from tanarus a tank game which i imaging few play now as it has gone pay for play but when i played it I tended to use the light tanks and if used correctly you would rairly get hit but if you did something stupid like standing still or heading straight for the other guy you died. the travel time gives lighter mechs a chance as you not only have to aim at them you need to aim when they should be. It would be near impossible to aim for heads etc when the other player is heading full pelt towards cover. Also if you remove the homing ability of the LRMs they become a weapon of skill more than lock on fire lock on fire. Obviously the travel time would be short at the extreme ranges so to make it possible to hit but it should still be that a mech deliberatly dodging would be a hard object to hit while at the same time making it hard for him to hit. Can make for exciting combat as well, escecialy as a missile salvo that would easily kill you comes in and you despiratly pull a tight turn to dodge it. Any questions?
challenger
Tron
09/18/02 10:56 PM
209.246.80.55

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes i have a question. Do you want to go back to the Mechwarrior 2 days where PPCs were blue globs? LOL I'm not making fun of you but your suggestion made me think immediately of the PPCs that moved so slow you could dodge them with an assault mech from 500 meters away

Ahh those were the glory days...
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."-Kosh

We are a race that has the ability of going beyond the boundries placed on us. The question we should ask ourselves then is whether or not we should go beyond those boundries?
ChalengerII
09/19/02 02:28 PM
62.254.0.4

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
O no not that (Would like to have used stronger language but I wanted to keep it clean) What i'm talking about is nowere near that slow. (Got to get hold of a copy of MW2 again so I can see if any mech can over take the PPC) Its a fine line though you would have to test the idea alot before having it on the full game I ment more like a PPC fireing at max range taking a second to cover the distance. near to impossible to activly dodge but it forces the firer to lead his target and attempt to compensate for eratic movement. would have varried effects i'd say a locust would be very hard to hit at full speed while an Atlas would still be quite easy. Just come to think about it LRM's and SRM's would move a bit slower as they would in real life but not so slow as to be easy to dodge
Challenger
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 7059


Contact Admins Sarna.net