364 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Blackfang, on 23 November 2015 - 04:56 AM, said:

So what's not battletech about it?

Just off the top of my head...

Air combat (unless you count Air Strike, but that is not air combat)
Armor (unless you count what I guess is supposed to be the Long Tom)
Infantry
Starships
Support vehicles

Stars vs Lances
Elementals
Role warfare
House unit designations, ranks and colors (left nut feature)

Tactical objectives ( what is the reason to take a base in Assault?)
Dynamic unit combat
Supply lines
Salvage, salvage, salvage

Archaeology and discovery
Exploration
Immersive environments
Mechanics (scruffy ones whose skill determine how well your mech is repaired)

Mechwarrior is not Battletech. Battletech has always been much greater than Mechwarrior. TT was just one portion of Battletech, not the sum of it. Battletech would be many games, not one or even two.

Yet most of the above could be accomplished in this game. Read the Features and Suggestions, not just GD, and you might stumble on some very good ideas that could realistically be implemented.

Or you can join Nero in Vancouver next month. Your choice.

[Raggedyman]

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

1- league of legends - All MWO needs is side strafe and its journey to the dark side is complete....

And if you added corn & chickens it would be Farmville. I fail to see your point on that one.

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

More to the point- a persistent unit that evolves over time and changes based on damage and salvage. Not a 12 vs 12 death match generator. That moves a counter on a map up or down by a point.

The vast bulk of Battletech games I played, and that all the Battletech games I know have played have been one instance death matches. The main difference between them and MWO is that it was one-v-one on a table, rather than 12-v-12 on PCs. Other than that: no campaign and no meaning beyond "PEWPEWLAZORBEAM!!!" with dice.

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

I have a mech bay where customization is broken. It devalues many mechs due to un compensated design choices. high vs low hard points... the use of hard points to begin with.

So you would rather either the "make you own" rules form the TT or the "THESE AND NOTHING ELSE" rules from the TT?

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

MW has always had a first person campaign.Some degree of persistence and development.

Yeah, and once you played that you pilled into the deathmatches
Also PVE is being looked at. It'll just have love returns on investment as it's difficult to sell one-shot content these days. (no, not impossible, just difficult)

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

MWO is really Solaris online. PGI should just realign and re-brand it as such.

So it's not Battletech because all it is is a major bit of the Battletech mythos?
Brilliant comparison there, thanks for the own-goal

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

2-"Some" concessions....What concessions did it make? They the design team omitted needed elements to preserve the performance cost functions for all mech designs. its also half of the games balance issues. the other half being convergence.That one item alone underscores the sentiment this is a reskined COD clone. It's not,but its more like a generic FPS clone with little much to offer.

Assaults are not as durable as there size warrants. Its like someone tried to make all mechs basically the same and failed. then kept the cash cost to justify something. when price is not proportional to performance.

PGI did not make concessions. They been square pegging the round hole since day one. Forcing The IP into what PGI wants.

The concessions are that you are switching from a turn-based TableTop Game, with abstractions of things like movement and aiming and damage, and switching it to an FPS.
It's like switching from a book to a movie, similar concepts but incredibly different mediums.

Tombstoner, on 23 November 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

3- actualy i would say the same things to the all the MW develoers as i would to PGI. This is not a FPS... it needs to be a mech unit simulator. Its not its a death match generator. You want Esports team deathmath thats solaris.... build that game. Start with 1-1 and 4-4 then when your ready more to larger size battles....

again, thanks for the own goal. Your beef, yet again, is that it's portion X of the BattleTech lore rather than portion Y.
That's like complaining that salmon isn't a fish because you ordered the cod, and that it not having enough dill or that they added too much salt then that stops it being seafood at all.

[Sandpit]

Raggedyman, on 24 November 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

snipped for length

I agree with most of what you said. One thing I think you overly simplified though was the history of one-off style deathmatches. You're dismissing some key elements to those deathmatches of MW history. I go all the way back to MW2 (if we're talking multiplayer MW series and leagues and such) and even though you are correct, there was a major difference and key element.

Lobbies and social tools. We had a community that wasn't segregated to individuals hitting a launch button to launch with 11 other unknowns. We were able to chat, hang out, discuss the game, etc. Don't take this simple solution for granted. That's how you build a community as opposed to just building a game. PGI looks to be finally understanding that hopefully.

[Blackfang]

Ted Wayz, on 23 November 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

Just off the top of my head...

Air combat (unless you count Air Strike, but that is not air combat)
Armor (unless you count what I guess is supposed to be the Long Tom)
Infantry
Starships
Support vehicles

Stars vs Lances
Elementals
Role warfare
House unit designations, ranks and colors (left nut feature)

Tactical objectives ( what is the reason to take a base in Assault?)
Dynamic unit combat
Supply lines
Salvage, salvage, salvage

Archaeology and discovery
Exploration
Immersive environments
Mechanics (scruffy ones whose skill determine how well your mech is repaired)

Mechwarrior is not Battletech. Battletech has always been much greater than Mechwarrior. TT was just one portion of Battletech, not the sum of it. Battletech would be many games, not one or even two.

Yet most of the above could be accomplished in this game. Read the Features and Suggestions, not just GD, and you might stumble on some very good ideas that could realistically be implemented.

Or you can join Nero in Vancouver next month. Your choice.

Yes I'm aware of all that, but I was simply referring to the Battletech elements within a Mechwarrior orientated computer game. The only elements from your list that I'd like to see in MWO are the following:

Stars vs Lances
Role Warfare
House Unit Designations, ranks and colours
Tactical objectives
Supply lines
Salvage
Mechanics - simply redefined as the rearm and repair mechanic we had before

I don't really think a Mechwarrior game requires air combat, armoured combat (although the inclusion of armor would be cool), Elementals, Starships, infantry etc etc

The elements that exist within MWO today make it a battletech product as it clearly sits within that IP by not having those things you mentioned (no matter how much we might want them) it doesn't, not make it a battletech product.

[Tombstoner]

Raggedyman, on 24 November 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

That's like complaining that salmon isn't a fish because you ordered the cod, and that it not having enough dill or that they added too much salt then that stops it being seafood at all.

Excellent comparison. I love baked cod(Battle tech), been eating it since 1984. Sadly the original franchise kinda died out. I hear a new restaurant is opening. it's a pay what you want to pay. I make a reservation. its very exclusive until 6 pm, only a few people allowed at time (closed beta). The place looks and smells great( the mech art is PGI's greatest asset). I tip them $80 for a founders baked "A Battle tech game" cod Fillet . The fish appetizers we try during closed beta have some issues but its a work in progress. So far every things great. Everyone's well behaved that is until 6pm and the restaurant goes open beta. People start fighting over the fish samplers.... it need ketchup... no vinegar....

Our order gets delayed. The owners throw a grand opening party. We ask when will be get our orders. we get told soon, the cooks are finishing the bread crumbs(clan warfare). lies, I find out later the owners where waiting on a IP extension from the franchise (Microsoft). Why finish the order when they already gave us some fish. it's pay what you want. the owners not obligated to finish the order.

What I got was a salty half cooked salmon with the head and tail attached. I ordered the baked cod( a Battle tech game). what i got was inedible....Yes its a fish, but it's not the fish i want. What was served might earn you 3 michlen stars. but i'm not eating it. And it's definitely not baked cod( a Battle tech game). I go to the forums to talk to the staff. I get silence, told i'm not the target audience. I should go home and cook it myself( play TT)...

PGI is to Amys Baking company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Baking_Company. as Battle tech fans are to Gordon Ramsy.

We know what baked cod looks and tastes like and your telling me i should be happy i got some fish "Meow...Meow"....

[CHH Badkarma]

I think it should be removed as well. As often thrown around that mwo is not table top, this game is pgi's interpretation of battletech. So much so that at this point it really is just a first person shooter with no lore or background.

I do not care about people crying for whatever reasons in this game anymore. Just seems the "a battletech game" makes it seem like it is trying to cling to legacy that really has not earned. Change it to something like , PGI's role warfare combat game or something else

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 24 November 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 23 November 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Game just needs Stock Mode. MWO feels just instantly BT if played in Stock.

Its not that PGI is not filling our "own" personal vision, but the BT vision that we share and used to love for long, long years, Almond.

Well Stock Mode would be swell but I have played some on Stock Mondays and you know what, not ALL Stock Mechs are created equal and when facing off against the "GOOD" ones, it is not long before "MOST" were playing the same few Mechs. Sorta like when we can modify the **** out of them, the Cream always rises and sees the most playtime.

Stock, while different, simply has its own set of issues, of which, NONE can be FIXED with change though...

[Almond Brown]

An interesting read this:

Quote

http://www.localditc...ech2/clans.html

I do not ever remember flying combat missions in MW2 or MW2:Clans etc etc... I guess they were not BT either. I did have one fast kick-ass Modem back then though...

[Raggedyman]

Tombstoner, on 24 November 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

PGI is to Amys Baking company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Baking_Company. as Battle tech fans are to Gordon Ramsy.

I think that's my queue to fold.

[Raggedyman]

Sandpit, on 24 November 2015 - 07:18 AM, said:

I agree with most of what you said. One thing I think you overly simplified though was the history of one-off style deathmatches. You're dismissing some key elements to those deathmatches of MW history. I go all the way back to MW2 (if we're talking multiplayer MW series and leagues and such) and even though you are correct, there was a major difference and key element.

Lobbies and social tools. We had a community that wasn't segregated to individuals hitting a launch button to launch with 11 other unknowns. We were able to chat, hang out, discuss the game, etc. Don't take this simple solution for granted. That's how you build a community as opposed to just building a game. PGI looks to be finally understanding that hopefully.

I agree that there are a lot of things missing or that could be improved on, and I don't think I've ever claimed the game is perfect 'as is'. Things like forums/facebook etc and private matches can kind of replicate that, but not in as robust a fashion as they had on (for example) MW4.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 November 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

MW4. By far, the worst iteration of the Franchise.

YOU TAKE THAT THE HELL BACK!!!

It had some nice touches, a couple of decent ideas, and it didn't have the amazing flying reticle of MW3....

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 November 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

MW4. By far, the worst iteration of the Franchise.

Considering that playing MW4 resulted in the best LAN party involving sex and debauchery, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

[tangles 253]

Gas Guzzler, on 16 November 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

Should I start a thread about a Petition to end over-dramatizations in the MWO forums?

They are trying to balance the game we have now, and they aren't on the hook to release new IS weapons for YEARS until they advance the timeline, so lets cross that bridge when we get there.

Bloody oath mate. why all the carry on.

keep it simple. play the game and have fun. if its no longer fun, go somewhere else to whine, your not being constructive or helpful

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 23 November 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Game just needs Stock Mode. MWO feels just instantly BT if played in Stock.

Its not that PGI is not filling our "own" personal vision, but the BT vision that we share and used to love for long, long years, Almond.

Per Russ Bullock in a message I sent him regarding Stock Mech issue:

"Sent 26 May 2015 - 12:15 PM
Well as you know we cannot afford to run more "buckets" in MWO. Therefore everyone would need to buy into the concept of playing stock mech mode across the board.

This would mean that the Clans with their stock mechs would utterly destroy the IS.

I think if it has any chance of coming into MWO it will need to prove it's worth in private matches first."

He's not against it, people just need to light up the forums and twitter about it.

[Sandpit]

Party at Mystere's place!

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

Considering that playing MW4 resulted in the best LAN party involving sex and debauchery, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Almond Brown, on 24 November 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

Well Stock Mode would be swell but I have played some on Stock Mondays and you know what, not ALL Stock Mechs are created equal and when facing off against the "GOOD" ones, it is not long before "MOST" were playing the same few Mechs. Sorta like when we can modify the **** out of them, the Cream always rises and sees the most playtime.

Stock, while different, simply has its own set of issues, of which, NONE can be FIXED with change though...

What make you believe that all meks should be equal? Some models are little hurt by no melee, some are little hurt by no BT weapon stats, but all definitely offer unique flavor and that can't be tell about full custom mode. Should be reminded that quirks dropped all balance in to trash. But overall the consensus among the players is that 3025 Stock is amazingly well balanced, even with issues already mentioned. Many players participated just be cause of that, as they felt that balance is greatly superior to public custom game play.
All I seen is all sort of meks and variants in SMM event. But we can do some polemic about that subject. Bring me one mek that is utter ****, except SHD-2D2 of course, as its a lol mek in TT as well.

[Pjwned]

Repasy, on 22 November 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

HAH! Good one.

I'm delusional? Since when has it been remotely difficult to drag your cursor along a moving enemy while your laser fires? NEVER.

Never said it was difficult to spread your laser damage all over the mech or to get cored while firing the laser since you're not twisting.

Quote

I suppose for somebody who doesn't even understand the physics behind a weaponized laser, that fix would seem arbitrary. I could explain to you the concept of focusing a laser's energy to a pinpoint target for maximum damage yield, and how that would require detailed lock-on information to best track the distance to point-of-contact...

Ah, but I forgot. You're just stupid.

Nice cop out there bub. Even if your explanation was relevant (it isn't) and you had any credibility (you don't), that doesn't say a single thing about such a stupid fix single handedly fixing every balance problem.

Go shine some lasers into your eyes.

[Pjwned]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 24 November 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

What make you believe that all meks should be equal?

You just ruined your whole argument in the first sentence, nice.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Pjwned, on 24 November 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

You just ruined your whole argument in the first sentence, nice.

Yeah why?
You think Spider should equal Atlas?

[Blackfang]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 24 November 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Yeah why?
You think Spider should equal Atlas?

Actually a good spider 5d pilot would probably bring down an atlas in 1vs1 combat, atlas turn rate isn't good enough to track them at full speed and the spider would eliminate the rear armour. But I get your point

[Sjorpha]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 24 November 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

Yeah why?
You think Spider should equal Atlas?

There should be different situations where one is better than the other, they should be good and bad at different things. But they should be roughly equal in terms of total match impact.

So a good example is that a light often have the advantage if it catches a slow assault alone and off guard, but the assault contributes far more in a frontline battle where firepower and armour is key.

Equally powerful does not mean powerful in the same way, or good in the same situation, it just means equally important part of the team.

The reason they should be "equal" in that sense is to make player distribution and balance work out for a 1 player=1 mech PVP environment.

There is also this weird myth going about lights in MWO being stronger than assaults, but the truth is that assaults are way more powerful than lights in this game as soon as you get some skill and coordination going.

In the specific example of Atlas and Spider, they are both kinda niche in the current meta, but Atlas is still way more powerful than the spider overall. The spider is just too weak in terms of firepower and there isn't a strong enough niche for scouting/speed/agility to make up for it. The typical assassination routine that lights do versus assaults relies on having a decent punch and getting the initiative, it's not actually the case that assaults can't fight against lights once they are aware of them. In most cases a spiders measly alpha won't cripple a fresh atlas quick enough to take down a competent pilot before he can get into a defensible position. (back against wall/controlled range bracket/limit area of engagement and so on.)

And if he is so hopelessly out of position that he is helpless against a light, well that's exactly the kind of mistake the game should punish and where lights should be allowed to shine.