67 replies to this topic

[Zervziel]

It is going to get down to this eventually. The devs will have to decide how much of one needs to be sacrificed for the other. Granted assets can be integrated easily with a few others requiring some work but ultimately may be usable. However there are some assets that many people here have very differing ideas on how they should be implemented. Stuff like how aiming should work, how damage of weapons is done and where on the target they hit, overheating and whether if doing so should leave missile and autocannon mechs out of a job.

Basically, what I'm wanting to know is how much canon or gameplay should be sacrificed for the other for the overall goal of a game that everyone wants to play and keep playing for years to come.

My personal opinion is to keep to canon for the most part, but not let it dictate every aspect of the game as it can limit how much fun one can have.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Imo, you simply cannot translate the TT directly into an action combat sim.. nor would you want to. TT is itself an approximation of the BT universe translated into taple top rules, minis etc..

What the devs are doing however is going back to the lore and the mech combat of the TT to derive their game rather than spinning it off of previous video games. They are balancing MWO to be an action simulation rather than a turn based iteration. The biggest change, I think , will be that the game replaces the dice rolls and hitting and missing with action mechanics. That alone changed it drastically from TT... as it should.

I want MWO to represent mech combat in the BT universe beyond the TT game, not necessarily derived from the TT game. Ultimately Id like to see a full scale MMORPG that emcompasses life in BT and not just mechwarriors but.. fat chance right.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 20 January 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[Zervziel]

LakeDaemon, on 20 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

.

I am in awe of your eloquence.

[verybad]

I think he was just reitterating that this has already come down to this several many times. Or he sneezed while typing and posted that.

Canon and Gameplay however are NOT at conflict. There are two separate games. There is Battletech, which is a turn based boardgame (lots of fun, I reccomend it to anyone) and there is Mechwarrior, which is a realtime FPS with elements of Simulation. They're different games, that are based on the same universe. The main aspect is mech combat in the 31st century.

Canon is the fiction that the boardgame is based on. The boardgame is merely one method of simulating it. Mechwarrior is another. They are DIFFERENT.

[Tannhauser Gate]

No I was posting from work and the bossman came by so I had to hide my window. Fat fingered the period.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 20 January 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

verybad, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Canon and Gameplay however are NOT at conflict. There are two separate games. There is Battletech, which is a turn based boardgame (lots of fun, I reccomend it to anyone) and there is Mechwarrior, which is a realtime FPS with elements of Simulation. They're different games, that are based on the same universe. The main aspect is mech combat in the 31st century.

Canon is the fiction that the boardgame is based on. The boardgame is merely one method of simulating it. Mechwarrior is another. They are DIFFERENT.

Exactly. All that matters is that they follow the fiction that we know to be the BT universe. If they start adding shields to mechs, making them fly, add proton tordedos or anything else like that then it will cease to be BT as we know it. The rules from the PnP or TT versions and all the specs in the TRO's are completely meaningless ("meaningless" to be defined as they could be any numbers you want to use) in the video game version. Sure, it'd be "nice" if there was some correlation but if there's none at all who cares? All that matters is that they make a game that's a good simulation of what a mech should be and is balanced and enjoyable. I could care less if, in order to do that, they give an Orion 20% more armor than the TRO says it should have (or other deviation) as long as the spirit and intent is preserved.

Are you going to not play the game or enjoy it less because an er large laser doesn't do the damage it "should" do according to the TRO?

[Graphite]

Canon is good, gameplay is vital. Yes, in many cases they conflict with each other, and when that happens compromise needs to be made (in favour of gameplay).

verybad, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

I think he was just reitterating that this has already come down to this several many times. Or he sneezed while typing and posted that.


Canon and Gameplay however are NOT at conflict. There are two separate games. There is Battletech, which is a turn based boardgame (lots of fun, I reccomend it to anyone) and there is Mechwarrior, which is a realtime FPS with elements of Simulation. They're different games, that are based on the same universe. The main aspect is mech combat in the 31st century.

Canon is the fiction that the boardgame is based on. The boardgame is merely one method of simulating it. Mechwarrior is another. They are DIFFERENT.

Not in conflict? You must be talking about some other game.

You're using "Battletech" in correctly. Battletech encompasses a fictional universe, with many real world products falling under its umbrella: the board game, the rpg, the multitude of computer games that have been made in the last 20 years, and more.

Tabletop and MW are both BT. They're different representations of the same thing.

@ Devastator: how strange! I thought you were the biggest fan of sticking to the TRO here:

DEVASTATOR said:

I wouldn't be opposed to mechs coming as their TRO variants only with no customization allowed.

...

There's never been any incentive to build mechds that resemble how they are described in the TRO's or to make them role specific.

The devs say it best:

Quote

We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

Edited by Graphite, 20 January 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i just hope to keep the lore, most of the TT mechanics and avoid the jumpjet skiing with med laser alpha strikes ever 2 seconds. if we can move past that, then the game will be great.

[Nerts]

There's one thing I want MWO to stick close to from the TT, and that's the heat mechanics.

[Bishop Black]

As someone who never played the table top game, didn't read the novels, and only knows the lore from MW4: Mercs and Sarna articles... I don't expect my opinion to garner much support. But this is the internet and you're going to read it anyway:

I think MWO should be as much of a reboot of the Battle Tech Universe as possible. Most of the lore can be re-written/jumbled to fit the developer's whims without too much community outrage. Sure, there will always be a portion of the fan-base that will rage (this is inevitable). But the community is braced for a reboot... we expect it to be butchered so why not just go with it; cut the fat and add more meat! Battle Tech has been all but dead for some time now. We're due for some dramatic changes and I welcome them. Some of the most obvious changes that should be made are in the mech designs themselves. Some of the old mech designs are just silly and impractical. For example I greatly prefered the MW4 Hellhound to the classic design.

[Heronimus Bosch]

Bishop Black, on 20 January 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

As someone who never played the table top game, didn't read the novels, and only knows the lore from MW4: Mercs and Sarna articles... I don't expect my opinion to garner much support. But this is the internet and you're going to read it anyway:

I think MWO should be as much of a reboot of the Battle Tech Universe as possible. Most of the lore can be re-written/jumbled to fit the developer's whims without too much community outrage. Sure, there will always be a portion of the fan-base that will rage (this is inevitable). But the community is braced for a reboot... we expect it to be butchered so why not just go with it; cut the fat and add more meat! Battle Tech has been all but dead for some time now. We're due for some dramatic changes and I welcome them. Some of the most obvious changes that should be made are in the mech designs themselves. Some of the old mech designs are just silly and impractical. For example I greatly prefered the MW4 Hellhound to the classic design.

Bishop Black, the Devs have stated that the game will have an offset timeline but will follow canon as much as possible.
All mechs in the game will be given a make over by flyingdebris, all the pictures in the media section are his work.

PS By the way the Battletech universe has existed for 25 years all ready and is very much alive. Only the omputer game side of the universe has not had any official game for some time.

edit : added the PS

Edited by Heronimus Bosch, 20 January 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Bishop Black]

Heronimus Bosch, on 20 January 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Bishop Black, the Devs have stated that the game will have an offset timeline but will follow canon as much as possible.
All mechs in the game will be given a make over by flyingdebris, all the pictures in the media section are his work.

"As much as possible" is something we've heard many times before in other games and it is rarely as closely as the fans expect. Although that probably has more to do with the fact that there will always be a percentage of the fans who rage with little to no provocation. But what will the devs do when the lore puts one faction at a huge disadvantage? I openly admit that I am not an expert on the Battle Tech lore but didn't I read somewhere that The Free Rasalhague Republic ceases to exist at some point? I doubt they would permanently gimp/remove one of the houses in MWO... so that would be a huge re-write of the lore.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and am completely full of BS.

Edited by Bishop Black, 20 January 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[Graphite]

Bishop Black, on 20 January 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

As someone who never played the table top game, didn't read the novels, and only knows the lore from MW4: Mercs and Sarna articles... I don't expect my opinion to garner much support. But this is the internet and you're going to read it anyway:

I think MWO should be as much of a reboot of the Battle Tech Universe as possible. Most of the lore can be re-written/jumbled to fit the developer's whims without too much community outrage. Sure, there will always be a portion of the fan-base that will rage (this is inevitable). But the community is braced for a reboot... we expect it to be butchered so why not just go with it; cut the fat and add more meat! Battle Tech has been all but dead for some time now. We're due for some dramatic changes and I welcome them. Some of the most obvious changes that should be made are in the mech designs themselves. Some of the old mech designs are just silly and impractical. For example I greatly prefered the MW4 Hellhound to the classic design.

I agree about the appearance of mechs - many of the official images ar from the 1980s, and look it. Most only need small changes though - see MechCommader or MWLL for much better looking versions of official art.

As for the rest, I think you're wrong - what on earth makes you think a BT "reboot" is needed?

Anyway, this is all moot. To develop a MW game you need a BT licence, and no doubt any contract like that would include clauses to ensure canon is followed as closely as is practical.

Edited by Graphite, 20 January 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

Graphite, on 20 January 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

@ Devastator: how strange! I thought you were the biggest fan of sticking to the TRO here:

Well what's not strange is your inclination towards baiting and personal attacks. Keep it up.

Love the taking of quotes totally out of context again. This time from at least 2 completely different and unrelated subjects too. Sweet. I guess "not minding" TRO only mechs means I completely support going with TRO based designs, rules, specs, etc. huh? I guess that'd mean I'm ok with no customizaiton of mechs which would kinda make you quoting me immediately after in the next line about wanting some incentive to customize mechs with different ranges of weapons a bit at odds in support of your point (which has yet to be made).

And VB got it right on BT and MW. You didn't Completely different games based on the same fiction.

[Bishop Black]

Graphite, on 20 January 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

what on earth makes you think a BT "reboot" is needed?

This project was originally called Mechwarrior 5: Reboot (or some such). And rebooting seems to be the thing to do these days. Some would argue it is the easy/lazy way out for a game developer but typically rebooting a franchise gives it more appeal to new players. BattleTech is awesome but couldn't it be better? Or is the old way the only way? Given the freedom to do so I think the devs could make the lore better than it ever was... but clearly I am speaking from a bias and largely ignorant perspective.

[Graphite]

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Well what's not strange is your inclination towards baiting and personal attacks. Keep it up.

Love the taking of quotes totally out of context again. This time from at least 2 completely different and unrelated subjects too. Sweet. I guess "not minding" TRO only mechs means I completely support going with TRO based designs, rules, specs, etc. huh? I guess that'd mean I'm ok with no customizaiton of mechs which would kinda make you quoting me immediately after in the next line about wanting some incentive to customize mechs with different ranges of weapons a bit at odds in support of your point (which has yet to be made).

And VB got it right on BT and MW. You didn't Completely different games based on the same fiction.

BT isn't a game. BT TT is a game. MW is a game. Both these games represent EXACTLY the same thing. Yes, 100% perfectly the same thing being represented.
I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with what you want, but that's the way it is...

Bishop Black, on 20 January 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

This project was originally called Mechwarrior 5: Reboot (or some such).

Yes, I think "Reboot" can be translated as "we've put out a whole string of these titles, but you should still buy this one".
Marketing, I think, not really a change of any sort.

Edited by Graphite, 20 January 2012 - 07:07 PM.

[Heronimus Bosch]

Bishop Black, on 20 January 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

"As much as possible" is something we've heard many times before in other games and it is rarely as closely as the fans expect. Although that probably has more to do with the fact that there will always be a percentage of the fans who rage with little to no provocation. But what will the devs do when the lore puts one faction at a huge disadvantage? I openly admit that I am not an expert on the Battle Tech lore but didn't I read somewhere that The Free Rasalhague Republic ceases to exist at some point? I doubt they would permanently gimp/remove one of the houses in MWO... so that would be a huge re-write of the lore.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about and am completely full of BS.

The Clan invasion will not begin until 3050 (this year is 3049 for the game) and when the invasion is halted by the battle of Tukayyid in the year 3052 there are 13 planets left of the Rasahague Republic. So players for that fraction have some time to play left.

link to more information on the republic :http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Free_Rasalhague_Republic

[Bishop Black]

Well I still say I'll be surprised if MWO stays as true to lore as the community expects. But either way I'll be happy. Heck, I could play a Mechwarrior game with absolutely no lore at all. Just give me as much variety of mechs as possible, a mech lab, and something to shoot at.

[Graphite]

Bishop Black, on 20 January 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Well I still say I'll be surprised if MWO stays as true to lore as the community expects. But either way I'll be happy. Heck, I could play a Mechwarrior game with absolutely no lore at all. Just give me as much variety of mechs as possible, a mech lab, and something to shoot at.

Who knows. Depends on what you mean by "lore" I think.
The devs have already said MWO is set in BT's history and will follow written history, in real time, and that combat rules will follow the TT rules as closely as a real time game can practically manage.

[Zervziel]

Heronimus Bosch, on 20 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

The Clan invasion will not begin until 3050 (this year is 3049 for the game) and when the invasion is halted by the battle of Tukayyid in the year 3052 there are 13 planets left of the Rasahague Republic. So players for that fraction have some time to play left.

link to more information on the republic :http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Free_Rasalhague_Republic

First Periphery contact with the Clans was in August 3049.

As is I wish the devs would give the past Mechwarrior games more than just a passing glance when it comes to gameplay than the TT. The TT is not a sim and the MW games are. It seems like the best thing to do is to work off of them rather than trying to reinvent the wheel using just the TT.