43 replies to this topic

[Metalcell]

NRP, on 08 April 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

The biggest flaw I see is the assumption that weight and crit slots are "set in stone". Ridiculous. Nothing is "set in stone".

All I see are BT fundamentalists who insist on forcing everyone to play by the dogmatic rules of an antiquated TT game. Which is also ridiculous.

I agree with this dude:)

[Noobzorz]

MaddMaxx, on 08 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Turkey Bacon? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good One. How are those Pigs Eggs?

If you cook the **** out of turkey bacon, it is delightful. The key is really going until it's crispy.

But yes, BT fundamentalists need to get over it. All this babbling on about one of the least well balanced table top games, all this babbling on with an in-universe voice about how the mechanics should work... it's embarrassing really, and when I read it my mind goes right to caricatures of Star Trek convention attendees you'd see on Family Guy. MWO should be fun, thrilling, and competitive, and the devs should use all the available latitude that the SPIRIT of the rules that battletech universe allows, rather than being constrained by the letter of those rules.

Edited by Noobzorz, 08 April 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[DocBach]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

If you cook the **** out of turkey bacon, it is delightful. The key is really going until it's crispy.

But yes, BT fundamentalists need to get over it. All this babbling on about one of the least well balanced table top games, all this babbling on with an in-universe voice about how the mechanics should work... it's embarrassing really, and when I read it my mind goes right to caricatures of Star Trek convention attendees you'd see on Family Guy. MWO should be fun, thrilling, and competitive, and the devs should use all the available latitude that the SPIRIT of the rules that battletech universe allows, rather than being constrained by the letter of those rules.

How about imagining an Infantry Sergeant with two combat deployments instead?


here I am, if you can't use your imagination

Simply put, shut the **** up because you're a ******* moron. If you don't like the source game and think it's so dorky, then ******* leave us to it because unlike you we like this IP and would like to see it properly presented.

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

How about imagining an Infantry Sergeant with two combat deployments instead?


here I am, if you can't use your imagination

Simply put, shut the **** up because you're a ******* moron. If you don't like the source game and think it's so dorky, then ******* leave us to it because unlike you we like this IP and would like to see it properly presented.

[Hedonism Robot]

I played the TT game and really hope PGI only follows the spirit of its rules. The game had stuff like crappy medium mechs with a single small laser for "point defense". They would pump out mechs and balance them by assigning BV since the cbills and tonnage system broke. Damage was done randomly to the mech by rolling dice and weapons were balanced according to this. Obviously it was fun and popular, so PGI stands to benefit from finding the good working components of the rules.

As a TT player I am fine with PGI adding weapons, balancing weapons, changing stock values, adjusting armor values and creating new equipment. People need to understand that this game is not a top down strategy game. What makes mechwarrior fun is being able to create your own personalized mech and rolling out into battle. Balanced weapons and equipment will further increase the scope and options on this.

[Royalewithcheese]

Hedonism Robot, on 08 April 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

I played the TT game and really hope PGI only follows the spirit of its rules.

[Roadbeer]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

If you cook the **** out of turkey bacon, it is delightful. The key is really going until it's crispy.

But yes, BT fundamentalists need to get over it. All this babbling on about one of the least well balanced table top games, all this babbling on with an in-universe voice about how the mechanics should work... it's embarrassing really, and when I read it my mind goes right to caricatures of Star Trek convention attendees you'd see on Family Guy. MWO should be fun, thrilling, and competitive, and the devs should use all the available latitude that the SPIRIT of the rules that battletech universe allows, rather than being constrained by the letter of those rules.

[FupDup]

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Because making an MWO Medium Laser generate 1 more heat per shot than a TT Medium Laser definitely makes this game into CoD...

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[Roadbeer]

FupDup, on 08 April 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Because making an MWO Medium Laser generate 1 more heat per shot than a TT Medium Laser definitely makes this game into CoD...

Look, I get the need to make changes in order to bring a TT game into a 3d real time enviroment. But when you crack that seal (as has already been done, doubling armor values, etc). You need to take it seriously when you do that. If upping heat a little, or making small tweaks is good for it... sure I'm all with that. I'm not a rulez lawyerz and I understand the need for compromise. But this...

Quote

But yes, BT fundamentalists need to get over it. All this babbling on about one of the least well balanced table top games, all this babbling on with an in-universe voice about how the mechanics should work... it's embarrassing really

Kind of frightens me, it's a mentality that allows for "Just build CoD and put a mech skin on it"

Bad things man, bad things.

[NRP]

No one is saying that. Please don't go to melodramatic extremes.

People complain about boating/sniping/brawling/whatever. But these play styles evolve because not all weapons are effective. Some want to nerf the good weapons (this makes a worse overall game imo). Some (like me) want to buff the bad weapons. I don't see anything wrong with that buff involving weight or crit tweaks as opposed (or in addition) to only damage or heat tweaks.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 08 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Yes. I have more medals than a third world country general.

The OP stated tweaks to the performance of the weapons wouldn't work because of the foundations this game is founded upon. You can tweak things like firing rates, heat, range, whatever -- but certain things can't be changed unless you change the entire system.

[Noobzorz]

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

How about imagining an Infantry Sergeant with two combat deployments instead?

Simply put, shut the **** up because you're a ******* moron. If you don't like the source game and think it's so dorky, then ******* leave us to it because unlike you we like this IP and would like to see it properly presented.

What a lovely and tactful post. If you want to get personal, you work a low skill, low wage job, and I do something that took years of post-secondary education at two top flight universities. I didn't do anything to earn it except that two university professors banged and I was the result, but I expect that in any standard measure of intelligence I'd beat you five shades of purple in the same way your training probably means you would whoop my *** in a fist fight.

Now take a minute, let that rage come down from a frothing boil, and consider what I'm saying. No one wants CoD with mechs. That's not what anyone is saying. But the TT is a badly designed piece of **** from an ineffectual design team that doesn't know what they're doing. Even people who play the balance catastrophe that is 40K laugh at the battletech rules.

When you try to port that already broken *********** over to a realtime mech combat sim, the already tenuous balance really comes apart. Now we have alpha strike warrior, unusable variants, and no obvious method of fixing it. This is because instead of operating within the SPIRIT of the rules, they have constrainted themselves to the LETTER of the rules. This is a complex system in a new environment that is going to take a lot of know-how to balance, and when you come at it from a TT perspective, that's impossible.

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Kind of frightens me, it's a mentality that allows for "Just build CoD and put a mech skin on it"

Bad things man, bad things.

You've gone full ****** and you're doing your TDM QQer impression again. No one wants another CoD game. Hell, working with the TT rules, we're actually closer than ever: look at everyone complaining about alpha strike warrior.

If they abandon the ridiculous shackles of weapon X takes Y hardpoints and that's all there is to it, they will be have a lot more options to try and get the game where we want it.

Edited by Noobzorz, 08 April 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[DKTuesday]

I'll tell you who cares if the stock mechs are balanced, new players. Just a saying.

That being said, I'm all up for balances, but there is a reason why I MWO, that reason being is that it doesn't feel like anything else on the market. Where is the challenge without restrictions? People want things handed to them with no difficulty it seems.

If you want a MechWarrior game without the MechWarrior...then perhaps you should look for another game.

Buff the weapons, don't change the slots. That's the fun of it, IMO, being limited in what you can build.

Edited by DKTuesday, 08 April 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Noobzorz]

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Yes. I have more medals than a third world country general.

The OP stated tweaks to the performance of the weapons wouldn't work because of the foundations this game is founded upon. You can tweak things like firing rates, heat, range, whatever -- but certain things can't be changed unless you change the entire system.

Change NARC from 2 slots to 1 and tonnage from 3 to 1 to see if people actually use it. Go from there.

BUT OOOOOOH THE SYSTEM IS RUUUUUUUUINEDDDDD NOW. IT IS NO LONGER BATTLETECH. WAAAAAAAAAH. WAAAAAAAAH.

If that's not the level of BT fundamentalist you are, then there was no need for your angry, stupid post, and we've gotten into this disagreement over semantics. If it is, then what the **** is wrong with you?

Edited by Noobzorz, 08 April 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[DocBach]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Change NARC from 2 slots to 1 and tonnage from 3 to 1.

OOOOOOH THE SYSTEM IS RUUUUUUUUINEDDDDD.

Yeah, actually, doing that ruins the basic 'mechs that you purchase in this game. If you can't realize that maybe your intelligence and prestigious education isn't as great as you thought.

Changing the Narc itself to be (ironically just like the board game rules you've **** all over) useful by changing its mechanics, would work in this system. Go figure, genius.

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Barghest Whelp]

Ok, since logic just falls off the teflon wall, let's try a more 99% approach.

Here's why you should never change the crits, tons or damage per shot of any weapon:

1. There would be a nerdrage storm of which the like the world has never seen. This would probably trigger armageddon and we would all die a horrible (but swift) painfull death.

2. And as if that wasn't reason enough: more than half the player base (yes, all the BT fanatics) would pack their stuff and leave, and there would no longer be any point in calling it mechwarrior since all the BT fans would be gone.

3. All the bad publicity from 1 & 2 would kill off the game and we would have to wait another 10 years for a new mechwarrior game.

4. PGI could do what they really want to do instead: make the next p2w CoD!

So yeah, out of the four things on that list I can count one positive, and no, nerdrage is never a good thing. Just trust me on this.

[DocBach]

Noobzorz, on 08 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

If that's not the level of BT fundamentalist you are, then there was no need for your angry, stupid post, and we've gotten into this disagreement over semantics. If it is, then what the **** is wrong with you?

Terrible PTSD and anger issues couple with annoyance of players who don't care about this game's history or background and want to change the game myself and other fans have been waiting a decade for?

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Its easier to say "LBX does 1.25 per pellet now, has a tighter spread, and carries more ammo per ton" than it is to overhaul every mech in the game and force your entire playerbase to do the same. I don't think that's because BT tonnage/crit slots are particularly balanced, I think it's a pure convenience thing.

[Noobzorz]

DocBach, on 08 April 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

terrible PTSD and anger issues and annoyance with players who don't care about this game's history or background and want to change the game myself and other fans have been waiting a decade for?

I was writing up a really unkind and sharply worded post that addressed everything you've written, but I'm gonna dial this back. So let's start over. I really do think we've misunderstood each other. The Trekkie comment was offside, as was every one of your responses, frankly, but I guess I started it, so let me be the first to apologize.

No one wants to damage this games history or background. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the only reason people are here is because of that history or background. I love Battletech. For this to be a proper mech warrior game, it can't be Hawken, it can't be CoD, it can't be anything but Mechwarrior.

We want slow, ferocious combat with a strategic feel. We also want it to be balanced, to reward creativity, and to play well. But it's not a tabletop game. There are no dice rolls, no firing cones, no infantry, and no miniatures. You can't just port that rulebook over and expect it to work well.

As it stands, almost no one uses the AC/10 except to use the AC/10. It's not clear how you'd fix that just by varying damage and heat (which would already deviate from the rulebook) except by making the AC/20 the new obsolete weapon. Right off the top of my head, I can think of a few good starting points using tonnage and crit slots to make the AC/10 find its way into a few builds that an AC/20 wouldn't make sense in.

The point I'm trying to make is this. This isn't a tabletop game. There are so many things in TT that are missing from this, and so many things in MWO that are missing from TT that they are incomparable. The tabletop LRMs, for example, were so overpowered that they were nerfed to less than a third of their original efficacy in a hotfix, for crying out loud. When you try to balance the game using that rulebook, it gets lost in translation from the FASA rulebook to the MWO code.

If you really want MWO to be balanced, to feel like battletech, and to allow the level of creativity possible in the TT, the devs should let it stand on its own. It will be much easier to fix snipewarrior and alphastrikewarrior and get something that is genuinely BT that way.

[DocBach]

I'll apologize as well. I let some real life stressors bleed into the online world (lady at Panda Express spilled a container of food on to my lap and I was upset and short-fused).

We want the same end goal; the difference like royalewithcheese pointed out, changing the basis of the construction rules would change the whole foundation of this game. If the AC/10 needs a purpose, perhaps weapons like the AC/20 should have a much more dramatic drop off in damage at extended ranges, so the AC/10 has a role at medium ranges like its suppose to?

The LRM example you used is actually incorrect. In the first iteration of beta they were proven to be overpowered only because of PGI's implementation of splash damage was headchopping. PGI buffed them way out of line from their table top damage, plus added a splash system which did even more damage. The range, however, was buffed so LRM's weren't completely outclassed by long range direct fire weapons.

My only point which I failed at explaining without resulting with personal attacks is changes to the weapons can't involve changing tonnage or space, without a massive overhaul of everything in this game. A lot of the problems in this game are directly related to PGI's changing things like heat, damage, missiles, ect.

Edited by DocBach, 08 April 2013 - 11:25 AM.