475 replies to this topic

[Hodo]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Oh gawd, the Atlas' leg has been broken up into foot, calf, and thigh sections. BattleTech is ruined! RUINED!

Actually it was broken up into those things in classic battletech anyway. You had foot, lower leg, upper leg, and hip actuators. Which in a sense broke the leg up into 4 parts.

[Werewolf]

Paul Inouye, on 11 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Folks, please stay on topic and respect others' point of views.

While I cannot comment too much on the game right now, it sufficient to say that MWO utilizes the BT rules as a starting and balancing point of reference.

Now carry on... nothing to see here.

This is basically all I wanted to read.

[Threat Doc]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 12:22 PM, said:

You are joking right? The ability to put a virtual crosshair on a target on-screen faster than the opponent is something that separates the okay gamers from the ones that post their games on YT. Yeah, you're joking...

Okay, but try to do that while you're fighting the 'Mech. No, I'm not joking, and if you fall into the camp of better realism in the game, you should know I'm not joking.

Paul Inouye, on 11 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Folks, please stay on topic and respect others' point of views.

While I cannot comment too much on the game right now, it sufficient to say that MWO utilizes the BT rules as a starting and balancing point of reference.

Now carry on... nothing to see here.

Thanks, Paul. I understand the computer game cannot be 100% like the board game but, as with MechWarrior III -yes, I beat that horse a LOT, and for good reason- it's more than possible to come very close to a realistic version of BattleTech. I also understand this is not supposed to be BattleTech, but MechWarrior, and there is a difference. BattleTech is the whole universe, all role-playing, legal, political, and military aspects, as well as religious -WoB and ComStar, as well as others-, all of the planets, all of the potential environments, etc. MechWarrior, on the other hand, is what BattleTech started out as; actually, according to the role-playing game, the board combat simulation game should be the BattleMech fighting portion, while MechWarrior would be the role-playing. I understand the game is being called MechWarrior Online because the bone-heads who built the original game called it that, despite how reversed the names are.

Back on topic, having the best realism within the game universe possible will be the best way, but one cannot simply dismiss the fluff, the entire purpose behind this game, which in 3048 is still Level One tech (aka pre-Clan War era tech), and even BattleMechs on the field of battle in that time are known as LosTech, which means if a 'Mech goes down on the field, burned down, it's destroyed, period, no way to fix it.

This is why all the rules, all the fluff, everything written for the BattleTech TT game, deal with honorable conduct on the field, why the Ares Conventions were established, etc.

This has nothing to do with slavish adherence to a tabletop game from 1984, it has to do with appropriate consideration of the extant rules, codes, honor, and economy of the board game, SIMULATED AS NECESSARY, from 1984. I realize you twitchers just want to kill the **** out of one another, but would you mind if we find out precisely what happens with the development of the game, and would you allow those of us who do revere the rules to have something we would like to have, please, considering the previous MW games were one debacle after another, including MW3?

[CeeKay Boques]

Kay Wolf, on 11 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with slavish adherence to a tabletop game from 1984, it has to do with appropriate consideration of the extant rules, codes, honor, and economy of the board game, SIMULATED AS NECESSARY, from 1984. I realize you twitchers just want to kill the **** out of one another, but would you mind if we find out precisely what happens with the development of the game, and would you allow those of us who do revere the rules to have something we would like to have, please, considering the previous MW games were one debacle after another, including MW3?

I love TT too, but to call the MW games a debacle is terribly untrue . How did we get here today? Because they were terrible? All the mechwarrior games were great. They did the best they could with the the Tech they had. They all had their flaws as well. Here's to best mash up of all 3 (missed #1) and BT too. *clink*

[Threat Doc]

technoviking, on 11 November 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

I love TT too, but to call the MW games a debacle is terribly untrue . How did we get here today? Because they were terrible? All the mechwarrior games were great. They did the best they could with the the Tech they had. They all had their flaws as well. Here's to best mash up of all 3 (missed #1) and BT too. *clink*

The reason we are here is three-fold:

1) The games were a stepping stone, but wobbly ones, at best,

2) The community is strong enough to force this demand,

3) It's been a LONG time without an official title.

The previous games were NOT very good representations, compared to what PGI and IGP intend to deliver with MWO.

Oh, and hey, don't you mean the best mashup of all 9? (MW1, MW2, MW2: GBL, MW2: Mercs, MW3, MW3: PM, MW4: Vengeance, MW4: BK, and MW4: Mercs)

Edited by Kay Wolf, 11 November 2011 - 05:15 PM.

[T S Hawk]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

I don't want to play the boardgame, I want to play a video game. They are not the same thing.

By all thoughts yes they are the same but just slightly different than the way they are played. However they are still one in the same!!

[Red Beard]

T.S. Hawk, on 11 November 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

By all thoughts yes they are the same but just slightly different than the way they are played. However they are still one in the same!!

Uh...no. You REALLY misunderstood what this gentleman said.

[Red Beard]

Kudzu, on 11 November 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

red neckbeard

That's "MISTER" Red Neckbeard to you....(checks neck in mirror).

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 11 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

the best mashup of all 9? (MW1, MW2, MW2: GBL, MW2: Mercs, MW3, MW3: PM, MW4: Vengeance, MW4: BK, and MW4: Mercs)

Correction. All 11. MechAssault 1 and 2.

[Halfinax]

The key difference between MechWarrior and Battletech (video game vs TT) is in one you are the pilot of a 'Mech, and the other you are a commander of a team of Mechwarriors. The rules that apply should still have resemblence to one another, but obviously taking the rules in their most pure form from the TT to a simulation would be as much of a travesty as completely removing the rules for piloting one from any semblance of the TT rules. There is a compromise between the two, and it seems the main point of contention between the two warring points of view here is a failure to see the middle ground.

[Threat Doc]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

Correction. All 11. MechAssault 1 and 2.

Oh no, you di'int! (shudder)

[Karyudo ds]

Well, while Mechassault was terrible in some areas I was impressed by Mechassault 2 giving players tanks, vtols, and armor. You actually had a combined arms game. Saddly it was an arcade game but the combined arms aspect I liked, the Mechwarrior titles have always made mechs absolute kings, but in Battletech there were plenty of vehicles able to take on mechs. A mars tank would have wiped out a wasp, but by MW thinking the tank would lose for being a tank.

[Threat Doc]

Karyudo-ds, on 11 November 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

the Mechwarrior titles have always made mechs absolute kings, but in Battletech there were plenty of vehicles able to take on mechs. A mars tank would have wiped out a wasp, but by MW thinking the tank would lose for being a tank.

Yes, in the TT game, vehicles of all types are, typically, very weak compared to the mobility, armor, and weapons able to be mounted on a 'Mech. It's that way on purpose because the fluff says a single BattleMech can take on an entire 20th Century Tank Battalion; there's just that much power.

[Hodo]

Halfinax, on 11 November 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

The key difference between MechWarrior and Battletech (video game vs TT) is in one you are the pilot of a 'Mech, and the other you are a commander of a team of Mechwarriors. The rules that apply should still have resemblence to one another, but obviously taking the rules in their most pure form from the TT to a simulation would be as much of a travesty as completely removing the rules for piloting one from any semblance of the TT rules. There is a compromise between the two, and it seems the main point of contention between the two warring points of view here is a failure to see the middle ground.

Some of you need to go and look up Multiplayer Battletech:Solaris and Multiplayer Battletech:3025.

Those two games followed the TT game rules quite well and it was more fun to play than Mechwarrior which was like comparing Falcon 4.0 to Top Gun (NES). One is a arcade game and the other is a sim. MPBT:3025/Solaris was a sim. Mechwarrior is a arcade game.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

Correction. All 11. MechAssault 1 and 2.

Correction. All 11. The Crescent Hawk's Inception and The Crescent Hawk's Revenge.

[Starkiller]

Correction again. All 17 titles. Multiplayer Battletech, Multiplayer Battletech: Solaris, Multiplayer Battletech: 3025, Battletech Pods.

Edited by Starkiller, 12 November 2011 - 04:48 AM.

[Red Beard]

Correction again, all 19, never forgetting the MA titles.

****, I always leave out that GBA title, Phantom Crash. Didn't play it, but it still counts.

Edited by Red Beard, 12 November 2011 - 08:38 AM.

[GreyGriffin]

Correction again, all 20... including Megamek.

[Creel]

Paul Inouye, on 11 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Folks, please stay on topic and respect others' point of views.

While I cannot comment too much on the game right now, it sufficient to say that MWO utilizes the BT rules as a starting and balancing point of reference.

Now carry on... nothing to see here.

I love that they're paying attention. I'm only as active on this forum as I am because I know they're listening.

[CeeKay Boques]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 12 November 2011 - 04:36 AM, said:

Correction. All 11. The Crescent Hawk's Inception and The Crescent Hawk's Revenge.

Yes, all 11 "Debacles."

Edited by technoviking, 12 November 2011 - 10:15 AM.