I like the suggestions. I'm sure I'd take flak for this; but my ideal game would be to take a stock mech (like a Centurion), throw on a few upgrades (DHS for example) and be every bit as dangerous with the stock weapons loadout as someone's fully customized boat design. Highly doubtful this will ever happen, but I like lore/stock weapons. Hell, even my PPC Stalker is a replicated 8S design (x2PPC, x1Guass, x2ML, x1MPL [HP restricted]).
Instead of R&R wouldn't it be fairly straightfoward to say, at the end of a match, the dropship captain takes a "cut" of a player's earnings. Assault mechs take a 50% cut, light mechs take a 5% cut (pulled those numbers out of my butt, I've no idea what would be appropriate). In this manner, unlike certain R&R penalties, even a bad losing player still makes money, but good performance is rewarded and assault mechs will have more normalized profits with lighter mechs. (I understand that a good light pilot can do just as well as an assault pilot, but those guys are "special")
6
This Is Not Battletech, Is It? Trying To Find A Balance Between Game Design And Lore
Started by Mylardis, Jul 05 2013 01:11 AM
73 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- 139 posts
Member
- LocationMinnesota
Posted 05 July 2013 - 07:52 AM
Thanks for the fabulous post. I was going to put up pretty much that exact same set of proposals, but you beat me to it. 
A few of my own thoughts on what you've posted here:
Hardpoints
I think sized hardpoints would be the most important thing the Devs could possibly implement, for a number of reasons
1) It addresses the boating problem intrinsically, instead of adding in external/artificial penalties.
2) It gives the developers another knob to tweak, which helps differentiate 'Mechs. As others have noted, the Awesome would go from being the lulziest 'Mech around to a true powerhouse. There would be a greater number of niches for chassis to fill, which would be wonderful for balance, wonderful for customization, and wonderful for gameplay.
3) Related to the above, there'd be a much greater number of configurations between games on every battlefield. That increases game-to-game variance, which again is crucial for a good, enduring end-user experience.
4) Realism. No game should be so realistic it's not fun, but let's face it: ERLL Spiders stretch the bounds of realism even in the Battletech universe, and I don't feel like the game would be significantly diminished if they were squashed. (Assuming other viable Spider builds.)
There are drawbacks, but I think they're eclipsed by the good.
1) Some people will be upset, even if it would be good for the game overall.
2) Some non-cheese builds would be shut down.
Perfect? Of course not. Worth it? Oh god yes.
Boating
I'm not that up on the heat scaling proposals, so I won't comment. But I do prefer intrinsic "bottom-up" fixes like the above to the more artificial "top-down" fixes that seem to be penalties to particular playstyles instead of all-encompassing rules of play. I'd hope the above change would be enough, since it would mean boating, while possible, would be harder and quite limited.
Drop Limitations
There are so many ways they could tweak this it's hard to nail down one to talk about. So here's thoughts on a few, some of which have been mentioned and some of which haven't.
1) Balanced-weight games: each team has roughly equivalent drop weights. This would mean mediums wouldn't have to be balanced to be competitive against assaults (which they probably shouldn't be), but it wouldn't ensure reasonable drops. You could still have 2 800-ton teams going at it. It could hurt matchmaking, though, since that's another big set of considerations the already-questionable system would need to take into account.
2) Max weight: a drop can't exceed a certain tonnage. Would mean you don't have the double-800-ton drop games, but I feel like it would be even harder on the matchmaking algorithms. Does the game throw in the appropriate-Elo Atlas as member number 6 onto a team that only has 170 tons left before max weight? It'll be hard to find people that are still well matched that are in 'Mechs 35 tons or less. Or does it pass on the Atlas pilot, and put him/her in a game that's too high or too low in Elo, and put someone who's outside that game's bracket into the 170-tons-left game?
3) Per-class limitations: Remember early WoW, when Rogues were way too good? (I do, dinosaur that I am.) What happened? Rogues could never get into groups. Why? Because no group wanted all rogues. You wanted one or two at the very most. Supply outstripped demand. Per-class limitations would be similar. Even if assaults are the most popular, you won't see drops of nothing but assaults because you're limiting the number of assaults per match. The tradeoff of playing a very powerful 'Mech would be you have longer wait times, and those playing less powerful 'Mechs wouldn't need to sweat it because they're taking up a light/medium slot on their team. Also it wouldn't need to be cut-and-dry numbers like 1 assault, 2 heavy, 3 medium, 2 light, but could have flex between games to ensure match-to-match diversity. Maybe put it on a bell curve where the outsides are skewed heavy or light, and the center hovers around the medium-sized 'Mechs (not necessarily just the medium class).
You could break down the classes if necessary, for example, into 10-ton brackets, or vary the brackets (90-100, 80-90, then, say, all mediums, all lights). This may be easier on the matchmaking system, but it's also very inorganic. It can't adapt on its own to a shifting metagame, and needs to have arbitrary brackets set up by the developers. Also it could end up creating stale games if you don't set it up well.
Repair/Rearm
This is another one that I don't know where I come down on. Personally I think the way it was originally implemented was something of a disaster because of the free partial R&R it gave you, which lead to people not fully R&Ring, which hurt their team as much as it hurt them. Maybe I think that a team-based MMO is the wrong place for it. You're investing real money and a lot of time into your account, so if bad choices can bankrupt you you're totally screwed.
Perhaps damage scaled up by 'Mech size plus ammo and replacing expensive weapons could just take a percent of your earnings? Sure, it's not really realistic, but it still imposes a bottom-up fix that would incentivize a more balanced, diverse gameplay experience.
Unrelated Notes
1) One thing that I believe would encourage more organic fixes to the meta is simply this: lower the muzzle velocity of some weapons. If PPCs have a harder time hitting distant targets and fast targets, lighter/smaller/faster 'Mechs will have an intrinsic advantage against them. Which would, hypothetically, encourage fewer PPCs and more 'Mechs under 75 tons. Of course PPCs would still be devastating up-close, so it may need to be paired with a change in the pinpoint accuracy of everything that's not a missile or an LB 10-X, but it would be a less intrusive, more bottom-up way of trying to address these issues.
2) Please remove the minimum 10 heatsink requirement. It seems arbitrary and silly, and needlessly nerfs some chassis. Just look at the poor upcoming Locust. It needs to spend 20% of its scant, precious tonnage on heatsinks it will never have any use for.
3) Please fix the internal/external DHS disparity. It also needlessly cripples some variants and throws off engine balance.
4) I'd love to see a bracket for stock 'Mechs, or for equivalent-value-limited matches. I probably wouldn't play it often, but I think it would be a worthwhile addition for a few reasons. It would give you a good way of getting a feel for a 'Mech before deciding if you want to drop the millions of C-Bills it would cost to get the mandatory upgrades, and you could grind Mech XP on it before having ground out the cash to make it viable. Plus it would give the game more variety, hence enjoyability and replayability. And for us lore-junkies, it would be oh so gratifying to see the variants actually doing what they were meant to do.
5) Revamping the pilot trees to have actual choice would help encourage build and role diversity, thereby giving people more choice as to how they want to play, and helping to balance out the game. This seems like a good thing, and I question why it was ever changed to the mindless grnidfest it currently is.
But anyways now I'm getting way off-topic from your original points. Thanks for such a thoughtful, reasonable post, and for all the great discussion you've brought to the table. And welcome to the forums!
A few of my own thoughts on what you've posted here:
Hardpoints
I think sized hardpoints would be the most important thing the Devs could possibly implement, for a number of reasons
1) It addresses the boating problem intrinsically, instead of adding in external/artificial penalties.
2) It gives the developers another knob to tweak, which helps differentiate 'Mechs. As others have noted, the Awesome would go from being the lulziest 'Mech around to a true powerhouse. There would be a greater number of niches for chassis to fill, which would be wonderful for balance, wonderful for customization, and wonderful for gameplay.
3) Related to the above, there'd be a much greater number of configurations between games on every battlefield. That increases game-to-game variance, which again is crucial for a good, enduring end-user experience.
4) Realism. No game should be so realistic it's not fun, but let's face it: ERLL Spiders stretch the bounds of realism even in the Battletech universe, and I don't feel like the game would be significantly diminished if they were squashed. (Assuming other viable Spider builds.)
There are drawbacks, but I think they're eclipsed by the good.
1) Some people will be upset, even if it would be good for the game overall.
2) Some non-cheese builds would be shut down.
Perfect? Of course not. Worth it? Oh god yes.
Boating
I'm not that up on the heat scaling proposals, so I won't comment. But I do prefer intrinsic "bottom-up" fixes like the above to the more artificial "top-down" fixes that seem to be penalties to particular playstyles instead of all-encompassing rules of play. I'd hope the above change would be enough, since it would mean boating, while possible, would be harder and quite limited.
Drop Limitations
There are so many ways they could tweak this it's hard to nail down one to talk about. So here's thoughts on a few, some of which have been mentioned and some of which haven't.
1) Balanced-weight games: each team has roughly equivalent drop weights. This would mean mediums wouldn't have to be balanced to be competitive against assaults (which they probably shouldn't be), but it wouldn't ensure reasonable drops. You could still have 2 800-ton teams going at it. It could hurt matchmaking, though, since that's another big set of considerations the already-questionable system would need to take into account.
2) Max weight: a drop can't exceed a certain tonnage. Would mean you don't have the double-800-ton drop games, but I feel like it would be even harder on the matchmaking algorithms. Does the game throw in the appropriate-Elo Atlas as member number 6 onto a team that only has 170 tons left before max weight? It'll be hard to find people that are still well matched that are in 'Mechs 35 tons or less. Or does it pass on the Atlas pilot, and put him/her in a game that's too high or too low in Elo, and put someone who's outside that game's bracket into the 170-tons-left game?
3) Per-class limitations: Remember early WoW, when Rogues were way too good? (I do, dinosaur that I am.) What happened? Rogues could never get into groups. Why? Because no group wanted all rogues. You wanted one or two at the very most. Supply outstripped demand. Per-class limitations would be similar. Even if assaults are the most popular, you won't see drops of nothing but assaults because you're limiting the number of assaults per match. The tradeoff of playing a very powerful 'Mech would be you have longer wait times, and those playing less powerful 'Mechs wouldn't need to sweat it because they're taking up a light/medium slot on their team. Also it wouldn't need to be cut-and-dry numbers like 1 assault, 2 heavy, 3 medium, 2 light, but could have flex between games to ensure match-to-match diversity. Maybe put it on a bell curve where the outsides are skewed heavy or light, and the center hovers around the medium-sized 'Mechs (not necessarily just the medium class).
You could break down the classes if necessary, for example, into 10-ton brackets, or vary the brackets (90-100, 80-90, then, say, all mediums, all lights). This may be easier on the matchmaking system, but it's also very inorganic. It can't adapt on its own to a shifting metagame, and needs to have arbitrary brackets set up by the developers. Also it could end up creating stale games if you don't set it up well.
Repair/Rearm
This is another one that I don't know where I come down on. Personally I think the way it was originally implemented was something of a disaster because of the free partial R&R it gave you, which lead to people not fully R&Ring, which hurt their team as much as it hurt them. Maybe I think that a team-based MMO is the wrong place for it. You're investing real money and a lot of time into your account, so if bad choices can bankrupt you you're totally screwed.
Perhaps damage scaled up by 'Mech size plus ammo and replacing expensive weapons could just take a percent of your earnings? Sure, it's not really realistic, but it still imposes a bottom-up fix that would incentivize a more balanced, diverse gameplay experience.
Unrelated Notes
1) One thing that I believe would encourage more organic fixes to the meta is simply this: lower the muzzle velocity of some weapons. If PPCs have a harder time hitting distant targets and fast targets, lighter/smaller/faster 'Mechs will have an intrinsic advantage against them. Which would, hypothetically, encourage fewer PPCs and more 'Mechs under 75 tons. Of course PPCs would still be devastating up-close, so it may need to be paired with a change in the pinpoint accuracy of everything that's not a missile or an LB 10-X, but it would be a less intrusive, more bottom-up way of trying to address these issues.
2) Please remove the minimum 10 heatsink requirement. It seems arbitrary and silly, and needlessly nerfs some chassis. Just look at the poor upcoming Locust. It needs to spend 20% of its scant, precious tonnage on heatsinks it will never have any use for.
3) Please fix the internal/external DHS disparity. It also needlessly cripples some variants and throws off engine balance.
4) I'd love to see a bracket for stock 'Mechs, or for equivalent-value-limited matches. I probably wouldn't play it often, but I think it would be a worthwhile addition for a few reasons. It would give you a good way of getting a feel for a 'Mech before deciding if you want to drop the millions of C-Bills it would cost to get the mandatory upgrades, and you could grind Mech XP on it before having ground out the cash to make it viable. Plus it would give the game more variety, hence enjoyability and replayability. And for us lore-junkies, it would be oh so gratifying to see the variants actually doing what they were meant to do.
5) Revamping the pilot trees to have actual choice would help encourage build and role diversity, thereby giving people more choice as to how they want to play, and helping to balance out the game. This seems like a good thing, and I question why it was ever changed to the mindless grnidfest it currently is.
But anyways now I'm getting way off-topic from your original points. Thanks for such a thoughtful, reasonable post, and for all the great discussion you've brought to the table. And welcome to the forums!
#23
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 98 posts
Member
Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:09 PM
Viktor Drake, on 05 July 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:
Ack long post.
First, there are quite a few liberties taken due to the fact that table top rules don't really fit nicely into a FPS game.
First, there are quite a few liberties taken due to the fact that table top rules don't really fit nicely into a FPS game.
We agree on that - a computer game is still a computer game, not a TT.
Quote
However. Your probably got hit more than twice and by mutliple mechs. I suppose a Quad PPC/ or AC/40 build could cave a RT/LT second and crit your XL in two shots but if you have good situational awareness and understand torso twisting as a defensive measure, then it is rare. This is probably why you got the L2P responses. Additionally, you have double armor in MWO where as weapon damage is still roughly the same as Table Top which means if you can get two hit in MWO, you could have more easily gotten two hit in a Table Top game.
I understand your thinking and agree that torso twisting is essential. I already mentioned it, I'm not a top player, but I have specialized on larger mechs and therefore do consider myself capable ob spreading damage. This is probably more true as I usually pilot mechs with XL engines, so spreading at least a bit is crucial to any form of survival.
As you use mathematics to prove your point further down, I hope you accept them as proof of mine: It is not hard to hit a Victor's CT. I have an armor value of ~70 there. A hexa PPC Stalker can dish out 60 points of damage, so 2 hits will kill me (in this case even when hitting the sides, as I run a XL engine).
One could argue that I should not have offered the CT a second time. True as it is, I do not think it can be prevented. A Stalker, as prime example, can shoot you with 60 points before you actually see more than 2mm of him on your screen (ridges) at a full HD resolution. Perhaps I missed the point and this is working as intended - I just can't believe that. This is supposed to be a mech game, not a sniper stealth shooter where the first person to be seen dies. And, as many others have stated the same, I still conclude: It simply cannot be the fun sort of game for a majority.
That is why I accept your criticism in general but cannot accept it in this case.
Quote
As to the hardpoint, if you used the Table Top construction rule set, you could mount any weapon, anywhere without hardpoint restrictions. Want to load up 20 Medium Lasers go for it. Want 10 PPCs, if you got room do it. In this fashion, MWO is actually more restrictive, not less.
I believe hardpoints to be a good concept, a good way of achieving their goal. I just believe that by not limiting the hardpoints and just restricting them to a certain weapon type, MWO is breaking the spirit of Battletech. As already stated, I enjoy fiddling with the mechlab, I don't want to give it up. I just can't cope very well when someone could e. g. strip of a Crusader's MGs and switch them to AC's, tonnage and crit space provided. It simply doesn't "feel right". I will not even start thinking about the hexa PPC Battlemaster, grouping all of them right next to the cockpit - it is wrong, and if the rules allow something wrong I believe they should be changed.
Back to your point, I think clan tech can be implemented by using exactly that non restricted set of rules - it is supposed to be vastly superior after all.
Quote
On heat. Heat in MWO is brutal compared to table top rules. You claim heat doesn't mean much but I beg to differ. In table top I could easily render two ER PPCs heat neutral with only 15 DHS. Heat neutral means ZERO heat. In MWO I think it takes something like 43 DHS to do that same thing. That means HEAT is roughly 3x more brutal than table top rules.
I could go on here but the basic truth is that alot of your complaints about adherence to table top aren't justifed or are downright wrong.
I could go on here but the basic truth is that alot of your complaints about adherence to table top aren't justifed or are downright wrong.
This is the point we disagree. Although your example may be correct (I haven't checked the math, but I just assume you know your numbers), heat is nowhere near the TT.
Fact is that between 0% and ~95% heat you do not have any penalties in MWO. Heat does not impair you. It doesn't lower you speed, it doesn't affect your aim, it is just a statistical value.
When overheating, the worst penalty is a shutdown, and some very minor internal damage since the last patch. That's it. In theory, you can make your ammo explode by repeatedly overheating and overriding, but it really doesn't happen often, does it?
So basically, heat matters absolutely nothing most of the time. It can shut you down when you reach maximum, and that's it. That is very far away from TT rules.
So, in conclusion, you may be right that the build up of heat is different (as are the speeds in general - the computer game is a FPS, it is faster than a TT) - the consequences of heating your mech are near zero, though. That's why I disagree with your statement.
Quote
On the lore part, well I am not sure how anyone can fix that. Assasults were rare in Lore due to the cost associated with building and maintaining them. However, both the Highlander and Stalker would still dominate the battlefield even in lore.
Correct. But they were not common. It feels broken, but I believe some of the suggestions made in this thread can fix that.
I'm fine with assaults being big and dangerous. They are not especially dangerous if they are the standard, though. So I actually agree with you on this - they should be great. But they can only shine brighter than others if these others are not all the same.
Quote
As far as the loadouts...well I agree that per lore you the IS mechs weren't really customizable however I am not sure how fun the game would be if all we had was stock loadouts. I do know that alot of good mechs would be total crap if that was the case. Still it might be fun to have a stock config game mode.
I agree, customizing needs to stay. Will not argue that. It should be limited, though, balancing lore and fun gameplay. It is not really hard to say "a MG slot can't hold an AC20", I believe.
Quote
As to the Alpha strike meta, I think people are just using Alpha to replace skill. I almost always use a mixed weapons set up on my mechs and I never have an issue with consistantly being one of the top contributers on my team.
I love mixed set ups, too. I like driving a HM with Gauss, 3 MPL and a LRM20 - a build most people consider stupid. I have had many good rounds with it, averaged at a 2.1X KDR over many rounds.
#24
-
-
- Urban Commando
- 1,252 posts
Member
Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:33 PM
MWO is absolutely 100% accurate......AND completely REAL.
You are a mechwarrior and all those authors are like tiny ants dreaming about the smack down you give here.
MWO is the LORE.........when the next mechwarrior comes out we ain't gonna talk about the books, but about the *** kicking you got here today.
The whole weapon loadout thing is going to get fixed with time. Everyone is a noob. When a master shows up he's going to have all that stock loadout, long range, min range.....balance crap you dream about..........
That mf is going to have his torso shooting one guy, missles at the guy behind him and his arms shooting a 3rd all at one time.
We are all noobs......give it time its going to fix itself.
We are looking at when your gonna get punked out your victor and run what everyone else runs like a chump......Or if your going to rise up to be the mechwarrior.....
And then I'm going to show up with the clans lead by an urbanmech.......and start beating you all over again.....its will be wonderful
In the end even though you might not like it much now.......your going to be one bad mf.
You are a mechwarrior and all those authors are like tiny ants dreaming about the smack down you give here.
MWO is the LORE.........when the next mechwarrior comes out we ain't gonna talk about the books, but about the *** kicking you got here today.
The whole weapon loadout thing is going to get fixed with time. Everyone is a noob. When a master shows up he's going to have all that stock loadout, long range, min range.....balance crap you dream about..........
That mf is going to have his torso shooting one guy, missles at the guy behind him and his arms shooting a 3rd all at one time.
We are all noobs......give it time its going to fix itself.
We are looking at when your gonna get punked out your victor and run what everyone else runs like a chump......Or if your going to rise up to be the mechwarrior.....
And then I'm going to show up with the clans lead by an urbanmech.......and start beating you all over again.....its will be wonderful
In the end even though you might not like it much now.......your going to be one bad mf.
#25
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 98 posts
Member
Posted 05 July 2013 - 11:15 PM
Lyoncet, on 05 July 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:
Thanks for the fabulous post. I was going to put up pretty much that exact same set of proposals, but you beat me to it.
My pleasure
Quote
A few of my own thoughts on what you've posted here:
Hardpoints
I think sized hardpoints would be the most important thing the Devs could possibly implement, for a number of reasons
1) It addresses the boating problem intrinsically, instead of adding in external/artificial penalties.
2) It gives the developers another knob to tweak, which helps differentiate 'Mechs. As others have noted, the Awesome would go from being the lulziest 'Mech around to a true powerhouse. There would be a greater number of niches for chassis to fill, which would be wonderful for balance, wonderful for customization, and wonderful for gameplay.
3) Related to the above, there'd be a much greater number of configurations between games on every battlefield. That increases game-to-game variance, which again is crucial for a good, enduring end-user experience.
Hardpoints
I think sized hardpoints would be the most important thing the Devs could possibly implement, for a number of reasons
1) It addresses the boating problem intrinsically, instead of adding in external/artificial penalties.
2) It gives the developers another knob to tweak, which helps differentiate 'Mechs. As others have noted, the Awesome would go from being the lulziest 'Mech around to a true powerhouse. There would be a greater number of niches for chassis to fill, which would be wonderful for balance, wonderful for customization, and wonderful for gameplay.
3) Related to the above, there'd be a much greater number of configurations between games on every battlefield. That increases game-to-game variance, which again is crucial for a good, enduring end-user experience.
That is one of the points many have missed until now, thank you for mentioning it. Preventing boating will not abolish boats in general. It will just limit boating to certain mechs in certain roles. Plus, those mechs supposed to boat have drawbacks - e.g. the huge cockpit of a Catapult, the barn door profile of an Awesome, or the incredible clumsiness and low speed of a King Crab (before somebody uses that example of dual AC20 again :-) ). Apart from that I strongly believe, like you, that it will increase the number and diversity of viable builds.
I'd really like that.
Quote
4) Realism. No game should be so realistic it's not fun, but let's face it: ERLL Spiders stretch the bounds of realism even in the Battletech universe, and I don't feel like the game would be significantly diminished if they were squashed. (Assuming other viable Spider builds.)
Agreed. And being viable is not necessarily defined as "can kill an Atlas in 1vs1". The spider is a scout mech, a fast jumping SOB, capable of providing data for the team and harassing slower enemies. I sometimes play a spider with 3 lasers (2 MPL, 1ML) and it works just fine. With mixed matches (weight class) role warefare actually would become important, thus making many builds viable in their own role.
Quote
Drop Limitations
There are so many ways they could tweak this it's hard to nail down one to talk about. So here's thoughts on a few, some of which have been mentioned and some of which haven't.
1) Balanced-weight games: each team has roughly equivalent drop weights. This would mean mediums wouldn't have to be balanced to be competitive against assaults (which they probably shouldn't be), but it wouldn't ensure reasonable drops. You could still have 2 800-ton teams going at it. It could hurt matchmaking, though, since that's another big set of considerations the already-questionable system would need to take into account.
2) Max weight: a drop can't exceed a certain tonnage. Would mean you don't have the double-800-ton drop games, but I feel like it would be even harder on the matchmaking algorithms. Does the game throw in the appropriate-Elo Atlas as member number 6 onto a team that only has 170 tons left before max weight? It'll be hard to find people that are still well matched that are in 'Mechs 35 tons or less. Or does it pass on the Atlas pilot, and put him/her in a game that's too high or too low in Elo, and put someone who's outside that game's bracket into the 170-tons-left game?
3) Per-class limitations: Remember early WoW, when Rogues were way too good? (I do, dinosaur that I am.) What happened? Rogues could never get into groups. Why? Because no group wanted all rogues. You wanted one or two at the very most. Supply outstripped demand. Per-class limitations would be similar. Even if assaults are the most popular, you won't see drops of nothing but assaults because you're limiting the number of assaults per match. The tradeoff of playing a very powerful 'Mech would be you have longer wait times, and those playing less powerful 'Mechs wouldn't need to sweat it because they're taking up a light/medium slot on their team. Also it wouldn't need to be cut-and-dry numbers like 1 assault, 2 heavy, 3 medium, 2 light, but could have flex between games to ensure match-to-match diversity. Maybe put it on a bell curve where the outsides are skewed heavy or light, and the center hovers around the medium-sized 'Mechs (not necessarily just the medium class).
There are so many ways they could tweak this it's hard to nail down one to talk about. So here's thoughts on a few, some of which have been mentioned and some of which haven't.
1) Balanced-weight games: each team has roughly equivalent drop weights. This would mean mediums wouldn't have to be balanced to be competitive against assaults (which they probably shouldn't be), but it wouldn't ensure reasonable drops. You could still have 2 800-ton teams going at it. It could hurt matchmaking, though, since that's another big set of considerations the already-questionable system would need to take into account.
2) Max weight: a drop can't exceed a certain tonnage. Would mean you don't have the double-800-ton drop games, but I feel like it would be even harder on the matchmaking algorithms. Does the game throw in the appropriate-Elo Atlas as member number 6 onto a team that only has 170 tons left before max weight? It'll be hard to find people that are still well matched that are in 'Mechs 35 tons or less. Or does it pass on the Atlas pilot, and put him/her in a game that's too high or too low in Elo, and put someone who's outside that game's bracket into the 170-tons-left game?
3) Per-class limitations: Remember early WoW, when Rogues were way too good? (I do, dinosaur that I am.) What happened? Rogues could never get into groups. Why? Because no group wanted all rogues. You wanted one or two at the very most. Supply outstripped demand. Per-class limitations would be similar. Even if assaults are the most popular, you won't see drops of nothing but assaults because you're limiting the number of assaults per match. The tradeoff of playing a very powerful 'Mech would be you have longer wait times, and those playing less powerful 'Mechs wouldn't need to sweat it because they're taking up a light/medium slot on their team. Also it wouldn't need to be cut-and-dry numbers like 1 assault, 2 heavy, 3 medium, 2 light, but could have flex between games to ensure match-to-match diversity. Maybe put it on a bell curve where the outsides are skewed heavy or light, and the center hovers around the medium-sized 'Mechs (not necessarily just the medium class).
I thought about those proposals. I think your WoW comparism is spot on. It's ok if somebody prefers assault mechs. And he should be able to play them. It just doesn't necessarily need to be in the same time as somebody playing mediums.
It's not an ideal solution, but class limitations seem a good way of achieving the goal of "not-assault-only-matches".
Quote
You could break down the classes if necessary, for example, into 10-ton brackets, or vary the brackets (90-100, 80-90, then, say, all mediums, all lights). This may be easier on the matchmaking system, but it's also very inorganic. It can't adapt on its own to a shifting metagame, and needs to have arbitrary brackets set up by the developers. Also it could end up creating stale games if you don't set it up well.
You could. But it does seem to call for problems.
In a weight class, it's ok for me that some mechs are considered "worse" than others. We still want pilot skill to matter, here's the chance to prove it
Quote
Repair/Rearm
This is another one that I don't know where I come down on. Personally I think the way it was originally implemented was something of a disaster because of the free partial R&R it gave you, which lead to people not fully R&Ring, which hurt their team as much as it hurt them. Maybe I think that a team-based MMO is the wrong place for it. You're investing real money and a lot of time into your account, so if bad choices can bankrupt you you're totally screwed.
Perhaps damage scaled up by 'Mech size plus ammo and replacing expensive weapons could just take a percent of your earnings? Sure, it's not really realistic, but it still imposes a bottom-up fix that would incentivize a more balanced, diverse gameplay experience.
This is another one that I don't know where I come down on. Personally I think the way it was originally implemented was something of a disaster because of the free partial R&R it gave you, which lead to people not fully R&Ring, which hurt their team as much as it hurt them. Maybe I think that a team-based MMO is the wrong place for it. You're investing real money and a lot of time into your account, so if bad choices can bankrupt you you're totally screwed.
Perhaps damage scaled up by 'Mech size plus ammo and replacing expensive weapons could just take a percent of your earnings? Sure, it's not really realistic, but it still imposes a bottom-up fix that would incentivize a more balanced, diverse gameplay experience.
I thought a great deal on R&R. At first, it seemed great, making some mechs expensive and therefore rare. But from a game design point of view, removing it was right, I believe. Too many possible roadblocks and serious balancing issues implied by R&R.
Quote
Unrelated Notes
[...] 5) Revamping the pilot trees to have actual choice would help encourage build and role diversity, thereby giving people more choice as to how they want to play, and helping to balance out the game. This seems like a good thing, and I question why it was ever changed to the mindless grnidfest it currently is.
[...] 5) Revamping the pilot trees to have actual choice would help encourage build and role diversity, thereby giving people more choice as to how they want to play, and helping to balance out the game. This seems like a good thing, and I question why it was ever changed to the mindless grnidfest it currently is.
This might be a great idea - dedicated scout pilots getting some kind of bonus amplifieing their performance sounds great. Could be hard to balance, though (making it meaningful but not overpowered).
Quote
But anyways now I'm getting way off-topic from your original points. Thanks for such a thoughtful, reasonable post, and for all the great discussion you've brought to the table. And welcome to the forums!
Again, my pleasure.
Edited by DasAmok, 05 July 2013 - 11:16 PM.
#26
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 3,735 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 12:01 AM
OP is right. The ELO is totally botched. It is shameful.
#27
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 233 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 02:38 AM
I don't recall the last time I've enjoyed reading a thread. Rather than just point out that something needs fixing or that there is a problem, you go in depth and point out many problems, then try to come up with solutions to fix them. I respect that. You're someone I'd enjoy having a discussion with, or maybe playing a game or two with. I don't find myself saying that very often. Bravo, good sir.
#28
-
-
- Big Daddy
- 26,736 posts
Member
- LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.
Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:21 AM
kilgor, on 05 July 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:
Currently in MWO, Missing Repair and Rearm - Having R&R made the Mediums the workhorse because Assaults were so expensive to upkeep, which are our big boats.
Heavens no. I don't want to face mass Zombie Cents!
#29
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 98 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:27 AM
CancersCincar, on 06 July 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:
I don't recall the last time I've enjoyed reading a thread. Rather than just point out that something needs fixing or that there is a problem, you go in depth and point out many problems, then try to come up with solutions to fix them. I respect that. You're someone I'd enjoy having a discussion with, or maybe playing a game or two with. I don't find myself saying that very often. Bravo, good sir.
Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
#30
-
-
- 254 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:59 AM
I strongly believe that the MW4 sized-slot hardpoints is the way to go, it allows the developer to manually balance the mechs and even ask for our input on them, this would fix many of the problems with boating we have now.
While I do play 4X PPC Stalkers, I would not mind seeing them capable of only using Lasers in the energy hardpoints, as I always thought it was kind of strange carrying 4 PPCs while the Awesome, the original PPC wielder was feared by having 3. It's kinda off.
No lights should ever be allowed to mount them, and only select mediums should be able to use them.
While I do play 4X PPC Stalkers, I would not mind seeing them capable of only using Lasers in the energy hardpoints, as I always thought it was kind of strange carrying 4 PPCs while the Awesome, the original PPC wielder was feared by having 3. It's kinda off.
No lights should ever be allowed to mount them, and only select mediums should be able to use them.
#31
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 2,788 posts
Member
- LocationGeorgia
Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:11 AM
OP you said that you've been lurking the forums for awhile now. All of a sudden your shocked to see the mass of High Alpha assaults in the game? Smells suspicious to me.
Now the heat penalty they added was a start. However they really need to get off their butts and add the bonus heat penalty for fast firing or alpha striking PPCs. Then we'll see the game shift back to the Gauss rifle boating for high alpha's (or a mix of ballistics and PPCs). Until they get this bonus heat in the game won't change much. Though we're seeing a resurgence of modified pop-tarting due to the movement changes.
Now the heat penalty they added was a start. However they really need to get off their butts and add the bonus heat penalty for fast firing or alpha striking PPCs. Then we'll see the game shift back to the Gauss rifle boating for high alpha's (or a mix of ballistics and PPCs). Until they get this bonus heat in the game won't change much. Though we're seeing a resurgence of modified pop-tarting due to the movement changes.
#32
-
-
- Gunjin
- 449 posts
Member
- LocationThe Void
Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:44 AM
I am baffled by the amount of ignorance in this thread...
¨PPC's are rare according to lore¨
¨Limit the amounts of PPC's on weight class¨
¨hardpoints restrictions¨
I can keep going...
But for the sake of simplicity lets just retain the 3 above to elaborate on.
First off PPC's are not rare and were produced on multible planets.
For proof: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC
Now regarding the second statement, about locking down the amounts of PPC's...
According to lore and TT, they were on alot of frames ranging from Assaults and even down to Mediums.
An example of a simple 45 tonner sporting an ER PPC - http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Phoenix_Hawk - PXH-1b aswell as the PXH-6D.
Furthermore we have the Catapult K2 (which is in the game, mind you) - http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult - a Kuritan special that sports 2 PPC's as its main armament.
Now if you spend just a little of the time you use here on the forums to actually go look up lore then you would quickly realize that House Kurita has a tendency to put PPC's on many, if not almost all the mechs they field.
So if anything really, when CW gets implemented, Kuritan pilots should actually have a benefit when choosing PPC's.
Now the last matter, hardpoint restrictions.
This has been talked about so many times by so many people, even the devs have on occasion participated in this discussion.
Yet the fact remains that even though some might believe a restricted hardpoint system to ¨fix¨ the game, it would more likely cripple newer players instead of making the ¨paradise¨ of balanced matches that everyone seems to think it would create.
You can argue forth and back about this matter, try to prove me wrong or even agree with me on this statement...
But at the end of the day, this is not something we are likely to see implemented at any given time since PGI have stated that they like the idea of customization in this game and seeing as they are courting alot more to newer players and not TT fanatics(sry bout that expression, it is not meant as an insult to anyone) or for that matter battletech fans, we are more likely to see newer mechs than any sort of grand restructuring of the entire game - which a restricted weapons system would be.
¨PPC's are rare according to lore¨
¨Limit the amounts of PPC's on weight class¨
¨hardpoints restrictions¨
I can keep going...
But for the sake of simplicity lets just retain the 3 above to elaborate on.
First off PPC's are not rare and were produced on multible planets.
For proof: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC
Now regarding the second statement, about locking down the amounts of PPC's...
According to lore and TT, they were on alot of frames ranging from Assaults and even down to Mediums.
An example of a simple 45 tonner sporting an ER PPC - http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Phoenix_Hawk - PXH-1b aswell as the PXH-6D.
Furthermore we have the Catapult K2 (which is in the game, mind you) - http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult - a Kuritan special that sports 2 PPC's as its main armament.
Now if you spend just a little of the time you use here on the forums to actually go look up lore then you would quickly realize that House Kurita has a tendency to put PPC's on many, if not almost all the mechs they field.
So if anything really, when CW gets implemented, Kuritan pilots should actually have a benefit when choosing PPC's.
Now the last matter, hardpoint restrictions.
This has been talked about so many times by so many people, even the devs have on occasion participated in this discussion.
Yet the fact remains that even though some might believe a restricted hardpoint system to ¨fix¨ the game, it would more likely cripple newer players instead of making the ¨paradise¨ of balanced matches that everyone seems to think it would create.
You can argue forth and back about this matter, try to prove me wrong or even agree with me on this statement...
But at the end of the day, this is not something we are likely to see implemented at any given time since PGI have stated that they like the idea of customization in this game and seeing as they are courting alot more to newer players and not TT fanatics(sry bout that expression, it is not meant as an insult to anyone) or for that matter battletech fans, we are more likely to see newer mechs than any sort of grand restructuring of the entire game - which a restricted weapons system would be.
#33
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 302 posts
Member
- LocationHuntress
Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:47 AM
To answer your question. No this is not Battetech. Battletech if you want Battletech go play MWTactics. This is Mechwarrior which takes many liberties in order to shoehorn BT rules into an FPS environment. Just like every other MW game.
#34
-
-
- The Steadfast
- 2,539 posts
Member
- LocationSW Florida
Posted 06 July 2013 - 04:52 AM
Good read DasAmok. One thing you brought up that I haven't read before was the reference to ppcs, AC/20 s, and guass as rare weapons. Which got me thinking....
What if instead of hard point size limits, mechs were given a "rare weapon" cap.
Examples:
awesomes would have a 3 RW cap, 3 ppcs anytime it wants
Stalkers/Highlander/Victor 2 RW cap... 2 ppcs or a ppc and a Gauss
Battlemaster 1 RW cap
This would allow placement of ppcs in any energy slot a user wants, but limit the total. It would allow more customization then hard point size limits but remove boating of the high end pinpoint weapons.
It could even be split into restricting by type. Some mechs could weild 2 RW energy but 0 RW ballistics.
What if instead of hard point size limits, mechs were given a "rare weapon" cap.
Examples:
awesomes would have a 3 RW cap, 3 ppcs anytime it wants
Stalkers/Highlander/Victor 2 RW cap... 2 ppcs or a ppc and a Gauss
Battlemaster 1 RW cap
This would allow placement of ppcs in any energy slot a user wants, but limit the total. It would allow more customization then hard point size limits but remove boating of the high end pinpoint weapons.
It could even be split into restricting by type. Some mechs could weild 2 RW energy but 0 RW ballistics.
#35
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 442 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:38 AM
It's funny how R&R was looked so down upon and yet it was the one thing that brought a balance to the game that we have not seen since it's removal. R&R never prohibited anyone from boating or building anything we have right now but it certainly did promote smarter and conservative builds (not to mention play) as a norm. Present company accepted of course but there are a considerable amount of players, many of which are the old school TT players who rant and rave about this game being canon and should follow TT values and BT universe concepts utterly believing that the key to balance is within it (Screaming at the devs in the process), and yet most were the same people who could not stomach R&R as a balance mechanic. Which despite the fact it needed a serious amount of tweaking in regards to financial gains and losses and certain exploits actually provided many of the restrictions (without prohibiting them) against boats and high alpha builds most are screaming for today.................. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes!
#36
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 98 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:06 AM
Butane9000, on 06 July 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:
OP you said that you've been lurking the forums for awhile now. All of a sudden your shocked to see the mass of High Alpha assaults in the game? Smells suspicious to me.
Quite a long time, actually. And no, I'm not shocked. I just tried to give my opinion as a long time BT fan, sprinkled with some developer perspective.
And perhaps my opinion as a player who actually wants to enjoy games and doesn't find it enjoyable playing with plenty of chassis and lore, of which just a miniscule amount is actually used due to at least questionable game design decisions.
Quote
Now the heat penalty they added was a start. However they really need to get off their butts and add the bonus heat penalty for fast firing or alpha striking PPCs. Then we'll see the game shift back to the Gauss rifle boating for high alpha's (or a mix of ballistics and PPCs). Until they get this bonus heat in the game won't change much. Though we're seeing a resurgence of modified pop-tarting due to the movement changes.
That's why I believe adjusting heat only (at the single weapon, or by adding bonus heat) is not enough. Combined with limiting hardpoints, though, it could work out.
0okami, on 06 July 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:
I am baffled by the amount of ignorance in this thread...
And I am baffled by your ability to appear unlikable in just one sentence. I believe I haven't called anybody ignorant when he or she does not agree with me - I'd ask the same of you.
Quote
First off PPC's are not rare and were produced on multible planets.
For proof: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC
For proof: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/PPC
Perhaps you got me wrong, as English is not my native tongue. I believe the absolute numbers of any weapon to be massive. I meant rare in the sense that not many chassis have PPC (or better: more than one of them) in their default configuration.
This also of course applies to your second statement, as you chose 2 modified mech layouts to prove your point. That notwithstanding, you are of course right pointing out that certain units & houses have a preference for PPC's.
In any case, there are not many examples where 2 or more are used on a mech (not even starting to talk about 4 or even 6).
Quote
Now the last matter, hardpoint restrictions.
This has been talked about so many times by so many people, even the devs have on occasion participated in this discussion.
Yet the fact remains that even though some might believe a restricted hardpoint system to ¨fix¨ the game, it would more likely cripple newer players instead of making the ¨paradise¨ of balanced matches that everyone seems to think it would create.
You can argue forth and back about this matter, try to prove me wrong or even agree with me on this statement...
But at the end of the day, this is not something we are likely to see implemented at any given time since PGI have stated that they like the idea of customization in this game and seeing as they are courting alot more to newer players and not TT fanatics(sry bout that expression, it is not meant as an insult to anyone) or for that matter battletech fans, we are more likely to see newer mechs than any sort of grand restructuring of the entire game - which a restricted weapons system would be.
This has been talked about so many times by so many people, even the devs have on occasion participated in this discussion.
Yet the fact remains that even though some might believe a restricted hardpoint system to ¨fix¨ the game, it would more likely cripple newer players instead of making the ¨paradise¨ of balanced matches that everyone seems to think it would create.
You can argue forth and back about this matter, try to prove me wrong or even agree with me on this statement...
But at the end of the day, this is not something we are likely to see implemented at any given time since PGI have stated that they like the idea of customization in this game and seeing as they are courting alot more to newer players and not TT fanatics(sry bout that expression, it is not meant as an insult to anyone) or for that matter battletech fans, we are more likely to see newer mechs than any sort of grand restructuring of the entire game - which a restricted weapons system would be.
If you read my opening post, you might have seen that I strongly support customization because it makes this game fun. I disagree though when you say limiting a MG default hardpoint to a small weapon breaks customization. Quite the opposite, not limiting hardpoints, as can be seen in the current game, limits customization - or do you state that we see a great variety of builds at the moment?
SJ SCP Wolf, on 06 July 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:
To answer your question. No this is not Battetech. Battletech if you want Battletech go play MWTactics. This is Mechwarrior which takes many liberties in order to shoehorn BT rules into an FPS environment. Just like every other MW game.
I never meant to say that MWO needs to be a tabletop clone. Actually, I specifically said it shouldn't and mustn’t.
Edited by DasAmok, 06 July 2013 - 07:38 AM.
#37
-
-
- Gunjin
- 449 posts
Member
- LocationThe Void
Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:46 AM
DasAmok, on 06 July 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:
Perhaps you got me wrong, as English is not my native tongue. I believe the absolute numbers of any weapon to be massive. I meant rare in the sense that not many chassis have PPC (or better: more than one of them) in their default configuration.
This also of course applies to your second statement, as you choose 2 modified mech layouts to prove your point. That nonwithstanding, you are of course right pointing out that certain units&houses have a preference for PPC's.
In any case, their are not many examples where 2 or more are used on a mech (not even starting to talk about 4 or even 6).
I got to that part and now I feel obliged to tell you that english is not my first language either.
Furthermore I would appriciate it if you would not presume I take a tone of hostility in my posts as such was never intended nor directly written in a way that should have offended anyone, let me state that if it did it was the fault of the reader and not the writer as text can be misunderstood when read if you presume hostility to be the angle of approach.
My starting comment ¨I am baffled by the amount of ignorance in this thread...¨ was simply stating that which was written, that I was surprised by the amount of ignorence which was present in the thread - Ignorance is a state of being uninformed, in other words a lack of knowledge which is comming out quite clear when you read the posts that are here.
It is in no way an attack at anyone but more the stating of the fact that the posts contain no knowledge - not to be misunderstood with the writers being stupid (for simplicity) but rather the posts themselves containing a lack of required information.
Now moving on. The K2 was a standard layout - as in not a custom mech made by a player in this game.
The stock K2 came with 2 ppc's 2 medium lasers and 2 machine guns as its stock loadout.
This mech IS standard.
Now my point was that mechs I highlighted was the first 2 that came to mind, obviously if you decide to visit Sarna (a great site if you want some knowledge btw) then you will be able to dig up many mechs that sport PPC's aswell as more than a few that sports 2 PPC's.
Now I never claimed anything above 2 so just to clarify this once more - there were many stock mechs that made use of PPC's and quite a few Heavies made use of them in pairs.
DasAmok, on 06 July 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:
If you read my opening post, you might have seen that I strongly support customization because it makes this game fun. I disagree though when you say limiting a MG default hardpoint to a small weapon breaks customization. Quite the opposite, not limiting hardpoints, as can be seen in the current game, limits customization - or do you state that we see a great variaty of builds at the moment?
I think you are misunderstanding me, this was not directed at you, but at many of the people in the community.
Also I believe that the mere idea of expecting PGI to limit say the MG spots on the K2 to only field MG's would be sort of counterproductive as they took time off to actually make the K2 (as the only old chassis btw) change its visuals depending on what Balistics you put in the spots.
I do not assume to know nor do I try to presume anything yet I can not help but feel that you are directing alot of hostility towards me resulting in a waste of energy that you could use better at something else.
#38
-
-
- The Widow Maker
- 3,910 posts
Member
Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:53 AM
cdlord, on 05 July 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:
Don't forget the DOUBLING of armor to increase survivability. That took a lot of punch away from the AC/20 and Gauss that no amount of extra ammo can really compensate for.... IMHO.
That's ok the s_hit state rewind that is still allowing only 1/3rd the ballistics to register helps keep it interesting.
I shot a fellow last night who was more or less stationary (moving in a straight line) 4 times in the CT(the part of the doll that flashed confirmed with happy sparks flying graphic too) with dual gauss. He was in a cataphract. That is enough damage to fell an atlas. I finished him with 2 Mlas.
It's impossible to explain that sort of absorbtion on a mech that size.
Edited by Lugh, 06 July 2013 - 07:53 AM.
#39
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 487 posts
Member
- LocationNC
Posted 06 July 2013 - 07:58 AM
I would like to note that 2 PPCs and 1 Guass is not boating.
Boating is all of 1 type of har points filled with 1 weapon only.
As in a STK 3F with 6 PPCs or a STK 3f with 4 LRM15s no other weapons.
Now that I have cleared that up. To many people try and play this game as a CoD type when it really does require patience and strategy. Yes PPCs need to move there heat back to pre HSR fix for the HSR fix and that would solve a lot of problems. We do not need limited hardpoints we need heat to function correctly and do bad things to our mechs at certain thresh holds.
I love the game I play 5-50(not kidding) matches a day. I run my fun mech right now which is a 6 MG 2 LPL Jager some call it a troll build I call it my little killer. Yes there are many Tryhards out there and the LRM have made a comeback. But I still manage to win 90-90% of the games I go in because I 4 man drop. It is a team game requires a plan and a solid team. I am sorry most of you complaining are in a low ELO and get all the boats, making my only advice:
GET FRIENDS, join a group learn to function as a team and get a VoiP, yeah yeah you shouldn't have to group you shouldn't have to have a VoiP but really this game is about team play not the solo person.
Boating is all of 1 type of har points filled with 1 weapon only.
As in a STK 3F with 6 PPCs or a STK 3f with 4 LRM15s no other weapons.
Now that I have cleared that up. To many people try and play this game as a CoD type when it really does require patience and strategy. Yes PPCs need to move there heat back to pre HSR fix for the HSR fix and that would solve a lot of problems. We do not need limited hardpoints we need heat to function correctly and do bad things to our mechs at certain thresh holds.
I love the game I play 5-50(not kidding) matches a day. I run my fun mech right now which is a 6 MG 2 LPL Jager some call it a troll build I call it my little killer. Yes there are many Tryhards out there and the LRM have made a comeback. But I still manage to win 90-90% of the games I go in because I 4 man drop. It is a team game requires a plan and a solid team. I am sorry most of you complaining are in a low ELO and get all the boats, making my only advice:
GET FRIENDS, join a group learn to function as a team and get a VoiP, yeah yeah you shouldn't have to group you shouldn't have to have a VoiP but really this game is about team play not the solo person.
#40
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 487 posts
Member
- LocationNC
Posted 06 July 2013 - 08:07 AM
SJ SCP Wolf, on 06 July 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:
To answer your question. No this is not Battetech. Battletech if you want Battletech go play MWTactics. This is Mechwarrior which takes many liberties in order to shoehorn BT rules into an FPS environment. Just like every other MW game.
You are very wrong and right at the same time.
Battletech was a video game and it was TT
Mechwarrior was TT (rpg) and a video game
Mechassault was only a video game.
The terms are interchangeable always have been. MWT represents the more TT style of play (notice its not called battletech)
Mechwarrior sounds better that is why they use it. Yes it is hard to transition pen and paper to a video game and liberties need to be taken but people cry out because there are many things that can be done to maintain the spirit of the TT version. So understand some of us have been playing since batledroids(had to change their name because Lucas owns the term droid) playing the battletech crescent hawk video games and continuing on till today.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users
