115 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Sixpack, on 13 November 2011 - 11:49 PM, said:

I am very confident that the company is capable of making an enjoyable game that will be capable of staying alive in todays market.

What I fear is that they listen to the 'hardcore' crowd who don´t realy seem to think about anything but their own whishes and **** the game.

The discussion between Kay Wolf and Zax is probably a good demonstration in this case.

Rule of thumb:
What is good for the game first and foremost?

I'm afraid many of you misunderstand me, and many of the veterans with me. We do want the game to be fun; we would like to be able to participate in that fun, as well. Since we vets presently make up about 55 - 75% of the population on this forum, we are finally and firmly expressing our desires for fun, as well. There is not only one type of fun that can be had, and only the most narrow-minded would believe that. Let the twitchers come in, let the cherries, let anyone who wants to come in and play the game do so. However, THIS game, MWO by IGP and PGI, in partnership, CAN NOT be made ONLY for the twitchers which, Sixpack and Zax, and many others of your ilk, are advocating. You want point-and-click, then that's fine, let the devs develop a non-BattleTech-based game. You want a game where all you need to do is begin pressing buttons, go play something else. Alternately, if you want a game that has a subtle learning curve that teaches you what those buttons do, and then allows you to choose a military element to be associated with whereby, whether through in-game architecture or through your senior fellows in the element, you begin to learn more about tactics, 'Mech handling, etc., stick around. Someone mentioned a game with no economy, or that having an economy would be a joke to a game like this? How about we see, first.

If you want this game to have a large enough, and long enough, crowd then our devs have to find the sweet spot between twitchers and veterans. What I have been advocating is nothing any less important than what you and yours advocate; however, the truth of it is that if the devs lean a little bit more heavily toward the TT rules, and make the game fit more closely to MW3 game play, what will happen is the veterans will stay longer, will try to help the twitchers and, when your folk get tired and go play something else, we veterans will still be here supporting the game, and likely for a long time to come, or to at least the life of the game.

What is wrong with you twitchers, anyway? Don't you have any desire to acquire some real play skills, rather than point-and-click?

[Sixpack]

Kay Wolf, on 14 November 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

I'm afraid many of you misunderstand me, and many of the veterans with me. We do want the game to be fun; we would like to be able to participate in that fun, as well. Since we vets presently make up about 55 - 75% of the population on this forum, we are finally and firmly expressing our desires for fun, as well. There is not only one type of fun that can be had, and only the most narrow-minded would believe that. Let the twitchers come in, let the cherries, let anyone who wants to come in and play the game do so. However, THIS game, MWO by IGP and PGI, in partnership, CAN NOT be made ONLY for the twitchers which, Sixpack and Zax, and many others of your ilk, are advocating. You want point-and-click, then that's fine, let the devs develop a non-BattleTech-based game. You want a game where all you need to do is begin pressing buttons, go play something else. Alternately, if you want a game that has a subtle learning curve that teaches you what those buttons do, and then allows you to choose a military element to be associated with whereby, whether through in-game architecture or through your senior fellows in the element, you begin to learn more about tactics, 'Mech handling, etc., stick around. Someone mentioned a game with no economy, or that having an economy would be a joke to a game like this? How about we see, first.

If you want this game to have a large enough, and long enough, crowd then our devs have to find the sweet spot between twitchers and veterans. What I have been advocating is nothing any less important than what you and yours advocate; however, the truth of it is that if the devs lean a little bit more heavily toward the TT rules, and make the game fit more closely to MW3 game play, what will happen is the veterans will stay longer, will try to help the twitchers and, when your folk get tired and go play something else, we veterans will still be here supporting the game, and likely for a long time to come, or to at least the life of the game.

What is wrong with you twitchers, anyway? Don't you have any desire to acquire some real play skills, rather than point-and-click?

So I am automatically an instant gratification needing point click player kiddie simply because I disagree with you?

I´m afraid you misunderstand me.

Yes, there are many types of fun that can be had, but how do you want to be able to reach as broad a crowd as you can to make a profit out of what you have developed while also attracting fresh blood to keep the game running?
And now in the same breath, do you think that the game can only be made for your version of how the game should be?

What I see is a lot of:
"Make it like this" "Do not make it like this" "Put it into a different time setting" "I want my MPBT 3025!"

And this stuff comes mainly from the veteran crew with a no compromise opinion attached.

Where is the "How do we make this game easily accesible and yet challenging with new things to learn at many turns to keep an influx of revenue, players and ideas that make this game continously grow to something greater than what we orginally had planned it to be?"

What you got right:
We need a good middle ground for every side, but if no side in the forum is able to even bother and think where compromises could be made and such, what do you think how this will go?

[CoffiNail]

You know, just because MWLL is set in a FPS engine does not mean it is a point and click game. Go watch it on spectate and a bunch of n00bs who are use to MW4, or just previuous MW games and try to solo everything. Point and click does not equal win, you need to understand the flow of battle, when to do a tactical retreat, use terrain to cover, much more. I find MWLL is more tactical then MW4 due to most mechs in MW4 MP are nothing more then weapons that will skirt your torso around, MWLL has a bit of cockpit shake but a good player can pilot and aim through the shake to still try and get some semblance of a hit.

MWLL is a lot more fun then MW4, the only problem it has is for the VETs who have had the same game play for a year now due to no new assets because the team is lacking the texture artists iirc. I still have **** fun with it, I have gone back to MW4 as well, it is fun, but the mechlab really does take away a lot of the fun of trying to learn to use a asset properly.

Besides *** do you have to play until MWO comes out? Get all your mechy action I say and love it.

[MausGMR]

Twitchers? What kind of a ridiculous term is that? Are you implying that, by some far stretched concept in your imagination, that people with the ability to react quickly and hit targets with quick succession using a mouse, somehow is comparable to 'veteran' players with the experience to know how to pick their fights, how to win them before they make the first shot, and what to do given any circumstance?

I'm sorry, but that argument makes me chuckle. I can mid air rocket someone in quake as well as I can plan complex strategy in megamek, I can snipe someone in Tribes as well as I can snipe someone in Project Reality, I can out play someone in MW:LL as well as I can out play someone in DND.

Reaction aiming and experience are two completely different things, and advance at completely different levels. A player who is used to reaction based aiming will not have problems with a system which imposes artificial limitations on the way in which his weapons work, as long as he understands them and enjoys the mechanic. A 50 year old 'veteran' is not going to be any more or less capable at destroying his target from an aiming perspective than anyone else in the game (unless he uses a joytstick for aiming lol).

What matters is an understanding of battlefield philosophy, tactics, human perception, and human reaction. Only people with thousands of hours of screen time, regardless of game title, have this level of comprehension mastered, and are able to apply it consistently. Yes most young gamers have good aims, but they tend to be predictable and easy to manipulate. Older gamers have the possibility to have more screen time than younger ones, but most don't, because of the pressures of life limiting overall time available for most who will have been in their 20's/30's when multiplayer became popular.

The only 'Veteran' here is someone who proves it, in game, you can throw the phrase around to represent the old boys club as much as you want, but its bullets that will answer this debate, not date of birth.

Edited by MausGMR, 14 November 2011 - 09:03 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Sixpack, on 14 November 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

So I am automatically an instant gratification needing point click player kiddie simply because I disagree with you?

If that's what you advocate, then yes.

Quote

Yes, there are many types of fun that can be had, but how do you want to be able to reach as broad a crowd as you can to make a profit out of what you have developed while also attracting fresh blood to keep the game running?

The game CAN be made for all, my concern is, with all of the point-and-click screaming I see on these forums, will the devs agree with that, ignore it, or come to a compromise and make it so all can enjoy it? I am saying if the game is made point-and-click, without any manner of CoD/CoF, and if Assault 'Mechs can travel at 108kph, and if the armor is in the thousands of points and outside the formula's established by the TT game, as with MW4, and all of the incongruities of the previous games remain, you will have twitch-gamers, and only twitch-gamers here.

Quote

And now in the same breath, do you think that the game can only be made for your version of how the game should be?

I don't have a version of how the game should be, I simply share the vision of attempting to keep the game as close to TT standard as possible, without sacrificing play for the BattleTech-impaired.

Quote

What I see is a lot of:
"Make it like this" "Do not make it like this" "Put it into a different time setting" "I want my MPBT 3025!"

And this stuff comes mainly from the veteran crew with a no compromise opinion attached.

That is likely because, except for MW3, those of us who actually love the game, and the lore, and the universe, and all that goes with it, we're tired of seeing the minimalist view with which previous developers handle that love. Don't you have anything you love so much in this world that, were it to be abused, it would cause you to be angry over it? Now, take a step back and look at those of us who've played the game since the early-mid 80s and apply that logic, and that's what you've got. Not one of the games, even MW3, has stayed as close as possible to what makes the BattleTech universe the playground we love to play in; with MW3, there wasn't a whole lot of lore written for the game, and Zipper stayed as close as they could. I think it's our turn, frankly, to have something that we can enjoy without treating the game like fanboi's going to a superhero movie only to deride the **** out of it later.

Quote

Where is the "How do we make this game easily accesible and yet challenging with new things to learn at many turns to keep an influx of revenue, players and ideas that make this game continuously grow to something greater than what we orginally had planned it to be?"

I don't mind that, but an eye must be kept toward what makes the BattleTech universe unique, please?

Quote

What you got right:
We need a good middle ground for every side, but if no side in the forum is able to even bother and think where compromises could be made and such, what do you think how this will go?

It's NOT every single one of us, Sixpack, but all of us have our individual opinions, and some of us have stronger opinions, varying strengths of opinions that only make it SEEM as though we're implacable. Now, before you post, I want you to go back and read everything I just wrote in this post ALL OVER AGAIN, so you'll get the correct effect, please? I am writing all of this in a calm, debate-ful manner that has no malice or any troublesome words, though some may be large for a few and, most of the time, and there are notable exceptions, my veteran brethren are writing in a calm manner, also. The problem with presenting an opinion, and it happens everywhere, not just here, is that if one presents an opinion of something they would like to see, especially us non-twitch veterans, we get the dog **** hammered out of us and are given no quarter, and no opportunity to present our opinion in a manner befitting a sane Human being. We're not allowed to, we are simply barked into place. That happens on all sides of the argument.

So, to answer you about compromises, those have to come down on both sides and, thus far, I'm most assuredly not seeing that.

@ MausGMR - Almost everything you've said is a load, bud. In MW4 in particular, even if any commander I was serving with, or if I was the commander, understood the map, the spawn points, the potential choke and ridge points, the pop-tart zones, etc., and had what should have been the perfect group of 'Mechs to drop into the game, and a good strategy and tactical plan, and were very experienced, fire was just adjusted, torso's knocked off-center and KEPT off-center by ER Large Lasers and AC/2s, and even a tactical retreat was doomed.

I guess one of my largest problems is that, even with Clan 'Mechs, in the TT game, in the lore, it's so much more difficult to hit... I could post the basics if you would like, though I have a feeling you just couldn't care less, nor would anyone else with that mindset, but in MW4 point-and-click is all you need. There's no skill there, at all.

Oh, and the word twitcher is not one I coined; this word was made up around the MW3: PM time-frame and it's stuck with me, and many others since.

[CeeKay Boques]

I don't understand how this game can not be "point and Pull trigger"? All weapons fire this way. In games and in Real life. I hope it has multiple free reticles to fire with, controlled by mice and other devices.

I guess I don't see the connection between "targeting and firing at targets", and all this other stuff that apprenently gets attached to it.

How could any game, MechWarrior included, not be a game where you set your sight on the target and pull the trigger? I'd love for about 15 gazillion physics calculations to happen when I do that, but I don't see how you avoid it, or waggle your finger at that mechanic?

[Threat Doc]

200+ year old computers no one knows how to fix any more, massive heat in most 'Mechs that throw off targeting, and you know what heat does to brand new computers, so make those computers archaic, at least. This has been explained over and over again on these forums. That's why THIS game can NOT just be "point and Pull trigger". The connection between "targeting and firing at targets" is that, with a 30-foot-tall, 75-ton, mass of thousands of moving parts, myomer muscles, boron-carbide diamond reinforced 'bones', armor sliding all over the place because it can not be precisely fitted due to all of the other moving parts, swaying and jerking beneath you, you have to have some manner of computer targeting help to "point-and-click".

You can set your sight on the target and pull the trigger all you want, but you will miss if you're moving too fast, if your target is moving too fast, if you have too many meters of light or heavy woods, if you have to pass through rubble or dip into Depth 1+ water, and if you have too much air blowing past you when you pull the trigger. The mechanic, and I'm waggling my thumb as I'm typing, here, MUST be influenced by nearly two-dozen factors in order for the game to be based on BattleTech, to be BattleTech. PERIOD.

Heavy Gear can still be found out there, somewhere, right? So can many other Japanimation based humongous robot sims, I'm sure. Have at 'em...

[gregsolidus]

Serous derailment is serious.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

KingCobra, on 13 November 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

From my prospective MWLL is a great mod but there it is it is a (MOD) they would hav been better off using the cry2 eng and building the game from scratch give it a great name and try to get it shipped.Instead i had to install a game which crysis is good i actully played the game rather than install the mod for the longest time.
Then i installed the MWLL mod only to find it unbalance,and the controls were horid as a joystick players it was imposible to play right the movement was all wrong.HeavyGear&HeaveyGear2,and the new FrontMission evolved have the same problems bad controls placed in a great set of games and MWLL goes down the same road.

I say (IF) they fix all the bugs rebalance it make the controls better and adaptible for joystick and or xbox type controlers and put it all into 1 .exe game/installer without going out and buying crysis ill play it . but as of now i uninstalled the mod and just play crysis.

P.S great work on alot of the mod though

I play MW:LL with an Xbox 360 controller, It works well, i even have my teamspeak push to talk button mapped to it.

[SquareSphere]

People that derided MWLL while never having played an organized battle need to keep their 2 cents about it to themselves. The mod was designed around organized play from a combined arms aspect. Not pub stompy quick matches.

Just like with MWO people need to temper their thoughts on it till a product is out to be evaluated. If you already hate the concept of having another in cockpit game like mw2-4 then I suggest you just leave the boards. This will NOT be a computerized version of BATTLETECH.

Battletech=/=Mechwarrior.

Edited by SquareSphere, 14 November 2011 - 01:41 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kay Wolf, on 14 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

200+ year old computers no one knows how to fix any more, massive heat in most 'Mechs that throw off targeting, and you know what heat does to brand new computers, so make those computers archaic, at least. This has been explained over and over again on these forums. That's why THIS game can NOT just be "point and Pull trigger". The connection between "targeting and firing at targets" is that, with a 30-foot-tall, 75-ton, mass of thousands of moving parts, myomer muscles, boron-carbide diamond reinforced 'bones', armor sliding all over the place because it can not be precisely fitted due to all of the other moving parts, swaying and jerking beneath you, you have to have some manner of computer targeting help to "point-and-click".

You can set your sight on the target and pull the trigger all you want, but you will miss if you're moving too fast, if your target is moving too fast, if you have too many meters of light or heavy woods, if you have to pass through rubble or dip into Depth 1+ water, and if you have too much air blowing past you when you pull the trigger. The mechanic, and I'm waggling my thumb as I'm typing, here, MUST be influenced by nearly two-dozen factors in order for the game to be based on BattleTech, to be BattleTech. PERIOD.

Heavy Gear can still be found out there, somewhere, right? So can many other Japanimation based humongous robot sims, I'm sure. Have at 'em...

See you're being prejudiced. I said :

Quote

How could any game, MechWarrior included, not be a game where you set your sight on the target and pull the trigger? I'd love for about 15 gazillion physics calculations to happen when I do that, but I don't see how you avoid it, or waggle your finger at that mechanic?

Then you go on to describe the various physics calculations. But how, can you target and fire, without targeting, and without firing? That's my question. Because that's what it seems my fellow BT hardies are saying, that it can't be "Point and click". MW4 wasn't "point and click", there were trajectories for missiles, and leading with gauss. Lasers were, point and click. But it wasn't easy to point and click at 800 meteres in a Raven, versus a shadow cat, it just wasn't, because firing between two mechs going a compbined 200kph was hard. But regardless, you need to point at something, and fire. So what you guys are really saying, unless I'm wrong, is that you want a robust physics engine to go with it. I couldn't agree more. I suspect, that difference between what i see and what you see, is that I want physics to handle all this, and you think the only way to resolve it is with +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 calcs and 2D6. .

[zax]

What I'm drawing from this conversation is that one of the key points in lore that Kay Wolf wants to follow is the inability of people to actually aim their weapons and hit what they're aiming at. Instead, what he wants is a system where people just aim in the general direction of their target and pray that one of their weapons will randomly hit what they're aiming at. This is true to the TT game, where players roll 2d6 and suffer penalties if they want to aim for a specific part of a mech.

Apparently players having the ability aim their weapons and hit what they're aiming at suddenly makes the game "twitchy" and suddenly makes a game require no skill, because now players can, you know... hit what they're aiming at. I don't quite follow the logic, but at this point I've given up on understanding some of the reasoning that goes through BT TT gamers (who have apparently rarely played computer games).

That's not what makes a fun game, and that is not what is going to happen with this game. While there may be weapon spread, people will still be able to aim and shoot their weapons and hit specific points that they are aiming at. One of the key points in game design is the ability for a player to control and improve their control over their character (in this case, a mech).

[Threat Doc]

Technoviking, on 14 November 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

See you're being prejudiced. I said :

NOT!

Quote

But regardless, you need to point at something, and fire. So what you guys are really saying, unless I'm wrong, is that you want a robust physics engine to go with it. I couldn't agree more. I suspect, that difference between what i see and what you see, is that I want physics to handle all this, and you think the only way to resolve it is with +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 calcs and 2D6.

Okay, so we sort of want the same thing. I believe there's an actual means of putting the calculations built for the TT game into a usable format in the game, and that will likely come in the form of calculations using relatively realistic means. It's not prejudice, TV, it's misunderstanding on my part, and perhaps some lack of complete description on yours. Now, however, I understand.

zax, on 14 November 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

What I'm drawing from this conversation is that one of the key points in lore that Kay Wolf wants to follow is the inability of people to actually aim their weapons and hit what they're aiming at. Instead, what he wants is a system where people just aim in the general direction of their target and pray that one of their weapons will randomly hit what they're aiming at. This is true to the TT game, where players roll 2d6 and suffer penalties if they want to aim for a specific part of a mech.

That certainly shows your lack of knowledge as concerns the TT game, which is a blast if you try it with someone willing to teach you. I forgot how much fun it CAN be until last night when I played a lights/medium game with them last night. It last 4.5 hours, and we laughed like crazy at the hijinks taking place in the game. During, I got a sharp uptick in questions about the TT game and the BT universe in general, and my oldest got into my BattleMech Designer 9.71 last night -we can't afford HMP, and BMD does well enough- and started designing his own light 'Mech. It's a pretty good one, too.

Quote

Apparently players having the ability aim their weapons and hit what they're aiming at suddenly makes the game "twitchy" and suddenly makes a game require no skill, because now players can, you know... hit what they're aiming at. I don't quite follow the logic, but at this point I've given up on understanding some of the reasoning that goes through BT TT gamers (who have apparently rarely played computer games).

And, frankly, I'm giving up on your silliness... go play another mech game, because you obviously don't understand this universe well enough to play. I will hear nothing from you, anymore, you just want to instigate, you refuse to see anyone's side other than your own, and I don't care whether or not you're actually 10 or no, you're acting like it. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Quote

That's not what makes a fun game, and that is not what is going to happen with this game. While there may be weapon spread, people will still be able to aim and shoot their weapons and hit specific points that they are aiming at. One of the key points in game design is the ability for a player to control and improve their control over their character (in this case, a mech).

Where has that been said anywhere? You're insinuating things you've not actually heard the truth of, yet, while I, and many others like me, are just hoping. (waves from a distance) Goodbye, zax; your opinion no longer means squat to me.

[MausGMR]

So you disagree that aiming and experience are totally separate issues Kay? And that somehow they're all tied into some kind of player demographic, that only oldschool 80's MW players could possibly comprehend the concepts you mentioned earlier like battlefield tactics, awareness, and strategy.

Wake up call buddy, some of us know all this **** already and have the aim skills to boot. You know how to play MW4, congratulations, does that warrant you some kind of special title? lol nope. You know how to play a game, big deal, most gamers know how to play dozens, if not hundreds of games to perfection.

You mention explaining tabletop rules to me? Sorry buddy, not needed. Aside from being a complete boss in the mechwarrior video games, I also played a star colonel Elemental who rose to Galaxy Commander during an epic campaign that last well over 12 months, and managed to lead my cluster to planetary victory with minimal casualties and maximum success, and my galaxy to overall victory across multiple worlds and systems.

To top that off, I currently play in a clan homeworlds campaign as a Goliath Scorpion warrior, where I won the Strana Mekty yearly production tournament using a Nova A, coming up against PC pilots including some in much more statistically capable mechs that myself.

You ask why this is relevant? Well, I'm a twitch gamer at heart, but I also know how the play other styles of game perfectly competently. You know why? because I learnt how to! What matters most is the mentality of the player, and the route the devs take. If they want pinpoint aiming, cool, because it may bring in some other players from outside the genre. If they want expanding xhair or a cone of fire, cool, because again, it may bring people in from outside the genre.

People have personal preferences and that's that, its nothing about being a 'vet' or a 'twitch player', its all about what you as an individual like a game to feel like. Personally, I don't care either way, because I'll still dominate my way around the galaxy regardless of what aiming system they implement.

[Threat Doc]

MausGMR, on 14 November 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

So you disagree that aiming and experience are totally separate issues Kay?

I believe an individual's hand-eye coordination is a great thing to have, and I have that as well, in some limited aspect, hehe. I believe that a player's experience is, indeed, applied separately, but that with point-and-click twitch games such as MechWarrior 4, as released by Cyberlore, not modified by Mektek, that experience means nothing on a small-units tactical level, and strategy on those maps -strategy requires a great deal of room, more often than not, to implement- was ineffective, at best. The SP campaign was a good deal better than the multi-player because some of the weapons in the game, which I've mentioned before, were terribly unbalanced. Experience does inform one's ability with aiming, but experience does not replace the raw ability to aim with your mouse or joystick and hit the firing stud, period.

Quote

And that somehow they're all tied into some kind of player demographic, that only oldschool 80's MW players could possibly comprehend the concepts you mentioned earlier like battlefield tactics, awareness, and strategy.

I never said that. You know what assuming does, right? I understand the precepts within the BattleTech board game, the To-Hit Modifiers, Piloting Skill Modifiers, and the lore behind why those are the way they are. Now, I know there will be no random element in this game, akin to dice, according to Mr. Ekman, and I can accept that, but I would hope there will, indeed, be better consideration of physical (and physics) aspects than there has been, before, to simulate better the modifiers of the TT game than any prior MW title has before.

Quote

Wake up call buddy, some of us know all this **** already and have the aim skills to boot. You know how to play MW4, congratulations, does that warrant you some kind of special title? lol nope. You know how to play a game, big deal, most gamers know how to play dozens, if not hundreds of games to perfection.

Okay, so you've ceased having a decent argument, and will no longer be worthy of a hearing after I finish answering this post.

[gregsolidus]

In all seriousness, the more vehement your argument becomes the higher the chance Bryan will pop in and give an answer.

[zax]

I love how Kay Wolf makes these rather unclear and vague statements. Then, people attempt to interpret his statements and put them into gameplay terms, and then because their interpretation is wrong or because they disagree with him, they are now "loud-mouthed disrespectful livin'-on-daddy's-money welps" who are "10-years-old".

What's more, because he was BAD at MW4, the game was obviously terrible and in the game, where "experience means nothing on a small-units tactical level, and strategy on those maps -strategy requires a great deal of room, more often than not, to implement- was ineffective, at best". This shows a clear lack of ability and understanding of the game as it was played at the highest levels, where positioning, piloting and tactics were extremely important.

Kay's posts are full of poorly veiled disgust for gamers, with ridiculous statements like:
"Why do I have such a problem with twitchers? Because they're loud-mouthed disrespectful livin'-on-daddy's-money welps who can get hold of a keyboard, mouse, and joystick, put a crosshair on a spot, and kill their opponent. It takes zero thought, absolutely no tactics, and at the risk of sounding like a whiner, it is extremely unfair"
"as long as you have decent control of how your jump jets work, you can kill your enemy with little or no actual skill or incoming fire."
"What is wrong with you twitchers, anyway? Don't you have any desire to acquire some real play skills, rather than point-and-click?"

These statements show such a total lack of understanding of the SKILL involved in so called "twitch" games, when reaction time is much less important than positioning and coordination. You know what? You've made it abundantly clear that you love the tabletop game. Go nuts and play it. The rest of us are concerned with the COMPUTER game, where many of the tabletop mechanics are not relevant because players are given the ability to actually control all the **** that used to rely on dice rolls.

Go ahead and re-read the posts that in this thread, and you can easily see that Kay Wolf is the one being most disrespectful and immature here. Trying to have a discussion with him is like talking to a kid who hears something he doesn't like, and thus proceeds to stick his fingers in his ears and yells "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

[MausGMR]

In all honesty dude, you do a lot of feather rustling and that's about all it boils down to.

"Oh no mr dev's please don't ruin my great envision of what Battletech should be like in the 21st Century!"

Join the queue with the thousands of others who all have their own narrow minded complaints to add to any balance discussion or process. In case your wondering, I deal with the bigger picture when it comes to game balance, and the game will not be broken if either aiming system is used, as long as the background systems that the aiming system contributes towards function in a manner that is not exploitable, and maximises player choice instead of railroading players into 'perfect' set-ups.

The free to play method gives the devs the best chance to pull players into this genre that haven't been in it before. And yes, for mechwarrior to have a chance at being a successful video game title once more, it needs new players. The customisation and other league of legends style factors will probably go a long way to helping achieve that, but ultimately its core game play that matters. If the devs decide to stick to a fairly simple aiming mechanic to try to not feel too 'sim-ish' and drive those potential generic FPS players away, then that would probably be a wise choice.

In regards to physics and physical things being taken into account, just to get back on original topic here, MWLL does have all that, so overall it adds a lot more in terms of scope than any other Mech game to date.

And yes dude, I called you out, I know, but you make sweeping "I'm right" statements, so I just can't help myself.

*edit* oh and also because you said "twitch aiming doesn't take any skill", and that made me freaking lol

Edited by MausGMR, 14 November 2011 - 04:49 PM.

[stun]

It really just sounds like this guy is all butthurt for not having any hand-eye coordination. In his opinion all the people that play fps games like modern warfare/battlefield including myself dont have any skill.

We can't take any player skill out of the game for something like mechwarrior, its an action based game.

[mekabuser]

Maus scary , then the resume... <chuckle>
WHat the mwll devs have done, hamstrung by the engine they use and manpower is **** impressive, and the more people we can get playing that very nice game the better imo. This whole twitch thing is really quite silly . Are professional ping pong players "twitch ?" with their psycho reflexes? or fencers? or just about any physical discipline?
Were gunfighters?
WHat the mwll devs have done by UPPING the armor has decreased what some would term this twitch, fps style of mechwarrior. IF ... they had adhered to battletech , well one erppc WOULD in fact take out half a dasher and just exactly what fun would that be ... Battletech rules and all?>
Assets in mwll take alot of punishment, even the lights, which makes sense right? because how stupid is it to have "armored" vehicles that get popped in a split second.
Though I disagree with most everything he says, PHT likened mech combat to naval warfare<olde timey> which is the proper feel for mech combat. Massive firepower, massive damage, massive armor. Up and down the tonnage scale.
UNFORTUNALTELY , cryengine, is NOT optimized for multiplayer, let alone mwll which really pushes things. But imo, the game is great, I play every chance I get because the community is by and large awesome and enough matches are indeed a ton of fun.
btw, 10 bucks for the mod is really a joke of a reason NOT to try it.
Secondly, many many of mwll players have upgraded their rigs, since many came from .. ahem mw4.