115 replies to this topic

[Sixpack]

Kay Wolf, on 14 November 2011 - 11:38 AM, said:

If that's what you advocate, then yes.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I was advocating for it to be that way.
And to be quite frank, I find that term insulting.

Quote

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.

That sounds like fearmongering to me and nothing else. And to be honest I have not seen any threads advocating 'point-click style' gameplay. (And it would be very nice if you could actually deliver an in depth explanation of what you view as point-click because that can encompass every single game that uses a mouse/keyboard.)
As for CoD/MW4 and the TT game. I care about none of those for this.

Quote

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.

Which is basically your version of how you would like it to be. You liked the TT and think it is the best standard available and the games coming closest to this were the best. Correct?

I´ll be honest. I have not played the MW1/2 games (neither the TT) and only the MW3 demo and some MW4 (and the two MechCommander games), but I don´t think that I should use them as any kind of basis for what the game is going to be like. What I only hope for is that it will allow me to pilot mechs and find a role that I like to play on the field. I love being support, but you can be support in every weight class (I think).

Quote

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.

Already happened, I was disappointed but accepted it (There is no Supreme Commander 2! Then again 1 could have been better as well...... )
Though I guess that in total it was in a far shorter timeframe then what you had to endure.

And even if I can understand that there is something you realy want, as has been pointed out a lot, how much do you expect the game to survive if it would only cater to your groups needs/wants? This might sound harsh but I think it is important for every group to have the best for the game in mind. (That obviously does not mean only the "Veterans" but also those people that would prefer a game more in the style of other MMO´s that I shall not mention).

Quote

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

I guess you mean something else than giant mechs with that .
I assume the ability to use terrain to your advantage as well as being able to outplay a heavier weightclass by using your own strenghts to their best possibility and also the combination of all arms. Furthermore keeping everything viable with no true Endgame (with that I mean something like 'the best unit possible' not existing, because there shouldn´t be one in this setting, only the one you can work with best and what works to your liking).

Quote

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.

Don´t realy need to, it is pretty calm and collected with you bringing up your points very decently. The only beef I have is with your first sentence.

If you basically get hammered down without being able to explain yourself you probably have the high ground already. The question is how to bring a good fullsale explanation out there while ignoring the people that merely want to bash it out of fear. I´m sure if it is good the devs will take note of it.

Quote

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

And neither am I (Just to clarify: not meant personall or only for your grouping)



Now to get this moving further:
What exactly are the kind of things in the Tabletop that you would like to see realised in the game that have not been there in the previous Mechwarrior Games?
How do you want the playstyle of the game to be?



Edit:

@Zax, MausGMR, Stun

Please act and type a little more mature and keep the discussion civil? Just because you do not like someone´s opinion or view on things does not automatically make you right and the other the second reincarnation of Hitler.

Thank you.

Edited by Sixpack, 14 November 2011 - 05:25 PM.

[Threat Doc]

gregsolidus, on 14 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

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

I don't doubt it.

Sixpack, on 14 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

If you would be so kind as to point out where I was advocating for it to be that way. And to be quite frank, I find that term insulting.

If you agree with the argument, you advocate for it, period.

Quote

(And it would be very nice if you could actually deliver an in depth explanation of what you view as point-click because that can encompass every single game that uses a mouse/keyboard.)

Really? You're joking, right? Put your cursor over your target, and click the mouse button, knowing that where you aim is where you hit, period... simple enough?

Quote

You liked the TT and think it is the best standard available and the games coming closest to this were the best. Correct?

I feel like Seth Myer, Really?! I advocate for the closest approximation possible, not the exact TT game. Really?! You don't get that? Really?!

Quote

I´ll be honest. I have not played the MW1/2 games (neither the TT) and only the MW3 demo and some MW4 (and the two MechCommander games), but I don´t think that I should use them as any kind of basis for what the game is going to be like. What I only hope for is that it will allow me to pilot mechs and find a role that I like to play on the field. I love being support, but you can be support in every weight class (I think).

It depends on the sort of support you are being called to provide, but overall yes. If you have not played the TT game, you do not understand from where I advocate and, thus, you should probably not be making your arguments.

Quote

And even if I can understand that there is something you realy want, as has been pointed out a lot, how much do you expect the game to survive if it would only cater to your groups needs/wants? This might sound harsh but I think it is important for every group to have the best for the game in mind. (That obviously does not mean only the "Veterans" but also those people that would prefer a game more in the style of other MMO´s that I shall not mention).

I agree 100%. The problem is that a good many people -I will not make the mistake of saying all, and I don't remember the names of the many, so don't be an *** and ask me- on this forum are arguing tooth and nail to not have ANYTHING to do with the board game AT ALL, when indeed the board game is from whence this venture would find its rules, its flavor, and make a game worthy of playing by all. So, should I not, if I believe in something as strongly as I, and many others do, also argue that strongly?

Quote

If you basically get hammered down without being able to explain yourself you probably have the high ground already. The question is how to bring a good fullsale explanation out there while ignoring the people that merely want to bash it out of fear. I´m sure if it is good the devs will take note of it.

To be perfectly honest, I simply want my voice to be heard as much as those who advocate for the arcade version of BattleTech. If there's an even keel to be had, those of us who advocate, on either side, is going to have to hang on, because obviously waiting for the game to come out is not going to work. This is like flinging bullets, lasers, and missiles at one another, with no clear winner in the near future.

However, I have to be honest -and I separated this sentence specifically so everyone would read and see it {maybe bold, underline, and italics are in order, here, hehe}- I want this game to be fun for EVERYONE. The trouble, as I see it, is catering {accidentally or purposefully} to any one group, even my beloved veterans/old timers, even in the slightest. It should go in all directions, but I've seen the argument go more against a better approximation to BattleTech than previous games, regardless of the actual high percentage of old timers, here. It's pretty odd.

Quote

Now to get this moving further:
What exactly are the kind of things in the Tabletop that you would like to see realised in the game that have not been there in the previous Mechwarrior Games?

How do you want the playstyle of the game to be?

Take a look at my other thread... it's answered there... I honestly didn't mean for the thread to be the way it is, but I should have figured with the 'enthusiastic' crowd there is, it would come to that. http://mwomercs.com/...dont-you-think/

[Miles Tails Prower]

To the OP.

Because there's a lot of distaste for unofficial items. On a forum where they're bringing back Battletech officially, we're going to hear about the memories of the official games, not fan made mods.

[mekabuser]

Miles Tails Prower, on 14 November 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

To the OP.

Because there's a lot of distaste for unofficial items. On a forum where they're bringing back Battletech officially, we're going to hear about the memories of the official games, not fan made mods.

a fan made mod that is considered one of the best, if not the best version of the battletech U so far..
Oh, and not to mention, it is "official" since the devs there had to do "official" things in order for it to be.
Mechwarrior...

[phelanjkell]

Lots of 'heated' debate in here.

I think there are plenty of MW:LL players in these fourms, and its a great game. Wish more people would give it a go and get their own opinions from personal experience.

[Longhorn]

If I here there is a detailed MechLab I will be the first to play it. MechLab is at least 50% of the game. gun boat, missile boat you name it. if you have to stick with what is given then go to 80's USSR. no choice, pants are pants right?

I would rather be naked with a 50 cal than have equal armor and a 9 mm. odds are your going to be smoked and i will have a 50 and your armor.

Edited by Longhorn, 14 November 2011 - 10:18 PM.

[ice trey]

As for myself, I never got into MW:LL for multiple reasons.

For one, it went too far down the "FPS" route, going even further down the casual-player, "Eff-The-Canon" route than Microsoft did with Mechwarrior 4, but that wouldn't have stopped me from at least trying it.

What stopped me is a piece-of-junk laptop from early 2007 that my dad got me as a gift. To give you an idea of it's processing power, the most detailed game I can run is oblivion, and that's at absolute minimum settings for everything, and even then, it can chug. I've had wolves and ogres suddenly appear immediately in front of me, tearing me apart before I can even get off a horse. Crysis is a big flat-out "no" for my current computer.

HOWEVER, in light of the MWO announcement for a 2012 release, I ordered a new computer with enough juice that I hope it should run it well, or at least run it. (Asus G73SW-XT1). It should arrive towards the end of the month, along with a new ISP setup (The current one is terrible). That should give me the bandwidth to actually download the mod, and the processing power to run the mod. What is more, by now Crysis should be bargain-bin material, limiting my startup costs.

Edited by ice trey, 14 November 2011 - 10:22 PM.

[Rudolf Shakov]

Gotta throw in on the "twitcher" debate. And yes people should be able to hit what they are aiming at but not in the pinpoint way MW4 allowed. Where you could strap a pile of ERPPCs on to a gladiator and have them all hit the exact same spot. Give it some spread. Let heat cause the sights to flicker like the books describe. Make the cockpit wobble from impacts and steps throwing things around a little. If two mechs are both standing still and running cool by all means have the shots be incredibly accurate. Once the heat starts going and mechs start moving that pinpoint stuff should be out the window. I played a good amount of MW4 and I know how easy it was to poptart and snipe people. That isn't battletech. How often in the books/backround fluff did you read about some guy in 90 tons of metal jumping around shooting with pinpoint accuracy? Never that I can recall. Why? Because a couple tons of metal moving around isn't a precision instrument. Especially when its running hot and using clunky old computers. Not saying it should be chance based or that if your sights are on the chest you should miss because of a dice roll but "realistic" aiming would probably add to the game not take away.

Disclaimer: I loved MW4 mercs and I played a lot in servers with heat and limited ammo. While yes it did require skill it felt like a first person shooter with robots not a robot sim. Its like comparing COD and battlefield. COD is a deathmatch brawl between a bunch of "spec ops" types fast furious and reflexes are key. Requires plenty of skill. Battlefield on the other hand (usually) concentrates more on teamwork, combined arms and tactics on a large scale. Still requires skill but I know I can put up a damned good K/D on COD and when I picked up BF3 I sucked for a while. Both require skill but they are different breeds.

Double disclaimer: I have played the TT. I'll admit it is on Megamek not the actual table top but its the same basic idea just with less paperwork. I have also played MW2-4 with all the add-on packs as well as mechcommander 1+2. I also am mildly obsessed with the books and have a strange and sometimes scary love for comstar.

[Sixpack]

Kay Wolf, on 14 November 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

If you agree with the argument, you advocate for it, period.

If you can not deliver evidence to back up your argument after being asked then you are merely doing this for the sake of wanting to be right.
Concession accepted.

Quote

Really? You're joking, right? Put your cursor over your target, and click the mouse button, knowing that where you aim is where you hit, period... simple enough?

So, every single strategy game
If I click there for a waypoint I know that unit is going to hit it eventually.

I guess what you are talking about is laser type accuracy for weapons no matter what you do? I think there are games like that. Unreal Tournament or Quake III Arena would fit your bill. Most others not.

By your basic definition most games would not fit into that category.

Quote

I feel like Seth Myer, Really?! I advocate for the closest approximation possible, not the exact TT game. Really?! You don't get that? Really?!

So, I´m right.
Because this:

Quote

You liked the TT and think it is the best standard available and the games coming closest to this were the best. Correct?

basically says the same thing.

Quote

It depends on the sort of support you are being called to provide, but overall yes. If you have not played the TT game, you do not understand from where I advocate and, thus, you should probably not be making your arguments.

On the contrary. If you would basically say that only people that played the TT are allowed in here like an exclusive group MWO is going to die. You need input from different sources. And my arguments are rather generall and advocating that something should be found that can make most happy while also being able to bring a constant influx of new players. No new players and the game is going to die sooner or later.

Quote

I agree 100%. The problem is that a good many people -I will not make the mistake of saying all, and I don't remember the names of the many, so don't be an *** and ask me- on this forum are arguing tooth and nail to not have ANYTHING to do with the board game AT ALL, when indeed the board game is from whence this venture would find its rules, its flavor, and make a game worthy of playing by all. So, should I not, if I believe in something as strongly as I, and many others do, also argue that strongly?

Of course you can do that.

Quote

To be perfectly honest, I simply want my voice to be heard as much as those who advocate for the arcade version of BattleTech. If there's an even keel to be had, those of us who advocate, on either side, is going to have to hang on, because obviously waiting for the game to come out is not going to work. This is like flinging bullets, lasers, and missiles at one another, with no clear winner in the near future.

Heh

Quote

However, I have to be honest -and I separated this sentence specifically so everyone would read and see it {maybe bold, underline, and italics are in order, here, hehe}- I want this game to be fun for EVERYONE. The trouble, as I see it, is catering {accidentally or purposefully} to any one group, even my beloved veterans/old timers, even in the slightest. It should go in all directions, but I've seen the argument go more against a better approximation to BattleTech than previous games, regardless of the actual high percentage of old timers, here. It's pretty odd.

This is pretty much what it comes down to. I don´t think it is going to be perfect. There will be things a player will like or not like and not everybody can be made fully happy. But as long as they reach the broad base it should be fine.

Quote

Take a look at my other thread... it's answered there... I honestly didn't mean for the thread to be the way it is, but I should have figured with the 'enthusiastic' crowd there is, it would come to that. http://mwomercs.com/...dont-you-think/

I´ll check it out later

[Starkiller]

PropWash, on 13 November 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

Actually, BattleTech was conceived to be an electronic simulation (in a pseudo arcade environment) before it was to become a board game.

Finances and technology were the reason it was a board game first.

The proceeds from the board game would eventually lead to the development of what became the BattleTech Center in Chicago, IL.

The board game itself was vastly simpler than it is now. Also, most of the back-story and canon 'fluff' didnt exist when the game was created and first sold.

That all came later when many other talented artists and writers got involved.

As having been a former FASA employee and Marauder for many years I have never seen or heard any of that before, I would like to see where you got this information from personally. Battletech was just one of many FASA products on the board from the beggining and the company was not formed, to any knowledge I have ever aquired, to fund the Pods. I do however challange you to bring this information you have on this public though.

[phelanjkell]

This thread needs to be brought back on topic, or else locked.

Please re-focus thought onto discussion about MW:LL.

Again, its a great game and if you have not played it you should give it a try. If not, no worries, but I feel it is a great game and some may not play it just on principle or others opinions, which I feel your missing out.

[KnowBuddy]

I'm very impressed with MWLL.

I feel that it's less like an FPS than some previous MW titles, and more like a sim. I feel that it's trying to capture some of the idiosyncracies of the BT universe fairly "accurately," with locked mech loadouts, combined-arms which is actually tactically functional, and an overall satisfying "feel."

It's definitely not something that's easy for an FPS-kiddie (or anyone, really) to just jump into and do well, there's less of whatever the current buzzword term "point-and-click" means, and there's a steep learning curve. And although it requires a copy of Crysis Wars, it's (Oh noes!) "F2P". To satisfy the requisite quota of buzzwords for this post, I'd also like to point out that MWLL has "dynamic" game modes and "synergy" across it's combined-arms approach.

Back on topic as it pertains to the OP, however: There are multiple threads discussing MWLL all over these forums, primarily in the Off-Topic subforum where they belong since they do not directly discuss MWO in general. I see generally positive sentiment toward MWLL, but it remains a relatively small population. More people should try it, since it is awesome, and has sauce-like characteristics.

[PropWash]

As the owner of the company, I might be privy to information and documents that you were not exposed to.

Additionally, I may be referring to conversations I personally had with Jordan and Ross in the past 10 years.


That said, I accept your challenge, so take a look at this.

http://www.wired.com...battletech.html

Starkiller, on 15 November 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

As having been a former FASA employee and Marauder for many years I have never seen or heard any of that before, I would like to see where you got this information from personally. Battletech was just one of many FASA products on the board from the beggining and the company was not formed, to any knowledge I have ever aquired, to fund the Pods. I do however challange you to bring this information you have on this public though.

Just because it wasnt knowledge you had aquired, doesn't make it untrue.

Convinced now?

Edited by PropWash, 15 November 2011 - 08:52 AM.

[CoffiNail]

First point i want to make is, pin point accuracy in MWLL is pretty **** hard, to keep a discharging laser on the exact same right torso as the enemy is manuvering around trying to prevent that, hitting with a autocannon consistitntly can be very challenging, more so when you are a green pilot. Now when I have been playing MWLL near nightly for over a year and a half, should I not be able to lead my auto cannon and hit that torso over and over again?

If you have practiced and played and improved your skills, why would i still TT wise be a 4/5 pilot? After years of practice you would be a freaking 2/3 pilot, most of your shots would hit. If your RP TT pilot has been in his mech for a decade, same mech, fighting wars, practicing in sims, why does he fire his weapons like a ***** and miss still a lot.? Becuase in TT a 4 round match is pretty **** boring when you can say I am aiming at your LT, and you keep hitting the LT, and in two rounds that mech is salvage, pretty **** boring.

Mechwarrior games are not hour long rounds of throwing dice. You really have to look at playing mechwarrior, the terrain is your +1 modifiers and if you can properly use that terrain well you get those modifiers.

MWLL is no twitch game, you cannot shot the same place twice and the mech is dead. Most of your rounds get spread out with a properly skilled opponent. Two veteran pilots dueling can easily take a good minute or two with out playing Cat and Mouse. I have seen a few duels where the match is 5 minutes long with sniping shots as the two players close distance using cover an poking out as they run from cover to cover until they get in to brawling range. MWLL takes a **** lot of skill to get good, it is not some FPS where if you can aim with a high DPS you win. Good aiming skills can give you an advantage, sure but THOSE ARE SKILLS, you develop them over your life. Some people cannot shoot perfectly, they either have not devised the proper skill set or they are just incapable of developing it properly. Why is it fair to someone who cannot aim to handicap a player who can?

Just because you are not good at moving your mouse, or you choose to use a joystick is your preference, why should I who prefer to use the mouse for all MWs so far, as i have never had a good joystick be penalized, becuase it is better simulation? Alright, so then I play with a joystick for a year and a half nightly, getting **** good at aiming and leading because i developed the skills to do so, now you will start to complain that it is unfair because I am better than you. If I have the spare time on my off time to practice and play Mechwarrior nightly as I dislike watching Television, and you decide to watch television for 4 nights of the week, why should you be able to play as well as I? Why should there be a random factor of my lasers hitting their right leg when i am aiming at the shoulder pod on their left?

Please think a second. Tabletop works because the random hit locations make a match last a lot longer then if every pilot could chew through your right torso. I would refer to the MW is not TT thread.

Mechwarrior living legends has a wonderful aspect of cockpit bob, cockpit shake when ballistics or missiles hit you, as well as PPCs. IT has terrain to slow down behind as your weapons refresh.

Remember table top takes place over ten second intervals, a 60 kph mech moves a good few meters in those ten seconds, hills, structures and plants can easily get in the way during those ten seconds. You can either fire off your alpha strike and hope most of your hits connect, or you can take a extra second to aim and fire off your weapons in a practiced, orderly way so your missiles, autocannons and lasers (which all have different travel times) all hit.

Mechwarrior is the real time interpretation of individual Battlemech combat, Table Top is the game that House Marik uses to teach their children the intricacies of interstellar warfare, and warfare on a commanding level.

*edit* time to go ask Kyle to remove D A M N from the list of t he zealous filter...

Edited by CoffiNail, 15 November 2011 - 08:50 AM.

[SquareSphere]

I will say that players like Maus and Coffi that have played MWLL and frequented the board over there have already argued the CBT <> MWLL and there fore already have a very grounded argument in the fact that Battletech is a completely different game than Mechwarrior.

That's the crux of the issue. We have folks that want a Battletech game versus the fact that MWO is NOT a Battltech game.

Battletech = Strategic planning and execution with some turn based tactical combat that uses probability and dice roll randomness to simulate skills and results.

Mechwarrior = In cockpit action that can incorporate tactical decisioning at the "squad" level through voice coms and unit disposition through mechlab configuration and selection. Pilot skills such as piloting and aiming are reflections interaction with their mechs/assets.

MWLL is the ONLY Mechwarrior based game where assets other than mechs are available to players with realistic to battltech lethality.

Edited by SquareSphere, 15 November 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[Duffanichta]

MW =/= BT

A triple bloody ******* SEYLA!!!!!!

[Threat Doc]

PropWash, on 15 November 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

As the owner of the company, I might be privy to information and documents that you were not exposed to.

So, your real name would be Mr. ____________________? If you're going to throw out information like this, you cannot do so under an alias. I, for one, believe what's being said, and the article sums it up nicely (Tim or Ross?); however, getting others to believe you is another thing altogether.

[PropWash]

You are kidding, right?

You do know that clicking on my callsign takes you right to my profile that has this information.

Also, Google does wonders.

Kay Wolf, on 15 November 2011 - 09:20 AM, said:

So, your real name would be Mr. ____________________? If you're going to throw out information like this, you cannot do so under an alias. I, for one, believe what's being said, and the article sums it up nicely (Tim or Ross?); however, getting others to believe you is another thing altogether.

Edited by PropWash, 15 November 2011 - 09:45 AM.

[ice trey]

Duffanichta, on 15 November 2011 - 09:08 AM, said:

MW =/= BT

A triple bloody ******* SEYLA!!!!!!

I'd put that up to a trial of refusal.

Mechwarrior 1 was pretty much a direct recreation of "Mechwarrior", the tabletop roleplaying component printed in the mid-late 80s, with the tandem "Mercenary's Handbook" for all the contract negotiations and the like.

The Mechwarrior 2 and 3 series, though it took some liberties, also stayed very true to the original in both canon and mechanics.

It was only once Microsoft got their hands on the franchise that it started veering away from being "good" (Read: True to the original). The high budget, orchestrated music, and actors were nice to have, but the game was dumbed down for an audience that didn't need dumbing down in the first place, and if bigger was better in the older games, it was never so imbalanced as the Mechwarrior 4 series.

And then there was Mechassault, for the X-box, which had nothing to do with Battletech but name and mechanical designs. Mechassault was no more a Battletech game than Battletech was a Macross game.

Edited by ice trey, 15 November 2011 - 10:11 AM.

[SquareSphere]

ice trey, on 15 November 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

I'd put that up to a trial of refusal.

Mechwarrior 1 was pretty much a direct recreation of "Mechwarrior", the tabletop roleplaying component printed in the mid-late 80s, with the tandem "Mercenary's Handbook" for all the contract negotiations and the like.

Uh you just defeated yourself. Mechwarrior 1 was created from the Mechwarrior RPG which is still NOT the Battltech TTG.