115 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

I'm just curious... I've been hanging in the forums pretty much every day since November 1st, and I rarely see any mention or reference to the Mechwarrior: Living Legends Crysys mod, which I know many of us have played (or still do).

Can anybody think of why that is? Other than for the crappy game engine (Crysis is nice, but the engine has a lot of problems...), MW:LL is a pretty dang good game. I only had to stop playing myself because my PC couldn't handle it well enough to satisfy my taste for good graphics (had to run everything in medium/low to get decent FPS on some maps)...

Edited by Tweaks, 13 November 2011 - 07:19 AM.

[Jack Gallows]

Probably because they're focused on this game as opposed to a fan made mod? Not disrespecting MW:LL in the least, mind you, excellent work.

[Duffanichta]

Because 50% here is focused at BT with Dices and stuff... and may have no clue what it takes to make a real time game.. from guys that may have some experience in a mechgame.... The MWLL guys do prettey well.. even Cry Engine has some difficulties.. best Mod I have seen in the last years. ANd best Mechwarrior Mod ever.

[Tweaks]

I'm just saying... there's plenty of references to World of Tanks or the previous MechWarrior games, but almost none to MW:LL. Look around, you'll see I'm right. I just find it odd. I would have expected a ton of references such as "in MW:LL, they do it that way...", but I see none. Is it that the community thinks they did not implement the BattleTech universe well enough?

[Hartsblade]

It might be because a large chunk og the MW4 players have avoided looking at it because there is no mechlad

MWLL is an awesome MOD, and if you haven't taken a look at it I think you should. One thing to remember it is still in BETA and content/balance is likely to change. Oh and there are a few MWLL references sprinkled around in the forums, you just have to look for them...we can be a subtle bunch sometimes

edit: typo

Edited by Hartsblade, 13 November 2011 - 08:41 AM.

[Adridos]

Tweaks, on 13 November 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

I'm just saying... there's plenty of references to World of Tanks or the previous MechWarrior games, but almost none to MW:LL. Look around, you'll see I'm right. I just find it odd. I would have expected a ton of references such as "in MW:LL, they do it that way...", but I see none. Is it that the community thinks they did not implement the BattleTech universe well enough?

It is beacuase that game is a mod for Crysis Wars and most people do not have that. And buying a game for mod in it is ... weird.

[TheForce]

I never played it as my PC won't handle it.

I'll try it when I upgrade for MWO though.

[Cattra Kell]

If you look hard enough the MW:LL players poke their heads about such as myself and some are actually quite active on these forums, its just that its hard for a community of a hundred or so active at any time to stand out amongst the flood of the hundreds here at any given time.

It also most likely has to do with MW:LL having its own forums to talk about the game on while this board is more or less about the upcoming MW:O game and speculations towards it. I also notice a lot of talk about the tabletop which is a good thing and the novels, which is something that does happen on MW:LL but not as much as on these forums.

to sum it up, two different forums, two different talking points.

Tweaks, on 13 November 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

I'm just saying... there's plenty of references to World of Tanks or the previous MechWarrior games, but almost none to MW:LL. Look around, you'll see I'm right. I just find it odd. I would have expected a ton of references such as "in MW:LL, they do it that way...", but I see none. Is it that the community thinks they did not implement the BattleTech universe well enough?

I think the reason you see this is because where MW:O is an official game its only natural to talk about the previous official games. As for WoT it has to do with the fact MW:O is going to be a Free-2-Play game and is quite often brought up in regards to how the game will be balanced for paid content or even game balancing when setting up matchmaking (1 heavy and 1 light vs 1 heavy vs 1 light)

Once more see above, I think it has to do more with MW:LL having its own forums already.

[Threat Doc]

Tweaks, on 13 November 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

Is it that the community thinks they did not implement the BattleTech universe well enough?

+1. I followed MW:LL from its beginning, or from when they released their first video for the upcoming game. The devs there have done a beautiful job making a mech game, but stats, weapons, etc. are wrong. It is a fine mech game, but it is not a BattleTech game; it is an over-interpretation. It kills me when I hear devs, from anywhere, express that they're not going to include thus or so aspect from the TT game because it will make the game boring, but when asked if they even tried it out, first, they universally say 'no'. Each set of devs, as it will be with the combined PGI and IGP, will toss many things out they don't believe can be economically placed into the game, that THEY think won't be fun, and it's up to their interpretation. I know MW3 and I have read multiple times that MPBT: 3025 and Solaris were VERY close to the TT rules, and MPBT has been the most beloved sim to ever come out, to-date, so that tells me there's a LOT that can be simulated based on a closer interpretation, from the TT to the sim, than most will allow for.

It remains to be seen if this game will actually do what it's supposed to do, but if the devs are building an experience even remotely close to as beautiful as MW:LL, as accurate as MW3 and MPBT: 3025, and better fleshed out -planets, maps, 'Mechs, etc.- than any sim before, then these devs will have done what they needed to do. Of course, this all comes back to the argument of old timers vs. twitchers, but if the game is pretty enough and has a good deal of action, you'll have the twitchers, and if the action is as close as possible to the TT without sacrificing fun, you'll have the veterans.

Personally, I think that would be a pretty good mix. MW: LL is good work, and so is what MekTek has done, AT1:BT, BattleTech Simulator, etc.; the fire is alive, and if all of these Alpha personalities could be brought together, the game wouldn't just be very good, it would be out of this world.

[Raghnall]

Well probably because this forum is for Mechwarrior online not MWLL. Especially the general forum.

There is an active thread in off topic about MWLL.

Edited by raghnall, 13 November 2011 - 08:32 AM.

[Hartsblade]

Adridos, on 13 November 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

It is beacuase that game is a mod for Crysis Wars and most people do not have that. And buying a game for mod in it is ... weird.

Not a good reason Steam has CrysisWars/Warhead on sale all the time, it has been as low as $10.00, now that's not much to pay for a game/mod

Kay Wolf, on 13 November 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

Great opinion, but too much to quote...

I cut my teeth on BT TT back in the 80's, and yes the MWLL Dev's have chosen to add, omit and/or alter aspects of TT as they seem fit for various reason (playabilty, balance and engine/software restrictions to name a few), but it has not taken away from my enjoyment of the game. To say MWLL is not BattleTech is unfair and just not true. It is as much a MW/BT game as any of the previous comercial MW releases (and I have played them all at onetime or another). I understand you have followed the game from the beginning, but have you played? If so, when was the last time? It's a BETA and a lot has changed in a short time, and more will change before it is considerted finished. Jump on over, download the latest version and give it a try.

@the OP: To append my 1st post, there are a number of hardcoreTable Top players that will not accept any deviasion from the "rules", and that's fine, but I think they are missing out on a great MechWarrior MOD...where else will you get such beautiful game play and combined arms combat in a current MW and/or BT computer game.

[Steadfast]

Hartsblade, on 13 November 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

It might be because a large chunk og the MW4 players have avoided looking at it because there is no mechlad

MWLL is an awesome MOD, and if you haven't taken a look at it I think you should. One thing to remember it is still in BETA and content/balance is likely to change. Oh and there are a few MWLL references sprinkled around in the forums, you just have to look for them...we can be a subtle bunch sometimes

edit: typo

You answered it - well from my pov at least. Iam no inovator. I play things after the "masses" got in and after it is likely not to change much. I don't like playing Beta. you may enjoy it, of course, but I don't. And thus I don't reference to it.
Take care

~B~
Daniel

Edit: And, yes, the mod itself looks great, watched a few vids back than, realy great job all in all. But nuffin for me, you see?

Edited by Steadfast, 13 November 2011 - 09:46 AM.

[KingCobra]

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

[Threat Doc]

Hartsblade, on 13 November 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

I cut my teeth on BT TT back in the 80's, and yes the MWLL Dev's have chosen to add, omit and/or alter aspects of TT as they seem fit for various reason (playabilty, balance and engine/software restrictions to name a few), but it has not taken away from my enjoyment of the game. To say MWLL is not BattleTech is unfair and just not true. It is as much a MW/BT game as any of the previous comercial MW releases (and I have played them all at onetime or another).

That's precisely my point, "it is as much a MW/BT game as any of the previous commercial MW releases". Okay, make a BT style run-down of any of the 'Mechs on MW:LL and see how it compares to what IS in canon, and you'll find that it's not very close. Look, the problem is one of definition: if a mech sim follows the TT basis for BattleMech warfare, than it's an appropriate BT/MW sim. NOTICE I SAID BASIS, NOT THE EXACT RULES! The basis comes in more than names and general look, Hartsblade. Anything less is just a mech game.

Quote

@the OP: To append my 1st post, there are a number of hardcoreTable Top players that will not accept any deviasion from the "rules", and that's fine, but I think they are missing out on a great MechWarrior MOD...where else will you get such beautiful game play and combined arms combat in a current MW and/or BT computer game.

First, that's not really fair. We hardcore TT players have grown up with the TT game, have played it through, had mass arguments on rules, invested money, time, and emotion in this game and, when it's trivialized, as it was in the MW4 series, and through anything else that's been produced so far that was not at least marginally true to the rules, it actually hurts us. People don't have to invest in a video game very much, especially a mech sim, because everything's given to you, there in the game, the 'Mechs, the terrain, the weather, the opponents. You don't have to spend hours, in an admitted labor of love, preparing the battlefield, drawing up record sheets, and then pain-stakingly playing the game. Now, can I, and have I been able to enjoy playing the mech sims that have been produced for the MechWarrior/BattleTech universe on their own, even with rules deviations and such, individually? Yes.

Have I enjoyed them in multiplayer? Sort of. In MW2: Mercs I held a 2:1 kill ratio against 90% of pilots. In MW3 and Pirate's Moon I held an average 5:2, only a marginal improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. In MW4, despite however I practiced, however I put back in work the rules I learned in the previous game, I couldn't even hold a 1:2 kill ratio, because that game series was designed for insta-kill twitcher gaming.

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. MW4 is not related, in any way, despite any stamp that may be on the box, to the BattleTech universe; it is a sham, a twitch game, does not account for ANY of the elements in BattleTech, except by names and general shapes. In fact, MekTek, recognized as an authority for some time now on the MW games, felt they had to change rules in their MekPaks and mods to bring the game closer to the TT rules; why would they have done that if they hadn't seen the same thing much of the BattleTech and MechWarrior collective community saw?

Hartsblade, I hope THIS MechWarrior game will not cater to the twitch crowd, the ones who say that if they have their mouse over a target they should automatically and unequivocally hit the spot they're aiming at absolutely every time, the ones who want to ignore the lore. No, it's our turn, the veterans of the game, to have a game that is as close to BattleTech as can actually be made, and then perhaps we will be able to enjoy, wholesale, a game that all can play, but has a learning curve and requires some modicum of respect.

[stun]

Its because there is no mechlab, and a very small player base due to various reasons. Also, the mod has been in beta for quite some time.

Personally, something about the "feel" of the game just seemed awkward. Not saying its a bad game, but it just wasn't for me.

[Cyttorak]

Don't know too much about MWLL, so it's hard to say...but:
1) MWLL has vees, MWO will not...nothing to discuss there.
2) MWLL is built on Crysis, MWO will be built (presumably) on Unreal 3
3) MWLL has its own interpretation on artistic style, MWO will have its own.
4) Does MWLL have an economy? If not, nothing to discuss there.

Essentially, MWLL is most fully-realized in the models and art (AFAIK), but these are the points that few people would offer MWO suggestions on. WoT gets brought up often on these forums because what people are discussing are gameplay and balance issues...core game mechanics. MWLL has little to say on that subject.

[UncleKulikov]

What's Mechwarrior Living Legends?

I've never played Crysis. I play Tabletop.

[Hartsblade]

Can't seem to get the font colors to change, so my in quote replies will be italic and underlined...sorry.

Kay Wolf, on 13 November 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's precisely my point, "it is as much a MW/BT game as any of the previous commercial MW releases". Okay, make a BT style run-down of any of the 'Mechs on MW:LL and see how it compares to what IS in canon, and you'll find that it's not very close. Look, the problem is one of definition: if a mech sim follows the TT basis for BattleMech warfare, than it's an appropriate BT/MW sim. NOTICE I SAID BASIS, NOT THE EXACT RULES! The basis comes in more than names and general look, Hartsblade. Anything less is just a mech game.

MWLL does not claim to be a sim, but you are correct, if you are looking for a sim then none of the previous computer games cut the mustard. I would LOVE a BT based mech sim, but since there aren't any, I am willing to compromise and play the next best thing(s). I hope that MW:O is a more sim then not.

First, that's not really fair. We hardcore TT players have grown up with the TT game, have played it through, had mass arguments on rules, invested money, time, and emotion in this game and, when it's trivialized, as it was in the MW4 series, and through anything else that's been produced so far that was not at least marginally true to the rules, it actually hurts us. People don't have to invest in a video game very much, especially a mech sim, because everything's given to you, there in the game, the 'Mechs, the terrain, the weather, the opponents. You don't have to spend hours, in an admitted labor of love, preparing the battlefield, drawing up record sheets, and then pain-stakingly playing the game. Now, can I, and have I been able to enjoy playing the mech sims that have been produced for the MechWarrior/BattleTech universe on their own, even with rules deviations and such, individually? Yes.

Have I enjoyed them in multiplayer? Sort of. In MW2: Mercs I held a 2:1 kill ratio against 90% of pilots. In MW3 and Pirate's Moon I held an average 5:2, only a marginal improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. In MW4, despite however I practiced, however I put back in work the rules I learned in the previous game, I couldn't even hold a 1:2 kill ratio, because that game series was designed for insta-kill twitcher gaming.

Agreed, MW4 was my least favorite. Too little skill, to much point and shoot.

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. MW4 is not related, in any way, despite any stamp that may be on the box, to the BattleTech universe; it is a sham, a twitch game, does not account for ANY of the elements in BattleTech, except by names and general shapes. In fact, MekTek, recognized as an authority for some time now on the MW games, felt they had to change rules in their MekPaks and mods to bring the game closer to the TT rules; why would they have done that if they hadn't seen the same thing much of the BattleTech and MechWarrior collective community saw?

I agree again. I'm no fan of twitch play when it comes to mechs (I'm too old to keep up with the kids). If you want to enjoy a game using tactics and team play (not just a pick up pub game), I invite you to join some of the regular MWLL players on TS for some organized play.

Mechwarrior Living Legends Community Teamspeak 3 Server Information:
Address: ts9.gameservers.com:9144

You might be surprised. Oh and for the record, I don't really think MWLL caters to the "twitch crowd", trust me...I miss what I'm aiming at all the time.

Hartsblade, I hope THIS MechWarrior game will not cater to the twitch crowd, the ones who say that if they have their mouse over a target they should automatically and unequivocally hit the spot they're aiming at absolutely every time, the ones who want to ignore the lore. No, it's our turn, the veterans of the game, to have a game that is as close to BattleTech as can actually be made, and then perhaps we will be able to enjoy, wholesale, a game that all can play, but has a learning curve and requires some modicum of respect.

I'm hoping for the same, but until then I'm going to enjoy what is available to me now.

[zax]

Kay Wolf, on 13 November 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's precisely my point, "it is as much a MW/BT game as any of the previous commercial MW releases". Okay, make a BT style run-down of any of the 'Mechs on MW:LL and see how it compares to what IS in canon, and you'll find that it's not very close. Look, the problem is one of definition: if a mech sim follows the TT basis for BattleMech warfare, than it's an appropriate BT/MW sim. NOTICE I SAID BASIS, NOT THE EXACT RULES! The basis comes in more than names and general look, Hartsblade. Anything less is just a mech game.

First, that's not really fair. We hardcore TT players have grown up with the TT game, have played it through, had mass arguments on rules, invested money, time, and emotion in this game and, when it's trivialized, as it was in the MW4 series, and through anything else that's been produced so far that was not at least marginally true to the rules, it actually hurts us. People don't have to invest in a video game very much, especially a mech sim, because everything's given to you, there in the game, the 'Mechs, the terrain, the weather, the opponents. You don't have to spend hours, in an admitted labor of love, preparing the battlefield, drawing up record sheets, and then pain-stakingly playing the game. Now, can I, and have I been able to enjoy playing the mech sims that have been produced for the MechWarrior/BattleTech universe on their own, even with rules deviations and such, individually? Yes.

Have I enjoyed them in multiplayer? Sort of. In MW2: Mercs I held a 2:1 kill ratio against 90% of pilots. In MW3 and Pirate's Moon I held an average 5:2, only a marginal improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. In MW4, despite however I practiced, however I put back in work the rules I learned in the previous game, I couldn't even hold a 1:2 kill ratio, because that game series was designed for insta-kill twitcher gaming.

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. MW4 is not related, in any way, despite any stamp that may be on the box, to the BattleTech universe; it is a sham, a twitch game, does not account for ANY of the elements in BattleTech, except by names and general shapes. In fact, MekTek, recognized as an authority for some time now on the MW games, felt they had to change rules in their MekPaks and mods to bring the game closer to the TT rules; why would they have done that if they hadn't seen the same thing much of the BattleTech and MechWarrior collective community saw?

Hartsblade, I hope THIS MechWarrior game will not cater to the twitch crowd, the ones who say that if they have their mouse over a target they should automatically and unequivocally hit the spot they're aiming at absolutely every time, the ones who want to ignore the lore. No, it's our turn, the veterans of the game, to have a game that is as close to BattleTech as can actually be made, and then perhaps we will be able to enjoy, wholesale, a game that all can play, but has a learning curve and requires some modicum of respect.

This post is pretty funny, considering MW4 probably had one of the most varied viable mech configs, whereas MW2/3 were the games where mechs loaded up with 16 medium lasers and 1-shot each other. I'm not saying that MW4 was perfect; it still had a lot of issues. Still, slamming it as being the most twitchy of MW games probably has to do with the ease of control... and I must have missed the game design class that said players should have to fight with the game controls to do what they want to do.

Your success in MW2/3 probably had a lot to do with your age and general accessibility (or lack thereof) of online play in those games. MW4 was the game that brought online play to all players, and when the player pool is larger, the available skill increases. Also, the fact that you think that FPS games require no skill, thought or tactics shows your total lack of understanding of the genre.

If you want a battletech game that is true to the tabletop rules, then you're free to go gather a group of people to program a turn-based battletech game that WILL adhere to all tabletop rules. It probably wouldn't even take that much work compared to the Living Legends mod. In fact, after googling it, there are several games like that out there. Go play them and stop trying to drag your clunky, turn-based mechancs into a real-time game.

[CeeKay Boques]

Having a 50% TT crowd doesn't have to do much with the lack of press... I'm not saying anything because I didn't particularly like it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but it just wasn't... something. I enjoyed AT1 more f couldn't figure out what it was, I thoroughly enjoyed the slow starting and stopping, but other than that... I just didn't like it. So, if you can't say something nice... don't say anything...


The problem with catering to the "pure TT" crowd, is that once they've played a few hours (say, 100), they'll mosey back to their table top, while "video gamers" will keep this afloat....

Edited by technoviking, 13 November 2011 - 12:01 PM.