29 replies to this topic

[Captain Stiffy]

Mechwarrior is NOT played on an open field containing only mechs. They also have rules for stability and collision damage, among other things.

I can understand the desire to want to sell mech's but it simply is not going to be possible to balance everything in this environment.

In no particular order;
Elementals, tanks, artillery, planes, mines, entrenched infantry, falling damage, collision damage, piloting skill, gunnery skill...

This could go on and on and on. So long as this game is focused only on selling mechs and not adding in the rest of Mechwarrior it will not in any way be balanced. Certain base concepts present in the weapon designs such as MG's being anti-infantry (and there's a reason why almost every mech has them that can mount them) or faster mechs not being able to just run in silly circles over uneven city terrain are totally being ignored.

Maybe they should have called it "Battletech Online" because it's not "Mechwarrior" in the slightest. Mechwarrior implies the expanded game, Battletech implies the tabletop mini's game and (though they can be played together) this game is NOT "Mechwarrior" it is "Battletech" and they need to adjust or get their priorities right. (TLDR)

And sadly it doesn't even qualify for CityTech.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 27 November 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Khobai]

The game is mechwarrior, as such the focus should be on mechs, but theres certainly no reason we cant have gamemodes that feature NPC infantry and vehicles. Machine guns and flamers could even do double damage to them lol.

[Captain Stiffy]

Khobai, on 27 November 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The game is mechwarrior, as such the focus should be on mechs, but theres certainly no reason we cant have gamemodes that feature NPC infantry and vehicles. Machine guns and flamers could even do double damage to them lol.

You have no idea what you are saying, do you?

[Adiuvo]

The Mechwarrior games have traditionally focused solely on mech combat. What you're suggesting would be great to have but it is beyond the scope of the game.

The game's balance in no way relies on the existence of what you describe either, because they aren't using strictly tabletop values.

[Homeless Bill]

You realize it's taken them over a year to get us a new UI, right? And we're still waiting on that whole Community Warfare / reason to play thing? Yeah, this would be a massive waste of time that would introduce a host of new balance problems.

I'd love a combined arms version of this game, but we need to be realistic about scope. PGI can barely do what they're doing now; it's ludicrous to think adding tons of {Scrap} would solve more balance problems than it would create.

They're not going to call it Battletech: Online because name recognition.

There are many ways they can improve balance, and I'd rather focus on those than whine about what we don't have and never will have.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 27 November 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The game is mechwarrior, as such the focus should be on mechs, but theres certainly no reason we cant have gamemodes that feature NPC infantry and vehicles. Machine guns and flamers could even do double damage to them lol.

The thing is, wouldn't it be better to just use a Medium Laser to kill infantry? A 1-second beam duration means a lot of guys are gonna die from just one sweep. MGs would actually be inefficient against infantry because most shots would miss the little guys entirely.

[Hellcat420]

Captain Stiffy, on 27 November 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Mechwarrior is NOT played on an open field containing only mechs. They also have rules for stability and collision damage, among other things.

I can understand the desire to want to sell mech's but it simply is not going to be possible to balance everything in this environment.

In no particular order;
Elementals, tanks, artillery, planes, mines, entrenched infantry, falling damage, collision damage, piloting skill, gunnery skill...

This could go on and on and on. So long as this game is focused only on selling mechs and not adding in the rest of Mechwarrior it will not in any way be balanced. Certain base concepts present in the weapon designs such as MG's being anti-infantry (and there's a reason why almost every mech has them that can mount them) or faster mechs not being able to just run in silly circles over uneven city terrain are totally being ignored.

Maybe they should have called it "Battletech Online" because it's not "Mechwarrior" in the slightest. Mechwarrior implies the expanded game, Battletech implies the tabletop mini's game and (though they can be played together) this game is NOT "Mechwarrior" it is "Battletech" and they need to adjust or get their priorities right. (TLDR)

And sadly it doesn't even qualify for CityTech.

hmm thats interesting because in my old battletech box they rules and sheets are there for infantry, elementals, aircraft, tanks etc. terrain also effects movement in battletech. mechwarrior video games were never as involved as battletech with the stuff you describe unelss you ignore half of the battletech game. the mechwarrior companion for battletech(which predates the video games) had nothing to do with what you describe. it was the pen and paper system to play your mechwarrior, pilot, infantry, or whatever you wanted to be in teh battletech universe. the mechwarrior videogames have always been arcade watered down versions of battletech.

Edited by Hellcat420, 27 November 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Sandpit]

I'm glad someone finally got the nerve to post on this

[Mystere]

Captain Stiffy, on 27 November 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Elementals, tanks, artillery, planes, mines, entrenched infantry, falling damage, collision damage, piloting skill, gunnery skill...[/size]

I can imagine the forums now:

QQ. QQ. Bloody hell QQ. Elementals are even more stoopid than those stoopid Spiders. Remove those POS OP Elementals from the game NOW!!!

Rage quit.

Rage quit.

Rage quit.

Edited by Mystere, 27 November 2013 - 03:12 PM.

[FupDup]

Mystere, on 27 November 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

I can imagine the forums now:

QQ. QQ. Bloody hell QQ. Elementals are even more stoopid than those stoopid Spiders. Remove those POS OP Elementals from the game NOW!!! Rage quit. Rage quit. Rage quit.

FIX ELEMENTAL HITBOXES NAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sadist Cain]

Adiuvo, on 27 November 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

beyond the scope of the game.

Spelt "Company" wrong.

[Asmudius Heng]

I kinda agree - I think non-mech units would be great to have as simplistic AI to guard and patrol areas.

If the commander could give limited order for them it would be ace too.

I think being able to send infantry to control a point that would slow down capping or something would be great and do limited damage to mechs - but would be slaughtered by machine guns and flamers.

Or controlling a point would give you access to light tank to guard it or send to certain points.

Really simple stuff that would pose no major threat to mechs but would serve a more tactical purpose.

sigh i can dream right. ..

[Sandpit]

****** Cain, on 27 November 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Spelt "Company" wrong.

Oh the irony

[Hellcat420]

one correction to my post above. elementals were introduced in the 3050 tro, not the box set.

[Captain Stiffy]

Well what forms they take are up to the developers but it's really easy to include them spawning in guarding bases, etc... like when you flip a base it spawns fresh infantry to defend it that while they don't prevent capping they do damage enemy mechs that are close by... and also die easily to MG's and flamers but are harder to target with larger guns... etc.... it goes on and on.... but these things shouldn't be totally ignored because there IS FAR MORE TO MECHWARRIOR THAN BATTLEMECHS!

[Captain Stiffy]

Homeless Bill, on 27 November 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

You realize it's taken them over a year to get us a new UI, right? And we're still waiting on that whole Community Warfare / reason to play thing? Yeah, this would be a massive waste of time that would introduce a host of new balance problems.

I'd love a combined arms version of this game, but we need to be realistic about scope. PGI can barely do what they're doing now; it's ludicrous to think adding tons of {Scrap} would solve more balance problems than it would create.

They're not going to call it Battletech: Online because name recognition.

There are many ways they can improve balance, and I'd rather focus on those than whine about what we don't have and never will have.

I get you, my point is less that they need to rename the game and more that they need to include more than 1/100th of the franchise that they paid for. If it's anything like buying a Robotech license? When they bought it they got... t r u c k l o a d s of material about everything involving battletech and mechwarrior or at the least have access to it.

I'm just saying that there's no REASON for it to be absent - not even development time - because it easily could have taken the place of things they are adding that aren't even cannon.

Just want to add that I am trying to be constructive here - this is not about trashing what they have chosen to build from the franchise - this is about wanting this game to include more of it.

[Hellcat420]

Captain Stiffy, on 27 November 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I get you, my point is less that they need to rename the game and more that they need to include more than 1/100th of the franchise that they paid for. If it's anything like buying a Robotech license? When they bought it they got... t r u c k l o a d s of material about everything involving battletech and mechwarrior or at the least have access to it.

I'm just saying that there's no REASON for it to be absent - not even development time - because it easily could have taken the place of things they are adding that aren't even cannon.

Just want to add that I am trying to be constructive here - this is not about trashing what they have chosen to build from the franchise - this is about wanting this game to include more of it.

you need to stop mixing up battletech and mechwarrior. mechwarrior didnt add anything to battletech that you listed in your op. the mechwarrior companion took battletech from a game of military battles to a game of military campaigns(kind of like what community warfare is supposed to be). it added things such as travel time between planets, non generic pilots/mechwarriors, etc.

Edited by Hellcat420, 27 November 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[Captain Stiffy]

Hellcat420, on 27 November 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

you need to stop mixing up battletech and mechwarrior

OK so... I want to be clear...

Quote

MechWarrior is a role-playing game (RPG) based on and set in the BattleTech universe.

So in order to make sense of that we have to go to the boxes. What says mechwarrior on it? What says Battletech? What says CityTech? Etc... all?

Honestly this only further highlights my point - there is no role playing involved here outside of choosing stickers. They do have plans for it - and I commend them on this point because it's one of the few things giving any real Warrior flavor to the Battle? Right?

damnitt what is with the bouncing cursor whenever you change font type and forever after you do

I honestly believe that part of the 'balance issues' they are experiencing is that you cannot make certain very common weapons, mechs or tactics that were intended to balance the game work without including the rest of the game? Some of this is pure philosophy - but some of it is not. Alllllll the way down to how the mechs are designed is intended to include infantry, tanks, etc...

Just ask the firestarter.

[Hellcat420]

Captain Stiffy, on 27 November 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

OK so... I want to be clear...



So in order to make sense of that we have to go to the boxes. What says mechwarrior on it? What says Battletech? What says CityTech? Etc... all?

Honestly this only further highlights my point - there is no role playing involved here outside of choosing stickers. They do have plans for it - and I commend them on this point because it's one of the few things giving any real Warrior flavor to the Battle? Right?

damnitt what is with the bouncing cursor whenever you change font type and forever after you do

I honestly believe that part of the 'balance issues' they are experiencing is that you cannot make certain very common weapons, mechs or tactics that were intended to balance the game work without including the rest of the game? Some of this is pure philosophy - but some of it is not. Alllllll the way down to how the mechs are designed is intended to include infantry, tanks, etc...

Just ask the firestarter.

yes mechwarrior is the rpg. no it did not add tanks, infantry, etc. to battletech. battletech already had these things. and yes i agree with you that mwo needs much more than just mechs.

[Captain Stiffy]

Hellcat420, on 27 November 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

yes mechwarrior is the rpg. no it did not add tanks, infantry, etc. to battletech. battletech already had these things. and yes i agree with you that mwo needs much more than just mechs.

It is definitely partly my own perspective; Battletech did have those things but as it was normally played around the tables where I played it we didn't include those things and I think most people didn't. The leagues and/or very rich/hardcore players with tons of minis and hexalite and stuff... yes very much so.

But count on one hand the number of people who have played in a tourney compared to the number of box sets ever sold. That's just my explanation for why I started in on the Battletech/Mechwarrior thing. To me, BT is MW without all the craziness - mech brawling. Craziness is not a good word - perhaps I should say complication.

But regardless of what you call it, with no collision and absolutely no destructable environments they have their work cut out for them balance-wise. I wish they would see that they have tools to help balance that were already designed for their game.

Edited by Captain Stiffy, 27 November 2013 - 04:09 PM.