55 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot, right now, but rather introducing some data that you might find interesting, and then I will have a question for you all.

The following data comes from the Heavy Metal PRO folks, the long-recognized and respected BattleTech 'Mech designer, I believe recognized as official... http://www.heavymeta..._battletech.htm .

In 2004 was the 20 year anniversary of the BattleTech board game, and the following statistics pertain to that game...

An estimated twenty-five million people have played a BattleTech or MechWarrior game or read a BattleTech or MechWarrior novel since the property’s inception in 1984.

• More than eleven million copies of MechWarrior PC games have been sold to date.
  
• The BattleTech®/MechWarrior® story line is one of the most successful science fiction lines ever created. More than seventy full-length BattleTech or MechWarrior novels have been published by Penguin Books and translated into more than fifteen languages.
  
• Over three hundred and fifty different BattleTech/MechWarrior game and toy products have been produced to date; several products, such as the Technical Readout series, the core rulebook and base box set, have been in continuous print (in on form or another) since publication.
  
• Ten million people have played the BattleTech/ MechWarrior virtual reality game.
  
• More than eleven million MechWarrior: Dark Age Collectable Miniatures Game figures are currently in play on tabletops all over the world.
  
• More than five thousand World Wide web pages have been created to date by the exceptionally loyal, vocal and well-connected BattleTech/MechWarrior community.

Don't you think all of those who've played this game from the beginning should be honored for their loyalty to the game and its universe? Don't you think so many people love this universe over many others because of the fluff, the lore, the history, and everything that comes with it? If so, then why would you advocate for a point-and-click game?

[CoffiNail]

Who said this is a point and click game? Where have they stated it is a point and click game?

[Kudzu]

One of the big things I've noticed from the "ignore the TT" crowd is the fact that they have no idea what they're missing out on because they don't have a basis for comparison. They're so used to the point-click-kill gameplay that the idea of having fights last for more than a few seconds is completely foreign to them.

I really hope MWO keeps their promise and stays as close to the TT game as they can-- I have a feeling that it will open a lot of gamer's eyes to how much fun the setting actually is.

[Starne]

Don't you think you should keep it together rather than working yourself into a fury over "Pay2Win!" "NO SKILL!" and whatever "Point-and-click game" means?

We(the public) know next to nothing about this game and it's mechanics, it is ridiculous to jump to conclusions at this point

Frankly, all of these trolls are getting annoying. And they must be trolls, because there's simply no way so many people could possibly be so sensationalist.

Edited by Starne, 14 November 2011 - 01:28 PM.

[Silent]

With an opening line like, "I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot..." you set the stage for anything following it to be antagonistic.

Edited by Silent, 14 November 2011 - 01:49 PM.

[Creel]

Starne, on 14 November 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

Don't you think you should keep it together rather than working yourself into a fury over "Pay2Win!" "NO SKILL!" and whatever "Point-and-click game" means?

We(the public) know next to nothing about this game and it's mechanics, it is ridiculous to jump to conclusions at this point

Frankly, all of these trolls are getting annoying. And they must be trolls, because there's simply no way so many people could possibly be so sensationalist.

I'm not sure that you're qualified to speak for 'the public' as a whole. From what I'm seeing, there are as many here that are familiar with Battletech, as there are fans of only the MechWarrior franchise.

Please, try to express your point of view without imlicitly devaluing others.

[Corpsecandle]

Creel, on 14 November 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you're qualified to speak for 'the public' as a whole. From what I'm seeing, there are as many here that are familiar with Battletech, as there are fans of only the MechWarrior franchise.

Please, try to express your point of view without imlicitly devaluing others.

Think he's referring to MWO as a game (on which we have very little info), not the table top.

[DFDelta]

I think with "the public knows nothing" he meant that we don't know anything about MWO yet, which is true.
All we know it thats its a BT game thats supposed to be as true to canon as possible, at least I've never seen more information then that.

EDIT:
****, ninja'd

Edited by DFDelta, 14 November 2011 - 01:50 PM.

[Atlas3060]

I'll take my Battletech however I can get it.
Board game, MegaMek, MektTek's version of MW4, the Tesla Pods, RPGs, Heavy Metal pro, Solaris Skunkworks, minis, Battlecorps stories, old novels, etc.

[Starne]

Creel, on 14 November 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

I'm not sure that you're qualified to speak for 'the public' as a whole. From what I'm seeing, there are as many here that are familiar with Battletech, as there are fans of only the MechWarrior franchise.

Please, try to express your point of view without imlicitly devaluing others.

As others have said, when I said that "We(the public) know next to nothing about this game and it's mechanics, it is ridiculous to jump to conclusions at this point" I was referring specifically to MWO, not Mechwarrior or Battletech as a whole. And that is the truth, we(the public) know extremely little about MWO's mechanics, and it's foolish and irrational to jump to crazy conclusions about how the game will or will not work at this point. There's no need to get ourselves worked up over this. I'm sure the Mechwarrior franchise is in good hands, but until we know more, we need to keep our cool.

[CobraFive]

To the OP:

1) It is not a "point and click" game, I have no idea where you got that idea or why even bring it up.

2) I would be absolutely thrilled at a "point and click" style game, either a large-scale turn-based strategy or an RTS/RTT style, like a new mechcommander game, so don't broadly generalize the fan base by saying such a game would be disrespectful. I still play Mechcommander2's campaign occasionally, when I have few other games to play.

[T S Hawk]

Kudzu, on 14 November 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

One of the big things I've noticed from the "ignore the TT" crowd is the fact that they have no idea what they're missing out on because they don't have a basis for comparison. They're so used to the point-click-kill gameplay that the idea of having fights last for more than a few seconds is completely foreign to them.

I really hope MWO keeps their promise and stays as close to the TT game as they can-- I have a feeling that it will open a lot of gamer's eyes to how much fun the setting actually is.

I am in complete agreement here

[Threat Doc]

CoffiNail, on 14 November 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Who said this is a point and click game? Where have they stated it is a point and click game?

True, CN, and I should have spoken more plainly than I did. What I meant by those advocating for a point-and-click game are those who are, in fact, advocating for a point-and-click version of BattleTech, what a few of the iterations of our beloved MechWarrior are about. I was not, indeed, expressing that MWO is going to be point-and-click. However, once again, some of the posters in this thread, already, expecting a fight, have gone automatically on the defensive. :wink:

Kudzu, on 14 November 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

One of the big things I've noticed from the "ignore the TT" crowd is the fact that they have no idea what they're missing out on because they don't have a basis for comparison. They're so used to the point-click-kill gameplay that the idea of having fights last for more than a few seconds is completely foreign to them.

I really hope MWO keeps their promise and stays as close to the TT game as they can-- I have a feeling that it will open a lot of gamer's eyes to how much fun the setting actually is.

I wanted to like this, Kudzu, but I'm out of likes for the day... so [LIKE][LIKE][LIKE][LIKE][LIKE] !

Silent, on 14 November 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

With an opening line like, "I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot..." you set the stage for anything following it to be antagonistic.

Very true, but I was on my way out the door, to run some errands, and I wanted to get this taken care of as quickly as possible, so that's what I wrote.

Still, my original questions stand, if anyone joining this thread would care to give a non-defensive answer, please?

[CeeKay Boques]

I'll just bring this over here so as not to sully the "how come no one loves MWLL like they should" into this here "How come no one loves BT like they should" thread.

Quote

Kay Wolf, on 14 November 2011 - 08:38 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.

[rollermint]

When I saw point and click, I can't help but think of Diablo-styled "Point and Click" combat

Quote

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.

Bryan Ekman has already said that the game will not be decided by dice rolls. Look out into his post history. So that's that...for the dice roll crowd, I guess.

Quote

Player motor and tactical skills determine the outcome of battle.

• Motor skills are defined as a human's ability to manipulate an in game avatar using an input device.
  
• Tactical skills are defined as the ability to plan and react according the situation at hand. This includes selecting and tuning a mech based on the situation. Using reasoning and assessment skills during the course of battle in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Victory requires using these skills, in conjunction with the game design rules. We are avoiding artificial randomness aka dice rolls.

[CeeKay Boques]

I got a great way to settle this. Combat. So, without dice rolls, I am in uh... a uh... Panther. And I'm in heavy woods, there's some light woods etc. There is a lake between us. You're 1300m away in the Mech of your choice. What happens next? Try to incorporate every possible thing that might happen, and see if we can't resolve it without dice rolls, but allowing us to hit what we target.

[stun]

You already have your TT games.

I'm sure MWO will be more complex and involve more factors with shooting than previous mechwarrior games, but even if you thought mw4 was "point and click" then obviously your opinion is way off the mark.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 14 November 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

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.

It's not that we want it be a 2d6 system with fancy graphics, what we want is a system that properly represents WHY those +1 and -1's were in the TT game.

In the TT your average 4 gunner pilot standing still has an 8.32% chance to completely miss a target 30m away that didn't move-- and the chance to miss goes up from there as you add in modifiers for both mechs moving, terrain, heat, etc. The shots you did hit were scattered around the mech's body... because in this alternate universe the technology is less advanced in some places (like targeting) than in ours. BT is supposed to feel like WW2 fighter pilots strapped into walking tanks, piloting and shooting more by intuition than computer assistance. That feeling is what separates it from the other mecha titles out there.

In the other MW games once you got used to leading your target it was hard to miss at all, much less the specific section you were aiming at. This lead to really short fights and felt more like an FPS than Battletech. We've been down that road before, and it's ok in its own right, but what us "purists" want to finally get is a game that stays true to its roots and to share that with the people who don't know how fun it is to laugh as your enemy whiffs what should be an easy shot (ie: needs 3, rolls 2), or to get that crazy long range PPC hit you totally should have missed (needs 12, roll 12). We want a sim that rewards good maneuvering, teamwork, and heat management as much as it rewards twitch skills. That's why you see so many of us supporting ideas like expanding reticule cone of fire, canon designs, critical hits, and so on from the TT reformatted to work in a computer simulation.

Edited by Kudzu, 14 November 2011 - 03:58 PM.

[Inappropriate849]

From the OP:

Quote

Don't you think all of those who've played this game from the beginning should be honored for their loyalty to the game and its universe?

What's it with the entitlement generation? Piranha/MWO is a business. They don't owe you anything. They couldn't give a rats *** about your loyalty - if you give them your money, it doesn't matter if it's from a newborn click-and-win twitch hero or a battle-hardened TT veteran.

If MWO was an open source project and you were actively contributing to it, then they might owe you something. But it's not. Piranha has lot of people on their payroll, and these people have families to feed. Piranha execs owe loyalty only to their shareholders (likely themselves since I believe it's a privately held company) and their employees. Not to you.

Silent, on 14 November 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

With an opening line like, "I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot..." you set the stage for anything following it to be antagonistic.

It's the same as "with all due respect" - you know what follows is all but respectful.

Edited by CaptainSodom, 14 November 2011 - 04:00 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 14 November 2011 - 03:57 PM, said:

It's not that we want it be a 2d6 system with fancy graphics, what we want is a system that properly represents WHY those +1 and -1's were in the TT game.

In the TT your average 4 gunner pilot standing still has an 8.32% chance to completely miss a target 30m away that didn't move-- and the chance to miss goes up from there as you add in modifiers for both mechs moving, terrain, heat, etc.

I'm a 1/1 though. Or so I say. How do they know what my rating is? The pilot and gunnery rating is to simulate if an actual person were piloting that mech instead, and their strengths and weaknesses.

In Mechwarrior, I AM that Mechwarrior Can I aim through wind and gravity while moving in jiggly mech while you are defensively strafing at high speed through cover? I don't know, but I'd like to try. And if I hit, I'm a 1. And if I miss, maybe i'm a 3. If I can't hit the broad side of barn standing still, I'm a 6. But let the physics be so strong that I can be that gunner, without needing to compensate with "possibilities".

Quote

We've been down that road before, and it's ok in its own right, but what us "purists" want to finally get is a game that stays true to its roots and to share that with the people who don't know how fun it is to laugh as your enemy whiffs what should be an easy shot (ie: needs 3, rolls 2), or to get that crazy long range PPC hit you totally should have missed (needs 12, roll 12).

In league play, with your name and repuation on the line, that's not fun, its frustration. Its only fun over beer and pretzels when everyone is on the same dice rolling plane.

Quote

We want a sim that rewards good maneuvering, teamwork, and heat management as much as it rewards twitch skills. That's why you see so many of us supporting ideas like expanding reticule cone of fire, canon designs, critical hits, and so on from the TT reformatted to work in a computer simulation.

Me too. Except modern physics engines can handle these calculations, we don't have to compensate like we do in the TT. We don't have to make up modifiers to show "what it would be like if this happened" it can actually happen. If I fire from heavy woods and hit a tree, I hit the tree. There will be physically more trees in a heavy woods than a light woods. They really will be there, represented in full 3D.

If I'm behind partial cover, I don't need you to add +1 if you aim at my legs, you're really going to hit that object instead of me. In my opinion, TW and TacOps rules should be heavily referenced. But there shouldn't be a "and then randomly this happened! harhar!". Remember, the TT is to simulate what it would be like to pilot a mech. Now we actually can, without the restrictions that Turn Based, modifier heavy rules and RNGs bring. It can ACTUALLY happen.

Edited by Technoviking, 14 November 2011 - 04:30 PM.