166 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 08 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

[redacted]

Thanks for proving my point

Edited by miSs, 09 March 2014 - 01:02 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But they ignore the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary in the BT universe.

Not at all. Everyone agrees the AC/20 should be scary. But its only supposed to be scary inside its 270m max range. The fact it has an 810m max range in MWO is absurd because it removes the traditional weakness of the AC/20 which is its lack of range. Furthermore it upsets the balance between the AC/20 and AC/10 because the AC/20 does more damage than the AC/10 at the AC/10s optimum range. The result is that the AC/10 is outright worse than the AC/20 on any mech that can equip an AC/20. Right now the AC/20 is one of the least balanced weapons in the game, right up there with the PPC and AC5.

Quote

The BT universe was created around the concept of there being a role warfare for a light mech.

No it wasn't. There's no role warfare in tabletop either. Lights are worse than Mediums which are worse than Heavies which are worse than Assaults. That's why bigger mechs have higher battlevalue. Role warfare has never existed in battletech or any mechwarrior game.

The reason people want role warfare in MWO is because MWO is the first game that says lights and assaults are worth an equal spot on the team. While battletech and previous mechwarrior games just accepted the fact lights were worse than every other weight class. Thats why the progression in mechwarrior games starts you off with lights and makes you work upto assaults. You never do the late game missions in a light mech because an assault mech is way better.

Quote

Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was erated multiple times

Nope. Battletech is actually one of the least errata'd games of all time. In 30 years the only major change to the rules was in not allowing pulse lasers to stack with targeting computers.

Quote

The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game.

The reality is this: This game is mechwarrior online. Its not tabletop online or battletech online. This game is a continuation of the mechwarrior franchise. So its pretty obvious which type of crowd it should cater to: the mechwarrior crowd. You want your tabletop fix? go play megamek. You want your battletech fix? Go play crescent hawk's inception.

Quote

All these things are not statements, they are facts and cold hard truths.

Half these things are blatantly wrong and the other half are your opinions stated as fact.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Nope. Battletech is actually one of the least errata'd games of all time. In 30 years the only major change to the rules was in not allowing pulse lasers to stack with targeting computers.

....
uhm....
That's completely false bud. There have been hundreds of rule changes since the first boxed set.....

[Khobai]

Quote

uhm....
That's completely false bud. There have been hundreds of rule changes since the first boxed set....

False. I own the 1st edition box set from 1985. There have not been "hundreds" of rule changes. Theres been less than a dozen balance changes in the various editions. And the only major one was the change to pulse lasers not stacking with targeting computers.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

False. I own the 1st edition box set from 1985. There have not been "hundreds" of rule changes. Theres been less than a dozen balance changes in the various editions. And the only major one was the change to pulse lasers not stacking with targeting computers.

sooooooooo

you're going to say there have been no major rule changes from 1st edition until now?

Let's see in first edition there were no
pulse
targeting computers
C3
Artemis
Inferno
XL engines
Clans
Clan Mechs
MASC
UAC
RAC
MRM
Aero Space

There's hundreds of others but that's just a quick short list off the top of my head.

P.S. First edition wasn't first printing in 1985

I owned Battle Droids in 1984

I'm a TT geek sir. I was a FASA Commando. There were tons of rule changes from 1984 to today

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 08 March 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

....
uhm....
That's completely false bud. There have been hundreds of rule changes since the first boxed set.....

He did say major though, and thats broadly accurate. The game mechanics are much as they were in 1986 as today.

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

No it wasn't. There's no role warfare in tabletop either. Lights are worse than Mediums which are worse than Heavies which are worse than Assaults (1). That's why bigger mechs have higher battlevalue (2). Role warfare has never existed in battletech or any mechwarrior game (3).

The reason people want role warfare in MWO (4) is because MWO is the first game that says lights and assaults are worth an equal spot on the team. While battletech and previous mechwarrior games just accepted the fact lights were worse than every other weight class. Thats why the progression in mechwarrior games starts you off with lights and makes you work upto assaults. You never do the late game missions in a light mech because an assault mech is way better.


Nope. Battletech is actually one of the least errata'd games of all time. In 30 years the only major change to the rules was in not allowing pulse lasers to stack with targeting computers (5).


The reality is this: This game is mechwarrior online. Its not tabletop online or battletech online. This game is a continuation of the mechwarrior franchise. So its pretty obvious which type of crowd it should cater to: the mechwarrior crowd. You want your tabletop fix? go play megamek. You want your battletech fix? Go play crescent hawk's inception (6).


Half these things are blatantly wrong and the other half are your opinions stated as fact.

(1) This however is completly incorrect. Mechanically an Archer played its optimum when it was behind the line and cover and thumping bombarding away, role warfare. The Warhammer / Marauder came up to the line and duked it out, role warfare, mediums rode the flank and supported with single AC5's or small LRM's, role warfare, Jenners and locusts making high speed sprint in and unloading, role warfare, Javelins and Wasps jumping around harrassing looking for crits, role warfare.

(2) bigger mechs had higher BV's because they packed more offensive and defensive potential. BV was about balance, so players could have 3 light mechs totalling BV of x and fight against a Clan Omni of BV of x and it was a fair fight. Of course heavier mechs had more resources, but that is far from saying they were better.

(3) Hopefully you can see this statement is completly unfounded. Most mechs played to their stated or implied role performed better in that role. The exception would be the 3025 Raven which at that time there was no EW equipment provisioned in the rules.

(4) I suspect the real reason is people want a sense of satisfaction for doing different things. Currently MW:O is a battle line, thats it. all mechs can do well in that but there are more diverse options. People want diversity, thats the driver.

(5) Much to my disgust

(6) This is just plain silly. If your product can appeal to and cater to a wider market it makes absolute commercial sense to engage. The game can be more flexible and accomodating without hindering its appeal to its core market.

Also, Mechwarrior and BT are intertwined. The RP game just gave tenure to the pilot and frameworks around day to day (in between tt engagements) MW:O is more like TT than it is MW atm as its simply pick mech, go to battle, fight or die. Thats as BT as it gets. Currently this game is nothing like any other MW game as the outcomes of one mission have exactly zero impact on the next. You observations are just as valid for yourself in that sense, if you want a MW experieince than the TT one this currently is maybe you should look at alternative games too? Just saying

Sandpit, on 08 March 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

sooooooooo

you're going to say there have been no major rule changes from 1st edition until now?

Let's see in first edition there were no
pulse
targeting computers
C3
Artemis
Inferno
XL engines
Clans
Clan Mechs
MASC
UAC
RAC
MRM
Aero Space

There's hundreds of others but that's just a quick short list off the top of my head.

P.S. First edition wasn't first printing in 1985

I owned Battle Droids in 1984

I'm a TT geek sir. I was a FASA Commando. There were tons of rule changes from 1984 to today

Awww come on, those aren't rules changes? They just added new weapons and defenses within the existing rules.

If you take that view every new mech is a "new rule'.

I think you're being a bit tough here Sandpit

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

Awww come on, those aren't rules changes? They just added new weapons and defenses within the existing rules.

If you take that view every new mech is a "new rule'.

I think you're being a bit tough here Sandpit

ok then...

Piloting feats
Piloting specialties
Skids
Terrain and LoS modifiers for indirect fire, etc.
smoke rules
close combat
melee
partial cover

I'm jsut saying that a statement of "No major rules have been changed in 30 years" isn't accurate. If that were true then you'd be able to walk into am official tournament today with a 1st edition rule book.

[Craig Steele]

Sandpit, on 08 March 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

ok then...

Piloting feats
Piloting specialties
Skids
Terrain and LoS modifiers for indirect fire, etc.
smoke rules
close combat
melee
partial cover

I'm jsut saying that a statement of "No major rules have been changed in 30 years" isn't accurate. If that were true then you'd be able to walk into am official tournament today with a 1st edition rule book.

Yeah, I still think you're being tough

I can play in a tourament with my 1st ed rule book and my stock mechs and I won't be out of place mechanically. Will I be competitive? Probably not but I can certainly play.

Move 6 hexes +2 to hit me, jump 6 +3, long range and -1 pilot, 10's to hit.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yeah, I still think you're being tough

I can play in a tourament with my 1st ed rule book and my stock mechs and I won't be out of place mechanically. Will I be competitive? Probably not but I can certainly play.

Move 6 hexes +2 to hit me, jump 6 +3, long range and -1 pilot, 10's to hit.

I guess so, the core fundamentals haven't changed much in that regard. It just seems like everyone is taking everything personally around here if you don't agree with them lately

[Varent]

wintersborn, on 08 March 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

Good points in the OP but may I add another balance aspect that causes new players to not have fun and leave not just make nerf posts.

It is the balance between new or less skilled solo players playing with the high skilled coordinated teams. They get frustrated, mad and find that the game has no place for them to have casual/solo fun.

Yes, its the evil pre made/sync drop boogie man issue as many call it but it is a real balance issue to a specific group of potential customers.

It seems PGI can not seem to please all player/customer bases without angering someone and I think that is the point of the OP.

I know more people that have left or stopped playing this game due to this issue than any weapons balance issue by far.

I know you guys with the tags next to your name or the TT fanatics hate this issue and think we should all conform or leave. To me it is less of a balance issue to conform to the meta than it is to conform to the pre made e-sport game play.

I actually do sort of feel this is an issue because it addresses a sort of... other group and community concept... the scrub versus the pro.... they shouldn't be int he same game together... however I think part of the problem is that our community is so small that we have no real choice in the matter. Frankly Id like to get numbers on how many people are logged in at once.... but I don't think pgi wants to release those numbers, even though it may help us understand this better. I don't know what the answer to this one is. There definetly needs to be a serpation of 'church and state' but im not sure how they can do it properly.. maybe game lobbies will help here?

[Varent]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Not at all. Everyone agrees the AC/20 should be scary. But its only supposed to be scary inside its 270m max range. The fact it has an 810m max range in MWO is absurd because it removes the traditional weakness of the AC/20 which is its lack of range. Furthermore it upsets the balance between the AC/20 and AC/10 because the AC/20 does more damage than the AC/10 at the AC/10s optimum range. The result is that the AC/10 is outright worse than the AC/20 on any mech that can equip an AC/20. Right now the AC/20 is one of the least balanced weapons in the game, right up there with the PPC and AC5.


No it wasn't. There's no role warfare in tabletop either. Lights are worse than Mediums which are worse than Heavies which are worse than Assaults. That's why bigger mechs have higher battlevalue. Role warfare has never existed in battletech or any mechwarrior game.

The reason people want role warfare in MWO is because MWO is the first game that says lights and assaults are worth an equal spot on the team. While battletech and previous mechwarrior games just accepted the fact lights were worse than every other weight class. Thats why the progression in mechwarrior games starts you off with lights and makes you work upto assaults. You never do the late game missions in a light mech because an assault mech is way better.


Nope. Battletech is actually one of the least errata'd games of all time. In 30 years the only major change to the rules was in not allowing pulse lasers to stack with targeting computers.


The reality is this: This game is mechwarrior online. Its not tabletop online or battletech online. This game is a continuation of the mechwarrior franchise. So its pretty obvious which type of crowd it should cater to: the mechwarrior crowd. You want your tabletop fix? go play megamek. You want your battletech fix? Go play crescent hawk's inception.


Half these things are blatantly wrong and the other half are your opinions stated as fact.

I... have no idea what planet you are from Khobai. Truly I don't.... But I think your very selfish and hard headed and unwilling to bend. And with the community we have those are not good traits. I mean honestly now im working to try and bring all these groups together and you are simply blatently hostile to the game just not being what YOU want. Im sorry but the game needs to find a way to get these groups to work together or it will crumble. Everyone needs to give.

Edited by Varent, 08 March 2014 - 10:53 PM.

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

Yeah, I still think you're being tough

I can play in a tourament with my 1st ed rule book and my stock mechs and I won't be out of place mechanically. Will I be competitive? Probably not but I can certainly play.

Move 6 hexes +2 to hit me, jump 6 +3, long range and -1 pilot, 10's to hit.

Thing is they added those extra things to work towards a more balanced game overall since the original concept wasn't very balanced. But im getting ahead of myself there and that's an argument that would go on for ages. Everyone in this thread needs abit more Zen.

[Varent]

also because someone brought it up regarding larger maps. There is of course the issue of the game stretching on too much because of maps. But that said there is the options of making different game types ones with larger maps and ones with smaller maps, more extended objectives and quicker objectives. To use an example from league of legends. They have game types that last.... 5-10 minutes and game types that can go up to 45 mins and an hour. Sign up for what you want and there ya go. Obviously there would be issues of divding the community over this though honestly maybe with our different groups we have... perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea and promote more harmony?

Edited by Varent, 08 March 2014 - 11:23 PM.

[Papaspud]

Totally different game styles, I tried TF- it was OK, but I lost interest after the second day. Just my opinion.

[Lykaon]

My point of view is based on what was pitched to me when I decided to buy in.

Mech warfare.

Information warfare.

Role warfare.

Community warfare.

The initial pitch for what was going to be MWo looked great.I do not feel it has been delivered.

Mech warfare has died on the alter of a limited meta where a handful of variants can be effective and true medium mechs have nearly no functionality because of a meta that makes medium mech play feel like COD with robot skins.Why pilot a 2 hit wonder when you could have brought a Victor and spam 30-40 point FLD alphas all game.

Information warfare is a loss because of the feature bloated ECM mechanics that have made ECM the end all and be all of information warfare and all the other support electronics like BAP NARC and TAG into a sloppy mess of "counters" to the ECM monstrosity.Is a BAP used as an Active Probe? nope it's an ECM counter.You don't probe shite with a BAP it's a 1.5 ton missile tax.Command console? nothing been here since the Atlas DDC but does nothing 2 years after being put in game it's a stillborn feature much like information warfare is.

Role Warfare? We have roles for mechs with ECM (entirely based on ECM not the chassis) we have roles for 35 ton jump capable lights (so jenners and fireststarters) We have roles for any mech that can be configured with jump jets and 30-40 point FLD alpha.Any other choice should have been one of the above unless playing "hard mode" is your thing.( I do love my Wolverine)
I would say role warfare is by and large not alive and well.

Community warfare? yeah about that,Oct 2014 is an estimated release.With the current track record for the design pillars of MWo I am not overly hopeful that CW will not be rife with exploitable mechanics and an overall general failure that will require "ghostheat" like arbitrary fixes to make it resemble a functioning system.

These are the problems I look to solve and I can say that recently I've been looking at MWo less and other forms of recreation more.

[Lykaon]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

False. I own the 1st edition box set from 1985. There have not been "hundreds" of rule changes. Theres been less than a dozen balance changes in the various editions. And the only major one was the change to pulse lasers not stacking with targeting computers.

There have been at least a hundred changes in the rules since Battledroids to Catalyst's "classic" Battletech.(probably thousands)

I remember when I could build a mech with 20 jumpjets and as many SRM2 as I wanted because jumpjets were only limited by tonnage and crit space (not based on walk move) and the SRM2 generated 0 heat.

I remember a complete lack of unit stacking rules.

I remember when there was only the autocannon.Before it was designated the AC5 when the AC 2/10/20 were added.

No BV mechanics to BV1.0 (second edition Battletech) to BV1.1 (Maximum tech supliment) to BV2.0 (classic BT)

At least 3 revisons of vehicle crit damage tables.

At least 3 revisions of aerospace in ground combat rules.

At least 3 revisions of infantry combat rules.

Gauss ammo was nerfed from 10 per ton to 8 per ton. from TRO 2750 to TRO 3050.

Heatscale was raised after TRO 3050 to meet the capabilities of DHS mechs and clantech.

I could probably go on for pages and pages of changes made to the game between Battledroids and the current version of Battletch.Game design is an evolutionary process and it suppose to evolve.

[Lykaon]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

also because someone brought it up regarding larger maps. There is of course the issue of the game stretching on too much because of maps. But that said there is the options of making different game types ones with larger maps and ones with smaller maps, more extended objectives and quicker objectives. To use an example from league of legends. They have game types that last.... 5-10 minutes and game types that can go up to 45 mins and an hour. Sign up for what you want and there ya go. Obviously there would be issues of divding the community over this though honestly maybe with our different groups we have... perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea and promote more harmony?

The larger a map is the more role warfare is promoted.

On a tiny map like River City there is no real disadvantage to having slow moving forces.You can not be out manuvered if even a slow mech traveling at 50kph has sufficent speed to cross the map in under a minute.

How much is too much time for a match? more than 15 minutes? more than 30? is it 45 minutes?

Let's say the counter argument is 'I do not have time to play a match over 15 mins." should the game design cater to players who do not invest time in the game?Should the low end be the benchmark for the product?

There is the question of acessability but at what cost? how much do we sacrifice to allow the lower end of time investors dictate the gameplay for more invested players?

I think your suggestion is a good direction to head towards.It does not overly penalize long session players and does not block access for more casual players with less time available (several of my gamer friends have recently spawned and their offspring demand things like food and dry clothing and being played with inconcievable frequency )

[Hexenhammer]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Nope. Battletech is actually one of the least errata'd games of all time. In 30 years the only major change to the rules was in not allowing pulse lasers to stack with targeting computers.

Sandpit, on 08 March 2014 - 09:11 PM, said:

....
uhm....
That's completely false bud. There have been hundreds of rule changes since the first boxed set.....

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

False. I own the 1st edition box set from 1985. There have not been "hundreds" of rule changes. Theres been less than a dozen balance changes in the various editions. And the only major one was the change to pulse lasers not stacking with targeting computers.

An erratum or corrigendum (plurals: errata, corrigenda) (comes from Latin: errata corrige) is a correction of a book or article. An erratum is most commonly issued shortly after its original text is published. As a general rule, publishers issue an erratum for a production error (i.e., an error introduced during the publishing process) and a corrigendum for an author's error.

53 page Errata for the Total Warfare book: http://d15yciz5bluc8...-2013-09-25.pdf

54 page errata for TechManual: http://d15yciz5bluc8...-2014-01-09.pdf

87 page errat for Tactical Operations: http://d15yciz5bluc8...-2013-09-20.pdf

[Craig Steele]

Lykaon, on 09 March 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

There have been at least a hundred changes in the rules since Battledroids to Catalyst's "classic" Battletech.(probably thousands)

I remember when I could build a mech with 20 jumpjets and as many SRM2 as I wanted because jumpjets were only limited by tonnage and crit space (not based on walk move) and the SRM2 generated 0 heat.

I remember a complete lack of unit stacking rules.

I remember when there was only the autocannon.Before it was designated the AC5 when the AC 2/10/20 were added.

No BV mechanics to BV1.0 (second edition Battletech) to BV1.1 (Maximum tech supliment) to BV2.0 (classic BT)

At least 3 revisons of vehicle crit damage tables.

At least 3 revisions of aerospace in ground combat rules.

At least 3 revisions of infantry combat rules.

Gauss ammo was nerfed from 10 per ton to 8 per ton. from TRO 2750 to TRO 3050.

Heatscale was raised after TRO 3050 to meet the capabilities of DHS mechs and clantech.

I could probably go on for pages and pages of changes made to the game between Battledroids and the current version of Battletch.Game design is an evolutionary process and it suppose to evolve.

I guess it depends where you want to drawn the line then.

To me most of these items are simply additions to the established mechanics for flavour or new equipment.

To me, the rules are about the mechanics, the cost to move a hex, the cost to turn, the chance to hit, and the chance to avoid damage. How my damage is applied. When the enemy is destroyed, when am I destroyed.

Has the game grown since I first stared at the Shadowhawk under a red targetting reticule, sure it has. Can I still play the game with those rules and my old maps, against current versions of mechs, absolutely.

The 'rules' (to me) haven't changed much at all. But it's a deeper more complex game with all the layers put on over the years.

[smokefield]

you put a lot of thinking in that post varent, all good and sound ideas..but i want to say only one thing - this is different than bt or any other previous game - its not a single player game, its not just a dm shooter (well...thats the final purpose at least ) and for sure its not the BT and its rules. So there must be a balance. without it you will see only meta builds on the field and no one wants that...its not fun to be forced to play only 2xppc 2ac5 builds because anything else is underpowered. so balance is needed. yes - there are a lot of idiotic ideas, some are not worth even a laugh thats how stupid they are, but the essence is - we need balance. and like someone else said - starcraft was and is an awesome game but it reached that spot in time....maybe it was a smoother trip but you cant compare blizzard with pgi

so - even i simpathize with your ideas, i simpathize with the balance ideas aswell. I do think that you need to fear an assault if you play a light or medium (at the moment this is actually a problem...a light can easily kill an assault if not more....if they play 1vs1 ) but in the same time we need to keep a balance so a build and a specific weapon is not too op compared with other builds/weapons. I do like to see variations on battlefield, different strategies, different builds and playstyle.

bottom line - its not easy to do that..but its not impossible either. whever loves this universe will continue to play the game (unless pgi does really something stupid...which is not excluded atm )..all others are just passengers