104 replies to this topic

[PANZERKAT]

Arty and air are about as fun as stun lock builds in WOW or any MMO. Terrible experience. They are essential now, in many ways and when you take that attention away from the mech to a shiny you can attach to it, that's a problem.

Tie it to the Command console. It can't be making you MC or even that much if it is and this game has no need for a money sink regarding c-bills.. It has no player economy.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 19 August 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[Pht]

Noesis, on 18 August 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Just because you want the game to be a different way and follow TT rules more closely does not mean that we will not end up with a balanced game (overall) and a fun interpretation of BT.

... here and I thought myself and most others wanted a closer translation because the system being translated works better for the desired goal: a well working first-person FUN mech game set in the fictional BT lore.

Quote

But by all means continue to call PGI stupid cause they do things different to TT and how you want it. I call it being practical and realistic whilst looking at the bigger picture and is nothing to do with being a fanboi of PGI but recognising that reality sometimes needs you to be pragmatic and make compromises or allow for some differences to make things more fun than homogonised meaningless rulings that defeat the purpose of helping MWO.

You lay it on quite thick with that broad brush you're using. Have you ever considred that someone might want something done differently because it would be better to do it differently? ...and that someone might want a more fun game too?

In fact, if you want to use purely pragmatic standards, if they had picked up the combat system those numbers were built for, they wouldn't have had to have spent the time and the money and the man hours coding balances and rebalances and fixes and patches in an attempt to balance for the balancing factor *they chose to not use.* All the money and time that represents could have been put towards other ends.

Quote

In the end if PGI can add sufficient flavourings as BT and make a fun game to play I will be happy and I will spend money. I'm not interested in auditing how close things are to TT rulings and find that kind of "nitpicking" behaviour simply detrimental to the process when these things can be used as "PRECEDENTS".

"Flavour" - usually just another catch phrase for "ignore the standard. Just do what you want" ... unless you mean something different by the word.

You say you're not interested in how closely things follow the tt - well, if you think consistency is a desireable thing, you'd have to dislike like how the 'mechs perform in the lore - novels, etc. Why? Because the tt sets the boundaries and roadmap for how the mechs in the lore perform... and this is not my mere opinion - this has been confirmed by the people who create and control the BT ip. Using those parts of the combat system will result in 'mechs performing like they do in the novels.

You characterize it as "nitpicking" when it's pointed out that certain things weren't used. Do you realize that the things that weren't used are the things that describe how battlemechs do combat? In a game all about ... piloting battlemechs in combat? Is this irony lost on you? Again, not merely my opinion.

Noesis, on 18 August 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

... as your steadfast opinions ignore the possibility that PGI have the opportunity to make a fun game that does not need to follow TT rules in order for it to be overall balanced...

----

The fact that you sit there with naive ideas that TT rules can all be introduced without issue and that everything will run perfectly no problem with no technical or practical obstacles to overcome in terms of balancing the interpretation for a 1st person simulator, with numerous player choice needed, that is an FPS game from rules designed for top down, dice rolling, turn based, multi-unit board game without the need to refine these rules to work in this different context. You claim this and yet don't consider the practical ideas of achieving this and that it would simply happen.

----

The idea that tabletop has no problems is a flawed premise anyway as we all know the complications with the TT design. Even the designer has remarked about imbalances in the game. E.g. introduction of Clan tech and its application with BV, as one example.

Sure, PGI could make anything they want and probably come out with a fun game. That's wholly beside the point. The point is, the "name on the box" says "mechwarrior" ... that name has a meaning. You don't "open the box" and expect farmville. PGI has done a good job with what they've done; but they've mistakenly - and ironically - left the battlemech combat OUT of a game all about doing battlemech combat; all by making a simple and honest mistake ... and an easy one to make.

Besides the split reticules, the 'mech has no hand at all in aligning the weapons to hit what it's pilot is tracking with the reticule on the cockpit hud. All direct-fire weapons of like velocity fired at the same time hit perfectly under the reticule every single time.

So, if you overheat your mech and are running, that has *no effect* on your 'mechs ability to physically align the individual weapons to where the battle computer tells them to (and the mechs do this in the lore, and again, not just my opinion) in order to hit what their pilot is tracking with the reticule. As long as all weapons are of the same velocity and fired at the same time and the reticules are locked, everything hits perfectly under the reticule. Zero skill requried beyond timing the shot and putting the controller in the right place. You don't have to account for how the conditions are affecting the armored combat unit you're piloting.

----

Strawman. Virtually nobody thinks or says that the tt combat rules can be introduced with no issues and they will work perfectly with no obstacles.

I haven't even done that here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/ and if you can find a more serious, in depth, and original sources using post on the same topic, please... LINK ME, because I haven't seen it on these forums since they came up.

---

"The idea that..." again, a strawman. Nobody says the tt rules are flawless, not even me, and the decption that I have has been used before on these forums.

"Even the designer..." Wow. Designers have opinions. Who'd have ever thought it? Here's a thought... they can be wrong... and another thought, that if we took all of the stuff out that every designer didn't agree with, there'd be virtually nothing left... and the most important thought ... what about the poor saps who have to put up with people like yourself who say we shouln't have what WE like? Since when did people who LIKE what's been made suddenly become the underclass? Especially when there's now been five major implementations that give everyone else what they want, but not the people who DO like what was made what they want?

Quote

So lets use this example, if you made Clan tech the premier platform in terms of Mech use, don't you think that everyone would want to gravitate to this use as it is the most poweful thing to use? This even with balancing sides numerically to have overall similar strengths.

Use BV2, use the clan societal restrictions (per the books, they're socialist - which DOES have repercussions), use clan military structure (you have to fight for your rank, you have to constantly restest for your rank, etc - if you want more detail, ask cycloner M), use the infamous clan rules of engagement (which, btw, the servers already collect enough information to implement FULLY), and, yes, actually RESTRICT the numbers of clan mechs available... and these are NOT the only tools in the bag. Being a clanner or using clan tech has serious downsides, but because that doesn't show in the hardware numbers, everyone goes zombie-braindead and thinks there can be no way to balance things out.

Quote

But by all means explore your "ideals" if you wish. But the idea of arguing that MWO cannot be fun or have overall balanced gameplay with PGI's interpretation using TT precidents is not a fair position to take. That is just being a pedant for TT rulings in my book.

I suspect that now that you have no excuse to not know that there ARE good reasons for putting the mech-combat simulating parts of the lore into the game ... you might realize there are good reasons for thinking differently than yourself on this topic.

Edited by Pht, 20 August 2014 - 03:13 PM.

[Tamago Ausf F2]

WM Wraith, on 12 August 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

Can we make this in to bumper stickers for our mechs? Think we just found our new MWO slogan.

Sorry. late. Yeah useful.

[kapusta11]

All major problems we have right now is direct result of no following TT rules:

• No convergence - high pinpoint alphas
  
• Double heatsinks - only 1.4 in MWO
  
• 2.5 Faster rate of fire - stock even worse than stock dissipation
  
• Two above - energy mechs are obsolete

Edited by kapusta11, 24 August 2014 - 01:23 AM.

[Pht]

MecatamaMk2, on 24 August 2014 - 01:06 AM, said:

Sorry. late. Yeah useful.

Useful for what?

útil para qué? No, yo no hablo español, este es el traductor de google ...

kapusta11, on 24 August 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

All major problems we have right now is direct result of no following TT rules:

• No convergence - high pinpoint alphas

At least people seem to understand that convergence is an issue. Now if only everyone would realize that it's a problem because it means that the 'mech combat ... 90% isn't mech combat. The 10% we have in mech movement profiles and split reticules is great... but it's still only 10%.

The mech isn't taking part in the physical alignment of the weapons. It's not performing like an armored combat unit. It's performing like a large human avatar, which has always in the past utterly destroyed the feeling of "I'm doing combat in a BattleMech."

It's a kick to the teeth of immersion.

Edited by Pht, 25 August 2014 - 06:05 AM.