876 replies to this topic

[kosmos1214]

Kay Wolf, on 25 January 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

Well, if you don't want to be mistaken for a shooter/twitcher player, you shouldn't talk like one of them.

Do I want a BattleTech MMO? Absolutely! However, what I want for this game, now, is what PGI originally said THEY wanted to do with the game. It's why I paid for Founders, and it's why I've invested about five times more money in this game than I ever would in any cover, thus far. There are folks out there that have spent hundreds of times more than the standard game would cost, were it sold in a story. No, I want what PGI said they were going to do and, thus far, they are far off the mark.

let me start off by say i was not talking like a "shooter/twitcher player" i was talking like a game maker and what i said is true weather you like it or not making a good game trumps lore 100% of the time you can look for a lore friendly option but it does not change the fact that thats part of making a good game and in all honesty they have done a pretty good job for the time they have invested and as small a company they are part of it is all the technical issues they have had part of it is thing im shur hit them as oh yah we have to take care of that now how the hell do we do that

[Karl Streiger]

kosmos1214, on 25 January 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

no sorry but iv seen very few good ideas out of this community most of what they suggest pretty much all comes back to
"but lore says" witch is not how you translate a table top game in to an action shooter high bread and make a good game and fact is making a good game trumps lore 100% of the time period and most of the people making said suggestions get told why there idea is bad or wont work / is just plain imbalanced and rather then listen and try to come up with an idea that would work and is reasonably balanced they wine and through a fit and complain now im not saying this community is a bad one what im saying is they need to be open minded and try to come up with practical ideas that are actually viable 10v12 is the best example of a bad balance idea thats been given and despite having been explained very well why this is a bad idea it keeps showing up

have to kick in here.
The main problem of the "Lore Sayers" - they set TT = Lore - that is wrong. It was the wrong decision in the past (when the Lore was placed around the game) - for example high technology weapons and idiotic ranges may make some sense - in a post apocalyptic setting ( like Fallout)

Anyhow the idea was screwed in the moment they made Star League Tech and Clans available.
Those factions didn't had any "Armageddon" - so the short range doesn't make sense anymore.
They fixed somehow with the RPG and the newer rule books - that say that scale is not a matter of "lore" but the need to play this game on a table instead of firing at your friends miniature on the other side of a football field.

MWO could have made it right - ignoring any stats from the TT rather than the TROs (and even there they should have had some freedom)

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karl Streiger, on 26 January 2015 - 04:16 AM, said:

have to kick in here.
The main problem of the "Lore Sayers" - they set TT = Lore - that is wrong. It was the wrong decision in the past (when the Lore was placed around the game) - for example high technology weapons and idiotic ranges may make some sense - in a post apocalyptic setting ( like Fallout)

Anyhow the idea was screwed in the moment they made Star League Tech and Clans available.
Those factions didn't had any "Armageddon" - so the short range doesn't make sense anymore.
They fixed somehow with the RPG and the newer rule books - that say that scale is not a matter of "lore" but the need to play this game on a table instead of firing at your friends miniature on the other side of a football field.

MWO could have made it right - ignoring any stats from the TT rather than the TROs (and even there they should have had some freedom)

MWO has mostly changed TT/lore already anyway.....we have 2x ranges, numbers screwed all to crap. Clans that are not even remotely close to TT/lore badassness, and we have magical Everquest style Cleric buffs to IS mechs.

Aegolism VII: -50% To Energy Weapon Heat
Haste III: -12.5% To ERPPC Cooldown
Shielding VI: +12 to LT/RT Armor +6 to internal structure.


yeah,

[pyrocomp]

I may not be right, but MWO is not a TT reincarnation in 3D (there was a project on kickstarter, but I haven't seen where it went), I thought it was another adaptaion of the general BT universe, as a TT was adaptaion of said universe. E.g. ranges reflected also pilots aim (thus damage falling at large distances - not each shot landed square on, reflecting aim precision, recoil, mech movements, sun blasing in the eye), LoS stood for inexistent trees and shrubbery on the table and so on. That was adaptation to make a playable game that does not require constant dice rolls (thus turns and rounded fire rates and significantly less than 1000 dice rolls per turn).
Now there is MWO which can constantly check everything (heat, hit-reg hopefully and so on). The good real-time "TT-friedly" adaptation of BT in terms of MWO will be that for average player the average values (heat generation in 10 seconds of constant shooting, time to overheat without triggering GH, damage done at each distance per shot and so on) will more or less coinside with TT curves and values. And this is the point where community have almost no numbers to judge. If we want to have basement in such arguments "TT/Lore check/fail", then ask PGI to publish statistics or to use that statistic in their balance. I haven't yet seen comparison between TT-values and what real performance was in-game (not testing grounds). Always compared are TT-values and ideal ones. If there are enough interested palyers - run a private match (better a series), record it on every machine, analize it later summing in 10 seconds turns. Tell us the results and after that there will a documented point in this dispute.

[Khalar Terres]

Hi there.
I see some Problems here.
First Problem: Clan-Players dont want to see how overpowered their mechs are. It is a fact and if u try some ( same weight ) mechs from each side you will see. Sure , nobody will give up his nice Toy, but if we want to talk about balanced gaming we have to be impartial.

Second Problem: Make a balancing without killing the Spirit of the game, and the fiction.

PGI could make the following:
Normal Games just IS versus IS an Clans versus Clans. So nobody is hurt by to mighty Mechs or is angry about to hard changes .....
Open Gaming - Like it is right now.

CW : Mechs like they are in their Kind of gaming, but less Mechs in reserve for the clans ( like i wrote sunday ) . For this they have to check the value of every mech and see how "powerfull" it is.


And some save dropzones would be nice. Not that Duckhunting we see sometimes. Trapping the enemy at his dropzone is ok but killing instant while dropping is soo lame.

[kosmos1214]

Karl Streiger, on 26 January 2015 - 04:16 AM, said:

have to kick in here.
The main problem of the "Lore Sayers" - they set TT = Lore - that is wrong. It was the wrong decision in the past (when the Lore was placed around the game) - for example high technology weapons and idiotic ranges may make some sense - in a post apocalyptic setting ( like Fallout)

Anyhow the idea was screwed in the moment they made Star League Tech and Clans available.
Those factions didn't had any "Armageddon" - so the short range doesn't make sense anymore.
They fixed somehow with the RPG and the newer rule books - that say that scale is not a matter of "lore" but the need to play this game on a table instead of firing at your friends miniature on the other side of a football field.

MWO could have made it right - ignoring any stats from the TT rather than the TROs (and even there they should have had some freedom)

very true in the original vision of battletech if you look closely you can see where they dropped the idea of not haveing any useable mech factory's this got dropped very early in and yah tt ranges are in a word dumb and in the newer books they did have the sense to say that ranges where a gameplay thing not a lore thing. but i will say i am glad they dident go 100% there own way here on the range thing it can be easy to through the baby out with the bath water if you aren't careful

pyrocomp, on 26 January 2015 - 05:23 AM, said:

I may not be right, but MWO is not a TT reincarnation in 3D (there was a project on kickstarter, but I haven't seen where it went), I thought it was another adaptaion of the general BT universe, as a TT was adaptaion of said universe. E.g. ranges reflected also pilots aim (thus damage falling at large distances - not each shot landed square on, reflecting aim precision, recoil, mech movements, sun blasing in the eye), LoS stood for inexistent trees and shrubbery on the table and so on. That was adaptation to make a playable game that does not require constant dice rolls (thus turns and rounded fire rates and significantly less than 1000 dice rolls per turn).
Now there is MWO which can constantly check everything (heat, hit-reg hopefully and so on). The good real-time "TT-friedly" adaptation of BT in terms of MWO will be that for average player the average values (heat generation in 10 seconds of constant shooting, time to overheat without triggering GH, damage done at each distance per shot and so on) will more or less coinside with TT curves and values. And this is the point where community have almost no numbers to judge. If we want to have basement in such arguments "TT/Lore check/fail", then ask PGI to publish statistics or to use that statistic in their balance. I haven't yet seen comparison between TT-values and what real performance was in-game (not testing grounds). Always compared are TT-values and ideal ones. If there are enough interested palyers - run a private match (better a series), record it on every machine, analize it later summing in 10 seconds turns. Tell us the results and after that there will a documented point in this dispute.

yes you have very much the right idea a game based on a fictional universe is an abstraction of that universe and a 3d action game like mwo simply cannot pick and use a board games numbers with no changes and have a good game

Khalar Terres, on 26 January 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

Hi there.
I see some Problems here.
First Problem: Clan-Players dont want to see how overpowered their mechs are. It is a fact and if u try some ( same weight ) mechs from each side you will see. Sure , nobody will give up his nice Toy, but if we want to talk about balanced gaming we have to be impartial.

Second Problem: Make a balancing without killing the Spirit of the game, and the fiction.

PGI could make the following:
Normal Games just IS versus IS an Clans versus Clans. So nobody is hurt by to mighty Mechs or is angry about to hard changes .....
Open Gaming - Like it is right now.

CW : Mechs like they are in their Kind of gaming, but less Mechs in reserve for the clans ( like i wrote sunday ) . For this they have to check the value of every mech and see how "powerfull" it is.


And some save dropzones would be nice. Not that Duckhunting we see sometimes. Trapping the enemy at his dropzone is ok but killing instant while dropping is soo lame.

yes we do need to do something about the spawn camping
and yes when it comes to game balance impartiality is one of if not the most important things

[Threat Doc]

It's funny how everyone wants to bash tabletop, to put it down... "Oh, you can't have that, because it will suck in a computer game!" Well, guess what, for the past fifteen years I've been challenging those who wanted to make BattleTech adaptations on computer to do it by the books, for League/MMOG developers, ESPECIALLY MEKTEK, to do something with the game rules of the original, and there's not one chicken in the flock that has EVER tried it, they just all assume, like you do. Well, assuming makes you an ass... it's maddening to hear all the chickens clucking about how this and that can't be done, and they've NEVER EVEN TRIED IT!!! I guess, however, that ignorance is bliss, huh?

[pyrocomp]

Kay Wolf, on 26 January 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

It's funny how everyone wants to bash tabletop, to put it down... "Oh, you can't have that, because it will suck in a computer game!" Well, guess what, for the past fifteen years I've been challenging those who wanted to make BattleTech adaptations on computer to do it by the books, for League/MMOG developers, ESPECIALLY MEKTEK, to do something with the game rules of the original, and there's not one chicken in the flock that has EVER tried it, they just all assume, like you do. Well, assuming makes you an ass... it's maddening to hear all the chickens clucking about how this and that can't be done, and they've NEVER EVEN TRIED IT!!! I guess, however, that ignorance is bliss, huh?

Just which set of books you are reffering to? And what cannot be done specifically? For sorry, but I lost track along these posts.

[kosmos1214]

pyrocomp, on 26 January 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Just which set of books you are reffering to? And what cannot be done specifically? For sorry, but I lost track along these posts.

he means making a battletech pcgame that fallows the battletech rule books 100%

[Threat Doc]

kosmos1214, on 26 January 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

he means making a battletech pcgame that fallows the battletech rule books 100%

Oh ye of little punctuation or capitalization no, in fact, I do not. As I've expressed on many an occasion, the combat engine for this game is nearly perfect -am I beginning to sound like a broken record on this point, yet, because I think I am; however, when it comes down to anything peripheral to the combat engine, PGI has not cracked a single book on how to run a BattleTech universe like, oh, say... BattleTech. Don't blame me for harping on the FACT that PGI said they wanted to have this game be as close to the tabletop as possible, without sacrificing fun, as close to the lore as possible, without sacrificing customers. With the combat engine, they have more or less succeeded, but with anything peripheral, they have failed so totally, it's ridiculous. If what PGI has, now, or what their meager plans for the future may hold are represented by what we're seeing, now, is the closest they think they can get without sacrificing fun or customers, then they have woefully undershot that mark. I would just like to see the logistics, the salvage, the contracting, and anything that would not specifically be related to a MechWarrior MMORPG, use the rules given in the books, for once, and it's a cop out to not do so.

I do not want a game that is 100% based on BattleTech, but I would like an amalgamation that, like their combat engine, makes me feel like that's what I'm seeing and feeling from the game.

I have now given you plenty more words to twist, my verbally challenged friend, so twist away.

[Karl Streiger]

You can't have a Game that is 100% true TT.
If you want something similar - you have to go the way oof pure random - even when it would fix Hit Reg.
You need abstractions at some part - so instead of taking values and copy them - you have to unterstand them. For example you can include the average damage per range bracket into one value - and instead tracking multiple Ranges for multiple weapons you have only 3-5ranges - and the weapon damage changes.
Same could be made with armour.
So a comando may have 7 armor points.
It doesn't generate 100% values you can generate in Tt but on the average it fits (a TT comando can only withstand a Large Laser in 3 regions)

Ok this system would be a linear (but complexer system as Alpha StrStrike) - and would not fit the needs for a FPS Simulation - but i hope i was able to deliver the message

[Threat Doc]

Karl Streiger, on 26 January 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

You can't have a Game that is 100% true TT.

Okay, since I can tell, just from your first sentence, that you absolutely did not read what I wrote, our conversation is at an end. Good night.

[Karl Streiger]

Kay Wolf, on 26 January 2015 - 10:40 PM, said:

Okay, since I can tell, just from your first sentence, that you absolutely did not read what I wrote, our conversation is at an end. Good night.

Better Good morning - but like your 100% was an exaggeration - it was mine either.
I think you want the same as me - a game that feels more like BattleTech but our paths are different - and because the "Die Hard Core" is so discordant and sometimes arrogant we will never get what we wish for.
So sleep well

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Kay Wolf, please forgive me as I snip the key points out of your original post.

We've both been through this enough ... I think you know I'm not intentionally cherry picking bits to snipe at, just moving the conversation along.

"As I've expressed on many an occasion, the combat engine for this game is nearly perfect"
- and downright fun!
- it's not as well balanced as it could be (but -- as far as I can tell -- it's better than anything that has come before)
- while you often point to "overpowered lights" being an issue, the main issue is role warfare ... every light in the game is basically a skirmisher or a sniper/harasser rather than the scout/info warfare support 'mech they could be (this is one way that Sulfurous Rift gets it right ... a well-placed scout can make a successful defense)

"PGI said they wanted to have this game be as close to the tabletop as possible, without sacrificing fun, as close to the lore as possible, without sacrificing customers."
- while the rest of your statement is a bit exaggerated and/or speculative, the point is clear ... they said they want to do more.

"they have failed so totally, it's ridiculous."
- I don't think for a minute that the "Community Warfare" that we see now, a month and a half after BETA launch, is the complete realization of their dreams any more than the Mech Warfare pillar was close to complete during closed (or even open) BETA.

"I would just like to see the logistics, the salvage, the contracting ... I do not want a game that is 100% based on BattleTech, but I would like an amalgamation that, like their combat engine, makes me feel like that's what I'm seeing and feeling from the game."
- Keep talking about good ideas (and these are good ideas), and I think they'll keep listening. However, I don't expect that we'll be anywere near the depth that you're proposing for at least another year.

I'd go back and do a forum search for the "in the beginning" "dev blog" posts that I know Russ, Bryan, and Paul did about three and a half years ago that talked about the stacks of reference books that were at one time on Russ' desk, but you can find them as easily as I can. I was excited about that game. I'm still hopeful about the game that this one can be. In the meantime, I'm still having fun.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 26 January 2015 - 11:30 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Yeah, the whole clan balance thing. The more I play this game, the more I see Clan weapons are a goddamn JOKE. LBX, useless, SRMs? Useless, anything but mass laser vomit, absolutely USELESS.

Ive been trying out my LBX20, 3 ML, 2 ASRM6 Warhawk build. And so far its a damn joke. I have come around a corner, kissed a mech and unloaded dead center into them and had them walk away not even dented.

Hell, just now, a Battlemaster on a bridge in Mordor, I walk up, nuke him with all Ive got and back away....I crest again and unload....like 56 some damage or however much dead center, nothing......hes still standing, yet I died no issue....

All during that match, I was unloading ML/MPL and LBX up a hill into guys on a bridge in Mordor, I end with 605dmg, but despite unloading in a few guys with weak and stripped CT, no kills. really? All that spread on Clan weapons is whats making them ****. Clans OP? everyone can just stfu and gtfo with that.

[Karl Streiger]

Doesn't read like its a specific problem of the weapon - but the time you engage a target.
the warhawk you describes is a finisher - find a friend - place him in another warhawk with 2 ERPPCs and a Gauss - and have fun.

[Lily from animove]

LordKnightFandragon, on 26 January 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

MWO has mostly changed TT/lore already anyway.....we have 2x ranges, numbers screwed all to crap. Clans that are not even remotely close to TT/lore badassness, and we have magical Everquest style Cleric buffs to IS mechs.

Aegolism VII: -50% To Energy Weapon Heat
Haste III: -12.5% To ERPPC Cooldown
Shielding VI: +12 to LT/RT Armor +6 to internal structure.


yeah,

but this is an important thing to do, given that you can only field one mech and that by lore there were worse and better mechs. while in a shooter like this, no one would use those mechs, due to being worthless. TT = one general, one army. MWO = one pilot one mech.
Thats why on ilder MWO games, the "construction rules" were not real rules, and all mechs were basically totally free to equip. this made them more balanced and only tonnage nd ES/FF slots were a diffrence. This made mechs not useless, just a bit less efficient epending on their tonnage. But in mwo the gap between a vindicator/Nova and a SCR? couldn't be any bigger. in MW3 the difference would be very minor. So quirks are needed, or PGI coul delete 50% of the mechs due to being obsolete and only used by a minor ahrdcore fetischistic chassislovers. would make the client smaller, game maintenance easier etc. or they could try to ad diversity by balancing those mechs. Purely free construction rules, would help, but are less lore. Quirks are also not lore but allow sticking closer to the lorelike construction rules.

Many pathes to go, none is wrong, non is right, they all just differ having their own issues and advantages.

and TT never took geometry into accoutn while in a shooter, this is a major factor of how good something performs..
S unless you make MWO into a turn based dice dependend 24 player TT simulator, you will not be able to stick totally to TT.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karl Streiger, on 27 January 2015 - 03:03 AM, said:

Doesn't read like its a specific problem of the weapon - but the time you engage a target.
the warhawk you describes is a finisher - find a friend - place him in another warhawk with 2 ERPPCs and a Gauss - and have fun.

Lol, I was following a group of mechs in a pug there. They attacked, a Protector walks right in front of me, I aim dead center, no joke, 2 feet away, center mass and KABLAM.......he doesnt die? Ofc, he dies seconds later.

I spent the rest of the match firing up into guys on a bridge on Mordor......but its not that hard to see Center mass on a mech.....not really liking that build at all for sure. It doesnt even fire that fast either.

[pyrocomp]

Well, I don't think the combat engine is nearly perfect, it has much room for improvement, but it is already not bad. As for the additional game elements and small details that could strongly enhance impression for fans and will not confuse newcomers... Well yes, they are m mostly missing. But let's keep in mind, that this game is still beta. I hope that later there will be logistics (in terms of CW units transfer, which requires transparent campaign and operations, in terms of storage space in mechlab), more attention to what is field customization and what is a new variant (and included costs and times to order that), some minor tips like showing Timberwolf on the IS infosystems as MadCat (or twich from Maradeur to Catapult, it is a beginning of clan invasion after all) an so on. But to be fair, the game fell into some kind of balance only few month ago. Now the balance can be tuned, and content added. So some kind of a sorted by priority wishlist from the community has a chance to go through. There is no such list readily available as I see on this forum.
PS: As for book set it's a viable question what to take, novelizations and magazines are somewhat contradictory... Maybe define some source (Sarna?) as primary?

[LordKnightFandragon]

So if Clans can never get standard shot on their LBX, can they simply get a much tighter CoF on the shot period?