202 replies to this topic

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 October 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Here is a list of things I was fine with being changed that were done poorly by PGI.

Heat...I'm fine with playing with it to make it work...it's terrible how it is now and excluding heat penalties has been an epic fail.

Hard Points...I'm fine with allowing a level of customization...full customization and the ability to swap small lasers for PPC's and MG's for Gauss Rifles has been at the heart of nearly every single major issue this game has. Another epic fail.

Firing Rates and Cooldowns...I'm fine with adjusting them to make the game more fun for real time...yup, they messed this one up too, I mean just once again look at the big weapons, they are finished their cooldowns so quickly that PGI had to add other fixes to stop people from brawling with PPC's and Gauss Rifles.

Then there are the stupid things PGI added all on their own.

ECM...this is a real duh moment for me, when I realized PGI was too dumb to be trusted with this game...there was no need to make ECM do what it does, and it's led to having so many stupid changes within the game. So frustrating.

Adding Ghost Heat...due to the stupid decisions above...they decided to add Ghost Heat to address them. Hey guys, it's cool that my LRM 30 causes more heat than my LRM 40, no bigs.

Lastly a big one which is oddly frustrating...armor and components.

One of the most astonishing things PGI has done is adding separate components that are destroyable...and at the core of it, it's a REALLY technically well done system. It was adapted very well from TT.

The problem is...and they adapted that system so well and failed at all the rest of the systems...while neglecting the fact that the reason a component system works is because you couldn't really pick the spot you shot at EVERY FREAKING SHOT was just head shakingly bad.

So see folks, this isn't about Battletech rules not being good for Mechwarrior: Online. This is about PGI not being able to properly adapt the rules from Battletech to put them into Mechwarrior: Online.

And the community has tried for YEARS to explain this to them. With some extremely well thought out ideas on how to fix it.

this and you forget I suppose PP FLD

and Im tired off wheelcharing

[Mirkk Defwode]

Kiiyor, on 05 October 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

Um... plastic... furniture?

Or the blind adherence to numbers and concepts from the technical manuals and rulebooks?

Part of my measure for the Mechcommander and Mechwarrior games was the effectiveness of TRO designs. Now Mechwarrior 4 fell flat on it's face for most of those designs but some worked admirably.

I'm sorta seeing the same thing in MWO, but I think stjobe is right in saying that if you're taking core values and changing the time scale you need to do the same thing across the board to keep it in line with the original math. I wouldn't mind seeing an experiment done with swapping all the weapon values like that and seeing how it plays out.

If nothing else I'm of the opinion a lot of stuff needs a pretty expansive overhaul. Even if we don't keep the original values from tabletop we have to at least adhere to their function and purpose.

Savage Wolf, on 05 October 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

...
Which is the perfect excuse to make changes.

Depends on what their license allows them to do. They don't own it. They're just leasing it temporarily from Microsoft.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Wolfways, on 05 October 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

ArtemisIV must be applied to every launcher of a similar type(LRM or SRM). No idea why. Maybe it's something to do with the mechs computer.

The Artemis IV system is a guidance computer to make your missiles track to the target in a more efficient manner. So it's a swapping out of the standard guidance computer for a more advanced one. The guidance system in the missiles is upgraded to properly "talk" to the smarter system.

[Mirkk Defwode]

IceSerpent, on 05 October 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

...
I hate to break news to you, but for example NBT-HC had league drops limited by overall tonnage and I don't recall any arguments about who gets to drive the heaviest mech. Not everybody preferred a 100t assault.

I played through all of NBT4 to HC and I preferred lights and mediums.Part of that is the map sizes allowed for more varied combat including full on hit and run tactics. the MWO maps generally are too small for this behavior, but my preference for mech sizes hasn't changed much if I'm not trying to work on getting a mech leveled up then I default to taking a light or a medium and I still think those are the most fun.

[Roadbeer]

Meh,
OP dropped this **** then abandoned it.

[Triordinant]

All I can say is if it wasn't for BattleTech and people's love for it this game would not have made it past the middle of 2013.

[IceSerpent]

Mirkk Defwode, on 06 October 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

I played through all of NBT4 to HC and I preferred lights and mediums.Part of that is the map sizes allowed for more varied combat including full on hit and run tactics. the MWO maps generally are too small for this behavior, but my preference for mech sizes hasn't changed much if I'm not trying to work on getting a mech leveled up then I default to taking a light or a medium and I still think those are the most fun.

I hear you. I always preferred mediums and heavies myself.

[NocturnalBeast]

I am sad that people who do not love the Battletech IP make whiney threads like these wanting to make MWO into something different. This game would not exist without Battletech.

[Hospy]

Triordinant, on 06 October 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

All I can say is if it wasn't for BattleTech and people's love for it this game would not have made it past the middle of 2013.

I doubt it would have funded at all, actually.

[InspectorG]

Battletech will never = Mechwarrior.

Like porting a novel to a movie or vice versa...

It can 'work' but will never be same/equal.

Overall, compared to other stompy robot games. Seems close as it can currently get.

Add more MW spectrum it will get more twitchy.

Add more BT and it will get more 'turn based'.

Also,the pendulum will only stop when PGI declares it a finished game.

[Roadbeer]

lolwut?

[NocturnalBeast]

InspectorG, on 06 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Battletech will never = Mechwarrior.

Like porting a novel to a movie or vice versa...

It can 'work' but will never be same/equal.

Overall, compared to other stompy robot games. Seems close as it can currently get.

Add more MW spectrum it will get more twitchy.

Add more BT and it will get more 'turn based'.

Also,the pendulum will only stop when PGI declares it a finished game.

Mechwarrior is Battletech and vice versa.

[stjobe]

InspectorG, on 06 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Battletech will never = Mechwarrior.

I think you're getting your terms confused.

"Mechwarrior" is just "BattleTech" from a first-person view (the eponymous MechWarrior); always has been since the days "Mechwarrior" was just a pen-and-paper role-playing game.

InspectorG, on 06 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Like porting a novel to a movie or vice versa...

It can 'work' but will never be same/equal.

There's film adaptions like Will Smith's I, Robot which has nothing but the title in common with the Isaac Asimov novel it rides on the coat-tails on, and then there's film adaptions like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is rather faithful to the novels.

Mechwarrior Online is rather closer to I, Robot than Lord of the Rings in this regard, and some of us want it to come a bit closer to the source material.

InspectorG, on 06 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Overall, compared to other stompy robot games. Seems close as it can currently get.

Compared to other stompy robot games, MWO has "a BattleTech game" in its logo and a few lore names. I'm pretty sure we can get a bit more BattleTech than that.

InspectorG, on 06 October 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

Add more MW spectrum it will get more twitchy.

Add more BT and it will get more 'turn based'.

This makes no sense at all.

Edited by stjobe, 06 October 2014 - 09:02 PM.

[Gyrok]

Lefty Lucy, on 04 October 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

The game followed BT rules much more closely early in development, and it was terrible.

In many ways it was better...honestly...

[Igorius]

Gyrok, on 06 October 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

In many ways it was better...honestly...

Gotta agree with this. Was it different? Yes. Did it feel more "right" in some major respects despite a few balance issues? Yup.

[Mirkk Defwode]

stjobe, on 06 October 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

I think you're getting your terms confused.

"Mechwarrior" is just "BattleTech" from a first-person view (the eponymous MechWarrior); always has been since the days "Mechwarrior" was just a pen-and-paper role-playing game.


There's film adaptions like Will Smith's I, Robot which has nothing but the title in common with the Isaac Asimov novel it rides on the coat-tails on, and then there's film adaptions like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is rather faithful to the novels.

Mechwarrior Online is rather closer to I, Robot than Lord of the Rings in this regard, and some of us want it to come a bit closer to the source material.


Compared to other stompy robot games, MWO has "a BattleTech game" in its logo and a few lore names. I'm pretty sure we can get a bit more BattleTech than that.


This makes no sense at all.

A Consistent time scale for all the weapons would do wonders with a lot of that, Having them all be set at what appears to be random intervals and then making sure whatever time set is matched up the proper increase or decrease in the damage keeping it aligned with the original values or very near it would be helpful for overall weapon balance and heat.

[Orillious Tyr]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10

[Zolaz]

Id rather have a more mech simulator game than what we have now. Id also rather have a game more true to Battletech. If I was wishing on a star, Id wish for larger engagements on bigger maps with destructible environments.

I still play this game mainly because of the Mechwarrior IP. If another game came out that gave a better experience, Id be playing it. All I really want is a mech, a dropship and the ability to run around the galaxy as a merc hiring out to fight.

[Roadbeer]

Daniel Silverthorn, on 06 October 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10

Can't blame the OP for not knowing that all the information about how rich an IP Battletech is can be found on Sarna.

I mean, he was only the head Volmod here for like a year.

[NocturnalBeast]

Roadbeer, on 07 October 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Can't blame the OP for not knowing that all the information about how rich an IP Battletech is can be found on Sarna.

I mean, he was only the head Volmod here for like a year.

IGP did not have very high standards for Volmods back then.