202 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Manufacturer variants. Ceres Arms, Defiance, etc... each can have their own unique traits.

BT is not holding the game back, it has PLENTY to offer, we just have yet to take advantage of it.
Battletech TT rules are a skeleton. Battletech Lore is rich with options to make the game varied and interesting. Just because we have not taken advantage of it, does not mean they are not there.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Tyler Durden, on 05 October 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

I guess we're just going to disagree on these points. You cannot make lots of changes to a game and still call it the same thing. A different BattleTech is not BattleTech.

So the new Catalyst Bt isnt BT in your eyes?

[Burktross]

cdlord, on 05 October 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

CoD players who don't understand the franchise and genre are holding this game back (3PV anyone?).

3pv is such an insignificant preference to judge people on. Granted 3pv is broken and allows for unfair advantages-- THAT needs fixing.
(fog of war, cough)

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Burktross, on 05 October 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

(fog of war, cough)

Thats what the IFF bug is XD

[KraftySOT]

This game would be shat without BT, and no one would be playing it. The vast majority of the playerbase is only here because of its likeness with an IP we enjoy.

Thats like saying Starwars is holding Knights of the Republic back.

[Tyler Durden]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 05 October 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

So the new Catalyst Bt isnt BT in your eyes?

I'm not sure what you mean. Catalyst took ownership of BattleTech and has continued developing the history, made new mechs, weapons and, yes, tweaked a couple of rules. In most cases, though, the changes to the rule books were more clarifications than actual changes.

What isn't BattleTech per se is the Alpha Strike game system. It is the BattleTech universe, but it isn't BattleTech. Much like the RPG isn't BattleTech.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

KraftySOT, on 05 October 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

This game would be shat without BT, and no one would be playing it. The vast majority of the playerbase is only here because of its likeness with an IP we enjoy.

As Transverse proved

[CDLord HHGD]

Burktross, on 05 October 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

3pv is such an insignificant preference to judge people on. Granted 3pv is broken and allows for unfair advantages-- THAT needs fixing.
(fog of war, cough)

It was a very basic example of something you'd NEVER see is a true to form BT game yet something I use a lot when I play other FPS twitch-shooter games (most notably Star Wars Battlefront because the CoD community is irksome).

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Tyler Durden, on 05 October 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

You said a changed (IE more developed as that changes things) BT wouldnt BE BT.

Funny how development by Catalyst is fine to you now when you stated the absolute of changing anything in BT would make it no longer BT.

Position at the time?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 05 October 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Tyler Durden]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 05 October 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

You said a changed (IE more feveloped as that changes things) BT wouldnt BE BT.

New weapons and corresponding rules are to be expected. New history is to be expected. That does not change the core of the game system. I don't think I'm being inconsistent in my statement. At least not intentionally.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

cdlord, on 05 October 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

It was a very basic example of something you'd NEVER see is a true to form BT game yet something I use a lot when I play other FPS twitch-shooter games (most notably Star Wars Battlefront because the CoD community is irksome).

Just like how the problem with 3pv was never about 3pv, it was about them not listening and us not being their target audience anymore

Tyler Durden, on 05 October 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

New weapons and corresponding rules are to be expected. New history is to be expected. That does not change the core of the game system. I don't think I'm being inconsistent in my statement. At least not intentionally.

saying that the game cannot be changed and still be the game then being ok with changes

no not inconsistent lol

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 05 October 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Just like how the problem with 3pv was never about 3pv, it was about them not listening and us not being their target audience anymore

This was the crux of it that nobody outside those of us who actually became angry about it understands.
It wasn't the fact that 3PV extended any great benefit. It was it's implementation and the messages about it that followed that people had a problem with.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 05 October 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

saying that the game cannot be changed and still be the game then being ok with changes

no not inconsistent lol

I don't want to speak for Tyler here, but my understanding of what he's saying is in relation to the OPs contention that BT/MW is the problem with the game.
Deviation from the mechanics to make the game work in realtime is understandable, deviation from the things that actually make the game work, aren't.
His statements aren't necessarily inconsistent because he acknowledges that while the ruleset needs to change to increase playability, they've never done it at the expense of what made Battletech Battletech (Except for the Clans. The Clans were a great fictional device that led to some interesting storytelling, but the were a ridiculous addition to gameplay).

Edited by Roadbeer, 05 October 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Creovex]

If naming conventions and relatable immersion are the reasons you claim this game isn't succeeding.... then here are my additional relatable name changes/adds for the mech names...

Proposed changes:
-Mexican Spider
-Greek Atlas
-Inuit Warhammer
-Black Knight (add to game)
-Asian Grasshopper
-Crazy Stalker
-Timberwolf = hooch or streetwalker
- etc...

Yeah... just as dumb as the original arguement...

Edited by Creovex, 05 October 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Kaspirikay]

I agree. Battletech is an old IP that needs updating.

[Bront]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yup. I'm sad because I think BattleTech is holding the MechWarrior franchise back from being as cool as it should be.

You play other Mechy Stompy games, and they have lots of cool features, and so does this game. However, the features of this game are limited to a build-set from a Table Top game that's not being dynamically-expanded for the current application. For instance, we have these weapons called "AC/10" and they deal 10 damage. Wow, what a super-original naming system.

If I were a soldier in the field, and was told that my weapon was an AC/10, I would ask something like "Does that mean it's a 10mm?"

And the response would be "No, it deals 10 damage."

"What do you mean, 'It deals 10 damage' ? What is 'a' damage?"

"Don't ask questions, Soldier, you will accept that it deals 10 damage and you will like it!"

And that's the Lore this game is based on - a Universe where that conversation actually happens.

I mean, there is no immersion whatsoever when the weapons of the game are literally named after the number of "points" they deal. There is no such thing as "damage points" in war, so the weapons should not be named after the damage points they inflict. That is just CHEESY!

Also, the limited number of weapon systems in the game based on the Year of the Lore is something that should only be implemented in a game that's designed for pre-existing BattleTech fans. If this game is really being marketed to non-BattleTech fans in an effort to expand the playerbase, then we should not be adhering to the Lore's technology limitations. A non-BattleTech fan has 0 appreciation for the "reason" why the Inner Sphere forces have no LBX-AC/5 or UAC/10s. Zero appreciation at all, and it's harming the game.

Why would you enforce rules like that if their only existence is to create a situation where the game gets more exciting by waiting 10 years for additional content? We don't need to wait 10 years for additional content. I'm sure you can find ways to make the game more exciting over the course of the next ten years other than by slowly releasing additional IS Tech that's not around until 3060.

__________________

What I am saying is... basically... MekTek had it right when they made their own non-cannon weapons systems. The canon of BattleTech is only as holy as the Developers intention to make this game specifically for pre-existing BattleTech fans, and not to market it to a greater audience.

We need better names for equipment. "Large Laser" Oh, how impressive, tell me how large it is...

To be fair to lore, I believe the actual weapons aren't called AC10s, it's name spawns from the lore-light game intro where such a name made sense as a description. In lore, the weapons not only have different names, but several different AC10s have different firing mechanics. Remember, the game contains many abstractions to make it playable as a turn based game.

[Roadbeer]

Kaspirikay, on 05 October 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree. Battletech is an old IP that needs updating.

Ummm, it's actually been updated several times, as recently as this year.

Just sayin.

[KraftySOT]

Kaspirikay, on 05 October 2014 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree. Battletech is an old IP that needs updating.

Thats just ignorant.

Its still being updated all the time...most of the universe has been added in the last 10 years

Even the clans are "new" to some of us.

And its mind blowing to me...that the TT is abstracting things that are happening in real time...

So every developer whose touched MW, has *head explodes* abstracted the TT to make it happen in real time.



Uh...why dont you just do what the TT is abstracting in the first place? Its like playing the worst game of telephone ever.

And you can see how the abstraction works with like, StratOps, Solaris, CBT, and the CCG...

Is it really that much of a stretch to just....recreate what theyre abstracting?

When you make a World War Two shooter, you abstract the actual war...you dont go and pick up The Operational Art of War 3 and abstract that.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Once this game stops basing itself on Battletech it will become more Gundam wing meets some other Japanese shooter robot game and it will go from ******** to utterly stupid and bull%#*.

[IceSerpent]

Savage Wolf, on 05 October 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

In a game based on BV there will be a new meta based on what mechs have a lower BV than their actual worth.

This would only be possible if BV doesn't accurately reflect the "actual worth". It can be easily fixed by adjusting BV though.

Quote

And players in mechs with high BV would if the system works, be more important than one with low BV.

They would, but increased importance comes with increased responsibility - if you screw up, you are highly likely to lose the match, as low BV teammates would have a very hard time trying to "carry" you.

Quote

The guy in the high BV mech is also garanteed to stay in the game longer while the guy in a low BV mech is unlucky to be the first to go.

That's not a given, high BV mech would be a high prority target and likely to get focused by enemy team. Not to mention that low BV doesn't necessarily translate into low armor - that mech can be very durable, but have low firepower for example.

Quote

But both of those can't be true at the same time. And ammo based weapons always needs to have a higher damage potential than energy weapons because of the risk. Otherwise energy weapons would always be better.

You can't have "ammo lasts the entire match" and "ammo doesn't last the entire match" being true at the same time, those are mutually exclusive conditions.

Quote

Once again my point is made for me. But you also missed the point where I said that you need equal influence compared to anyone in the battle, not just your own team. So we need to make sure that all mechs are as viable as the other, or as close as possible, knowing that we probably will never reach it fully.

The only way to give everybody equal influence on the match outcome is to make all mechs exactly the same, and that would make for a very boring game. I still don't see why you think equal influence is needed even within the team, let alone doing that for everybody in the match.

Quote

Having equal viability does not mean that all mechs are the same. Lots of games pulls this off while giving you plenty of options. Look at League Of Legends. All those champions to choose from and most of them are equal in viability. But that is also because they do different things, unlike an Atlas and an Awesome. They do the same thing, but the Atlas just have more room for guns.

Equal viability with different roles doesn't mean equal influence.

Quote

So when you think about it, what we had in earlier MW titles was actually Equal Warrior. Everyone figthing eachother in their selection of 100 ton mechs.

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.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Burktross, on 05 October 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

You people seem to think that slight deviation from TT means gundam and hawken, when in reality I'm fairly certain people just want tweaking to make the game more "FPS" friendly.
We can expand, change, and improve things, no?

Only if youre developing the TT it seems