963 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

JozefK, on 17 October 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

And i thought that WG and Gaijin are greedy.

I'm playing this game for over a month now and all what i have seen PGI is doing is trying to maximize profit. Every single change is aimed at making players desparate to visit the shop. No improvements on other fields whatsoever.

Quirks - basicaly PGI has figured that players are not motivated to buy many mech variants because they can simply reconfigure the one they have. With quirks, they will make your gameplay less variant and therefore you will need to obtain new variants.

EDIT: wow looking at the replies, so many people completely missed the point.

"TinFoil hats for Sale!"

How do you propose PGI account for ALL those players who already have the Mech(s) that will get these Quirks? Take them away from them and make them re-buy?

"TinFoil hats for Sale! Cheap!"

[KraftySOT]

And the fact remains that if you were in one of the best mechs, and were unmotivated to buy any others because those are the best...theyll still be the best and youll probably still be unmotivated to buy any more.

I dont understand why people dont like free cake.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Nah, if someone else were to make a BattleTech game, it would need to not have customization from the start. You get stock mechs, with variants planned out and balanced specifically among each other.

Pretty much the only way to ever "balance" a BT/MW game.

NB: I am not suggesting customization be removed from MWO. That ship has sailed.

Always thought THIS, as a base, with instead of "endgame" mechs, but endgame "customization modules" would have been an interesting way to go. At the various points of the skill tree you can unlock Simple, Minor and Major Customization features, with a Major one being something like allowing you to swap out the Energy Hardpoints in your HBK-4P's RT for either Ballistic or Missile hardpoints, os similar quantities.

Simple customization allowing you to to switch in Family (Medium lasers for Medium Pulse or ER Mediums) and Minor allowing for in Class (Medium lasers removed for any Energy), etc, and Major being things like Completely changing Weapon Types (Ballistic, Energy, Missile), or Engine Upgrades/Downgrades.

Internal Structure should have been locked (it's the core, skeleton of the mech, you don't just change it like pants) whereas Armor, HEatsinks, etc are totally open for swapping.

Anyhow, not really a final thought, but the barebones of an idea I had when Modules were first announced.

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Meta, from the greek "Beyond". Popularized in the early 20th century with the culture of the "meta-physical".

The "Meta", as its been used to describe the type of play and strategies that rise out of a games competitive community, since 1989 (that I personally know of), is used to describe that which arises or "emerges" out of a set of rules, beyond what the rules intend, OR simply the fashion and strategies of play that arise or emerge out of a set of rules.

Maybe im crazy...but thats how ive understood it.

Take for instance a high level strategy game like Gary Grigsbys War in the East.

To me the "Meta" in that game is a few people like FlaviousX, Lenny, ComradeP, and the old armchair general writer for PC gamer, discovering how to avoid blizzard penalties in 1941, how to save soviet morale, how to get an 8 million man army, how to hide in poland through 1944, how to avoid movement penalties by sea transport, the way to take Riga on turn 1...all the tricks that arise out of people who REALLY know how to play the game, that the rest of us can emulate.

That becomes the "meta-physical reality" of the game, beyond that which the rules specifically intended.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metagaming

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

Always thought THIS, as a base, with instead of "endgame" mechs, but endgame "customization modules" would have been an interesting way to go.

... And there's already an in-universe explanation/implementation of this. When the Clans invaded in 3050 Hanse Davion convinced Thomas Marik to retool his factories to make 'upgrade kits' for a bunch of different mech types. These were basically retrofits that were applied to older, 3025-era designs that added things like DHS, newer weapons, etc on top of the basic chassis.

Something like that could be expanded in a game, where you can't necessarily customize willy-nilly however you want, but this particular chassis/variant has maybe 3 or 5 different options of upgrade packs that you can choose from.

[Bishop Steiner]

JozefK, on 17 October 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

And i thought that WG and Gaijin are greedy.

I'm playing this game for over a month now and all what i have seen PGI is doing is trying to maximize profit. Every single change is aimed at making players desparate to visit the shop. No improvements on other fields whatsoever.

Quirks - basicaly PGI has figured that players are not motivated to buy many mech variants because they can simply reconfigure the one they have. With quirks, they will make your gameplay less variant and therefore you will need to obtain new variants.

EDIT: wow looking at the replies, so many people completely missed the point.

Or since all but Hero Mechs are available for CBills, aka for free, anyhow? And the Heros have always been exclusive?

Gosh golly, couldn't be because making ignored and obsolete chassis useful and fun again couldn't be good for the game as a whole, and thus, increase playerbase, and thus profitability?

Such marketing geniuses I am surrounded by!

[Alek Ituin]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

... And there's already an in-universe explanation/implementation of this. When the Clans invaded in 3050 Hanse Davion convinced Thomas Marik to retool his factories to make 'upgrade kits' for a bunch of different mech types. These were basically retrofits that were applied to older, 3025-era designs that added things like DHS, newer weapons, etc on top of the basic chassis.

Something like that could be expanded in a game, where you can't necessarily customize willy-nilly however you want, but this particular chassis/variant has maybe 3 or 5 different options of upgrade packs that you can choose from.

Basically like field kits for WWII fighters.

Both the Axis and the Allies released field upgrade kits for produced fighters, things like reinforced piston kits, upgraded supercharger kits, engine tuning kits, stabilizer kits... just all sorts of crap. It kept fighters up to date without requiring them to be replaced, which is a bigger issue IRL than it is in game, but still.

I really like this idea, but I would hope it only applies to IS BattleMechs. OmniMechs were purposely built to be supremely flexible in their loadouts, able to complete a total weapon refit in only a few hours. Could throw in some of the early 3050 IS Omni's, and some Clan BattleMechs to balance it out.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 20 October 2014 - 09:35 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

... And there's already an in-universe explanation/implementation of this. When the Clans invaded in 3050 Hanse Davion convinced Thomas Marik to retool his factories to make 'upgrade kits' for a bunch of different mech types. These were basically retrofits that were applied to older, 3025-era designs that added things like DHS, newer weapons, etc on top of the basic chassis.

Something like that could be expanded in a game, where you can't necessarily customize willy-nilly however you want, but this particular chassis/variant has maybe 3 or 5 different options of upgrade packs that you can choose from.

and you COULD make extreme personal customizations, but it would require you to really THINK about what modules to use, and which direction to go with the mech.

Of course, a goodly portion of gamers are allergic to thinking and planning and actual challenges.

[KraftySOT]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Always thought THIS, as a base, with instead of "endgame" mechs, but endgame "customization modules" would have been an interesting way to go. At the various points of the skill tree you can unlock Simple, Minor and Major Customization features, with a Major one being something like allowing you to swap out the Energy Hardpoints in your HBK-4P's RT for either Ballistic or Missile hardpoints, os similar quantities.

Simple customization allowing you to to switch in Family (Medium lasers for Medium Pulse or ER Mediums) and Minor allowing for in Class (Medium lasers removed for any Energy), etc, and Major being things like Completely changing Weapon Types (Ballistic, Energy, Missile), or Engine Upgrades/Downgrades.

Internal Structure should have been locked (it's the core, skeleton of the mech, you don't just change it like pants) whereas Armor, HEatsinks, etc are totally open for swapping.

Anyhow, not really a final thought, but the barebones of an idea I had when Modules were first announced.


http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Metagaming

Interesting:
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the current strategic trends within a game. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits and which feature customized decks of cards, sets of miniatures or other playing pieces for each player. Some examples of this kind of environment are tournament scenes for card games like Magic: The Gathering, or tabletop war-gaming such as Warhammer 40,000 or Flames of War.

Such metagaming could include compiling lists of what race or army choices are being used in a specific region or tournament scene, and tailoring your own army to fight the majority units, for example, knowing that Space Marine variant armies are the largest group of potential opponents, and modifying your own army with equipment which counters the strength of that majority force, or preys upon that majority group's weakness. By doing so, the player is metagaming, as they are attempting to improve their chances for victory by using information outside what will actually take place in a match.

This was pretty much my first experience with the term. I heard it at a Convention in '89, then again playing Legend of the Red Dragon (an old MUD) in '90.

In LOTR, the "meta" was a specific set of weapons and armor, that was most likely the best choice (it had random encounters so each play through wasnt the same, and of course you might run into someone who nullifies its advantages), but based on the way most people played, and the most likely occurences, there was a "best set" of items that you could get fairly early on.

Since then its basically this:

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

Which is what I described. Strategies and actions that emerge (transcend) a prescribed ruleset, and goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

Take for instance the oldest Game Theory application. The game of chicken. There are only three moves. Go left, go right, go straight.

Theres only one move you can make where you win. Go straight. The meta comes in play when youre playing an opponent (since playing a logic algorithm, its always a tie, you crash) and you know this opponent, and you have some insight as to how he might play. But of course the only "meta" move...is to go straight. The only way you can win. All of the "theory" that arises out of the simple set of rules, is the "meta".

To me "meta" is just what it says..."beyond". Its everything that emerges out of a given set of factors.

Take Legos for instance. A box of legos is just a box of factors. The meta isnt just how people put them together, its how a few people, figure out how to best put them together based on experience with the set of factors, they take something and make it more than the sum of its parts.

A game is supposed to be balanced, so taking it out of balance, is meta.

If that makes any sense.

Edited by KraftySOT, 20 October 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Alek Ituin, on 20 October 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

Basically like field kits for WWII fighters.

Both the Axis and the Allies released field upgrade kits for produced fighters, things like reinforced piston kits, upgraded supercharger kits, engine tuning kits, stabilizer kits... just all sorts of crap. It kept fighters up to date without requiring them to be replaced, which is a bigger issue IRL than it is in game, but still.

I really like this idea, but I would hope it only applies to IS mechs. OmniMechs were purposely built to be supremely flexible in their loadouts, able to complete a total weapon refit in only a few hours.

And that would make Omnis what they were supposed to be again. It's pretty sad when in many ways the IS Mechs are more omni than Omnimechs. From a balance standpoint with the game as is, I get the locked cores. Ditto from a lore standpoint. Generally speaking Pilot A doesn't get to decide he wants to rip out the M61A2 Vulcan from his F-22 Raptor, and slap in a GAU-8 Avenger because he wants bigger bullets. In fact, no matter what else you strip such a mod would be nearly impossible, and also would ruin/compromise it's venereal avionics, handling and stealth.

Yet because of BAD previous MW Mechlab iterations (which worked fine for a PvE game, but were proven horrible in every PvP instance) that is what some people want, all without penalty.

[AlmightyAeng]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

"Meta"

"Metagaming" is 'gaming' the rules (see game outside the game, characters planning out of character how to best mesh their abililties in a tabletop).

"The Meta Game" describes a game outside the game - in this case, people often apply it to Community Warfare, as the shift of movement and supply is a secondary and overarching game concept outside the individual combat scenarios.

"Meta" describes the emergent best strategy.

[Bishop Steiner]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Interesting:

Yup. It's why I posted it.

Mind you, big difference between what was legit Meta, such as Poptarting (eh, did I just put legit and poptart in the same sentence? DOH!) and people calling whatever was considered "the" build for a mech as Meta. AC20 BJ really isn't meta Though in a microcosmic sense, one could say it is the Meta for the "BJ game", I suppose. But that just sounds dirty), because it was not strategy/game shifting itself. It simply was the defacto "optimal" build for that chassis, but since said chassis was still sub-optimal in light of the actual Meta.... calling it Meta, was never accurate.

But in general gamer speak, whatever is perceived as the "Optimal" build is referred to as Meta. Although most gamers still incorrectly use the term "viable" where they really mean Optimal.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 October 2014 - 09:45 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Ghost Badger, on 20 October 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

"Metagaming" is 'gaming' the rules (see game outside the game, characters planning out of character how to best mesh their abililties in a tabletop).

"The Meta Game" describes a game outside the game - in this case, people often apply it to Community Warfare, as the shift of movement and supply is a secondary and overarching game concept outside the individual combat scenarios.

"Meta" describes the emergent best strategy.

Is that the accepted terminology use? I literally have no idea.

To me I just lump it all under "meta". Kind of like how most things occult are lumped together as "meta-physical" be it crystal energies, ufos, bigfeets, psychic powers, ghosts, or what have you. All things "beyond" physical.

Ill try to use these. Seems legit.

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Yup. It's why I posted it.

Mind you, big difference between what was legit Meta, such as Poptarting (eh, did I just put legit and poptart in the same sentence? DOH!) and people calling whatever was considered "the" build for a mech as Meta. AC20 BJ really isn't meta, because it was not strategy/game shifting itself. It simply was the defacto "optimal" build for that chassis, but since said chassis was still sub-optimal in light of the actual Meta.... calling it Meta, was never accurate.

But in general gamer speak, whatever is perceived as the "Optimal" build is referred to as Meta. Although most gamers still incorrectly use the term "viable" where they really mean Optimal.

Totally makes sense.

[gregsolidus]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

Yet because of BAD previous MW Mechlab iterations (which worked fine for a PvE game, but were proven horrible in every PvP instance) that is what some people want, all without penalty.

To be fair, BT is only as **** rentative towards customization as you and your friends make it.

[Alek Ituin]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

And that would make Omnis what they were supposed to be again. It's pretty sad when in many ways the IS Mechs are more omni than Omnimechs. From a balance standpoint with the game as is, I get the locked cores. Ditto from a lore standpoint. Generally speaking Pilot A doesn't get to decide he wants to rip out the M61A2 Vulcan from his F-22 Raptor, and slap in a GAU-8 Avenger because he wants bigger bullets. In fact, no matter what else you strip such a mod would be nearly impossible, and also would ruin/compromise it's venereal avionics, handling and stealth.

Yet because of BAD previous MW Mechlab iterations (which worked fine for a PvE game, but were proven horrible in every PvP instance) that is what some people want, all without penalty.

Using the same analogy, Pilot A could feasibly add a second Vulcan instead of the single GAU-8. I guess it would be something like a "Minor" upgrade kit using your original idea. That also leaves the GAU-8 to the A-10, giving it a solid purpose as being a gun with a plane strapped to it.

Yay for variety!

(You could totally add a second Vulcan to the F-22 IRL, they're actually quite compact rotary cannons, and the F-22 is massive)

Edited by Alek Ituin, 20 October 2014 - 09:48 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

gregsolidus, on 20 October 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

To be fair, BT is only as **** rentative towards customization as you and your friends make it.

Depends. To be fair, it depends on which rules you ignore, lol. So yeah, since there are no overarching "police" to your home Btech game, you are technically, correct. But one could point out the accepted tournament rules (which can also vary) tend to be a little more stringent. So when dealing with overarching rules covering a huge, divergent playerbase? Good bet is go for the full rule set, not house rules.

[UnsafePilot]

gregsolidus, on 20 October 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

To be fair, BT is only as **** rentative towards customization as you and your friends make it.

This. All of my table top games involved custom mech loadouts; To me it's always been a part of what makes BT special.

[AlmightyAeng]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

Is that the accepted terminology use? I literally have no idea.

Ill try to use these. Seems legit.

Lol, it's how I think of it

[KraftySOT]

To be super fair...TSR rule books all kicked off with the fact that the D&D rules are just suggestions and break them whenever you want...

And BTech rule books....did not say that lol

[Bishop Steiner]

Alek Ituin, on 20 October 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Using the same analogy, Pilot A could feasibly add a second Vulcan instead of the single GAU-8. I guess it would be something like a "Minor" upgrade kit using your original idea. That also leaves the GAU-8 to the A-10, giving it a solid purpose as being a gun with a plane strapped to it.

Yay for variety!

(You could totally add a second Vulcan to the F-22 IRL, they're actually quite compact rotary cannons, and the F-22 is massive)

Where would you mount it though? There is little internal space, as with most military craft. And while you could external mount it (like the old G-Pod on F4s in Vietnam) that would likely impact other aspects of the fighters performance.

[1453 R]

A'ight, lemme go at this from a different angle.

Right now - right this very minute, 12:39 on October 20th, 2014 - the DRG-1N is considered a T5 chassis. With the new quirks slated for it, its massive AC/5 cycle reduction and its ERLL enhancements, a build which takes advantage of those quirks (I.e. a build with dual AC/5s and a single ERLL with a Dragon-sized engine) might theoretically make it all the way up to T3, where off Jagers reside.

A DRG-1N that does not play a dual AC/5 build w/ an ERLL, on the other hand, is still going to be an unequivocal Tier 5 'Mech, with effectively zilch-all enhancements for, say, a Gaussdragon build with medium lasers and SRMs backing up its cannon instead. That build? Still a straight-up Tier 5.

What many of the ":-/" players were hoping for (the sane ones, anyways) wasn't necessarily a set of quirks that'd turn all DRG-1N builds into T3 builds. What we were hoping for was a set of quirks that turned the AC/5 and ERLL build Piranha has determined is the DRG-1N's One True Purpose into a T3 build, but which also turned the rest of the DRG-1N's potential non-scheiss builds into T4 builds, too. Nobody's expecting a DRG-1N with machine guns, an LRM-10, and small lasers to be anything but a laugh, but the quirkset as shown means that the DRG-1N in its given build is potentially T3 depending on, but all its other reasonable builds are still T5.

That disparity is the thing catching up a lot of folks. People are fine with 'Mechs having a single given build Piranha favors, but having a single given build Piranha is effectively demanding sticks in craws.

Does that make any more sense?