27 replies to this topic

[Bubblewhip]

I know this question must have been answered before but through searching the forums I can only find people answering this question in 2012, when they thought there might be a story in the game.

My question is, with a game that has no narrative, and that you are dropped into variations of team death match, all of which can have a mix of Clan and IS mechs, what is the point of sticking to this "timeline" of mechs in MWO?

Some of the most iconic mechs like the Bushwacker and the Uziel are not in MWO because of "timeline" reasons, but does anyone actually care in MWO?

I can't fathom this stickler to this year in Battletech when every round is a (story wise) pointless arena endevor every 15 mins, you might as well just put the mechs that people actually want and just say "f*** it."

I dunno maybe MWO will integrate some persistance in the game, but it's been over nearly 2 years with very little changes from what it originally was in beta.

[Shredhead]

Oh hello, you must be new here.
http://mwomercs.com/...arfare-phase-2/
http://mwomercs.com/...e-update-dec-2/
http://mwomercs.com/...-we-know-notes/

[Kilo 40]

because, right now, the setting is 3049/50 during the clan invasion. That's the point of community warfare.

If you think there is no narrative now, you'd absolutely hate it if every single mech from 2500 - 31??(and don't forget all the new weapon systems that go along with that) was in the game all at once with just death match style games.

for all practical purposes, beta ends and the game goes live December 16th. people can argue about why that is, but effectively it's the truth. Give the game a few months after that before we worry about when the time line should be.

IMO.

Or to look at it another way, imagine an American civil war game then asking "why don't we get iconic units like Green Berets or SEALS?".

[Bubblewhip]

Well this explains a lot, Thanks. Yes I am new, I played back in closed beta and got disinterested after the c-bills reset. Came back in the last month to see whats new, unfortunately it didn't seem that different from beta. Hopefully that will change.

[TyphonCh]

Bubblewhip, on 07 December 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

Well this explains a lot, Thanks. Yes I am new, I played back in closed beta and got disinterested after the c-bills reset. Came back in the last month to see whats new, unfortunately it didn't seem that different from beta. Hopefully that will change.

The general discussion forum has turned into an "Assholeyou'rewrong" Fest. Almost every thread some douche on the first page with totally useless information, such as "Search the threads NOOB" or "Learn to shoot NOOB".
I hope you don't feel unwelcome...

But as far as the topic goes.. probably a $ thing

Edited by Team Chevy86, 07 December 2014 - 02:49 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

They're sticking to the timeline because a lot of people would be upset if they didn't, I imagine. On the other hand, they've completely stopped caring about the timeline except for some very tiny updates to the CW map, which isn't even in use.

My guess is that they will stay with the current timeline untill CW is completely good and ready, and then they'll jump to year 3055 or something to sell some new mech packs. At some point, new mechs in year 3050 won't be enough to keep people paying, so they'll want to introduce new mechs with new equipment (stealth armour?) and new weapons (light gauss, heavy lasers). And of course, the Timber Wolf Mk 2 is an easy way to squeeze a few extra million dollars out of the players.

But they probably want CW working first.

[Popper100]

In short, they stuck to a 1:1 timeline to have a release schedule and to get the playerbase amped for "next year this weapon system is coming, gonna be sweet." The problem is that there is a lot to do for new mechs and the inherent problem of once we're past Clans, the next big thing (FedCom war) happens in 2026-27. Don't know about you, but I think that might be a tad too far off.

It is a good idea in theory, and would've been awesome in practice if this game used heavier role-play, incidental, and creative limitations to simulate a career in the BT universe. In practice, especially with how small the dev team is, it is a bit of wishful thinking that may bear a little fruit, but should just be regarded as a thing from a better era.

[Alistair Winter]

Popper100, on 07 December 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

In practice, especially with how small the dev team is, it is a bit of wishful thinking that may bear a little fruit, but should just be regarded as a thing from a better era.

It would have been so easy to make something substantial out of it though. The ISN news reports is something any die-hard BT fan could write up for a small amount of money. There's already a few people on this forum that have actually worked as writers. On top of that, make weekly events (challenges and tournaments) related to actual events in the BT timeline. Another thing that requires minimal effort, but keeps people interested in the storyline and the future of the game.

[STEF_]

Timeline is wonderful, we can follow how tecnology evolves through time.
So, a mech in 2750, is quite different in 3050 (300 years.... see how tech changed from 1714 till now) although it's the same chassis.
That's why PGI's decision to balance mechs, 12vs12, with its own way (by quirks) was a poor and crappy decision.
After 4 succesion war, IS tecnologies was really low and poor, and Clan mechs were superior.
That's way Clan vs IS, should have to be done 8 vs 12. Clan superiority by tech, IS by numbers.
I can understand why lore based timeline NOW makes no sense.
We can even have a Mackie fighting very well vs any mech: it's enough giving it very good quirks and bonus LOL

Clan vs IS 12vs12, continuing to nerf clan weapons patch after patch (while clan mechs are good for completely other reasons) prove how much PGi undestands the game.
Or it was made only to have 4 players more for match, 24 instead of 20....

[Joseph Mallan]

Bubblewhip, on 07 December 2014 - 01:51 AM, said:

Well this explains a lot, Thanks. Yes I am new, I played back in closed beta and got disinterested after the c-bills reset. Came back in the last month to see whats new, unfortunately it didn't seem that different from beta. Hopefully that will change.

Which C-Bill Reset? cause there was like...3 of em.

[Kilo 40]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 December 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

Timeline is wonderful, we can follow how tecnology evolves through time.
So, a mech in 2750, is quite different in 3050 (300 years.... see how tech changed from 1714 till now) although it's the same chassis.
That's why PGI's decision to balance mechs, 12vs12, with its own way (by quirks) was a poor and crappy decision.
After 4 succesion war, IS tecnologies was really low and poor, and Clan mechs were superior.
That's way Clan vs IS, should have to be done 8 vs 12. Clan superiority by tech, IS by numbers.
I can understand why lore based timeline NOW makes no sense.
We can even have a Mackie fighting very well vs any mech: it's enough giving it very good quirks and bonus LOL

Clan vs IS 12vs12, continuing to nerf clan weapons patch after patch (while clan mechs are good for completely other reasons) prove how much PGi undestands the game.
Or it was made only to have 4 players more for match, 24 instead of 20....

The difference of course, is that we are not playing a book, and lore doesn't need balance. Games do.

[STEF_]

Kilo 40, on 07 December 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

The difference of course, is that we are not playing a book, and lore doesn't need balance. Games do.

As I wrote: "That's why Clan vs IS, should have to be done 8 vs 12. Clan superiority by tech, IS by numbers"
That was the right balanced game, making sense with timeline and lore too

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 07 December 2014 - 04:20 AM.

[Kilo 40]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 December 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

As I wrote: "That's why Clan vs IS, should have to be done 8 vs 12. Clan superiority by tech, IS by numbers"
That was the right balanced game, making sense with timeline and lore too

lore wise it would have to be 10 v 12, and even then balance is certainly no guarantee. on the contrary 10 v 12 has issues of it's own.

[STEF_]

Kilo 40, on 07 December 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

lore wise it would have to be 10 v 12, and even then balance is certainly no guarantee. on the contrary 10 v 12 has issues of it's own.

10vs12 match would be too much in clan favor, that's why I see 8vs12 better, but without all those nerfing patches.
Anyway, as OP said, I see no reason to get stuck with timeline.
I really try to see the bright side of the quirking system: I'll enjoy CW as it is and I really would like to see 2750 mechs out. And 3055/2058 out, too. And all those new weapons/technology.
Why not?

[Bregor Edain]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 December 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

Timeline is wonderful, we can follow how tecnology evolves through time.
So, a mech in 2750, is quite different in 3050 (300 years.... see how tech changed from 1714 till now) although it's the same chassis.

Due to the succession wars there was actually a technology decline. The mechs from 2750 where/are actually better than the mechs piloted by mech warriors in 3050 (with a noticeable increase in tech due to salvage of clan tech and the memory core).

[Walluh]

Nobody is ever going to play the weaker side. 10v12 and certainly not 8v12 would never work. Ever.

[STEF_]

Walluh, on 07 December 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

Nobody is ever going to play the weaker side. 10v12 and certainly not 8v12 would never work. Ever.

If there is a balance, there would not be weaker nor stronger side. As previously said IS strong by numbers, clanner strong by technology.

Nobody can say 10vs12 or 8vs12 would has never worked, because it has never been tested.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 December 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:

Which C-Bill Reset? cause there was like...3 of em.

Closed beta we had em reset like every single patch, lol

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 December 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

If there is a balance, there would not be weaker nor stronger side. As previously said IS strong by numbers, clanner strong by technology.

Nobody can say 10vs12 or 8vs12 would has never worked, because it has never been tested.

You think they never played it internally?

Also, numbers almost always trump tech, without massive advantage, in FPS

[Xeren KelDar]

Stefka Kerensky, on 07 December 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

10vs12 match would be too much in clan favor, that's why I see 8vs12 better, but without all those nerfing patches.
Anyway, as OP said, I see no reason to get stuck with timeline.
I really try to see the bright side of the quirking system: I'll enjoy CW as it is and I really would like to see 2750 mechs out. And 3055/2058 out, too. And all those new weapons/technology.
Why not?

While I don't disagree that TT style clan mechs at 10v12 would still favor the clans, you're using a lore based argument to debunk 12v12. The 10v12 setup that Kilo mentioned as lore would be because of Clans organizing into Stars of 5 mechs and not lances of 4 mechs. That's why most arguments for lore friendly Clan vs IS gameplay was centered on the 10v12, 2 Stars vs 3 lances.

Might have been interesting to see if unbalanced numbers worked, but that also raises the possibility of an exodus of players to superior clan mechs. We haven't seen it in action though so its all just speculation.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

You think they never played it internally?

Also, numbers almost always trump tech, without massive advantage, in FPS

I don't even know how many devs there are. Are there 20-24 devs to make a large number of proper tests about it?
Anyway I would really like community to test this.