189 replies to this topic

[Mirkk Defwode]

Necromantion, on 04 March 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

What if I roll a 5.5?

Round up to 6, Take effect.

I also did state at the bottom of those that it's all rough math. Not perfect, just an alternative methodology that could be utilized. I don't have the time or inclination to do a full design spec on this as a translation from TT to Realtime, but the perspective presented is one of many possibilities of how things could be done differently.

Don't expect everyone, or even anyone to agree.

Alexander Steel, on 04 March 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

Well... 6 > 5.5 > 5.

So a 5.5 succeeds on a 5+ check,but fails 6+ check.

I like this more than my response

[sycocys]

I wasn't around for clan release an will just assume they were lore-fully overpowered - wouldn't limiting them to star 'lances' in both standard drops (2 only per lance setup for a possible total of 6v12 if matchmaker really boned you with no is support) and the same in cw but maybe giving them a 4th star team for 8v12?

Make it a balance by numbers in the force rather than nerfing the crap out of their weapons systems would probably make more sense all around. Give it a more lore/canon feel for those players while offsetting their power for the fps players. Seems like it would have been a more median and best of both worlds kind of solution that would have actually offered some variety to the game.

[Alexander Steel]

Four problems with that.

1. The MWO matchmaker doesn't do well with uneven teams.
2. It would make it harder to have mixed matches which would increase wait times.
3. Pay to Win Calls would be very much in effective.
4. Most people don't like the be the faceless horde that gets slaughtered by the few brave heroes.

[sycocys]

Like I said, wasn't here for the original clan drop - but would 6v12 in pug driven matches have been unfair balance wise? I'd think the dedicated clanners would likely always have plenty available for drops even if you seperated them to always be clan vs IS.

I'm not opposed at all to bringing the power levels down or anything, just feel that it would present a much more unique, interesting and probably exciting game if it stuck to the lore a bit more closely on such things. Coming back after a year hiatus and I really don't see a game that has changed all that much, everything is still the same old deathmatch mode or basecap rush (even CW) just with some new mechs in the mix. Injecting some lore probably wouldn't have been a bad idea.

[Necromantion]

To be totally honest in the last week or so of CW since VOIP implementation Ive seen pug CW groups doing better than some organized unit 12 mans... lol

[Johnny Z]

The story, the lore, the characters, the entire game was changed from the ORIGINAL.

This was done by subsequent expansions to the game over the years. Done for various reasons.

I hope now that Mechwarrior Online has the ball they do with it what suits this game best. Others who have had the ball thought nothing of completely screwing up everything from the characters to the story to the game play.

I got no issue with that at all. What I do have an issue with is if all these changes made over the years throwing "lore" to the wind also effect how this game developes.

Anyway, the fact so much was messed up years ago seems to go unoticed by many pushing the lore for some odd reason. Yet they expect this new game to adhere to the revisionist story and gameplay? Which in case someone reading this doesnt understand, isnt even ORIGINAL BATTLETECH.

Why not let this game find its own path? As long as the game has the atmoshpere of Mechwarrior and Battletech players should probly be happy, especially Battletech lore, story, game play, character enthusiasts.

Edited by Johnny Z, 04 March 2015 - 04:03 PM.

[Necromantion]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

The story, the lore, the characters, the entire game was changed from the ORIGINAL.

This was done by subsequent expansions to the game over the years. Done for various reasons.

I hope now that Mechwarrior Online has the ball they do with it what suits this game best. Others who have had the ball thought nothing of completely screwing up everything from the characters to the story to the game play.

I got no issue with that at all. What I do have an issue with is if all these changes made over the years throwing "lore" to the wind also effect how this game developes.

Anyway, the fact so much was messed up years ago seems to go unoticed by many pushing the lore for some odd reason. Yet they expect this new game to adhere to the revisionist story and gameplay? Why not let this game find its own path? As long as the game has the flavour of Mechwarrior and Battletech players should probly be happy.

This is not an RPG game. This is not a Table Top game. Turn based strategy doesnt lent itself to a balanced online multiplayer sim/fps game and neither does the lore 100% of the time, sometimes yes other times not at all..

[Johnny Z]

To add a bit more and as a reminder. Original Battletech game had balanced gameplay where all mechs used same power weapons and equipment. Original Battletech had open ended faction battles in the form of a board game extremely similar to chess. The winner and loser of any of these matches were not predetermined. Thats Battletech "Lore" or story/gameplay rather.

Anyone saying that one sides mechs should be stronger than another or that the star map is predetermined is pushing the revisionist game rather than the original.

So there.

Edited by Johnny Z, 04 March 2015 - 03:58 PM.

[Necromantion]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

To add a bit more and as a reminder. Original Battletech game had balanced gameplay where all mechs used same power weapons and equipment. Original Battletech had open ended faction battles in the form of a board game extremely similar to chess. The winner and loser of any of these matches were not predetermined. Thats Battletech "Lore" or story/gameplay rather.

Anyone saying that one sides mechs should be stronger than another or that the star map is predetermined is pushing the revisionist game rather than the original.

So there.

Necromantion, on 04 March 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:

This is not an RPG game. This is not a Table Top game. Turn based strategy doesnt lent itself to a balanced online multiplayer sim/fps game and neither does the lore 100% of the time, sometimes yes other times not at all..

[Tim East]

Alexander Steel, on 03 March 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

If you are going true table top than you avoid this by also including the Random Hit Location table. It was the reason why mech's didn't implode on the first alpha. Ok, to be fair sometimes they did but it was rare and made for very memorable "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!" moments. IE, the Atlas taken out by a small laser that crits his center torso and kills the engine or gyro.

I had this happen in a TT game I refereed a while back. An Assassin went toe-to-toe with a Banshee and got stupidly lucky. Hit the CT for a through-armor double crit and tapped both the gyro and engine, while the Banshee mostly just missed and overheated himself.

krash27, on 03 March 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Hmm a lot of other FPS have a cone of fire and it works.
You could say that these stompy robots have technology that would allow them to remain accurate while moving but I would counter that with the lore, the lore clearly indicates that through constant war the IS has bombed itself almost back to the stone age, the tech has certainly regressed. Nothing wrong with having that lore in game possibly.
So through the lore and through other FPS games there is an argument for the cone of fire effect.
Even though this system is in other games and it works you will still use "lore is bad" as your crutch when a cone of fire off the start may have solved many issues.

Cone of fire is viable and has been used in many RPG FPS hybrids such as the original Deus Ex with great success, but I'm uncertain of whether some of the playerbase would approve of the reduction in reliance on player skill in exchange for character skill. For the record, I'd be fine either way though.

KraftySOT, on 03 March 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Thats your main?

You post with your main?

Why ever wouldn't you? If you are saying what you believe you should be willing to stand by it, and if you're being disingenuous you probably shouldn't be posting at all instead of using some kind of false flag to hide behind.

CyclonerM, on 03 March 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

All right. In MWO, you can choose to play a role actually. You can be a Liao warrior fighting for revenge over the fedrats, a merc living on the battlefield and for the battlefield, or a Clan warrior fighting to achieve glory for himself and his Clan, racing to liberate Terra and create a new Star League.

Or you could be a lone wolf, fighting for himself and himself alone.

And you could be a liason officer for your unit, forging unity in your faction's military, or a trusted commander in your unit, or a training officer all the cadets go to when they need help..

You could be a Mechlab-warrior, always in the mech bay with your techs, arguing over the best configuration for your OmniMech and personally helping them switching pods..

Or you could be the ambassador to a reborn Star League's coucil, made to stop the Clan invasion.

I'm a fan of the "freeborn warrior with a chip on his shoulder" background.

Noesis, on 03 March 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

I think when we can craft the types of capes for our mechs and worry about them getting clogged into dropship turbo fans and then also ask other players IG where we can buy arrows, then it will be an RPG.

Escaflowne! <3

Necromantion, on 04 March 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

To be totally honest in the last week or so of CW since VOIP implementation Ive seen pug CW groups doing better than some organized unit 12 mans... lol

I too have observed this phenomenon. It is rather amusing in my opinion.

Edited by Tim East, 04 March 2015 - 04:07 PM.