189 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Parts of post #34 should have been in the first post in this thread, as it would have illustrated why the thread was started.

On the other hand, the game mechanics differences between TT and MWO aren't "lore", but the differences have made balancing game mechanics challenging, such as the dynamic changing heatscale cap, no heat level threshold affecting mechs except upon reaching the cap, etc.

[Necromantion]

Tarl Cabot, on 18 February 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

Parts of post #34 should have been in the first post in this thread, as it would have illustrated why the thread was started.

On the other hand, the game mechanics differences between TT and MWO aren't "lore", but the differences have made balancing game mechanics challenging, such as the dynamic changing heatscale cap, no heat level threshold affecting mechs except upon reaching the cap, etc.

I added some of that post into the OP as this thread was derailed for a period there.

Oh indeed, I understand that totally, as stated implementation of things from another games rules even if its just a loosely based concept can take a lot of tweaking to implement in a balanced way that allows for dynamic and fun gameplay.

[CyclonerM]

Just a small thought: the current implementation of mercenaries and contracts is not only an issue from a lore/canon/RP perspective, but also neither logical nor realistic if you think about what a mercenary is.

At this time, factions pay mercs to do whatever they want. House Davion, Clan Wolf etc. are just charity organizations for mercs

[Necromantion]

CyclonerM, on 18 February 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

Just a small thought: the current implementation of mercenaries and contracts is not only an issue from a lore/canon/RP perspective, but also neither logical nor realistic if you think about what a mercenary is.

At this time, factions pay mercs to do whatever they want. House Davion, Clan Wolf etc. are just charity organizations for mercs

Indeed, that is why i started up a post you may have seen with a bit of spitballing to deal with the controversy surrounding how mercs currently function and at the same time throwing a bone to loyalists units that should address two issues in one fell swoop.

http://mwomercs.com/...ntial-solution/

This weekend I will be putting forward a very structured and concise post regarding this on the suggestion forums!

[Noesis]

You can still immerse yourself in the gaming experience using "precedents" from BT lore just like PGI have and just like the game uses without having to follow the exact history or game rulings as per BT books.

In this sense the ability to RP in an FPS does not need to be mutually exclusive, nor should it infer a need for either to diminish fun for others as a result, assuming you do not impose a need on others to have expectant behaviour as a result. However, please don't generalise or confuse the context of RP in its own right as a need to re-enact the BT history, or that you cannot be both acomplished and having fun as both an RPer and an FPS gamer at the same time based on personal preferences with MWO.

Edited by Noesis, 18 February 2015 - 02:17 PM.

[Abivard]

Dear OP, NEWSFLASH!

This IS a RPG that uses FPS mechanics for combat. You seem to be the one that reads to much into it having a FPS mode and seem to think because FPS mechanics are in the game RP can not be allowed.

The massive amount of lore books tends to back up the idea that this game has a STRONG RP element, as a stand alone FPS.... well if it was stripped of all lore and RP, how many would actually play it.

To try and rule out RP concerns in CW is silly, why even play CW if you dismiss any and all RP concerns. Everything about this game is traced to BT canon, that doesn't mean that this game must follow the same timeline, our actions can and do change that.

Seems you are using the argument that PGI should ignore all the MW/BT background,weapons, factions, loyalists and designed alliances/feuds and focus on what MS wants done, even if it flies in the face of everything in BT that came before them.

[Scout Derek]

Abivard, on 18 February 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

Dear OP, NEWSFLASH!

This IS a RPG that uses FPS mechanics for combat. You seem to be the one that reads to much into it having a FPS mode and seem to think because FPS mechanics are in the game RP can not be allowed.

The massive amount of lore books tends to back up the idea that this game has a STRONG RP element, as a stand alone FPS.... well if it was stripped of all lore and RP, how many would actually play it.

To try and rule out RP concerns in CW is silly, why even play CW if you dismiss any and all RP concerns. Everything about this game is traced to BT canon, that doesn't mean that this game must follow the same timeline, our actions can and do change that.

Seems you are using the argument that PGI should ignore all the MW/BT background,weapons, factions, loyalists and designed alliances/feuds and focus on what MS wants done, even if it flies in the face of everything in BT that came before them.

[Necromantion]

Noesis, on 18 February 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

You can still immerse yourself in the gaming experience using "precedents" from BT lore just like PGI have and just like the game uses without having to follow the exact history or game rulings as per BT books.

In this sense the ability to RP in an FPS does not need to be mutually exclusive, nor should it infer a need for either to diminish fun for others as a result, assuming you do not impose a need on others to have expectant behaviour as a result. However, please don't generalise or confuse the context of RP in its own right as a need to re-enact the BT history, or that you cannot be both acomplished and having fun as both an RPer and an FPS gamer at the same time based on personal preferences with MWO.

Indeed Noesis, I am not discounting that. I dont feel that RP and the fact that the game is an FPS game are mutually exclusive.

I should have been more clear to address it as a lore related issue primarily, however it does seem that those that are very RP oriented seem to voice their disgruntlement with the games current state solely based on things from TT cannon and lore while the whole time disregarding game balance in an FPS game.

Abivard, on 18 February 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

Dear OP, NEWSFLASH!

This IS a RPG that uses FPS mechanics for combat. You seem to be the one that reads to much into it having a FPS mode and seem to think because FPS mechanics are in the game RP can not be allowed.

The massive amount of lore books tends to back up the idea that this game has a STRONG RP element, as a stand alone FPS.... well if it was stripped of all lore and RP, how many would actually play it.

To try and rule out RP concerns in CW is silly, why even play CW if you dismiss any and all RP concerns. Everything about this game is traced to BT canon, that doesn't mean that this game must follow the same timeline, our actions can and do change that.

Seems you are using the argument that PGI should ignore all the MW/BT background,weapons, factions, loyalists and designed alliances/feuds and focus on what MS wants done, even if it flies in the face of everything in BT that came before them.

No, no it is not. It has been called "The thinking persons shooter" it does not "have an FPS mode" there are no other "Modes" other than FPS as it is an FPS game.

I think that RP concerns are indeed silly when they would counter the interests of a balanced game play for all players in an FPS game. Also my issue is with people pushing lore based expectations on the game and when they aren't feeling something in game they use lore as the basis for their argument and are unable to step back and see that because it is an FPS game and PGI is balancing lore around keeping it a balanced FPS experience that not all things will be implemented in some canon or lore form.

What are you even talking about? My interests are not for MS my interests are a balanced and immersive Mechwarrior Multiplayer game. If you even read any of my other posts I am actually for Merc's having less say in certain things than current implementation lends itself to and that loyalists should have more benefits than they currently do.
See: http://mwomercs.com/...ntial-solution/

I never said anything about ignoring lore. Read the earlier posts.

Edited by Necromantion, 18 February 2015 - 02:30 PM.

[Harathan]

Necromantion, on 18 February 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

My interests are not for MS my interests are a balanced and immersive Mechwarrior Multiplayer game.

The idea that a member of a unit that by its own admission exists "for fun and tags" is interested in "balance" or "immersion" is entirely risible.

[Repasy Cooper]

Incidentally, if they develop further on some of the original promises they made with CW we actually COULD see new ways for playing the game. They originally promised things such as:

• Unit Logistics (organizing mechs/equipment used for an assault, transit time, etc.)
  
• Player-Created Contracts/Bounties (get even with players for picking on you, hehehe...)
  
• Faction Economics (faction-specific availability/sales on weapons, equipment, mechs, etc.)
  
• Contract Restrictions (restricted to individual planet contracts, individual attack lanes, etc.)
  
• Loyalist Voting for Warfronts (get to vote which planet to attack next.)
  
• Planet Economics (planets actually MEAN SOMETHING; give C-bill bonus, equipment availability for faction, etc.)

If features like this get added to the game there would be a whole new dynamic other than straight-up FPS grinding. I wouldn't necessarily call it a new "game mode" but it would finally encompass more RP and Lore while in-game.

The bottom line is that RP and Lore do not have to be connected, this isn't gonna play out at all like Operation Revival... BUT they are important. Lore helps inspire the devs with new content, and RP is what inspires player-created treaties and coordinated assaults. The above features would further both RP and Lore in the game. So, while some people might say that RP is a waste of time, I think the devs are paying attention to AND considering implementing more and more RP/Lore features into the game. People should keep that in mind before discounting RP and alienating the people who came to play the "smart-person's shooter".

Don't freaking criticize people for trying to play the game how it was envisioned before all of the supporting features are implemented. If you don't want to deal with smart people trying to juice out as much as they can from the game/forums to sate their battletech appetite, go back to all the dumb people playing COD...

If this was JUST an fps they would not have bothered with Community Warfare. I can't think of any other fps game that offers what CW does.

[HARDKOR]

No other game offers a map of blinky dots with secret score keeping and no value for taking control of the dots? Make you wonder why no-one else is doing something as pointless as that.

BRB, gonna go hand out some participation trophies for a t-ball league. Hit me up for some RP when this has at least half the actual features of a planetary league. Till then, it's just hardcore mode gametype.

[Necromantion]

Repasy, on 18 February 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

Indeed those aspects would add a lot more dynamics. I am wholly for the implementation of lore related aspects that would add depth to the game as long as it doesn't result in poor gameplay and adverse environments as we currently have due to lack of structure in some aspects.
Once again I did not say that there is anything wrong with lore. NEVER. NOT ONCE. That being said I did say that people like to use it as a crutch to justify when they want things changed/nerfed.

I did not say there was anything wrong with RP either.

Now tying those two things together. Typically the very RP oriented people have been the same individuals constantly using lore to justify changes to things that they dont like rather than using rational approaches to gameplay balances.



I have not criticized ANYONE for playing the game how they want.

That is exactly the issue that this thread was to point out and address, the people who are saying that others shouldn't be able to play how they are or want to because they aren't following lore.

How many threads have there been about mercs and their current implementation (or rather lack thereof if you prefer) and on those threads a good portion of the arguments are just "they didnt function like this in the books/tt/etc" Or how about the threads were people are saying "why can this IS faction attack this other IS faction? That never happened in the books,etc"



So for the umpteenth time, all I said was for the very lore RP/lore oriented individuals to step back and realize that this game being a multiplayer FPS game first and foremost that the lore isnt going to always make its way into the game in the exact way it played out before in other mediums if at all.

Is the first post really that ambiguously worded? Or are people really that easily offended and just wishing to put their own spin on things, because honestly the majority of posts on here have made me question peoples reading comprehension.

Edited by Necromantion, 18 February 2015 - 03:37 PM.

[HARDKOR]

Wait, so are you trying to say that the FPS should be balanced to itself, while at the same time saying that RP is a valid and fun way to play the game, BUT the RP should not be used to balance?

[Necromantion]

HARDKOR, on 18 February 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Wait, so are you trying to say that the FPS should be balanced to itself, while at the same time saying that RP is a valid and fun way to play the game, BUT the RP should not be used to balance?

Yup and that the battletech lore can bring some amazing immersive aspects to the game that would separate (and already does separate) it from other FPS games. But also that that lore is not a valid excuse to change things that would be functioning to deliver a balanced FPS experience!

[Davers]

So…Clan/IS mechs for everyone?

[Joseph Mallan]

Necromantion, on 18 February 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

The funny thing is the only things that people have said on this thread have not been contradiction to anything I have said.

You accuse me of not liking lore/RP or imply that I am telling people how to play when I have done nothing of the sort other than saying to have fun and realize that not all lore will translate into this game because it is exactly what PGI has said themselves.

And when I make a valid reply to your post clarifying this people have either nothing to say or resort to trolling like this individual above.

The funny thing is you are trying to make others play the game your way? SO you are just as wrong as those who are strict Canon players.

I am here because of the Canon. I have 30 years invested in this IP both on TT and on my computers over the years. I expect my MechWarrior Game to feel like it is part of the CBT Universe. Now after saying that, if we as players can change teh canon outcomes, Power to us. I chose to be a Lyran cause I wanted to fight and hopefully repel the Clans. So I am trying to chance canon. There are some things I want to remain and those things I will fight for, Other stuff... I'm not concerned with.

So if you can come here and tell others how they should play the game you are part of the problem you are trying to fix.

[HARDKOR]

Actually, Joseph, I think what he's saying has nothing to do with how people PLAY the game. It's more about how people complain about the game balance in relation to lore.

Most of the off topic posting in this thread is simply that, off topic posting from people with their own agenda to push that are intentionally misreading and misquoting him.

[Necromantion]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 February 2015 - 03:37 AM, said:

The funny thing is you are trying to make others play the game your way? SO you are just as wrong as those who are strict Canon players.

I am here because of the Canon. I have 30 years invested in this IP both on TT and on my computers over the years. I expect my MechWarrior Game to feel like it is part of the CBT Universe. Now after saying that, if we as players can change teh canon outcomes, Power to us. I chose to be a Lyran cause I wanted to fight and hopefully repel the Clans. So I am trying to chance canon. There are some things I want to remain and those things I will fight for, Other stuff... I'm not concerned with.

So if you can come here and tell others how they should play the game you are part of the problem you are trying to fix.

If your reading comprehension is this poor I don't know what to tell you.

Nowhere do I try to make anyone play the game "my way", I am saying the game is being balanced around being an FPS not an RPG, which PGI has even stated themselves that lore/cannon will not always fit in with this game as it is a online multiplayer FPS not a single player RPG with a multiplayer mode. And in light of that the people who are moaning and complaining about things they dont like then are only able to justify their quams or potential solutions saying "well this is how it worked in TT or the books" is an utterly irrelevant justification because this is not a turn based RPG and to keep the game balanced and fun in the FPS environment certain things just wont translate.

Frankly I am tired of hearing "Merc's shouldnt/should do this or that because lore or tt had this or that rule" because do you think that PGI hasnt implemented the rewards for faction grinding and contract bonuses that change but didnt expect mercs and even other units to jump around? I know PGI is a bit nearsighted in some of their development but they arent that stupid to not do that intentionally.

So it is PGI's way, not my way.

Is that that difficult to comprehend? You may want to reread the posts that I made on this thread that were not replies to individuals trolling and trying to derail the thread.

HARDKOR, on 19 February 2015 - 05:44 AM, said:

Actually, Joseph, I think what he's saying has nothing to do with how people PLAY the game. It's more about how people complain about the game balance in relation to lore.

Most of the off topic posting in this thread is simply that, off topic posting from people with their own agenda to push that are intentionally misreading and misquoting him.

Bang on, A+ in reading comprehension.

[Repasy Cooper]

Aight fine. If the OP was simply about complaining about complaining about balance, then lets f****** move on, we're done here... there are tens of hundreds of threads about that already anyways. I mean seriously, in the end it all amounts to complaining in general, so this OP is pretty hypocritical.

Just sayin...

[Necromantion]

Actually I was saying that people who are doing the complaining should step back and just realign their perspectives in light of things that PGI have said numerous times over the last few years.

Another person jumps into the pool of comprehension struggles.

Edited by Necromantion, 19 February 2015 - 09:04 AM.