141 replies to this topic

[Lord de Seis]

I haven't play since Dec, just been wanting to play different things... I know I will be back eventually.

[Burktross]

Escef, on 01 April 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

If people want something over-arching that connects battles and such I'm all for it. But I think too many people (not saying Joe or anyone else specifically is one of them) sat there and griped about how the game was meaningless without CW. Well, I'd love for someone to tell me exactly what meaning CW was supposed to bring. Because the long and short of it is still going out there and shooting virtual giant robots for recreation.

Supply lines, complex warfare, dynamic missions, repair and rearm, in depth company management, mercenaries, differing contract types
etc

[Escef]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Supply lines, complex warfare, dynamic missions, repair and rearm, in depth company management, mercenaries, differing contract types
etc

Once again, what meaning is this supposed to bring to the game? I'm not asking for what you want that will create depth of gameplay, I'm asking about how it is going to make the game have meaning. Because no matter what you add to the game to make it more complex it is STILL A GAME. A game where you use giant robots to shoot other giant robots.

[Burktross]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

Once again, what meaning is this supposed to bring to the game? I'm not asking for what you want that will create depth of gameplay, I'm asking about how it is going to make the game have meaning. Because no matter what you add to the game to make it more complex it is STILL A GAME. A game where you use giant robots to shoot other giant robots.

Semantics™, again. Mallan probably meant meaning not pertaining to the real world, meaning as in what you do in game actually has a measurable and significant effect on the in game world, not just a name on a planet.

[Greenjulius]

I had to reduce my playing lately because it was cutting into (whats left of) my social life. Increasingly extreme challenges got the better of me and burned me out. I didn't even play over the weekend since I'm not crazy about CW.

I can't do a 15-20 hour challenge every weekend. If it was only a 5-10 hour challenge, that would be realistic and attainable. It became like a second job for me to grind out 50-80 qualifying matches every weekend.

I'm sure some will say, "but you don't have to do them. Just have fun."

I'm rather obsessive about completing everything 100% however, so it would bug the hell out of me only get part of a reward. So I'm doing the next best thing... taking a break from MWO for a while.

That, and I need to beat Pillars of Eternity and Alien: Isolation. I like single player games more than multi-player games because I don't take competition well, and stress out when I play tough or losing matches constantly.

So, I'm sure I'll be back on again with more regularity, but for now me and MWO are taking some time apart.

[Escef]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

Semantics™, again.

In other, words, you don't have an answer. And so you try to make silly accusations of "semantics", to dodge that fact. Noted.

[Burktross]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 05:15 PM, said:

In other, words, you don't have an answer. And so you try to make silly accusations of "semantics", to dodge that fact. Noted.

Whatever floats your boat man. I gave you an answer-- merely an incorrect choice of words and or a misinterpretation of them.

[Escef]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

Whatever floats your boat man. I gave you an answer-- merely an incorrect choice of words and or a misinterpretation of them.

No, you didn't give me an answer. It's like you utterly failed to comprehend the question.

[Burktross]

y

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

No, you didn't give me an answer. It's like you utterly failed to comprehend the question.

Fine, let's revisit your question.

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

Once again, what meaning is this supposed to bring to the game? I'm not asking for what you want that will create depth of gameplay, I'm asking about how it is going to make the game have meaning. Because no matter what you add to the game to make it more complex it is STILL A GAME. A game where you use giant robots to shoot other giant robots.

My answer.

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

Semantics™, again. Mallan probably meant meaning not pertaining to the real world, meaning as in what you do in game actually has a measurable and significant effect on the in game world, not just a name on a planet.

You posed the question based on your interpretation of what Mallan said. I'm trying to say that what you're asking isn't even being debated, as you probably misunderstood his wording.

Even with that in mind, let's look at this.

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

Mallan probably meant "meaning" not pertaining to the real world

I was under the impression this would imply that the meaning you are asking of-- real life meaning-- does not exist.
In essence, agreeing with you.

So basically, this is all a big misinterpretation-- that is, of course, unless Joseph really did imply that CW needs to give the game real life meaning. I highly doubt that.

So to wrap it up, let me reword my response.
"I think you misunderstood Joseph Mallan. It's not being debated whether MWO has / should have real life meaning, but rather that Mallan meant that one's in game actions should have in game meaning"

Edited by Burktross, 02 April 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

Once again, what meaning is this supposed to bring to the game? I'm not asking for what you want that will create depth of gameplay, I'm asking about how it is going to make the game have meaning. Because no matter what you add to the game to make it more complex it is STILL A GAME. A game where you use giant robots to shoot other giant robots.

With all due respect if you're intent on playing argumentum ad ubsurdum then the corollary would be that there's no point in doing anything whatsoever. I can't speak for others, but that which Burktross and to a lesser extent I explained would be nice to see would indeed add meaning to the game. Meaning in the form of play methodology and objectives that would lead the player to be able to suspend disbelief and believe that he or she is in fact taking part in 31st century warfare, as modelled in the BT universe, with all the strategic and tactical depth that could, and should, be part of a game that has precisely that sort of heritage.

I posit that such depth, or complexity if you will, of game-play would lead players to have a far more immersive experience of MWO that merely shooting other mechs for no other reason than to make C-bills in order to... shoot other mechs. Having a defining goal - winning a war - and an on-going campaign with all the associated methodology of waging war - would provide far more for most players to actually do, and would probably also provide far more memorable games.

MWO is currently a great deathmatch game set in the Battletech universe, but BT and the Mechwarrior franchise deserves far more given what's possible with 2015 computer and game engine technology.

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 02 April 2015 - 06:22 PM.

[Escef]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

So to wrap it up, let me reword my response.
"I think you misunderstood Joseph Mallan. It's not being debated whether MWO has / should have real life meaning, but rather that Mallan meant that one's in game actions should have in game meaning"

By that standard the matches already have meaning. The c-bills and XP generated enable you to purchase and customize units. That has impact in-game.

That said, yes, I know that a lot of players want a base universe with some kind of a community driven narrative. And it would be nice to have. However, as for myself, I'm here to wreck virtual metal. I'm somewhat less interested in "Mechwarrior: the Battletech game of accounting".

Edited by Escef, 02 April 2015 - 06:32 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 April 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

With all due respect if you're intent on playing argumentum ad ubsurdum then the corollary would be that there's no point in doing anything whatsoever. I can't speak for others, but that which Burktross and to a lesser extent I explained would be nice to see would indeed add meaning to the game. Meaning in the form of play methodology and objectives that would lead the player to be able to suspend disbelief and believe that he or she is in fact taking part in 31st century warfare, as modelled in the BT universe, with all the strategic and tactical depth that could, and should, be part of a game that has precisely that sort of heritage.

I posit that such depth, or complexity if you will, of game-play would lead players to have a far more immersive experience of MWO that merely shooting other mechs for no other reason than to make C-bills in order to... shoot other mechs. Having a defining goal - winning a war - and an on-going campaign with all the associated methodology of waging war - would provide far more for most players to actually do, and would probably also provide far more memorable games.

MWO is currently a great deathmatch game set in the Battletech universe, but BT and the Mechwarrior franchise deserves far more given what's possible with 2015 computer and game engine technology.

THis...100x. The gameplay in MWO is so bland and boring, there is no enjoyment really to be had, unless your idea of fun is to mindlessly press WASD and some mouse clciks for 5 minutes, watch a light show and repeat 3750 games in a row.....

Battles are so boring, even the fun ones where I do well, the excitement of the moment lasts about 2 minutes....

No epic feeling to the battles, almost like a job, its something one does just cuz....

THen battles arent good, its 12-1 or 1-12.......pretty much one side rolls the other.....MWO is a pretty boring game overall...it really is.



Hell, even CW games are little more then BF2142 Camp Gibraltar....one side has "Flags" to guard and the other side has a series of choke points to get through in order to get to the objectives....sometimes the enemy breaks in and there is a bit of a fight, other times its a gate camp fest.......

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 02 April 2015 - 06:35 PM.

[Escef]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 April 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

With all due respect if you're intent on playing argumentum ad ubsurdum then the corollary would be that there's no point in doing anything whatsoever.

No, my argument is that expecting a video game to have meaning is rather absurd. It's a game, it's recreation, it's used to de-stress.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

No, my argument is that expecting a video game to have meaning is rather absurd. It's a game, it's recreation, it's used to de-stress.

Well, while I agree that this is a perfectly valid reason for games to exist, and to play them, it's not the only reason. Take games such as The Talos Principle or Planescape Torment for example. The former is really a discourse in existentialist philosophy, discussing what it means to be alive / human and the purposes of existence via a series of puzzles and sort-of interactive diary entries. The latter was a masterpiece of storytelling that immersed the player in a superbly written narrative. A trip through someone else's imagination if you will.

There's nothing at all wrong with having a simplistic mode or modes in MWO - what we have now is and would be great for causal team vs team games, but what I and apparently others want is frankly a far more complex and involving game in addition to the simplistic team v team mode we have now. As it stands, it would appear that the team v team mode is most of what we're going to get.

A lot of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of the utter cretins from IG Publishing, with their admissions that core BT fans weren't the desired player base etc. etc. MWO is finally moving in the right direction, but I and others want to see far more. We want CW, or something like it, to be a war simulator on levels varying from the grand strategic to the battlefield tactical. I don't think I can explain it any better than that.

[Burktross]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

No, my argument is that expecting a video game to have meaning is rather absurd. It's a game, it's recreation, it's used to de-stress.

You seem to be having trouble differentiating IRL meaning and IG meaning. We are talking of the latter.
Games have no 'meaning" IRL of course.
However, we want our actions IG to have (much more) meaning IG.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

You seem to be having trouble differentiating IRL meaning and IG meaning. We are talking of the latter.
Games have no 'meaning" IRL of course.
However, we want our actions IG to have (much more) meaning IG.

Some like their games to have a purpose, to get involved in the gameplay, others like to just sit back and chill. Nothing wrong either way, I just prefer to have a meaning and purpose and to get engrossed in the game, otherwise, just like when I watch TV, even if its a good show, I will fall asleep....

[Escef]

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

Games have no 'meaning" IRL of course.

That doesn't stop people from acting like they do. And even using them as a replacement for IRL deficiencies. Hell, a month or two back Villz (the House of Lords founding member that got kicked for not actually playing with the group and being an all-around d-bag) popped into my livestream (something I mostly do as a hobby) and got all "urination-y" and screaming about how he started one of the best competitive groups in the game, yadda, yadda, yadda. I didn't care, nor did the rest of my viewers. Because we all know that MWO is a game. And too many asswagons decide to hinge their identities and sense of self worth on... a video game? WTF? I mean, I used to be able to beat the original, 8-bit Ninja Gaiden without losing any lives, that doesn't mean I knew jack diddly about game design or was a worthwhile person.

Now, if people want to play the accounting game in MWO, hey, good for them. I like to tinker with mechs and shoot people. The engineering aspect of the game combined with the actual combat are enough to keep me entertained. If some people enjoy playing spreadsheet warrior, hey, I'm not going to say they are wrong for it. What a person considers fun is totally their business, so long as they don't hurt anyone. I'm not here to be the "stop having fun the wrong way"-guy.

Burktross, on 02 April 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

You seem to be having trouble differentiating IRL meaning and IG meaning.

No, I'm not. And I'm pretty sure you aren't implying what it looks like you are (the idea of having difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality). My problem is that people place too much IRL-meaning on there being IG-meaning. People get their crap in a knot over the dumbest things sometimes. And we're all guilty of it from time to time... Maybe I just need a break from the forums, maybe I'm getting to the point where I'm expecting almost everyone here to be psychotic, I dunno.

[WonderSparks]

I have pretty much stopped playing live games (and have retreated to the secluded Testing Grounds I seem so fascinated with) because of a technical problem.

Whether because my parts were not good enough to handle the game or some other gremlin manifested itself, my computer has slowly crawled into a state of "I will disconnect this Internet connection whenever I want!" which, as one may imagine, severely impedes one's ability to play a live game. Heck, even using the MechLab is a chore because often enough it disconnects while I am trying to save a loadout or some junk, and it extends the wait times for saving and loading things, as you can imagine.

_{The network problem is persistent; even when I am literally doing nothing, sometimes the connection indicator on both the taskbar and my router blank out. It is a chronic thing that annoys me to no end, and nothing I have done has helped. *grumble grumble*}

[R Razor]

Escef, on 02 April 2015 - 07:19 PM, said:

Now, if people want to play the accounting game in MWO, hey, good for them. I like to tinker with mechs and shoot people. The engineering aspect of the game combined with the actual combat are enough to keep me entertained. If some people enjoy playing spreadsheet warrior, hey, I'm not going to say they are wrong for it. What a person considers fun is totally their business, so long as they don't hurt anyone. I'm not here to be the "stop having fun the wrong way"-guy.

And yet, despite your claims to the contrary (that you don't care if people prefer a different game style) you continue to insult anyone that doesn't want to play your style of "call of doody giant stompy robotz" Battletech / Mechwarrior............(see what I did there?)

Seems like a lot of people would prefer a game with more depth than "click click bang bang", which you seem to prefer.

Edited by R Razor, 02 April 2015 - 07:31 PM.

[Escef]

R Razor, on 02 April 2015 - 07:30 PM, said:

(see what I did there?)

Yes, i do, it's called strawman tactics. You deliberately misrepresent me so that you can attack the easier target you have made for yourself.

So, please, tell me where I EVER said I was against more depth of gameplay. Show me.