126 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

You don't think very critically, do you?

If weapon A deals 5 damage in TT, over a course of 10 seconds, how much damage does it do?
It weapon B deals 5 damage every 1.66 seconds, how much damage does it deal in 10 seconds?


TT stats were largely ignored. You could argue every 5 seconds to account for doubled armour.

Oh lord... if I hear ONE more person argue about how the weapons should be normalized to shoot as often as they do in TT, I'm going to strap an AC 2 that fires once every 5 seconds to his head and let him slug it out against an AC 20 that fires once every 5 seconds.

I've heard this crazy argument before, followed by "uh... well, yeah, the lighter AC's will be weak, but they'll have great range!" Yeah, because anyone is actually going to care about being plinked with an AC 2 every 5 seconds... right... Here's a Gauss round + PPC blast for your troubles... enjoy.

Much of the game is reasonably based on TT, converted to what makes sense in a first person shooter. Table top itself was horribly unbalanced, with piles of totally useless mechs and weapons, so treating it as sacred is rather silly. MWO only real flaw in that area is the perfect, pinpoint convergence issue, which puts all the damage on one location from many weapons. That gets out of hand quickly, results in dismally fast kills, and feels nothing like TT or Battletech.

Edited by oldradagast, 16 August 2015 - 04:34 PM.

[Davers]

SpiralFace, on 16 August 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

This is categorically false unless you are simply throwing out any form of balance system the game already had. ML's, PPC's, and Gauss was powerful, but not all consuming. They are hands down the most expensive weapons to field, and under the BV system that BT operated under, unless you where actively ignoring it, those weapons remained powerful, but EXPENSIVE to field, so you would be sacrificing something else (tonnage, range, maneuverability, pilot skill, armor,) in order to have the points available to spam those weapon systems.

Not to mention that 2-3 of those weapons have min-ranges you can maneuver into, and the other one is a short range weapon that is easily zoned.

That being said, there where imbalances in the TT because the system itself was balanced AS A TABLE TOP WAR GAME. Where it is alright that some weapons are better then others, but are priced more "expensively."

The weapons where never designed to be 1 to 1 with other weapon systems in the game, and to that end, Its fine that they adjust the values to better correlate with MWO needing to be an FPS. Not a 1st person board game simulator like some seem to want it to become.

I just wish PGI had done just a few things...

1. Designed the game around stock mechs.
2. Planned for combined arms at the beginning- infantry, vehicles, gunships and had set the weapons up accordingly- AC2s would have been the best Anti Air weapon for instance.
3. Destructible terrain/interactive terrain. I want woods/water that slow mechs. I want flamers to be able to set a woods ablaze and overheat/damage mechs.
4. More complicated game modes than 'meet in the middle and kill the other guy'.

[Mcgral18]

oldradagast, on 16 August 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Oh lord... if I hear ONE more person argue about how the weapons should be normalized to shoot as often as they do in TT, I'm going to strap an AC 2 that fires once every 5 seconds to his head and let him slug it out against an AC 20 that fires once every 5 seconds.

I've heard this crazy argument before, followed by "uh... well, yeah, the lighter AC's will be weak, but they'll have great range!" Yeah, because anyone is actually going to care about being plinked with an AC 2 every 5 seconds... right... Here's a Gauss round + PPC blast for your troubles... enjoy.

Much of the game is reasonably based on TT, converted to what makes sense in a first person shooter. Table top itself was horribly unbalanced, with piles of totally useless mechs and weapons, so treating it as sacred is rather silly. MWO only real flaw in that area is the perfect, pinpoint convergence issue, which puts all the damage on one location from many weapons. That gets out of hand quickly, results in dismally fast kills, and feels nothing like TT or Battletech.

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

The numbers as a starting point might have proven better...rather than PGI being "Mechs are dying too fast because we tripled damage"

PGI ****** up pretty good. They ****** up the starting stats of weapons, for where to start balancing them.

[Sjorpha]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

The numbers as a starting point might have proven better...rather than PGI being "Mechs are dying too fast because we tripled damage"

All kinds of small decisions, starting points, numbers or whatever might have proven better, or worse, or just different. What I'm saying is that it's pretty silly to judge whether a game is part of a certain IP based on things like that.

This is exactly how silly the question is:

"If Mario grows 3x instead of 2x by taking a mushroom, is it really a Super Mario game?"

[Thunder Child]

Kassatsu, on 16 August 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

It's a failed game with a Mechwarrior mod applied, which makes it successful. So... Kind of? Not really? In name it is I guess. It's literally NOTHING like any past Mechwarrior game, that's for sure.

I miss Mechwarrior 2. Time to find the good old dosbox and load it up again for nostalgia's sake... Now the question is do I do my Kodiak made out of heat sinks with 5 ER PPCs and jump jets, or do I do my Firemoth with a maxed out engine, two small lasers and jump jets so that it can launch itself across the continent at 600kph... Or maybe the Marauder. Not only was it the first mech I ever piloted, it's what got me hooked on the series (and ER PPCs).

I used that Firemoth build in the Third Wolf Mission. I had tried to use heavier chassis, and always died at the Summoner Ambush. But a Firemoth with No armor, a Small Pulse Laser, and Maximum Engine + Masc pretty much out ran EVERYTHING (even the missiles, if I remember rightly).

[Deathlike]

This is a MW game "in name".

The problem is that the higher ups don't understand how to make the game "more fun".

[Mcgral18]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

All kinds of small decisions, starting points, numbers or whatever might have proven better, or worse, or just different. What I'm saying is that it's pretty silly to judge whether a game is part of a certain IP based on things like that.

This is exactly how silly the question is:

"If Mario grows 3x instead of 2x by taking a mushroom, is it really a Super Mario game?"

Not exactly, as TTK suffered as a result. At best, we have 150% damage. At worse, it gets much more significant (to the tune of 20x damage with quirks).

You also make a good point; models make a huge difference on the effectiveness of a robot. Not so much in Super Mario, but very much in Shooty Stompy Robots:Online

[Sjorpha]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Not exactly, as TTK suffered as a result. At best, we have 150% damage. At worse, it gets much more significant (to the tune of 20x damage with quirks).

You also make a good point; models make a huge difference on the effectiveness of a robot. Not so much in Super Mario, but very much in Shooty Stompy Robots:Online

Not exactly what? What does TTK being a bit lower or higher or models mattering for effectiveness have to do with the question of what IP a game belongs to?

Since when does newer itereations of older games have to mimic the exact numbers of the old ones? It's common to change things up quite a lot, just look at the difference between the original zelda and the current ones, how many exact values or mechanics are left from the nintendo 8 bit version, probably none at all. Does that mean it's not Zelda? No, because it was never about numbers in the first place, it's about the setting, the characters and the feeling.

If Battletech is such a shallow IP that it relies on preservation of numbers to be what it is then what exactly is there to be a fan of?

[Thunder Child]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

All kinds of small decisions, starting points, numbers or whatever might have proven better, or worse, or just different. What I'm saying is that it's pretty silly to judge whether a game is part of a certain IP based on things like that.

This is exactly how silly the question is:

"If Mario grows 3x instead of 2x by taking a mushroom, is it really a Super Mario game?"

Agreed. The numbers are unimportant, for the most part. For example, stock Tonnages for everything shouldn't be changed. But weapon values should definitely be adjusted as required for balance in an Arcade Shooter.

[Mcgral18]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 05:13 PM, said:

Not exactly what? What does TTK being a bit lower or higher or models mattering for effectiveness have to do with the question of what IP a game belongs to?

Since when does newer itereations of older games have to mimic the exact numbers of the old ones? It's common to change things up quite a lot, just look at the difference between the original zelda and the current ones, how many exact values or mechanics are left from the nintendo 8 bit version, probably none at all. Does that mean it's not Zelda? No, because it was never about numbers in the first place, it's about the setting, the characters and the feeling.

If Battletech is such a shallow IP that it relies on preservation of numbers to be what it is then what exactly is there to be a fan of?

Most people don't **** up the interpretation as bad as PGI did. That's what I'm saying.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

no, its ECMwarrior Online.

When you start seeing multiple games where the enemy is running 8 plus (last game was 10) ECM equipped mechs you might have an issue with a equipment being OP

Thunder Child, on 16 August 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

Agreed. The numbers are unimportant, for the most part. For example, stock Tonnages for everything shouldn't be changed. But weapon values should definitely be adjusted as required for balance in an Arcade Shooter.

And it should be called that, not a thinking man's shooter because its not

[Thunder Child]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 16 August 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

no, its ECMwarrior Online.

When you start seeing multiple games where the enemy is running 8 plus (last game was 10) ECM equipped mechs you might have an issue with a equipment being OP



And it should be called that, not a thinking man's shooter because its not

From what I have seen of closed Beta, there was some thinking involved then. But with the lack of reasons to complete objectives (and the resulting Deathball), the near instant delivery of 40+ pts of damage per Alpha on average, and no Metagame outside of the matches (like Salvage/R&R, or importance to controlling territories, or even just a Leaderboard), this is really just an Arcade Arena Shooter. Which is a pity. I loved this game initially, I love the franchise, and I would love to stay with this game. But for now, I'll login, run a Gigawhale for some C-bill farming for a few matches, and then go do something interesting. It's a pity that SMM is outside my timezone (with not enough interest in my TZ to bother trying to start my own). SMM was always fun.

[Sjorpha]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Most people don't **** up the interpretation as bad as PGI did. That's what I'm saying.

k.

I can see that if you simply don't like the game that works as some kind of cue to decry it's authenthicity, that doesn't interest me in the slightest though. I'd rather talk to people who enjoy the game and have a positive approach to improving it, without any silly old bitterness.

I happen to think it's the best mechwarrior game so far, I'm not very interested in single player games and the multiplayer in the old ones were pretty **** IMO.

[Mcgral18]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

k.

I can see that if you simply don't like the game that works as some kind of cue to decry it's authenthicity, that doesn't interest me in the slightest though. I'd rather talk to people who enjoy the game and have a positive approach to improving it, without any silly old bitterness.

I happen to think it's the best mechwarrior game so far, I'm not very interested in single player games and the multiplayer in the old ones were pretty **** IMO.

That's not a very good way to look at things. Then you'll never see the negatives.


Rose tinted glasses.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

k.

I can see that if you simply don't like the game that works as some kind of cue to decry it's authenthicity, that doesn't interest me in the slightest though. I'd rather talk to people who enjoy the game and have a positive approach to improving it, without any silly old bitterness.

Ah, youd rather throw out rational thought and polish yer armor. I see. Dont let that ignored history repeat on you

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Most people don't **** up the interpretation as bad as PGI did. That's what I'm saying.

Really?

What about this:


vs.

This:



What did they do to my Mobile Infantry?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 16 August 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:

Really?

What about this:


vs.

This:



What did they do to my Mobile Infantry?

Movies and games are completely different tho and books are always better than movie XD

[NephyrisX]

If we are comparing stats on weapons as a gauge on how close to BT they are, virtually almost all other MW game wouldn't be a "Mechwarrior" game.

Edited by NephyrisX, 16 August 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Mcgral18, on 16 August 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

That's not a very good way to look at things. Then you'll never see the negatives.

I see all kinds of things I'd like to change with the game, which you should know from previous exchanges between us in other threads as late as today. They're just not the same you see, but strawmanning differing opinions from your own as blindness is the new black I've heard. I see there some other dude doing the same above.

Fact remains that little numbers in the ruleset being tweaked don't define a games belonging or not in a given IP, which was my original and only point in this thread.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

NephyrisX, on 16 August 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

If we are comparing stars on weapons as a gauge on how close to BT they are, virtually almost all other MW game wouldn't be a "Mechwarrior" game.

Virtually all other MW games didnt advertise themselves as a BT game either