99 replies to this topic

[Odin]

Quinn Allard, on 01 December 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Is it just me or does the majority of people in this community BT people? Because there are MechWarrior players that are unfarmiliar with BT and the TT game. Lots of "I love the KC 34C" and "lets not forget the TRO 3025". While I love anything MechWarrior, I think BattleTech people need to bring it down a notch and put things in Layman Terms for those of us who havnt read all the TROs and dont know anything about the TableTop Game and not much about BattleTech lore and such. I'm sure there are lots of people out there like me, who've played EVERY Mech PC game, but still feel like a ****** when I am trying to join in on some conversations. Just be considerate of the community



PS I have read a few BT novels and such, but please try to see what I'm trying to say.
PSS I wonder if the Devs are going to lean towards all-out BT and TT (Since Weisman is involved), or going to bring back the magic of MechWarrior 2.

Don't worry. Since this is Mechwarrior, TT rules and BT lore is somewhere buried into the code. While lots of people played the board game, most did not, including myself. MechwarriorOnline will somehow recreate our BT experiences of the past, but it won't be a copy of them. Its gonna be better, cos this time the Devs realize and said so, you can't copy a turn based roll&dice thing into a real time simulation, not in under a year. PC hard- and software moved to new heights and not half of what we had in the past was good enough, if you asked me. This time there are no consoles nor M$ involved - it would be just another run&gun fps otherwise. A simulation, a Mechsimulator needs much more than a 1:1 transcription boardgame over PC! Here's hope PGI got the ax and nerve to cut down whats in the way.

If one gets the overall feel, moods and look of Mechwarrior, BT, TT in mind, your good to go, nothing more is needed.

[Hunter McGee]

As someone else mentioned earlier, the title "Mechwarrior" was first used for the Battletech Role Playing Game, which I still play as often as possible.

And no, you cannot have Mechwarrior without Battletech. They are joined at the hip so to speak.
I have always looked at it this way, and explained it to my newer RPG players as such... In Battletech you typically play the "Metal" You control sometimes many 'Mechs all at once. In Mechwarrior, you play the "Meat" You actually take on the persona of the Battletech Pilot himself. Much more in depth, and you tend to play more carefully due to you are a living breathing person, not just a giant machine.

Well, I guess I'm done for now.

[Major Crash]

Here is another good online source should you like to search for Mechs in the Technical Readouts for any given era. They are even trying to stay up with the Update manuals as well, ie 3050 & 3050U etc.
Just click on right panel for Era, then it will expand asking if you want Mechs, Aero, or what ever.
http://www.mechground.com/

[GaussDragon]

Technoviking, on 01 December 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

Mechwarriors who dont' play or enjoy Battletech: They know the other Mechwarriors rocked, and some of the lore, and want more of the same, along with all the glaring oversights fixed, they have various wants and needs from firing weapon types and graphics. They're not really interested in what company made the cannon on their MadCat, or the how far the Banshee has come since 3025. That's cool for them lorehounds. What these guys are afraid of is that their beloved Mechwarrior will end up a hexbased board game, slow and unweidly, possibly unfun. What they don't know is that the Battltech ruleset and universe is very deep and awesome and will help flesh out this game in many ways.

Your stereotype is pretty accurate.
In bold: You hit the nail on the head. That's one of my overriding concerns.
Underlined: That's debatable. I'm taking the side of the devs on this one and going with a reserved stance about it. This is a computer game, the entire Battletech ruleset may not be a very organic port to a computer game.

Kay Wolf, on 01 December 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

or try to tell me to chill out because THIS game is not going to be BattleTech, I want to reach through the wires and slap 'em to death. MechWarrior is a bastardized version of BattleTech, its very origin is in BattleTech, with MechWarrior 3 being the absolute closest to the boardgame, followed very closely by MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries, and anyone who plays these games without wanting to find out more about the universe disturbs me, reminds me of the ADD nature of most folks in our nation these days.

That's because it ISN'T going to be BattleTech. I've advocated for a somewhat tiered system that attempts to respect both preferences. What I find in the purists is what I find in the Tea Partiers - middle-aged males with absolutely no ability to compromise. It's not a matter of ADD, it's a preference. I appreciate the enthusiasm purists have for the lore, I really do, and I propose things that may be considered 'compromises' but this far out, these ideas are nebulous at best. The fact that the rest of us don't want to know everything there is about BT is a choice that a lot of you have no respect for.

[Robert Remington]

I messed up, ignore the man behind the curtain, and see below.

Edited by Robert Remington, 06 December 2011 - 02:02 PM.

[Robert Remington]

GaussDragon, on 06 December 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

Your stereotype is pretty accurate.
In bold: You hit the nail on the head. That's one of my overriding concerns.
Underlined: That's debatable. I'm taking the side of the devs on this one and going with a reserved stance about it. This is a computer game, the entire Battletech ruleset may not be a very organic port to a computer game.


That's because it ISN'T going to be BattleTech. I've advocated for a somewhat tiered system that attempts to respect both preferences. What I find in the purists is what I find in the Tea Partiers - middle-aged males with absolutely no ability to compromise. It's not a matter of ADD, it's a preference. I appreciate the enthusiasm purists have for the lore, I really do, and I propose things that may be considered 'compromises' but this far out, these ideas are nebulous at best. The fact that the rest of us don't want to know everything there is about BT is a choice that a lot of you have no respect for.

I have no issue with you not wanting to learn the backstory and whatnot. Your choice as you have said. Just like it is our choice to use BT terminology. I understand this wont be BT. I do not have an issue with that, i enjoy the MW games alot. I realize that both camps have their extremists, but to label people "elitist" just because of terminology is well ignorant.

[Kudzu]

GaussDragon, on 06 December 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

That's because it ISN'T going to be BattleTech. I've advocated for a somewhat tiered system that attempts to respect both preferences. What I find in the purists is what I find in the Tea Partiers - middle-aged males with absolutely no ability to compromise. It's not a matter of ADD, it's a preference. I appreciate the enthusiasm purists have for the lore, I really do, and I propose things that may be considered 'compromises' but this far out, these ideas are nebulous at best. The fact that the rest of us don't want to know everything there is about BT is a choice that a lot of you have no respect for.

You mean the same compromises that gave us MW4 and Mech Assault? The same kind of compromises that will turn this from a game that represents the viewpoint of a mechwarrior in the BTU into "generic mecha game #243" with Battlemech skins?

No thanks. We've been down that road and don't need to see it again. (Same bad gameplay with prettier graphics! )

Do any of us "purists" expect a direct translation from the TT to here? No. What we do expect is the best possible translation to a different format while staying true to 25+ years of a great game with an amazing setting.

Edited by Kudzu, 06 December 2011 - 02:06 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Robert Remington, on 06 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

but to label people "elitist" just because of terminology is well ignorant.

I never once called anyone 'elitist'. I deliberately did not address those comments because I don't see it as elitism, I see it as enthusiasm, which I explicitly said I appreciate. I don't care one way or another if people use esoteric lore terms like 'zellbrigen'. The purists bring a level enthusiasm and richness to the community, I just with the simulator-take-all/forget-all-others sort of approach a lot of them have towards this game.

[GaussDragon]

EDIT: Sorry, going so fast here there are formatting errors left/right and center. See post below.

Edited by GaussDragon, 06 December 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[GaussDragon]

I loved MW4, but I've said on these forums a few times that I'm not looking for a return to MW4. I appreciated MW4 simply for what it was, not what so many other people wanted it to be. If I wanted MWO to be MW4, I'd be just as bad as those I'm accusing of being uncompromising. http://mwomercs.com/...h-a-thing-work/ <-- This is what compromise looks like.

Edited by GaussDragon, 06 December 2011 - 02:14 PM.

[Haeso]

Trying to please everyone is an exercise in futility. This industry as a whole, not just MWO, has more good ideas than time or money by several orders of magnitude. Making a game for everyone, without the budget or time to do it, makes a game for no one. It's one of the things I like least about the industry and most studios, making the game your budget dictates rather than the game you would like to make. Especially with how uppity people and critics are about graphics making any game that stays in development for too long a period dead on arrival or lucky to make even.

[Paladin1]

GaussDragon, on 06 December 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

That's because it ISN'T going to be BattleTech.

Just a point of order here. MW:O is going to be Battletech, it just won't be a boardgame. Despite what was said earlier, without Battletech, there is no Mechwarrior Online.

Now, that being said, I know you meant that MW:O wouldn't be a boardgame ported to the computer, which is fine because we've got megamek for that. MWO is going to fill a niche that isn't currently being filled, it's looking like it's going to be a Battletech simulator at the individual level, and I couldn't be more excited about that.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 06 December 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

You mean the same compromises that gave us MW4 and Mech Assault? The same kind of compromises that will turn this from a game that represents the viewpoint of a mechwarrior in the BTU into "generic mecha game #243" with Battlemech skins?

Hey bud, you dont' see me putting Cliky-Tech and BattleTech in the same barrel because they're both TT do you? Saying that MW4 and MechAssault are similiar is ignorance.

[Haeso]

They are similar in the sense that they both divert heavily from the previous games and universe.

Of course one is a far greater offender than the other, but they can certainly be called similar in many senses of the word.

[CeeKay Boques]

Mechwarrior Dark Ages Click-Tech and BattleTech are exaclty the same because they use Terrain, Vehicles, Mechs, Infantry, miniatures, Dice, Heat and mathmatical calculations. I mean, the'y're practically the same in in many senses. As a matter of fact, Dark Ages is further on down the time line, and therefore much more advanced than BattleTech, its the practically the evolution of BattleTech. Very similiar.

[/sarcasm]

Gimmie a break. Dont' generalize, it makes it obvious that you haven't played either MW or MA, or played for 5 minutes and disregarded it.

Edited by Technoviking, 06 December 2011 - 03:03 PM.

[Haeso]

Nobody called MechWarrior 4 and MechAssault exactly the same. If you want to overreact and be defensive be my guest.

[CeeKay Boques]

K, thanks for trying to argue they're the same thing (AND THUS TO BE UNIVERSALLY REVILED AND AVOIDED), then giggling behind your hand when I get riled up. My point was that people who think that they're the same are ignorant, because the sameness stops at "Mechs" and "Video game". There's plenty to bring over from MW4,3,2. Not much from MA.

[Alaskan Viking]

Bendajo, on 01 December 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

Batlletech led to the creation of Mechwarrior if you love it so much do some research.

I think that is the attitude that the OP was referring to....this a forum for a freaking free to play video game, you shouldn't need to much of any "research" to enjoy it, especially if you have already followed the series for close two decades....

[Haeso]

If you've followed the series for two decades and know almost nothing about the universe, I question how you define "Followed".

And it's not unfair to state people who are so fond of it, try and understand where it came from. The problem is the people who aren't fond of MechWarrior or the universe it's in, and are just fond of Big Stompy Robots.

[zudukai]

**insert beating a dead horse .gif here**

it does not truely matter much what happens here till the game comes out, then the dev's will hear us B ***** and moan about XXXXX and why XXXXXXXX is and does XXXXXXXX then they will probably tweak it and so on. (this is somewhat good)

so sure discuss, but we all know in the back of our minds - WE HAVE NO IDEA JUST WHAT WE ARE IN FOR - but we know it will be AAAA excellence with a hardcore development team that wants to support this game for YEARS. just do not do the same thing that the mektek "old guard" did and kill the developers with the incessant harassing about whatever because you get owned by being an inferior pilot.

so chillax and enjoy the ride. ok? good.