92 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

I kinda took what Raeven said about Hawken the same way verybad did. Like, "Get the eff out of here if you don't agree with us BT elitists"...

But...I know Raeven's style well enough to know that he didn't really mean it so harsh.

Verybad's points are valid though. So many guys are caught up in the lore that sometimes it seems that those guys would be willing to settle for a mediocre video game, so long as it adheres to certain rules and honors all the canon. I think that's garbage. It has to be a fun to play video game first, and then follow the lines of BT. If it sucks as a video game, then only a small handful of players will stick around. While that might be okay with some people, I am sure PGI would prefer to have more players than they can handle.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Why can't it be both?

[Red Beard]

Both what?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Folllow the lines of BT and be a good video game

[Phades]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 17 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Folllow the lines of BT and be a good video game

Even if direct values and timelines aren't used, if the translation into the real time game simulated the implied mechanics, then they should have a winner.

At this point, I'm not even so sure they are going to need to follow the history dictated within the fiction that strictly to have the end product be well received. This is not to say just throw it out, but use it more as a guideline on how to evolve the game once launched and let the players influence the outcome more. For example, we all (i hope) know that the clans will at some point invade. What would be interesting is if the players representing the FRR play well enough that they could salvage some of the worlds longer than what the original works dictate. Think of it as a "challenge" mode that is normally post game for many single player titles.

The dev team has endless option in front of them really. It is just hard to predict which ones will end up being the most viable for them to implement.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

i think that is why they are only allowing attacks on some worlds to start with, it makes it easier to stick to the main time-line events. The Clan invasion is going to be really difficult to play. There is no element of surprise at all. Against that is the fact that about 60% of those on this forum want to play Clan. To be honest if they only meet a few of my expectations this will be an outstanding game.

[Phades]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 17 December 2011 - 01:26 PM, said:

i think that is why they are only allowing attacks on some worlds to start with, it makes it easier to stick to the main time-line events. The Clan invasion is going to be really difficult to play. There is no element of surprise at all. Against that is the fact that about 60% of those on this forum want to play Clan. To be honest if they only meet a few of my expectations this will be an outstanding game.

I'd peg it closer to 80% (based on previous polls) that would want to migrate to clans with around a 50-50 split between folks that like the look and lore and those who want better weapons or are bored with the stock machines in the IS.

They could "surprise" us with it in how they do it though. They could simply just nonchalantly sometime November-December start introducing clan matches into the instant action style games randomly seeding folks on the clan side. People would be surprised initially, but nothing the way the fiction would dictate.

[Red Beard]

I don't think salvage will be a post battle bonus. I think you will only be able to use salvage during battle. If they attempt to create an economy based on salvage, they open the door to a whole slew of trouble with things like boosting and hacking.

[Raeven]

Red Beard, on 16 December 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

I kinda took what Raeven said about Hawken the same way verybad did. Like, "Get the eff out of here if you don't agree with us BT elitists"...

But...I know Raeven's style well enough to know that he didn't really mean it so harsh.

You are right. It wasn't meant that way.

I did intend to challenge ones concept of what makes a Mechwarrior game a Mechwarrior game. Would you consider it Mechwarrior, if you took Hawken and reskinned its vehicles to look like BattleMechs and reskinned the weapons to Battletech weapons? If so, then Hawken is probably more the game you are looking for. If not, why?

Mechwarrior is more than just the look of the 'Mechs and the look of the weapons. It's the lore and the values that exist behind the scenes. Values influence by, or taken directly from, the board game. I contend that the game can follow the tabletop rules and adhere to most of the canon and still be a fun game.

[verybad]

I look at the Board Game in a different way. The boardgame is influenced by the lore and values behind the scenes. The board game is a turnbased simulation of mech warfare that can be played without computers. It's an excellent game on it's own merits and I've loved it since I took a Hunchback through a bunch of enemies in my very first game back in highschool (a very, very long time ago). (it killed two mechs and a lot of infantry)

Aspects of the boardgame can be useful for establiching a basis for the realtime boardgame. However, they should not be treated as something that can't be changed or ignored if doing so makes the video game a better game.

Mechwarrior needs to stand on it's own merits, and as a real time game versus a turn based game, some things will ALWAYS need changes.

It is not accurate to say that people that don't agree with your views on how the game should be made want a more arcadic game. I too want a simulator, I just don't think that the boardgame is the be all end all of sources. Common sense shold take place over steadfast adheration to a pencil and paper game. IN adition, the computers ability to add detail to the game in things that aren't modeled in the boardgame can be a wonderful asset in making the game seem more real.

Edited by verybad, 18 December 2011 - 03:12 PM.

[VYCanis]

verybad, on 18 December 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

wisdom

THIS x 500%

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 17 December 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

I don't think salvage will be a post battle bonus. I think you will only be able to use salvage during battle. If they attempt to create an economy based on salvage, they open the door to a whole slew of trouble with things like boosting and hacking.

The problems exist with or without salvage. Unless you suggest everyone gets everything right off the bat and there's no progression system. As that's the only way to make those pointless on anything but a game to game basis.

verybad, on 18 December 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

It is not accurate to say that people that don't agree with your views on how the game should be made want a more arcadic game. I too want a simulator, I just don't think that the boardgame is the be all end all of sources. Common sense shold take place over steadfast adheration to a pencil and paper game. IN adition, the computers ability to add detail to the game in things that aren't modeled in the boardgame can be a wonderful asset in making the game seem more real.

It is however accurate to say that the majority who don't agree do tend to want the game to be more arcade. Not because they disagree, but because of what they've said. Many things not in the board game shouldn't be modeled, whether to make the game more realistic or not. Because this is science fiction - making the game real to our universe shouldn't be the goal beyond the majority's suspension of disbelief, after that it should be making the game real to the battletech universe, not our own. If we were to make the game realistic to our universe, we might as well remove the legs and give all the 'Mechs treads then call them BattleTanks.

[Red Beard]

Raeven, on 17 December 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

You are right. It wasn't meant that way.

That is what I thought, and I didn't want things to snowball out of hand. You are a smart fella, and it would be crappy for the things you have to say get thrown out over a small misunderstanding.

Quote

Mechwarrior is more than just the look of the 'Mechs and the look of the weapons. It's the lore and the values that exist behind the scenes.

I agree, completely.

Quote

Values influence by, or taken directly from, the board game. I contend that the game can follow the tabletop rules and adhere to most of the canon and still be a fun game.

I could not see it more differently than this. The board game rules were made in a time when the devs of that game mostly likely never saw the game going into the realm that it is in now. They just don't translate the way we need them to to make this an exciting video game. The game can and MUST be a video game that has the BT "feel" to it. It can be made to have the BT flavor, in every sense, without using a single TT rule. Even if thye remake every rule set, there would still be a great deal of similarities to the TT games rules. Most of the rules from BT are common sense type of things.

verybad, on 18 December 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

I look at the Board Game in a different way. The boardgame is influenced by the lore and values behind the scenes. The board game is a turnbased simulation of mech warfare that can be played without computers. It's an excellent game on it's own merits and I've loved it since I took a Hunchback through a bunch of enemies in my very first game back in highschool (a very, very long time ago). (it killed two mechs and a lot of infantry)

Aspects of the boardgame can be useful for establiching a basis for the realtime boardgame. However, they should not be treated as something that can't be changed or ignored if doing so makes the video game a better game.

Mechwarrior needs to stand on it's own merits, and as a real time game versus a turn based game, some things will ALWAYS need changes.

It is not accurate to say that people that don't agree with your views on how the game should be made want a more arcadic game. I too want a simulator, I just don't think that the boardgame is the be all end all of sources. Common sense shold take place over steadfast adheration to a pencil and paper game. IN adition, the computers ability to add detail to the game in things that aren't modeled in the boardgame can be a wonderful asset in making the game seem more real.

Thank you verybad, you saved me a TON of typing. Now I just need to have a closed door talk with you about your melee opinion...