88 replies to this topic

[Salvag3]

So I have been thinking about this a lot, does this even feel like Battletech anymore ? And does this hurt the game. I would like to get feed back on what others think and share my thoughts.

After thinking about it For a while I have come to the conclusion that no it lacks a Battletech feel. And I believe it's because some core aspects of Battletech lore and table top have just been over looked/ignored.

1) Gunnery is just to easy. In the novels and the modifiers when you play table top it's just hard to put your weapons on target with anything close to the success that you see in this game. And I know you can't do "hard" the same way random dice rolls with modifiers can do it or random hit locations, but I really think that weapon sway, recoil and a rethinking of the how hot boxes were made could have allowed for a much more rewarding and emersive Gunnery system.

2) Piloting or lack of. This one I'm honestly not sure I have a good suggestion on how to improve it besides some sort of pop up that would flash when you needed to make a piloting check ( like a quick combo of buttons that would need to be pressed, kinda like calling in a pod in Helldivers ). But a lack of effects from doing things that would in the lore be a very hard thing to pull off such as hard turns at 150kph weaving though a city or landing from a jump facing perpendicular to the junk direction or sticking a landing from a fall with out the Aid of JJs. I just don't feel like there's really a aspect of piloting skill to be found in this game for most mechs. It's more Battllfield awareness and overall placement of your mech in the fight than the dog fight like feeling that think the combat on he table top or novels inspired.

3) The Technology. The amount of 1 to 1 balance with the clan vs IS weapon system, and even more so with the Giant Bandaid the quirk system really is. It's just so immersion breaking for me, with the current state of weapons and quirks I don't really feel like the clan mechs have a "superior tech" feeling to them. And some mechs just don't make any sense at all the way that the same weapons work when used on them.
But that being said I don't expect a game to be fun if the clans weapons were as OP as they were when they were first released in TT but I honestly don't know how the flavor of clan tech will ever be there because PGI has made it clear that asymmetric fights will never happen and that's prolly the only thing that would allow the clans to fight with outright better tech as per lore.

4) Role warfare (with the exception of the new map)with the lack of meaningful electronic warfare items and the absurdity of some of the ones we have ( points finger at ECM ) is just lacking. It's a bit silly to me that the number one tactic for a victory regardless of game mode or map, is to form one big ball and smash into the enemy. It's painful to admit that most other styles of play are going to be a huge disadvantage trying something else vs a team that's death balling.

5) Lack of truly viable mechs/weapons. At tier 2 and now even more so in tier 1, my options for taking non meta builds into combat and expecting for anything to happen other than my mech getting shot out from under me is zero. And that's sad. It ties into for me how cool a battle value system would have been with a asymmetric battles. So many mechs and weapons would be viable in a system like that. You might end up with a entire company of trial mechs with tier 5 pilots fighting a stars worth of tier 2 high value clan mechs.

All that being said, I enjoy the game for what it is ( The only online Battletechish game out here right now ) and I also know some of me is talking out of my *** because I have never helped to build a video game. And clearly I enjoy the game enough to keep playing and toss a bit of money PGI's way from time to time. I was really just putting this out there to say how I felt and see what others think.

Thx for reading.

[Summon3r]

without reading your post, no this is NOTHING to do with battletech except for the name of mechs and the name of weapons, and a map of the IS.

[DaZur]

It hurts the BT purists (which includes me) as this was not the game we were sold so long ago...

That said, as much as I long for the big-picture tapestry this game could have been, I'm not entirely disappointed with it either.

Kind'a like ordering a steak and expecting it to cover your plate and instead it's a 4 bite appetizer.

Edited by DaZur, 24 January 2016 - 08:02 PM.

[William Pryde]

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) A couple of things with gunnery. First of all, we don't have to deal with an overheated, shaking cockpit that throws us around like rag dolls when hit with heavy weapon's fire. That might affect gunnery skills. Also, I don't think pinpoint weapon convergence that automatically adjusts to range was ever a thing in BattleTech. In fact, if this game were more of a BattleTech 'Mech simulator, I'd imagine each single weapon would have its own crosshair and the only way to hit the same area with multiple weapons would be to adjust your torso/arms as you fire each weapon one at a time (the exception being 'Mechs with lower arm actuators, which could do a lot better converging their arm-mounted weapons on one point when firing these weapons simultaneously).

2) Don't quite know how we'd implement piloting skill (as in keeping a 'Mech upright). Typing a specific key sequence or key might be a way to do it, but again, I'm unsure of how this kind of mechanic could be implemented and if it would, in fact, contribute to gameplay or detract from it.

3) This is a mess and a massive headache to balance and keep everyone happy. I'll stay out of the technology discussion right now. One idea, though - perhaps if tech had been kept at its original levels a battle value system could have been implemented that rewards lower battle values for taking out higher ones. Don't quite know how this would be implemented, just some idle thoughts I had the other day. Really doubt it would happen, and to be honest, I don't really care if it does.

I've got to go, but may add more thoughts later.

[Matthew Ace]

Salvag3, on 24 January 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

2) Piloting or lack of. This one I'm honestly not sure I have a good suggestion on how to improve it besides some sort of pop up that would flash when you needed to make a piloting check ( like a quick combo of buttons that would need to be pressed, kinda like calling in a pod in Helldivers ). But a lack of effects from doing things that would in the lore be a very hard thing to pull off such as hard turns at 150kph weaving though a city or landing from a jump facing perpendicular to the junk direction or sticking a landing from a fall with out the Aid of JJs. I just don't feel like there's really a aspect of piloting skill to be found in this game for most mechs. It's more Battllfield awareness and overall placement of your mech in the fight than the dog fight like feeling that think the combat on he table top or novels inspired.

I'm glad you brought up the Helldiver mechanics; it has strong potential for being used in piloting checks. I'm pretty fond of the idea of using it for overriding shutdown whereby the higher the heat level is, the harder it will be or the shorter the time window to finish overriding will be. Randomised key sequence with a press of wrong key resetting the wrong sequence should prevent macro abuse.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

This depends on what you consider BT.

If you're talking about feeling/behaving like TT BT, then: No, it is nothing like it.

Nor should it be.

If you're talking about BT flavor/lore, then: Yes, it does largely reflect that flavor.

Some of the balance is off that is, and that is affecting the flavor of gameplay; but by and large, this game is a good modern interpretation.

[Mystere]

Salvag3, on 24 January 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

3) The Technology. The amount of 1 to 1 balance with the clan vs IS weapon system, and even more so with the Giant Bandaid the quirk system really is. It's just so immersion breaking for me, with the current state of weapons and quirks I don't really feel like the clan mechs have a "superior tech" feeling to them. And some mechs just don't make any sense at all the way that the same weapons work when used on them.
But that being said I don't expect a game to be fun if the clans weapons were as OP as they were when they were first released in TT but I honestly don't know how the flavor of clan tech will ever be there because PGI has made it clear that asymmetric fights will never happen and that's prolly the only thing that would allow the clans to fight with outright better tech as per lore.

Shh! You're going to hurt the feelings of Russ and his eSports cabal.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

If you're talking about BT flavor/lore, then: Yes, it does largely reflect that flavor.

The most compelling flavor of BT 3050 is the inherent asymmetry. We do not have that.

Edited by Mystere, 24 January 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[Dingo Battler]

1) The TT is an abstraction of real life. IRL, you get people with enough skill to pull shots off reliably. Also, people start torso twisting like crazy in the higher tiers, leading to the BT tabletop like hit distribution, if that's what you want. If you want recoil, AC hits screws up aiming, so that's some of it there.

2) If piloting was more sluggish, everyone'll just take dire crabs and alpha everything to death. If you want dog fights, then just use a brawler build.

3) This is tricky, but to make clans OP will break the enjoyment of IS players. Currently, clan is weaker, but balance is a hard thing. Keep in mind clan was stronger than IS for 2 years, before the current wave of nerfs. We still can't have one stronger/better than the other. Just imagine you're a merc with a super-custom IS mech if it helps.

4) Agree with you. We need more gamemodes to enourage role warfare. The new map does this, but it comes with its own host of problems.

5) This is a natural progression of a PVP game. Even if all weapons and mechs were somehow equalised, the mechs that boat weapons will still win because its specialised. If you take customisation away, people will only focus on the stock-monsters like timbers, and ignore the stock-weaklings like hellbringers. Also, customisation is a massive draw.

Its not a battletech simulator at all. Its more of a PvP game than anything, most likely because a simulator wouldn't do as well.

[Bergitor]

You can't have a "simulator" like this and throw in the hard-core TT rules, and expect there to be a very large and diverse audience for it. I still play the TT, I'm hosting a game this weekend at my local gaming shop as a matter of fact, and to me they are just different flavors of the same Neapolitan ice cream. Think about using the Piloting skill rolls on a map like River City. Anyone moving at speed would fall over on the roads and just be skidding all over the place, funny once or twice but annoying very quickly.

If they made it less of the abstraction of the table top than it already is, they'd be turning away players due to the inherent learning curve. They have to appeal to a larger base, not only to sustain the business model for the game, but also to make it more enjoyable for the people playing. Besides, it's close enough to the original Mechwarrior title that I'm happy with the game by in large.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

The most compelling flavor of BT is the inherent asymmetry. We do not have that.

That asymmetry looks great in a story. And it works well in certain formats of games (namely, TT and RTS), it doesn't work well in 1:1 games.

Consider: If you have MechCommander 3 (NOT a real game... yet) and the techlines are asymmetrical that's ok. This is because if one player has 12 'Mechs and one has 10, there's no problem because there is still balance between the players.

But, in a game such as this, you can't have that kind of asymmetry. That's because it causes imbalance between the players.

The best you can get is balanced differentiation between techlines, not full-on asymmetry.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

That asymmetry looks great in a story. And it works well in certain formats of games (namely, TT and RTS), it doesn't work well in 1:1 games.

And therein lies the problem: forcing MWO to be a 1:1 game in the first place.

[Darwins Dog]

Short answer: No, it doesn't feel like battletech.

Longer answer: It was never meant to. Mechwarrior games have never felt like BT (to me at least). They have always been fun simulators based on BT, which is enough to keep me involved. When I want actual BT I play TT or megamech (eagerly awaiting HBS's Battletech).

I know a lot of people want this game to be more like BT, but I'm happy it's not. This game should be it's own thing, and not try to force one game type into a completely different genre.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Mystere, on 24 January 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

And therein lies the problem: forcing MWO to be a 1:1 game in the first place.

MWO, a PvP 'Mech piloting simulator, is, by definition 1:1. On multiple levels.

It's 1 player to 1 'Mech.

Fair competition requires that the teams have an even number of players, therefore its 1:1 competition.

The 1:1 fair competition necessitates that we have 1:1 tech balance (not sameness, mind you).

If you want an asymmetrical BT game, you have to look elsewhere and in another format.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 24 January 2016 - 09:12 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

...
But, in a game such as this, you can't have that kind of asymmetry. That's because it causes imbalance between the players.

The best you can get is balanced differentiation between techlines, not full-on asymmetry.

Indeed, and the only reason people want to choose IS when we have asymmetric balance is because they want to role play mainly and be a team player secondly.

[Atlasian]

I like Battletech. I like all the MW series for providing a simulation to allow you to pilot giant robots using the BT game components and mechanics. Even in MW1 I was so thrilled to see Mechs from the BT lore and pleasantly similar ways to manage your Mechs (torso twist, heat, Criticals etc). But I'm realistic enough to know that no computer simulation can 100% duplicate what is in BT, and that both don't represent the real way to pilot a giant robot if there is really one in the real world. The MW series are all good enough to bring the simulation generally close to the way BT is.

[Gamuray]

The game has only, for quite short periods of time (Beta and Clan release) EVER stuck to TT values maybe a couple times. Look at ANYTHING in the game right now and 90-95 percent of it is altered. Lasers are all higher damage/range with equivalent to lesser heat, missiles have higher ammo and used to have slightly more damage. Ballistics have increased ammo, and range in some cases. Armor is doubled. Speeds are actually lower than they should be (even with speed tweak now). PPC's are about the closest thing to table top you'll get in this game. Hard to aim, about the right range, and equivalent heat/damage values.

I won't say that exact table top values are a good idea, they're not, but we definitely have not had it. Alterations are why laser vomit is so powerful. All Clan lasers have higher damage than they should, most IS lasers do as well (especially the large pulse) and have lower heat for many of them.

TT spent much longer balancing ranges, damages, and heat. MWO should probably try more to stick to those and change the other options more. Reload.. Duration.. Speed.. jam chance.. Those are all things that will affect the usefulness of weapons, as we saw with the gauss rifle reload extension.

TL:DR Read the bold.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Gamuray, on 24 January 2016 - 09:13 PM, said:

The game has only, for quite short periods of time (Beta and Clan release) EVER stuck to TT values maybe a couple times. Look at ANYTHING in the game right now and 90-95 percent of it is altered. Lasers are all higher damage/range with equivalent to lesser heat, missiles have higher ammo and used to have slightly more damage. Ballistics have increased ammo, and range in some cases. Armor is doubled. Speeds are actually lower than they should be (even with speed tweak now). PPC's are about the closest thing to table top you'll get in this game. Hard to aim, about the right range, and equivalent heat/damage values.

I won't say that exact table top values are a good idea, they're not, but we definitely have not had it. Alterations are why laser vomit is so powerful. All Clan lasers have higher damage than they should, most IS lasers do as well (especially the large pulse) and have lower heat for many of them.

TT spent much longer balancing ranges, damages, and heat. MWO should probably try more to stick to those and change the other options more. Reload.. Duration.. Speed.. jam chance.. Those are all things that will affect the usefulness of weapons, as we saw with the gauss rifle reload extension.

TL:DR Read the bold.

TT values were balanced for TT. This is not that game. TT =/= MWO. Lore =/=TT.

What does it matter to this game if a TT board game (from the 1980s) balanced within itself? How does that affect how this game (30 years later) balances within itself?

There is no valid comparison in balance between the two.

Please stop worrying about TT values and worry about the game we're talking about; the game we're playing. This game.

[Gamuray]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

TT values were balanced for TT. This is not that game. TT =/= MWO. Lore =/=TT.

What does it matter to this game if a TT board game (from the 1980s) balanced within itself? How does that affect how this game (30 years later) balances within itself?

There is no valid comparison in balance between the two.

Please stop worrying about TT values and worry about the game we're talking about; the game we're playing. This game.

Damage-range-heat comparisons can easily be taken over between a board and video game. What cannot be is skill based things and unaccounted for numbers. The reason you normally can't transfer it directly is because TT has no weapons speed, reload timer, or duration. Or spread. One can easily manage to balance things based on those qualities.

My point was not "exact TT values" my point was that TT values, SPECIFICALLY those of damage, range, and heat for weapons, could easily be kept during the transfer while still properly balancing the game. I'm not saying all values. Just those ones.

And by the way, I never even played table top. EVER. So you can't make the argument that I'm worried about sticking to those values and not worrying about the current game.

And so everyone can see why you could still balance the game, I'll list the things that stay the same and the things that are allowed to be altered:

Same:
-Damage
-Range
-Heat

Alterable:
-Duration
-Projectile Speed
-Reload Time
-Spread
-Crit Chance
-Jam Chance
-Charge Ups
-Burst Firing

Among other things. See all those balancing factors that can be used while keeping the more basic weapon values the same? It can be done. Period. END OF STORY. It can be done.

I do care about the game. Game balance specifically, since it leads to enjoyment. TT only really had ranges, heats, and damage to work with (outside randomization factors), so you better believe they were thought through to balance weapons based on those 3 categories. We have many other categories to balance with instead of tampering with a system that was already thought through for many years.

[DaZur]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 24 January 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

TT values were balanced for TT. This is not that game. TT =/= MWO. Lore =/=TT.

What does it matter to this game if a TT board game (from the 1980s) balanced within itself? How does that affect how this game (30 years later) balances within itself?

There is no valid comparison in balance between the two.

Please stop worrying about TT values and worry about the game we're talking about; the game we're playing. This game.

To be fair BT and more specifically MWO was never intended to be a game of equity. Universally BT lore and canon prefaced overcoming insurmountable odds, using ones guile and wits and or tactical prowess... Which includes playing the game of who's bringing the biggest knife to the fight to achieve victory.

MWO is based in an inherently and imbalanced and flawed universe. Problem arises when folks want to play "against" each other... Everyone wants a fair fight in a competitive arena right?

Thus the conundrum.

You either develop a game that is true(er) to the canon and lore fluff or you deviate from it to placate the competitive crowd. It is monumentally impossible for PGI or any game developer for that matter to please both the classic BT/MW zealot and the high-adrenaline e-sport junkies at the same time.

Edited by DaZur, 24 January 2016 - 10:07 PM.