57 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

To me the calls for stock mode run along the same lines as all the calls for VOIP. Not a huge change at all.

+1 for comm wheel.

About TT rules in a 3D real time game. Get real.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Impose 2 sets of stats in the game.

When you drop with your clan mechs in Quick match have the values set to what they are now.

When you drop with your clan mechs in CW have them at table top value and retardedly strong and either give them-

A. Lower tonnage restriction for clans (this fits with lore)

B. 10 clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs.


Understand that IS quirks would have to be lowered in CW to match said changes.

If you have alternate stats that only kick in for CW then everyone can have their cake and eat it too. Quick match ques will be fine and unaffected by said changes.

No. Just NO.

THIS IS NOT TT. Deal with it. You want all your weapons to require 10 seconds to cycle and RNG hit locations no matter where you place your crosshairs, too?

If not, just stop whining. Of so, then you're clueless beyond help.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

I find it worth mentioning that while it is obvious to all that MWO is not an attempt to make a FPS TT sim, in many ways it is a lot closer to TT than previous versions of MW. .
..........................................

[Joshua Obrien]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

No. Just NO.

THIS IS NOT TT. Deal with it. You want all your weapons to require 10 seconds to cycle and RNG hit locations no matter where you place your crosshairs, too?

If not, just stop whining. Of so, then you're clueless beyond help.

No one wants 10 second cycle time on weapons. In fact no one said that, the title is meant for values on weapon damage and range and drop numbers for IS vs Clan. If you think anyone wants 10 second cooldowns on weapons then you're the one who's delusional not I.

Edited by Joshua Obrien, 17 February 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[Romeo Deluxe]

No vote. This is a video game.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

Sadly this is something we've all wanted for a very very very long time. And the argument against it is "Well MWO doesn't have the numbers to support this."

Incorrect, it's not something I've wanted at all. Ever.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

No one wants 10 second cycle time on weapons. In fact no one said that, the title is meant for values on weapon damage and range and drop numbers for IS vs Clan. If you think anyone wants 10 second cooldowns on weapons then you're the one who's delusional not I.

Title: "Tabletop values and rules".

Those table top values and rules are " X dmg over Y time, applied to random location".

Maybe you should learn what those values and rules actually mean? In this case each weapon generated X dmg, every 10 seconds. Again applied wherever RNGesus desires.

What... You want to pick and choose which rules and values to use, and ignore the ones you find inconvenient?: guess what? So does PGI.

HUH. Go figure.

Oh. And the answers still NO.

don't like it? Start your own studio. Crowd fund your own game. Selectively pick and choose which values and rules you ACTUALLY want to use, and let's see if it works any better in FPS reality.

Or, let me save you the time and money: it won't. So please stop asking the Devs to waste their time and our money for a poorly thought out bad idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:

Sadly this is something we've all wanted for a very very very long time. And the argument against it is "Well MWO doesn't have the numbers to support this."

Lolz.

No. No it's not. It's what a few grognards who are reminiscing on lore from a poorly balanced TT game, but zero comprehension of FPS reality want.

Lore should, and largely does inform the basic concepts of the game, but you open replies reveal you don't actually want lore values and rules.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

This whole idea of TT values in MWO is ridiculousness.

Please, stop bringing it up.

On the other hand, if some people want a "Stock Only" game mode... OK. I would never play it, but it wouldn't bother me at all.

[CDLord HHGD]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Impose 2 sets of stats in the game.

When you drop with your clan mechs in Quick match have the values set to what they are now.

When you drop with your clan mechs in CW have them at table top value and retardedly strong and either give them-

A. Lower tonnage restriction for clans (this fits with lore)

B. 10 clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs.


Understand that IS quirks would have to be lowered in CW to match said changes.

If you have alternate stats that only kick in for CW then everyone can have their cake and eat it too. Quick match ques will be fine and unaffected by said changes.

Yes! This is a good foundation to build and balance from.

[Joshua Obrien]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Title: "Tabletop values and rules".

Those table top values and rules are " X dmg over Y time, applied to random location".

Maybe you should learn what those values and rules actually mean? In this case each weapon generated X dmg, every 10 seconds. Again applied wherever RNGesus desires.

What... You want to pick and choose which rules and values to use, and ignore the ones you find inconvenient?: guess what? So does PGI.

HUH. Go figure.

Oh. And the answers still NO.

don't like it? Start your own studio. Crowd fund your own game. Selectively pick and choose which values and rules you ACTUALLY want to use, and let's see if it works any better in FPS reality.

Or, let me save you the time and money: it won't. So please stop asking the Devs to waste their time and our money for a poorly thought out bad idea.

Anyone with a lick of sense would understand one cannot simply do a complete conversion from TT to FPS and make it work. However, as things stand now it's just a boring 12 v 12 arena shooter that, outside of mechs and weapons, has little to do with the battle tech universe. They call it a "Battle tech game" yet it in no shape or form follows anything in the manner of which BT matches are played.

It's like if EA bought the rights to Zelda and was making a Legend of Zelda game, turning it into an FPS giving link nothing but a bow and calling it a Zelda game BECAUSE LOOK IT HAS LINK IN IT SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY A ZELDA GAME. Sure in essence it's a Zelda game but without certain aspects it's just a knock off that no one wants to play but you have to because EA owns the damn rights to it.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Lolz.

No. No it's not. It's what a few grognards who are reminiscing on lore from a poorly balanced TT game, but zero comprehension of FPS reality want.

Lore should, and largely does inform the basic concepts of the game, but you open replies reveal you don't actually want lore values and rules.

Not sure where you've been but I remember people asking for a stock game mode for years now and teased with the possibility of having one, except the lack of numbers that are currently available.

Edited by Joshua Obrien, 17 February 2016 - 07:15 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

Anyone with a lick of sense would understand one cannot simply do a complete conversion from TT to FPS and make it work. However, as things stand now it's just a boring 12 v 12 arena shooter that, outside of mechs and weapons, has little to do with the battle tech universe. They call it a "Battle tech game" yet it in no shape or form follows anything in the manner of which BT matches are played.

It's like if EA bought the rights to Zelda and was making a Legend of Zelda game, turning it into an FPS giving link nothing but a bow and calling it a Zelda game BECAUSE LOOK IT HAS LINK IN IT SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY A ZELDA GAME. Sure in essence it's a Zelda game but without certain aspects it's just a knock off that no one wants to play but you have to because EA owns the damn rights to it.


Not sure where you've been but I remember people asking for a stock game mode for years now and teased with the possibility of having one, except the lack of numbers that are currently available.

Ah. So you are OK with picking and choosing, just you disagree with what had been picked and chosen. Well apparently must answering disagree with what you would pick and choose.

As for "Stock Mode" that is a vastly differently animal than "sticking to TT values and rules" and bring a regular participant in the various Stock Mech matches in MWO, must I play with are content (mostly) with the current rules, with the usual pet peeves, of course. At most, I see a number who would prefer it to be quirk free.

But Rusd has already been quite clear he will NOT BE CREATING A SECOND SET OF STATS FOR IT WHEN IF IS ADDED.

Capice?

[nehebkau]

Joshua Obrien, on 17 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Impose 2 sets of stats in the game.

When you drop with your clan mechs in Quick match have the values set to what they are now.

When you drop with your clan mechs in CW have them at table top value and retardedly strong and either give them-

A. Lower tonnage restriction for clans (this fits with lore)

B. 10 clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs.


Understand that IS quirks would have to be lowered in CW to match said changes.

If you have alternate stats that only kick in for CW then everyone can have their cake and eat it too. Quick match ques will be fine and unaffected by said changes.

I am tired of all the under powered, then over powered, then under powered, then over powered then useless, then meta, then useless, then meta crap that is going on in the game.

Its at this point that I just want it to stop. I am tired of meta chasing. Since balance appears to be so hard to achieve lets just make all weapons the same.... pick the worst of the two types (clan or IS) and make that standard across both. Pick the worst of each equipment type (engines, heat sinks, ) and give them to both and delete the rest of it. Let everyone use every mech regardless of faction and call balance done.


(OK ridiculous rant but I am really getting annoyed with "balance")

[Chuck Jager]

CW is what you get when you try to bring so many variables into a FPS.

[Mystere]

Chuck Jager, on 17 February 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

CW is what you get when you try to bring so many variables into a FPS. claim a major game feature is 90 days away when it's actually not even designed yet.

FTFY.

[Mech Jager]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 February 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

I still read "A Battletech game" there.

Maybe they should give us the feeling of a BT game... or maybe they should just delete that claim.

The basic images and names of mechs, weapons, houses, worlds and we even have "stock" mech loadouts. The mwo game would not exist without what was used from battletech. The fact that they had to pay a license fee to create the game justifies the claim. Now is it a kinda sideways let folks read into it what they may statement - you bet. Welcome to the secret of sales - say just enough to let people hear what they want without promising any specific details.

or look at it this way

TT is a BT game based on the lore/fictional material in a manner they see fit
MWO is a BT game based on the lore/fictional material in a manner they see fit
MWO and TT are two separate entities sharing a common background.
The big issue is TT and BT are seen as pretty much one in the same (from what I know) and this leads to a hardcore evangelical translation of the material - see where I am going with this and why it makes some folks more than jumpy on all sides.

Edited by Mech Jager, 17 February 2016 - 09:57 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 February 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

I still read "A Battletech game" there.

Maybe they should give us the feeling of a BT game... or maybe they should just delete that claim.

This is verbatim the convo i had in another thread and i will quote myself from that one.


Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:


Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".



What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.


]Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:
A game based on the BT IP and therefore adheres to the background/lore.[/color]




Where in that does it say it has to adhere to lore and background?

Hate to break it to ya but we missed that boat already, If you are here for lore you are not gonna be a happy camper.


It no different then when Michael Bay said, im making Transformer movies. They arent really like the show, they arent verbatim like other stuff, they dont make the characters look exactly the same(close but not identical) he has taken some liberties but its still "A TRANSFORMER MOVIE" still part of the franchise and still tote the A TRANSFORMER movie title around.

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[Wolfways]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 05:44 PM, said:

and RNG hit locations no matter where you place your crosshairs, too?

I wouldn't mind that actually

Edited by Wolfways, 17 February 2016 - 10:18 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

This is verbatim the convo i had in another thread and i will quote myself from that one.


Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:


Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".



What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.


]Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:
A game based on the BT IP and therefore adheres to the background/lore.[/color]




Where in that does it say it has to adhere to lore and background?

Hate to break it to ya but we missed that boat already, If you are here for lore you are not gonna be a happy camper.


It no different then when Michael Bay said, im making Transformer movies. They arent really like the show, they arent verbatim like other stuff, they dont make the characters look exactly the same(close but not identical) he has taken some liberties but its still "A TRANSFORMER MOVIE" still part of the franchise and still tote the A TRANSFORMER movie title around.

I know of exactly ONE person who has demonstrated better knowledge of Btech lore than I, and that's Strum Wealh. I live this IP above literally any other, even Star Wars and Dragonlance.

That said.... C this being a Battletech GAME simply means it's BASED on Lore and the intellectual property of that title. Not that it's some slavish mimicry of it, any more than any other MW of MC title was.

I wish it could be. And there are things that COULD be closer. But FPS reality also means changes. I got news due folks. HBS' upcoming game? Will almost certainly have deviations, too.

Deal with it
Or don't let the door hit you. Huge difference between constructive criticism and useful suggestions, and totally unrealistic blue sky mining nonsense that people know realistically will not/can not happen, butts just really whining and crying and trying to time up the forum community.

[Wolfways]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Or, let me save you the time and money: it won't. So please stop asking the Devs to waste their time and our money for a poorly thought out bad idea.

They do that well enough on their own