159 replies to this topic

[Intrepid]

MWO would be significantly improved if it were based on the rules rather than whatever PGI is currently making up

[FupDup]

This thread is bound to end well...

I'll be in my lounge chair.

[Mad Strike]

Ted Wayz, on 27 February 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

I wanted a Battletech game. I would rather have the lore over the TT any day. That is the part that is disappointing. So much source material ignored and we end up with this.

I just don't understand why you can't have a good game based on Battletech lore. Warhammer Online made the same mistake. EA thought they could slap on a deep and rich lore on a bad game and print money. They lasted just over 5 years even with 700k initial units sold.

ESO has it figured out and it started 10 years or so after BT. Make a good game and surround it with a rich background. Win!

For some reason PGI has chosen not to use the lore to its advantage and not make an immersive game. I do not think they are blatantly milking the franchise like EA did with Warhammer, but they do need to be better stewards of the property that was handed to them.

TL:DR I would have waited another 10 years for a good Battletech computer game.

Saddly that's kind of a one sided coment because i'm having fun and other i'm playing with right now.

[Sandpit]

It's extremely difficult for me to understand this logic, philosophy, and mentality.

I want everyone who posts or supports this kind of logic to drop by something like Madden forums and ask "Does this really have to be based on American football rules?" and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, a battletech game should be based on battletech rules. It has nothing to do with "but fun" crap. It has to do with basing a game on a set of rules whether that be tabletop or a sport.

Just stop with the "but not everything translates" rhetoric, because I'm fairly certain not a single person in this community expects, wants, or thinks all of the TT rules can or would translate to a first person shooter. Nobody expects a pure TT translation of the rules and that's coming from one of those TT "purists" that started playing Btech in the 80s.

To say that's a "reason" to ditch the concept and spirit of the TT rules is silly and just an example of someone coming to a game that's specifically advertised, marketed, and otherwise sold as a Btech game wanting to play a different type of game. TT rules that won't work for a shooter like this were tossed because they wouldn't work, not out of "convenience" of following lore when it suits people.

For all of its faults this is a Btech game. If you didn't want to play a Btech based game that, at its core, tries to stay true to the lore and spirit of the TT rules, then I'd suggest looking into games that aren't based on Btech.

[dervishx5]

MECHWARRIOR 1 WAS CALLED BATTLETECH:

[Mad Strike]

dervishx5, on 27 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

MECHWARRIOR 1 WAS CALLED BATTLETECH:

So what ? This guys will just go crazy for an FPS that doesn't play like a TT XD

Edited by Mad Strike, 27 February 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[TKSax]

dervishx5, on 27 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

MECHWARRIOR 1 WAS CALLED BATTLETECH:

That wasn't mechwarrior 1.



This was mechwarrior 1

[dervishx5]

TKSax, on 27 February 2016 - 08:29 PM, said:

That wasn't mechwarrior 1.



This was mechwarrior 1

No that was Crescent Hawks Inception

[Hit the Deck]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

It's extremely difficult for me to understand this logic, philosophy, and mentality.

I want everyone who posts or supports this kind of logic to drop by something like Madden forums and ask "Does this really have to be based on American football rules?" and see what kind of response you get.

Yes, a battletech game should be based on battletech rules. It has nothing to do with "but fun" crap. It has to do with basing a game on a set of rules whether that be tabletop or a sport....

Did you read the OP?

Edited by Hit the Deck, 27 February 2016 - 08:47 PM.

[Mycrus]

For balance. Corerule ignore!

[TKSax]

dervishx5, on 27 February 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

No that was Crescent Hawks Inception

No you are wrong, Crescent Hawks , and Crescent Hawks inception were Turn Base Top Down Games, Mechwarrior 1 was the first "FPS/Sim" verison of Batttle Tech Game

[Dirk Le Daring]

Due.

[Signal27]

I've always felt that the "fluff" and the "rules" of BatteTech are two entirely different things. And that MWO should stay true to the "fluff" of BattleTech - while just ignoring/changing any of the rules that governed the tabletop game which don't translate into a first person mech shooter online game very well.

[dervishx5]

TKSax, on 27 February 2016 - 08:51 PM, said:

No you are wrong, Crescent Hawks , and Crescent Hawks inception were Turn Base Top Down Games, Mechwarrior 1 was the first "FPS/Sim" verison of Batttle Tech Game

[WazOfOz]

difficult to translate a dice roll/ turn based game into a computer FPS (exactly as TT or lore is) however I believe PGI sticks to TT/lore when it suits them.

Edited by WazOfOz, 27 February 2016 - 09:45 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

First, let me say, despite MWO's balancing issues, the game remains fun.

That's why I put in so much effort discussing it: I want it to be better! I suspect that many here feel the same.

Now to the issue at hand.

• Lore is great and has a place as a loose guide.
  
• Lore is NOT table top rules.
  
• Game play and good balance trumps lore; not sometimes, every time.

[Sandpit]

Hit the Deck, on 27 February 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

Did you read the OP?

yes and I felt you used a bit of hyperbole in it with the whole "ac firing 3km" stuff.

Your thread title asked a question. I answered the question. That's why I didn't quote your OP in my answer. If you name a thread title as a question, then I'm going to answer the question.

[Moldur]

I think it's a hoot and a holler that anybody could think PGI gives any consideration to lore or that they plan to.

Clans. period. This is all the evidence anybody should need.

[Hit the Deck]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

yes and I felt you used a bit of hyperbole in it with the whole "ac firing 3km" stuff....

It's actually based on Strum Wealh's "suggestion" in my other thread: http://mwomercs.com/...e-vs-table-top/

Basically, we use 180m for one hex and AC/10 projectile goes up to 15 hex, which means that it has optimal range of 2.7km.

Strum Wealh, on 09 February 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Now, imagine what would have happened if MWO had been built with the BattleForce scaling (where one hex = 180 meters) rather than the standard BattleTech scaling ((where one hex = 30 meters) for weapon ranges and map sizes, so that all of the weapons had six times their BT ranges and the maps were correspondingly larger...

SLas, SPLas, MG, and Flamers with a 540 meter effective range?
MPLas with a 1080 meter effective range?
MLas, AC/20, and SRM with a 1620 meter effective ranges?
LPLas with a 1800 meter effective range?
LLas and AC/10 with a 2700 meter effective range?
PPC and AC/5 with a 3240 meter effective range?
ERLLas with a 3420 meter effective range?
LRM with a 3780 meter effective range?
Gauss Rifle with a 3960 meter effective range?
ER-PPC with a 4140 meter effective range?
AC/2 with a 4320 meter effective range?

Maps that were of a minimum 10000 meter (10 km) radius, with a 10 km ceiling?

One must admit, that things like "anti-aircraft 'Mechs" make much more sense from a logic & realism perspective in that context, yes?

[Tarl Cabot]

Signal27, on 27 February 2016 - 08:58 PM, said:

I've always felt that the "fluff" and the "rules" of BatteTech are two entirely different things. And that MWO should stay true to the "fluff" of BattleTech - while just ignoring/changing any of the rules that governed the tabletop game which don't translate into a first person mech shooter online game very well.

And there were also modified rules. MWO is closer to Battletech: Solaris than it is to plain Battletech. Solaris had weapon delays (cooldown), ability to fire weapons during a jump sequence, and TICs (target interlock circuits) weapon groups, running at 2.5sec turns instead of 10sec turns. Either fire one weapon or fire a TIC that had to be preset, or changed during a turn.

Original MW was a simple game, no customization, longer delays compared to MWO, you worked with what you got. Slow, moving mechs. You worked yourself up in mechs as you took missions.

It was the also the basis for the combat engine for GEnie's MPBT 3025 from 91-96. PVE for the CW portion, with Solaris being the PVP. You made your C-bills with CW while damage repair sustained during Solaris fights was paid with your C-Bills. Slightly different destruction settings for AI mechs and PC mechs. PC mechs had to be cockpit or CT destroyed, otherwise a PC mech with arms could prop up on one arm and fire weapons from the other arm and bring torso weapons into play.

The next step was MPBT Solaris, from 96-2001. The CW fell through when the 3rd party could not come through with its portion so the community was left with Solaris gaming world as its platform. We made it work, running Succession Wars on Friday nights (it was Friday nights, wasn't it? ) Matches/tourneys were done in a format light vs lights, meds vs meds, heavies vs heavies, assaults vs assaults and true lance (L/M/H/A)

The point I am making is that in those games, there was no mech lab, no Clan mechs. Drops were 4vs4. Cockpits were re-enforced, firing an alpha/TIC did not fire the weapons at the same time, it fired them extremely fast. Heat Scale had negative on mechs, movement, targeting issues but no ammo explosions.

The other differences between the boardgames, Crescent Hawks Revenge, Mechforce and the MW/MPBT games is that the MW/MPBT games were actual FPS, there was no computer/dice controlling hit/miss and where hits land. That changes things. Add more mechs to a match, a mech lab, especially one that keeps Clan/IS tech separated increases the difficulty.

Then on top of that, long range energy weapons cycling faster that previous games, allowing them to be used for more for brawling when that times come, an incomplete heat scale which also allow the type and # of heatsinks to effect the heat scale cap too much. With that comes actual 3050 IS tech, Star League-era such as the IS-XL engine. In the boardgames, there were actual engine crits on all engine parts but again hits/miss and location was done by dice. In MWO you basically hit what you are aiming for with customized mechs that allow boating weapons outside of stock modes, so allowing an IS-XL equipped mech to die with the lost of a side torso does not making any real balancing sense, especially since PGI have the Clan XL equipped mechs being affected by 20% heat/movement penalties.

MWO and any future FPS based on the Battletech universe, particularly post 3050, should not duplicate all the rules but still keep with the lore. Think of it as devs making their own House rules but those rules should not go to the extent of noheat/unlimited ammo servers MW4 used to have.