159 replies to this topic

[Nightshade24]

SplashDown, on 27 February 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

dew to all the IS whiners this game isnt mech warrior any more..its just an FPS with diff skinn robots...

Prolly why so many players leave/

Have you actually looked at a Mechwarrior game?
MW: O is the most battletech-esq Mechwarrior game in ages in terms of gameplay and before you start trampling over me- MW2 and MW1 are great games. But they showed other aspects of the whole BT universe and most of it is how to manage c-bills and also the story/ missions.

MW: O however has the gameplay mechanics and follows rules to construction that make it more BT-esq... however if you do still have an issue believing this just imagine MW: O with it's graphics, rules, mechs, weapons, etc... and than have it in a single player campaign like MW2.

[Ted Wayz]

King Alen, on 27 February 2016 - 09:16 PM, said:

ESO was a failure

LOL.

Elder Scrolls Online a failure? That was (past tense used properly) the popular but sadly uninformed opinion. I am sure PGI would give their left nut for one quarter the active subscribers of ESO when it was thought to be "failing" in 2014. And they have micro-transactions down.

On topic, Battletech TT rules were conceived in the 1980's imagining technology hundreds of years in advance by people who were not even aware of 1980's technology. Much of it does not make any sense from a technical perspective.

In other words there is more probability of sentient bird people than a futuristic battle mech falling over because an Atlas looked at it.

[Reza Malin]

MischiefSC, on 27 February 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

I love TT. I was playing Battletech before Citytech came out. I still play tabletop with friends pretty consistently.

However this is a pvp fps. The rules don't translate well. Trying to shoehorn them in made more drama. If the Clans had been balanced correctly at release 2 years ago we'd have a better game today.

BT made plenty of mistakes over the years. We are not obligated to repeat them.

THIS.

The sooner some can let go of this nostalgic obsession with wanting everything canon/TT, the better. It holds the game back. I get that some people love BT very much, but leave it with the TT game and previous games, and start a fresh page with this game.

The problem with games based on lore orientated franchises, is that if they stick to the lore the game is based on, no one would play it except the few hardcore fans that like that lore in the first place. In which case, the game would die or not have the backing to progress healthily.

Its just how it is, and i find it frustrating people can't realise it. You only have to look at other games that are similarly themed rather than a new IP and you can see what i mean. Star Trek Online, Star Wars The Old Republic, Elder Scrolls Online. On paper, should be popular. In execution, leaves something to be desired by people who are not fans of the lore in the first place.

With MWO especially that difference is even larger. One is a board game, that is pretty dated anyway. One is a modern video game that is trying to be current and attract and retain new players, that most likely have no romantic connection to the TT version.

Its a no brainer, there has to be prominent differences.

[Karen Supreme]

Davers, on 27 February 2016 - 07:11 PM, said:

Players always state that Mechwarrior is a 'niche game'. I believe that is from trying to copy 25+ year old table top rules into a FPS.

So, u decided to be a founder of a CoD clone with robotto skin.
Well don, Founder, well done...

(golf clap)

[Davers]

I want a shadowcat, on 28 February 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:

So, u decided to be a founder of a CoD clone with robotto skin.
Well don, Founder, well done...

(golf clap)

No, personally I wanted a much more hardcore simulator than the arcade game we got. I wanted Steel Armor and got War Thunder. I'm sure you think Battletech rules are all rich and deep, after all it is recommended that the players be at least 12 years old, and this game is actually much simpler to play than TT.

Edited by Davers, 28 February 2016 - 05:48 AM.

[Karen Supreme]

Davers, on 28 February 2016 - 05:47 AM, said:

No, personally I wanted a much more hardcore simulator than the arcade game we got.

Happy to read this.
As part of the community we should ask this, indeed

Edited by I want a shadowcat, 28 February 2016 - 05:57 AM.

[Karen Supreme]

Ted Wayz, on 28 February 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

On topic, Battletech TT rules were conceived in the 1980's imagining technology hundreds of years in advance by people who were not even aware of 1980's technology. Much of it does not make any sense from a technical perspective.

In other words there is more probability of sentient bird people than a futuristic battle mech falling over because an Atlas looked at it.

So?

A Battletech game should be based on Battletech anyway

Are you looking for realism in Star Trek?
Or, are you saying that Star Trek is a $hitty form of entertainment....because 50 years old?

Give up your fouder tag. Be coherent.

[SplashDown]

Well imo this game COULD be use aspects of the TT version and the MW PC games if it had 1 simple thing..a proper MM
for clan and IS....but with out a proper MM to ajust tonage for the diff factions..all it will ever be is robots online.
So pick ur favorit color skin and the mech you think looks kool and play it..they are basicly all the same.

[Wolfways]

Ted Wayz, on 28 February 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

On topic, Battletech TT rules were conceived in the 1980's imagining technology hundreds of years in advance by people who were not even aware of 1980's technology. Much of it does not make any sense from a technical perspective.

In other words there is more probability of sentient bird people than a futuristic battle mech falling over because an Atlas looked at it.

Because 100ton mechs make more sense than a tank...
Also, BT lore is not the same as BT rules. The rules of any game are used to simulate how that lore functions in game form. Obviously not all game types (RP, TT, RTS, FPS, etc) should follow the same rules but they should at least try to stay as close to the lore as possible, otherwise why bother using the IP (other than using it to get money from fans before they realise you are in fact not making a game based on that lore)?

[Davers]

Ted Wayz, on 28 February 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

In other words there is more probability of sentient bird people than a futuristic battle mech falling over because an Atlas looked at it.

I miss the squawking.

[Mead]

King Alen, on 28 February 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

I will give you that it is more successful then MWO but that is largely due to it being more broadly known. I played ESO from the moment they had open beta and it was riddled with problems even after they launched, but it failed because they went from a subscription model to a f2p model, something they swore would never happen.

There are several games still doing fine after switching from sub to f2p, so it didn't fail because they switched... switching to f2p doesn't automatically cause failure. They screwed something up, didn't handle it right. I suspect something related to "riddled with problems".

[meteorol]

King Alen, on 28 February 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

...but it failed because they went from a subscription model to a f2p model, something they swore would never happen.

It's funny how people actually believed for a second ESO would survive on monthly subscription. I had a bet running with my buddies on how long it would take before they would cancel the monthly fee even before it was released. Thinking that this game would survive on monthly subscription was delusional from the beginning.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

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.

Bam, this.

Keep the purpose and general idea of what the equipment/weapons are described to do : Ignore the literal number values.

Pulse lasers described as "Accurate Laser Machine guns?" Make them laser machine guns.

Gauss Rifle a giant *** magnetic cannon? Make it a giant *** magnetic cannon

etc. etc. The number values derived from Table Top rules should have no place in this game. All it does is cause a massive headache and pain in the *** to get things making sense. Case and point ******* machine guns.

MW:LL did it right and completely rewrote how damage/armor values worked from scratch.

[Davers]

King Alen, on 28 February 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

MWO has somehow kept my attention even tho I normally dont play shooters of any kind and I much prefer roleplaying games and fantasy type games ( Magic and Dragons type) then space tech games.

That is because MWO is a fun game that suffers heavily from System Mastery- a term used to describe D&D 3 where new players are presented with tons of choices and options that look good, but when they become experienced with the system they realize that there are some options that are clearly much better than others. This can lead to 2 players, starting with the same chassis, creating mechs that have wildly different battlefield performance from each other.

[Shabahh Kerensky]

Man if PGI was all about TT rules, I'd be performing death from above in my highlander all the time. So sad I can't do a highlander burial.

[Mad Strike]

Shabahh Kerensky, on 28 February 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Man if PGI was all about TT rules, I'd be performing death from above in my highlander all the time. So sad I can't do a highlander burial.

You can allways try to red core someone , jump on him and cross fingers. If you can do it accidentally in a teammate's leg....then you can do it to your enemy lol

Edited by Mad Strike, 28 February 2016 - 04:40 PM.

[Exilyth]

People walking into the forums and ignoring 25 years of heavy metal mayhem... that's just as healthy as going to [random sports event] and cheering for the other team.

Ofc. the TT rules as written won't translate perfectly to a computer game, but if it was't based on TT rules and the lore, it wouldn't be much of a Battletech/Mechwarrior game. The TT rules do have their flaws, but if they hadn't been good, BT wouldn't have been around for multiple centuries.

Many problems are caused by the way certain mechanics have been changed, f.e. ghost heat is needed because the TT heat scale was ignored, which would otherwise cause hot mechs to slow down, suffer ammo explosions or even the pilot to pass out. Frontloaded pinpoint alpha strikes have been a problem since the first mechwarrior titles and are caused by the combination of customisation (allowing boating) and the lack of hit location randomisation (we are being given aimed shots with near 100% success for free basically). Clanners were supposedly strong enough to go 1 Clan vs 3 IS Mechs, but the average player is lacking the genetic modifications and sibco training, so we have more of a 1 vs 1 balance now. The list goes on.

Although alot of changes have been made compared to the TT and lore, the game PGI has created, while not optimal and having much room for improvement, is certainly enjoyable most of the time (although a bit repetitive atm). And isn't enjoyment of the BT universe the reason for most of us to play?

[Thunder Chassis]

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

No that was Crescent Hawks Inception

Not sure if you are aware but battletech and mechwarrior while in the exact same canon universe ARE different. battle tech is larger unit based play centered around the political house struggles mainly while mechwarrior games are about the mechwarrior or mercenary. so they are different.

Edited by Thunder Chassis, 28 February 2016 - 08:35 PM.

[Mystere]

Thunder Chassis, on 28 February 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:

Not sure if you are aware but battletech and mechwarrior while in the exact same canon universe ARE different. battle tech is larger unit based play centered around the political house struggles mainly while mechwarrior games are about the mechwarrior or mercenary. so they are different.

Why is it always a binary "either/or", "true/false", "yes/no", "us/them" with some people?

What if I said Mechwarrior is a subset of BattleTech, that the former is just a tree in the latter's forest?

[Thunder Chassis]

that is what i was trying to say thank you. but yeah different franchises in same universe essentially.
sometimes "binary" descriptions as you say better clarify. so as to get right to the point

Edited by Thunder Chassis, 28 February 2016 - 09:56 PM.