232 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

In general, I believe that both the arcade and simulation genres have something to offer. I truly believe that most of us want a game that is well balanced, and not TOTALLY lurched to a single element. I love arcade games, but I can also enjoy a simulation game, if it is in the genre of games that I love and it is well made. I am sure most of us can say the same thing, from one's own perspective.

Amarus Cameron said it best in a thread that is long lost.

"I love what I love, but if the game gives me 'that feeling', I am willing to put down a lot of my own biases and just play"

That's a paraphrase by the way, not an actual quote, so don't kill me Cameron.

[Red Beard]

Thorn Hallis, on 14 December 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

Don't...type.."the clans"...don't type..."the clans"...can't resist...

Ahh, but you make it sooo tempting...

[Catamount]

Red Beard, on 13 December 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

At this point, I can only say that if you still don't understand the difference, you should just give up trying to.

It seems to me that if anything, you've stated it backwards.

You actually want complexity, and don't want depth. Diversity/variation is absolutely a form of complexity, but as you want every game mode to not have much beneath the surface (eg: every one is a different form of simple pick-up-and-play), depth is the opposite of what you're looking for. Put another way, you're looking for breadth, not depth.

It's all meaningless semantics, of course, but debating meaningless semantics is fun!

Quote

Can you at the least appreciate the fact that many people were brought into the MW fold by MA? There are PLENTY of players that have the capacity to enjoy both styles of game. Nobody deserves to be berated for enjoying the style of games that they do. If lore is the only thing about MA that has elitists riled up, then why not be hateful toward ALL MW games, cause none of them went by the numbers perfectly.

Of course no one should be berated/ridiculed/belittled for liking MA; hell, I like MA.

What also needs to be said, however, is that if you're striving to make a mechwarrior game, MA is about the last thing to shoot for, because it basically stripped away nearly everything that makes the mechwarrior series what it is.

Rogue Squadron, is a fantastic game (along with all of its sequels), but it would make a rather ****-poor addition to the Microsoft Flight Simulator series. Oh, sure, you could call it "Microsoft Flight Simulator 12: X-wing Edition", but it's still not really an MSFS game; it's a different game altogether. On the same token, MA a fine iteration of console shooters, or arcade mech titles, but a very poor iteration of Mechwarrior games, and shouldn't really be called a Mechwarrior game, either, because it isn't the same game, nor even really the same genre.

Also, while I admit my BT knowledge has some pretty big gaps, I'm not aware of any direct lore contradiction between MW and BT. The biggest inconsistency I'm aware of is an internal inconistency between Mechwarrior 4: Vengeance and Mechwarrior 4: Black Knight. The Dresari forces you fight in BK are not even remotely the same people you play with in Vengeance, as even looking past Ian, the character of your Vengenace lancemates is diametrically opposite in Vengeance as compared to the people they are in Black Knight.

That's an internal inconsistency however (and one I complain bitterly about), and nothing compared to just throwing the BT canon out the window and just making up completely new elements.

Mchawkeye, on 14 December 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Actually piloting the mech will probably be no more complex than, say, Xwing, I'd imagine. And if you cannot handle that, well then don't know what. suffice to say, that was not an overwhelming game or even close.

I think the major simulation comes from the actions and nature of the world around you: realistic physics or not? well balance weapons vs well balanced armour? things, like buildings, blow up/fall down accurately? That's were I see the properly immersive nature of a sim coming into play.

I had never really considered that a title for comparison, but now that you mention it, that's actually not a bad standard for comparison.The X-Wing series had location/system damage, customizable power distribution, shield distribution, sub-system targeting (and locking for guided weapons),docking or towing objects, turret positions, ample systems to learn to give capability to the ships (which were all straight forward), but the game was still fairly easy to pick up.


Even if the game had had a good bit more depth, it could have remained very easily to simply pick up and play. Even the average gamer is capable of very quickly picking up and learning very complex systems very easily; there's no need to insult the intelligence of gamers by suggesting otherwise.



And you're right that a lot of simulator-type functions have nothing to do with increasing the workload of the pilot. Make the weapons behave like they should, make damage realistic, make sure the mechs have realistic physics. These will all be things to eventually keep in mind, but they aren't barriers to picking up the game and going on day one.

TheMagicMan, on 14 December 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:

Also a game doesn't need to be a sim to be complex. Look at WoW (though I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here). I would consider that a very in depth and complex game, and millions and millions of people play that. I wouldn't consider that a dumbed down game and the learning curve is pretty intense, yet people still play it...




Obviously this is apples to oranges but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

Actually, the comparison is perfectly apt, and I was thinking of brining it up myself.


WoW had horrendous complexity, but it didn't stop millions from picking up the game, many of them simple children, no more than 6 or 7 years old.


There was vast complexity in comparing the effects of various specs, looking at shot/move rotations, comparing which gear stats were more potent for certain types of gameplay, managing mana/energy and aggro in instances to avoid pulling off the main tank, there was complexity to the strategies in PvP locations, especially because organization was paramount, and PuGs ["Pickup Groups"] were basically like a herd of cats... there was enormous complexity, but did it stop people, from the casual to the hardcore, from playing? No, it didn't.


This is what I think many are forgetting here: It's entirely possible to have a game that is very complex without making that complexity a barrier to entry. No one here is suggesting making this game EVE Online, as far as I can see, so people shouldn't be worried about that.


EVE isn't just the casual-player's nightmare because it's complex, but because that complexity was a barrier to entry, and from the get-go, it was thrown full-force into the player's face, with all the intuitiveness of being sat down in a chair and being told to code Microsoft Access in assembly language, which is why even learning to fly your ship around and perform basic tasks required a two hour tutorial that was about as exciting as plain oatmeal.



Complexity does not have to be like that.

Games can have a myriad of systems and mountains of depth, presented in such a way that people can take that at their own pace, picking up something new after something else has already been mastered and become second nature, or not pick up those aspects at all, and pick up the game and simply "kill things" in the meantime. WoW was a great example of this. Just because players had the ability to write up giant spreadsheets and mathematical formulas for damage didn't mean that you had to jump right in and do it from day one, or even ever do it to enjoy the game.


It's entirely possible to include something like, say, a complex mech bay, with tons of aspects to learn, while still allowing people to only get into modifying things with the depth they please, which is what MW has always allowed. You don't have to spend time tweaking armor if you just want to swap in a new weapon for you mech that you liked seeing the next guy use; there's an autodistribute for that.

Don't want to get into the mechlab at all? No problem. The game can include a stock mech and a set of variants, and present, in plain language, the strengths and weaknesses of them, just like Mechwarrior laid out mech' attributes with 4 simple bars (firepower, armor, speed, heat), and a tonnage rating.



Complexity is what BT/MW is all about, at all levels, but there was never a point at which that had to be mandatory for every player, all or in part, or a barrier for early entry even for players who might want to pick up the game with just the basics and learn the minutiae later.

Edited by Catamount, 14 December 2011 - 12:05 PM.

[Red Beard]

Catamount, on 14 December 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

It seems to me that if anything, you've stated it backwards.

I, actually, personally, stated nothing. I only quoted those who responded to YOU. But I am flattered, in a way, that you would imply ME as the benefactor of your thoughts.

Quote

hell, I like MA.

You might enjoy a stroll through my favorite fan site.

macommunity.net

Quote

if you're striving to make a mechwarrior game, MA is about the last thing to shoot for

Would you say the same about Call of Duty? Many people have. That Call of Duty is the LAST type of game that the devs should attempt to glean any type of play element from. Yet Jordan Weisman and Russ Bullock have both been quoted taking small pieces of game play from CoD, and even suggesting similar mechanics. Not anything earth shaking, but at least acknowledging that there are other games doing something the right way. MA was no different. It did MANY things right. It may not have been a BT elitist dream come true, but it was a great video game that can offer a wealth of mechanical suggestions as to what players go for. Don't take my zealous approach to MA as me trying to lobby this game into another frag-fest. That's not it at all. I simply happen to not be clouded by any rageful hatred for the game that MS preferred to release, instead of another MW flop.

Quote

nothing compared to just throwing the BT canon out the window and just making up completely new elements.

There is nobody to blame for that but FASA. The owners at the time sold the IP to MS. That gave MS every right to take whatever liberties they chose to with THEIR IP. End of story. Everything that was laid out in MA IS canon, because they held all the cards. Folks need to get past their bitterness. Don't take my little rant to heart, as it's not aimed at you, Catamount, just the general elitist "feelings" that tend to "float" around forums.

Quote

Complexity is what BT/MW is all about, at all levels

I humbly suggest that you are very, very wrong.

[Mason Grimm]

So have we all agreed to disagree? Or at least agreed that we are now rehashing the same discussion 6 ways from Sunday?

[Catamount]

Red Beard, on 14 December 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

I, actually, personally, stated nothing.

Oh?

Red Beard, on 13 December 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

I don't know if checkers is a good example, as I do prefer depth, just not complexity.

Quote

Would you say the same about Call of Duty? Many people have. That Call of Duty is the LAST type of game that the devs should attempt to glean any type of play element from. Yet Jordan Weisman and Russ Bullock have both been quoted taking small pieces of game play from CoD, and even suggesting similar mechanics.

There's a difference between taking mechanics from a game, and trying to emulate a game.

A CoD title is still very far from what they should strive for.

Quote

There is nobody to blame for that but FASA. The owners at the time sold the IP to MS. That gave MS every right to take whatever liberties they chose to with THEIR IP. End of story. Everything that was laid out in MA IS canon, because they held all the cards. Folks need to get past their bitterness. Don't take my little rant to heart, as it's not aimed at you, Catamount, just the general elitist "feelings" that tend to "float" around forums.

MA is not part of the presently recognized canon

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

And I'm not concerned with who's fault it is; I just want care to be taken to show at least some level of respect for the lore in the future, something that is not done when you just haphazardly toss new elements into an established universe. MS didn't even have the decency to put some kind of caveat in explaining why all their new stuff was there (eg: making the game take place in the future); they didn't offer so much as the most half-hearted copout.

I'm just glad that MA is not canon; at best, it's apocryphal.

Quote

I humbly suggest that you are very, very wrong.

You may certainly suggest whatever you like


I'm not sure what you'd draw the conclusion from though. The extremely long and detailed history? The nearly endless list of factions and subfactions? The vastly intricate web of alliances, disputes, betrayals, political connections, and plots and schemes? The absurd number of in-universe worlds? The copious number of battlemechs and near infinite number of variants? The vast number of weapons, each often with its own enormous number of variants? The near endless list of extremely important individuals? The complexity of considerations in mech operation (range, heat management, armor distribution, the myriad of special equipment, etc etc etc)?


Exactly what isn't complex about the battletech universe?

Edited by Catamount, 14 December 2011 - 01:09 PM.

[Red Beard]

Mason Grimm, on 14 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

So have we all agreed to disagree? Or at least agreed that we are now rehashing the same discussion 6 ways from Sunday?

We're being nice...

[Kristov Kerensky]

Red, have you ever actually looked at anything related to BattleTech outside of the MA game? I only ask because of your statement that it's not complex. If that is truely your opinion..well...I can literally not take ANYTHING you post as anything but a troll attempt, at best, and will just put you on ignore from this point on. Personally, I'm going with the trolling bit, based on your posting record so far on these forums.

Someone mentioned WoW as a complex and non-LCD game...got to admit, that made me chuckle, since Blizzard was clear from day 1 with WoW that it WAS made to be as simple and easy to play as possible, and it was a simple numbers game. WoW has always been a what you see is what you get game, but people THINK there's more to it because of all the math people love to post concerning the game, and that ain't complexity, especially not when it leads to the end game you see in WoW. You must be X class with Y tree skills and Z gear or you can't play with the big boys. End of story, no discussion, your playstyle, skills and abilities don't matter, LITERALLY, because WoW has 0 depth or complexity, it's just a numbers game. It's ALWAYS been that way, WoW was never deep and complex, it was always just a pure numbers game, the difference is that at release, you had to be Horde to be a Shaman or Alliance to be a Paladin. Now..hey..you can be any class you want regardless of your allegiance, allegiance only determines what race you can be

Now, lets take any of the MW titles(even MA) and look at how they worked. Numbers are important, but..skill and ability matter in these games, more so then the numbers. I can give 2 people the EXACT same Mech and they will not perform the same with it. Go to WoW, 2 people playing the exact same build(which is what you will ALWAYS see!) and they only difference in how they play will be..well..really..nothing, especially if they both use the same macro utility. Another slap in the face of complexity and depth with WoW, you can literally let your computer play the game for you. Try that in ANY of the MW titles..even MA required a live human being at the controls!

I've seen a few people, those who only know MW4 and MA really, who keep saying that customization of Mechs just leads to the exact same builds in the exact same tonnage ranges and that it's just different skins, not Mechs, since everyone uses the same weapons! These folks obviously didn't play the previous titles, as those of us who did can easily tell. My personal Mech in MW2 was a Marauder IIC, custom variant, Mother. I picked the chassis due to how it peformed and moved, which was better then the 100 tonners(my preferred tonnage) we had to pick from in MW2. She wasn't the fastest Assault on the field, nor could she jump as high or far as others, but she was a killer and that was due to MY skills with the weapons I loaded her with..a couple of ERPPCs, couple of LRM10s and some SPL. Most people didn't like that config, ERPPCs were horrible for long range combat, slow moving big blue balls that were easy to avoid and impossible to miss coming at you..but I made them work, as did others. There was no default best config for MW2...SKILL and ABILITY being more important then the weapons on the Mech or the chassis used. This same thing was seen in MW3 configs were as varied as the pilots due to the skills each had with them, as were the Mechs used, we had NO 'best' chassis per tonnage class, we all used what we felt most comfortable in. We also never knew what our opponent was loaded with until we got into combat, nor did we know how fast they could move, where their weapons were located or even if they had jets(some people never used em, believe it or not). That Dire Wolf coming at you could be packing multiple ERPPCs or gauss or it could be an LRM boat..or it could be a couple of AC20s..or a whole lot of SPL! All were equally viable depending on the situation and who was driving the Mech.

MW2/3, the only time you saw 'best' chassis/configs were the Kali developed C combats..energy/ballistic/missile/mixed, where SOME, but not all, people would pick the best chassis in a tonnage range(not always the biggest btw) and load it with the weapons of the C type allowed and go with that. But even in that, you'd see people who fielded different chassis and loadouts who would just kick *** against the 'best' configs, skill and ability always meant more then what was on the Mech.

Sadly, with MW4, we saw the birth of the 'best' Chassis/loadout, so customization really wasn't all that custom, even with the totally bs weapon placement restrictions that MW4 had. You always knew what someone in an Atlas would be carrying because..well..with the limited weapon options they had, certain things just worked best. That's what happens when you can't actually customize things, when you are forced to use specific items in specific slots ONLY without exception, there will be a best way to do it. MA was an even worst offender in that regards. But..even with that limitation(and that's EXACTLY what it is), player skill and ability still had more to do with who walked off the field and who was carried off it then WoW.

Keep in mind though, MWO is NOT an MMO! This will be a game where we fight each other and..that's it. There's no AI to compete against, so there's ability to train against it. Having 'settings' that allow one to select 'Arcade' or 'Sim' won't work very well because your opponent may not be using that setting and you could find yourself at a serious disadvantage..or advantage. So THAT won't work, we can't have something that will split the player base up like that, especially since it would give an advantage over others at times. I did offer a possible solution, in this very thread.

Starting players have an arcade like game, 'sim' options are THERE, but the default will be Arcade. As you advance in levels, the game will automatically adjust the level of Arcade to less and less until you are finally at full on Sim, which I think would be like the MW2 experience for the most part, but with a bit more of the TT rules actually in place for a more immersive experience for higher level players. This represents your 'growth' as a Mech Warrior, and it should ALWAYS be an option to make the game full on sim at any level, but the arcade option is limited by your actual player level, no turning it on after X levels are attained. After all, we won't HAVE any AI to fight against so that people can learn how to play the game, it'll be player vs player. I remember all too vividly how Tribes was the first time I went online to play it. I thought that having done the tutorial, I was ready to jump in and start kicking ***! WOW! Was I forcibly and horribly taught just how wrong I was! Best to avoid that, as it is ACTUALLY a great way to develop a very hard core fanbase, it's always the best way to discourage anything BUT those hard core fans from playing the game. All well and good for a single point of sale video game, but for a F2P online game..bad design decision, no soup for you.

[SLxDarkknight]

As someone who attended the launch party and spoke with the devs i was told there would be no MW5 until technology caught up with their vision for the game.

[Mchawkeye]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Starting players have an arcade like game, 'sim' options are THERE, but the default will be Arcade. As you advance in levels, the game will automatically adjust the level of Arcade to less and less until you are finally at full on Sim, which I think would be like the MW2 experience for the most part, but with a bit more of the TT rules actually in place for a more immersive experience for higher level players. This represents your 'growth' as a Mech Warrior, and it should ALWAYS be an option to make the game full on sim at any level, but the arcade option is limited by your actual player level, no turning it on after X levels are attained. After all, we won't HAVE any AI to fight against so that people can learn how to play the game, it'll be player vs player. I remember all too vividly how Tribes was the first time I went online to play it. I thought that having done the tutorial, I was ready to jump in and start kicking ***! WOW! Was I forcibly and horribly taught just how wrong I was! Best to avoid that, as it is ACTUALLY a great way to develop a very hard core fanbase, it's always the best way to discourage anything BUT those hard core fans from playing the game. All well and good for a single point of sale video game, but for a F2P online game..bad design decision, no soup for you.

I gotta ask, how'd you define 'arcade like game'? what would be the difference?

I don't think we can have people of different control advantages playing on the same field as that creates an advantage/disadvantage.
I just think that, if the controls are programmed correctly, it should be easy enough for anyone to pick up without have to resort to a two tier style of game play.

But complex enough that there is still a learning curve.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Mchawkeye, on 14 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

I gotta ask, how'd you define 'arcade like game'? what would be the difference?

I don't think we can have people of different control advantages playing on the same field as that creates an advantage/disadvantage.
I just think that, if the controls are programmed correctly, it should be easy enough for anyone to pick up without have to resort to a two tier style of game play.

But complex enough that there is still a learning curve.

Honestly, I don't know, I'm not a fan of arcade play in a BTech game at all, so I really don't know. Stock Mechs, ammo isn't a consideration, heat isn't a consideration? Hitting the 'Sim' option would make your ammo count matter and heat matter, so that going Sim against the Arcade players would be a disadvantage, not an advantage. As you progress in levels, ammo and heat are enabled, first ammo count, then heat is enabled as a simple 'overheat shutdown' system, while later levels make it overheat causes targeting/speed issues and ammo explosions, so that the players can learn how to manage their heat starting with a simple system before they have to worry about the more serious issues and hopefully have a handle on it before that point..hopefully Customization of Mechs coming as you attain some specific level, starting with basic weapon swap outs, energy for energy, ballistic for ballistic, as used in MW4, to the full on 'this is your basic Mech blue print, build it yourself' at the higher levels, complete with flipping arms, and all the other full TT rules, with costs being higher and higher as you go further up in levels and 'unlock' more customization options, per the TT rules. It's fairly easy and cheap to swap a Med Laser for another energy weapon of similiar size/tonnage, but it's pretty damn expensive to build a full custom Mech.

This also plays into the entire concept of levels that PGI is putting in the game, giving you more and more of the full BTech/MechWarrior experience as you attain higher levels and become more adept and skilled with the game.., again, hopefully Want to build your dream Mech design you've had for years in your TT game? Get to level X in MWO and you can unlock the ability to do just that..provided you have enough c-bills to pay for it It also paves the way for the folks who's only experience is the MW4/MA titles to learn how a real BTech based game works at their own pace instead of being shoved into it face first without any prep time or training. MW4 and MA do NOT give you the skills required for something like MW2/3, and from what we've heard from PGI so far, including today's interview, that IS what we're probably going to get with MWO.

Controls are a different issue. Console controllers are the worst possible thing to use in a game, they are just horrible interface devices. If people want to use a controller, and some will, then they will be a serious disadvantage no matter what, unless PGI makes the game to function based SOLEY on a controller as the interface device. Want to see how that works? Go play MA. THAT is something I won't waste time on at all, not worth my consideration. There is no way to fix this problem either, and people WILL demand to be able to use their controllers to play, it's what they are used to, so they will always be a serious disadvantage against people who JUST use a kb/mouse, gods help them against those of us who use joystick/hotas/pedals as well Hell, I use a speciality gamer mouse designed for FPS games, it's got better precision and more interface options then any controller out, stock or mod, and it's not even the most advanced gamer mouse on the market! We won't even bring up my joystick which I got for flight sims or the other sim based interface devices that so many of us want to use.

[VanillaG]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

Honestly, I don't know, I'm not a fan of arcade play in a BTech game at all, so I really don't know. Stock Mechs, ammo isn't a consideration, heat isn't a consideration? Hitting the 'Sim' option would make your ammo count matter and heat matter, so that going Sim against the Arcade players would be a disadvantage, not an advantage. As you progress in levels, ammo and heat are enabled, first ammo count, then heat is enabled as a simple 'overheat shutdown' system, while later levels make it overheat causes targeting/speed issues and ammo explosions, so that the players can learn how to manage their heat starting with a simple system before they have to worry about the more serious issues and hopefully have a handle on it before that point..hopefully

My only changes to this would be that you start with heat and ammo counts on at the beginning and change to more complex damage model as you progress. Heat and ammo count are part of the overall balancing of the system.

A more complex damage model is at the beginning you cannot lose any components in a section until that section is destroyed and you really cannot lose any heatsinks regardless of how many sections are destroyed. If you have 1 point of armor left on an arm, all weapons work until the arm is destroyed. Later on the concept of critical hits becomes more important and you can lose individual weapons and heatsinks even if a section is not totally destroyed. This lets the new player survive a little longer at the beginning and introduces a richer combat environment latter in the game. It prevents every match from becoming monotonous with the same mechs. Some matches you are lucky and take out enough heatsinks to lower the output of a laser boat and other times you are unlucky when someone hits your ammo causing an explosion.

Edited by VanillaG, 14 December 2011 - 04:52 PM.

[Nation]

I'm all for MWO being more of a tactical game then a twitch game. We have plenty of those, I'll have more then my fair share playing tribes and the hordes of recent shooters. Good to hear they are sticking close to traditional BT.

I can't see the idea of varying levels of complexity working out for anything but a series of tutorial battles/missions. You can't split the community when trying to make the community warfare aspect such a key feature.

I really hope the devs stick with it, faster paced twitch mech shooters already have hawken and AC5 to look foward to. Mech Sim fans havn't had anything in a good while.

[Kristov Kerensky]

VanillaG, on 14 December 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

My only changes to this would be that you start with heat and ammo counts on at the beginning and change to more complex damage model as you progress. Heat and ammo count are part of the overall balancing of the system.

A more complex damage model is at the beginning you cannot lose any components in a section until that section is destroyed and you really cannot lose any heatsinks regardless of how many sections are destroyed. If you have 1 point of armor left on an arm, all weapons work until the arm is destroyed. Later on the concept of critical hits becomes more important and you can lose individual weapons and heatsinks even if a section is not totally destroyed. This lets the new player survive a little longer at the beginning and introduces a richer combat environment latter in the game. It prevents every match from becoming monotonous with the same mechs. Some matches you are lucky and take out enough heatsinks to lower the output of a laser boat and other times you are unlucky when someone hits your ammo causing an explosion.

^ THIS! This works well, in my opinion, as it removes that 'arcade' feel but still allows for arcade style play for new players who aren't used to the more complicated BTech system.

Nation, on 14 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I'm all for MWO being more of a tactical game then a twitch game. We have plenty of those, I'll have more then my fair share playing tribes and the hordes of recent shooters. Good to hear they are sticking close to traditional BT.

I can't see the idea of varying levels of complexity working out for anything but a series of tutorial battles/missions. You can't split the community when trying to make the community warfare aspect such a key feature.

I really hope the devs stick with it, faster paced twitch mech shooters already have hawken and AC5 to look foward to. Mech Sim fans havn't had anything in a good while.

Nation, there won't be any splitting of the player base, we've already been told that we'll gain levels as we play the game, starting as a green fresh from the 'whatever' Mech piloting school you attended and that as you play you'll get levels which will do..something. Rank is a seperate thing, being decided by Loyalty Points if you belong to a House Faction or by your commander if you belong to a Merc Unit, and having none if you are a Lone Wolf. So, with levels, we need SOMETHING that is given to us. We know we'll get Skills that will have an effect upon the type of Mech and combat style we prefer..somehow..yeah...anyway. With starting new players, 1st level, out with a combat system that is less sim and more arcade like, as VanillaG proposed(really like that better then mine), the new players get to learn how to use Mechs according to BTech rules and systems slowly and they will eventually be playing a full on sim with the BTech system, or they can immediately use that with an option to enable full on sim from the get go. But the 'new player' friendly system that defaults at lower levels, that can't be turned BACK on as you progress in levels, it's slowly, and automatically, turned off by the system as you go up in levels. This really does give new players time to get used to and learn to deal with the more BTech based system that really is more complicated and indepth, allowing for a much more immersive experience..and, to more then a few of us it would seem, a more fun experience.

Now, IF they let the new low level players jump right in with the higher level players..well..this won't hurt the new guys and it definately won't give the higher level players any advantage, it will actually give the lower level players an advantage. But not one big enough to bother the higher level players..I would hope

[Nation]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 05:18 PM, said:

^ THIS! This works well, in my opinion, as it removes that 'arcade' feel but still allows for arcade style play for new players who aren't used to the more complicated BTech system.



Nation, there won't be any splitting of the player base, we've already been told that we'll gain levels as we play the game, starting as a green fresh from the 'whatever' Mech piloting school you attended and that as you play you'll get levels which will do..something. Rank is a seperate thing, being decided by Loyalty Points if you belong to a House Faction or by your commander if you belong to a Merc Unit, and having none if you are a Lone Wolf. So, with levels, we need SOMETHING that is given to us. We know we'll get Skills that will have an effect upon the type of Mech and combat style we prefer..somehow..yeah...anyway. With starting new players, 1st level, out with a combat system that is less sim and more arcade like, as VanillaG proposed(really like that better then mine), the new players get to learn how to use Mechs according to BTech rules and systems slowly and they will eventually be playing a full on sim with the BTech system, or they can immediately use that with an option to enable full on sim from the get go. But the 'new player' friendly system that defaults at lower levels, that can't be turned BACK on as you progress in levels, it's slowly, and automatically, turned off by the system as you go up in levels. This really does give new players time to get used to and learn to deal with the more BTech based system that really is more complicated and indepth, allowing for a much more immersive experience..and, to more then a few of us it would seem, a more fun experience.

Now, IF they let the new low level players jump right in with the higher level players..well..this won't hurt the new guys and it definately won't give the higher level players any advantage, it will actually give the lower level players an advantage. But not one big enough to bother the higher level players..I would hope

Good to hear. Where is the source for this information? I'd absolutely love to read it.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Right here Nation..

http://mwomercs.com/...mmunity-warfare

[Raeven]

Mason Grimm, on 14 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

So have we all agreed to disagree? Or at least agreed that we are now rehashing the same discussion 6 ways from Sunday?

That's all we have to do until we have a game to play.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Or at the vwry least more concrete information to argue over.

[Mason Grimm]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 December 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

Or at the very least more concrete information to argue over discuss like civilized beings.

[MaddMaxx]

Mason Grimm, on 15 December 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

Quote

"Or at the very least more concrete information to argue over discuss like civilized beings."

Like on Dec. 21st 2011. For the sake of everyone's sanity pleeeease...