171 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Deathlike, on 21 October 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

I don't think anyone has literally said those words. Making Lights as useful as the next class is all people are asking for... so I don't know how you're translating that at all. "Useful" in my context doesn't mean "equal power level of damage dealing"... they have to serve a purpose that's "equal" to the purpose of an Assault... in which the game modes don't present that at all.

Bombast, on 21 October 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

Seriously though, I don't think I've ever heard people say that about lights. People usually say that they want lights to be as viable as heavies and assaults. It's largely an opinion fight on whether that's true or not already at the moment.

Well I kind of see those arguments any time someone brings up that the balance should be... Assaults>Heavies>Mediums>Lights>Assaults
I can see where that guy is coming from with that statement if the above is the arguments he is alluding to. Myself I have never been a big fan of the hard counter design.

[Davers]

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

I just pointed out Battletech/MechWarrior have 2 new games out while Star Trek has one on life support. That Battletech board games are worth way more than anything Star Trek has had. Also the other points I made.

I think you and the ones throwing money at failing Star Trek movies are the ones that are delusional.

Starfleet Battles has been around just as long as Battletech. Battletech has much prettier books though since they have a much larger company backing them up, while SFB actually exists in a loophole as an "alternate universe" and cannot actually add anything from newer Star Trek sources.

WarHippy, on 21 October 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Well I kind of see those arguments any time someone brings up that the balance should be... Assaults>Heavies>Mediums>Lights>Assaults
I can see where that guy is coming from with that statement if the above is the arguments he is alluding to. Myself I have never been a big fan of the hard counter design.

Wrong thread.

[Johnny Z]

Otto Cannon, on 21 October 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

There are lots of things that we have the technology for these days which wouldn't have worked ten years ago. Not to mention the elite dev team and huge budget that SC has. I don't see any point trying to directly compare it to an ancient failed pay-to-win game.

Cant argue with anything here, but the two games have the same concepts and mechanics like landing on planets from space and many other similarities. Everyone better hope the similarities end there because Entopria Universe looks a lot like Star Citizen and was a total scam.

I am not invested in Star Citizen so I got nothing to lose but the mere fact I love Sci-fi and hope to see a great sci-fi game some day makes me nervous.

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 October 2016 - 01:29 PM.

[WarHippy]

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

I think its very obvious why but they instead enjoy throwing money in money pits. There are a lot of movies made, same with games. Some are great, some are not. You think recent Star Trek movies are great? Good for you. I prefer better movies.

They are not throwing away money with Star Trek... If it wasn't making money they wouldn't keep making more movies/games/shows/etc.. As for the current movies I actually hate them with a fiery passion, but I'm not blind to the fact that they are popular and bring in big box office numbers. Even if by some miracle someone made a Battletech movie I doubt it would do well as it has zero name recognition outside of a very niche group of die hard fans.

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

No one will buy Star Trek unless its a bail out. There would be a long line for MechWarrior/Battletech, its worth way WAY more than Star Trek.

No one will buy Star Trek because it isn't for sale as it is currently making a lot of money for the current owners. I hate to break it to you but you really are not going to find a long line of anybody looking to do much with Mechwarrior/Battletech beyond what we are currently seeing because sadly the value currently isn't there.

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

Battletech/MechWarrior movies have not been made in the past because they have been to expensive to be done right. Period. Have to see what the future brings.

Yet movies have been made that would require similar amounts of investment and work that a Battletech movie would take. There have also been movies that had a similar problem of being too expensive to do be done right, or the technology wasn't advanced enough to make them that have since been made only to fail at the box office. I'm not disputing the possible potential of the Battletech IP, but as is it is nowhere near as valuable as the Star Trek IP.

Edited by WarHippy, 21 October 2016 - 08:01 PM.

[FupDup]

WarHippy, on 21 October 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

Well I kind of see those arguments any time someone brings up that the balance should be... Assaults>Heavies>Mediums>Lights>Assaults
I can see where that guy is coming from with that statement if the above is the arguments he is alluding to. Myself I have never been a big fan of the hard counter design.

For me, I would rather have it be more "dynamic" and on a per-mech basis rather than every mech x getting beaten by mech y.

For example, some lights might be good at munching on fatties, but some others might be for chasing down enemy anklebitters. Some mediums should be able to stand up to heavies or assaults but not be as good against lights, some assaults should have good self-defense against fasties but be weaker against fatties, etc.

[WarHippy]

FupDup, on 21 October 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

For me, I would rather have it be more "dynamic" and on a per-mech basis rather than every mech x getting beaten by mech y.

For example, some lights might be good at munching on fatties, but some others might be for chasing down enemy anklebitters. Some mediums should be able to stand up to heavies or assaults but not be as good against lights, some assaults should have good self-defense against fasties but be weaker against fatties, etc.

Perhaps, but as Davers so kindly pointed out to me... wrong thread

[Ghogiel]

for lolz the steam player number references for STO and MWO

http://steamcharts.com/app/9900
http://steamcharts.com/app/342200

[BLOOD WOLF]

MWO isn't to far behind on the steam charts

[Johnny Z]

WarHippy, on 21 October 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

They are not throwing away money with Star Trek... If it wasn't making money they wouldn't keep making more movies/games/shows/etc.. As for the current movies I actually hate them with a fiery passion, but I'm not blind to the fact that they are popular and bring in big box office numbers. Even if by some miracle someone made a Battletech movie I doubt it would due well as it has zero name recognition outside of a very niche group of die hard fans.
No one will buy Star Trek because it isn't for sale as it is currently making a lot of money for the current owners. I hate to break it to you but you really are not going to find a long line of anybody looking to do much with Mechwarrior/Battletech beyond what we are currently seeing because sadly the value currently isn't there.
Yet movies have been made that would require similar amounts of investment and work that a Battletech movie would take. There have also been movies that had a similar problem of being too expensive to do be done right, or the technology wasn't advanced enough to make them that have since been made only to fail at the box office. I'm not disputing the possible potential of the Battletech IP, but as is it is nowhere near as valuable as the Star Trek IP.

Ya those darn LOTR movies were not made for a long time because of being to expensive and look at how badly they did.

[Hunka Junk]

Ghogiel, on 21 October 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

for lolz the steam player number references for STO and MWO

http://steamcharts.com/app/9900
http://steamcharts.com/app/342200

Maybe if we join forces?

I'd love some vulcan ear decals for my...Executioner?

[Johnny Z]

Ghogiel, on 21 October 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

for lolz the steam player number references for STO and MWO

http://steamcharts.com/app/9900
http://steamcharts.com/app/342200

Looks good all things considered.

I wonder how MechWarrior Online would be doing with a few movies and a larger budget to add some of the features STO has but the better gameplay MechWarrior has?

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 October 2016 - 01:51 PM.

[Ghogiel]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 October 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

MWO isn't to far behind on the steam charts

Sure MWO player base is only 30% less than STOs, but the point is STO is apparently a games that's "on it's last legs". So if STO is dieing what's that say about MWO?

[Johnny Z]

Ghogiel, on 21 October 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Sure MWO player base is only 30% less than STOs, but the point is STO is apparently a games that's "on it's last legs". So if STO is dieing what's that say about MWO?

I just mentioned a few big budget movies even if mediocre would help MechWarrior onlines numbers. Not to mention the backing STO got.

Looks like MechWarrior Online market value just got upgraded.

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 October 2016 - 01:53 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

I just mentioned a few big budget movies even if mediocre would help MechWarrior onlines numbers. Not to mention the backing STO got.

Those big budget movies don't exist and aren't likely to. Random pipedreams from some rando on an inconsequential internet forum has no impact on the value of BT/MW franchise.

Secondly, any backing STO got might have something to do with the value of the franchise.

[Hunka Junk]

And how old is STO?

Like 3 years older than MWO?

2009-ish?

MWO would benefit from being an MMO.

[Bombast]

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

I just mentioned a few big budget movies even if mediocre would help MechWarrior onlines numbers. Not to mention the backing STO got.

Looks like MechWarrior Online market value just got upgraded.

How? The Mechwarrior 'flagship product' is lagging behind the lame duck Star Trek property.

[WarHippy]

Johnny Z, on 21 October 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Ya those darn LOTR movies were not made for a long time because of being to expensive and look at how badly they did.

Those LOTR movies were not the first ones made, and I never said all movies that were expensive to make fail. I will also point out that LOTR is another franchise with far more recognition and value than Battletech will ever likely reach.

[RussianWolf]

LordNothing, on 21 October 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

they tried to do that with descent. they got a c+d. crowdfunded game development only seems to work when someone has an original franchise. mwll was done under the radar and got away with it only because they weren't in competition with anyone, and the rights holders simply did not care. when they did start to care, they got shut down pretty quick.

You don't get a cease and desist when you go through the right channels with the IP owner. The people would need to work with Microsoft in order to do it, yes. But if MS has no plans with the IP, then they would be willing to allow the exploration of the project. If the needed funds were raised, they would be getting a portion as the licensor after all. Or did you forget that Battletech literally just did a crowd funding for their game?

Edited by RussianWolf, 21 October 2016 - 02:35 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Ghogiel, on 21 October 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Sure MWO player base is only 30% less than STOs, but the point is STO is apparently a games that's "on it's last legs". So if STO is dieing what's that say about MWO?

sure, produce the numbers for the player base and then I'll answer your question.

[WarHippy]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 October 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

sure, produce the numbers for the player base and then I'll answer your question.

They were talking about Steam numbers and they are posted further up in the thread.