181 replies to this topic

[Kudzu]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 12 December 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

but musn't things change over time? how does the very earliest editions of Rogue Trader
compare to Warhammer40k: 5th ed?

Your first wrong assumption is that all changes are for the better. Your second is that 40k is shining example of change for balance rather than for money.

Quote

as Wolfe already points out on a smaller scale;
"Clans would still be Clans, with their mechs, culture, language, honor, prevalence of ER weapons and streaks and large Ultra bore... even with a small weight rebalance. Clans are more than just awesome guns... at least, to me. Do you just like the guns?"

well you seem to be proving a point here; if the clans were the ones being invaded
and the IS were the ones with the uber tech would you complain? Or would you
be an IS player? continuity of universe != rules of games

Except for the part where part of playing the clans is trading numbers for individual power, something that none of previous games have attempted. Continuity of the universe and the rules of the game go hand-in-hand in Battletech-- when you use all of the rules.

Quote

and I will reiterate, why is only a decrease of one stat so
unacceptable?

Mostly because there is no need, unnecessary changes just means you are that much further from the BTU.

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

That's the approach I've been talking about. I've been playing games for years, tabletop, PnP, video and otherwise, including many adaptations, but rarely do I see such adamant beliefs that the rules of the source game must be obeyed to the letter for adaptations as much as when it comes to Battletech. Sometimes I wonder if it's because the game itself is so far past its golden years that everyone is just submerged in blissful nostalgia and feels compelled to yell at others to get off his lawn and that "this scum isn't good enough for my little girl"? Who is it that even made that "rule"? Why would you even say that?

Universe and system are different things. They're not inseparable, and there are many people who arrived at BTU through other media, which should be proof enough that those two are not strictly inseparable and as worthless without each other as you seem to claim ("take everything or leave everything"). The whole debate is about finding a "better way". Nobody got it right yet, but so many people are willing to shut the discussions down with "it's not how you should do it" without any reason other than "because".

Even leaving behind Warhammer (although I find it a decent comparison because of its age and fanbase), there's so many games that do a splendid job of representing the universe while only giving a nod to the base work's rules. Vampire: Bloodlines (RPG to cRPG), Knights of the Old Republic (movies to RPG to cRPG), Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth (RPG to FPS)... they don't run on d10, d6/d20 (rules changed within the universe for the source game itself here, even) and Cthulhu, don't represent the mechanics and a Shoggoth may not exactly have as many hit points as in the rulebook, yet the universe is represented with care and respect, without a doubt. It can be done. Why such a strict, negative attitude towards Battletech adaptations?

Mech Assault
Mech Warrior 4 (and 1-3 to a lesser degree)
Dark Ages
Clickytech

Pardon us "old hardliners" who've seen what happens when you move away from the core setting and make changes "for the better". The beautiful thing about the BTU is it does have plenty of changes, but those changes are represented by an actual change in the timeline rather than with new editions completely nullifying everything else. Now, if the game was set in 3015, I'd be fighting just as hard to keep the tech level there. Instead, it's set at the start of the clan invasion. This means that yes, the IS has a severe tech disadvantage overall (which won't be as bad here due to players having nearly a year to gear up to star league level tech) but that the clans bid down to face them on realtively even terms (the bidding, in part, being represented by BV).

[Alex Wolfe]

Strum Wealh, on 12 December 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

It does make sense, in its own way, that Clan tech at the time of the invasion/"Operation Revival" would be number of aspects than that available to the IS at the time - Kerensky spent the better part of three years (2781-2784) gathering most of the best people (~6 million), the supplies to support them (foodstuffs and medicines, prefabricated buildings, and such) and military stuff (documents and working equipment) and shoving it into ~6700 ships... and left, floating around for about two years before finding the Pentagon Worlds.

The Clans, by the time of the invasion, had about two-and-a-half centuries to innovate, and they started with the best of what was available before they left.
The IS powers had about two-and-a-half decades to try to re-invent their tech to the point at which the Clans started - there simply wasn't time for the IS to completely catch-up.

Um... actually, those weren't the Clans, those were the Star League refugees, and they didn't "innovate for two and a half centuries"... they settled on the relatively barren Pentagon worlds and happily launched into a devastating civil war, Kerensky died of natural causes, and "Kerensky's son took 800 of his best warriors and 600 civilian families away to a planet known as Strana Mechty ("land of dreams" in Russian) where he forged a new order. This order was known as the Clans".

That's about 3000 people, and divided into 20 clans that gives the staggering numbers of about... 1500 a pop. They had to start from scratch, and had an arduous conflict before them even to regain what they've left, while the Star League remnants were happily blasting their own tech into oblivion just as readily as the Inner Sphere was: "an eerie parallel to the carnage unfolding concurrently in the Inner Sphere, a conflict now known as the First Succession War."

[Kudzu]

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

Um... actually, those weren't the Clans, those were the Star League refugees, and they didn't "innovate for two and a half centuries"... they settled on the relatively barren Pentagon worlds and happily launched into a devastating civil war, Kerensky died of natural causes, and "Kerensky's son took 800 of his best warriors and 600 civilian families away to a planet known as Strana Mechty ("land of dreams" in Russian) where he forged a new order. This order was known as the Clans".

That's about 3000 people, and divided into 20 clans that gives the staggering numbers of about... 1500 a pop. They had to start from scratch, and had an arduous conflict before them even to regain what they've left, while the Star League remnants were happily blasting their own tech into oblivion just as readily as the Inner Sphere was: "an eerie parallel to the carnage unfolding concurrently in the Inner Sphere, a conflict now known as the First Succession War."

It only took 20 years for Nicholas and friends to form the clans, come back, and clean up the mess on the pentagon worlds (which took less than a year until the last of the resistance crumbled). Most of the survivors were folded back into the clans and from there you get your head start on technology-- including the "golden century".

[Alex Wolfe]

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Your first wrong assumption is that all changes are for the better. Your second is that 40k is shining example of change for balance rather than for money.

I could say that yours is the wrong assumption that all changes are for the worse? The key word would be "all", quiaff? Same as they guy you quote doesn't say anything about absolute values in the very post you reply to?

"Change for the sake of change" sucks, but so does "no change for the sake of no change". I like some critical eye and approaching matters on a case-by-case basis, myself.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Mech Assault
Mech Warrior 4 (and 1-3 to a lesser degree)
Dark Ages
Clickytech

Hey now, I hate what the Dark Ages guys did with my beloved franchise, and the attempted murder on robot sim known as MechAssault as much as the next guy, but I've yet to hear a coherent argument about what makes MW4 a bad game (besides the vague "too arcady"... it's not even a word, what does that mean, in quantifiable qualities? ...and "it doesn't strictly adhere to the TT, oh woe", to which I can only answer "neither does any of the rather excellent games I mentioned before, your point being?"). I do accept that people may not like it, of course, but it's hardly corpus delicti, its changes served the coherency well. Still, you kind of wrote "those things are bad" about nearly everything ever made besides the original book. What sins do they bear against the Holy Rulebook besides "not enough hexes and dice"?

In my opinion the forced adherence of MW3 to TT rules was its demise. That game is beautiful, climactic, amazing for its times... and nigh unplayable in retrospect. It was a nice Battletech tie-in, but a bad game.

Wait a second, there's everything since the inception of the Printing Press on that list, except for MechCommanders... maybe you just don't like games in general (not that there's something wrong with that)? Seems like a pretty Grinch-like approach to condemn any changes wholesale just because they're changes, don't you think?

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Pardon us "old hardliners" who've seen what happens when you move away from the core setting and make changes "for the better". The beautiful thing about the BTU is it does have plenty of changes, but those changes are represented by an actual change in the timeline rather than with new editions completely nullifying everything else.

You seem to ignore the issue that such approach of "new timeskip must mean new revolutionary technologies" reeks precisely of the "change for the sake of change" you seem to abhor? It's what sparked Dark Ages, Quads, Stealth Armor, Proto-Mechs and Clickytech", no? "We're putting out a new book, must include some things that we don't care if they fit in!"... I don't see any beauty in that, sorry. I'd rather take some mechanics changes with the universe generally holding its plot and art style together without attempting revolutionary changes (like Warhammer does), than dudes randomly deciding that 3060 is a good year for BTU to unleash Mechagodzilla.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Now, if the game was set in 3015, I'd be fighting just as hard to keep the tech level there. Instead, it's set at the start of the clan invasion. This means that yes, the IS has a severe tech disadvantage overall (which won't be as bad here due to players having nearly a year to gear up to star league level tech) but that the clans bid down to face them on realtively even terms (the bidding, in part, being represented by BV).

I'm sure all the players on the internet will happily one-on-one, bid, Zellbringen and honor as Clanners.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

It only took 20 years for Nicholas and friends to form the clans, come back, and clean up the mess on the pentagon worlds (which took less than a year until the last of the resistance crumbled). Most of the survivors were folded back into the clans and from there you get your head start on technology-- including the "golden century".

So there goes 20 years of war down the drain, with Kerensky knows how many of aforementioned scientists dead in the conflict.

And the victory finally allowed the Clans to unite and... no wait, they all scurried to each their own barren rock, and started to develop things in secret by themselves (with the amazing man- and brainpower of, assuming it was about similar after the Pentagon war as before, of ca. 300 000 per clan - a XX century medium-sized city's worth) , trying hard to out-politick and take bites out of neighbours whenever possible. It's a really hard sell, but then again - it's not exactly hard Sci-Fi (not that everything has to be, of course, but too much logic need not apply, it's not a detective novel either).

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 12 December 2011 - 04:06 PM.

[Evgeny Bear]

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I'm sure all the players on the internet will happily one-on-one, bid, Zellbringen and honor as Clanners.

Yes we will =P

Seyla

Edited by Andar89, 12 December 2011 - 03:58 PM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Andar89, on 12 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yes we will =P

Seyla

That's one!

Roll call for the remaining 2,095,006,004 (March 31, 2011) potential players then, I guess!

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 12 December 2011 - 04:36 PM.

[Kudzu]

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I could say that yours is the wrong assumption that all changes are for the worse? The key word would be "all", quiaff? Same as they guy you quote doesn't say anything about absolute values in the very post you reply to?

Games Workshop flat-out admits that it makes rules to sell mini's, not to balance itself for competitive gaming. It is a terrible comparison to use for someone who wants basically wants the clans to be a new set of skins rather than a faction that plays completely differently.

Quote

Hey now, I hate what the Dark Ages guys did with my beloved franchise, and the attempted murder on robot sim known as MechAssault as much as the next guy, but I've yet to hear a coherent argument about what makes MW4 a bad game (besides the vague "too arcady"... it's not even a word, what does that mean, in quantifiable qualities? ...and "it doesn't strictly adhere to the TT, oh woe"). I do accept that people may not like it, of course, but it's hardly corpus delicti, its changes served the coherency well. Still, you kind of wrote "those things are bad" about nearly everything ever made besides the original book. What sins do they bear against the Holy Rulebook besides "not enough hexes and dice"?

Poptarting, circlejerks, one-shotting, assault spam... yeah, GREAT game.

Quote

In my opinion the forced adherence of MW3 to TT rules was its demise. That game is beautiful, climactic, amazing for its times... and nigh unplayable in retrospect. It was a nice Battletech tie-in, but a bad game.

I haven't played it in years, but the only bad thing I remember about it's terrible net code.

Quote

You seem to ignore the issue that such approach of "new timeskip must mean new revolutionary technologies" reeks precisely of the "change for the sake of change" you seem to abhor? It's what sparked Dark Ages, Quads, Stealth Armor, Proto-Mechs and Clickytech", no? "We're putting out a new book, must include some things that we don't care if they fit in!"... I don't see any beauty in that, sorry. I'd rather take some mechanics changes than dudes randomly deciding that 3060 is a good year for BTU to unleash Mechagodzilla.

You would be right, except you forgot about the part where you can decide exactly where in the timeline you choose to play and the rules still work, unlike games that change editions entirely.

Quote

I'm sure all the players on the internet will happily one-on-one, bid, Zellbringen and honor as Clanners.

That's where your "changes" can come in. Either by forcing clan players to abide by Zell via coding, or by increasing their base BV costs to balance the fact that most of the clans players won't be using it.

[Alex Wolfe]

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

Games Workshop flat-out admits that it makes rules to sell mini's, not to balance itself for competitive gaming. It is a terrible comparison to use for someone who wants basically wants the clans to be a new set of skins rather than a faction that plays completely differently.

(...) You would be right, except you forgot about the part where you can decide exactly where in the timeline you choose to play and the rules still work, unlike games that change editions entirely

At least you have a coherent universe there which is pretty much wholly usable, and not fun at the start and then turning into an embarrassing mess forever after. Funny, that writers with such a cutthroat strategy like you describe respect their source material way more than BT which you defend. Besides - every company wants to sell their stuff, the question is how good their product is. Warhammer has been consistently pretty good for decades now.

Also, rebalancing some weapon values (mechs same, exclusive weapon types same etc) = "set of skins"? You sure seem to like those broad-brush swipes, don't you? If anything makes mechs of both factions a "set of skins", it's the unrestricted customization, vide: MW3. Which, coincidentally, is what I see many "TT hardliners" propose...

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

Poptarting, circlejerks, one-shotting, assault spam... yeah, GREAT game.

I'll give you that, it had its flaws - mostly because the internet was still fairly new and terrifying, and that game is mostly single player focused, where it excels (unlike MW3 which has considerable problems in its focus of single player as well). In modern days most of the stuff you mention would've been taken care of by balance patches, but in that era nobody cared too much (mostly thinking about the ease of CT sniping which makes most of what you talk about possible, modifying its hitboxes would remedy most of that). So besides the multi balance problems, no problems? That's... a pretty good record then. Keep in mind though - unwillingness to change mechanics would mean more balance problems, not less.

By the way, you cannot one shot in MW4. Coring was bad, but oneshots were coded to be impossible, unless a glitch exploit exists that I never heard of.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

I haven't played it in years, but the only bad thing I remember about it's terrible net code.

The floating reticule, low armor values, ease of tripping, ease and benefits of legging, heat dissipation being too inefficient below a certain threshold and too good above it, unrestricted customization making all mechs basically skins with identical capabilities, horrible mech agility and the bloody unrestricted floating reticule (mouse speed being the only limit) making the combat and exchange of potshots and trip attempts, about as involving as drawing in paint, forced overreliance on the MFB. Did I mention the free-floating reticule?

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

That's where your "changes" can come in. Either by forcing clan players to abide by Zell via coding, or by increasing their base BV costs to balance the fact that most of the clans players won't be using it.

As long as we agree that some radical balancing steps must be taken, all is right in the world I guess!

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 12 December 2011 - 04:31 PM.

[Zureal]

Habokku


I am far to tired to read all of this, but from what i read so far you are sorely lacking in Clan History, there development, and how they progressed. I suggest you read up on these things before you make ignorant assumptions, assumptions that I at least find annoying, and in many cases, baseless.

At the vary least read up on them here http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Clans . This is a good place to start and has some good general information on there history.

[Kudzu]

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

At least you have a coherent universe there which is pretty much wholly usable, and not fun at the start and then turning into an embarrassing mess forever after. Funny, that writers with such a cutthroat strategy like you describe respect their source material way more than BT which you defend. Besides - every company wants to sell their stuff, the question is how good their product is. Warhammer has been consistently pretty good for decades now.

If you mean a universe that has been constantly ret-conned, sure. Ask the old Squat players how they feel about it.

Quote

Also, rebalancing some weapon values (mechs same, exclusive weapon types same etc) = "set of skins"? You sure seem to like those broad-brush swipes, don't you? If anything makes mechs of both factions a "set of skins", it's the unrestricted customization, vide: MW3. Which, coincidentally, is what I see many "TT hardliners" propose...

Since most of the "rebalancing" ideas have been "make them use the exact same equipment"... yeah, I'd call it a re-skinning. I'm also opposed to unrestricted customization, so you're really preaching to the choir on that issue.

Quote

I'll give you that, it had its flaws - mostly because the internet was still fairly new and terrifying, and that game is mostly single player focused, where it excels (unlike MW3 which has considerable problems in its focus of single player as well). In modern days most of the stuff you mention would've been taken care of by balance patches, but in that era nobody cared too much (mostly thinking about the ease of CT sniping which makes most of what you talk about possible, modifying its hitboxes would remedy most of that). So besides the multi balance problems, no problems? That's... a pretty good record then. Keep in mind though - unwillingness to change mechanics would mean more balance problems, not less.

The biggest issue about all the MW games, to me at least, was that there was no shot deviation, everything hit exactly where you aimed at.

Quote

By the way, you cannot one shot in MW4. Coring was bad, but oneshots were coded to be impossible, unless a glitch exploit exists that I never heard of.

If I'm not mistaken, that was a patch done by the guys that brought it back.

Quote

The floating reticule, low armor values, ease of tripping, ease and benefits of legging, heat dissipation being too inefficient below a certain threshold and too good above it, unrestricted customization making all mechs basically skins with identical capabilities, horrible mech agility and the bloody unrestricted floating reticule (mouse speed being the only limit) making the combat and exchange of potshots and trip attempts, about as involving as drawing in paint, forced overreliance on the MFB. Did I mention the free-floating reticule?

So you'll forgive problems in MW4 due to "new technology" but you won't forgive those same problems in a game that's older than MW4?

Quote

As long as we agree that some radical balancing steps must be taken, all is right in the world I guess!

I wouldn't even call it radical, in my mind it's common sense stuff that should have been taken from the TT in the first place but for whatever reason was not.

[Cyber Carns]

Zureal, on 12 December 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Habokku


I am far to tired to read all of this, but from what i read so far you are sorely lacking in Clan History, there development, and how they progressed. I suggest you read up on these things before you make ignorant assumptions, assumptions that I at least find annoying, and in many cases, baseless.

At the vary least read up on them here http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Clans . This is a good place to start and has some good general information on there history.

good one, here is where you can get a good idea in regards to the history of the Clans from Phlen Kells infomation he brought back to Arc Royal. Its called ' The Clans, Warriors of Kerensky' Battletech 1709

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

Alex Wolfe, on 12 December 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

That's a rather broad brush, to put it lightly. What exactly is it that we all follow? Canon for me is the feel and the setting that makes itself distinguishable from others, not how many dice one rolls per which gun and how many hexes can you move in one turn.


You say it works for the tabletop game. Now if you could address the point of the computer games' balance, because up till now it's been rather horrid and I hear there's another computer game in the making.

Are you saying that power creep is fine as long as everyone is getting powerful? If they are to become the new "standard", then what's the point of even introducing the more powerful weapons in the first place? Why not standardize them from the start? Besides, canon-wise, the Inner Sphere IS indeed "stuck with large lasers". So your proposal to balance the game is introducing canon Clan weapons to canon Inner Sphere, which breaks the canon, with the net power balance change of nothing whatsoever. Where to go now with this paradox?

Clans would still be Clans, with their mechs, culture, language, honor, prevalence of ER weapons and streaks and large Ultra bore... even with a small weight rebalance. Clans are more than just awesome guns... at least, to me. Do you just like the guns?

What I'm postulating is precisely that the developers deal with the problem before it rears its ugly head again, like it did before.

AS7 K is using ERLL and Gauss technology. so what its few tons heavier 1 or 2 crits less. point is. you got both ERLL and LL

sure clans have a great culture but how would that even be implemented into a game without forceing players to follow thier rules? and no iam not a gun junkie, jsut dont want to see anything taken away from the clans or I.S for that matter. gimme a commando with a single small laser and i'll happily go at a Dire Wolf very well aware i cant win least ill enjoy getting gunned down in a challenge.

so whats going to happen after the clan invasion and the I.S develope the Light Gauss in 3059? (which basicly has clan weight and crit stats) the clans get one too? or do they have to put up with just having the CGauss while the I.S get Light Heavy and Improved versions?

i'm just bit of a purists and really hated what M$ did with the series and i'm not saying dont balance, simply saying find other ways w.o destroying the stats. ecnomy for exmape, its the first time it will affect players online (not sure if MPBT had it). so, overpriced clan tech, long but limited resupply times like "20 ERLL arrive in 4 days" for emaple, and having double or even tripple recycle times for clan weapons will work imo.

sure players will wait and build up cash to purchase clan tech, but once they get it, there not going to want to use it at the risk of loseing vital components which will only appear on the market every so often. again I.S will most likely end up with Artilery, Air, and Tank Support, where as most clans frown on using certain military assets.

Edited by Kodiak Jorgensson, 12 December 2011 - 05:09 PM.

[Zureal]

Cyber Carns, on 12 December 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

good one, here is where you can get a good idea in regards to the history of the Clans from Phlen Kells infomation he brought back to Arc Royal. Its called ' The Clans, Warriors of Kerensky' Battletech 1709

Ok, read it, have it. You should read up on ERA DIGEST - GOLDEN CENTURY as well as Operation Klondike. THOSE will give you a GOOD read and great information as to why your information is wrong.

[Zureal]

Furthermore, you wanting to nuter the clans is horrible. I love the clans because they are CHALLENGING, its like taking the Lich King from WoW and making him just a 80 elit instead of needing 25 people to kill him. 25 people that have to coordinate and play together to take him down.

[Zureal]

Also why you think Kerinsky left with just 6000 people is so ignorant as to border on idiocy. just read this. "Kerensky’s loyal forces rescued some one million civilians from
the fighting, and likewise secured for themselves significant enough
resources—both military and industrial—to build yet another civilization,
this one on the world of Strana Mechty. While ground forces
secured embarkation points on all five Pentagon Worlds, the space
forces began transporting as many people and resources away
from the growing war as they could (though with a focus on the
military and scientist communities)." P.22 Operation Klondike

And that dosent include what population was already on Strana Mechty, and finally, not including other worlds, but the pentigon worlds all had fairly larg populations even after operation Klondike was done, with all having about, or above 400.000 people

Edited by Zureal, 12 December 2011 - 05:36 PM.

[Evgeny Bear]

there is no need for tripple post Oo

[Talon Bloodhawk]

salvage and customization .. let me pull the guts out of my enemy and replace mine with what's left of his. I'm a madcat pilot by choice but a mech tech by heart . i don't care if you start me in a locust let me strip off its armor pack it with as may machine guns as it will carry and the fastest motor i can find. ill be collecting parts off your 100 toner after i unload in your back. Skill and design trumps better stats every day of the week. but that's just my opinion after playing the games for 20+ years

[Zureal]

Andar89, on 12 December 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

there is no need for tripple post Oo

sorry XD lol, the ideas just came to me like that. Should of used the "edit" button though :/

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Zureal, on 12 December 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Furthermore, you wanting to nuter the clans is horrible. I love the clans because they are CHALLENGING, its like taking the Lich King from WoW and making him just a 80 elit instead of needing 25 people to kill him. 25 people that have to coordinate and play together to take him down.

yeah but the clans arent just some NPC encounter as an end-instance; they're a playable faction in a game - that's the problem here, such crippling overpower given to any player who wants it. Let's be honest here, the clan zellbriggen junk was thrown in at the last second when FASA's half-baked playtesting revealed how ridiculous these things were

[Alex Wolfe]

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

If you mean a universe that has been constantly ret-conned, sure. Ask the old Squat players how they feel about it.

Ret-cons suck more often than not, I'll admit. Still, "constantly"? Squats, new Necrons, Rogue Trader stuff naturally but that was a different game with a different name... and...? That's about it, I'd say? Not too bad for such a long run with so many supplements.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

Since most of the "rebalancing" ideas have been "make them use the exact same equipment"... yeah, I'd call it a re-skinning. I'm also opposed to unrestricted customization, so you're really preaching to the choir on that issue.

Oh. Touche. There are many ways to skin a Mad Cat though, I just want it balanced.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

The biggest issue about all the MW games, to me at least, was that there was no shot deviation, everything hit exactly where you aimed at.

Depending on the amount of deviation, but still at least MW4 had the torso "lag" with variable speeds, MW3's reticule moved as fast as you could move your hand, immediately. Point-and-click adventure game.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, that was a patch done by the guys that brought it back.

Sorry, I wouldn't know. Certainly not there in my versions.

Kudzu, on 12 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

So you'll forgive problems in MW4 due to "new technology" but you won't forgive those same problems in a game that's older than MW4?

Aw, man, now you're just being plain unfair. This is off-topic, but first of all I didn't say anything about "new technology" making stuff fine for MW4 only, and second - I hate the features, not the game. I like MW4's system (and by extension Mechcommander's system, since they have similarities) more precisely because it fixed those issues, not because it's newer or something. Its sound sucked, graphics kind of sucked, mech death animation sucked, but the gameplay was rock solid then and still holds its own now.

MW3 - MW4
The floating reticule - torso lag made it gone, no more point-and-click. Slight minus for no recoil.
Low armor values - better general armor, no longer possible to be 1shot, sturdier mechs, leg armor damage didn't slow down the mech, harder to collapse side torso. Still too easy to core, but otherwise great.
Ease of tripping - no more random trips with any weapon, needs an overwhelming hit to trip, weight-dependent, later improved gyro
Ease and benefits of legging - lightly damaging a leg no longer slows the mech down, destroying all armor cripples but not destroys the mech, salvage independent of legging so no pressure to do it in SP
Heat dissipation being too inefficient below a certain threshold and too good above it - Consistent heat dissipation, decent by default but firing hot weapons relentlessly will cook the mech regardless of amount installed
Unrestricted customization making all mechs basically skins - Handling, speed, weapon and electronic mounts greatly vary by chassis, probably the most in any game so far
Horrible mech agility - Handling varied by weight class, light mechs nimble (they DO have muscles after all), assault mechs sluggish and ponderous
Combat and exchange of potshots and trip attempts - Combat mostly involved and dynamic with multiple "triggers" for weapon groups and game system promoting mobility, some dodging possible by torso twisting or throttle (the feel of "weight" behind the chassis prevents the FPS syndrome), boating and CT sniping a problem in MP, but forcing chain trips no longer viable, accuracy important because of greater light mech agility and torso lag
Forced overreliance on the MFB - Less random chance in combat and slightly increased ammo payload give the mechs more staying power for longer missions rather than skirmishes, repairs are unneeded/impossible in most missions, yet allowing to finish them with enough tactics and piloting skill even on Elite (a Cougar can rip you open in a few shots, but not if you act smart, in MW3 damage was pretty much unavoidable). Repairs impossible in Mercenaries except for 2 missions, and unneeded even then.

TL; DR... the game had some problems, sure, but I'm trying not to act too biased, as I hope you can see...

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 12 December 2011 - 06:38 PM.