39 replies to this topic

[Brenden]

Want one with an AXE? Here, take this one, you picky bastar-d.

[Strum Wealh]

Brenden, on 12 December 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

Want one with an AXE? Here, take this one, you picky bastar-d.

Already posted...

[GreyGriffin]

The reasoning behind the lack of shields is actually pretty sound - with the immense power of battlemech weaponry, it's simply more efficient to slap on more armor.

However, I do have to step in on behalf of the Neurohelmet. The Neurohelmet isn't a direct DNI control device, but it does help direct the Battlemech. While a Mechwarrior simply points and clicks for many actions, a well-tuned neurohelmet and a skilled pilot can manipulate what happens when he pulls the trigger. For instance, the Neurohelmet can detect the difference in intention between punching a Battlemech in the face, and picking the elemental off of its nose, even though the Mechwarrior essentially performs the same command - lock on, pull "use arm" trigger.

[Gorith]

I do hope melee is included and not broken and unusable... i love my axeman

[HanaYuriko]

J Echo, on 12 December 2011 - 11:45 PM, said:

Vitriolic ranting

You might want to take a breather there. MechWarrior is BattleTech. It's a part of it. It's an immersion of the franchise and the universe. MechWarrior just has more focus on the Pilot rather than the BattleMech. Where in those games, you are that pilot.

[GreyGriffin]

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

A classic example of the divergence is the way that battlemechs are controlled in the Mechwarrior fiction with a joystick, throttle, and pedals....

This is... not true. Mechwarrior players employ a joystick, throttle, and pedals, much as Battletech players employ pewter miniatures instead of enormous death machines. But many players in Mechwarrior games do employ dual joysticks, as is evinced by the constant queries for support. However, Mechwarriors in the Battletech universe employ generally the same kit - joysticks, pedals, and a neurohelmet.

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Mechwarrior P.C. isn't Battletech tabletop, and doesn't follow the same rules. They're separate universes which share some elements--that is all.

This is actually entirely false. Mechwarrior is a series of games that takes place in the Battletech universe. You can't argue that Star Wars Galaxies isn't Star Wars. You can't argue that Star Trek Online isn't Star Trek. You can't argue that Neverwinter Nights isn't Forgotten Realms. Mechwarrior, much like Mechcommander, is not a derivative work. It is a Battletech game.

The lore of Battletech permeates Mechwarrior to its very core. While there are numerous non-canonical happenings in the assorted Mechwarrior games, you can't argue that they form their own continuity. (How can both the Clan Wolf and Clan Jade Falcon endings of MW 2 be canonical in the Mechwarrior universe? How can there be a Mechwarrior 3 if the Jade Falcons conquer Terra?) Mechwarrior doesn't have its own unique set of "universe" rules. It is a game that represents elements of the Battletech universe - I won't even mention the tabletop game, but just Battletech as a settting. All of the games we play are just lenses, windows into this world that look in from different angles.

Now I'm not going to argue whether Melee weapons are awesome or ridiculous. (Frankly, they're a little bit of both.) Previous Mechwarrior games didn't incorporate it because it was either inaesthetic to the designers, or impossible (or impractical) to execute with the technology. We'll leave aside that DFA has been in pretty much every Mechwarrior game to some degree. But just because Mechwarrior's designers never executed physical combat, for one reason or another, does not mean that Mechwarrior represents some kind of splinter universe, where Atlases have fingers just so they can be balled into impotent, pixellated fists.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 13 December 2011 - 01:53 AM.

[Saurok]

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Snip

So MechWarrior is realistic? Bah.

Arguing things like axes or shields on mech is same as arguing about "stupid/unrealistic" LRM20 launchers shooting off 20 missiles when one powerful missile is far more econimical and practical.

And I do understand that MechWarrior is MechWarrior and BattleTech is BattleTech. But MechWarrior is PC adaption of BattleTech Universe, while TT rules wont work, Axes, Swords, Shields and Retractable Blades do exist in BattleTech Universe.

Edited by Saurok, 13 December 2011 - 02:06 AM.

[EGG]

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Polemic

If Mechwarrior PC and Battletech were separate universes, they would have diverged 10+ years ago. Instead Mechwarrior re-feeds off of BT lore for each game iteration. Not all of it translates to a PC game obviously, hence the minor differences, but not enough to call them separate universes.

[CaveMan]

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Not really. They're separate universes which share some common elements but frequently contradict each other in major ways. Mechwarrior may have originated in Battletech, but Mechwarrior is not subject to Battletech.

Bull pies.

They're one and the same.

[Mchawkeye]

I'd happily be the first to say that Mechwarrior isn't Battletech. I'm pretty sure anyone who has read anything of mine before would agree with that.

However.

The first Mechwarrior game didn't have melee in it because maybe they couldn't program it/couldn't make a balanced game with it/didn't have time etc etc etc. Indeed, the Devs now seem to be having a hard time of it, with all our advances in twenty years of programming and game design, it's still an issue.
just because the first game set a trend, doesn't mean that we should follow such a thing blindly. There is nothing wrong with trying to adapt elements for the table top into the videogame, especially when those elements are intrinsic to the game. What shouldn't be done is for melee to compromise the VG just because it was in the TT, maybe even the effect/nature of the melee could be different. who knows.

I do know that I am all for them trying new things (especially if it's well established in the universe). I am not stuck so far in the past, on rails laid 22 years ago that the nature of this game, in my head, is immovable.
Just don't do it "just because". Do it right or don't do it.
Which is exactly the attitude they seem to be taking.

Which is nice.

[The Basilisk]

I can't see anything more inappropriate to Mechwarrior than sword and shield fighting.
Even in CBT there were sometimes things like Axes, Clubs and Blades mounted only on lowtech or specialized short Range and City Mechs.
But even in cramped close quarter battles those mechs were either too slow to maintain close combat distance or the were too lightly armed to survive the closing in prozess.(when there is no room to run around you can only run into your oponent)

And again MWO IS NOT BATTLETECH

Next thing is MWO will basicly be a simulator.

Imagine your Oponent raised his mighty shield.

Uh yea ... so what ... shoot for the legs.

Than he lowers the shield.

Woot ....yea free headshots.

Even in Battletech in my opinion blade weapons, clubs and shields that are installed in Battlemechs are nothing more than a waste of tonnage. In CBT Rules an Axe of a 100T Berserk has a tonnage of 7T and does 20 Points of Dmg.
( 1T per 15T Mechtonnage and 1Dmg per 5T Mechweight.) And your Range would be....1 Hex
Instead you could install 4 Streak SRM2 with one tonne of ammunition. (Streak can interlink so only one to hit roll) If the weapon locks on you fire 8 Missles a 2Dmg Points (16Dmg)
Yea i know missles scatter an you need ammo but you don't need to close in that much and therefore you will have far more possibillitys to USE your weapon.

MW in a Dragon: Ohhh look an Hatchet man. He is Davion and I'm Liao. Why is he wav'in this nice Hatchet at me....funny thing.
Seems to be the right time to get away from this slow little ****** to let him eat some AC and LRMs.

Edited by The Basilisk, 13 December 2011 - 03:31 AM.

[HanaYuriko]

J Echo, on 13 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Not really. They're separate universes which share some common elements but frequently contradict each other in major ways. Mechwarrior may have originated in Battletech, but Mechwarrior is not subject to Battletech. What is true in Battletech is not necessarily true in Mechwarrior, and vice versa. That's how it's always been, since Mechwarrior 2 at the very latest.

MW2 = The Refusal War between Clan Jade Falcon and Clan Wolf
MW3 = Operation Bulldog - where Innersphere forces strike back at Clan Smoke Jaguar in a Trial of Annihilation
MW4 = Federated Commonwealth Civil War

Quote

A classic example of the divergence is the way that battlemechs are controlled in the Mechwarrior fiction with a joystick, throttle, and pedals, while in Battletech fiction they are controlled with twin joysticks, pedals, and a neurohelmet. That's far from the only major difference, of course, but that's enough to show that they aren't the same universe even though they may originally have been the same franchise.

Different 'mech chassis have different control setups depending on their construction and physical loadout. A 'mech with hands might have a stick, throttle, and gripper gloves to remotely operate the unit's hands. A design that has a variable weapon system might have two sticks with the throttle controlled by the foot pedals. A 'mech with a physical weapon might have another setup to control that one arm. The notion that every single one of the thousands of mech designs and variants that are in the dozens of Tech Readouts just doesn't add up.

Quote

Mechwarrior P.C. isn't Battletech tabletop, and doesn't follow the same rules. They're separate universes which share some elements--that is all.

I'll get to this assertion later in my post.

Quote

The Mechwarrior universe has some of the battlemech designs, and at least some of the places, people, and historical events of the Battletech universe. But the similarities end there. The physics are significantly different between the two universes, and the way that the battlemechs operate are completely different.

Stop confusing the two as one and the same, and stop insisting that Mechwarrior be made more like Battletech. It's been established for over a decade that Mechwarrior is its own game, apart from (and not beholden to) the workings of Battletech. So please keep your Japanese-style fake giant robots in Battletech, and let us Mechwarrior players have our more realistic battlemechs.

The MechWarrior universe is set firmly in the BattleTech universe. All of the MW characters are canon to BT and are featured in the novels and source material. The people who wrote the MW games backgrounds are the exact same people who wrote the books for BattleTech: Mike Stackpole, Brent Carter, Rob Cruz, Evan Jameson, Rodney Knox, Sam Lewis, Bryan Nystul, Michael Pellicciott, Boy Peterson, Diane Piron-Gelman, Christopher Hussey, Laurie Mair, Gene Marcil, Stephane Matis, Loren Coleman, Randall N. Bills.

The MechWarrior computer games are based on BattleTech tabletop rules and had been designed to work as closely as possible to the tabletop as the game engine and balancing issues would allow. The weapons like Particle Cannons, Autocannons, three grades of Lasers, Long-Ranged and Short-Ranged missile launchers, and the damage associated with each weapon, as well as the armor values for every 'mech is translated straight over from the tabletop game. The heat scale and single and double heat sinks used to manage your weapons fire and movement. Even the 'mech tonnage, engine ratings, armor values, internal structure, and extras like Active Probes and MASC all come from the miniatures game and work nearly the same way.

For every feature you think makes MechWarrior titles different, I'm quite certain that there's a section for it in one of the books.

[Gunman5000]

David Bradley said:

"...the thing that we always have to keep in mind is that we want to capture all of the flavour of the tabletop game but need to be aware of when a direct translation of a tabletop system won’t work for a real time computer game."

The above line sums up virtually every single difference you can find between the MechWarrior PC games and the BattleTech TableTop games.

That is straight from the Developer Q&A1 thread, roughly half way through in the question about difficulty transferring mechanics from TT to PC.

MechWarrior and BattleTech TT may be two separate games but they have always been in the exact same universe and this current iteration of the videogame will be no different. MWO is being designed to follow as closely to the TT rules as possible while still keeping the game fun, enjoyable, and functional in real-time video game.

Also as for this;

The Basilisk, on 13 December 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

Next thing is MWO will basicly be a simulator.

MWO IS meant to be a simulator, true a more action-based and possibly more "arcade-styled" than what most people think of as a simulator, but for the most part the MW franchise has always been simulators, not arcade action (MW4 and the MA series excluded *cough* Microsoft *cough*) though even MW4 had some simulator stuff in it in my opinion. The Mech Commander series is the closest to not being a simulator, and yet it still is in a way, it simulates being the commander of a small company (2 lances if I recall) just not the actual combat itself, that part is all RTS / Arcade styled. Granted my idea of a simulation may vary from yours, but I've always viewed the MW games as simulators.

EDIT: As for the original topic of the thread, if properly implemented I have no problem with having melee in the game. Personally it doesn't break any suspended disbelief or immersion, if I see a 'mech wielding a hatchet I'm of the same mind as mentioned above. Don't let them get close. While not a huge proponent of shields I also don't have any particular issue with them either. As mentioned above, it doesn't cover everything so shoot for what is exposed. Besides, chances are if they devoted that extra mass to a shield, chances are they are either light on armour or weapons or both. Sure they might survive a bit longer, but in the end they'll go down just as well as the next guy, especially when working with your Lance.

Edited by Gunman5000, 13 December 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Dihm]

Nope, they are still one and the same.

The differences are only there for gameplay reasons.

[Dihm]

That's called art direction, every lead artist has their own take.

[Gorith]

Mechwarrior was originally a RPG set in the Battletech universe. Furthermore Mechwarrior PC mostly follows BT lore (and mechs are part of lore). MEANING they are one and the same.

I think the people who are saying they don't like melee combat is silly... It's part of lore if you don't like it don't use it... Either taht or your scared to deal with a mechanic your not used to

[Aegis Kleais]

If this was BattleTech:Online, I would expect this. But if I saw a Mech hatchet off a leg and then use it as a club I'd laugh and then promptly uninstall the game. We'd only be a hop, skip or a jump away from seeing action-karate chop Mechs and taunts where the Mech can do the robot dance.

[Gorith]

You explained that you think having melee will make them to animeish. Did I get that wrong? Thats as silly as saying Samurai and Knights are the same because they both wear armor and have swords.

What does stand even more is this is a reboot (from my understanding) of the franchise so using previous mechwarrior knowledge of how it should be is silly. And it seems the majority of the currently existing fanbase seem to want it to stick as close and be as inclusive to it's roots as possible.

And I was not trolling I just think you don't want to learn to deal with a mechanic you have no experience with.

[Dihm]

These are some of the weirdest nits I've ever seen picked.

Good trolling J Echo.

[Mason Grimm]

I think we are done here. (click)