52 replies to this topic

[Hit the Deck]

Should Catalyst+PGI+HBS+someone else make a new BT ruleset to be used in this kind of game because shoehorning TT rules where you act as a commander into MW-type games is basically silly and asking for trouble.

But it feels like wasted effort and a nightmare to do so noone would do it.

What do you think?

[Bombast]

...They already did? Because MWO doesn't use Battletechs rule set?

[El Bandito]

To quote the old saying: For balance, core rule ignore.


This game would still be a Mechwarrior game if IS has ST death proof XL, and the LBX10 deals more than 10 damage, and the IS LBX20 gets 9 crit slots, instead of 11.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

I guess this is a dumb question and the answer is that no official ruleset governing future MW-type games will ever come out.

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

To quote the old saying: For balance, core rule ignore.

Then the question becomes, which audience is the game aimed at?

It is not better to make a brand new IP which can grow and flourish?

Edited by Hit the Deck, 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM.

[El Bandito]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

Then the question becomes, which audience is the game aimed at?

It is not better to make a brand new IP which can grow and flourish?

There are more to Mechwarrior fans than table top rule pushing grognards, you know. This is the first multiplayer only FPS Mechwarrior game. It is stupid to be bound to some antiquated rules that has nothing to do with video games, let alone a FPS arena battler game. I have played the series since MW2, and I say balance > all in an MP only game.

People are deluded if they think by breaking away from certain rules, the game is suddenly not Mechwarrior anymore. The game will still have the mechs, the weapons, and the settings from the BT universe, which is all that matters, cause that's all there is right now.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 12:38 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

There is a great deal of difference between turn-based table-top than FPS where players literally move as they please than limited in turn, not to mention the part where weapons are aimed then shot than completely relying on chance.

[Tarl Cabot]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

I guess this is a dumb question and the answer is that no official ruleset governing future MW-type games will ever come out.


Then the question becomes, for which audience is the game aimed at?

It is not better to make a brand new IP which can grow and flourish?

Of the MW line, they were all single player campaigns with no real regard to PVP environment. Now the 3 MPBT line that ran consecutively from 91-2001, though based on 3025 tech with no mechlab, used the Solaris VII weapon delays (cooldowns). Engine crits (talk about the heat effects), falling down for lots of reasons, especially a bad jump landing, losing a leg, etc. Of those, EA 3025 version was not live long enough allow changes to be made to its base setup as lot of mechs were handled in the previous 2 versions were not immediately included in EA version.

And MWO also original cooldown timers were close to the Solaris VII cooldown timers in closed beta, when mechs had default TT armor/st values but complaints that mechs were not dying fast enough, but then that testing was not done in a 12vs12 environment, but in a 4vs4 environment, wasn't it? Then updated it to 8vs8 and mechs were dying TOO fast, thus the double armor (and coders changed internal structure to 2x base value to generate 2x armor

Funny the route taken when in a hurry to please the higher ups, then the reverse on taking too long to get things fixed/updated, to allow them to "cook" for too long.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 January 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

There are more to Mechwarrior fans, than table top rule pushing grognards, you know. This is the first multiplayer only FPS Mechwarrior game. It is stupid to be bound to some antiquated rules that has nothing to do with video games, let alone a FPS arena battler game. I have played the series since MW2, and I say balance > all in an MP only game.

People are deluded if they think by breaking away from certain rules, the game is suddenly not Mechwarrior anymore.

My question is not necessarily for MWO, it can be extended into the very first MW game and even those arcade machines (where you pilot BT 'Mechs).

But they were PvE so there were far less issue.

[El Bandito]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

My question is not necessarily for MWO, it can be extended into the very first MW game and even those arcade machines (where you pilot BT 'Mechs).

But they were PvE so there were far less issue.

We have only MWO, for now. So I would consider only this game in terms of balancing. TT rule pushers would be happy with their turn based HBS game soon enough.


(Well, there is MWLL, but that's another story)

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

We have only MWO, for now. So I would consider only this game in terms of balancing. TT rule pushers would be happy with their turn based HBS game soon enough.


(Well, there is MWLL, but that's another story)

I also started with MW2 and have also played the MC series.

I think MWO is a mistake because it tries to hammer a square peg into a round hole, you could do it but it will take too much effort and the end result will be ugly.

[Hit the Deck]

Despite what MWO has become, I'm grateful because PGI has given us beautiful 'Mechs (thanks Alex and the art team!) and hopefully rejuvenates the interest for BattleTech (and future more sensible MechWarrior games - hey MW5!).

[El Bandito]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

I also started with MW2 and have also played the MC series.

I think MWO is a mistake because it tries to hammer a square peg into a round hole, you could do it but it will take too much effort and the end result will be ugly.

Judging from how long it had survived, I do no think MWO was a mistake. I do have many grievances against the developers, but none has to do with the actual making of this game. I like the game, and how it feels. I just want PGI to man up and make the hole square, instead of round, so the peg will fit. AKA to change some core rules for the sake of gameplay and balance.

[Hit the Deck]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:59 AM, said:

Judging from how long it had survived, I do no think MWO was a mistake.
....

I don't mean financially.

Basically, the whole Clan vs IS and Urbanmech vs Dire Wolf balancing in this game is silly and a bit amusing.

[Metus regem]

Hit the Deck, on 15 January 2017 - 12:16 AM, said:

Should Catalyst+PGI+HBS+someone else make a new BT ruleset to be used in this kind of game because shoehorning TT rules where you act as a commander into MW-type games is basically silly and asking for trouble.

But it feels like wasted effort and a nightmare to do so noone would do it.

What do you think?

They did that already, for the most part....

It's called the Solaris VII rule set, I've never used it, but as far as I understand it's very similar to MWO.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

There are more to Mechwarrior fans than table top rule pushing grognards, you know. This is the first multiplayer only FPS Mechwarrior game. It is stupid to be bound to some antiquated rules that has nothing to do with video games, let alone a FPS arena battler game. I have played the series since MW2, and I say balance > all in an MP only game.

People are deluded if they think by breaking away from certain rules, the game is suddenly not Mechwarrior anymore. The game will still have the mechs, the weapons, and the settings from the BT universe, which is all that matters, cause that's all there is right now.

So why don't we first start by replacing the 1980's based science with 21st Century ones? Use real physics everywhere it can be applied for starters.

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2017 - 08:47 AM.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

So why don't we first start by replacing the 1980's based science with 21st Century ones? Use real physics everywhere it can be applied for starters.

Gameplay. Which is why MWO does not have 2000 meter range mech machine guns.

[Bombast]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Gameplay. Which is why MWO does not have 2000 meter range mech machine guns.

Or autocannons who's range is the horizon.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2017 - 08:52 AM, said:

Gameplay. Which is why MWO does not have 2000 meter range mech machine guns.

Bombast, on 15 January 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Or autocannons who's range is the horizon.

How is gameplay negatively affected, assuming you have appropriately-sized maps with the appropriate variety of terrain?

Edited by Mystere, 15 January 2017 - 09:04 AM.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

How is gameplay negatively affected, assuming you have appropriately-sized maps with the appropriate variety of terrain?

Because at that range engagement would become ridiculous for the average player. I am already having issue fighting other mechs beyond 800 meter range due to my less than perfect eyesight, and 200+ ping. More than that, it is gonna take AGES to walk from one side of the map to the next, on a mech. Modes such as Conquest and Assault would become ridiculous, and good luck trying to corner that last mech running away, or hiding to preserve its KDR.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[Bombast]

Mystere, on 15 January 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

How is gameplay negatively affected, assuming you have appropriately-sized maps with the appropriate variety of terrain?

How is it positively affected? What does multiplying ranges do for gameplay besides turning MWO into an optometrist's test?

And assuming you mean ultra realism, what happens to smaller autocannons when the AC/20 becomes the longest range weapon in the game? Why can we only use LRMs and SRMs when Arrow systems are the only missiles that actually make sense? What will we do with lasers that have damage bleed as soon as they leave your mech and can only tickle things beyond a couple hundred meters?

Edited by Bombast, 15 January 2017 - 09:11 AM.