108 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 February 2017 - 07:45 AM, said:

IMO what makes it a BT game is the mech models and the actual weapons being PPCs, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, Lasers, etc. Not tabletop specific rules and values.

I think it would be better if they did not have this insistance of following the rules and numbers of a tabletop dice roll game. Those numbers don't matter to lore, and using rules and values from a totally different game format hinders this game. For example, if PGI werent determined to never 'break' stock builds, they could alter tonnage and crit values for weapons and balancing IS and Clan would be SO MUCH easier.

You do realize there is a world of a difference between lazily copying TT rules and dice roll numbers, and understanding the underlying principles they were trying to abstract and using those to make a game, right?

Deathlike, on 19 February 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

I want to keep this simple...

For a BT and Mechwarrior game, this game is totally devoid of lore.

FTFY.

[General Solo]

Mystere, on 19 February 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Hmm. I did not realize all those Mechwarrior games were all nothing but arena shooters.

Those Mechwarrior games were single player Sim's with Multiplaya
They had aerospace, vehicles, Infantry, turrets and deer
Though memory is bit foogy and I could be getting it mixed up with Mechcommander 1 and 2

MWO is an arena shoota

Edit: I mean this game doesn't even have Long Tom, how can dat be battletech

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 19 February 2017 - 01:21 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 19 February 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

I want to keep this simple...

For a BT game, this game is totally devoid of lore.

which was a choice, made by the Devs and pushed by the Epeen Twitchy Shooter Brigade.

OZHomerOZ, on 19 February 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Those Mechwarrior games were single player Sim's with Multiplaya
They had aerospace, vehicles, Infantry, turrets and deer
Though memory is bit foogy and I could be getting it mixed up with Mechcommander 1 and 2

MWO is an arena shoota

Edit: I mean this game doesn't even have Long Tom, how can dat be battletech

Well, it did but the weenies cried at the though that artillery was actually supposed to be a BAD thing to get hit by. Not PGI's fault only the B33F and crew were smart enough to be able to game it. That's gotta burn the Epeen worse than a salty catheter.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 February 2017 - 07:45 AM, said:

IMO what makes it a BT game is the mech models and the actual weapons being PPCs, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, Lasers, etc. Not tabletop specific rules and values.

I think it would be better if they did not have this insistance of following the rules and numbers of a tabletop dice roll game. Those numbers don't matter to lore, and using rules and values from a totally different game format hinders this game. For example, if PGI werent determined to never 'break' stock builds, they could alter tonnage and crit values for weapons and balancing IS and Clan would be SO MUCH easier.

I understand that you hold this view, and have held this view for quite some time... but I want you to actually stop, and think, REALLY hard about what you're saying here.

You postulate that, Mechwarrior should ditch battletech "tabletop balancing systems because of Dice Rolls." IE you want to take the randomness out of the game. Which is 100% understandable, I know some people that, to this day, are upset over ammo crits because you can't nail down exactly when they're going to happen, or UAC jamming chance. [I still agree that a warm up/jam meter would be a better option for UAC's.].

But come on, you and I BOTH know, that MWO could very easily balance similar to what's put forth from the Battletech canon, by simply adding a blooming reticle, with some weapon deviation based on movement speed. Like literally every other "military" shooter on the market.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 February 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

which was a choice, made by the Devs and pushed by the Epeen Twitchy Shooter Brigade.


Well, it did but the weenies cried at the though that artillery was actually supposed to be a BAD thing to get hit by. Not PGI's fault only the B33F and crew were smart enough to be able to game it. That's gotta burn the Epeen worse than a salty catheter.

artillery can't target LZs? Damn I guess every invasion in history went unopposed then....

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 04:12 PM, said:

For the sake of fun, LT should not be able to hit LZs. It's one thing when you're out in the field, you can see the purple smoke and (try to) run the hell away. I've seen situations where they literally had JUST DROPPED from the dropship and BAM, up to a lance blown to smithereens.

I would actually argue that LT should not be able to hit anywhere that the team with the LT can't put eyes on.

I'd like to share with you a small snippit of history. A friend once told me about his first ever Battletech game, he and three others got together to try the game out, each picking a mech they liked, and the record sheet to go with it.

One of the guy's picked an Atlas, now keep in mind, this is 3025 era Battletech, no case... AC20 ammo in the same torso as the weapon...uncased.

dude's marching along, and tries to climb a hill, misses his piloting skill, falls backwards, crits his AC20 ammo bin on the first turn of the game, destroys his atlas instantly.

he walked away saying how actually EPIC Battletech was, that that could even bloody happen on the first turn!


Now, look at the whiny, entitled playerbase who constantly cries anytime they can't kill everything 5ever by looking at it for 2 seconds, and you understand the difference between a True battletech fan that finds fun in the absurdity, and the COD cowboy.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

There's a difference between blowing a dice roll for a piloting check and RNGesus forsaking you with hilarious results, and being in a video game where suddenly the fist of ******* God decides your entire lance dies before you so much as take a step. I like a lot of things from TT, but some things do not translate well to a video game like MWO. The BattleTech/MWO equivalent of "Rocks fall, everyone dies" might be funny after some time has passed and you can look back on it, but in the heat of a FP game it's something that will result in sheer RAGE, and rightfully so.

Disagree, I'm sorry but I'm just not going to agree with you here.

Artillery has it's place, and even IN CANON was used to decimate lances before they got into battle. It's part of the universe, flavor, and just one of the things that comes part and parcel WITH the setting.

Sure, it sucks, but hey, queue up, go again, it's literally that simple. SOMEONE has to win, and sometimes, that win comes through BS luck... which is what that dice roll simulates on the tabletop, but can play out in realtime.

Is it frustrating? Sure, a bit... but it IS beatable... and it's not like you can't just tackle it again... now if MWO had an actual, FUNCTIONING ECONOMY, then yeah, I'd agree to tone it way the hell down... but as it is, there are 0 stakes in this game to even care about. So i'm all for flavor of the universe over anything else at this point.

[Mystere]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 19 February 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

But come on, you and I BOTH know, that MWO could very easily balance similar to what's put forth from the Battletech canon, by simply adding a blooming reticle, with some weapon deviation based on movement speed. Like literally every other "military" shooter on the market.

But what about muh precious skillz? My shots must always go with zero deviation on the exact pixel I aimed at! Boo! Hoo!

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 February 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

which was a choice, made by the Devs and pushed by the Epeen Twitchy Shooter Brigade.

I think it was less of a choice and certainly not a comp reason.

I associate it with lazy and minimally viable.

Like, no comp guy asked/told PGI "hey, don't fill in info about planets in MWO" and we still have "no description" for Tukayyid.

[Mystere]

Imagine if MWO was designed in such a way that drop zones were first cleared of the enemy before the dropships unloaded their occupants. Or landing zones were dynamically selected based on safety concerns or on the commander's decision to drop hot right on top of the enemy.

Or imagine having an assault game mode where the defenders were on entrenched and well-defended positions behind proximity-detonated mines and facing an enemy twice their size and/or tonnage with artillery support.

But no, instead we got arena 12x12 drops every time all the time on the same predictable places where all game modes are just Skirmish by different names all because many players just want to "shoot robbits".

What a thinking person's shooter we got right here.

Deathlike, on 19 February 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

I think it was less of a choice and certainly not a comp reason.

I associate it with lazy and minimally viable.

Like, no comp guy asked/told PGI "hey, don't fill in info about planets in MWO" and we still have "no description" for Tukayyid.

No, I see this as a large chunk of the player base wanting to literally just "shoot robbits" day in and day out and as such are fine with all that "useless fluff" missing.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

There's a difference between blowing a dice roll for a piloting check and RNGesus forsaking you with hilarious results, and being in a video game where suddenly the fist of ******* God decides your entire lance dies before you so much as take a step. I like a lot of things from TT, but some things do not translate well to a video game like MWO. The BattleTech/MWO equivalent of "Rocks fall, everyone dies" might be funny after some time has passed and you can look back on it, but in the heat of a FP game it's something that will result in sheer RAGE, and rightfully so.

maybe your faction should ha e taken Scout Mode more seriously? Or, like I said, learn to game it, ala B33F.

Just sayin.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 19 February 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

I think it was less of a choice and certainly not a comp reason.

I associate it with lazy and minimally viable.

Like, no comp guy asked/told PGI "hey, don't fill in info about planets in MWO" and we still have "no description" for Tukayyid.

Perhaps. But it was generally comp guys who cried about anything that might require something beyond a twitch shooter. But I would not expect you to be able to address that in an unbiased manner, tbh.

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 19 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Disagree, I'm sorry but I'm just not going to agree with you here.

Artillery has it's place, and even IN CANON was used to decimate lances before they got into battle. It's part of the universe, flavor, and just one of the things that comes part and parcel WITH the setting.

Sure, it sucks, but hey, queue up, go again, it's literally that simple. SOMEONE has to win, and sometimes, that win comes through BS luck... which is what that dice roll simulates on the tabletop, but can play out in realtime.

Is it frustrating? Sure, a bit... but it IS beatable... and it's not like you can't just tackle it again... now if MWO had an actual, FUNCTIONING ECONOMY, then yeah, I'd agree to tone it way the hell down... but as it is, there are 0 stakes in this game to even care about. So i'm all for flavor of the universe over anything else at this point.

What can I say..they say they want to play a "War" Game... then cry and have all the actual War Elements removed.

What they mean is they want a teen fantasy superheroic shooter game, ala 1980s beefcake movies where the good guys mow down dozens of people with a six shooter.

I can guarantee none of them actually want a true War Game.

Mystere, on 19 February 2017 - 05:18 PM, said:

No, I see this as a large chunk of the player base wanting to literally just "shoot robbits" day in and day out and as such are fine with all that "useless fluff" missing.

Usually the same players who wined and complained about fluff elements and anything that adds immersion or depth.

Cuz it interfered with their skillz, yo

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

No one wants a "true" War Game. War is ******* hell. If you're telling me you want a "real" War Game, I would have to question whether you know what war is actually like.

War is hell. Maybe it's time the little children stopped hiding behind their computers and got a taste...then maybe they'd glamorize it less. Reminds me of when Saving Private Ryan first came out... look around the theater and seeing Vets cry at the Omaha scene, and seeing a loud mouthed Banger who was talking all kinds of trash before the movie lose his popcorn with the rest of his lunch.

I've held somebody's guts in while waiting for medical help that wasn't going to get there in time. Have you? I've seen what firearms do to people. Have you? Don't get me ******* started. Have I been in a war zone, in the military, no thank god, I have not, nor would I disgrace those who do serve by claiming to have been (unlike MANY on most video game forums, which appear to be chock full of Navy SEALs and Marine Recon. Amazing you almost never meet a desk clerk or driver, or line mechanic, just Rambo Grunts.). I have been shot at, seen friends killed before my eyes and been in the middle of the war zones the cartels make here in Mexico daily, though. And there is nothing glamorous about it.

Guns and combat ain't a ******* John Wayne movie.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 February 2017 - 05:56 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

The only reason the "little children" glamorize it is because they're ******* practically brainwashed by the media from as early an age as ******* possible that killing "bad guys" for "your country" is the greatest goddamn thing ever. You want to point fingers? Point them where they damn well should be pointed.



I've seen what firearms do to soft tissue, outside of Hollywood, yes. I was taught a very ******* healthy respect for the things.



Neither is giant ******* robots with laser beams.

then don't clamor for a war game, unless you want a little war in your game.

(and I won't even do more that point out your apparent dodge...soft tissue meaning, what? Hunting? Ballistics Gel? Something else? Both do indeed give a good appreciation, but not quite the full understanding... and in truth, I pray most people here never ever have to learn about.. If you mean more, you have the most sideways way of saying it)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 February 2017 - 06:01 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

Now that you feel nice and secure on your high ground, let me ask you: What the **** does this have to do with goddamn giant robots with lasers in the 31st ******* century?

You're the one who chose to go there. I simply answered. And goddamn right you hit the trigger.

So maybe you should park your own soap box first

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

No one wants a "true" War Game. War is ******* hell. If you're telling me you want a "real" War Game, I would have to question whether you know what war is actually like. (90% boredom and 10% OH ****.)

Sound familiar, there ?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 February 2017 - 09:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

The hell? You started it with this:

and the point of that comment still holds...everybody says they want a war game, but you add any of the actual vagaries of war to the game, and people cry. You're the one who decided to take it to the next level with your little personal snipe " I would have to question whether you know what war is actually like.".

Something maybe that has passed by you...I never made my comment personal, you did. Maybe you need to sit back and learn the difference.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

No, you "cleverly" made a generalization that gave you the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability. Don't ******** me.

I don't think I need to, you are doing a fine job of doing it to yourself.

As for your gaming needs, I hear you can get tetris cheap these days, no traumatizing war aspects, there. I'm sorry if some of us are fine with playing a game that's more than a Solo Rambo Epeen Emulator. You're the one who chose to escalate a common, but essentially "bloodless" mechanic (artillery strikes) to crushing turtles. Maybe counseling?

I guess I was wrong about who's feeling #triggered.

[Anjian]

Instead of a blooming recticle, which will still converge shots into a tiny point at the right time, I would use this:

A Target Indicator that puts the target into brackets or a lighted outline.

A large recticle that also indicates a zone of shot dispersion.

Shooting at a target is like shooting with a shotgun, or with SRMs. There is random dispersion.

I want to impress the notion that a mech is an overpowering but blunt instrument of destruction.

However if weapons are chain fired or single fired, the recticle sharpens so you can make pin point shots.

No ghost heat, no alpha limitations, you can set up for a massive alpha if you want but you will deal with a measured dispersion, usually about half the size of mech.

I would limit heat capacities, and yeah, no double sinks.

I would also redo the basic mech representation of movement. They need to feel slower, more stompy, more weight and machine to them. There needs to have some resistance in the torso traverse and arm movement. You can't move them as fast as you want, and you may need to "pre-position" them. Those who play World of Warships should be familiar with pre positioning those slow, heavy battleship turrets in anticipation of the direction of the enemy fleet. There needs to be increasing resistance for the torso the farther it traverses off center, which I like to call a variable speed traverse: you can traverse quickly within a moderate angle off center but after that, there is increasing resistance and slowness in the traverse.

I would allow for a preset, and then you choose the mech you think you are suited for that map. You will also get to see what your team chooses and you can choose a mech that has more in synergy with your team, as well as what you think is good for the map.

Limited to four to eight mechs per team.

A limited amount of respawns (3 to 4).

If I do a mobile game, I would limit to only four players per team. If a player is AFK or disconnected, AI takes over.

I would keep maps limited in size to reduce travel time, so much of the limited available game time is spent on engagement.

Edited by Anjian, 19 February 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

Now you're just being a ******* troll and resorting to "U MAD?"

MMM. Yes. Sounds good. I should have thought of that... Umadbro?

But since anything deeper would just continue to go right by ya.... sure, we'll go with that.

[Deathlike]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 February 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

Perhaps. But it was generally comp guys who cried about anything that might require something beyond a twitch shooter. But I would not expect you to be able to address that in an unbiased manner, tbh.

Uh what?

The bar I only set is from MW4... where I don't really give too much of a damn about the actual lore, but it's there if I'm bored and want to get useful info (cause, it's better than nothing).

We can't even get that bare minimum in this minimally viable product.

I do appreciate lore, as much as I don't demand for its need in the sense that I'll ragequit if it's missing... but some of us that aren't super lore heavy can actually enjoy it.

I do play in F2P games that give a damn about lore, and I can actually enjoy it at my own pace (aka when I'm bored).