27 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

I want to clarify something for all you who complain about the phrase "a BattleTech game" being appended to the MechWarrior: Online logo.

Rogue Squadron, The Old Republic, Battlefront, X-Wing, and all the other games that take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away are all "Star Wars games."

It doesn't matter if the blaster bolts travel at the wrong speed. It doesn't matter if the force lightning doesn't work according to the movies. It doesn't matter if the fighter craft have the wrong shield strength.

They are all Star Wars games because they are based on the Star Wars franchise.

MW:O is a BattleTech game. It takes place in the Inner Sphere. It has Atlas Mechs, etc. It does not matter if the lasers deal the wrong damage. It doesn't matter of the actuators work then wrong way. It doesn't matter if we have repair costs or not.


I understand that you are frustrated about how closely [or poorly] this game resembles classic BattleTech rules. However, please stop saying it's not a BattleTech game.

That's it.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 05 May 2017 - 06:38 PM.

[Mystere]

Stop me!

And also:

Mystere, on 05 May 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Who said we should take a literal rule-by-rule implementation of the TT game, and not instead understand the underlying principles behind the abstractions used to build the TT game?

Or is analyzing abstractions really that hard?

<shrugs>

[Joshua Obrien]

You either double the effective armor on all mechs or reduce the damage that weapons do because ppfld does not do well in an online mechwarrior game. Especially when you're in an assault and all it takes is 2 alphas from 2 mechs to lay you out. I recommend that we change MWO's name to "Stompy robot arena shooter"

[Koniving]

Joshua Obrien, on 05 May 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

You either double the effective armor on all mechs or reduce the damage that weapons do because ppfld does not do well in an online mechwarrior game. Especially when you're in an assault and all it takes is 2 alphas from 2 mechs to lay you out. I recommend that we change MWO's name to "Stompy robot arena shooter"

The prior, requires us to have more weapons, more heatsinks, more weight to do less.

The latter requires less weapons, less heatsinks, less weight to do more.

Of course, we could have all the source's damage classes and take them as they are defined, damage categories achieved within a set amount of time (and not per shot), and thus only some PPFLD without all the spam, all the heat, all the other issues. We wouldn't need all the speed to spread damage or all the armor just to survive for a few seconds longer. We wouldn't have to have XL engines just to be able to compete, or enough heatsinks to keep a BT mech ice cold during a catastrophic reactor meltdown.

...Sadly, some moron said "Lets just double armor." And it didn't do much. In fact they were going to double structure because mechs still were dying too fast... only to realize they already did it and didn't even realize it! (Seriously go look that one up).

[Joshua Obrien]

Koniving, on 05 May 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

The prior, requires us to have more weapons, more heatsinks, more weight to do less.

The latter requires less weapons, less heatsinks, less weight to do more.

Of course, we could have all the source's damage classes and take them as they are defined, damage categories achieved within a set amount of time (and not per shot), and thus only some PPFLD without all the spam, all the heat, all the other issues. We wouldn't need all the speed to spread damage or all the armor just to survive for a few seconds longer. We wouldn't have to have XL engines just to be able to compete, or enough heatsinks to keep a BT mech ice cold during a catastrophic reactor meltdown.

...Sadly, some moron said "Lets just double armor." And it didn't do much. In fact they were going to double structure because mechs still were dying too fast... only to realize they already did it and didn't even realize it! (Seriously go look that one up).

Looking at it now I think sized hardpoints might not be such a bad idea. That would define classes and let certain mechs be niche picks or specialized mechs.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Joshua Obrien, on 05 May 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

Looking at it now I think sized hardpoints might not be such a bad idea. That would define classes and let certain mechs be niche picks or specialized mechs.

"Sized hardpoints" is entirely a Mechwarrior phenomenon, and has nothing to do with BattleTech.

In BattleTech Mechlab rules you can put an AC/20 on any Mech arm without a lower arm actuator.

(I know, I am just being a pain in the arse)

Edited by Prosperity Park, 05 May 2017 - 07:25 PM.

[FupDup]

Prosperity Park, on 05 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

"Sized hardpoints" is entirely a Mechwarrior phenomenon, and has nothing to do with BattleTech.

In BattleTech Mechlab rules you can put an AC/20 on any Mech arm without a lower arm actuator.

(I know, I am just being a pain in the arse)

Actually you can put it on any arm period if you use crit-splitting.

[Felicitatem Parco]

FupDup, on 05 May 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

Actually you can put it on any arm period if you use crit-splitting.

What are you, the People's Popular Front, or something? SPLITTER!!

[RaptorRage]

The reason it likely is brought up is that it sounds pretentious to use that tagline while not delivering on the BattleTech lore in the game itself, especially compared to previous MechWarrior titles that didn't need to use the tagline at all but were more immersive with the inclusion of BattleTech source material references in their presentations.

[Helene de Montfort]

It's not a battletech game...

[Felicitatem Parco]

Helene de Montfort, on 05 May 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

It's not a battletech game...

I bite my thumb at thee.

[Koniving]

Prosperity Park, on 05 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

"Sized hardpoints" is entirely a Mechwarrior phenomenon, and has nothing to do with BattleTech.

In BattleTech Mechlab rules you can put an AC/20 on any Mech arm without a lower arm actuator.

(I know, I am just being a pain in the arse)

Battletech also has two sets of customization rules

"Mech construction" aka make your favorite ghost in the shell tanks in Battletech and create your favorite Gundam to wreck face...

And Mech Customization, in which there is loose mention that certain size pieces of equipment is easier to swap versus completely different pieces of equipment:
MRM-10 is easily swapped with an SRM-6.
MRM-20 is easily swapped with an LRM-15.
MRM-30 is easily swapped with an LRM-20

Mech Mortar/2 is replaced with the LRM-10.

This is a complex maze of screwy **** and loose mentions in Sarna, but they all come to a head when mech customization comes into play. What it effectively breaks down into is a "Softpoint" system of sized softpoints, in which if you play within the system, compatible softpoints are "easily" swapped with low difficulty, risk of failure, and low time consumption "Modular systems" such as the Mercury's parts also fall within this system, as well as literally anything considered "non-fixed" on Omnimechs.

If you fail to game that system, swapping an LRM-5 for an LRM-20 and you're met with average difficulty, risk of failure and average time consumption, unless going through the use of a "Refit kit". (Literally every non 4G Hunchback of the 4th Generation [as in 4SP, 4P, 4J, etc] is a refit kit. The 5G and all 5th generation Hunchbacks are entirely new designs that are a bit larger and compatible with things like double heatsinks, something that the 4th generation couldn't do without falling outside of this 'system').

Extreme swaps, as in the kind you'd make in Mech Construction rules... actually leads to some high risks in time consumption, complete failure (creating permanent wasted tonnage), and partial failure (weapon-specific negative Design Quirks imposed due to Afro-ingenuity, such as machine guns that produce heat, missile launchers that jam, engines with acceleration problems, etc.

It is slightly comical that this first makes its appearance in "Mechwarrior", the tabletop RPG (alongside dinosaurs), but it also gets loose mention in CityTech, Aerotech, and Total Warfare.
-------------
Edit (required since the short comment below mine prevented it from linking to my original post).
What it really boils down to is a more realistic "campaign"-oriented mech customization ruleset in which you can't just swap whatever random ******** you want, and instead have to really consider whether or not you will have the in-character time to make the changes you want before you are attacked or forced to sortie again, and though the earliest mention I've found referring to it is in the Mechwarrior First Edition RPG book, it has numerous mentions in many 1990s (but not 1980s) sourcebooks set in Level 3 rules.

Now it doesn't really define what they call this ease of swapping (the term modular is thrown a few times), so I personally coined the phrase "Softpoint". But basically while you can swap anything with anything, if it's compatible you get an easy, fast time with high success. If it's within the same family (missile with missile, energy with energy), you get an average time with average success And if it's off the wall batshit (swap your left arm's 3 machine guns for some catapillar tracks) and you can get some really screwy results. (One time I got a machine gun that every time I used it, I had to roll to see if it would cause EM Interference. Yesterday inspired by the BT Cartoon's Centurion having jumpjets, I traded an ammo storage bin for some jumpjets and I narrowly missed Poor Sealing but somehow wound up with a Bad Reputation. It doesn't get better than that.)

Edited by Koniving, 05 May 2017 - 09:35 PM.

[Magnus Santini]

I would say that all of the games are sure interesting.

[EgoSlayer]

Wait, what year is this?

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 05 May 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

What are you, the People's Popular Front, or something? SPLITTER!!

Did someone just call for a communist insurgency?

Where do I sign up?

Edited by Mystere, 05 May 2017 - 10:40 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Prosperity Park, on 05 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

"Sized hardpoints" is entirely a Mechwarrior phenomenon, and has nothing to do with BattleTech.

In BattleTech Mechlab rules you can put an AC/20 on any Mech arm without a lower arm actuator.

(I know, I am just being a pain in the arse)

Can also remove the actuator in tabletop.

[MauttyKoray]

Prosperity Park, on 05 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

I want to clarify something for all you who complain about the phrase "a BattleTech game" being appended to the MechWarrior: Online logo.

Rogue Squadron, The Old Republic, Battlefront, X-Wing, and all the other games that take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away are all "Star Wars games."

It doesn't matter if the blaster bolts travel at the wrong speed. It doesn't matter if the force lightning doesn't work according to the movies. It doesn't matter if the fighter craft have the wrong shield strength.

They are all Star Wars games because they are based on the Star Wars franchise.

MW:O is a BattleTech game. It takes place in the Inner Sphere. It has Atlas Mechs, etc. It does not matter if the lasers deal the wrong damage. It doesn't matter of the actuators work then wrong way. It doesn't matter if we have repair costs or not.


I understand that you are frustrated about how closely [or poorly] this game resembles classic BattleTech rules. However, please stop saying it's not a BattleTech game.

That's it.

Mechwarrior 2-4 didn't use 1:1 stats for everything, yet somehow they're great games. MechCommander 1+2 completely upended things and used their own system, yet they're both great games (with some debate about MC2, which was good, but not as good as MC1).

Then you have MechAssault, which is widely considered to be the worst Battletech based video games to date. Why? Because they are 'arcade-like' and gave up the illusion of 'sim-like' elements in order to focus towards making a VIDEO GAME intended to be fun, which by all rights it actually is pretty fun if you take it for what it is instead of comparing it to TT or the MW series.

Meanwhile, the new 'Battletech' game by Harebrained coming out is receiving wide backing from the fans. Why? Cause its also using more 'tactical' and 'sim-like' elements even though it is changing balance and systems in order to make the game more fun. Things are different from TT such as the 'Turn' mechanic, many stats of weapons, mechs, armor, and something like a Fog of War are being added to provide a tactical layer of information depth.

It takes more departure from TT, yet is being applauded so far. So what's the difference? Harebrained is a more 'closed' development team that is working on a RETAIL product and has a long time to internally develop their product and work on content and balance without skewing decisions based on player feedback with too little data to support it. The title is not live and thus they do not need to constantly adjust balance based on skewed, biased player feedback that more often than not is in favor of buffing anything that they use or helps them, and nerfing anything that they have a hard time against or that opposes them too strongly.

Meanwhile MWO is a live title with a horribly vocal community that wants things balanced 'their way' and which PGI must compromise and react to in a way that continues to generate a revenue flow because development costs are continuous.

[Anjian]

Would love HBS turned their Battletech game to have a more Front Mission style perspective, which lets you see the mechs more clearly rather than a completely high overhead view all the time. And this still preserves the turn based approach.

[RedDragon]

Well, all those Star Wars game had some kind of story line that bound them to the Star Wars universe. It does indeed not matter that much how fast a blaster bolt is flying when you feel emerged in the universe apart from that. But MWO? It's just a generic shooter with some BT skins tacked on and BT names plastered on it. No story line, not even the slightest attempt to keep true to the lore. By now, MWO has nothing that would make it special as a BT game apart from the names and the mech models. I mean, look at the current event. Does it have ANYTHING at all to do with the battle of Tukayyid? Nope, you could as well call it "Battle of Mississippi", would make absolutely no difference.

[Shifty McSwift]

LoL this topic is doomed to circular argumentation from the get go.

I am not strongly attached here so i will use my personal anecdotal experience with the fallout 'franchise', as a kid I played way too much of the originals fallout 1, 2 and tactics so I have a "raging nostalger" for those game ideals and their set ups as mostly turn based, birds eye view, strategy RPGs. Then fallout 3 and NV came out, far removed and displaced from the originals, it was now an FPS RPG with some weird VATS system and half of the leveling content just ripped out of its core.

To me that just ain't fallout dawg, it was fun in its own way, and it resembled the universe, but until someone actually remakes a contemporary version of that classic game, Fallout for me will always be that original style of game, in a way it died there.

As a result, I don't buy anything related to the 'new fallout' wave of bethesda, to me they just got it wrong, despite that only being about $150 worth of games I refuse to pay into where they are taking the franchise. Nonetheless, it seems like they aren't stopping or selling it anytime soon despite my lack of support. Unless they release a fallout version that manages to capture that 'real fallout' nostalgia for me, that saga of games will just remain dead, as bethesda now owns all the rights.

So yeah it sort of sucks in ways, but devs are free to make their own decisions, which we may see as mistakes, for their own version and interpretation of an ideal, for their own ends, even if they are attaching themselves to a predefined lore/game ideal. Another example would be how many Warhammer games are exactly like the tabletop rule-set? A couple are pretty close (some barely qualify), but none can ever be perfect, and with Warhammer's (GWs) tabletop game in mind, why would they obsolete something which still rakes in so much money? Why wouldn't they use digital technology to create different versions or different games altogether inspired by the ongoing TT success (if it has it)?

Round and round it goes.