59 replies to this topic

[Alexander of Macedon]

Mystere, on 12 May 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

I really wish though that HBS had gone the RTS route a la Mechcommander or the Total War series instead of turn-based.

I certainly wouldn't mind a new MechCommander game either, but Ego already hit it on the nose. When you're replicating tabletop it pretty much has to be turn-based. Bonus points for including a variable turn timer for multiplayer as HBS did. Because that's effectively how tabletop games play out anyways, people taking turns to take actions based on their decisions, occasionally being nagged to hurry up by other players. Realtime with pause command can work for singleplayer, but it's less attractive.


But it's more than the time and perspective mode, it's all the little ****. Distributed damage, random crits that actually matter, knockdown, melee, DFA, 'mechs that aren't absurdly unrealistically narrowly specialized monsters.

Basically, it very accurately replicates the feeling of sitting at a table rolling dice and moving minis around a battle grid, which is understandably a divisive experience: tabletop gamers will generally be thrilled, people who just want a FPS mostly won't get the appeal.

[callsign ferret]

When Jordan and company developed the BT pods, the resulting game was much more like current FPS and MWO. I was THRILLED to not have deal with all the "stuff" of TT, just get in the cockpit (literally) and kill mechs. Pinpoint aiming and damage, yes. Customization, no. Melee, no. That experience did make you manage on board systems in real time, which could be quite exciting.

TLDR: FPS versions of the BT/MW universe have always adapted TT rules for game specific experience, and that's ok...

[kapusta11]

Yeah, I'm not sold on this BT game, doesn't look like there's much depth in it. I'd rather play Long War.

[Summon3r]

Lily from animove, on 12 May 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

because no one wants to play random hit warrior game. mechwarrior was never a battletech game mechwarrior was mechwarrior, not mech commander, not battltech.

i for one (and most of the guys i play with) would love the pin point BS to be gone LONG GONE. would love to see when a mech was angled the chance to ricochet a ballistic, love to see actuators take hits and immobilize parts of the mech (even if for a short period of time while the pilot reroutes "stuff"), love to see critical cockpit hits and mess your hud and optics up. the possibilities are many and we have VERY FEW.

[Johnny Z]

Got to like everything about the Battletech game. Adding that to this game would be great, but it looks like MW 5 is getting a lot of the design the Battletech game is getting, which is awesome. Maybe eventually this game will have some of that design as well.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 May 2017 - 07:56 AM.

[Anjian]

callsign ferret, on 13 May 2017 - 05:26 AM, said:

When Jordan and company developed the BT pods, the resulting game was much more like current FPS and MWO. I was THRILLED to not have deal with all the "stuff" of TT, just get in the cockpit (literally) and kill mechs. Pinpoint aiming and damage, yes. Customization, no. Melee, no. That experience did make you manage on board systems in real time, which could be quite exciting.

TLDR: FPS versions of the BT/MW universe have always adapted TT rules for game specific experience, and that's ok...

The resulting game is nothing like MWO at all. Much closer to MW1 or MW2. Practically much of it is flat terrain. The mechs tend to circle each other, until one legs the other. And it took quite a while before a mech goes down.

Edited by Anjian, 13 May 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah, I'm not sold on this BT game, doesn't look like there's much depth in it

theres more depth to it than MWO has

[Skanderborg]

I think MWO had it right back in the day before the introduction of double heat sinks and clans. Because you ran so hot with STDs aiming where it counts and weapon management was a lot more important than it is today. And , because the amount of damage being done was a lot lower it allowed for a lot more finesse with mech piloting and you could turn around a fight just because you were a better pilot.

These days , if you mess up once you just take repeated 50+ alphas and immediately become combat ineffective or just die no matter how good you are , the raw damage being put out is just to high.

This isn't me just being nostalgic either , just what I've noticed over all this time.

Edited by Skanderborg, 13 May 2017 - 10:21 AM.

[callsign ferret]

Anjian, on 13 May 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

The resulting game is nothing like MWO at all. Much closer to MW1 or MW2. Practically much of it is flat terrain. The mechs tend to circle each other, until one legs the other. And it took quite a while before a mech goes down.

Thank you for your comments, it always good to talk with someone else who dropped missions in the pods..

Completely agree with you that MWO is a far more complete FPS than the Pods ever could be... (Tesla Pods are what plus 20 years old now, and even the Firestorm upgrade doesn't come close)... great for their day, and oh yes, circling in arena, getting stuck on the buildings... I remember those days with the appropriate patina of time...

My attempt was to separate the MW experience (meaning for me, get in the cockpit and fight) from the BT experience, especially TT. The HBS game (which I backed for transparency) is turn based, blah, blah... Thankfully​ it automates the book keeping of TT, and looks to be a fun game.

But it's​ not MWO, and I'm​ glad we will have both, and then MW5, none will be perfect, none will satisfy all. That's beyond human / developer capacity. I'm just glad we have options...

[SQW]

To those saying the Mechwarrior franchise and Battletech shouldn't be compared, just remember every genre evolves and improves.

MW2-4 are not the epitome of robot sim. They were all single player shooters at heart designed to allow one mech (you) to mow down company worth of mechs using pin point accuracy weapons. Even multiplayer in MW4 was tacked on to the single-player game mechanics of that era hence the shenanigans with pop tarting and weapon boating (sound familiar).

Just because Quake existed doesn't mean CS can't come out with a better gun mechanics. Just because DOTA set the ground work for moba, doesn't mean a hundred tweaks can't be made later. Yet, everyone points at MW2-4 as gospel when defending MWO's yesteryear shooter mechanics that were limited not just by tech but also the non-existence of multiplayer. There's is no reason, other than just lazy design, why MWO can't attempt to fine tune MW's fire-person perspective with BT's unpredictability and tactical considerations - especially since this is a multiplayer-only game. When you can blast 50+ dmg onto a mech's left pinky at 600m, twice, without over heating, it's time to admit you aren't playing MWO because it's a 'thinking man's shooter'.

Just like how PGI is making a skill web instead of a tree because web-linked skill node is all the rage is faux-rpg games atm, the constant example of how this company will copy whatever's most readily available rather than what's best for MWO is the main reason I've long lost faith (joined Dec 2015) MWO will become better than the basic lobby shooter it is now.

[Anjian]

callsign ferret, on 13 May 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Thank you for your comments, it always good to talk with someone else who dropped missions in the pods..

Completely agree with you that MWO is a far more complete FPS than the Pods ever could be... (Tesla Pods are what plus 20 years old now, and even the Firestorm upgrade doesn't come close)... great for their day, and oh yes, circling in arena, getting stuck on the buildings... I remember those days with the appropriate patina of time...

My attempt was to separate the MW experience (meaning for me, get in the cockpit and fight) from the BT experience, especially TT. The HBS game (which I backed for transparency) is turn based, blah, blah... Thankfully​ it automates the book keeping of TT, and looks to be a fun game.

But it's​ not MWO, and I'm​ glad we will have both, and then MW5, none will be perfect, none will satisfy all. That's beyond human / developer capacity. I'm just glad we have options...

I think the whole idea of how the franchise was supposed to be sub separated is like:

Battletech - Turn based, table top
Mechwarrior - Digital, first person, sim like shooter
Mechassault - Digital, third person, arcadey shooter
Mechcommander - Digital, tactical turn based

So basically when you buy a game from these sub brands, you should know what you are getting into.

To emphasize the point, there was even a whole series of "Mechwarrior" paperbacks that was separate from the "Battletech" literature.

Somehow this idea didn't work out.

[razenWing]

SQW, on 13 May 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

To those saying the Mechwarrior franchise and Battletech shouldn't be compared, just remember every genre evolves and improves.

MW2-4 are not the epitome of robot sim. They were all single player shooters at heart designed to allow one mech (you) to mow down company worth of mechs using pin point accuracy weapons. Even multiplayer in MW4 was tacked on to the single-player game mechanics of that era hence the shenanigans with pop tarting and weapon boating (sound familiar).

Just because Quake existed doesn't mean CS can't come out with a better gun mechanics. Just because DOTA set the ground work for moba, doesn't mean a hundred tweaks can't be made later. Yet, everyone points at MW2-4 as gospel when defending MWO's yesteryear shooter mechanics that were limited not just by tech but also the non-existence of multiplayer. There's is no reason, other than just lazy design, why MWO can't attempt to fine tune MW's fire-person perspective with BT's unpredictability and tactical considerations - especially since this is a multiplayer-only game. When you can blast 50+ dmg onto a mech's left pinky at 600m, twice, without over heating, it's time to admit you aren't playing MWO because it's a 'thinking man's shooter'.

Just like how PGI is making a skill web instead of a tree because web-linked skill node is all the rage is faux-rpg games atm, the constant example of how this company will copy whatever's most readily available rather than what's best for MWO is the main reason I've long lost faith (joined Dec 2015) MWO will become better than the basic lobby shooter it is now.

So I feel none of that support why BTech is comparable to MWO. For one, you never explain how 2 games in two completely different genre can even compare. The main big thing in your original thread is the "feel" of the game, which... lacking any real involvement or personal investment, I agree that MWO falls WAY short of delivering the survival grunge experience.

But, that's also why I suggest to wait till MW5, since there will be a more direct comparison for an "emotionally invested" story. I would reserve judgement till then. It's like saying why CounterStrike isn't as "invested" as Half Life. One is a let's group up and kill people, the other actually have a storyline. So, I still maintain that the comparison of the 2 games are highly unfair.

[The Lighthouse]

Anjian, on 13 May 2017 - 05:56 PM, said:

I think the whole idea of how the franchise was supposed to be sub separated is like:

Battletech - Turn based, table top
Mechwarrior - Digital, first person, sim like shooter
Mechassault - Digital, third person, arcadey shooter
Mechcommander - Digital, tactical turn based

So basically when you buy a game from these sub brands, you should know what you are getting into.

To emphasize the point, there was even a whole series of "Mechwarrior" paperbacks that was separate from the "Battletech" literature.

Somehow this idea didn't work out.

The fact is the whole franchise was basically grown by Mechwarrior and Mechcommander series, not Battletech nor Mechassault.

There is some good chance that people aged 40+, who played some video games, would know what is Mechwarrior, but they would have no clue what Battletech is.

It is ridiculous to ask Mechwarrior to have same depth as Battletech... it is just not going to happen no matter what, and Mechwarrior was not supposed to be that as well in the first place. I must remind you all that laser shots have been instant hit-scan (that is, when it hits, it does full damage right away) until we have MWO which introduces burn time. Things like Skill Tree is just pure insanity.

I barely heard Mechassault and Battletech when I was young, but I played enough of Mechwarrior series and Mechcommander. During 1990s, this worked well.

Everything pretty much came apart when FASA decided that it was not worth to pursue operation, believing their market was in decline (which was true for a while,) and of course Microsoft, as the worst IP manager as ever, did not decide to continue on Battletech series games.

At this point -some people may not like this- either PGI or HBS should acquire the digital license from MS and re-start the franchise (or MS can do it.) I hope this BT game will be the beginning of revival.

[Vanguard319]

xe N on, on 12 May 2017 - 11:40 PM, said:

I think a Mechwarrior style RPG that focus on character development combined with mech vehicles could be more successful than FPS or SIM Mechwarrior, because it's open to a more broader audience. In fact SIm/FPS Mechwarrior games were always more a niche.

Ironically, MechWarrior was an RPG before it was a mech sim.

[MauttyKoray]

OP and many of the following posts are pretty grating to read.

1. Each game is its own entity. Battletech, Mechcommander, Mechwarrior, even the Mechassault and old Battletech PC RPG games. No game should be like 'the other' because they already have their own identity and genres.

2. Battletech being developed by HBS is a TBS game, and it should not and does not need to be anything like Mechcommander. If people want a new Mechcommander, voice your desire for that, maybe HBS will look into it after Battletech releases.

3. No videogame that deviates from an entirely 100% perfect recreation of the table top will be 'BATTLETECH'. Games like Mechcommander and Mechwarrior have always modified their mechanics to first and foremost make the game FUN. Even Battletech by HBS has introduced mechanics into their game which would not be considered a 'true BT experience' but instead are meant to make a fun game set in the Battletech universe.

4. That being said, MWO is the least 'sim-like' Mechwarrior to date, which is mostly due to the f2p and online pvp nature of the game. While the mechanics and balance in MWO are not perfect by any means, the previous titles were never perfect either. A convenient example is the old complaint about not having ammo switching weapons...well MW4 didn't either.

5. The development between a LIVE game and a retail game are VASTLY different. Progress being made by HBS cannot be compared to PGI's development work on MWO. I am not defending PGI's lack of content other than mechs lately, but you cannot compare the live and retail development process as they are two very different beasts.

[Accused]

Skanderborg, on 13 May 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

I think MWO had it right back in the day before the introduction of double heat sinks and clans. Because you ran so hot with STDs aiming where it counts and weapon management was a lot more important than it is today. And , because the amount of damage being done was a lot lower it allowed for a lot more finesse with mech piloting and you could turn around a fight just because you were a better pilot.

See, what they had just before they went "live" was decent. Needed improvements, yes, but there was a solid base to work off of. It's like they've been devolving this game as rapidly as development time allows to a lobby shooter.

[MauttyKoray]

Accused, on 13 May 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

See, what they had just before they went "live" was decent. Needed improvements, yes, but there was a solid base to work off of. It's like they've been devolving this game as rapidly as development time allows to a lobby shooter.

Well, that was an entire issue of the content release under IGP was nearly nonexistent. So, once they went solo they began releasing as much as possible as fast as they could. Clans, maps, more mechs, FP, new game modes, etc and balance became a mess. After that Quirks and nerfs/buffs came about to attempt to improve the game's balance and keep it from crashign and burning...which sort of worked.

So, now with the release of new tech, skill tree, etc, they need to finally step back as they said they plan to do and reevaluate the game's core systems and mechanics for balance and fine tuning in order to incorporate current/future mechs and tech into the game.

[The Soul Hunter]

Alexander of Macedon, on 12 May 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

What a ******* abomination.

And yes, PGI shared their models with HBS, which is one of the scant few decisions on PGI's part that I unabashedly respect and approve of.

Let's be real though, the only people naysaying HBS are the ones who don't know who Jordan Weisman is. Of course they were going to do a damn fine job of it, and in the process they've demonstrated precisely the differences between devs who know what they're doing and the usual suspects of Kickstarter game projects.

Yeah I really enjoyed all 3 of the shadowrun games they did.

[SQW]

Why are people stubbornly insist that BT and MWO should not be compared together because MW series is a shooter with hit scan weapons etc etc? The MW franchise was single player game focusing on giving players a power trip without the pretense of weapon balance. MWO and BT are suppose to be PvP titles that should see rules/mechanics that reflect their root. Putting the 'fun' pinpoint alphas and generous heat gauge of single player game in a PvP is what makes MWO feel like a arcade lobby shooter rather than a 1st person BT.

Even if you just consider the fun factor, the current damage and shooting mechanic of MWO is simply not fun and barely reflect the IP it draws its name from. Just because MWO puts player in the cockpit doesn't mean it's suppose copy the MW franchise - just as MW5 will not have multiplayer because whatever makes SP MW title will exactly be a nightmare to balance in PvP.

HBS's Battletech didn't need to have complicated location damage affected by facing arc etc; they could have easily used a health bar and say it's reflective of Mechcommander and call it a day. PGI could have made MWO into a true PvP mech title but it chose the road of least resistance and ended up with a shooter in mech skin.

MWO had a honeymoon of 5 years with no competition but with BT coming this year giving mechwarrior fans what they really want, and I'm not talking about turn based combat, PGI should keep an eye out for the first significant dip in player number in the past 10 months.

[Y E O N N E]

'Mechs don't move mid-turn in HBS's BattleTech. HBS's BattleTech is essentially just a movie show depicting the table-top game so you don't have to use your imagination.