18 replies to this topic

[Ludo Valiseek]

Hello guys,

I would like to share with you what I always thought about MW Universe.

I bought the board game and the role playing books long long long time ago, when I was studying at the university... oh man, those were the days...I didnt play any computer simulation games though. Well, I always thought in a mech fight like something similar to two pieces of steel sitting face to face spitting all the gunfire, missiles and lasers that they have agaist the opponent...I really disliked this idea cos it doesn't have any teamwork, tactics or strategic at all. Now I'm reading a lot of information about this new online game and I'm changing my mind and I have a lot of expectations on MWO.

I think one of the keys for this game to succeed would be if the developers are able to find a goob balance for winning fights between teamwork, personal skill as pilot, tactical decisions in battle and strategic metagame outside of the battlefield. I would be really frustrating if this becomes something like "I won cos my gun is bigger than yours", you know what I mean?.

Thank you for reading this post.

Edited by Ludo Valiseek, 16 December 2011 - 07:13 PM.

[pcunite]

I think many of us here are looking forward to a chess game with plenty of action at the most appropriate times.

[Mechteric]

in the boardgame, if you just positioned your unit in one place and didn't really move then you weren't playing very well. In each game I've played there's constant moving around for better positioning.

[ice trey]

Ludo Valiseek, on 16 December 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

I bought the board game and the role playing books long long long time ago, when I was studying at the university... oh man, those were the days...

...

Well, I always though in a mech fight like something similar to two pieces of steel sitting face to face spitting all the gunfire, missiles and lasers that they have agaist the opponent...I really disliked this idea cos it doest have any teamwork, tactics or strategic at all.

Surely, this isn't the impression that the board-game gave you. The board-game is RIFE with tactics you can use. If anything, more so than most miniatures games out there. Even just through using the intro box, there's a wealth of detail and tactics that can be used, ESPECIALLY if you're not just picking "Whatever has the biggest/most guns". Some times the most effective units in a fight are the worst armed. Love me some Cicada/Spider action.

Ludo Valiseek, on 16 December 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

I would be really frustrating if this becomes something like "I won cos my gun is bigger than yours", you know what I mean?.

Thank you for reading this post.

Absolutely agree. "Bigger is better" mentality was saturating the games for years. At least in the tabletop, while bigger is better overall, it's not better for every role, and as far back as I can remember, there's always been a balancing system in place that kept the other guy from fielding nothing but Awesomes and Atlases. I think that if there's a tonnage / Battle Value balancing system much like that of Battletech included in this game, It will be just one more step away from the Bigger is Better mentality that saturated the single player games. (Ex: Sure, you can take a Catapult, but it's 65 tons, and you can get just as much long ranged firepower from a 55 ton Trebuchet)

[Hunter McGee]

Race for the Assaults if you want to... But you will die at the hands of my ASN-21 Assassin... Just try it.(Or better yet my EXT-4D Exterminator.)

[Kristov Kerensky]

Kind of funny that you have that view Ludo, since I've always explained the BTech game to people as Chess..in 3D..with every piece being a Queen...oh..and they have really BIG guns.

We'd set up our battlefield, a 12x8 foot piece we made, and spend hours just getting our Mechs into the places we wanted to START the show. Then we've spend hours moving around, sneaking here, being blatantly overt there, setting up ambushes or trying to avoid them, always always ALWAYS trying to get our Mechs into the best locations so we could take out the enemy without destroying them and without putting OUR Mechs in the harm's way if possible. Oh..yeah..and we'd also be working the armor, light armor, infantry, and aircraft around as well It'd take us weeks of playing all night friday/saturday to complete really large battle scenerios(Clan Invasion took us many months, and we stopped them long before Tukayyid happened in the BTU). It's an incredibly intense game of tactics, strategy and balls, because eventually you have to fight it out, fast, ugly and brutal.

That's why I love the TT game, it's not JUST giant robots blowing **** up, there's a whole other level of complexity that you get in Chess, with a LOT more possible variations then Chess has.

[pcunite]

Kristov Kerensky, on 16 December 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

We'd set up our battlefield, a 12x8 foot piece we made, and spend hours just getting our Mechs into the places we wanted to START the show.
... SKIP ...
It's an incredibly intense game of tactics, strategy and balls, because eventually you have to fight it out, fast, ugly and brutal.

That's why I love the TT game, it's not JUST giant robots blowing **** up, there's a whole other level of complexity that you get in Chess, with a LOT more possible variations then Chess has.

Kristov,
I appreciate your expertise and past history with the game. This is how I feel too, I don't want a brawling match unless I have to. The last thing I want to do is take a very expensive hit on a valuable mech. Some people here may like the blast and respawn type games, but I hate those. Everything matters or should in this new version of MechWarrior.

[verybad]

Hunter McGee, on 16 December 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

Race for the Assaults if you want to... But you will die at the hands of my ASN-21 Assassin... Just try it.(Or better yet my EXT-4D Exterminator.)

I expect the Assaults to still be he most effective at a guns to guns battle, that's their role. However they may not be so good at sharing battlefield data or directing teammembers.

I don't think one on one, lights are going to hold a candle to assaults, and they shouldn't. Assaults need their role, and their role is destruction. However if they can't reach the objective fast enough to make a difference in it's capture, then teams will have to adapt.

The proplem with previous mechwarrior gameplay hasn't been the power of assaults, it's been the fact that all games were deathmatch or team deathmatch. Simple destructive capability became by far the most important capability. Sensors weren't tactically designed till MW4, and that can still use a lot of upgrading.

Assaults should still be powerful. They should be poor at capturing points, they should be sensor challenged in most cases (due to the stuff going on inside themselves) If one is hanging around defending a point, it should make smaller mechs want to get support before they try and win it back however.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater however. ALL mechs should have a role. Including assaults.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Something that's always been missing in the online gameplay with the MW titles was the COST of things..

In BTech, you don't TRY to core anyone, you are as careful as you can be to only disable the Mech, NOT destroy it, because you WANT THAT MECH! It's salvage, either pure c-bills when sold as salvage OR it's spare parts..maybe..if you are lucky..it's a new Mech for you personally..or your Merc unit..or a possible payday for your Lance in a House unit. Regardless, it's NOT something you waste, ever, by just blowing it the hell up. You get demoted for that, I personally KILLED someone under me for that once..accidently 'tripped' and put the fist of my Mech through his cockpit after he blew up an Atlas that was EMPTY because the pilot had ejected...STUPIDITY is often fatal on the battlefield..remember that!

There's a quote from BTech, you've probably seen it as someone's sig here..

Life is cheap, BattleMechs are expensive.

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

verybad, on 16 December 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

Assaults should still be powerful. They should be poor at capturing points, they should be sensor challenged in most cases (due to the stuff going on inside themselves) If one is hanging around defending a point, it should make smaller mechs want to get support before they try and win it back however.

The day a MechWarrior is no longer filled with sudden dread as he turns a corner to find 80+ tons of steel staring him down is the day BattleTech ceases to exist.

[pcunite]

Kristov Kerensky, on 16 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Something that's always been missing in the online gameplay with the MW titles was the COST of things..

In BTech, you don't TRY to core anyone, you are as careful as you can be to only disable the Mech, NOT destroy it, because you WANT THAT MECH! It's salvage, either pure c-bills when sold as salvage OR it's spare parts..maybe..if you are lucky..it's a new Mech for you personally..or your Merc unit..or a possible payday for your Lance in a House unit. Regardless, it's NOT something you waste, ever, by just blowing it the hell up. You get demoted for that ...

Exactly ... what you do should matter!

[pcunite]

verybad, on 16 December 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

Assaults should still be powerful. They should be poor at capturing points, they should be sensor challenged in most cases (due to the stuff going on inside themselves) If one is hanging around defending a point, it should make smaller mechs want to get support before they try and win it back however.

I get what you're trying to say, but I think that gimping an Atlas is the wrong approach. No one builds an Atlas on the cheap. Things like being too slow to arrive or some other dynamic is needed to balance the game. Artificial gimping is going to be noticed and take away from the immersion. I don't want to ever feel like, "oh, this feature restriction is here to keep timmy from crying to the devs".

[verybad]

I'm not suggesting gimping Atlases by any means, so much as making gameplay support all mech's roles. An Atlas isn't a scout, and it's not easy to hide from other mechs.

If gameplay supports different mech roles, then the roles will come. Look at Team Fortress 2. It supports different roles in it's cameplay. If it were pure player to player combat, then everyone would probably take a heavy. You can't win a match in TF2 by going all heavy however. (at leat I've not seen that done)

This is the same reason the various factions build different sized mechs. They have different roles. The developers have said that this is their goal, and I'm 200% behind them on this.

Light mechs aren't made for killing assaults. They're made for scouting and raiding (taking points quickly)

The Lyran Commonwealth (Steiners) prefer Assault mechs because they've been traditionally defensive minded people. Assaults are great at hinding onto territory once it's catured. The Draconis Combine is traditionally Offensive. THey like fast Heavy mechs and light mechs for raiding and destroying.

If the goal for the battle supports a type of mech, then those mechs will shine in their role.

[Hunter McGee]

Would dearly love to see complete Mech destruction. Make a costly mistake, and have to find the means to get a new Mech. In the BT universe, pilots often left the field instead of allowing their rides to get destroyed. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!! Retreat, live to fight another day. Cost much less to repair it, than it does to buy a new one.

[pcunite]

Hunter McGee, on 17 December 2011 - 07:33 AM, said:

Would dearly love to see complete Mech destruction. Make a costly mistake, and have to find the means to get a new Mech. In the BT universe, pilots often left the field instead of allowing their rides to get destroyed. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!! Retreat, live to fight another day. Cost much less to repair it, than it does to buy a new one.

I don't know the exact approach, but this is talking about the correct things ... we have to make things matter, you don't just go guns blazing hoping for the best ... that just makes for boring repetitious gaming.

[Wolvers]

Ludo Valiseek, on 16 December 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

Well, I always thought in a mech fight like something similar to two pieces of steel sitting face to face spitting all the gunfire, missiles and lasers that they have agaist the opponent...I really disliked this idea cos it doesn't have any teamwork, tactics or strategic at all.

That's certainly not any game I've ever played nor seen played. There's always teamwork, tactics, strategy and more importantly, people moving mechs around the map. Standing still for too long in one spot has a good chance of getting you killed.

[Wil Scarlet]

Interesting points. but I think you're letting your imagination (the best form of entertainment) run away. This is still a game that is limited by it's means of Media. There are physical limitations that the programming code and the scope of the project will impose. By placing your expectations so high you're bound to be disappointed. Slow your Roll guys

[Kristov Kerensky]

Wil_Scarlet, on 17 December 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:

Interesting points. but I think you're letting your imagination (the best form of entertainment) run away. This is still a game that is limited by it's means of Media. There are physical limitations that the programming code and the scope of the project will impose. By placing your expectations so high you're bound to be disappointed. Slow your Roll guys

What limits? MW2:Mercs had this in the single player campaign, as did MW4:Mercs. They both showed very nicely that Battlemechs are expensive and that avoiding getting your ride blown out from under you was a LOT better then letting it happen. That is real easy to do in a video game, has been for over a decade

Teamwork..can't be forced, that's a fact, never seen that work to date. But making teamwork worthwhile..ah..see THAT works. Battlefield 2 did it with their points system, team work activities..healing, reviving down teammates, giving out ammo, repairing damaged vehicles, blowing up enemy assets, following Commander orders..those all give points, and more often the not, the top scoring player in a BF2 round is someone who was a Medic and did a LOT of healing and reviving. Battlefield 3 uses the same carrot and carrot approach, no sticks, to get the players to play as a team..suppression fire gets you points, healing/reviving, giving out ammo, repairing stuff, blowing enemy assets..they promote teamwork by giving you points for it. No reason PGI can't do the same with MWO.

What we want..they can give us, it's been done for years in other games, so it's far from difficult on the tech side.

[The1WithTheGun]

Kristov Kerensky, on 16 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Life is cheap, BattleMechs are expensive.

Kill the meat. Save the metal.

Edited by The1WithTheGun, 18 December 2011 - 08:48 AM.