325 replies to this topic

[Lord0fHats]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Sorry, the lore is not "arbatrary restrictions" It's literally the bread and butter of the franchise.

I'm pretty sure the bread and butter of the franchise is kick *** robots doing kick *** robot stuff. Just because some people have overly invested into the lore doesn't make it suddenly anymore important than the simple framing device that it is.

Quote

You can be pissy a Mechwarrior game is actually sticking to lore for once all you want

I'm not?

Quote

but think of all us lore hounds who have been tread all over because of your desire to be a special snowflake?

You seem to be though. Want to talk about it?

Quote

And YOU have been the one that's been catered to for over 20 years.

Wow. Such a sense of entitlement and I'm the pissy snow flake? I can live with or without MW5. I mean MWO has just been such a plus/minus experience and it's been so long since MW4 Mercs I've kind of moved on in a lot of ways. But I've never been so invested that I'm going to quibble over all the little details. I just want to have fun. The kind of limitations they're talking about don't seem fun to me. Battletech is looking nice and I think I'll enjoy the turn based life for a change cause I totally missed out on the Mech Commander series (damn operating systems, now there's something I can be pissy about).

Quote

**** off and let us have our one, how about that?

See it's weird because you're more or less getting, or at least closer to it than ever, but you seem angrier about it than I am.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

See it's weird because you're more or less getting, or at least closer to it than ever, but you seem angrier about it than I am.

You want to know why? Fine, I'll ******* lay it bare for you so you can understand my goddamned investment to this series.

Flashback, 1995, I'm ten years old, Guess what, I'd never known my birth father, I was raised by my mother, and told, constantly, to FEAR my father, because any day, he could come and try to kidnap me, because when I was 3 months old, he tried to leave the house with me, and my mom flipped **** on him. I'm currently living with my grandmother at 10 years old because my stepfather flipped his **** on me and decided to beat the everyloving **** out of me because "Muh military Dicipline." and not giving two shits that I'm a 9 year old kid.

So the courts rule that my father should be the one to take care of me since my mom already had for "half" my childhood. I get to meet the guy, and the one thing, the ONE thing, we can bond over, is Battletech/Mechwarrior... I spend a week at his place in San Diego California, and get to know him a bit, and one of the best bonding experiences we have, is the Battletech simulation pods out at Virtual World San Diego.

Turns out, my Biological Father's a piece of human garbage, that has not only a drug problem, but is also a god damned drug dealer.

HOWEVER, the one, good thing, that came out of the entire experience, was him introducing me, at ten years old, to the world of Battletech and Mechwarrior, it's the ONE good thing, that makes me feel that maybe, my entire family arn't total pieces of ****.

And you know what, those sim pods... DIDN'T LET YOU CUSTOMIZE ****.

So before you hop on MY *** about how the lore "isn't important" Maybe have a modicrom of human decency, and realise that to some people, Battletech means much, much more than "big stompy bots blowing the **** out of eachother."

Oh, and MechCommander, is totally playable on modern OS, go talk to the guys at NGNG about it, they know how to get it to work without issue.

and I'm right ******* there with you on HBS Battletech, I'm already a backer. But MW5, is the Mechwarrior I've been waiting for since the Battletech pods man.

[Lord0fHats]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

*snip*

That's actually kind of touching in a weird "wow the sucks but aw" kind of way XD

Quote

Oh, and MechCommander, is totally playable on modern OS, go talk to the guys at NGNG about it, they know how to get it to work without issue.

Honestly at this point is probably more work than I'd be willing to put into it, which is a low bar to be sure with Battletech coming down the pipe.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

That's actually kind of touching in a weird "wow the sucks but aw" kind of way XD



Honestly at this point is probably more work than I'd be willing to put into it, which is a low bar to be sure with Battletech coming down the pipe.

actually it's super easy... literally just run a fixed .exe file. Same goes for MC2.

Modders have basically fixed the issues on modern OS. in fact, let me see if I can find a link.

Edit: Here ya go, just snag the lattest and maybe the original campaign files: http://www.moddb.com...mander-omnitech

Edited by CMDR Sunset Shimmer, 17 September 2017 - 02:19 PM.

[Lord0fHats]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

actually it's super easy... literally just run a fixed .exe file. Same goes for MC2.

Modders have basically fixed the issues on modern OS. in fact, let me see if I can find a link.

Edit: Here ya go, just snag the lattest and maybe the original campaign files: http://www.moddb.com...mander-omnitech

See now you're just making me want to prove my laziness

Edited by Lord0fHats, 17 September 2017 - 02:21 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

No you're just being obtuse

If I were in charge of MWO's development I'd have tossed IS side torso death out the window, brought down the weight of standard engines, and been toying with weapon weights and damage ages ago in the name of balance because good game play is more important than lore accuracy to me. Whenever there's an obvious solution to a balance problem you can bet that "mah lore" will be screamed at the top of several lungs.

Actually compared to some people here I'm being perfectly reasonable.

I was simply citing your example as something that, quite literally is impossible in MWO. You do not have House Military units like the Kuritan 2nd Sword of Light, Davion Assault Guards or the Steiner Skye Rangers hoarding ferro armor production for themselves in MWO.

But that might actually be a thing in MW5 and that's actually something that I think would add a lot to the game.

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

Now you're just agreeing with me.

MWO is a mess because 1) the developers vision is much vaster than their reach and they keep wasting time and money on dead before they hit the floor ideas, 2) because the developers are unwilling to accept that how they design a game to be played will never perfectly match with how it is actually played causing a lot of game balance whip lash, and finally 3) because the line for "mah lore" is arbitrarily drawn in development. We can swap endo and ferro and double heat sinks and engines at will, but no we can't adjust weapon or engine weights cause that would "be against lore."

PGI as a developer is a case of lunatics running the asylum. They're fans, they love the property, but like most fans they're only passionate about certain things and that imo has effect the overall development of their game in good and bad ways but the bad ways have become a consistent hindrance over the years.

Because in a 12v12 ONLINE DEATH MATCH, you need to be able to change things like armor, structure, engine, heatsinks, weapons in order to make sure you're being competitive, but again, at the same time, such upgrades end up rendering a huge percentage of mechs and weapons utterly useless because unless you take something that has been optimized to the billionth percentile, you're gimping yourself and your team.

I mean, at this point, we might as well not even have 99% of the mechs in the game anymore because they're just not meta effective compared to mechs like the Mad Cat Mk II or whatever other mechs capable of running the Gauss/PPC meta.

But in a single player game, those same mechs that are utterly useless online might actually serve a purpose. You know, like I've been saying before, running nothing but a lance of COM-2Ds as a sort of challenge/Steiner Loyalty mode or something.

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

Hard locking upgrades won't change that. The bright side is that as a single player game with chronological progression, the gradual filtering of better mechs into the market over time has bonuses from a progression stand point. On the not so bright side it's not fun for me and presumably others who really got into the series because they love playing with mech lab options.

It's a single player game. Unless you're trying to compete for speed runs there is no meta (at least not in the sense of MWO).

I will however totally watch Twitch Plays MW5 cause Twitch Plays will always be fun

Great, so MW5:Mercs is not the game for you then. Play MWO and all the previous MW games with unlimited customization, just stop trying to make me and others like me feel bad because we think the way MW5 is supposedly going to work will actually be MORE fun than the previous games because it's actually sticking more with the lore and letting us live out an actual true-to-lore Mercenary Commander experience.

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

What? I've never complained that fire support mechs get mocked. And this will still happen in MW5. Some mechs will just be better than others, but its a single player game so who cares? There's no comp play here and the AI will probably be too dumb to close distance with your or torso twist your damage so any number of builds will be just fine.

Pointing out the balance and lore bit again if I were a developer I'd have made LRMs dumb fire capable (think artillery mechs from Chrome Hounds if you're familiar) for showering areas in high DPS, low accurace fire, as a means of forcing mechs out of cover/counter death balls because that's a weapon system that might have a use in MWO pug matches, even if it still isn't meta for comp play.

You might not have complained about fire support mechs, but that doesn't change the fact that people have been lambasted in the game for trying to fulfill an actual combat role. Yes some mechs will still be better than others, but when you are using strictly stock mechs, the differences are fewer and further between, plus it makes it so mechs have actual weaknesses that can be exploited if you have the right mech.

Mechs that have been optimized to the Nth degree aren't so easy to exploit whatever weaknesses they have, if any.

[FireStoat]

I really like mech customization. It's been a part of the game from the start. I wish customization was a part of MW 5, but I see where PGI is going with it. TBH, the average small time mercenary team has zilch for proper facilities / equipment for retrofitting mechs with different loadouts. It makes sense that they'd maintain a catalog of different mech sources from the different houses and companies and attempt to cherry pick something from a sale that fits their needs.

Kind of like how real life small nations or the like go shopping around for their own security needs in terms of vehicles and equipment. I won't keep me from playing the game, namely because I'll be playing HBS Battletech which will allow for limited customization.

[oldradagast]

Eh, whatever at this point. Too many people have too much of their sense of self-worth tied up in a no-customization game either for nostalgia reasons or just to "stick it" to MWO fans to make this conversation remotely meaningful.

I agree that full, "liquid metal" MWO customization is going too far and could render other parts of the game obsolete, but don't tell me that replacing a PPC on my Awesome 8Q with an ERPPC is some sort of abomination to the Battletech gods and proves that I'm a "power-gamer" or somehow destroys your childhood or some other crap. Hell, I never even said the weapons should be easily available in a mechlab, just sitting there - go on, add a black market, make me find the weapon and even fix them or something, but acting like customizing ANYTHING is the "end of BT forever and proves I'm a horrible person" is just over the top.

That's the type of customization I want to see:
- Swapping like weapons for like within some reasonable range: ERPPC for PPC, LRM for LRM, etc.
- Able to add or remove ammo or heatsinks
- Able to add or remove at least some amount of armor and shuffle armor distribute around.
- Able to remove weapons or other systems to gain tonnage. If you don't want AMS, don't bring it. If you think that 1 small laser is utterly worthless, pull it and put in something else, like more ammo or heatsinks or armor.

For me, that above level of customization would be enough. Mechs would still stay "on-theme," but you could make some changes and not be hamstrung by utterly crap mech design - designs that were meant for a tabletop game that in no way matches a 1st person shooter anyway.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 02:45 PM.

[MischiefSC]

It's not "lore". It's the original game design. It's the mechanics the game was based and balanced on. While absolutely that's going to change some moving from a tabletop strategy game to a FPS. However in keeping the basic design principles you are logically tied to some basic balance principles.

If you made a Macross based game but removed transforming the mecha and let both Zentradi and Macross use each other's vehicles and in fact mix/match weapons and gear on each one, doesn't that significantly screw up not just the balance but the aesthetic of the game that's based on Macross?

So there was a lava gun and force field in Mechassault 2. Does that mean we should have force field generators and lava guns available?

There's lines to draw on balance and inclusion/exclusion. It sounds like to give a better balanced SP experience and give a purpose to the Battletech style economy of salvaging and logistics that PGI is going to limit mech customization compared to MWO. Makes sense, every other SP game around has limited customization for the same sort of reason.

We'll see what it looks like but this isn't about "lore vs playability". It's about balance for SP with logistics and economy in a way that makes sense in BT.

[Lord0fHats]

Alan Davion, on 17 September 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

Because in a 12v12 ONLINE DEATH MATCH, you need to be able to change things like armor, structure, engine, heatsinks, weapons in order to make sure you're being competitive, but again, at the same time, such upgrades end up rendering a huge percentage of mechs and weapons utterly useless because unless you take something that has been optimized to the billionth percentile, you're gimping yourself and your team.

You don't need it. It's fun but you don't need it. Without customization it would be down to which mechs had the best stock builds, which is a much narrower range I think than which mechs have the best combination of hard points (at least on the weapon front). Strictly defined mechs without customization would be much easier to balance (less fun but easier to balance because the number of choices a player can make are more limited), at least until we run into the lore problem and where we're going to draw the line about where to violate lore and where not to. What actions players will take is the ultimate ? in balance in issues.

Giving players more choice is generally well received but comes with the problem of making it harder to predict which choices they will make or to balance all the choices available.

Quote

we might as well not even have 99% of the mechs in the game

Most games can probably go without most of the choices they offer players, especially since so many developers are so lazy about fixing balance issues.

And of course the illusion of choice is very effective in marketing. I mean 400+ variants! Sure 99% will probably be bad, but 400 is such a big number and it has a + tacked onto the end meaning there are more than 400!

Quote

But in a single player game, those same mechs that are utterly useless online might actually serve a purpose.

They'll serve the exact same purpose as in MWO; I like it and I want to use it. The only thing that will change is that the range of viability is broader and no one is going to be harass anyone in chat about it.

Quote

Play MWO and all the previous MW games with unlimited customization, just stop trying to make me and others like me feel bad because we think the way MW5 is supposedly going to work will actually be MORE fun than the previous games because it's actually sticking more with the lore and letting us live out an actual true-to-lore Mercenary Commander experience.

I was unaware that expressing an opinion other than how pleased I am constituted making other people feel bad. I'm starting to think the issue isn't customization at all but that some people just have thin skin and bad memories that their dream mech didn't work out and team mates got salty about have to carry.

Quote

that doesn't change the fact that people have been lambasted in the game for trying to fulfill an actual combat role.

I never contested the fact, and now I'm really sure this has everything to do with something not at all about customization

Edited by Lord0fHats, 17 September 2017 - 02:44 PM.

[Lord0fHats]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Eh, whatever at this point. Too many people have too much of their sense of self-worth tied up in a no-customization game either for nostalgia reasons or just to "stick it" to MWO fans to make this conversation remotely meaningful.

I think you're onto something, at least a little bit.

[D VA]

MW5 is the... BEST NON BUYER GAME in whole Battletech series.


Thanks PGI that we have MWO.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Eh, whatever at this point. Too many people have too much of their sense of self-worth tied up in a no-customization game either for nostalgia reasons or just to "stick it" to MWO fans to make this conversation remotely meaningful.

I agree that full, "liquid metal" MWO customization is going too far and could render other parts of the game obsolete, but don't tell me that replacing a PPC on my Awesome 8Q with an ERPPC is some sort of abomination to the Battletech gods and proves that I'm a "power-gamer" or some crap. That's the type of customization I want to see:
- Swapping like weapons for like within some reasonable range: ERPPC for PPC, LRM for LRM, etc.
- Able to add or remove ammo or heatsinks
- Able to add or remove at least some amount of armor and shuffle armor distribute around.
- Able to remove weapons or other systems to gain tonnage. If you don't want AMS, don't bring it. If you think that 1 small laser is utterly worthless, pull it and put in something else, like more ammo or heatsinks or armor.

For me, that above level of customization would be enough. Mechs would still stay "on-theme," but you could make some changes and not be hamstrung by utterly crap mech design - designs that were meant for a tabletop game that in no way matches a 1st person shooter anyway.

Given what the article ACTUALLY says, it seems as those the customization issue is pretty obvious: Very little "Actual" customization as we know it... Sidegrades via manufacturer's of weapons. possible DHS upgrades later.

Seriously, after reading the article, this whole thing is basically pointless, Customization will be near non-existant, save for sidegrades.

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Sorry, the lore is not "arbatrary restrictions" It's literally the bread and butter of the franchise.

You can be pissy a Mechwarrior game is actually sticking to lore for once all you want, but think of all us lore hounds who have been tread all over because of your desire to be a special snowflake?

And YOU have been the one that's been catered to for over 20 years.

**** off and let us have our one, how about that?

With all due respect, Lore means different things to different people. Not everyone has had your life experiences, and honestly, locking a game in the past only serves to kill it. Do you think anyone would play D&D anymore if it was locked in 2nd Edition forever? Of course not.

Look, I read your other post about your family, and I'm legitimately sorry - that sucks, and nobody should have to go through that hell. But I have friends who's happiest memories from their dismal early adult years - when life sucked for them - involved customized Battletech mechs in Solaris type combat or on missions doing wild things in the BT roleplaying game. Are their experiences less valuable than yours because they involved customized mechs? Should your vision be the only one allowed in this game? Try to see it from their perspective, and then understand why I wanted the game to have customization levels - like difficultly levels - to accommodate more customers and whatever makes them happy.

For the record - AGAIN - I want a lot LESS customization than we see in MWO, and I've detailed that in my other posts. But I also would love to see people stop tearing into each other over this as if customizing battlemechs is some sort of blasphemy. Honestly, I've seen religious debates less heated than what's going on here, and that's not right.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 02:53 PM.

[D VA]

MischiefSC, on 17 September 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

It's not "lore". It's the original game design. It's the mechanics the game was based and balanced on. While absolutely that's going to change some moving from a tabletop strategy game to a FPS. However in keeping the basic design principles you are logically tied to some basic balance principles.

If you made a Macross based game but removed transforming the mecha and let both Zentradi and Macross use each other's vehicles and in fact mix/match weapons and gear on each one, doesn't that significantly screw up not just the balance but the aesthetic of the game that's based on Macross?

So there was a lava gun and force field in Mechassault 2. Does that mean we should have force field generators and lava guns available?

There's lines to draw on balance and inclusion/exclusion. It sounds like to give a better balanced SP experience and give a purpose to the Battletech style economy of salvaging and logistics that PGI is going to limit mech customization compared to MWO. Makes sense, every other SP game around has limited customization for the same sort of reason.

We'll see what it looks like but this isn't about "lore vs playability". It's about balance for SP with logistics and economy in a way that makes sense in BT.

In conclusion: - That is just rubbish. IMAO

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

Given what the article ACTUALLY says, it seems as those the customization issue is pretty obvious: Very little "Actual" customization as we know it... Sidegrades via manufacturer's of weapons. possible DHS upgrades later.

Seriously, after reading the article, this whole thing is basically pointless, Customization will be near non-existant, save for sidegrades.

Well, then their making a huge mistake IMHO if we're basically stuck with out of the box. Most mechs, quite frankly, suck, and only the handful of meta ones will be played whenever the choice is available. Everything else will be forced hard-mode or playing things you don't want to play because that's all the game offers. I know some people love that, but I game to have fun, not use tools or methods I can't stand to accomplish a goal. Obviously, I'm not saying I want "easy mode" or "liquid metal customization," but it should be obvious why a player would be unhappy with a game if the only choices he has are ones he can't stand.

[Lord0fHats]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

Well, then their making a huge mistake IMHO if we're basically stuck with out of the box. Most mechs, quite frankly, suck, and only the handful of meta ones will be played whenever the choice is available. Everything else will be forced hard-mode or playing things you don't want to play because that's all the game offers. I know some people love that, but I game to have fun, not use tools or methods I can't stand to accomplish a goal. Obviously, I'm not saying I want "easy mode" or "liquid metal customization," but it should be obvious why a player would be unhappy with a game if the only choices he has are ones he can't stand.

I'd actually question the wisdom on another front. Setting MWO aside, there hasn't been a Mechwarrior game like this in over a decade. MW4 Mercs released in 2002, 15 years ago, and the next closest thing is Mech Assault 2 which released 13 years ago. From a marketing stand point Mechwarrior is a franchise known as part simulator, part arcade shooter, and big on customization. Will it manage to perform well lacking one of those components? Remember that Mech Assault while well received by critics got shredded by a lot of fans for being too arcade and not having customization options. It ultimately failed to spawn a continuing franchise despite releasing two good games.

Setting aside my own hopes and dreams (*tears*), cutting customization seems like a double edged sword. On the one hand the franchise has been absent from this end of the market for so long who knows how many people even care that much anymore. On the other hand they could run into the same criticism and rejection from players that Mech Assault got.

[Rycard]

Frankly the main reason I play MWO or Battletech is the customization. If MW5 really does away with any sort of customization, it would be a no purchase for me. I'd sooner load up MW2. For those arguing with lore-based limits, nothing prevents you from playing the game that way. At least for us tinkerers it'll give the game longevity and replayability, and thats more important than sticking to lore, value for your purchase.

[oldradagast]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

Setting aside my own hopes and dreams (*tears*), cutting customization seems like a double edged sword. On the one hand the franchise has been absent from this end of the market for so long who knows how many people even care that much anymore. On the other hand they could run into the same criticism and rejection from players that Mech Assault got.

I just want on-theme customization. Don't gimp people because of silly things. "Oh, my Atlas keeps running out of AC20 ammo in fights, but despite this being a sci-fi universe with fusion engines and starships, it's somehow beyond the ability of techs to remove a single flipping heatsink to add 1 more ton of AC20 ammo." That type of stuff is just nonsense and will turn people off to the game very quickly, IMHO.

They don't need to go "liquid metal" - they can easily keep this on theme. But don't tell me my Awesome needs to keep 30 points of armor in the back for some dumb reason, or I can't eventually swap on an ERPPC for one of the normal PPC's, or that I can't perform the above Atlas mod. I'm not saying they should be free or instantaneous - assuming the passage of time has any meaning in MW5 - but they should be doable in the game. If not, and we're stuck with "stock only," I predict they'll have a hell of a time attracting any new blood to the franchise, and they'll turn away a lot of players who want some level of mech customization. Finally, it risks turning the game into one where most mechs are crap and you're stuck derping along until a meta-stock mech drops, and then you win, which is boring.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

Well, then their making a huge mistake IMHO if we're basically stuck with out of the box. Most mechs, quite frankly, suck, and only the handful of meta ones will be played whenever the choice is available. Everything else will be forced hard-mode or playing things you don't want to play because that's all the game offers. I know some people love that, but I game to have fun, not use tools or methods I can't stand to accomplish a goal. Obviously, I'm not saying I want "easy mode" or "liquid metal customization," but it should be obvious why a player would be unhappy with a game if the only choices he has are ones he can't stand.

Again, most mechs, only suck when paired against optimized "meta" mechs.

A CN9-A, is actually a valid threat, even against a WHM-6D, that autocannon 10 isn't just for show.

Heck, a stock HBK-4G, put against most heavy's, is still a threat due to it's movement profile, AND it's AC20, 2mlas and 1slas.

You're continuiously thinking of a mechs viability in a system that allows full customization, not a mechs validity against other mechs locked down in customization.

for the sake of discussion, ignore customization options... and think of a mech "As Intended" against another mech "as intended" and tell me, how bad most of them ACTUALLY suck... if you've ever played starter set BATTLETECH, you'll understand [and yes, I know dicerolls vs real time aiming ect... ignore that, and just look at the functionality of each battlemech relative to it's stock loadout.]

Most, are far from bad in it's intended setting, with it's intended loadout vs other's stuck with the same restriction, each one is instead, a variant ment to fill a niche unfilled... IE the HBK-4SP, or the Swayback, ect, houses wanted a HBK that was less ammo reliant in one case, and another that was focused on missile weapons, ect.

The problem however, is you're so absolutely rooted in a mindset of customization, that you can't see the roles, because they don't function like that in any other game, which has been a MAJOR failing of Mechwarrior for over 20 years.

Edited by CMDR Sunset Shimmer, 17 September 2017 - 03:22 PM.