72 replies to this topic

[CeeKay Boques]

Garth Erlam, on 21 December 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

So say we all.

Garth, to be honest, PGI's game of "Slow reveal" to both perk interest and protect the end products integrity is partially to blame. PGI could, if it chose, put an end to many of these fruitless discussions by revealing current direction.

I don't blame you for skipping the backlash entirely, but it is part of the problem, 10 miles of conjecture with 1 foot of data.

[KingCobra]

It really does not matter from what camp or aspect of the game you love its all BattleTechUniverse and we as players & fans can only wait and see what the game plays like and what is included in it.The point is if it is a good game people will play it based on this aspect if it is a bad game no one will play and it will be the end of TT and PC mechwarrior as we know it becouse no other game company will resurect it again for 20 years.

So i ask put forth your ideas in a good manner keep the trolling down and lets see what happens.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Only big quibble I have is that the TT construction rules and the TT modification rules are entirely different things and an important distinction. MW2, MW3 and most TT players use the TT construction rules when they are really modifying mechs.

[renegade mitchell]

This feud been going on since the first mechwarrior game came out. I don't see it ending anytime soon.

Edited by Renegade Mitchell, 21 December 2011 - 01:05 PM.

[Big Willie]

I didn't see anything put to rest, just an attempt to lump everyone together. There are still major divides that will never be reconciled on these forums:

Pin-Point accuracy of MW vs. weapon/targeting convergence vs. RNG (random)
Simillar to Player skill vs. Character skill (growth)
Build-from-scratch mech customization vs. hard points/pods vs. none (dev generated variants)
IS technology vs. clan technology vs. new technology vs lostech and technology advancement in general.

Some upcomming points of contention
Mech chassisis role and classification Light vs. Medium vs. Heavy vs. Assault VS recon vs harrassment vs fire support vs ....
Social roles: Large guild vs lone wolf vs small guild

[CobraFive]

I apologize in advance for making my post too long.

Stormwolf, on 21 December 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

The Mechwarrior Players
For this I’ll mostely focus on the MW4 and Mechassault crowds since MW, MW2 and MW3 are pretty close to the TT as it is. Many players in this category are really unfamiliar with the universe this all takes place in, MW4 and Mechassault don’t really bother to do a lot of explaining.

These players are also often overwhelmed by the plethora of information the universe has to offer. I’ll be fair here, the BT universe can be rather intimidating due to its copious amounts of lore and game books. I get from a lot of people here that they are scared that the game will essentially be turned into the TT where the players are sitting in miniatures instead of 3D mechs. This won’t be the case in MWO, the TT players don’t want this to happen as much as you do.

This probably stems from the fact that TT players want to have the TT construction rules for mechs. This will work for various reasons:

• MW2 and MW3 already did this and approached the canon universe rather closely.
  
• The novels and the mechs portrayed in them also obey these rules.
  
• There are actual Technical Readouts with descriptions of mechs and their backgrounds the canon weapon loadouts can be found here.

This will ofcourse lead into “the TT mechlab is unbalanced” discussions, but let’s not fool ourselves here. The MW4 mechlab is extremely unbalanced since it throws out a lot of rules and often made stuff up along the way.

The only thing this group wants if fun gameplay, but they think that the TT crowd wants to bury MWO in boring rules and whatnot.

I disagree with a number of sentiments here.

Saying that players of MW4 or mechassault are overwhelmed by the lore of BT is a gross generalization and I haven't actually heard this from anyone. The few threads I have seen from people who are not knowledgeable about the lore have been asking for more info, not less, so overwhelm is not the word I would ever use to describe these players.

Lumping MW4 and Mechassault is unfair, and this should go without explanation I think. They are not even within the same genre of gameplay, by intent or design. Also calling a distinction between MW2/3 and MW4 is inaccurate as well. MW2 and MW3 had a great many differences from TT, as well as a great deal of their own issues. As examples, flying mechs , ridiculous boating (not the acceptable "it happens in lore too" kind), completely useless arms, all chassis are identical, pointless to pilot anything but assault, and etc. MW4 advanced on TT rules and lore in some ways, and retreated in others, which is exactly what MWO should aim to do- perhaps not in the same directions as MW4, of course, but certainly the same idea of picking and choosing to get the kind of gameplay they want to encourage.

Which leads me to my next point, calling out of MW4s mechlab as being unbalanced simply on the virtue that it "throws out a lot of rules" and "makes up stuff along the way". This is a sentiment we should avoid strongly, as what we are saying is that simply by differing from the tabletop rules, a system becomes inherently unbalanced, when of course this is not the case. Piranha should be encouraged to throw out a lot of rules and make stuff up along the way. This for example, is leading us to the "electronic warfare" and "role warfare" emphasis and bringing lights and mediums back into play, and not getting caught up over things like Melee which probably wouldn't be a focus even if it was included at launch. Its also dismissive to throw out MW4-style mechlab altogether despite its strength, which over its flaws, have a lot to bring to mechwarrior.

Which leads to say that, obviously, I think that the TT construction rules will not automatically work for the reasons you list:
MW2 and MW3 have a great deal of their own flaws,
What is portrayed in novels does not automatically mean it will convert well to a computer game,
The portrayal within TROs is only marginally helpful if we want to allow the level of customization that previous MW games, including MW2 and MW3, have provided.

Quote

The Tabletop players
Often labeled “the Battletech players”, I’ll lump the MW, MW2 and 3 crowds in with these guys since those games are rather close to the TT. The main fear here is that MWO will be dumbed down too much like it was with MW4 and Mechassault. And to be honest, I agree with this, too many good things have been thrown out to keep these games simple. It doesn’t really help here that Microsoft pretty much replaced the canon mech configs with their own homebrew content.

Some people in this group can be rather elitist because they have far more knowledge on the background and universe then our average MW4 player. This tends to create a rift between TT and MW crowds.

But rest assured, this group only wants a decent mech simulator. These guys don’t want a 100% conversion of the boardgame, they want to play the game like it is depicted in the novels.

The TT crowd wants to see things unfold like they did in the canon storyline, this will most certainly enhance the gameplay.

My personal opinions
I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but people shouldn’t overreact. The MW4 and Mechassault crowds don’t know what they have been missing out on all these years. Many in the TT crowd shouldn’t expect this game to be 100% true to the universe since minor changes will be made for the sake of gameplay.

I felt the need to respond mostly because I feel it is a strawman of what you label as the "Mechwarrior" camp, which I feel has been a mischaracterization of what a lot of the discussion has been on the topic. Although I agree with the sentiment that people need to see eye-to-eye, by my own experience on the forums the greatest number of arguments have been within the battletech camp, fighting over aspects of lore and how game mechanics should be represented most realistically, rather then between TT diehards and MW fans (Which still, I do not see as a valid distinction). Not to mention the fact that these forums are overwhelmingly BT diehards, and more posts read like this one: "We should see eye-to-eye, but the mechwarrior crowd is still wrong."

Not to dump on a call to peace. As said I agree with the idea of getting along, and the middle path is almost always the best. But to me, the post reads as an "under the table" critique of people wanting a more action- or gameplay-oriented MWO, while claiming that the closer we follow TT lore will be making the game objectively better, which is a sentiment I disagree with.

So I guess as a conclusion, if you'd like the two camps to see eye-to-eye more closely, I think that the first thing that needs to happen is the idea that either camp is automatically right: Moving the game more closely to TT or Lore does not automatically make a game better, and certainly not when considering multiple player viewpoints, and that MW4 and even Mechassault have design decisions that are beneficial to gameplay, and we should feel free to look to all sources to see what works and what doesn't in a real-time simulation game even if we don't enjoy the product as a whole.



Edit: I really don't want to sound combative, I have tried rewriting my post more then once, but its the best I can get it. I too look forward to a more lore-based MWO, but I really can't stand that this forum is so heavily skewed to this side of the coin and we are seeing so many posts like this, discounting altogether the other side of the argument. We really don't need so many of these "We need to see eye-to-eye" threads as we do "stop picking on the guys who don't want a TT representation" thread.

Edited by cobrafive, 21 December 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[Ghost73]

Summed up my thoughts for me, thanks cobra

[CeeKay Boques]

Ghost73, on 21 December 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

Summed up my thoughts for me, thanks cobra

+1

[Rhinehart]

Good thought

Let me say the ONLY thing I found completely wrong with the Mechwarrior 4 Mechlab weapon pylon system was that it did not allow for a whole slew of variants already established in Canon to be created. If they had managed to include that in the Mech 4 system a great many of my objections would disappear. Mektek with their add-ons fixed a great many of these issues.

[Vile Joker]

Ugghh.... This is the only bad thing about games like this. The two sides of the coin that are always trying to shout over the others. If there is one thing that I think could drive me away from the game it is the two sides of the picket line shouting back and forth. Most people are alright about this whole thing, just wanting to see a game that is fun to play, isn't a headache like many other MMO games out there, and just want to see the devs work their magic on the game.

But, the ones who overshadow the generally peaceful populous. are the ones blathering on and on about how things should be "one wAy" or "this way and not that way" and "I'm right because I played this" or "I don't care what you play, you're wrong because you don't think this". It's like watching the US Senate channel.

Granted, I know where both sides are coming from. I am one of those people who has always played both realms of the game. My friends and I still have "old school" TT campaigns and online matches of many of the mechwarrior PC games. I really hope that neither side are alienated in this game because I like them both.

All I can do is to plead for patience. As stated before the Devs are people who, like me, love both venues of the universe. They have people on like Mr. Bills, who's primary purpose is to ensure as much continuity to the universe as possible. He's onboard for that sole reason. And with a guy like that on the job, I am quite positive that the game is going to be as spot on as physically possible for the media it's being created on.

I am sleeping well at night, with visions of firefights in my head, knowing the fact that the people making this game are doing their darndest to make sure that everyone is as happy with is as humanly possible. That gives me great inner peace right now.

[CaveMan]

A lot of BT people are concerned by what we perceive as a long, slow slide from a game series that faithfully represented the universe we know and love, in as much detail as possible given the technology at the time, to an increasingly watered down, "lowest common denominator" interpretation that left much of the feel and facts of canon lying in the dirt. We're still waiting for that game that will give us a 3d, realtime BattleTech experience, the way it is in the source material we know and enjoy. We haven't gotten it yet, and it is insidiously easy to blame the video game crowd for that.

By the same token, there are a lot of people whose experience begins and ends with the MW games, and are (rightly) concerned about a bunch of purist grognards making demands based on old, out-of-print books they've never heard of, and an arcane ruleset meant to be played with dice and little metal figurines. They don't want to have to throw everything they know out the window to appease some aging neckbeard's nostalgia. It is a valid concern.

We have to keep in mind though that BattleTech and MechWarrior are the same thing, viewed through different lenses. It's not acceptable to demonize one side or the other because it deviates from our prior experience. Sometimes the MW games are different because they tried things the way they are in CBT and it didn't work. Other times there are differences because of software limitations at the time, or because of executive meddling (thanks, Micro$oft).
What the TT people need to realize is that the TT ruleset isn't perfect and sometimes canon is just plain clunky and gets in the way of good, clean fun. What the MW people need to realize is that just because things were different in the video games doesn't mean they were supposed to be that way, and sometimes it seriously screwws with balance and the way the setting was supposed to feel (example, customized mechs being everywhere, they're supposed to be rare as hens' teeth).

This is no reason for acrimony. We don't need "which is better" debates or threads bashing fans of one or the other.

And that is, hopefully, all I'm going to say on this topic.

[zudukai]

we do not NEED one style or the other, we need 1/4 MW 1/4 TT and 1/2 BT = 100% awesome.

[verybad]

To date. MW4 is the best multiplayer game of the series despite some peoples dislike of it because it didn't follow the Mechlab the same way it is also more balanced in multiplayer.

Here's why.
1. Technology. This isn't a design choice of course, the game simply had less lag, which for me and quite a few other players killed MW3.
2. The Hardpoint system. This made mechs more diverse, a Loki suddenly isn't the same as a Catapult...they could be in previous games, and you'de never know the difference till it fired, beacause in those games, you could be firing missiles out of what looked like a laser etc. The hardpoint system also served as a limiting system to prevent mechs that were able to boat better in a particular weapon be balanced by limiting them in electronics which of course brings me to...
3. Electronics. Radar and other electronics meant a lot more in MW4 than in previous games. Wtih tactical use of passive radar, units that could carry ECM, and other advantages, the game became much more interesting, ECM and BAP were the most interesting, but the overal use of electrics was head and shoulders above previous games in the series.
4. Coolant. Just the simple action of puting a small amount of coolant into mechs made heat control a more tactical decision and more interesting to handle as a game mechanic.

I've been involved with Battletech for over 20 years. It's a great board game. The only way to play a balanced game of battletech is through BV2, and even that is iffy. It's simple to create optimized mechs that tear through their enemies. Game balancing systems don't work well for multiplayer video games however. Number one because most online games have more than 1 player per team, each of whom is going to tend towards optimizing their ride for maximum performance. It's simply a different player mechanism.

Just declaring that a game is balanced by using battletech design rules is completely innacurate. There are constantly disscussions regarding optimized mechs such as the Hellstar or Medium Laser boats on the Catalyst Battletech site as ample proof. The relative balance in most battletech units is there through intentional suboptimal design. This is a trait that will never be followed by the majority of a any multiplayer online game players.


To me, MW4 fealt more battletechy than the previous two games in the series. It had far more tactical choices, and each mech was different, they had a personality.

People shouldn't be afraid of change. Battletech is a good game. It's not a perfect game, and while its a great thing to base MWO off of, it's not a template for a realtime game. It makes compromises in how stuff works in the "real" battletech world for the same of being a game. Mechwarrior also needs to make compromises...allow change...for the sake of being a good game.

[Duncan Fisherr]

I think the primary thing people are concerned with - is the Mechlab. (other than those who are just taking offense for no good reason)

Personally, I HATED the restricted mechlab of MW4, compared with MW2/3.
It's NOT battletech appropriate.
Half of the game is customizing your 'mech to match your skills and preferences. Arbitrarily limiting the ability to customize was a horrendous mistake in my opinion, and likely cost them (Microprose/soft) a lot of sales.

Certain "hardpoints" make a modicum of sense (IE Missiles in missile racks), however, I believe this issue would be far better addressed by having modular weapon graphics - for instance a Timberwolf/Madcat with a Laser in it's shoulder slot, would not show the usual "missile rack" shoulder graphic, but instead an appropriately altered modular laser graphic, perhaps simply a texture/bumpmap on the front face of the module - instead of handicapping our ability to customize.

Any combat rebalancing is secondary, and not necessarily directly stemming from their much chagrined Lab shackling.

Addressing verybad's statement about MW4 "feeling more battletechy": I imagine this comes from the technology/software improvements made since MW3, allowing for smarter AI, better flagging of mission directives etc, because (in my opinion) in almost every other way, MW4 is less "battletechy" than the previous incarnations (weapon loadouts/performance, heat management, nigh useless jump jets, and so on).

I'm not trying to say MW4 is a bad game (I played the hell out of MW4 Mercs - loved the arena), or that anyone is stupid for liking it. I just feel it has *less* of the key attributes that characterize Battletech and Mechwarrior and make it unique.

It's not a matter of people being "afraid of change", it's the fact that we don't want arbitrary restrictions on our customization.

[Ghost73]

CaveMan, on 21 December 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

A lot of BT people are concerned by what we perceive as a long, slow slide from a game series that faithfully represented the universe we know and love, in as much detail as possible given the technology at the time, to an increasingly watered down, "lowest common denominator" interpretation that left much of the feel and facts of canon lying in the dirt.

This is no reason for acrimony. We don't need "which is better" debates or threads bashing fans of one or the other.

Well, first we need to stop using the term "lowest common denominator". It is pretty insulting to call a group of people the reason a game becomes dumbed down because others view them as dumb or unable to handle something more complex. Making a game more accessible does not mean making it less complex. While making it less complex is one way of making a game more accessible, there are other options. Accessibility is not mutually exclusive to complexity.

Edited by Ghost73, 22 December 2011 - 04:00 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Ghost73, on 22 December 2011 - 03:59 AM, said:

Making a game more accessible does not mean making it less complex. While making it less complex is one way of making a game more accessible, there are other options. Accessibility is not mutually exclusive to complexity.

Complexity and accessibility have nearly a -1 correlation though. At least if you're talking using all the elements. You can always skin a UI to hide choices and use the defaults for non expert users though. Trouble is you'll have many people not understand why some things are happening if you just hide controls.

[xSidewinder]

What about the players who are happy with both? 0.o
MechAssault introduced me to MechWarrior which introduced me to the Battletech tabletop.
I like each for their own reasons.

[Pht]

Stormwolf, on 21 December 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

Battletech is the entire franchise and universe, Mechwarrior has been a number of products in this franchise.

... and those of us who see "battletech" as the universe - the "lore" that all these products are (some really, some not so) aimed at being "in?"

Quote

For instance, Mechwarrior was a RPG before it was a mech simulator. Mechwarrior represents the life of a character in the BT universe; the Mechwarrior computer games put the player in this universe via the cockpit of a mech.

... Mechwarrior the Pen and Paper RPG shares a name but not a basic concept with Mechwarrior the video game.

The RPG is aimed at simulating as much of "life" in the BT universe as possible where the MW video game is aimed at simulating what it's like to be a pilot of a battlemech.

Quote

The Mechwarrior Players
For this I’ll mostely focus on the MW4 and Mechassault crowds since MW, MW2 and MW3 are pretty close to the TT as it is. Many players in this category are really unfamiliar with the universe this all takes place in, MW4 and Mechassault don’t really bother to do a lot of explaining.

These players are also often overwhelmed by the plethora of information the universe has to offer. I’ll be fair here, the BT universe can be rather intimidating due to its copious amounts of lore and game books. I get from a lot of people here that they are scared that the game will essentially be turned into the TT where the players are sitting in miniatures instead of 3D mechs. This won’t be the case in MWO, the TT players don’t want this to happen as much as you do.

This probably stems from the fact that TT players want to have the TT construction rules for mechs. This will work for various reasons:

• MW2 and MW3 already did this and approached the canon universe rather closely.
  
• The novels and the mechs portrayed in them also obey these rules.
  
• There are actual Technical Readouts with descriptions of mechs and their backgrounds the canon weapon loadouts can be found here.

This will ofcourse lead into “the TT mechlab is unbalanced” discussions, but let’s not fool ourselves here. The MW4 mechlab is extremely unbalanced since it throws out a lot of rules and often made stuff up along the way.

The only thing this group wants if fun gameplay, but they think that the TT crowd wants to bury MWO in boring rules and whatnot.

Actually, at least for myself, I don't want the construction rules - I want a restricted implementation inside of the confines of the construction rules which keeps the 'Mechs from being un-unique gunbags (mw3 multiplayer style) and keeps the 'mechs from being ... "toys" (mw4 style)... and setup such that players have an equal playing field of opportunity (not outcome) in their ability to customize a 'mech, so the vet players don't become nightmares for the casual players and newbies.

That said, I don't think its the mechlab that's really the core of it; if anything, the whole weapons fire resolution setup appears to be more contentious.

I'll venture to guess the core issue is one of respect and things not being just arbitrary. Those of us who do know the BTU find that the MW video game experience is really enhanced by the fertile soil that the universe provides, and i'm not just talking about the stories and such, but the technical end too - all of the BTU.

As far as BT vs MW... they aren't opposed.

BT (and I mean not just the lore, but the lore and the tabletop, and to a lesser extent, the novels) is the parent, MW is the child.

The real argument seems to be about the nature of the relation between the two.

[Dihm]

Quote

mechlab

People need to remember that all these Mechlab setups in the various Mechwarrior games were developed for SINGLE PLAYER, not a dedicated PVP game. Multiplayer was just a bonus feature.

Edit: I've been corrected somewhat, we have confirmation that MW3 did take multiplayer into account in their development of the mechlab, it it was felt that it didn't have any bearing on the actual outcome of matches.

Edited by Dihm, 22 December 2011 - 11:27 AM.

[flessar]

xSidewinder, on 22 December 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

What about the players who are happy with both? 0.o
MechAssault introduced me to MechWarrior which introduced me to the Battletech tabletop.
I like each for their own reasons.

Ive played every BT/MW/MA*shudders*/MCmd/TT product released, even some of the space battle stuff. I find that there are elements from each side that need to be in any game to make it succesful on a wide market. Make no mistake people, PGI isnt a charity they are doing this to make a profit, and that means making a game that attracts more people from the collective whole of the games above and new people, then keeping all of the fans of a few of them based on game design principles.

There are elements of the TT that are completly retarted, such as the mech construction rules where you can build the CANODEATH and be unstopable with the largest engine, more armor then 3 assualts, and more weapons then a company of stock mechs. Also, Clan tech vs IS tech has been a horse not only beaten to death only to be razed again just to get beaten to death about 2million times already, the original clan tech wasnt even inline with their cannon people! They used their range to soften their targets and crush them in close combat* not back up and kill them without taking damage. Oh and ganging up on targets without the rules of Zel being broken, constantly happening and shamelessly as well (im looking at you orkoid). (Read: Not hand to hand, but within 400meters usually unless some one scored a head shot)

Mech Assault, Way too action oriented, no customization period, and a story that was suspect at the best of times and alien at all others. And tracking PPC'S ***????

MW games have each tried to implement custimization options that arent that at all, they are complete construction kits, minus MW4 which tried some limitations with mixed results. And as a result most people who have played these games feel entitled to be able to create a virtual CANODEATH as soon as they discover the *best* chasis to boat with. And this in turn has killed many many many players enthusiasm for interacting with the online community due to constantly being beaten by that same darn mech with the same loadout that every one in the match but them is using. And the reason they arent using it? Becuase they want to actually play something diffrent and still be able to compete, not ROFLSTOMP! every one else in a single alpha.

Mech Commander took the customization the right way I feel in the first one, honestly they stuck with pretty typical near cannon loadouts, and on the second one bastardized the entire process by allowing me to field my all machinegun atlas that one shoted everything. Literally I made a custom map with my 1 atlas vs 20 zues standard loadouts and I just ran at them and downed them all inunder a minute due to the recycle time on it. I was similarly able to roflstomp the campaign using such designs.

The space TT game and by extent the Battleforce rules since they deal with grand scale ops' are mentioned due to their ability to provide inspiration and guidance for support equipment and supply issues that might be possible within the overall Metagame. Such as how long it takes for those support tanks to move up from typical reserve positions watching the flank/rear of the battle area and into the front lines, or how long it takes a dropship to slowburn into position for a hotdrop and how long it will be over the target area.

Again, though I may not have pointed out positives for each area, or negatives even, they all have them. I am simply on a limited time schedule and can not go into complete detail within this one post. So feel free to expound on them all and remember, just because you like an idea doesnt mean you are right, and just because some one else likes a diffrent idea, doesnt mean they are wrong. The could both be appropriate/not depending on the overall vision and technology available to PGI, so bear with them and give them some* cushion space when implementing the rule set. (Read: 200000tons worth should be about right.)