130 replies to this topic

[Assiah]

I think the better question is why do you non-TT players seem to think we should throw out the TT rules with out a second thought. If a rule just does not translate I am fine with it being tweeked, but I have a feeling many don't know the TT rules and are just running on the assumption that they can't be translated.

[justin xiang]

About a semblance to realism vs "balancing" to make it more fun for n00bs. Too much "streamlining" and we get mechassault. I'd rather go the ARMA direction which is what the table top was trying to recreate as best it could. A military war game.

Edited by justin xiang, 09 August 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[justin xiang]

Assiah, on 09 August 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

I think the better question is why do you non-TT players seem to think we should throw out the TT rules with out a second thought. If a rule just does not translate I am fine with it being tweeked, but I have a feeling many don't know the TT rules and are just running on the assumption that they can't be translated.

99.9999% of the people on that side of the argument definitely do not know how the TT works or have a very basic and minimalistic understanding of it.

People don't like games like Falcon 4.0... They'd rather have ace combat. As time goes on and people get dumber and dumber into the idiocracy that is taking over we will be lucky to get a game like... checkers.

[ownka]

While I'll agree with the TT fanboys that we don't need this game streamlined and dumbed down, this game is going to be vastly different from a tabletop in execution. No matter how well structured your system, you can't accurately account for, lets say, the difficulty of hitting a target with a laser versus an autocannon until you have your game up and running. You can't accurately account for the difficulty of hitting a light mech chugging along at 130 kph. The tabletop is about working with your funds, this game is about making the best singular mech you can. The list goes on and on, there will have do be differences.

[Rarestkarma]

very simple boys and girls lol it has to do with human phycology imagine changing your countrys local football rules just to improve or rather improve the game based on certain points of view, fans would lose thier xxxxen minds and this is probably true based on the perceptions of some table top gamers they believe they came first so they should be listened to this is not selfish its human nature and we all do it to some extent, game mechanics are just a formula and like all science it can and will be improved as you younger gens get hold of it, its called evalution to some the way of life to others, i personnally love to see things improve even if it means a few hicups and changing with the times.

[Felbombling]

The problem isn't trying to include every single TT rule as written within the game. This is not why a TT purist would whine and moan. The problem is taking things that were already working and balanced, and that could easily be translated into the sim environment as is, but instead were changed and/or messed around with it. The purist just shakes their head and wonders, why would you do that? It is like throwing away a screwdriver and using your fingers to put something together instead. Yeah, you'll eventually get the whole thing together, but you could have done it so much easier had you just kept and used the screwdriver.

[wanderer]

Resist The Dawn, on 09 August 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

And ya know what Happened? Nobody Panicked. Some of the Tabletop players grumbled a bit, but nobody acted like THQ had murdered their first born or anything. So what I'm asking is, why do Battletech players get so upset about things like this? Do you want a good game or not?

The reason is that when Mechwarrior drifted further and further away from TT, it also lost much of what made Battletech, Battletech.

Mechwarrior 4 was an arcade shooter with 'Mech shaped targets by comparison. People want to play with something that makes the tabletop game at a more complex, realtime scale- and the only time we've even come close in pen and paper was Solaris VII, which made gameplay grind to a halt due to the recordkeeping. There's no way MWO will be that and be balanced, but it's important to keep a strong voice pointing people in the direction of staying as true to the original game as possible, rather than injecting all sorts of junk that has no analogue in the BT universe, like coolant flushes or instant-repair bases or other "power ups".

We can learn a lot from the TT rules. They're not perfect, but they've had a lot of time to come to a balance- and flaws in that balance that can be tweaked to smooth them over in MWO.

[Assiah]

justin xiang, on 09 August 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

99.9999% of the people on that side of the argument definitely do not know how the TT works or have a very basic and minimalistic understanding of it.

People don't like games like Falcon 4.0... They'd rather have ace combat. As time goes on and people get dumber and dumber into the idiocracy that is taking over we will be lucky to get a game like... checkers.

Well good for them, but I'd rather have my mech sim not a mech arcade game.

But once again I am all for looking at how a rule translates from TT to the PC and if it doesn't translate well we can look at the spirit of the rule and come up with something.

[Okie135]

Well, we've never had a TT rule based mechwarrior. This is the closest we've gotten, so people want to keep it close. I like Falcon 4.0; I play BMS, DCS-A10C, Rise of Flight, and Falcon AF.

[CeeKay Boques]

I have no idea why people fight over TABLE VALUES, but all the rules for TT totally rock and can/should be applied to this or any game, except for cases where they are just made to make sure that a certain combat/roll doesn't break the game.

People who don't know "the rules" get confused when Table Value people argue about how much damage a weapon does, or heat dispertion levels.

Rules are about what happens in a forest, or how to handle a mech falling on another mech.

[God of War]

The Mainpoint for me is: When you wanna call it Mechwarrior and place it in the BT Universe then stay within the Rules of the universe/fluff
or make the things like you want it but then call it "Iron Robots" or "Hawken" or what the heck you want!

But when it´s supposed to be Battletech then you need to play by the rules of the TT cause they are the framework
for this entire universe´s combat.

[Gail Piazzi]

I know the TT rules. I've played TT for 3/4 of my life. TT is kind of a big deal to me.

I have zero problem with them tweaking rules and mechanics to better suit a video game where a mission takes 10 minutes, not 10 hours. Tweaking. Don't go re-writing things entirely, but I haven't really seen them do that yet.

[Alex Wolfe]

God of War, on 09 August 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

The Mainpoint for me is: When you wanna call it Mechwarrior and place it in the BT Universe then stay within the Rules of the universe/fluff
or make the things like you want it but then call it "Iron Robots" or "Hawken" or what the heck you want!

But when it´s supposed to be Battletech then you need to play by the rules of the TT cause they are the framework
for this entire universe´s combat.

Or you could... place it in the BT universe with the general outline kept (Atlas is Atlas, Clans are Clans, LRMs have longer ranges than SRMs, AC20 hits heavier than a small laser), but modify the rules as appropriate for the game type.

Like the Dawn of War series or Space Marine are unmistakenly a WH40k game, done with respect to source material and great attention to detail, but without the squad coherency, instant kills, random to hit rolls and tank shock.

Rules and the universe are not inseparable, if it was so then you couldn't have any, say, Star Wars games because the source material is movies and they don't strictly stick to the script. "You're not staying true to the universe, Stormtroopers should always die in one hit! You're doing it wrong, Dark Forces!".

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 August 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Saxophonist]

Because TT BattleTech is awesome.

[Durkan]

Speaking as a player of the TT and MW games.

Why keep going back to the boardgame?

Because thats the original source. As someone else said its a rule system that works and has worked well for what nearly 30 years? Buggering about with it is moving away from the source material.

Otherwise why bother with the license - just make "big-stompy-walky tanks online". (I guess being more generous Hawken and Perpetuum look like good attempts at taking this approach).

Now I'm not such a "stick in the mud" as to realise that an fps computer game is a totally different proposition to a hex based miniatures game. I do think thought the closer to the "spirit" of the board game Mwol stays the better.

Why the board game and not the computer game?

Well, draw a parallel with the Batman films. Chris Nolan's and Tim Burton's Batman. Both brilliant, bothbased on a creative vision of the original material, neither of them based on previous attempts in the same medium.

What happens when you just do derivatives - *points at Schumacher's Batman and Robin* and I dont think anyone wants that for MW:OL do they.

*ps without making any NDA breaking references I'll just give any devs reading this a big thumbs up on the approach so far.

[Congzilla]

Atlas3060, on 09 August 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Some did, some saw MW2 as the one true game, and others like me just saw them as ways of hooking people into the Universe itself.


Pretty much, I've seen people throw tantrums in Tribes Ascend forums because it "wasn't like Tribes 1/2" so I can see Battletech folks doing the same here and in MW:Tactics.

MW: Tactics is going to get beat up hard for the simple reason that they are making the tabletop game and therefore have absolutly no reason to change anything at all. Pretty MegaMek is all it should be.

[BuddyBoombox]

I never played this tabletop but I've played others and it sems to me that basically the tabletop players just want their game, but online, with more players. Maybe thats selfish of them, but from what I've seen of the tabletop, I'd love to have a game just like what they want.

[Kristarian]

This is war, there are no rules! Kill or be killed.

[SuomiWarder]

The simple fact is that the original TT rules defined the universe. They are what make BattleTech, well BattleTech and not Heavy Gear or Gundam or Americanized Giant Robot Combat. The expectations of how an Atlas vs a Hunchie vs a Jenner all interct was set in the TT rules.

So for many the more that the TT values get changed, the more they feel MWO stray from being "real" BattleTech.

That being said, many of us old TT rules guys know and accept that changes are required for a first person, drive one mech computer game. And to deal with the chaos that would ensue with unfettered mech changes in the hands of the general public.

[Paladin1]

Congzilla, on 09 August 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

MW: Tactics is going to get beat up hard for the simple reason that they are making the tabletop game and therefore have absolutly no reason to change anything at all. Pretty MegaMek is all it should be.

You just hit the nail on the head as to why I'm here and not on the MWT boards. That bunch had a game which already incorporated the actual TT rules (MegaMek) and instead of just upgrading the graphics and running with that, they seem to have dumbed it down and ****** up the graphics while they were at it. Nope, I'll be giving my money to MWO.