130 replies to this topic

[vettie]

damn, I kinda like both sides of the blade.

clarification - table top is just that, table top. some buds, some pretzels, some paper and pencils and some dice for 4 to 6 hours poking fun at the world and kicking each others butts.

video is video. its close but (other than mega mek) I am not seeing a video version that can be table top, it just doesnt work (as explained partially by one of the devs earlier in this thread.) too much happening too fast. If we slow it waaaaay down then its no fun.

We could, I guess, just ALL play table top and use those neat little video cams that come on laptops now days and call that a TRUE video version of table top (said tongue in cheek)

Again, I like them BOTH, they are different animals, different ways of implementing the same lore. The Devs here (obviously) are TT fans (or none of this would be here) and are doing their best to bring TT to a live video version, but it just doesnt work like table top.

I suggest we all enjoy both. you know, cake and eat it?

[Mr D One]

Haroldwolf, on 09 August 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

This is a dead horse.

Piranha decided to not follow all the TT rules. We, that is the community, either like it and play the game or hate it and play something else.

Personally I don't like how they implimented hard point restrictions but it's way too late to influence them and show them the error of their ways.

I disagree with this. Hardpoint restrictions are a great idea. It stops people putting 20 medium pulse lasers on a Atlas.

(Even thou several players have modified their hunchback's this way.)

[midga]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Nostalgia implies that we don't still play it. That's a silly assumption.

I understand that some things have to change. It's real-time, and skill-based, and played from a totally different perspective. It would still be cool to see them almost completely implemented with only necessary changes, but this isn't tabletop, and for the sake of a game that is accessible without requiring a working knowledge of the core rule books to play effectively, that just can't happen. They'll get close, I'm sure. Maybe not as close as some BT/MW games before it, but almost certainly closer than many others.

Now, what'd I'd /really/ like to see is a MW game based more on the RPG by the same name. Hop out, run around, pilot other things, be a mechanic, chill in a bar, get out of your seat and take a **** in the back of your Timberwolf's cockpit, smash your reactor coolant control system and turn your mech into a bomb-on-legs.../that/ would be a game I'd stop playing everything else for.

[Gorheru]

In a way expecting TT translated literally is like wanting to get a first person realtime chess game. Would anyone like to play it?
There was a game that in a way did that to Chess what MW games are trying to do to Battletech - it was ARCHON. A brilliant game. That looked a little like chess and was really good fun.

Btw, I don't get all the people saying MW:2 was good / close to TT. I remember putting two (or more) rotary Autocannons on any heavy / assault mech, topping up with ammo and killing any mech in a few seconds... Balanced? Not really.

[Schwarzer Adler]

Dar1ng One, on 09 August 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

I disagree with this. Hardpoint restrictions are a great idea. It stops people putting 20 medium pulse lasers on a Atlas.

(Even thou several players have modified their hunchback's this way.)

And Hardpoint restrictions are the best (at least a very easy) way to distinguish "old fashioned" Battlemechs from "modern" Omni-Mechs.

But that is just my guess.

Edited by Schwarzer Adler, 10 August 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Gorheru, on 09 August 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Btw, I don't get all the people saying MW:2 was good / close to TT. I remember putting two (or more) rotary Autocannons on any heavy / assault mech, topping up with ammo and killing any mech in a few seconds... Balanced? Not really.

MW2 never had RAC's.

[Gorheru]

Stormwolf, on 10 August 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

MW2 never had RAC's.

Hmm... Must have misremembered. Then, apparently they weren't RACs but ordinary (or Ultra) ACs. Still, they were absolutely OP and ruined any balance as they fired extremely fast.

[Protoculture]

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

One thing I've noticed a lot on this forum is the Tabletop Players getting really bent out of shape about changes to the TT rules. While I will not discuss these changes here due to NDA and all that, What I don't understand is why It is such a big deal, since they change these rules to improve the gameplay. I've played a great deal of TT games for years, including Warhammer 40k. When Dawn of war 1 and to a greater extend Dawn of war 2 came out, the weapons and units were nothing like they were in the Tabletop game. The heaviest tanks could eventually be brought down by Machine gun fire, and abstraction necessary to ensure enjoyable gameplay.
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?

Because Battletech is the space equivalent of D&D with all the **** nerd-dom that entails. Also, it means that they won't have the edge over newbs they think they deserve from years of exposure and and in depth knowledge of the TT game.

[SakuranoSenshi]

It's a dead horse, agreed. Anyway, mostly it's probably because they have absolutely no idea in what way the rules are 'balanced' and why many aspects will not translate into a tactical FPS format in realtime.

P.S. They're not really balanced, as some sort of absolute, you're simply used to the current set of trade offs for various weapons and mechs.

[Victor Steel]

Because the table top game is perfect. To change it, would mean deviating from perfection!

Seriously though, if there were no changes to the table top rules, only the most elite and lucky of the elite would ever get to have fun for any duration of time. After one or two fights, your 'mech would be damaged beyond repair and you would be a dispossessed pilot begging for handouts on the streets of Solaris. It costs HOW MUCH to replace my engine? Umm... Will you take a check?

I have not made it into beta yet, but I can think of some rules that would need to change to translate over into a video game. Many of which were done in previous incarnations. Head armor for example would probably need to be thickened up. Think of the Battlemaster with his huge chrome dome begging for a gauss rifle slug. On the table-top head shots are lucky hits, but in video games, there are rail-gun gods who can pinpoint shots pretty easily.

There will be deviations from the rules. The deviations that are made are because someone thinks it makes a better, more fun game.

- Eck

[Congzilla]

Protoculture, on 10 August 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Because Battletech is the space equivalent of D&D with all the **** nerd-dom that entails. Also, it means that they won't have the edge over newbs they think they deserve from years of exposure and and in depth knowledge of the TT game.

I can't wait till school starts back up.

[Zwag78]

justin xiang, on 09 August 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

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.

I thought I was the only one who's played ARMA/Operation Flashpoint. Now THAT's the type of sim all other should aspire to.

[Maarek Stele]

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

One thing I've noticed a lot on this forum is the Tabletop Players getting really bent out of shape about changes to the TT rules. While I will not discuss these changes here due to NDA and all that, What I don't understand is why It is such a big deal, since they change these rules to improve the gameplay. I've played a great deal of TT games for years, including Warhammer 40k. When Dawn of war 1 and to a greater extend Dawn of war 2 came out, the weapons and units were nothing like they were in the Tabletop game. The heaviest tanks could eventually be brought down by Machine gun fire, and abstraction necessary to ensure enjoyable gameplay.
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?

First let me state that I was a TT player, no longer, no time. I loved the TT game and the rules were well balanced for the TT game. You bring that strict rule set to a simulator, now things change. Changes must be made to maintain real balance. If they stuck strait to the TT rules then the game would suck.. Some of us understand that.. So don't drop us all into that bucket.

[SakuranoSenshi]

The kinds of deviations you're talking about are not happening; I can say that without breaking NDA, Victor.

In fact, depsite this endlessly popping up, PGI have stated all along that they intend to implement the tabletop rules unless they need to be altered for gameplay or balance reasons. So, things like the hit locations on mechs, the ranges for weapons and so on are being translated to the game with little if any real change. I can't discuss the details (nor can anyone else in the beta, obviously) but so far the only changes I have witnessed are apparent in the videos you have seen and have to do with the fact that it's a real time game, not a turn based one, so rates of fire had to be translated, for example.

[Sychodemus]

The assumption that TT fans are somehow ignorant of previous MW titles is a mistake. Much of the resistance to change is not due to knee-jerk reaction but rather it is based off of years of experience playing preceding MW games - and all of the flaws and missteps that they entailed. In short, most of the negativity is due to basic misconceptions. (Though I would be remiss not to say that some on both sides of the debate are overly argumentative or just plain nasty by nature.)

Over the past twenty years, most the TT fans that I spoken to are fairly laid back when it comes to the translation of TT into a video game. We generally accept that some changes are necessary and even beneficial. What we don't want is for changes to be made arbitrarily without proper consideration as to why a rule was there in the first place or in regards to the potential side-effects of such changes. Further, there are many rules were not simply a concession to the limitations of the TT format but rather because they helped define the setting or specifically added flavor.

It is understandable that many want MWO to be as realistic and as 'modernized' as possible and that is fine. However, there is the temptation to 'fix' Battletech and past experience has shown that doing so usually takes away more than it adds. It is a fine line that is easily crossed and it is that point that so many TT fans are so adamantly against.

[Jack Lowe]

Why is somewhat complex, if you've ever read the rule books meaning not just the BT rule book but the original MW rulebook you would understand that many of those rules are interwoven into the overall story line for one. Second it's what may hard core fans are used to, which may seem lame but is very powerful stuff as that is the core base for the game. Third is in fact the most important and germain. That reason is that the original rule designers were very imaginative they would have LOVED to have computers like these to build their world with. I would argue they were so fanatically **** they wished these machines could be built in the present day. They worked very hard to try and create a system for a turn based table top game that in some way took into account all of the factors they could imagine affecting these robots in a real time fight. They wanted things to balance and counter balance in such a way as to simulate the ficticious realism as much as humanly possible on a game board with dice and counters. Of course humans created the system and nothing made by man is perfect, but they did a **** fine job. I and I've seen many others agree that we don't mind a change to the hard fast rules as this is ineveitable. We will have something to say if the spirit or overall intention of those rules doesn't get properly translated. Whether that is a precieved exploit, very noticable imbalance in game mechanics, or taking away from the overall feel of the challanging, scavangeristic wore torn struggle that is the inner sphere. Where skill, team work, quick thinking on a strategic and tactical level are requirements to survive. The world created was designed so that as long as a person was into running around in big machinces of death a person could find a place to fit find a sense of satisfaction and continual challenge to keep them coming back. Didn't matter if he was a loner working by his reflexes and quick thinking or found fun in being in charge of whole companies, battalions, or even regiments. With the attendent headaches of people and paperowork. Whatever suited a persons personality was possible. We tend to guard those ideas, some are rather nasty about it, for the protection of the game and ultimatly protecting the overall enjoyment of all players old and new.

In short we believe if we can bring the spirit of it to life, a mulititude of players who never had the patience or imagination to sit at a table and roll dice for hours will be drawn in to this and come to love it. Also we believe if it ain't broke no need to get a big hammer and beat on it hoping to fix it.

[Zwag78]

Alex Wolfe, on 09 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

And so do the game makers for the most part. SRMs, PPC, autocannons behave like they're supposed to. Not all shots hit, depending on the target and pilot's skill and movement even without rolling dice. Atlas is heavier, sturdier and slower than a Commando.

In every game, both MechWarrior and MechCommander, I can take a look at the options, take a guess how they'll perform and it'll be pretty close, even without the hex grid. Just like adaptations should be, be it books, movies or different games.

I disagree. The PPC is not portrayed anywhere close to a blue bolt of lightning.

[Isingdeath]

This is a dead horse. The devs already stated that they will keep to the TT rules as much as possible and only deviate if they have too. Very few TT people disagree with this. The only point of contention is if a TT rule can be implemented very easily and someone chooses to go a different route. For example most hardline TT'ers are not clamoring for turn based combat. Ever wonder why as that is an essential element of TT? Because it does not fit into what the game is trying to achieve and the TT crowd is fine with that. However, you turn a ER Laser into something that shoots ballistic projectiles...then of course we will complain as it is a change that just does not need to be made.

Edited by Isingdeath, 10 August 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[ice trey]

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

What I don't understand is why It is such a big deal... I've played a great deal of TT games for years, including Warhammer 40k.

You'd understand if you were a Battletech Tabletop player. You haven't outright said you're not, but I can come to the assumption since Battletech Tabletop is suspiciously absent from your list of played tabletop games. Of course you won't understand when you're not coming from the same background.

For the record, I got into tabletop because I thought MW4's weapons and customization system were terrible and the story was lacking, and the rumored Mechwarrior 5 project got canned very quickly. I'm not one of the old guard - I got into the game because of the Mechwarrior games, and moreover, how they'd been mistreated by Microsoft.

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

since they change these rules to improve the gameplay.

Battletech players tend to think it takes away from gameplay, since Battletech tabletop has always been a competitive multiplayer game that was designed to be balanced, and unlike many other minis games which get written and rewritten, BT has remained nearly a carbon copy of the original made in 1984. The rules are just that robust, and that well made, that it doesn't NEED major revisions. The biggest revision we've seen in tabletop was Total Warfare, but those were mostly just fixes on terrain rules, a shuffling of what is and isn't tournament legal or expanded rules, and tweaking non-mech units (which people seem to rarely use) to be more durable in a fight.

Myself, I agree that I want the game to stay as true to the tabletop (and by extension, the Canon) as possible. We are in Beta, so there will be tweaks as necessary. There are still some concepts I've seen (let's say... in the Youtube video leaks... Yeah... That's it) that I disagree with, but we're still in beta stage. Most of all, as a battletech player and long time mechwarrior fan, this game does two things:

• Bring the core concepts and mechanics of the Tabletop game into a computer game format so that drawing the interest of new players to Tabletop is easier to do.
  
• Maintains balanced gameplay, so no build is so much better than another that it would be suicide to take anything but. (Not having this renders the game like Mechwarrior 4 multiplayer that I hate so much - Find big chassis with jumpjets and poptart from behind a hill = autowin = taking anything but one of five assault 'mech chassis with clan ERLLas+cGR amounts to suicide)

Edited by ice trey, 10 August 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Blam417]

I understand that TT is balanced etc. but its a table top game that is turn-based. MWO is a real time. They are different genres that will have different demands from a balancing and playability standpoint. The developers started with TT values because they are balanced for TT, but that was just a starting point. You can't expect the game to translate directly. People need to understand that they are different games in different genres.