265 replies to this topic

[Lucifer Black]

Ok people, before I begin what is likely to be a very unpopular rant, let me establish a couple of things. I love Battletech and Mechwarrior. I love the universe, I love the history and I love the lore. I was a TT player back in the day and I've been an obsessed fan of Mechwarrior since MW2.
That said, I've been following these forums since pretty much the beginning and I've come believe that there's a great big elephant in the room. That being, the fact that a LOT of people here think that MWO will/should be some sort of Battletech Universe Historical Reenactment Society. I'm constantly seeing people getting flamed for making suggestions or expressing ideas that offend someone's devotion to canon (sidenote to insufferable lorehounds: the word is spelled "canon", a cannon is something I'd like to fire you out of).
Of course, with an IP as venerable and cultish as BT/MW you are always going to have rabid fanbois and I accept that. After all, the demands of the uberfans are at least part of the reason we're getting MWO at all.
My main problem with the fundamentalist lore disciples is that, if they get get their way, we're going to end up with a game that will be about as much fun as malaria and less interesting.
As irritated as I am with this issue, I'm not looking just to slag off people I disagree with. I'm just honestly at a loss when it comes to understanding why anyone would want to play a combat based game with a campaign where all events are preordained and the players have no effect on the outcome, regardless of their skill, numbers or allegiance. If any of you can enlighten me as to why strict adherence to BT canon would in any way improve the MWO experience beyond satisfying your lore fetish, I'd sincerely like to hear your thoughts.
My personal preference would be for a MWO where the timeline loosely connects to the established canon in terms of major events and battles but where the outcomes are determined by the players, resulting in what I think would be some pretty interesting 'what if?' scenarios.
What do you think?

[pursang]

If I can't take over the Inner Sphere in the name of the Great Panda Republic™ I'll be sorely dissapointed.

[Hayden]

pursang, on 01 April 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

If I can't take over the Inner Sphere in the name of the Great Panda Republic™ I'll be sorely dissapointed.

I won't be.

[Woodstock]

Too much hangs on the lore for us to mess with it. Mech releases, tech, political manoeuvring.

Also I don't want corps growing to the point where they eclipse the great houses. Ala BOB in EvE.

Finally I don't want the devs to have to crowbar changes in to drag the timeline back on track... or do world resets.

So I am more than happy for the world to stay on target. Lore should be the law.

For us to play out our game in the grey areas between and around the bright and shiny major events.

[Lucifer Black]

pursang, on 01 April 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

If I can't take over the Inner Sphere in the name of the Great Panda Republic™ I'll be sorely dissapointed.

Just to clear, I'm not talking about introducing new factions, weapons, mechs, etc, I'm only concerned with timeline and events. However, I find myself fascinated by your Great Panda Republic and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Lucifer Black]

woodstock, on 01 April 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

Too much hangs on the lore for us to mess with it. Mech releases, tech, political manoeuvring.

Also I don't want corps growing to the point where they eclipse the great houses. Ala BOB in EvE.

Finally I don't want the devs to have to crowbar changes in to drag the timeline back on track... or do world resets.

So I am more than happy for the world to stay on target. Lore should be the law.

For us to play out our game in the grey areas between and around the bright and shiny major events.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anytime anyone suggests something that can't be found in a sourcebook, the stock response is 'cannot do, not canon'. We've heard this a billion times already. What I'm asking is for someone to give me a good reason why things can't pan out differently other than 'it's not in the Bible'.

[Stormwolf]

I don't want to be a stick in the mud here, but many things from the lore have to happen for key events later on.

Now, there are plenty of minor skirmishes that could have gone either way, but they won't influence the war in te slightest. For instance, the Clans will conquer more and more worlds as the invasion goes by, their could be plenty of "raid" type missions where merc/house units attack a conquered world to try and salvage some Clan tech. But winning such a mission wouldn't necessarily mean that you retook a conquered Clan world.

[Woodstock]

If it has ZERO impact on the timeline in any way ... so planet ownership ... tech ... political affiliations, destruction of industrial sites ... etc then sure change it.

but that is so minor as to fall into my original comment about playing out events in the grey areas.

[Suskis]

to me, Lore means NOTHNIG simply because I played a board game. All I needed was 3025 technical readout and base rules. When the Clan arrived, there was a lot of new stuff to play on, so I gave it a try and liked it (even if that meant the death of good old mechs that I loved so much. nobody wants to play with Level 1 tech as soon as Level 2 appears).
But whatever happened lorewise, I don't even know it. Novels, cartoons, magazines, everything not related to board gameplay never interested me at all.
Also, I think that the best MW MMORPG game should give the players the wole galaxy to play in, freely. If we want Hespherus II we go there and try to take it, even if lore says it didn't happen. I'd love to see a map of the galaxy changing day after day, following the battle fought by players and players alone.
I know I am the minority here, but hell NO, lore means nothing to me.

[Naughtyboy]

I think the Lore has a very very BIG part of what Battletech is, without it it would not have a soul so sticking to the Lore as much is possible i s my vote.

[Barbaric Soul]

Suskis, on 01 April 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

to me, Lore means NOTHNIG simply because I played a board game. All I needed was 3025 technical readout and base rules. When the Clan arrived, there was a lot of new stuff to play on, so I gave it a try and liked it (even if that meant the death of good old mechs that I loved so much. nobody wants to play with Level 1 tech as soon as Level 2 appears).
But whatever happened lorewise, I don't even know it. Novels, cartoons, magazines, everything not related to board gameplay never interested me at all.
Also, I think that the best MW MMORPG game should give the players the wole galaxy to play in, freely. If we want Hespherus II we go there and try to take it, even if lore says it didn't happen. I'd love to see a map of the galaxy changing day after day, following the battle fought by players and players alone.
I know I am the minority here, but hell NO, lore means nothing to me.

+1

[El Loco]

This one is tricky... First of all, many of the things happening in the 3050's are the results of actions from the past. The Clan Invasion will happen (they would have attacked 50 years earlier, but sent the Dragoons instead for intel). The Shism will happen (the WoB factions already exists within ComStar). Later on Liao will attack the FedCom and a while after that the St Ives Compact (all because of the 4th Succession War). Lore dictates events already. And players can't change that because we have no say whatsoever in the politics of the IS. So your 3rd option isn't an option after all.

As for the remaining two options... define "loosely". Using the timeline's main events as a frame and have the players build on them sounds interesting. But to what extend? Would it mean that the Clan Invasion is 1 event, or is every wave one event, or are major battles the events? Where can players influence these events - play an active part in the event, slow down progression between two events, or no influence at all?

And let's not forget: Someone would have to be responsible for re-writing the timeline with ALL its repercussions. If factories change their owners too often, new 'Mech designs and technological advance will be delayed. Outright war will leave the IS open for the Clans to take. From this perspective, I'm not sure if messing with the timeline is a good idea.

[Morashtak]

Has every little battle or skirmish been written about or even been mentioned in on off-hand way in any of the source material?

Would think that only the major battles were noticed by the general population after so many centuries of warfare. A cynical, jaded people the IS folks must be.

I tend to think of our battles akin to the archers at Agincourt. Sure they played a decisive role but what were their names? Which one killed which French knight? Was it the English or the Welsh that slew more of their foes?

In BTU 3639 will anyone remember our names?

Edited by Morashtak, 01 April 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Iogsotot]

[color=#222222]I agree with the overall sentiment of LB. While the source material of BT is varied and copious and forms the baseline for the game as a whole, playing in a universe that is fixed in place because of canon seems rather bland and, pardon the pun, scripted... If this is how it has to be, then why not just pick up a BT novel and read it? The primary distinction of computer games from other forms of entertainment is to BE the plot hero/heroine. If the intimate details of the original BT universe are the issue, and there can't be any agreement to revitalize and invigorate the game, I propose the nuclear option: a subtle reboot of the universe like what JJ Abrams did with the Star Trek franchise to shut the canon cult up.[/color]

[Lucifer Black]

@Stormwolf, you're not being a stick in the mud but I think I perhaps haven't made myself clear. My position is why do certain events have to happen at all? Isn't anyone interested to see how things might have been? What if the Clan Invasion happened earlier/later? What if the bidding had gone differently, resulting in a different force composition? What if the the invasion had been more/less successful? What if certain tech/mechs had been discovered/developed earlier/later/not at all?
I just find these sort of questions interesting and I think MWO would be the perfect vehicle to explore them.
For me, playing an MWO with a strict lore-dependent timeline would be rather like reading the final chapter of a long book before beginning it. It might still be interesting but the sense of immersion and discovery is gone.
On a practical note, why would the devs hamstring themselves by marrying themselves to the lore? Every announcement is preempted by the lore, the result of every major battle is known in advance and who in their right mind is going to join a faction preordained to be annihilated? This goes beyond my personal preference , I think this is an issue that will seriously affect the long term viability of the game.

[Kensaisama]

The timeline should march on, everything that happens lore wise should happen, its the inbetween where we will operate. And after we catch up with the end of the lore thats been written? Well its pretty much a free for all at that point

Kensai the wandering warrior

[benwarrior]

so mech releases and other new tech keep to lore yes, but the who's and how's doesn't really matter that much i.e steiner took planetA at set point in lore why cant liao take it in stead, we'll be the one's playing game.
i'm sure there's enough people to come to a happy medium in and around the lore to make the universe in our image as the game progress by making a few little amendments of our own,

because repetition leads to stagnation. and stagnation dooms us all.

i'll fight and beat the clan invasion when it arrives and live to tell about it, not run away while they take my local pub

Edited by benwarrior, 01 April 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[Silent]

Lore doesn't mean anything to me either. I am fine with a timeline for technology and the invasion, but beyond that I don't really care who was where or who was fighting who or gaining this ground or that. I'd rather fight it out myself and have the players develop their own history. I've resigned myself to this never happening, and I am interested in how they are going to represent player agency in this game considering how so far it looks like we're mostly going to be cogs in a vast war with little to no control over what's going on in the major scheme of things. I mean, cool we can gain and lose territory but why should I care if a couple of months down the line the timeline dictates said territory changes hands without anyone being able to contest it?

[Lucifer Black]

@Kensai, you make an interesting point. One wonders why the devs didnt just set the timeline to begin at the end of the established lore in the first place. Probably would have saved a lot of bellyaching.

[Tadakuma]

I suspect that I'm one of the people that this is being aimed at.

I think that there is enough vagueness in the canon that MW:O can exist and have space for the players to have an impact. Part of the genius of FASA was that they realised that the define everything left the players out of the equation. So when I talk about canon I talk about stuff like technology and major events, Since these define the universe I see no reason why the shouldn't be set in stone.

If you think about how much of the clan invasion is set in stone, we know approximately what battles took place and the general outcome. But we don't know what a happened alpha company 2nd battalion of the 3rd Skye Rangers conducted a deep recon raid into Jade Falcon during July and August in 3051 or any number of battles that took place during that year.

The point is that it's not an either or equation. It's not canon or player choice, with careful writing both can exist and the game will be better for it.

Edited by Tadakuma, 01 April 2012 - 09:12 AM.