265 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

Lore IS the heart of the BT universe. I saw Lore is Law pure and simple. Any events that happened in the time line MUST NOT BE CHANGED PERIOD. Any events that can be placed in that do not effect lore such as the fights we will engage in in game, then sure, put that in, so long as LORE DOES NOT CHANGE. We change 1 thing in terms of Lore, then we split from the BT Universe time line ala JJ Abrams and Star Trek and make an entirely new universe were the Lore is POINTLESS. Change 1 event and the Wolves take Terra or the Falcons or the Ghost Bears. Change 1 event and the clans fail to manifest and Father Kerensky is just a spec of dust on the page of history. Lore must be followed as Law lest we fall into chaos.

[cinco]

lore is law. but the timeline needs to be streamlined so boring crap is skipped and we get to see madcats in your lifetime.

[LordDeathStrike]

its a reboot. the dev team should make a fun balanced game, and the player base should determine the outcome of the wars.

[Ramien]

I would say that the lore should be adhered to when possible and plausible, but I would also like to see players' actions matter, unlike most MMOs. If, for example, House Liao doesn't fare well over the next decade, they may not take as much advantage of the eventual split of the Federated Commonwealth if the game survives that long.

On the subject of how closely the lore should be followed, a lot of tech upgrades/new mech designs are listed as having originated in one stellar nation or another. Should Mechwarriors associated with those nations gain access to those new weapons or mech designs before the less fortunate warriors in other nations?

[TeaL3af]

Rejarial Galatan, on 15 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Lore IS the heart of the BT universe.

But giant mech fighting is the heart of MechWarrior.

Anyway, the lore should only loosely be adhered to. I don't care if Faction X should win the war with Faction Y, if X players beat the **** out of Y players then faction X should lose. If it worked any other way the game would be incredibly frustrating. "Nope, you can't take this planet. Because in some pulp sci-fi novel you never even read it says you can't."

The devs should only "force" major events such as the clan invasion, everything else should be caused by players.

[Volthorne]

TeaL3af, on 15 April 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

But giant mech fighting is the heart of MechWarrior.

Anyway, the lore should only loosely be adhered to. I don't care if Faction X should win the war with Faction Y, if X players beat the **** out of Y players then faction X should lose. If it worked any other way the game would be incredibly frustrating. "Nope, you can't take this planet. Because in some pulp sci-fi novel you never even read it says you can't."

The devs should only "force" major events such as the clan invasion, everything else should be caused by players.

If lore is that heart of the BTU, then the BTU is the heart of the MWU. See how that works? MW is directly based off of BT, meaning you **** with something in BT you **** with it in MW.

Player-driven storyline is sometimes good, but not always. If one of the great Houses were to get trashed in a conflict it SHOULD have won, then everyone in that House (and by indirect connection, everyone playing MW:O) will get screwed out of tech that their House WOULD have developed, had they not lost, and then the whole timeline gets buggered up (tech was never developed, wars were never fought, other wars that never happened ARE fought, etc.). You can't simply go and **** around with the timeline, it needs to be subtly altered with surgical precsion.

Edited by Volthorne, 15 April 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[Nawiedzony]

i try make this simple:
We have BT fanatics trying take over this game and in result they can draw away all pll who just want drive mechs and fight. I belive its big group of ppl here like me, loving to drive mechs, fight in them like in MW4 but have deeply in the @ss lore, BT story etc. It can be few general things following BT here, but hell it can`t be 1:1 copy of BT. Question is what will be better, have small group of fanatics or bigger number players counting for fun not for writing books and screaming lore and BT every day. I play in past MW4 Vengance and MW4 Mercenaries, its pleasure to play them even than i not have even clue about BT and i want something similiar, i belive im not only one here ....

Edited by Nawiedzony, 16 April 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[Volthorne]

I was trying to point out the flaws with a player-driven economy/universe. **** goes off the rails really fast. You do know you can play MW:O and not give a damn about the fluff because they player's won't even be allowed near it, right?

[TeaL3af]

Volthorne, on 16 April 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

I was trying to point out the flaws with a player-driven economy/universe. **** goes off the rails really fast. You do know you can play MW:O and not give a damn about the fluff because they player's won't even be allowed near it, right?

What's the point even having an in game universe if you can't alter the timeline a little? Then it's basically just a fancy map selection screen that limits your choices based on who the devs say you are supposed to be fighting. You may as well just cut the whole persistent world idea and make the game a standard multi-player affair.

As for screwing up the tech order, that's fine too. As long as it is impossible to completely destroy a faction you can always say research was moved to a different world and is just delayed as a result of heavy loses, or research could be taken over by the conquering faction. IIRC in the BT universe everyone is very protective of technology so it is unlikely that a conquering force would destroy research or discard schematics, they would take it for themselves.

Edited by TeaL3af, 16 April 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[BerryChunks]

It's odd seeing people who don't care about lore and just want to shoot things in mechs then go on to state that it's not fair to abide by the lore.

I don't care, but I do care.

Thereare a few options we can go with:

1. Let civs and houses rise and fall in response to player driven actions. Change the course of the game and the way in which technology is learned and deployed. Clans might actually win the game in the end. The TT rules and canon of their battle behavior basically prevent them from winning in the original game because they don't "do what it takes to win", instead holding honor and other virtues at the forefront.

2. Let people create and destroy these nations, but then hand-wave or magic wand in the tech and stuff at the required timings. Things such as "while the capellan federation was destroyed, scientists working in a bunker on world X built tech Y, and it was subsequently stolen and mass produced by faction Z", and so on. This is basically an invisible railroad, which is what roleplaying D&Ders tend to do. You can have people that try to ruin the game by saying "i'll sit in a hole for 10 days", so you can come up with solutions to keep the story moving that also don't break from the original story.

3. An even harsher version of 2, where-in "npc companies" drive the world to the proper end, no matter player behavior. Say Draconic combine has really shitastic players and a low number of players at that. If they're supposed to win in the end then "X company achieves this and that victory for DC, the empire is safe!". Basically, no matter how good or bad people do, the writing staff can fix it so the appropriate stuff happens.

Lore as law is number 3. Total chaos is number 1.

Any other ideas, anyone?

TeaL3af, on 16 April 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

What's the point even having an in game universe if you can't alter the timeline a little? Then it's basically just a fancy map selection screen that limits your choices based on who the devs say you are supposed to be fighting. You may as well just cut the whole persistent world idea and make the game a standard multi-player affair.

As for screwing up the tech order, that's fine too. As long as it is impossible to completely destroy a faction you can always say research was moved to a different world and is just delayed as a result of heavy loses, or research could be taken over by the conquering faction. IIRC in the BT universe everyone is very protective of technology so it is unlikely that a conquering force would destroy research or discard schematics, they would take it for themselves.

If its a reboot and we do want the total sum to differ from TT at the end, it could work out if players accept that they will get permanently screwed in some ways based on the actions of other players. After all, this isn't WoW, where it doesn't matter what faction does what, nothing changes.

Edited by BerryChunks, 16 April 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[TeaL3af]

It's not that odd. I don't care about the lore, unless it negatively effect my game. Same way I don't care about religion but I get pissed off when people try to get intelligent design taught in schools.

[Stormwolf]

I hope that people realize that there are tons of minor skirmishes that don't influence the lore in the least.
Only major events like the battles at Twycross, Wolcott or Luthien need to play out exactly like they did

[RedDragon]

TeaL3af, on 16 April 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

It's not that odd. I don't care about the lore, unless it negatively effect my game. Same way I don't care about religion but I get pissed off when people try to get intelligent design taught in schools.

I'm with BerryChunks here: Yes, it is odd. If you just want to play the game, wait until it's released and play the game. Why should it negatively effect your gaming experience if we want to have a game close to the BT universe? No one's forcing you to do anything with the lore, so what's the problem?

[TeaL3af]

RedDragon, on 16 April 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I'm with BerryChunks here: Yes, it is odd. If you just want to play the game, wait until it's released and play the game. Why should it negatively effect your gaming experience if we want to have a game close to the BT universe? No one's forcing you to do anything with the lore, so what's the problem?

Because sticking to the lore kills a chance to have an actual player shaped universe.Which would be something unique and interesting to play around with. I do "just want to play the game", but I think the game would be more fun if lore didn't get in the way.

I'll probably still like the game either way, but I'd like it more if I could do what I wanted rather than being railroaded.

[Strum Wealh]

TeaL3af, on 16 April 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

It's not that odd. I don't care about the lore, unless it negatively effect my game. Same way I don't care about religion but I get pissed off when people try to get intelligent design taught in schools.

Though, if the last part of the last sentence above is true, the first part of that same sentence is technically false - while one could be generally indifferent over post aspects of a thing, being concerned over the impact over other aspects of the same thing, then one really does care and cannot justifiably claim complete indifference.

As Berry pointed out, it is odd, to say the least, to see people (not just the quoted poster) declaring that they are completely indifferent to the happenings - and, often, the very existence - of the backstory/"Lore", and in the same post (the functional equivalent of "in the same breath") railing about how "the players" (which, I suspect, primarily refers to themselves) should be able to change the course of major "historical" events, topple the Houses, defeat the Clans single-handedly (or nearly so) or conquer the Inner Sphere and have "Clan 1337 $p@rk13 P0|\|y" become the ilClan (or both?!), and so on.

As it happens, the Devs seem to have accounted for this in the form of the "Lone Wolf" option (as described in Dev Blog 01 and Q&A 02).

Quote

Lone Wolf Players

As a lone wolf, the player can earn loyalty points through participation in random matches, however these LPs have no positive or negative implications. A lone wolf player does not have any ranks.

Quote

Will faction affiliated players be able to play with lone wolves in the "random matches" at will? –That Guy
[PAUL] Yes. The faction players will have their ranks filled with lone wolves in the event that not enough players can be found for a given match.

How will it still be desireable for someone, to play as a Lone Wolf when there is no special content to be earned that way, or is there going to be other stuff which only a Lone Wolf can acquire? –Sesambrot
[BRYAN] While Lone Wolves do not participate in the faction aspect of MWO’s community warfare, they will play an integral role in lending their services to faction and merc units. Post launch, we plan to give lone wolf players a broader set of roles in the universe.

Just want to run around in bipedal tanks and shoot people, regardless of their Faction or Merc Corp status or alignment (or lack thereof)? That's what "Lone Wolf" status is for, evidently.

On top of that:

Quote

Mercenary Corp Players

As a Mercenary Corporation, all members’ earned loyalty points go to the Merc Corp. The Merc Corp must have a minimum amount of loyalty points with a faction before they are able to engage in planetary combat on behalf of that faction. Loyalty points also determine the type and level of contract a Merc Corp is permitted to bid on. These loyalty point restrictions mean that a Merc Corp’s membership, must remain active in order to maintain the required level of LPs.

Ranks are created within a Merc Corp by the Merc Corp leader. The naming of the ranks is entirely up to the Merc Corp leader who can assign Merc Corp level permissions to each rank.

If one wants to have an EVE-style corporation (or something seemingly close) and not be necessarily beholden to any given House (as would be the case with Faction players), there is the option of starting or joining a Merc Corp.

Moreover, I seem to recall there being mention of a "melee planet" or a planet where melee combat might be an option, once upon a time - a likely(?) reference to Solaris VII and its "Solaris Games" (basically, gladiatorial games with BattleMechs; melee could be a preferred form of combat, but ranged weapons were also used)?
Such a thing probably wouldn't be implemented at launch, but Solaris and similar planets would likely be popular enough as a result of its "free-for-all gladiatorial death-match" aspect, even without melee, that the Devs would, hopefully, choose to implement it eventually.
If/when such a thing is implemented, one might even be able to do things like be a "Lone Wolf Gladiator" or set up a Merc Corp as a "familia gladiatoria"...?
And if/when such an option is available... if they still want to dip into the wars between the Houses only every once in a while, that's their prerogative, right?

As for those who care enough to be Faction players and/or role-players, many of whom seem to have been involved with the franchise in all of its media formats (TT game, novels, and video games) for one or more decades in large part because of the backstory/"lore", that's there.
Surely, one would expect that showing up, declaring said backstory/"lore" unimportant and irrelevant, and then asking/demanding that it be partially or wholly discarded (especially when just reading either or both of Dev Blog 00 and Dev Blog 01 would rather clearly show that doing so is about the farthest one could get from even the Devs' own apparent intent) would, to say the least, not be well-received, yes?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 16 April 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Gotta agree with Strum Wealh here.

[TeaL3af]

Strum Wealh, on 16 April 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Though, if the last part of the last sentence above is true, the first part of that same sentence is technically false - while one could be generally indifferent over post aspects of a thing, being concerned over the impact over other aspects of the same thing, then one really does care and cannot justifiably claim complete indifference.


As Berry pointed out, it is odd, to say the least, to see people (not just the quoted poster) declaring that they are completely indifferent to the happenings - and, often, the very existence - of the backstory/"Lore", and in the same post (the functional equivalent of "in the same breath") railing about how "the players" (which, I suspect, primarily refers to themselves) should be able to change the course of major "historical" events, topple the Houses, defeat the Clans single-handedly (or nearly so) or conquer the Inner Sphere and have "Clan 1337 $p@rk13 P0||y" become the ilClan (or both?!), and so on.

I'm going to rephrase my position so no further confusion is caused: I do not believe that BattleTech lore should trump player actions with the exception of very major events such as the Clan Invasion. I care about the players being allowed freedom to do as they please in the game and that their actions should have consequences for the in game universe.

Lore adherence and player interaction with the meta-game. Those are two separate things and just because you want one does not mean you want the other, but we can't fully have both anyway. Only one or the other or some compromise between the two, because they conflict.

Quote

As it happens, the Devs seem to have accounted for this in the form of the "Lone Wolf" option (as described in Dev Blog 01 and Q&A 02).


Just want to run around in bipedal tanks and shoot people, regardless of their Faction or Merc Corp status or alignment (or lack thereof)? That's what "Lone Wolf" status is for, evidently.

Not caring about the lore does not mean a player wants to just run around and shoot people, they might (like me) want to get involved in the meta game. I would argue that strict adherence to the lore actually strangles the meta game and makes it more of a "schedule". That's why I'd prefer it to stay in the background as flavour rather than shaping events directly.

Quote

As for those who care enough to be Faction players and/or role-players, many of whom seem to have been involved with the franchise in all of its media formats (TT game, novels, and video games) for one or more decades in large part because of the backstory/"lore", that's there.
Surely, one would expect that showing up, declaring said backstory/"lore" unimportant and irrelevant, and then asking/demanding that it be partially or wholly discarded (especially when just reading either or both of Dev Blog 00 and Dev Blog 01 would rather clearly show that doing so is about the farthest one could get from even the Devs' own apparent intent) would, to say the least, not be well-received, yes?

I can understand how new comers like myself must look to the older BT fans. I can only speak for myself on this but I do actually want the lore preserved as much as possible. Just not to the extent where "medium importance" events undo or block player actions.

Looking at the first few years of the games timeline:

Quote

• 3049: Clans invade the Periphery, contact established with the Clans, Operation Revival takes place.
  
• 3050: Clans invade Inner Sphere, Clan Invasion of Draconis Combine begins, Anastasius Focht appointed ambassador to the Clans, Battle of Wolcott occurs, Leo Showers killed.
  
• 3051: Ulric Kerensky elected ilKhan, Garth Radick and Natasha Kerensky elected Khan and saKhan of Clan Wolf, Operation Revival resumes, Clan Nova Cat, Clan Steel Viper and Clan Diamond Shark added to invasion force.
  
• 3052: Battle of Luthien, Battle of Tukayyid, Wolf Khan Garth Radick killed on Tukayyid, Natasha Kerensky elected Khan of Clan Wolf, Phelan Ward elected saKhan of Clan Wolf, both Clan Ghost Bear Khans killed on Tukayyid, Clan Smoke Jaguar Khan Lincoln Osis believed killed on Tukayyid but is later rescued, Demona Aziz rebels and forms the Word of Blake. New service contracts signed with each House but Marik, Free Worlds League signs HPG service contract with Word of Blake, Hanse Davion dies, Myndo Waterly assassinated, Operation Scorpion takes place, Romano Liaoassassinated, Sharilar Mori named Primus of ComStar, Sun-Tzu Liao betrothed to Isis Marik, Sun-Tzu Liao named Chancellor, Thomas Marik named Primus-in-Exile of Word of Blake, Word of Blake signs contract with House Marik

Considering the game starts in late 3048, we only really have the clan invasion as a Major event that would effect the meta-game. Then the addition of extra clans in 3051. But it get's a little complicated in 3052.

How I think the canon should be handled in 3048 to 3051: Most world's are open for combat, only faction capitols plus a few others are immune (you shouldn't be allowed to eliminate entire factions). When the clan invasion comes a few border worlds are converted to those clans' (immune) capitols and then the players are left to fight it out to determine how successful the clan invasion is. All fairly simple, the problem is the Battle of Tukayyid in 3052.

This event is triggered by the Clans getting too close to earth from what I can gather from Sarna, so I believe it would be logical to not have this event occur on a specific date, but instead trigger it whenever (if) the clan invasion moves past a certain point. Despite moving the date of the event I believe it is important that ComStar definitely wins.

Most of the other stuff is just background fluff and doesn't result in massive swaths of territory changing hands. It can be represented by news bulletins and that sort of thing. Smaller events like battlemechs being produced may be delayed or sped up, but not prevented. The forming of the Word of Blake is pretty important but at this stage wouldn't alter the meta-game.

Hopefully this gives a better idea of how I think lore and freedom should be balanced.

[Dihm]

That's still not "freedom" though. It's just "more free". In fact, it sounds a lot (ignoring the Clans for now) like what the Devs have already said will be in place. Border worlds changing hands frequently along the borders of the factions, faction worlds behind which get invaded and captured, then the line shifts, but there are still "Core" worlds which can never be taken. We have no idea their plans for the Clans, but what you propose sounds entirely plausible.

It sounds like the only difference in your proposal is the degree to which worlds are capital. You'd like to see very few worlds labeled as "core". Even with only a handful uncapturable, you'll still get players angry because they are still getting "railroaded" by the "lore". You're still setting up a framework which limits players, it is just different limits than what the "Lore is law" crowd favor.

Edited by Dihm, 16 April 2012 - 07:37 AM.

[TeaL3af]

Dihm, on 16 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

That's still not "freedom" though. It's just "more free". In fact, it sounds a lot (ignoring the Clans for now) like what the Devs have already said will be in place. Border worlds changing hands frequently along the borders of the factions, faction worlds behind which get invaded and captured, then the line shifts, but there are still "Core" worlds which can never be taken. We have no idea their plans for the Clans, but what you propose sounds entirely plausible.

It does. I assumed "lore is law" wanted a stricter system.

Quote

It sounds like the only difference in your proposal is the degree to which worlds are capital. You'd like to see very few worlds labeled as "core". Even with only a handful uncapturable, you'll still get players angry because they are still getting "railroaded" by the "lore". You're still setting up a framework which limits players, it is just different limits than what the "Lore is law" crowd favor.

It is limits for a different purpose though, I only want the capitols off-limits because I think being able to destroy factions would break the game. You'd probably end up with one huge uber faction, and then what happens?

[Paladin1]

Although I'm firmly in the "Lore is Law" camp, the only reason that I'm in that camp is due to the fact that if you're not following the canon, then you're not following Battletech. Take, for example, the idea of taking minor worlds instead of major worlds. While that sounds like a good idea, in that it would allow the players to influence the game directly, what happens when a player group takes a minor world that just so happens to produce a part needed for a certain type of `Mech?

For example, taking your idea of only capital worlds being unconquerable, what if a player group takes Hesperus II in the Lyran Commonwealth? Under your idea, it should be able to happen, but by doing so you've just reduced the LCAF's available `Mech designs by something like 40%. Do you really want to explain to other players why it's fair that they can't get an AS7-D Atlas as a Lyran because you were allowed to conquer their biggest manufacturing facility? A feat, I might add, that even all five regiments of Wolf's Dragoons couldn't manage, even with all their support assets, yet you expect me to believe that your single company of 12 `Mechs can do it?

The scale and the sheer interconnectedness of the Battletech Universe is what makes me so solidly against letting players have much in the way of a hand in changing canon events. Your 12 `Mechs are NOT going to change much, if anything, no matter how good you are in the cockpit. The BTU is just too large for your unit to have an impact upon.