22 replies to this topic

[Vashts1985]

i see quite a few people that seem to be under the impression that if someone does not recognize the original pre 3050 TT as gosple then they must be MW4 fanbois.


*** people.

along with the TT, there was

a plethora of fiction
a RPG
a TCG
MW1
MW2
MW2 GBL
MW2 M
MW3
MC
MC2
MW:DA

please stop with the tired MW4* strawman.

*i in no way support the use of, or prolonged exposure to MW4.

[Pvt Dancer]

Nice... been here two weeks I see.

Incase you missed it, the Devs have said they are going to try to follow Table Top as close as they can. They have said it is not the Bible, but the guideline.

This means, your closer to the truth to compare something to table top than a MW game. In fact, you probably have to consider that those games made by those companies are those companie's intellectual properties that PGI may not be able to even use if they wanted to.

Just saying...

[Redshift2k5]

Plus MWLL, unofficial but still relevant.

[Striker1980]

Don't forget Mechassault! eugh I feel dirty for even bringing it up :-p

[Stormwolf]

A lot of people dislike MW4 since it horribly screwed up the mechs, I can't blame them. I can't even build a Adder Prime for crying out loud.
The fan content weapons from Mektek aren't really helping either.

Striker1980, on 15 May 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

Don't forget Mechassault! eugh I feel dirty for even bringing it up :-p

LOL

[Wraith01]

i'm not going to worry about it too much, and just try (possibly unsuccessfully) to blow my target to hell in MWO.

Edited by Wraith01, 15 May 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[Sassori]

I wish people would stop comparing it to MWLL. I pray it's not like MWLL where you jump out of your mech and all the sudden you're a clan elemental pilot? WTH?

Previous incarnations of the battletech universe generally were single player games with multiplayer tacked on as an afterthought, not regulated, and not even really given any sort of attempt at balance.

This game isn't going to be like TT either, we've already seen proof of that. 3 times as much ammo, 2 times as much armor, lasers being DoT etc. At this point, just going to take it as it is and hope they don't fubar it.

[Striker1980]

Christopher Dayson, on 15 May 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

I wish people would stop comparing it to MWLL. I pray it's not like MWLL where you jump out of your mech and all the sudden you're a clan elemental pilot? WTH?

Previous incarnations of the battletech universe generally were single player games with multiplayer tacked on as an afterthought, not regulated, and not even really given any sort of attempt at balance.

This game isn't going to be like TT either, we've already seen proof of that. 3 times as much ammo, 2 times as much armor, lasers being DoT etc. At this point, just going to take it as it is and hope they don't fubar it.

Amen

[Owl Cutter]

Your list seems to be missing the "Reign of Thunder" iterations from when that franchise had a seriously annoying identity crisis. I clicked the "like" button on that alone.

There are a lot of other materials, but the turn-based classic wargame is the tap root from which the whole Battletech franchise grows, so it makes sense to me to interpret it as the highest tier of canonicity. If there's one "main" model for guidelines, it seems appropriate that it be BT. I don't know if that's the case, that there is one "highest authority" in Piranha's strategy, but they've made clear that it is not the _only_ heavy source of inspiration. The released info assures me that a healthy variety of materials are being thoughtfully considered.

MW4 shows some interesting design decisions geared toward improving on and solving specific issues with past games. The result is a much looser interpretation of the TT game, which is probably what has a lot of purists so upset they can't think strait enough to see how silly it looks to be getting all dramatic and upset about something we have no particular reason to suspect of being even remotely applicable to MW:O. To me, the actual game of MW4 under all that bad acting doesn't feel distinctly better or worse than MW3 or MW2, just different; I lean heavily toward MW2, but that seems to be more about earlier and stronger imprinting in my psyche and much better music than the game itself actually being "better." Mostly what I notice is different balances between weapon reach, positioning reach, and firepower/durability, and the only real preference I have in those terms is that I get a wide range of viable choices. Those terms are not the most important to me, but I am already wandering far off-topic so I'll just shut up unless specifically asked for those two cents.

[Refizul]

There are some who think you can just take the numbers from the TT and implement them 1:1 into MWO. But they are just a small minority who fight for the "purity" of the Battletech universe.
Just image what will happen when those people get to play the game and they realise the TT numbers had to be tweaked to make the game balanced. There will be losts of rage by a selected few and the rest will just adapt and start discussing how overpowered x or y is. And it will be just another day on the internet.

Trying to stay true to the TT game but changing things when necessary to balance the game is in my opinion the best we can hope for in a Mechwarrior game.

[shameless]

well in some ways I think it will work out. I can imagine they tweaked the damage system some, since supposedly they took out the one hit kill cockpit shots. Not a bad thing, as there's so many weapons that can oneshot a cockpit.

[UnseenFury]

Being old school is cool and stuff but you gotta admit that mw4 is the easiest way to start playing BT related games right now. I was reading BT books for 8 years but started gaming with mw4 less than a year ago.

I installed a windows xp to play mw3 but the game freezes at the end of all cut scenes (intro video and videos between the missions). Massive pain to make it work, tho I made MWLL work which was the same pain to do so. Didn't like it due to low damage of weapons tho.

[Joe Mallad]

Vashts1985, on 15 May 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

i see quite a few people that seem to be under the impression that if someone does not recognize the original pre 3050 TT as gosple then they must be MW4 fanbois.


*** people.

along with the TT, there was

a plethora of fiction
a RPG
a TCG
MW1
MW2
MW2 GBL
MW2 M
MW3
MC
MC2
MW:DA

please stop with the tired MW4* strawman.

*i in no way support the use of, or prolonged exposure to MW4.

Not talking badly about anyone but... To be quite honest, for the most part it is the MW4 fan base that have jumped into this universe with starting at MW4 ad have not played much of anything else let alone even know there is TT that are the ones complaining about the weapon ranges and rules being much more closer to TT than anything else. It's these same small group of Fans that for the most part only know MW from playing MW4. And while I too played MW4, unlike most of them, I know that game was way under balanced and no where near what a true MW simulator should have or could have been. Again... Not talking badly, just trying to stress that like yourself, there is more to this than just MW4 of which most of the complainers that want longer weapon ranges are comparing this game to and really shouldn't.

[ice trey]

Vashts1985, on 15 May 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

please stop with the tired MW4* strawman.

*i in no way support the use of, or prolonged exposure to MW4.

Please keep in mind, though that of all the Mechwarrior franchise, the only game I've missed is MW4 Black Knight - and I don't think I was missing much. I'm also an ardent fan of the tabletop and card game, but do not forget that I cut my teeth on Mechwarrior 2 when I was in the third grade.

There are indeed many key things that mark someone as being a Mechwarrior 4 fanboy. For example:

• Demanding that the Uziel, Argus, Madcat II, Osiris, Thanatos, or any other number of designs made specifically for Mechwarrior 4 be included in this title.
  
• Refering to canon 'mech designs but assuming their loadouts are the ones presented in MW4.
  
• Being Pro MW4 customization format and anti MW3 customization format (At least, without considering the alternatives already presented in tabletop that were applied to limit customization abuse. The way that MWO seems to be doing things is somewhat similar thereto, so I am pleased.)

There are other things that mark you as a recent fan, namely:

• Demanding the inclusion of MFBs and other means to repair mid-battle.
  
• Demanding the inclusion of coolant flushing.
  
• Pro Pop-tarting.

Long story short, while there's a lot of factionalism between the Pro and anti TT communities, there are a few things worth noting here

• The vast majority of TT players also have played the computer games for a long time, so saying they're anti-mechwarrior is yea much hooey.
  
• There are many 'mechs to choose from in the early universe, and any single one of them that get incorporated into MWO will be given a hell of a facelift from FD.
  
• Tabletop players accept that certain aspects of tabletop play cannot be perfectly translated from a turn-based tabletop game to a real-time simulation. However, early battletech equipment is very well balanced and - if improperly tweaked or applied, could upset the game balance. For example, MW3 was broken if you spammed medium lasers, but the problem was the perfect accuracy making all shots hit exactly where you aimed. Likewise, MW4 took the wrong solution to fixing the problem by horribly gimping low-caliber weapons in favor of faster recycle, which only served to make long-ranged heavy weapons the deciding factor for any game. The key factor here is that in order to make the weapons work like they should, the programmers have to at least have a nominal understanding of the Tabletop and it's mechanics before they dive right into the project.
  
• Tabletop players believe that closely following the tabletop rules will lead to better balance - a very important factor for any multiplayer game.
  
• Most of all, MWO will serve as the strongest possible means to market this franchise to the layman, paving the way to potential new tabletop players for the first time since Mechwarrior 4. Mechwarrior 4 failed in this regard due to messing around with the way the game worked to a huge degree; by changing how the game - especially customization - worked, the familiarity between Mechwarrior 4 and the Tabletop game was heavily reduced, making potential players turn their nose up at the unfamiliar tables and rules. Compare that to Mechwarrior 3 or 2, where most if not all the mechanics were the same, and recruiting people to try the game was considerably easier - as they recognized the record sheets and mechanics much more readily.
  
  
  Compare for example:
  Battletech Record Sheet
  

Compare that to Mechwarrior 1's Repair System



Mechwarrior 2 Customization


Mechwarrior 3 Customization


And now, Mechwarrior 4 customization


You can see that while all of the other systems seem to stay true to the original to some degree, Mechwarrior 4 went off on a distant tangent, eventually becoming Mechassault for X-box. Supposedly a fun game, but only a Battletech game through a few shared names and robot designs.

This is what I think some Table top players, or at least I fear. If we get another game that veers so far from the tabletop that it doesn't help to establish a synergy between the computer and tabletop games, then both titles suffer due to weak correlation. The Computer game draws a lot of people in for a short time, but computer games tend to have a shorter hold of interest on other folks - it can only provide so much depth. That's where the tabletop games come in, providing a wealth of fiction and play options for it's players. Miniatures to paint, Scenarios to run, Characters to build up... Keeping players around for years, and providing a strong backbone for when the next computer game title comes out.

Edited by ice trey, 15 May 2012 - 06:52 AM.

[Aelos03]

point is that TT players act like TT rules must be followed if not then game is unbalanced, so what you can't change range of weapons or power... and still meake it balanced ?

[Kudzu]

Christopher Dayson, on 15 May 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

This game isn't going to be like TT either, we've already seen proof of that. 3 times as much ammo, 2 times as much armor

Where are you getting that? Every screenshot I've seen has the standard ammo load... not sure about the armor part.

[Arikiel]

Well from everything I've seen/read so far it looks like the MW:O team is doing everything right. Really the only complaint I can come up with so far is the way the Raven looks.

[XTRMNTR2K]

While I do agree that Mechwarrior 4 wasn't exactly the most faithful game incarnation of BT, I can see that OP has a point. A number of people in these forums are extremely hostile towards anyone not wanting to follow the TT 100%. These hardcore "crusaders" behave like an angry bunch of elitists which only serves to drive new players away. Even if they are a minority, they sure are a vocal one.

I admit that some posts such as "y u no put madcatz in teh gaem???" make me cringe as well for an obviously large amount of reasons, but at least I shut the hell up about it.

tl;dr trust the devs to stay as true as possible to the TT and be nice to your fellow mechwarriors, be it greenhorns or veterans. If anything we should be worried the game will stick too close to the TT.

Edited by XTRMNTR2K, 15 May 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Orzorn]

Kudzu, on 15 May 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Where are you getting that? Every screenshot I've seen has the standard ammo load... not sure about the armor part.

In the Mechlab video, the Hunchback's armor reads around 800 or so, so perhaps they altered armor values or the way armor works. Ammo for the machine gun is 2000/ton rather than 200/ton.

[SNOWHOUND]

.... or for some they just arnt that old and know of nothing else but MW4 and possibly MW3 / are too young to fully understand TT and its history?