108 replies to this topic

[verybad]

Mechwarrior and Battletech are different games simulating the same genre. Confusing numbers values in a turn based game for the bible that must be followed in a truetime game aren't "hardcore" it's just shortsighted and inflexible.

[Bigamo]

To me the game will be a good battletech experience as soon as they NERF THE DAMN ECM.

Other than that and immortal ravens/lights the game is really cool to me. And it feels very Battletech! Sure there were features that were announced and don't show up until this point as faction aliagence and that Marik symbol means absolutely nothing at present, but who knows what the future holds?

But i agree that the "beta thing" is a bad excuse since the game is already profiting.

Cheers!

[COOL HANDS]

Roland, on 24 December 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

The op does not seen like much of a " hardcore mechwarrior" to me.

Well in my defence I've been playing mechwarrior series for as long as I can remember suddenly I feel very old lol.But I consider myself pretty hardcore.

[Dagger6T6]

S;DR

because on the internet.... xxX name Xxx is the equivalent of a popped collar

[DivineEvil]

Well, many games were on their BETA course (LoL, Minecraft etc.), and had their bucks at the same time.

The difference is, how much it worth to buy stuff in a game (or a game itself) when it is not finished yet. PGI seems to flying high on their self-esteem in that terms - $ prices for MCs in comparison to MC prices for stuff are ridiculous and manageable only by Founders, since they all have earned their "free" MC's for a waaaay lower transaction rate.

[COOL HANDS]

Thirdstar, on 24 December 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

The fact that he liked his own post is enough to tell me that there was nothing of value contained within at all.

I award you no internet points and may god have mercy on your soul.

I didnt mean no disrespect by liking my own post. I just liked cause I thought it was a very well written constructive post despite the mispells. When people post videos on youtube we like our own vids so I didnt think I was causing anybody harm by doing it. But if it rubed you the wrong way apologies.

[Tilon]

Kunae, on 24 December 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Which is precisely my reasoning for them to remove SSRMs. There is no skill involved with them, and there should never be an "always hits" weapon, in this game.

You've clearly never played TT. They do not 'always hit'. They simply only fire when they hit. They never waste ammo or heat.

[COOL HANDS]

Lefty Lucy, on 24 December 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

I *am* a hardcore BT fan. I have a few companies of pewter minis painted up that proves that. I have Total Warfare pretty well memorized cover-to-cover and I remember "how it used to work" when infernos had a 50% chance to wreck any vehicle they touched, could be fired from SSRM2 launchers, and taking partial cover was a death sentence.

I realize that turning BT into a video game faithfully has a few major obstacles and flaws to successful translation:

1. Weapon balance. Nobody wants to play a game where PPCs, MLs and *maybe* SRMs, LRMs, and AC20s are worth using. The AC2/5 are utter trash in TT, and the AC10 is pretty marginal, usually better replaced by a PPC or LL. As flawed as it is MWO actually has better weapon balance than TT right now.

2. TT has short engagement times. TT *feels* like an epic slugfest because games take a few hours to play 10 turns. However, 10 turns is only 1 minute 40 seconds. That *includes* at least two turns of positioning where both sides get into position to engage. Would *you* enjoy if every MWO match only lasted at most 3 minutes? Doubled armor/internals was implemented partly for this reason and partly because...

3. ... you hit what you aim for in MWO, but hit locations are random in TT. The developers of MWO want to reward player skill, and adding in a "cone of fire" for lasers would feel really silly.

4. TT has the player firing once every 10 seconds. As with most TT mechanics, this is just an abstraction to make for a playable game. Are the mechs *actually* waiting for everyone to move, then waiting for everyone to fire? No, they're moving and firing simultaneously, taking cover, etc. Following a strict TT turn order would make for a turn-based strategy game, not an FPS.

5. Heat mechanics in fiction versus TT. In the fiction even a Locust pilot worries about heat, despite the fact that in TT the locust is completely heat neutral, even with an engine hit. While the developers' lack of math skills is disturbing, I appreciate that they are attempting to make it so that heat is a worry for all mechs, and isn't something you can just design away in mechlab. This does, however, make nearly *any* canon design extremely flawed, so I think this is the place that could use the most tweaking in MOW, balance-wise.

Thanx for the respose lucy I can tell you know your stuff. It is my hope to that the balancing gets better.

[Kunae]

Helbourne, on 24 December 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Kunae, Clan introduce SSRM 6. That is how streaks work. They do not fire unless they hit. That way you could carry less missles on board your mech. That would reduce cost. OH wait you don't have to worry about cost. Repair and rearm should be put back in at some point. It is a balancer in its own right. Maybe instead of removing RnR they could have tweaked those numbers. People need to stop thinking of your standard FPS when playing this game.

I agree Felix

You're missing the whole point. When I say "remove ssrms", that obviously includes the clan versions. Not sure how that was so hard for you to grasp.

Why go through 200 million gyrations around balancing a virtually impossible to balance system, which was only in TT as an ammo-saver? They serve zero point in a real-time competitive FPS/Sim. Devs should save themselves a ton of headaches, and just be done with them now.

Tilon, on 24 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

You've clearly never played TT. They do not 'always hit'. They simply only fire when they hit. They never waste ammo or heat.

Ok, seriously... are people experiencing tryptophan pre-hangovers? I know how they work in TT, but I'm obviously talking about MWO, where they do "always hit".

[COOL HANDS]

King Arthur IV, on 24 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

where is the down vote button?

Despite the negativity in the post I apreciate you stopping by and commenting.

[Ranek Blackstone]

SSRMs aren't all that OP even in a real time enviroment. They require a lock to fire, which limits their utility massively. I can't fire an SSRM so that when my target will get hit right as they round that corner, because the SSRM is going to fly INTO the corner because it has to follow the shortest line of travel, unlike my dumb fire SRMs. I also cant fire them at targets under the ageis of ECM or if I'M under disruption ECM.

[steelblueskies]

The Cheese, on 24 December 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Hardcore TT fans (I think that's what you really mean) are the minority. The minority won't pay the bills.

A good, playable game is vastly more important than sticking to some numbers that were designed for an entirely different game type.

too bad they are missing this mark as well. good, playable game.
repetitive, twitchy public beta test, with fixes and feature releases as completed with no regards to fundamental impacts.

[Lupin]

Tuoweit, on 24 December 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

You guys do realize that the game is only half-implemented so far? All we have currently is the combat engine, without all the stuff that's intended to go around it - the Community Warfare component. This game is not intended to merely be "Stompy Robot Arena". THAT's why it's still described as "in Beta". THAT's why it's not terribly exciting, unless you really enjoy simply blasting other mechs to bits (which apparently a lot of us do!). The repair/rearm component that the OP is missing is not gone for good - you can be sure it will return when the larger warfare aspects are added that give all these little skirmishes some context. And while the time spent balancing the current state of the game is useful, keep in mind that they still need some of their team working towards those larger goals as well, so that's why fixes can take a while.

What combat engine, this is STILL not working right regardless of which rules they are using.
Less producing expensive junk for your cockpit and more GAME PLEASE.

Edited by Lupin, 24 December 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Void Angel]

xxXKryotech OneXxx, on 24 December 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

When MWO was annouced like many of you I was beside myself with excitement. For over a decade there was a drout of mech games and it seemed like our thirst for mech battles would never be quenched. I watched this game go from concepts to finally being realized and it appeared that the pgi team was well on there way to creating a awsome representation of the fabled franchise. But as the days and months went by from closed to open beta I began to notice the shift from the hardcore player to the very casual.Things like rnr being removed while it wasn't perfect it did give some sense of immersion of managing your cbills and maintaining a mech from match to match sort of like a balancing act if you will. Even though I've managed to get an xl engine in the current economy.I didn't feel no sense of achievment.Then there's the ecm while I agree that something needed to be done about lrms and streaks the ecm is a little too potent. Me personaly I would have ratherd pgi toned down the damage of the lrms and streaks and then put in a ecm that worked but at the same time didn't make every mech carring it invincible.Add the lagshield and bad netcode and your in for a long day.There's also groups asking for 3rd person view and respawns to be implemented into the game. But whenever the harcore base rasises there concerns about the said issues. Were either shun ignored or hated for simply wanting the frachise to stay true to the TT and the lore as humanly possible.Even though I hate to admit it as it sits now it seems like the hardcore player has no voice here.Heaven forbid we start asking for mechs that never overheat. I still play the gane often but youll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical and doubtful of the direction the game is going.

"I HAVE NO VOICE!" He said on the forums where he voiced his unsupported opinions! "If try to point out to me that slavish adherence to a rulebook for a different game isn't the yardstick of quality for this game, you're hating and shunning me - because you're not hardcore. Like me, in case you missed that I'm hardcore so my opinion is better because, obviously, it's supported by the rules of a vaguely related game in a different format. I want repair and rearm costs that rise to the point that I'm basically just working to pay my mech rent! I want to be punished for buying an Atlas, because it gives me a sense of achievement! Punish me! Validate my existence and PUNISH MEEEEEEE!"

If you have reasons for advocating changes to this game which acutally relate to this game, please share them - with perhaps a bit less of the persecution complex. And get some salve for your uber-itis; it's flaring up again.

[steelblueskies]

imagine in betty voice the state of the game since open beta.

lrm locks - offline
ssrm locks -offline.
ecm cheese-online.
knockdowns -offline
collisions- critical
lagshield/netcode- critical
performance- offline
matchmaking-critical
repair and rearm- offline
rehashed maps- online
rehashed mechanics(conquest cap spam)-online
pricing-critical.
balance- offline.

all systems- ????, profit.
---------------------

we have more systems of a fundamental nature turned off for rework than we had online before open. that isn't an opinion, that's a simple numerical fact. so tell us again about the improving state of things? playing word jumble with bits and pieces you had in for months does not a step forward make.
edit: lost lines in paste.

so essentially the game people are seeing since open beta is NOT even the same game as pre open.
that they are rewriting or fixing many of the offlined systems seems to indicate that game is the one they are working on, not the one you have adapted to. yet the other hand shows data analytics based on new features, players and systems dropped into THIS game. the result of the conflation of the two has and will inevitably be, a mess.

Edited by steelblueskies, 24 December 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Ryvucz]

xxXKryotech OneXxx, on 24 December 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

.....Dont quite understand why your judging me and assume that im just out for attention.

Because you liked your own post?

I am a MechWarrior hardcore fan, I have not played Table Top due to a few things-

1) Those figurines were expensive for me to beg my parents to have them (I'm not actually old-old)

2) I have to PAINT the figurines? I'm colorblind, I do not like it when I create a really cool looking color scheme for myself just to have it mocked and blown up due to me being colorblind. (I did get D grades for my coloring, always in part of me being colorblind and merciless teachers)

3) My brother had me get into Magic The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons Table Top, not to mention BBS gaming.

However, once I found the giant mechs playable on various gaming consoles and on the PC, I played them like crazy, and to think of it, I did buy MechWarrior 2 Titanium (again) off of Amazon a couple of years ago at a pretty hefty price.

So it is pretty hard for me to acknowledge that you are a hardcore type of guy when your skeptical about a game that's been worked on for a year.

[IceSerpent]

Void Angel, on 24 December 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

"I HAVE NO VOICE!" He said on the forums where he voiced his unsupported opinions! "If try to point out to me that slavish adherence to a rulebook for a different game isn't the yardstick of quality for this game, you're hating and shunning me - because you're not hardcore. Like me, in case you missed that I'm hardcore so my opinion is better because, obviously, it's supported by the rules of a vaguely related game in a different format. I want repair and rearm costs that rise to the point that I'm basically just working to pay my mech rent! I want to be punished for buying an Atlas, because it gives me a sense of achievement! Punish me! Validate my existence and PUNISH MEEEEEEE!"

If you have reasons for advocating changes to this game which acutally relate to this game, please share them - with perhaps a bit less of the persecution complex. And get some salve for your uber-itis; it's flaring up again.

This was certainly funny and entrtaining way of presenting your opinion, but dude, you are missing the OP's point by a mile - PGI originally stated that they were going to base MWO on TT rules, not on (for example) MW4 rules. After that they kept making changes that make absolutely no sense even if one takes into account the tabletop-to-simulation translation. It's not really surprising that folks who expected something similar to TT (again, accounting for differences caused by translation into a sim) and got something completely different are not exactly happy about it and feel a bit cheated.

[steelblueskies]

indeed. imagine the number of people who paid a tt box set price(~120$usd) for legendary(120$usd), and got less than a buggy and incomplete year of the title before it left it's roots behind. but hey the box set would last forever. this title...
and they STILL don't have their name in credits either.

titles' living on good faith and hope, and those strings don't hold as long as some might believe. you want to market to the lcd you could have saved a mint by not going for the franchise. you go for the franchise, you adhere to the letter and/or the spirit of the laws rules and systems.

but we all know you got forced into open too soon. far far too soon.

[Lefty Lucy]

steelblueskies, on 24 December 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

indeed. imagine the number of people who paid a tt box set price(~120$usd) for legendary(120$usd), and got less than a buggy and incomplete year of the title before it left it's roots behind. but hey the box set would last forever. this title...
and they STILL don't have their name in credits either.

titles' living on good faith and hope, and those strings don't hold as long as some might believe. you want to market to the lcd you could have saved a mint by not going for the franchise. you go for the franchise, you adhere to the letter and/or the spirit of the laws rules and systems.

but we all know you got forced into open too soon. far far too soon.

TT box set costs $60 bucks, but the mechs are... special.

[Taemien]

Its very hard to translate TT to PC. Most MechWarrior games don't even follow the default values as a guide. For example in MechWarrior 3, the UAC20 did 52 damage or around there. In MechWarrior 2 autocannons fired like machine guns. Imagine a ton of AC20 ammo gone in 2-3 seconds or less. In Living Legends, locations have thousands of points of armor and the weapons to hundreds of damage. They do this to more effectively have different damage types affect different armor types more effectively, but still strays from the TT.

MWO has done very well IMO to simulate the TT as best as possible. In TT as people have said, weapons hit random locations and weapons are balanced around that. Here, weapons hit where you point and have to be redesigned to balance that. As it stands, non-lasers hit trajectories and convergence works. Lasers are pinpoint, but do damage overtime (more simulating the fiction in a way), so its less likely 4 medium lasers will be a AC20 equivalent with better aim. In TT the medium lasers would hit different locations, here they would hit the same location making them unbalanced.

I play TT just about 3 times a month (almost once a week). I like how close MWO is to it. But I also like how in some ways it isn't. This is a mech sim, not a TT strategy game. I like how mechs can be configured without boating weapons being dominant.

Don't listen to the trolls out there. You can tell one when they say:

1. They want your money.
2. They don't know anything about BattleTech
3. They ruined their game.
4. They don't listen to us.
5. They don't understand game balance.