108 replies to this topic

[Red squirrel]

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.

And then came ECM


Edit: The thing is if you are looking for balance take TT values and adjust from there.
After all it was balanced over years so different pieces of equipment work together.
Of course it needs some tweaks but it should definitly be the basis for balancing.

Edited by Red squirrel, 25 December 2012 - 03:07 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

Pht, on 24 December 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

It seems you've mistaken what's wanted - what's wanted is not the MW pen and paper rpg... what's wanted is a first-person armored combat simulation game, using the 'Mechs from the Battletech Universe.

Orly?

[Mr Mantis]

If this is not your "hard core" mechwarrior game, then you should look at what else igp is working on like tactics.

What I think you are looking at, that you don't like, is the free to play design. When they put it as free to play it invites anyone with a computer to take a shot at the game.

[Pht]

Deadoon, on 24 December 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

The thing is, we are already recieving the near full benifits of c3 already.

Strange; I wonder how they're justifying it.

Quote

the reason why I was suggesting that form of implementation of c3i was due to the fact that you have to take into account out of game measures such as team speak when adding a communication or information distribution system. I was speaking about, since c3 is already implemented in the sense of we are already befitting from it without it being a separate entity.

Normally I would agree, but C3 was built and balanced to go alongside a gaming system where everyone already virtually knew everything from a bird's eye view anyways. C3 should work well even with TS3 in play; it already accounts for that kind of information passage; even units without C3 benefit from being able to "talk on the radio" with c3 equipped units. They just don't (and should not) get the extra benefits.

Thirdstar, on 24 December 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

This is a good point. TT isn't some sort of Holy Gold Standard that needs to be adhered to just because.

It's not to be adhered to "just because" - and virtually nobody has said such.

Most importantly, we expect truth in advertising; and when you name your game MechWarrior...

Mech - an armored bipedal (or four legged) and armed combat unit - from the BT universe

Warrior - someone who engages in combat, in this case, by piloting said armored combat unit from the BTU.

So, what defines how the 'Mechs behave/perform in combat in the BTU? The TTRs. YES, the ttrs. Even the novel writers have to conform to them - to the point that they find it annoying. This has been confirmed from people who help to maintain the lore over at Catalyst, and besides which, the TT game came first - the novels after, and the novels have have overwhelmingly conformed the combat behavior of the 'mechs to the boundaries that the TTr's describe... and this is not an un-fun or a bad thing for gameplay.

See link for an example of how to implement in a real-time VG format: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

TT was also easily munchkined. If TT mechanics were like MWO you'd be damn sure people would be creating the same setups you find here.

Every gaming system ever created is subject to abuse. That's not a vaid way to decide between which systems to use. It should also be pointed out that we already know most of the ways that people munch stuff out in the TT game and thus can control for most of them (for instance, see my mechlab link in my sig; it addresses boating pretty well).

Vermaxx, on 24 December 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Tabletop let you easily make mechs that never overheated. Granted, we have three times the rate of fire on average, but there you go.

The construction rules, yes, made it very easy to do so. But those rules weren't intended to be used with already built 'Mechs. The customization rules are not so easy to work with as the outright construction rules; and besides, a good GM would tend to make people pay for boating - boats are easy to use, yes, but they're one-trick ponies.

CypherHalo, on 24 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

You are . . . well, I'll just say wrong. I'm sick and tired of people complaining that any changes away from the TT are an attempt to make this game into some standard FPS.

I didn't post that "any changes from the TT are an attempt to make the game into yet another FPS."

I very specifically pointed out the hit-tables not being implemented - it is the hit tables that describe the ultimate ability of the 'Mechs to align their weapons to hit whatever target the MechWarrior is indicating with their reticule.

I also didn't point out the other obvious mechanic, the to-hit rolls inherent for each individual weapon, for instance, the heavy large lasers being less accurate, thus incurring +1 on 2d6, pulse lasers being -2 on 2d6, more accurate (no, the MechWarrior's gunnery skill rolls SHOULD NOT AND DO NOT belong in an MW video game).

These two mechanics describe in mathematical terms, based upon whatever condition your 'Mech is encountering when you pull the triggers, your 'Mechs combat capability.

Ignoring these mechanics and replacing them with a directly-mouse controlled reticule for the arm weapons and a slower tracking reticule for the non-arm weapons, of necessity, makes the current implementation... a variety of FPS, instead of a first-person armored combat piloting simulator.

There's no simulation of the gunnery skills part of piloting the armored combat unit know as a BattleMech in the game.

You're piloting a mouse with any non-arm mounted weapons time-lagged behind the directly mouse-linked arm weapons.

Quote

What I want, the only thing I want, is for this game to be FUN.

... And somehow ... I don't?

Quote

I don't care about the TT rules or the minutiae of the lore. So long as you have some of the basics, mechs, heat, the familiar weapons, that's all I need. Everything beyond that should be crafted towards making the game FUN. If the game isn't FUN, why play?

... and If the game were setup with genuine 'Mech combat ability simulation, you'd have what you wanted, and you wouldn't have to know the minutiae to play the game.

Edited by Pht, 26 December 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[RODNI]

First of all , I love to Battletech / MechWarrior universe.
I am what you call a big fan of the books, games and even the Gallery set one artwork one by Les Dorscheid (1994). Please don't turn it into call of duty

[TRK]

Feels very Battletech? I think it is way too arcadey. They said they wouldn't do this. You have lights stupidly running around at 170 kp/h bouncing around like mario bros. Seriously have a hard look at where this game is going. Back on their word is where. It is just another game that is being developed for the no-brain button mashing masses the general population now is. Too bad, I had actual hope. They might as well have updated MW4 with new graphics for all the gameplay difference. Seems like MW had one last chance and they blew it.

Edited by TRK, 30 December 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Felix]

RODNI, on 30 December 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

First of all , I love to Battletech / MechWarrior universe.
I am what you call a big fan of the books, games and even the Gallery set one artwork one by Les Dorscheid (1994). Please don't turn it into call of duty

Its already call of duty lite

Lets hope they can fix it

[Sir Wulfrick]

I do partially agree with the OP's general sentiment that MWO is displaying a worrying tilt towards pandering to what might be described as the lowest common denominator. That being said, the TT game and a real-time battle simmulator are very different things. Slavish adherence to every possible TT statistic and function is illogical and would not produce a fun or indeed playable game.

[Barghest Whelp]

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.

You know, when I read the title I was sure this was gonna be one of those bitter 1337 player wanting everybody to play the game their way. But then I took the time to read your "holy wall of text, batman", and I have to say, I agree with you.

But one thing I've noticed is that they often go for the quick and simple solutions when approaching a problem. That usually leads to things getting even worse. The current ECM "fix" actually just made LRMs worse imo, as you can now launch your LRMs in almost complete safety, as long as you have enough ECM. That don't fix nothing imo. It just breaks it even worse.