219 replies to this topic

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

PANZERBUNNY, on 05 January 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

I would think that people who don't care about the universe are exceptionally quick to move onto other titles because they have zero loyalty to the brand.

My brand loyalty is to Mechwarrior 2, Mechwarrior 3, and Mechwarrior 4. None of these games were 1:1 copies of the tabletop game, for good f*cking reasons.

Joseph Mallan, on 05 January 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

The video game is more BattleTech than MechWarrior. BattleTech you are a name and 2 numbers. In MechWarrior you have hair and eye color, an education, military (or other work background) and life paths that lead up to you... "Getting out of the Mech and into the game" as one slogan for the MechWarrior RPG went.

So prey we stay more like BattleTech than MechWarrior HmKay!

Why do you people keep bringing up that old pen and paper RPG as though the fact that it's called "mechwarrior" has any bearing on what we commonly understand to be "mechwarrior" the series of first person shooters.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 January 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

when the expectation they set is "it will be as close to battletech as we can make it" they set up the argument themselves to start with. I think thats the inherent issue



Wasnt it a allocation system not a dice rolling creation system?
IE I choose attributes as my first priority, skills second, wealth third (or something to that effect)?

Depended on the edition. there was still some dice rolling involved, but !&2 edition were Allocation (2nd was basically using the Shadowrun Template), 3rd involved a LOT more dice rolling, life trees, and all kinds of stuff... supposedly giving a fuller character, but IMO, 3rd edition was the WORST of MW, and I probably liked 1st Edition Best.

[Bishop Steiner]

ApathyZer0, on 04 January 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

That's an interesting bit of trivia.
So you're saying that mechwarrior follows the mechwarrior rpg rather than battletech TT? Do they follow the same rule sets?
Does it even matter?

All I want is for the devs to make this game as enjoyable as they can. If that means following TT rules so be it. If it means changing things that's fine too(Like Double Armor and 1.4 DHS).

I think something is seriously getting lost in Translation.

All that is being said, is the original IPs of Battletech and Mechwarrior mean something different than the Video versions have become. The actual Game, the genesis of all things Michwarrior Video Game, is Battletech. The Mechwarrior IIP actually directly refers to the RPG one could play in conjunction WITH the TT Battle game, "Mechwarrior", being that the Mechwarrior was the meat behind the metal.

Actually, I know for most longtime players, the choice with MW2 and on to go by the Mechwarrior moniker, vs the Battletech one was curious, as the first 2 video games, were specifically "Battletech: Crescent Hawks Inception" and "Battletech: Crescent Hawks Revenge". Then suddenly, they went with "Mechwarrior", whether they just thought that sounded catchier, or if they were setting up some protection in case the constant litigation made the "battletech" name unsustainable, I never did find out.

Though I think we are far afield now in this discussion.....

Narcisoldier, on 05 January 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

Because it's not battletech.

actually, it is, and if that offends you, you might want to consider any of the other generic stompy robot games. But this is Battltech, and the Devs are Battletechs fans, so they really don't give a crap what you think.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hauser, on 05 January 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

Okay. No aiming then. You select a target. Then pick the weapons you want to fire. Then your mech will somewhat randomly shoot at it. You do this once every 10 seconds.

This wouldn't be much fun. And that's where the adherences goes out of the window. As it damn well should. Now this doesn't mean the developers can't stick to the feel and idea of the table top rules, but simple adherence isn't going to work.

I love how the only argument people like you can make is to go and retread the one part that obviously for anyone with 2 braincells (1 more than you perhaps?) already knows, and have acknowledged had to be adapted.

That on the other hand does NOT necessitate a wholesale change of every mech, weapon, item and such in the game. And, as usual you overlook the specific pitch of the Developers, "a game as CLOSE to Battletech TT as possible", not a game where we took an established and respected IP, and went and just pulled monkeys out of our buttz and make up anything we want to keep the casual people who are going to be playing a different title next month anyhow (do to their mayfly like attention span).

Just because you and your never bothered to check out what you were playing, doesn't mean the Dev's should go and renege on everything they promised as the premise since inception.

[Joseph Mallan]

Narcisoldier, on 05 January 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

My brand loyalty is to Mechwarrior 2, Mechwarrior 3, and Mechwarrior 4. None of these games were 1:1 copies of the tabletop game, for good f*cking reasons.



Why do you people keep bringing up that old pen and paper RPG as though the fact that it's called "mechwarrior" has any bearing on what we commonly understand to be "mechwarrior" the series of first person shooters.

Because the series of FPS has more in common with BattleTech than the RPG it is named after. I have listed the reasons on several occasions. So when someone wants to say someone says there is nothing in common with TT they are more wrong than they think.

[Bishop Steiner]

Narcisoldier, on 05 January 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

My brand loyalty is to Mechwarrior 2, Mechwarrior 3, and Mechwarrior 4. None of these games were 1:1 copies of the tabletop game, for good f*cking reasons.



Why do you people keep bringing up that old pen and paper RPG as though the fact that it's called "mechwarrior" has any bearing on what we commonly understand to be "mechwarrior" the series of first person shooters.

Actually MW2 was as close to a 1=1 translation as possible, and so was #3. The deviations were in the obvious, human input instead of dice to represent it, differing fire rates to fit a live action theme, and generally really simplistic and poorly thought out attempts to use any information warfare items (though since they were meant as single player titles, the usefulness of those items was minimal at best, anyhow).

Yet somehow, all managed to keep TT Canon weights, critical slots, weapons, damage, heat, ranges, armor, etc.... and work well.

And MW4? Please, that game was an excrescent pile of stink from the get go.

[CoolLew]

Chaldon, on 04 January 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Quit whining about how game balancing is effecting your precious memories of your board game. There are more things to consider than (ie) OMG they can't give legs 3 open slots because they didn't have it in the TT game....

Did he really just say that?
This whole game is based not only on the board game, but the novels and roleplaying game.

That is the point! If it wasn't, they would have just made a game called "Giant Shooting Robots" or something!

Its the history behind the game that makes it fun.
...and really, 3 slots in the legs, that is what you want??

[CDLord HHGD]

Kraven Kor, on 04 January 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Oh, come off it.

TT mechanics have to be adjusted to fit the real time gameplay.

That doesn't mean you have to abandon them entirely or make them "that which shall not be mentioned."

PGI has done a good job on trying to stay true to TT while also making a fun real time, action packed game. Perfect? No, but they can't please all of us since no two of us really agree 100% on what should stick to TT and what should deviate.

Give. It. A. Rest.

QFT

[Bishop Steiner]

CoolLew, on 05 January 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Did he really just say that?
This whole game is based not only on the board game, but the novels and roleplaying game.

That is the point! If it wasn't, they would have just made a game called "Giant Shooting Robots" or something!

Its the history behind the game that makes it fun.
...and really, 3 slots in the legs, that is what you want??

But you forget the modern entitled spoiled kiddy mentality, where everything should be changed to suit their wants, ignoring anything they dislike, or disagree with. To them, it doesn't matter that the intent, the stated internet, the stated promise of the game was a true to TT rendition of the game (with the changes being for what was needed for game mechanics, not what would make kiddies who neither know or care to know about the IP happy, because it makes it easier to make their uber stompy robots).

They play a million other braindead FPS games, and can't cope unless this one become another braindead FPS.. they are already asking for "Healer Mechs" and other nonsense... pretty soon it'll bye "why can't my Atlas fly?!?!?!" This game sucks, they should make my Atlas fly, because Giant Gundams can.. so this one should too!

[CrashieJ]

Desrtfox, on 04 January 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

foundation of any BT game.

foundation, and we can build and deviate from that.

[ApathyZer0]

Not really, I understand where you're coming from. What I was getting at is the name isn't as important in the context it originated but rather the common perceptions associated with it. I don't think anyone here is arguing that the mechwarrior video games are an original IP and have no ties to BT.

The reason the video game crowd as less enraged about changes from TT is the simple fact that every iteration has made changes. You expect changes in a game sequel because people don't want to buy the same game over again. They want to see changes and improvements to validate spending time and money on them. It really comes down to whether or not you're being presented with an enjoyable and engaging experience. If you want to look down on people who come from that environment it's your issue because we aren't going anywhere.

[Void Angel]

Kraven Kor, on 04 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Then go play a VIDEO GAME Not based on a Tabletop Roleplaying Game

Actually, in the interest of accuracy, It's based on a tabletop "game of armored combat." But your point is well-taken, as far as it goes. Too many people wave the rulebook for that game around as a complete and holy guide for the creation and balance of this game - and that's not reasonable. They remind me of the Word of Blake...

[Void Angel]

Also, fun fact! Every person I have ever talked with on these forums who brings up differing rates of fire as being "non-canon" is discounting the Solaris VII rules - which are designed to simulate moment-to-moment decisions instead of generalizing them in 10-second slices.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Void Angel, on 05 January 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Actually, in the interest of accuracy, It's based on a tabletop "game of armored combat." But your point is well-taken, as far as it goes. Too many people wave the rulebook for that game around as a complete and holy guide for the creation and balance of this game - and that's not reasonable. They remind me of the Word of Blake...

Great post. The rulebook is useful for source material, and all the great equipment and creativity. It serves a huge base. However that does not mean it has to be taken as a literal or near literal translation for no better reason than 'because'.

[Wolfways]

Strange discussion going on here.

Battletech is Mechwarrior.
Mechwarrior is battletech.
How can anyone think anything different? The names have been interchangeable for a while.
If you don't believe me try looking up a game that's in closed Beta right now called Mechwarrior Tactics. It's a translation from Battletech TT to pc. Wait...what? It's a Battletech game that's called Mechwarrior?!
Oh the horror...
Now we'll all get confused and have no idea what we're playing!

IMO there's nothing wrong with PGI changing things to fit in an fps (or mech sim as some players call it for some reason), but only if absolutely necessary. The more that's changed the less BT/MW it becomes.
I know i'm playing MWO because it's BT/MW. I'm not interested in other "big stompy mech game"

[Pht]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 January 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I'm trying to but folks like you keep making it so hard to do. This game is based on a TT game 30 years old. Some of those Mechanics will never work here(10 second turns),

... are you trying to say that we couldn't have a first person real time MW game where the weapons all recycled every ten seconds? That's what your language means, here.

Besides which, the 10 second problem is easily overcome. Effective refire rate ("can I fire this turn?") in the TT game is touched, for every weapon, by heat - (not all weapons use ammo) if you want a faster refire rate, give more heat - slower, less heat.

Narcisoldier, on 05 January 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

My brand loyalty is to Mechwarrior 2, Mechwarrior 3, and Mechwarrior 4. None of these games were 1:1 copies of the tabletop game, for good f*cking reasons.

Besides the already pre-agreed upon fact that the piloting and gunnery skill dice rolls shouldn't be converted over - which "good reason" are you referring to?

Quote

Why do you people keep bringing up that old pen and paper RPG as though the fact that it's called "mechwarrior" has any bearing on what we commonly understand to be "mechwarrior" the series of first person shooters.

You're right to question that line of argument. It's quite clear that the video game series known as mechwarrior is supposed to be a first-person real time simulation of what it would be like to pilot a BattleMech from the BTUniverse in combat... not what it's like to have your GF leave you because you like your 'Mech more than you like her... (roll for depression and one insanity trait).

[Void Angel]

Those players are often (though not always) the rulebook-wavers; they want to stipulate "mech sim" in order to differentiate it from your typical FPS, which they often view as rewarding twitch play over tactics and strategy. This separation of definitions has some merit: compare any Mechwarrior game to Heavy Gear - both are awesome games, but a Heavy Gear is a robotic infantryman, and a BattleMech is a walking tank. The playstyle differences are important.

Edited by Void Angel, 05 January 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pht, on 05 January 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

... are you trying to say that we couldn't have a first person real time MW game where the weapons all recycled every ten seconds? That's what your language means, here.

Besides which, the 10 second problem is easily overcome. Effective refire rate ("can I fire this turn?") in the TT game is touched, for every weapon, by heat - (not all weapons use ammo) if you want a faster refire rate, give more heat - slower, less heat.



Besides the already pre-agreed upon fact that the piloting and gunnery skill dice rolls shouldn't be converted over - which "good reason" are you referring to?



You're right to question that line of argument. It's quite clear that the video game series known as mechwarrior is supposed to be a first-person real time simulation of what it would be like to pilot a BattleMech from the BTUniverse in combat... not what it's like to have your GF leave you because you like your 'Mech more than you like her... (roll for depression and one insanity trait).

that roll for depression and one insanity trait would actually be appropriate in a discussion about Palladium and Rifts......

[Pht]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 January 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

that roll for depression and one insanity trait would actually be appropriate in a discussion about Palladium and Rifts......

Maybe so, not really familiar with those gaming systems, but I do know that if you use the WOB vehicular direct neural interface you roll to add an insanity trait for every year of it's use, if memory serves. ... In addition to the insanity one has to have just to be in the WOB and be a cyborg built by them ...

[Bishop Steiner]

Pht, on 05 January 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

Maybe so, not really familiar with those gaming systems, but I do know that if you use the WOB vehicular direct neural interface you roll to add an insanity trait for every year of it's use, if memory serves. ... In addition to the insanity one has to have just to be in the WOB and be a cyborg built by them ...

I still cover my hear and and close my eyes and repeat "not listening" like Gollum whenever the Jihad Uber-Mechs and Cyborg troopies and all the things leading to Dark Age come up... trying to NOT remember how far Btech fell from it's once interesting story arcs to the outright Gundamish feel of late 3060s Btech....