27 replies to this topic

[TexAce]

Would you like the game to keep as close to the BT Lore as possible or do you want the devs to focus more on the mech simulation aspect of the game?

I don't wanna use the word 'realistic' but let's say the mechanics of a mech and weapons would get closer to stuff we have now or could have in year 3050 after a horrible stone-age war, would it appeal to you?

Examples coming from a more sim like game:
- Missiles doing AoE damage (spread damage - for example hitting a wall 5 meters away of a mech)
- MGs much longer range
- Heatsinks in the legs not contributing to the heat dissipitation of a laser in the head
- Weapon convergence
- Weather effects / Physics
- More controls over mech movement and weapons in general
- R&R

Pro's of keeping it more to BT/TT/Canon/Lore
- You get a very balanced game, since you don't have to tickle months with numbers trying to get everything lined up and not OP.
- Game progresses faster (clans come earlier for example)

My PERSONAL opinion:
I'm more into the piloting big stompy robots going as close as possible to some kind of other universe realism than about house davion/steiner, clans and so on.

They can be the story fundament of the game but I'm more interested in features concerning weapons and mechs even if the lore has to be broken to implement it.
So I just wanted to know what you folks are thinking.

Edited by TexAss, 12 February 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Liquidx]

I choose potato

[FupDup]

I have a pretty hard time calling this game a simulator. Just saying. The gameplay is great but we must have very different definitions of what makes a "simulator."

From the way I've seen most people use it, they mean simulator as in simulating the TT experience (which is pretty flawed in and of itself because a real TT simulation would be a turn-based strategy game played from birds-eye view, not an FPS).

[TexAce]

FupDup, on 12 February 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

From the way I've seen most people use it, they mean simulator as in simulating the TT experience (which is pretty flawed in and of itself because a real TT simulation would be a turn-based strategy game played from birds-eye view, not an FPS).

Don't we have Mechwarrior: Tactics for this?

[FupDup]

TexAss, on 12 February 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Don't we have Mechwarrior: Tactics for this?

Tell that to the folks calling this game a simulator (or I'm just misinterpreting them).

Edited by FupDup, 12 February 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Why do you consider BT lore a poor simulation of 'mech combat, when it is the basis for all the technologies and rules of 'mech combat present in this and any prior MW game?

[Mercules]

We don't want a TT simulator. We have a game called Mega-Mek for that. We want a MECH simulator. We would welcome more complex controls, a reticle for every weapon as gimbles drag weapons to aim at our main firing focal, the ability to crouch, lay prone, and move in other ways even if we had to use more controls to do so.

We will settle for something others can play as well as long as it isn't even MORE simplistic than MWO currently is.

[TexAce]

I interpreted it as a mech first person simulation when someone spoke about a "sim". That's at least where I'm coming from.

I'm more into the piloting big stompy robots going as close as possible to some kind of other universe realism than about house davion/steiner, clans and so on.

They can be the story fundament of the game but I'm more interested in features concerning weapons and mechs even if the lore has to be broken to implement it.
So I just wanted to know what you folks are thinking.

Edited by TexAss, 12 February 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Pihb]

I figure if you like TT rules, stick to TT.

[Talys]

While I think canon is important and every effort should be made to honour the Battletech universe, we have to be aware not everything will translate to a modern PC game and mmo, a table top game is a different beast, fiction is fiction. I for one would not sacrifice a mech 'sim' experience that is as feasible and workable as possible for the sake of canon if it came down to it.

Edited by Talys, 16 February 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Particle Man]

Solis Obscuri, on 12 February 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Why do you consider BT lore a poor simulation of 'mech combat, when it is the basis for all the technologies and rules of 'mech combat present in this and any prior MW game?

because real time combat isnt dictated by 10 second turns and random dice rolls.

I think the proper way to think about TT is that it's a simulation of THIS type of game.

[FupDup]

TexAss, on 12 February 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

I interpreted it as a mech first person simulation when someone spoke about a "sim". That's at least where I'm coming from.

I'm more into the piloting big stompy robots going as close as possible to some kind of other universe realism than about house davion/steiner, clans and so on.

They can be the story fundament of the game but I'm more interested in features concerning weapons and mechs even if the lore has to be broken to implement it.
So I just wanted to know what you folks are thinking.

Alrighty, that clears up my misconception on the "other" use of the word simulator that I've seen thrown around.


Anyways, how exactly detailed does something have to be to consider it a "simulator?" I'm genuinely curious, because I've seen two different levels of strictness regarding this word:
A. Extremely strict, only hardcore stuff like Flight Simulator etc. with a bazillion controls and physics are counted.
B. Very loose/lax, to the point that one could consider Mechwarrior games to be simulators (despite being very simplified and watered-down, dare I say arcadey compared to Flight Sim). Here, something just has to capture the general idea but can be simple and unrealistic as heck as still qualify.

The problem with definition A is that it could/would seriously hurt gameplay (too much stuff to memorize, very slow pace, etc.). The problem with definition B is that if you allow something arcadey like Mechwarrior to be considered a sim, you can pretty much call almost any game ever made a simulator as well.

Edited by FupDup, 12 February 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[TheForce]

Without canon this is WorldOfTanksWithLegs/BigRobotWars/MinmaxWarrior/RobotJocks Online.

Edited by TheForce, 12 February 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[GT Hawk]

I am a TT guy and I admit it needs to be a mix of both. Ie not all tabletop rules translate well to the game. That said you need to keep battletech TT and the story lines at the heart of the game. As the game is based on that. Going to far away would just kill it for many. so a nice balance is what I hope to see.

[TexAce]

FupDup, on 12 February 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Alrighty, that clears up my misconception on the "other" use of the word simulator that I've seen thrown around.


Anyways, how exactly detailed does something have to be to consider it a "simulator?" I'm genuinely curious, because I've seen two different levels of strictness regarding this word:
A. Extremely strict, only hardcore stuff like Flight Simulator etc. with a bazillion controls and physics are counted.
B. Very loose/lax, to the point that one could consider Mechwarrior games to be simulators (despite being very simplified and watered-down, dare I say arcadey compared to Flight Sim). Here, something just has to capture the general idea but can be unrealistic as heck as still qualify.

The problem with definition A is that it could/would seriously hurt gameplay (too much stuff to memorize, very slow pace, etc.). The problem with definition B is that if you allow something arcadey like Mechwarrior to be considered a sim, you can pretty much call almost any game ever made a simulator as well.

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Let's say the devs come to a point where they are considering having missiles do areal damage, because it would get the game more towards a simulation, the BT lore fans would cry "this is not why I founded your game!!", would the majority be on the BT lore fans side or the "make it more simulation like" side?

Edited by TexAss, 12 February 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[ownka]

Lore is story. Lore is not the amount of heat my PPC makes. This discussion is silly. Please look the word "lore" up in the dictionary.

To be honest the way you organize your discussion paints the entire argument with a false presumption that supports your side. Bad form, good sir, bad form.

Edited by ownka, 12 February 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Adridos]

Yes, please.

The idea of sitting in some bunker on anoher planet and just clicking a button to send an artillery strike on the enemy position seems far more engaging and ineresting... /sarcasm

Why do people still fight with swords in specific tournaments? Why do people still use bows? Why do people still like WW1/WW2 fighter simulators? Why couldn't people like big stompy bots with balanced weaponry?

[TexAce]

ownka, on 12 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Lore is story. Lore is not the amount of heat my PPC makes. This discussion is silly. Please look the word "lore" up in the dictionary.

To be honest the way you organize your discussion paints the entire argument with a false presumption that supports your side. Bad form, good sir, bad form.

But hardpoints, standard configurations of mechs (seriously, how often do we have this discussion here), what a mech is 'supposed to do', are all questions wildly discussed. And it seems there are two ways to see it. The sim way or the BT way.

I really don't have anything against the lore being the story of the game, since every game needs a good background story, but I would not want to dismiss interesting ideas just because it is not BT/TT/Canon/Lore...

The suggestions sub-forum is full of them, and the most provided answer is "it is not BT/TT/Canon/Lore, so no".... so I just want to see how big the groups are of both sides.

Edited by TexAss, 12 February 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[ownka]

TexAss, on 12 February 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

But hardpoints, standard configurations of mechs (seriously, how often do we have this discussion here), what a mech is 'supposed to do', are all questions wildly discussed. And it seems there are two ways to see it. The sim way or the BT way.

I really don't have anything against the lore being the story of the game, since every game needs a good background story, but I would not want to dismiss interesting ideas just because it is not BT/TT/Canon/Lore...

If it is a question of going with BT numbers for weapons and armor versus making mechwarrior online a well balanced, functional videogame, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually -enjoyed- a pure TT sim made into a real time first person shooter. The numbers in tabletop are not really that balanced, and they are certainly not balanced for use in a FPS. The idea some people have of making this a TT sim with TT weapons and TT mechs exactly is as ridiculous as trying to make magic the gathering into a real time strategy game where you play as a planeswalker. Oh wait I think they've done that. It was horrible.

[Solis Obscuri]

Particle Man, on 12 February 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

because real time combat isnt dictated by 10 second turns and random dice rolls.

I think the proper way to think about TT is that it's a simulation of THIS type of game.

CBT is turn-based strategy. Different type of game, one in which you are strategically directing the movements and decisions of a number of pilots, whose aptitudes and capabilities are determined by statistical probability via dice rolls and skill checks. A lot depends on RNG and trying to set up situations that leave you with beneficial modifiers in that kind of game (TBS).

By contrast, in a first-person sims/shooters, gameplay tends to be biased towards being extremely predictive - there is very little chance involved, be it in the reliability of mechanical systems, exact performance of weapon systems under all conditions, passability of terrain, etc. In some ways this creates almost too predictable of an experience for a battlefield sim - we will probably never have to question whether it's a good idea to sprint around a building on ferrocrete roads because of a slipping and falling risk, and a Gauss Rifle with two hits will always fire just as accurately as a completely undamaged one fresh out of the shipping crate.

It's fair to say that some things just can't translate directly between the two genres, just because the actual gameplay is so different, but that doesn't confer, to me, that either one is inherently more "right" than the other. In fact, reasonably, most elements should be roughly the same except where they simply aren't feasible from a gameplay perspective.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 12 February 2013 - 02:55 PM.