MW2 - Mercenaries, What's the deal with salvage?
Shane Ruman
I'm very impressed with this game but I don't understand how to salvage
a mech. I've had them lying on the ground with no arms and no legs and
still when I finish the mission, no salvage! Can anyone offer me some
insight into this phenomenon.
Shane
Surya Suluh
--
Surya Suluh
su...@asu.edu
http://enuxsa.eas.asu.edu/~suluh
Arizona State University
Joe Colleran
sh...@cs.toronto.edu (Shane Ruman) wrote:
>I'm very impressed with this game but I don't understand how to salvage
>a mech. I've had them lying on the ground with no arms and no legs and
>still when I finish the mission, no salvage! Can anyone offer me some
>insight into this phenomenon.
> Shane
>
>
The answer is that the salvage results are predetermined by mission
and have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual battlefield result.
If the mission salvage is a Jenner with no legs, then that is what you
get regardless of the actual condition you left the Jenner in on the
field. Also, it appears that only the "campaign" missions offer any
salvage at all.
- Joe Colleran (jn...@richmond.infi.net)
Jack Mamais
Salvage works this way:
Your patrons, be they Draconis Combine, Comstar or whoever collects all
the salvage that is taken during a particular mission. They then
distribute it too you as they see fit. What does this mean to you?
Simple, the salvage is predetermined by the Designer (In this case Dustin
Browder) and then the computer randomly determines what you get depending
on the terms in the contract. What you kill does have an affect on you
because you get additional money for each enemy you vanquish, but it has
no effect on salvage.
Hope this helps...
Jack Mamais
Director
Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries
> Surya Suluh <su...@asu.edu> wrote in article <325047...@asu.edu>...
> Shane Ruman wrote:
> >
> > I'm very impressed with this game but I don't understand how to
salvage
> > a mech. I've had them lying on the ground with no arms and no legs
and
> > still when I finish the mission, no salvage! Can anyone offer me some
> > insight into this phenomenon.
> > Shane
Jack Mamais
Robert A Mollard
Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure salvage is pre-determined. It doesn't
matter how well you shoot, or what condition you leave the enemies in.
Hell, I've even salvaged a mech before that wasn't even present in the
mission!
Bob
Surya Suluh (su...@asu.edu) wrote:
Andrew Spencer
the salvage is predetermined by the Designer (In this case Dustin
> Browder)
BOO!! HISS!! (well, maybe that was extreme) This is a very bad way do
conduct Merc ops. In every mission you should be able to have many
outcomes. AND SALVAGE MUST BE SKILL BASED!!!!!!!!!! MUST BE!!! I
don't care how hard it is to program, I know its possible!! That was
the one "feature" of the game I was looking forward too most! I do have
to say the graphics are cool, but these features MUST be in it for the
game to be considered truly great. How about since everyone will
probably still buy the expansion pack, ( including me) you put these
options into the expansion. But I feel that WHEN not IF these features
are implemented in the expansion pack, the pack should be integrated
directly into the rest of the game (unlike GBL) so that this effects the
way you replay the regular Merc missions too! Just stick in salvage,
more multi-outcome missions, unlimited random encounters, and a big
booklet as finely developed as MW2 (that was some documentation!!) Plus
a few extra mechs (maybe even the ability to import the "Illegal?"
Marauder, Warhammer, and Rifleman) from MW2. If the expansion included
these options, MERC would truely become a game to play for YEARS to
come. And there would be great rejoicing! Yea...
Andrew Spencer
Seung-Woo Kim
OK, I came to the point I have to fight the Clans. I was very happy
to see that the arms merchant sells the new type of armors. I was
planning to put them on both arms because they were the first things
to go off in the heat of the battle. When I press the add button
for the new armor, the program prints the list of armors out of the
message box and go no further. Looks like it's intended to be there
but not quite completed. Like the enhanced vision(wireframe) that I
enabled as suggested in the newsgroup - it works except for the laser
tracer - it clearly shows that Activision rushed to put this out when
it's not quite ready. I hate to see such an important features half
cooked and disabled before they are put out to shelves. Hopefully,
the very next patch will fix this.
Seung-Woo
Jack Mamais
OUCH, since there are going to be no expansion packs to Mercs, we will
consider some of your requests for our upcoming patch but no promises
yet!
Jack
> Andrew Spencer <aspe...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<325299...@maine.maine.edu>...
Tim Morten
Hi Will!
While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
features in the game.
When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
the computer is in control rather than the user.
Tim Morten
Robert A Mollard
What I find intensely hilarious is that it doesn't seem to even matter if
you succeed in the mission or not. I was getting really frustrated with
the mercenaries tournament (ok ok, I was getting clobbered :), so I
finally aborted the first AND second rounds, and then kicked some poor
lamer's butts in round 3. But the funny thing was is that I salvaged a
total of I think 4 mechs from those 3 rounds, only one of which I
actually competed in! And how can you salvage mechs that didn't even
exist in the mission?
Bob
Jack Mamais (jma...@activision.com) wrote:
: Salvage works this way:
: Your patrons, be they Draconis Combine, Comstar or whoever collects all
: the salvage that is taken during a particular mission. They then
: distribute it too you as they see fit. What does this mean to you?
: Simple, the salvage is predetermined by the Designer (In this case Dustin
: Browder) and then the computer randomly determines what you get depending
Todd A. Green
'Tim Morten ' wrote:
>I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
>the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
>say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
While I agree with your point in principle, this is a poor example. It
is highly unlikely (though not completely improbable) that either your
network programmer, or your 3D programmer were invovled in directly
programming salvage. (But to answer your question, I would have gladly
given up salvage, as it is currently implemented, would it have made
possible a Win95 *native* MercNet.)
>The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
This is very true, but in today's rather competitive market if you don't
have enough features (or the right features) the game won't sell.
>Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
>should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
>the computer is in control rather than the user.
No the frustrating part is that the salvage you collect is not based on
your performance. Few people like playing pre-scripted games. Look at
how interactive movies have flopped. The back of my box says, "Salvage
enemy kills from the field...and steal what you can't buy." That sounds
exciting! Simply choosing contracts where salvage rights are listed as
excellent is anything but exciting. (I have no idea where the stealing
comes into play unless they are referring to the game itself ;)
Todd
Char Tang
On Wed, 02 Oct 1996 20:11:08 -0700, Tim Morten
<tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
::Hi Will!
::
::While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
::into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
::features in the game.
::
::When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
::things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
::all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
::I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
::say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
::The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
::
::Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
::the computer is in control rather than the user.
::Tim Morten
Yeah, but I seem to remember this game from the 1980s called
Mechwarrior which allowed limited user-controlled salvage. For
instance, if you blew off just the cockpit or just the leg, you ended
up with more C-Bills for your salvage. Granted that game didn't have
the advanced graphics and sound, but it was just as fun. Those were
the good old days, when a good game meant more than a good graphics
engine. Playability is just as important even if it doesn't give you
fancy screenshots to put on the box.
Don Halloran
Tim Morten wrote:
>
> I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
> the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
> say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
>
> The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
> Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
>
> Tim Morten
Yeah, well since Ive heard that the "internet driver" only works with
some specific setups and has a few other probs, and since everyone would
be able to enjoy accurate salvage, then yeah, I would gladly trade
these. Besides, surely a damage tracker and storer would not be sooo
difficult. The game already has to remember the players damage, and even
the enemies', in that it has to know how much damage has been done to an
arm so it knows when to make the arm fall off.
Get with it.
--
Don Halloran
dhal...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
\ / | /--- ----- /--\ |--\ \ / /--\ |--\ |--\ |-- /\ ----- | |
\ / | | | | | |--/ \/ | | |--/ | | |-- /--\ | |--|
\/ | \--- | \--/ | \ / \--/ | \ |--/ |-- / \ | | |
"victory or death"
Tim Foley
In article <325373e3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, char...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
says...
>
>
> Yeah, but I seem to remember this game from the 1980s called
>Mechwarrior which allowed limited user-controlled salvage. For
>instance, if you blew off just the cockpit or just the leg, you ended
>up with more C-Bills for your salvage. Granted that game didn't have
>the advanced graphics and sound, but it was just as fun. Those were
>the good old days, when a good game meant more than a good graphics
>engine. Playability is just as important even if it doesn't give you
>fancy screenshots to put on the box.
AMEN to that! I can't believe how most game companies are worried about
engine "Fluff" and visual effects at the expense of game play. I think its the
new buyers that are doing it, ie. Trying to compete with Playstations etc.
One of the best selling features of PC games compared to video games is the
depth of the playability (ie. Character Development, control, etc), not just a
shoot-em-up.
The scary part about Mercs at the present stage in development is that it
would be an easy port to a Playstation / Sega / Etc, as the game is quite
controllable with just a mouse for instance. I for one hope that is not one of
the reasons why Mercs is limited in its campaign play, though I imagine its
like Tim Morton had said....Creaping Featurism really delays a product.
If I all of a sudden see any video game console versions of Mercs then I
think we have our answer....Of course if they didn't put all that fluff in then
guys who bought their P166 w/32meg and Graphics Accelerator would complain
about the lack of special effects and graphics... we can't win eh!?
Take Care
Tim
PS. Please find a comprimise on salvage! and improve what we can do with our
merc company...right now I feel like a Merc Lance...not a independant
company/battalion....
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim G. Foley -=- One should not actively seek a confrontation,
ti...@interlog.com but one should not fear one either. -=-
Grand Master O.E. Simon
*> Williams Defender Arcade Classic -- Home Page <*
http://www.interlog.com/~timf/defender_page/defender.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Pricher
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>Hi Will!
>While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
>into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
>features in the game.
>When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
>things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
>all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
>I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
>the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
>say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
>The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
>Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
>Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
>should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
>the computer is in control rather than the user.
>Tim Morten
Mr. Morten,
I'm sure it is appreciated by all that the Mercs developement staff
takes an active interest in its consumers opinions, however I think
you are broadly mistaken about how people feel now that we "understand
the way it works". The frustrating point, to be candid, is that the
salvage dynamic of this game is not salvage at all. As it stands,
salvage in this game is nothing more than Super Mario getting thrown a
bone, like a "Magic Mushroom" in the game that bears his name. This
is not salvage, its random monsters in D&D or power-ups in any 80's
video game. THIS is frustrating. A salvage option to a game
indicates that you recover equipment base on if it is recoverable due
to your expertise in combat. I'd say a head shot that leaves a mech
totally undamaged would count for this. In fact, evidently your staff
and voice-over people agree with this considering the fact that good
ol' Sarge in the training mission advises you to "shoot the head, save
the meat" (sorry if that's a little off I'm not at my machine to hear
the exact quote). I like Mercs. I like the fact that you care enough
to reply (although the staff was noticeably silent for quite some time
after the initial release). I, for one, do not like that when you
are addressing concerns of your buying public, you toss off a
dismissive sounding response which sounds like the majority of those
upset about the salvage parameters of the game like it now that they
"understand" it, and those hardliner's who know that salvage is not
really salvage in this game (because of the reasons outlined above)
are sort of an unreasonable minority. I understand marketing and the
value of talking up the facets of a product to sell said product, but
the real problem here is that the salvage engine is just a random
bonus engine (sorry if that is not the right computerese term) not a
true salvage engine as MANY of us were led to believe. Mech 1 had
something more along a true salvage engine. Sorry if it sounds so
harsh but I believe in calling rose a rose.
Thanks,
S. Pricher
Andrew Spencer
Jack Mamais wrote:
>
> OUCH, since there are going to be no expansion packs to Mercs
Sigh, you mean this is it for the insanely fun and playable Mechwarrior
series for Activision? Not even one little teeny tiny $25 expansion
pak? Oh it is a sad day indeed. Ok then, hopeful (not promised) Salvage
changes is pretty good sign again, it would definately make a tremendous
playability difference (such as replaying the whole game for the soul
reason of salvaging EVER mech you meet until you have a fleet of about
70 mechs most of them 100ton Kodiaks :-) Yeah, a real way to power
trip! Well, sorry to hear that this is the last, but since I'm still
greedy for an expansion pak, is it true that the little "tools" on the
CD include a mission maker? well if that's the case all us fanatics
will have Mech .WADs or whatever floating around real soon. And there
is still great rejoicing...
Andrew M. Spencer
Trav
> Hi Jack, thanks for the clarification. I'd just like to offer the opinion
> that this was a poor design choice, and creates a frustrating, if not
> futile and impotent, experience for the player.
>
> You've pointed out that the salvage depends on (a) the mission designer,
> (b) the contract, and (c) randomness. The player does not have ANY
> control whatsoever over any of these conditions, so you are therefore
> saying that the player has NO CONTROL over the salvage. _None_, none
> whatsoever.
In the first "salvage" mission I blew up the jenner which promptly became salvagable!
Ill back you in a false advertising lawsuit! I mean there is no salvage in the game,
although they hyped it up to have it!
Perhaps a rewrite of the program is in order, or maybe my $60 bucks!
Activision, you got me once with MW2 and I didnt like it, now you have gotten me again
with Mercs! (I got you with GBL) :)
But hear this I will never never ever buy another activision product from you again!!!!
Only reason I bought mercs is it has the FASA name on it!
> First, I have to point out that in this case, what the player is
> receiving is not salvage, at all, but just another "payment" for the
> mission. Salvage, by definition, depends on what's left on the
> battlefield, but you've said that it's not dependent on that at all.
> So I would argue that the advertisement claiming that Mercenaries
> implements a salvage system is patently false.
YEP!
> Second and more importantly, when a player is unable to control his
> rewards - when the outcome is wholly unrelated to his actions - it just
> plain isn't any fun. That's what a game is all about, isn't it? If, no
> matter what the player does in a mission, he always receives the
> pre-determined salvage - or, worse, the result is always a "luck of the
> draw" - there's no incentive to perform well in the mission. There's no
> challenge. There's no reason to play the game at all. You _do_ want people
> to want to play your games, I hope?
Apparently not, I mean they didnt listen to our complaints for MW2.
We wanted a game that did not end. A loop like MW1. Didn't get that!
> If nothing the player does affects the salvage, then there's no skill
> involved. If there's no skill involved, then it's not truly a game,
> is it?
> It's like rolling a die. Sometimes you get a six, but how long are you
> going to keep doing it, if you can't affect the outcome?
It is a kill fest. Nothing but a mech type doom game.
> I hope some of this gets across to you, and that you understand why this
> is so unsatisfactory to myself and many others. I can't help but point out
> that it's _only_ Activision's fault that we expected such a
> player-determined salvage system. Mechwarrior I, also released by
> Activision, showed us it was possible, and that it _worked_, and that it
> was very, very satisfying to a player. Honestly, how could we expect
> _anything less_ from Activision this time around?
You might want to point out that We have been SCreaming for MW1 enhanced since MW2, GBL
and no mercs has come out. 3 strikes your out! Hello we WANT MW1 with MW2 graphics and
mechs!!!!!!!! Thats all we have been saying for the past year and a half!!!!!
Need some coffee? What can we do to get this across to you activision????
--
Is your merc unit struggling? Then you better go to Outreach!
-----------------------------------------
"http://www.uncg.edu/~jgtravis/btech.html"
-----------------------------------------
So the Wolfs Dragoons, Gray Death Legion and
Kellhounds can't get the job done:
Then let us take care of it--Mystic Warriors.
-----------------------------------------
"http://www.uncg.edu/~jgtravis/!war.htm"
-----------------------------------------
Trav
Tim Morten wrote:
> When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
> things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
> all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
I would wait 5 years and pay $200 if it did everything we were promised.
> I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
> the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
> say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
Multiple light sources are nice if your making a movie, and it does look cool, but as
most people have been saying we want a game that is playable over and over. this is
what we want most and we could deal with lesser graphics and effects such as multiple
light sources.
In all honesty i bet 50% of the players or more dont run this thing at its highest
graphics potential!
> The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
> Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
Agreed, but why couldnt you guys simply fake it and make it on a table or array which
randomly selects some salvage that could be recieved? A table that knows which mission
has which mechs and thus puts salvage from those?
Then you could set a flag for a head hit or leg kill which says MUCHO salvage and
promply gives the player a mech or more salvage.
> Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
> should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
> the computer is in control rather than the user.
You guys have had 3 games to perfect this, and none of our comments are getting thru.
When mechwarrior 2 came out we wanted replayabillity, salvage and everything from MW1.
So why not take the engine from mw2 and add the salvage and things from mw1?
How long would it take to program mw1 and just add some more mechs?
Maybe we should request that?
Mark McGann
In article <32532E...@activision.com>,
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>Hi Will!
>
>While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
>into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
>features in the game.
>
>things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
>all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
I think people percieve the game to have 2 parts. A simulation,
which is the actual part of the game where you pilot a mech, and a
shell, which is the part of the game that decides what conditions to
use in each simulation (i.e. what map to use, which side gets what mechs).
The shell is what gives the feel of being in the Mechwarrior universe,
while the simulation is what gives the player the feel of fighting mech
combat. People judge the shell by how much 'realistic' control they have
over the universe. The simulation is judged in obvious ways.
People determin how good a game is by factoring in both the
shell and the simulation. There is a diminishing return, however,
on improvments to either part of the game when the other part is weak.
In this case your shell is weak in both games, albeit a little better
in mercs. So while you might have say doubled the complexity in the
simulation, people don't see the game as being twice as good becase
the shell is still weak.
I should also point out here, that your now competing against
your old game MW2 when selling mercs. People are no longer thinking
"should I spend $50 on a Mech simulation" they are thinking "Should
I spend $50 on an improvmed mech simulation".
>I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
>the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
>say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
I would have traded all the improvments in the simulation for
a really cool shell. (I have a P-166, so I'm not saying this because
the game would probably run better on slower computers). I would
have prefered the Mechwarrior 1 shell with Mechwarrior 2 graphics.
Mechwarrior 1 had a great shell (and a great simulation for the time),
I played it for years after it was released. I never even noticed
the plot until I owned the game for 2 years, I was having too much
fun just running around the universe and managing my mech company.
It's also important to realise that common sense tells most
semi-computer literate people that shell improments are easier than
simulation improvments. (e.g. Introducing hagling for payments of
missions vs. introducing multiple light sources, etc etc). I think
you would be suprised to find out just how many people, would prefer
the former vs. the latter; even if they don't it seems like you could
do some many other little improvments like that in the same time it
took you do multiple light sources or something else in the simulation.
>The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
>Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
>
>Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
>should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
>the computer is in control rather than the user.
People like to be in control, it adds to the feeling of imersion.
People like to feel like they could do anythig they want in a game, and
gamers are extreemly adept at noticing when they are not actually in
control of the game, and it hurts thier feeling of immersion in the game.
Finally I'd just like to note that I don't intend to belittle
anything you or JJ or any of the other activision crew have done to
the game. You've done an amazing job on the simulation section of the
game, and that's reason enough for me to buy your game. You also have
shown a willingness to stay on these newsgroups and be responsive
and helpful despite being flamed on a fairly regular basis; and that
has not gone unnoticed by me (all I'll bet a lot of other lurkers).
I'm simply trying to show you a gamers point of view. I
write molecular simulations for a living, and I find myself commonly
falling into the trap of concentrating on the more difficult inner
working of the program while neglecting the simple input and output
routines, even though from a users point view the input and output
are just as improtant as the inner workings. I think you might have
fallen into an analogous trap.
-Mark McGann
Randy Martens
Tim Morten wrote:
>
> Hi Will!
>
> While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
> into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
> features in the game.
>
> When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
> things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
> all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
Tell me about it! I write & Q/A software for a living.
> I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
> the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
> say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
Yes and yes. I think you made a poor choice. player controlled salvage
would have made the game much more play worthy. Mutliple light sources
and the internet driver are just frills.
> The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
> Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
>
> Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
> should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
> the computer is in control rather than the user.
>
> Tim Morten
*sigh*
And with Activision losing the contract with FASA, the likelyhood of
a mercenaries follow on is about zero.
I wish you had stayed closer to the MechWarrior I paradigm.
Cheers,
Randy
--
| "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no |
| basis for a system of government" ----------- M. Palin |
Tim Morten
<I would wait 5 years and pay $200 if it did everything we were
promised.>
I do feel that Mercs has answered a LOT of user requests from MW2. It
is impossible to respond to every request.
<Multiple light sources are nice if your making a movie, and it does
look cool, but as
most people have been saying we want a game that is playable over and
over. this is
what we want most and we could deal with lesser graphics and effects
such as multiple
light sources.>
While there are some verbose users on the group who feel this way,
lightsourcing and the other effects are highly lauded by most of our
users.
<Agreed, but why couldnt you guys simply fake it and make it on a table
or array which
randomly selects some salvage that could be recieved? A table that
knows which mission
has which mechs and thus puts salvage from those?>
We have no need to fake it; if we had decided to implement salvage, we
would have. The point is, we decided to implement other features. I am
sincerely sorry to hear that we decided against a feature that users
care about. However, as I said previously, it is impossible to make
everyone happy.
<You guys have had 3 games to perfect this, and none of our comments are
getting thru.
When mechwarrior 2 came out we wanted replayabillity, salvage and
everything from MW1.>
I really think that statement is unfair. We designed Mercs directly out
of user comments on MechWarrior 2. To go off on us just because you're
not happy about one feature is unwarranted.
Regarding replayability, note that there are a large variety of paths
through Mercs, there are contract missions that are randomly generated,
there is instant action mode which is randomly generated, there are 15
network missions, and there are tools provided to allow third parties to
create missions. That is an AWFUL lot of replayability IMHO.
Tim.
Tim Morten
Mark McGann wrote:
>
> It's also important to realise that common sense tells most
> semi-computer literate people that shell improments are easier than
> simulation improvments.
Salvage is actually a simulation change.
> People like to be in control, it adds to the feeling of imersion.
> People like to feel like they could do anythig they want in a game, and
> gamers are extreemly adept at noticing when they are not actually in
> control of the game, and it hurts thier feeling of immersion in the game.
Though they are not in control of salvage, they are in control of what damage is incurred to their mechs,
what they spend their money on for weapons, armor, and equipment, what missions to go on, which lancemate
to hire, what mech to buy, etc. I would argue that we have implemented a high degree of user control, and
that in fact people are overlooking that to zero in on one point.
Tim.
Tim Morten
Todd A. Green wrote:
>
> While I agree with your point in principle, this is a poor example. It
> is highly unlikely (though not completely improbable) that either your
> network programmer, or your 3D programmer were invovled in directly
> programming salvage.
Not to bicker, but in fact our 3D programmer is also our game logic programmer <g>. The task
would have fallen to him.
Tim.
Jack Mamais
It is our hope that the mission tools will be used to build many .bwd's
(that's what we call our "wads")
Jack Mamais
Director
Mechwarrior2: Mercenaries
> Andrew Spencer <aspe...@maine.maine.edu> wrote in article
<3253D3...@maine.maine.edu>...
Patrick Bradley
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Tim Morten wrote:
> Hi Will!
>
> While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
> into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
> features in the game.
>
> I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
> the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
> say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
>
I agree with you 100%. You guys made a great game. Maybe not a PERFECT
game, but I can't think of one that is. The people on this newsgroup who
are having difficulties getting the game to run have a reason to be
frustrated and I trust those frustrations will end when the patch is
released. But to trash a game for something as small as salvage is petty.
If Activision hadn't even included salvage I doubt the complaints would
have been so fierce. I recognize that salvage was a very small part of
what you guys were trying to achieve with Mercs. I can wish that an
intelligent salvage engine was there, but to state, like many on this
group, that its absense ruins the game is way too harsh a judgement.
.__ , . .__ .. Patrick Bradley (pea...@cam.org)
[__) _.-+-._.* _.;_/ [__)._. _. _|| _ . System Administrator
| (_] | [ |(_.| \ [__)[ (_](_]|(/,\_| Communications Accessibles Montreal
_____________________________________ ._| (http://www.cam.org) (in...@cam.org)
Sean Larabee
Tim Morten (tmo...@activision.com) wrote:
> I do feel that Mercs has answered a LOT of user requests from MW2. It
> is impossible to respond to every request.
> While there are some verbose users on the group who feel this way,
> lightsourcing and the other effects are highly lauded by most of our
> users.
Who? The only people I have seen lauding the game are also the ones
claiming not to have experienced a *single* bug. Their credibility takes
a dive after that.
I don't remember anyone clamoring, after GBL, for improved graphics.
Pretty much everyone agreed that the graphics were extraordinarily well
done. What people wanted was control over our pilot characters. We
wanted to choose the why/where/when/for how much of our fighting.
> We have no need to fake it; if we had decided to implement salvage, we
> would have.
Well, this is the first time an Activision rep has flat out admitted that
what the players got is not salvage. Kind of odd considering the web site
mentioned salvage as one of the improvements to the game. The back of the
box mentions getting salvage. Why use the word when all we were getting
was a preprogrammed 'gift' of equipement?
> care about. However, as I said previously, it is impossible to make
> everyone happy.
Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
> I really think that statement is unfair. We designed Mercs directly out
> of user comments on MechWarrior 2. To go off on us just because you're
> not happy about one feature is unwarranted.
Please. You have earned a lot of respect and appreciation with me for all
your informative posts over the months. Activision has done a great job
of interacting with their customers in the Btech related newsgroups.
Don't blow it by dismissing the firestorm over mercs as 'going off over
the lack of one feature'. No traveling, no real salvage, no bargaining,
forced retirement, no reputation -- the list is more than one feature.
Even then, I could have lived with the game as is, but for the incredible
volumn and variety of bugs. It is the combination of missing features and
bugginess that has fueled the flames.
> Regarding replayability, note that there are a large variety of paths
> through Mercs, there are contract missions that are randomly generated,
> there is instant action mode which is randomly generated, there are 15
> network missions, and there are tools provided to allow third parties to
> create missions. That is an AWFUL lot of replayability IMHO.
Yes, but instant action, network missions, and what can be created with
the tools have no bearing on the mercenary outfit I have created. In less
than one week I have seen every one of the nicely preprogrammed missions
in the career mode. And since I am forced to retire, my men and I can't
even continue with just the random low pay missions. I played Mechwarrior
I on my XT in 1989. I continued playing it after my 386 upgrade, my 486
upgrade, and as soon as I get my 5.25 drive fixed, will put it back on and
play it on my Pentium. Mercs does not have the replayability to still be
in use three generations of PC technology later. Even if every bug gets
fixed, the game will be replaced on my hard drive by the original
Mechwarrior before the end of the year.
Great sim action, wonderful one-time mission play, beautiful cutscenes,
near zero gameplay. That's what hurts...you came so close to what so many
people were looking for. And yes, I would rip out every texture map,
light source, and shadow to get those shell features.
--
Sean Larabee "Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt
lara...@uidaho.edu in your face. Then the worms eat you. Be grateful
it happens in that order." -- David Gerrold
Camille Klein
Sean Larabee (lara...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu) murdered some electrons to write:
# Who? The only people I have seen lauding the game are also the ones
# claiming not to have experienced a *single* bug. Their credibility takes
# a dive after that.
FWIW, I have experienced several bugs. But I still enjoy the game because
it does a good job of capturing the flavour of the original Mechwarrior
while incorporating new things. I personally look forward to the
patch(es).
# Well, this is the first time an Activision rep has flat out admitted that
# what the players got is not salvage. Kind of odd considering the web site
# mentioned salvage as one of the improvements to the game. The back of the
# box mentions getting salvage. Why use the word when all we were getting
# was a preprogrammed 'gift' of equipement?
This, I have to agree with. It's a real disappointment to go through hell
and damnation to try to get done with a bitch of a mission...only to find
that you *maybe* salvaged a flamer or something like that. Come on,
gents...you said salvage, now give us salvage please.
# Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
# what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
Count me in the middle, please. In some ways, it's kind of a bummer--I
like being able to haggle for salvage rights and stuff, and I also like to
have some roleplaying here and there--but in other ways, it is most
excellent.
# Please. You have earned a lot of respect and appreciation with me for all
# your informative posts over the months. Activision has done a great job
# of interacting with their customers in the Btech related newsgroups.
# Don't blow it by dismissing the firestorm over mercs as 'going off over
# the lack of one feature'. No traveling, no real salvage, no bargaining,
# forced retirement, no reputation -- the list is more than one feature.
Ditto. *immediately goes to purify self after dirtying herself with
Dittoheadedness*
# Great sim action, wonderful one-time mission play, beautiful cutscenes,
# near zero gameplay. That's what hurts...you came so close to what so many
# people were looking for. And yes, I would rip out every texture map,
# light source, and shadow to get those shell features.
Now that I think about it...Hell, I'd do the same.
--Camille. Pleased in some ways, disappointed in others.
--
I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back.--Drew Lanz.
All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a
service charge of $250 per piece of mail.
ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINIAN AGAINST JESSE HELMS
KILL VEGETARIANS AND EAT THEM!!
Tim Morten
Sean Larabee wrote:
> Who? The only people I have seen lauding the game are also the ones
No offense here, but we have other users than those that post to this group.
> Well, this is the first time an Activision rep has flat out admitted that
> what the players got is not salvage. Kind of odd considering the web site
> mentioned salvage as one of the improvements to the game. The back of the
> box mentions getting salvage. Why use the word when all we were getting
> was a preprogrammed 'gift' of equipement?
We have stated since it was first asked that salvage is based on the game designers allocation,
and on the randomness he chose.
> Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
> what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
Again, I am very sorry to hear that there are disappointed people out there. I believe the main
issue is the bugs rather than the game itself. I hope that once the patch is out there that the
game may be judged more fairly.
> Please. You have earned a lot of respect and appreciation with me for all
> your informative posts over the months. Activision has done a great job
> of interacting with their customers in the Btech related newsgroups.
> Don't blow it by dismissing the firestorm over mercs as 'going off over
> the lack of one feature'. No traveling, no real salvage, no bargaining,
> forced retirement, no reputation -- the list is more than one feature.
> Even then, I could have lived with the game as is, but for the incredible
> volumn and variety of bugs. It is the combination of missing features and
> bugginess that has fueled the flames.
Again, my feeling is not that the game itself *sucks*. The bugs are the main issue. We
apologize for letting it go out with bugs, and we will patch them. We made a mistake, and we
are doing our best to fix it.
Tim.
Tim Morten
Response to an e-mail from Trav:
<Yes I will admit that the lights are awesome and look cool, but Are
you really 100% sure people wanted this over Salvage???>
Lightsourcing was only an example. There are any of a number of
features that could have been "traded" for salvage. Looks like we just
decided incorrectly when we were making those trade-offs. I wish we
hadn't. Those are some of the hardest decisions to make when designing
a game.
<Tim, I know you feel dogged, as many people dogged you with the
original MW2. I defended you guys prior to the release of MW2. I said
hey give them a chance with MW2. I was glad to have a game come
out.>
Much appreciated <g>. I get about 10 flames for every one neutral or
complimentary message.
<If it were only me then there would not be 100 messages on the
rec.games.mecha complaining about this and the other numerous bugs.
I have had tons of emails and post asking me if the salvage was real.
Many once they heard it was not decided not to purchase the game, so
is it really just me or are we just using that excuse to blow off
some Unimpotant customers????>
Didn't mean to come off that way; we really do care what everyone
thinks. I can't tell you how disappointing it is for us to work hard on
something for a year only to have it trashed as it is on the group. If
we had understood the importance of user-controlled salvage to people on
the group, I can promise that we wouldn't have overlooked it.
<How about giving the names of some 3rd part programs? >
Not programs; what I mean is that the programs we use here at Activision
to create the missions are on the Mercenaries CD in the TOOLS directory.
Tim.
Dan Kegel
Kevin Aw wrote:
>
> >Not programs; what I mean is that the programs we use here at Activision
> >to create the missions are on the Mercenaries CD in the TOOLS directory.
>
> We should start there if we are going to make maps.
That's the spirit!
- Dan
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own,
and are not the opinions of my employer.
Charles Darwin - a guy with a Vastly dangerous idea!
Kevin Aw
>Not programs; what I mean is that the programs we use here at Activision
>to create the missions are on the Mercenaries CD in the TOOLS directory.
There's also some HTML in there explaining how to work the tools. We should
start there if we are going to make maps.
--
--------------------------
<k...@unixg.ubc.ca>, <a4...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
Homepage: http://www.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca/spider/a4j1
Kevin Aw, after the great HD crash of September 16th, 1996.
R. Thomas
> even continue with just the random low pay missions. I played Mechwarrior
> I on my XT in 1989. I continued playing it after my 386 upgrade, my 486
> upgrade, and as soon as I get my 5.25 drive fixed, will put it back on and
> play it on my Pentium. Mercs does not have the replayability to still be
> in use three generations of PC technology later. Even if every bug gets
> fixed, the game will be replaced on my hard drive by the original
> Mechwarrior before the end of the year.
>
I played MWI and it was fun, worth the money, etc, but it WAS'NT gods
gift to
gaming. The computer AI was set at idiot, some missions could be won by
simply taking a light mech with jump jets and landing on the objective
no matter how damaged you were, and the random missions were no better
then the random missions in privateer (yes i know mw was first by a
lot).
It was a great game FOR THE TIME. What is the real shame is that
while graphics, sound, etc are light years ahead, the AI's and gameplay
are about the same (or a bit less) then I had on a C-64. How hard would
it be for the game developers to actuly PLAY the games from start to
finish
and see where the AI's are weak and the bugs are? If I can find a bug
or five after a few hours of play, they must have known they were in
there and
decided to ship anyways. I'm sure this is a money decision, that is
they feel
they would make more money shipping now they waiting to fix the bugs.
After all they can always release a 'free' patch later so we can all say
how
wonderful the patch is. I too am going to make a money decision. I'm
not
going to buy mercs, its not the game it should have been, and I've
already played
MW2 and don't want to play a new version of this.
The activison people have done a good job of damage control here but you
can
boil down what they said into two statements.
1. Other people liked the game as it is, and we can't please everyone.
2. There will be no major improvements beyond bug fixes.
Its a shame, I was really looking forward to this game.
RT
Thibor FireCry
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>We have no need to fake it; if we had decided to implement salvage, we
>would have. The point is, we decided to implement other features. I am
>sincerely sorry to hear that we decided against a feature that users
>care about. However, as I said previously, it is impossible to make
>everyone happy.
Okay... I think I see why everyone is pissed over the whole Salvage
thing. In the first mission with whatzisname.... the teacher guy???
he tells you that you should "kill the meat, save the metal."
My guess is that you INTENDED on making salvage one of the MAIN
features, maybe before you wrote the dialogue for the teacher guy?
And then you decided it was too hard (or more to the point... your
clock was ticking away) so you dumped it for the easy cop out.
I myself could really give a rats ass about salvage... I only wanted
the MercNet. <G> I hate playing one player stuff, especially when it
plays like the same old flight sim missions (which I expected anyway).
I just play the one player crap till I beat it (or get bored with it)
and then go and beat my friends up.
LEAVE the light sourcing and shadows.... they look cool. I think that
the word salvage was thrown in to make this game look like MW I. I
just want a good multiplayer game where some friggin rocket launcher
from a camper doesn't kill you in one shot. Netmech is it. MercNet
would have been had the Mech Lab let me make 300 alt configs.
If you guys want MW 1 then I'm sorry... you'll probably have to stick
with the original. This is MechWarrior TWO: Mercinaries. Not MW
Deluxe.
Thibor
Joe Colleran
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>Hi Will!
>
>While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
>into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
>features in the game.
>
>When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
>things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
>all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
>
>I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
>the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
>say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
>
>The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
> if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
>Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
>
>Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
>should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
>the computer is in control rather than the user.
>
>Tim Morten
Your points on not being able to finish the game if you added every
feature are valid for most games, Tim, but I thought that Mercenaries
would pretty much use a tweaked engine from MW2 and GBL, and thus you
could spend less time designing and coding the engine, and more time
coding the shell and plot. Also, MW2 itself had the longest
development time ever that I am aware of (I don't believe that Battle
Cruiser 3000 has taken as long yet.) I remember filling out a preoder
slip for MW2 and Return to Zork in the fall of 1993. Also, Mercenaries
solo player experience might well have benifited if you had chosen to
do MercNet as an add on. It is often better to do one thing well than
to try to do two things poorly.
Finally, what has me most annoyed and a lot of others too is that in
many respects the game is less advanced than the original Mech Warrior
I. In terms of salvage, Lance experience, number of Mechs you can have
on your side. (I think that allowing you a full lance and simply
turning down the graphics should have been an option), and depth of
background it is lacking compared to MechWarrior I. Most people wanted
something closer to Privateer than F-16 Falcon.
Thanks for your time,
Joe Colleran (jn...@richmond.infi.net)
Michael Kelly
In article <325425...@activision.com>,
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>Mark McGann wrote:
>>
>> It's also important to realise that common sense tells most
>> semi-computer literate people that shell improments are easier than
>> simulation improvments.
>
>
>> People like to feel like they could do anythig they want in a game, and
>> gamers are extreemly adept at noticing when they are not actually in
>> control of the game, and it hurts thier feeling of immersion in the game.
>
>is incurred to their mechs, what they spend their money on for weapons,
>armor, and equipment, what missions to go on, which lancemate to hire, what
>mech to buy, etc. I would argue that we have implemented a high degree of
>user control, and that in fact people are overlooking that to zero in on one
>point.
>
>Tim.
I have to agree. Guys, the salvage thing is disappointing, but it's too late
to do anything about it now, I'll be happy when the bug fixes are implemented
then I'll buy the game. Although being forced to retire sounds sucky. I'd like
to have the choice of marauding on, killing all who would stand before me with
my horde of ninja mechwarriors following! That's what mech warfare is all
about. :)
Mike Kelly.
Patrick Scott
Yes, there are some things I would have liked, such as "real" salvage and
contract negotiation. True, there are bugs. And, no, I don't think all
the complaints are mostly on the bugs - gamers wanted the above-mentioned
enhancements.
Now that I've said that, let me state here on the newsgroup another
experience I had. It was with a little known game called Civilization.
The AI cheated, yet was stupid, the graphics were OK, and the combat system
was mediocre at best. Yet I played this game because in life, there are
compromises. When Civilization II came out, I bought that, and once again,
there were things missing I would have liked, but I still kept it and
played it.
As for Mechwarrior II: Mercenaries, I like the game. While it is lacking,
no game is perfect. I probably would give up lighting effects for the
salvage and haggling, but then again... Sometimes I end up watching the PPC
lighting up the desert found as it reaches for it's target. very nifty
(and very deadly - I end up watching the pretty colors and get pounded).
Bottom Line? I have no qualms about returning a game if I don't like it.
This one is definitely a keeper.
--
Patrick Scott
Raconteur Extraordinaire
C.S.McMullen
>In the first "salvage" mission I blew up the jenner which promptly became
salvagable!
>Ill back you in a false advertising lawsuit! I mean there is no salvage in
the game,
>although they hyped it up to have it!
>
I hate to sound sanctimonius, but that kind of pisses me off as well.
The last time I've seen such blatant b*ll**ks was with GT Interactive's
MK3 modem play. I mean, making the salvage pre-determined instantly
nukes one of the strategic aspects of Mercs. Why bother trying
to take out the cockpit first, or avoid blowing away any valuable bits,
when it doesn't make any difference.
One of the programmers on Mercs mentioned that they might have had
to drop some of the other features, such as light sourcing to make
way for proper salvaging. May I remind him that gameplay is still
(just) preferable to flashy graphical touches? Tell you what, though
I'll be fair. How about you drop the bugs, problems, that kind of thing,
and stick proper salvage and an enhanced mechlab in.
Chris McMullen (who might just have calmed down a bit before he
gets round to reviewing the thing, but is going to make sure he
sticks his criticisms in.)
sccm...@ucsalf.ac.uk or C.S.Mc...@cms.salford.ac.uk
************************************************************************
*......Reviewer for the GD Review - Written by Gamers, for Gamers.....*
*..............http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/gdreview...................*
************************************************************************
*...And remember.. loose feet are a very *real* problem... Vic Reeves. *
*.................PGP Public Key available on request..................*
************************************************************************
Mark McGann
In article <325425...@activision.com>,
Tim Morten <tmo...@activision.com> wrote:
>Mark McGann wrote:
>>
>> It's also important to realise that common sense tells most
>> semi-computer literate people that shell improments are easier than
>> simulation improvments.
>
True, but many of the other things people have been commenting
about are not. (e.g. Reputation with various houses, reputation affecting
the quality of pilots available to hire, contract negotiations, etc etc).
>> People like to be in control, it adds to the feeling of imersion.
>> People like to feel like they could do anythig they want in a game, and
>> gamers are extreemly adept at noticing when they are not actually in
>> control of the game, and it hurts thier feeling of immersion in the game.
>
>Though they are not in control of salvage, they are in control of what damage is incurred to their mechs,
>what they spend their money on for weapons, armor, and equipment, what missions to go on, which lancemate
>to hire, what mech to buy, etc. I would argue that we have implemented a high degree of user control, and
>that in fact people are overlooking that to zero in on one point.
I'll grant you that salvage is a pretty minor point. It really
wasn't the overall thrust of my previous post. The idea I was trying
to get across is that people, at least I do, want a much more complex
shell. I'm thinking of a shell that could almost be considered a minor
game itself. I realise that this is never going to happen to Mercs at
this stage in it's development, I'm just trying to explain what I think
people are trying to say they wanted.
-Mark
Dan Kegel
Shawn Pricher wrote:
> ... I like the fact that [Tim et al] care enough
> to reply (although the staff was noticeably silent for quite some time
> after the initial release).
What am I, chopped liver ?-)
- Dan
p.s. I must admit Tim knows more about MW2 and Mercs than
I ever will.
Mark Skyfire
To speak for the Transatlantic faction of BattleTech maniacs (i.e., the
European ones), those that did not get a chance to get the game yet (and
trust me, if I bug the local games shop owner one more time, he will
shoot me), I would like to request 2 things:
First, just promise that Activision will publish a version of Mercs that
got rid of the more severe bugs that were mentioned here. I mean, I
bought Mechwarrior and GBL about 2 months ago, in a limited edition pack
(German Version) for about 40 $. It did not have any bugs in it anymore,
and so both prize (or is it price ? Always mix that up :-) and
playability justified the long (loooong...LOOOONG !) waiting time. And
what I heard on this group now about the playability, I wonæ„’ buy asap
npw either.
Second, if you license a German Version, PLEASE get somebody who
actually speaks German and others who check what he/she wrote. The typos
in the German version were really weird at some points (at one time, it
was Kreigshammer instead of Kriegshammer, thatæ„€ like you spell
Warhammer as Whamharmer ;-). And if they translate it, they should
translate ALL of it. The Database in Mech II was still in English...
Mark Skyfire@BTech3056 (when it was still up that is, but noone knows my
real name on this Group anyway ;-)
Jack Mamais
Actually, that's not entirely true.
We are listening to all the posts and they are having an effect on our
patch creation.
We will add enhancements to our 1.1 patch which will include a
reload/rearm feature in the sim in MercNet. This is a NEW feature! We are
also looking at a way to make salvage real...
Jack Mamais
Dan Kegel
Mark Skyfire wrote:
> First, just promise that Activision will publish a version of Mercs that
> got rid of the more severe bugs that were mentioned here.
Ich glaube, die deutsche Ausgabe wird ungefaehr Mercs 1.05 entsprechen.
(Ich kenne den Programmierer persoenlich.)
> Second, if you license a German Version, PLEASE get somebody who
> actually speaks German and others who check what he/she wrote.
Ich kann nichts versprechen, aber ich werde versuchen, die ueblste
Fehler
zu finden und zu korrigieren. (Es waere ja schoen, echte deutche
beta-testers es testen zu lassen, wenn nur der Zeitplan es erlaubte!)
- Dan
Trav
Todd A. Green wrote:
>
> 'Tim Morten ' wrote:
> >I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
> >the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
> >say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
<IMG of kid playing mechwarrior 2: mercenaries>
"This darn thing doesnt have real salvage!....Well it has multiple light sources, I
guess I will keep it!"
Yeah Right!
> No the frustrating part is that the salvage you collect is not based on
> your performance. Few people like playing pre-scripted games. Look at
> how interactive movies have flopped. The back of my box says, "Salvage
> enemy kills from the field...and steal what you can't buy." That sounds
> exciting! Simply choosing contracts where salvage rights are listed as
> excellent is anything but exciting. (I have no idea where the stealing
> comes into play unless they are referring to the game itself ;)
Great point todd, it is a steal.
50 bucks for a nintendo type game you can beat on a weekend.
Trav
Tim Morten wrote:
>
> Mark McGann wrote:
> >
> > It's also important to realise that common sense tells most
> > semi-computer literate people that shell improments are easier than
> > simulation improvments.
>
Perhaps, but it would not be that much more dificult to program since you already have
to keep track of damage before a mech dies!
That is shown in the little box on the bottom left.
It shows whats been destroyed and what is still kicking on a mech so somewhere it is
already keeping track of enemy mech damages!
> > People like to be in control, it adds to the feeling of imersion.
> > People like to feel like they could do anythig they want in a game, and
> > gamers are extreemly adept at noticing when they are not actually in
> > control of the game, and it hurts thier feeling of immersion in the game.
>
> Though they are not in control of salvage, they are in control of what damage is incurred to their mechs,
> what they spend their money on for weapons, armor, and equipment, what missions to go on,
Damage to mechs somewhat, you are never 100% in control of a combat situation.
As to weapons, money, equipment it is no diferent now than it was in mechwarrior 2.
Only thing that is diferent is the fact that we have to pay money, which limits what
is added. Not to mention that I often wanted to modify a mech, but found it having an
extra ppc, extra missle rack (clan LRM20) or extra tonnage wasted, which prevented me
from making changes due to being 20 tons overweight!
> which lancemate
> to hire, what mech to buy, etc.
ALthought the hiring and buying of mechs is something we get to do, it was really
aggrivating to be told I can only use one lancemate, or no aerospace support for
defensive missions.
If I am truly the merc commander, then I want my whole lance, and Why can I not have 2
mechs and an aerospace fighter?
If I own it and I am contracted to do a mission then I am gonna use it.
If the Contract stated We only need or want to hire you and 1 mech then ok, but it
contracted my unit so I want to use what I have!
I would argue that we have implemented a high degree of user control, and
> that in fact people are overlooking that to zero in on one point.
No if we were arguing that we should be able to fly the aerospace fighter like a
previously released game from a competitor then I can see where you guys could complain
about programming, because that is a whole diferent simulation. But all we are asking
for is bidding, freedom to continue playing after the final battle, to be in the final
battle and for salvage which is already being tracked in combat somehow!
None of that is too much into the simulator area that we should not complain.
Trav
Sean Larabee wrote:
>
> Tim Morten (tmo...@activision.com) wrote:
> > I do feel that Mercs has answered a LOT of user requests from MW2. It
> > is impossible to respond to every request.
>
> > While there are some verbose users on the group who feel this way,
> > lightsourcing and the other effects are highly lauded by most of our
> > users.
>
> claiming not to have experienced a *single* bug. Their credibility takes
> a dive after that.
Not to mention most of those players have never played he real boardgame either!
> Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
> what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
Really, I have not heard that from any of the 15 people I know and play Battletech
and netmech with.
> Yes, but instant action, network missions, and what can be created with
> the tools have no bearing on the mercenary outfit I have created. In less
> than one week I have seen every one of the nicely preprogrammed missions
> in the career mode.
If Activision really wanted a good product they should have designed it so
mercenary units (yes units) from the game could play and get paid for netmech
missions. This would have been cool.
I am just waiting to see what the next Earthsiege title does. They have playing
online with money, they have customized mechs for money. Any I bet they are
watching in here to see what we want. I mean when they say salvage. To take a pun
from EA "It's in the Game!"
> Great sim action, wonderful one-time mission play, beautiful cutscenes,
> near zero gameplay. That's what hurts...you came so close to what so many
> people were looking for. And yes, I would rip out every texture map,
> light source, and shadow to get those shell features.
I dont even play with the ground details on.
So get rid of that so I can have salvage, negotiations and not have to retire.
I still cant get over watching friends, family, teamates and employers battling
over a planet that my FOrced to retire butt is relaxing on??? Go figure!
Trav
Tim Morten wrote:
> We have stated since it was first asked that salvage is based on the game designers allocation,
> and on the randomness he chose.
>
> > what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
>
> issue is the bugs rather than the game itself. I hope that once the patch is out there that the
> game may be judged more fairly.
You guys just DONT listen.
I have seen 50 POST saying I can deal with the bugs if the game had the features we asked
for!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
WE WANT SALVAGE!!!!
Trav
R. Thomas wrote:
> The activison people have done a good job of damage control here but you
> can
> boil down what they said into two statements.
> 1. Other people liked the game as it is, and we can't please everyone.
> 2. There will be no major improvements beyond bug fixes.
>
> Its a shame, I was really looking forward to this game.
> RT
Well if you consider MW2, GBL, and Mercs $60 * 3 = $180
$180 bucks for the same game 3 times? I would have payed $180 for the game we have all
requested.
BTW-->I would like to say one good thing about Mercs. At least someone at activision did a
really good job. The music Rocks!!! Or was that outsourced?
--
mreindl
I think the frustration comes not from the realization that salvage is
controlled by the computer, but that a big deal was made of the ability to
salvage mechs in the first place, and it was not followed through on. I
read all of the hype and how important it would be in the game to target
legs or heads to maximize salvage, then the game waas released with no
mention that this feature was not implemented. Personally, given that
this is an issue that was dealt with quite effectively in the original
mechwarrior, I'd have like to have seen it in this game as well. The
shadows and light sourcing and texture mapping are cool, but I would be
willing to ditch the texturemapped terrain (which I don't use anyway) or
wait a little longer to get the game.
Mark
Robert A Mollard
I am SCARED.
I am really scared.
What Activision has been saying in this post is that graphics take
precedence over gameplay. The day all companies believe this is the day
my computer gets tossed into the river.
The new graphics are terrific, no question. But if Activision hadn't
changed a
single thing from mech2, used the exact same graphics engine, and
concentrated on the *playability* of mercenaries, it would have been so
much better. What everyone has been saying in this post has been brushed
aside or ignored.
Why can't a company realize that gamers want *immersion*.. we want to
feel like mercenaries, fighting for profit and controlled by no-one.
For the majority of the mechwarrior followers (IMO, obvisously), the game
isn't about a bang bang shoot-em up. I didn't shell out cash for doom in
a mech. I want to know my skill means something, I want to know there's a
reason to take out the enemy's legs, I want to be able to play the game
until *I* feel like retiring.
We've been handed a scripted game, plain and simple. There is little more
control than we had in mech2... we follow a scripted path, getting
pre-determined salvage (whoever chose to get rid of salvage needs to go
play mech I for a while and see what they've done) and then we're put out
to pasture, no questions asked.
It really is a shame... mercenaries could have been so amazing. But
instead, the gaming community was treated like deer by a highway... give
them something bright to look at and they'll be mesmerized. I am truly
insulted that Activision believes they can create a pitiful user
interface and get away with it because they put in multiple light sourcing.
Graphics are important, yes.. but they are certainly not everything.
I was so eager to get this game, couldn't wait for the release. And it's
a flop, nothing else. We've been treated like idiots, and every copy
Activision sells is going to be another nail in the coffin of games where
playability matters.
I truly hate to have to flame Activision this way, but really, they
deserve it.
Mercenaries is going back to the store.
Bob
Alton J. Utt
: While I do agree with your comments on salvage, what you're not taking
: into account is the amount of work involved in implementing the other
: features in the game.
: When we design a game, we make a proposed feature list, and then we cut
: things until we think we have an achievable design goal. If we kept in
: all the features, we would have 5 year development cycles <g>.
: I don't say this to belittle your concern about salvage; rather I pose
: the question of whether you would trade user-controlled salvage for,
: say, the internet driver. Or perhaps the multiple light sources?
: The point is that, sure, we can hold the game for one more feature. But
: if we don't reign ourselves in at some point, we would never finish.
: Sorry to hear that salvage is frustrating people.
: Now that everyone understands the way it works, I think the concern
: should be diminished. The frustrating part was not understanding that
: the computer is in control rather than the user.
: Tim Morten
With the release of MWII:Mercs, I looked forward to a number of things to
be different than MWII:The Clans.
(in priority for single player enjoyment)
Mission outcome beign a factor in the story line
A salvage system similar to MWI
PPCs and Gause Rifles that are fast enough to be usefull :)
Inner Sphere Mech frames (locust, Archer, Blackjack, Awesome, KingCrab)
Inner Sphere weapon sytems and ranges (I like AC2s to be usefull :))
Enhanced terrain types (make urban feel more like a giant city)
And in the still dreaming category... :)
I'm still hoping to see a vehicle lab and ability to pilot them one of
these days...
For multi-player I would like to see a server type system that
tracks wins/losses, money, damage etc for the effect of an arena type
system. (something simialr to the Kesmai MPBT, using the MWII engine (and
with better terain selection)). I'd guess that the legal side of that
would be more of an obsticle than anything else...
I'm in the process of reading this newsgroup to see what I had hoped for
made it or did not make into the final product, and unfortunatly, I have
to say I'm disapointed be how salvage is said to be handled.
For the game to be enjoyable in single player mode, having a feeling that
how well or poorly you did affects yor future progress and capabilities
is very important. Hopefully future posts will not furthur discourage me
from this purchase, and hopefully this topic will mean enough to the rest
of us for it to be addressed in a future patch.
Alton
--
alt...@on-ramp.ior.com
http://www.ior.com/~altonu/
Norman C. Hall
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REAL SALVAGE.... This would a bunch to an already
excellent game.. It could make this (**watchout baseball metaphor
approaching**) triple into an in the park home run...
If you guys could implement a real salvage.. and be still my beating
heart a 'contract negoiation' system.. (ie. barter) It would definetly
change 'public outcry' to 'public shouts of joy' (ps. The game still
rocks as is -minus the bugs)...
Patrick Weaver
Ich glaube das ist nicht recht. Dan your German is lovely but lets hope
your foreign edition proof readers are better than your American ones.
I.e. mechwarrior Yachi Kim is referred as both "Him" and "Her" in the
same paragraph. Or is it both? Wouldn't life be grand if this were all
that ever went wrong with these games? Oh well I have people to kill and
money to make.
Swift Steel
Well, I bought MW2-Mercs before reading this group. I was
very disappointed in the salvage aspect. I am only on my third
contract, but I have only "blown up" three mechs....I have toppled an
atlas and would have love to salvage it, but I only got a small laser,
an LRM and 1 ton of ammo. that blew big chunks. I enjoy playing with
the textured maps and seeing the great jobs of mech color, but I as a
MERC would have prefered SALVAGE....I unit does not run on good looks
or textures...it runs on MONEY...earned and salvaged. I play the MW
rpg and run command a merc unit -- salvage is our life. what good is
it to salvage a small laser or an LRM 5 w/ 1 ton of ammo when my
bombadier lost both LRMs and I can't replace them caus I couldnt
afford or were offered 2 replacements? Give me a new mech.....beat to
hell and back ( it DID lose the fight!) but give me
salvageable/sellable mechs!!
Perhaps I should try out the other titles of mech sims that do
offer salvage as suggested, but I have saved and waited for MW2-Mercs.
I am waiting for the patch to see which bugs it fixes.....net play is
nice, but get the bloody game right first! mercs=SALVAGE!!
=========================================================
I read all mail....I just might not reply :)
BlackJack
In article <32557...@alumni.caltech.edu>, da...@alumni.caltech.edu says...
>
>Mark Skyfire wrote:
>> First, just promise that Activision will publish a version of Mercs that
>> got rid of the more severe bugs that were mentioned here.
>
>Ich glaube, die deutsche Ausgabe wird ungefaehr Mercs 1.05 entsprechen.
>(Ich kenne den Programmierer persoenlich.)
>
>> Second, if you license a German Version, PLEASE get somebody who
>> actually speaks German and others who check what he/she wrote.
>
>Ich kann nichts versprechen, aber ich werde versuchen, die ueblste
>Fehler
>zu finden und zu korrigieren. (Es waere ja schoen, echte deutche
>beta-testers es testen zu lassen, wenn nur der Zeitplan es erlaubte!)
>- Dan
>
>--
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own,
>and are not the opinions of my employer.
>
>Charles Darwin - a guy with a Vastly dangerous idea!
Ok, cute Dan, now how about in english for the rest of us :)
Jack Mamais
I have to disagree with you. We took gameplay totally into consideration,
especially when dealing with salvage. As a matter of fact, we are looking
at salvage again and there is a chance we will change it for version 1.1.
Jack
rvil...@cwf.org
wil...@rom.oit.gatech.edu (Will Day) wrote:
>Actually, I'm seriously tempted to see if I can't graft something
>together with the Mercs tools. We could probably make do with game shell
>that will (a) keep track of your merc unit and stats, (b) generate
>random missions, or choose from a player-contributed collection, (c)
>negotiate the mission with you. I see a problem trying to make salvage
>work, though, as I imagine there's no way to get the sim engine to
>report back the details of the mission result.
Sounds like what you want is Multiplayer Battletech, currently on
Genie, or SVGA Multiplayer Battletech, currently on Genie and
Compuserve. Check Kesmai's web site for more information.
Sean Larabee
I haven't said much, but I thought some positive feedback was in order.
Soon after purchasing Mercs, I was ready to tell anyone who asked to stay
away from the product. Then the Activision reps started reacting to the
criticisms and promising a patch this month. After a little mutual
hostility at first, their attitude has convinced me to recommend purchase
upone release of the 1.05 patch only if one is a Btech fan. If the 1.1
patch does rework salvage and cut the forced retirement, then I will start
recommending Mercs to all.
Don't get me wrong, I still take exception to some of your other design
decisions and the bugs are still driving me nuts. But your willingness to
rework product in response to at least what us noisy customers want is
winning me back.
--
Sean Larabee "Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt
lara...@uidaho.edu in your face. Then the worms eat you. Be grateful
it happens in that order." -- David Gerrold
Trav
> I have to agree. Guys, the salvage thing is disappointing, but it's too late
> to do anything about it now, I'll be happy when the bug fixes are implemented
> then I'll buy the game. Although being forced to retire sounds sucky. I'd like
> to have the choice of marauding on, killing all who would stand before me with
> my horde of ninja mechwarriors following! That's what mech warfare is all
> about. :)
>
> Mike Kelly.
I suggest that no one buy it from stores. Lets get all the people who bought it
to sell the game to someone who hasn't. If we continue to buy games with all
graphics and no game, well never get activision and other companies to make games
that are really games. All we are buying are short films!
If you absolutly have to have it buy it with a friend, or from someone who has
beaten it. Then when sales dont meet the cost, maybe they will realize, hey lets
put the game back into it!
Trav
Robert A Mollard wrote:
>
> I am SCARED.
>
> I am really scared.
>
> What Activision has been saying in this post is that graphics take
> precedence over gameplay. The day all companies believe this is the day
> my computer gets tossed into the river.
You should have dumped your computer a year ago.
It is blatently obvious that games are all graphics now than ever before.
Look at titles such as MW2, Origins Wingcommander etc.
I mean wingcommander was really cool, but it was not a game. It was a movie I should
have rented one evening.
I found myself not wanting to fly missions, but rather watch more video clips.
Games have been pushed into a full graphic atmosphere for several years now.
That is why we have to make a stand and stop buying these things. If you want a game
that can be played over and over and that actually has gameplay, try Stars. It is $20
and can be played on the internet. This thing rocks and i Have played it for a year
now and I STILL love it.
You want to know why Warcraft II was so successful? It actually had gameplay and
storylines. What you build has an effect on the outcome of your mission. Built in
scenario editor and Simple easy to use multiplayer capabilities. Whether network,
internet or modem it WORKS!
This is why it was so successful and now games will soon be copying it.
Have you ever gone to the game store and noticed how long it takes for new titles to
come out now? Well Its like 3-4 months for one title because they are adding tons
and tons of graphics. Look how fast most of the graphical games go down to $10!!
One last note. Stars! is done by a few guys who have a webpage and know programing,
while they probally have enough money from its sales, they still work on future
versions and LISTEN to players inputs. They also GIVE FREE any upgraded versions. Ie
version 1.2 -> 2.6 I GOT em free!
> Why can't a company realize that gamers want *immersion*.. we want to
> feel like mercenaries, fighting for profit and controlled by no-one.
> For the majority of the mechwarrior followers (IMO, obvisously), the game
> isn't about a bang bang shoot-em up. I didn't shell out cash for doom in
> a mech. I want to know my skill means something, I want to know there's a
> reason to take out the enemy's legs, I want to be able to play the game
> until *I* feel like retiring.
Doom was cool, but it was too successful! Every company in the world thinks they can
make money with a doom game including activision.
> It really is a shame... mercenaries could have been so amazing. But
> instead, the gaming community was treated like deer by a highway... give
> them something bright to look at and they'll be mesmerized. I am truly
> insulted that Activision believes they can create a pitiful user
> interface and get away with it because they put in multiple light sourcing.
> Graphics are important, yes.. but they are certainly not everything.
Hopefully Activision can take their money and all the comments in here and learn
something. WE WANT MORE THAN GRAPHICS and multiple lights.
> I was so eager to get this game, couldn't wait for the release. And it's
> a flop, nothing else. We've been treated like idiots, and every copy
> Activision sells is going to be another nail in the coffin of games where
> playability matters.
I agree, and I am willing to sell or throw away my copy if everyone else will just
borrow or rent the game (only takes 4-5 days to beat) instead of purchasing more
versions from Stores. Make activision pay for a change!!!!
Trav
Swift Steel wrote:
>
> Well, I bought MW2-Mercs before reading this group. I was
> very disappointed in the salvage aspect. I am only on my third
> contract, but I have only "blown up" three mechs....I have toppled an
> atlas and would have love to salvage it, but I only got a small laser,
> an LRM and 1 ton of ammo. that blew big chunks. I enjoy playing with
> the textured maps and seeing the great jobs of mech color, but I as a
> MERC would have prefered SALVAGE....I unit does not run on good looks
> or textures...it runs on MONEY...earned and salvaged. I play the MW
> rpg and run command a merc unit -- salvage is our life. what good is
> it to salvage a small laser or an LRM 5 w/ 1 ton of ammo when my
> bombadier lost both LRMs and I can't replace them caus I couldnt
> afford or were offered 2 replacements? Give me a new mech.....beat to
> hell and back ( it DID lose the fight!) but give me
> salvageable/sellable mechs!!
My unit loves salvage, when you loose mechs in combat but get a lucky shot on a
catapult, or madcats head. Man is it great. Take that baby back to the dropships
and repair it! Strip it down and sell it or give it to a veteran pilot who knows
how to use it!
> Perhaps I should try out the other titles of mech sims that do
> offer salvage as suggested, but I have saved and waited for MW2-Mercs.
> I am waiting for the patch to see which bugs it fixes.....net play is
> nice, but get the bloody game right first! mercs=SALVAGE!!
Go out and check Sierra's Earthsiege 2. Does not have mechs from BT, but it has
salvage etc. Although you have to go thru the missions in order, you feel more
like a mercenary. IF you take a leg out, you get TONS of salvage.
Their system is not perfect, but the more tons of salvage (kinda like cash) the
more weapons and mechs er..hercs you can make.'
Great game, try renting it from a video game store.
> =========================================================
>
> I read all mail....I just might not reply :)
--
Jack Mamais
Are you saying that MercNet is not replayable?
Jack
Bob Mollard
And I have to disagree with you... if there was anyone in your entire
project that had ever played mech1 you would have realized that
completely pre-determined salvage would be a gigantic turnoff. Gameplay
was not the consideration here. And truly, you had better watch what you
say about maybe re-vamping salvage. If you even hint at it being
changed, and then it isn't, the crowd of boos and hisses will completely
overwhelm you.
Bob
Jack Mamais wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with you. We took gameplay totally into consideration,
> especially when dealing with salvage. As a matter of fact, we are looking
> at salvage again and there is a chance we will change it for version 1.1.
>
> Jack
Jack Mamais
As I said, we are looking at salvage right now, I am going to make no
promises.
Jack
Jack Mamais
Thanks a lot for the input, as I said before we are evaluating salvage at
this time.
Jack
Charles Winston
On Sun, 6 Oct 1996, Mark Skyfire wrote:
> Humhum...
>
> Well, one more thing I would like to see in any BattleTech Computer game
> following Mech II and GBL is a bit more realism in the missions. I mean,
> in all Activision's games the player is supposed to be just another
> MechWarrior, no Superhero, yet he manages to kill whole Clusters with a
> single Mech...and hearing about a Commando being able to kill a Masakari
> seems pretty unrealistic to me. I mean, a Masakari has to RIP HIS OWN
> HEAD OFF to lose against a Commando, realistically ;-)
In the boardgame, I've managed to take out assaults with lights and
mediums, one on one. It's not easy but there is alot to say for jumpjets
and back shots. (30 tons, 10/15/10, 3ML, 6tons armor) The key to taking
big mechs with teeny mechs is sheer speed (and winning initiative). It
also works in MW2:all. (Just try the Jandex mission and you'll figure it
out too)
Andrew Spencer
> For all you guys reading this who programmed it, yeah it would be
> really cool if you changed Salvage. But NOT if it is going to take
> more time than it is worth. I only wanted to beat the oneplayer and
> then kill my buddies over the internet in MercNet.
Now here's a thought about a type of Mercnet that would be an absolute
dream. Of course this isn't possible with the current code of Mercs
(and will never be patched to do what would really be perfect for
Mercnet), but I would love to see, maybe in the next incarnation of the
Mechwarrior series, salvage in the multiplayer games. Imagine rival
Merc teams battling for the most profit over a long and bloody campaign
of complicated missions. They have money and a stock of mechs to start,
but one team can salvage the other teams mechs throughout the campaign,
or conquer mech factories or weapons depots to hinder one team and help
the other... THAT would be ultimate cool. More time that its worth,
maybe, but THAT would be ultimate COOL!!! At least in my humble
opinion.
Bluebeard
In article <smithb.8...@laraby.tiac.net>
smi...@laraby.tiac.net "Brian Smith" writes:
>
> It would seem that to get salvage working the way many in this group
> want it to work would mean 3 things:
>
> 1) You must write out all final stats of all mechs in the last battle
> to a file for the shell to read after the mission is over. The sim
> already has all the stats of each Mech, so the numbers are already
> there.
> 2) You must change the shell to read the file created in 1, above.
> 3) This is the tough one: You must make the shell somewhat intelligent
> when giving the player a new mech or parts/weapons. If the last
> battle had 2 large Mechs, and the player managed to take out both
> by only shooting the legs or cockpit, the shell probably should NOT
> give both Mechs to the player (Although this would be affected by
> the salvage rating for the mission too). Giving 2 large Mechs might
> throw off the balance of the game, making it too easy. I think you
> get the idea.
>
> Getting number 3 to work in a balanced, yet fair manner, is probably the
> part that decides if this is the type of thing that can be fixed in a
> patch, or the next game.
An interesting idea and I hope that the Activision guys go for it, but you
seem to have forgotten one thing.....
Your employers determine what salvage you get (if any).
They might decide that you get Mechs or equipment that you didn't personally
fight.
I would be reasonably happy for the game to take into account the amount of
damage that I caused to the Mechs that I took out and then award salvage on
that basis.
Charlie
--
******************************************************************************
* Charlie Freckleton * Email at Home : cha...@genest.demon.co.uk *
* * Email at Work : cha...@datamast.demon.co.uk *
******************************************************************************
Ambitious Phoenix
This sound a lot like mechwarrior I which came out in 80's. I do love
that game. Only improvement the new mech games are the mech lab (of
course new Mercs is not one of them ;()
Mark Skyfire wrote:
>
> Humhum...
>
> Well, one more thing I would like to see in any BattleTech Computer game
> following Mech II and GBL is a bit more realism in the missions. I mean,
> in all Activision's games the player is supposed to be just another
> MechWarrior, no Superhero, yet he manages to kill whole Clusters with a
> single Mech...and hearing about a Commando being able to kill a Masakari
> seems pretty unrealistic to me. I mean, a Masakari has to RIP HIS OWN
> HEAD OFF to lose against a Commando, realistically ;-)
>
> Not that I would insist on such a feature in the Mercs patch, just take
> it as a wish for future BattleTech publications.
>
> And while I'm at it...how about a game like the old Elite, just put into
> the BattleTech universe ? Player is a freelance Merc that starzs on
> Outreach and can travel around in the Inner Sphere...has to rent
> Dropships and Jumpships to do so...to get where his latest contract
> needs him...later he can buy his own ships...most planets in the Inner
> Sphere are characterized already, and the rest one could do
> randomly...with new missions on every planet maybe...and a mix of
> Realtime and Tactical game, where you can move Units not smaller than
> Lance Size around on a big map and can decide to join one of the Lances
> as actual Player...and maybe this all could embedded in a big story,
> like 4th Succession War, or Clan Invasion...
>
> Okok, I admit, not gonna happen, too much work...
>
> But it would ROCKROCKROCK as a game !!!
Mark Skyfire
Charles Winston wrote:
> In the boardgame, I've managed to take out assaults with lights and
> mediums, one on one. It's not easy but there is alot to say for jumpjets
> and back shots. (30 tons, 10/15/10, 3ML, 6tons armor) The key to taking
> big mechs with teeny mechs is sheer speed (and winning initiative). It
> also works in MW2:all. (Just try the Jandex mission and you'll figure it
> out too)
Of course, in the boardgame it is rather easy. But my first BattleTech
experience was made on the 3056 MUSE, and there combat, especially
duels, ar every realistic, no chance for a Locust to beat an Atlas
(unless you get that nasty crit through armor with two Gyro or three
Engine crits with one shot). The boardgame is unrealistic when it comes
to one-on-ones I think, though the Solaris rules are much better...
Btw...can I depend on the MUSE people on this group to yell and scream a
lot when it gets back up ? 'Cause then I don't have to check if it is up
again myself ;-)
Mark Skyfire
1st Royal Guards (The Archon's Own)
FedCom
Btech3056
Joachim Flodqvist
Jack Mamais wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, we are looking
> at salvage again and there is a chance we will change it for version 1.1.
Hooray!
> Jack
/Joachim
--
Lente Impelle.
joa...@ecs.se http://www.ecs.se/staff/jfk/
R. Kai Breinholt
On Fri, 04 Oct 1996 09:37:43 -0700, Dan Kegel
<da...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Shawn Pricher wrote:
>> ... I like the fact that [Tim et al] care enough
>> to reply (although the staff was noticeably silent for quite some time
>> after the initial release).
>
>What am I, chopped liver ?-)
>- Dan
>
No dan. You are the GOD of ALL chopped liver ! <g>
Actually, Tim is a big help with info, but as far a s direct
feed-back, patience with the whiners, technical help, and all-around
devotion to your customers, YOU ARE THE MAN ! Sincerely, I have
never, in all my 29 years as a consumer, online or off, encountered
anyone ..ANYONE...with as much singular devotion to his product and
it's customers. This includes direct tech support, PROMPT e-mail
returns, witty dicussion and the uncanny ability (or stupidity, <g> )
to continue here despite the flames and whinings of pre-pubescent
consumers. My personal experience with the MW2 series has been made
more enjoyable because of your involvement. (Boy, can I kiss butt or
what?) But, it's all true.
Kai
aka Hellraizer
(and no, this is not an anonymous posting from his mother) <g>
Thibor FireCry
Mark Skyfire <zxm...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>Humhum...
>Well, one more thing I would like to see in any BattleTech Computer game
>following Mech II and GBL is a bit more realism in the missions. I mean,
>in all Activision's games the player is supposed to be just another
>MechWarrior, no Superhero, yet he manages to kill whole Clusters with a
>single Mech...and hearing about a Commando being able to kill a Masakari
>seems pretty unrealistic to me. I mean, a Masakari has to RIP HIS OWN
>HEAD OFF to lose against a Commando, realistically ;-)
>Not that I would insist on such a feature in the Mercs patch, just take
>it as a wish for future BattleTech publications.
>And while I'm at it...how about a game like the old Elite, just put into
>the BattleTech universe ? Player is a freelance Merc that starzs on
>Outreach and can travel around in the Inner Sphere...has to rent
>Dropships and Jumpships to do so...to get where his latest contract
>needs him...later he can buy his own ships...most planets in the Inner
>Sphere are characterized already, and the rest one could do
>randomly...with new missions on every planet maybe...and a mix of
>Realtime and Tactical game, where you can move Units not smaller than
>Lance Size around on a big map and can decide to join one of the Lances
>as actual Player...and maybe this all could embedded in a big story,
>like 4th Succession War, or Clan Invasion...
>Okok, I admit, not gonna happen, too much work...
>But it would ROCKROCKROCK as a game !!!
Hell as long as we are all wishing...
DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS GUY SAID! I would buy TWO copies of this game so
I wouldn't have to worry about the first one getting SCRATCHED from
too much PLAY!!!!
Thibor FireCry
p.s... what happend to the line of Elite Games... I BREIFLY saw an
Elite III but it sucked REAL bad... anyone know if there is gonna be a
4?
Thibor FireCry
Original post was snipped in a couple of places to make it more
stomachable...
>It is blatently obvious that games are all graphics now than ever before.
>Look at titles such as MW2, Origins Wingcommander etc.
Good point, but I don't think that MW2 falls in this category.
>That is why we have to make a stand and stop buying these things. If you want a game
>that can be played over and over and that actually has gameplay, try Stars. It is $20
>and can be played on the internet. This thing rocks and i Have played it for a year
>now and I STILL love it.
Are you some kind of PR for the makers of Stars or something?
>You want to know why Warcraft II was so successful? It actually had gameplay and
>storylines. What you build has an effect on the outcome of your mission. Built in
>scenario editor and Simple easy to use multiplayer capabilities. Whether network,
>internet or modem it WORKS!
Warcraft was so successful because it had BOTH the game play AND the
eye candy. Remeber those kick ass vid clips? I'm sure that you do.
>This is why it was so successful and now games will soon be copying it.
If I remember correctly... blizzard copied from Westwoods Dune II idea
to make the first Warcraft... maybe I'm wrong...
>One last note. Stars! is done by a few guys who have a webpage and know programing,
>while they probally have enough money from its sales, they still work on future
>versions and LISTEN to players inputs. They also GIVE FREE any upgraded versions. Ie
>version 1.2 -> 2.6 I GOT em free!
Now I KNOW your a Stars rep. <G>
>> It really is a shame... mercenaries could have been so amazing. But
>> instead, the gaming community was treated like deer by a highway... give
>> them something bright to look at and they'll be mesmerized. I am truly
>> insulted that Activision believes they can create a pitiful user
>> interface and get away with it because they put in multiple light sourcing.
>> Graphics are important, yes.. but they are certainly not everything.
>Hopefully Activision can take their money and all the comments in here and learn
>something. WE WANT MORE THAN GRAPHICS and multiple lights.
Actually, I bought my Pentium in the first place because the games on
my 486 were cheesy. I WANT good graphics and multiple lights, and
shadows, and neet thingys that fly off the ground when you miss. What
I DON'T want is a buggy game. If you take the bugs out of Mercs it is
BY FAR the BEST GAME EVERY MADE!!! All you guys who wanted salvage so
badly, you should have figured that the One Player story line was
going to be JUST THAT. A LINE. Both MW2 and GBL were VERY linear.
But the gameplay didn't suffer (IMO) to this. I knew ahead of time (I
thought obviously) that they were going to have ANOTHER MW2 game with
a linear plot. It is easier to do a linear plot in a MW2 calaber game
than what was in MW1 because all the missions in MW1 were just about
COMPLETE clones off each other, right down to the mountains. If you
were to make this game with the looks of MW2, we'd all be bitching
that we HATE these 5 mission locations that we keep fighting in.
>> I was so eager to get this game, couldn't wait for the release. And it's
>> a flop, nothing else. We've been treated like idiots, and every copy
>> Activision sells is going to be another nail in the coffin of games where
>> playability matters.
>I agree, and I am willing to sell or throw away my copy if everyone else will just
>borrow or rent the game (only takes 4-5 days to beat) instead of purchasing more
>versions from Stores. Make activision pay for a change!!!!
I disagree with the both of you if you think this game is a flop. Its
ONLY flaw is the fact it was prematurely released.
For all you guys reading this who programmed it, yeah it would be
really cool if you changed Salvage. But NOT if it is going to take
more time than it is worth. I only wanted to beat the oneplayer and
then kill my buddies over the internet in MercNet.
Thibor
Brian Smith
"Jack Mamais" <jma...@activision.com> writes:
>Actually, that's not entirely true.
>We are listening to all the posts and they are having an effect on our
>patch creation.
>We will add enhancements to our 1.1 patch which will include a
>reload/rearm feature in the sim in MercNet. This is a NEW feature! We are
>also looking at a way to make salvage real...
>Jack Mamais
It would seem that to get salvage working the way many in this group
want it to work would mean 3 things:
1) You must write out all final stats of all mechs in the last battle
to a file for the shell to read after the mission is over. The sim
already has all the stats of each Mech, so the numbers are already
there.
2) You must change the shell to read the file created in 1, above.
3) This is the tough one: You must make the shell somewhat intelligent
when giving the player a new mech or parts/weapons. If the last
battle had 2 large Mechs, and the player managed to take out both
by only shooting the legs or cockpit, the shell probably should NOT
give both Mechs to the player (Although this would be affected by
the salvage rating for the mission too). Giving 2 large Mechs might
throw off the balance of the game, making it too easy. I think you
get the idea.
Getting number 3 to work in a balanced, yet fair manner, is probably the
part that decides if this is the type of thing that can be fixed in a
patch, or the next game.
- Brian
Capella Ueber Alles
Dan Kegel (da...@alumni.caltech.edu) murdered some electrons to write:
I've been getting some requests for translation in my mailbox--why, I
dunno...my German is a little rusty--so here goes as best I can.
# Ich glaube, die deutsche Ausgabe wird ungefaehr Mercs 1.05 entsprechen.
# (Ich kenne den Programmierer persoenlich.)
I believe the German release will be roughly the same as Mercs 1.05.
(I know the programmer personally)
# Ich kann nichts versprechen, aber ich werde versuchen, die ueblste
# Fehler
# zu finden und zu korrigieren. (Es waere ja schoen, echte deutche
# beta-testers es testen zu lassen, wenn nur der Zeitplan es erlaubte!)
I canna promise anything, but I'll try to find and correct the most
egregious errors. (It'd be wonderful to have real German beta-testers, if
only the schedule allowed!)
===END TRANSLATION===
You're welcome.
--Camille.
--
I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back.--Drew Lanz.
All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a
service charge of $250 per piece of mail.
To subscribe to the Ministry of BattleTech mailing list, send e-mail to
majo...@polarnet.com with the words 'subscribe tmobml' in the body.
Mark Skyfire
Will Day wrote:
> Actually, I just tried the openbeta of Kesmai's Solaris MPBT last night.
Waaaaahhh ! Am I the only one who cannot get the kesmai multiplayer
battletech to start ??? It really sucks, after starting it, it tells me
tio wait until my transport to Solaris Central is verified, but after
that it hangs and won´t start, and I cannot use hte newsgroups
either...anyone has any hint for me to help ?
Mark Skyfire
Mark V. Tebault
> Dan your German is lovely but lets hope
> your foreign edition proof readers are better than your American ones.
> I.e. mechwarrior Yachi Kim is referred as both "Him" and "Her" in the
> same paragraph. Or is it both?
Oh. I guess that means that they're not....
It's that way in the English version as well.
This however makes him/her one of the more interesting
characters in the game.....
I guess he/she is going through a 'transitional phase'. ;)
Mark Skyfire
David Locke
Just a thought, but in the boardgame (the Mercenaries Handbook to be
precise), different contracts had different methods off dealing with
salvage. Many times salvage would be based on a percentage cash value
of the salvaged components. A mercenary could either take the cash, or
purchase the salvaged components back. Very few houses gave high
salvage percentages unless the mission was extremely dangerous, or the
pay was very low. The more desperate the house, the better the salvage
rights. Adding this into the game might be the the right thing to do.
David Locke
lo...@nmia.com
http://www.nmia.com/~locke
Has anybody seen Demosthenes? She keeps letting my squirels go...
Braden N. McDaniel
In article <32549E...@mail.uic.edu>, rth...@mail.uic.edu says...
> while graphics, sound, etc are light years ahead, the AI's and gameplay
> are about the same (or a bit less) then I had on a C-64. How hard would
> it be for the game developers to actuly PLAY the games from start to
> finish
> and see where the AI's are weak and the bugs are?
I'm pretty sure you made that comment without having the first clue about AI
programming.
The bottom line: AI technologies haven't progressed much in the past several
years. And most don't predict any quantum leaps any time soon. Sure,
Activision could give the enemy AI dead-on target leading, untouchable heat
management (so they *never* shut down unless you flame the hell outta them),
and split second weapons regrouping. You wouldn't have a prayer--and after
the initial awe wore off, it would be no fun at all. Figuring out the right
amount of "dumbing down" is the tricky part. Of course, that's just the
targeting part, which is a more straightforward matter than the piloting AI.
Remember the first time you sat down with MechWarrior 2? Getting the hang of
the controls probably took a few missions for the vast majority of us--
because there's a *lot* to keep track of. The number of variables involved
in piloting a 'Mech make producing real-time AI that functions with the same
intuition and unpredictability of a human player *impossible*. Indeed, it's
hard to even approach. The computer AI in Mercs *is* notably better (that
is, more *realistic*--not necessarily harder) than that in MW2.
BUT... There *are* some problem areas that stick out. I couldn't help but
notice that my lancemate with A+ gunnery and A piloting ratings couldn't hit
an aerotech with lasers if her life depended on it (and it did). Also, when
I was on the 'berg missions, I noticed that if you give your lancemate a
'Mech with jump jets, a few seconds into the mission he or she will blast
off to BFE and never be seen for the remainder of the mission (sometimes
they'd seem to die this way). Couldn't you make them handle jets in low G a
little more effectively?
--
Braden N. McDaniel bra...@shadow.net
Home Page: http://www.shadow.net/%7Ebraden/
Home World: http://www.shadow.net/%7Ebraden/home.wrl
Nick Pilon, DDOD
Trav <tr...@nr.infi.net> wrote:
>R. Thomas wrote:
>> The activison people have done a good job of damage control here but you
>> can
>> boil down what they said into two statements.
>> 1. Other people liked the game as it is, and we can't please everyone.
>> 2. There will be no major improvements beyond bug fixes.
>>
>> Its a shame, I was really looking forward to this game.
>> RT
>
>Well if you consider MW2, GBL, and Mercs $60 * 3 = $180
>
>$180 bucks for the same game 3 times? I would have payed $180 for the game we have all
>requested.
>
>
>BTW-->I would like to say one good thing about Mercs. At least someone at activision did a
>really good job. The music Rocks!!! Or was that outsourced?
The thing they should really have done, is made the missions as files,
and merely have had the GBL add-on a icon to the selector window, and
request it's own CD-ROM when the Icon was selected. This would have cut
the croject cost in half.
--
Nick Pilon
Email: npi...@king.kingsedge.windsor.ns.ca
Co of the Pilon's Pounders, Nighthawks, 2nd Battalion
Jay Barnson
cha...@genest.demon.co.uk (Bluebeard) wrote:
>Your employers determine what salvage you get (if any).
>They might decide that you get Mechs or equipment that you didn't personally
>fight.
>I would be reasonably happy for the game to take into account the amount of
>damage that I caused to the Mechs that I took out and then award salvage on
>that basis.
Well, salvage should be basically awarded as two kinds of
compensation:
1) The employer can't afford to pay much, so salvage rights sweetens
the deal for mercenaries, or
2) The employer really wants salvage also: Rewarding the mercenary
with salvage rights encourages careful target selection. I can see
this being a big deal for non-houses and for *ANY* battle against the
clans (anyone WILL kill for a peek at Clan technology)
Jay
Jay Barnson
jn...@richmond.infi.net (Joe Colleran) wrote:
>slip for MW2 and Return to Zork in the fall of 1993. Also, Mercenaries
>solo player experience might well have benifited if you had chosen to
>do MercNet as an add on. It is often better to do one thing well than
>to try to do two things poorly.
Well, that just shows how impossible it is for them to please everyone
all the time. Personally, I bought Mercenaries almost entirely for a
new-and-improved Netmech & mech editor. The one-player game is icing
on the cake for me. I realize that I am in the minority here, but I
would have been FAR more frustrated by MercNet's absence than I am by
the lack of "real" salvage or contract negotiation.
Jay
Rich Fisher
Joachim Flodqvist wrote:
>
> Jack Mamais wrote:
> >
> > As a matter of fact, we are looking
> > at salvage again and there is a chance we will change it for version 1.1.
If they fix the problems and change the way salvage is handled, I will
have renewed trust into Activision....I was going to take this one back
this week, but I will hold it for the patch.
Let's hope this is legit.....
--
Rich Fisher - Vice President, Total Systems Inc.
World Wide Web - http://www.totalsystems.com
Email - zx6...@primenet.com -or- rfi...@totalsystems.com
SD Chargers #1 Fan - Dole/Kemp '96 - 1992 ZX7R - 1996 Eclipse GSX
dennis r. gorrie
This is NOT a flame to players, programmers, or project leaders of
mw2 - mercenaries. Just some comments from another Activision customer.
Infernos are a nice weapon but I'm not packing them today.
In article <531ft5$i...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu> lara...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Sean Larabee) writes:
>Tim Morten (tmo...@activision.com) wrote:
>> I do feel that Mercs has answered a LOT of user requests from MW2. It
>> is impossible to respond to every request.
This is true. But many users here in this group don't understand how
or why these desicions are made, concerning the release, the bugs, the
salvage, the graphics etc. Maybe with more information, some will
come around.
>> While there are some verbose users on the group who feel this way,
>> lightsourcing and the other effects are highly lauded by most of our
>> users.
Who are "Most of our users?" I own two copies of MW2 (dos and pentium)
and GBL. I don't remember myself (or any of my friends that own the game)
being asked what we wanted... or having a method to say what we wanted
other than here in the newsgroups. And for the most part, for as long
as I've been reading these groups, the main criticisms were:
- release dates
- bugs
- weapon colors, speed, realism, accuracy, and speed with respect to Btech
weapon stats.
- game play with respect to Btech
- network play
These are the topics I see when I look back in the news archive. I don't
see 'most of the users' asking for better graphics, except for complaints
where graphics were too slow.
The odd time I saw a post regarding MW2 vs EarthSeige2. ES players loved the
graphics. But there were just as many replies (myself included) from people
who loved the speed and realism of MW2, and preffered it over ES2 for that
reason, even though it did not have the same fancy texture mapping etc.
What players wanted were less bugs and more Btech like game play, and they
asked for things like 'real' salvage time and time again. Sure, everyone
oohhs and aaahhhs about 3D versions of the game, but the stuff people discussed
in this group had more to do with game play and bugs than anything else.
Many of us MW2 and ES2 players had long discussions on this forum. When it
came down to it, the ES2 players did not prefer it for the graphics! They
prefered it because of the GAMEPLAY. It was more btech like. Many of us
MW2 players prefered it for the speed of the simulation, but most of us
agreed, compared to ES2, the gameplay was the weak spot.
>Who? The only people I have seen lauding the game are also the ones
>claiming not to have experienced a *single* bug. Their credibility takes
>a dive after that.
I agree. MW2 was the game that went out and bought a P133 for, just as so
many gamers bought 486's to play doom. I looked at Mercs for a few minutes
and decided to heck with this, I've seen beta's run better than this. No,
that's not a flame, thats just an honest gut reaction from a paying game
player.
>I don't remember anyone clamoring, after GBL, for improved graphics.
>Pretty much everyone agreed that the graphics were extraordinarily well
>done. What people wanted was control over our pilot characters. We
>wanted to choose the why/where/when/for how much of our fighting.
I'll stick to playing GBL. The addition of new worlds, mechs, and
weapons, the elimination of some tiresome bugs in mw2, works for me.
If mercs is ever 'finished' (I'm not saying it won't, I just don't
know when?) and if free mission editors and missions become commonplace,
then I'll look at it again. I don't need more graphics rendering elements
than what where already present in GBL, just more ways of playing the
game.
I get the impression that Activison felt they were going to
loose marketshare to a game with better graphics like ES2. The decision
was made to focus on the graphics engine and everything else was secondary.
From everything I've read, for the most part players were happy with
MW2, they just wanted more btech like gameplay. THAT's what made
ES2 players happy, not the advanced texture maps.
>> We have no need to fake it; if we had decided to implement salvage, we
>> would have.
>Well, this is the first time an Activision rep has flat out admitted that
>what the players got is not salvage. Kind of odd considering the web site
>mentioned salvage as one of the improvements to the game. The back of the
>box mentions getting salvage. Why use the word when all we were getting
>was a preprogrammed 'gift' of equipement?
The lesson here is, be careful what you promise, as some customer will
almost certainly expect you to deliver on it! Activision may feel it
is unfair, but after the DOS netmech incident, their customers are
EXTREMELY sensitive about getting what was advertised for a product.
If Activision marketing staff don't realize this yet, they better wake
because at this rate they are doing sales more damage than good.
>> care about. However, as I said previously, it is impossible to make
>> everyone happy.
I agree 100%. That's why it's important to be careful about what is
said about the game, like 'salvage' or 'full texture maps with no
game slowdown'.
>Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
>what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
>
>> I really think that statement is unfair. We designed Mercs directly out
>> of user comments on MechWarrior 2. To go off on us just because you're
>> not happy about one feature is unwarranted.
IMHO, its a lot more than 'one feature' that most people are not happy about.
This player would have been happy to put up with the bugs in this game
(unlike myself) but the promised feature was a completely bogus dongle that
may as well not exist. For this player it was the last straw.
To be fair, there are magazines and players out there who would have rated
Mercs quite low if indeed the graphics had not been improved. These are
the types that judge a book by its cover. But there ARE those of us who
play mw2/gbl, and would have been more than happy with the same graphics,
but with more attention to game play.
John Hamilton
In article <53c97r$m...@corona.calgary.chevron.com>
de...@orion.calgary.chevron.com (dennis r. gorrie) wrote:
> To be fair, there are magazines and players out there who would have rated
> Mercs quite low if indeed the graphics had not been improved. These are
> the types that judge a book by its cover. But there ARE those of us who
> play mw2/gbl, and would have been more than happy with the same graphics,
> but with more attention to game play.
Exactly. I played Win95 MW2 through about a dozen times, both Clans, on hard,
with all features on. Never had a crash. Had lots of fun.
Purchased DOS GBL as soon as it came out. Played it through a couple of times.
Still go back and play various missions because they are so much fun. Had one
or two crashes. Joystick came uncalibrated every single mission at least once.
Purchased Mercs. Crashes if you escape the intro movie about 25% of the time.
Freezes during missions. Talking Win95 version here. At least the joystick
doesn't uncalibrate like in the DOS version. Crash and Burn would have been
a better name than Mercs. Must have a "shitty computer" like one real bright
poster wrote to me.
john
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuit Ballistics, Inc.
jo...@pball.com (pball is a trade name of PBI)
If the Blues don't kill you, Brother,
They'll make you a mighty, mighty man.
C.S.McMullen
In article <01bbb349.6dc78f40$476c...@JMamais.activision.com>,
"Jack Mamais" <jma...@activision.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks a lot for the input, as I said before we are evaluating salvage at
>this time.
>
What's to evaluate? You got our money, we want salvage! :)
I don't think it would be out of the question to make salvage work properly,
rather than dole out mechs you might even have destroyed during the mission.
That's the first change I'd like to see. Knowing that what you blast in
the mission makes no difference to salvage, kind of removes any
strategic restraint you might have had in nuking the mechs.
you might have
pby...@cyberus.ca
> >> We have no need to fake it; if we had decided to implement salvage, we
> >> would have.
Well does this mean that it WOULD have been possible to implement full salvage?
If the answer is 'yes' PLEASE put it in the patch.
>
> To be fair, there are magazines and players out there who would have rated
> Mercs quite low if indeed the graphics had not been improved. These are
> the types that judge a book by its cover. But there ARE those of us who
> play mw2/gbl, and would have been more than happy with the same graphics,
> but with more attention to game play.
Ah, but that's the difference between a game you paid for and a game you would have
paid DOUBLE for.
How's this for a nice bug? Solaris tournament...end of the missions I get salvage right?
OK, well it said 'Stalker' as my salvage. Then I go to fix it up and get it
ready for the next mission and guess what I find? An Urbanmech, Centurion, Panther, Hunchback
and last but not least my Stalker.
--
Peter Byrne
"Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company." - Mark Twain
ja...@tcmail.frco.com
In article x, de...@orion.calgary.chevron.com says...
>In article y, lara...@harrier.csrv.uidaho.edu (Sean Larabee) writes:
>>Tim Morten (tmo...@activision.com) wrote:
>>> I do feel that Mercs has answered a LOT of user requests from MW2. It
>>> is impossible to respond to every request.
True. --But are there any plans for a major upgrade to this
game? I.e., something you sell as a separate version, and
add on, or whatever? An upgrade that aims at pleasing us
"verbose" users who don't need or want any more improvements
in 3D engine but who *would* like to see improvements in
gameplay: salvage, more control over career, etc., etc.?
(I know. You don't do FASA anymore. So what. You can still
do a mech warrior game, even if it isn't FASA.)
Basically, many of us will be happy with a bug-fixed MW2:Mercs,
but we won't be satisfied. We can't reasonably expect the
enhancements we're asking for directly into MW2:Mercs as a patch.
Of course that's not reasonable. So: how about a major add on
or another version?
>>> While there are some verbose users on the group who feel this way,
>>> lightsourcing and the other effects are highly lauded by most of our
>>> users.
Verbose? Ouch, it hurts.
>Who are "Most of our users?" I own two copies of MW2 (dos and pentium)
>and GBL. I don't remember myself (or any of my friends that own the game)
>being asked what we wanted... or having a method to say what we wanted
>>> However, as I said previously, it is impossible to make
>>> everyone happy.
But here's one point: Both MW2 and MW2:GBL were straight shoot-em-up
toys. The original delays of MW2 (if I understand correctly) were
not a result of trying to add too much story, but a result of
trying to do too much with the 3D engine.
After 2 releases that emphasized 3D engine and straight shoot-em-up,
many of us saw MW2:Mercs as trying to please *us*: the people who
wanted mech ownership, salvage, story line, etc.
So, what you're saying is, this release is just another shoot-em-up
where you *again* spent more time working on the 3D engine than anything?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like the 3D engine
developers are running Activision. And any of us users (no
matter how many) who ask for non-3D enhancements: we're
just a "verbose" minority. --The 3D graphics people
are in charge, and they are determined to work on the 3D
engine no matter what.
>>Right now I have counted four different people who are saying Mercs is
>>what they wanted. The count against is quite a bit higher.
>>> I really think that statement is unfair. We designed Mercs directly out
>>> of user comments on MechWarrior 2. To go off on us just because you're
>>> not happy about one feature is unwarranted.
(a) Once the bugs are fixed, MW2:Mercs will *do* for many of us.
(b) Mercs isn't as replayable as I personally would
like. And patches aren't going to add the missing links. I
really do hope you-all will go for a MW3, regardless of what
FASA (et al) is up to. Even if you have to dump the FASA
universe. But if you do go for MW3, *please* take seriously this
"verbose" minority, and hire some good non-3D programmers
to work on the non-combat environment.
JDA
Danno
Tim Morten wrote:
>
> << big snip>>
>
> > Who? The only people I have seen lauding the game are also the ones
> > claiming not to have experienced a *single* bug. Their credibility
> > takes a dive after that.
>
> Again, my feeling is not that the game itself *sucks*. The bugs are
> the main issue. We apologize for letting it go out with bugs, and
> we will patch them. We made a mistake, and we > are doing our best
> to fix it.
=======================================================================
Jeez, folks.. Lighten up already!! These guys did a pretty damned
good job making a pretty damned fun game. Try and think of the glass as
half-full and not half-empty!!
As far as the salvage goes.. if you're so hard up for a mech.. GO BUY ONE!!
If you take the tough missions and get the big bucks you _should_ be able to
afford a heavy mech after only a few missions. You want a skill-based salvage
system? Think of it like this: the better YOU are, the less damage you and
your lancemates take, thus INDIRECTLY awarding you cash (fewer repair costs)
for your stellar performance. Personally, I'd rather take fewer salvages
and fewer critical hits myself. (Too much salvage would award sloppy game play,
if you knew that you were going to get another mech for free.)
Life will NOT end if you don't get the salvage. Besides..... exactly HOW
many salvaged mechs do you gain from the boardgame? (i.e. head shot kills).
When the engine takes three hits, it goes critical and takes out the mech
anyway. (Read the books.. the engine blows up nine out of ten times. Not much
left after a fusion engine goes critical.)
(Step into a Battletech scenario for a moment: Besides, if you are working as a
merc for, say, the FedComs and you "salvage" a Panther or Dragon, exactly HOW MANY
spare parts are you going to be able to find in Dav space for those Kurita-only
mechs? Lots of these designs are House-specific and I'm SURE that the military
contractors don't just sell their spare parts to anyone.)
And as far as the "bugs" go, they don't STOP gameplay. Activision is working
on patches, so at worst, they are short-term difficulties. Get over it. It's
a game. (Let's have a show of hands who bought Ascendency or Outpost... THOSE
are the folks who should be steaming mad. [raising hand] <g>)
Let's wait for the patches to hit before slaughtering the only poor soul who
takes the time to answer all these whine-o-thon threads. (No offense intended.)
Danno
Darrin Lee Bright
In article <325AC4...@pfizer.com>, Danno <sac...@pfizer.com> wrote:
>Tim Morten wrote:
>Jeez, folks.. Lighten up already!! These guys did a pretty damned
>good job making a pretty damned fun game. Try and think of the glass as
>half-full and not half-empty!!
Yes, but what if you paid for the whole f&*%ing glass?
>As far as the salvage goes.. if you're so hard up for a mech.. GO BUY ONE!!
>If you take the tough missions and get the big bucks you _should_ be able to
>afford a heavy mech after only a few missions. You want a skill-based salvage
>system? Think of it like this: the better YOU are, the less damage you and
>your lancemates take, thus INDIRECTLY awarding you cash (fewer repair costs)
>for your stellar performance. Personally, I'd rather take fewer salvages
>and fewer critical hits myself. (Too much salvage would award sloppy game play,
>if you knew that you were going to get another mech for free.)
Yes, well, as far as the salvage goes, the marketting people NEVER talk
to the programmers about anything, so never believe anything on the
front/back of the box. I've heard the excuses, and I only have one
thing to say on the whole features issue:
I haven't bought any of the MW2 games, but I've seen my friends play 'em
and I've played on their computers, and NEVER...and I mean NEVER EVER
have I heard myself or any one of them say anything to the effect of:
"You know, I really wish the graffics were better..." OR "You know, I
would really appreciate multiple light sources, even if coding it meant
ruining the gameplay."
Does ANYONE who bought MW2 ever remember Activision asking for feedback
on what features they should focus on for the next game?
>Life will NOT end if you don't get the salvage. Besides..... exactly HOW
>many salvaged mechs do you gain from the boardgame? (i.e. head shot kills).
>When the engine takes three hits, it goes critical and takes out the mech
>anyway. (Read the books.. the engine blows up nine out of ten times. Not much
>left after a fusion engine goes critical.)
The Stackpole rule is quite rare. The CT isn't usually gutted in one
round, especially when CASE is available. Even then, the odds are 8+ on
2d6. To be quite honest, salvage is a BIG DEAL in a nuts-n-bolts
campaign game, especially when the GM knows what he/she is doing. According
to how the pay rates work in the 3055 Merc Handbook, its impossible for
a Merc. Company to make ends meet on just monthly salary alone. They
NEED salvage or they are dead.
>(Step into a Battletech scenario for a moment: Besides, if you are working as a
>merc for, say, the FedComs and you "salvage" a Panther or Dragon, exactly HOW MANY
>spare parts are you going to be able to find in Dav space for those Kurita-only
>mechs? Lots of these designs are House-specific and I'm SURE that the military
>contractors don't just sell their spare parts to anyone.)
There are very few House-specific mechs... and in 3050+ a lot of that
House technology is spreading around fast. Case in point... DCMS has
TSM, Firestarters and Blackjacks. I'm willing to bet some DCMS-only
tech is going to start appearing in the other Field Manuals as well.
But in any case, many of those parts you can't use right away go into
your spare parts bins, which are absolutely vital to a Merc. Group. The
actual rules in BTech don't illustrate this very well, Mercs are just
assumed to have a certain amount of spare parts on hand. Sure, maybe
that Panther upper arm actuator won't fit on any of your mechs, but some
of those size 16 bolts might fit on your Archer... and hey, you never
know what'll fit or what won't fit until you whip out the Acetylene
torch and the arc-welder...
>And as far as the "bugs" go, they don't STOP gameplay. Activision is working
>on patches, so at worst, they are short-term difficulties. Get over it. It's
>a game. (Let's have a show of hands who bought Ascendency or Outpost... THOSE
>are the folks who should be steaming mad. [raising hand] <g>)
>
>Let's wait for the patches to hit before slaughtering the only poor soul who
>takes the time to answer all these whine-o-thon threads. (No offense intended.)
Call it a personal pet peeve or just my own opinion, but it REALLY
pisses me off when a Computer company shoves a product out the door just
to start making money. *I* am willing to wait for a better product, *I*
would have kept working on the game until I had not a GOOD game, but
something innovative and groundbreaking. But Activision didn't want to
go that road, they sold out for the money to make a fairly uninventive
flight simulator with a few bells and whistles. (Multiple light
sources...jeezus! what were they thinking?)
--
"Uh...yeah, I uh... suck blood all the time..." - The Tick
--
* * * Darrin Bright - Duck Ezra - Muse of Tedium * * *
= = ============================================ = =
Kevin Aw
>As far as the salvage goes.. if you're so hard up for a mech.. GO BUY ONE!!
Actually, I tried just taking the random missions for gameplay and I found that I
made very pitiful amounts of money. I got so behind in the game that when there
wasn't a random mission, I got wasted in the pre-determinted missions. (Here I
was in my 50 ton crab, alone and what are all these enemies doing with 100 ton
'mechs?) I think it's either cut retirement or implement some random salvage.
>Life will NOT end if you don't get the salvage. Besides..... exactly HOW
>many salvaged mechs do you gain from the boardgame? (i.e. head shot kills).
>When the engine takes three hits, it goes critical and takes out the mech
>anyway. (Read the books.. the engine blows up nine out of ten times. Not much
>left after a fusion engine goes critical.)
You can salvage arms and legs. Arms sometimes contain weapons and
heatsinks which will be useful. You can also salvage armor sometimes.
>And as far as the "bugs" go, they don't STOP gameplay. Activision is working
>on patches, so at worst, they are short-term difficulties. Get over it. It's
>a game. (Let's have a show of hands who bought Ascendency or Outpost...
THOSE
>are the folks who should be steaming mad. [raising hand] <g>)
Actually, they stopped my gameplay. The latter missions require lots of 'mechs
and other objects and this frequently page faults/reboot/freeze for me. So I
haven't played any of the latter missions at all; I've just been skipping them by
ejecting the CD.
--
--------------------------
<k...@unixg.ubc.ca>, <a4...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
Homepage: http://www.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca/spider/a4j1
Kevin Aw, after the great HD crash of September 16th, 1996.
Santa
Thibor FireCry wrote:
>
> DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS GUY SAID! I would buy TWO copies of this game so
> I wouldn't have to worry about the first one getting SCRATCHED from
> too much PLAY!!!!
>
> Thibor FireCry
>
> p.s... what happend to the line of Elite Games... I BREIFLY saw an
> Elite III but it sucked REAL bad... anyone know if there is gonna be a
Matt - jank...@gold.tc.umn.edu
R. Thomas
> I'm pretty sure you made that comment without having the first clue about AI
> programming.
>
> The bottom line: AI technologies haven't progressed much in the past several
> years. And most don't predict any quantum leaps any time soon. Sure,
> Activision could give the enemy AI dead-on target leading, untouchable heat
> management (so they *never* shut down unless you flame the hell outta them),
> and split second weapons regrouping. You wouldn't have a prayer--and after
> the initial awe wore off, it would be no fun at all. Figuring out the right
> amount of "dumbing down" is the tricky part. Of course, that's just the
> targeting part, which is a more straightforward matter than the piloting AI.
>
>
> notice that my lancemate with A+ gunnery and A piloting ratings couldn't hit
> an aerotech with lasers if her life depended on it (and it did). Also, when
> I was on the 'berg missions, I noticed that if you give your lancemate a
> 'Mech with jump jets, a few seconds into the mission he or she will blast
> off to BFE and never be seen for the remainder of the mission (sometimes
> they'd seem to die this way). Couldn't you make them handle jets in low G a
> little more effectively?
I think you missed my point. Your complaints are what I was refering to
as
weak AI and bugs. THAT could be fixed without any major breakthrough.
And
while I know they could 'sup up' the computers abilities in some areas,
most
games today are you against 3+ and the game makers rely on numbers of
targets
rather then making a real AI. I don't expect a computer to outthink me,
but
at least some basic tactics and some checks to make sure the AI doesn't
do
anything extraordinarily stupid would be awfuly nice.
RT
Jay Barnson
bra...@shadow.net (Braden N. McDaniel) wrote:
>The bottom line: AI technologies haven't progressed much in the past several
>years. And most don't predict any quantum leaps any time soon. Sure,
>Activision could give the enemy AI dead-on target leading, untouchable heat
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Actually, the best way to do this is to to speed up the slower weapons
(which they did). AI can be good at hitting a non-moving object with
pinpoint accuracy. They can likewise do OK leading a target that is
moving with constant velocity. But predicting where a violently
turning / accelerating object will be is pretty dang nasty. Humans are
much better at it. The calculation for the point of intersection bring
rate of change of turns and accelerations is way to ugly to calculate
- much more so that it's worth.
So to have challenging AI, they adopted the "space invaders" approach
- lots of them (more at a time than you'd see in MW2 or GBL). If you
want a really challenging opponent, face a veteran in a multiplayer
game. You will learn ways to kill (and die) that you never wanted to
learn! :)
Jay
Andrew Brown
Brian Smith (smi...@laraby.tiac.net) wrote:
: Getting number 3 to work in a balanced, yet fair manner, is probably the
: part that decides if this is the type of thing that can be fixed in a
: patch, or the next game.
Who the hell cares about 'game balance'? Besides, MW2 is a war game, and who
ever said that war was fair??
Danno
> > And while I'm at it...how about a game like the old Elite, just put into
> > the BattleTech universe ? Player is a freelance Merc that starzs on
> > Outreach and can travel around in the Inner Sphere...has to rent
> > Dropships and Jumpships to do so...to get where his latest contract
> > needs him...later he can buy his own ships...most planets in the Inner
> > Sphere are characterized already, and the rest one could do
> > randomly...with new missions on every planet maybe...and a mix of
> > Realtime and Tactical game, where you can move Units not smaller than
> > Lance Size around on a big map and can decide to join one of the Lances
> > as actual Player...and maybe this all could embedded in a big story,
> > like 4th Succession War, or Clan Invasion...
> >
> > Okok, I admit, not gonna happen, too much work...
> >
> > But it would ROCKROCKROCK as a game !!!
heh-heh... want a good read regarding your Battletech fantasy game?
No kidding.. just surf this site. While the game is currently full, it may
give you some idea of the concept and scope of the game we've engineered here.
(It actually sounds like your wet dream.) It's all tactical combat (using the
Empire2 game engine as our vehicle) so there's no "first person shoot'em" like
the Mechwarrior series. All Battletech.. regimental, battalion, company and
lance-level battles. Over 240 mechs (both IS and Clans) faithfully represented.
A fluid strategic environment (each player representing either one of six invading
clans or one of eight Inner Sphere commanders. PLUS the mercenary groups, working
for the highest bidders (21st Cent Lancers, McCarron's Cav, Ryoken, Wolf's Dragoons,
Periphery Alliance of Independant Nations, and a host of about a dozen others).
http://www.cris.com/~rapier/e2bt.shtml
Danno (aka Assistant Precentor Dan Saccavino)
Cole L. Corey,BE643
Danno writes:
[some salvage comments removed]
> Jeez, folks.. Lighten up already!! These guys did a pretty damned
> good job making a pretty damned fun game. Try and think of the glass as
> half-full and not half-empty!!
>
> As far as the salvage goes.. if you're so hard up for a mech.. GO BUY ONE!!
> If you take the tough missions and get the big bucks you _should_ be able to
> afford a heavy mech after only a few missions. You want a skill-based salvage
> system? Think of it like this: the better YOU are, the less damage you and
> your lancemates take, thus INDIRECTLY awarding you cash (fewer repair costs)
> for your stellar performance. Personally, I'd rather take fewer salvages
> and fewer critical hits myself. (Too much salvage would award sloppy game play,
> if you knew that you were going to get another mech for free.)
My wife brought home MW2 Mercs for me last night. Having seen the flame fest
back and forth, I was still pretty amazed. I can't say that all was flawless,
but I got off cheap ($44 for the game plus I get a $10 rebate from Activision)
Looking at the previous message, I don't think I understand what case is
being made that salvage encourages sloppy game play.
>
> Life will NOT end if you don't get the salvage. Besides..... exactly HOW
> many salvaged mechs do you gain from the boardgame? (i.e. head shot kills).
> When the engine takes three hits, it goes critical and takes out the mech
> anyway. (Read the books.. the engine blows up nine out of ten times. Not much
> left after a fusion engine goes critical.)
[fusion meltdown stuff deleted]
> And as far as the "bugs" go, they don't STOP gameplay. Activision is working
> on patches, so at worst, they are short-term difficulties. Get over it. It's
> a game. (Let's have a show of hands who bought Ascendency or Outpost... THOSE
> are the folks who should be steaming mad. [raising hand] <g>)
I would beg to differ. I started up the game, chose Instant Action, completed
the mission in plenty of time, and decided I would check out these killer
graphics that Mr. Mamais has been playing up. Went to external camera...skipping sounds, and the game froze completely (well, not completely,
the killer music was still going) I had to reboot twice to recover from this.
Something like this would qualify as "Stopping gameplay" don't you think?
Overall, a very good game, but I'd like it to work right.
Corey Cole
corey....@boeing.com
Brian Leung
Mark Skyfire <zxm...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>And while I'm at it...how about a game like the old Elite, just put into
>the BattleTech universe ? Player is a freelance Merc that starzs on
>Outreach and can travel around in the Inner Sphere...has to rent
>Dropships and Jumpships to do so...to get where his latest contract
>needs him...later he can buy his own ships...most planets in the Inner
Buy a drop ship and a jump ship? Why not use the money to buy up a hundred or so
regiments of 'mechs, and take over the world you're on, establish your own
little fiefdom and live forever? ::)
>Sphere are characterized already, and the rest one could do
>randomly...with new missions on every planet maybe...and a mix of
>Realtime and Tactical game, where you can move Units not smaller than
>Lance Size around on a big map and can decide to join one of the Lances
>as actual Player...and maybe this all could embedded in a big story,
>like 4th Succession War, or Clan Invasion...
Maybe it would be neat to do what Sierra did with one of their games, and
arrange it so you can either play each mission tactically, or from the controls
of your own 'mech? That would be cool, IMHO. It would also be nice if the game
ran in DOS, too ::)
B. Leung
~~~~~~~~~~
My Canada includes Florida from November through April.