From jnc4p@richmond.infi.net Sat Oct 5 16:53:31 EDT 1996 Article: 74434 of rec.games.mecha Path: prism!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infi.net!usenet From: jnc4p@richmond.infi.net (Joe Colleran) Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.mechwarrior2 Subject: Re: MW2 Mercenaries FAQ Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 06:54:02 GMT Organization: InfiNet Lines: 148 Message-ID: <3258b46f.5455900@news.richmond.infi.net> References: <52nn7l$f0u@rom.oit.gatech.edu> <3250c376.5189731@news.richmond.infi.net> <325120B7.4781@maine.maine.edu> <01bbafa5$33c60260$7cf0a3c6@darinsun> <52rsif$8e8@rom.oit.gatech.edu> <3251f1fd.893113@news.richmond.infi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pa6dsp2.richmond.infi.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 Xref: prism rec.games.mecha:74434 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:186270 Status: RO Hello all, Jack Mamais saw fit to take time from what I am sure is a very hetic post release schedule to respond to my post, which I E-mailed to him, in detail. I am posting the reply here with his permission. I would like to thank him and the Activision team for their responses to the posts by myself and others about Mercenaries. While I don't like a lot of their answers, I appreciate their honesty. I blame FASA for the ommission of my favorite Mech of all time, the Battlemaster. There is no point in worring about being sued over a game if it is one that no one will want to play anyway. Unfortunatly, it appears that FASA may be headed down the road blazed ahead by T$R. (Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is a computer verison of Star Trek Tatical Combat Simulator?) Anyway, in general it appears that Activision tried to cram too many features into a product into too short a time. I would have released MercNet as an addon myself, and concentrated more on adding the "atmosphere" to Mercenaries to make it a better stand alone game. I would have thought that with most of the engine development already done in MW II and GBL, they could have concentrated more on the ommited features from MWI than they did. Oh well. I've stopped playing the game, pending the release of the patch. I'll probably try it again once the patch comes out. If it still doen't measure up, then there's always Privateer II. - Joe Colleran (jnc4p@richmond.infi.net) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mamais, Jack" To: "'Joe Colleran'" Subject: RE: MERCS: I think it's time to hear from Activision... Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:38:35 -0700 Thanks for your commitment to Activsion, I will address all of your desires one by one.. >1. Bring back the classic mechs, specifically the Locust, Phoenix >Hawk, Griffin, Shadow Hawk, Wolverine, Rifleman, Crusader, >Thunderbolt, Archer, Warhammer, Marauder, and the Battlemaster. I would love to include these Mechs in Mercenaries but Fasa has stated that we cannot use any of those mechs, sorry. >2. Add the ability to bring your whole lance and aerospace support >into all missions. I would rather sacrifice graphics and have my whole >lance and aerospace support, than have pretty texture maps and be left >fighting alone. I would also like to command up to a company (12) of >mechs if possible. It would be easy to allow you to bring in everybody but the game would run so slow you would not be able to play it. 2 Lancemates and 1 aerotech is a far as we can push it... >3. Salvage Rights - Salvage rights should be based on the actual >result of the mission, rather than predetermined. Further, you should >be able to get salvage from any mission, if you shoot well or are >lucky. We are looking into this one, wish us luck... >4. Bring back the contract negotations and unit reputations from >MechWarrior I, where you can negotiate your fee and salvage >percentage. Really, I always hated the negotiations, in Mercs we give you the full price, why waste your time when Comstar is negotiating for you. Reputation is a good idea we just did not have the time to put it in... >5. Have a longer time line, starting in 3025 before the >4th Succession War and contiuing up to the present day (3058). >Alternatively, they could have had several time points to start at. >(3025, 3030, 3039, 3050, etc) It could have been done like many >numerous wargames (Aces of the Pacific, Red Baron, et al.) Also, >remove forced mandatory retirement. My lead designer picked the dates, he was pretty adamant about starting in 3044 and ending after the Battle of Luthien. You can always play the smaller missions and skip the campaigns if you want and you can get some of that. We had to force retirement because many players would have been really unhappy if there was no real ending. >6. Add a map and travel like Mechwarrior I and Origin's Privateer. Too much art, thats all your getting in Mech1 and the big P is different looking art in their starports. I liked these games too, but our way of doing it was just to change the types of Mechs and the types of weapons by time, sorry if this is not enough.. >7. Give the pilots a non-fixed experience rating that can go up or >down depending on how you utilize them in combat and how much >expierence you let them have in terms of Mech kills. This would create >a nice choice between hiring expensive guys who start with high >ratings or hiring cheap guys and working on improving them. Good idea, next game perhaps... >8. Add the ability to paint your mechs, and select your unit symbol. >Also, the ability to have kill markings on the mech for the tonnage >and/or type of all your mech kills. A medal box, like in X-Wing, TIE >Fighter, or any of the numerous Dynamix air combat games would also be >cool. (It could have your rank based on how many mechs you commanded >in your mercenary unit). WE included the mission tools with the disk and my quess is someone will come out with a program to do this.... >9. Adjust the AI so that the enemy actively hunts and pursues you, and >will summon reinforcements from other NAV points. Right now, the AI >is still poor. If you aren't with in a certain range, the enemies will >ignore you as you blow up their base around them. This also leads to >your always having the initiative, and makes for a non-realistic >battle. Another great idea, again, maybe next game... >10. More Gamma Correction. > Funny, I always turn my down to make it darker, is your monitor giving you problems. I know these aren't all the answers you wanted to hear but I'm trying to give you the best answers I can. Besides , the patch will cost you nothing and will be out in a couple of weeks that will fix most of the problems we have had reported in Mercs. Later, Jack Mamais >----------