Yey people actually want a battletech mech simulator.
Until they actually start playing it, then they'll move right along to another game out of frustration.
An extensively true-to-CBT mod was created for MW4 and it flopped, hard. It just wasn't any fun, even by MW4 standards.
Assault Tech is my favourite battletech simulator, im not fed up of it, and i cant wait for it to be multiplayer.
Fed up of people wanting easy mode mech games. I want to have internal systems damaged, be able to crawl around on the floor legged, and have actually good and fun information warfare. I dont think anybodys saying 'lets port the dice rolls'.
As long as the aiming system is balanced, feels mech like, and makes shots difficult but still mostly under my control Ill be a happy panda. Hopefully the aiming will be like assault tech, but with increased bob in the free recticle for arms the faster the mech is running.
I was talking about Netmech4, not Assault Tech.
My beef is that the poll states that most respondents didn't want aiming like previous MW games or AT1. I don't think anyone has a problem with it being hard to aim but if the shot doesn't actually go close to where you aim there's definately going to be player retention problems. And most here will probably be in that category.
Hell I don't even like that locked missiles aren't more controllable in MWLL 
Q-Q-Q-Q-QUOTE STACK!
I would take anything the community says with a grain of salt, for two reasons. First, the intensity of the community's opinion does not necessarily reflect the intensity of the feature itself that they voted for: just because the vast majority of people wanted, say, decentered weapons, does
not mean that they want
vastly decentered weapons. People somehow assume that a 90% majority on a particular vote means that they want that particular feature to be over-the-top. It doesn't, it just means 90% of people want that feature, even if it's only slightly there.
The second reason I take these things with a grain of salt is that developers
know fans are idiots. Well, maybe "idiots" is a bit strong, but they understand that fans might
occasionally ask for things that are unreasonable or un-fun, but sound good on paper. And, the reverse of that, is that often times the developers will try things/promise things, and then not deliver, and say "Well, we tried it, but focus groups showed that it just wasn't fun." and the fans will accept it. Take
Portal 2: tons of features and puzzle elements didn't make it into the final game from mid-development interviews, and everyone demanded to know why, with suspicion that it was so they could sell the elements in DLC. Valve said "Nah, it's because sticky gel made our playtesters nauseous, nobody at the office could think of a puzzle which requires a suction tube to solve, and crusher plates made the game too action-oriented and scared off large chunks of people who found
Portal fun for its slow pacing." And everyone was happy again, because gamers are quick to say "Well, okay, as long as you had our best interests at heart."
