38 replies to this topic

[gregsolidus]

http://www.pcgamer.c...s-the-series/2/
Out of the few snippets of news we've received this has the most details on how the game will actually be played.It should clarify some questions and misconceptions.

[casey]

Nice interview! I'm looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

[CobraFive]

Yeah, I just got back from reading it and was coming here to post about it.

Looking great to me! I'm especially looking forward to possible new uses to scout 'mechs. I love an Atlas as much as the next guy, but frantically kiting an enemy form cover to cover trying to relay the intel to my buddies sounds too fun to resist.

[Phytochrome]

Good job posting this interview, it's got a lot of important info.

[Atlas3060]

Dat Hunchback dang that's just... my brain can't handle the "Frickin Sweet" factor anymore!

[equinox]

One thing I noticed about this is that some of his answers are divided. He goes on to say that you can't buy tactical advantages, but you can buy skills. Wouldn't "buying skills" fall into the "tactical advantage" category?

I think one thing that developers fail to grasp when saying "you can't buy power," or at least allowing players to achieve the same thing in-game, still translates to buying power - it's just at a different time-played to power ratio (assuming there's some average of power gained per hour played or other).

Anyways, hopefully it turns out alright!

[Youngblood]

I saw the date August 1st, 2012 in there. I am hopeful!

[gregsolidus]

equinox, on 31 October 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

One thing I noticed about this is that some of his answers are divided. He goes on to say that you can't buy tactical advantages, but you can buy skills. Wouldn't "buying skills" fall into the "tactical advantage" category?

I think one thing that developers fail to grasp when saying "you can't buy power," or at least allowing players to achieve the same thing in-game, still translates to buying power - it's just at a different time-played to power ratio (assuming there's some average of power gained per hour played or other).

Anyways, hopefully it turns out alright!

Buying skills could equate to EVE Online's approach of buying the skill then needing level it up your own.

[Alan Grant]

youngblood, on 31 October 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

I saw the date August 1st, 2012 in there. I am hopeful!

I'm hopeful too, but not THAT hopeful.

equinox, on 31 October 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

One thing I noticed about this is that some of his answers are divided. He goes on to say that you can't buy tactical advantages, but you can buy skills. Wouldn't "buying skills" fall into the "tactical advantage" category?

I think one thing that developers fail to grasp when saying "you can't buy power," or at least allowing players to achieve the same thing in-game, still translates to buying power - it's just at a different time-played to power ratio (assuming there's some average of power gained per hour played or other).

Anyways, hopefully it turns out alright!

Yeah, I'm not getting either. Unless all they mean is, that you can't just login pay x amount, and be a high level mechwarrior with the biggest meanest mech, and any skills and perks you have are determined by the experience you have. Without experience you have no skill, and withouth skill doesn't matter what level you at a skilled pilot will have a good chance taking you on even if your in that Atlas you bought. Or something... still waiting on a lot of clarification from the devs.

[Phytochrome]

equinox, on 31 October 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

One thing I noticed about this is that some of his answers are divided. He goes on to say that you can't buy tactical advantages, but you can buy skills. Wouldn't "buying skills" fall into the "tactical advantage" category?

I think one thing that developers fail to grasp when saying "you can't buy power," or at least allowing players to achieve the same thing in-game, still translates to buying power - it's just at a different time-played to power ratio (assuming there's some average of power gained per hour played or other).

Anyways, hopefully it turns out alright!

Going by the following quote, he's referring to purchasing stuff with C-Bills rather than real-life money:

Quote

BE: You’re going to to be able to purchase, using a variety of different methods, Mechs, Mech pieces, skills – but I’ll be careful with what i mean about skills.
When it comes to the pilot, you’ll be able to train your pilot to fit the role that you like. But you won’t be able to pay real cash for pilot training, for example. That would be through earned experience points or earned in-game cash. So you would actually have to play the game to upgrade your pilot. Anything that would affect or give your a tactical advantage, you can’t purchase with real cash. You have to earn that by playing the game.

His first sentence can be interpreted as "you can pay real money for an Atlas", but it could just as easily refer to getting one in-game using various methods that don't involve real money - i.e. salvaging one, having one given to you from a communal Corp stockpile, or straight-up buying one using C-Bills.

That said, they definately need to clarify this, and you make a good point when talking about time-to-power ratio.

[infinite xaer0]

good interview. the only thing is, i just kinda loath the idea of skill leveling. I feel like artificial skill boosts add nothing to games, except a cheap means to keep people playing long after they've actually mastered the "natural" skills needed to play the said game, along with many other "problems".

With MW, learning the play-styles for all the roles that a mech can fulfill should be more than enough to keep players busy for years. I mean, just look at CS, that game does not have persistent MP, nor skill leveling, nor unlocks of any kind, yet people have been playing it for over a decade, and the game (CS + CSS) still commands some 100K+ players every day.

[pursang]

I hope they stick to their tenants and stay away from pay-to-win schemes.

[SteelRat]

After reading that interview, I got the feeling they would be doing something similar to War Inc (the only f2p game I have played).

It kind of fits here as well. I can buy any gun I want. However, doesn't mean I can use the gun effectively. War Inc has skills, you can't buy those. You have to earn skill points from in game experience. As an example, I can buy a 50 cal sniper. But if I have no skill points in sniping, your gun sways all over the place, making sniping shots rather difficult. The more skills points you put into sniping, the less gun sway you get and popping 2-3 guys in a row becomes easy and the only way to get those skill points is to play the game.

To relate that to MW, you can buy (insert your badass mech here) but if you don't have the skills to pilot it, its going to suck. So basically, you are not getting any tactical advantage buying that mech because you still need the skills to properly pilot it.

Anyways, that was my take on what they said.

[el santo]

It should be remembered that the people talking in these interviews aren't just introducing us to the game's qualities, but also making a sales pitch. Take it with a grain of salt. He's not out to just make a good MechWarrior game, he also wants your money. And that means having purchaseable items and abilities that hold a strong appeal, which best describes things that grant tactical advantages. But even with this, time will tell.

[rollermint]

el santo, on 31 October 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

It should be remembered that the people talking in these interviews aren't just introducing us to the game's qualities, but also making a sales pitch. Take it with a grain of salt. He's not out to just make a good MechWarrior game, he also wants your money. And that means having purchaseable items and abilities that hold a strong appeal, which best describes things that grant tactical advantages. But even with this, time will tell.

Thanks for telling us the obvious. Isn't that all game devs and publishers do? To sell their product?

But no need to get paranoid yet, there are plenty of examples in a lot of current F2P games where you don't actually pay2win.

[Helmer]

I'm of two minds.


On the one hand I don't mind the seemingly omnipresent "perk" system that has risen to the standard the last few years (Not to say this is the route they are taking, just an option they might take). Leveling and progressing can be fun, and the carrot on the stick to keep player bases up. They can be fun.

But there is the competitive side of me who loathes the idea. Part of me would like the see it come down to absolute pilot/player skill .... granted there's always going to be ping/computer/lag etc etc factors in there. I'd be thrilled if this was so balanced and skill based it became a ESport ala the EVO fighting championships or Starcraft competitions.


Guess we will have to see what the coming months hold for us.

[mwhighlander]

Wow, potential of Combined Arms tactics, emphasis on Intel and teamwork, LIGHTS NOT BEING USELESS?! (and actually being used to scout nontheless!?)

Yeah this is amazing news. Maybe its time to trade in the Highlander for a Jagermech, or just tweak it to run like a Heavy.

[Vahz]

Hoping the best for Piranha, if the make a game on Par with WoT, they will have my money.

[Insidious Johnson]

Mighty fine interview! It does sound like they are thinking like mmorpg though, where the holy trinity of tank, dps, and healer is all you need. Arenanet is making Guild Wars2 to break that mold entirely. Strange to see one game that is not an RPG move towards one, while one that is an RPG move away from it. I wish that they could talk to each other about that and help each other avoid pitfalls.

[pursang]

Insidious Johnson, on 20 February 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Mighty fine interview! It does sound like they are thinking like mmorpg though, where the holy trinity of tank, dps, and healer is all you need. Arenanet is making Guild Wars2 to break that mold entirely. Strange to see one game that is not an RPG move towards one, while one that is an RPG move away from it. I wish that they could talk to each other about that and help each other avoid pitfalls.

What would be the point, exactly? MWO and GW2 are two entirely different games made by two different companies. This isn't exactly a case of the "right hand not talking ot the left". Why don't you wait and let PG develope the game on thier own terms and then look to critisize any percieved faults?

Edited by pursang, 20 February 2012 - 07:53 PM.