Jump to content

The Next Battletech


5 replies to this topic

#1 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:36 PM

It wasn’t all that long ago when even I was decrying PGIs efforts with MWO, seeing their missteps as game-destroying errors of cosmic proportion. I understood, and it remains a truth that could happen if this game were to turn back to going wrong, that the ruination of this game, and its subsequent abandonment by the community, could lead not only to the end of this online version of the BattleTech game, but to the end of BattleTech itself. If this computerized version of my most favorite game universe of all time failed, another version would never be realized, let alone the possibility for an MMORPG in the future, which I would still dearly love to see, and would likely pay through the nose for, if I were of means by then.

Thank you Russ, Bryan, Paul, and all of the crew at PGI, for truly beginning to turn things around. Because of your efforts, the light is quite a bit brighter in the future for more of what I love. As well, I see the future you’re trying to get to with MWO, or at least I think I do, and I think it looks pretty good. Start vetting things like a MechWarrior Online version of Battle Value to replace the much-hated Elo and attempted weight-balancing, especially since a 35-ton Raven 2X and Raven 3L are not the same value of ’Mech based on weight, and there are a ton of other examples out there. Only game-determined Piloting and Gunnery Skill modified Battle Value can get us to truly even matches. Continue on with the things you’ve stated you want, such as various BattleTech-era servers –I would, personally, love to be able to play a time-forward game starting in the year 3000 and moving forward from there–, and with PvE games we can purchase and play –I would LOVE to play scenario packs, especially rebuilt packs from the previous MechWarrior and Mech Commander games, and would be willing to set some coin down on them, especially if I could Lance up with my friends to play them–, and so many other things for the future.

You are on the right track, now, maybe screeching along the rails a bit, but on the right track, and I hope you continue to move in the right direction. NOTE: I still want to see the individual factions, like Merc Corps’, get some real individual lovin’, not this “you must be tied to a House” stuff, and that would come with Mercs Handbook and MH: 3055 style contracting and contract-objective-based gaming, but I know it might be some time in the future.

The Future of ’Tech
I’m not saying this would have to be something for PGI to do, nor that I’m putting it on you guys to do, but you at PGI are pushing the envelope, now, with putting BattleTech into this computer game, with talk of PvE, logistics, and all manner of things, so much so that I could actually see a BattleTech-based MMORPG in our future. I know what I would like to see in it, even wrote a basic document for what I would like to see, and I’ll share that, but I want to hear from the rest of you…

If you don’t want an MMORPG or don’t believe it would ever happen, that’s fine, nothing against you, but let the rest of us have our dream, please?

#2 Prussian Havoc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 1,066 posts
  • LocationShenandoah, PA

Posted 08 December 2014 - 09:58 PM

It appears not many of us twitch-gamers dream any more...

#3 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 09 December 2014 - 06:25 AM

Prussian, first YOU are NOT a twitch gamer; you're elite, as many of AUs members are. Second, I guess there is not a lot of dreaming take place at the moment, as you expressed. That's too bad, actually.

#4 Colonel Fubar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 650 posts
  • LocationPlanet Agoge in the Mitera System

Posted 23 December 2014 - 05:21 PM

I agree Kay with the Majority of your points.
But I think our (Table Top) Battletech Universe will always have its unique fan base.
And I certainly agree with you that PGI is giving our community 100% of their attention.

#5 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 24 December 2014 - 10:58 AM

It would appear I posted this prematurely, Danny.

#6 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 25 December 2014 - 02:44 PM

As a guess as to why the guys at PGI seem to have turned things around, I believe there are a number of past/current factors at play here which include, but are not limited to the following:

1) they did not have a reputation for putting out quality games and they need a good quality game to be able to venture into any new games (umm, can you say "Transverse"?) that will garner positive support;
2) MW:O player support was starting to really flag/sour - like their administration of the Forums;
3) their relationship with IGP - I think this is an odd story, but, that distraction is gone;
4) Mechwarrior Tactics is no longer a distraction;
5) Transverse was a project that the community overwhelmingly and very loudly did not support them doing, mostly based on numbers 1 and 2 above
6) PGI was putting out information elsewhere other than their portal to the players - this has changed somewhat and is coincident with their newfound zeal for actually working on MW:O;
7) think of something and insert here.

I still think they have a way to go, like fixing ECM to not be a cloak for a whole lance or company and reintroducing knockdown and bring back role warfare (scouts!!) before the numerous disappointed BT Fans will come back in the numbers PGI needs.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users