Jump to content

New Assault Mode


51 replies to this topic

#21 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 09 June 2016 - 09:38 AM

Did anyone read the developer's notes on the new mode?!?!

There will be a base. There will be turrets. There will be a base-mounted UAV. There will be generators to destroy that will disable the turrets and uav.

Campers who hide in the base will quickly lose their base defences and wonder what happened...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 09 June 2016 - 09:38 AM.


#22 Cy Mitchell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,688 posts

Posted 09 June 2016 - 09:41 AM

There should be a base on one side and a UNion dropship on the other. The attackers have to destroy the base or capture it and the defenders have to destroy the DropShip or capture it. Both the base and DropShip have weapons and are capable of defending themselves. You could have other objectives in between that gives advantages to whoever holds them. Examples are seismic sensors that give the controlling team an advantage of seeing Mech movements or radar arrays that give enhanced radar readouts to all the Mechs on the controlling team. You could also have a supply cache that would award additional salvage credit if the team that finds it also is successful in completing the main objective. If you fail to hold your base or protect your DropShip then you lose the supply cache bonus.

Make objectives matter. That is what we want from the game ie. more depth and a reason for doing things beyond simply slaughtering Mechs.

Edited by Rampage, 09 June 2016 - 09:42 AM.


#23 Raso

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 1,298 posts
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted 09 June 2016 - 09:44 AM

View PostProsperity Park, on 09 June 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Did anyone read the developer's notes on the new mode?!?!

There will be a base. There will be turrets. There will be a base-mounted UAV. There will be generators to destroy that will disable the turrets and uav.

Campers who hide in the base will quickly lose their base defences and wonder what happened...


Can you link those? I remember they posted something about that but I do not believe they were patch notes....

#24 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 09 June 2016 - 10:20 AM

View PostRaso, on 09 June 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:


Can you link those? I remember they posted something about that but I do not believe they were patch notes....


They are in the July section of the May/June/July Roadmap posted in the Command Chair section of the forums :-)

#25 Raso

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sickle
  • The Sickle
  • 1,298 posts
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted 09 June 2016 - 10:29 AM

View PostProsperity Park, on 09 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

They are in the July section of the May/June/July Roadmap posted in the Command Chair section of the forums :-)


See I was aware of those, I thought when you said patch notes you meant something was leaked.

#26 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:08 PM

View PostBumbleBee, on 09 June 2016 - 12:48 AM, said:

If it ends up playing out like the multiplayer Mission Play game mode in MW4 did, I cant say ill ever play any other game mode again :D


Please PGI, do NOT make the maps have terrain choke points. Half of the fun in the MW4 game mode was the attackers choosing the attack vector and the defenders having to react accordingly. This usually meant that 4 or so defending Mechs stayed next to the objectives in case some attackers broke through the line, and scouts actually did scouting. By far the best MP game mode I've played in any game.


You already know the maps. Its a new game mode not a new map.

#27 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:08 PM

According to Russ (in one of the Town Halls), there won't just be turrets, but UAV towers and ECM nodes as well.

#28 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 09 June 2016 - 03:41 PM

View Postknightsljx, on 08 June 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

So.....with the coming new Assault mode, it appears that even if enemy mechs are dead, you still have to take the base to win.

My question would be if there would be defense turrets again in this iteration.

If there is, and say both teams fought until 1 mech is left with a crit CT, and that mech is shot dead by a turret, does it counts as a Draw or does it count as a win for the team where everyone died first?

Anyway, good luck everyone with the new Assault mode

#turtlewarrioronline



If the win parameters are the same it will be

1) victory when enemy base is destroyed
2) victory when all enemy mechs are destroyed

#29 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 09 June 2016 - 03:49 PM

wouldn't be having these kind of conversations if voting wasn't a thing, just have to tick boxes and remove yourself from modes you don't like.

But people insisted map voting needed to be a thing..

#30 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 09 June 2016 - 03:54 PM

View PostCathy, on 09 June 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

wouldn't be having these kind of conversations if voting wasn't a thing, just have to tick boxes and remove yourself from modes you don't like.

Mode voting was a terrible idea in and of itself AND it was implemented terribly. If people have to vote then ALL 4 modes should be available to vote on and not just 2.

#31 Zolaz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationHouston, Tx

Posted 09 June 2016 - 05:02 PM

Just listen to Russ, he knows what you want better than you do. Dont yall know anything on your island?

#32 GenghisJr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 278 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 10 June 2016 - 12:30 PM

View PostNightshade24, on 09 June 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

And you know what is worse then not forcing the objective? players ignoring it completely.

I do not like "Skirmish", "Skirmish with north and south", "Central Skirmish", and "Spreaded Skirmish" as my 4 game modes.
Also you know why destroying the entire enemy team doesn't win automatically here? that isn't the objective.
If you did nothing for the objective and destroyed all the mechss good job- there goes the mechs.
NOT the fact you didn't secure the base OR destroyed the turret defenders (and potentially later tank/ ai mech defenders).

It's just like saying for a WWII bombing raid (seeing as modern ones are commpletely different) and your job is to bomb the enemy airfield or something. if you go over to the general direction and you and your fighter escorts destroyed the entire enemy airforce present there. That doesn't mean the airfield is magically bombed and you did your objective. It just means there is less things standing in your way. And trust me. A lot more long term MW: O players would love "forced" objectives like this, or something like a destroy this building/ base, defend it, capture this factory, destroy the enemy outposts here, here, there, and here. Escort convoys, Defend the dropship while it power ups and leaves, etc. Rather then non stop skirmish with flavours.

Yep, However overlord from my understanding is restricted to Faction play / intended for that.
Union dropship however was stated to be a-okay for normal play

And I prefer Skirmish to the other modes, regardless forcing the game mode doesnt work, maybe there should be extra cbills if you complete the main objective first, reduced reward if you dont perhaps. Forcing the game mode is the same as watching a boxing match where there is a knockout in the first round and then having to wait the full 12 rounds for the points decision - and I note, the MWO championship rule is that the points immediately jump to 750 on the death of the final enemy mech so there is no need to cap out the full 750

#33 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 10 June 2016 - 02:43 PM

View PostGenghisJr, on 10 June 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

And I prefer Skirmish to the other modes, regardless forcing the game mode doesnt work, maybe there should be extra cbills if you complete the main objective first, reduced reward if you dont perhaps. Forcing the game mode is the same as watching a boxing match where there is a knockout in the first round and then having to wait the full 12 rounds for the points decision - and I note, the MWO championship rule is that the points immediately jump to 750 on the death of the final enemy mech so there is no need to cap out the full 750
(also the reason why it jumps to 750 immediately is that it has to be when your team (the surviving one) gets enough capture points to over take and beat the other one. It beat sitting for say 2 minutes waiting for it to happen.
If this does not happen then the match will go on until either you capture the remaining points or not.
I do not think the analogy for the boxing match was not the best example, there is also many ways people can take it (I mean for a skirmish player- wouldn't fighting 12 times against the enemy in waves like a massive 1 hour battlefield be considered fun?)
(or the fact I can make that early first round KO doing the objective and the 12 round what happens when people do nothing but fighting mechs.


The reward system wouldn't work. People will still rather kill all the player enemies instead of doing the objective because 'I hate objectives, I just want skirmish" being a large majority off the player base, and the other majority dislike that. Forced objectives makes sense in real life and in a video game- you had them in literally every past MW game INCLUDING MW:LL and most people found these the funnest.

I mean logically- why should killing all the mechs result in a win?
That doesn't mean you successfully assaulted and destroyed the enemy base or captured it.
In Domination it makes sense as that is about territorial domination of a part of the map- all enemies dead means it is NOT contested. In Skirmish it is the literal objective. In Conquest I personally have no idea what that game mode symbolizes...

In later game modes in CW/ QP we may see the following:
Escort this convoy/ Destroy this convoy
(destroying all mechs may make the convoy easier but it hasn't reached the destination yet. Destroying the whole enemy team is not destroying the convoy.)

Destroy this dropship/ defend it while it powers up
(similar to above. you killing all mechs doesn't mean you destroyed the dropship.)

Defend these outposts/ destroy them
(similar to upcoming assault but instead of 1 area of significance it's many smaller areas- basically picture it as the conquest of destroying things).

etc...

Sure- in most cases it makes things a lot easier...
It's easier to destroy a bunch of unarmed vehicles with 2-5 of them being tanks/ armoured cars firing anywhere between a few medium lasers, SRM 6's, to the worst you may see being armed with a PPC and SRM 6... (or for some reason a demolisher is used... twin AC 20's of slowness)
However it doesn't make it done automatically.

#34 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,459 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 20 July 2016 - 12:59 AM

View PostNightshade24, on 10 June 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

(also the reason why it jumps to 750 immediately is that it has to be when your team (the surviving one) gets enough capture points to over take and beat the other one. It beat sitting for say 2 minutes waiting for it to happen.
If this does not happen then the match will go on until either you capture the remaining points or not.
I do not think the analogy for the boxing match was not the best example, there is also many ways people can take it (I mean for a skirmish player- wouldn't fighting 12 times against the enemy in waves like a massive 1 hour battlefield be considered fun?)
(or the fact I can make that early first round KO doing the objective and the 12 round what happens when people do nothing but fighting mechs.


The reward system wouldn't work. People will still rather kill all the player enemies instead of doing the objective because 'I hate objectives, I just want skirmish" being a large majority off the player base, and the other majority dislike that. Forced objectives makes sense in real life and in a video game- you had them in literally every past MW game INCLUDING MW:LL and most people found these the funnest.

I mean logically- why should killing all the mechs result in a win?
That doesn't mean you successfully assaulted and destroyed the enemy base or captured it.
In Domination it makes sense as that is about territorial domination of a part of the map- all enemies dead means it is NOT contested. In Skirmish it is the literal objective. In Conquest I personally have no idea what that game mode symbolizes...

In later game modes in CW/ QP we may see the following:
Escort this convoy/ Destroy this convoy
(destroying all mechs may make the convoy easier but it hasn't reached the destination yet. Destroying the whole enemy team is not destroying the convoy.)

Destroy this dropship/ defend it while it powers up
(similar to above. you killing all mechs doesn't mean you destroyed the dropship.)

Defend these outposts/ destroy them
(similar to upcoming assault but instead of 1 area of significance it's many smaller areas- basically picture it as the conquest of destroying things).

etc...

Sure- in most cases it makes things a lot easier...
It's easier to destroy a bunch of unarmed vehicles with 2-5 of them being tanks/ armoured cars firing anywhere between a few medium lasers, SRM 6's, to the worst you may see being armed with a PPC and SRM 6... (or for some reason a demolisher is used... twin AC 20's of slowness)
However it doesn't make it done automatically.


Many Many Guys ,with Ideas to more Feeling,Modes,FW mechanics in all this Years ,to many great guys going with the Time ...and come ,is a Mechcraft Online Warrior with Crates
Thats all not interesting for Russ Vison from esport RoboMechcraft-warrior Online...giv the Faction war accurate Chassies for each fraction ,no Mechlab ,Historical missions with CooOp and Pve (AI units) give Tiersystem with Timelines (Low Tier-3025/Medium Tier 3050/High tier 3060 up) balanced new Mechs/weaponsystems (Hyper ACs,MRMs...) with this game mechanic? nothing ...fight with a Grant WKII against a Leo 2 ...MWO now only a facebook grinding Game like Farmville with UT 2004 Touch

back in the old Days, Im have many ideas for Maps ,and Modes ,build with SDK Tool








Ideas for a swamp map
Posted Image
idea for a Spaceport

Posted Image

for a Thunder Rift Map

Posted Image

my last Work ,a Placeholder Union Dropship for my Mapideas and a Merkava tank Low Poly Modell

Posted Image

Posted Image

the Engine and the SDK Tool now my only and Last Interest with MWO

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 20 July 2016 - 03:18 AM.


#35 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 20 July 2016 - 01:06 AM

View PostRampage, on 09 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

There should be a base on one side and a UNion dropship on the other. The attackers have to destroy the base or capture it and the defenders have to destroy the DropShip or capture it. Both the base and DropShip have weapons and are capable of defending themselves. You could have other objectives in between that gives advantages to whoever holds them. Examples are seismic sensors that give the controlling team an advantage of seeing Mech movements or radar arrays that give enhanced radar readouts to all the Mechs on the controlling team. You could also have a supply cache that would award additional salvage credit if the team that finds it also is successful in completing the main objective. If you fail to hold your base or protect your DropShip then you lose the supply cache bonus.

Make objectives matter. That is what we want from the game ie. more depth and a reason for doing things beyond simply slaughtering Mechs.


This makes a lot of sense. So much sense I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out this way somehow.

Edited by Johnny Z, 20 July 2016 - 01:07 AM.


#36 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 20 July 2016 - 03:44 AM

View PostOld MW4 Ranger, on 20 July 2016 - 12:59 AM, said:

Thats all not interesting for Russ Vison from esport RoboMechcraft-warrior Online...giv the Faction war accurate Chassies for each fraction ,no Mechlab ,Historical missions with CooOp and Pve (AI units) give Tiersystem with Timelines (Low Tier-3025/Medium Tier 3050/High tier 3060 up) balanced new Mechs/weaponsystems (Hyper ACs,MRMs...) with this game mechanic? nothing ...fight with a Grant WKII against a Leo 2 ...MWO now only a facebook grinding Game like Farmville with UT 2004 Touch

back in the old Days, Im have many ideas for Maps ,and Modes ,build with SDK Tool
https://youtu.be/bT12UmkK8mU?t=33

https://youtu.be/RZ5jGo84WBI


Ideas for a swamp map

idea for a Spaceport



for a Thunder Rift Map



my last Work ,a Placeholder Union Dropship for my Mapideas and a Merkava tank Low Poly Modell





the Engine and the SDK Tool now my only and Last Interest with MWO


The close by updates wasn't intended for esports. and it isn't exactly Russ's vision.
Russ's vision is making a in depth lore based single player campaign story featured in the battletech universe doing everything the previous MW games did right and more. However that vision was sort of crushed by harmony gold but it's picking up to the point that Russ confirmed that it's slowly being in the works. I think that is mostly in the form of shared resources between the two games are being available... such as Ai's... Tanks... Dropships, art assets... etc.

The 'esport' scene is to cater to those that want it in MW: O. Honestly they are one of the only groups in MW: O gaming demographic that is constantly ignored in MW: O. All I hope is that Solaris VII isn't restricted team meta play... I want my free for all and I think MANY people would love it...
Posted Image
Posted Image
(BattleTech and MechWarrior online concept art for Solaris VII)


Russ didn't mention anything soon happening for faction specific chassis in FP, he did say they will play a part, and from hints and teasers and past talk we know that it'll be mostly planet related... Faction probably as well but one thing is if say... Stiener gets a strongfoot on clan wolfs timberwolf production facility... you may not be more then surprised to start seeing stiener Timberwolfs running around. Which is a lore thing by the way, planet and production facilities hugely impact the mechs in the lances and companies.

From other news we heard there will be a FP store... buying an Atlas in Stiener will be cheaper then other factions... PGI also want to reintroduce repair and rearm later on but we haven't heard in like years about it... but we can easily imagine as house stiener, stiener mechs will be cheaper to repair then non steiner mechs...

Problem with heavily enforcing faction specific mechs is well... mechs that do not have them!...

Ghost bear: Viper... Kodiak... Mad Dog... ish.... That's about it? Executioner and Highlander iIC sorta?.... Normal highlander... kingcrab... locust... etc... but the problem now is those are IS mechs.

Liao... Urbamech... Locust... Cicada...um... 1 black knight variant... um?...
Well, we can't use Demolishers, LRM carriers, Harrasers, Vendettes, or Bulldogs... or Rifleman Infantry or Anti material snipers... those are not available in MW: O as none of them are mechs, just tanks, trucks, hovercraft, and infantry....

etc. It is something to add flavour and spice to FP, but you should never drown your meal in spices....

Also Viridian bog is quite a nice swamp map. However beyond the Solaris VII map PGI already has 2 maps in the works... the one I am looking forward too is this one.... Caverns
Posted Image
Posted Image

Could possibly use similar elements that you have used in your designs I am sure.

#37 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,459 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 20 July 2016 - 04:36 AM

in a old Interview say Russ, Harmony Gold has nothing to do ,with the End of MW5 , this only "which brings money most and outselling" ...IGP give Money by a F2P gamemechanic, thats was the way for the Future of MWO

Russ and the lore ? ...PGI has nothing interest by the Lore, seeing the Rescaling nonsense (Lights with the Hight of Heavys, Assault up to 20m) seeing the Viridian Bog Map with gigantic Insects like Star Wars ,seeing the fail of Fraction war ...Russ has many says in all this Years ;-)

for PGI is BT /MW only a License for make Money


Quote

Problem with heavily enforcing faction specific mechs is well... mechs that do not have them!...

Ghost bear: Viper... Kodiak... Mad Dog... ish.... That's about it? Executioner and Highlander iIC sorta?.... Normal highlander... kingcrab... locust... etc... but the problem now is those are IS mechs.


What the Problem ? in other Wargames , the German have no Spitfire , no Grant Tanks, the US Fractions no have Tiger tanks, ...and this Games have Fractions warfare with historical missions ,with only Vehicles from the Timeline and the fractionsside in this Scenario ...No Zeros over the Normandy.
Give clan attackers only Omnimechs, and from the clans hold Planets only IIC and second Line mechs, give FW Logistics, with Traveltimes,Recruittimes, Heahlttimes for Units in b,AI units for low Price ...give Feeling ...in the moment MWO is more Robocraft ,now with supply Crates ..like robocraft

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 20 July 2016 - 06:03 AM.


#38 kesmai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationPirate's Bay

Posted 20 July 2016 - 05:24 AM

Dig a grave...

#39 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 20 July 2016 - 06:51 PM

View PostOld MW4 Ranger, on 20 July 2016 - 04:36 AM, said:

in a old Interview say Russ, Harmony Gold has nothing to do ,with the End of MW5 , this only "which brings money most and outselling" ...IGP give Money by a F2P gamemechanic, thats was the way for the Future of MWO

Russ and the lore ? ...PGI has nothing interest by the Lore, seeing the Rescaling nonsense (Lights with the Hight of Heavys, Assault up to 20m) seeing the Viridian Bog Map with gigantic Insects like Star Wars ,seeing the fail of Fraction war ...Russ has many says in all this Years ;-)

for PGI is BT /MW only a License for make Money




What the Problem ? in other Wargames , the German have no Spitfire , no Grant Tanks, the US Fractions no have Tiger tanks, ...and this Games have Fractions warfare with historical missions ,with only Vehicles from the Timeline and the fractionsside in this Scenario ...No Zeros over the Normandy.
Give clan attackers only Omnimechs, and from the clans hold Planets only IIC and second Line mechs, give FW Logistics, with Traveltimes,Recruittimes, Heahlttimes for Units in b,AI units for low Price ...give Feeling ...in the moment MWO is more Robocraft ,now with supply Crates ..like robocraft


Lore followed physics, most of the rescale followed physics.
You complaining the Wolfhound is as tall (not as big, there's a difference) as a 75 tonner?
Well blame the face it's a thin slender mech compared to a chicken walker because the same thing happened in MW4 as well adn happened in BT!

MW4 stats:
20T Flea: 6.1m
35T Wolfhound: 9.8m
35T Adder "Puma": 6.5m
30T Kitfox "Uller: 6.5m

55T Stormcrow "Ryoken": 9.4m
(this is the biggest medium in MW4, Wolfhound is taller (not bigger) then all medium 'mechs here)

60T Argus: 9.5m
65T Catapult: 10.8m

80T Awesome: 11.0m
95T Executioner: 13.0m
95T Hauptman: 11.4m
100T Fafnir: 11.5m

Now different chart... This is lore sizes for most of these 'Mechs. Due to different designs they will differ to MW4's scales but in MW: O our models are made nearly identical to that of the artwork of BT when it's aplicable, only difference is 'mechs with no torso twisting is taller so things like the Viper and Nova will be much more taller.

Posted Image

Firemoth: 11.4m height.
Warhawk: 12.1m height
"Omg lights have the same volume as warhawk stupid scaling wah!" incorrect. the Firemoth is much more thinner and scrawnier then the Warhawk, it has by far less volume and is smaller. Start using the word Big propperly. Most little kids just use the term big for everything as well as the word fat (who decided calling mountains fat was a good idea? last time I check mountains do not have fat storages to make it survive, because it's kind of dead).

MW: O scaling follows very similar here but alterations has to be done due to some MW: O changees to the model... such sa the mad dog having more thicker arms. The viper and nova having a torso. etc...


And Viridian bog problem with native wildlife?
welp, most BT animals (they are not aliens unless they are introduced to that world. Most of them are native besides things like the Diamond shark, Jade Falcon, etc... yes, all the clan names are of actual species living in the kerensky cluster)
There are species of huge insect/lizard/crustracian native wildlife reported in BT however vaguely, the person who started BT all to begin with stated that he doesn't want BT to go into depth about alien wildlife because he wanted it to be vague and it wasn't the main story/ focus of battletech.
This is evident by the fact that nearly 80% of all canon creatures we have do not even have a single image to go to it...
There are species that can fill in for our giant lobster friend. The Burrock is very similar however is a subterranian creature and doesn't live on a mashy planet.
Gyru can possible be our calprit.
Dirt Grinders are more worm like but they have the same profile and scale as the creatures we're looking for.
etc...
Nearly a quarter of the creatures we're looking at could be our guy.

When ever it game to BT, alien species in video games should never be shouted at "that's not canon!", because most canon species which they vaguely even mention to begin with (50% of species mentioned in BT were never even given a name, however 1 had enough comments to have a nickname called "Swamp people" at the very least. ) so anytime we want to add any element along these lines such as MW4, we have to create new things half the time.
We know that thousands of planets have native wildlife or genetically engineered wildlife or introduced wildlife there. We only know of 50 species by name.
I'll just slap this things as Apocryphal and leave it at that because that's where most species lay.

Don't blame PGI for FW being not lore friendly. It's a video game. The IS map is heavily based on wins and losses and at specific times. It'll be bull to say "okay, well it's now the part where clans should get non stop rekt and get pushed back for the next month!". What kind of player wnats to be there simply to be shot at and go to the next game?.. and vice versa.
FW uses playerbase wins and losses and voted targets and enemies and such to go. if Clan Wolf and Clan Smoke Jaguar are fighting that isn't PGI's problem that the playerbase tried so hard to pick a fight... FedCom civil war happened earlier? out of PGi's control again. Roughly the map at hte momment is at the very least going with the BT factions. Problem is some factions are taking much more space then in BT. This is the same as many other wargames out there as you put a blanket statement...




Well if we're using War Thunder for instance...
"What the Problem ? in other Wargames , the German have no Spitfire , no Grant Tanks, the US Fractions no have Tiger tanks,"
It is true. However the Germans do have a Wellington, a MiG-3, A YaK-9, a IL-2, a P-47D, a T-34, a KV-2 Mod 1940...
USA never used tigers in real life, that's why it's not here. However Russia does have the T-III (Panzerkampfwagen III) and the T-V (Panzerkampfwagen V Panther) as well as Fw 190 D-12...
etc.
and in WT you do get Zeros over Normandy thanks to the US captured zero's and Normandy being a UK + US vs German map.

If you are talking about World of Warplanes/ Tanks/ Warhsips?... hahahahahaa... you would be lucky if they even have a Normandy somewhat moddeled. Having 20-70% of the vehicles being blueprints while 3-10% of the vehicles are literally just made up in the past 2 years doesn't make up for having lend lease or captured vechles. Also it's exclusively a free for all, no factions here besides tech trees.

If you are talking about IL-2 battle of stalingrad?... that game is early access.

There's only a handful of vehicles. Complaining they got historical matches and factions is a joke.

it'll be the same if MW: O only has wolfhounds, commandos, black knights, jagermechs, and atlases. while the other half of the mechs in game is the kitfox, adder, mad dog, viper, and kodiak and then claim it has 100% no problem with factions nad balalncing... Because the lack of the whole other 3 clans, 4 IS houses, 1 IS state, and 200 or so 'Mechs probably be enough of a problem...

In BT and lore so many captured mechs are used in battle and so many non-faction specific mechs have been used. Look at the battle of tukayiid, one clanner used an Atlas mk II to lead the battlefield.
Look at clan ghost bear using seiges of highlanders, highlander IIC's, Kingcrabs, Supernovas, etc to batter down the enemy on certain battles.
Look at how there was a Hunchback IIC used in the front lines in the clan front in the invasion or how the stieners got bunch of lend lease Catapult K2's and how kurita and stiener got Cicadas in support of the war effort.
Then there's the fact that most mech armouries are mostly just 300 years of salvage and capturing vehicles. You got extinct mechs like Atlas II's and Kingcrabs running around as well as mechs like the phoenix hawk and locust being in virtually every faction in BT possible. Lore never fully restricted Mechs to specific factions. With literal millions of mercs out there it is more thne easy to see how tech can spread.|

Look at all the hero mechs, look at the mech models to begin with, look at half the maps. etc...
Most of these are heavily lore friendly/ inspired/ canon. The map frozen city, river city, and terra therma are actually famous MW2,3 and 4 maps that reacure in the series and also are direct inspirations from the canon. You got the fact Tourmaline desert has a crashed overlord dropship in the middle as well. Which was completely unnecesary for PGI to even do the assets for a collapsed overlord dropship but they did it anyway. Why? Immeresion. Give it due time. PGI has a lot of polishing to do on the game and each update makes it better and better. As well as ocasionally chip the paint job I guess. Such as allowing decals be anywhere on a mech.

#40 PhoenixFire55

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,725 posts
  • LocationSt.Petersburg / Outreach

Posted 21 July 2016 - 01:11 AM

I'd say the same thing yet again ...

As long as there are turrets and other crap that gives an advantage to the team camping on their base there will be nothing but idiotic long range sniping standoff in the symmetric assault game mode.

But then again, even in asymmetric assault game mode (i.e. faction play maps) they fail to produce any kind of maps that would differ from "feed-through-the-chokepoint".

Such diverse gameplay. Much amaze.
Not looking forward to "improved" assault gamemode. At all.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users