221 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

OneManWar, on 02 April 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

You do realize we have a completely new and redesigned HUD coming in a couple months, it doesnt make much sense at this point to apply a ton of resources to fix something intermittent (that is hard as hell to find as well) that may or may not even be relevant anymore at this point.

This sounds a lot like when they said we wouldn't get any upgrades to their build, because DX11 and the new engine update for cryengine were 'coming soon.'

You know, just try to keep history in mind. Please.

[Father Dougal]

Why is the Highlander MC only?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Vassago Rain, on 02 April 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

This sounds a lot like when they said we wouldn't get any upgrades to their build, because DX11 and the new engine update for cryengine were 'coming soon.'

You know, just try to keep history in mind. Please.

I was just thinking about all the examples like this I could use.

BUT IT'S COMING!

Whatever.

Father Dougal, on 02 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Why is the Highlander MC only?

Because they released the hero mech before the actual mech.

In an attempt to make more money.

[Father Dougal]

So when are we going to get the non MC Highlander?

[Shumabot]

OneManWar, on 02 April 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

You do realize we have a completely new and redesigned HUD coming in a couple months, it doesnt make much sense at this point to apply a ton of resources to fix something intermittent (that is hard as hell to find as well) that may or may not even be relevant anymore at this point.

I've actually suspected that. That's also why I don't think they're fixing their game modes, since CW is likely replacing them entirely.

If that's the case they should stop lying about trying to fix them.

[xDeityx]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Star conflict has some huge glaring balancing issues that the devs seem to be flat ignoring and are also running into the R&R issues that PGI already ran into, and they are showing very little signs of changing that.

Right, but the point was that they are getting a fraction of the money that PGI is, yet they have implemented many of the very basic things that PGI fails so hard at. There's really no excuse for why we don't have a better 'mech lab, global chat lobbies, and some of the other very basic quality-of-life things that aren't that hard to do.

Signal27, on 02 April 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Star Conflict probably spent longer in closed beta development before they opened it up - hence all the additional features. So while I do agree that PGI probably opened their beta up too soon, I doubt they did anything much differently in development than what Gaijin (devs of Star Conflict) did.

Also, Gaijin is building off the success of War Thunder whereas PGI is starting from scratch.

Actually StarGem Inc is developing Star Conflict. From the first question of the FAQ:

Quote

1. What company is making the game?
Project is being developed by StarGem Inc.; they are using their own Hammer Engine

It may have spent longer in closed beta, but it may not have. It seems like you're just speculating here. Either way, at this point they are both in open beta and MWO feels unpolished as hell while Star Conflict feels great (from a User Interface / quality of life standpoint). Don't forget that Star Conflict also has PvE as well as PvP so they are taking on a larger scope than MWO as well.

PGI is drawing players from the popularity of the MechWarrior IP much more than Star Conflict is from War Thunder.

Tickdoff Tank, on 02 April 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

I totally disagree with you on Star Conflict. That game has issues far more serious than anything in MWO, and it is blatantly pay to win.

Again, the point was to use Star Conflict as an example of a game with drastically less resources who have succeeded at doing very basic things that PGI has failed hard at. Things like an in-game chat lobby, PvE, game modes that are fun, a user interface that doesn't suck, a 'mechlab' that isn't clunky as hell, etc.

Star Conflict has tons of issues, but that is entirely irrelevant.

[Shumabot]

Father Dougal, on 02 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

So when are we going to get the non MC Highlander?

Next patch. Tuesday after next.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Father Dougal, on 02 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

So when are we going to get the non MC Highlander?

2 weeks, next patch.

[Submersible Fox]

So guys, anyone notice how the Heavy Metal has a bigger engine then the normal highlander, but goes SLOWER then one?

[Lord Banshee]

Ransack, on 02 April 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Yes this 'Mech is pink and does really play music when you get a kill!

"Baby hit me one more time!"
Yes, the first mech that makes you NOT want to kill anything...

[Noth]

xDeityx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Right, but the point was that they are getting a fraction of the money that PGI is, yet they have implemented many of the very basic things that PGI fails so hard at. There's really no excuse for why we don't have a better 'mech lab, global chat lobbies, and some of the other very basic quality-of-life things that aren't that hard to do.

They are using an engine that is much easier to program with. They have less actual content, they have more balance issues. Different priorities.

[xDeityx]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

They are using an engine that is much easier to program with. They have less actual content, they have more balance issues. Different priorities.

I'm not sure they have less actual content...both games are pretty sparse on content and I'd argue that SC has more. I get burned out less quickly playing Star Conflict because I can switch to PvE for a few rounds, and there are multiple game modes that are all more or less functional. Compare Conquest and Assault to the lineup of game modes in SC and it's a joke.

I'm not saying it's a better game or anything, but when I tried it for the first time last week my impression was, "wow, PGI should really take some notes." Considering how much more resources PGI has at its disposal, that's not good at all.

More and more as I play the same game modes with the same 'mechs in the same horribly-balanced metagame I feel like my love of the MechWarrior franchise is being exploited so that PGI can learn how to develop a game on our dime and make IGP a nice profit while they're doing it.

[Signal27]

xDeityx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

It may have spent longer in closed beta, but it may not have. It seems like you're just speculating here. Either way, at this point they are both in open beta and MWO feels unpolished as hell while Star Conflict feels great (from a User Interface / quality of life standpoint). Don't forget that Star Conflict also has PvE as well as PvP so they are taking on a larger scope than MWO as well.

I'm hoping that people will keep perspective over a game that only spent a year in development before going to open beta, like MWO did, versus a game that spent longer - bear in mind that a lot if games spend about 3 years in development before they're launched, if not longer. It's fair to criticize PGI for opening up to soon, but at the same time I can see lots of fans demanding that PGI open their beta up ASAP to get as much community feedback as they can every step of the way leading up to launch.

Quote

PGI is drawing players from the popularity of the MechWarrior IP much more than Star Conflict is from War Thunder.

I was thinking more in terms of game engine assets rather than player base. The developers of Star Conflict already had a multiplayer third person flight sim engine to start off with. PGI only had a game that's 10 years old now

[Noth]

xDeityx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

I'm not sure they have less actual content...both games are pretty sparse on content and I'd argue that SC has more.  I get burned out less quickly playing Star Conflict because I can switch to PvE for a few rounds, and there are multiple game modes that are all more or less functional.  Compare Conquest and Assault to the lineup of game modes in SC and it's a joke.

I'm not saying it's a better game or anything, but when I tried it for the first time last week my impression was, "wow, PGI should really take some notes."  Considering how much more resources PGI has at its disposal, that's not good at all.

More and more as I play the same game modes with the same 'mechs in the same horribly-balanced metagame I feel like my love of the MechWarrior franchise is being exploited so that PGI can learn how to develop a game on our dime and make IGP a nice profit while they're doing it.

I felt the exact opposite. I was very underwhelmed. The game modes felt just as broken and one sided as the one in WoT. Teh PVE beyon tier ne or whatever they called it was just a stupid mattle of attrion with a ship that could 2 shot you.

Edited by Noth, 02 April 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Signal27, on 02 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

The developers of Star Conflict already had a multiplayer third person flight sim engine to start off with. PGI only had a game that's 10 years old now

Third person vehicle/flight sims are nothing new. Battlefield 1942 would like a word with you.

[xDeityx]

Signal27, on 02 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I'm hoping that people will keep perspective over a game that only spent a year in development before going to open beta, like MWO did, versus a game that spent longer - bear in mind that a lot if games spend about 3 years in development before they're launched, if not longer. It's fair to criticize PGI for opening up to soon, but at the same time I can see lots of fans demanding that PGI open their beta up ASAP to get as much community feedback as they can every step of the way leading up to launch.

To the end user does it really matter how long the development time was? Consumers care about the quality of the product being delivered and the cost to them for that product.

Signal27, on 02 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I was thinking more in terms of game engine assets rather than player base. The developers of Star Conflict already had a multiplayer third person flight sim engine to start off with. PGI only had a game that's 10 years old now

PGI had their trail blazed by the MW:LL team, even to the point of using CryEngine.

Honestly though, this is all totally beside the point I was trying to make, which was that PGI is not doing a very good job given the resources it has at its disposal. They are clumsily learning about development and making all sorts of missteps and gaffes on the way. It sucks, because they're killing the potential of the IP while they're bumbling.

[Xtrekker]

Anyone got video up yet? At work, can't play.

[Godswrath]

I almost cant believe what I'm seeing, I have been a fanboy as much as anyone and Im dissappointed with the new consumables.

I tested them out twice in training grounds, and completly underwhelmed..this was actually one of the things I had been looking forward to no less.

neither air nor artillery shows spalsh dmg explosions on ground just streaks in the air that rain down briefly, no sound not even a aerospace fighter fly over to do the bombing run.... and Im getting alot of texture pop now, Ill uninstall and reinstall and see if that fixes that issue but those consumables could be worked on a little...they do work as intended causing dmg to enemy mechs but in about the least exciting way possible....

I have faith you can and will do better and Im not quitting you yet....I just need to step away for a few hours to gather my thoughts...

Im going out on a limb when I say that I think the crytek engine is definitly being underused...with all the engine can show and do...
..I understand that the flashier the graphics the bigger hit to system reqs ...

Edited by Godswrath, 02 April 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Signal27]

lockwoodx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Third person vehicle/flight sims are nothing new. Battlefield 1942 would like a word with you.

Yes but did PGI have permission to use any of those other developers' assets?

[xDeityx]

Noth, on 02 April 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I felt the exact opposite. I was very underwhelmed. The game modes felt just as broken and one sided as the one in WoT. Teh PVE beyon tier ne or whatever they called it was just a stupid mattle of attrion with a ship that could 2 shot you.

A comparison of the game modes is almost embarrassing for MWO. SC's version of conquest worked much better than PGI's no-respawn version...people actually pay attention to the cap points. They have a hunt-the-VIP game mode that is a cool concept but still needs more polish, but PGI has nothing that can compare to this. There's a 'football/soccer' type of game mode that's pretty fun, but I haven't got the chance to play much yet...but again PGI has nothing to compare. Assault and conquest seem more like place-holder game modes than finished products.

What blew me away the most was having user-interface that wasn't painful to use. In-game global chat and the ability to see how many players were playing the game was just icing on the cake. MWO can't even compare here.

Not sure what your last sentence means. I played T1 and T2 PvE, and while they weren't amazingly fun at least they were a change of pace from the PvE, and they were very rewarding as well. No matter how you slice it SC's version of PvE has PGI's version beat hands-down since PGI's doesn't exist.