32 replies to this topic

[I am]

General Taskeen, on 13 April 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

Paid 120 bucks and all I got was WoT and Call of Dooty game modes.

Theres like 100,000 people playing WoT at this second, if not more, and thats being modest. Can you claim that? Not a chance.

Why not MWO you might ask? Well, quite frankly, it feels too much like Call of Duty. Fix your Ravens.

You know why this will never fly high. WoT does balanced tank-ish PvP better than MWO, and CoD does CoDish playstyle better than MWO. It isnt competitive in either arena. I think your better off leaning to the tankish side if you wanna succeed. But this hybrid, not drawing mass interest from either PvP camp, will not do. Sorry.

[Noobzorz]

I am, on 13 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Theres like 100,000 people playing WoT at this second, if not more, and thats being modest. Can you claim that? Not a chance.

Why not MWO you might ask? Well, quite frankly, it feels too much like Call of Duty. Fix your Ravens.

You know why this will never fly high. WoT does balanced tank-ish PvP better than MWO, and CoD does CoDish playstyle better than MWO. It isnt competitive in either arena. I think your better off leaning to the tankish side if you wanna succeed. But this hybrid, not drawing mass interest from either PvP camp, will not do. Sorry.

This is also silly, IMO. I'm really not buying your idea that gamers are either CoD or WoT.

Once MWO gets a little more feature rich and PGI gets a handle on the stability and balance issues, I think this will do very well.

[bigdaddynash]

as far as numbers are concenred we're around 460,000 accounts, in perspective that includes alternate accounts and those who have left, so lets say around 400,000 people are the playerbase.

would a 3rd or 4th game mode split that playerbase over the 24 hour timespan? i'll let other forumers decide whether it's in the devs interest to halt all fixes and creation of maps mechs cw for another game mode or two.

source for numbers 20 accounts per memberlist page and around 23,000 pages worth, just google MWO members list.

Edited by bigdaddynash, 13 April 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[PappySmurf]

bigdaddynash, on 13 April 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

as far as numbers are concenred we're around 460,000 accounts, in perspective that includes alternate accounts and those who have left, so lets say around 400,000 people are the playerbase.

would a 3rd or 4th game mode split that playerbase over the 24 hour timespan? i'll let other forumers decide whether it's in the devs interest to halt all fixes and creation of maps mechs cw for another game mode or two.

source for numbers 20 accounts per memberlist page and around 23,000 pages worth, just google MWO members list.

Well here is the 100 million dollar question Why did they PGI not use one of the MW2-MW4 game models? The older games were proven winners and all they had to do was recreate a modern version of any of them and the MechWarrior players and fans would have been over joyed and happy to spend 10x what they have spent on top of that they could have done much more instead we have a shallow game that burns players out in less than 100 games of lets repeat to grind XP and CB. And recreate the older lobby and league platform also?

[General Taskeen]

I am, on 13 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Theres like 100,000 people playing WoT at this second, if not more, and thats being modest. Can you claim that? Not a chance.

Why not MWO you might ask? Well, quite frankly, it feels too much like Call of Duty. Fix your Ravens.

You know why this will never fly high. WoT does balanced tank-ish PvP better than MWO, and CoD does CoDish playstyle better than MWO. It isnt competitive in either arena. I think your better off leaning to the tankish side if you wanna succeed. But this hybrid, not drawing mass interest from either PvP camp, will not do. Sorry.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing, DC;DR. They still copied the bland, uninteresting game modes, which is what I am getting at.

And I hate WoT and CoD. I'm from the mindset of playing realism simulations where matches can take hours at a time. And encouraging those types of game modes into short matches helps people learn to become short attention spanned while Mech Warrioring. And that is why I want there to be separate game modes for people like myself that want the cross between MW:LL's 60+ minute terrain control matches so I don't have to play with others in Assault or Conquest in constant Grind Quests for Loot/XP.

Edited by General Taskeen, 13 April 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Ph30nix]

i honestly just dont understand how they say it takes so long to create new content...

i had a long detailed paragraph but the website decided to log me out so short and sweet

they arent doing anything from scratch (shouldnt be anyways)
they already reuse alot of textures (especially in cockpit)
and they already said they are going by TT stock builds from my understanding so balance isnt an issue in the load out sense. but even so they know by now what would be "too much"

last point if the problem is the Cry Eng 3 is that much of an evil saddistic Beast that it doesnt allow them to easily reskin models and they have to build from 100% scratch then personally i would have chosen a differnt game engine.

but regardless im having fun, and as long as i have a motivation or goal to keep me playing until they get some new content and games modes im fine. Just sucks it takes so long.

i just really wish i understood wtf was going on with PGI/IGP sometimes, its like they got the game to this point then gutted its staff and they have like 3-5 guys working on it if that.

[Teralitha]

I am, on 13 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Theres like 100,000 people playing WoT at this second, if not more, and thats being modest. Can you claim that? Not a chance.

Why not MWO you might ask? Well, quite frankly, it feels too much like Call of Duty. Fix your Ravens.

You know why this will never fly high. WoT does balanced tank-ish PvP better than MWO, and CoD does CoDish playstyle better than MWO. It isnt competitive in either arena. I think your better off leaning to the tankish side if you wanna succeed. But this hybrid, not drawing mass interest from either PvP camp, will not do. Sorry.

I think it would be better not to have either WOT or COD features. But a core design like LOL instead.

[I am]

Noobzorz, on 13 April 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

This is also silly, IMO. I'm really not buying your idea that gamers are either CoD or WoT.

Once MWO gets a little more feature rich and PGI gets a handle on the stability and balance issues, I think this will do very well.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Bagheera]

I read the title as "Game Forum Lacks Imagination," and loled. I have nothing more to add.

Edit: Actually that last bit isn't true.

Has anyone figured out a good "Mechball" mode and penned it into a coherent suggestion yet?

Edited by Bagheera, 13 April 2013 - 08:55 PM.

[Noobzorz]

I am, on 13 April 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Keep telling yourself that.

Your either-or framework is basically the same one I saw bandied about on GameFAQs forums in the late 90s. It's too simple to be smart, and there are about ten million counterexamples that should make you pause and reconsider it. MWO is a little skeletal, featurewise, at the moment, and their confounding refusal to start messing with the weapon balance is infuriating, but there is no reason they can't match WoT.

Anyway, it's sort of ridiculous that you're comparing MWO and CoD. How are they at all alike? If we were doing a linear combination analogy, it'd be a stretch to even say MWO=(0.99*WoT)+(0.01*CoD).

[Ingvay]

I've played the older MW games and LOVED them. They were very entertaining. I agree with many on this thread and other similar threads....the game lacks immersion. No missions, no truly large maps, no Command Center barking orders in your cockpit, no waypoints to navigate, no primary and secondary objectives, no bases or equipment that can be destroyed, no escort missions...etc.

Just arena mech PVP combat. Now don't misunderstand me, I still like this game, a lot. I just don't love it like the older MW games. There is soooooo much content missing from this game, it could be so much more by just using elements of the older games effectively.

[Nightfangs]

I played an interesting TT-game at a friend's one day.
Team A had to retrieve a crashed reconaissance drone and take it to safety.
Team B had to defend against that.
Only Team A knew where the drone was, Team B had a certain weight-advantage.
Before Team A picked up the drone, the game was more than a fast fencing match, after the pickup it turned into a ferocious chase. ;-)

I think that could be an interesting game mode. The drone gets placed randomly at the beginning of every match.
Maybe the drone could be only picked up by mechs with (1or 2 ?) hand acutators and/or slow down the carrying mech.

I am quite sure, that there are a dozen interesting ideas more which are quite easy to implement.

@OP: Yeah, nothing would create more diversity than different game modes.
Let's see how many new ideas get introduced with CW...

[I am]

Noobzorz, on 13 April 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Your either-or framework is basically the same one I saw bandied about on GameFAQs forums in the late 90s. It's too simple to be smart, and there are about ten million counterexamples that should make you pause and reconsider it. MWO is a little skeletal, featurewise, at the moment, and their confounding refusal to start messing with the weapon balance is infuriating, but there is no reason they can't match WoT.

Anyway, it's sort of ridiculous that you're comparing MWO and CoD. How are they at all alike? If we were doing a linear combination analogy, it'd be a stretch to even say MWO=(0.99*WoT)+(0.01*CoD).

Im not saying its either or. I am saying each caters to a specific type of pvp. Wot, hugely successful, caters to the i wanna tank crowd. CoD the I like fast paced action crowd.

Here you have the atlas/phract 4x i wanna tank crowd, and, the raven cicada i want fast paced action crowd. The hybrid it creates manifests in a few ways. Ravens man handing bigger mechs. Its a scout. Or it should be. The anti light threads. And most importantly the population size. If pvpers wanna tank, theyre not going for their atlas. Over 100,000 potential customers are going for their sherman m4s. And the majority of the fast paced twitch gamers, theyre not going for ravens, theyre playing call of duty, or whatever new fast paced fps is out today.

By partly appealing to both groups, you appeal to only the fringes of each. Embrace one or the other. Either were all flying over 100 kmph, JJing, and playing like a sprint modded knifer in cod, or were all taking cover, using angles, and focusing fire in a slower methodical tank like fashion like wot. Why take a little of each, when you could take alot from one or the other.

I hope the devs would prefer the tank side, but ive seen one who i shall simply call G, whom twitches around in his cicada like a cod player. He cant have this game afford him that power, and still appeal to the tanker crowd en mass, whether hed like to admit it or not.

So the two groups argue, and argue, and.... And the devs try to grab both, but in teh end, only appeal to their fringes and get few from either. I say we lean tank side. Take mwos community, all 100,000 of them. Rake in their money, expand like a balloon, and please then reinvest in the game so we can get a new map every week or two, and hopefully even things wed never even hoped for bc we havnt thought of them yet. More people, more money, better product.

Edited by I am, 13 April 2013 - 10:18 PM.