659 replies to this topic

[BIix]

Welcome to your future.

[sirius89]

BIix, on 25 June 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Welcome to your future.

I puked a litttle.

[GRIMM11]

BIix, on 25 June 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Welcome to your future.

LOL hey now I did have fun with the game, it just had to remove "Mechwarrior" from the title

*Edit
Mechwarrior was never in the title... for good reason too I think because This wouldve been an abysmal addition.

Edited by GRIMM11, 26 June 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[carl kerensky]

Furball42, on 24 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

Mechwarrior should always feel like a heavy game. Meaning that you should have the feeling of piloting a behemoth metal machine and not an exosuit...even for the 140kph Ravens. It should take TIME to kill an enemy 'mech (unless the whole lance unleash their fury upon a single target) and it should be able to take some damage before finally keeling over and dying kicking and screaming. Take the MW4 Vengeance intro vid. That Mad Dog took some punishment before it died.

Even the lost in time and space MW5 intro vid had that to some degree. Facing an Atlas and you know it's gonna be a fight of a lifetime. But currently I feel that is one element that is missing in MWO. It's tipping to the dark (MW4) side of things.. Don't get me wrong, I still love this game, and it is probably driven my decades of fanboynism, BUT we are piloting 'mechs, not gears, not hawken, not blacklight exo suits, not even titans, but 'mechs. Inside the cockpit currently, the feeling of piloting a beast is almost there, its just.. well, you die too quickly. Most puggles are over in 6-10mins (yeah yeah pugs i know...just saying)

And to throw my 5c into the well, I think that 3PV will take away from that immersion factor as well. When I first saw the 'mech startup sequence I thought this is gonna get old real quick, and it kinda didn't. We still quip on whether the big red / green button is the slush puppy flavour the pilot wants.. But 3PV.. no thank you. Not for competitive campaign games at least.

But the whole 3PV issue will always be there. I'm thinking of a certain zombie survival game where the hardcore players wanted to enforce FPV, but I enjoyed the third person aspect for the same reason I didn't play WoW in first person. But it has no place in MW..

Anyways, first post. Be gentle. (on this thread)

For a first post I like the way you think. Great post. Mwo to me is devolving into an arcade game. Graphically it has regressed and the mechs are beginning to move like men in a rubber mech suit. Ahh the tragedy. But there is still hope right?

Ck

[Theodor Kling]

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Ask the Devs #40

My comments in italics and underlined to differenciate them from the original post.

3PV
Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.

aniviron: You've stated in the past that you don't want to give players using third person view a competitive advantage by being able to see around corners, behind them, or in their far periphery. Do you have any concrete plans for how to do this? It seems like this will be an unavoidable side effect of having the camera located behind the mech, and it is the main reason that almost the entire forum is against having it in the game. You could assuage a lot of upset on the forums if you detailed how you are going to do this.
A: Once players get their hands on 3PV, I think most people will be pleasantly surprised how little the camera impacts gameplay. Early tests are showing that there is not much of an advantage. That being said, until we get this viewmode in the hands of 1000s of players, we’re not going to see how it fully gets used.

Warge: Are any plans to encourage future 3PV players to use 1PV? Maybe slight XP or/and CB boost, that sort of things...
A: Probably not, however we’re going to emphasize that both view modes are essential to a well-rounded experience, with FPV being something that you use if you are a true sim-head.
As other pointed out "not much of anadvantage" and FPV being for a greater challange don't fit toghert. And sim-head..realy.. you think it is a good idea to insult or at best marginlize your core audience? And no matter if there is a silent non -forum using majority... those people that sticked to you though all LRM and Streak apocalypses, bought founders packages enough to get you millions of $ in support for the sim like game you said you would make are the ones that should be your target audience. Not the flickering crowd that moves from exiting new game to the next. But your niche, long term BT fans, that are willing to stick with you for ages if you do them right. They might be a small market ( well not THAT small looking at the income from founders sales), but they are a steady market.

Prosperity Park: Will UI 2.0 provide a little more information about the Modules in the "description/about" field than the current Mechlab provides? For instance, instead of the Adv Target Decay Module being described as "increases the time a target remains locked to 3.5 seconds," I think it should say something more like "Increases the time a target remains locked from 2.5 seconds to 3.5 seconds" so that people will have a better idea as to what they are getting. Perhaps the seismic sensor could be accompanied with a graph showing its detection thresholds so we can know what to expect in terms of quantifiable values... Etc.
A: The compare functionality of UI 2.0 will allow us to accomplish most of what you are describing, along with better written descriptions.
And what the hell is acutally taking so long about it?


Gaureth: Regarding Mech upgrades (DHS, ENDO, FF, Artemis): Have you guys considered perhaps turning these into "unlocks" per mech instead of charging C-bills every time a player wants to revert to one or the other?This would be heaps better in trying different mech configurations without fear of spending again. You could charge a slightly larger fee to get the "upgrade", but after that the player would be free to switch back and forth between the two should the requirements allow.
A: It costs an engineer a lot of time and money to change a mech’s core configuration.
True. So does rearoring. But that's a touchy subject in the community. Pardon..the vocal minority of people who actually care enough about the game to use the fractured forums


Colonel Pada Vinson: Are jumpjets going to undergo tuning for DFA, collisions & better gameplay to bring them inline with battletech values and make them viable for jumping instead of wall-climbing? Jetfire: Right now a Trebuchet with max jumpjets can just barely clear an atlas head - how does PGI invision DFA working with such mediocre jump heights? I am thinking something that could fill a sizeable radius, 200+ meters with smoke for 10-30 seconds.
A: When collisions come back into the game we’ll take a look at each mech and the JJ system to make sure we get the desired results. TT is just a guideline and not really applicable to a realtime simulation.

I agree that TT is not always translatable to real time.. but it should be your guide. And especially when it comes to JJ. Hint: Turning and changing movement direction in flight would make JJ real usefull.

Biruke: Will the different manufacturers laser beams differ in color? Say now we have blue LL beam. Lutien manufacturers could make the LL beams violet, no?
A: It’s one idea we have, yes.
At least something

Kmieciu: PGI did a great job balancing LRMs in the recent patches. Gradual increase in damage (0.7->0.9->1.1) is the right way to balance things. How about applying the same rule to balancing SRMs, LBX and Machine guns? Maybe a 20% boost in DPS in the next patch?
A: Paul has outlined a series of incoming changes to SRMs. Check out the Command Chair for the latest weapon tuning information.
As others pointed out.. not that was about SSRMs, not SRMs

Maps/Environment:
Nick Drezary: When Comstar will stop playing ecology and finally approve destruction of trees in the battle zones?
A: When collisions come back into the game.
Makes sense, and is long overdue
Will9761: Do you have plans to modify base objects into something more worthwhile of capturing like hangars, prisons, factories, cargo containers, power generators, etc?
A: With a different mode, yes.
That's actually good news..any ETA?

RF Greywolf: Is there plans for making more realistic bases, like ones with defenses that must be dealt with before capping?
A: Yes.
Same as above

Graphics:
FRYBOTH: The physical damage on Mechs looks really great. Are there any plans to expand upon this further? Maybe an additional layer of exposed internals underneath the brown/black pock marks? Also, is there ever going to be a visual representation of a destroyed side torso? When I Survive a round with only my center and another torso left, or just as a zombie (only CT), I wanna look like I just went through hell.
A: We actually dialed it back a bunch. We’re fighting a regular balance between high spec and min spec. Right now the game still needs improvement to run on lower end machines, which still dominate the market.
True.. oh so true. .but you could have left the high end version in for those who can run it.

Hammerfinn: Have you thought about individualizing the "Pilot efficiencies" for each mech? IE: having a different bonus for mechs without arm-mounted weapons? If so, what were your ideas, with no pressure on actualization?
A: The core mech
Can anyone explain this anwer to me? I just don get how it is related to the question.

DocBach: Now that firing while jumping incurs a randomized accuracy penalty, is there any idea to incur penalties for accuracy while moving at a full run to simulate a running 'Mech being an unstable firing platform?
A: It’s not on the table right now.
Another(albeit difficult) immersion potential lost.

Vegalas: Will there ever be a game mode featuring repair bays?
A: Maybe. We’re looking at several ways to do respawns.
That didn't answer the question I think. Repair bays to slap on new armor and tank ammo without respawn would be interesting.


Cockpit, HUD & Customizations
Hanz Blitzer: Will we eventually be able to scan friendly mechs to see what weapons they are carrying?
A: Yes.
Oh nice.. and not even an ETA for this very, very, VERY basic feature that should have been in a year ago.
Svidro: Are there any plans to be able to move certain aspects of the interface, such as the minimap, or perhaps have the targeting reticule appear OVER the minimap graphic so we can see how far down we are actually aiming?
A: No, and yes. But we’ll have to see how the HUD revamp take shape.
Sad, basic and sad in that order.
Sad because it would be nice to move things around to beter suit personal preferences.
Basic because reticule being on top of the hud so that you see where you shoot.. yep.. should be in.
Sad because it tells us that they don even know what they will do to the hud in UI2.0... when was that supposed to come again?

Krzysztof z Bagien: Any other game of similar kind I play shows actual number of people playing at the moment, often with average time to join the match. Can we get the player counter back, maybe with UI 2.0? And why did you remove it after closed beta in the first place?
A: It was a business decision to remove sensitive data. Queue time is something we’re looking at though.
Meaning numbers were too low. Don't get me wrong. I don't want it back, because once removed you can't put it back without upsetting the forums ( but then again..we are vocal, unimportant minoryity anyway).
DEMAX51: I think the June 4th patch fixed a lot of balancing issues. LRMs are a viable option again, especially from a team-play perspective, and the JJ shake has certainly reduced the number of poptarts we're seeing. I'm just wondering how satisfied you guys are with the overall balance of the current build. In general terms, are there any major issues you feel still need to be addressed?
A: There are always things to tune. We’re working on heat and beam weapons now. I’m happy we continue to improve the balance week to week.
Week to week? so ..did I miss at least half the secret, unanounced, not feelable balance changes that happen inbetween the strict patch pattern?

Hellen Wheels: One of the tool tips mentions downloading the software to use the in-game VOIP. Is there any possibility that this might be a patch option that the patcher can handle and set up as part of running the game, as opposed to the user having to do it manually apart from the game?
A: Possibly.
OMG..still no clear answer to imgame voice?
Morang: When will you give us more freedom in Training Grounds? Selecting a map is the obvious need, selecting target mechs is possible, but what I want to be able to do is selecting camouflage pattern and colors for target mechs to evaluate camo performance before buying. You don't need that if you want fancy colors, but to create working camo a field test is needed.
A: Map selection is coming very soon. The rest is very granular and we’ll need to evaluate player feedback before adding/changing how it works.
I don get it. Map selection should have been in from the start, and with more mechs in choosing your oponents is also a must.. not to mention working hit detection *cough*
VanillaG: Can you explain how the test server is going to work. Specifically:

• Can anyone get onto the test system or will it be invite only?
  
• Will the test system be always available or only available for specific time windows?
  
• Will the test system require a different account or will the test system be periodically refreshed from the live system so we don't have to grind out existing mechs and configs?

A: Anyone. On for limited hours on specific days. Same account, new client.




Why we even need this for supposed to be beta...

Draxist: Would the Dev's consider doing community survey's once a month or once every two months via email? Another beta game I play uses these to gain feedback en mass from the community upon specific topics or in general.
The survey questions range from "is xy satisfying" or "rate how well you feel this mechanic works" to "any feature you want to see in game?" with a text box.
I know the game will be launching soon, but even after launch, a community survey about features being tested or that are currently "issues" could help the devs in getting a better feel for what the community feels without all the forum rage.
A: We are doing this. We just haven’t sent one out to certain demographics of players yet.
Fascinating Captain. What certain demographics? People acutally loving the game you said you would make.. and STILL sticking to it despite you moving further and further from that? Maybe only new players get it , because the rest got "beta fatigue".
Or does it depend on MC bought? Time spent ingame? If you are excluding part of your player base from surveys at leat tell us why!

Braggart, on 14 June 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

[...]
Their entire original commitment to making a Simulation styled game has been a complete and total lie. Stealing who knows how much money from the community to fuel their lies and promises.

Quite frankly, I want to call out PGI for beating a piece of crap company. Ban me, I dont freaking care at this point. You have nothing in common with the average gamer. YOU SEE MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY. You could have had mine, but well quite honestly, you lied, from the start, lie after lie after lie. Maybe it will work out for you, maybe it wont. I hope it doesnt. I hope all the lies add up, and you fail, fail so freaking hard.

IF any of you idiots think that ANYTHING that PGI says is even close to the truth, you have another thing coming. They have done nothing but lie. If you think for 1 moment that 3rd person isnt a huge advantage, you are an *****. Even the idea that 3rd person gets to be normal, and first person hardcore is an insult. ******* PGI!!!!

I wouldn't put it that harshly. I agree with you that they didn't deliver on their initial outlines, and now look like they ight never do so. But I am willign to give the mthe benefit of doubt. There are other possible reasons for this happening then delibereate lying.

Lonestar1771, on 14 June 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

... The only thing that has actually made it from the dev blogs to in-game, are the mechs.

They reneged on the coolant issue and 3pv. They haven't made a single major deadline. Still nothing to show for CW. Clans will be six months at the earliest after the final phase of CW (sure they said 90 days after but when have they ever made any self imposed deadline). They totally ruined any kind of pilot progression by ditching the trees and making lazy cookie-cutter pilot efficiencies where some don't even work properly.

They blamed closed beta testers for going open beta sooner. Beta fatigue my ***, could have just said they were out of money. Role warfare is non existent. Info warfare has so many band-**** they might as well just rip it out and start over. They have yet to get missiles of any variety working correctly. Don't even get me started on pilot modules...

The only thing that has gone right for them is the mech designs, cause God only knows the rest of the art is un-inspired, what with its three color palette. Thank God for bloom and color filters though.
...

As someone stated elswhere in the forums: You were the chosen one! They proies lots and delivered none. Why they went beta without core game mechanics working at least roughly, let alone open beta is still a mystery to me.
And beta fatigue was realy the dumbest excuse ever. They might have been fatigued, by their testers actually voicing their opinion as testers should.

Will HellFire, on 15 June 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

Stop the crying babies. Man up. If you dont like this game, theres so many out there for you. Just dont fill our eyes with righteous whining.

Its all much easier: You have fun= you play. You dont have fun= you dont play. I dont understand people that dont play because they are angry at PGI though they still enjoy the game, and I dont understand those that do play without having fun.

Nobody took your money from you, but you gave it freely. If you feel you have been lied to, use better judgment next time around.

This is a game! Its free to play! If somebody had told you 15 years ago MWO was happening FOR FREE, how would you have felt?

Problem is: There are not other games. Imean sure there a re plenty of great games out there. Constantly batteling over my game time. But there is no other BT based mech sim/shooter. There is MW Tachtics, whihclooks promising from what little gets out from the NDA, and there is of course the staple of using mekwars and magamek, but that' just not the same. It's like comparing X-Wing to EaW... both are set in the SW universe.. but there it ends.

Braggart, on 15 June 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

PGI said they would never have something called coolant flush, because it invalidates heat as a game mechanic. Look what we have now.

They also said they never had plans to add 3rd person. Now they do.

They say we are going to have seperate modes for 3rd person and 1st. What happens if either of them never sees enough players, then they will simply integrate them to keep people from either side from leaving.

I Don't trust PGI. I just don't. It doesnt help that they are trying to make people more for a Hero mech than people spend on new Triple AAA releases. DURING A BETA!

I find your lack of faith disturbing... even more disturbing: I share your view of things

Jakob Knight, on 15 June 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I think that's a bit uncalled for. A person is perfectly capable of having an opinion themselves, and Mods are players too. I might not agree with some points raised by a Mod here, but unless there is clear proof they are being directed by the Devs in what they say, a stupid slur like this is over the line.

True.

Gremlich Johns, on 15 June 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I believe they should have caveated "most players" to be "most casual players".

Wait.. i am casual.I only get to play in the evenings, and then it's not only the same game. My machine is mediocre ( ok..currently very low end, the other one is off for repairs). I pug because I don want to comit myself to a close knit, tight schedule clan. But I nevertheless want a more simlike then arcade game. I actually would take a oure sim, but that would probably have too small a market.

Omni 13, on 15 June 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Founders got everything they payed for which was some premium time a varying amount of mechs some MC and early beta access that's it that's all they are/where entitled to.

Wrong. Founders paid for the promise. Sure there were some ingame boni. But waht made the mspend their money was the wishto help PGI in making the game envisioned in the Dev blogs... which we are moving further and further away from.
I didn buy a founders package , since I don like buying promises. Which seems to be justified by now. But I can relate to those who did buy it: They were tricked. Not saying it was intentional. It might have been outside influence, or desperate neccesity, or PGI simply not up to the tasks the set themselves. But it nevertheless sucks for the founders.

[Theodor Kling]

MoonUnitBeta, on 16 June 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I was thinking that very recently too. They're catering heavily towards lower end spec systems and it's really disappointing for someone with a higher end computer. Especially for someone who bought new components specifically to enjoy this games fidelity. Seeing that "loyalty" (lack of a better word) to be slowly reduced down to cater to the Future shop HP desktop mini computers that are running on-board Intel HD graphics is disappointing to see. Mechs feet not aligning to the ground, less smoke, less particles, standardized damage textures, laser burn accuracy thrown out the window. It's sad to see, but my hope is that all that will return once they start ramping up the graphics once they have a solid grasp on the min spec optimization... but that doesn't mean I'm not worried...

CryEngine, to me, has always been the epitome of the highest fidelity, top of the line graphics, with beautiful environments and ornate detail. Lately it seems that it's just turned out to be a complex engine that PGI is having too many difficulties with.

Yeah They need to look at low specs, broader market and all that, but why changing the sliders in the options does not make much of a difference.. My PC can't handle full details on fullscreeen 1920*1080.. but why not keep the old dmg model for those who can?
And while I am at it: Depending on chosen resolutions ( ratio) you get nasty warping of the hud.. shouldn't taht be a thing of the past?

0okami, on 16 June 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Dev Q&A uses ¨Taunt¨ on the community - It is super effective!

Indeed But my resistance roll failed too

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Except when the same post from Paul said 3rd person in the distant future (this is over a year from that post, I'd call that distant future). I mean, do people read to the bottom of the post?
...
I really wonder what it's like in the world of the third person deniers, having all the facts laid infront of them and still screaming that something that never happened happened.

See below... ( not typing the same thing again)

Ryvucz, on 16 June 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I understand wanting to tailor the game for low end machines, but come on, this thing has been in low definition since, well.. always.

Show us what this engine can do and go all out, make the game cry baby compatible later.

You forget that they combine low graphics with low fps my main machine ( which I would class as medium) is broken atm, so i got to run my old one.. but the performance increase in MWO is negletible.

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

...
Are we in the far off distance (one year later)? Yes!

What do you know....third person!

One year later might seem like far off. .but on the other hand we are not even clos to the game the initial dev posts suggested , so we are not far off in the distance.

Rebas Kradd, on 17 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I love the implicit assumption that a bunch of sim purists who played some FASA board game back in the 80s are plentiful enough to keep a video game funded. MechWarrior is not a big title. Sim players are not a big group. Any convalescence of these two is not likely to be a big group. Has anyone ever considered that maybe they need more people simply to stay operational?

But those "sim purists" brought in 5M with the founders programm. And with Hawken already serving the arcade market for stompy robots , concentrating on the "sim-heads" might not be that bad an idea.

NeoFighter, on 17 June 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

What Mechwarrior Online will most likely be in the future.

Hej, at least that game seems to have tanks, infantry, toads...

Coolant, on 17 June 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Oops, how come you didn't highlight the, "we will investigage 3rd person in the far off distance..." - post was back in july, almost a year ago....3rd person still not in the game and probably won't till a full year has past since that post.

Because far of in the distance should not mean before a decent UI, CW, basic weapon balance and working netcode

InRev, on 17 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Best reply in a long time Although I don't realy like River Song.

Edited by Theodor Kling, 27 June 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Sug]

BlackBeltJones, on 23 June 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Yes citations for straying off topic - and that topic is making the Devs feel bad.

Facepalm if you're serious.

Facepalm if you're making a pun.

[Greylegion]

Just 1 Question: Why 80$ for 4 new mechs ?
i payed 120$ at the beginning.
this is 1 way to lose a player

Edited by Greylegion, 27 June 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[WarHippy]

Greylegion, on 27 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Just 1 Question: Why 80$ for 4 new mechs ?
i payed 120$ at the beginning.
this is 1 way to lose a player

Care to explain what you mean exactly? Are you complaining because of a new package being made available, or something else?

[Loc Nar]

Quote

Why 80$ for 4 new mechs ?

o_O wat? $80 gets you:
4 new founder+ mechs (~16,875mc)
8 new variants for mastering (~14,800mc)
12 mechbays (3600mc)
90(+30) days preemo (~9000mc)
4 house medallions (2000mc)

Value comes to ~550mc/$1 (normal mc rate is 250/$1, and that's if buying $99 worth...)

On top of getting a lot more than '4 new mechs for $80', since day 1 of the founder's program closing there has been a steady clamor for new package deals, and they finally threw one together using unseens. What exactly are you complaining about?

Edited by Loc Nar, 27 June 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Theodor Kling, on 27 June 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

I wouldn't put it that harshly. I agree with you that they didn't deliver on their initial outlines, and now look like they ight never do so. But I am willign to give the mthe benefit of doubt. There are other possible reasons for this happening then delibereate lying.


As someone stated elswhere in the forums: You were the chosen one! They proies lots and delivered none. Why they went beta without core game mechanics working at least roughly, let alone open beta is still a mystery to me.
And beta fatigue was realy the dumbest excuse ever. They might have been fatigued, by their testers actually voicing their opinion as testers should.


Problem is: There are not other games. Imean sure there a re plenty of great games out there. Constantly batteling over my game time. But there is no other BT based mech sim/shooter. There is MW Tachtics, whihclooks promising from what little gets out from the NDA, and there is of course the staple of using mekwars and magamek, but that' just not the same. It's like comparing X-Wing to EaW... both are set in the SW universe.. but there it ends.


I find your lack of faith disturbing... even more disturbing: I share your view of things


True.


Wait.. i am casual.I only get to play in the evenings, and then it's not only the same game. My machine is mediocre ( ok..currently very low end, the other one is off for repairs). I pug because I don want to comit myself to a close knit, tight schedule clan. But I nevertheless want a more simlike then arcade game. I actually would take a oure sim, but that would probably have too small a market.


Wrong. Founders paid for the promise. Sure there were some ingame boni. But waht made the mspend their money was the wishto help PGI in making the game envisioned in the Dev blogs... which we are moving further and further away from.
I didn buy a founders package , since I don like buying promises. Which seems to be justified by now. But I can relate to those who did buy it: They were tricked. Not saying it was intentional. It might have been outside influence, or desperate neccesity, or PGI simply not up to the tasks the set themselves. But it nevertheless sucks for the founders.

I didn't pay for any promise. I paid because it said Mechwarrior. For me, the founders was a solid hit and great deal. Been playing since August, got to see closed beta, got through open beta launch, PGI gave me 4 weeks extra premium time for free while they made a button.. Hell, it's the best thing I've spent my money on, and I'm still having fun. Almost a year of entertainment for $120.
I've spent $60 each on Starcraft, Skyrim, Diablo 3, Batman Arkham City, Hitman Absolution, Witcher 2, Assassins Creed 3... and COMBINED I haven't played those as long as I have played mechwarrior.
So that's $420 woth of entertainment that I have shelved because they were all fun for a few weeks and quickly died.
That's almost triple the cost of what I spent on Mechwarrior, and those games are never going to change, haven't recevied any updates (free ones) that add new content to make the game more fun.

And my time with mechwarior is about to go on longer... So, I can't complain, even for a second. Those who complain are either self absorbed, or very nieve to expect that things won't/wouldn't change.
Infact, all of the changes I like. There's lots of elitist people here that protest change, but they're just blind and ignorant to the fact that these are good changes, or they riot up a storm about how PGI is lieing, but you can complain and be unhappy and miserable while the people that understand the change and don't mind it go on being happy. People just need to get over themselves and the past and let the game roll on.

'Not to mention.... it's Mechwariorr!!! Instantly awesome!

Edit: I spent $80 on the Overlord package 20minutes after I heard about it. And sadly, that $80 will bring more excitment and game-time than a two full fledged games I can buy off the shelf or steam. I have no regrets. The game is fun. They can throw away community warfare and put in a single-player story line with missions and waves, i don't care. But if it remains fun I'm giving them more money.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 27 June 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[carl kerensky]

Hey I'm glad you like the game currently. I for one shared that sentiment until they started to degrade the game towards an arcade experience both in terms of graphics and movement. Loss of collisions and fall down didn't help either. Now I understand that feature has been pushed back. So you see I'm voicing my opinion because I want to see this game to be developed in a certain direction. Realism in the context of Battletech. Not some glorified FPS that so happens to have characters that resemble Mechs. If you are satisfied with the status of the game so be it. Your choice. These forums are designed to express criticism and as well as suggestions. I bought into Founders based on what I saw and played from the early closed beta tests. Sure balancing galore had to be improved but why disconnect the player with lousy reductions in graphical fidelity. Give me the option instead of removing it.
Ck

[Mr Blonde]

I think that most of these posts have the right idea. 3pv is clearly unpopular. Even if it's inevitable, why push it ahead of stuff everyone can agree on? From Bryan's answers it's clear the implementation won't be the expected disaster...the truth is far worse than expected. Why not create a separate CW server for the 3pv guys? Oh that's right, there isn't even one for the real MWO yet. I would already possess the Overlord package except for this 3pv issue. Had 3rd person never been mentioned I would have bought away, blissfully unaware. Now I have to decide if I want to chance $80 for something that may well get flushed down the ******* this time next year, when it had such promise to be unique and lasting. I think if they just keep 3pv players segregated from us, forget the mixed queue, the game can survive. If they segregate them to their own server, soak up their noob $ and leave the real players in peace on this issue, it can thrive, and I'll probably buy everything they sell as soon as it appears. What appears to be the proposal seems ridiculously complex, and as others have stated, to insult your core players and founder players seems counterproductive. I'm a "sim-head" because I want what was advertised? I put in on another thread about 2 servers. How about separating these guys out instead of the Euro-Asian crowd? I have numerous friends who I play with from around the world. I have to lose them to a new server, and they'll be replaced by console gamers who probably never heard of Battletech, jump-sniping with their 3pv advantage and spotting me around corners? Don't pretend it won't happen, everyone knows it will. Wouldn't they be happier playing with their own kind too? They could hack and cheat to their heart's content, and nobody would mind. Instead of having to grub for C-bills, you could just lay little glowing wrenches, dollar signs, and ammo boxes around the maps, it'd be meat and mead to them.

I must stop now. Sorry my post turned sarcastic. It started out so civil and serious...just a very upsetting issue.

[Dr B00t]

Mr Blonde, on 27 June 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

....snip..... survive. If they segregate them to their own server, soak up their noob $ and leave the real players in peace on this issue, it can thrive, and I'll probably buy everything they sell as soon as it appears. What appears to be the proposal seems ridiculously complex, and as others have stated, to insult your core players and founder players seems counterproductive. I'm a "sim-head" because I want what was advertised? I put in on another thread about 2 servers. How about separating these guys out instead of the ...snip...

i agree with you for the most part...but next time try to use the enter key once in a while...will let people more easily read your comments

[Theodor Kling]

MoonUnitBeta, on 27 June 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

I've spent $60 each on Starcraft, Skyrim, Diablo 3, Batman Arkham City, Hitman Absolution, Witcher 2, Assassins Creed 3... and COMBINED I haven't played those as long as I have played mechwarrior.

I obviously don´t share your taste I played about as much Arkham city as I did play MWO, I definetly played more Skyrim..haven´t started on Assasins Creed III yet, replaying II first, and don´t own the others.
But then again I am no founder, so the comparison between us is a bit fishy anyway.
About free content: At least for Skyrim this is not true. the content did not come from Bethesda..but it´s there in the form of lots and lots of sometimes realy great mods. Some of them even including voice acting for the new dialouge. Of course this is not possible for a pure multiplayer titel with tricky licensing of the franchise like MWO.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Where are answers for ATD 41 pretty please?

[Lefteye Falconeer]

Friday is not over in their part of the world yet. Also, they don't always do what they say

[Hellen Wheels]

Lefteye, on 28 June 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Friday is not over in their part of the world yet. Also, they don't always do what they say

[Artgathan]

If ATD 41 is released at the same time as these ones were, there's still a 2 hour wait.

[Grimmnyr]

Omni 13, on 15 June 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

You have no proof of this, you lack access to the data to use this as a valid point in your argument since a large percentage of the player base doesn't even come to the forums.

I will clarify for you. The majority of current MWO players do not want to be forced into ANY type of game mode which they do not want to play. Feel free to do a random poll if you need proof.