587 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Darth Bane001, on 19 November 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

This right here is spot on. New weapons and game modes would breath so much life in this, weapons small and big to fill the gap. I'm rather extremely bored with what we have now. It's hard to keep myself playing more than a few matches anymore, the maps for me just arent very fun at all.

I will say once in a while will get a team and enemy team that at least helps out by stop capping if they know we have no way of even trying to defend base, so they will get off so will ours and duke it out and say gg, but those are very far few.

I think people are just bored of what we have not enough news on the state of other game modes, weapons, other mechs that are new and not some stupid hero mech. Thats all you see on the front page is hero mech announcements. I will never buy these they are over priced and rarely give you much of an edge.

I think you miss the point that we are not even playing the game. Adding Weapons ahead of true game content will not make the game better. We need the game, before we start adding new... Stuff! The game needs more missions and actual rewards for mission successes, nt more things to blow each other up with..

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Hey they had CW in MPBT

[Blurry]

KinLuu, on 18 November 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

Yeah...

No.

They simply made the mistake of allowing trades between accounts - and I am pretty sure, they regret that.

If you think that is all the mistake they made you need to look at them again.

[Tolkien]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

And you stated that only core worlds could support assault mechs, wich neither makes sense in canon nor gameplay wise.

Every offensive in the inner sphere from any house was spearheaded by assault mechs... that is what they where made for.

Raids where for lighter mechs, but if you wanted to establish a bridgehead on a planet or try to take out a military presense on a planet you would send in the really heavy guys.

Now not every backwater planet was important enough to use assault mechs ill give you that.

But ESPECIALY on the worlds bordering rival houses the military presence was enourmus. You could say that there where more assault mechs stationed on border worlds then in the inner worlds.

Also my point still stands... i dont like games artificialy forcing me to play a certain style of gameplay... because... REASONS...

From my recollection there was almost always combat going on where each side had conflict zones where light through heavy were available - the map was not static. Assaults were rare, but the other chassis types could almost always be fielded. I'll point out that paradoxically this 'artificially limited' gameplay actually had more variety in practice than what we have here in MWO. Why? Because lobbies had every match up result in dynamic re-balancing or effectively 'bidding' between the players since you couldn't drop until both sides agreed the match up looked good. So contrary to your concerns about getting shoehorned into something you didn't want to do, you could pick up and move to another world or lobby on the same world and get a whole different ballgame going on.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

My other point stands too... the game was simply not sustainable with its game model and was canned. It doesnt matter what a couple of hundrets or so hardcore players who still remember that title think its fun.. fact is whats fun for you is not fun for me, the difference here is that i dont want to force you to play the game the way i play it and i expect the same thing.

Actually no it doesn't stand. This game was part of a 'brilliant' idea from EA to charge a monthly fee to have a gaming service that would allow you to play a collection of ~20 online games. This game never got a chance to stand alone and see if it had a viable business model as it was canned along with the entire basket of games in harsh economic times. The fact that about $5 million was poured into MWO by the founders alone speaks volumes to the demand in the market... if the product is worthy.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

You want to play all lights on borderworlds.. go ahead knock yourselfe out. But dont tell me i cant play heavies or assaults most throughout the game because... well.. you think its more fun that way for everyone.

As I said previously the borders tended to be varied enough that you could always field everything from light through heavy. If you wanted assault there was also solaris, which is a type of gameplay variety and an option that we haven't even been given here. I have to give the point on this point to MPBT3025 just for having the freedom to duel if we wanted to.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

Disclaimer: No you never said any of these things and that is more hypothetical then anything else and the "you" i used not only refers to you but everyone who thinks that this system was actually good enough to sustain a game.. because it obviously didnt.

Read what I wrote above about the model EA tried to shoehorn this into and the economic situation at that epoch in time. I am not nearly so sure as you seem to be that the game was a dead end. Saying it was nonviable is begging the question.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

Also about mocking the armor system: So tell me how long did normal matches lasted? As far as i can tell from the little thats left of the game on the net it was pretty much a nicer looking MW2/MW3.. and if the weapon mechanics where the same as in those two titles the battles could have lasted longer then a couple of minutes with mechs melting in seconds due to focus fire.

The matches were 4v4 at that point in time, and on fairly large maps with no capping (as I can recall) So they could take between 4 and 10 minutes. Interestingly from what I remember, despite the stock armor values (except the head which was upped to 21 points) mechs could last comparable amounts of time under focus fire since there were less enemies around to focus even in the worst case.

If you feel like answering me please place the statement 'I did play MPBT3025' or 'I am basing my arguments on something I never personally experienced' at the top of your post. That will help me gauge where your insights are coming from.

Edited by Tolkien, 19 November 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Ziogualty]

I can recall wrong, but "unlocking" mech were difficult (i remember i spilled blood from my fingers to get my beloved Blackjack), so it was not a issue the Assault Mech restrictions, because few players can afford them in the early stages.

Edited by Attank, 19 November 2013 - 04:29 AM.

[Riptor]

Quote

[color=#959595]If you feel like answering me please place the statement 'I did play MPBT3025' or 'I am basing my arguments on something I never personally experienced' at the top of your post. That will help me gauge where your insights are coming from. [/color]

Well even thought i told you i wouldnt reply i feel the need to set some things right here.

MY insights come from playing every single MW game in history... kept for the crescent hawk games.

Yes including the ****** SNES games.

And honestly if the combat was widely different then mw2/mw3 you are right that i am simply wrong.. but if its just the same system then really i dont need to have played it to know what would happen if the game would have gone live.

When i said "how long did matches last" i actually meant "how long did fights last"

Its good to have large maps but when you spend most of the match maneuvering into position and then the whole ordeal is over in a matter of moments... i believe that is really frustrating. Kinda also why Conquest on alpine peaks is such a borish nightmare. (besides bad map design)

That EA blows chunks should be widely known by now, what I didnt know about this crazy plan of offering 20 or so games for a subscription. Where the other games any interesting?

Thought i will still stand by my point that a game model like that wouldnt be sustainable by modern standards. As people mentioned it seemed to be an absolute pain in the ar of se to actually gain any mechs. A game like that would maybe attract many players initially due to IP alone (like MWO did) but it would also turn them away just as fast. Again a game cant survive on hardcore fans alone, thought it should not ignore them.

Now lets see what else. Ahyes about forcing playstyles. Well i based this off off you saying that most worlds couldnt even support assault mechs.. and as i said that didnt made much sense in the context of canon and how the inner sphere actually conducted business in war. Especialy on the borderworlds of for example draconis combine and federated suns during wartime i would expect the largest concentration of heavy and assault mechs. Only worlds facing the perephery would have such a low military presence that you could only run light mechs on them.

That you said that it actually made the game better because of so much light mech action brought a mental image of over 50% of all games just being speedy gonzales light mech runs where he who manages to hit first with his medium lasers wins the fight to my mind.

Thats fine with some people but really not my cup of tea, and i wouldnt like to play a mech game like that. And seeing how many people prefer the heavier weight classes i can imagine alot of people also wouldnt enjoy that.

Also did that game have full customisation like MW2 and MW3? Cant think it would have much diversety with that system, what with king medium laser ruling them all in MW2 and later MW3. (No clan shenanigans since it was good ol 3025)

Edited by Riptor, 19 November 2013 - 04:48 AM.

[Tolkien]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Well even thought i told you i wouldnt reply i feel the need to set some things right here.

MY insights come from playing every single MW game in history... kept for the crescent hawk games.

Yes including the ****** SNES games.

Y'arr, I only played the first SNES game and didn't beat it.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

And honestly if the combat was widely different then mw2/mw3 you are right that i am simply wrong.. but if its just the same system then really i dont need to have played it to know what would happen if the game would have gone live.

When i said "how long did matches last" i actually meant "how long did fights last"

Its good to have large maps but when you spend most of the match maneuvering into position and then the whole ordeal is over in a matter of moments... i believe that is really frustrating. Kinda also why Conquest on alpine peaks is such a borish nightmare. (besides bad map design)

I can't actually remember the 'average' engagement times, since it's been over a decade only the highlights remain. I remember coordinating with 3 friends (via a telephone conference call of all things) to do tactics like ambushes much more often than seems to happen here. This could be due to things having been friendlier to tactical freedom in MPBT3025 or admittedly it could be due to rose coloured glasses/the fondness of an old memory of just the combat highlights.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

That EA blows chunks should be widely known by now, what I didnt know about this crazy plan of offering 20 or so games for a subscription. Where the other games any interesting?

I never looked any of them up... I was there for the battletech. I don't know if they ever announced them since they might also have been in various stages of pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc. I would have paid the $19 (I think) a month if the package contained MPBT3025, but I'm a battletech fan and we have a history of making poor financial decisions (see founders and overlord tags to left of post).

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Thought i will still stand by my point that a game model like that wouldnt be sustainable by modern standards. As people mentioned it seemed to be an absolute pain in the ar of se to actually gain any mechs. A game like that would maybe attract many players initially due to IP alone (like MWO did) but it would also turn them away just as fast. Again a game cant survive on hardcore fans alone, thought it should not ignore them.

We're going to have to agree to disagree then, or set up a duel of handbags at dawn. Otherwise we can just shout 'yes it would have' 'no it wouldn't' back and forth

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Now lets see what else. Ahyes about forcing playstyles. Well i based this off off you saying that most worlds couldnt even support assault mechs.. and as i said that didnt made much sense in the context of canon and how the inner sphere actually conducted business in war. Especialy on the borderworlds of for example draconis combine and federated suns during wartime i would expect the largest concentration of heavy and assault mechs. Only worlds facing the perephery would have such a low military presence that you could only run light mechs on them.

While I do love battletech I'm actually not a stickler for details when they get in the way of gameplay. You and I know that the Davion also had very competent mechanized divisions that were deployed in combined operations with battlemechs along with VTOLs like the wasp. Meanwhile Marik trained up anti-mech commandos that would use specially designed satchel charges to blow out the knee or ankle actuators of mechs passing through cities or forests. Judged by the lore and the fluff, all the video games will be shoddy approximations of what can be dreamed up in books..... Except maybe megamek

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

That you said that it actually made the game batter brought a mental image of over 50% of all games just being speedy gonzales light mech runs where he who manages to hit first with his medium lasers wins the fight.

Most light mechs could survive multiple medium laser hits... just not a high multiple
All I can say is compared to what we have here in MWO, I prefer the other devil I knew in mpbt3025.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Also did that game have full customisation like MW2 and MW3? Cant think it would have much diversety with that system, what with king medium laser ruling them all in MW2 and later MW3. (No clan shenanigans since it was good ol 3025)

No, it explicitly avoided customization. I am a guy who loves mech customization to the point of still having a windows XP virtual machine with a copy of Battlemech Designer 10 (BMD10) running in there. Some of the friends I had in high school and I loved to design custom mechs and duel them against each other, or use them in massive tabletop scenarios that took up to 28 hours of consecutive play to resolve!
What did we learn from this level of being 'teh hardcorez'? That customization can break any ruleset fasa or anyone else was able to come up with including Battle Value 1.0, Battle Value 2.0, or even just eyeballing it. That's why I might love customization, but I have been arguing since last December that it's poison for game balance in the long run.

http://mwomercs.com/...85#entry1624485

Attank, on 19 November 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

I can recall wrong, but "unlocking" mech were difficult (i remember i spilled blood from my fingers to get my beloved Blackjack), so it was not a issue the Assault Mech restrictions, because few players can afford them in the early stages.

I think you are right, but they also had two+ database resets during beta, so only the truly dedicated got to assaults inside of the ~60 day windows, but they also tended to have mediums, and heavies. The downside was it took a long time to get an assault. The upside was it followed the standard human perceptions of 'bigger=stronger' and gave a sense of accomplishment rather than trying to square the circle as role warfare has done here by telling us 20 tons ~= 100 tons, or that the locust is every bit as useful as a jenner or a spider.... what? you're laughing too? I thought so....

Another benefit of making players play a long time and level up to level 15+ (iirc) was that it meant that you never had a novice assault pilot wasting a drop slot

Edited by Tolkien, 19 November 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Texas Merc]

FYI Riptor, No one is saying that MW:O should be EXACTLY like MPBT3025 at all. We are saying that some 15 odd years ago a mech game that was in beta had more features than MW:O at this point. You are quibbling about affecting play styles and being forced into certain roles and no one is arguing that here but you dude.

I mean please, just look at Tolkiens first screenies with a starmap and lobbies and tonnage restrictions and agreed drops! That is all we are asking for. A reason to shoot each other up besides more cbills and xp.

[Riptor]

Quote

[color=#959595]While I do love battletech I'm actually not a stickler for details when they get in the way of gameplay. You and I know that the Davion also had very competent mechanized divisions that were deployed in combined operations with battlemechs along with VTOLs like the wasp. Meanwhile Marik trained up anti-mech commandos that would use specially designed satchel charges to blow out the knee or ankle actuators of mechs passing through cities or forests. Judged by the lore and the fluff, all the video games will be shoddy approximations of what can be dreamed up in books..... [/color]Except maybe megamek

VTOLS?

Oh.. you mean the transformable mechs? Those arent VTOLS thought.. VTOLS are helicopters and the like. Dont know the english names for the transormer mechs thought. Werent those extinct by that time? They also never really made a come back because they where to expensive for to little benefit.

And wasnt it the gray death legion who kinda invented infantry anti mech training exactly how you described it? I think before the gray death legion no one even imagined that infantry would stand a chance against battlemechs.

As for the armor... eeeeeh... kinda sorta. They where mostly used in a supportive role to boost numbers but where never really meant as much else. Tanks really got the shaft lore wise and rule wise on the TT.. you could basicly loose the entire tank by one AC 2 shot. But thats neither here nor there.

Quote

[color=#959595]No, it explicitly avoided customization. I am a guy who loves mech customization to the point of still having a windows XP virtual machine with a copy of Battlemech Designer 10 (BMD10) running in there. Some of the friends I had in high school and I loved to design custom mechs and duel them against each other, or use them in massive tabletop scenarios that took up to 28 hours of consecutive play to resolve![/color]
[color=#959595]What did we learn from this level of being 'teh hardcorez'? That customization can break any ruleset fasa or anyone else was able to come up with including Battle Value 1.0, Battle Value 2.0, or even just eyeballing it. That's why I might love customization, but I have been arguing since last December that it's poison for game balance in the long run.[/color]

Now that IS unexpected and quite interesting. Cause thats actually something that helps diversify and give mechs character. Im all for systems like that that dont allow you to take a mech and turn it into whatever you want to. Theres a reason that all those different mech chassis where created in the first place and that reason jumps right out of the window if you allow customisation and reduced mechs to nothing more but weight and hitboxes.

Pick the best weightclass in a given class and match it with favourable hitboxes... thats pretty much where we are currently.

Also the Mechbuilder rules where made exactly for that.. building new mechs. Not customizing existing ones in a online multyplayer game.. another case of stuff that was not really meant for the medium. Its a huge difference if you build custom mechs to use in your own home campaigns or trying to emulate the battle tech universe but actually throwing everything out the window that makes the BT universe the BT universe.. and one of these things was that customised battlemechs where so rare that those that where customised got their own entries in technical readouts and the like.

Quote

[color=#959595]FYI Riptor, No one is saying that MW:O should be EXACTLY like MPBT3025 at all. We are saying that some 15 odd years ago a mech game that was in beta had more features than MW:O at this point. You are quibbling about affecting play styles and being forced into certain roles and no one is arguing that here but you dude.[/color]

Fair point and i aknowledge that. My initial response thought was because it seemed that tolkien praised MPBT2025 exactly for the limitations it put on players in terms of gameplay choices.

Edited by Riptor, 19 November 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Tolkien]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

VTOLS?

Oh.. you mean the transformable mechs? Those arent VTOLS thought.. VTOLS are helicopters and the like. Dont know the english names for the transormer mechs thought. Werent those extinct by that time? They also never really made a come back because they where to expensive for to little benefit.

And wasnt it the gray death legion who kinda invented infantry anti mech training exactly how you described it? I think before the gray death legion no one even imagined that infantry would stand a chance against battlemechs.

As for the armor... eeeeeh... kinda sorta. They where mostly used in a supportive role to boost numbers but where never really meant as much else. Tanks really got the shaft lore wise and rule wise on the TT.. you could basicly loose the entire tank by one AC 2 shot. But thats neither here nor there.




Now that IS unexpected and quite interesting. Cause thats actually something that helps diversify and give mechs character. Im all for systems like that that dont allow you to take a mech and turn it into whatever you want to. Theres a reason that all those different mech chassis where created in the first place and that reason jumps right out of the window if you allow customisation and reduced mechs to nothing more but weight and hitboxes.

Pick the best weightclass in a given class and match it with favourable hitboxes... thats pretty much where we are currently.

Also the Mechbuilder rules where made exactly for that.. building new mechs. Not customizing existing ones in a online multyplayer game.. another case of stuff that was not really meant for the medium. Its a huge difference if you build custom mechs to use in your own home campaigns or trying to emulate the battle tech universe but actually throwing everything out the window that makes the BT universe the BT universe.. and one of these things was that customised battlemechs where so rare that those that where customised got their own entries in technical readouts and the like.



Fair point and i aknowledge that. My initial response thought was because it seemed that tolkien praised MPBT2025 exactly for the limitations it put on players in terms of gameplay choices.

Re> VTOL? No that's a Land Air Mech (LAM) that is both a mech and a fighter. It was a decepticon, no way around it. They were rare since they were expensive lostech and the clans actually smashed a lot of the factories they found as they considered LAMs to be abominations, even though they were star league tech.

I was referring to these: http://www.sarna.net...i/Yellow_Jacket helicopters And maybe I have my timeline wrong but I'm pretty sure tanks, vtols, and aerotech were all considered 'normal' to see on a battlefield. Mechs were the most versatile, but it was the exception rather than the rule to deploy them alone.

Re Grey Death Legion> Whom? I have no idea who you're talking about... *whistles and hides signature* I thought marik independently developed it, but I am not sure.

Re Customized battlemechs> It seems we agree that customization is a big can of worms, and while we like customizing, it might not be the best thing for the gameplay?

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Fair point and i aknowledge that. My initial response thought was because it seemed that tolkien praised MPBT2025 exactly for the limitations it put on players in terms of gameplay choices.

Actually you're not wrong in saying that. I was praising MPBT3025 both for giving us the core features that allowed for much more varied play, even if they did actually restrict what we could do in terms of which planets supported which sizes of mechs, and by not allowing customization. My secondary point was that even though it did place literal restrictions on player choice, these restrictions actually seemed to make the gameplay more varied and interesting!

Counter-intuitive but I think it deserves consideration in the context of the deep deep rut that MWO seems to be caught in

Edited by Tolkien, 19 November 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[Riptor]

You said VTOLs like the wasp... the only wasp i know is a light striker mech, wich also has a LAM varaint thats why i asked.

Oh i didnt want to suggest that mechs where deployed alone. But they where the main force that actually carried the conflict.

In most cases showing up to a battle with only tanks while the enemy had even a lance of battlemechs was a very one sided affair.

Also Marik couldnt come up with something so elaborate even if they tried... they would be to busy debating the right placement of the charges depending on weather condition and then somewhere along the line trying to replace the current leader of the house or something...

Ill agree and sorta disagree. Not allowing customisation gives a good deal of control in terms of weapons and mech balance to the developer and prevents some very questionable but effective mech builds. Choosing a Hunchback for example will give you the feared AC 20 but the hunchback has a horrendous weak point. But why should you choose a hunchback if you simply can take a shadow hawk and slap an AC 20 on it without that horrendous weakpoint?

What i dont agree with is the game telling me when and where i am allowed to play with my mechs. What youre saying is basicly if there was no planet that allowed assaults to be played on currently under conflict i couldnt use my assault. (If i even would be able to get one in reasonable time wich seemed to be a very long affair to begin with)

I dont like that, i want the option to play with all my toys all the time. Thats why i got them. Theres allways room for worlds that alow this or that type of gametype only and it would actually benefit the game to have that kind of diversety.. but making one part only rarely available while making another part kinda unavoidable by nature doesnt fly well in my book of game design choices in multyplayer only titles.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tolkien, on 19 November 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

While I do love battletech I'm actually not a stickler for details when they get in the way of gameplay. You and I know that the Davion also had very competent mechanized divisions that were deployed in combined operations with battlemechs along with VTOLs like the wasp. Meanwhile Marik trained up anti-mech commandos that would use specially designed satchel charges to blow out the knee or ankle actuators of mechs passing through cities or forests. Judged by the lore and the fluff, all the video games will be shoddy approximations of what can be dreamed up in books..... Except maybe megamek

Small bit of Trivia. BeeRockxs, is my BattleCorps Lancemate. The King Crab-005r is a Mech design I submitted to a contest as an upgrade to his 005.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 November 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

I still drop, but yeah - after grinding out the four mech chassis of the Phoenix Project, I needed a little break. That was basically three or four weeks of just grind, grind, grind. That kind of takes the fun out of it.

I still get a lot of enjoyment out of this game (especially with my now-mastered Battlemaster), but I'm only dropping a couple times a night as opposed to a couple hours. I'll be back, probably sooner than later if CW or UI2.0 drops soon. Otherwise, I don't mind just playing "recreationally" for a bit.

[Tolkien]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

You said VTOLs like the wasp... the only wasp i know is a light striker mech, wich also has a LAM varaint thats why i asked.

Oh i didnt want to suggest that mechs where deployed alone. But they where the main force that actually carried the conflict.

In most cases showing up to a battle with only tanks while the enemy had even a lance of battlemechs was a very one sided affair.

I'm bad with both etymology and entomology, so wasp, yellow-jacket, hornet, mud dauber all sort of flow together in my mind. The flying stingy thing (with a gauss rifle in this case).

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Also Marik couldnt come up with something so elaborate even if they tried... they would be to busy debating the right placement of the charges depending on weather condition and then somewhere along the line trying to replace the current leader of the house or something...

*Shrug* I'll ask my IRL friend when he's back in the country about the Marik anti-mech troops since he mentioned them to me years ago.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Ill agree and sorta disagree. Not allowing customisation gives a good deal of control in terms of weapons and mech balance to the developer and prevents some very questionable but effective mech builds. Choosing a Hunchback for example will give you the feared AC 20 but the hunchback has a horrendous weak point. But why should you choose a hunchback if you simply can take a shadow hawk and slap an AC 20 on it without that horrendous weakpoint?

Well you shouldn't and that's the problem. Why would we take a hunchback for an AC20 when we can shoehorn one into a much harder to hit mech? We don't...

Same reason no one takes the Awesome to get their 3PPC on when they can take the far superior hull down stalker or jumpy highlander.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

What i dont agree with is the game telling me when and where i am allowed to play with my mechs. What youre saying is basicly if there was no planet that allowed assaults to be played on currently under conflict i couldnt use my assault. (If i even would be able to get one in reasonable time wich seemed to be a very long affair to begin with)

To clarify you could always go duel with your toys on solaris in MPBT3025, so while the game would keep your ultimate death machine in reserve for special occasions, it would still let you use it whenever you wanted but only in a test of the wills in front of a roaring crowd.

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

I dont like that, i want the option to play with all my toys all the time. Thats why i got them. Theres allways room for worlds that alow this or that type of gametype only and it would actually benefit the game to have that kind of diversety.. but making one part only rarely available while making another part kinda unavoidable by nature doesnt fly well in my book of game design choices in multyplayer only titles.

If you have filet mingnon every day, pretty soon it stops being special. There's a price to pay for the hedonism of unfettered choice.

Edited by Tolkien, 19 November 2013 - 06:20 AM.

[Scromboid]

Wow. This thread got off track quick. From the thought filled first page to this.

I am glad to see another group of folks that mirrored my fears about the game. Some days it feels like everything is fine, but other days, like yesterday, when I kept seeing the same folks drop after drop... and remembering that I had been with them days or a week before, I started to wonder. Surely it was not that Elo was working correctly...

My fear for this game is that it is too expensive and that there are far too few features to sustain. Launch was a joke. Phoenix mechs were a blatant screw you to the founders and the fact that they are releasing 7500mc robots ~still~ is just insulting. I cannot justify putting any more money into a game that I feel is going to be dead within the next year. I cannot imagine that this will get any better. We are still waiting on Clan mechs which were supposed to be introduced 6 months ago. We have a few maps and two game modes that are infuriating. Furthermore, going from 8 to 12 just increased the number of folks it took to get a match, which decreased the matches and the overall available likelihood of finding one. 3PV, which the community did NOT want and the bumbled and continuing fail of Ghost Heat....

All the while the devs being as dishonest and snarky as possible... "tease" my ***. Seriously.

[Riptor]

Quote

[color=#959595]If you have filet mingnon every day, pretty soon it stops being special. There's a price to pay for the hedonism of unfetter choice. [/color]

Ah but im not asking for filet mingnon

Im asking to be able to have the choice between that and pancakes, and hamburgers, and fries, and pizzas and i betterstopnowbecauseigethungry.

As i said, planets with special limitations that might even be very important do have their place, but the option to take what i earned in the game and actually play with it in a meaningfull way should allways be there.

Also... for some reason i dont like the idea of being part of one of the houses and fighting for them on the front lines while at the same time also being a solaris jockey, guess thats just my preference thought.

Quote

[color=#959595]My fear for this game is that it is too expensive and that there are far too few features to sustain. [/color]

I agree with that.. some of these prices are borderline full game price... to be used in one of two death match modes.

Its no wonder that the player count is falling.

MWO has been out for a year now, the people that wanted to check out the game have allready done so... they have played it allready.

There is no mythical "new player base" or "new core audience" to be had. That market simply does not exist. PGI abandoned its core audience to chase down a fata morgana, and i still cant say if they have realized that or not.

Yet here we are.. with features that no one uses or wanted to begin with, that where suposed to attract that new player base to the game. (cooldown shots, air and arty strikes, 3rd pv)

Meanwhile stuff like game modes or actuall real content gets pushed back.. people are tired of being told that change is right around the corner.

Another case of mythic syndrome where "Awesome stuff is right around the corner" and when you go around the corner theres a sign saying "sorry not ready yet"

Edited by Riptor, 19 November 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[Tolkien]

Riptor, on 19 November 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

...
I agree with that.. some of these prices are borderline full game price... to be used in one of two death match modes.

Its no wonder that the player count is falling.

MWO has been out for a year now, the people that wanted to check out the game have allready done so... they have played it allready.

There is no mythical "new player base" or "new core audience" to be had. That market simply does not exist. PGI abandoned its core audience to chase down a fata morgana, and i still cant say if they have realized that or not.

Yet here we are.. with features that no one uses or wanted to begin with, that where suposed to attract that new player base to the game. (cooldown shots, air and arty strikes, 3rd pv)

Meanwhile stuff like game modes or actuall real content gets pushed back.. people are tired of being told that change is right around the corner.

Another case of mythic syndrome where "Awesome stuff is right around the corner" and when you go around the corner theres a sign saying "sorry not ready yet"

I'm actually suspicious that their next great white hope is an XBOX one port, though I have nothing to back that up. It just 'feels' like that's how they would respond - rather than going full speed to deliver the year overdue features to the people who gave them millions of dollars to make a battletech game with depth and complexity, they'll rush for the (sl)easy green.

I will say that in 12 mans the last couple of weeks artillery and air strikes have been very common. Yesterday I played a 12man where I saw no less than 6 arty/air strikes, and believe there was a 7th. This is what happens when a consumable is given a 400% damage buff. It reminded me of Mercenaries 2, or as Zero Punctuation calls it 'Airstrikes 2: Hurray for Airstrikes' http://www.escapistm...1-Mercenaries-2

[Riptor]

Doesnt microsoft have rediculus stability standards thought? My game still freezes up when i try to exit it and i still get random crash to desktops or blacksreens now and then.

As it currently is i highly doubt they would allow it on xbox one. But with the new UI as it looks (very controller friendly) you might have a point here.

Well yeah they are "used" now... but havent been for months upon months after implementation. And now the only reason they are used is not because they are usefull but because pgi made them stupidly powerfull.

Hooray for pendulum balancing i guess.

Edited by Riptor, 19 November 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[WhiskizYo]

Sup guys, this is why the game is dying from a new players perspective. To begin with, i was absolutely amazed at this game, at the mechs, the 1 life per match so your actions really matter/skill really matters, the details of the maps, the details of the mechs, the customization of the mechs, the depth of the game in general.

But sadly, what ruined it for me, in short, is:

1 - The joke of a c-bill earning after cadet bonus, and the fact the cadet bonus isnt explained so after a little research you have to restart and make a new account to get the most out of your cadet bonus.

2 - After making a new account, having to do a few more hours of research to figure out what kind of mech you want *exactly* before you even know what half the stuff does, because its either a joke of a grind or approx $20? for a mech (LOL) and then more to gear it. Taking out the fun of learning and customizing and basically having fun experimenting as you go which is *very* important.

3 - Played plenty of free-to-play but "everything can be earned in game" titles, but this is by far the worst currency exchange rate, from real life money to game currency, again approx $20 just for a mech, let alone its gear.

4 - The way they make you have to get multiple chassis of the same mech, just to be able to get access to the rest of the perks, coincedentally forcing you to either grind for many more hours, or, spend alot of money needlessly...... (C'mon, this setup is such a blatant money grab that its almost insulting our intelligence.)

Do you see the common problem in all of that? Most of the games problems is because of this games company trying to go for every last dollar they can, they have made an awesome game, but then way overestimated it still and tried to get beyond top dollar for it, continuously, choking every aspect of the game at every opportunity in the game until you have forked out $$$.

The game really is awesome, its damn unfortunate to leave, but i will be leaving because of these reasons and have seen or heard of many others leaving for the same. The company makes a really mind blowing game, to then choke the life out of it themselves going for every last dollar they can, i dont get it and its sad to see with such a great game.....

There you have it, mostly, from a new players perspective.

Edited by WhiskizYo, 19 November 2013 - 07:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

You started a thread with this exact post. No Numbers, no proof.