99 replies to this topic

[Menkare]

You have to remember that BattleTech has one thing that WoT doesn't: an established history, with long-tested rules and ( I hope ) a purpose to it. It's not just mindless grinding away to get the next upgrade for your tank. Also, the devs of WoT have a definite bias ( why do you think the Russian tanks are sooooo friggin good - it's because the devs are - Russian ). We all know how the BattleTech game mechanics are supposed to work, and if something isn't right, a lot of people will point it out. The WoT devs will change something at will just because they don't like it or because someone whines enough about it ( i.e. the rampant nerfing of Artillery performance in WoT ).

I doubt very seriously that MWO will end up being WoT with 'Mechs.

[Amerante]

I really doubt that Premium mechs would be obtainable with C-bills.
However (damn, another WoT MWO comparison ) in WoT the other ways of Pay to Win are the premium tanks, which generetad more credit, beside some of them had really tough armor which you wouldn't be able to punch through ("We just dinged them!" ), that was really annoying. In MWO according to TT, and earlier MW there will be no such armor that you simply coulnd't damage.

Beside that... well WoT is the closest in gamestyle and metagame to MWO as far as I know. And probably others as well, thus the many WoT : MWO comparison.

[HeadWar]

Menkare, on 22 June 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

You have to remember that BattleTech has one thing that WoT doesn't: an established history,

You mean, except for World War 2?

[MstrfulMischif]

One of the saddest days was when Chromehounds was no longer viable. sigh. Foaming at the mouth for that beta access.

[Steven Dixon]

People are compairing WoT to MWO in regards to it's pay model not necessarily gameplay or setting (both are F2P games, ChromeHounds isn't and has a complelty different revenue stream). People keep compairing WoT and MWO because we don't have that many details on MWO's payment model (just an outline), so people are trying to figure out what the details are. In addition many people were disatisfied with some of the choices that WoT's made and are hoping that MWO doesn't make the same choices.

[HeadWar]

Menkare, on 22 June 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

You have to remember that BattleTech has one thing that WoT doesn't: an established history, with long-tested rules and ( I hope ) a purpose to it. It's not just mindless grinding away to get the next upgrade for your tank.

So, umm, what would the purpose be, do you think? It's not like there could ever be an achievable long term goal, at which point the devs say: "Ok, that's it, now we're closing down the servers. Well done everyone."

[Amerante]

HeadWar, on 22 June 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

You mean, except for World War 2?

you mean the germans+russians+americans on the same side fought agasint the germans+russians+americans on the other side? (which is WoT... )

[Aidan Malchor]

MWO should be happy to have the WoT comparison. While that games has it problems (dare ya you to find one that doesn't) it was/is a great game that didn't just take the cookie cutter route of most MMO's these days. Their business model and basic game framework obviously work so why not take some of the best parts of it, cut out or improve on the craptacular ones to produce a hellavua Battletech game that most of us have been waiting a decade for. I really hope that MWO does even better then WoT but even if they just equal it in terms of players and income that's a pretty start.

I only play WoT casually so maybe don't see it, but even with the premium tanks I don't find it overly pay to win. Premium tanks have their soft spots like any other tank. As for gold ammo I've only used it once cause I bought it by accident and it still bounced a couple shots. I see the real money stuff more as pay to not suck as much or pay to get there faster. Just cause you pay a couple bucks to get something shiney doesn't mean someone isn't gonna ruin your day in a single shot. As long as the bonuses for purchased stuff is kept reasonable it should not become to much of an issue.

[Kyzar Kon]

I understand the whole concept that Piranha needs moneyz to stay afloat but I just don't want to see it go down the same road as other F2P. I don't care if they release other mechs for $$$ but it better not be a Daishi. WoT ran into that problem and is comparable. I wanted to go throught the tech tree to try the different tanks, but I soon found my Medium Tank Destroyer in servers of pure Lowes. I don't want to find myself being the only medium mech in a match full of clan crap!

To fix this problem they keep refering to the rolewarfare, but I am starting to think that the weight is almost going to be nail in the coffin to alot of chassis from ever being implemented. What good is a light mech if it can't scout? But there are mechs that hit hard for thier size, but out matched by heavier classes. If matches are created using weight, like WoT, ones with pure Heavies and Assaults are going to be a crawl without a scout.

I think because Piraha is using as a foundation an already establish core gameplay, the level of Pay to Win will be minimal, unless its that clan crap.

Covet, on 22 June 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Just hoping there's no gold ammo.

Inferno *puke*

[Name48928]

Covet, on 22 June 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I highly doubt premium mechs can be purchased with c-bills.

You're right and I was wrong. Don't know what I was thinking.

Premium mechs will likely be purchaseable only with cash. These premium mechs will likely give the player a cash multiplier on games played with that mech. These are fairly safe speculations based upon what we know about the Founder mechs.

What was crossed up in my mind was this: The Founder mechs (Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult, Atlas) will likely be purchasable in non-premium format for c-bills. So we should be able to buy the same mechs just without the cash multiplier. The info on the Founder pack mechs seems to support this.

So, you should be able to get the mechs without paying cash, but you probably won't be able to get the cash multiplier without paying cash.

Of course, all terms subject to change without prior notice, yadda yadda, boilerplate.

[Menkare]

I'm hoping that the fighting we do on MWO will have a purpose in larger terms. Like defending a planet from being invaded, or the reverse. Something where the outcome will harm or benefit your house/faction/unit. Here's hoping that we will be able to jump from planet to planet to crush our enemies and bring glory to our Houses.

Of course, this may just be wishfull thinking on my part.

[Grimmarc]

"someone is better than me, so they must have paid for it" When I read that line, my first thought was, "No, someone's better than me because he/she has played more, worked harder/practiced more, and I'm a noob at games like this and Wot. Seems to me, and I'll admit that I can be wrong, even if you pay for the biggest, baddest mech out there, if you don't know how to play it, you're still going to lose.

[Valhakar]

Grimmarc, on 22 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

"someone is better than me, so they must have paid for it" When I read that line, my first thought was, "No, someone's better than me because he/she has played more, worked harder/practiced more, and I'm a noob at games like this and Wot. Seems to me, and I'll admit that I can be wrong, even if you pay for the biggest, baddest mech out there, if you don't know how to play it, you're still going to lose.

There is only only one advantage a "real money" system allows people with the cash. We can pay for our stupid mistakes with real life money. Damage/survivability wise, its all equal.

[Arclyte]

WoT is a thouroughly enjoyable game which has it's flaws; but there's no reason not to compare it to what we think the business model of MWO will be. Out of many of the F2P games that use micro transactions i think WoT is nicely balanced. The truth is, gold ammo or not, if you play you're tank well, you survive, if not, you die.

I would expect the same thing will happen in MWO.

The best hope is that MWO will correct and build upon the deficiencies found in WoT.

[Creed Buhallin]

SparkSovereign, on 22 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

If you've paid attention to some of the trailers or dev comments, they've said a few times that someone with more money than time can't "buy power". Regardless of how you acquire your mechs, they're still the same mechs, and they still mount the same guns.

I know this is the standard FTP vs. P2W defense, but I've never really bought it.

You and I both play the game. We're moderately equally skilled. We've both played for 30 hours - but I paid for premium the entire time, and you didn't. I now have 45 hours worth of money and experience, which gives me a combat advantage. Should we meet, my money means I trounce you, because the XP and money I gained by paying gives me an advantage. I have, literally, paid to win.

The standard argument is that I didn't really pay to win that match, because you could have just worked for 45 hours to achieve the same, so it's not "paying to win". IMHO, that's bollocks - money becomes a power differentiator between two players who are in all other ways equal. That's P2W.


But to get back to the original topic: I enjoyed ChromeHounds greatly. It was WAY ahead of its time, trying to do what MWO and WoT are doing today only they did it about 7-8 years ago. The biggest lesson I took from it, though, is the hazard created by an unlimited customization scheme. Too much flexibility is customization is a balance nightmare that can never support a game long-term. When you let players customize things, minor imbalances become amplified, because that's what players do. If you want a stable game, you have to limit what the players can do to exploit imbalances.

[Adrian Carino]

I will NEVER compare Chrome Hounds to Mechwarrior. Mechwarrior is a league of its own and so much better.

[Steelo]

Man chromes hounds was the best, HOUSE OF VOODOO represent !

[Steelo]

Psyche, on 22 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Chromehounds had a single player component, was an Xbox game (that required Live! Gold membership) with a DLC shop. MWO and WoT are multiplayer exclusively, on the PC only with a Premium Item (Pay2Win) shop - neither of them even have an offline Demo.

For WoT thats pretty bad - normally a company would Want to show their product to perspective shoppers/downloaders...unless of course they can't hide the Pay2Win scam.

No clue why Piranha/PGI wouldn't with MW:O other than the same reason, its been pretty common across this industry (recently even more so than usual - probably hard economic times or maybe regulation has gotten too loose).

The single player content of chromehounds isn't worth mentioning, its a glorified tutorial at best

[Risky]

Jakebob, on 22 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

If you want to see a truly badly run MMO, go play NavyField. (better do it quickly before it dies completely)

My ***, NavyFIELD was pretty fun and rewarding to those who did things right. You didn't have to buy the Prenium sailors, as they were only better until they reached around Lvl 60-80, where, if you had rolled non-premium sailors correctly, they would be just as good. On premium Battleships, they weren't much better though were fun to play.

Wasn't really a pay to win, was more of a pay to get a better start.

[RaithSpartan]

aRottenKomquat, on 22 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

I think many of the WoT comparisons come from us WoT players who are not happy with the direction the game is taking and hoping MWO will fill the void left by WoT becoming a sucky game. That's how I look at it anyway.

what direction exactly is it taking, because i been playing WOT on and of for a year and its still go the same core gameplay that its had since the start only wth more tank and tech trees. WOT is a very good game for a free online game