304 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

Augustus Martelus II, on 10 October 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

and by the fact also in MWLL the heat system was more difficult than the one in MWO....+ weapon convergence was less than in MWO

MWLL is like what MWO shoulda been. It had many bases to attack, a main base for the different teams, repair, rearm, tanks, infantry.....it was kinda neat. Onlything I really didnt like was the having to get the next class of mech through playing the weaker ones and working the way up....never got past the Vulture before the game ever ended.....

[Nathan Foxbane]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 October 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

Destroying the terrain is very meh.......I dont really like it mcuh in BF3, BFBC2......while its kinda neat to do, idk why exactly, but I just dont really feel it makes the game any more exciting or interesting....sure makes the game harder, as evnetually, there is no where left to hide, just turns the game into a flat lvl playing field...

Yeah the trick is to get the terrain to act in a manner somewhat consistent with reality while being able to damage or kill with it. Dropping a building on someone is fun, watching it collapse in on itself not so much. Making an ambush spot in a building is fun, bursting through a wall like a homicidal Kool-aid man is just plain epic. These events and the physics behind them is a lot of code, so it just really is not done all that much or it is done using scripted animations. Scripted animations are fine if you are blowing up a tank farm. Not so much when you are trying to hollow out the aforementioned building and it just collapses because the script says so.

[Nathan Foxbane]

[

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 October 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

And yeah, dont TT tanks actually pack more armor per spot then mechs? I prolly made it wrong but I had a tank with like 72 frontal armor, Gauss Rifles and MGs, LRMs and the works......

It really is sad how bad all mech games make vehicles. Tanks like Bulldogs, Alacorns, VonLuckners and Shrecks would really ruin a Mechwarriors day....turn the corner and a Demolisher is sitting there staring you in the face with dual AC20....

FTFY, the Devastator is a 100 ton Assault 'Mech with twin PPCs, twin Gauss Rifles, and quad Medium Lasers.

Yes, they do. The Burke, for example, carries only six tons of armor. It still gets 30 frontal, 20 each side, 16 rear, and 22 turret. The Alacorn MK VI, one of my favorites, has 50/50 frontal/turret, 40 each side, and 28 rear. All table top values. Triple Gauss Dire Whale meets its match in a humble tank five tons lighter than it.

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 October 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

And Infantry would sevrely wreck your day......climb on ur mech, blow off ur cockpit screen and shoot you in the face.....Apods and LMGs would be useful then...ive always felt they were pointless weapons mainly due to how bad infantry always are.

Anti-'Mech infantry are brutal, but they take heavy losses. They do not bother with the cockpit, but rather knee cap a 'Mech with satchel charges and cut the pilot out after the 'Mech is down. A 'Mech in an urban environment like River City or Crimson Strait against anti-'Mech infantry without A-pods, arm mounted flamers or mgs, jump jets or a lancemate with MGs or flamers most likely about to be crippled or legless. Elementals are different, they literally rip armor from a 'Mech while cutting it away with their small lasers, going after any vulnerable systems (pilot included) they expose. Will survive anything up to a PPC and survive.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Nathan Foxbane, on 10 October 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

[
FTFY, the Devastator is a 100 ton Assault 'Mech with twin PPCs, twin Gauss Rifles, and quad Medium Lasers.

Yes, they do. The Burke, for example, carries only six tons of armor. It still gets 30 frontal, 20 each side, 16 rear, and 22 turret. The Alacorn MK VI, one of my favorites, has 50/50 frontal/turret, 40 each side, and 28 rear. All table top values. Triple Gauss Dire Whale meets its match in a humble tank five tons lighter than it.


Anti-'Mech infantry are brutal, but they take heavy losses. They do not bother with the cockpit, but rather knee cap a 'Mech with satchel charges and cut the pilot out after the 'Mech is down. A 'Mech in an urban environment like River City or Crimson Strait against anti-'Mech infantry without A-pods, arm mounted flamers or mgs, jump jets or a lancemate with MGs or flamers most likely about to be crippled or legless. Elementals are different, they literally rip armor from a 'Mech while cutting it away with their small lasers, going after any vulnerable systems (pilot included) they expose. Will survive anything up to a PPC and survive.

Ok, its the Demolisher tank im thinking of. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher

Either way, I thought it backed like an AC20, had that rounded turret...and oops, lol.


And oddly, it shows Devastator right ther lol.....so I guess somewhere there was a tank of that name. Does it still have the AC20s?




Infantry against armor of any kind in a city dominates lol. Heavy losses, but I suppose in the big scheme, 20 men for a 17million cbill mech is a worthy trade haha. I find them annoying to hit really...I went against several in MW4 Mektek mod, they died easy, but at times were annoying to hit, esp with big ass guns like ACs and stuff...

Would be fun to have a combined arms PVE game in this game for sure.....I have ideas about a battle on Crimson Strait and how it could start, progress, objectives and the works lol.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 10 October 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[Powder Puff Pew Pew]

Kjudoon, on 10 October 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

I'm not.

It seems the Elitists don't seem to want it and because they don't want it, they don't want anyone to have it because then their game suffers because people they normally beat up easily won't be their punching bags in most cases preferring to beat up less than perfect AIs.

Please note some of the angriest voices against PvE are ones that are regularly on leaderboards for challenges and tournaments.

You are so totaly right. SOME of the angriest [NO's] are very rude about making their [NO] known. I can see this now, now that you put it like this. Its really funny the way you described these people becuase even ingame discussions during matches, they tend to get a bit crazy and outa control with all the elitist and leaderboard folks who love nothing more than to just punk some new player.

[KraftySOT]

Meh...I disagree with the OP that much has changed over the years. Its MW2 with a different business model, and DX11.

Thats pretty much it.

Oh yeah theres hardpoints now

And PVE to be "worth it" would need more resources, talent, time, money, and energy than PGI has. It would be really, really cheesy. If you want to play MW2 again, download DosBox and get to playin.

I promise itll hold up better than any PvE we'd have.

Oh and infantry in cities in the Table Top are completely and utterly useless.

When a building collapses...they all die. Most building CV is pretty low in the TT, and infantry just dies like crazy when mechs stay out of their range and just level the buildings. Unless youre playing a noob, infantry work best in the open in hills, dropped off by apcs, when theres more targets that are more worth shooting at, than the infantry.

But really the point of infantry, is initiative. Having more units means even if you loss the initiative roll, youll probably still have something usefull moving last.

[Thunder Lips Express]

i would trade pvp for pve in a heartbeat!

[KraftySOT]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 October 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

MWLL is like what MWO shoulda been. It had many bases to attack, a main base for the different teams, repair, rearm, tanks, infantry.....it was kinda neat. Onlything I really didnt like was the having to get the next class of mech through playing the weaker ones and working the way up....never got past the Vulture before the game ever ended.....

Yup.

MWLL was a thorn in PGIs side...all it did was show what some amateurs over the internet and through skype could accomplish compared to a multi million dollar studio.

It was considerably better...and it was just a bloody mod.

[cSand]

Kjudoon, on 10 October 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

Ah yes... more "I don't want it so you can't have it".

OK so would be there some kind of form that I sign, so that all the money I have spent on this game can't be spent on PvE elements? Cause then that's fine.

Cause I don't want it, and won't pay for it but by all means you are welcome to.

But if you think it would be any better than say, MW4 or MW3 or 2... then you are lying to yourself in a big way.

If they ever did do a PvE game, it should be separately funded and separate from this game completely. Because people have spent a lot of money for this PvP game, and like me, would be pissed if that money went towards... uh.... care-mech online

But I guess not wanting my future and already-spent funds in this game to go towards a game that has nothing to do with what I paid for.... that makes me an elitist who loves to beat up on n00bs

Edited by cSand, 11 October 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Yeah PvE imho would require an entirely new game, with an entirely new team, engine, etc...without a storyline wtf point is there. Just a way for people to grind without playing against other players? Meh...waste of effort.

If youre not going to do a storyline, dynamic missions, dynamic salvage, have cut scenes, have progression, have unique enthralling missions (defending a giant block of ice in space...oh yes) and maybe even several campaigns...

DONT. BOTHER.

(and especially dont bother if theres no power armor, aerospace, tanks, etc, that made the Mechwarrior missions fun....find me a MW2 Mercs mission that didnt include things other than mechs that PGI would have to make...its next to impossible to do PvE with any soul)

Edited by KraftySOT, 11 October 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[R Razor]

cSand, on 11 October 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

OK so would be there some kind of form that I sign, so that all the money I have spent on this game can't be spent on PvE elements? Cause then that's fine.

Cause I don't want it, and won't pay for it but by all means you are welcome to.

But if you think it would be any better than say, MW4 or MW3 or 2... then you are lying to yourself in a big way.

If they ever did do a PvE game, it should be separately funded and separate from this game completely. Because people have spent a lot of money for this PvP game, and like me, would be pissed if that money went towards... uh.... care-mech online

But I guess not wanting my future and already-spent funds in this game to go towards a game that has nothing to do with what I paid for.... that makes me an elitist who loves to beat up on n00bs

I didn't pay for 3pv, I didn't pay for change after change to the module system etc but I'm not whining for my money back. As stated several times, the only people that don't want PVE are the ones that measure their life success by the number of games they win against noob and low skilled video gamers, pathetic actually.

[MadLibrarian]

We have PvE, it's just in the form of testing grounds.
I do time trials from time to time as a basis for learning the maps and hitting the mechs weakspots while moving. (hitting the atlas eye is rough) Can you get all 8 mechs in forest colony in under 2 minutes? Not really a good substitute, but mw4's campaign is still playable.

Unfortunately, it's not likely to get much better than that. I do agree with you and would lurrrrve some pve action. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Edited by MadLibrarian, 11 October 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[Soul Tribunal]

I've seen a lot of talk here about long winded campaigns and such, but really I think the PVE element at the beginning needs to be simple. It needs to pit all the new players against AI and such so they can learn. Player retention is vital for games to survive, as they are new sources of income. If we can put new players into an arena where they don't get absolutely destroyed in the first 30sec then we have more hope of keeping them as their skills improve.

That is my argument for having it in.

-ST

[Astrocanis]

Dracol, on 09 October 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

My vote isn't No because "I got mine, so you get bent". Its No until we have in game what this game has been building to since its inception. Once the initial plan of CW comes to fruition, then sure, PVE away.

But until then, PVE needs to sit on the back burner.

It would be almost impossible for me to describe my disinterest in CW. It will be hardcore with cannon fodder. Given that I don't enjoy playing in groups, if I play at all, which is unlikely, I will be in the "fodder" category. None of which sounds interesting or fun to me.

Other than that, I do think they should finish what they've started before trying to do something else. Much as I know I'm going to detest CW.

[Powder Puff Pew Pew]

cSand, on 11 October 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

OK so would be there some kind of form that I sign, so that all the money I have spent on this game can't be spent on PvE elements? Cause then that's fine.

Cause I don't want it, and won't pay for it but by all means you are welcome to.

But if you think it would be any better than say, MW4 or MW3 or 2... then you are lying to yourself in a big way.

If they ever did do a PvE game, it should be separately funded and separate from this game completely. Because people have spent a lot of money for this PvP game, and like me, would be pissed if that money went towards... uh.... care-mech online

But I guess not wanting my future and already-spent funds in this game to go towards a game that has nothing to do with what I paid for.... that makes me an elitist who loves to beat up on n00bs

You dont have to play it lol. We are asking, for peoples oppinion. The Majority of the posts on this topic have said hell yes to PVE. The minority seems to be the [NO's] and the elitists who seem to love beating up on pugs and showing off on leaderboards. I'm asking for a PVE environment seperate from PVP, in the same game. I want a campaign and a single player invironment in the options for game play you can play with friends or a huge 12 man team. If you read my origanal post you would understand whats all involved and what we want. Its totaly possible with todays technology. Ya itll be rigorous and challenging and alot of rescorces involved in it but with the players financial support PGI stands much more of a chance to rake in the rewards afterwards when its done. PVP is 1 battle after another and the same boring **** over and over and over blah. PVE has more chances for more random death matches head to head with insanly fun sinarios if its similar to pvp or the AI is random than any solid PVP match.

You realize PVP is just the same **** but differant maps over and over. You load the game, play and its over, repeat. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zomg boring.

[Powder Puff Pew Pew]

R Razor, on 11 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

I didn't pay for 3pv, I didn't pay for change after change to the module system etc but I'm not whining for my money back. As stated several times, the only people that don't want PVE are the ones that measure their life success by the number of games they win against noob and low skilled video gamers, pathetic actually.

LOL you're absolutely right. I couldnt have said it better myself.

[Dracol]

Powder Puff Pew Pew, on 11 October 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

You realize PVP is just the same **** but differant maps over and over. You load the game, play and its over, repeat. ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zomg boring.

Just to give the other side's perspective, fighting the same predicable AI, over and over again is boring. No mater the scenery.

Soccer is extremely popular to play, not because the playing field is drastically changed between matches, but because of being able to challenge oneself against an opponent. PvE could never offer that same level of challenge.

Not saying you are right or wrong, just giving you the opposing view point.

[990Dreams]

Look, for online, sure. A Company or half Company or Lance v/s AI. Things like that. But I want MW:O finished if you're talking about single player. Adding AI to multiplayer would allow for things like large bases, convoys, drones, more complex air/vehicle support, etc. But if you're not talking about multiplayer, I have to disagree.

[Diablo Intercepter]

No. Fix the current game first.

[Dock Steward]

Powder Puff Pew Pew, on 11 October 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

You dont have to play it lol. We are asking, for peoples oppinion.

And when their opinion doesn't line up with yours, they're "elitists" who only care about beating up new players?