20517 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

CK16, on 03 December 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/mw5mercs

Dun...dun..dunnnnn

Set for release in 2018. So the question is, what effect does this have on MWO, or is MWO being merged as the multiplayer facet of MW5? It would seem to make any further investment (not that I have in quite a while) into MWO a moot point for a game that could possibly supplant it.

I can tell you if it has the same kind of open-endedness of gameplay that the HBS Battletech game is supposed to have then MWO is a bygone item for consideration.

Piranha presentation is starting now, so we'll see how this unfolds.

[Uncle Totty]

CK16, on 03 December 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/mw5mercs

Dun...dun..dunnnnn

It is not real until I have played the first three missions.

Edit: Russ just played the demo, still not real yet.

Edited by Uncle Totty, 03 December 2016 - 09:26 PM.

[Sereglach]

CK16, on 03 December 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

https://twitter.com/mw5mercs

Dun...dun..dunnnnn

So, Pre-Alpha gameplay preview by Russ was surprisingly impressive. Done in Unreal 4 with a Landing Page supposedly going live any minute. I'll check after posting and place an edit if necessary.

Dedicated single player game with ZERO multiplayer components. Single purchase point . . . however nothing of DLC was mentioned (I fully expect it if the game is remotely successful). Granted, uses MWO 3D models, so it stands to say that they'll be able to have the art team working on mech assets for both games and working things out from there.

It also stands to say that eventually we may see MWO shift over to Unreal 4 engine, since there's already been a lot of obvious conversion work going on.

Regardless, continue to expect mech packs that only apply to MWO and no bearing on MechWarrior 5. I at least appreciate the fact that the two games will be sterile from each other in that regard.

EDIT: MW5 Landing page is linked in the December and Beyond Roadmap. Also of note, Russ gave a hard date of February patch for skill overhaul and hard date of March patch for Assault Game mode overhaul. OH! And MW5 is set in 3015 . . . Thirty-Fifteen!!!! No clan mechs and only intro tech equipment. A chance for PGI to take a mulligan on game balancing???

EDIT 2: That means, as far as I'm concerned, we better see the fleshing out of the rest of the reimaged classics and a lot of the other mechs of the era brought in. Wasp, Stinger, Valkyrie, Crusader, Longbow, Mongoose, Vulcan, Clint, Hermes (II), Javelin, Whitworth, Dervish, Thug, Charger, etc. etc. etc. Possibly even some really obscure ones like the Thorn, Firebee, Sling, and others that may have been still functional at the time, if downgraded.

Edited by Sereglach, 03 December 2016 - 09:44 PM.

[MedivalJ]

Odanan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Suggestions/speculation for next mech packs here. [though jumbo packs were discontinued]

Jumbo packs being packs which contain more than one mech or no?

Odanan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

WARNING:

MW4, MW4:M and MWLL players (AKA "new gen")
The Timeline

January, 2016 = January 3051 (see the clock here). EDIT: We are around 3053.
Most of the MW4 and MW4M mechs are not in the game because they will exist only in 10 years or more and/or have new weapon systems. Uziel, Thanatos, Hellspawn, Argus, Osiris, Chimera, Fafnir, Mad Cat MK II will need time leaps (and possibly new weapons) to be added. EDIT: Russ suggested PGI will do a time leap to start covering these mechs in 2017.

Whilst, I understand the reasoning. Would the Mad Dog MK II count among these mechs listed?

Edited by MedivalJ, 03 December 2016 - 09:45 PM.

[Odanan]

MedivalJ, on 03 December 2016 - 09:42 PM, said:

Jumbo packs being packs which contain more than one mech or no?

Whilst, I understand the reasoning. Would the Mad Dog MK II count among these mechs listed?

Yes and yes.

But let's talk about what really matters: MW5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CK16]

MW5 us cool and all....but I hope that does not keep MWO's feet in only past mechs. Really still need to keep this going forward. Future mechs plz soon....plz....MW 4 era needs love as well here right?...right?

Sad young MW is sad

[Karl Streiger]

Odanan, on 03 December 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Join the club, bro.

Seemed that I had the right idea with the Ragnarok.
This is new usually things I think about don't happen.
There must be a quantum rift in the Atlantic

[Uncle Totty]

Odanan, on 03 December 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

Yes and yes.

But let's talk about what really matters: MW5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am thinking that MWO may look a lot like what we just saw in the trailer by the time MW5:Mercs comes out. (Then again, I was thinking that an IS Omni was going to be the next mech but look how THAT turned out.)

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 03 December 2016 - 11:46 PM, said:

MW5 us cool and all....but I hope that does not keep MWO's feet in only past mechs. Really still need to keep this going forward. Future mechs plz soon....plz....MW 4 era needs love as well here right?...right?

Sad young MW is sad

With doing MW5 in Unreal, an engine they have experience with, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to use most of those assets to rebuild MWO in Unreal. Should MWO make the move to Unreal, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI is able to implement missing weapons tech or advanced weapons tech.

[-Skyrider-]

Because MW5 is set to be in 3015, does that mean will start to see more of the TRO-3025 mechs popping up in MWO until its release?

[Odanan]

-Skyrider-, on 04 December 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Because MW5 is set to be in 3015, does that mean will start to see more of the TRO-3025 mechs popping up in MWO until its release?

Hopefully!
Wasp! Crusader! Charger!

Metus regem, on 04 December 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

With doing MW5 in Unreal, an engine they have experience with, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to use most of those assets to rebuild MWO in Unreal. Should MWO make the move to Unreal, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI is able to implement missing weapons tech or advanced weapons tech.

Or even better: gravity.

(I mean, different gravity for different planets)

[Juodas Varnas]

Odanan, on 04 December 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Hopefully!
Wasp! Crusader! Charger!

SCORPION!

I mean they will be using a different engine, right? No more of that stupid excuse of "oh, Cryengine can't handle it, durpadurpadurr"

[Metus regem]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 December 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

SCORPION!

I mean they will be using a different engine, right? No more of that stupid excuse of "oh, Cryengine can't handle it, durpadurpadurr"

It also gives me hope for LAM's as well, since they were common enough to be in TRO 3025.....

[Sereglach]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 December 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

SCORPION!

I mean they will be using a different engine, right? No more of that stupid excuse of "oh, Cryengine can't handle it, durpadurpadurr"

Quads would be great. Despite all of Russ's excuses it wouldn't be that difficult to handle them. I actually had some hope that Quads or Melee was going to be the "never done before" announcement for Mech Con . . . especially with HBS working on Melee for their game.

Metus regem, on 04 December 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

It also gives me hope for LAM's as well, since they were common enough to be in TRO 3025.....

LAMs I could give or take. I don't really care one way or the other, however, sadly one thing to consider is the space needed for LAMs to be effective in any sort of MechWarrior game. They'd need HUGE maps with plenty of airspace to fly around in; and PGI has been reticent to do anything to the scale needed to make them effective, regardless of any complexities of implementation on the mechanical side.

Odanan, on 04 December 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Hopefully!
Wasp! Crusader! Charger!

I would very much like to see at least the Wasp and Crusader. The Stinger and Valkyrie aren't far behind on that list. We've been sorely hurting for light mechs and all of those light mechs should be around in massive quantities given the lore . . . let alone the fact that the Wasp is one of the most iconic classics out there.

[Juodas Varnas]

Sereglach, on 04 December 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Quads would be great.

[Sereglach]

Juodas Varnas, on 04 December 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

Hey, I like quads. The Tarantula and Sarath are two of my favorite mechs (especially love the Sarath B pyro edition of the mech). Nothing quite holds a place in my Battletech heart like the Firestarter, but I have a fair number of favorites and those quads are high up there.

[ShadowbaneX]

Odanan, on 02 December 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

Hey, there is no technical limitation in including hatchets (for some specific mechs).

but there is some in how the range of the thing works. In the WW2 game Day of Defeat, it had melee weapons, and if any amount of your target was in range, it took full damage...even if it was only a millimeter, which sometimes gave the impression that the range was really far away. I suppose they could do some range limitations like we've got for weapons currently. If you're at 10 meters (or whatever) it does full damage, but if you're say 15 meters away it does half, indicating more of a glancing blow or some such.

[Metus regem]

Sereglach, on 04 December 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

LAMs I could give or take. I don't really care one way or the other, however, sadly one thing to consider is the space needed for LAMs to be effective in any sort of MechWarrior game. They'd need HUGE maps with plenty of airspace to fly around in; and PGI has been reticent to do anything to the scale needed to make them effective, regardless of any complexities of implementation on the mechanical side.

Yes and no, in Areofighter mode, yes. In Mech or hybrid state not so much. In the hybrid state they get 15 hex movement for the Stinger/Wasp/Phoenix Hawk LAM's, and must spend 5 movement in a straight line before turning, to maintain air speed, otherwise they land and become 5/8/5 again.

[Sereglach]

Metus regem, on 04 December 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

Yes and no, in Areofighter mode, yes. In Mech or hybrid state not so much. In the hybrid state they get 15 hex movement for the Stinger/Wasp/Phoenix Hawk LAM's, and must spend 5 movement in a straight line before turning, to maintain air speed, otherwise they land and become 5/8/5 again.

All very true. However, sadly, that'd still leave them in a bit of a tricky spot for PGI implementation. I'm not saying I would never want to see LAMs in the game, but the animations, coding, and engineering to make them even semi-viable would still be very difficult and taxing for PGI to implement.

After all, just look at and think of the turning radius that PGI would need to put in to impose that "5 hexes in a straight line" rule with the minimum speeds they're travelling. It'd get ugly, quick; and people would be screaming to the high heavens over how easy it'd be to shoot down LAMs whenever they'd try to take flight or go hybrid.

[Metus regem]

Sereglach, on 04 December 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

All very true. However, sadly, that'd still leave them in a bit of a tricky spot for PGI implementation. I'm not saying I would never want to see LAMs in the game, but the animations, coding, and engineering to make them even semi-viable would still be very difficult and taxing for PGI to implement.

After all, just look at and think of the turning radius that PGI would need to put in to impose that "5 hexes in a straight line" rule with the minimum speeds they're travelling. It'd get ugly, quick; and people would be screaming to the high heavens over how easy it'd be to shoot down LAMs whenever they'd try to take flight or go hybrid.

Force them to stay in hybrid mode, solves the transformation issue, 5 hexes is 150m, not that far really. The biggest problem is the fact that they 'hover' at height 1 over all terrain, meaning full Mech cover, would only be half cover for them. Yes the turning radius would suck, but you would be going stupid fast, so a good pilot could make landing a blow hard. Still I wants them, and aside from the Crecent Hawks series, they have never been in a PC game.