Jump to content

Pc Gamer Magazine: Our Thoughts On Community Warfare

News

63 replies to this topic

#1 Othello

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 95 posts

Posted 20 December 2014 - 06:25 PM

source: http://www.pcgamer.c...e-our-thoughts/

View PostFrom 20 December 2014 - 11:51 PM:

Hickson: That's my piece. Open to any questions.


Patrick Carlson, on 20 December 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

Posted Image
MechWarrior Online needed this.

After dropping into the beta launch of MWO’s long-awaited Community Warfare, it’s easy to see just how narrow an experience MWO has been until last week’s update. Through 2013, I was having a great time piloting MWO’s giant mechs. I wasn’t bothered by MWO’s limited, deathmatch-centric game modes, difficult learning curve, or free-to-play economy. In fact I loved it. But eventually I fell away from the game, especially after the release this year of the Clan expansion. The Clans introduced of a whole new class of mech that just seemed to ******* off the battlefield at every opportunity.

While it’s true that developer Piranha Games has been working diligently to find some kind of balance among the various groups that make up MWO’s player base—solo players, competitive clans, and lore-focused BattleTech enthusiasts—I had become strangely adrift in a game that I had devoted so much time to. And truth be told, despite the deep interest in the BattleTech universe that MWO instilled in me, I wasn’t quite sure its vision of a persistent, planetary conquest metagame would ever arrive. I know I’m not the only one who felt this way.

Posted Image
Defending infrastructure is key in the new invasion mode.

But now, as part of a merc unit contracted to House Steiner, repelling an attack from Clan Wolf or Jade Falcon brings to life much of the fiction that’s built into MWO. Putting my humble Shadow Hawk up against the best assault mechs the Clans have to offer, I’ve seen some great stories unfold already. I still feel underpowered, but I’m fine being the underdog if I have something to fight for.

In terms of its content, the beta expansion of Community Warfare includes two new maps on which the various factions fight for supremacy. Players pledge their loyalty to a single faction, either in a short-term contract as a mercenary unit or as a permanent member of a house or clan. Once committed, you earn loyalty points and in-game rewards based on your success or failure attacking or defending the many planets that make up the Inner Sphere. Just having a faction system that extends beyond paint schemes and avatar logos is a meaningful addition. Personal perks aside, for me the ultimate benefit of the faction system is seeing my wins and losses play out on the persistent and dynamic Inner Sphere map. It’s a giant, public leaderboard that has the potential to connect the MWO community in completely new ways.

Posted Image
Gates serve as choke points for attackers.

At the moment this new metagame plays out entirely on the new maps—Boreal Vault and Sulfurous Rift. This felt strange at first, that every Inner Sphere planet would have identical environments. But it’s a beta and we have to start somewhere. The good news is that their layouts, with gates, turrets, and a giant orbital cannon to attack or defend, adds a new texture to MWO. Depending on how I navigate the terrain, sniper builds, giant brawlers, and even the most fragile light mechs can potentially find a meaningful role beyond just adding to the killcount. Tactics and planning are key for a successful defense or attack on each planet. So far I’ve seen better communication among teammates before and during matches thanks to the more complex challenge of the invasion mode.

Another key shift is the use of dropships to bring new waves of mechs to the battlefield. Unlike the no-respawn standard modes, invasion gives you up to four mechs for each match, a change that significantly alters the pace of the game. The risk/reward balance of an aggressive push over a ridge to go for the win now depends on which mechs you think the enemy team might have in reserve. If the defenders are saving their massive and durable assault mechs for a second or third dropship wave, then too much aggression might leave you open to an easy counter-attack. I love the dropship system. It’s forced me back into the mechlab to tinker with old builds in search of better, more balanced loadouts.

Posted Image
A snapshot of the Inner Sphere.

That being said, the expansion is far from perfect. It’s tough to find a match as a solo player in Community Warfare, an issue Piranha studio head Russ Bullock recently addressed in a forum update. For lone wolves like me, a class of player that earlier in 2014 made up a significant portion of MWO’s player base, this is frustrating. But from the looks of Piranha’s latest patch, the studio is working to make the matchmaking queue easier to navigate and understand. It’s also unclear how the new mode will split up the existing player base and affect public games on the original maps that have—as of now—no visible role to play in the new metagame. In terms of the faction warfare itself, the two current maps run the risk of becoming stale as they’re repeated on planet after planet.

But for the last two years, MWO has always appeared ready to innovate and push out new ideas, even if some of those changes have proven deeply divisive to its community. At the very least, Community Warfare finally gives real shape to something that had become almost mythological in terms of its uncertain existence and arrival. And who doesn’t like to see myths come to life?

Edited by Othello, 22 December 2014 - 05:17 PM.


#2 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 20 December 2014 - 06:30 PM

Sounds about spot on to me

#3 KharnZor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,584 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 20 December 2014 - 08:02 PM

See, it is possible to write a review without it reading like a qq thread from the forums.

#4 Impyrium

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 2,104 posts
  • LocationSouth Australia

Posted 20 December 2014 - 08:46 PM

Kudos to PC Gamer. Fair, honest, and obviously well researched unlike that Destructoid one.

#5 cSand

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationCanada, eh

Posted 20 December 2014 - 10:18 PM

View PostAUSwarrior24, on 20 December 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

Kudos to PC Gamer. Fair, honest, and obviously well researched unlike that Destructoid one.



One's a publication that's been around for ages and earned it's credibility

The other... well, these days it seems like anyone can start a news site. Huffington post for example.

Edited by cSand, 20 December 2014 - 10:18 PM.


#6 Sabazial

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 725 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 20 December 2014 - 10:25 PM

That's a fair and honest review, the guy obviously has some clue as to the current state of MW:O, and it's good to see a review with a balance of good and bad points for once.

#7 Rando Slim

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Cub
  • The Cub
  • 459 posts

Posted 20 December 2014 - 11:21 PM

Yup, reads fair. It would be nice for this game to get some good press.

#8 Hickson

    Member

  • Pip
  • Survivor
  • 11 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 20 December 2014 - 11:51 PM

That's my piece. Open to any questions.

#9 cSand

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationCanada, eh

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:00 AM

No Q's, but nice piece man




I mean article, nice article :ph34r:

#10 Hickson

    Member

  • Pip
  • Survivor
  • 11 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:03 AM

Thanks. As we all know, MWO is a complex thing...hard to distill into a word count.

#11 cSand

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationCanada, eh

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:04 AM

Well, finding anything well written can be tough these days (isn't everyone on the internet a professional writer?) so it is refreshing to see what appears to be a non biased and honest article.

You regularly write for them?

#12 EgoSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 1,909 posts
  • Location[REDACTED]

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:10 AM

View PostAUSwarrior24, on 20 December 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

Kudos to PC Gamer. Fair, honest, and obviously well researched unlike that Destructoid one.


+1 - This is a much more objective view than Destructoid's reviewers article.

#13 Hickson

    Member

  • Pip
  • Survivor
  • 11 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:11 AM

@cSand I have been a contributing writer since May 2013.

#14 cSand

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,589 posts
  • LocationCanada, eh

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:12 AM

View PostHickson, on 21 December 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

@cSand I have been a contributing writer since May 2013.


Well I hope they treat you well!

O7

Edited by cSand, 21 December 2014 - 12:12 AM.


#15 Sarlic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hearing Impaired
  • Hearing Impaired
  • 4,519 posts
  • LocationEurope

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:19 AM

View PostBelphegore, on 20 December 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

That's a fair and honest review, the guy obviously has some clue as to the current state of MW:O, and it's good to see a review with a balance of good and bad points for once.


Which PGI can learn from!

Although its beta. But fair critic is always welcome.

#16 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:21 AM

Well written, accurate, but reserved. He doesnt flat out give it a huge recommendation. I totally agree. To give it a recommend the new user experience,as someone else called it, needs to be expanded in a big way. Im glad PC gamer took a look at it again so soon though.





#17 Kiiyor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 5,565 posts
  • LocationSCIENCE.

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:47 AM

Better than the other bitter and twisted article. Maybe it's a point of perspective? This reviewer seems to genuinely care for the game, and still brought some objectivity; whereas the other seemed to be wearing his distaste like armour.

Plus, this is actually a review, rather than a tired rehash of past failings.

I dig it! +1.

#18 TyphonCh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 1,074 posts
  • LocationDue North

Posted 21 December 2014 - 01:13 AM

Well written. It paints a vivid picture of what to expect if you were to hop in right now and play.
The review is soured by the comments (on the link) by the uneducated trolls with their obvious disregard to what has been done since the split of IGP and PGI. It's like a night and day difference. The overall push forward in development and communication is outstanding. It's unfortunate how many players that are still stuck in "PGI SUCKS!!!" land.

That being said I haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet lol. There were some huge let downs and I'm still skeptical. CW can and will make, or break this game. We'll see how it goes in the coming months but I have faith

Edited by Team Chevy86, 21 December 2014 - 01:22 AM.


#19 Golden Vulf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 656 posts

Posted 21 December 2014 - 02:09 AM

Playing one of the best mechs in the game, and thinks he's the under dog?

#20 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 21 December 2014 - 04:25 AM

View PostcSand, on 20 December 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:



One's a publication that's been around for ages and earned it's credibility

The other... well, these days it seems like anyone can start a news site. Huffington post for example.

Are we listening to anyone who is "Huffing" like they are credible?





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users