If You Could Change One Thing...
#61
Posted 26 February 2015 - 10:57 PM
#63
Posted 26 February 2015 - 11:20 PM
#64
Posted 26 February 2015 - 11:24 PM
Brody319, on 26 February 2015 - 11:00 PM, said:
what dev would you pick?
if you want a different dev you could at least name a few.
DICE comes to mind first. Man, with all the controversy, I'd even be ok with Bohemia Interactive.
I believe many other companies could do justice to MWO, were their aim to create a Battletech game, not to squeeze tons of money out of a loosely BT-themed arena-shooter with 10 maps and the same bugs over 3+ years. It seems anyone else could at least make mechs of proper sizes, but not PGI, apparently. Because they don't care. And to care for what you are doing should be #1 priority.
For BT mech-sim there is too little 'sim' here, and too little respect to BT. We don't, and we won't have here a full-fledged BT mech sim, with the proper sense of scale, collisions, usable JJ, melee combat, tanks and other stuff, including lore. Because that's not on the drawing board, and never will be. Even CW they have finally delivered is more of a self-delusion than what people would expect it to be.
Yes, MWO is a nice game, but I just can't perceive it as a BT game, sorry.
#65
Posted 26 February 2015 - 11:50 PM
Duncan Jr Fischer, on 26 February 2015 - 11:24 PM, said:
DICE comes to mind first. Man, with all the controversy, I'd even be ok with Bohemia Interactive.
I believe many other companies could do justice to MWO, were their aim to create a Battletech game, not to squeeze tons of money out of a loosely BT-themed arena-shooter with 10 maps and the same bugs over 3+ years. It seems anyone else could at least make mechs of proper sizes, but not PGI, apparently. Because they don't care. And to care for what you are doing should be #1 priority.
For BT mech-sim there is too little 'sim' here, and too little respect to BT. We don't, and we won't have here a full-fledged BT mech sim, with the proper sense of scale, collisions, usable JJ, melee combat, tanks and other stuff, including lore. Because that's not on the drawing board, and never will be. Even CW they have finally delivered is more of a self-delusion than what people would expect it to be.
Yes, MWO is a nice game, but I just can't perceive it as a BT game, sorry.
being a bf3-bf4 player I don't want DICE.
sure they are good games but they suffer problems on their own even with a FULL SIZED company.
PGI is not perfect and sometimes I wish I could just line them all up and yell at them on how to fix the game but I enjoy the game.
#66
Posted 27 February 2015 - 12:02 AM
Duncan Jr Fischer, on 26 February 2015 - 11:24 PM, said:
DICE comes to mind first. Man, with all the controversy, I'd even be ok with Bohemia Interactive.
I believe many other companies could do justice to MWO, were their aim to create a Battletech game, not to squeeze tons of money out of a loosely BT-themed arena-shooter with 10 maps and the same bugs over 3+ years. It seems anyone else could at least make mechs of proper sizes, but not PGI, apparently. Because they don't care. And to care for what you are doing should be #1 priority.
For BT mech-sim there is too little 'sim' here, and too little respect to BT. We don't, and we won't have here a full-fledged BT mech sim, with the proper sense of scale, collisions, usable JJ, melee combat, tanks and other stuff, including lore. Because that's not on the drawing board, and never will be. Even CW they have finally delivered is more of a self-delusion than what people would expect it to be.
Yes, MWO is a nice game, but I just can't perceive it as a BT game, sorry.
you pick your founder badge and title in game now just so you know.
#67
Posted 27 February 2015 - 12:07 AM
Edited by The True Space Pope, 27 February 2015 - 12:14 AM.
#68
Posted 27 February 2015 - 12:20 AM
Edited by Livewyr, 27 February 2015 - 12:36 AM.
#69
Posted 27 February 2015 - 02:09 AM
The one thing I would change
I would take the nerf bat away from PGI
#70
Posted 27 February 2015 - 02:17 AM
Wolfwood592, on 26 February 2015 - 12:56 PM, said:
This 100%. It would limit PPFLD, increase TTK, increase diverse weapon load outs, decrease boating, and a plethora of other factors.
And it would not affect the majority of my builds! Including my 90+ point Alpha Atlas-S.
#71
Posted 27 February 2015 - 04:47 AM
Ted Wayz, on 26 February 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:
sarna.net said:
Canon has already been changed.
#73
Posted 27 February 2015 - 05:04 AM
More varied maps
Destructible terrain (at least the buildings and trees)!
Mech adjustments/choices (armour choice, torso speeds, all within certain limits!)
Edited by Porcorosso101, 27 February 2015 - 05:04 AM.
#74
Posted 27 February 2015 - 05:19 AM
#75
Posted 27 February 2015 - 05:34 AM
That alone would improve the game 100%.
AND would not require years of balancing afterwards.
One can dream...
Edited by TheCharlatan, 27 February 2015 - 05:38 AM.
#77
Posted 27 February 2015 - 07:13 AM
I would totally remove the need for it to make money to survive. Imagine the Mechwarrior game we could have if they weren't constantly tweaking to entice people to spend more money.
#78
Posted 27 February 2015 - 07:20 AM
the hedgehog, on 26 February 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:
Lower heat cap and incease heat dissapation.
and tweak heat numbers on weapons.
this, heatcap down, ghostheat gone, true DHS, some heat tweaks for some weapons and some weapon cooldown values changed.
#80
Posted 27 February 2015 - 08:36 AM
I wannna go faster!!!!!!!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users