23 replies to this topic

[Punisher 1]

Okay the plan is is not to be a **** or troll or even bring doom and gloom.

I have to say that I would be pleased happy thrilled to see any mechwarrior or Battletech ( which ever you prefer ) game to come out.

My real concern is if this is going to be another FPS fragfest PvP game like World of Tanks ( free to play pay to win ) it's not going to be much fun after a few months. Sure you get your "mech on" and blow **** up and it is all good and sort of fun, then, you start to wonder where is the rest of this game?

The Battletech universe is a rich one for content and ideas that have been on paper for years. What I would ask, expect, or feel that many others would want demand is a from paper to PC game "Universe" that each player can have apart in.

Why? because games that offer more tend to last longer and keep players coming back. I guess that eventually means more $$ for the developers and a happy player base. MWO does not have to be Eve Online ( Epic space exploration, combat, research, manufacturing, alliances and held regions of space ) but it cannot be a World of Tanks ( a one trick PvP pony ) . It has to eventually sit at some where in between or at least I think a successful Battletech game would be that.

The story is too big to just tap a small portion of this epic Universe. I cringed when I hear the words "meta game" in the Q&A and the particular quote makes me think of what World of Tanks does. It's seriously boring guys and you should not follow that format.

I feel that with a re-work of the Battle Tech / Mechwarrior series the fan base will expect allot and often be critical of the overall game and its content or lack thereof. I hope that you guys do the game justice by producing what we all hunger for and expect.


** Before trolling **

1. I do not give a rats *** if its free to play thats not an excuse, you will eventually spend money on this game, don't lie you will.
2. The fan base reaches a multitude of people over many years some are super gear heads some are not you have to appeal to all of them on some level, I'm not asking to be critical of what a pulse LASER does to a African swallow carrying a coconut I just want to be able to actually enjoy the Battle Tech universe on a scale not offered in other games.
3. Keep it creative anyone can post a jab, try not to be a loser.
4. I'm still going to play the game no matter what, what I spend on it and how long it stays on my hard drive is another story.
5. I did not type this up to **** anyone off I did it to make people think. I'd rather say something now than after the game comes out.

Edited by Punisher_1, 17 November 2011 - 10:21 AM.

[Red Beard]

Some valid points. I believe that, if the game is a solid, well built, fun to play game, folks will keep playing it for a long long time. For cripes sake, I still like to play Ghosts n Goblins on my old NES from time to time. Rest assured, players will vote with their dollars and the dedication these gentleman are putting in is admirable, to say the least.

[Melissia]

You know, just cause something is free to play doesn't mean ti's pay to win.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I sincerely hope there is a deep meta-game outside of the actual fights. From what I understand they are planning something. I just hope if affects more than just colors on a map.

[Tierloc]

If you're going to have a character with a leveling skill, then I hope they provide multiple avenues to train him. Having one gametype or avenue to train in would not be fun. I can envision several different scenarios for match play in this game based on several other games all molded into one.

If the only gameplay type is single wave battles for 20 mins.. that's going to leave pilots on the sidelines alot. Either you camp or you die early. There should be multiple routes, like solaris style arenas, regular pvp and then campaign (camp - pag - in) pvp style for control of planets that either has a weekly or monthly cyle. To compete in the campaign, you'd have to be either in a house or a merc unit, then the unit has cbill and a drop inventory for matches etc etc - right on down the line. You can get extremely detailed here.

SO the single player could compete in a number of avenues or gametypes. Even the PVP matches could have multiple class tiers or specialty settings, restrictions for the open games like range or chassis weight, or even experience level so you have to work your way up to unlock different gametypes.

I said this in another thread, the game should be as open and customizable for the player as possible, so that it's basically a pvp smash em up, until you tack on different rule sets to it. That way you can have both the aging bt crowd and the gamers use the same game to play as they want, without forcing the other one into a mold.

The nice thing about MW4 was you could use it for 3rd party leagues that added that extra bt ruleset over the game. Sure the open matches aren't controlled.. but organized league play is still awesome (playing tonight!). I think the major omission from MW4 is an expanded pvp match system, but the leagues bring that. If MWO has they're own, then this game should be alot more than dropping into a wot style brawl.

BTW wot is introducing a clan v clan game mode, which covers that missing piece. I still won't pay to play it though, as the p2win in that game sucks, and the firing solution is terrible.

[Kyll Long]

I'm a fan of what I guess is being called the meta-game myself. I'd like to see :Houses being controlled at least to some extent by players. Merc units being able to actually negotiate a contract with a House member as opposed to an autobot. Houses being able to select targets and actually compete against other houses as opposed to being directed by the computer or by the producers and not having a lot of choice where to fight. To me anything else seems to be just an FPS with improved skills for your pilot. ::Shrug:: Just my personal opinion and is not representative of House Liao or probably anyone else

[GreyGriffin]

Here's how I interpret it.

The developers are making the game that they can. By honing core stompy battlemech gameplay, they can put a f2p game out there that is a lot of fun, even if it has limited scope. This dramatically reduces their up-front costs and allows them to focus down on what the core of the gameplay is.

By incorporating further development of a larger meta-game into their patch cycle, they can slowly expand out the game to a more convincing persistent environment. Rather than the hundred million dollar upfront cost of developing an MMO, they can gradually push the envelope, so much as their success allows them to.

In essence, we, as players, hold the fate of the game in our hands. It is as big as we let it be. Even if it's f2p, I will give them a dollar to put the Snow Raven logo on my 'Mech. And that dollar might go towards the coder who is making the Kit Fox a reality.

[Mad Pig]

GreyGriffin, on 17 November 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Here's how I interpret it.

The developers are making the game that they can. By honing core stompy battlemech gameplay, they can put a f2p game out there that is a lot of fun, even if it has limited scope. This dramatically reduces their up-front costs and allows them to focus down on what the core of the gameplay is.

By incorporating further development of a larger meta-game into their patch cycle, they can slowly expand out the game to a more convincing persistent environment. Rather than the hundred million dollar upfront cost of developing an MMO, they can gradually push the envelope, so much as their success allows them to.

In essence, we, as players, hold the fate of the game in our hands. It is as big as we let it be. Even if it's f2p, I will give them a dollar to put the Snow Raven logo on my 'Mech. And that dollar might go towards the coder who is making the Kit Fox a reality.

Well put. I concur.... oink!

[Punisher 1]

GreyGriffin, on 17 November 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Here's how I interpret it.

The developers are making the game that they can. By honing core stompy battlemech gameplay, they can put a f2p game out there that is a lot of fun, even if it has limited scope. This dramatically reduces their up-front costs and allows them to focus down on what the core of the gameplay is.

By incorporating further development of a larger meta-game into their patch cycle, they can slowly expand out the game to a more convincing persistent environment. Rather than the hundred million dollar upfront cost of developing an MMO, they can gradually push the envelope, so much as their success allows them to.

In essence, we, as players, hold the fate of the game in our hands. It is as big as we let it be. Even if it's f2p, I will give them a dollar to put the Snow Raven logo on my 'Mech. And that dollar might go towards the coder who is making the Kit Fox a reality.

You could be right on this...

But I really hope not since you can do that with MechWarrior: Living Legends so why redo something that some dev groups has done a pretty dam good job on already using the crysis engine. Which reminds me to download the latest version to try it again.

It would be BETTER to offer up something that no one has already done. Or at least add a handfull of interesting features to the typical romp em stomp'em robots. I'm kinda tired of pretty games and want something that has some meat on the bone. Pretty graphics are great and all but once you get past that in a few days your looking for something a bit more.

[Dihm]

Punisher_1, on 29 November 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

But I really hope not since you can do that with MechWarrior: Living Legends so why redo something that some dev groups has done a pretty dam good job on already using the crysis engine. Which reminds me to download the latest version to try it again.

Because it has little/no market penetration?

[Haeso]

Dihm, on 29 November 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

Because it has little/no market penetration?

So you suggest their business strategy be: Do exactly what these guys did but market it better.

? Please tell me that's not what you're suggesting.

[Dihm]

I highly doubt they are copying MW:LL. Merely pointing out a fact. The number of people who have played MW:LL is VERY small. There will be similarities between the games, due to their source material (Battletech and the Mechwarrior games). That doesn't mean MW:O is a copy of MW:LL and shouldn't be made.

[Haeso]

I never said MWO shouldn't be made, I was implying following the overall development path of something like MW:LL is a terrible idea.

If MWO starts out as a simplistic game it will never escape that stigma no matter how much better it becomes over the years, and if they market it as simplistic, the crowd that want that would be alienated the persistent gameplay and metagame that was supposed would be added.

[Red Beard]

Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

I never said MWO shouldn't be made, I was implying following the overall development path of something like MW:LL is a terrible idea.

If MWO starts out as a simplistic game it will never escape that stigma no matter how much better it becomes over the years, and if they market it as simplistic, the crowd that want that would be alienated the persistent gameplay and metagame that was supposed would be added.

This post is a bit tough to follow, but I think I see what you are saying. They need to start out with a bang, instead of a whimper.

[Punisher 1]

Right Haeso MW:LL is a FPS of sorts but that was all it was really ment to be.

I have to say I do not think the fan based is interested in such a basic concept.

I followed the mod for a long time and played the first releases and was like Meh, glad I did not pay to play this. But those at MW:LL deserve more than a slight for all thier hard work I do think that this was a learning process and alot of teh stuff they did was rather cool. I applaud the effort!

[Kyll Long]

Punisher_1, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

Right Haeso MW:LL is a FPS of sorts but that was all it was really ment to be.

I have to say I do not think the fan based is interested in such a basic concept.

I followed the mod for a long time and played the first releases and was like Meh, glad I did not pay to play this. But those at MW:LL deserve more than a slight for all thier hard work I do think that this was a learning process and alot of teh stuff they did was rather cool. I applaud the effort!

I agree. Although if you view the threads on the boards you MIGHT get a different impression. It's only recently that any threads have broken out discussing the Meta Game concepts at all. Most of the threads are rehashes of old debates not that some of them shouldn't be rehased but the combat portions been done before and well enough to be playable. The Strategic/Meta Game hasn't been done well in at least 15 years. Here's hopin

[Dihm]

Punisher_1, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

But those at MW:LL deserve more than a slight for all thier hard work I do think that this was a learning process and alot of teh stuff they did was rather cool. I applaud the effort!

I'm not sure where you're thinking I made a disparaging remark about it. I have and play MW:LL from time to time. It is fun in its own way. The truth is that it is a mod for a poorly sold game (Crysis: Warhead), was not made by a profession game development studio and has a tiny playerbase. That isn't a slight.

[Kaemon]

The problem is a 'bang' in MMO/online game terms usually means huge $ upfront, which means you're really setting up for the 'make it or break it' scenario.

They have an aggressive timeline (IMO too aggressive) have not shown anything to us besides concept art and a few posts by the devs promising no P2W and some very general game mechanic info.

There's been some small inconsistencies that bug me a bit, such as Bryan saying a lot of the game design is on paper, then one of the devs (I think it was paul, could be wrong) saying he doesn't use paper...but that's probably reading into it a bit too much.

That being said, it seems from their posts the devs have more than a FPS with mechs in mind, however these things can change as time/money start running short.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst - should be the motto for online gaming.

[Dihm]

Kaemon, on 29 November 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

The problem is a 'bang' in MMO/online game terms usually means huge $ upfront, which means you're really setting up for the 'make it or break it' scenario.

Exactly, which they weren't able to get from any publishers, hence the change from a single player game set in 3015 to MW:O and spiral development (get money in while continuing to add to/improve the game). Minecraft, LoL, WoT are three well known examples that also use this method.

Kaemon, on 29 November 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

There's been some small inconsistencies that bug me a bit, such as Bryan saying a lot of the game design is on paper, then one of the devs (I think it was paul, could be wrong) saying he doesn't use paper...but that's probably reading into it a bit too much.

Don't worry about that at all, it was a joke. He isn't using paper because he's using a computer. "On paper" is just an idiom that Paul/whoever was poking fun at as being antiquated.

Kaemon, on 29 November 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

That being said, it seems from their posts the devs have more than a FPS with mechs in mind, however these things can change as time/money start running short.

Hm, I haven't gotten that impression at all. If by FPS you mean you think it will be like Modern Warfare or BF3 but with mechs. It IS a First Person Shooter, since we'll be locked in our cockpits (aside from drones, Battle Grid, etc), that's true.

[Red Beard]

I would venture that it WILL be a FPS, but that it will have SO much more to it. Tactical warfare is a much bigger part of this game and teamwork will be paramount. Not that Call of Duty cannot be played with teamwork, but MWO is placing teamwork at the forefront.