45 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

IDK.... If it was a "forever" deal, then the chances are good. Right now trying to swing the IIC (and possibly that sweet sweet "Unseens" possibility we've been talking about) packs first. Unless of course it's a gold HBK or UM, then I'd throw money at my screen and the general direction of Vancouver.

[Salticidae]

I have a gold mech and dropping in PUG ques atleast once a month i get team killed by some one, because it seems to offend them

Edited by Zyne, 01 August 2015 - 12:02 PM.

[Dino Might]

Wintersdark, on 29 July 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

I wish I could, personally. I'd so buy a gold Adder, just to have a gold Adder. I mean, really, of all the mechs you could get in gold... an Adder!

If they made a gold Locust 1E, I'd probably buy it. As far as Clan mechs, if I had to pick one for gold, I'm with you on the Adder. It was always one of my favorite looking Clan mechs. Hellbringer is my favorite Clan mech, so if it was open to Wave 2, I'd hit that one up instead.

Zyne, on 01 August 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

I have a gold mech and dropping in PUG ques atleast once a month i get team killed by some one, because it seems to offend them

Screenshot and report those clowns. That's messed up. Best way to stop it is for you guys to get them all banned. Sucks to have to put in the time to do that, though.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

gold Urbie ?

[Naduk]

i wish i could have a gold centurion

[bad arcade kitty]

Zyne, on 01 August 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

I have a gold mech and dropping in PUG ques atleast once a month i get team killed by some one, because it seems to offend them

they just want your golden fleece, silly

[Nightshade24]

GRiPSViGiL, on 29 July 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

I have a Gold mech and I urge you not to give PGI anymore money currently. We need to force them to fix CW and add some sort of long term sustainability to this game.

wouldn't buying a gold mech 'force' them to improve CW though? last time I checked having resources, money, and the development staff to make community warfare is important for oh I do not know... making community warfare?

[Veev]

Nightshade24, on 01 August 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

wouldn't buying a gold mech 'force' them to improve CW though? last time I checked having resources, money, and the development staff to make community warfare is important for oh I do not know... making community warfare?

Having resources does not mean managing them well. When you spend money on a bad product you are not encouraging a better product, you are telling the company you are content with crap.

Imagine for a moment that a company opens its doors and promises to serve you a sandwich. They promise you the best sandwich you have ever had if you will only support the company. The first sandwich is a piece of lettuce and 2 slices of bread.

Would you come back for another one at the same price? The promise is still there, what if the next time you order the sandwich and they give you a tortilla, a slice of bread and a moldy tomato slice? How long until you start demanding you money back or at the very least stop spending money with them?
Would you rather come back occasionally and check the free sample section to see what they have done or changed? Hopefully improved?

Too many game studios have been floating on promises and wasting the resources that you give them. IT is especially true of Kickstarter games, early access and crowd funded games. We as gamer's know what we want, dev's keep promising it, it is not happening because we as gamer's are not holding them to it.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Veev, on 05 October 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Having resources does not mean managing them well. When you spend money on a bad product you are not encouraging a better product, you are telling the company you are content with crap.

Imagine for a moment that a company opens its doors and promises to serve you a sandwich. They promise you the best sandwich you have ever had if you will only support the company. The first sandwich is a piece of lettuce and 2 slices of bread.

Would you come back for another one at the same price? The promise is still there, what if the next time you order the sandwich and they give you a tortilla, a slice of bread and a moldy tomato slice? How long until you start demanding you money back or at the very least stop spending money with them?
Would you rather come back occasionally and check the free sample section to see what they have done or changed? Hopefully improved?

Too many game studios have been floating on promises and wasting the resources that you give them. IT is especially true of Kickstarter games, early access and crowd funded games. We as gamer's know what we want, dev's keep promising it, it is not happening because we as gamer's are not holding them to it.

Very well said that hopefully those who care more about gameplay, community features, skill tree, CW viability, etc.(the list is literally endless) than collecting mech skins and geometry will understand. If only we could get the knob who just likes to collect mechs and play team death match ad nauseum for the last three years going forward to get this.

[SnagaDance]

Naduk, on 01 August 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

i wish i could have a gold centurion

[Peter2k]

I adore mine :-)

Though for me there is none that I would buy, except the one that was gone rather fast
Still I'm glad it went all to PGI and not mostly to IGP back in the day

Now a golden king crab, marauder, Ebon jag that would be something again


Or like I bugged Russ several times
Just make one shot special paints
Gold, chrome, metallic, Tron like glow (hey hey glowing atlas eyes* should've gotten a toggle); don't know maybe "rusty"?
Some want empty beer cans in they're mechs after all
You have between 2 and 3 color channels per mech

People might impulse buy that more than one 260$ paint job if the price is right
Silver Raven 3L with blood splatters, hmm

[Chuck Jager]

Spend it on bicycles and beer. If you loose your license you still have transportation.

Hopefully, you live somewhere that has bike lanes

[Nightshade24]

Veev, on 05 October 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Having resources does not mean managing them well. When you spend money on a bad product you are not encouraging a better product, you are telling the company you are content with crap.

Imagine for a moment that a company opens its doors and promises to serve you a sandwich. They promise you the best sandwich you have ever had if you will only support the company. The first sandwich is a piece of lettuce and 2 slices of bread.

Would you come back for another one at the same price? The promise is still there, what if the next time you order the sandwich and they give you a tortilla, a slice of bread and a moldy tomato slice? How long until you start demanding you money back or at the very least stop spending money with them?
Would you rather come back occasionally and check the free sample section to see what they have done or changed? Hopefully improved?

Too many game studios have been floating on promises and wasting the resources that you give them. IT is especially true of Kickstarter games, early access and crowd funded games. We as gamer's know what we want, dev's keep promising it, it is not happening because we as gamer's are not holding them to it.

PGI promised for the best mechwarrior experience on a multi player scene and to prevent an armsrace like it has been in other games that when you get to a point you will never use a non 100 ton mech, besides the occasional 95 ton mech. Oh and they all use clan tech.

The first sandwhich is just a simple polish salami sandwhich with lettuce, tomatoes, and some spices. It is simple, you can't make one at home but it isn't 5 star resteraunt grade stuff. BUT the previous places you went for the same sandwhich gave you...

MW1: Nothing
MW2: They fell over about 18 times on the way there and they finally gave you a sandwhich after a few hours, which was just lettuce between 2 slices of white bread, well that's what they tell you the bread is, the 2nd slice of bread is an odd colour for something that should be white bread.
MW3: nearly nothing.
MW4: This time it's an actual sandwhich, but it's just a few slices of cheese and BBQ sauce. You could probably make 10 of those in the same time they gave you your one and cheaper.
MW4: Mektek: a new owner for MW4 has arived and offered a degree of ballance to your diet as well as viaretiy, you choose the traditional sandwhich you asked for, and they actually gave you a sandwhich that contains a meat, a salad, a form of seasoning, and actual fresh bread. However even though you can probably make one at home, the stores environment and atmosphere was enough for you to come back for more
MW Living Legends:

Besides the chaos at trying to enter the damn resteraunt for your sandwich, and it turns out you can't change any of your fillings and are limited to a hand ful of preset sandwhiches, some are nearly identical with different prices but one promises it has healthier products. Most people could not enter the restaurant. but on the bright side they also sell cakes and coffee!


Now you look back at mechwarrior online, the first time you took your sandwhich it wasn't anything overly special ,but you saw the family business growing and they are low on funds because they lost there earlier business after a drunk driver hit there building at 85 kph. You are one of the first supporters and you get a special treat of getting bonuses and a premium for awhile.

Fast forward 3 years later, It gives you more variatyy then subway, it gives you many sizes, it gives you sour dough or white bread, it has an indoor, outdoor, and rooftop eating area, There are constant deals virtually every week, and sometimes an event. That little shop has grown a lot since you last seen it. it's now a large store and a successful one. You have never seen a sandwich store this good or big or successful . They also have options for grilling your sandwiches, or simply heated sandwiches, as well as some burger options. They may not grow as fast as the local McDonnalds, But you do not care for junkfood, you only care for a more quality healthier option.


Translation from "Sandwich" to "English"

MW: O first year was slow, in closed and open beta, but it was very good compared to other games and had lots of promise.
MW1 had no multiplayer
MW2 had extreme lag due to internet of the time. You have to lag shoot like a few inches infront of a mech virtually all the time. If you are over seas you basically do not even face the mech you are shooting at due to how much leading you need. and there is always that 1 occasional guy with ping under 200 which everyone hates for such a low ping and probably a rich ******* (back in the days when people hate low pingers... )
MW3 didn't have much of a multiplayer career
MW4 was rough and still a power creep.
MW4: mektek expansion mods and servers helped a lot but it was still mechwarrior 4, for the time this came along the mechanics and graphics was kinda low and Mechwarrior Prime has been confirmed as cancelled.

MW: living legends was the best option so far in timeline but it has lots of missing features such as mechlab that people loved for , as well as a lack of mechs BUT actually has variants for once... erm... alt configs. it isn't lore friendly at all and has lots of made up builds and technically mechs as there is an omnitech version of the Fafnir, Mauler, raven, etc... It was also VERY not noob friendly and 'bellow average player", I know people who are BT fans and tried to play for virtually a year and still can't get pass the early light vehicles or mechs. He never got to play the Fafnir he loved from 3060's.

MW: O is a very successful multiplayer game on the scene of battletech, however it wasn't like that all the time, it had a rough start because of low money due to Harmony gold lawsuits over Mechwarrior 5 with the Warhammer. (fast forward 3 years and we now got the warhammer, in your face harmony gold!), They left PGI virtually bankrupt but PGI still persisted to go on with there dreams and instead of go for the best sequel ever to battletech that's more lore friendly, better graphics, and more mechanics and events. They went for the ultimate multiplayer game out there. Sure it isn't developed as fast as your local CoD or had the 10 years of perfection like TF2 or what ever but this is a mechwarrior game which is a unique game and it is the best at multiplayer.

I should mention the first year or two of slow progress was due to IGP, they did good to keep PGI alive but they slowed the game and wanted none of CW. After clan wave 1 PGI is back to being an indie and it sky rocketed from there.




Currently PGI makes mech packs to get money, Money allows them to have people working and keep the servers up. They are not blowing all there money. It's just that multiplayers take a lot of resources.
Before you say they do jack **** and just pump more and more mechs, there is the fact the redone caustic valley will hit tomorrow, as well as CW 3.0 and a massive rebalance incorporating new things and quirks as well as a MW: O BV system.
There is new stuff thrown in as well as the fact there are new map interactions like day/ night cycle, interactable terrain, etc. weather for maps such as blizzards, storms, (sand or snow) storms, fog, clear skies, etc will be in game, things like avalanches, trees on fire, etc are WIP, Solaris VII is on the drawing boards as well as Single player which we got our first dose by the trailer which is the best trailer I've seen for a Multiplayer game. War THunder , World of tanks, and TF2 just to randomly name a few doesn't have the best tutorial.

PGI didn't give me any piece of mold or staleness, PGI didn't rip me of with a piece of salad between bread. They just gave me a unique but very simple sandwich at first. and now they are better then a subway and I get free cookies and biscuits for my free support as well as a cup of coffee to go with my mince meat pies when I get up and wounder for breakfast.

It is true PGI's money managemnet is not as good as BT's, but it isn't bad (minus IGP).

[Veev]

Nightshade24, on 05 October 2015 - 03:52 PM, said:

PGI promised for the best mechwarrior experience on a multi player scene and to prevent an armsrace like it has been in other games that when you get to a point you will never use a non 100 ton mech, besides the occasional 95 ton mech. Oh and they all use clan tech.

The first sandwhich is just a simple polish salami sandwhich with lettuce, tomatoes, and some spices. It is simple, you can't make one at home but it isn't 5 star resteraunt grade stuff. BUT the previous places you went for the same sandwhich gave you...

MW1: Nothing
MW2: They fell over about 18 times on the way there and they finally gave you a sandwhich after a few hours, which was just lettuce between 2 slices of white bread, well that's what they tell you the bread is, the 2nd slice of bread is an odd colour for something that should be white bread.
MW3: nearly nothing.
MW4: This time it's an actual sandwhich, but it's just a few slices of cheese and BBQ sauce. You could probably make 10 of those in the same time they gave you your one and cheaper.
MW4: Mektek: a new owner for MW4 has arived and offered a degree of ballance to your diet as well as viaretiy, you choose the traditional sandwhich you asked for, and they actually gave you a sandwhich that contains a meat, a salad, a form of seasoning, and actual fresh bread. However even though you can probably make one at home, the stores environment and atmosphere was enough for you to come back for more
MW Living Legends:

Besides the chaos at trying to enter the damn resteraunt for your sandwich, and it turns out you can't change any of your fillings and are limited to a hand ful of preset sandwhiches, some are nearly identical with different prices but one promises it has healthier products. Most people could not enter the restaurant. but on the bright side they also sell cakes and coffee!


Now you look back at mechwarrior online, the first time you took your sandwhich it wasn't anything overly special ,but you saw the family business growing and they are low on funds because they lost there earlier business after a drunk driver hit there building at 85 kph. You are one of the first supporters and you get a special treat of getting bonuses and a premium for awhile.

Fast forward 3 years later, It gives you more variatyy then subway, it gives you many sizes, it gives you sour dough or white bread, it has an indoor, outdoor, and rooftop eating area, There are constant deals virtually every week, and sometimes an event. That little shop has grown a lot since you last seen it. it's now a large store and a successful one. You have never seen a sandwich store this good or big or successful . They also have options for grilling your sandwiches, or simply heated sandwiches, as well as some burger options. They may not grow as fast as the local McDonnalds, But you do not care for junkfood, you only care for a more quality healthier option.


Translation from "Sandwich" to "English"

MW: O first year was slow, in closed and open beta, but it was very good compared to other games and had lots of promise.
MW1 had no multiplayer
MW2 had extreme lag due to internet of the time. You have to lag shoot like a few inches infront of a mech virtually all the time. If you are over seas you basically do not even face the mech you are shooting at due to how much leading you need. and there is always that 1 occasional guy with ping under 200 which everyone hates for such a low ping and probably a rich ******* (back in the days when people hate low pingers... )
MW3 didn't have much of a multiplayer career
MW4 was rough and still a power creep.
MW4: mektek expansion mods and servers helped a lot but it was still mechwarrior 4, for the time this came along the mechanics and graphics was kinda low and Mechwarrior Prime has been confirmed as cancelled.

MW: living legends was the best option so far in timeline but it has lots of missing features such as mechlab that people loved for , as well as a lack of mechs BUT actually has variants for once... erm... alt configs. it isn't lore friendly at all and has lots of made up builds and technically mechs as there is an omnitech version of the Fafnir, Mauler, raven, etc... It was also VERY not noob friendly and 'bellow average player", I know people who are BT fans and tried to play for virtually a year and still can't get pass the early light vehicles or mechs. He never got to play the Fafnir he loved from 3060's.

MW: O is a very successful multiplayer game on the scene of battletech, however it wasn't like that all the time, it had a rough start because of low money due to Harmony gold lawsuits over Mechwarrior 5 with the Warhammer. (fast forward 3 years and we now got the warhammer, in your face harmony gold!), They left PGI virtually bankrupt but PGI still persisted to go on with there dreams and instead of go for the best sequel ever to battletech that's more lore friendly, better graphics, and more mechanics and events. They went for the ultimate multiplayer game out there. Sure it isn't developed as fast as your local CoD or had the 10 years of perfection like TF2 or what ever but this is a mechwarrior game which is a unique game and it is the best at multiplayer.

I should mention the first year or two of slow progress was due to IGP, they did good to keep PGI alive but they slowed the game and wanted none of CW. After clan wave 1 PGI is back to being an indie and it sky rocketed from there.




Currently PGI makes mech packs to get money, Money allows them to have people working and keep the servers up. They are not blowing all there money. It's just that multiplayers take a lot of resources.
Before you say they do jack **** and just pump more and more mechs, there is the fact the redone caustic valley will hit tomorrow, as well as CW 3.0 and a massive rebalance incorporating new things and quirks as well as a MW: O BV system.
There is new stuff thrown in as well as the fact there are new map interactions like day/ night cycle, interactable terrain, etc. weather for maps such as blizzards, storms, (sand or snow) storms, fog, clear skies, etc will be in game, things like avalanches, trees on fire, etc are WIP, Solaris VII is on the drawing boards as well as Single player which we got our first dose by the trailer which is the best trailer I've seen for a Multiplayer game. War THunder , World of tanks, and TF2 just to randomly name a few doesn't have the best tutorial.

PGI didn't give me any piece of mold or staleness, PGI didn't rip me of with a piece of salad between bread. They just gave me a unique but very simple sandwich at first. and now they are better then a subway and I get free cookies and biscuits for my free support as well as a cup of coffee to go with my mince meat pies when I get up and wounder for breakfast.

It is true PGI's money managemnet is not as good as BT's, but it isn't bad (minus IGP).

You know something that each of those other games had that this one does not? A single player campaign.
You know something else those games had that this one does not? The developers did what they said they were going to do.
You know what else those games had that this one does not? Proper budget management.

My analogy was directed at most of the early access games, note that I did not target PGI with my comment. I will however target them with my next comment, they have wasted more money than Red 5 and the only reason they have not been bought out/funded by a Chinese farm firm is that they have already been farming the poor sap White Knights that will continue to drop insane amounts of cash until they wake up one day after spending thousands of dollars on a game with the same basic play modes it had during Closed beta and a new broken mode that was 2 years late in arriving and is lacking in any real substance being an unfinished shell. We wont get started on balance issues, role warfare or the lack thereof and the band aid fixes that have never worked quite right. We wont get started on the failure of the developer to changes its focus from Arena fighter to an actual Sim based game with RPG elements.
I think PGI saw the funds go flowing when people were allowed to put funds forward, PGI thought it was their vision that did it and I dont think they have fully realized yet that it was not their vision of MWO that brought the players in to play the game or fund it, it was the visions of all those that have developed the Battletech IP over the years. TT, CC, RPG, PC, Console, novels etc....
PGI has tried to capitalize on the loyalty to the IP without trully realizing it. They mistook that loyalty for being an excitement for everything they were doing. It helped make them arrogant and that has never truly gone away.

But it is what it is, I will play it with my 9 year old son, it is something we can do together and it brings him a lot of joy. But that joy is not because of MWO it is because of time he is spending with me.

[Nightshade24]

Veev, on 07 October 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

You know something that each of those other games had that this one does not? A single player campaign.
You know something else those games had that this one does not? The developers did what they said they were going to do.
You know what else those games had that this one does not? Proper budget management.

My analogy was directed at most of the early access games, note that I did not target PGI with my comment. I will however target them with my next comment, they have wasted more money than Red 5 and the only reason they have not been bought out/funded by a Chinese farm firm is that they have already been farming the poor sap White Knights that will continue to drop insane amounts of cash until they wake up one day after spending thousands of dollars on a game with the same basic play modes it had during Closed beta and a new broken mode that was 2 years late in arriving and is lacking in any real substance being an unfinished shell. We wont get started on balance issues, role warfare or the lack thereof and the band aid fixes that have never worked quite right. We wont get started on the failure of the developer to changes its focus from Arena fighter to an actual Sim based game with RPG elements.
I think PGI saw the funds go flowing when people were allowed to put funds forward, PGI thought it was their vision that did it and I dont think they have fully realized yet that it was not their vision of MWO that brought the players in to play the game or fund it, it was the visions of all those that have developed the Battletech IP over the years. TT, CC, RPG, PC, Console, novels etc....
PGI has tried to capitalize on the loyalty to the IP without trully realizing it. They mistook that loyalty for being an excitement for everything they were doing. It helped make them arrogant and that has never truly gone away.

But it is what it is, I will play it with my 9 year old son, it is something we can do together and it brings him a lot of joy. But that joy is not because of MWO it is because of time he is spending with me.

Single player campaign is in the development: but the thing is we got (only looking at MW series alone)

MW1: 1
MW2: 4
MW3: 2
MW4: 4
MW LL: 0

total: 11 campaigns (MW2 I consider having 2 as it has 2 completely different roots, Jade falcon, and Clan wolf. I do not consider MW4: M having 2 as it's only a difference of the ending on the same story with approximately 5 mission difference unless you are an extremist who plain out ignored contracts of 1 faction)

MW2 broken promises: Clan Ghost Bear legacy being a finished game. This is a poor game which only redeaming factor is the fact it's ghost bear, only time in MW franchise you can be or even see a ghost bear. MW4 is the closest with 1 (just 1) Kodiak in Solaris VII, not clan ghost bear controlled but it's a ghost bear icon mech.
MW2 GBL was very patchy, (not in terms of having patches but I mean odd parts here and there), for eg the computer voice is very different between new and old diologue, from memory it uses the old female voice from MW2 but then a guys voice in new parts, it is odd they didn't redo it completely or just made the same voice actor do the new lines
Another thing is poor lines in general and maps, for eg the underwater map where you are only allowed to use lasers and torpedoes, the enemy still used the much faster accurate LRM's under water and autocannosn and PPC's. what else? there are submarines, first time in MW: O, problem is the computer identifies it as an aircraft and breaks any sense of immersion you had remaining from what was shattered by enemy LRM's and autocannons.

if you dare call this a proper campaign, you are highly mislead and obviously never played the game. It didn't accomplish anything the developers tried to do with it, to a degree they only made it just to get enough funding to get MW3 possibly done.

Which begs the question how you say they are even good with budgeting. the only main income they got was from MW2 31st cenutary combat, MW2 mercs, MW4 Mercs, and MW4 vengence. 4 out of the 10 different games are actually making money while the other 6 only lost money- or was just to farm money. (MW3 had so many bugs, glitches, and incompatibility issues.)

MW4 following promises? nope, they broke a bit of immersion and lore, as well as had a weak story as well as failing to finalise MW3's mechanic of lasers (ie leaving a trail instead of being a 'hitscan projectile that looks like a laser'.). which I have to add not only did MW: O did it , they did it better without 98% of the bugs and glitches. You also got the fact that MW: O does not have the bug/ glitch that you fall from the map in MW3, or the bug/ glitch that makes the mad dog in MW2 headshot itself with it's own LRM's most of the time (for some users). or poor voice acting and inconsistencies of MW2: GBL. or MW4's bug of when hovercraft fly into space (thus unnable to finish mission), naval ships spawning on the other side of the map on the land, (how are you meant to deffend a base when a battleship is right beside with 4 long tom artillery (30 damage each) and twin LRM 20's (20 damage each, total damage 160 damage)

maybe the guys from MW2 to 4 needed better budget management and actually fix the bugs they got , or better beta testers. (which PGI managed well as it didn't spend a single dollar on the majority of beta testers). Also the fact that the guys who made MW1,2,3,4, and Prime went bank rupt or nearly bank rupt.

You never heard of mechwarrior prime most likely because of the fact they went so bankrupt that they couldn't even finish the game or advertise it. This is why we got 3 mechwarrior 2 games, 2 mechwarrior 3 games, and 4 mechwarrior 4 games. the people who made them couldn't afford to copy right the next number and/or make new resources and stuff.
I am not saying anythings wrong with that, excluding the typical last game of the bunch (Mechwarrior 2 GBL, Mechwarrior 3 Pirates moon, Mechwarrior 4 black Knight legion [however MW4's one was good and maybe on par with vengeance])

PS if you are interested in MWP, this video basically shows most of any released images or photage and also I will put extra images in a spoiler (note: some are concept art of renditions of what could possibly be, some in game graphics could be place holder due to the early state of the game and thus not the final product- if there was going to be a final product)

Spoiler

(note: music is not from in game, it was the youtubers choice who uploaded video)
This is informally dubbed as Mechwarrior 5 by fans. This is also said by some people as a mix between MW2 and MW4.
If we look closely you notice the fact that the terrain on some screenshots is using MW4 assets, so they barely didn't have enough money to have the basic assets to even have a game to begin with.

The whole topic of money management and ANY of the mechwarrior games besides 1 is a bit of a joke. With many situations it's a blatant money grab (MW2 GBL, I should mention that MW2 did more then story, they added new mechs but in the situation of gameplay and mechanics, they were literally no different to any other mech of the tonnage besides being bigger ie the behemoth or kodiak compared to the direwolf). Virtually nearly every attempt resaulted or is already afflicted with bankruptcy (some older fans of the games called this a curse, which also striked PGI as they attempted to make MW5 in 2012). Forgive me if I'm wrong but I do not think FASA is even around...

But enough with economics, it's a hard topic and the fact PGI is even alive with MW: O for nearly 4 years is already a sign they are doing a lot better, and the fact no one has fallen through the map or had any massive bugs/ glitches since 2012 shows they are doing better then most of the MW games, as well as the fact they support multiplayer on 3 times more servers then the other games as well as for the same ammount of time MW4 had servers up.


PGI capitlizing on the IP? What about BT? aren't they doing the same thing with there logic? the game atm has 0 substance, content, etc. No one can play it yet but it already took over a million dollars. It will hit 2 million soon. What then? "But it is an actual game!" So is MW: O with more 'substance' then TF2 and many other successful games, which you forget the fact it's a game. It's made to be fun and people find it fun, you and your boy have fun with it and reguardless of you saying it's not because of the game and it's because it's spending time with you then why not simply jump to a better 'more succesful game' like Chess? or IL-2 1946? or go back to your Mechwarrior 2 that you love so much and play that with him? Or do something else that spends time with him like doing the washing? teaching him math or draw stuff with him? the fact you choose MW: O as the medium to interact with him already says more about yourself and your opinion that you are trying to avoid showing about the game then you try to lead on. And if you truley hate the game and PGI but choose to play the game then it says something completely else with your relationship with your Son.

Your lack of knowledge of the IP's economic history both with the digital games and TT is rather shocking. Because saying the earlier games had better budget / money handeling and such is kind of incorrect, the lawsuits, the bankrupcty, the content, it's litered everywhere.
(not saying those games were bad, but budget isn't a strong suit and anything related with budget in general).

Also note: the whole "White knights" (still no idea what that means... ) spending thousands of dollars and many other people spending money is already a sign of better economics and handeling because if things were over priced,or had paywalls, or split population due to premium content, or what have you, it would have failed or had much less support for it.
There are thousands of games out there that mistakenly did this or intentonally did this and suffered for it, If you remember the original release of Elder scrolls online, thist is a clear example of things you mentioned to a degree. minus a few parts and stuff. Even though they tried fixing it they still suffered and got a constant bad reputation for it.



I do not think (going back to the metaphor for sandwhiches) it isn't the fact that you think the sandwhich is bad, under done, a rip of, or what have you. It's just the fact you didn't like the sandwhich you picked in general.

if you like single player over multi player then MW: O (currently) and most likely MW: LL, you would rather preffer MW1, 2, 3, 4, as there strong suit is the single player, the story the campaign the instant action or free action instead of the multiplayer which in some points seems as an after thought or just for the sake of doing it or experimenting. That or a lack of understanding on economics and the fundlementals of how a group of devs make money, how do they feed themselves and pay taxes, how do they afford to make new changes or to hire more people. etc. Either option is probably suitable for you. however one being a bit of a problem. If you got a problem that someone is successful for a good product out of spite, jealously, etc. then that's your problem and not PGI's, my , or anyone elses problem. If you do not like to play a multiplayer game, then you do not have to, you got MW1 to 4 to play, you got the upcoming BT to look forward to, you got MC's and MA's to play, or a different game from say elder scrolls, dragon age, mass effect, fall out, Half life, Portal, Pokemon, etc.
I have to be honest though I would love if someone (rather PGI or a company using the assets) to make remakes of the game but much more heavily improved such as the weapon mechanics, the missions, the ai intelligence, the vehicles available. story inflation, lore friendlyness, mechlab mechanics. etc. I would kill for a Clan Ghost Bear game. I do not care if it's GBL's story or not. I just want one in general rather it be 3030's, 2900's, 3050, or 3100's.
I would also not mind if someone makes a wheeled, hover, or tracked vehicle game based game, or aviation (akin to a mix of MW: LL and Ace combat), or combined arms... hell... a infantry BT game would be interesting as well.... but this is off topic.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

I got GOLDEN wolfie....(L)

[Veev]

Nightshade24, on 07 October 2015 - 08:33 PM, said:

Single player campaign is in the development: but the thing is we got (only looking at MW series alone)

MW1: 1
MW2: 4
MW3: 2
MW4: 4
MW LL: 0

total: 11 campaigns (MW2 I consider having 2 as it has 2 completely different roots, Jade falcon, and Clan wolf. I do not consider MW4: M having 2 as it's only a difference of the ending on the same story with approximately 5 mission difference unless you are an extremist who plain out ignored contracts of 1 faction)

MW2 broken promises: Clan Ghost Bear legacy being a finished game. This is a poor game which only redeaming factor is the fact it's ghost bear, only time in MW franchise you can be or even see a ghost bear. MW4 is the closest with 1 (just 1) Kodiak in Solaris VII, not clan ghost bear controlled but it's a ghost bear icon mech.
MW2 GBL was very patchy, (not in terms of having patches but I mean odd parts here and there), for eg the computer voice is very different between new and old diologue, from memory it uses the old female voice from MW2 but then a guys voice in new parts, it is odd they didn't redo it completely or just made the same voice actor do the new lines
Another thing is poor lines in general and maps, for eg the underwater map where you are only allowed to use lasers and torpedoes, the enemy still used the much faster accurate LRM's under water and autocannosn and PPC's. what else? there are submarines, first time in MW: O, problem is the computer identifies it as an aircraft and breaks any sense of immersion you had remaining from what was shattered by enemy LRM's and autocannons.

if you dare call this a proper campaign, you are highly mislead and obviously never played the game. It didn't accomplish anything the developers tried to do with it, to a degree they only made it just to get enough funding to get MW3 possibly done.

Which begs the question how you say they are even good with budgeting. the only main income they got was from MW2 31st cenutary combat, MW2 mercs, MW4 Mercs, and MW4 vengence. 4 out of the 10 different games are actually making money while the other 6 only lost money- or was just to farm money. (MW3 had so many bugs, glitches, and incompatibility issues.)

MW4 following promises? nope, they broke a bit of immersion and lore, as well as had a weak story as well as failing to finalise MW3's mechanic of lasers (ie leaving a trail instead of being a 'hitscan projectile that looks like a laser'.). which I have to add not only did MW: O did it , they did it better without 98% of the bugs and glitches. You also got the fact that MW: O does not have the bug/ glitch that you fall from the map in MW3, or the bug/ glitch that makes the mad dog in MW2 headshot itself with it's own LRM's most of the time (for some users). or poor voice acting and inconsistencies of MW2: GBL. or MW4's bug of when hovercraft fly into space (thus unnable to finish mission), naval ships spawning on the other side of the map on the land, (how are you meant to deffend a base when a battleship is right beside with 4 long tom artillery (30 damage each) and twin LRM 20's (20 damage each, total damage 160 damage)

maybe the guys from MW2 to 4 needed better budget management and actually fix the bugs they got , or better beta testers. (which PGI managed well as it didn't spend a single dollar on the majority of beta testers). Also the fact that the guys who made MW1,2,3,4, and Prime went bank rupt or nearly bank rupt.

You never heard of mechwarrior prime most likely because of the fact they went so bankrupt that they couldn't even finish the game or advertise it. This is why we got 3 mechwarrior 2 games, 2 mechwarrior 3 games, and 4 mechwarrior 4 games. the people who made them couldn't afford to copy right the next number and/or make new resources and stuff.
I am not saying anythings wrong with that, excluding the typical last game of the bunch (Mechwarrior 2 GBL, Mechwarrior 3 Pirates moon, Mechwarrior 4 black Knight legion [however MW4's one was good and maybe on par with vengeance])

PS if you are interested in MWP, this video basically shows most of any released images or photage and also I will put extra images in a spoiler (note: some are concept art of renditions of what could possibly be, some in game graphics could be place holder due to the early state of the game and thus not the final product- if there was going to be a final product)

Spoiler

(note: music is not from in game, it was the youtubers choice who uploaded video)
This is informally dubbed as Mechwarrior 5 by fans. This is also said by some people as a mix between MW2 and MW4.
If we look closely you notice the fact that the terrain on some screenshots is using MW4 assets, so they barely didn't have enough money to have the basic assets to even have a game to begin with.

The whole topic of money management and ANY of the mechwarrior games besides 1 is a bit of a joke. With many situations it's a blatant money grab (MW2 GBL, I should mention that MW2 did more then story, they added new mechs but in the situation of gameplay and mechanics, they were literally no different to any other mech of the tonnage besides being bigger ie the behemoth or kodiak compared to the direwolf). Virtually nearly every attempt resaulted or is already afflicted with bankruptcy (some older fans of the games called this a curse, which also striked PGI as they attempted to make MW5 in 2012). Forgive me if I'm wrong but I do not think FASA is even around...

But enough with economics, it's a hard topic and the fact PGI is even alive with MW: O for nearly 4 years is already a sign they are doing a lot better, and the fact no one has fallen through the map or had any massive bugs/ glitches since 2012 shows they are doing better then most of the MW games, as well as the fact they support multiplayer on 3 times more servers then the other games as well as for the same ammount of time MW4 had servers up.


PGI capitlizing on the IP? What about BT? aren't they doing the same thing with there logic? the game atm has 0 substance, content, etc. No one can play it yet but it already took over a million dollars. It will hit 2 million soon. What then? "But it is an actual game!" So is MW: O with more 'substance' then TF2 and many other successful games, which you forget the fact it's a game. It's made to be fun and people find it fun, you and your boy have fun with it and reguardless of you saying it's not because of the game and it's because it's spending time with you then why not simply jump to a better 'more succesful game' like Chess? or IL-2 1946? or go back to your Mechwarrior 2 that you love so much and play that with him? Or do something else that spends time with him like doing the washing? teaching him math or draw stuff with him? the fact you choose MW: O as the medium to interact with him already says more about yourself and your opinion that you are trying to avoid showing about the game then you try to lead on. And if you truley hate the game and PGI but choose to play the game then it says something completely else with your relationship with your Son.

Your lack of knowledge of the IP's economic history both with the digital games and TT is rather shocking. Because saying the earlier games had better budget / money handeling and such is kind of incorrect, the lawsuits, the bankrupcty, the content, it's litered everywhere.
(not saying those games were bad, but budget isn't a strong suit and anything related with budget in general).

Also note: the whole "White knights" (still no idea what that means... ) spending thousands of dollars and many other people spending money is already a sign of better economics and handeling because if things were over priced,or had paywalls, or split population due to premium content, or what have you, it would have failed or had much less support for it.
There are thousands of games out there that mistakenly did this or intentonally did this and suffered for it, If you remember the original release of Elder scrolls online, thist is a clear example of things you mentioned to a degree. minus a few parts and stuff. Even though they tried fixing it they still suffered and got a constant bad reputation for it.



I do not think (going back to the metaphor for sandwhiches) it isn't the fact that you think the sandwhich is bad, under done, a rip of, or what have you. It's just the fact you didn't like the sandwhich you picked in general.

if you like single player over multi player then MW: O (currently) and most likely MW: LL, you would rather preffer MW1, 2, 3, 4, as there strong suit is the single player, the story the campaign the instant action or free action instead of the multiplayer which in some points seems as an after thought or just for the sake of doing it or experimenting. That or a lack of understanding on economics and the fundlementals of how a group of devs make money, how do they feed themselves and pay taxes, how do they afford to make new changes or to hire more people. etc. Either option is probably suitable for you. however one being a bit of a problem. If you got a problem that someone is successful for a good product out of spite, jealously, etc. then that's your problem and not PGI's, my , or anyone elses problem. If you do not like to play a multiplayer game, then you do not have to, you got MW1 to 4 to play, you got the upcoming BT to look forward to, you got MC's and MA's to play, or a different game from say elder scrolls, dragon age, mass effect, fall out, Half life, Portal, Pokemon, etc.
I have to be honest though I would love if someone (rather PGI or a company using the assets) to make remakes of the game but much more heavily improved such as the weapon mechanics, the missions, the ai intelligence, the vehicles available. story inflation, lore friendlyness, mechlab mechanics. etc. I would kill for a Clan Ghost Bear game. I do not care if it's GBL's story or not. I just want one in general rather it be 3030's, 2900's, 3050, or 3100's.
I would also not mind if someone makes a wheeled, hover, or tracked vehicle game based game, or aviation (akin to a mix of MW: LL and Ace combat), or combined arms... hell... a infantry BT game would be interesting as well.... but this is off topic.

My goal was not to bash on MWO. It has been said a hundred times. MWO was supposed to be better than all the other games, in some areas it is in others not even close. The technology may have progressed, but they still are not using it. Further, quite frankly, MWO is still only 15% of a complete AAA title and they have broken a ton of promises along the way and that does not even include missed deadlines.

Go white knight some more, to be honest I did not even bother to read 90% of your post. I am not out here to get into an argument with a white knight of MWO. I made a generalized statement about modern developers and the way they are treating gamer's and the way that gamer's continue to let them abuse them.
The fact that you got defensive of PGI and MWO indicates that you have seen the same here and are in denial because you emotionally investing youself into it instead of using cold hard logic.

[Nightshade24]

Veev, on 09 October 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

My goal was not to bash on MWO. It has been said a hundred times. MWO was supposed to be better than all the other games, in some areas it is in others not even close. The technology may have progressed, but they still are not using it. Further, quite frankly, MWO is still only 15% of a complete AAA title and they have broken a ton of promises along the way and that does not even include missed deadlines.

Go white knight some more, to be honest I did not even bother to read 90% of your post. I am not out here to get into an argument with a white knight of MWO. I made a generalized statement about modern developers and the way they are treating gamer's and the way that gamer's continue to let them abuse them.
The fact that you got defensive of PGI and MWO indicates that you have seen the same here and are in denial because you emotionally investing youself into it instead of using cold hard logic.


I can tell you have issues reading, because you continue to use a insult... or a complement? a metaphor? I have no idea. you continue to use a 'insult' that I do not even know, or might not even have the cultural context to even persevere it as an insult before or after description.

And it isn't an argument unless someone is butthurt over it, which appears to be you because I am perfectly fine with this debate.
PGI hasn't broken many promises and are you seriously comparing PGI- a indie dev company that came out of bankruptcy, to multi billion dollar companies and publisher titles that could probably whip up 3 AAA titles every 2 years?

I am not in denial, Am I emotionally invested in the game? maybe. but I wouldn't be invested in a game that is as bad as you state now would I?


Also MW: O never promised to be better at everything over the previous games. It is stated that MW: O is meant to be....
- better role warfare then previous MW games.
- better use of multiple weight classes and tonnage
- best multilayer experience for MW

That's basically it.

- role warfare is doing better then all previous MW games, as the only roles you saw in the meta is... "Sniper", the other two you see often is "LRM boat", "Brawler", and "juggernaut"
Not many Skirmishers, Scouts, Spotters, etc....

- in previous MW games, no matter what the mission is besides a few MW4 stealth missions, which is 2 in total, and 1 on either side of the campaign. The biggest heaviest mech with clan tech is the best option. So after the first 10 missions, you see no more light mechs in your lance or company, after 30 you will no longer see mediums, and around the 40's your last heavy mech will become decommissioned. etc. In the end you only boat 100 tonners with the odd 95 tonner here or there.

- considering all other multiplayer games from an official title do not have any currency, only has a point system based on kills, component destruction, etc. Scouting is not awarded here nor is spotting. On top of that it makes the 2 games completely unrelated to each other and there is NO progression at all
you do not even need to play the campaign or anything to be able to use any mech you want, with any weapon you want, on any map you want, and any conditions (which is often kill each other now or later typically...)


MW:LL however has a sense of progression and has a unique twist of having combined arms that are also player controlled but it breaks lore quite a bit as well as have worse sense of roles (outside of sniper, LRM , and brawler/ juggernaut, which seem to improved in difference) and worse sense of weight difference because the games progression is simply getting bigger mechs, which means nothing if you like the smaller mechs but the thin is smaller mechs are not as effective in MW: LL....


I used a lot of cold hard knowledge. The fact MW: O has the best multiplayer support of any battletech game thus far. The fact they had heavy loss of money and rights to assets in 2012, the Fact they never said they are going to have a better tutorial over MW4 or MW2 or they say they are going to have the best single player campaign.

Judging by the fact you claim they do not do things they didn't even say they did, I can imagine the majority of broken promises you stated are based on made up promises PGI never said or you misunderstood things they mentioned.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Nightshade - We are not imagining the things that PGI has failed on. If you truly look at this game it is NO different than it was three years ago. You only have more skins and slightly different geometry for mechs. Team death match is all there is in spite of having three game modes. They force builds on mechs by quirks that we can't even choose. They have to constantly redo mechs hitboxes, maps, weapon balance instead of actually give us a viable CW, economy, skill tree, contracts, the list is endless. So let's just say instead of making the game more robust with deep content they have to fix stuff they didn't do right in the first place but you damn be sure those over priced mech packages will be out on time. This game has fallen well short of its potential. It is okay that you are satisfied by mediocrity. Some of us aren't.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 08 October 2015 - 06:59 PM.

[Veev]

Nightshade24, on 08 October 2015 - 06:28 PM, said:

Veev, on 09 October 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

My goal was not to bash on MWO. It has been said a hundred times. MWO was supposed to be better than all the other games, in some areas it is in others not even close. The technology may have progressed, but they still are not using it. Further, quite frankly, MWO is still only 15% of a complete AAA title and they have broken a ton of promises along the way and that does not even include missed deadlines.

Go white knight some more, to be honest I did not even bother to read 90% of your post. I am not out here to get into an argument with a white knight of MWO. I made a generalized statement about modern developers and the way they are treating gamer's and the way that gamer's continue to let them abuse them.
The fact that you got defensive of PGI and MWO indicates that you have seen the same here and are in denial because you emotionally investing youself into it instead of using cold hard logic.


I can tell you have issues reading, because you continue to use a insult... or a complement? a metaphor? I have no idea. you continue to use a 'insult' that I do not even know, or might not even have the cultural context to even persevere it as an insult before or after description.

And it isn't an argument unless someone is butthurt over it, which appears to be you because I am perfectly fine with this debate.
PGI hasn't broken many promises and are you seriously comparing PGI- a indie dev company that came out of bankruptcy, to multi billion dollar companies and publisher titles that could probably whip up 3 AAA titles every 2 years?

I am not in denial, Am I emotionally invested in the game? maybe. but I wouldn't be invested in a game that is as bad as you state now would I?


Also MW: O never promised to be better at everything over the previous games. It is stated that MW: O is meant to be....
- better role warfare then previous MW games.
- better use of multiple weight classes and tonnage
- best multilayer experience for MW

That's basically it.

- role warfare is doing better then all previous MW games, as the only roles you saw in the meta is... "Sniper", the other two you see often is "LRM boat", "Brawler", and "juggernaut"
Not many Skirmishers, Scouts, Spotters, etc....

- in previous MW games, no matter what the mission is besides a few MW4 stealth missions, which is 2 in total, and 1 on either side of the campaign. The biggest heaviest mech with clan tech is the best option. So after the first 10 missions, you see no more light mechs in your lance or company, after 30 you will no longer see mediums, and around the 40's your last heavy mech will become decommissioned. etc. In the end you only boat 100 tonners with the odd 95 tonner here or there.

- considering all other multiplayer games from an official title do not have any currency, only has a point system based on kills, component destruction, etc. Scouting is not awarded here nor is spotting. On top of that it makes the 2 games completely unrelated to each other and there is NO progression at all
you do not even need to play the campaign or anything to be able to use any mech you want, with any weapon you want, on any map you want, and any conditions (which is often kill each other now or later typically...)


MW:LL however has a sense of progression and has a unique twist of having combined arms that are also player controlled but it breaks lore quite a bit as well as have worse sense of roles (outside of sniper, LRM , and brawler/ juggernaut, which seem to improved in difference) and worse sense of weight difference because the games progression is simply getting bigger mechs, which means nothing if you like the smaller mechs but the thin is smaller mechs are not as effective in MW: LL....


I used a lot of cold hard knowledge. The fact MW: O has the best multiplayer support of any battletech game thus far. The fact they had heavy loss of money and rights to assets in 2012, the Fact they never said they are going to have a better tutorial over MW4 or MW2 or they say they are going to have the best single player campaign.

Judging by the fact you claim they do not do things they didn't even say they did, I can imagine the majority of broken promises you stated are based on made up promises PGI never said or you misunderstood things they mentioned.

So because it has pretty lights and actual players that have trouble hitting fast moving mechs it is better.... That is your definition of role warfare....

As to the rest, I was not aware we were having a debate. I made a generalized statement, you got sore and demanded further explanation. I offered it and suddenly you want a debate.

I am sorry, I have raised the bar for games higher than my ankles.