126 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

KharnZor, on 17 August 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

wtf is this for real?

Of course!

[KharnZor]

Mystere, on 17 August 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

Of course!

[Thander Gil]

No.

[Slepnir]

Nope, this is a call of duty game in robot suits, if you want it to reallly feel like classic battletech mech warrior titles come play mechwarrior living legends. you cant modify the mechs so it makes every chassi uniqe and usefull since there is no meta. it's also a more immersive game set in the 3068 time frame.

Edited by Slepnir, 17 August 2015 - 09:46 PM.

[Corrado]

Mister Blastman, on 17 August 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

It's not so much boredom for me, but more pissing me off. This game has an abusive matchmaker system that really tries to push folks over the edge. When it keeps shoveling crap like this at you...





It is no wonder people get pissed off, leave™ and the population starts to suffer.

I say leave™ because as much as we do get pissed off, we come back hoping it will be better only to be slapped in the face again. We want to play stompy robots MWO. But the matchmaker doesn't like us!

note: All of us have a bad day. This is not naming and shaming. I've had some fifty point drops myself. But crap like I see everytime I play, the 12 - 1, 12 - 2, 12 - 3 rolls... with 6 - 8 players doing less than 100 damage, it shouldn't be happening if the matchmaker was doing its job (or they got rid of 12v12 and went back to 8v8). Well, there other game mechanics issues too...

Those are just random shots taken from the last few days.

those screens are nothing special. you should brag less and carry harder.

[Mcgral18]

Corrado, on 17 August 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

those screens are nothing special. you should brag less and carry harder.

That isn't bragging; that's showing off the 10 sub 200 damage players on his team.

[Damarus]

How is a game that is set in the Battletech universe
with 'battlemechs' from the Battletech universe
populated with weapons and equipment from the battletech universe
with battles as described in the battletech universe
not a Battletech title?

I really cant get my head around the mental gymnastics required to even state that this game isn't Mechwarrior just
because it isn't a carbon copy of tabletop, or a copy of a previous Mechwarrior title.

I also don't get how you could honestly compare it to any of the Call of duty games unless you've the barest understanding of the gameplay present in the series.

Hell, even less of a stretch is when you compare Quake 3: Arena to Unreal Tournament. They're both fast twitch-shooters, but You'd have to be an idiot to think they play even remotely the same. But that would be an easy mistake to make if you're just observing right?

If you stuck two people in a booth, and the booth showed them both gameplay from MW:O, and Call of duty and asked the similarities between the two, you'd get: "Well, they both shoot the other guy, and well... they're really not that similar at all other than the whole shooting dudes"

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 05:06 PM.

[Wolfwood592]

Damarus, on 17 August 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

How is a game that is set in the Battletech universe
with 'battlemechs' from the Battletech universe
populated with weapons and equipment from the battletech universe
with battles as described in the battletech universe
not a Battletech title?

I really cant get my head around the mental gymnastics required to even state that this game isn't Mechwarrior just
because it isn't a carbon copy of tabletop, or a copy of a previous Mechwarrior title.

I also don't get how you could honestly compare it to any of the Call of duty games unless you've the barest understanding of the gameplay present in the series.

Hell, even less of a stretch is when you compare Quake 3: Arena to Unreal Tournament. They're both fast twitch-shooters, but You'd have to be an idiot to think they play even remotely the same. But that would be an easy mistake to make if you're just observing right?

If you stuck two people in a booth, and the booth showed them both gameplay from MW:O, and Call of duty and asked the similarities between the two, you'd get: "Well, they both shoot the other guy, and well... they're really not that similar at all other than the whole shooting dudes"

Soooooooo....Halo?

[Damarus]

Halo is such a rip-off of crysis.
There is a dude in a suit of cool armor and he SHOOTS THE ALIENS.
and sometimes normal human dudes.

Right?

holy **** help me they know I know and they're coming for me....

Johnny Z, on 17 August 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

Is this a Mechwarrior game? No its a mech game, the warrior part has yet to be added.

Damn straight it isn't a MechWarrior game, I can't get out of my 'mech and suplex dragons before
beating them to death with my laser mace.

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 05:22 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Is this a Mechwarrior game? No its a Mech game, the warrior part has yet to be added. Although it may seem unrelated, the Galaxy map is at least a good start for that.

Blue vrs red TDM does not a Mechwarrior game make.

Basically the pilot has to be added to the game beyond the mech start up animation. The Galaxy map has added at least some of the faction content the pilot is a part of as well at least part of why the pilot is in the seat in the first place....

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 August 2015 - 05:27 PM.

[Damarus]

Aint a Warrior someone who is an experienced fighter who... y'know, does that there war stuffs?

And we're piloting 'mechs? going to war against eachother?

This is hard.

Johnny Z, on 17 August 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

Blue vrs red TDM does not a Mechwarrior game make.

So yer all for arguing semantics right up to this point. Find me a Mechwarrior title that didn't have Multiplayer along the lines of 'shoot the other dudes I guess'.

I can get you are hankering for that good old 'Univseral Battletech experience' but don't beat around the bush and get passive aggressive about MW:O not being a Mechwarrior game for not having something literally no Mechwarrior game has ever had.

Spit it out.

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 05:28 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Damarus, on 17 August 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

Aint a Warrior someone who is an experienced fighter who... y'know, does that there war stuffs?

And we're piloting 'mechs? going to war against eachother?

This is hard.



So yer all for arguing semantics right up to this point. Find me a Mechwarrior title that didn't have Multiplayer along the lines of 'shoot the other dudes I guess'.

I can get you are hankering for that good old 'Univseral Battletech experience' but don't beat around the bush and get passive aggressive about MW:O not being a Mechwarrior game for not having something literally no Mechwarrior game has ever had.

Spit it out.

Your seriously going to say previous Mechwarrior titles were nothing more than blue vrs red tdm? Seriously?

Aside from that why all these years later cant it be done even better than previous titles when it comes to anything beyond blue vrs red tdm.

I hope your arguement isnt to justify the sorry state of online games at the moment. Semantics HAHAHA

Edited by Johnny Z, 17 August 2015 - 05:33 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Corrado, on 17 August 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

those screens are nothing special. you should brag less and carry harder.

What part of my post was bragging? I didn't once say, "OH LOOK, I AM BADASS." Nice try but... try harder when you post, next time, okay?

What was special about them was the number of players that were sub-100 or sub-150.

[Damarus]

You really don't think there have been any improvements? This is the best controlling Mechwarrior title to date, to say the least. The most graphically impressive Mechwarrior title to date, despite having shoddy textures and some lack-luster animations. There is a lot of good and progressive changes that this title offers that you have either chosen not to acknowledge or are attempting to ignore to bolster a point.

So, Mechwarrior 3: Other than dropping in for a free-for-all deathmatch where you were chassis-locked until you dropped out of the game, there wasn't much going on here until the modding scene grabbed on. Custom scenarios notwithstanding it was pretty dry cut.

And then there is Mechwarrior 4: This is the most popular of the series for multiplayer I think, But despite having a few 'Mission scenarios' and some pretty cool solaris modes, it was Red dudes shoot the Blue dudes 24/7. Again, the community managed to make the MP for this game far, far more interesting.

This game isn't in a sorry state for not satisfying your want for an entire battletech universe game, which I would absolutely love, far moreso than I can rightly describe. But would be ludicrous to expect, especially from a moderately small and inexperienced dev team.

Also, just as a side note, its not even a matter of justification, nobody has to justify **** just because it doesn't meet your standards.

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Slepnir, on 17 August 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

Nope, this a call of duty game in robot suits, if ou want it to reallly feel like classic battletech mech warrior titles come play mechwarrior living legends. you cant modify the mechs so it makes every chassi uniqe and usefull since there is no meta. it's also a more immersive game set in the 3068 time frame.

lol its also dead as in that the designers are gone

Corrado, on 17 August 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

those screens are nothing special. you should brag less and carry harder.

like this?

Damarus, on 17 August 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

Halo is such a rip-off of crysis.
There is a dude in a suit of cool armor and he SHOOTS THE ALIENS.
and sometimes normal human dudes.

Right?

Other than crysis came out 6 years after halo XD

ya I know it was a jioke

[Impyrium]

Sjorpha, on 16 August 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

It's a mechwarrior game because it is a mech combat sim in the battletech universe, and fact is that as a matter of controls and basic combat it plays pretty similar to the old games. Main difference is the setting of PvP instead of single player adventure.

The obsession with numbers being "correct" is just silly, those numbers are means to an end not an end in themself.

No, it's not really a 'mech sim', and no, there's really not that much connection to the BattleTech universe.

The problem is, MWO tried to be a continuation of the MechWarrior series. But, it doesn't do as much as previous MechWarrior games. Funnily enough, modernised graphics and control schemes aren't enough to make a 'good game'.

Though frankly, if they had called MechWarrior: Online anything different, something like Solaris: Online, or BattleTech: Online, anything that removed it specifically from the MechWarrior line, I'd have less of a problem with how they've decided to do their own thing rather than continuing on with what made previous MechWarrior games good.

[Johnny Z]

The game is obviously under heavy construction. So my observation its a mech game and not a Mechwarrior game yet isnt saying the game is bad, just saying it isnt done. Totally valid.

[InspectorG]

Voivode, on 16 August 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

Just a legitimate issue I've been thinking about lately. I fell in love with Mechwarrior as a franchise based on single player campaign play. Multiplayer was always a nice bonus feature, but I never played specifically for multiplayer.

So the question is, without a single player, is this really a mechwarrior game?

Does it not boil down to semantics???

Thematically, yes

Gameplay yes, its not turn based like BT.

so on and so on...

[Damarus]

Johnny Z, on 17 August 2015 - 06:17 PM, said:

The game is obviously under heavy construction. So my observation its a mech game and not a Mechwarrior game yet isnt saying the game is bad, just saying it isnt done. Totally valid.

Really Buddy, flaming and sarcasm aside...
It IS a MechWarrior game, and yes, it is still under construction. Free to play means that it will be ever expanding and growing until the day it is no longer played, which is a boon and a curse in itself. (But thats all best saved for a different conversation entirely)

And that can really work in its favor in the long-run if managed well. You might just get the sort of game you're wanting in the end, we all might. But saying it isn't what it isn't because it ain't "there yet" is a bit childish. And really only serves to detract from the legitimate issues that may hinder progress to the ends we all desire.

As it stands, it is a mechwarrior game. Technically in terms of semantics, and legitimately through the presented material and setting as per licensing. Your feelings on the matter are really moot in the face of that.

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 06:55 PM.

[Damarus]

Dingo Red, on 17 August 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

No, it's not really a 'mech sim', and no, there's really not that much connection to the BattleTech universe...-

-I'd have less of a problem with how they've decided to do their own thing rather than continuing on with what made previous MechWarrior games good.

Just because this ain't the DCS of 'Mechs, doesn't make this any less of a Mech Sim. There are simulations noted for how hardcore they are, or how light they are. There is an appreciable gray area. MW:O presents itself in much the same way normal simulation games do. The only real difference between MW:O and a hardcore sim, is the depth. But in truth it would not make sense to try and add meticulous depth to a machine that has literally never existed.

You can only add as much depth as satisfies the fiction before you start running into serious problems.

And also not to mention that being a free-to-play game that must worry about new players and player retention, being a serious sim would be very counter-productive. New players already have a very hard time managing where their legs happen to be at the moment.


That being said, working screens within the mech would be excellent. Adding more interaction in the cockpit would also be stellar, anything that contributes to the immersion is always appreciated in my eyes.

And in regards to what made the previous titles good, I'd ask exactly what it is the older titles did that you prefer over what is currently being done. Personally I always find it a bit half-assed to state something like that but not even provide examples. Juxtaposition be damned I suppose.

Edited by Damarus, 17 August 2015 - 07:07 PM.