716 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

Ed Steele, on 06 October 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

This is the problem with MWO, we do not actually own anything that we have spent all of this money on, so when PGI calls it quits, we have nothing but screenshots and memories. At least with BATTLETECH, we will always have a copy of the game to reload and play, even long after HBS is gone.

I hope this game will survive for many years, but in the event of PGI not been able to keep the multiplayer servers up, I believe the MWO will already have singleplayer modes, so we can continue playing.

[Robot Kenshiro]

I know alot of ppl who are gonna love BT. I sure am. And there's gonna be alot of hype. I said it ages ago that pgi has done MWO backwards. They are trying to put in pve after pvp. Which...for me. Is silly. Most games don't need pve to make the story or get ppl to understand why or who is fighting who. And MWO could of gotten away with that. But their lacking in actually making events that show us why clans are fighting IS or why IS was fighting amongst themselves. Those who know the story already know why. But new ppl who don't know anything will just think this game is a bout big robots with big guns. I shoot my enemy kill them. I win. That's it. Even CW has such a bad implementation of what's actually going on.
Pve creates a sense of worth when you are fighting for tour faction. It outlays story plots and the it effects the choices you make. I hope for pgi sake that when some form of pve turns up its not something band aided together to keep the ppl who knows this game needs pve quiet.
Some ppl will go off. Pve whatever. That's fine. You can keep fighting for you blank faction choices and your blank planets which have no meaning what so ever.
BT would be a good start for lore and story. And pgi could be part of this. They can maybe partner up and make events that tie in with the BT story line to help ppl get more action here in MWO.
Pointless events that just lead to chill earning are ok. But how bout changing that up to say... faction events. Even in pug queues. I know there have been faction events but not nearly enough. An event could be house Kurita vs clan wolf. Ppl aligned with those factions will be the only ones rewarded with extra cbills and xp per match. And than have something like getting a match score of 400 or whatever will entitle you to a larger reward or bonuses.
And Than the next week the houses change. I think this would entice ppl. Make em fight for their faction. How would MM work. Guess there'd be a separate que or something they can put in for this. So that ppl are grouped with house aligned players so you have full teams of each house vsing each other.
Anyways crap. I'm rambling. Sorry. Was on my lunch break and I tend to get side tracked haha. Take care guys. See yas on the battlefield.

[CimaGarahau]

Oh my god, I already know I'm in. Support granted, guys you have my support!

[POWR]

Caine2112, on 05 October 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

My only fear is that they walk in the steps of MW Tactics fiasco with that BS random card reward system. I am so thankful I got in the beta and saw that crap. Refused to support that project.

If HBS does do that random card reward crap, I'm asking for a refund. Other than that, I'm totally stoked for a new tactical Battletech game.

Why is that a fear? I'm just really curious as to what would make you think that mechanic would even be considered for this game? It's not appropriate in any way in any context they've discussed.

[NocturnalBeast]

POWR, on 07 October 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

Why is that a fear? I'm just really curious as to what would make you think that mechanic would even be considered for this game? It's not appropriate in any way in any context they've discussed.

You are correct. HBS has said that BATTLETECH is going to be a buy-to-play game with possible DLCs or sequels in the future. Nothing HBS has said has lead me to believe that BATTLETECH is going to be a freemium game with a cash shop.

Edited by Ed Steele, 07 October 2015 - 10:32 AM.

[Dulahan]

They've said in more places than one they will never be that sort of model.

[Kyrie]

My main concern with this project is whether it has the potential to attain what I will refer to as "massive scale", that is, the potential to actually have InnerSphere combat of all the Houses involved in trying to attain domination over the others. From what little I know of the project, the following appears to be true:

1) Definitely small/tactical scale combat.
2) No real promise of that overall grand strategy combat level.
3) A very strong focus on the "single title/single user" approach with emphasis on PvE, with PvP being Tier4 wishlist type item.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I am certain it will make an awesome game... except its not what I've been looking for ever since Kesmai's MPBT died.

[Threat Doc]

What I honestly want to see is PGI take the play book -not just a few pages- from HBS', and actually turn around to build this game correctly. If they were to ask for funding and/or run their own Kickstarter, I would put into that IF...

PGI would have to provide a series of promises -and I mean promises- in a signed (Russ, Bryan, Paul, Kyle, the crew), secured and legally stamped PDF document, verified and filed with the Canadian court system and, perhaps, our own here in the States, for putting MWO on-track to development in the way they swore they would in the first place -which it is no where near being, now-, and make it an actual BattleTech-based title. If they failed, they would be required to give back all money from the very beginning.

Hmmm, it would be better if their terms were defined for them and, if they agreed with it, put it all together and legally filed it, I would put more money in. As it is, I've already paid nearly four times what I would ever pay for a single-player AAA game off the shelf at Wal-Mart, and I'm pretty tapped out, here.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 07 October 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

What I honestly want to see is PGI take the play book -not just a few pages- from HBS', and actually turn around to build this game correctly. If they were to ask for funding and/or run their own Kickstarter, I would put into that IF...

PGI would have to provide a series of promises -and I mean promises- in a signed (Russ, Bryan, Paul, Kyle, the crew), secured and legally stamped PDF document, verified and filed with the Canadian court system and, perhaps, our own here in the States, for putting MWO on-track to development in the way they swore they would in the first place -which it is no where near being, now-, and make it an actual BattleTech-based title. If they failed, they would be required to give back all money from the very beginning.

Hmmm, it would be better if their terms were defined for them and, if they agreed with it, put it all together and legally filed it, I would put more money in. As it is, I've already paid nearly four times what I would ever pay for a single-player AAA game off the shelf at Wal-Mart, and I'm pretty tapped out, here.

I suggested something along those lines several months ago. I would gladly kickstart MPBT... I'd commit to $500 immediately if key concepts from link in signature were to be implemented.

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 07 October 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

I suggested something along those lines several months ago. I would gladly kickstart MPBT... I'd commit to $500 immediately if key concepts from link in signature were to be implemented.

I believe I participated in that conversation, yes? You and I seem to be the ones who tend to drive these forward, I think.

[Grayson Sortek]

Kay Wolf, on 07 October 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

What I honestly want to see is PGI take the play book -not just a few pages- from HBS', and actually turn around to build this game correctly. If they were to ask for funding and/or run their own Kickstarter, I would put into that IF...

PGI would have to provide a series of promises -and I mean promises- in a signed (Russ, Bryan, Paul, Kyle, the crew), secured and legally stamped PDF document, verified and filed with the Canadian court system and, perhaps, our own here in the States, for putting MWO on-track to development in the way they swore they would in the first place -which it is no where near being, now-, and make it an actual BattleTech-based title. If they failed, they would be required to give back all money from the very beginning.

Hmmm, it would be better if their terms were defined for them and, if they agreed with it, put it all together and legally filed it, I would put more money in. As it is, I've already paid nearly four times what I would ever pay for a single-player AAA game off the shelf at Wal-Mart, and I'm pretty tapped out, here.

^ This, this right here.

I want a true MW5 title, and if they haven't gathered enough $ by now from the absurd amount of fans buying mech'packs, then do a KickStarter. I also agree that it would have to be legally binding, otherwise it's just a bunch of hollow promises.

You know what would be amazing? Having a Battletech strategy game and a true Mechwarrior combat simulator with concurrently running story lines/campaigns. Imagine it, just picture it in your heads for a few minutes, then tell me you are happy with MWO where it is at now. This is the point I've been trying to get across on these forums, but there seem to be so few of us who actually care.

[Inflatable Fish]

Grayson Sortek, on 08 October 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

You know what would be amazing? Having a Battletech strategy game and a true Mechwarrior combat simulator with concurrently running story lines/campaigns. Imagine it, just picture it in your heads for a few minutes, then tell me you are happy with MWO where it is at now. This is the point I've been trying to get across on these forums, but there seem to be so few of us who actually care.

you're talking almost Star Citizen size project here, p. much impossible to achieve.

[Nik Reaper]

Inflatable Fish, on 09 October 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

you're talking almost Star Citizen size project here, p. much impossible to achieve.

The problem SC is facing is the same one any game that tries to implement seamless first person to spacecraft gameplay , that is an engine limitation, it's hard to optimize a single engine for both.
If a new MW game was made it could have all the needed scope ( with a big enough team ) but it just wouldn't need to be seamless , there would be a different engine for when you are a pilot going in a pub or office and mechbay and a different one for mech combat.
It would still need about 50~80 mil to make though, not sure that the BT community could gather that, and less than that would make for a very limited game in scope.

[Threat Doc]

So, here's how you do it... MMOs already use a combination of servers, a login/character server, and then your world server(s).

Add the functionality to the login/character server of interaction between game types (ie - When you leave a 'Mech, your character is loaded into a hangar, and if you go to command a group of units, a la MechCommander, you've entered a Tactical Trailer, etc.), and these various servers are where you have...

1. MechWarrior-style combat server

2. MechCommander-style combat server

3. MMORPG-style exploration server (the player, and perhaps some friends, get to explore various worlds, maybe working together to solve some issues that really wouldn't have that much effect on the game)

4. MMORPG-style game server (full player interaction, like hubs, for hiring players into units, negotiating contracts, and playing non-'Mech-based adventures)

Would it be expensive? Yes. Would it be a popular enough idea -being able to participate in the game through various aspects of it- to make that expense? (shrugs) I don't know, now that I'm seeing the Kickstarter for BattleTech. Let me explain... the BattleTech Kickstarter is enormously successful, already, and I realize that, but for a game like I'm proposing to work, let alone be successful, you would easily need ten times the number of people as that Kickstarter has, right now, at ten times the money, and that trend would have to continue to the end of the Kickstarter, in order to simply build the game.

Most folks don't HAVE the time to play such a game, as it would certainly be a large time-sink for many, and you would absolutely have to make it so folks could opt-out of certain portions of the game they would not be interested in playing, without having that affect the overall game in any negative fashion whatsoever.

So, not impossible, but very bloody highly unlikely.

[Tom Sawyer]

Crab People! Crabs that can PUNCH. Crabbbbbbbs!

[Jonathan Paine]

I think you'll be better of with an Atlas if you want to punch something in the face. Actuators that actually matters! Woohoooo!!!

[JeremyCrow]

Grayson Sortek, on 08 October 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

^ This, this right here.

I want a true MW5 title, and if they haven't gathered enough $ by now from the absurd amount of fans buying mech'packs, then do a KickStarter. I also agree that it would have to be legally binding, otherwise it's just a bunch of hollow promises.

You know what would be amazing? Having a Battletech strategy game and a true Mechwarrior combat simulator with concurrently running story lines/campaigns. Imagine it, just picture it in your heads for a few minutes, then tell me you are happy with MWO where it is at now. This is the point I've been trying to get across on these forums, but there seem to be so few of us who actually care.

I'd be happy with a 4X battletech themed game. Something like Imperium Galactica with mechs.

[POWR]

Kyrie, on 07 October 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

My main concern with this project is whether it has the potential to attain what I will refer to as "massive scale", that is, the potential to actually have InnerSphere combat of all the Houses involved in trying to attain domination over the others. From what little I know of the project, the following appears to be true:

1) Definitely small/tactical scale combat.
2) No real promise of that overall grand strategy combat level.
3) A very strong focus on the "single title/single user" approach with emphasis on PvE, with PvP being Tier4 wishlist type item.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, I am certain it will make an awesome game... except its not what I've been looking for ever since Kesmai's MPBT died.

I reckon you won't be seeing any "massive scale" thing. It'll be a campaign centering around your merc outfit, which means you're going to be going on a bunch of missions in a more or less linear path, maybe you'll choose a branch here and there, but likely it'll be just like that.
A series of levels to complete, maybe sometimes there's a bonus objective that'll slightly change the outcome, but the vast majority of gameplay will be contained within the tactical warfare mode where you command mechs around a 3D landscape in a turnbased environment.

We're not talking Total War: Battletech scale. If anything it's probably going to be reminiscient of the style displayed in Warhammer: Dark Omen, but smaller-scale battles. You command your little 4 mech squad around and you move from level to level defeating tactical challenges and in between missions you get some exposition explaining why you're doing what you're doing, with various options to upgrade your guys/mechs. Maybe more comparable to Missionforce: Cyberstorm, even..

[Nik Reaper]

POWR, on 12 October 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

I reckon you won't be seeing any "massive scale" thing. It'll be a campaign centering around your merc outfit, which means you're going to be going on a bunch of missions in a more or less linear path, maybe you'll choose a branch here and there, but likely it'll be just like that.
A series of levels to complete, maybe sometimes there's a bonus objective that'll slightly change the outcome, but the vast majority of gameplay will be contained within the tactical warfare mode where you command mechs around a 3D landscape in a turnbased environment.

We're not talking Total War: Battletech scale. If anything it's probably going to be reminiscient of the style displayed in Warhammer: Dark Omen, but smaller-scale battles. You command your little 4 mech squad around and you move from level to level defeating tactical challenges and in between missions you get some exposition explaining why you're doing what you're doing, with various options to upgrade your guys/mechs. Maybe more comparable to Missionforce: Cyberstorm, even..

You know, I think I'd like to play the game you described .

[Jetfire]

PALEHORSE33, on 05 October 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Finally another battle tech game! Adios PGI, enjoy bankruptcy

I 100% plan on playing both. MWO and BT are different enough to coexist.