47 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

MWO 2.0 would not happen for quite a while (if it does at all) because PGI would not drop their current game just to re-make it, and since PGI holds the development rights (until 2020 I believe?) nobody else would be allowed to make it in any official capacity i.e nobody would care because anything big enough to matter would be shut down.

[Thorqemada]

PGI could ask Harebrained to develop a PvE Campaign for them that is also funded by Kickstarter...maybe that would work out...

[Lootee]

Counterstrike with mechskins 2.0: A quasi-BattleTech game wouldn't get a dime from me.

[Milocinia]

When did MWO 1.0 get released? Have I missed something here?

[CDLord HHGD]

IF there was to be a MWO 2.0, I wouldn't invest unless it was akin to Star Citizen. We have our raw FPS, we will get our TBS (Turn-Based Strategy). What I want now is an immersive universe. Everything that Star Citizen wants to be, but with battlemechs in my hangar. Of course there would be mechs, ground vehicles, aerospace fighters, dropships, jumpships, and possible warships. Done right, a truly immersive MWO like this would revolutionize the genre.

[Tombstoner]

Alistair Winter, on 30 September 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

MWO2 is the reason I think PGI needs to stop vomiting hundred-dollar mech packs. If they want to do some kind of crowd funding for MWO2, there's no way they're getting money from hundreds of thousands of players who recently spent up to a thousand dollars on more on MWO1 mech packs. Market saturation is real, they need to give players a chance to hunger for new content.

How tempting is it really to start spending several hundred dollars on MWO2 when you've only just finished collecting MWO1 mechs? And how many people will have faith that MWO2 will be significantly different from MWO1, the way things are going now? We still haven't seen PVE or the finished CW or even Solaris.

I don't think we'll see MWO2 before 2018 or 2019, if not later. It would be a mistake to make that game too soon.

The smart move would be to grandfather MWO 1.0 mechs for players specifically to prevent that from happening or splitting population. One possibility is to simply port over the new mech construction rules/ weapon stats. This might address some balance issue. the art work would stay the same .

The kick starter is effectively a reboot of the TT. This gives creative freedom for the devs to make it better without the constraints of a kitchen table and 1980's tech. They could design the game in such a way as to be MWO friendly. All pgi would need to do for the alpha is up date some text files for the new weapons and stats. Over lay a new set of mech construction rules:one mech at a time . Not saying it will be simple. PGI had a hard job porting over an 80's TT game. They square pegged a round hole, but they got it to fit and fun is available.

The synergy between a new TT turn based BT and the existing PVP MWO is clear.

Pjwned, on 30 September 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

MWO 2.0 would not happen for quite a while (if it does at all) because PGI would not drop their current game just to re-make it, and since PGI holds the development rights (until 2020 I believe?) nobody else would be allowed to make it in any official capacity i.e nobody would care because anything big enough to matter would be shut down.

It's not simply a case of dropping the game. Sure new code would need to be written, however the foundation of a new TT is in 2015 vs. 1980 is a huge shift in potental for a future tech based battle mech game. Huge amounts of type 2 information can be over layed into mech construction rules simply because everythings computerised. customization is effectivly unlimited. Its not just mech speed, turn rate, armor, pin point FLD vs. DOT. heat/disapation.

Weapons wouldn't need to be limited to small, medium, large lasers. auto cannons could be both burst and single shell, new ecm rules , scout/ combat drones. the potental up side has rekindeled some of my intrest for MWO.

I see too much potental up side for everyone.... even harmony gold.

[Y E O N N E]

I will contribute at least $300 to a MechWarrior project that does all of ​the following:

• Ignores core rule; the game is built to represent the spirit of BattleTech and not a bunch of completely non-sequitur rules and values
  
• Is large-scale; the game has persistent continents similar to Planetside 2 that can be fought over, with resources to generate C-bills and otherwise influence the battle; players respawn and have to use resources to purchase their vehicles and weapons
  
• Is combined-arms; features 'Mechs, vehicles, and aerospace for players to control with AI infantry populating the map and creating a constant background pressure.
  
• Is sim-like; uses more grounded, realistic processes and mechanics to govern game-play elements, including such phenomena as recoil, power generation versus power draw, scattering effects for lasers, angle of impact determining damage, etc.
  
• Features weapon manufacturers; different makes of a particular weapon (i.e. AC/10) will have different behaviors and qualities
  
• Uses PGI's artwork or similar (no CGL Battlemasters, please, that thing is the worst)

I wouldn't even mind a Cert system like Planetside 2. Certs could be used to purchase access to different 'Mech/vehicle/weapon variants, which are then bought for C-bills during play.

Anyway, that's my MWO "2.0." That's what I want out of this franchise.

[sycocys]

Not to get all super negative or anything, but something about the history of PGI with this game would lead me to believe that them -PGI- trying to kickstart or otherwise crowdfund a "new" MWo would hit the ground harder than their attempt with Transverse.

Could they lease the rights to someone else? Maybe but that company would be just as well off waiting until MS doesn't renew their license and grab it up without having to deal with PGI as a middleman.

[Flaming oblivion]

Oh this better come out fast, PGI will lose a few players guaranteed.

[Davegt27]

I think PGI has a real opportunity to do a non-turn based single player/multiplayer upgrade to MWO


The two keys would be your ability to drill down and get inside the Mech and play it like the current MWO
Or drill out to a Gods eye view and use way points for a more tactical feel

As more players join in a match the less AI

For example if you only had two people they would control 1 to 12 Mechs in tactical (one person per side)
This would be mostly AI vs AI with the player being the overall battle space commander

With more players they would take control of more Mechs, if you have 3 players per side each could control a lance
If they drilled down and got inside a Mech the AI system would take over for the other Mechs

To me the key is the ability to enjoy the game on more than one level

Turn based Bah
This is the 21 century after all

[Kiiyor]

Alistair Winter, on 30 September 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

MWO2 is the reason I think PGI needs to stop vomiting hundred-dollar mech packs. If they want to do some kind of crowd funding for MWO2, there's no way they're getting money from hundreds of thousands of players who recently spent up to a thousand dollars on more on MWO1 mech packs. Market saturation is real, they need to give players a chance to hunger for new content.

How tempting is it really to start spending several hundred dollars on MWO2 when you've only just finished collecting MWO1 mechs? And how many people will have faith that MWO2 will be significantly different from MWO1, the way things are going now? We still haven't seen PVE or the finished CW or even Solaris.

I don't think we'll see MWO2 before 2018 or 2019, if not later. It would be a mistake to make that game too soon.

If they were to MWO2.0, I'd expect that they'd have to engineer a complete engine switch, maybe taking advantage of DX12 - which there are really no games currently being developed for. DX12 looks phenomenal, but it requires an entirely different development methodology than existing tech, and reports from around the industry and a few people I know tinkering with it point towards it being much harder to develop for.

I expect that the current focus of designers and artists working on mechs would have to shift significantly to programmers - and I can't see that happening any time soon.

To get any sort of community support for it, PGI would have to round out what we have now a lot more. When complaints of lacking features dwindle to a trickle, they could maybe test the waters about 2.0'ing, but i'm with you on that timeframe. 2018 sounds about right, and the industry around new tech will have matured nicely.

Edited by Kiiyor, 30 September 2015 - 06:30 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Davegt27, on 30 September 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

I think PGI has a real opportunity to do a non-turn based single player/multiplayer upgrade to MWO

I rather think PGI is hoping that this BattleTech game scratches the itch for single player and PvE so that they don't have to address it themselves, and that's one of the reasons they backed it.

Pessimistic, I know, but that just seems more inline with how they do things.

[Johnny Z]

sycocys, on 30 September 2015 - 04:56 PM, said:

Not to get all super negative or anything, but something about the history of PGI with this game would lead me to believe that them -PGI- trying to kickstart or otherwise crowdfund a "new" MWo would hit the ground harder than their attempt with Transverse.

Could they lease the rights to someone else? Maybe but that company would be just as well off waiting until MS doesn't renew their license and grab it up without having to deal with PGI as a middleman.

If this is true or not I dont know. But they dont deserve that. This game may be unfinished in many areas but they have done a good job of what is in game so far.

So much negative about this company isnt fair. Not even close to being fair considering the complete trash other games are handing out. Also dont get me started on Star Citizen which I really hope turns out to be a great game but wont be playable or have decent content for quite a while yet. If ever....

There is alot of problems in the industry getting alot of FU from players and basically everyone. Even fraud. Look at the Mass Effect series ruining its ending to prevent replay throughs(100+ youtube video of people going nuts over this), or KOTOR which doesnt have game play even close to the spirit of Star Wars. Look at Star Trek online or any of 100 MMO's. Or the 1000 kickstarters that turn out to never get finished. I totally agree with alot of the complaints.

I dont see that with this game, which has game play very close to the original board game in a sim fashion. I could go on and on but the point is made. Much of the negativity this game gets is complete bull or trolling from competition trying to sell trash or worse. (carefull...., the game entertainment industry is what it is because other things were already ruined......).

Edited by Johnny Z, 01 October 2015 - 12:00 AM.

[Madcap72]

Lootee, on 30 September 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

Counterstrike with mechskins 2.0: A quasi-BattleTech game wouldn't get a dime from me.

LOL You don't remember MW 2-4 and netmech/ gamespy matches online very well, do you?

[Raggedyman]

Tombstoner, on 30 September 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

What are peoples opinions regarding the future development of a MWO 2.0.

A MWO engine 2.0 is inevitable at some point, say within 5 years, as PC, server, and internet technology will have reached a point where the current version looks too old to be viable/+50%ish of the rigs are running on superultraDef without breaking a sweat.

Till then the current engine is pretty capable of doing the job of running a game sufficiently well on enough machines for it to be commercially viable (NB: if you have a +$500 PC then you are not the bulk of the market out there), if it's programmed well enough and if the balance in the game can be found. Given that this is an ongoing process you can expect the game to effectively hit an unofficial 2.0 every year or so (ie same core game, same core mechanics and art, pretty sufficiently rejigged experience for it to feel like a different version). Possibly more of a 1.X, but that's heading into semantics.

As for the Turn-Based Strategy game: I think it'll overall expand the MWO player base as it's another product going "Battletech Universe! Ra Ra Ra!!".

[Johnny Z]

Raggedyman, on 01 October 2015 - 04:01 AM, said:

A MWO engine 2.0 is inevitable at some point, say within 5 years, as PC, server, and internet technology will have reached a point where the current version looks too old to be viable/+50%ish of the rigs are running on superultraDef without breaking a sweat.

Till then the current engine is pretty capable of doing the job of running a game sufficiently well on enough machines for it to be commercially viable (NB: if you have a +$500 PC then you are not the bulk of the market out there), if it's programmed well enough and if the balance in the game can be found. Given that this is an ongoing process you can expect the game to effectively hit an unofficial 2.0 every year or so (ie same core game, same core mechanics and art, pretty sufficiently rejigged experience for it to feel like a different version). Possibly more of a 1.X, but that's heading into semantics.

As for the Turn-Based Strategy game: I think it'll overall expand the MWO player base as it's another product going "Battletech Universe! Ra Ra Ra!!".

I think technology that is updated and upgraded is better than the throw away system.

[Mawai]

Why would they ever make an MWO2?

The only reason in my opinion would be a new engine drop. In that case, it might be doable as a normal progression of MWO development (assuming they ever have the development bandwidth to invest in updating the engine).

Requirements for MWO2 ..
- ability to reuse existing art assets and translate maps to the new engine
- new engine provides improved graphics options, DX12 compatibility, possible compatibility with other systems that might allow for deployment on latest generation consoles (If they are going to invest in redeveloping the game for an updated engine then there needs to be a business case ... and for a free to play game that really means market expansion).
- new engine should provide BUILT-IN network and server side authoritative support. Cryengine didn't do this natively as far as I know which has caused headaches for both PGI and Star Citizen.

In short, if they were to implement a new engine then I think the reasons have to be greatly improved back end support and multi-platform capability rather than just prettier pictures.

I think this also needs to be an evolution from MWO rather than a completely new and incompatible game since they will not be able to get many players to transfer to MWO2. On the other hand, they might be able to bill such a feature as a substantial upgrade and initially fund that specific project via kickstarter ... with suitable rewards offered to backers.

The HBS kickstarter already has over 1.1 Million in funding with 33 days left to go ...

[Lootee]

Madcap72, on 30 September 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

LOL You don't remember MW 2-4 and netmech/ gamespy matches online very well, do you?

You don't remember Transuniverse at all do you? PGI has laid a giant stinking **** in their bed and people who gave them money before simply don't trust them any more.

Too many promised features that never materialized, too many broken promises: there will be role warfare, switchable fire modes for LBX, no 3PV, no coolant purge, thinking man's shooter, assault mode is only a placeholder and so on.

They would be able to cheat only a fraction of what they got from the Founders the first time around. People know better now, which is why Transverse never made it off the ground.

Edited by Lootee, 01 October 2015 - 04:39 AM.

[Appogee]

There's no way PGI is going to walk away from the current version of MWO to release a new one.

Their glacial pace of development, constrained of course by the number of devs they can hire, make it highly unlikely they'll walk away from any significant piece of code they've spent time developing.

At best, we'll get incremental improvements until the cashflow dries up, at which point further development will be quietly stalled, the game will have a brief period of sales to try and drag in a little more money from existing assets, and then the plug will be pulled.

I have no idea when that will be. We should know within a couple of months of the Steam release. If it goes well, we'll get a couple of years at least.

[Mawai]

Why would they ever make an MWO2?

The only reason in my opinion would be a new engine drop. In that case, it might be doable as a normal progression of MWO development (assuming they ever have the development bandwidth to invest in updating the engine).

Requirements for MWO2 ..
- ability to reuse existing art assets and translate maps to the new engine
- new engine provides improved graphics options, DX12 compatibility, possible compatibility with other systems that might allow for deployment on latest generation consoles (If they are going to invest in redeveloping the game for an updated engine then there needs to be a business case ... and for a free to play game that really means market expansion).
- new engine should provide BUILT-IN network and server side authoritative support. Cryengine didn't do this natively as far as I know which has caused headaches for both PGI and Star Citizen.

In short, if they were to implement a new engine then I think the reasons have to be greatly improved back end support and multi-platform capability rather than just prettier pictures.

I think this also needs to be an evolution from MWO rather than a completely new and incompatible game since they will not be able to get many players to transfer to MWO2. On the other hand, they might be able to bill such a feature as a substantial upgrade and initially fund that specific project via kickstarter ... with suitable rewards offered to backers.

The HBS kickstarter already has over 1.1 Million in funding with 33 days left to go ...