44 replies to this topic

[Bryan Ekman]

MWO and EVE are not similar in so far as EVE allows unlimited* players to participate in core gameplay mechanics, such as mining, or fleet battles. MWO uses a match model - a limited numbers players join and play an instance of gameplay. The results of that instance are tabulated and then added to the metagame (stats, ranks, etc).

So I stand by my statement: MWO is not an MMO, however it has MMO like qualities.

*Unlimited is a theoretical possibility. Anyone who has played EVE knows what I'm talking about.

[Haeso]

Black Sunder, on 05 December 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

You play Eve Online too right?

I used to, I still like the game. My problems are unrelated to the meta game, which I loved. Mainly the pace/style of combat and skill progression system. Still very fond of the game, just don't play it anymore.

Bryan Ekman, on 05 December 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

MWO and EVE are not similar in so far as EVE allows unlimited* players to participate in core gameplay mechanics, such as mining, or fleet battles. MWO uses a match model - a limited numbers players join and play an instance of gameplay. The results of that instance are tabulated and then added to the metagame (stats, ranks, etc).

So I stand by my statement: MWO is not an MMO, however it has MMO like qualities.

*Unlimited is a theoretical possibility. Anyone who has played EVE knows what I'm talking about.

Quote Unlimited Unquote. The nodes sharing resources was a clever design. Though is it still proper procedure to warn CCP where huge battles will take place I wonder?

[Bryan Ekman]

Yes, I believe there is system in place for that. They can push the clusters to high performance hardware to help with the load.

[Huntsman]

Bryan Ekman, on 05 December 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

MWO and EVE are not similar in so far as EVE allows unlimited* players to participate in core gameplay mechanics, such as mining, or fleet battles. MWO uses a match model - a limited numbers players join and play an instance of gameplay. The results of that instance are tabulated and then added to the metagame (stats, ranks, etc).

So I stand by my statement: MWO is not an MMO, however it has MMO like qualities.

*Unlimited is a theoretical possibility. Anyone who has played EVE knows what I'm talking about.

Well, I mean, persistent stats is the convention of most multiplayer games on the market today, not just MMOs. In Battlefield 3 for instance, I rank up, get new stuff, it tracks my stats, and I play on instanced maps.

What really sets MWO apart from one of these typical modern multiplayer games?

[Bryan Ekman]

Huntsman, on 05 December 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

Well, I mean, persistent stats is the convention of most multiplayer games on the market today, not just MMOs. In Battlefield 3 for instance, I rank up, get new stuff, it tracks my stats, and I play on instanced maps.

What really sets MWO apart from one of these typical modern multiplayer games?

Community Warfare.

[S3dition]

Bryan Ekman, on 05 December 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

Yes, I believe there is system in place for that. They can push the clusters to high performance hardware to help with the load.

It makes me curious if you guys are planning on using scale able or elastic clouds for your infrastructure. From what I've read/seen, it's insanely good at dynamically increasing or decreasing VM power as needed.

Edited by S3dition, 05 December 2011 - 10:16 AM.

[Kresten Youngblood]

.[color="#000000"] [/color]
[color="#000000"]We can all agree that we want some type of entertainment from this game. It is obvious to me that we have a love for the Battlemech Universe and are looking forward to being able to drive our dreams around on a battlefield to blow things up like we dreamed of in our childhood. Until the devs provide information about the real way they see the game and experience their world, we just can talk and talk and nobody will be wrong or right. We can just wait the next 6 months to have our fun.[/color]

[GaussDragon]

Huntsman, on 05 December 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

What really sets MWO apart from one of these typical modern multiplayer games?

Again, I'm presuming but from what I've read I think what we'll see is this: On top of player stats like BF3, players are also affiliated with factions/houses that are part of the universe. Your performance is not only reflected in your player stats, but in your faction's stats too. The outcome of matches (IE performance) of one faction's players against the others, will be reflected in its progression in a territory map.

The finer details of how this works is a mystery to all but the devs, but the best way to look at it is as a 'hybrid' system between instanced (traditional lobby games) and persistent (MMOs like WoW and EVE). So think of it fundamentally as an instanced game but with persistent elements. Make sense?

[Odin]

Right GaussDragon, perhaps the therm MMO Massive Multipayer Online is misleading, a misnomer if ppl here think its about massive persistent world online. For me a MMO is a massive multiplayer game, doesn't matter if there is a persistent world or not. WoT surly didn't has a great persistent world? or what? But it labeled a MMO here.
Hopefully, MWO will have some sort of a persistent or what ever, living world online, in which you the player takes a part. Its not about massive players in one setting/battle, perhaps max. 64 players? The rest is Meta game ...and what ever RPG stats and Randall can provide.

[Galen Shannow]

I'm shooting you all with my PPC +5 of Doom.

[Firefly]

Not all MMOs have RPG tendancies. Not all MMOs are persistent worlds (these usually, but not always, suck). Not all MMOs have crafting.

I stand by my example that the closest thing to a BattleTech or MechWarrior MMO is Planetside, which was/is the world's only true MMO-FPS. There was no crafting, no respawning NPCs, just pure PvP in a first-person shooter environment. The BFRs (PS's version of 'Mechs) were not well-done, at all, however.

If a true BattleTech MMO ever reared its head, with a 100% persistent online world without instances or lobbies or elves or NPCs or PvE, I would never play another game and I would spend all my spare cash in that game. True story.

[Monoblos]

based on what i read so far and from the discussion from the forum and has well from youtube vids. hopefully soon this game will launch and when it does it will look epic.

[KnowBuddy]

Firefly, on 05 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

Not all MMOs have RPG tendancies. Not all MMOs are persistent worlds (these usually, but not always, suck). Not all MMOs have crafting.

I stand by my example that the closest thing to a BattleTech or MechWarrior MMO is Planetside, which was/is the world's only true MMO-FPS. There was no crafting, no respawning NPCs, just pure PvP in a first-person shooter environment. The BFRs (PS's version of 'Mechs) were not well-done, at all, however.

If a true BattleTech MMO ever reared its head, with a 100% persistent online world without instances or lobbies or elves or NPCs or PvE, I would never play another game and I would spend all my spare cash in that game. True story.

This, this, and this.

I'm looking forward with trepidation to Planetside2, as nobody can horribly mess up a good game quite as spectacularly as SOE (well, EA gives them a run for their money every once in a while, but still).
And Planetside was great... until BFRs and the "Morlock"-y direction it took with Bore Combat.

[Galen Shannow]

Just a point but ww2ol was a MMO FPS before Planetside and still exists today.

I think the cross between instanced battles and a persistent world overlay is about the best combination you can get. The problem with a one map persistent world is you get huge unbalances of people in certain areas and the like. Why? Because human nature will find a way to win and warfare is an unfair enterprise. What we want to play is a game...so by making the battles , instanced...somewhat balanced battles you get that element of fairness while adding a 'point' to the battle with the persistent overlay.

[Korbyn McColl]

I don't care if you call it "My Little Pony Online", I just want my damn mech.

[Dlardrageth]

Bryan Ekman, on 05 December 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Community Warfare.

Um, is that dev-speak for "Roleplay the hell out of the forums-to-be!"?

Seriously now, or does it mean we just roll/walk over a purely theorethical target on a purely theorethical strategic map? I think it would be interesting to know if that is, to use an analogy from boardgames, you have some possibility to actually "push" counters, or if it all just happens automatically like some slide-show?

The latter meaning e.g. I just happen to lose the Planet Luthien to Clan BurgerKing because I had a localized power outage of 30 minutes? And randomly my random battle no.351 was chosen to represent what takes place there. Without me knowing that in advance? I don't want to be overly nit-picky here, but if you throw out just this one phrase it sounds... disturbing... like a whole community (Of BT/MW fans, no less!) might have to agree on something...

[Thorqemada]

Bryan Ekman, on 05 December 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

MWO and EVE are not similar in so far as EVE allows unlimited* players to participate in core gameplay mechanics, such as mining, or fleet battles. MWO uses a match model - a limited numbers players join and play an instance of gameplay. The results of that instance are tabulated and then added to the metagame (stats, ranks, etc).

So I stand by my statement: MWO is not an MMO, however it has MMO like qualities.

*Unlimited is a theoretical possibility. Anyone who has played EVE knows what I'm talking about.

I truly believe, that this can be more the starting point and IF the game becomes successfull there is a chance to develop it further.
Not into a level-gear-progression-fake-rpg as the most of the other mmos but a real battletech universe mmo with the combat simulator as corepart and added gameplay elements.
To have a mmo like universe you need not "real" persistent worlds, only persistent results and proper management options, at some point even real 3d-pilot-avatars.
For example i really loved the Wing Commander Red Alert animation szene of the first wing commander - it gave a sense of dramatic events soon to happen and similar things for mwo with your personal customized 3d pilot avatar climbing up the ladder to the cockpit while the alarm screams would be a very nice loadscreen until the battlefield is generated, no?



PS: And an option to sell a tad more in the games store - if you stay unlike EVE in a reasonable range of expenses.

Edited by Thorqemada, 05 December 2011 - 02:24 PM.

[Huntsman]

GaussDragon, on 05 December 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

Again, I'm presuming but from what I've read I think what we'll see is this: On top of player stats like BF3, players are also affiliated with factions/houses that are part of the universe. Your performance is not only reflected in your player stats, but in your faction's stats too. The outcome of matches (IE performance) of one faction's players against the others, will be reflected in its progression in a territory map.

The finer details of how this works is a mystery to all but the devs, but the best way to look at it is as a 'hybrid' system between instanced (traditional lobby games) and persistent (MMOs like WoW and EVE). So think of it fundamentally as an instanced game but with persistent elements. Make sense?

Well, I hope its more than just another mechwarrior game where they just build the league factor into the game model. I'm sure I speak for everyone who has played since the mid 90s or before, that what we've been looking for all along is an encapsulating Mechwarrior experience. Something that really makes you feel like you're part of the Battletech universe. Titanic playing areas (worlds) on which the various houses are located. All vehicles in play like MWLL...

I was hoping for a Planetside-like game put into the Mechwarrior genre but it sounds like we'll still be waiting for that game. I'm disappointed, but maybe if this game is successful the developers will get the funds to pursue a more ambitious project.

[metro]

Firefly, on 05 December 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

Not all MMOs have RPG tendancies. Not all MMOs are persistent worlds (these usually, but not always, suck). Not all MMOs have crafting.

I stand by my example that the closest thing to a BattleTech or MechWarrior MMO is Planetside, which was/is the world's only true MMO-FPS. There was no crafting, no respawning NPCs, just pure PvP in a first-person shooter environment. The BFRs (PS's version of 'Mechs) were not well-done, at all, however.

If a true BattleTech MMO ever reared its head, with a 100% persistent online world without instances or lobbies or elves or NPCs or PvE, I would never play another game and I would spend all my spare cash in that game. True story.

so. Mr. Ekman....will our MWO game mimick Planetside? or will it be another MW4?

I think we would all like a little juice for pleasure?

Not all of us want to PVP all day-- everyday, Some strategy and planning have to be allowed for in MWO, the MPBT communities trudged and survived through the MW4 series...in hopes of a messiah! We hope that you and Russ are they!

I do want those warriors that want to battle to have all the battles that they can handle. However Battletech is much deeper than PPC burns on my Highlander. And I would like to see those planners and strategic minds, have a role in making MWO a success.


and.... I would oblige, spanking Firefly...mono y mono in my hunchie! and then buy him a few pints to cool him off. As I would appreciate the game he mentioned in his post as well.


HUNTSMAN is spot on... well said sir!

Edited by Metro, 06 December 2011 - 04:26 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

Again... keep it civil folks.