287 replies to this topic

[Moldur]

Crushko, on 04 June 2016 - 06:08 AM, said:

In a perfect world we would have the MW (5) from 2009 and would also play MW 6 at this point as offline/coop games while MWO would be the PvP game.

Man, the what ifs Well, at least we are getting Hairbrained Scheme's Battletech game. If it's good enough, it'll validate MWO being the foot-in-the-door.

[Alan Davion]

Moldur, on 04 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

Man, the what ifs Well, at least we are getting Hairbrained Scheme's Battletech game. If it's good enough, it'll validate MWO being the foot-in-the-door.

If anything HBS' game would make a better introduction to BT/MW than MWO ever would.

[Dogstar]

As I sometimes see people complaining about how poorly optimised MWO is you should know that WoT is actually WORSE!

Logical Increments has a 'Best Game Builds' section and WoT requires some of the most expensive builds to get the best performance: http://www.logicalin...s.com/games/wot

If you compare that page to the Crysis page (which I believe uses CryEngine) you can readily see the difference: http://www.logicalin...om/games/crysis

So WoT is more popular despite dreadful graphics code optimisation

[Green Mamba]

Alan Davion, on 04 June 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

It was PGI and S&T. If you watch the old videos you'll see both logos. The cease and desist from Harmony Gold, and the threat of a full on lawsuit pretty much destroyed the MW Reboot, and instead we got this.

Didn't PGI add their logo in later though.I am talking about the 2009 warhammer one

[Alan Davion]

Green Mamba, on 05 June 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Didn't PGI add their logo in later though.I am talking about the 2009 warhammer one

That's what I'm talking about as well. The video had both logos from the start.

[Anjian]

Johnny Z, on 04 June 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

LETS GET REAL HERE. World of Tanks is more popular because they haven't tried MechWarrior online yet or MechWarrior online is to slow adding new content.

REAR END OF 75 YEAR OLD TANK OR FIRST PERSON IN A SCI-FI FUTURE WAR MACHINE IN A GALACTIC WAR. WHICH IS BETTER?

SERIOUSLY, GET REAL.

Seriously, its Science Fiction vs. History and Science Fiction doesn't win. This is about a lore that is created by imagination versus a lore created by real blood, sweat and tears and embedded forever in the history of nations.

See the reception about CoD going to fight aliens while Battlefield goes back to WW1.

Stop comparing WoT too. War Thunder is much better, even if their developers have gone into some 'fortress mode' as well.

Panthers vs. Shermans



One thing about a wargame, people are going into their 'spread freedom' mode.

Edited by Anjian, 05 June 2016 - 11:03 PM.

[Kuaron]

I'll respond in this thread to avoid crossposting:

Prof RJ Gumby, on 08 June 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

Better? Well optimised? Without the deathball problem? Oh my, things must have changed drastically since I played WoT last time. Like, extremely drastically.

When were you playing the last time?
But yes, the optimization there is way better then here, and in addition MWO has the following problems:
1) Mechs are just bags full of HP, armour is HP and structure is HP. There is no actual armour and penetration mechanic, it's all about damage numbers, that's why many guns make Mechs dead, simple and stupid. => Deathballs. Very little positioning game besides of being in a position where more allied than enemy guns are.
2) Missing information warfare. Sure, MWO simulates you being the pilot himself, that's why you see everything you see and not what an abstract tank commander's range is (the sensors partly replace this mechanic). But it also leaves out too much of the infowar stuff that is present Battletech, and as a result spotting, information ans stuff is much less a thing here than in WoT. Instead you just have to have more guns in place, again.
While lights being small and fast damage dealers is in WoT suspected to be a problem in terms of roles diversity, in MWO there is not even a doubt they are not for spotting.
3) Mechs are almost permanently capable of firing something, catching one on cooldown works mainly in theory. Rather you just have to throw more damage pew, wub and dakka numbers on the enemy HP bags before one of you hides.
Sorry for getting repetitive.

The problems in WoT are more all the stock tank suffering (in MWO a Mech takes one evening to become 'basic' at least), but I'd consider this minor in comparison. The biggest advantage in MWO is a functioning player interaction; most players have VOIP on and it works, they use it for coordinating the tactics. In WoT this is the picture players have of each other. Almost every single one of them. The rest is mostly drunk or minor.

[Jon Gotham]

I am amzaed at how popular WOT is though. It has two glaring horrible flaws from my experience:
#1 The disgustingly poor match maker. Stacking massive skill disparities in matches.One team has a huge advantage in skill for no reason. Why not distribute the good players evenly in each match?
#2 the RNG, oh yes the RNG. Had a nice game earlier where my MINIMUM penetration of 41mm bounced three times in a row off a tank with 15mm of non spaced armour, at a flat 90 angle to me. Perfect shot you would think. But got three impossible bounces in a row.
250mm+ penetrations guns bouncing off 30mm of armour, shells leaving the barrel at 30 degree angles etc.