139 replies to this topic

[SmoothCriminal]

In an ideal world (because lets face it, none of this **** is ever going to happen), we could have procedurally generated maps, story lines, tasks, rewards, etc. for each house/mercenary unit based off the faction map. Ideally 1-4 co-op, tanks, AI mechs, even player mechs, etc.

These missions could affect the CW score for a planet (like intel). CW could also change into a combined arms fight for a planet (not the stale modes we have now of invasion/counter attack). CG/voice briefings for some levels (does not have to be all)

While we are here, a deep and intrinsic pilot specific skill tree to help your progression as a pilot (like Destiny, picking options as you level).

Finally, Solaris for all your epeen stroking, meta worshipping esports lovers ().

Dare to dream!

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Honestly, I dream of the day there will be a solo player campaign for mwo!

But, i dont want any other company stepping in to do it. There are two major reasons for this.

1) while I can honestly say there have been decisions pgi has made in the past that I dont agree with... And pgi has let me down before on some things... I dont want any legal issues popping up in the future that might bring mwo's servers to a close!!! Instead, i think it would be better if they just hired a small group of interns (people who have created ums for other games in the past for various games). That way they can produce content on a regular basis!

2) i hate EA, and I dont want them to wiggle their fingers into a project like this...

[Scout Derek]

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, on 11 July 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

Honestly, I dream of the day there will be a solo player campaign for mwo!

But, i dont want any other company stepping in to do it. There are two major reasons for this.

1) while I can honestly say there have been decisions pgi has made in the past that I dont agree with... And pgi has let me down before on some things... I dont want any legal issues popping up in the future that might bring mwo's servers to a close!!! Instead, i think it would be better if they just hired a small group of interns (people who have created ums for other games in the past for various games). That way they can produce content on a regular basis!

2) i hate EA, and I dont want them to wiggle their fingers into a project like this...

1) PGI did a solid for HBS, it would make sense since HBS will be more single player based than multiplayer, and have more games under the belt.

2) EA will never come here. if they do we lose all hope....
(Battlefront I cri everytiem)

Edited by Procurator Derek, 11 July 2016 - 09:19 AM.

[DAYLEET]

Since the Announcement of HBS using MWO assets ive been hopping for a deeper partnership down the line. The obvious one leads to a solo/coop game mode. It could get deeper than that, the possibilities are great. Ever since i joined MWO ive been hoping for many thing and i should have learned my lesson by then but i find myself always hoping for improvement for some reasons.

[1453 R]

The hatred is strong in this thread.

Is it any real wonder Piranha feels burned out on this license, if this is the sort of thing they get to look forward to every day? Yeebus.

Anyways...insofar as an active partnership goes, I believe the current dealio with HBS is as close as you're getting. I've already started thinking of HBS' BattleTech and Piranha's MWO as "The 'Mech Game, (Campaign Component) and (Online/Real-Time Component)" Sure, HBS is sticking pretty strictly to 3025-er Fourth Succession War era and that'll suck, but I've loved HBS' previous work on Shadowrun and can't imagine they'll do a bad job even with bad 'Mechs.

And c'mon, folks - for all the hate everyone else in this forum just loves to pile hip-deep on Piranha, they've managed to put together a pretty workable real-time engine for MWO. The particulars can be argued (and are. Incessantly), and yeah, they've been sitting on their laurels a goodly bit recently...but you're not going to get another developer that'll do anything better for you. As has been mentioned - most of the industry considers BattleTech a toxic IP, due to the sheer rabidity of its fanbase and their utter hatred for anything remotely smacking of not being firmly, insanely anchored to a going-on-forty-now tabletop gaming ruleset.

MW4 was good, people. It was fun. I liked it, funky build system and all. Was it different? Yes, it was - but different isn't bad, eh? I mean hell, without Mechwarrior 4, would we have an endless pool of Duncan Fisher memes?

If you want a company to build a MechWarrior game for you, you have to give them just a little g'damned bit of room to build the game. Even Harebrained is taking liberties, and a goodly few of them, with the original tabletop format you folks are constantly grinding Piranha's gears over not sticking closely enough to. And you know what? Most of those liberties I've heard of sound great.

Maybe if Piranha wasn't harassed into hair loss every time they tried to break out just the tiniest bit from A BattleTech Game™, they wouldn't be so burned with this property and we wouldn't be in such a rough spot?

[Johnny Z]

TrapJaw80, on 11 July 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

nintendo...

pokemech go!

Lead designers alt.....

[Big Tin Man]

Procurator Derek, on 11 July 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

1) PGI did a solid for HBS, it would make sense since HBS will be more single player based than multiplayer, and have more games under the belt.

I got a feeling some $$ changed hands on this 'solid'. That said, I'd probably enjoy a PGI made campaign with story by HBS. PGI made a good robit shooting simulator, HBS can write a good story. As long as the AI is decent and the maps are on par (or slightly reused) with what MWO has, they could get there.

[Johnny Z]

1453 R, on 11 July 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

The hatred is strong in this thread.

Is it any real wonder Piranha feels burned out on this license, if this is the sort of thing they get to look forward to every day? Yeebus.

Anyways...insofar as an active partnership goes, I believe the current dealio with HBS is as close as you're getting. I've already started thinking of HBS' BattleTech and Piranha's MWO as "The 'Mech Game, (Campaign Component) and (Online/Real-Time Component)" Sure, HBS is sticking pretty strictly to 3025-er Fourth Succession War era and that'll suck, but I've loved HBS' previous work on Shadowrun and can't imagine they'll do a bad job even with bad 'Mechs.

And c'mon, folks - for all the hate everyone else in this forum just loves to pile hip-deep on Piranha, they've managed to put together a pretty workable real-time engine for MWO. The particulars can be argued (and are. Incessantly), and yeah, they've been sitting on their laurels a goodly bit recently...but you're not going to get another developer that'll do anything better for you. As has been mentioned - most of the industry considers BattleTech a toxic IP, due to the sheer rabidity of its fanbase and their utter hatred for anything remotely smacking of not being firmly, insanely anchored to a going-on-forty-now tabletop gaming ruleset.

MW4 was good, people. It was fun. I liked it, funky build system and all. Was it different? Yes, it was - but different isn't bad, eh? I mean hell, without Mechwarrior 4, would we have an endless pool of Duncan Fisher memes?

If you want a company to build a MechWarrior game for you, you have to give them just a little g'damned bit of room to build the game. Even Harebrained is taking liberties, and a goodly few of them, with the original tabletop format you folks are constantly grinding Piranha's gears over not sticking closely enough to. And you know what? Most of those liberties I've heard of sound great.

Maybe if Piranha wasn't harassed into hair loss every time they tried to break out just the tiniest bit from A BattleTech Game™, they wouldn't be so burned with this property and we wouldn't be in such a rough spot?

Burn out?

These guys, 11 years same title, and a few fails before getting to this new game, and it may not even be any good.




CDPR, 12 years same title and only just now moving onto another.

A Journeyman in any trade it takes 4 years. Even then it takes many more than that to really master any of the difficult ones.

Just saying that it takes time to get good at anything especially an industry. My Grandfather left his personal tools for Drywall on three continents as prototypes and some of those are completely obsolete, except a few, and some of those have been around since Egyptian times (ya thousands of years ago and still used today in all forms of construction) and used common place for all sorts of trades including drywall.

Anyway video games is all new and will take time to perfect. At least another 20 or so years to get to around where it will be a solid industry. Look at television its still being improved.

So anyway I expect MechWarrior Online will improve a lot more over time, because while my reply may seem off topic, its in companies interest and even national interest to have these technologies understood or be left behind. NA and SA wont be new continents forever relying on resources to pull them through.

Answer to topic? No, they should figure it out.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 July 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Scout Derek]

Big Tin Man, on 11 July 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

I got a feeling some $$ changed hands on this 'solid'. That said, I'd probably enjoy a PGI made campaign with story by HBS. PGI made a good robit shooting simulator, HBS can write a good story. As long as the AI is decent and the maps are on par (or slightly reused) with what MWO has, they could get there.

Oh no doubt on the money, but still a solid since they don't have the magicman like we do in making mechs.

[Metus regem]

1453 R, on 11 July 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

The hatred is strong in this thread.

Is it any real wonder Piranha feels burned out on this license, if this is the sort of thing they get to look forward to every day? Yeebus.

Anyways...insofar as an active partnership goes, I believe the current dealio with HBS is as close as you're getting. I've already started thinking of HBS' BattleTech and Piranha's MWO as "The 'Mech Game, (Campaign Component) and (Online/Real-Time Component)" Sure, HBS is sticking pretty strictly to 3025-er Fourth Succession War era and that'll suck, but I've loved HBS' previous work on Shadowrun and can't imagine they'll do a bad job even with bad 'Mechs.

And c'mon, folks - for all the hate everyone else in this forum just loves to pile hip-deep on Piranha, they've managed to put together a pretty workable real-time engine for MWO. The particulars can be argued (and are. Incessantly), and yeah, they've been sitting on their laurels a goodly bit recently...but you're not going to get another developer that'll do anything better for you. As has been mentioned - most of the industry considers BattleTech a toxic IP, due to the sheer rabidity of its fanbase and their utter hatred for anything remotely smacking of not being firmly, insanely anchored to a going-on-forty-now tabletop gaming ruleset.

MW4 was good, people. It was fun. I liked it, funky build system and all. Was it different? Yes, it was - but different isn't bad, eh? I mean hell, without Mechwarrior 4, would we have an endless pool of Duncan Fisher memes?

If you want a company to build a MechWarrior game for you, you have to give them just a little g'damned bit of room to build the game. Even Harebrained is taking liberties, and a goodly few of them, with the original tabletop format you folks are constantly grinding Piranha's gears over not sticking closely enough to. And you know what? Most of those liberties I've heard of sound great.

Maybe if Piranha wasn't harassed into hair loss every time they tried to break out just the tiniest bit from A BattleTech Game™, they wouldn't be so burned with this property and we wouldn't be in such a rough spot?

DO I have hate for PGI? No, I just wish they would stick to a direction and follow through on it, before changing to a new direction. As for stepping away from TT, I understand that it has to be done for a real time game, but there is steeping away while keeping the flavor of the IP, then there is running away and making a generic robot shooter. Lately I feel as if PGI is leaning more towards the second, rather than the former. I personally think going closer to the former would be better.

A proper amount of shot deviation, based on player controllable conditions.
Proper heat effects based on the systems.
Just a bit more Lore.


That's all I could ask for, over all has PGI done okay with the IP, bringing it back from a deep dark closet? Yes.

Could they do better? Yes, I think they could, if given a chance and some breathing room to do it.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Procurator Derek, on 11 July 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

1) PGI did a solid for HBS, it would make sense since HBS will be more single player based than multiplayer, and have more games under the belt.

2) EA will never come here. if they do we lose all hope....
(Battlefront I cri everytiem)

I personally am very excited for hbs battletech game. And I am glad pgi sold assets to hbs to make the battletech game.

But i am sad i was unable to back the game during its kickstarter... i really wanted the flight jacket, but for some reason, I had a problem processing my payment during that time!!! (And mighty no9...)

[RedDragon]

Procurator Derek, on 11 July 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

I can see that happening, HBS writes the story, PGI applies the graphics and coding.

Dear God, please, no!
Letting PGI do the code is like asking your plumber to build you a spaceship.

The only thing PGI has going for themselves is the art department, namely Alex, and they manage to butcher even his great work in the process of coding.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 11 July 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

The hatred is strong in this thread.

Is it any real wonder Piranha feels burned out on this license, if this is the sort of thing they get to look forward to every day? Yeebus.

Anyways...insofar as an active partnership goes, I believe the current dealio with HBS is as close as you're getting. I've already started thinking of HBS' BattleTech and Piranha's MWO as "The 'Mech Game, (Campaign Component) and (Online/Real-Time Component)" Sure, HBS is sticking pretty strictly to 3025-er Fourth Succession War era and that'll suck, but I've loved HBS' previous work on Shadowrun and can't imagine they'll do a bad job even with bad 'Mechs.

And c'mon, folks - for all the hate everyone else in this forum just loves to pile hip-deep on Piranha, they've managed to put together a pretty workable real-time engine for MWO. The particulars can be argued (and are. Incessantly), and yeah, they've been sitting on their laurels a goodly bit recently...but you're not going to get another developer that'll do anything better for you. As has been mentioned - most of the industry considers BattleTech a toxic IP, due to the sheer rabidity of its fanbase and their utter hatred for anything remotely smacking of not being firmly, insanely anchored to a going-on-forty-now tabletop gaming ruleset.

MW4 was good, people. It was fun. I liked it, funky build system and all. Was it different? Yes, it was - but different isn't bad, eh? I mean hell, without Mechwarrior 4, would we have an endless pool of Duncan Fisher memes?

If you want a company to build a MechWarrior game for you, you have to give them just a little g'damned bit of room to build the game. Even Harebrained is taking liberties, and a goodly few of them, with the original tabletop format you folks are constantly grinding Piranha's gears over not sticking closely enough to. And you know what? Most of those liberties I've heard of sound great.

Maybe if Piranha wasn't harassed into hair loss every time they tried to break out just the tiniest bit from A BattleTech Game™, they wouldn't be so burned with this property and we wouldn't be in such a rough spot?

Hatred?

Drama much?

If anything it's the playerbase feeling burned out over 4 years of empty promises and ever shallowing "immersion".

I don't hate PGI for it, I simply have accepted reality. They either lack the desire or the ability to make a game half as immersive as they sold to get our Founders Money. Period. Instead of pining for what will never be, I'd rather see PGI go full throttle into Esports instead of wasting resources to get a PvE mode that's as poorly planned and deliverered as FW.

It doesn't benefit PGI, MWO or the Playerbase for that to happen.

Big Tin Man, on 11 July 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

I got a feeling some $$ changed hands on this 'solid'. That said, I'd probably enjoy a PGI made campaign with story by HBS. PGI made a good robit shooting simulator, HBS can write a good story. As long as the AI is decent and the maps are on par (or slightly reused) with what MWO has, they could get there.

This. Or something along these lines. Allow each Studio to work to their strengths instead of diluting their resources for substandard results. Win for PGI, win for the Players.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Although I would like to see HBS supply a single player story framework for PGI, I don't believe HBS would be able to provide that service without compromising it's own game.

HBS is a very small developer, and the impression I get is that they are very busy with Battletech's development and will be busy with it for quite some time. I just don't see them having the resources or manpower available to help for quite some time.

I also wouldn't want PGI's single player development to take away from HBS's Battletech Development (and delay it or derail it). HBS needs to stay focused on their project.

Besides, HBS's expertise seems to be in RPGs. The story, pacing, structure, etc... that they are used to may not quite work for an FPS. Maybe if they supplied a story only it might be OK, but help with actual single player development, that is probably best left to companies that specialize in that game type.

Overall though, I feel HBS needs to concentrate on their own game to meet their obligations to their own customers. PGI should look elsewhere for assistance whether it be maybe Stackpole himself for consultation (assuming he is available) or another company to contract that can spare to proper resources.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 11 July 2016 - 10:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 11 July 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

Although I would like to see HBS supply a single player story framework for PGI, I kind of question how available HBS would be to provide that service.

HBS is a very small developer, and the impression I get is that they are very busy with Battletech's development and will be busy with it for quite some time. I just do t see them having the resources or manpower available to help for quite some time.

I also wouldn't want PGI's single player development to take away from HBS's Battletech Development. HBS needs to stay focused on their project.

Besides, HBS's expertise seems to be in RPGs. The story, pacing, structure, etc... that they are used to may not quite work for an FPS. Maybe if they supplied a story only it might be OK, but help with actual single player development, that is probably best left to companies that specialize in that game type.

Overall though, I feel HBS needs to concentrate on their own game to meet their obligations to their own customers. PGI should look elsewhere for assistance whether it be maybe Stackpole himself for consultation (assuming he is available) or another company to contract that can spare to proper resources.

Well, while a lot of people have tossed HBS around in this... you will notice the OP doesn't actually reference them in this role. Because they are already busy, and small. What PGI needs is another small studio with a reputation for quality, to team with.

[Scout Derek]

RedDragon, on 11 July 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

Dear God, please, no!
Letting PGI do the code is like asking your plumber to build you a spaceship.

The only thing PGI has going for themselves is the art department, namely Alex, and they manage to butcher even his great work in the process of coding.

and how do you propose HBS do the coding? the two companies are polar opposites of games, so tell me, who would code it aside from PGI since HBS does different type of coding?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Well, while a lot of people have tossed HBS around in this... you will notice the OP doesn't actually reference them in this role. Because they are already busy, and small. What PGI needs is another small studio with a reputation for quality, to team with.

The OP meaning you? . Referring to yourself in the third person huh? Meisoohaityu is confused .

I know what you are saying, but a lot of subsequent posters are pointing to HBS, and HBS's plate is pretty full. Maybe some people who don't visit the Battletech forum aren't as aware of that.

[Navid A1]

Procurator Derek, on 11 July 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

A partnership in making the campaign?

I can see that happening, HBS writes the story, PGI applies the graphics and coding.

I mean, PGI did them a solid with the models, I see why not that HBS would not do a solid for them.

That can actually work.

But its just optimistic thinking... it will never happen.

[Scout Derek]

Navid A1, on 11 July 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

That can actually work.

But its just optimistic thinking... it will never happen.

is it? so would that mean it was optimistic thinking when PGI gave HBS it's mech models for use?

Who knows, this is the first thing that's been thought of.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Procurator Derek, on 11 July 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

is it? so would that mean it was optimistic thinking when PGI gave HBS it's mech models for use?

Who knows, this is the first thing that's been thought of.

If HBS had agreed to help PGI as part of a trade (mech models for single player dev help), I sure hope that was decided before the Battletech Kickstarter went live and Battletech's development had already been scheduled around those plans from the start.

Again, I wouldn't want PGI's work to interfere with HBS's.