139 replies to this topic

[Jackal Noble]

Great thread Bish, much more in line with the current air on the forum. My Gaijin thread of a somewhat similar vein was ill thought out and well, started with two words lol.

I like the idea of having more HBS involvement on the MWO side of things, particularly have interest with their knack for fluff. Not even touching the idea of PVE which should be available, it would be great if there was more depth in the current game in the form of texts, documents, background on variants etc.

Thanks for fanning the flames

[Idealsuspect]

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.

Gave? You sure ?

Pretty sure they sell it, agaisnt money and some help with background ( for sell more mechs nothing more for now )
and with the money they did modelize more mechs ... And i have to say it's totally understandable and legit IMO.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 11 July 2016 - 05:45 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

Hmmm, I wonder if some of the older IS Mechs were introduced to MWO because HBS wanted them in their game?

Cyclops????????

[El Bandito]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

I would like to see them partner, like they have with HBS, with a more experienced, resource heavy Studio to produce the PvE part though, as I fear PGIs demonstrable lack of understanding of depth, immersion and their own playerbase, as seen through the continued shallowness of FW, would doom any attempt from PGI to make a PvE game worth playing.

You forgot to add, "balancing".

[Johnny Z]

Trauglodyte, on 11 July 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

I'd be ok with it but I want PvE aspects to be a part of the PvP game too. Artillery/Air Strikes need some level of voice interaction. But, that is small. What I'm talking about is calling for semi-AI guided semi-Player guided infantry/vehicle assistance. I'd absolutely love something like a Close Air Support consumable that would call in either a Mech Buster or a couple of VTOLs to provide 15-20 seconds of added fire support. I'd love for something like an Infantry consumable that called for a couple of Elementals or a platoon of Jump Infantry to get dropped, via a mini-drop ship, on your location that would move with you, or as fast as they could, to help guard you and add their feeble fire power to your own.

PvE is something that I'd love but it needs to bleed between both aspects of the game.

AI air and ground vehicles for the game have been requested none stop. Fallout 4 there are very weak AI gunships that can attack ground targets. In MechWarrior Online maybe a dropship could float around until shot down... even multiple dropships on opposite teams fighting each other and ground targets.

The addition of dropships was huge because it shows they can path AI air assets fairly easily. It really shouldnt be to much of a stretch to have these on all maps.

That serious air dropship to ground combat will be a part of this game isn't an issue of if, its an issue of when. The sooner the better. But they are in no rush its obvious. At this point off the field game play is hurtin more than anything anyway.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 July 2016 - 06:41 PM.

[Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky]

Honestly, I wouldnt care if the single player campaign was a simplistic story to begin with.

Your a random recruit... You select a house, and you pick up "random" contracts to make money. These random contracts is literally a cut and paste the vote screen of quick play. You build your stable of mechwarriors that have their own uncustomizable stock mechs but you pay their repair bills and salary.

Then after X missions, something bad happens that starts the real story that spirals until the end of A succession war where theres a grand battle save your house leader or something.

Maybe you start the campaign with your choice of a light mech from your selected house. Nothing to fancy- and campaign is completelly seperate from your mwo account when it comes to cbills and mechs? But players can spend mc and purchase campaign mechs (which will be injected also into your mwo account as well as your campaign character) for a quick upgrade for those you want an early edge in the story line without having to grind out campaign c-bills. Also these mc purchased mechs will always be in your stable, even if you start over with a fresh campaign!

All AI plays similar with the mechwarrior academy AI bots, so your pretty much ready to make this happen right PGI?

Throw us a bone? Most of the assets are already in the game! Pleeeeeease!!!!

Edit: all story mission events happen on a faction play map without respawns and instead use your repair facilities you already coded im the academy!

Edited by Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kerensky, 11 July 2016 - 10:18 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Their PvE is likely to be a simple ripoff of AW's PvE mode.

I sincerely hope PGI doesn't attempt a campaign with a story and everything. It would be absolutely wretched quality.

[Kin3ticX]

Single player lol wut

why would you pay $500 for a gold mech to only have NPCs look at it

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Mawai, on 11 July 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

I don't know whether PGI is capable of building a good MW single player PVE experience or not. I think they would need a lot more talent in the story department along with additional developers to build a decent full single player campaign in a reasonable time frame.

They already have a lot of art assets for mechs but a single player campaign would need a lot of additional maps as well as a decent AI implementation and at least one (probably several) good designers.

However, before you can take it that far ... I think we would need to know the licensing and legal constraints currently in place.

As far as I know, PGI has a very restrictive license for MW development. I was under the impression that it was limited to online only. I'm also not sure where HBS obtained their license. It could be a separate licensing deal with Microsoft (who I think are the current rights holder), it could have been a agreement with PGI, or it is possible that HBS acquired the license as part of the MechWarrior Tactics assets that were liquidated with IGP.

PGI makes promises or suggestions of promises ... however, they won't deliver on those unless it has the time frame to make money from the development (which makes sense from a business perspective). For example, PGIs original MW license was supposed to run out this year I think (dates are fuzzy since I am working from memory). I think they received an extension in 2014 until something like 2020.However, development of FW didn't really start until AFTER PGI had the license extension granted. There was a significant hold up on a variety of MWO development until after the license extension was in place.

I think there may be a similar situation with PVE. PGI has expressed an interest in doing PVE. It is on the list of things they want to do. This keeps people interested and watching PGI for this development. However, they can make these statements without actually having a license ... they can not release content and would likely not do any significant work on the feature without a license to do so. The whole tutorial may be a test bed for PVE technologies but an online game requires a tutorial to learn the game so the features are justifiable and the tutorials do not constitute a PVE game experience.

So ... if I had to guess ... Russ and co. may be negotiating for a license to produce and market a single player campaign game that would tie into MWO. Again my guess ... but given the lack of any real progress in this direction despite their claims of interest that have to date back at least 18 months (and their work on the tutorials) ... I'd have to guess that they don't actually have a license that includes a single player stand alone campaign game.

P.S. I could be completely wrong ... ... this is just speculation

nonsense ...play chess against Ki online=online gaming -play Farmville against KI =online Gaming ,go in the Mechlab ,bye Colors and Camos ,build Mechs =Online Gaming ...not alone against/with Human Player

co op missions for FW, to earn Honor and cbill, little Missions for your Fraction to play. seeing Star conflict from Gaijin -with Coop Missions against KI, Missions Pve,Open World System, Sector War with Many Fractions,a specific War Room system for own Battles with many Options,League-system...

PGI has failid in the Groundstructure of this Game ...now 4 Yrears later ...its come a Decalsystem ,thats Elements for a Alpha Version ...a FW Groundbase is a Element for a Alphaversion ...now PGI testing 4v4 and 8 vs 8 Maps , WTF is with the old Forrest Map ? the old Frozen? this perfect for 4vs 4 or 8 vs 8.Now Russ riding the next half dead Horse ,named E-sport, and failed with the first Word Wide Tournament, like the dead Horse FW , or "Transverse"

The free customization was perfect for Single Player MW games ,to fight against a Battalion of Bots, not for paly against other players, seeing other Online Wargames with very specific roles of the Gameobjects and Weaponssystems for this role.

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 12 July 2016 - 02:29 AM.

[Peter2k]

Would love for PGI to team up
They can pursue they're eSport
And leave the PvE to someone else

I like how Hairbrained does its research on lore stuff and how they found a corner on the star map to make things work for what they want
And digging through "lore" to find a suitable excuse for a mobile homebase for you're mercs

But I do think there're handling too much already to actually develop PvE for MWO
However they could come up with a narrative

Maybe PGI should outsource some stuff like PvE and additional map making

I'm not gonna hold my breath, but it sure would be nice

Kin3ticX, on 11 July 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

Single player lol wut

why would you pay $500 for a gold mech to only have NPCs look at it

From what PGI mentioned about a PvE experience, well you wouldn't bring you're stable of mechs from the online version with you

And some of us want a Mechwarrior to succeed enough to spend too much income on it
I'm sure that would be quite different if Hairbrained would've shown up sooner, or maybe instead of Mechwarrior tactics

Edited by Peter2k, 12 July 2016 - 05:00 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Kin3ticX, on 11 July 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

...lol wut

why would you pay 500 for a gold mech...

Agreed

I know it's not what you really said, but it's all I could see.

[TKSax]

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

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.

Sources? I have never read anything anywhere that states this and people continue to parrot this, add in I have my own sources that say differently. I always find this particular hammer that people use to defend PGI as having no weight.

[Scout Derek]

Idealsuspect, on 11 July 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

Gave? You sure ?

Pretty sure they sell it, agaisnt money and some help with background ( for sell more mechs nothing more for now )
and with the money they did modelize more mechs ... And i have to say it's totally understandable and legit IMO.

I already explained that point as well, involving the money that is.

TKSax, on 12 July 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

Sources? I have never read anything anywhere that states this and people continue to parrot this, add in I have my own sources that say differently. I always find this particular hammer that people use to defend PGI as having no weight.

I have to agree on this one - never heard any major news nowadays about BattleTech being a toxic IP, heck, I'd say we're one of the more relaxed communities as to WoW or other major gaming communities.

[TKSax]

Procurator Derek, on 12 July 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

I have to agree on this one - never heard any major news nowadays about BattleTech being a toxic IP, heck, I'd say we're one of the more relaxed communities as to WoW or other major gaming communities.

Right, People I am sure will say it was the toxic community why they did not make a Mechwarrior game for 10 years, forgetting that PC Gaming had a huge decline after MW4 was released and consoles were all the rage (hence mech assault). Now times are different (from when even pgi started with MWO) PC Gaming is in a much better place that it was back then.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TKSax, on 12 July 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Right, People I am sure will say it was the toxic community why they did not make a Mechwarrior game for 10 years, forgetting that PC Gaming had a huge decline after MW4 was released and consoles were all the rage (hence mech assault). Now times are different (from when even pgi started with MWO) PC Gaming is in a much better place that it was back then.

Not to mention established IPs are often a mixed bag for developers, deviation is often seen as a betrayal (just look at how much flak MW4 took).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 July 2016 - 07:18 AM.

[Scout Derek]

TKSax, on 12 July 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Right, People I am sure will say it was the toxic community why they did not make a Mechwarrior game for 10 years, forgetting that PC Gaming had a huge decline after MW4 was released and consoles were all the rage (hence mech assault). Now times are different (from when even pgi started with MWO) PC Gaming is in a much better place that it was back then.

Not to mention that the USA economy was falling apart starting in 2006, as well as other events that may have deterred a game that involved blowing **** up. (not going to go into details because majority of us know what happened in the 2010s.)

Plus Mech assault branched off into the console community and involved a different crowd of people with different opinions on what they'd like to see in a mech game, a gut punch to people who were enjoying the MechWarrior franchise, which was one of the larger successful branches than most in BattleTech.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 July 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Not to mention established IPs are often a mixed bag for developers.

Unseen Dilemna, remember?

Damn Harmony Miners, they didn't even have rights to it...

******s. make us wait for the warhammer and others when they should have been here sooner.

[Bishop Steiner]

TKSax, on 12 July 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

Sources? I have never read anything anywhere that states this and people continue to parrot this, add in I have my own sources that say differently. I always find this particular hammer that people use to defend PGI as having no weight.

considering what I see on other game boards? If Community Toxicity was an issue almost no game would be made anymore.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 July 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Not to mention established IPs are often a mixed bag for developers, deviation is often seen as a betrayal (just look at how much flak MW4 took).

and yet how well it sold and was supported even post Microsoft, despite. Where Microsoft tanked the IP and really encountered toxicity was by focusing on MechAssault and their Xbox. And even it sold pretty decent.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 July 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

and yet how well it sold and was supported even post Microsoft, despite. Where Microsoft tanked the IP and really encountered toxicity was by focusing on MechAssault and their Xbox. And even it sold pretty decent.

I'm not saying it didn't sell well, that's not my point, my point is that developers may not want to take a fully established IP because of how limiting they can be without "betraying" the hardcore fans of the IP.

Mechassault did sell well, but the second entry's mediocrity sealed that series' fate.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 July 2016 - 07:56 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

Procurator Derek, on 12 July 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

I already explained that point as well, involving the money that is.

Money ?

[MeiSooHaityu]

I would think developers (especially publishers) would WANT to produce more established IPs.

Making a game is expensive and time consuming. This makes new IPs risky because the dev/publisher has to deal with a level of uncertainty on whether a new game will become popular and they will make a profit.

Existing IPs that are/were popular would offer a bit more security because it was well loved and there is a nostalgia factor involved with the IP. This carries less risk than coming up with a brand new IP that no one has heard of and just hoping it catches on.

You see this in both gaming and Hollywood all the time. That is why there are so many remakes of old movies from the past and when why there is a successful film or movie, it is sequeled all to hell.

Marvel movies, Call of Duty games, etc... Are all low risk high yield IPs that will be ran into the ground with sequels to milk as much money as possible.

Actually, if there was a real reason MechWarrior wasn't made earlier and more frequently, it's probably because it wasn't a twitch shooter. It was probably lumped into the whole fantasy simulator genre which has laid stagnant for years (like Freespace, Wing Commander, etc...)


Tl;dr
I don't think devs avoided MechWarrior because it was an established IP, they avoided it because it belonged in a dead genre and wasn't a CoD or Battlefield clone. The fact we have it now as MechWarrior Online (and Battletech) is because gaming is taking advantage of the whole nostalgia cash safety blanket that Hollywood has relied on for years.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 12 July 2016 - 08:14 AM.