20 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

... that MW5 became CO-OP, basically your PVE game. MWO still remain the only PVP option.

Question 1: Would you migrate and drop the PvP all together?

Explanation: Of all MMORPG games that I've played, PVP servers are usually the first to die. Truth to be told, people just inherently don't like to feel competing with fellow human beings. They are willing to spend 400 hours in raiding, but probably just 30 minutes testing out PVP contents. THOUGH, Mechwarrior would be a bit different. At it's core, it's a FPS game. There are no FPS games out on the market (as far as I know, and I don't know a lot) that has a true PVE style content to compete with the PVP aspect.

I can recall CO-OP or Zombie for CoD, but they are far lesser game mode than true PVE content (and far less popular than just the shoot 'em up counterpart). MW5 would be the first to truly have the potential for that divide to happen. This will be interesting to see.

Question 2: To fund MW5 PVE contents (Raid and/or CO-OP missions), you are require to pay a monthly of 10-15 dollars a month. Otherwise, you pay flat fee for the basic Single Player game. Would you pay the monthly?

Question 3: Now that we introduce Question 2, would your mind be changed and instead, opt NOT to CO-OP, but stay with the PVP of MWO?

----------

*CO-OP missions are like your MMORPG dungeons. (Or if you played CoD CO-OP mode, then you know what it's about)

*Raid missions are maybe... like an impossible task that takes massive unit coordination to complete. Like you have to simultaneously over take beacon, mark targets for friendly artillery, fight off hords of AI mechs/jets/tanks/infantries, and occupy several outposts simultaneously. Maybe even a 250 ton super boss that will take a lot of armor sharing.

------------

Anyways, discuss!

--------------

Edit: Addendum: I know it's been said that MW5 would be a lot earlier in the timeline. But just for laughs and giggles, say PGI renege on that, and make the timeline SIMULTANEOUS to MWO, so that there's a sort of tie-in. Like, for once, units determine their own history. So you can further planetary conquest by fighting for whatever mercenary companies and their respective factions. Meanwhile, in MWO, the planets are no longer chosen, but determined by the PVE contest.

For example, your PVE mission for Steiner require you to drop continuously as CO-OP missions on planet GooBlar. Meanwhile, people that chose Ghost Bear also mandate planet GooBlar. So when 50 contests from each side was reach, the planet is locked. BUT on the MWO side, GooBlar is now up for contest between Ghost Bear vs Steiner. And since Evil is currently Ghost Bear, Gooblar goes to Ghost Bear and the map is updated simultaneously in both MWO and MW5.

OMG, did I just accidentally created the best multi-game info sharing platform super game ever?

Edited by razenWing, 09 December 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[Dracol]

Op, for an example of PVe co-op game with a strong PvP community, I would look to Halo.

[Kaeb Odellas]

If PGI is going to add any multiplayer PVE content, I suspect it would be through MWO after they transition it to UE4. Russ seemed adamant that MW5 would be strictly single-player.

[razenWing]

There's no raiding or dungeon style co-op in Halo... if I recall correctly. But again, I may be wrong.
----------------

And... if you guys can't bother to at least answer the 3 basic questions, then I will not bother to respond to any of you.

[Mcgral18]

L4D is a PVE FPS
With PVP options, but I prefer PVE


MW5 is single player only, as stated by Russ, so you can drop most suggestions for the time being.

I will not pay a subscription. I will take a campaign, and the option for DLC campaigns.



Depends how Potato the AI is VS how Potato the PUGgles are


If the campaign is what they state it is, it will enthral me for some time

[Gas Guzzler]

As an answer to your first question, I will definitely play both. I love the PvP mech combat of MWO, but I also miss the feel of the old MechWarrior titles.

I wouldn't bother funding Co-op/raid modes for MW5, just stick with the single player stuff. If I want multiplayer I will play MWO.

[Gas Guzzler]

Mcgral18, on 09 December 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

I will not pay a subscription. I will take a campaign, and the option for DLC campaigns.

They could do a lot with DLC campaigns, and as it is additional income, I'm sure they will, including the Clam invasion and beyond.

[Davegt27]

when did they say anything about MW5 with co-op?

[LordNothing]

i remember when games typically came with strong single player and multi in one package. then q3a came and ruined everything. since then you seldom find good single and multiplayer content in the same box. its probibly better off if mw5 is strictly single player. you dont have to have the overhead running all the servers. thats probibly why they are using the buy once model for it. keep the multiplayer in mwo, f2p model funds the servers, which already exist.

thats not to say that coop cant exist in mwo. at the very least throw in some npc filler in mwo. wouldnt mind having consumables that call down tanks or infantry. or have my own aerotech squadron at hand to order around. the mech ai system will certainly get a shakedown with escort. another use for ai is to use as filler in games where players are disconnected, so you can keep those mechs in play. custom games might also be able to load ai players for coop.

if escort goes well maybe pgi will consider more ai centric modes. like some kind of onslaught where you have to hold a defensive position against waves of ai mechs and vehicles for 30 minutes. this would be a cool mode for pugs in fp and could use the invasion maps. throw in some features from the new assault mode, barricades, defensive structures. they wouldn't need to concern themselves with being farmed. difficulty could be adaptive based on average psr of the players. this would pay out less that pvp games, but offers a path for lower skilled players to rank up. and keep the potatoes out of the big boy games.

Edited by LordNothing, 09 December 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[Baba Yogi]

I am certainly looking forward to tech1 mech game. That was the most balanced version of battletech although with the lack of weaponry/armor options. But it will guarantee that big bad *** machine feel because of forced standard engines. It was also the best period in terms of story imo.

In any case, their greatest effort should be put on AI, that'll make or break the game. A really good ai that tries to suprise and utilize tactics, baits, ambushes etc would make the campaign highly replayable. Even with an AI as terrible as MW4's, i still finished those games perhaps more than 20 times.

[ShaneoftheDead]

Question 1: Would you migrate and drop the PvP all together?

No. PvE is nice, but the real fun is PvP, IMHO.

Question 2: To fund MW5 PVE contents (Raid and/or CO-OP missions), you are require to pay a monthly of 10-15 dollars a month. Otherwise, you pay flat fee for the basic Single Player game. Would you pay the monthly?

No. It would have to be an amazing game to get a monthly subscription from me again.

Question 3: Now that we introduce Question 2, would your mind be changed and instead, opt NOT to CO-OP, but stay with the PVP of MWO?

No change, stay with MWO.


A few additional thoughts...

It is my hope that the work for MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries ends up getting turned right around and dumped into MWO.
Specifically, the new render engine (Unreal 4?). It would also be neat to see other vehicles that we saw in the MW5:M demo fleshed out and brought into MWO Faction Warfare like Dropships, Tanks, Infantry, etc. And if they did this, I would hope that it allows them to develop more weapons and bring them into MWO.

[Wrathful Scythe]

I still think the smartest option would be to "relaunch" MWO with the new engine as MW5:Online.
That way we have the new MW5:Mercs and with it a (most likely) wanted multiplayer part where the current playerbase can keep their stuff and new players can populate the multiplayer servers, if they want to.

[PhoenixFire55]

Hmmm ... a game made by PGI and a game made by PGI? ...

MechCommander 2.

[BumbleBee]

I'd be VERY interested to play MW5 in Co-op, It hasnt been announced, but im hoping it will be.

As for subscription... I will NEVER play a game using a subscription model. EVER.

I'd like MW5 to be single player ONLY. If they choose to make a Co-op version of the campaign afterwards and release it as a DLC package, I will buy that, but leave it until AFTER MW5 single player is done please

Edited by BumbleBee, 09 December 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[Moldur]

I would hypothetically never play this pos again because we all know it is a hollow place-holder that literally none of us are content with.

[razenWing]

For those of you that's like all confused...

the title says "HYPOTHETICALLY"

but I think from the people that responded, it's a fairly strong consensus that if Co-Op was indeed a monthly thing, you would not fork out the money. (Despite I describing basically a MMOFPS like Destiny... with robots)

O well.

[Johnny Z]

The worste things about MMO's is the PVP. The worste things about shooters is no MMO. If MechWarrior finds a place in between that would be great.

As to single player, that's entirely different than PVP or online games. PVP and single player are both good. But if I am in an online video game excellent pvp battles is maybe the important part. Again, something MMO's always get wrong.

Monthly fee? No thanks.

Its really good that MechWarrior online got the pvp right as a starting place by the way. Yep needs more maps and modes and tanks and gunships and mines and faction play and Solaris, but its got what counts and has been building on it for a while now.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 December 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[naterist]

idk how they would make the sandbox innersphere style, and allow you to do logistics and whatnot with 2 people. is one person a lieutenant to the other guys captain? or do they both have a merc company to themselves? from what their stated goals are, a co-op sounds difficult to implement, and maintain equality for both players. their either gonna get problems when one person wants to go to another planet and the other guy doesnt, or theyll run into problems with the economy, and who gets what? or are their duplicate items? itd be weird, and unnessacerily delay the game. let PGI make good on their current promises before rushing to ask for more.

[TheArisen]

I would be against a subscription. Because firstly it'd need to be an ultra amazing game to be worth it and second I want to be able to play even after Pgi is done with it.

I would pay for DLC. The Clan invasion, Fedcom civil war, Wolf's Dragoons, Kell Hounds, GDL.... In this era where Dlc is common Pgi could make a boatload of cash with the initial game & dlc.

[Hans Brackhaus]

1) I would/will migrate just for the single player campaign, whether CO-OP is in there or not. But that's because I'm really not much of a PvP'er and would rather get my Battletech fix in a single player game.

2) It's very unlikely that I would pay a sub just to have access to CO-OP missions. If I really loved the game I might try the multiplayer aspects for a month or two but I generally prefer to just buy a game, not rent it.

3) I highly doubt that I would come back to the PvP game (see #1) unless your hypothetical MW5 really blows and doesn't satisfy my mech needs.