43 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Lukoi Banacek, on 07 January 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Deathlike, have ya even played MWLL man? I mean, your earlier post kind of indicates ya haven't (tanks, planes, maybe?).

Go play it if you think it brings so much to the table and if ya like it, more power to you. It definitely has things about it that are interesting to tinker with.

But the two games are wildly apart in terms of tone, intention etc and frankly outside of being from the same stompy-robot genre, really are apples and oranges.

There is room for both games on most people's PC.

I have played it. I told it you was limited though. I have driven the tanks (the mechanics of which are kinda unwieldly, even if somewhat odd and yet realistic to a degree).

They are different, and I would play more if other people played more, but it is what it is.

You can copy elements w/o one trudging onto another.

The problem is that the current state of the game is really just deathmatch, and deathmatch with 4 spawns. Neither really excite me.

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

No, it doesn't. It starts from making an asymmetric game mode in a game that includes permadeath to all participants. When you present a defensible situation, barring the skill gap between opponents, it generally takes a far larger number of possible attempts for the 'assault' team to breach any given situation. I don't recall the numbers, but my brain seems to be settling on something like a 4:1 ratio being needed if you EXPECT the assaulters to win. Less so, obviously, if you want it to be 'balanced'.

That sort of thing works fine in a game where you've got an infinite respawn. We don't. So no, I don't think it's the fault of the maps. I don't know that I'd say the maps are perfect, and there's certainly funneling created (there should be, it's attack/defense on an asym basis), but I wouldn't say they're terrible. I've certainly seen worse maps in games.

It shouldn't be funneling. You should have defensable positions YET not be able to cover them all w/o reducing effectiveness on one side or another. The fact is that even the main gate doors are literally the limiting factor of where people funnel through. It's not that hard to predict where people have to go by design.

When maps are designed to have multiple breach points that can't be perfectly covered is when the map is designed correctly. Right now, it's funnel to your death given teams of even skill. I've seen better.

Quote

Ever play Warhammer 40k Eternal Crusade? That game has some of the worst map design I've ever seen. Yes, they're GORGEOUS, but holy god the team over there has no damn clue how to put together a defensive point that has weaknesses, before I even get into the terrible inconsistencies that leave certain races at a distinct disadvantage in situations while other races are godlike in them. Yeah, that works well.

Nope, so I can't relate.


I've played other games that have better objective based gameplay... even when the ability to kill was still important, but wasn't the end all be all (unless you were just a great player). Having played MWO for way too long... I've learned that the most important thing was to kill everyone, and generally not get too overworked by the objective. This is in part why I get really angry over the maps... because the main objective has and will always be to kill everything else.

Maps just get me angry... especially when you don't even touch 2/3s of the map that is Alpine.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 January 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

JohnnyWayne, on 07 January 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

You ask a community and you get 3 million opinions of people that cry after a decision was made why noone considered their option as it was the best. That is not how the world works.

I could have cared less if they killed it off or kept it around. It's just a reminder at how much map design does not consider gameplay at large (Domination on this map isn't that much better either).


The way you design a game, let alone the map.. is to understand it first and foremost. Once you understand it, then you have some idea on what needs to be fixed.

Considering how we've had FW maps at a point in time where spawnkilling was the most effective tactic to be successful (mostly camping the defenders drop ship spawn points in the path of the attacking teams)... I'm sure that needed a year or so to come to that conclusion right?

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

It shouldn't be funneling. You should have defensable positions YET not be able to cover them all w/o reducing effectiveness on one side or another.

You don't design a defensive position to be balanced. You do give it weaknesses to attack, but this is...

What?

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

You don't design a defensive position to be balanced. You do give it weaknesses to attack, but this is...

What?

It's simple.

You can have defensive positions. You simply cannot cover them all at the same time.

So, let's say there are 4 ways to attack a position, but only 3 of them can be realistically covered effectively at the same time. That's what needs to happen.

Right now, even on something like Sulpherous Rift... where there are like 3 openings. You basically can already cover 2 sides because the time it takes to move for the attacking force (the ones the start outside of the gates) takes too long to adjust movement. There is that semi-exception in the C6-D6 area where you have the option to go two routes (Alpha or Beta gate), but even then, you only have to cover 2/3s over the map and not really worry about stuff coming from Gamma gate.

Since the routes take too long to adjust to, you don't even have to worry about a different side as much.

Even the crappy Boreal Vault may have the staging ground, but it's not that hard to adjust to one side or another because of gate placement.


If you're not able to limit coverage to defensive positions, it becomes easier for a defense to do whatever it wants ignoring things it doesn't have to care about.

It's either that or make FP deal in only 8v8, because you won't have the same number of bodies to cover everything.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 January 2017 - 05:02 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

i would love for their to be Infantry and Tanks and Aircraft in MWO, but not as Playable Units,
if they became playable units people would demand they be balanced to Mechs, and thats a bad idea,
this is MechWarrior combined arms is fine just as long as they arnt playable and dont take away from the game,

[Deathlike]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 January 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

i would love for their to be Infantry and Tanks and Aircraft in MWO, but not as Playable Units,
if they became playable units people would demand they be balanced to Mechs, and thats a bad idea,
this is MechWarrior combined arms is fine just as long as they arnt playable and dont take away from the game,

The problem is the AI design.

If the Escorting Atlas is the best we have now... this will be problematic.

I don't subscribe to AI... only because AI will run into limits (and some people feel like they would be challenged, when they aren't really) unless you give the AI "all the cheats" (and they still tend to lose despite that advantage - depending on what that is).

Edited by Deathlike, 07 January 2017 - 05:14 PM.

[MechaBattler]

This seems like an underhanded attempt to advertise MWLL.

I'm so glad to see people pushing back against this whole "It's so great! Why aren't you guys playing it!?" circle jerk that ensues every time it gets brought up.

I wouldn't mind seeing vehicles in the game. Even if they're just NPCs. But it's not gonna happen. At least not without switching to a new engine, which would necessitate a rebuild anyway.

[Novakaine]

Come on ya know you want one.

[Alan Davion]

Novakaine, on 07 January 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

Come on ya know you want one.

I want to say that's a Von Luckner, cause it looks like one, but its got more weapons than a Von Luckner should.

Unless it's not a 3025 Von Luckner.

Is it a newer model from 3050+?

[Wintersdark]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 January 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

i would love for their to be Infantry and Tanks and Aircraft in MWO, but not as Playable Units,
if they became playable units people would demand they be balanced to Mechs, and thats a bad idea,
this is MechWarrior combined arms is fine just as long as they arnt playable and dont take away from the game,

Yeah, AI controlled units would make me very happy (and I think is one way an assymetrical Assault mode can actually work - defenders have a base, attackers have tank and infantry support) but they should never be player controlled.

Player controlled infantry (even if just ejecting from a mech) is silly; infantry weapons in Battletech are effectively just a Small Laser, or a SRM1 (with just a couple shots). That's way too puny to present a credible threat and is more annoyance than anything. And not "annoyance" in the "locust" sense, but annoyance in the "Oh for gods sake just die" sense. Not good for the PvP game.

Tanks are certainly stronger, but MWO is a mech combat game. AI tanks would be cool, but not player controlled tanks. This isn't Battlefield.

Aerospace..... That's just not going to happen. Tanks at least are functionally similar to mechs from a game mechanics standpoint, but aircraft? Nah. That would be a lot of work to add crap.

[El Bandito]

Wintersdark, on 07 January 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Tanks are certainly stronger, but MWO is a mech combat game. AI tanks would be cool, but not player controlled tanks. This isn't Battlefield.

I'm completely fine with the inclusion of tanks. Since tanks are in general inferior than same tonnage mechs, PGI should treat them as 20 tons lighter in MM.

Wanna drive them Demolishers so bad. And there is nothing wrong with being a tank jock from Battletech universe.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 January 2017 - 08:26 PM.

[HGAK47]

It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are here on the forums to slate this game. I am by no means a white knight for MWO and it sure does need tweaks and work but I really enjoy playing it as is.

I look around and I really don't see too much that is similar or offers this sort of gameplay if you like big stomping mechs shooting each other.

Just wish that people would rally behind causes they want to see fixed instead of only complaining about them. (I'm sure there are vets that have been there done that and have given up....)

[Wintersdark]

El Bandito, on 07 January 2017 - 08:25 PM, said:

I'm completely fine with the inclusion of tanks. Since tanks are in general inferior than same tonnage mechs, PGI should treat them as 20 tons lighter in MM.

Wanna drive them Demolishers so bad. And there is nothing wrong with being a tank jock from Battletech universe.

No, and i understand where you're coming from.

But MWO is not and will never be a Battletech Simulator. It's a mech combat game. And the mech combat really is top notch - there are map and balance issues for sure, but mechanically the mech vs mech combat feels damn good.

We often (rightly) criticize PGI for a lack of direction, but asking for piloted tanks is a very core direction change, more so than has ever been done to date. PGI is focused on being the best damned mech combat game there has ever been, and they are (both because the mech combat IS really good, and also for dearth of competition). However, there are LOTS of great tank combat games. By adding piloted tanks, PGI risks dilution of what's best about MWO in order to add something new that they'll never be very good at - at least not compared to the Giants in the industry right now.

This would be panned severely, and rightly so. From a game design standpoint, PGI needs to focus on things that improve their core strengths - mech combat. Far better then to use those development resources on stuff that adds to that.

Tanks in the game would do that - AI tanks could be added, and balance would be WAY less of a concern. If tanks are underpowered that doesn't hurt anything, but if tanks are UP (or OP) in PvP with player tanks game balance gets way worse... If they're just AI, tacking a comparable amount per side is self balancing and we don't care if they're underpowered.

If piloting a tank feels bad - or even just not as good as WoT for example, then that drags the whole game down.

It'd be cool, in wonderful thought experiment land, but it'd be a tremendously poor choice for the company to make.

Player tanks wouldn't add nearly as much as better FP, maps, modes, etc, while it would have severe risks that simply improving other systems doesn't have.

[Johnny Z]

Mcgral18, on 07 January 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

No, that's pretty far from lore (as far as Elementals being Mechwarriors who can also pilot Aero's and VTOLs)



MW5 will probably be a single player MWO style, with logistics
Expect nothing more

Not sure why you say that, the new Battletech game coming out looks amazing with Dropship player base and NPC's and all sorts of awesome things. Why wouldnt MechWarrior 5 be similar? Almost forgot to mention the mission generator of some sort that the new Battletech has, I don't know the details though.

Edited by Johnny Z, 08 January 2017 - 12:39 AM.

[G o a t]

Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion on what a "mech combat" should look, sound and feel like.

But there's no need to denigrate people for asking why MWO isn't nearly as immersive as MWLL is. Quite the contrary - it's cool when people are wondering and asking questions why a Crysis mod is more of a battletech and Mech simulator than MWO.

This is really about Karma - the thing about MWLL staying in a sort of suspended state from 2013 up till now and MWO's management involvement in that matter - that's gonna be ever haunting the 'top notch mech combat' game.

[jss78]

Wintersdark, on 07 January 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Yeah, AI controlled units would make me very happy (and I think is one way an assymetrical Assault mode can actually work - defenders have a base, attackers have tank and infantry support) but they should never be player controlled.

Player controlled infantry (even if just ejecting from a mech) is silly; infantry weapons in Battletech are effectively just a Small Laser, or a SRM1 (with just a couple shots). That's way too puny to present a credible threat and is more annoyance than anything. And not "annoyance" in the "locust" sense, but annoyance in the "Oh for gods sake just die" sense. Not good for the PvP game.

Tanks are certainly stronger, but MWO is a mech combat game. AI tanks would be cool, but not player controlled tanks. This isn't Battlefield.

Aerospace..... That's just not going to happen. Tanks at least are functionally similar to mechs from a game mechanics standpoint, but aircraft? Nah. That would be a lot of work to add crap.

I agree playable tanks are just beyond the scope of what MWO is. If you add one tank, you'd presumably want to add more, and then there's all the modelling and balancing work.

What I'd love is having some relatively low-impact, AI-controlled combined-arms assets. Throw in some Vedettes, Scorpions (not the one you're thinking of JV), infantry, and use those to augment player-controlled 'mech forces or as base defenders. Might also be a workable way to throw in those truly "hopeless" 'mechs: put in an AI-controlled Wasp 1A with that fearsome medium laser and SRM2 pack, as the commander of the tanks/infantry. So they'd be a nuisance at best to the 'mechs, but it'd add a lot of flavour.

Aerospace -- I guess we already have this in a truly "minimally viable" form, in the form of air strike consumables. There is that little fighter in the sky.

[C E Dwyer]

Edward Radenovic-Espinueva, on 07 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Piranha with their millions can't do what a group of unpaid people can?


You can even eject and fight on foot or take over a vacant mech or ride on top of another mech.

Have they addressed why they aren't expanding to this? Is that what MW5 is going to be?

They could do this precisely because they are an unpaid bunch of people doing it in their spare time, they don't have to worry about the product being balanced, or offering elements for sale, they don't have to worry about paying staff or overheads.

World of Tanks and Armored Warfare doesn't have infantry, World of Warships doesn't have submarines, or motor torpedo boats. Both made by larger and richer companies, start complaining on their boards in such a manner and until they arrive there. People need to stop complaining here about how this lacks features that would unbalance the game further.

M.W.L.L is a labour of love, by people that have the skills to make it, a few idiots on these boards tried to use it as a political statement, and a comparison, between products.

Also if this part timers game is so great why have they not had 50 people playing it at the same time, I've not logged on here for a month, due to where P.G.I are taking the game, and even I haven't considered for a second trying it again, because it's completely unbalanced ( it makes this games poor balance feel exceptional ) and not remotely viable as a money making product,

A further note, that if P.G.I thought this was a threat to them, they'd close down threads like this, and moderate the people advertising a product that's not supposed to have any further development done to it.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Vehicles = More unique mechanics = More different playstyles = More balance issues = More ForumWarriors Online angry

Adding a single Mech Variant alone can create a very HUGE impact in the game (a more recent example, the KDK-3). Now imagine adding Tanks/Balltearmor/LAMS/Aircraft, and you're essentially creating a whole *********** of imbalance. If it was on the base design, then yes, it may have worked. But having it as a tac-on feature later on will definitely cause major issues. Most notably, the maps. Can you imagine tanks navigating in Canyon Network? or LAMs/Aircraft in HPG or River City? As much as I want to have them, unfortunately it would simply not work.

Unless they overhaul the game completely

Edited by Shiroi Tsuki, 08 January 2017 - 06:00 AM.

[Pika]

These games simply are not comparable and it's not very fair to actually compare them.

MWO focuses on the important part of the Battletech universe: The 'Mechs. The heroes, stars and centre pieces of the game in every iteration to date. Everyone who knows even a little bit about Battletech can spot an Atlas at a glance and even those outside of Battletech can still recognise the Timber Wolf (Though they'll say Mad Cat like a filthy surat.), no one outside of those waist deep in the setting and lore can tell you the names of most Areospace fighters without consulting Sarna or their Tech Readouts.

And that's the distinction. Living Legends puts a wider lense on the Btech universe, it tries to show us tanks, aircraft and the 'Mechs as all viable and in a combined arms setting. They even break lore a little and chuck in Elementals inside 'Mechs to give the user some power if they are forced to eject or whatever. In reality, it's still the 'Mechs that dominate the game. 'Mechs still do all the work, all the heavy lifting, all the real killing. People generally only use Tanks in the early part of the game or as a way to save money and people only use Aerotech assets to be annoying - no really. I honestly think you could take the Areo assets out of LL and it'd be a better game for it. But at the same time, I get the reasoning for keeping 'em in.

My point here? There is a lot of "stuff" in MW:LL but very little of it makes a difference. It's still the 'mechs doing everything. MWO has all that extra bothersome stuff removed and focuses on the bit the matters: 'Mech on 'Mech combat. The game hasn't been simplified - if anything the 'Mech on 'Mech combat is more nuanced and in depth in MWO due to the MechLab - it has however been streamlined. This says nothing of balance - which in MW:LL is very much truer to Btech in that not all 'Mechs are equal. Some are downright unusable. But lore friendly. Which is more important here?

Also when it comes to maps- sorry, MWO does have LL beat there. The maps are perhaps smaller and more focused, much like the rest of MWO , but I only see 2-3 maps played regularly on LL. They're good, but they're so good the others stink. The names of them escape me atm.

Don't get me wrong, MW:LL is not a bad game, it's just got a lot of extra pointless stuff in it. I would very much like to see the Battlefield style gameplay come to MWO but make the tanks, elementals and Aerotech AI controlled. Let the players focus on the bit that matters.

[AlexEss]

Edward Radenovic-Espinueva, on 07 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Piranha with their millions can't do what a group of unpaid people can?

You can even eject and fight on foot or take over a vacant mech or ride on top of another mech.

Have they addressed why they aren't expanding to this? Is that what MW5 is going to be?

Maybe i am off base.. But was not MW:LL based on the squad shooter version of Crysis...

So in essence those unpaid people had all the hard core groundwork done for them...

Or am i remembering wrong.

Anyway...

Why we do not have those things.


Because back in the day PGI had to limit the scope of the game to one that they could manage on their budget. That meant cutting anything that was not core gameplay to a MECHwarrior game. Suchs as AI opposition, infantry and vehicle combat and so on.