43 replies to this topic

[Edward Radenovic-Espinueva]

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?

Edited by Edward Radenovic-Espinueva, 07 January 2017 - 02:38 PM.

[Vanguard836]

This is Mechwarrior, the focus of the series is about piloting the mechs against those elements. The multiplayer aspects of the franchise is to face other mechs.

To answer your question : Probably because that's not in their vision of the game.

[Mcgral18]

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

[Wingbreaker]

>Have they adressed why they aren't expanding to this?

MWLL is an unbalanced pile. Spend fifteen minutes in the game and you'll understand it. Hell, their own developers proudly state this.

One does not merely 'balance' the entirety of Battletech.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 02:51 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

>Have they adressed why they aren't expanding to this?

MWLL is an unbalanced pile. Spend fifteen minutes in the game and you'll understand it. Hell, their own developers proudly state this.

It may be unbalanced, but there's a lot more to it than MWO will ever provide.

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

It may be unbalanced, but there's a lot more to it than MWO will ever provide.

One mode that people like that is effectively a copy of Battlefield? If you really like that mode, you can play Battlefield and actually have a balanced and well executed experience that doesn't leave you constantly stuck since the amateur hour map designers can't deign themselves to properly isolate 9/10ths of their map space. Or, you know, bother with encounter times and player movement trends.

There's a hell of a lot wrong with MWLL that you never think about. That's fine, it's a mod. It's old. But seriously, bringing this up like it's a good thing to emulate it is... well, it says a lot about what this community actually knows about gameplay.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 02:57 PM.

[Vanguard836]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 02:50 PM, said:

It may be unbalanced, but there's a lot more to it than MWO will ever provide.

Indulge us please. Not everyone knows it in depth. (Not trying to be snide or sarcastic)

Edited by Vanguard836, 07 January 2017 - 02:53 PM.

[SuomiWarder]

Maps are too small for aerospace fighters - or even flying VTOLs. And if the map was big enough then the ground forces would never find each other.

Mechs are supposed to have nuero-specific links to the pilot. Joe can't just hop in Alice's mech, plug in a helmet and take off.

The balance of the board game basically pits entire platoons of infantry against medium or smaller battlemechs. Being one lone warrior on foot would basically be a game about running for a hole to hide in. Even if you have a man-portable SRM launcher you get to shoot once and apply 2 points of damage. You are not taking anything out with that unless around 30 of your friends are doing the same thing at the same time against the same target.

Edited by SuomiWarder, 07 January 2017 - 03:00 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

One mode that people like that is effectively a copy of Battlefield? If you really like that mode, you can play Battlefield and actually have a balanced and well executed experience.

Well, there's copying success, and then there's PGI.

I haven't played Battlefield, but the feeling of trying to control territory has more of a strategic feel that most MW games have lacked.

Vanguard836, on 07 January 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

Indulge us please. Not everyone knows it in depth. (Not trying to be snide or sarcastic)

I haven't enough or much to give a thorough explanation. I'll just keep it brief (just like I've played it briefly).

You do have the option to run tanks (and I think planes), which is a very different experience. Balanced? I have no idea.

Controlling territory increases points/ticks/tickets/whatever you people would like to call it. Of course, there are multiple points including the opfor's base, but it's easier to reach the opfor's base when you capture territory. It's been designed over respawning, and it helps for approaching the enemy (or defending yourself from them).

Maps are designed with some thought to movement... something MWO doesn't really do (like the cave in MWO's Frozen City used to be a thing, but got obsoleted over time), and jump jets are a really cool thing (unlike MWO's Hoverjets™).

In essence, it does a lot of things MWO doesn't do, including the limited concept of role warfare.

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Maps are designed with some thought to movement... something MWO doesn't really do (like the cave in MWO's Frozen City used to be a thing, but got obsoleted over time), and jump jets are a really cool thing (unlike MWO's Hoverjets™).

Yes, MWLL, a game with such maps as "Team A starts on a plateau, Team B starts in a valley" has thought to movement.

Deathlike, please. MWLL's maps are community created, if you can really even differentiate between the 'team' maps and those put out by individuals over the years. There are some great maps amongst those hundreds, but most aren't. That being said, those maps are also largely inadequate to the balance of the game itself, forcing servers to have house rules.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 03:12 PM.

[jss78]

I guess because they've envisioned MWO as a 'mech death match, and combined arms it a lot of modelling/coding/balancing that's not strictly needed for the game. We're all here, playing happily (more or less) and buying 'mech packs, and they never had to do all that work.

Tanks and infantry were right there in the MW5:M trailer, I hope they make it into that game.

I love combined arms in my BT whenever possible ... while the 'mechs are the centrepiece of the franchise, they're the "kings of the battlefield" exactly because of how scary they are compared to other stuff like infantry and vehicles. Having the squishy vehicles and poor bloody infantry there gives a sense of scale to the whole affair.

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yes, MWLL, a game with such maps as "Team A starts on a plateau, Team B starts in a valley" has thought to movement.

There's more to it that strictly that, even if you want to simplify it to those levels.

Quote

Deathlike, please. MWLL's maps are community created, if you can really even differentiate between the 'team' maps and those put out by individuals over the years. There are some great maps amongst those hundreds, but most aren't. That being said, those maps are also largely inadequate to the balance of the game itself, forcing servers to have house rules.

Sure, compared to this game that has zero community map creations (because PGI) whereas MW4 had a maps primarily designed by the community (with lots of good existing built-in game maps).

I'm not saying anyone is just able to create maps, but considering the map complaints about Alpine and original Terra Therma, and many others... I wouldn't be saying MWO's maps are designed any better than MW:LL's.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 January 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

Sure, compared to this game that has zero community map creations (because PGI) whereas MW4 had a maps primarily designed by the community.

Making a good map is a lot more difficult than most people believe it is, especially one that is significantly appropriate and balanced for inclusion in a commercial project. When this came up a year or two ago, the designs that were put forth were...bad. Really. Really. Bad. Remember "Box S canyon is fine!" threads?

The people with the talent to do that aren't largely just giving it away.

jss78, on 07 January 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

I love combined arms in my BT whenever possible ... while the 'mechs are the centrepiece of the franchise, they're the "kings of the battlefield" exactly because of how scary they are compared to other stuff like infantry and vehicles. Having the squishy vehicles and poor bloody infantry there gives a sense of scale to the whole affair.

In a single player game, this works well. Being the "king of the battlefield" in a mech grants the player that sense of power and being The Big Damn Hero. All of that works well together when it's balanced very heavily in the player's direction.

When it gets thrown into the mix of a multiplayer game where everyone wants to be The Big Damn Hero, or at least have the opportunity to be that because of their actual skill levels and experience, it breaks down. Hard. Especially in an IP where you're faced with the fact that Mechs are kinda **** in terms of battlefield viability against Tanks and Planes, since it's not just a (mostly) 2d representation of things in quantum mech superpositions.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 03:25 PM.

[Alan Davion]

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

Piranha with their millions

I find it supremely hilarious that you think PGI has that much cash to throw around.

Maybe they had a few million back when the game started out, but they have massively squandered their resources ever since then.

It would take a studio like CIG, whose big project is Star Citizen, in order to build a proper, full-scale Mechwarrior game that incorporates infantry, tanks and aerospace asset.

In short, it will never happen.

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

Making a good map is a lot more difficult than most people believe it is, especially one that is significantly appropriate and balanced for inclusion in a commercial project. When this came up a year or two ago, the designs that were put forth were...bad. Really. Really. Bad. Remember "Box S canyon is fine!" threads?

The people with the talent to do that aren't largely just giving it away.

Yes, that's why Alpine @ H9-10 is still there.

I mean, wonderful.

That's also why CW Invasion maps are mainly "funnel to your death" too.

Plus, we had CW Invasion maps where people literally funneled for spawn camping dropzones in Phase 1 and parts of Phase 2.

I mean, yay!

Edited by Deathlike, 07 January 2017 - 03:26 PM.

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yes, that's why Alpine @ H9-10 is still there.

I mean, wonderful.

That's also why CW Invasion maps are mainly "funnel to your death" too.

Plus, we had CW Invasion maps where people literally funneled for spawn camping dropzones in Phase 1 and parts of Phase 2.

I mean, yay!

I see you've conveniently forgotten to include that the community demanded that Alpine stay in the game when PGI suggested that it wanted to remove it because it had balance issues.

As for CW, I ain't touching that pile of nonsense. It has issues that develop from a core issue with asymmetric gameplay modes, not the designs of the maps themselves. That's a loooot longer discussion. If you're looking for me giving PGI a pass, it's not there.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wingbreaker, on 07 January 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

I see you've conveniently forgotten to include that the community demanded that Alpine stay in the game when PGI suggested that it wanted to remove it because it had balance issues.

Wanting it to be kept != Leaving it as is

That's a very specific distinction.

Quote

As for CW, I ain't touching that pile of nonsense. It has issues that develop from a core issue with asymmetric gameplay modes, not the designs of the maps themselves. That's a loooot longer discussion. If you're looking for me giving PGI a pass, it's not there.

It starts from the poor map design. It's not the first, nor the last.

[Lukoi Banacek]

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.

[Wingbreaker]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

It starts from the poor map design. It's not the first, nor the last.

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.

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.

Edited by Wingbreaker, 07 January 2017 - 03:43 PM.

[JohnnyWayne]

MWLL is fun but far from lore. Downloaded it too yesterday and have some great fun.

I still prefer MWO as they try to give all mech weights a role that is not based on pure damage.
I miss AI controlled infantry as well as tanks in MWO. Something MWO is also lacking the sense of scale as you rarely see your mech from the outside (Btw trees in MWLL are scaled completely awful) and perstitency. You fight over planet control but there are no planet maps and campeigns to capture areas. Simply just queues for the whole planet. I don't expect completely new maps for every planet but atleast diverse campeign maps that are reused for similar planets... Btw ambient sounds in MWO are also lacking. Even though you are in a mech you technically still can hear it through your outside microphones... also birds and wildlife in general, everything that makes the maps more immersive.

They can keep aerotech ******* hate it in MWLL, same goes for exiting mechs instantly, elemental combat, buying mechs for money and grinding from the start every match. Positive to say about MWLL:I love how x-Pulse Lasers work, they are so much fun to use. If we ever get those in MWO I want them to be like in MWLL.
We need new tech in MWO especially ER-tech for IS...

Deathlike, on 07 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

Wanting it to be kept != Leaving it as is

That's a very specific distinction.

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.

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

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.

I am actually playing it. It is just as ****** as MWO which makes me kinda like it. But there are bigger issues than map design like lag hitreg and melee bugs. I also agree with you that is why I don't play fortress maps.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 07 January 2017 - 04:02 PM.