108 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

The only reason the "little children" glamorize it is because they're ******* practically brainwashed by the media from as early an age as ******* possible that killing "bad guys" for "your country" is the greatest goddamn thing ever. (They conveniently omit the tens if not hundreds of thousands of totally innocent people DYING for because of your country part a lot of the time.) You want to point fingers? Point them where they damn well should be pointed.

FTFY.

Edited by Mystere, 19 February 2017 - 06:59 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

No one wants a "true" War Game. War is ******* hell. If you're telling me you want a "real" War Game, I would have to question whether you know what war is actually like. (90% boredom and 10% OH ****.)

I play a true "war" game quite often, I play the ever living hell out of ARMA, Project Reality, and SQUAD.

I'd love to have that level of complexity, here, in MWO, it would be SOO much better, but no... no we have generic, robo arena shooter instead, and that's fine, for what it is, but when this game could be so...so much more, it's bloody depressing man.

[Bishop Steiner]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 19 February 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

I play a true "war" game quite often, I play the ever living hell out of ARMA, Project Reality, and SQUAD.

I'd love to have that level of complexity, here, in MWO, it would be SOO much better, but no... no we have generic, robo arena shooter instead, and that's fine, for what it is, but when this game could be so...so much more, it's bloody depressing man.

Yup...but it's more convenient for them to twist things to extremes to try to make a "point" that they can't actually debate in any other intelligent manner.

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

The feeling is mutual, chucklefuck.

keep grabbing that higher ground!

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Anjian, on 19 February 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

Instead of a blooming recticle, which will still converge shots into a tiny point at the right time, I would use this:

A Target Indicator that puts the target into brackets or a lighted outline.

A large recticle that also indicates a zone of shot dispersion.

Here's the problem, that can be argued as taking away "All" skill.

I'm personally, even though I love TT, and think it can be translated well, willing to compromise with the blooming reticle/CoF idea...

Honestly I'd be all about learning that "hey, I have a weapon in my left torso, it ALWAYS deviates .5cm off the target reticle to the left... so I must be mindful of that when pairing it with the Right arm PPC that can get a central firing solution after a couple of seconds of focusing on a target."

But, I understand that for the average gamer, that would be hard **** to wrap their head around, so the middle ground is the best bet, and that middle ground is blooming retcile, or CoF mechanics.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

Those aren't "true war" games. You can get up and walk away from those things any time you like. If you want to make an argument for complexity, fine, but framing that as wanting "true war" in your video games? No.

Jesus, you're reading comprehension levels are lower than the average American.

Ok, fine, let's put this to bed right god damned now because this morning is turning into one of those god damned days because of idiots like you...

NOSHITSHERLOCK.JPG.

Nothing, will ever compare to real war, real fighting, and really being in the goddamned ****...

BUT, we're talking about gameplay, I pointed out the type of gameplay that MWO COULD emulate better, and work towards more... instead, you went on a goddamed idiotic tangent about how "muh real war bluhhh!"

Take your head, pull it out of your arse, and figure your own **** out.

[Johnny Z]

Anjian, on 19 February 2017 - 04:44 AM, said:

War Robots, aka Walking War Robots, have proved the success and viability of the "stomping robot" genre, and not just in being a game, not just in being a totally unknown IP without a famous franchise behind it but also by proving you can do it in the mobile platform.

For months, they were in the top 10 action shooting games on the Apple App Store and Google Play, till lately, greed got the better of them, having bought out by the same publishers who screwed up Armored Warfare merrily. We are talking at least 20 million downloads for the game.

Unlike Hawken and Titanfall, which capitalized on FPS style fast shooting mechs, War Robots is a true stompy robot game. Stompier more than MWO --- the assault mechs you see move around like 32 kph, their mediums move at the rate our heavies are here and their lights like mediums here. They also have a high TTK, especially at the lower tiers of the game, but TTK falls as weapons become more stronger. However, you do have 10 minutes to play a game, with six vs. six and with up to 5 respawns.

As proof of concept, WR definitely shows there is a market for stompy robots and it does not necessarily be Battletech. It just needs to be fun, accessible, and simple --- the latter is important because complexity may not be a good thing always.

I don't know why people are fixated with Titanfall and Hawken. You are looking at the wrong direction here if you like to see the rise (and perhaps fall, thanks to greed) of a successfully viable stompy robot game.

This game needs a new trailer like this.

Start up title screen needs to be updated also, the title screen bothers me to no end, still.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

You're the one who dropped the "true war" bomb. Not me.

I don't want games to be more like "true war". I want them to be fun, and I wish people would stop conflating complexity with "true war". (I have a friend who plays Arma 3 and he says it's the most goddamn dull thing he's ever played, until you mod it.) Realism only goes so far for fun factor, frankly.

good for your friend, that just means he's not cut out for that kind of gameplay.

in fact, most people arn't set up for that kind of gameplay, they want quick, dirty, CoD level gunfests that they can blow stuff up, and then move on.

But many of us, want deeper complexity, we want supply lines, we want our actions to matter, salvage, real economy, scaving for parts, ect.

We want DEPTH, Complexety, and stuff that hasn't been done 500 times before in every other mechwarrior title...

instead, we got 5 flavors of team deathmatch.

[Johnny Z]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 19 February 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

good for your friend, that just means he's not cut out for that kind of gameplay.

in fact, most people arn't set up for that kind of gameplay, they want quick, dirty, CoD level gunfests that they can blow stuff up, and then move on.

But many of us, want deeper complexity, we want supply lines, we want our actions to matter, salvage, real economy, scaving for parts, ect.

We want DEPTH, Complexety, and stuff that hasn't been done 500 times before in every other mechwarrior title...

instead, we got 5 flavors of team deathmatch.

Yep. Maybe the best game ever made is coming out this year. They keep delaying it...Fact is its more profitable for the industry if it never gets released because they can literally sell 10 garbage full priced games that no one will be happy with or sell a great game like this... Don't miss the last video, it shows some of the other gameplay this game has, a tiny fraction.







This is what players want. Other things of course as well, but this game will be unbeatable. FF VII, Cyberpunk 2077, ME: Andromeda can only hope to match it. I prefer sci-fi anyway, but point made.

My biggest fear is that Ubisoft, and Electronic Arts and Square Enix got together and paid them a couple billion never to release it... Sony invested and backed this game eventually, which is a good thing, I hope. The kind of money this game represents in the industry anything is possible.

By the way anyone that doesn't know. There is no saving in this game. If the player goes down and their army gets defeated its basically game over. The player at best gets captured and loses everything then gets released in the wild. Their last game was like this and its a very old game, seriously bad graphics by todays standards yet its one of the top games being played. Unmatched in popularity all things considered.

Hard mode in this game is 1:1 damage... Means player and allies take as much and give as much damage as the NPC's. One arrow to the face and its over. Then spectate and hope your army wins the battle. Casualties take time to heal depending on how good the medic is, although soldiers are lost, but a good medic can save some that fall.. So your army may be running until it can heal up. Armies need food and supplies and each soldier levels up to get new equipment. I can go on and on.

Edited by Johnny Z, 19 February 2017 - 08:28 PM.

[El Bandito]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 18 February 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

Imagine MWO, but it's not a BT game. Imagine all BT stuff are removed, but the concept and premise stays the same.

Then I wouldn't even be interested in it, much less becoming a Founder. Never cared for Hawken--not because I do not like its gameplay--simply because I do not relate to it. Same deal with other F2P shooter games such as Planetside 2.

Edited by El Bandito, 19 February 2017 - 08:02 PM.

[Mystere]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 19 February 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

Here's the problem, that can be argued as taking away "All" skill.

I'm personally, even though I love TT, and think it can be translated well, willing to compromise with the blooming reticle/CoF idea...

Honestly I'd be all about learning that "hey, I have a weapon in my left torso, it ALWAYS deviates .5cm off the target reticle to the left... so I must be mindful of that when pairing it with the Right arm PPC that can get a central firing solution after a couple of seconds of focusing on a target."

But, I understand that for the average gamer, that would be hard **** to wrap their head around, so the middle ground is the best bet, and that middle ground is blooming retcile, or CoF mechanics.

Heck, if people can't wrap their heads around a concept as fundamentally basic as fixed convergence (e.g. "But my shots will go anywhere except where i aimed at." ), how can you expect them to wrap those same heads around that?

[Anjian]

Being a clone of another game does not generally work. See how Armored Warfare failed. Obsidian originally wanted it to have a more distinct game play but the publishers, My.com aka Mail.ru, wanted something more like World of Tanks. So you have a WoT like game with modern tanks. And the whole concept flopped. War Thunder has a much more distinctive game play even with WW2 tanks, and for that reason, its tank game is still thriving. In fact it tries its best to be different from WoT (aerial bombing vs. artillery, AA tanks vs. self propelled artillery vehicles, a controversial and radical damage model vs. straight HP bars).

Any mech game trying to be CoD with mech skins is doomed to fail.

The only other thriving F2P mech game, War Robots, is a truly stomping robot game.

World of Warplanes tried to be a WoT with planes. That failed miserably, with servers seeing only peaks of hundreds of users instead of thousands. See in contrast to War Thunder, where servers could hit 75,000 simultaneous online in the weekends.

World of Warships is succeeding because this time, its not trying to be a WoT with ships. War Thunder isn't even going to that area belonging to WoWs, instead of going with large ships, its going with gunboats with its naval extension, which WoWs isn't touching. I know many people wanted a naval wargame that isn't owned by the cursed Wargaming, but that creative decision and vision that War Thunder made for its naval game is correct. There is also a new boat action game called Gunfleet that also focuses on smaller boats and adds submarines to it.

I myself has a bit of issue with MWO feeling somewhere with a bit of CoD, then a bit of WoT in it, maybe because of a creative or corporate directive that is too jealous of the massively successful games. Every game is tempted to mimic a successful one. A bit too twitchy for a mech game and not stompy enough. Even if this game is not a financial runaway success, I feel MWO can still endure as long as it needs to, tries to, remain different from these two games. For example, one redeeming trait is the HSR system that makes the game tolerable even at 300 to 400 ms ping, which you can't have on an FPS, which is optimally, requires sub 100 ms ping. This actually allows for a more global audience as the servers can cover a wider global area within the tolerant ping range.

Edited by Anjian, 19 February 2017 - 08:38 PM.

[Livewyr]

MWO is an arena shooter. Right down to the CoD "Killstreaks."

The only thing kinda sorta remotely close to "War" about this game is the nifty dropship entry. Even the "Long tom" is a game show style algorithm. (Hence being "gamed.")

MWO mechanics done right would involve risk reward. (Heat, movement, etc.. more sim, less Cod)
MWO Community Warfare done with would involve assets, unique rewards, actual diplomacy, Houses/Clans built of units vying for power within the House/Clan and also seeking to expand House/Clan territory(And mercs making money along the way)
It would involve logistics; assets. Strategic shifts in balances of power.

When I dreamed of MWO Community Warfare:
I pictured my unit placing a Cluster of specific mechs on a planet with fixed defenses and non-mech assets to defend a mechworks there.
I pictured placing a scout mission of specific mechs onto a hostile planet to gather actual intel, fixed defenses, garrison composition, etc.. (If they made it back to the dropship.)
I pictured negotiating on the forums or in Teamspeak with a fellow unit in the clan to cover a weakpoint so we could shift actual valuable assets to the front to expand the clan territory.
I pictured negotiating ceasefires and declaring wars.
I pictured vetting a merc based on his/her reputation and stats, to determine how much to pay'm for contract.
I pictured selecting a place on the battlemap to drop an X-pattern artillery barrage.
I pictured my battles, the manner of their win or loss, meaning something after the fact.
I pictured waging a strategic campaign alongside, and against the community.

What I got was: "Pick a hamster wheel, any hamster wheel. There are no rules and the points don't matter, really!."

Damn it, now I'm all depressed with design mediocrity again. Good night, folks.

[Mystere]

Livewyr, on 19 February 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

Damn it, now I'm all depressed with design mediocrity again. Good night, folks.

Heck, they can't even do joysticks correctly, which means that when I am sitting on my brand new workstation/simpit, I want to play something else. <shrugs>

[PhoenixFire55]

LOL? ... MWO - BT game? ... Since when is it BT game?

Look, its plain and simple really. If they didn't add that "BT game" into the logo they wouldn't have had thousands of founders who were mostly BT fans to finance their fail and there wouldn't be any game at all. Then when it became inconvenient that founders kept asking "where is our BT game" they moved them all into an Island^TM and made things TheirWay^TM.

If you honestly think that its the BT limitations that are preventing MWO from becoming a good game then I got bad news for ya - they aren't. When you aim to become Minimally Viable^TM, you can only become Minimally Viable^TM.

[Bogus]

Nobody would have cared about a non-BT generic stompy robot game, just look at what happens to all the other attempts. Moreover, PGI wouldn't have made such a game in the first place because BT was what both they and the customers wanted.

See, here's the thing that often gets overlooked in discussions like this. Mechwarrior Online is, as the kids say these days, not the Mechwarrior we deserve but the Mechwarrior we needed in 2013. The PGI brass likes BattleTech and wanted to revive what was by the late 2000s a hella dead franchise with a legal history more tangled and volatile than Inner Sphere politics. Everyone wanted that to be a single player Mechwarrior, including PGI; trouble is, nobody was willing to fund it. Single player games are expensive and time-consuming, potential financiers in the mainstream industry were at the time (and arguably still are) obsessed with MOBAs and CS/COD type games, and this was all going down well before Chris Roberts sent crowdfunding into ludicrous mode. Even in a post-SC world I doubt they'd be able to get the 8 figure budget needed to build a decent campaign-driven FPS hybrid from scratch. So PGI did what they had to do under the rules of the time, and made a multiplayer arena game with as much BT lore as they could pull in without wrecking the mechanics necessary for a multiplayer arena game. And many people bought into this, myself included, out of love of the franchise and the understanding that it's a necessary step on the path to the ultimate goal of making Battletech/Mechwarrior relevant again. Fast forward a few years and the much anticipated MW5 is actually going to happen, and Harebrained is on the verge of rolling out a turn-based game that, based on their previous work, should be excellent. I call that a strategic win, even if MWO itself is a mediocre game with many of the hallmarks of multiplayer muppetry that's likely to fade away over the next couple of years.

Lore and balance wise, I'd say it holds up well enough against the rest of the MW franchise--PGI has certainly made some boneheaded decisions but MW4, MW3 etc. have plenty of WTF moments of their own and they're pretty much all considered non-canon by tabletop purists. I do wish we didn't have pinpoint accuracy, but nerfing aim is likely to alienate as many MW fans as it attracts BT fans.

Johnny Z, on 19 February 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

Sony invested and backed this game eventually, which is a good thing, I hope. The kind of money this game represents in the industry anything is possible.

I liked the first one despite its limitations and hope this gets a no-DRM release, but...Sony also invested in and heavily promoted No Man's Sky. Just sayin'

[GrayMouser]

I must say, this was quite a read. Some very strong opinions and arguments as to what makes this game seem to some like it's not going to get better. I have to admit, I was a founder, and was glad to be. I had played some Living Legends for a few months prior to hearing about the project and was very excited at the prospect. Did the beta, and then fell off the face of the gaming earth for my real life pursuits.

Coming back to it now to FINALLY start playing, and it looks as though there is a bit of turmoil in the air.

I can say personally, I wouldn't have shelled out a dime if it hadn't been BT. But I'm an old timer and was playing TT BT since '89. The chance to pilot a mech finally came with MW2, and I played it faithfully through all the iterations; pver a decade. The Microsoft Gaming rooms for MW3, and the massive lag issues. The game was nearly unplayable as a multiplayer game, but we did it, and we loved it.

MW4 was a highlight, though we learned quickly to tweak the system. Jumping Black Knights with dual PPC's that would literally cook the mech with every shot; saved only by a glitch in the overheating and cooldown that stopped it from blowing up every time. We exploited the **** out of that game, and we still loved it. Man I miss MWL!

I'm jumping back in the cockpit again, and I am excited just to be piloting a mech. Now I get to watch lasers sizzle across my opponents armor. Get jarred by a volley of missiles. Is the game perfect? Nah, far from it.

I can't say much about the 'spirit' of this game, or how it may compare to it's predecessors, but then, I haven't done much with the game yet, especially the faction warfare. Doesn't that bring into the mix some of the storyline? The invasion of the clans and the battle for the inner sphere as the spawn of Kerensky returns for their birthright? I haven't played enough to see if that helps the system at all. The web site seems to point towards that. What about an outside ladder league or faction battle? Has anyone delved into that realm?

More recently, I played a bit of Titanfall 2, and I can say with certainty that the addition of the single player storyline, done well, really added to that game. I'm not as crazy about the mech combat (t's much too twitchy for me to truly enjoy), but a good single player story does help with some of the immersiveness.

I don't know about how I would feel if the game stayed relatively static for years, without some more immersive content, I'm just happy to jump in a mech for a while. Shoot some things up. Perhaps I'll feel differently after playing as long as some of you. I just hope I don't end up as bitter.

Edited by GrayMouser, 20 February 2017 - 02:14 AM.

[Anjian]

Johnny Z, on 19 February 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

This game needs a new trailer like this.

Start up title screen needs to be updated also, the title screen bothers me to no end, still.

That game makes good trailers and does them frequently, and puts them on YouTube. It also links them to Google Play.



This one hits 3.2 million views already.



The last notable MWO trailers.

For the escort mode, this is the latest.



The Steam launch one. I got to say this trailer looks horrible and is far too long, but it has a nice starship design.

[MeiSooHaityu]

If this wasn't a BT related game, I don't know if it would have been as successful. It would essentially be a Hawken clone and I don't know if that would have been in it's best interest. Freedom to do other things can be good, but if it feels generic, it really doesn't matter.

Also, MWO helped rejuvenate the IP. I think it paved the way for HBS's Battletech and is allowing us to finally get MechWarrior 5: Mercs which wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

I think the BT flavor is what gives this game the legs that it has and has opened up the BT video gaming scene. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

[Almond Brown]

Livewyr, on 19 February 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

MWO is an arena shooter. Right down to the CoD "Killstreaks."

The only thing kinda sorta remotely close to "War" about this game is the nifty dropship entry. Even the "Long tom" is a game show style algorithm. (Hence being "gamed.")

MWO mechanics done right would involve risk reward. (Heat, movement, etc.. more sim, less Cod)
MWO Community Warfare done with would involve assets, unique rewards, actual diplomacy, Houses/Clans built of units vying for power within the House/Clan and also seeking to expand House/Clan territory(And mercs making money along the way)
It would involve logistics; assets. Strategic shifts in balances of power.

When I dreamed of MWO Community Warfare:
I pictured my unit placing a Cluster of specific mechs on a planet with fixed defenses and non-mech assets to defend a mechworks there.
I pictured placing a scout mission of specific mechs onto a hostile planet to gather actual intel, fixed defenses, garrison composition, etc.. (If they made it back to the dropship.)
I pictured negotiating on the forums or in Teamspeak with a fellow unit in the clan to cover a weakpoint so we could shift actual valuable assets to the front to expand the clan territory.
I pictured negotiating ceasefires and declaring wars.
I pictured vetting a merc based on his/her reputation and stats, to determine how much to pay'm for contract.
I pictured selecting a place on the battlemap to drop an X-pattern artillery barrage.
I pictured my battles, the manner of their win or loss, meaning something after the fact.
I pictured waging a strategic campaign alongside, and against the community.

What I got was: "Pick a hamster wheel, any hamster wheel. There are no rules and the points don't matter, really!."

Damn it, now I'm all depressed with design mediocrity again. Good night, folks.

If only MWO had been a SINGLE Player game... then you could have all that stuff. YOU could have YOUR Battles... seeing a theme here at all? An Online FPS/SIM is not about YOU or Your or what you want. That is all SINGLE Player stuff. Imagine the cool Cinematic's we never get in a Online game, those great LORE based stories, the characters that we would see and have to deal with via Diplomacy, ahhh, the glory and Lore and "everything" that could be had.

But you bought a ONLINE game... MW5 is another chance at all that stuff you and YOUR so wanted.

BT had best have it ALL, otherwise I will be re-opening my very large and deep SALT Mine...

[Livewyr]

Almond Brown, on 20 February 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

If only MWO had been a SINGLE Player game... then you could have all that stuff. YOU could have YOUR Battles... seeing a theme here at all? An Online FPS/SIM is not about YOU or Your or what you want. That is all SINGLE Player stuff. Imagine the cool Cinematic's we never get in a Online game, those great LORE based stories, the characters that we would see and have to deal with via Diplomacy, ahhh, the glory and Lore and "everything" that could be had.

But you bought a ONLINE game... MW5 is another chance at all that stuff you and YOUR so wanted.

BT had best have it ALL, otherwise I will be re-opening my very large and deep SALT Mine...

You do realize that community warfare is not possible in a strictly single player game, right?

Edited by Livewyr, 20 February 2017 - 03:25 PM.