60 replies to this topic

[xe N on]

What I really miss in MWO is the pilot or a an other indication of size.

Heavy Gear Assault (looks in game vids more like Titan Fall with more focus on Gears) handle it much more better:

http://cdn.edgecast....fd3275710b8.jpg

I would like to see similar thing in MWO.

It would be funny to be able to be able to move around as pilot after your mech is destroyed.

Seeing mechs like this give the game a whole different feeling:



PS: I would pay MC for being able to model an own pilot (as e.g. in EVE or Elite) and move around by feet. Battlemechs are gigantic and impressive war machines. However, piloting one of them makes every thing looks small, even other battle mechs.

Edited by xe N on, 30 March 2017 - 12:13 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dino Might, on 30 March 2017 - 03:02 AM, said:

[/size]

Oh no he didn't....

Are we just talking arcade games here? Because you left out the actual simulators:

Digital Combat Simulator
P3D
X-plane
FSX

Of those 4, only DCS counts as a F2P* flight combat game

*Yes, the game itself is free, with two free aircraft (SU-25T and TF-51D)
With the SU-25T, you can ground pound to your hearts content. Vikhrs, 25MPUs, 25Ls, KGMU pods, rockets galore, and the R-60M and R-73 for some air-to-air defense.

If you have any desire to play a real flight sim that is combat oriented, DCS is your game. Beware, it is ultimately possible to spend more $ there than on MWO.

I have, since I began two years ago, bought an entire control setup (HOTAS, rudder pedals, trackIR), and almost every module (~$50 each). But, for the price of each aircraft, you get a professional flight and systems model, down to the gnat's a** detail. And you have it forever. The game certainly isn't going anywhere, but if it did, you have all the mission editing tools and assets for making single player or multiplayer games. There are no dedicated servers other than the ones players create. There is no game balance other than that which the players create. DCS is a giant sandbox, and the way to play it is entirely up to the players.

The dynamic campaign called "Blue Flag" is THE example that MWO should use for faction warfare. Large-scale battles of up to 26 v 26. Multiple objectives spread over a huge map, so you can go headlong into the front-line battle, or flank around and pick up secondary objectives. There is something to do for everyone, from single players to large, coordinated units.

The only thing that puts a lot of people off is the need to actually learn how to fly and fight your aircraft. It's not point and click. For instance, in the A-10C, to shoot a SAM, I need to select my TGP, slew to target, designate target, visual ID to determine if I think I can outrange it, select Maverick, slew seeker head to TGP target, lock seeker head to target, fire. Now, think about doing that 6 times in less than a minute when you have friendly and enemy fighters in the area, your radar warning receiver constantly buzzing, and surface to air missiles popping off at you or at friendlies all around. It's something that never fails to entertain, and it's never a mind numbing grind. There is no "progression" other than your skillset, which is the most rewarding progression of all. Instead of unlocking the super tier 100 awesomeo tank, I have unlocked the knowledge and skill to plan out a full strike sortie to wipe out an entire airbases surface to air threats.

I know I keep pitching this game to the wrong crowd, but I got into it because of someone from MWO, and I've gotten a few others interested as well. The more the merrier, and if you think it's something you might like to try, then shoot me a PM.

Check out some of the amazing fan-made videos, and recognize they are all in-game footage:

are those massive multiplayer games? If so, then yeah, stack them on, but "Sims" I find appeal to a very different crowd than most of those playing games liek WoT, Eve, etc.

[SuomiWarder]

I, for one, applaud Dakota1000's "glass half full" attitude.

[Mister Blastman]

The original MechWarrior games had no grind in multiplayer. They were better for it. Pay 60 bucks... and enjoy.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 30 March 2017 - 01:06 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

So many of us are here because the idea sold was great and at the start it had so much potential. Being said I can point to the recent announcement of the round table for the comp guys. How many comp guys are their compared to the base?

Not to give the comp guys their due but the rest of us get shafted over and over and get sick of it. I mean have they ever once polled the population about what they want to see? Not once in all the time the game has existed.

The only time I thought they listened to the little guy was PVE and what did they do? They promised it was coming then screwed everyone by throwing it to a new title instead.

Sorry but over and over role play and pve were asked for and that from 2013. Nope, just don't care anymore how much any other game is worse. It's stupid to keep reading all these white knight threads. Do you think you get a free cookie or something? Stop embarrassing yourselves with these kind of posts.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mudhutwarrior, on 30 March 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Stop embarrassing yourselves with these kind of posts.

I think you need to stop for a moment, pretend as if your a rational person and re-read your own post before you criticize peoples threads, and instult people. Unlike you, most other people are getting on with the game and not stuck in the past. So people spend more time actually having discussion rather than wallowing about how much PGI screwed you. I think Dakota made a useful thread for discussion.

Mister Blastman, on 30 March 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

The original MechWarrior games had no grind in multiplayer. They were better for it. Pay 60 bucks... and enjoy.

no, their multiplayer was broken beyond belief, because they devs never considered PVP. They were single player games and they played like such.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 02:03 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Mudhutwarrior, on 30 March 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

So many of us are here because the idea sold was great and at the start it had so much potential. Being said I can point to the recent announcement of the round table for the comp guys. How many comp guys are their compared to the base?

Not to give the comp guys their due but the rest of us get shafted over and over and get sick of it. I mean have they ever once polled the population about what they want to see? Not once in all the time the game has existed.

The only time I thought they listened to the little guy was PVE and what did they do? They promised it was coming then screwed everyone by throwing it to a new title instead.

Sorry but over and over role play and pve were asked for and that from 2013. Nope, just don't care anymore how much any other game is worse. It's stupid to keep reading all these white knight threads. Do you think you get a free cookie or something? Stop embarrassing yourselves with these kind of posts.

Looking to potential and what you could have had always leads to disappointment with what you do have.

Why look to be unhappy when you can enjoy what there is?

I used to always look to the future and what I could have and I used to always look to the past and look at the good things I lost and the nice things that went so very sour and I was a bitter and miserable man because of it. I stopped and decided to take life day by day, try to enjoy what I do have, and wonder to myself why try to be unhappy when I could try to be happy.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

"Sims" I find appeal to a very different crowd than most of those playing games liek WoT, Eve, etc.

takes a real dire hard fan to play farm sim.

Dakota1000, on 30 March 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Looking to potential and what you could have had always leads to disappointment with what you do have.

Why look to be unhappy when you can enjoy what there is?

no point appealing to him, he's stuck and his expectations are almost un-attainable.

[Mister Blastman]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

no, their multiplayer was broken beyond belief, because they devs never considered PVP. They were single player games and they played like such.

No, their multiplayer was AWESOME because I was there in 1996 and loved it. Net Battletech League was incredible. Don't tell me they were crap. They weren't.

[Dino Might]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

are those massive multiplayer games? If so, then yeah, stack them on, but "Sims" I find appeal to a very different crowd than most of those playing games liek WoT, Eve, etc.

Absolutely agree. They are anything but massively multiplayer games. Maybe in the 100,000 total users at any given time, worldwide, is my guess. And those games on the other list certainly aren't sims; however, I see some as stepping stones to others. I'm actually glad there are games like WoT and WarThunder. They cover the large audience appeal, and then, like a gateway drug, entice some (very few, unfortunately) to partake of the even more refined products.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dino Might, on 30 March 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

Absolutely agree. They are anything but massively multiplayer games. Maybe in the 100,000 total users at any given time, worldwide, is my guess. And those games on the other list certainly aren't sims; however, I see some as stepping stones to others. I'm actually glad there are games like WoT and WarThunder. They cover the large audience appeal, and then, like a gateway drug, entice some (very few, unfortunately) to partake of the even more refined products.

My one knock with some sims... they are actually harder than the real thing.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mister Blastman, on 30 March 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

No, their multiplayer was AWESOME because I was there in 1996 and loved it.

wow, the fact that he wrote this and believes it would be just too much. Must have been some of the best years of his life.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 March 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 March 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

wow, the fact that he wrote this and believes it would be just too much. Must have been some of the best years of his life.

I believe whatever I want.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 30 March 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[SmokedJag]

Dakota1000, on 29 March 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:

I've heard a lot of good from WoWS, quite a contrast to their original WoT. Its quite true that its a camp fest in which you hide your tank in a bush and wait for someone stupid enough to go out in the open only to pepper them to death while they can't see you because of the stealth mechanics of hiding in a bush making your multi ton combat vehicle invisible.



I'm not saying it can't be improved, it definitely can. I'm just saying its a great game already, improving it would just make it greater. I don't really know of a free to play ground vehicle combat game that I enjoy more... of course my knowledge is limited however.

World of Warships has gotten somewhat better. It soft-launched and then existed for a long time in an absolute garbage state:

-- Reams of false advertising (principally a unified economy with existing World of Tanks)

-- Severely limited and unbalanced vehicle selection (only two nations, with few tiers of them actually enjoyable and accessable)

-- Incomplete technical base including huge loading times, poor size optimization, vision system ported from World of Tanks without allowing for, you know, open water, critical information only available in 3rd party resources etc.

-- Numerous major mechanic exploits that weren't fixed from beta and that wouldn't be fixed/balanced for a while

-- *Very* pricey economy where single ships would go for $30-60, often in inflated "bundles" of junk to drive up price

-- Tech tree capped by a flagrant pay-to-win wall where you could get the mechanic-optimized fan favorite Yamato by spending a huge amount of real money to convert XP past the worthless, negative-economy factor made-up ship in front of it

-- Another Pay2Win where you could buy a Tirpitz, which is another famous, quality high-tier battleship with brawling torpedoes for entirely real money

-- Awful carrier mechanic that was reprehensible to play and painful to play against i.e. they play a 1990s RTS and you play getting sandwiched by two flights of torpedo-carrying UFOs

A lot of this has been fixed and expanded but it's taken years.

[MechaBattler]

Mister Blastman, on 30 March 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

The original MechWarrior games had no grind in multiplayer. They were better for it. Pay 60 bucks... and enjoy.

Well roll back the clock and maybe it can happen again. The only reason MW5 is even happening is because of PGI. As much as that must grind the gears every hardcore battletech fan. It's the truth. Nobody wanted to publish MW5. So they went maverick and made it an F2P game. And now we have MW5 on the horizon as well as Battletech with the company of the original creator. With Marauders! PGI threw it on the line with the Marauder and HG blinked.

[Mister Blastman]

MechaBattler, on 30 March 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Well roll back the clock and maybe it can happen again. The only reason MW5 is even happening is because of PGI. As much as that must grind the gears every hardcore battletech fan. It's the truth. Nobody wanted to publish MW5. So they went maverick and made it an F2P game. And now we have MW5 on the horizon as well as Battletech with the company of the original creator. With Marauders! PGI threw it on the line with the Marauder and HG blinked.

I don't need to roll back the clock. I was there. And it was good. And they are great memories. So whether or not I choose to play more MWO or not is my prerogative. I have no idea how many hours I've put into this game, but if I had to guess, it'd be 1200+ hours. That's enough time to make up my mind.

[MechaBattler]

Mister Blastman, on 30 March 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

I don't need to roll back the clock. I was there. And it was good. And they are great memories. So whether or not I choose to play more MWO or not is my prerogative. I have no idea how many hours I've put into this game, but if I had to guess, it'd be 1200+ hours. That's enough time to make up my mind.

I'm only saying that they tried to do the single player one time purchase thing. But it fell through and they couldn't drum up anymore support for it. So they did the only thing that could work.

[Anjian]

Hunter Tseng, on 30 March 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

There is still alot IMHO that can be improved for MWO, but I have to admit... concerning how imbalance the BT universe is in lore, PGI has the balance pretty close at the same time making the 2 sides with its distinct flavor while still trying to adhere to lore (somewhat loosely).
The balance in MWO is far more better than some of the other games, most notably WarThunder GF... seriously, there Russian Tanks are STRONK TANK!!!! xD
WarThunder is a more serious offender than WoT

WT GF doesn't try to be too balanced because historical lore is never balanced. A Sherman isn't equal to a Tiger one on one no matter what. They realize rightly that preserving character is more important than artificial balance, and they use the Battle Rating system to simply tier an overpowered vehicle higher, and tier an underpowered one lower. That said, there are certain vehicles that still need to be adjusted even after the February adjustments.

Soviet stronk is outdated meta by the way (even on WoT Soviet tanks die a lot to German tank destroyers like Waffentraggers and E25). High aka post war tier is dominated by American HEAT rounds, which are used by American, German and Japanese post war vehicles, which makes good of penning Soviet armor no matter how sloped they are. Lower tier is now dominated by new Japanese tanks (Chi Nu, Chi To, Chi Ri) and the German 88mm Flak Bus. The meta is also altered by prototype American heavy tanks (T14, T20, T25, T29, T34). With each BR, there are more counters to Soviet tanks than before particularly with tank destroyers (M10, Achilles, M18 Hellcats, M36 Jackson, 88mm Flak bus, Super Hellcat, Sturer Emil, Nashorn, T28, Brumbar, etc,.) At any BR, there is nothing that can be countered with another. It has reached to a point that the Soviets deserve some minor boost on their own --- they recently got the IS-6 and the 29K Milk Truck. What's happening in WT GF is a rock, paper, scissors, and its doing the RPS ecosystem better than WoWs which has given up the concept.

New low tier German terror

Edited by Anjian, 30 March 2017 - 06:21 PM.

[Anjian]

If anything, as I mentioned before, more content means more power creep, and in general, from MWO to WoWs to WT GF, creep is definitely happening.

The US tank line has been the most improved in WT GF, and the new Japanese line is pretty awesome --- they got a 5.0 tank that has an autoloader. Strangely, every nation has one Sherman, for Japanese its post war, Germans a captured one (and the rarest in the game, as it was sold only during beta and I proudly use to show it off), for the British those supplied by the US, for the Russians, lend lease.

WT air forces is pretty much done, just adding planes here and there, and refining flight models, and WT GF is nearly done as well, just adding new models here and there, and adding new maps. Online I see the game having peaks up to 65 to 70,000 everyday, past that in the week end, so I would think the game is pretty healthy. Another indication is that their YouTube views appear up, and more YouTube and Twitch views --- healthy streaming means healthy self advertising.

Bought my packages and reserving my place for WT's next frontier, Naval Battles.




WT introduced a new PvE assault mode, but it doesn't look very good. AI doesn't seem to be as good in War Thunder compared to the World of Warships, which has a great coop mode that indicates great care and development in AI. I would think that coop in WoWs is even better than Armored Warfare, simply because the AI in WoWs is so much better, they can surprise you even on a one on one battle.

YouTube views on MWO player channels I would say its okay to meh, but definitely not on the dead side but you can't make a living out of it if you want to be a dedicated YouTube gamer. Still it shows definite signs of life in the game.

[rollermint]

I agree, the base game and combat is pretty darn solid. Its fun as hell.

It simply needed more depth and more content to take advantage of that combat gameplay, thats it. But seems to be PGI's biggest problem in implementing such and they seem to have no fresh ideas to do just that.