99 replies to this topic

[Cirran]

I am seriously concerned about power creep, the clans and PvE. I would prefer the clan story line play out and never get in the player's hands. Keep the clans as PvE content. I would actually be really happy if they had decided to start at 3025 instead of 3050. Keep the feel of Battletech but no invasion and start thier own story line. Make a nice clean break from MW. LOL, heck since I am dreaming. Maybe they start thier own parallel universe with a storyline that stays just in the Innersphere.
Anyways in short, out of control power creep, clanners as players are my poorly implemented, and team PvE not being in game. PvP gets boring very quckly.

Cirran

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The fact that the game may only be playable if you are part of an organised group. PUG matches with no VOIP could be no fun, especially if one side has a group of griends playing together. Focus fire and some discipline will take down a side of randoms not communicating very quickly. Also the learning curve for newcomers. If new people die very quickly, as they are facing people who have played previous versions and have a fair idea of what they are doing, then are they going to stay long enough to learn?
It won't be a problem necessarily with those that have paid for founders. It's more about when it goes open and there will be a fair number of "vets" around from Beta.

[Brolier]

I read the first page until I realized it was off topic, so to answer the question I just hope they get the mercenary scenarios right. The whole basis of Mechwarrior is being paid to fight. Without a proper economy base prior to the battle segments, the whole game will ****, or no?

[Fire for Effect]

1) Marauder
2) NPC or "pet" infantry
3) Archer
4) NPC or "pet" vehicles
5) Marauder
6) Ballistic weaponry as dangerous weapons and not the usual mech warrior lack luster junk
7) single or more precise multiplayer missions against AIs.
8) Marauder
9) Archer
10) Shadow Hawk
11) Phoenix Hawk
12) Battlemaster
13) Planetary Assault campains
14) Archer
15) Maps that are too small for real tactical maneuvering (best really bad example WoT)
16) to few maps
17) Commander Skills
18ff) Marauder

and yes warhammer is not in the list with a reason

[Namikaze]

1. I'm hoping that each type of mech remains a viable choice and it doesn't become Atlas Online.
2. They had better make sure that the ignore feature has plenty of slots.

[Kraita]

That there won't be any kind of weight restrictions on lances so you get 4 assaults and nothing else. On that note I would like to see weight restricted matches so you get an all light match up or an all medium match up so you can really test your skills against the same weight classes.

Fun is in the challenge not the winning.

[Baenlynn]

sakkaku, on 21 July 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Encouraging players to fill out all the roles. If everyone goes heavy/assault it will make trying to scout or hunt scouts pretty boring and may penalize you with long match waits.

With regards to heavy/assaults: I prefer to play HKs so all these alleged Heavy/assault peoples better watch out for my hi-speed missile boat/PPC sniper.

My main worry is that there will be enough chassis on launch to support using faction-accurate mechs in any role in any tonnage. For example... I've been skimming the announcements for a 40-ton mech and can't seem to find one. One of the many reasons I prefer the CBT construction system... Now I know there are universe and gameplay-specific reasons for not using it (and for some reason people are terrified of thinking too hard this day and age, as this causes them to forget their names and where they live... thus using the CBT construction system tends to make developers nervous), and I get that we can't all have omni-mechs right out of the gate (not that I ever gave a toss about that anyway). I don't care if I had to pay 10 times the base cost: being able to put what I want, at the tonnage I want it, is more important to me. I'll even pay cash. Also, given my character background I'll be wanting to stick with SL/3025/3039-era mechs from CC, FS, and TC for the first few few months at the very least. HAVING to set up in a Spider or an Awesome because there's no appropriate chassis at that weight is going to bug me (even if I love both Mechs).

Servers for Oceania/Oz: They are going to be needed. Even if there's only one. I personally know at least two other Aussies who are already waiting for this game, and I have a few old clan-mates I can convince to at least try this thing once it goes live.

Would love to see multi-stage planetary campaigns a-la Mech 4 mercs. Securing a landing zone, capturing local resources, going after enemy supplies and strategic targets and then closing in for the kill etc. Simply rushing in to kill the bad guys and holding one control point is going to get old really fast.

[SlavKatyusha]

Shadowscythe, on 21 July 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Just thought of something that is actually in game already that I don't like (seen in vids)
Taking fall damage from using your own jump jets.


I also haven't seen anyone jumping backwards or sideways

Now you came into something.

Death From Above from the use of jump jets and landing on top of an enemy mech.

Hope they do implement this,

[Redburn]

I'm afraid they will make the game where you don't cherish your life and the health of your mech, that it means nothing to die or be destroyed with no consequences from the match.

I'm afraid they will allow the mechs to be turned into "Franken-mechs" with customizations they were never intended to have; regardless of the cost.

I'm afraid they will implement some kind or any kind of match balancing.  War is War, there is no balance.  There should never be balance.  Doesn't happen in real life; shouldn't happen here.

I'm afraid that there will be no penalties for making mistakes.

I'm afraid they will dumb down the gameplay too much to cater to the twitch-kiddies instead of challenging them to step up their gameplay and evolve; that they will not find a way to encourage a feeling of entitlement, but encourage the will to earn what they receive and be satisfied in the accomplishment.

I'm afraid they will put artificial time constraints on matches that promote bad or artificial combat tactics.

I'm afraid we will never see a meta-game!

I hope I'm proven wrong on every one of these.

Edited by Redburn, 22 July 2012 - 04:49 AM.

[Ubertron X]

Baenlynn, on 22 July 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

... I've been skimming the announcements for a 40-ton mech and can't seem to find one. One of the many reasons I prefer the CBT construction system...

Cicada?

Things they can easily mess up:

* Pay to win aspects
* Matchmaking
* Mechlab and balancing (boating or "the one weapon")
* Role Warfare
* Community Warfare
.
.
.

[Adonnay]

Ubertron X, on 22 July 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Things they can easily mess up:

* Pay to win aspects
* Matchmaking
* Mechlab and balancing (boating or "the one weapon")
* Role Warfare
* Community Warfare
.
.
.

I agree... those are my worst fears as well.

[deadeye mcduck]

Love how your already slating the game BEFORE its even in Open Beta. Hows about stopping all these pointless "Whats poor/bad/dont want etc...about this game" and just ENJOY it once its released.

Edited by deadeye mcduck, 22 July 2012 - 06:00 AM.

[Mr Sockpuppet]

Stalgrim, on 21 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I'm afraid they won't let me crush everything under my Atlas' metal heels while I listen to the anguished screams of my foes and revel in their lamentation. All must bow before the unrivaled firepower of the Atlas or be left in a smoking heap of molten iron.

All kidding asside, I hope the maps are really good and not just dialed in, cramped and unpleasent to play on. I want them all to be massive and not have a feeling as if getting onto a certain map is just a pain in the backside. However Frozen City seems to be pretty unique and interesting by the looks of it, if they are all as good as that then I'll be ok with it.

Actually it is is according to Table Top rules (Overall Design Integrity rules)

though this rule really covers the replacement of parts with different parts lets say swapping out a AC20 for a group of 4 medium lasers.Its not saying that you can't strip parts off a mech and replace them with something different just that it affects the mechs performance.

Fully stripping a mech down to the skeleton and then rebuilding it in exactally the configuration you prefer logically shouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it would be extremely time consuming, labor intensive and may even cost you about as much as just buying a different variant of the same mech. Yes MWO is considered more of a sim game than a FPS with mech's but this isnt a 100% translation of all BT rules into a game.


Overall its all about about Balance. The hardpoint system is just a slight tweak on the rules for the critical location tables, allowing them to limit how drastically you can alter the weapons load out on a mech keeping someone from exchanging all his weapons on an atlas and switching to all medium lasers or streak SRMs or something else similar.

Edited by Mr Sockpuppet, 22 July 2012 - 06:06 AM.

[rareth]

I haven't seen anything regarding in game communication, some type of in game voice chat would be handy, even if its canned phrases tied to macros. typed chat just doesn't work in the thick of combat.

properly working ignore lists, so you don't get matched up with folks on it. proper reporting tool for player harassment.
if someone is being a jerk through blocking your shots, friendly fire etc.. put them on ignore and hopefully never have to group with them again.

again maps, large variety, good sized, like the rest of you I wouldn't like to see the same maps over and over with just different objectives.

Is there Friendly Fire? I recall during one of the videos about "oops I almost hit that guy" in reference to a teammate.

decent match making, grouping folks up letting them see the scenario before discussing Mech selection among the group.

[Kumakichi]

Aurithor, on 22 July 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

I read the first page until I realized it was off topic, so to answer the question I just hope they get the mercenary scenarios right. The whole basis of Mechwarrior is being paid to fight. Without a proper economy base prior to the battle segments, the whole game will ****, or no?

Indeed this seems tricky to get right dont you think? What is fair to a merc and what is fair to an IS House pilot. And thats not even mentioning what is fair to a light mech pilot playing the role of a scout. Or will someone who likes to pilot assaults be poor because he can't afford to keep his mech running? I'd expect some tweaking early on.

[Kumakichi]

rareth, on 22 July 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

properly working ignore lists, so you don't get matched up with folks on it. proper reporting tool for player harassment.
if someone is being a jerk through blocking your shots, friendly fire etc.. put them on ignore and hopefully never have to group with them again.

Good point and I can say I've never had this happen in Mechwarrior before but I could see it happenning these days. Well.. thats not true I guess I did see this happen very early on in MW4 but it stopped pretty quickly.

rareth, on 22 July 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

again maps, large variety, good sized, like the rest of you I wouldn't like to see the same maps over and over with just different objectives.

Yes as many maps and mission types as possible or reasonable. Variety is important.

rareth, on 22 July 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Is there Friendly Fire? I recall during one of the videos about "oops I almost hit that guy" in reference to a teammate.

Yes

rareth, on 22 July 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

decent match making, grouping folks up letting them see the scenario before discussing Mech selection among the group.

Yes supposedly you can join the queue as a group and represent your house or unit. I'm guessing there will be hot spots that will let you drop into battles over planets. Its unclear beyond that.

[Steel Talon]

making matchbreaker instead of matchmaker
bad example - WoT

[VK4502B]

I see people worrying there will be all Assault matches.
I do not think everyone goes Assault.

I've seen many posts by many different people saying they prefer lights/mediums cause they have speed, and want to support the team.

[Dustein]

Luke Taylor, on 21 July 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Support for us Australian folk is also a concern. Stateside servers and stuff, yeah, it's not exactly comforting...

Tennex, on 21 July 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

hands

Cid, on 21 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

melee combat.

Baenlynn, on 22 July 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Servers for Oceania/Oz: They are going to be needed. Even if there's only one. I personally know at least two other Aussies who are already waiting for this game, and I have a few old clan-mates I can convince to at least try this thing once it goes live.

As well as what is in the above quotes (melee Combat and an Australian/Oceanic Server) l would alsohope to eventually see Solaris Arena style FFA maps available to play LAN implemented eventually.
Will I be sad if these things never happen? YES
Will I stop playing if these things never happen? NO (depending on lagg that is if no Aus/Oceanic server)

P.S. I know quite a few Aussie MW and BT Gamers who are in high anitisipation of MW:O!

~EDIT: Added another quote that I agree with~

Edited by Dustein, 22 July 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Riffleman]

VK4502B, on 22 July 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I see people worrying there will be all Assault matches.
I do not think everyone goes Assault.

I've seen many posts by many different people saying they prefer lights/mediums cause they have speed, and want to support the team.

Prefering something, and feeling pressured to do something to be competative are two different things. I would prefer to drive a hunchback when possible, but if I get the game on launch and find that balaince is as good as the last few mechwarrior games aka race to the top of the weight chain, im not gonna handicap myself every game.