99 replies to this topic

[Shadowscythe]

Redburn, on 22 July 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

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.

Well, there are repair costs...But we don't have specifics like; how much it will cost to repair different class/tech, how much we earn per match.

There is a 15 min time limit if I remember right...At one point it was 20 I think ....Been a while since I read a post on match time limit so they might of changed it again

Riffleman, on 22 July 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

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.

^^^^^ Second this

I prefere light mechs.. Even the REALLY light mechs that go extremely fast....but if speed/skill doesn't save the life of the mech. not much point in being a light.

[StickEGreen]

My biggest fear is that the community warfare will be late and lame. Also I'm worried about the cbill economy, since they've released almost no concrete info about it. I also share the OP's concerns about maps, but also about the quantity and not just the quality. I don't care how good the maps are, if there's only a handful then the game will get stale in a matter of weeks (or days).

While WoT has tons of maps now, it took them forever to really get the ball rolling after launch, which basically killed my long term interest in that game. I'm a level designer myself so maps are extremely important to me and my standards are a bit higher than most.

[Monolith]

SUSTINET, on 21 July 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Grammar policing for something as silly as the difference between you're and your. How cute.

It is why clanners hate contractions. Meanings can be completely changed by something as simple as an apostrophe. "You bet your a-s-s!" suddenly means "You bet you are a-s-s!" which introduces whole other grammatical roadblocks aside from having a completely different meaning. On the plus side, maybe you meant to say both things at once...

Being serious though, I completely agree with the OP about the map situation. I want HUGE maps and decent variety of terrain choices. Because variety in terrain introduces variety of tactics. The same map all the time and you just get alot of rinse and repeat.

[Red squirrel]

My biggest concern is that the maps are too small and too balanced (all the same no variation) and the amount of mechs allowed in a match will prevent real strategic battles. (There should be game types that last longer than 10-15min)

e.g. It's nice to not have sniper maps like in previous MW games but if the LOS is alway 200-500m where is the fun?
I want complex terrain....hilly, maybe woods, a river canion to sneak around the enemy and attack the flanks (12+ mechs and one lance sneaks around) then maybe a wide open desert or prarie with a citiy in the middle with narrow roads, bridges to hold as strategic points where assault mechs can cross a river.....

And interesting winning conditions (not just deathmatch) like let's play the battle of tukayyid where you have to concquer a city, or a capture the flag vs defend the flag match.
Also I like the idea of using 3 mechs in a match as a kind of respawn.


#######################

Imagine this scenario:
You are in a Catapult and a Atlas approaches you.....so you start walking away with 64km/h while the atlas follows you with 54km/h. Every once in a while you turn around and shoot some LRMs.....this tactic would work BUT then you hit the border of the map. This would suck - I do not want a border of the map.

Edited by Red squirrel, 22 July 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[JimmyRustler29]

Namikaze, on 22 July 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

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.

i would love to see a set up that is lacking in wot. ad a little Americas army philosophy to the game. where there can only a certain number of each type of mech fielded per battle. for example. there can only be 1-2atlases per match, or a max of two scouts per side. things that help make sure we don't have crap happens where the random "matchmaker" hauls all the atlases or centurions in que to one side. and all the other guys to the other side.
try to make restrictions based on the percentages of mech types used in battle according to cannon

[Shiinore]

Everyone needs to stop being so negative about a game that has yet to be released. It's not like we've already had a billion other threads addressing people's "concerns".

Edited by Shiinore, 23 July 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Shadowscythe]

Shiinore, on 23 July 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Everyone needs to stop being so negative about a game that has yet to be released. It's not like we've already had a billion other threads addressing people's "concerns".

"concerns" hehehe, I like that word....Seems some of the people here are a bit past concerns and into paranoia

[Palutena]

Jump jets: Are they faithful to tabletop and like Mech Warrior 2-3 or badly implemented Fly and die like Mech Warrior 4.

Will there be a fair match maker to have fair teams. World of Tanks Match maker is pretty terrible and complained about.

Will the Maps be fair. World of Tanks had plenty of maps that favored one side over the other.

[Grey Weasel]

Fire for Effect, on 22 July 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

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

I see lists like this and get confused. Looks like it's half a wish list, and half a concern of poor implementation. Or do you not want the Marauder?

[Grey Weasel]

deadeye mcduck, on 22 July 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

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.

Hey, now! Wild speculations and round-table kibitzing are traditional for any new game that has a huge pre-existing fan-base! Let them have their fun.

[Shadowscythe]

Grey Weasel, on 23 July 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Hey, now! Wild speculations and round-table kibitzing are traditional for any new game that has a huge pre-existing fan-base! Let them have their fun.

Yeah, forums love speculation
see sig

[Irish79]

I'm concerned that the way games are being implemented means it's going to be impossible to play organised group matches.

PUG's are fun but I want to be able to play some proper league games like the old vengeance days etc..

[Fire for Effect]

Grey Weasel, on 23 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

I see lists like this and get confused. Looks like it's half a wish list, and half a concern of poor implementation. Or do you not want the Marauder?

Not Impementing it is the worst possible implementation.... as the OP wrote in the thread title:
"Things your afraid they will implement poorly or not at all."


um a bit oversized but will do

[sirius89]

William1984, on 21 July 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Agreed with the maps, also a WoT player and it gets boring after some time, same map after same map, they should add a mechanic wich changes the same map a bit, like one time a canyon is open, the other its filled with rubble, or water height of river and so on... Would be a nice addition I think

So pretty much a map generator like in Diablo 3 that changes the map always a little bit.I really like that idea.

[Xeyed]

I really hope they are able to control aim bots and any other hacks/cheats that may come out , as the hacks absolutly ruined mech warrior 3 and expansions back in the day The aim bots , speed hacks then finally the config hacks which caused many players to abandon the game . I have high hopes for MWO and wish Piranha games the best of luck with this. I just purchased the legendary founders package and honestly cant wait to play.

[Todd Lee]

Lack of good advertising by not utilizing companies such as Valve (Steam). I really don't foresee gaming sites to really advertise this game much, if at all, upon release compared to many of the other games since Mechwarrior is such a niche game, and therefore I foresee a population issue occuring at some point.

Many of the balance issues people have touched up on such as the founders bonus, and such.

[Nonoka]

Rawne, on 21 July 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Inefficient game masters neglecting/avoiding abusive player punishment (shooting/blocking team mates deliberately, verbal abuse, forum bs etc).
Or punishing those who less deserve it to make "an example".
Well is more like im scared they will implement those two in a very efficient way.

I just want to able to put someone on a list and never have to worry about being in a team with them again.

[McSniffles]

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

I hope they make it so the best scout mechs don't blow. I also want a Nova Cat, so many PPCs...

The scout mechs wont suck, take my word for it.

[Brolier]

Totally agree with the maps being sort of small, seems like it defeats the purpose of fast scouts. A moderate speed heavy can scout the enemies movements early enough that truly fast scout mechs are just under utilized. At this stage I think most of the focus is on developing more mechs and balancing the combat than role and community warfare though. Interested to see if there are new maps with diversified areas with the open beta.

Edited by Aurithor, 31 July 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[Lanmythe]

Just gonna say it...quads.

Yep. I hope they implement quads at some point. I fully understand the technical limitations that are implied, especially given the engine is most likely built around bipedal mechanics. I still really enjoy quads, and hope that we see them at some point in the future. Would love to pilot a Thunder Fox .

Let the flames consume me.