210 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Unanounced Feature is the same level as CW after the release plus "something we never did before"
It isn't worth the speculation

[R Valentine]

jonfett, on 05 June 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

But, PGI has already created their own mech design, ala the Roughneck. What's stopping them now from creating new IS Omni designs? Especially ones that will feed their bottom line...wanna buy a mech pack?

Because you forgot PGI's other bottom line, "IS can't have anything nice". See the long spin up and spin down times they've already stated RACs will have. Silly rabbit.

[Summon3r]

Prosperity Park, on 02 June 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

...

...


... SAVING LOADOUT CONFIGURATIONS!!!


...nah, nevermind.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[MechaBattler]

Perhaps it'll be real salvage and an actual player driven economy. They've never done that before.

More likely 'custom geometry' for mechs. It would be a new revenue stream for them.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

MechaBattler, on 05 June 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Perhaps it'll be real salvage and an actual player driven economy. They've never done that before.

More likely 'custom geometry' for mechs. It would be a new revenue stream for them.

hahaha

This game is long entrenched as a quick, fast dirty arcade shooter. If they don't know how to make replay happen and scrap Solaris, they won't be able to do anything regarding actual salvage and players interacting with each other for an economy.

[Weeny Machine]

Athom83, on 05 June 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Depends on the engines. From some to others, its easier. From others to more, it may be a nightmare.

They said that it was an (old) Cry Engine version which got highly modified. That doesn't bode well

MechaBattler, on 05 June 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Perhaps it'll be real salvage and an actual player driven economy. They've never done that before.

More likely 'custom geometry' for mechs. It would be a new revenue stream for them.

It would be cool to wage a real House War with resources and faction loyality. Especially with the latter they dropped the ball

Edited by Bush Hopper, 05 June 2017 - 12:14 PM.

[Big Tin Man]

Ages ago Russ mentioned in a townhall (remember those?) that he saw a union class dropship in a build. Does that make it announced?

Other thoughts:

1. AI byproducts from MW5 development
--AI enemies to fill out scouting/FW drops (downside is you must use the map and command wheel to direct them)
--AI for the VIP to shoot back

2. IS Omnis, but they'll somehow be worse than clan omnis

3. MW5 to have online co-op mode

4. Map creator (active PT required) and the ability play custom maps in private lobbies. Nah.

5. Inferno rounds.

6. A truly asymmetric game mode outside of FW.

7. Fully destructible buildings/map elements

[Magnus Santini]

Probably they are going to put Melissa Steiner-Davion in that VIP Atlas, and have her do inspection tours of the quickplay maps. Meanwhile there will be the new FedCom sword-in-hand decal. If all goes well, there will be no event that arises from this.

[naterist]

im thinking its the ability to walk around your mech bay.

that sounds like a simple thing they can bring over from mw5.

[ChrisTop]

New Mechwarrior game demo level! Urrrrra

[A Really Old Clan Dude]

The sarcastic side of me says "New skills system"

the hopeful side of me say " revamp of guilds with new missions assigned for faction play and maybe solo play" so not just the big guilds get to have all the fun but some of the small less organized ones can as well.

Grand bloodname melee match. 24 players (random only no groups), any mech, voice and text comms is to all players for taunting. Winner gets a title/ cockpit item. Last mech standing or on timeout the mech closest to the center marker of the circle of equals wins.

[Linkin]

Hoping for co-op... really, really hoping for that, would be great. That said, would settle for really any large and different addition to change the game up a bit at this point (note, addition, not modification, like ST). I am cautious about even being cautiously optimistic however, given the development history... but we shall see.

[Exilyth]

I think we can safely rule out PSR being reworked to not be an XP bar and matchmaking in QP being improved.

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 05 June 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

No way to know. Depends on how they implemented things.

It IS a big job, but they're building MW5 in unreal and using the same assets, so the bulk of the work is already being done in the MW5 development. Then it's already half done once MW5 is finished.

You could probably due that with models and textures, but unlikely to do that with AI w/o translating some of the calls from one language to another.

It's definitely not trivial.

[Big Tin Man]

24 vs. 24

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 05 June 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

You could probably due that with models and textures, but unlikely to do that with AI w/o translating some of the calls from one language to another.

It's definitely not trivial.

yeah,this wasn't about AI, it was about the Mechs/maps.

AI would almost certainly need to be redone, but at least algorithms and such would be usable - just likely not the specific code.

Porting MWO to Unreal - even after MW5 is done - is absolutely not trivial. But the upside is that much of the work will already be done, and they'll have a lot of experience on hand when going forward. That's why I think there's zero chance of engine changes before MW5 is done: limited dev resources, so they're going to want to get MW5 done asap to make some cash to cover the cost.... So may as well do MW 5 keeping in mind porting MWO afterwards. No sense in doing the work twice at the same time.

[Scout Derek]

Wintersdark, on 05 June 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

yeah,this wasn't about AI, it was about the Mechs/maps.

AI would almost certainly need to be redone, but at least algorithms and such would be usable - just likely not the specific code.

Porting MWO to Unreal - even after MW5 is done - is absolutely not trivial. But the upside is that much of the work will already be done, and they'll have a lot of experience on hand when going forward. That's why I think there's zero chance of engine changes before MW5 is done: limited dev resources, so they're going to want to get MW5 done asap to make some cash to cover the cost.... So may as well do MW 5 keeping in mind porting MWO afterwards. No sense in doing the work twice at the same time.

The engine change, like I've been saying multiple times, will happen most likely after MW5 is out for sale, as you say.

The change should be easy then considering most mechs in mw5 will be modeled, the IS mechs that is.

[Wintersdark]

Scout Derek, on 05 June 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

The engine change, like I've been saying multiple times, will happen most likely after MW5 is out for sale, as you say.

The change should be easy then considering most mechs in mw5 will be modeled, the IS mechs that is.

They're using the same models, so that's not an issue. Porting MWO will basically be porting the UI and, of course, the multiplayer/netcode... Or rather, ideally rewriting the netcode, as MWO's is such a hackjob.

[Wintersdark]

Big Tin Man, on 05 June 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

24 vs. 24

God no.

Going back to 8v8 would be an improvement. More players would make things even worse.

[Scout Derek]

Wintersdark, on 05 June 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

God no.

Going back to 8v8 would be an improvement. More players would make things even worse.

Indeed; I would like to see 8v8 back in the QP que....

though we will only be seeing it in "Comp" play que. I've got people asking me to join, but I'm not too sure If I feel like getting back into the groove of comp; I can shoot and play well, but I feel like holding off of comp for another day, when I feel like shooting up the pugs in QP gets old, I'm still having fun in my huntsman, hence why I'm in no unit and such.