67 replies to this topic

[Skanderborg]

i hope so , MW5's gameplay looked A LOT better than MWO's. It seemed to have that "heavy" feeling that the past games had and felt like you were in a mech.

[Juodas Varnas]

Skanderborg, on 24 June 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

i hope so , MW5's gameplay looked A LOT better than MWO's. It seemed to have that "heavy" feeling that the past games had and felt like you were in a mech.

I bet it's due to the targeting reticle and head bobbing.

[Skanderborg]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 June 2017 - 05:54 AM, said:

I bet it's due to the targeting reticle and head bobbing.

It looked like MW5 and IK?

[Juodas Varnas]

Skanderborg, on 24 June 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

It looked like MW5 and IK?

Well, we didn't really see IK in action , since it requires uneven terrain (and it took place in a glorified parking lot)

But i do think that the main component of the "heavy, stompy" feeling was because of the way the camera bobbed with every step (the sound effects actually being pretty decent and meaty also helped).

[Peter2k]

DAYLEET, on 24 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

I remember that townhall where Russ said it would stop development for 6 months. Well fk it im willing to stop everything

ehh
what's half a year, or even a year
at least it would be worth it I think
UE4 seems easier to handle while it should run better

the features they usually do aren't exactly worth the wait as it seems anyway (information warfare/ghost laser range, energy draw, escort, incursion, IK is in development for a year now or so)
at least not in the first few iterations
seer CW or whatever the name right now
I'm sure by CW 10.5 we have a worthwhile version, if they don't drop it in the meantime

rather have them move to UE4 at this point
like you said
they already do it anyway, at least partly
hell all that's left is bringing over the clan mechs, maps and player inventory
I'm sure they're making a mechlab, camo and other stuff as well
can't be so difficult in bringing team deathmtach (means all modes) and 15 maps (with like half of those seemingly hated by the players) over from MWO

hey maybe they can make a new map faster than once or twice a year then

[Y E O N N E]

Skanderborg, on 24 June 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

i hope so , MW5's gameplay looked A LOT better than MWO's. It seemed to have that "heavy" feeling that the past games had and felt like you were in a mech.

That's because the HUD bobbed with the 'Mech. The 'Mechs in this game bob plenty, but this game's HUD is fixed in place which makes it feel more gamey and quick than it really is.

[Monkey Lover]

Skanderborg, on 24 June 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

i hope so , MW5's gameplay looked A LOT better than MWO's. It seemed to have that "heavy" feeling that the past games had and felt like you were in a mech.

You can do the same thing in the engine we have now. I think the people asking for unreal engine really have no idea what it can or can't do. Its full of its own limitation unless they spend time reprogramming it.

Thats not even counting they would have to pay them 5% of all sales just for using it.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 24 June 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[Lux Monolithic]

NEW ENGINE +1,000,000

I would pay fifty dollars just to upgrade.

Edited by Illuminous Owl, 24 June 2017 - 09:01 AM.

[MauttyKoray]

MechaBattler, on 23 June 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:

Anyone with programming experience, is it possible for them to use their work on MW5 as a base for recreating MWO in Unreal 4?

Yes, technically. MW5 could be used as a groundwork for conversion/building on to create a new MWO. They would need to build a new front end and the various online systems, but the real issue is the amount of content transfer that would be required for accounts.

It wouldn't just be releasing a new game, it would be making sure account logins and the content associated with them transferred over which unless their databases will be setup in a 1:1 fashion would require a fair amount of human hours to make sure all content is accounted for. I haven't done anything like that however so I'm not sure if there's a way to setup a way to set a program up that would do that.

[Monkey Lover]

MauttyKoray, on 24 June 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

Yes, technically. MW5 could be used as a groundwork for conversion/building on to create a new MWO. They would need to build a new front end and the various online systems, but the real issue is the amount of content transfer that would be required for accounts.

It wouldn't just be releasing a new game, it would be making sure account logins and the content associated with them transferred over which unless their databases will be setup in a 1:1 fashion would require a fair amount of human hours to make sure all content is accounted for. I haven't done anything like that however so I'm not sure if there's a way to setup a way to set a program up that would do that.

OR they can just add features to a game engine we have now. People keep playing like we can't have AI or quads because of the engine we have. You're talking years to port over this game just think of what they could do with years of real programming upgrades to what we have.

unreal is going to be good for mw5 because its scripting drag and drop engine. They will add all the features it has into the game and will look like every other unreal game. But when it comes down to anything new it will have to be hand programmed into the game just like we have now.

[Koruthaiolos]

Juodas Varnas, on 23 June 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

Because MWO right now has a *great* netcode

I'm totally supporting UE4, and totally not only because it would rid PGI from the excuse of "engine limitations" when it comes to Quadrupeds. *Cough*Cough*

Apologies, only in the sense that a few of the UE4 games I have played have had rubberbanding, stability and other issues when it comes to networking. Granted that most of them are early access so the devs are still ironing out the kinks. But translate this to MWO and I think we'd be in for a rough few months. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it!

[Spr1ggan]

Monkey Lover, on 24 June 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

You can do the same thing in the engine we have now. I think the people asking for unreal engine really have no idea what it can or can't do. Its full of its own limitation unless they spend time reprogramming it.

Thats not even counting they would have to pay them 5% of all sales just for using it.

True. However, The Unreal engine is known for being developer/user friendly and Cryengine is know for being a pain in the ***. Just my opinion but the easier an engine is to work with, the faster content can be made.

Also the only things that look good in the current engine are the mechs. Everything else and i mean everything else. Looks terrible. The terrain, buildings, etc. All look like something from a 2000-2003 game.

Edited by Spr1ggan, 24 June 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[Deathlike]

Spr1ggan, on 24 June 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

True. However, The Unreal engine is known for being developer/user friendly and Cryengine is know for being a pain in the ***. Just my opinion but the easier an engine is to work with, the faster content can be made.

Also the only things that look good in the current engine are the mechs. Everything else and i mean everything else. Looks terrible. The terrain, buildings, etc. All look like something from a 2000-2003 game.

What year is this again?

[Spr1ggan]

Deathlike, on 24 June 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

What year is this again?

I'm just saying. I've seen more impressive buildings and stuff in **** like Project IGI and a lot of Playstation 2 games. xD

Edited by Spr1ggan, 24 June 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

Spr1ggan, on 24 June 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

True. However, The Unreal engine is known for being developer/user friendly and Cryengine is know for being a pain in the ***. Just my opinion but the easier an engine is to work with, the faster content can be made.

Also the only things that look good in the current engine are the mechs. Everything else and i mean everything else. Looks terrible. The terrain, buildings, etc. All look like something from a 2000-2003 game.

Top pc game of 2003

I understand your point it could look better. This is true, but would this really improve that much? If they have the resources after starting mw5 they should just start a new mmo game based on mwo. Remaking the same game we have now with better graphics and few new fixture i don't think would be worth 2 years of programming.

Of course I'm not fighting to say "dont do it" I wouldn't mind at all Just not sure how much its worth doing.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 24 June 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[LordNothing]

i think this is more an option post mw5. once the game gets to a mostly stable state and mw5 development starts focusing on content creation then you have the coders start porting mwo over. most of the features are already there too and many of the assets are the same. the games having shared assets helps a lot. i do not want them to be merged at all, i want mw5 open for modding and mwo can remain locked down.

[LordNothing]

Monkey Lover, on 24 June 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

I understand your point it could look better. This is true, but would this really improve that much? If the have the resources after starting mw5 they should just start a new mmo game based on mwo. Remaking the same game we have now with better graphics and few new fixture i don't think would be worth 2 years of programming.

Of course I'm not fighting to say "dont do it" I wouldn't mind at all Just not sure how much its worth doing.

yea im not buying all my mechs again. mwo2 is not an option im willing to pay into, unless it uses a model other than f2p.

engine port also reduces support costs. newer hardware and operating systems are better supported. cryengine isn't very efficient for what it does. it also allows pgi to consolidate their talent on a single engine. they dont have to keep much of their staff working with an unsupported legacy engine. one team is behind on a deadline they can borrow a guy to help speed things up.

[Anjian]

If you want to know, mech type games and their game engines:

Hawken --- Unreal 4
Dual Gear (in development) --- Unreal 4

A good alternative game engine that is also popular

HBS Battletech (in development) --- Unity
War Robots --- Unity
Battle Titans (in development) --- Likely Unity.

Both Unreal 4 and Unity game engines port to a whole different platforms including Mac, Linux, console platforms, and mobile OSes.

Unity can certainly support quad mechs.

Edited by Anjian, 24 June 2017 - 06:34 PM.

[DAYLEET]

Deathlike, on 24 June 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:

You're still creating a new mess though, with its own set of bugs.

While it's not a transitive thing (while affects one engine will after the other - which usually isn't common, but it happens), it's a function of the factor of transitioning.

Think of it like UI 2.0. Outside of the crappy job of its initial debut for the mechlab, it did cause other things to not be available that we were used to like double clicking to add the highlighted equipment into the mech. On the other hand, despite actually gaining the weapons group menu in UI 2.0 (which honestly was not dependent on UI 2.0, they just never got around to it before), we still can't set chainfire directly there.

It's just stuff that will show up naturally trying to copy/replicate parts of older code into new destinations.

ill take a new mess over an old mess at this point. Ofc there will be bugs, there are bugs right now, theres not a game without bug. Couldnt careless about setting chainfire in the mechlab weapon group honestly.

Edited by DAYLEET, 24 June 2017 - 07:26 PM.

[Anjian]

Spr1ggan, on 24 June 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

True. However, The Unreal engine is known for being developer/user friendly and Cryengine is know for being a pain in the ***. Just my opinion but the easier an engine is to work with, the faster content can be made. Also the only things that look good in the current engine are the mechs. Everything else and i mean everything else. Looks terrible. The terrain, buildings, etc. All look like something from a 2000-2003 game.

If developer and user friendly is the number one priority, as long as getting it out in the fastest way possible, and the developers you can find and hire, I might say Unity 3D may have an advantage over Unreal 4.

Depending on how deep they are in in their Unreal 4 port, I would suggest to PGI that Unity 3D is still a viable option.

After all, this is the game engine Hare Brained Schemes have chosen for their Battletech game, and is also used in many 3D action games. Its easy for PGI to call up HBS and ask them for their opinions.

Edited by Anjian, 24 June 2017 - 09:00 PM.