Edited by TheArisen, 24 June 2017 - 12:47 AM.


Discuss Transferring Mwo To Unreal 4
#1
Posted 23 June 2017 - 10:39 PM
#2
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:15 PM
The game has grown stagnant, not just because there hasn't been a new map in a year, but because the matches have no meaning, other than scouting matches - which help factions take what? More planets with no meaning?
The game needs much more depth. I do like the public queue, but I would be motivated to spend my days in faction warfare if I felt that I was helping my faction gain in game support assets and supply (in the form of cbills) and mech factories and stuff. It has been suggested that MWO is limited in scope because of the game engine. If so, and Unreal4 is the answer, then that's the answer.
#3
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:25 PM
#4
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:39 PM
#5
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:43 PM
Edited by Thorqemada, 23 June 2017 - 11:44 PM.
#6
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:47 PM
Basically, it'll be more of the same MWO with additional unintended bugs/consequences for another year+.
#7
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:49 PM

Hell, launch it as MWO2 (without taking everyone's progress away, obviously), advertise it as the "multiplayer component" to MW5 and it might draw a bunch of new players into the game, or so I'd like to believe. Well, to be perfectly fair, looking like a contemporary game might do a lot in that regard in and off itself, but it's a huge opportunity to keep MWO going for another five or so years.
And the investment needed to do that should be at an all time low, what with MW5's development and whatnot.
MechaBattler, on 23 June 2017 - 11:39 PM, said:
If Harebrained Schemes can port MWO's assets over to Unity, I see no reason why PGI wouldn't be able to port stuff to Unreal 4, especially considering they'll have to get models, animations and whatnot sorted for MW5 anyway. At that point, it's probably mostly a case of adding all the 'Mechs and the netcode for multiplayer, but UE4 is unlikely to be as much of a hassle to work with as the notoriously complicated frankenstein version of CryEngine 2 they've got.
#8
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:53 PM
The only issue I can see is that Unreal Engine 4 doesn't have the greatest netcode.
#9
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:57 PM
Luminis, on 23 June 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

Hell, launch it as MWO2 (without taking everyone's progress away, obviously), advertise it as the "multiplayer component" to MW5 and it might draw a bunch of new players into the game, or so I'd like to believe. Well, to be perfectly fair, looking like a contemporary game might do a lot in that regard in and off itself, but it's a huge opportunity to keep MWO going for another five or so years.
And the investment needed to do that should be at an all time low, what with MW5's development and whatnot.
If Harebrained Schemes can port MWO's assets over to Unity, I see no reason why PGI wouldn't be able to port stuff to Unreal 4, especially considering they'll have to get models, animations and whatnot sorted for MW5 anyway. At that point, it's probably mostly a case of adding all the 'Mechs and the netcode for multiplayer, but UE4 is unlikely to be as much of a hassle to work with as the notoriously complicated frankenstein version of CryEngine 2 they've got.
I guess it's more of a question of whether they want to keep adding onto the foundation of their franken-engine. Or if they want to rebuild anew.
Given how poorly optimized MWO is. I think it would be a huge boon for them. Especially if they had support from the creators of Unreal 4.
Raasul, on 23 June 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:
The only issue I can see is that Unreal Engine 4 doesn't have the greatest netcode.
Worse than an older version of Cryengine?
#10
Posted 23 June 2017 - 11:59 PM
Raasul, on 23 June 2017 - 11:53 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*
Edited by Juodas Varnas, 24 June 2017 - 12:00 AM.
#11
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:02 AM
#13
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:21 AM
Deathlike, on 23 June 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:
Basically, it'll be more of the same MWO with additional unintended bugs/consequences for another year+.
They are already doing the work for mw5, they are learning. I remember that townhall where Russ said it would stop development for 6 months. Well fk it im willing to stop everything to change to an engine that will survive the test of time at better framerate, better eyecandy and support for actual features. This crytech thing is not aging well. Also it would get rid of the mess that is the old code that make it difficult to change things.
Edited by DAYLEET, 24 June 2017 - 12:22 AM.
#14
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:22 AM
MechaBattler, on 23 June 2017 - 11:57 PM, said:
I guess it's more of a question of whether they want to keep adding onto the foundation of their franken-engine. Or if they want to rebuild anew.
Given how poorly optimized MWO is. I think it would be a huge boon for them. Especially if they had support from the creators of Unreal 4.
Well, from what I've learned about the topic (little as it is), they're not getting tech support on their engine and the documentation is supposed to abysmal, partially because the specific version sits somewhere in-between two actual releases or something along those lines.
They've been hacking something together for years now and I am under the impression that they've really hit a dead end with that engine. I mean, how long has it been since we got placeholder weapons because ammo switching isn't possible?

TheArisen, on 24 June 2017 - 12:20 AM, said:
Even the tweet was about Solaris, there's merit in discussing the port to UE4. That idea has been thrown around by PGI already and there's ample reason to push for it now.
DAYLEET, on 24 June 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:
What development?
Edited by Luminis, 24 June 2017 - 12:24 AM.
#15
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:25 AM
Luminis, on 24 June 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:
They've been hacking something together for years now and I am under the impression that they've really hit a dead end with that engine. I mean, how long has it been since we got placeholder weapons because ammo switching isn't possible?

Even the tweet was about Solaris, there's merit in discussing the port to UE4. That idea has been thrown around by PGI already and there's ample reason to push for it now.
What development?
Maybe I let my excitement run away with me.....
#16
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:50 AM

They should look towards EVE... there is a reason that they are so successful.
#17
Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:52 AM
DAYLEET, on 24 June 2017 - 12:21 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.
Edited by Deathlike, 24 June 2017 - 12:52 AM.
#18
Posted 24 June 2017 - 01:51 AM
In my eyes, they'd be better off architecting & developing MW5 with client/server netcode in mind, and re-using much of that code to build MWO2.
#19
Posted 24 June 2017 - 02:14 AM
#20
Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:25 AM
vibrant, on 24 June 2017 - 01:51 AM, said:
Well, "transfering" MWO to UE4 and "building" MWO2 in UE4 (based on lessons learned from developing MW5) is basically the same thing, as far as I am concerned.
It's highly unlikely for PGI to just scrap the assets they've developed for MWO and from the MW5 trailer, I'd say they've already stuffed some MWO models into UE4. I believe that they'll pretty much have to re-do MWO at some point - the game won't hold up forever without some technological advancement, I believe. Whether it's called MWO or MWO2 afterwards hardly matters... Considering that the whole conversion thing was discussed by PGI at some point anyway makes me believe that they know fairly well they can't keep MWO running successfully on an outdated, hacked together engine.
I mean, it sounds like a solid project to tackle once MW5 is out of the door.
What's important, though, is to not kill everyone's progress. I have a distinct feeling that people would leave the game in droves if PGI announced MWO2 without carrying over the money and grind that went into the current 'Mech collection of the players.
Edited by Luminis, 24 June 2017 - 03:26 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users