83 replies to this topic

[Methanoid]

Nema Nabojiv, on 25 August 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

If MW5 fails there will be no big battletech games for another decade. That is how the industry works.
So if I were you I wouldn't hope for it to fail.

ofc it will fail, its single player only and the niche already setup is for multiplayer these days, i dont know about others but with regards to mech games its all about multiplayer, i wont be buying a singleplayer game for mechs, this isnt the 90s anymore.

[El Bandito]

If you wanna complain about regression, then 12v12 had regressed MWO's graphics from its glory days. I'm still unhappy about it.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Methanoid, on 25 August 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

(...)
Its better to wait for MW5 to fail, then wait for them to port or pretty much rebuild MWO to the MW5/Unreal engine they eventually make.

Nothing we want will in reality appear with the crippling limitations of the old old old cryengine3 we are stuck with atm.

How about:
Lets wait and hope MW5 succeeds, so they will have money and resources to port MWO to Unreal engine, while we have a cool singleplayer mechwarrior in the meantime.

Methanoid, on 25 August 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

ofc it will fail, its single player only and the niche already setup is for multiplayer these days, i dont know about others but with regards to mech games its all about multiplayer, i wont be buying a singleplayer game for mechs, this isnt the 90s anymore.

Tell that to all that crowd that abandoned MWO because they wanted things that are basically only possible in SP.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 25 August 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[BourbonFaucet]

I'd prefer PvE vs waves ala Mass Effect than a 16v16 with respawns, although I'd love to watch that for the sheer chaos potential.

[KodiakGW]

I'd love larger battles too. But, I've come to the realization that their current choice of game engine technically won't be able to handle it. It's not regressing, it's realizing the limitations of your technology.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Apparently people just want to simulate trench warfare with stompy robots, because this is how you get it, by increasing the number of players on the field. You know how there is a stand-off on Frozen? Imagine more people being involved and people being even more timid. That's what would happen, combat won't be more interesting and heavies/assaults become even more strong because lights/mediums have even more trouble isolating people.

This delusion that 16+v16+ would magically amazing and deep and more fun is nothing but a delusion and completely avoids understanding of how that would play out in practice.

[Natred]

So much yes with this topic it gave me a nerd *****. No sence in regression. More fun ideas definately. Better than going backwords.

[Bud Crue]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 August 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

Apparently people just want to simulate trench warfare with stompy robots, because this is how you get it, by increasing the number of players on the field. You know how there is a stand-off on Frozen? Imagine more people being involved and people being even more timid. That's what would happen, combat won't be more interesting and heavies/assaults become even more strong because lights/mediums have even more trouble isolating people.

This delusion that 16+v16+ would magically amazing and deep and more fun is nothing but a delusion and completely avoids understanding of how that would play out in practice.

LOL!
Think of group queue though.
PGI would probably give 35 or 40 tons average.
It would be a nightmare of "Aggghhh! The bees! Get em off of me, get em off!"
I change my mind. Who cares about technical issues I want to see a 16 man of Assassins or Javlins.
The horror.
And then the air strikes.

[Thorqemada]

Amassing more Players only means amassing more Firepower means that Players cant move anywehre bcs they now get shot from any angle or they stay in cover playing the unfun covard-game MWO has become.

More Firepower means higher Tonnage bcs these are the only Mechs that have enough protection to get an Alpha out and survive and is the end of Mediums and Lights and light Heavys and anything that cant bring an insane Alpha with Trenchwarfarecompatilbe Hardpoints (anything ~shouldermounted).

It means faster TTK but probably longer playtime - after long periods of wasting the timer until it runs out or someone loses Patience and Forces an Action/reaction and Mayhem occurs.

Of course organized Groups will rule even more over PUGs bcs to win such a battle with "Skill" the Level of Organization must be Elite-Veteran!

Playerbase shrinks eventually!

Listen:
At Very First you Need to Catch the Individual with Good, Fun, Small Scale Combat Gameplay.
From there some individual Players will trickle up the "Skill" Ladder, trickle into Units, trickle into highly organized Elite-Veteran-Gameplay.
Thats the only way it works!

[Daggett]

Well, as others wrote 16vs16 or even more is probably too much for servers and playerbase.
Matchmaking can take quite long currently, it won't get better with more players per match.

And i highly doubt that more players will really increase the fun. Sure, mass battles look nice on videos, but i have yet to see an FPS where it really adds to the fun.
Instead i predict less TTK, lights unable to sneak around without stumbling into enemies everywhere and much more one-sided matches because passive teams will be at an even greater disadvantage than they are now.

As far as i remember the game made equally fun 8vs8 than it made with 12vs12. So why putting in a lot of work and risk for probably only marginal benefits?

Regarding respawns: I actually like QP because there are NO respawns and keeping my mech alive matters much more. I want quick 5-10min matches which is not possible when there are multiple waves to destroy. That's one reason i don't play FP much, most modes like Siege just take too long for my taste.

So i think it's currently not bad to have QP for guys like me and FP for guys who want to play more epic matches.

That does not mean that i don't want MWO to progress. I just think making matches bigger and longer is the wrong way to go given the current state of the game and playerbase.

Edited by Daggett, 25 August 2017 - 08:47 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think I still favor 8vs8.

More players on the field need a complete overhaul of the game, basically. I don't even mean technically, I mean from the gameplay design of a typical "match". For starters, there probably shouldn't be a concept of "match" at all. More a big battle zone with many objectives, bases and tasks to do so that people don't have a reason to form their death ball or perfected firing line (or curve). But MW:O was clearly not designed for that.

[ShadeofHades]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 August 2017 - 09:04 AM, said:

I think I still favor 8vs8.

More players on the field need a complete overhaul of the game, basically. I don't even mean technically, I mean from the gameplay design of a typical "match". For starters, there probably shouldn't be a concept of "match" at all. More a big battle zone with many objectives, bases and tasks to do so that people don't have a reason to form their death ball or perfected firing line (or curve). But MW:O was clearly not designed for that.

Yeah, this. You'd need much more spread objectives and strong incentive to chase them with smaller groups - basically a guarantee that a deathball *would* lose.

4v4 and 8v8 are far better alternatives to larger deathballs.

Also,

Methanoid, on 25 August 2017 - 05:33 AM, said:

ofc it will fail, its single player only and the niche already setup is for multiplayer these days, i dont know about others but with regards to mech games its all about multiplayer, i wont be buying a singleplayer game for mechs, this isnt the 90s anymore.

Methanoid, I know there are still players who quite prefer single-player campaigns over multiplayer fights. I'll be buying MW5, I've got a brother who doesn't like to play anything multiplayer who's been drooling over it, and I suspect that there are enough agnostic and PvP-averse players that it will not be the failure you dream of.

[Methanoid]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 25 August 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

How about:
Lets wait and hope MW5 succeeds, so they will have money and resources to port MWO to Unreal engine, while we have a cool singleplayer mechwarrior in the meantime.

they already have money to do that, where do you think your $$/££ for mechpacks and the likes went? certainly wasnt into improving MWO much.

ShadeofHades, on 25 August 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Yeah, this. You'd need much more spread objectives and strong incentive to chase them with smaller groups - basically a guarantee that a deathball *would* lose.

4v4 and 8v8 are far better alternatives to larger deathballs.

Also,



Methanoid, I know there are still players who quite prefer single-player campaigns over multiplayer fights. I'll be buying MW5, I've got a brother who doesn't like to play anything multiplayer who's been drooling over it, and I suspect that there are enough agnostic and PvP-averse players that it will not be the failure you dream of.

its not a dream, just a realistic view.

[Alteran]

As opposed to many here, I agree with the OP. MWO should be at the pinnacle of the MW series, but it isn't. If all PGI is interested in doing is regression, then there can be no path going forward and the game is nearing/at life support mode.

What EA has done with the BF series is exactly what PGI should have been doing with MWO. Fully destructible and battle damaged environments, massive maps with multiple objectives for different weight classes and Stars/Lances of mechs, options for 1v1 4v4 8v8 12v12 16v16 24v24 battle sizes, full options for stock and modified games, etc.

Everyone here can say that PGI has limited this, that and the other, but to get to the next level of play, you need to invest in the equipment and talent to deliver the next level of game play that is envisioned. When looking at this video and what was released for CW,FP,FW, PGI had the vision and a path to follow, management failed to invest and follow through. Worse, management squandered the Goodwill that they initially enjoyed from the customer base and the population is now in steady decline.

In reality, MWO:2 should have been planned for and ready for release this fall with a path going forward to MWO:3. Each iteration having technological and engine based improvements the whole way. Until MW5M is actually released and in a good playable state, I won't be investing in a pre-purchase of it.

[DAYLEET]

Stefka Kerensky, on 25 August 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

don't waste your time trying to explain something in the brown sea....

Well, why are you here Stefka? Aside from ******** on the people here? You have a safe place dont you, it's called reddit. You know where the door is.

[STEF_]

DAYLEET, on 25 August 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Well, why are you here Stefka? Aside from ******** on the people here? You have a safe place dont you, it's called reddit. You know where the door is.

You miss why I'm here?

LOL!!!

IT IS in the same quote you replayed!!! C'on man, read the second line!!!!

(you see...? ppl here stop reading at the first line..... isn't hilarious?)


edit: also: is it not hilarious OP confusing a promo video with the reality of mwo gameplay?
For me, it's been ...priceless!

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 25 August 2017 - 10:17 AM.

[DAYLEET]

Stefka Kerensky, on 25 August 2017 - 10:11 AM, said:

You miss why I'm here?

LOL!!!

IT IS in the same quote you replayed!!! C'on man, read the second line!!!!

(you see...? ppl here stop reading at the first line..... isn't hilarious?)

Your last part didnt make it clear enough that you're just here to sh!t on people and i wanted to highlight it. "it's enough to know... laugh" was pretty misleading, almost playful and not representative of what you do here now days. "go over to healthier place" ok good idea so ill repeat myself "why are you still here"?

[STEF_]

DAYLEET, on 25 August 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

Your last part didnt make it clear enough that you're just here to sh!t on people and i wanted to highlight it. "it's enough to know... laugh" was pretty misleading, almost playful and not representative of what you do here now days. "go over to healthier place" ok good idea so ill repeat myself "why are you still here"?

again.

I'm here to laught.


Some ops and posts are toooooooooooo funny!!! I cannot resist!
Why cannot I have my daily quote of healty lol?
Don't send me away please...... I'll be a good guy, I promise.....

[Pjwned]

Alteran, on 25 August 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

As opposed to many here, I agree with the OP. MWO should be at the pinnacle of the MW series, but it isn't. If all PGI is interested in doing is regression, then there can be no path going forward and the game is nearing/at life support mode.

What EA has done with the BF series is exactly what PGI should have been doing with MWO. Fully destructible and battle damaged environments, massive maps with multiple objectives for different weight classes and Stars/Lances of mechs, options for 1v1 4v4 8v8 12v12 16v16 24v24 battle sizes, full options for stock and modified games, etc.

Everyone here can say that PGI has limited this, that and the other, but to get to the next level of play, you need to invest in the equipment and talent to deliver the next level of game play that is envisioned. When looking at this video and what was released for CW,FP,FW, PGI had the vision and a path to follow, management failed to invest and follow through. Worse, management squandered the Goodwill that they initially enjoyed from the customer base and the population is now in steady decline.

In reality, MWO:2 should have been planned for and ready for release this fall with a path going forward to MWO:3. Each iteration having technological and engine based improvements the whole way. Until MW5M is actually released and in a good playable state, I won't be investing in a pre-purchase of it.

Unfortunately, the playerbase of chumps is also partly to blame due to consistently buying way too much overpriced crap for years, so PGI has never had a real kick in the *** to get their **** together in order to get players to come back and actually spend money because players (chumps) lapped it all up anyways.

Expectations were high for many, but their standards were down in the sewers, so the game (and even the publisher/developer policies) reflects that.

Not that I think 8v8 is a bad idea, obviously, but ever since the 8v8 announcement people have been whining about PGI regressing instead of progressing towards lofty goals that may have been possible if PGI were forced to be actually competent & professional to keep the money flowing instead of having the Battletech IP carry their success...well, you reap what you sow.

Edited by Pjwned, 25 August 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[DAYLEET]

Stefka Kerensky, on 25 August 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

again.

I'm here to laught.


Some ops and posts are toooooooooooo funny!!! I cannot resist!
Why cannot I have my daily quote of healty lol?
Don't send me away please...... I'll be a good guy, I promise.....

Call it what you want, you're here to post and **** on people. I bet you're winning a lot of heart right now.