Jump to content

The Year Of Battletech Article On Polygon!


67 replies to this topic

#41 Rebel Ace Fryslan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 8
  • 357 posts
  • LocationAd Astra

Posted 30 November 2017 - 06:56 AM

Questions: can the devs of that game not give a few replies in this topic.

Q: How is it use the Unreal engine in this.
Q: How was the designing/plan of the game created, MWO seems much more adhoc, coming from the stringent period of IGP.
Q: Will MWO have benefits of this game.

#42 KingCobra

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 2,471 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 30 November 2017 - 07:26 AM

Actually to me it looked real good on the terrain and objects I personally do not like the cockpit layout because there is no cockpit. the FOV needs to be pulled back far enough to See the pilot and the cockpit monitors and equipment.

MechWarrior 3 cockpits were the best in the MW IP so far this reminds me of a MechWarrior4 cockpit view with a outdated MechWarrior2 id system very unfinished looking.

If you go look at the Hawken mech cockpits there very good on detail and layout PGI designers should load up the game and take a look at them.

Posted Image

Edited by KingCobra, 30 November 2017 - 07:33 AM.


#43 ScottAleric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 236 posts
  • LocationBay Area, CA

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:59 AM

View PostVellron2005, on 30 November 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

1) Random maps! Oh yeah baby! Finally! Hope they apply that to MWO..

Also, please, don't stop working on MWO, and take what was learned (like random maps) and implement it into MWO!


HOLY CRAP YES.
Seriously - It's something that I've been saying since I started playing MWO - Make procedurally generated maps. Looking at what they're doing for this game, it's clearly possible. Generate basic template tiles for terrain structure, then tile packs for different types of terrain. Specific geometry for major features like HPG manifolds and so forth.

How great would it be to not have to play on the same 16 (22 including FW) maps that the aces have all memorized?
To actually have a job for scouting mechs, more than just light harassers and skirmishers? To have to react to the terrain as we explore it? To actually have a need for formations beyond "murderball" and "firing line"?

I *love* the chaos and excitement for a new map when it is released, people exploring it and trying to fight it out. Imagine having to figure out a map as you go!
Argh.

Look, I'm all about more Mechwarrior content. I love piloting my giant stompy robots. MW5? yes, please.
I've come to really enjoy the community for the Multiplayer mode of MWO, but the static maps bother me.
After 611 drops on Grim Plexus and another 548 on Frozen City, vs 166 drops on Terra Therma and 147 drops on Alpine Peaks, I'm a bit done with the popular maps. Everyone knows where to set up and fight, everyone knows what to do and where to go and it gets boring

PLEASE. either multiplayer MW5 with procedurally generated maps or add that as a thing in MWO.

#44 Darth Futuza

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:47 AM

I like the sense of scale here. It looks decent for alpha footage, but will still need a lot more work before it is finished. AI seem to be a little dumb/uncoordinated. The Shadowhawk doesn't take enough damage in my opinion. Should have died a lot earlier...was he playing with dev cheats on or something (999 ammo of everything)? He still takes damage, but it just takes forever for him to hurt. MWO has a better HUD design. I assume its a placeholder. One major problem with the current HUD is the mech armor/hp and gun stats aren't visible enough, I dunno if it's just that green color and its opacity or what, but it just doesn't work well enough.

Bitchin Betty has too many lines - eg: she doesn't need to tell us every time fuel is at 0%, let a sound effect do that. She should be used to tell us critical information, not menial everyday stuff. eg: Assault Class mech detected (when the Atlas shows up on sensors).

Turret defenses seem rather underwhelming, not like the MW2 ones which would mess you up hardcore. There's a lot of boolean alive/dead stuff happening with the enemies which isn't as fun as gradually dying. eg: When you shoot a helicopter they shouldn't all explode instantly Michael Bay style - some of them should show damage effects as you damage them. The death effects/animations for each should have a lot of varieties as well. Sometimes they should explode, sometimes the rotor should fly off and send the rest falling to the ground, sometimes it should start wildly spinning, sometimes it should simply lose altitude and crash, etc. Simple stuff like that will make it much more authentic. Same thing is also happening with terrain destruction, especially the skyscrapper. The glass breaks, and then some of the stone exposing the skeleton, but it always seems to break in the sameway and use the same boring textures.

The locus AI seem either suicidal or just dumb. They are walking extremely slow while taking hits from a much beefier mech than they, instead of running like any good light pilot would do, zigg zagging and taking pot shots like some sort of caffeinated squirrel. I see those Kanga pilots are right tricksters, doing flips when they should be shooting (@3:34) :P The choppers are also very poorly coordinated. WIll we see Aerospace fighters?

Sometimes the terrain looks good, very good, at other times its very plain and boring. There's a lot of splotches of nothing. Touch it up some more, add more details and it'll look very good.

Not sure if I like the mission objective interface...seems a little too small for instance.

"When fans get their own hands on this playable demo at MechCon"
Do we have to go to get our hands on the demo? I can't afford a trip to Canada right now.

"while enemy ‘Mechs may have more skilled pilots in the cockpit, they will never have an artificial “level” that makes them behave like a massive pile of hit points"
This is good enemy design, provided it actually happens. eg: Would love to see a level or mission where you have to go up against a light lance of skilled Jenners and even though you have a big bad mech they'll give you a thrashing if you don't bring skills and strategy to the table. Let the difficult AI mechs play like Tier 1 MWO players, it'd be freaking amazing.

What are the chances of letting us mod the game after its release or even an SDK? I'd be extremely grateful if you did, making our own missions would be a lotta fun.

#45 dr lao

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 274 posts
  • LocationWashington state

Posted 30 November 2017 - 12:43 PM

what about the unreal engine guys MWO is so cpu intence the unreal engine should work better in with gpu's and open up more AMD compute

#46 Rekkon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel
  • 248 posts
  • LocationIronhold

Posted 30 November 2017 - 01:53 PM

View PostVellron2005, on 30 November 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

3) I hope the showcased mission was just that - a showcase, cose' there's no logical way why a single Shadow Hawk could take on tanks, hellicopters, a K2, a Jagermech and an Atlas, and have any hope of winning.
5) What's with your dropship always being visible? Are we expected to run that often?


It was an assassination mission. The player was supposed to get in, kill the VIP in that building and get the hell out. Notice only the Catapult, turrets and conventional forces were there to oppose him until that dropship brought in reinforcements.

#47 Cuah Temoc

    Rookie

  • Senior Corporal
  • 7 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 03:21 PM

I'm loving the initial alpha gameplay of MW5. Even if the pilot wasn't that great, I'm looking forward to single-player gameplay. My biggest gripe about MWO are the other pilots, so I'm looking forward to something I can play by myself.

#48 Ed Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,145 posts
  • LocationAround the Free Worlds League

Posted 30 November 2017 - 03:37 PM

MW5 is looking like the MechWarrior game that I had hoped MWO would have been. If they eventually offer local-network co-op for MW5, then that will be my one and only MechWarrior game for years to come. The only thing that is disappointing about MW5 is that PGI copped out and decided not to go the extra mile and include melee combat. The lack of melee combat will not keep me away from MW5 though, especially since MWO is becoming more and more like an arena shooter and less like a Mech sim, which is making me less and less interested in logging in.

Edited by Ed Steele, 01 December 2017 - 12:20 AM.


#49 Ed Steele

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,145 posts
  • LocationAround the Free Worlds League

Posted 01 December 2017 - 12:27 AM

View PostRebel Ace Fryslan, on 30 November 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Questions: can the devs of that game not give a few replies in this topic.

Q: How is it use the Unreal engine in this.
Q: How was the designing/plan of the game created, MWO seems much more adhoc, coming from the stringent period of IGP.
Q: Will MWO have benefits of this game.


I am obviously not a dev, just a player that has followed the game since it was first announced and played since closed beta, but I remember some of the story. Apparently PGI wanted to make MW5 from the get-go and even made a teaser trailer, but they weren't able to get funding for it at the time, so they decided to make a free-to-play MechWarrior game to bring attention to MW and as a source of income to help fund other projects. From what I have read, investors noticed MWO and PGI was able to get funding to make MW5 partly because of this.

#50 ScottAleric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 236 posts
  • LocationBay Area, CA

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:14 AM

View PostScottAleric, on 30 November 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

HOLY CRAP YES. Seriously - It's something that I've been saying since I started playing MWO - Make procedurally generated maps. Looking at what they're doing for this game, it's clearly possible. Generate basic template tiles for terrain structure, then tile packs for different types of terrain. Specific geometry for major features like HPG manifolds and so forth. How great would it be to not have to play on the same 16 (22 including FW) maps that the aces have all memorized? To actually have a job for scouting mechs, more than just light harassers and skirmishers? To have to react to the terrain as we explore it? To actually have a need for formations beyond "murderball" and "firing line"? ...


...more thoughts
Imagine if the event designers could restrict which tile sets and asset sets could be used?

You could have a campaign week set on a specific set of planets planet types, terrain. You could say, have the discovery of some Comstar Relics or bases, where mechwarriors are exploring the planet in a race to get to the valuable location or technology.
You could say that a weekend is the battle of planet X, and restrict the terrain types to that planet
We already know you can restrict or weight mission types, so that would help make more narrative options, as well.

...suddenly you're telling stories instead of just blowing each other up.

#51 Jonathan8883

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 315 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:19 AM

As long as it doesn't have Sieges, I wouldn't mind FP for that. Unfortunately, FP is 90% Siege.

#52 Bios303

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 89 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 06:16 AM

great post
cant wait ................

#53 Daggett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 815 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationGermany

Posted 01 December 2017 - 08:38 AM

I like the visuals and how the mech weight feels, though i think i need to get used to the HUD. Compared to MWO some information seems to be harder to read.

And i hope the final game will have more interesting mission design. It looked a lot like a arcade shooting gallery with waves of enemies but not much purpose. The Atlas for example should not randomly spawn like every other enemy but rather be presented with a short cutscene or so.

Especially when using randomized maps the risk is high that the mission design will feel too random, bland and meaningless. I really hope PGI puts some effort into this to give us missions to remember instead of random assignment #234, #235, #236...

Edited by Daggett, 01 December 2017 - 08:44 AM.


#54 Crushko

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 63 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 09:11 AM

I really hoped for something like random generated maps, because in these kind of games (which we havent seen for more than a decade) they make sure you have a high replay value.

Now that this feature is confirmed in the article, I suggest they do something like a "galactic conquest mode" where you do random generated skirmishes, base raids/ defenses, scouting or escorting missions etc on a map with moving borders, similar to the one we have in MWO: Faction Play.

#55 Michael Knell

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 79 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 09:12 AM

View PostDaggett, on 01 December 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

I like the visuals and how the mech weight feels, though i think i need to get used to the HUD. Compared to MWO some information seems to be harder to read.

And i hope the final game will have more interesting mission design. It looked a lot like a arcade shooting gallery with waves of enemies but not much purpose. The Atlas for example should not randomly spawn like every other enemy but rather be presented with a short cutscene or so.

Especially when using randomized maps the risk is high that the mission design will feel too random, bland and meaningless. I really hope PGI puts some effort into this to give us missions to remember instead of random assignment #234, #235, #236...



Atlas and Locusts didn't spawn randomly. Notice the dropship landing at 5:30, that's reinforcements.

#56 Nexuzz

    Rookie

  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 9 posts
  • LocationLondon, Ontario

Posted 01 December 2017 - 09:26 AM

At the 6:46 mark was that a punch being used on the building or just the arm moving into frame due to proximity to the building like when it was folded into the torso on leaving the dropship?

#57 Sam Ael

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 09:26 AM

Take a look at MWO - how can you believe MW5 will become a good game?

#58 NeoMaddy

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:24 AM

I watched the beta footage and wasn't impressed. The binary alive/dead states smacked of games from a decade ago. The buildings all create rubble that is just one texture? C'mon, that's embarassing! Mechassault did better than that in 2002! On consoles! Enemy A.I. seemed nonexistent. Weapons lacked any "oomph" to their impacts, they had no effect whatsoever on the motion or capabilities of enemy VTOLs and tanks. The map looked artifically restricted, it was clear to see there was absolutely nothing outside of the grid you were dropped into, didn't feel like a believable environment.

The good news: Sound design is awesome and it's good to see combined arms (even though that was also done, including infantry, back in 2002).

Either they released this demo way too early and they'll shock me with a good game... or PGI is set to disappoint me again. So far, MW5 looks like a reskin of MWO... and that's not good enough for me.

#59 Grayson Sortek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 240 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 01:33 PM

I like how MW5 is shaping up so far... few thoughts since Russ wants to give the MW community the things they've always dreamed about.

1) I like the idea of sprinkling procedural techniques, clever strategy you have there but please be careful. I don't want to end up 30+ hours into the game just to encounter a massive difficulty wall out of no where that basically stops all progression.

2) Let's make sure the cockpits of the Battlemechs that we are going to be in receive the same love and attention that they do in MWO, maybe even more if you can start integrating gameplay elements into them (such as the Hawken screenshot someone linked earlier).

3) From a marketing perspective I Highly recommend you do some kind of discount for MWO players that have already invested a large amount of $ into your company. Just look at what CD Projekt Red did with their Witcher series and how much their fans love them for it.
- You might take a slight loss on your sales, but you're going to increase your NPS (Net Promoter Score) and have better PR to show off to the rest of the gaming community. Heck, you might even regain a lot of lost business from people who still haven't come back to MWO despite the improvements you've been making.

I really hope you guys are listening to the community on this one.

#60 James Argent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 616 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:30 PM

View PostGrayson Sortek, on 01 December 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

1) I like the idea of sprinkling procedural techniques, clever strategy you have there but please be careful. I don't want to end up 30+ hours into the game just to encounter a massive difficulty wall out of no where that basically stops all progression.

It can't stop all progression. Fail one mission, write it off, take a different contract next time. The 'hit' to your corporation's reputation would be minor at worst. If it turns out to be THAT bad, that's what replayability is for.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users