DeaconShaman, on 23 February 2018 - 02:21 AM, said:
Dude trying to use world of tanks to compare to MWO is way off base. First off WoT has a HUGE player base and they make more money per player then most free to play games so they are rolling in C-bills.
new maps would be great and I agree PGI needs to refocus it's efforts, once MW5 is out I am hoping we see some major changes to MWO but I'm convinced most of the companies resources are committed to that project.
WOT has a huge playerbase because they did things right.
You can compare WOT and MWO because they're pretty much the same game. One just did things right, the other didn't. How does one's failure compared to the other make the comparison invalid?
WOT has a huge playerbase because they did things right.
Not exactly. Huge part of their success is because they were first (maybe not the very first, but among the first games of this type and magnitude). And early developer gets the paying customer.
And because of very, very aggressive marketing.
When other similar games come out after few years, customer is usually smarter about how he/she spends money and time on F2P game.
Despite Wargaming's superior quality (comparing to PGI), WoT had its own share of slow development, mediocre designs, constant nerfs streaks and unfunning. And WoT is very bland game, even if compared to MWO.
But river of cash can fix it all.
Anyone who think's WoT is "doing it right" gets their opinion thrown out first. This is coming from someone who's played it for 6 years.
New maps? Sure. Do the one's that they introduce and yank in 3 months count? Not to mention their design sucks.
MWO players seem to choose to fight in the same area of these maps. WoT puts maps in where you don't have a choice where to fight.
I'd be all for removing the map vote and making it a random pull. At least make it a little more random than WoT's "random"
I get it, alot of you have been here for 5+ years and are unhappy, but it honestly isn't THAT bad. Speaking of which, I have to see what this month's new russian tank is.
WoT ...?? never played as im heared with the P2W ...enough from thats by Battlestar galactica Online ...and against War Thunder...Star Conflict ...amored warfare ...Planetside ...WoT only have the more aggressive Marketing ...will seeing the Place of WoWS when Ships come to War Thunder
Sigmar Sich, on 23 February 2018 - 08:42 AM, said:
Not exactly. Huge part of their success is because they were first (maybe not the very first, but among the first games of this type and magnitude). And early developer gets the paying customer.
And because of very, very aggressive marketing.
I'd consider all of that "doing it right".
DFM, on 23 February 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:
Lfmao.
Anyone who think's WoT is "doing it right" gets their opinion thrown out first. This is coming from someone who's played it for 6 years.
Compared to MWO, their marketing and design strategy has been basically genius. Which is why they have hundreds of thousands of players spread across at least 5 international servers and have spawned several follow-up franchises and console launches.
Wargaming is doing it right. I'm just as quick as anyone to criticize Wargaming (I've been playing WoT since the Russian pre-alpha...), but you cannot deny their success.
Old MW4 Ranger, on 23 February 2018 - 11:00 AM, said:
WoT ...?? never played as im heared with the P2W ...
It's no more pay to win than MWO. Less so, in fact, since MWO has consumables you can only purchase with MC, while WoT lets you purchase all ammo and consumables with premium currency or ingame currency.
pre use assets? you mean like rubelite oasis? vitric forge? every single ice map? lots of reuse going on here. i dont think they have added any new map assets in years.
e
grim plexis
Edited by LordNothing, 23 February 2018 - 01:38 PM.
It's no more pay to win than MWO. Less so, in fact, since MWO has consumables you can only purchase with MC, while WoT lets you purchase all ammo and consumables with premium currency or ingame currency.
As for a business company - yes, i agree.
But as for the game itself - no, it is not about doing right things for the game, it is about how to sell it.
Part of me wish MWO was done by Wargaming, yes. Lots of money, good quality assurance, crapton of advertising...
Doesn't make WoT any better though. It's like reading a thin brochure again and again and again. Bland and boring game. MWO, even when half-baked, is a better game. If i'll keep book analogy, sure, font is worse and grammar is bad, and there was a lot of beer spilled on it. Still a better read.
Gameplay-wise, they're extremely similar. You can't really call one better than the other because of gameplay when most of the concepts are transferable from one to the other. They're both tank games, but in this one tanks walk. In fact, I'd actually consider WoT's gameplay to be more dynamic because there's actually an armor aspect to it. Armor actually does what armor is supposed to do. It doesn't just act as a damage sponge before you get to the juicy internals. The actual gameplay between the two is so similar that I honestly don't know how you can say one is better than the other gameplay-wise, while one definitely does have an enormous advantage in production quality.
They're both tank games, but in this one tanks walk.
Oh really?! But this tanks are much more customizable in every way, and with multiple different weapons. Not just 50 shades of cannons. Lasers, ballistic, missiles. Much more brain activity, both in mechlab and fight. And no bushes to hide And without stupid tech tiers, so you can win in anything, if you're good.
No offence, i'm not interested to argue why WoT is a bad game (and it is). Discover it for yourself, after spending years on it, as i did in my time, from beta. Or just play it, if it suits you, i don't judge. (unless i do )
MWO is far from perfect, yes. I'm very fast to ***** about how MWO is bad and how founders hoped for more.
Still better than WoT at its best.
Between conceptualization, greyboxing, testing, redesigning, creating new model and art assets, structuring and painting terrain, testing, redesigning, constructing the map with finished assets, testing, redesigning, testing, release, handling bug reports, and testing... $250,000 sounds like a fair number to me for a low estimate. People need to get payed, yo.
Well considering the sheer amount of maps that will be in MW5, PGI must be in financial ruin.
Of course...
This was time consuming, yet free.
Cost is an arbitration. Yes you have salaries, time, etc.. but the only thing that really runs up the cost of producing a map is not finishing it in a timely manner. The cost is the same, effectively, whether you make it or not. You have the people on the payroll regardless.
With the assets, you basically have a free license to produce new maps as you see fit as you no longer need to buy them. Caustic, for example, is a map with a bland white texture and some nifty lightning effects.
The Catapult (me) is wearing Titanium White and PC Gamer Black. Notice it blends in perfectly with the background...of white textures under the lighting.
Yes PGI later redid them using some unique but mostly tourmaline and canyon textures and a new lighting trick.
The point, though, is just like Crimson Strait with reused buildings from River City, the stuff is there and all they gotta do is the geometry. I can do that by myself pretty easily, meaning a team of 5 people s more than sufficient both the server and regular ends and just churn them out month after month. Smaller game companies have done that with a new map taking at most 3 months after making nine different versions of it for nine different game modes.
PGI originally produced a new map within 4 months of the previous map, then another 3 months later, etc. until they just stopped. Then they did a new map within 8 months (but only mentioned starting it about two months prior). So in terms of time it doesn't take terribly long if they dedicate to it.
PGI has shown more maps in MW5 than MWO even has and they look pretty good and they haven't had long to make them, either. I know they are using procedural assisted map building but like Star Citizen, PGI's realized you still need some handcrafted touches to make them believable.
If developing maps cost 250,000 for Star Citizen, they'd be bankrupt with the first planet they made. Daymar, which is actually just a planetary moon, is 1.1 million square kilometers. Yet....huh. Funny isn't it?
This is while still using the CryEngine
In MWO... the maps are generally much smaller than Skyrim and far less detailed.
There's really no excuses for it, other than their manpower's dedicated to MW5. In terms of finances, map making isn't nearly so dire. Some PS3-quality games are made on budgets of less than 250,000 dollars with a lot more than just a single map.
And MWO is on the low end of that quality, between a high end PS2 and a low end PS3...
To follow up:
Polar Highlands is 16x16 on the grid. When they standardized the grid it was done to 500 meters. This may have changed but I have no reason to believe that a grid represents more than a thousand meters.
This said:
Polar Highlands, including the unusable area, is therefore 8,000 meters squared or 8 km^2 if we figure each grid to be 500 meters.
Come to think about it the video mentioned that was the old limit for Cry Engine maps was 8 km^2.
8 km^2 is basically 3 miles.
(Daymar is 424,712.37 (cutting off the rest of the decimals) Square Miles)
The actual usable area is significantly less. In fact just looking at the borders you can skimp a lot off, in fact since you can evenly shave off 2 columns and 2 rows on each side, the usable area's effectively 4 kilometers squared, give or take.
Then we know from PGI's process, they like to artificially construct 3 main channels and 3 main areas of conflict for every map and focus their attention on these points, leaving the rest of the map to be pretty generic to save on resources.
When you do this, you effectively have the level of detail and cost of preparing an apartment for a new tenant. Replace the carpets, paint the walls, thoroughly clean the place, remove any artifacts of the previous tenant, make sure no one's gonna sink through a random hole and once you deal with any lingering smells, all is ready to go. According to the place I live in that usually costs about 400 to a few thousand dollars depending on how bad it is
(After excluding new assets, wages that would be paid regardless of map development, utility bills [which PGI included in that figure, basically all the expenses they incurred over the course of developing river city; a map so complex and expensive that they built a hidden easter egg golf course on top of one of the buildings that you could only reach with a certain rarely used Spider] and so on. {Forest Colony had an easter egg living room repeating in several of those modular structures in which you could peer into the window, see a dirty used couch, an old TV, coffee table with MWO's cover on PC Gamer, etc..} So with easter eggs and humorous tidbits like that (the statues -- yeah they hold golf balls. Actually there's a lot of hidden golfing references in the old river city. Not to forget to mention dumpsters. Also notice there that the asphalt cracks and crumbles when my mech falls over on it. )
When you remove asset purchases, etc... and just have the people on their hourly wages / salaries... what you're boiled down to is the cost of "free" if you dedicate them to that,... as opposed to say building mechs. Which you wouldn't have the same guy doing both. In fact they only had 2 or 3 people working on mechs last I knew.
Sigmar Sich, on 23 February 2018 - 01:45 PM, said:
As for a business company - yes, i agree.
But as for the game itself - no, it is not about doing right things for the game, it is about how to sell it.
Part of me wish MWO was done by Wargaming, yes. Lots of money, good quality assurance, crapton of advertising...
Doesn't make WoT any better though. It's like reading a thin brochure again and again and again. Bland and boring game. MWO, even when half-baked, is a better game. If i'll keep book analogy, sure, font is worse and grammar is bad, and there was a lot of beer spilled on it. Still a better read.
If Wargaming gets desperate enough to counter Pixonic's War Robots, it won't surprise me if they tried to make a move into acquiring the Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise. They have been looking for a way to sneak into the science fiction space, like their acquisition of Masters of Orion.
Compared to MWO, their marketing and design strategy has been basically genius. Which is why they have hundreds of thousands of players spread across at least 5 international servers and have spawned several follow-up franchises and console launches.
Wargaming is doing it right. I'm just as quick as anyone to criticize Wargaming (I've been playing WoT since the Russian pre-alpha...), but you cannot deny their success.
They are so successful that Wargaming has bred an entire genre of Russian third person "war" shooters. Literally every game that has "war" on its title or similar word --- War Thunder, Armored Warfare, Star Conflict, War Robots among them --- arose inspired from the success of World of Tanks. This further extends outwards past Russia and into Europe with other games like Dreadnought.
Got to say, I dislike World of Tank's game play, much prefer War Thunder's. War Thunder not only has an armor angling and deflection mechanic going on, it doesn't have a flat HP bar, and it depends on what the shell does inside the plane, tank or ship, the internal "critical hit" mechanic. Another area where I like War Thunder better is the map design, which doesn't try to force or funnel you into "corridor" battles. Every map has multiple avenues of attack, there is no need to bunch up in a mass, but rather teams break up into smaller squads and attempt each of the multiple avenues of attack and defense.
Anyone who think's WoT is "doing it right" gets their opinion thrown out first. This is coming from someone who's played it for 6 years.
I think the point being made is that WoT is doing something better than MWO. Nothing speaks louder than the large player base it has and the huge piles of cash it is raking in,
If Wargaming gets desperate enough to counter Pixonic's War Robots, it won't surprise me if they tried to make a move into acquiring the Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise.
They managed to get rights to feature some Warhammer 40k tanks in their mobile version of WoT. If they want Battletech, i believe they can easily get rights - they have both fame and money.
Doubt they would anytime soon, if at all, they have enough customers. And it would be smart to wait till HG's lawsuit is over.
Mystere, on 24 February 2018 - 05:17 AM, said:
A soaking, stinking book filled with terrible grammar is never a good read. Try it, I dare you. <shrugs>
Book in good condition would be nicer, of course. But i was comparing specifically two things.
Well considering the sheer amount of maps that will be in MW5, PGI must be in financial ruin.
Of course...
This was time consuming, yet free.
Cost is an arbitration. Yes you have salaries, time, etc.. but the only thing that really runs up the cost of producing a map is not finishing it in a timely manner. The cost is the same, effectively, whether you make it or not. You have the people on the payroll regardless.
With the assets, you basically have a free license to produce new maps as you see fit as you no longer need to buy them. Caustic, for example, is a map with a bland white texture and some nifty lightning effects.
This is while still using the CryEngine
In MWO... the maps are generally much smaller than Skyrim and far less detailed.
There's really no excuses for it, other than their manpower's dedicated to MW5. In terms of finances, map making isn't nearly so dire. Some PS3-quality games are made on budgets of less than 250,000 dollars with a lot more than just a single map.
And MWO is on the low end of that quality, between a high end PS2 and a low end PS3...
To follow up:
Polar Highlands is 16x16 on the grid. When they standardized the grid it was done to 500 meters. This may have changed but I have no reason to believe that a grid represents more than a thousand meters.
This said:
Polar Highlands, including the unusable area, is therefore 8,000 meters squared or 8 km^2 if we figure each grid to be 500 meters.
Come to think about it the video mentioned that was the old limit for Cry Engine maps was 8 km^2.
8 km^2 is basically 3 miles.
(Daymar is 424,712.37 (cutting off the rest of the decimals) Square Miles)
The actual usable area is significantly less. In fact just looking at the borders you can skimp a lot off, in fact since you can evenly shave off 2 columns and 2 rows on each side, the usable area's effectively 4 kilometers squared, give or take.
That was pretty interesting video. Too bad mwo's version of cry engine is so mangled and out dated pretty much only 2-3 people know how to do any thing with it. i have a sc account too just waiting for a new rig that can run it since an '12 pc with an older video card can't.
All the things pgi has claimed for mw5 really should have been done to mwo first. They've wasted this community's offer of free talent and resources while burning it as customers with their poor management, poor implementation of things like long tom and balance of mechs,weapons and base tech time and again.
6
DeaconShaman, on 23 February 2018 - 02:21 AM, said:
