32 replies to this topic

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Prototelis, on 05 February 2019 - 08:00 PM, said:

The games doesn't have AI.

The AI from this version of the engine is garbage, it barely qualifies. Scripted sequences don't work as well in MP games which is why it would fall flat on its ***.

It's not the engine.. It's that's all cryengine programmers with experience leaves PGI 2014 and 2015 and going to Amazon, relic and other company's after the transverse disaster.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Shadowomega1, on 05 February 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

Well we do have Mechwarrior 5 inc on the Unreal engine, if it works out; they can always port MWO over to it and maybe we could get a better AI.

you can not easy porting MWO to UE4... You must build up the game from the base.
And like cryengine you must have programmers with experience...seeing like other company's that's crashed with her games ideas and the problems with the UE4.. New engine =new big problems

Humans build games with engines... Not engines build games with humans...

No experience with a engine.. No game

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 05 February 2019 - 11:09 PM.

[Shadowomega1]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 05 February 2019 - 10:58 PM, said:

you can not easy porting MWO to UE4... You must build up the game from the base.
And like cryengine you must have programmers with experience...seeing like other company's that's crashed with her games ideas and the problems with the UE4.. New engine =new big problems

Humans build games with engines... Not engines build games with humans...

No experience with a engine.. No game

MW5 is built on the unreal engine, if the staff of that or at least the engine team sticks around, the build should be easier. The main thing to port over is mostly the assets everything else would be from the ground up. However depending on how MW5 is built, I would be willing to bet that most of it could be used for MWO:2.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The working with the UE4 is not more easy as with the cryengine... For both you must have big experience! Only for the UE4 you find more people with experience... When he not work for other company's... You can looking in UE4 forums what programmers have for many problems with the UE4... UE4 is not a sandbox that's make gamebuilding easy and the UE4 has massive performance problems, that's why we in the last demos for MW5 not seeing Infantry.

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 05 February 2019 - 11:52 PM.

[Sjorpha]

m, on 05 February 2019 - 02:59 PM, said:

If everyone is wondering why the King Crab is being used as the Omega size comparison, it is because according to lore the Omega was made exactly 50% larger than a standard King Crab...so what you see below is the modern equivalent.

Increasing 1 side of the image by 50% makes the mech more than 300% larger, so your super heavy King Crab is more than 3 times the size of the regular King Crab.

This is a common mistake as for example doubling the tonnage/volume of something translates to a relatively small increase in height and width.

[Bombast]

Sjorpha, on 06 February 2019 - 07:32 AM, said:

Increasing 1 side of the image by 50% makes the mech more than 300% larger, so your super heavy King Crab is more than 3 times the size of the regular King Crab.

This is a common mistake as for example doubling the tonnage/volume of something translates to a relatively small increase in height and width.

The Sarna entry for the Omega actually says it's 150% the height of the King Crab.

sarna.net said:

The resulting internal structure was far larger than would be viable for any conventional BattleMech, but in the case of the Omega, resulted in a working superheavy design that stood half again as tall as the 100-ton King Crab, from which the designers had evidently taken a number of cues.

Of course, that's stupid too, considering the Omega is 150% the weight of the King Crab, so the TRO writers were making the mistake you are talking about. But it ain't OPs fault.

[Oberst Wilhelm Klink]

Edited by Oberst Wilhelm Klink, 06 February 2019 - 08:10 AM.

[Prototelis]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 05 February 2019 - 10:55 PM, said:

It's not the engine.. It's that's all cryengine programmers with experience leaves PGI 2014 and 2015 and going to Amazon, relic and other company's after the transverse disaster.

It is the engine. The engine is notoriously difficult to work with.

[Horseman]

Bombast, on 06 February 2019 - 07:54 AM, said:

The Sarna entry for the Omega actually says it's 150% the height of the King Crab.

To have 150% the volume at 150% the height, it would have to retain KGC's width.


One: Omega tall as Sarna indicates.
Two: King Crab in MWO
Three: Sarna's Omega depiction is actually much buffer and wider than KGC at same height. So much that if it was scaled volumetrically, it would not be that much larger than the KGC.
Four: Something that tries to strike a compromise - roughly 50% taller from feet to top of the guns compared to a KGC measured from feet to the hull level.

[RickySpanish]

Why not make it player controlled? An FP mode where the team elects the two (yes two) pilots to control the super-heavy. Dear God that would be insane. And hilarious. And probably cause some people to quit.

[InspectorG]

Oberst Wilhelm Klink, on 06 February 2019 - 08:04 AM, said:

That looks like a menu for Lights at a fine dining establishment.

[Sjorpha]

Bombast, on 06 February 2019 - 07:54 AM, said:

The Sarna entry for the Omega actually says it's 150% the height of the King Crab.


Of course, that's stupid too, considering the Omega is 150% the weight of the King Crab, so the TRO writers were making the mistake you are talking about. But it ain't OPs fault.

Ah, ok. I guess the weight should be around 350 tons then

[Khobai]

We wouldnt need to add superheavies if a lot of the assaults didnt suck so bad and could actually do their jobs.

Besides arnt mechs like the annihilator basically like superheavies anyway because they outclass virtually all over 100 tonners? Not all 100 tonners are created equally and PGI does nothing to address that. There's way too much disparity between two mechs of the same tonnage. PGI needs to fix that badly.

PGI needs to implement a rudimentary point system and assign each mech in the game a point value based on its actual power level, not its tonnage. Then their matchmaker could take those point values into consideration when balancing teams. Combine that with an ELO system and the matchmaker might actually be functional.

Edited by Khobai, 07 February 2019 - 09:53 AM.