58 replies to this topic

[K O Z A K]

Spheroid, on 12 December 2019 - 02:45 PM, said:

Its simply a matter of setting the contract/loyalty duration longer the rate of total mechstable exhaustion. The need to have equal Clan/I.S. is also an anachronism. Matches should be scheduled with whomever is available in the queue. From that population logical ideological or territorial groupings would be constructed. If I.S. is twice the number of Clan queueing then perhaps a Davion/Liao conflict would be scheduled(planet to be determined by the nationality of the combatants), while that battle ensues the partial Clan group can populate and face those I.S that exit the aftermath of the Davion-Liao battle.

I never understood why this was not implemented, it makes so much sense it's beyond comprehension why it wasn't done. You have a conflict running w/e lets say clan vs IS, as soon as one side has 24 players qued while the other doesn't have 12 the game should build a clan v clan or IS v IS drop from those 24. This would let all the lore nerds play only their side while still get drops, and all the people who don't care would still get drops without the whole "ok guys time to switch to get a drop, gogogo we have 30 seconds"

[justcallme A S H]

For me - it is MWO. PvP is what I play games for. Community, playing with groups - interaction etc. No PvP, little long-term interest. MWO Community is still one of the most fun I interact with by far. MW5 doesn't promote that at all really especially as Co-Op is just, beyond easy mode.

I know MW5 will becoming boring for me because HBS Battletech did. As MW5 is essentially feels like FPS version of HBS Battletech with MWO assets in-game and gameplay (with some improvements).

Mechlab / Mercenary / Pilot skills etc - Really just feels like HBS 2.0.

In-game - MWO Art/Assets vs AI, an AI that is poorly optimised (especially the random spawn behind you. That's flat out bad). Mechs are more stompy feeling so that part is good, PGI did well. Destruction is just OK. It is however not dynamic, just square blocks which feels really low-effort. Even things like trees, you knock them over and they just disappear into the ground.

Mechbay - Cool / new. I dig it. The mechbay looks good. The issue is the actual people and everything else feels like a 8yo game in terms of quality. The people are edgy/not smooth and look like mannequins. We've seen what UE4 can do, this is lacklustre.

I did play maybe ~30hrs of HBS - It was fun. However it's just repetitive and so are MW5 missions. It's just the same stuff over and over because PvE.

Other PvE games I've replayed many times (DOOM '16 etc). So PvE can be good - but it's gotta have good AI and for at least MW5 - The procedural missions just feel the same all the time already. It just has overall not long longevity for me at all.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 12 December 2019 - 03:10 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

MWO - 100%. Simply because PvE bores me. The worst Tier5 player who fails up to Tier1 is still infinitely more interesting to fight with or against than NPCs. That doesn't mean it's always a good experience playing with other real people, but its interesting and entertaining, and yes frustrating.

PGI botched MWO in many ways, but its still entertaining enough to play on a regular basis.

By all accounts the basic engine and graphics in MW:5 are more than acceptable. But PGI should have had a true PvP option available on release, or at least had a timeline and demos of it ready to go. So much money and player interest lost IMO.

[Knight Captain Morgan]

On the bright side, they have almost a year to fix it all before it releases on a decent launcher.

[FRAGTAST1C]

If there are some people who I know and they do FW, I play MWO. If there's an event, then I play MWO.

For everything else, there's Halo : Re..., err... I mean, Doo...., er... I mean, MW5

In all seriousness, MWO is MP and MW5 is SP with Co-op option. Play both. But avoid QP in MWO. Seriously...

[50 50]

justcallme A S H, on 12 December 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

I did play maybe ~30hrs of HBS - It was fun. However it's just repetitive and so are MW5 missions. It's just the same stuff over and over because PvE.

Other PvE games I've replayed many times (DOOM '16 etc). So PvE can be good - but it's gotta have good AI and for at least MW5 - The procedural missions just feel the same all the time already. It just has overall not long longevity for me at all.

Not too sure how this could be changed, even in PvP it is a repeat of objectives, maps and to some extent the opposition.
In HBS Battletech and it will be with MW5 there will always be a limit to how many different missions/objectives there are.
With a large variety of mechs there is some variation in the opposition.
Throw in some VTOLs and Tanks, turrets, some different structures, different environmental factors.
The rinse and repeat process is unavoidable.

Human opposition will provide different challenges in combat, which would be pretty safe to say that it would provide a far different challenge to an AI, but otherwise we are limited by maps and missions+objectives.
The only other options I could see that could shake it up in terms of variety might be:
- Limiting or at least focusing more heavily on certain mech chassis according to faction so that when you are in different areas of the galaxy you end up facing different mechs and therefore have different challenges. (Or for MWO identifying faction vs faction using mechs)
- Having a bit more variation in the size of the forces on both sides. In a PvP game like MWO simply having 4v4/8v8 or 12/v12 as random team sizes would multiply the variety and experience from the matches. MW5 it's always your lance verse a horde.
- Multi stage objectives in each mission?

[FRAGTAST1C]

50 50, on 12 December 2019 - 07:50 PM, said:

Not too sure how this could be changed, even in PvP it is a repeat of objectives, maps and to some extent the opposition.
In HBS Battletech and it will be with MW5 there will always be a limit to how many different missions/objectives there are.

HBS Battletech added Flashpoint missions. Plus, there are mods like Roguetech. For now, MW5 is serviceable and has some good moments. There's definitely potential there. Once mods come into the picture, then there'll be better things. HBS Battletech was pretty boring once you started having Heavies in your Lance and Called Shots became the rinse-repeat gameplay.

[Pain G0D]

I just preordered MW5 for all the awesome MWO goodies .

I am not unhappy that i own MW5 and if i dont post on this forum it probably means i am playing it alot .

Edited by Pain G0D, 12 December 2019 - 10:55 PM.

[xStratus6]

jss78, on 12 December 2019 - 11:55 AM, said:

MW5 I guess, and that's not a commentary on MWO, just that I already put my couple thousand hours into MWO, and MW5 is the new thing.

But I hope PGI will recognize the potential synergy in keeping MWO online during the coming years. Even in a worst case scenario, MW5 is going to bring a LOT of new players into the franchise, just like HBS BT did. Some of these people could well gravitate towards a first-person PvP game.

In other words, it's not a zero sum game. Keep lots of good things available, and the franchise will grow.

I Agree, I Started on mwo day 1, i remember all the problems and changes over the years and currently just coming back after 2 years,i feared the game had died, to my excitement its still live, not as alive, but alive non the less, i hope and feel that mw5 has a chance to respark the battletech universe and bring the newer generations in much like legends did for me, i played mech warrior on the snes, i remember how much fun i had, then once i was older and in my teen years i got into mechwarrior on pc, mwo excited me even more, and i hope mw5 can do the same for others, mwo is an under the radar game, since it is only coop, maybe players will thirst for pvp scenarios. pgi has let me down and at the same time raised my hopes in a roller coaster ride. PGI, please dont let the ball drop now. we are all hopeful.

[GuardDogg]

Myself MWO for now (odd time will play Command and Conquer, and DSC flight combat simulator "Harrier", and some computer graphics in Blender, Hexagon). Thinking that MW5 is making a lot of noise (advertising) atm. Some will want to play MWO from single or coop. And maybe MWO will pick up again with a vast of new pilots. Will have to wait until March or April to see if MWO has potential to go further. PGI can make a mech right now, and bang a hammer in advertising it. Can you imagine those who spent thousands in MWO, and then shutting down the servers?

Edited by GuardDogg, 12 December 2019 - 11:51 PM.

[Odanan]

MW5.

I had great times with MWO, but the game is almost dead.

[lazorbeamz]

I hope MWO never dies and its pretty good to play from time to time.

[Znozoic]

for play mw4 in full hd? no thx... MWO (until servers down)

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

I have both and I will probably continue to play both (plus IL-2 Stormovik - which is just gorgeous). However, visuals and immersion in MWO now feel very dated compared to what MW5 delivers.

Haven't tried the turn-based BT game yet. Will have to give that a go.

[Mumuharra]

After about 10 to 15 hours of MW5 I am really bored of those generic (ever repeating) missions.
I can't fight mechs because I am only lopping LRMs on countless vehicles and choppers.
And if there is a small break I fire some rounds on a Spider or what ever.
Then again vehicles.
Countless.

This is the worst kind of creating difficulty.
Endless waves of stupid enemys.

How much real handmade missions does the campaign contain?
Any idea?
And what is the trigger for the next?
20 to 25 well designed story missions may change much to positive.

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 13 December 2019 - 05:13 AM, said:

I have both and I will probably continue to play both (plus IL-2 Stormovik - which is just gorgeous). However, visuals and immersion in MWO now feel very dated compared to what MW5 delivers.

Haven't tried the turn-based BT game yet. Will have to give that a go.

Do that.
Battletech is a great Game and the story missions are wonderful.
Even the grind between them is not bad.

[JadePanther]

at the moment there is a choice to not allow us a choice to make a choice and be able to answer the question... ahem *cough cough* exclusivity *cough cough*....

ask me again in a year.. until then theres only MWO

[Fiachdubh]

MW5, it still needs plenty of improvements such as the HUD, AI (stop shooting the bloody buildings we are defending!), the magically spawning enemies etc., but its still a good start and will improve. MWO more polished but without a story or campaign endless meaningless skirmishes holds no interest for me.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

MW5, so I can get away from the "META" of MWO.

[Unleashed3k]

If I would want more meta-bs, nerfing, buffing, more meta-bs and this all together in a fps-arena deathmatch with no real weapon or mech feeling, I would probably choose MWO, but I love BT, the lore and the old MW games, so I am glad we have MW5 now.

I am so glad, that the mechs feel like mechs, and not like a Quake char with steelboots, did I mention that there's no bs-boating, no Frankenmechs?

Yeah, that's how a real MW game works!

MW:O is closer to Quake 3 Arena then to BTU.

Edited by Unleashed3k, 13 December 2019 - 03:36 PM.

[Vxheous]

Unleashed3k, on 13 December 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

did I mention that there's no bs-boating, no Frankenmechs?