37 replies to this topic

[Alreech]

BROARL, on 25 June 2020 - 02:45 AM, said:

make it PvP, enable the VR, and work on melee PLEASE!
we will buy mechs, biomes, missions, and bolt ons, or something.
the modders will hopefully continue to make it good.

**big THANKYOU to everyone who has contributed to the mods**

BROARL, on 25 June 2020 - 02:45 AM, said:

make it PvP, enable the VR, and work on melee PLEASE!
we will buy mechs, biomes, missions, and bolt ons, or something.
the modders will hopefully continue to make it good.

**big THANKYOU to everyone who has contributed to the mods**

PvP?
But only if i can put 6 PPCs in my Stalker, so remove the size cap for hardpoints.
And then add Ghost Heat because the 6 PPC Stalker ist OP.

Oh, and make each mode 12 vs 12 pvp without respawns and with no time to coordinate the team before the match starts, because Mechwarrior PvP must be a uncoordinated mess with rage quits after your only mech gets destroyed.
It's also very important that no teammate can see that loadout your Mech has, because that leads to coordination.
Also don't add Voip or Quick Chat or a Lance Leader Menue to Mechwarrior 5 for the same reasons.

[tee5]

Alreech, on 25 June 2020 - 07:57 AM, said:

...

Oh, and make each mode 12 vs 12 pvp without respawns and with no time to coordinate the team before the match starts, because Mechwarrior PvP must be a uncoordinated mess with rage quits after your only mech gets destroyed.
It's also very important that no teammate can see that loadout your Mech has, because that leads to coordination.
Also don't add Voip or Quick Chat or a Lance Leader Menue to Mechwarrior 5 for the same reasons.

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

[C337Skymaster]

Nesutizale, on 25 June 2020 - 05:16 AM, said:

While it would be possible to have an "MWO 2.0" based on MW5 it would require a lot of rewriting of the gameplay and introducing the entire codeing for onlineplay along with new server side programs and maybe even servers.

So theoreticaly its possible, practictly I highly doubt it.
Haveing said that...I wonder what would be more work:
- Updateing current MWO with all the new tech like Raytraceing, DirectX12, Vulcan, etc.
- Transfering MWO to a new version of Cryengine
- Rebuilding MWO on the basis of MW5

or would it be similar complicated no matter what you do. I guess this is a question for one of the guys from PGI that actualy works on the codeing/development side of things.

So a couple of things:
First, when adding "ing" to a word that ends with an "e", the "e" is dropped, making "Update" become "Updating", etc. Sorry, I had to.

Second, I've heard on here, and seen lawsuit summaries elsewhere that support the notion, that there's basically a "non-compete" clause in the CryEngine EULA. So based on whatever contract PGI would have signed to get permission to use CryEngine, they're not allowed to switch to a different graphics engine. MW5 being a completely new game, it's not bound by the MWO EULA, but MWO is not "allowed" to be ported to a different graphics engine. No idea what, if any time limit is on that (probably infinite).

So our only option for Unreal based MWO is to have a PvP mod to MW5. I'm not convinced that releasing MWO 2.0 won't be seen as being too close to the original to be a "new" game, legally.

Edit: when creating an adverb, add "LY" to the end of the word: Theoretical > Theoretically, etc

Edited by C337Skymaster, 25 June 2020 - 06:57 PM.

[crazytimes]

Are will still on track for a 75% off sale on steam this time next year though? That's the big question.

[Nesutizale]

@C337Skymaster
Hey don't throw grandma...I mean...grammar at me.
Yes, yes I know I should look out for that but I allready have problems with my first language. I am happy that people understand what I am writing in another language.

That beeing said...I don't know if PGI also has that kind of contract. I know it was an issue with StarCitizen but IIRC they settled that outside the court. I hardly see any reason why PGI and Crytech couldn't come to an agreement.
I mean MWO dosn't have the marketing value anymore. Its based on old, modified engine and hardly represents the current cryengine. If anything Crytech might be better of with giveing them the newest version and helping them with the transfere.

As for legal problems with porting MWO to MW5...yes that could be a problem. Not only with crytech but also Microsoft as I don't know if their contract woulld allow for creating an MWO 2.0 or if its just "keeping the lights on".

[Odanan]

Cy Mitchell, on 24 June 2020 - 10:34 AM, said:

Infantry added

New moon biome

New game mode Beach Head

New environmental heat

New quest missions

7 new Mechs tied to quest missions

New story missions.

Some things free with upgrade patch and some in DLC content only.

Thanks!

I'm looking forward for that infantry and new mission mode!

For the next DLC, here is my wishlist:

- Completely new chassis (the essentials: Wasp, Stinger, Crusader, Longbow - which could optionally be released in MWO too)
- More mission modes
- More vehicle types
- Mini campaigns
- Aerospace fighters (AI controlled)

For full expansions:

1- MW5: Clan Invasion (MW2:Mercenaries style) - enter Clan mechs and Clan tech, with a new campaign against the invaders

2- MW5: Civil War (MW4:Mercenaries style) - enter IS advanced mechs and tech, with a campaign you work for one side (Steiner or Davion)

Meanwhile, for the base game (those quality of life improvements were made by mods, but need to make it into the game):

- no more enemy spawns out of thin air
- less vehicle spam, more mech challenge
- ability to skip cutscenes
- better AI

PS: just hire the guy from the MW5 Reloaded mod.

Edited by Odanan, 26 June 2020 - 05:22 AM.

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 25 June 2020 - 06:55 PM, said:

Second, I've heard on here, and seen lawsuit summaries elsewhere that support the notion, that there's basically a "non-compete" clause in the CryEngine EULA. So based on whatever contract PGI would have signed to get permission to use CryEngine, they're not allowed to switch to a different graphics engine. MW5 being a completely new game, it's not bound by the MWO EULA, but MWO is not "allowed" to be ported to a different graphics engine. No idea what, if any time limit is on that (probably infinite).

AFIAK CIG didn't terminate their contract with CryTek (and delete all the CryEngine stuff from their game) but instead just removed the CryEngine Logo from their game.
CIG last defense was that they just "legally changed the engine" and are still free to use the CryEngine stuff because it is part of the Lumberyard Engine...

Quote

So our only option for Unreal based MWO is to have a PvP mod to MW5. I'm not convinced that releasing MWO 2.0 won't be seen as being too close to the original to be a "new" game, legally.

Changing the engine of MWO would not lead the players to spend more money on MCs, Mechpacks or Premium time.

Bringing MW5 to the new consoles and selling expansions packs with clan mechs is much more sensible.

[C337Skymaster]

Alreech, on 26 June 2020 - 09:25 AM, said:

AFIAK CIG didn't terminate their contract with CryTek (and delete all the CryEngine stuff from their game) but instead just removed the CryEngine Logo from their game.
CIG last defense was that they just "legally changed the engine" and are still free to use the CryEngine stuff because it is part of the Lumberyard Engine...


Changing the engine of MWO would not lead the players to spend more money on MCs, Mechpacks or Premium time.

Bringing MW5 to the new consoles and selling expansions packs with clan mechs is much more sensible.

And therein I think you've hit on the key point in all this: MWO isn't making any more money, so why are they going to license a new graphics engine and spend all the money and manpower on converting it?

Also, if the latest and greatest CryEngine has the same problems that PGI insists the current one has, then it's not worth it. Namely:
1. Limited number of landscape polygons, resulting in "invisible terrain" (worse on giant maps)
2. Only A vs B teams, with inability to add more (thus no 8-way free-for-all Solaris, or even 3-way Mexican Standoffs)

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 27 June 2020 - 12:44 PM, said:

Also, if the latest and greatest CryEngine has the same problems that PGI insists the current one has, then it's not worth it. Namely:
1. Limited number of landscape polygons, resulting in "invisible terrain" (worse on giant maps)
2. Only A vs B teams, with inability to add more (thus no 8-way free-for-all Solaris, or even 3-way Mexican Standoffs)

Giant maps for Mechwarrior? Most MWO Players prefer small, simple to play maps with a central landscape feature to circle around. Big maps with game modes that use them are downvoted.

And the A/B teams in MWO are just a bunch of random players that are thrown together for one match, and then disbanded.
Whould a C, D, E ect. "team" (all voting for small maps) of random players improve the MWO gameplay?

PGI should focus on Mechwarrior 5, porting it to the new X-Box and PS5 if allowed by license.
Then expanding it with Story & Mech DLCs to retell the Clan Invasion & Operation Seprent and the FedCom Civil War.

A relaunch of MWO, using the Unreal Engine could be done afterwards.

[C337Skymaster]

Alreech, on 28 June 2020 - 02:05 AM, said:

Giant maps for Mechwarrior? Most MWO Players prefer small, simple to play maps with a central landscape feature to circle around. Big maps with game modes that use them are downvoted.

And the A/B teams in MWO are just a bunch of random players that are thrown together for one match, and then disbanded.
Whould a C, D, E ect. "team" (all voting for small maps) of random players improve the MWO gameplay?

PGI should focus on Mechwarrior 5, porting it to the new X-Box and PS5 if allowed by license.
Then expanding it with Story & Mech DLCs to retell the Clan Invasion & Operation Seprent and the FedCom Civil War.

A relaunch of MWO, using the Unreal Engine could be done afterwards.

So giant maps might be more interesting if you could actually shoot the target you're aiming at, without your shot hitting terrain that didn't show up between you and the floating 'mech in the distance. I, for one, enjoy the strategy afforded by Polar Conquest. But it improves even the small maps, somewhat, by eliminating invisible walls.

As for more than just A/B teams, that really specifically is aimed at Solaris. Most folks that are familiar with Solaris fighting are familiar with the 8-way free-for-all fights from MW4, and were hoping to relive that nostalgia. Honestly, from the few books that I've been able to read so far, the A/B fights of teams ranging from 1v1 up to 4v4 is more realistic to how Solaris was run in Lore, but MW4 is what everyone fell in love with, and even MW2 operated that way. The lack of a free-for-all is what doomed Solaris right away, because that's what everyone meant when they said "we want Solaris mode!!"

[Nesutizale]

Large maps and realistic weapon ranges or dynamik mission ojectives that open or close up parts of a larger map....ah dreams

Oh and about the "Free for all" Solaris thing...there is even a map that is perfect for that in the private matches. Ok its not textured, at least the last time I looked at it but hey its there. It just needs some finishing touches and the implementation of a free for all mode.

Edited by Nesutizale, 29 June 2020 - 01:28 AM.

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 28 June 2020 - 05:28 AM, said:

So giant maps might be more interesting if you could actually shoot the target you're aiming at, without your shot hitting terrain that didn't show up between you and the floating 'mech in the distance. I, for one, enjoy the strategy afforded by Polar Conquest. But it improves even the small maps, somewhat, by eliminating invisible walls.

You don't hit terrain features if you use Weapons in high mounted hardpoints.
The bad thing is that even in Mechwarrior 5 the Mechs are not able to raise their arms to fire over terrain features. On the other side: most MWO Players don't even bother with switching armlock on/off, so raising arms won't be used much.

"Invisible walls" are a common thing will all game engines, and are created by the terrain hit boxes, object rendering distance, ping & server tick rate.
While the server calculates all hits & collisions with all hit boxes, the object to a far away hit box may not be rendered on the client due graphic settings.
Also the object may appere to be not in the line of fire on the client due lag and / or server tick rate.

Quote

As for more than just A/B teams, that really specifically is aimed at Solaris. Most folks that are familiar with Solaris fighting are familiar with the 8-way free-for-all fights from MW4, and were hoping to relive that nostalgia.

For a 8 "free for all" the engine doesn't need 8 teams. The engine just needs no teams, and that is called deathmatch.
Crysis 3 supported a 32 "free for all" deathmatch.

Edited by Alreech, 29 June 2020 - 08:56 AM.

[Nesutizale]

Alreech, on 29 June 2020 - 08:55 AM, said:

For a 8 "free for all" the engine doesn't need 8 teams. The engine just needs no teams, and that is called deathmatch.
Crysis 3 supported a 32 "free for all" deathmatch.

Wait what? We could have a big stomping with 32 players? I aspect that people would drop faster then...anywhere else in MWO. That would be brutal. I mean in the Tabletop it works because everyone has pretty ****** aim but in MWO?
Also you can't have enough armor to withstand that much firepower....except you could build the map in a way that fights are contained into smaller areas of 4v4 play. When in all areas there is only one last man standing you get repaired, the wall to the right drops to increase the space and its not 2v2 with the winner from the area right to you. Continued till only one player is left standing.
Kinda like a minature tournament.

[Alreech]

Nesutizale, on 29 June 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

Large maps and realistic weapon ranges or dynamik mission ojectives that open or close up parts of a larger map....ah dreams

And how would that work with the MWO players most prefered playstile of short games, close quarters combat without respawns on small maps?

Large maps would need a better coordination than the usual quickplay "team" of 12 random players that is disbanded after one match can offer.
The same applies to mission objectives more complicated than "kill all enemys"...

Quickplay is team deathmatch with symetric objectives (both teams have to attack and defend in assault / or capture the same points in conquest or domination).
In MWOs Assault the team has to decide at the start of the match if it should act in the Attacker or Defender role, most "teams" don't bother with that.
In "Skirmish" the team has to decide were on the map to meet the enemy, most "teams" don't bother with that.
In "Conquest" the team has to decide what control points to capture (or just playing "kill all enemys, capture later").

Clear attacker / defender roles make coordination of the team much easier.
Even the very arcady Unreal Tournament 2004 has had game modes with clear attacker / defender roles, and don't look how games like Call of Duty (Search & Destroy mode) or Battlefield (Conquest Assault, Assault lines) use clear attacker / defender roles to make coordination easier.
MWO is a kind of an odd multiplayer shooter with pre 2003 team deathmatch in a 2012 game.

Edited by Alreech, 29 June 2020 - 01:18 PM.

[Marchello1]

I would like to play multiplayer in mw5 in the future
Interesting dlc pre-order will be?
Ps: google translate

Edited by Marchello1, 29 June 2020 - 11:16 PM.

[jss78]

Odanan, on 26 June 2020 - 05:18 AM, said:

For the next DLC, here is my wishlist:

- Completely new chassis (the essentials: Wasp, Stinger, Crusader, Longbow - which could optionally be released in MWO too)
- More mission modes
- More vehicle types
- Mini campaigns
- Aerospace fighters (AI controlled)

I agree with the new 'mechs, and specifically the Wasps/Stingers and also new vehicles.

This is not so much to give the player these to control, but I feel the game has a bad lack of enemy diversity at the low end of the difficulty scale. I swear if I ever see another Cicada I'm going to puke (and I like Cicadas).

So make a really cool looking Stinger and Wasp, and spam those instead. And throw in some Bulldogs, Goblins, Vedettes, Maxims, etc.

From a player-controlled 'mech perspective, I do also want the Crusader and Longbow. By god they've been a long time coming!

[C337Skymaster]

Alreech, on 29 June 2020 - 08:55 AM, said:

You don't hit terrain features if you use Weapons in high mounted hardpoints.
The bad thing is that even in Mechwarrior 5 the Mechs are not able to raise their arms to fire over terrain features. On the other side: most MWO Players don't even bother with switching armlock on/off, so raising arms won't be used much.

"Invisible walls" are a common thing will all game engines, and are created by the terrain hit boxes, object rendering distance, ping & server tick rate.
While the server calculates all hits & collisions with all hit boxes, the object to a far away hit box may not be rendered on the client due graphic settings.
Also the object may appere to be not in the line of fire on the client due lag and / or server tick rate.

So one thing that I started noticing only about a year ago, and then realized is "artistic license" that PGI could have found examples to justify updating, is Omnimech Arm Actuators, and how they're graphically represented. If you look at any Battlemech that doesn't have arm actuators (only uppers), they have high-mounted arms, like a Jager, or Catapult. When they have lower-arm actuators, THAT'S when you get elbows. Clan Omnis should reflect that when you add or remove actuators. If you go all upper-arm actuators, and nothing else, you should wind up with Jager arms. The problem is that that looks funny to the players, because all the artwork shows lower-arm actuators, even when the game rules say there shouldn't be any. (The DWF-A right arm, for example is the only arm on ANY Dire Wolf to have a lower arm actuator, but every single picture of the 'mech shows lower arm actuators on both arms, except some of the "other" pictures listed at the bottom of the Sarna page. Of those, only the DWF-S and Widowmaker are depicted without lower arm actuators).

Alreech, on 29 June 2020 - 08:55 AM, said:

For a 8 "free for all" the engine doesn't need 8 teams. The engine just needs no teams, and that is called deathmatch.
Crysis 3 supported a 32 "free for all" deathmatch.

Oh good! So if MWO gets updated to that engine, we should have the free-for-all that everyone originally wanted in Solaris. Unless we're already there, in which case PGI was blowing smoke up our asses again by not providing that mode. (I don't remember the specifics, but I remember something about "the engine won't allow it", which the community reacted very sourly to).

[Odanan]

jss78, on 30 June 2020 - 12:23 AM, said:

I agree with the new 'mechs, and specifically the Wasps/Stingers and also new vehicles.

This is not so much to give the player these to control, but I feel the game has a bad lack of enemy diversity at the low end of the difficulty scale. I swear if I ever see another Cicada I'm going to puke (and I like Cicadas).

So make a really cool looking Stinger and Wasp, and spam those instead. And throw in some Bulldogs, Goblins, Vedettes, Maxims, etc.

From a player-controlled 'mech perspective, I do also want the Crusader and Longbow. By god they've been a long time coming!

This. Completely this. ^

C337Skymaster, on 30 June 2020 - 03:01 AM, said:

Oh good! So if MWO gets updated to that engine, we should have the free-for-all that everyone originally wanted in Solaris. Unless we're already there, in which case PGI was blowing smoke up our asses again by not providing that mode. (I don't remember the specifics, but I remember something about "the engine won't allow it", which the community reacted very sourly to).

PGI should just port Solaris to MW5. As the current MW5 engine is, it would support it.

PS: even if they didn't do a "multiplayer" Solaris as in MWO, they could at least do a singleplayer/co-op Solaris. Damn, I miss MW4:M's Solaris.