3 replies to this topic

[feeWAIVER]

A while ago Russ or someone asked for ideas on a pvp MWO 2.0 that isn't just MWO2.

Previously I suggested a top-down twin-stick shooter.
I also suggested an Autobattler, like Mechabellum.
I stand by those suggestions.

Today I will suggest Mechwarrior Fighterz.
How cool would it be to have a 2D Mechwarrior fighting game?
You could even build a lance and make it a tag fighter.

Imagine like Street Fighter, but an Atlas would play like Zangief and a Jenner would play like Cammy.

[1453 R]

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

A while ago Russ or someone asked for ideas on a pvp MWO 2.0 that isn't just MWO2.

Russ Bullock is traumatized by Player Feedback and I doubt he will ever solicit it again. But just for shits...

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

Previously I suggested a top-down twin-stick shooter.

There was actually a BattleTech game vaguely like this on the Sega Genesis, I think. I remember playing it, where its "multiplayer" mode was one player controlling the legs and the other controlling the torso. It was a trip.

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

I also suggested an Autobattler, like Mechabellum.

No.

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

Today I will suggest Mechwarrior Fighterz.

Cringe meter...buzzing...

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

How cool would it be to have a 2D Mechwarrior fighting game?
You could even build a lance and make it a tag fighter.

Imagine like Street Fighter, but an Atlas would play like Zangief and a Jenner would play like Cammy.

The one thing this suggestion even remotely has going for it is the idea that it might show off what most MechWarrior games don't - the idea that 'Mechs are actually quite nimble and agile for their size and move more like common depictions of heavy battle armor than like the huge, stiff animatronics they're often portrayed as. 'Mechs duck and twist and shift as they move, like Jaegers from Pacific Rim, rather than just standing straight up and down and making minimal use of their otherwise extraordinarily inefficient humanoid(ish) frames.

Would this game actually be fun? No.

feeWAIVER, on 06 December 2025 - 10:02 PM, said:

A while ago Russ or someone asked for ideas on a pvp MWO 2.0 that isn't just MWO2.

What Russ meant by this was "What do you guys want other than a head-to-head arena TDM shooter?" The PGI at the time was uninterested in just making another MWO when the first one was so divisive. The problem is mostly that PGI couldn't figure out anything interesting by way of objective scenarios that remained balanced for wildly mixed teams of individually piloted 'Mechs, which is also why Faction Play fell short. Piranha couldn't figure out objectives that worked for two mostly-equal teams of human opponents. They were fine with humans vs. A.I., which is why the MW5 games were surprisingly good. Anything PvP and they don't have a good idea of how to do it beyond well-established basic game modes from other games.

Any prospective MWO 2 would need to be more than a largely empty arena TDM to be worth making. It would need an entirely different monetization scheme, this pseudo-World of Tanks **** ain't gonna cut it a second time. It would, essentially, need an entirely new value proposition, as it has been determined that BattleTech/MechWarrior is kind of a fair-at-best match for an arena shooter.

If someone did make a new BattleTech arena shooter, frankly I don't think it should be a MechWarrior game as we currently understand it. The 'Hero' 'Mechs should be the only 'Mechs, with relatively minimal customization. There's a potentially interesting hero shooter-style game in there somewhere when you don't have 1400+ 'unique' 'Mechs you have to try and find 1400+ unique builds for when the players can change almost everything about each of those 'Mechs, but I also think basically no one who is already a BattleTech person would buy it. BattleTech people are basically Pokemon players except with giant robots instead of increasingly outlandish weird critters, which is the only reason MWO is still kicking. It got PokeMech mostly right, even if it didn't get nearly as much else right as anyone would like.

[Ilfi]

Would it sell? Keep in mind MW5 Clans (something that stuck to the script and should have sold like hotcakes) barely moved the needle.

It's fun to fantasize, but outside of small budget maintenance for existing titles, the only way forward I personally see doing well is a properly-executed official MechWarrior: Living Legends-style release with a persistent world (or at the very least, long matches focused on territory control).

[dario03]

You say Fighterz and bring up tag but then only compare to Street Fighter which in non crossover games is typically a non-tag game. But you didn't bring up Dragon Ball FighterZ as an example..

But in any case I'd be all for it. I always thought it would be cool to have one with a battle value system. So different mechs are worth different points and you build teams based on a total amount, some other fighters (including some other DB fighters) have that. Could also have assists and something like an LRM mech would be great for fire support while not being the tagged in fighter but weak when tagged in, others could be good when tagged in but weak in assists and some more balanced. Though I feel like it wouldn't have very wide appeal so would probably need to be a lower budget kind of game. Though that doesn't have to mean bad, I'm pretty sure theres been some good fighting games made on a budget that went on to be successful. And could be expanded upon if it did.

Other option would be something that is 1v1 or at least more 1v1 focused (could still be tag) but from a third person perspective. Kind of like Arena fights in Armored Core but with multiple mechs that can switch out. Or to go back to Dragon Ball, be like in DB: Sparking Zero (which also has a points system for different character strengths to build a team).