102 replies to this topic

[renegade mitchell]

LakeDaemon, on 03 January 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

More than 73,000 posts so far in the 65 days since the forum was opened, all of them in the direction of what we want or dont want MWO to be. Im sure we'll break 300K by the time the game launches this summer but we should remember that, at launch, MWO will be a "minimum viable product" with years of updates and additions ahead of it. We shouldn't go into the launch expecting a glossy final game that would normally take years to develop. It will no doubt be glorious but it will lack features and details, and balance and polish. Look at it this way. We get to say, "yes I played MWO from the beginning back before we had this or that." What do you think MWO will have at launch and what will be added over time as the game evolves? Edit: What Russ said.

Sorry for coming to this thread late. I feel the MWO will have all the basic gameplay set, with minimal maps/planets, and mechs. I do feel balance may be an issue early on. As you said, when the game progresses we will see more added content. Sort of reminds me of another game, STO, developed by a small company Cryptic, much like Piranha. They got their game out within a year with minimal content, but look at STO now. I see Piranha doing the same.

[Tatius Pryde]

I dont belive this as a bad thing, but ill treat this launch/open beta like i did the APB: Reloaded open beta, there is still lots to add in and there is a solid base to work from.

It will still be enjoyable, that much is hopefully true, but there will be alot of added content and tweaks and small glitches to fix up.

But i have full confidence that this game will...
A: hold true to the battletech universe. (as much as a game can i guess)
B: have much potential in regards to content and gameplay mechanics.

It may not be a huge release at first. but it will get better.

[Unclecid]

Renegade Mitchell, on 10 January 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Sorry for coming to this thread late. I feel the MWO will have all the basic gameplay set, with minimal maps/planets, and mechs. I do feel balance may be an issue early on. As you said, when the game progresses we will see more added content. Sort of reminds me of another game, STO, developed by a small company Cryptic, much like Piranha. They got their game out within a year with minimal content, but look at STO now. I see Piranha doing the same.

one big difference with STO and MWO.

STO was not cryptics first mmo
they did CoH, CoV and champions online before embarking on STO.

MWO will be PGI's first mmo AND first pc game from what i can tell.

[Elizander]

Those who have been around online games for awhile will expect bugs and imbalances on launch day and for the weeks following. Just look at that high budget Star Wars MMO that came out and read through all the complaints in their forums. Even an established game like World of Warcraft tends to screw up balance and quality control almost every patch.

I like WoW so I stick with it despite the derps. I like Mechwarrior/Battletech so I will also stick around for thel rough ride of launching the game and hope that fixes come quick enough.

[Mason Grimm]

Pay no attention to the man non-gender specific person behind the curtain! MWO will be perfect when it launches! Even with all the bugs and the lack of hula physics!!!

Edited by Mason Grimm, 11 January 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Mason Grimm, on 11 January 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! MWO will be perfect when it launches! Even with all the bugs and the lack of hula physics!!!

I think it is a personality issue myself. Is it an Elizabeth or an Alexander?

Sort of like. Is it a Bug? or a Feature? Perhaps a Beature?

[Kaemon]

Mason Grimm, on 11 January 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Pay no attention to the man non-gender specific person behind the curtain! MWO will be perfect when it launches! Even with all the bugs and the lack of hula physics!!!

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

*uses the force to make you wobble slightly to and fro*

also it may help if they hire some QA people...
http://infinitegamep...ing.com/careers

Edited by Kaemon, 11 January 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[dh crow]

I'm glad to hear the bar isn't being set too high, because this is really late to have no gameplay footage. Provided improvements continue to be made at good speed, I can work with a rudimentary first release.

[Sturmbb]

Get it out the door and makeing money but dont make it a minimum viability product , then all you will have is video and opinions of the first week and not stuff from weeks / months./ years later just like world war ii online.

[Rabbit Blacksun]

To be honest ... I'll be happy with just getting in the **** pit once more, and as pointed out in earlier threads bare bones releases are often better, though I agree with an earlier post about it being an inside term and not one you generally put out to the public. I can honestly say that i would be happy with only a few mechs and maps at start.

In reference to a few other posts out there, it may be a F2P (free to play) but it will not be a Free to pwn. That was put out in one of their news releases.

If your looking for video footage try you tube under the games original release title, they have some stuff there that is legit, and i believe they are not going to dump that much programing into an opener and then have graffx suck, though it is possible who knows. I been playing battletech for the table top and mechwarrior since its original release for the IBM pretty sure some one out there remembers that one

Though I am hoping they introduce the LAM's, while not as powerful they offer something to the battlefield that is perfect for this type of game. Though I have a feeling not many would play them since most seem content with wailing on each other with all the combat effectiveness of a two cavemen smacking each other with clubs.

As they said the game seems to rely heavily on intel, from both in game and by that i mean information and class warfare, which i can only assume from reading means that a mech jocks "role" is going to be important, and as stated the circle jerking is not going to be very effective with terrain elements being a major point to open release. Then there is also this new community warfare, which means boards are actually going to be useful for a change.

All in all im in even if it comes out looking like "polished Gravel"

Remember, no game has ever been released with perfect online operations, there are always going to be glitches and bugs, but that is also our job as players to report when we find em ...

Atleast I can honestly say that playing from launch i can look at a newbie down the road and say ... why sonny in my day we had jenners ... and we liked it!

XD

[Unclecid]

Rabbit Blacksun, on 11 January 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

If your looking for video footage try you tube under the games original release title, they have some stuff there that is legit, and i believe they are not going to dump that much programing into an opener and then have graffx suck, though it is possible who knows. I been playing battletech for the table top and mechwarrior since its original release for the IBM pretty sure some one out there remembers that one

well...i doubt they will use it since the engine being used for MWO is cry3 and i do recall a dev saying that the old gameplay video footage for the single/cop-op game was using a different engine.

[DarkTreader]

Note that what one person considers a 'Minimally Viable Product' will be radically different from another. I might not consider the game ready to be released until every mechanical, technical, server, UI, path, texture, fixture, collision, animation, FX, and sound bug are finished. Someone else might be willing to let a few of those slide through as bugs that don't have an effect on gameplay and thus, can be handled later in a polish pass.

Russ will have to define what his personal definition of that statement is for it to a Minimally Viable Fact.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Thats not a Bug. Thats a Security Feature!

[Lycan]

MitchellTyner, on 04 January 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

I'm cool with a game that needs polishing to start, they want to see if they can invest more time and money in it or if the community is gonna let it flop.

Unfortunately, it's not just up to the community to keep the game from flopping. The development team needs to contribute by doing things to keep the game fresh and not just letting it stagnate. If the developers do their part, the community will most assuredly do its. But it's going to take both, working together, to keep the game from going down the pooper.

(And I just had a "Ghostbusters" moment there. "Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" )

MitchellTyner, on 04 January 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I'll put it this way, I have no clue what Cryengine 3 does or anything. Only know that it is what Crysis2 was on. Really would like a randomization style on the maps where it moved things around and made them interesting... when your fighting on different worlds light years away from each other you don't want to see the same urban area here as there etc. Kind of like the old diablo where every area was different everytime you played through it.

KNow that is asking a lot but something random, I just would hate to see the same thing over and over

This really needs to be looked into. Not only does it interfere with suspension of disbelief but if you don't have some kind of randomness added you what another poster mentioned. To paraphrase, "Since this is Urban Map 2A, i know that the Locusts and Jenners always hide in this parking lot and that apartment building. The assault mech will be over there in that sub-basement".

Randomly generated maps would keep that from happening AND make Info Warfare viable as well.

[Chill]

If this game can manage World of Tanks quality, then I will be happy.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Unclecid, on 10 January 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

one big difference with STO and MWO.

STO was not cryptics first mmo
they did CoH, CoV and champions online before embarking on STO.

MWO will be PGI's first mmo AND first pc game from what i can tell.

And STO wasn't F2P at launch either. Well technically it was a F2P game that you had to P2P but that's just a detail

[Rabbit Blacksun]

Eh either way having played crisis the graffx on them was quite impressive so even if it comes out with mw3/4 graffx ill be more then happy

[Volume]

Chill, on 12 January 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

If this game can manage World of Tanks quality, then I will be happy.

They are aiming much higher than that.

[Morashtak]

Mason Grimm, on 11 January 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Pay no attention to the man non-gender specific person behind the curtain! MWO will be perfect when it launches! Even with all the bugs and the lack of hula physics!!!

No Hula?! Are you mad??!!

Here, devs. Study this video for proper hula physics. And study it intently. Especially starting at the 24sec mark. If that's not enough incentive to include Hula Physics ® I don't know what is.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Sturmbb, on 11 January 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Get it out the door and makeing money but dont make it a minimum viability product , then all you will have is video and opinions of the first week and not stuff from weeks / months./ years later just like world war ii online.

You have a point. I think when they think they have enough done for launch, then just go into a "Open Beta" with no plans for a wipe. That way you can buy stuff in the store etc etc.

In other words do what they plan to do now, just don't call it launch then all the negative comments won't stick due to it being Beta