67 replies to this topic

[Friend Fox]

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Since when has 24 players been classed as Massive? I played Quake TF with 32 players in 1996 and that was just an online multiplayer game!

MWO is a OMG (Online Multiplayer Game)

The problem is Console Games have bred a generation of Gamers who now think having more than 8 v 8 in a single map is impressive.

As a long time Battlefield player (BF3 doesn't count) where 64 is the norm, I agree with you here.

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

16 years on and most modern games cant even match the numbers of a mod! and please dont tell me the game is designed to have low numbers, who on earth would choose to have only 24 players on a map when you could have 32, 64 or 128 players in epic large scale battles!

Show me 64 v 64 mechs in a single map and I will be awe struck, even 32 v 32 would be impressive, less than 32 players in a map and the game is just showing how limited the game engine is.


I will follow this game with interest as I have owned and played pretty much ever Mechwarrior and Commander Game made, but it saddens me to know that an pure online version of MW is so limited in numbers and scope.

This however is a little naive in my opinion. It is a simple matter of gameplay and enjoyability. Some games would not work scaled up because of their nature. That aside, the major thing preventing massive battlefields online is resources. The developers cannot just say "Lets make it 100 players per team" then push a button and it works. It takes a lot of time, effort, and money to create and maintain a MMOFPS. large amounts of resources are then tied up in this goal which may cause other aspects of the game to suffer.

MAG is a great example. Just because it is big does not mean it is good. Sure there were up to 256 players in a match, but that was pretty much its only selling point. The gameplay was in general sub par and not terribly fun if you ask me.

There is a reason CoD4 built a juggernaut franchise, even with only 18 players per match max (unmodified on consoles). Even if it did evolve into the cesspool it is today, you cannot deny the successes of the first Modern Warfare. The gameplay was killer. Controls were responsive and you felt so in control of your character that it was easy to get absorbed and intense into the game. Sure there was only on average 12 players on a map, but it didn't really matter. After all how often did MAG battles actually reflect the massive amount of players? I found most of the time it felt like I was in any other multiplayer FPS with less than 20 players in my little 'map'. Except now I could walk into someone else's little 'map' if I wanted.

The point I am trying to get across here is that it does not matter if the developers spend all their time making a functional massive battlefield if the fundamental gameplay is poor. I would choose a well refined 8v8 over a clunky boring 128v128 any day.

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

MWO should have been a fully persistent universe, made up of many worlds with each planet or moon having many battlefield/zones where factions/clans could fight it out to control that region of space, all the while, having core worlds which could be fought on but not conquered as a safe haven.

It appears as though you have not done a terrible amount of research on this game. 'Community Warfare' is Piranha's answer to a fully persistent universe. It is still a long time coming, but if all turns out well then all of what you mentioned is possible.

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

From what I can see, MWO is no different from most modern FPS such as CoDMW or BF3 or the now popular F2P games which make money from people buying bullets and weapon upgrades in game.

I do not really see where you have drawn this conclusion. The Devs have made it abundantly clear that they will not implement economic systems where you can buy superior and exclusive equipment with real world currency. And the fact that this is a 'mech game instantly sets it apart from your average modern military FPS. If it is anything like previous MW installments then it will be much more skillful and elegant than down-the-sights shooters. Shot placement and defensively spreading damage are great mechanics which the series possesses that set the genre apart from twitch shooters. And they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to being a successful pilot.


TL;DR:

- More players per match = more time/resources spent = less time/resources spent on other aspects
- A good 8v8 is better than a bad 128v128
- Community Warfare has not gone anywhere, be patient.
- Devs have stated many times, MWO =/= Pay2Win
- If MWO follows past MW games it will be very different than down-the-sights twitch shooters.

Edited by Highlander IIC, 23 August 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[PewPew2]

Apparently iron heart really knows nothing of this game and is just talking but nothing important or informed is coming out.

[Insidious Johnson]

You can still get a dropship to Orgrimar or Thunderbluff.

[GnawTsatyr]

Iron Heart, on 22 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I find it odd what people think the MM part of MMOG/MMORPG stands for!

Unless you have 100+ players, all in one game at one time and all are able to interact with each other then a game can not be an MMO.

Its just a Multiplayer Game.

Lobbies do not count, if they did, pretty much ever single game since Doom would be classed as an MMO.

FINALLY, someone else spelling it out. I hate it when people call this game MMO. The thought of people considering this MMO annoys the **** out of me.

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Since when has 24 players been classed as Massive? I played Quake TF with 32 players in 1996 and that was just an online multiplayer game!

MWO is a OMG (Online Multiplayer Game)

The problem is Console Games have bred a generation of Gamers who now think having more than 8 v 8 in a single map is impressive.

Show me 64 v 64 mechs in a single map and I will be awe struck, even 32 v 32 would be impressive, less than 32 players in a map and the game is just showing how limited the game engine is.

16 years on and most modern games cant even match the numbers of a mod! and please dont tell me the game is designed to have low numbers, who on earth would choose to have only 24 players on a map when you could have 32, 64 or 128 players in epic large scale battles!

I will follow this game with interest as I have owned and played pretty much ever Mechwarrior and Commander Game made, but it saddens me to know that an pure online version of MW is so limited in numbers and scope.

MWO should have been a fully persistent universe, made up of many worlds with each planet or moon having many battlefield/zones where factions/clans could fight it out to control that region of space, all the while, having core worlds which could be fought on but not conquered as a safe haven.

From what I can see, MWO is no different from most modern FPS such as CoDMW or BF3 or the now popular F2P games which make money from people buying bullets and weapon upgrades in game.

Ok, you had me at the beginning, but that very last line makes it sound like you're equating this to WoT, which it is far from. I agree that this game could have been epic, but then again, it's free to play. Cough up your own coin for capital and maybe your expectations could be met. At the moment though, it's being done via stats like a backroom tabletop match for the universe is constantly going on.

[Aodr Arnarson]

I'm afraid I too am disappointed at the use of a matchmaking system. I've never played World of Tanks, nor would I after playing something like EVE Online. I understand the stress on combat, and it is great fun. But I don't feel entirely invested. I feel a difficulty getting involved when I can't form a Lance and plan an invasion of some periphery world (which hopefully would be a real challenge, PvE would be useful here and good AI).

Since it's still a closed beta, I'm holding out on hope that it'll advance beyond matchmaking. Right now it is simply mech combat and simply adding clan TAGS and faction TAGS won't do much other than provide some assurance that your fighting for something somewhere in the back of your mind.

Its an MMO so it can be done, especially after witnessing everything CCP is doing with EVE Online. All I'm doing is hoping they do and voicing my support for a persistent and unique universe and my opposition to matchmaking.

EDIT: I like a lot of what IronHeart had to say and I agree with him. It would definitely be challenging creating just one unique map for gods know how many planets in the BT universe. But if CCP can do... everything they are doing now with their game, I'm sure Piranha can create unique planet/maps.

Edited by Aodr Arnarson, 25 August 2012 - 02:36 PM.

[Noth]

Aodr Arnarson, on 25 August 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I'm afraid I too am disappointed at the use of a matchmaking system. I've never played World of Tanks, nor would I after playing something like EVE Online. I understand the stress on combat, and it is great fun. But I don't feel entirely invested. I feel a difficulty getting involved when I can't form a Lance and plan an invasion of some periphery world (which hopefully would be a real challenge, PvE would be useful here and good AI).

Since it's still a closed beta, I'm holding out on hope that it'll advance beyond matchmaking. Right now it is simply mech combat and simply adding clan TAGS and faction TAGS won't do much other than provide some assurance that your fighting for something somewhere in the back of your mind.

Its an MMO so it can be done, especially after witnessing everything CCP is doing with EVE Online. All I'm doing is hoping they do and voicing my support for a persistent and unique universe and my opposition to matchmaking.

EDIT: I like a lot of what IronHeart had to say and I agree with him. It would definitely be challenging creating just one unique map for gods know how many planets in the BT universe. But if CCP can do... everything they are doing now with their game, I'm sure Piranha can create unique planet/maps.

It won't ever. It costs far too much and takes far too much time to do all that. There are ideas and desires, then there are realistic ideas and desires. No idea where people get the idea that this was ever meant to be a persistent world game.

[TheAltoonaWiseman]

ever notice that anytime you try to read some information about a game- the thread turns into two 12 year olds type arguing about thier opinions?

[Gaizokubanou]

Iron Heart, on 23 August 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

16 years on and most modern games cant even match the numbers of a mod! and please dont tell me the game is designed to have low numbers, who on earth would choose to have only 24 players on a map when you could have 32, 64 or 128 players in epic large scale battles!

Infrastructure maintenance cost. Technology is certainly there to have massive battle featuring 100+ mechs... Problem is that it's much harder to pay for servers that are capable of it.

[Aodr Arnarson]

It's not our concern whether it is too expensive or too difficult for a corporation. And what CCP has done with EVE would have been claimed by many to be "unrealistic", but it happened and that community has more than doubled since I last played.

The game seems disjointed and I guarantee it's going to be an MMO version of MechAssault's multiplayer IF the matchmaking system becomes a long-term playing model for this game, no matter how many mechs or maps the team releases.

It's a closed beta, not on shelves yet. There is plenty of room for laying the the foundation for what later could be a persistant game universe.

There is absolutely no reason for any of us to oppose moving the game towards a persistent gaming environment.

Edited by Aodr Arnarson, 25 August 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Noth]

Aodr Arnarson, on 25 August 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

It's not our concern whether it is too expensive or too difficult for a corporation. And what CCP has done with EVE would have been claimed by many to be "unrealistic", but it happened and that community has more than doubled since I last played.

The game seems disjointed and I guarantee it's going to be an MMO version of MechAssault's multiplayer IF the matchmaking system becomes a long-term playing model for this game, no matter how many mechs or maps the team releases.

It's a closed beta, not on shelves yet. There is plenty of room for laying the the foundation for what later could be a persistant game universe.

You have no idea how much work that would take. It would require virtually an entire rewrite of the design of the game, the engines, and feature set. In essence it is the type of change that happens before the game is even in Alpha. Closed beta is far too late for such a thing.

EvE was always designed from the ground up as a persistent open world (and even then it's environment allowed for short cuts in graphical design to be taken [a very time consuming part of game development]). This wasn't. it was designed as a matchmaking game with a persistent meta game world that the devs can control from story purposes in order to fit withing their very limited budget. Doing what you want would make this game vaporware. So yes it is your concern whether it is too expensive, time consuming, or difficult.

Edited by Noth, 25 August 2012 - 04:41 PM.

[Palerider777]

Aide arnarson you are greatly exaggerating eves ability. In eve you can not turn or pilot your ship everything is done via commands like an rts. Furthermore you can not be inside your ship the graphics and game mechanics are extremely primitive they only recently got decent turret animations. Furthermore Eves interface is little more then a spread sheet. No offense but even star wars galaxies was far out doing eve in open world sand box features. It would be impossible for eve to have even close to the combat quality and game mechanics of Mwo. If they made mwo like eve it would be terrible, wandering a massive planet trying to scroll through a spread sheet to find an enemy so you use /commands to watch ur mech shoot at it with dice rolls in 3rd person. No thanks I like mwo just the way it is.

Edited by Palerider777, 25 August 2012 - 04:49 PM.

[Aodr Arnarson]

Palerider777, on 25 August 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

If they made mwo like eve it would be terrible, wandering a massive planet trying to scroll through a spread sheet to find an enemy so you use /commands to watch ur mech shoot at it with dice rolls in 3rd person. No thanks I like mwo just the way it is.

I see why you are all assuming what I suggest is impossible. That is a hel* of an assumption you have made. Well, EVE isn't one server but many, each for a single system, which switch off when no players are in-system. What I suggest is simply a single map for each planet (at first anyway), which load whenever attacked or whatever. This would definitely require PvE for clear reasons. The devs said they would use many servers and that is a good use for them.

Probably still zoned when put that way, but I can see no other way to make it more of a persistant universe. Nothing needs to change aside from the fact that we can see what planets are being attacked, maybe be able to see a universe map in the launch screen, pick and choose and go. There are ways to get rid of the "waiting for players" part, I'm sure an idea will come along eventually.

Edited by Aodr Arnarson, 25 August 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Noth]

Aodr Arnarson, on 25 August 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

I see why you are all assuming what I suggest is impossible. That is a hel* of an assumption you have made. Well, EVE isn't one server but many, each for a single system, which switch off when no players are in-system. What I suggest is simply a single map for each planet (at first anyway), which load whenever attacked or whatever. This would definitely require PvE for clear reasons. The devs said they would use many servers and that is a good use for them.

Probably still zoned when put that way, but I can see no other way to make it free roam. Nothing needs to change aside from the fact that we can see what planets are being attacked, maybe be able to see a map in the launch screen, pick and choose and go. There are ways to get rid of the "waiting for players" part, I'm sure an idea will come along eventually.

That would take stupid amounts of resources that the devs don't have. Once again, you don't know how much work that actually is. the engine they are using is notoriously hard to work with. Persistent maps just are not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe in the distant future after PGI starts getting revenue from the game and their planned additions are added, but not any time soon.

[Aodr Arnarson]

Noth, on 25 August 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

That would take stupid amounts of resources that the devs don't have. Once again, you don't know how much work that actually is. the engine they are using is notoriously hard to work with. Persistent maps just are not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe in the distant future after PGI starts getting revenue from the game and their planned additions are added, but not any time soon.

Maybe I don't understand how this game works. How exactly is the clan invasion going to play out if it's just matchmaking and no sense of persistent game-play?

FRR experiences probably the most fighting as far as the Clan Invasion is concerned, how will that be reflected in gameplay?

Edited by Aodr Arnarson, 25 August 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[Noth]

Aodr Arnarson, on 25 August 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Maybe I don't understand how this game works. How exactly is the clan invasion going to play out if it's just matchmaking and no sense of persistant gameplay?

The metagame is going to have zones on a map of the galaxy. Battles will waged for these zones not on persistent maps but on the maps already in game. there could be 10 battles all going on for the same area on the same map at the same time and you'll only see those in your battle. It's a metagame, rather than core game. While you may be able to choose where you want to as far as the metagame zones (we don't know if you will be able to choose if you are a faction player) you are still confined to the 12v12 maps they have. Further most areas won't even be able to be fought for in the metagame as they will be controlled by the devs so that they can stick to the canon of the BT universe. It won't really feel like a persistent world at all.

[Banekane]

To be honest i played a MMORPG that was mech based game "not saying its name for obvious reasons" that was free world exploration pve/pvp 3rd person perspective or cockpit view. Was good for a few weeks but gets old quick. Wasn't no story to it. With BT lore expressed in many medias over the years i would love to see a MW or BT rpg where you create a played role with full back story and community experience as well as have massive interactive battles. In a way many merc corps will be able to roleplay off game or in game the ranks and what not but its up to the merc corps leaders how to run their groups. On another note it is classified MMO because the number of people registered not the number in a battlezone. Its simular to rpgs with limited server sizes. in closing i still will be hopeful of a BTRPG for pc one day might not happen for a few years. as a avid fan of the novels of BT i loved the storys they shared and was amazed at the size of BT universe i hope there is some BT movies planned too i also want to say sorry for not being able to afford a founders pack as im on fixed income and spent all my money on the largest tractor pulls in the world and just found out about MWO recently. I cant wait to play love the vids on the wonderful work the devs had made.

[Haroldwolf]

Drop into a combat instance, have a bunch of players running around screaming "Leroy Jenkins" and then leave the instance when the match is done. There is no persistence in the world, just repetitive combat. Basically like DnD or WoT, eck!

The instances are big so you could just go off exploring before you die.

Edited by Haroldwolf, 25 August 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[Aodr Arnarson]

Banekane, on 25 August 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

To be honest i played a MMORPG that was mech based game "not saying its name for obvious reasons" that was free world exploration pve/pvp 3rd person perspective or cockpit view. Was good for a few weeks but gets old quick. Wasn't no story to it.

What game was this?

Edited by Aodr Arnarson, 25 August 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[Wolf Hreda]

TizZ, on 22 August 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

The devs Have not really said what size of battles might be introduced when its up and finished , you can assume you will have the usual formats 2v2 4v4 8v8 maybe 16v16 ... imagine if they could run battles of 32 v 32 or more lol carnage and mayhem

They did, actually. I don't remember what post it was, but the Devs said it would be company vs. company (12 on 12). Seems perfect for a game in which each player mounts 3 to 4 times the number of weapons that those in other shooters do. " I've got a rifle, a pistol, and 2 grenades!"

"Oh yeah, I've got a Large Pulse laser, 2 Medium Pulse lasers, a Small Laser, and 2 SRM-6s with a ton of ammo, each. Oh, and way more armor than you."

"I have Sleight of Hand to reload faster."

I have jump jets to land on your head."

"You win, dude."

Hmhmhm.

[Banekane]

Aodr Arnarson, on 25 August 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

What game was this?

ok ill say the name but hope i dont get into trouble

Project of Planets also a f2p game but graphics are a low