

Are we all being a bit too optimistic?
#21
Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:48 AM
#23
Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:16 AM
#24
Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:41 AM
Meatball, on 06 March 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:
I'm under no illusions that MWO will be the perfect game per se. I've said this in other threads, we're probably all going to see most of what we want and then take it or leave it. I think we all have some fundamental sticking points that, based on our preferences, will be make-or-break items (in my case; RNGs used for aiming mechanics). If they can nail down the core gameplay, I'm sure we're all capable of adapting to fringe items that we may initially have reservations about.
Edited by GaussDragon, 07 March 2012 - 05:55 AM.
#25
Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:06 AM
Think this article fits in good here. I've played since a buddy of mine showed me the original Mech Warrior on his computer at home back (late '80's?). We then played all the tabletop games, etc., etc.,
I don't expect miracles - but a solid, drive a mech, blow stuff up and change the (in-game) universe game. I'm too old for bloody miracles any more...

#26
Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:26 AM
#27
Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:45 AM
I played MechWarrior 4 so I have my BattleTech expectations of MWO to be at least comparable to that. Maybe it wont be, maybe with it being online it will far exceed it I don't know.
I feel this design model- while not the best conceivable, may be one of the best I know of in regards to being able to fullfill a diverse fanbase. Its online, a persistent window into the BattleTech universe(hurray). Things can and will be added. The lead designer is a troll- which means the dev team is active in the community, in sometimes almost a sickening way... Looks good for meaningful growth of the game community and the potential for MechWarrior Online to become bigger than its vision or initial release. Just look at how much EvE Online has grown since its inception.
#28
Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:49 AM
I will be MEAN
Mr.MEAN
regardless of your pleasure analysis
#31
Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:27 AM
I spell that O P T I M I S M and then MechLab that puppy and swap out the M for a T I C just for good Mechin' measure.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 06 March 2012 - 11:28 AM.
#32
Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:53 PM
Free to play is a big risk:It kills piracy but it's easy to mess up.
Maybe something like the model of Tribes:Ascend, with upgrades and classes quick to unlock, but time consuming to fully upgrade could be a good choice.
Weird...wasn't Earthsiege a clone of Mechwarrior? And now, 18 years later, two descendants of the games duel in the new free-to play arena.And one lost the giant robots on its way.Sad.
#33
Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:04 PM
Kemosh, on 06 March 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:
Free to play is a big risk:It kills piracy but it's easy to mess up.
Maybe something like the model of Tribes:Ascend, with upgrades and classes quick to unlock, but time consuming to fully upgrade could be a good choice.
Weird...wasn't Earthsiege a clone of Mechwarrior? And now, 18 years later, two descendants of the games duel in the new free-to play arena.And one lost the giant robots on its way.Sad.
Gotta say, I've enjoyed WoT - having said that, I don't intend to grind for the tier 9 or 10 tanks. I'm most happy in the 4, 5 and 6 range. Matchmaker needs LOTS of work tho....
#34
Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:52 PM
#35
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:29 PM
MW4. Ugh..nothing like being hit on the front part of the arm and having all your back armor disappear.
I'm one that liked WoT. But a Mech game would just be too complex for that, as the devs know.
#36
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:39 PM
Meatball, on 06 March 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:
That would be a good thing. WoT is a successful model. Granted I hate the game itself because I'm sick of WW2 ****, but the F2P component sounds like it's going to be very similar, except MWO is going to have a greater emphasis on playstyle variation, Modularization of equipment and catering to different roles, as well as a large meta-game component in the form of bringing alive the universe of the Inner Sphere for players to fight over. Also, the standing claim is that there will be no "Gold Mechs" a la Type 59s.
#37
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:52 PM
#38
Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:23 PM
rafgod, on 06 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:
MW4. Ugh..nothing like being hit on the front part of the arm and having all your back armor disappear.
I'm one that liked WoT. But a Mech game would just be too complex for that, as the devs know.
Never liked MW3 - I liked 1, 2 and 4 - Mercenaries. Legend of the Jade Falcon!. Didn't like the controls with MW3. We'll have to see!
Edited by black oak, 06 March 2012 - 05:28 PM.
#39
Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:30 PM
#40
Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:12 PM
Meatball, on 06 March 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:
I'm sure there's people that would like more of an arcade experience, there's some that want more of a simulator feel, there's some that want to recapture the fun they have on the tabletop game. I just don't know if the game can possibly meet everyone's expectations.
What of MWO turns out to be World of Tanks with mechs? Ugh...
My point is, maybe we should tone down the enthusiasm a bit. It's great to be excited and I bet it pumps up the developers to see it, but you need to have a reality check and remember the game likely isn't going to be exactly what you want. With this much excitement, when the game comes out and doesn't meet some peoples every expectation, they're going to feel betrayed and turn on the game and start flaming the boards. I don't look forward to that day...
Maybe you shouldn't count your chickens before they are hatched. Let people be happy if they want to be happy. If you want to be cautious then that's awesome for you. It doesn't matter what other people feel.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users