166 replies to this topic

[warner2]

I remember when I first ventured on-line to play Mechwarrior 4 I wandered into a NHUA server without realising what it was. I died, a lot, whilst wondering quite how that BK could fire it's pulse lasers so often without overheating.

[Ravana]

Setting up practice matches to have modifiers such as no heat/no ammo would be fine. It would allow teams to focus on tactics instead of having to restart the match every time due to everyone running out of ammo. I would think also that they could do something like respawning. This way a person knocked out could rejoin the match instead of them again having to restart a match to start all over again. Of course being practice rounds these matches would have no rewards or losses. Infact it could be played as a computer simulation. They could also set it up to allow you to use any mech that way people could practice with a mech they want to get to see if its really something they like or not. After all in Battletech lore they have simulators that allows mechwarriors to practice. They are also used to teach mechwarriors how to pilot before sticking them in a multi million c-bill mech and having them fall over with their first step.

[SnowDragon]

Want NHUA? Go play Gundam. That's pretty much it. NHUA was a CHEAT MODE put into the game. It was never intended for normal play, and should NEVER in any seriousness be considered as a true game type worthy of rewards, XP or C-bill payment. Think of it as a mode to play MechTag in. Nothing more.

[geck0 icaza]

There are going to be some vague comparisons so please bare with me.

Here IMO is the typical F2P player. "This game looks cool, i'll try it out". 1 week to 3 months later they spend money. Lets say, 20 bucks. The process repeats itself for however long that player plays. So over time the game has made the money they would have made charging the full monty of 50-60 bucks and then some. However, the hurdle of paying up front for a game you don't know is going to be good might never have been crossed. So by creating a situation for the player to start and continue playing the game, the game is able to 1) keep the player enjoying themselves and thus satisfied the experience is worth the money they invest. 2) While they are continually playing the game, they are constantly seeing the promotions, items, skins, etc. And thus more likely to buy them than the player that isn't playing.

This is not unlike NHUA for MWO

Some new players that are decent human beings wouldn't want to burden their teams with their noob skills. So they see a mode that is "easy". So they go there and play. And you know, they may build bad habits, they may get a false sense of the game but they are playing the game. Now lets say this "easy" mode offers ZERO benefit in terms of XP, c-bills, being able to take planets, etc. Now if that player wishes to progress and play with the rest of community they must go and play "normal" games. And 1 of 3 things will happen: 1) they realize the game is not for them and go to another game. 2) Enjoy the experience and continue to play and be part of the community. 3) Go back to playing NHUA and they might come back to try again.

Heres the point on the caparison. Without an "easy" mode, the players that would be playing NHUA but can't, and might not play at all. While in my youth I have been very head strong and said statements like "they should play other games!" or "thats for noobs!" or, well you get the idea. I realize now that if the mode was there, AND there were NO XP, NO C-Bills, NO nothing benefit for playing it then it can only benefit the game in that it will draw more players in. That's not trying to please everyone, its being inclusive. And that will make the game succeed. You can play your games, they can play theirs. And hopefully get drawn in to real game.

However I would like to state I fully oppose the game mode if it grants ANY benefit as this would counter the entire point.

As a community we have to take it upon ourselves to not be those ******** that go "uninstall noob!" and be that awful experience that keeps players from joining our ranks. But rather be the guide and mentor those players deserve for bravely stepping into our Stone lions den. (see what i did there).

[Siilk]

@geck0 icaza: People who love BT and MW, love it for it's complexity, people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all. NHUA wouldn't be a training ground, it would be "a game in a game", a separate league of sort, with only arcade-minded people populating it. "Arcade" is not "bad" or "unfun", but such gameplay does not suit MW games. So, not only NHUA would divide the community, it would, while attracting arcade crowd, scare away more sim-thirsty MW fans. Overly, this would shift the game population balance and force MWO dev team into position of either making the game even more appealing to arcade gamer types of their community or be left with a lot of unsatisfied(and thus not paying) players. You can't please everyone, so when it comes to MW reboot, I think appealing to the sim crowd would be a better choice.

[geck0 icaza]

Siilk, on 02 April 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

@geck0 icaza: People who love BT and MW, love it for it's complexity, people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all. NHUA wouldn't be a training ground, it would be "a game in a game", a separate league of sort, with only arcade-minded people populating it. "Arcade" is not "bad" or "unfun", but such gameplay does not suit MW games. So, not only NHUA would divide the community, it would, while attracting arcade crowd, scare away more sim-thirsty MW fans. Overly, this would shift the game population balance and force MWO dev team into position of either making the game even more appealing to arcade gamer types of their community or be left with a lot of unsatisfied(and thus not paying) players. You can't please everyone, so when it comes to MW reboot, I think appealing to the sim crowd would be a better choice.

This will be rare for Forums all over the internet so watch carefully as you may never see it again.

Here it goes: Well put, I concede the point.

[GaussDragon]

Siilk, on 02 April 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

@geck0 icaza: People who love BT and MW, love it for it's complexity, people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all. NHUA wouldn't be a training ground, it would be "a game in a game", a separate league of sort, with only arcade-minded people populating it. "Arcade" is not "bad" or "unfun", but such gameplay does not suit MW games. So, not only NHUA would divide the community, it would, while attracting arcade crowd, scare away more sim-thirsty MW fans. Overly, this would shift the game population balance and force MWO dev team into position of either making the game even more appealing to arcade gamer types of their community or be left with a lot of unsatisfied(and thus not paying) players. You can't please everyone, so when it comes to MW reboot, I think appealing to the sim crowd would be a better choice.

It's not well put at all, because you're completely wrong. "...people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all." What the hell are you talking about? You're pulling stuff out of your ***, every single person I played with who played NHUA played heat as well, go take a look at some old MWL unit records and see how many units competed concurrently in both NHUA and HOLA games. That's complete and total BS. Stop making **** up.

Edited by GaussDragon, 02 April 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[geck0 icaza]

Siilk, on 02 April 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

@geck0 icaza: People who love BT and MW, love it for it's complexity, people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all. NHUA wouldn't be a training ground, it would be "a game in a game", a separate league of sort, with only arcade-minded people populating it. "Arcade" is not "bad" or "unfun", but such gameplay does not suit MW games. So, not only NHUA would divide the community, it would, while attracting arcade crowd, scare away more sim-thirsty MW fans. Overly, this would shift the game population balance and force MWO dev team into position of either making the game even more appealing to arcade gamer types of their community or be left with a lot of unsatisfied(and thus not paying) players. You can't please everyone, so when it comes to MW reboot, I think appealing to the sim crowd would be a better choice.

GaussDragon, on 02 April 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

It's not well put at all, because you're completely wrong. "...people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay; they rarely enjoy HOLA play at all." What the hell are you talking about? You're pulling stuff out of your ***, every single person I played with who played NHUA played heat as well, go take a look at some old MWL unit records and see how many units competed concurrently in both NHUA and HOLA games. That's complete and total BS. Stop making **** up.

I am not accepting everything as fact and and do not believe in broad general statements that were made. I am however agreeing with the following:

"People who love BT and MW, love it for it's complexity" If you don't get this there's no point in continuing.

"people who love NHUA love simple and non-demanding gameplay" you've said it yourself. " I liked NHUA because it was, as others pointed out, some casual fun and great for blowing off steam."

" it would, while attracting arcade crowd, scare away more sim-thirsty MW fans" Double edge sword. More players, for likely less quality IMHO.

This is the big one.

"Overly, this would shift the game population balance and force MWO dev team into position of either making the game even more appealing to arcade gamer types of their community or be left with a lot of unsatisfied(and thus not paying) players. You can't please everyone, so when it comes to MW reboot, I think appealing to the sim crowd would be a better choice."

I have seen too many games (Mechwarrior included) succumb to the demands of the masses. It will always fall short when attempting to please everyone as they will end up pleasing no one. Many of us did not wait over ten years for MW4 with prettier graphics. If the game has a smaller following because it wants to stick wit it's roots then I'm fine with that. Battletech has always been a niche game. Trying to make it otherwise would be like having Micheal Bay make the game.

With the original statement of mine "I fully oppose the game mode if it grants ANY benefit as this would counter the entire point."

After some points that were brought up I no longer believe my previous statements to be beneficial. (Now here's the slippery slope. I only point it out because we all have seen it happen many many times.) With the influx of players that the mode would bring in, there would be more revenue. Of that I have no doubt. However its when the those masses with paying wallets start complaining, their voice will undoubtedly hold more weight because they represent a larger revenue pool by sheer weight of numbers.

But despite this, I do not believe this mode will see itself in the game. Because from the very first day, the powers that be have hammered "Sim, Sim, Sim". They've talked about repair costs, replenishing ammunition costs, having employees play Battletech and NOT other mechwarrior games, ammo explosions, starting to see the pattern? So regardless of what people think now I do not think NHUA will see the light of day.

Edited by geck0 icaza, 02 April 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[SnowDragon]

geck0 icaza, on 02 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

So regardless of what people think now I do not think NHUA will see the light of day.

And thank god for that!

[Belisarius1]

Gaussdragon, it's refreshing to see someone stand up intelligently for NHUA (and I'm probably one of the most elitist HLA/NR posters on these boards)... but I'm curious as to what your actual position is. Do you agree that the "real" game is HLA? In the sense that real is what makes the most of MWO and what it should be balanced for. It seems like you do, but I'm not sure.

One of the reasons a lot of HLA/NR/FFP players hate the more casual modes with such fire is that we're sick of seeing those modes steal players from what we see as the real game. I've lost track of the number of times I logged in for a game in MW4's twilight years and was faced with three options: camp an empty HLA/FFP server until someone shows up; log back off again; or play a mode that I despise until I get bored and leave, because it's the only server with people in it. Repeating that experience almost nightly did nothing to make me like NHUA more.

People have a natural tendency to gravitate to modes which are easier and/or more instant-action oriented. The eternally populated metro 24/7 servers in BF3 (and their CoD4 cousin, shipment) are a good example of that. My concern, and I think that of a lot of other people, is that the full-featured game will be abandoned in favor of the simpler letting-off-steam modes unless it's clear from the way the rewards are set up that NHUA is an occasional option, to be played on the side of the core game.

The simulator suggestion in this thread is a good way of achieving that, to me.

Edited by Belisarius†, 03 April 2012 - 12:05 AM.

[GaussDragon]

Belisarius†, on 02 April 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Gaussdragon, it's refreshing to see someone stand up intelligently for NHUA (and I'm probably one of the most elitist HLA/NR posters on these boards)... but I'm curious as to what your actual position is. Do you agree that the "real" game is HLA? In the sense that real is what makes the most of MWO and what it should be balanced for. It seems like you do, but I'm not sure.

One of the reasons a lot of HLA/NR/FFP players hate the more casual modes with such fire is that we're sick of seeing those modes steal players from what we see as the real game. I've lost track of the number of times I logged in for a game in MW4's twilight years and was faced with three options: camp an empty HLA/FFP server until someone shows up; log back off again; or play a mode that I despise until I get bored and leave, because it's the only server with people in it. Repeating that experience almost nightly did nothing to make me like NHUA more.

People have a natural tendency to gravitate to modes which are easier and/or more instant-action oriented. The eternally populated metro 24/7 servers in BF3 (and their CoD4 cousin, shipment) are a good example of that. My concern, and I think that of a lot of other people, is that the full-featured game will be abandoned in favor of the simpler letting-off-steam modes unless it's clear from the way the rewards are set up that NHUA is an occasional option, to be played on the side of the core game.

The simulator suggestion in this thread is a good way of achieving that, to me.

DISCLAIMER: This is going to be a wall of text but as slowly build up into an end-point.


It's hard for me to clarify with so many related but at the same time, individual points so where to begin...

Let me start by clarifying my position on NHUA. I liked it in MW4, even when I started to move onto HOLA, I still retained my appreciation for it. In Mercs, certain play styles were completely unique, such as pulse boats, which really put an emphasis not only on marksmanship but reaction too. So I appreciate NHUA for its ability to diversify the forms of combat found in this game. While it's presumptuous for all of us to make comparisons between MW4 and MWO, I think certain things remain consistent, at least on an intuitive level and also based on what we've now been able to see with our eyes.

Secondly, you're dead-on in regards to the anxiety the conservative elements of the fan base have over other game modes supposedly 'stealing' players. Here's how I see it, if a player has a genuine preference for a certain type over another, it can't justifiably be called 'wrong', because what is preferable is entirely subjective to each and every player, regardless of how the universe is constructed outside the game itself. But while having more game modes can and will cause some inevitable splitting, I think it also benefits the community. Here's my reasoning for why we should include a multitude of game modes, and how I understand the most strict simulator perception of the game in regards to those of us who are either more liberal or who are like me, simply have a more broad spectrum of tastes to begin with:

The most common themes I hear out of the die-hard sim crowd are anxieties that:

1. More game types will reduce the potential player base or pool of players that would otherwise be forced into the game type they prefer. And that's fundamentally what the 'it splits the community' argument is really based upon.
2. That allowing some less traditional elements into the game will cause some sort of runaway effect into this game being some sort of Call of Duty with mechs. That's complete nonsense and everyone here knows it.

Each rendition or approach to the BT/MW franchise started with a fundamental point on the spectrum and gave itself some latitude in either direction. At the beginning of every project, I think the developers had in mind where their starting or jump-off point would be that would dictate the other choices they'd make in terms what were to be the elements or game mechanics. We can see this along the spectrum of past titles in the universe:

Crescent Hawks --- MW2 --- MW3 ---------- MW4 -------------------------------------------------------MechAssault----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Call of Duty

The above spectrum is half-hearted depiction but illustrated a point. There is an absolute chasm between any CoD game and its nearest MW equivalent. This is why I am frustrated by and subsequently deride all those shrill comparisons. But back on point. None of the versions of MW be it MW2, MW4 or MechAssault was wrong. Each is simply an iteration that caters to different tastes. MechAssault was never supposed to be and never intended to be some sort of sim, it was simply the owners of the IP doing something with it and making money, can't blame MicroSoft. And who are we to say that all the thousands of people who paid for and enjoyed the game were necessarily wrong? They appreciated it for what it was. But I think all the people who deride MechAssault because it somehow wasn't a sim game are more or less retarded, why? Because it never set out with the intention of being one.

Did I like MechAssault? I played it once, but it never really appealed to me. I didn't like it, which is to say, I didn't prefer it. but I also didn't hate it either, because I think (admittedly after spending more times on these forums and reflecting upon what MechAssault really was) how could I? I really have no right to say that all the people who did enjoy it were wrong for doing so. For all of us who had no interest in the game, it still helped us as a whole because it exposed so many people to the IP itself who otherwise would not have been. That's why I'm elated to see people come to this forum saying 'hey I played MechAssault in the day and I'm interested in this game after hearing about it' because it means that person is another potential player who will possibly enjoy playing a different take on the same universe. I see someone who can move themselves to a more sim-like end of the spectrum, where broadly, both myself and the purist die-hards reside. What ****** me off to no end is how many (but not all) die-hards have tendency to look at former MA players in the exact opposite direction I see them. Instead of seeing them as going from point A, to B, they automatically see these kinds of players as automatically (often without basis) wanting point B (MWO).

Now here's why I reason we need a variety of gametypes like NHUA and respawn in a game like this, and I mentioned it in the post I linked where I was explaining my take on the respawn versus no-respawn debate:

To make MWO into the most die-hard construction of a sim with things like RNG-style aim and managing coolant loops caters to a niche market, and does not have broad (but I don't mean mass) appeal. Even the devs admitted that such a system would be tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot (Bryan Ekman in the 3 moves ahead podcast). However, most of us on these forums sit somewhere off to the side of that, in a more broad range of what we think constitutes a good game. But even elements that appeal to my tastes in a MechWarrior game may be too conservative for people who aren't used to the MechWarrior series and here's why I think we need more options like NHUA and no-respawn; we need to ease people into the experience. To make this game one style only and to completely shut out other preferences risks losing out on people we could otherwise ease into these more traditional interpretations of the game.
To simply assume that gamers have one absolute preference for a given gamestyle is something we all know to more or less untrue. The fact that you and I like to play BF3 yet never really like something like MechAssault is pretty simple, but good empirical evidence of this. We've all played many different styles of games, and appreciated them. This is another reason why the CoD comparison **** me off, because we all players prefer all sorts of things, so someone who likes CoD or BF3 isn't necessarily turned off by something like MWO, we're all more or less proof of that.

We can't just expect everyone to be die-hard fans of MW out of the gate. When I first started playing MW4, I incidentally started with NHUA but generally preferred it for the longest time. I was complacent, conservative even, conservative in the sense that I wasn't very amenable to change. The thing that shook me out of my complacency was the incentivization that came with league play. I was a good player but there was a limited pool of opponents in NHUA in the leagues. It was the desire to compete, and gain the rewards in terms of the win(my incentive) that drew me into other formats of the game. It's possible that I would have never stuck around in MW4 if it was entirely HOLA. But having NHUA present possibly made me comfortable with the game I was playing, and I appreciated it for what it was, as someone who would have played MechAssault for any significant amount of time would likely have been. And even now with MW4, all the people who are left, who still appreciate MW4 are almost entirely NHUA players. And again, that loops back to my point about preference being entirely subjective.

Once I started playing other formats, I started to enjoy them too. I still liked NHUA, but I had a more broad appreciation for the other formats once I tried them the second time around and actually gave them a chance. It was incentivization (the delicious W's) that gave me the patience to stick it out in HOLA and actually give it a chance. Eventually I grew to like it as much as NHUA. At first, I detested no-respawn, then I played planetary league. However, certain styles of gameplay (I.E., NHUA, HOLA, resapawn, no-respawn, FFP) work better in conjuction with different formats of competition (I.E., FFA/attrition, team games, league team games (there's a difference), planetary), IMHO at least.

To answer your question on whether or not I agree HLA is the 'real' game, well, as a matter of preference, no. As I explained in terms of preference, nothing is truly the 'real' game. However, in terms of where PGI seems to be staking out MWO's place on the aforementioned spectrum, HOLA seems to be eminent style of play. As a consumer, it's up to me to determine if I want to play MWO as a game where it is primarily HOLA. To clear up any lingering uncertainty, yes, as in I, GaussDragon, as a consumer I am totally okay with the direction PGI seems to be going with MWO in terms of my preferences. Will I be disappointed if NHUA doesn't make its way into the game? Yes. Will it be the end of the world for me? Most certainly not. However, like I've been explaining, I like NHUA, but I think it serves a greater purpose in easing people into the eminent style of play who would otherwise be averse to it.

Now to try and get some real congruence out of all the points I've been explaining. With MWO being a F2P game and working on what admittedly is my assumption, I think the persistence/meta-game aspect will tie into how PGI monetizes on the game. Since HOLA and planetary are the eminent aspects then for the sake of consistency (and the fact that making a F2P system is complex enough), the meta-game needs to have a consistent set of rules and not a series of concurrent meta-games where one is HOLA and respawn, another is HOLA and no-respawn, and another is NHUA 3PV no-respawn. You can see how all these different permutations gets messy. I'm more for making NHUA (and other styles that aren't the main/eminent ones // or to use Catamount's terms, not having parity of emphasis) limited to only certain types of XP in order for this game to make money for PGI and that the IP can succeed, not because I prefer HOLA any more than NHUA (I don't). Having all the other types of XP available in only when set of style/format is the incentive that will make more sim-averse players tolerate and possibly appreciate a more traditional, sim-like interpretation of the game, but I think things like NHUA need to be present in order to get those people here in the first place. So yes, I don't believe NHUA and other styles should have parity of emphasis, though my reasoning is different. Again that reason is 1. PGI's determination of what kind of game MWO is going to be and 2. making it so that they can make money off of it. So in sum, I'm in favour of things like NHUA because I think they serve a purpose, that purpose being to ease people into the core/eminent gameplay that PGI has staked out.

I hope my reasoning was clear enough to everyone. Also, I'm too lazy (atm) to re-read it all in order to find syntax and typo errors so if they're there, ignore 'em.

Edited by GaussDragon, 03 April 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[DarkTreader]

^
tl;dr version: GaussDragon likes playing NHUA, and thinks that having it available as an 'easy mode' for new players is an appropriate option.

------------------------

Why the heck do all games need an 'easy' mode? What is wrong with going back to the time-tested method of tossing people into the shark tank?
If PGI sets up an appropriate matchmaking system, there shouldn't be any worry about having an easy mode, because everyone would feasibly be going against people of a similar ranking anyway.

I guess, in my mind, it comes down to 1 thing: if the devs want NHUA as an option, they'll put it in. If they felt it should be in, they likely would have mentioned it by this point. And really, it makes no sense to have an 'easy' mode and a 'real' mode for players, as anyone who wants to play the game that PGI is making will have to run with the H(u)LA/FFP mode anyway. Why gimp new players even more by getting them used to a game mode, then saying "Oh yeah, by the way... all that leezer boating you've been doing? Yeah, that's not gonna be an option now, 'cuz you'll blow yourself up. ENJOY THE GAME!"

That sounds like an even worse marketing idea.

[Siilk]

@geck0 icaza: I appreciate your honest answer, it's indeed rare these days to see people agreeing to you in an internet discussion if they weren't agreeing to you right from the start.

@GaussDragon: The problem is, you can't please everyone. You can make a game, that appeals to the tastes of the majority, and that would be Call of Duty. You can make something for hardcore gamers, that would be a classic Rainbow6. But you can't just throw in some "arcade mode" into R6 and hope everyone would love it. Hardcore gamers have no need for such mode and for casual gamers it's still not a CoD-grade game. We all seen R6 Vegas. It wasn't a failure but classic R6 fans loathe it and casual gamers were hardly interested in it for too long.

So now, back to MWO. Even though PGI wants their profits, no doubt, they hardy "just in it for the money". They would've been better off making a clone of angry birds, if profit are all they are thinking of. So, as they decided to try and revive Mechwarrior, not Mechassault, I feel that it would be a safe guess to assume that they would more or less want to make a game, that please hardcore MW fans. Adding NHUA modes could attract new players but would it be good for the game? PGI would be either forced to appeal to them and make MWO more and more casual-oriented or neglect their interests and loose most of them quite soon. Neither of these options looks promising to me.

But with all that said, it seems to me that all your points about increasing PGI profits and attracting new players are pretty much the smoke and mirrors, that are there to conceal the fact that you simply like to play NHUA and want it to be there for you when MWO would be released. That is understandable but hardly virtuous in the context of discussing what would be better for the game.

[Aegis Kleais]

What I find hil-freaking-larious is that people feel they can segregate people into black and white views on this.

"If you like HOLA you CANNOT like NHUA"
"If you like NHUA you CANNOT like HOLA"

Honestly, what kind of garbage is that? Is it impossible for you to both like Coke AND Pepsi? Sure you might have a preference, but they're not mutually exclusive of one another. Both use MW's game mechanics, they are just 2 different flavors of the game.

NHUA players don't interfere with HOLA player games and vice versa; so what's with all the hatred?

[Havoc2]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 April 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

What I find hil-freaking-larious is that people feel they can segregate people into black and white views on this.

"If you like HOLA you CANNOT like NHUA"
"If you like NHUA you CANNOT like HOLA"

Honestly, what kind of garbage is that? Is it impossible for you to both like Coke AND Pepsi? Sure you might have a preference, but they're not mutually exclusive of one another. Both use MW's game mechanics, they are just 2 different flavors of the game.

NHUA players don't interfere with HOLA player games and vice versa; so what's with all the hatred?

^
This.


It's not like PGI is going to allow players to simply check a box that says "Unlimited Ammo" and "Heat Off" and then let them play with the rest of the universe that needs to deal with heat and limited ammo.

I don't even have an issue with allowing players of NHUA to accumulate c-bills and XP, say at 50% of normal and allow them to carry that into HOLA.

After all, the purpose of a SIMULATOR is to train and get better. It also rewards players for playing, which then encourages them to pay for things. That's not to say that they should have an effect on the gaming universe. All the NHUA matches should be instant action with no impact on planet possession, loyalty points etc.

[Karel Spaten]

Redburn, on 15 March 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Worst decision ever by FASA/Microcrap to include this - ruined the gameplay - absolutely not BT.

It always amused me that the MW2 Netmech interface allowed you to set unlimited ammo ... but told you this was dishonourable.

I cured my friends of wanting to play with unlimited ammo when I took them to the cleaners in my machine gun and uAC/20 boat Dire Wolf...

[Havoc2]

Karel Spaten, on 03 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

It always amused me that the MW2 Netmech interface allowed you to set unlimited ammo ... but told you this was dishonourable.

I cured my friends of wanting to play with unlimited ammo when I took them to the cleaners in my machine gun and uAC/20 boat Dire Wolf...

I think I may have done something similar in a few PUG MW4 NHUA matches with a Daisy loaded up with RAC2s

[GaussDragon]

Siilk, on 03 April 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

@GaussDragon: The problem is, you can't please everyone. You can make a game, that appeals to the tastes of the majority, and that would be Call of Duty. You can make something for hardcore gamers, that would be a classic Rainbow6. But you can't just throw in some "arcade mode" into R6 and hope everyone would love it. Hardcore gamers have no need for such mode and for casual gamers it's still not a CoD-grade game. We all seen R6 Vegas. It wasn't a failure but classic R6 fans loathe it and casual gamers were hardly interested in it for too long.

I'm not assuming 'everyone' would love it, I'm saying that it's making an honest effort to try and ease people into the meat and potatoes of the game, I.E., the meta-game. You're doing what so many others have been doing in that you're assuming that somehow people who like casual game types and people who like sim game types never overlap. I'd think it was quite possible that there have been people who played Rainbow 6 and liked it and also liked CoD, no?

Siilk, on 03 April 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

So now, back to MWO. Even though PGI wants their profits, no doubt, they hardy "just in it for the money". They would've been better off making a clone of angry birds,

I was hoping we'd be done with the hyperbole, guess not.

Siilk, on 03 April 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

if profit are all they are thinking of. So, as they decided to try and revive Mechwarrior, not Mechassault, I feel that it would be a safe guess to assume that they would more or less want to make a game, that please hardcore MW fans. Adding NHUA modes could attract new players but would it be good for the game? PGI would be either forced to appeal to them and make MWO more and more casual-oriented or neglect their interests and loose most of them quite soon. Neither of these options looks promising to me.

You're ignoring the point, and something that PGI has said in that modern technology allows them to make a more robust game at this angle. There's supposed to be rather sophisticated damage models etc, making a fun sim is much more viable with modern game engines.

Siilk, on 03 April 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

But with all that said, it seems to me that all your points about increasing PGI profits and attracting new players are pretty much the smoke and mirrors, that are there to conceal the fact that you simply like to play NHUA and want it to be there for you when MWO would be released. That is understandable but hardly virtuous in the context of discussing what would be better for the game.

Well yes, I explicitly said I want NHUA, but for more than just the reason that I like it. I'll still prefer the HOLA/no-respawn meta-game to NHUA, I mean despite the fact that I repeatedly said I'm on board with HOLA being the eminent game type. Since there's a persistent planetary take on the game, it makes more sense since it's a bit more of an RP than simply jumping into 15 minute FFA matches over and over. As I've said in other places, when you're having elements like planetary and persistence, immersion is a greater element of what's going on therefore (at least the way I see it) making it HOLA and no-respawn make more sense given the approach. I think you've totally missed my points about different horses for different courses. Do you understand now?

[GaussDragon]

Aegis Kleais™, on 03 April 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

What I find hil-freaking-larious is that people feel they can segregate people into black and white views on this.

"If you like HOLA you CANNOT like NHUA"
"If you like NHUA you CANNOT like HOLA"

Honestly, what kind of garbage is that? Is it impossible for you to both like Coke AND Pepsi? Sure you might have a preference, but they're not mutually exclusive of one another. Both use MW's game mechanics, they are just 2 different flavors of the game.

NHUA players don't interfere with HOLA player games and vice versa; so what's with all the hatred?

Thank you AG. Siiilk's assertion that all NHUA players never play HOLA sent me flying off the handle. It's such complete and total nonsense. I'm sure you as well as I have played with countless numbers of people who played and enjoyed both.

[CeeKay Boques]

Dude, dude, wait wait wait, dude, wait, wait. The Ultimate.

NHUANA

No Heat, Unlimited Ammo, No Armor.

Yeah? Yeah? Yeah. So freaking EXTREME!!!

Wait... Wait. Ok, now I got it.

NHUANAUT

No Heat, Unlimited Ammo, No Armor, Unlimited Throttle.


These game modes are sponsored by RedBull.


Waaait.... NHUANAUTUJJ....