138 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Evil Ash, on 06 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Like almost all multiplayer games, there's going to be ones that use ingame mods (no respawn time, etc), it's obvious there's going to be server mods that have no heat and no ammunition

Could you link to where the devs have said this, I must have missed it?

[Jack Gallows]

No heat and no depleting ammo....makes baby urbie cry.

Seriously, why remove two incredibly important and balancing aspects of the game. Might as well go play call of duty if you want something that easy.

[empath]

Evil Ash, on 06 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Like almost all multiplayer games, there's going to be ones that use ingame mods (no respawn time, etc), it's obvious there's going to be server mods that have no heat and no ammunition

From what I've read, the closest analogue to MWO's projected gameplay will be World of Tanks, you go get some 3rd party 'mods' for that, try them out in the game, and tells how that works out for you...

...and how long your ban lasts.

[Kyle Hawkins]

Thank god for the poll results here. Very reassuring. I remember when first trying out MW4 multi player and being completely bewildered about why over 70% of the games hosted seemed to have horrible NH/UA options turned on. Removing heat and ammo reduces the viable tactics and mech designs down to about 6 different mech designs and battles that play out the same every time. No good at all.

I'm really glad that we all agree. MW4 really worried me.

[DeformedSlowest]

Actually many of the comments made after my posts seem to make sense now as to all those who say "go play CoD" because you can't deal with heat management. I'm the very first person to vote "Yes" actually because I believe in options and I do remember how the no heat option ruined MW4 multiplayer. I agree heat and ammo management is needed to keep the game balanced.

However I'm not sure why so many people are bent out of shape acting peoples personal opinions. We can agrue to disagree, but it shouldn't be in attacking people's opinion. I'm all for debates, but come on now ppl; you don't have to get nasty about it and we all know by reading the forums, this one in particular, that people are attacking people's opinions.

[Belial]

Kyle Hawkins, on 06 April 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Thank god for the poll results here. Very reassuring. I remember when first trying out MW4 multi player and being completely bewildered about why over 70% of the games hosted seemed to have horrible NH/UA options turned on. Removing heat and ammo reduces the viable tactics and mech designs down to about 6 different mech designs and battles that play out the same every time. No good at all.

I'm really glad that we all agree. MW4 really worried me.

I can *almost* understand why MW4 players used the NH/UA option so much; or at least I have a partial theory. The damage and armor mechanics in MW4 were radically different than tabetop or the PC games before it. A light 'Mech could take a Gauss rifle to the chest and only get the color changed to yellow, as opposed to the flashing red it should have been. Having more guns on the 'Mechs meant damage was dealt out and received a little more realistically, but in exchange an unrealistic mechanic had to be used... see where I'm going with this? Note, I'm not claiming this was the sole reason, but I definitely see this in hindsight.

DeformedSlowest, on 06 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Actually many of the comments made after my posts seem to make sense now as to all those who say "go play CoD" because you can't deal with heat management. I'm the very first person to vote "Yes" actually because I believe in options and I do remember how the no heat option ruined MW4 multiplayer. I agree heat and ammo management is needed to keep the game balanced.

However I'm not sure why so many people are bent out of shape acting peoples personal opinions. We can agrue to disagree, but it shouldn't be in attacking people's opinion. I'm all for debates, but come on now ppl; you don't have to get nasty about it and we all know by reading the forums, this one in particular, that people are attacking people's opinions.

I actually don't see anything nasty in this thread, especially since the overhwleming majority all agree on the same thing. I think that because of how NH/UA ruined past MW games, veteran players like myself already know the damage such a device will cause to the game, and are rallying to prevent such a disaster from happening again. It is indeed a matter of opinion, but our opinions are more informed; us veterans are telling others what we have played and experienced for ourselves. NH/UA is not pretty, and allowing for it will attract the wrong crowd.

[Edun]

Love seeing all of the hardcore players here, but come on guys, heat management is clearly a "stage 2" player evolution. It's a major turn off to new entrants and, taking a page from the near perfect training program used by Virtual World in the 90's, allow heat management to be turned off so players can focus on motion and tracking.

[Mao of DC]

Lord Trogus, on 06 April 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

We aren't done spilling the 10 years of bottled up rage MW4 caused us.

I was amazed and pleased to see so much of it. I glad im not the only one who disliked MW4 mutiplayer. The first time I played a match I didnt relize that it was NHUL and just got wasted. So I looked for a HOLA game couldnt find one ended up starting my own and got ***** at for haveing heat on. I never played MW4 mutiplayer again

[wwiiogre]

no and hell no, not even on private servers. Sim, not fps; just saying.

chris

[Mims]

Mao of DC, on 06 April 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

I was amazed and pleased to see so much of it. I glad im not the only one who disliked MW4 mutiplayer. The first time I played a match I didnt relize that it was NHUL and just got wasted. So I looked for a HOLA game couldnt find one ended up starting my own and got ***** at for haveing heat on. I never played MW4 mutiplayer again

Every mech in MW4 can be tweaked to perfect or prefered heat levels. so why is heat a bad thing? It's canon, it ads depth, it's simulation. Your not playing the game if the heat is off.

[Belial]

Edun, on 06 April 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Love seeing all of the hardcore players here, but come on guys, heat management is clearly a "stage 2" player evolution. It's a major turn off to new entrants and, taking a page from the near perfect training program used by Virtual World in the 90's, allow heat management to be turned off so players can focus on motion and tracking.

I'd rather see it stay in a training-like server, which hopefully the Devs will implement, especially since it's been suggested since the game's announcement. Or maybe, players who are at the first rank or so can participate in NH/UA games, but once they get higher they have to play on the big kids' playground.

[Phelan Kerensky]

Hahahahahahaha,
oh that idea is so...
INFURIATING...
My response,
FRICK NO...

Too many times in the past, like MW4, 70-80% of games were NHUA... None of those matches ever felt like MW or BT to me... It is also the reason many quit playing MW4. I do not want people to leave MW:O because most of the games are NHUA...

[Hawkeye 72]

265 to 5? Landslide

I am on the fence with this one. I feel the more options for people to customize their gameplay, the better. Dev's ultimately serve their users (or at least when the majority riots i.e. Mass Effect 3)

Problem? I can't stand MW4 online because of the matches where people disable heat and have unlimited ammo. It's rather dull. My fear is if this option became available, your casual users (not us grizzled ancients) will trend towards these "CoD matches" where they don't have to micromanage and it becomes point and shoot.

I say forget it. Design the game how it should be played. If your getting into this game then you know the terms of engagement.

[Roh]

I dont care if they make it an option. So long as I can set a filter for all gameplay searches that keeps me well away from those games.

[Sug]

Edun, on 06 April 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Love seeing all of the hardcore players here, but come on guys, heat management is clearly a "stage 2" player evolution. It's a major turn off to new entrants and, taking a page from the near perfect training program used by Virtual World in the 90's, allow heat management to be turned off so players can focus on motion and tracking.

I dunno. I feel like someone that doesn't have the gaming skills necessary to point and shoot at something probably isn't aware of this game.

Maybe in the 90's a training program was needed but my 9yo nephew picked up the basics of MW4 in like 10min. Yeah he wasn't headshotting me from across the map but he wasn't running into walls or shutting down either.

[LackofCertainty]

DeformedSlowest, on 06 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Actually many of the comments made after my posts seem to make sense now as to all those who say "go play CoD" because you can't deal with heat management. I'm the very first person to vote "Yes" actually because I believe in options and I do remember how the no heat option ruined MW4 multiplayer. I agree heat and ammo management is needed to keep the game balanced.

However I'm not sure why so many people are bent out of shape acting peoples personal opinions. We can agrue to disagree, but it shouldn't be in attacking people's opinion. I'm all for debates, but come on now ppl; you don't have to get nasty about it and we all know by reading the forums, this one in particular, that people are attacking people's opinions.

First off, the people who defend their opinion by saying "go play cod" are being overly beliigerent about it. Sadly that tends to be a thing on the internet so just skim past their posts and pretend they don't exist.

Secondly, options are good to the extent that there is a demand for them. If I said, "I want an option to play the game as a giant anthropomorized pony! Options are good, so put it in the game," the dev response would probably be, "there isn't enough demand to justify adding that mode. If we were to add it, it might please X number of people, but it might also turn off X more people who stumble into a match and don't like it."

Heat is the same idea. There is little demand for a no heat mode, and all of the balance of the game goes out the window when you play said mode. There's also the risk that a new player stumbles into a NHUA game without knowing what the acronym means and responds with, "*** is this bs? I thought this was a sim mech combat game?"

Developers are not obliged to include every option imaginable in their game. If the devs want to make a sim-focused multiplayer mech combat game, they are allowed to do it. They shouldn't be forced to include an arcade mode. They shouldn't be forced to include jets/other vehicles. They shouldn't be forced to include a single player campagin. They shouldn't be forced to include a racing mode, a one hit kills mode, or a NHUA mode. They are making a game for a niche audience, and should be under no obligation to do anything other than what their audience wants. The poll says that their audience primarily doesn't want/won't use a NHUA mode, so why should the be forced to include it? So they can add another bullet point to the back of their non-existant box?

At the end of the day, demanding that they include an option that 98.16% of their audience doesn't want seems a little silly to me. Granted, not everyone uses the forums, but this is a ridiculously overwhelming majority for a poll.

[LordDeathStrike]

the only people voting for no heat no ammo are complete mw4 call of duty nubs, they cant plan accordingly and have a mech with an operational heat curve/enough spare ammo to maintain fire.

its like saying we should fight wars, with unlimited lives and no running out of ammo, but for our army only. not gonna happen.

[William Petersen]

LackofCertainty, on 06 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Secondly, options are good to the extent that there is a demand for them. If I said, "I want an option to play the game as a giant anthropomorized pony! Options are good, so put it in the game," the dev response would probably be, "there isn't enough demand to justify adding that mode. If we were to add it, it might please X number of people, but it might also turn off X more people who stumble into a match and don't like it."

Look at my signature, and *I* wouldn't even want that type of option. /shudder Ponies on mechs, that's cool, just like skulls, or almost-naked ladies stroking weapons of mass destruction, or anything else someone wants to use as a personal or unit insignia (except fully naked people, because this is, after all, only rated M {isn't it?}). But ponies as mechs? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND!? (Except that one quad that kinda looked equine, in the right light from the wrong angle, but is really old and rare {I think} so we probably won't be seeing it anyway)

LackofCertainty, on 06 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

The poll says that their audience primarily doesn't want/won't use a NHUA mode, so why should the be forced to include it? So they can add another bullet point to the back of their non-existant box?

That poll doesn't say that the audience "primary" doesn't want the feature, it says they overwhelmingly do not want the feature.

[trycksh0t]

Who the frell voted yes? I vote autoban for any 'Yes' votes on this poll.

[LordDeathStrike]

trycksh0t, on 06 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Who the frell voted yes? I vote autoban for any 'Yes' votes on this poll.

i also vote for all the yes voters to be perma banned from mwo for life by biometric ID ban.