Jump to content

Why Does This Game Suck


69 replies to this topic

#21 DerSpecht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 365 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:13 AM

View PostVila deVere, on 28 November 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:


But the the founders premade teams are likely to spend more money. IN a F2P game, the number of players being large only helps if they actually spend money.


Thats actually wrong. While single players spend thousands of dollars on a game sometimes the most income is generated by players who play for a short period of time up to 6 months. They get addicted quickly and spend money to advance faster. Once they face the grind or get bored coz they can buy everything they whine about content and move on to another new f2p game.

#22 xRaeder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 938 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM

Only thing that is wrong with this game is a lack of scale and depth. Especially when it comes to player counts. Both WoT and MWO suffer from this. Battletech is about large groups of Mechs fighting each other. Battalion vs Battalion at the least and going all the way up to entire Corps of Mechs and tanks.

And I have to ask all of you. Why the hell are you satisfied with 8v8 (soon™ to be 12v12)?

PC gamers have had 64, 150, 500+ players on servers in the past. Why are you all not demanding the same level of scale from PGI? Why are you all satisfied with what amounts to a console game running on your thousand plus dollar computer. WE ARE PC GAMERS, not console scrubs. Demand that PGI treat us as such.

#23 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM

View PostMathmatics, on 28 November 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

The whole open beta paradigm has complacently shifted in the last 2 years. Mostly the last 6 months. Tribes ascend somehow managed to do something no one else has been able to but it should be every FTP games model. WoT on a lesser scale. Point is Ive paid 200 bucks so far for this "beta"


WE had that once or twice. Its nice but its almost like a giant ********** at the same time ya know. Like oh... **** wish we could do that again.

Point is you didn't pay $200 for this beta, or if you did then you were delusional. You and I are providing venture capital, seed money, to a company developing the game. You either knew that going in or a total fool who doesn't read his written agreements. It is a game in development and has never been billed, advertised, or represented by the company as finished.

#24 Sevaradan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 909 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:21 AM

View PostDerSpecht, on 28 November 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

Stupid PUGs?

**** YOU SIR!



yes, stupid running in circles, shooting snow, intentionally overheating, suicidal, tking pug scum

Edited by Sevaradan, 28 November 2012 - 06:21 AM.


#25 MrPenguin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 1,815 posts
  • LocationSudbury, Ontario

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:22 AM

View PostOriginalTibs, on 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Point is you didn't pay $200 for this beta, or if you did then you were delusional. You and I are providing venture capital, seed money, to a company developing the game. You either knew that going in or a total fool who doesn't read his written agreements. It is a game in development and has never been billed, advertised, or represented by the company as finished.

Honestly, you guys paid for founders mech, closed beta access, mc, premium time and a forum badge. Nothing more outside that. I'm not trying to flame anyone, I'm just saying it as it is.

#26 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:28 AM

View PostxRaeder, on 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

...
And I have to ask all of you. Why the hell are you satisfied with 8v8 (soon™ to be 12v12)?
...


Because that is the game design we invested in. Not your vision of what the game could be in your fantasies, but instead what can reliably be coded and supported with existing tech within a set budget in a finite amount of time with limited personnel resources.

That is why I will be satisfied with 12 v 12 matches set within an MMO scale population of competitors, once Community Warfare is in place.

But that is pretty far down the road for a game in development that is hardly 35% feature complete.

View PostMrPenguin, on 28 November 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Honestly, you guys paid for founders mech, closed beta access, mc, premium time and a forum badge. Nothing more outside that. I'm not trying to flame anyone, I'm just saying it as it is.

We also get our names in the credits, though I expect it will be our account names instead of RL names.

#27 Vila deVere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 673 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:30 AM

View PostDerSpecht, on 28 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:


Thats actually wrong. While single players spend thousands of dollars on a game sometimes the most income is generated by players who play for a short period of time up to 6 months. They get addicted quickly and spend money to advance faster. Once they face the grind or get bored coz they can buy everything they whine about content and move on to another new f2p game.


I suspect you're in error. Team-based players typically are more competitive, and will be more willing to spend money to not only get the equipment and 'Mechs they need to BE comtetive earlier, but if CW doesn't stink on ice, they'll probably alos spend money in order for their corp to build the infrastructure they want.

Some solo players may spend a lot of money, but as you point out, they get distracted by the next shiney object and move on. Team players tend to stay longer because they have noit just monetary investment in the game, but an emotional one as well.

View PostSevaradan, on 28 November 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:



yes, stupid running in circles, shooting snow, intentionally overheating, suicidal, tking pug scum


Many Pugs suck and a few don't. I'm grateful when they don't, but not surprised when they do. I look forward to not having to hope my team mates aren't mouth breathers.

#28 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

View PostVila deVere, on 28 November 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:


I suspect you're in error. Team-based players typically are more competitive, and will be more willing to spend money to not only get the equipment and 'Mechs they need to BE comtetive earlier, but if CW doesn't stink on ice, they'll probably alos spend money in order for their corp to build the infrastructure they want.

...


I suspect you are quite correct: Who would not agree that Chess lacks content? Yet it has attracted keen competitors for thousands of years. The reason is that the real content of chess is nothing like a television show: its content is in the competition to be found in your opponents. It is in the reliable balance of power, the clear rules of engagement, and the ability of the game to get out of the way so long as the rules of the game are kept sacrosanct.

#29 Bguk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,159 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:37 AM

View PostxRaeder, on 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Only thing that is wrong with this game is a lack of scale and depth. Especially when it comes to player counts. Both WoT and MWO suffer from this. Battletech is about large groups of Mechs fighting each other. Battalion vs Battalion at the least and going all the way up to entire Corps of Mechs and tanks.

And I have to ask all of you. Why the hell are you satisfied with 8v8 (soon™ to be 12v12)?

PC gamers have had 64, 150, 500+ players on servers in the past. Why are you all not demanding the same level of scale from PGI? Why are you all satisfied with what amounts to a console game running on your thousand plus dollar computer. WE ARE PC GAMERS, not console scrubs. Demand that PGI treat us as such.


Tibs responded well to this posting so suggest you read what he wrote.

Although I will agree with you on one thing: treat us as pc gamers not as console gamers, in regards to DX11, netcode, which they are working on.

#30 M4NTiC0R3X

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,309 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:38 AM

First off... this game doesn't suck period! Secondly, pugs are the reason you can't get into it..?

/your fault

#31 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:41 AM

View PostOriginalTibs, on 28 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Point is you didn't pay $200 for this beta, or if you did then you were delusional. You and I are providing venture capital, seed money, to a company developing the game. You either knew that going in or a total fool who doesn't read his written agreements. It is a game in development and has never been billed, advertised, or represented by the company as finished.


Quote

[color=#000000]Venture capital is invested in exchange for an equity stake in the business.[/color]
I am not getting an equity stake in MWO. Therefore I have not made an venture capital investment.

K?
Thx Bye

#32 Jaxom08

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Stalker
  • The Stalker
  • 216 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMO,USA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:42 AM

Quote

Not because we cant pugstomp with 4 men (because we do every time) but because pugstomping with 4 men is less than half as fun as it was with 8 and you never ever have a good premade vs premade so most matches just suck.


So if you stomp some pugs, you would rather do it with 8 people?? How about instead of looking to beat up on pugs, you try to educate them....just running with your mates and beating up on the pugs only helps with your personal enjoyment and does nothing to help retain new players, in fact it is likely to chase new players away.


Quote

Only thing that is wrong with this game is a lack of scale and depth. Especially when it comes to player counts. Both WoT and MWO suffer from this. Battletech is about large groups of Mechs fighting each other. Battalion vs Battalion at the least and going all the way up to entire Corps of Mechs and tanks.


I've read A LOT of Battletech stuff and very rarely have I read about Battalion vs. Battalion.......perhaps company sized engagements.....do me a favor and link me some reference material, I truley am interested. I would like something like a 20 vs. 20 if the maps were a bit bigger ( tho I have heard bigger maps are coming ).....but I think more then 20 on a side would be a bit much.....maybe the dropship mutator game mode will help give us that feel. I guess we will see.

#33 Mathmatics

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 275 posts
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:43 AM

View PostOriginalTibs, on 28 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:


Because that is the game design we invested in. Not your vision of what the game could be in your fantasies, but instead what can reliably be coded and supported with existing tech within a set budget in a finite amount of time with limited personnel resources.

That is why I will be satisfied with 12 v 12 matches set within an MMO scale population of competitors, once Community Warfare is in place.

But that is pretty far down the road for a game in development that is hardly 35% feature complete.


We also get our names in the credits, though I expect it will be our account names instead of RL names.


I forgot about getting our names in the credits haha. I should asked to be removed to keep the stain off me resume (JK!)
What I really wanted to say here was yes I did know what I was paying for. 120 for founders and the rest on MC to be able to get any bells and whistles. So far the bells and whistles leave a lot to be desired. The team has made some bad choices in my opinion on how to implement the color schemes. I have 24 mechs. I don't mind paying to paint 24 mechs my units color, but what if my units color changes? Thats what ****** me of the **** off. Theres no feeling of ownership for what I paid for. Just poof its gone. They should let you save at lease 2 or 3 color schemes per mech once you buy it. I want pgi to make money bad, but I think that's going to push people away (most definitely going to push me away) had they done something clever like sell us jars of paint (owndership) I would have bought multiple bottles of all of them, and patterns and insignia. So would most founders and I cant see why anyone would be opposed to this idea. Some people kids that grow up to be devs I swear... If this thread gets much longer Ill share my real theory with whats happening with pgi atm

#34 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:44 AM

Quote

Starsiege: Tribes was released in November of 1998, and sold a total of 210,000 copies.
A single player version called Tribes Extreme began development shortly after the release of Starsiege: Tribes, but was abandoned before completion [1].
Tribes 2 added additional vehicles (such as a two-person tank and a three-person bomber with a belly turret), weapons, and items. A few details of gameplay were changed; for instance, the original game made a player choose his load out while he was at a supply station (sometimes resulting in long lines to use the station), while the sequel required the player to choose his load out before he used the station. Tribes 2 also included many features to help its community of players: it included user profiles, interactive chat areas, and message boards. The initial release of Tribes 2 was plagued by bugs and slow performance; several patches were released over the following year (first by Sierra, later by GarageGames) to address these issues.
Tribes Aerial Assault was a PlayStation 2 version of Tribes 2. Developed by Inevitable Entertainment and published by Sierra, it offered simplified but significantly swifter gameplay (fewer maps and vehicles, and a subset of the original's voice commands) and network support for up to sixteen players at a time.
Tribes: Vengeance was a prequel to the other games. In addition to multiplayer support, it featured a full single-player game with a storyline. It was developed by Irrational Games using a heavily modified Unreal engine to bring the game's appearance up to par with other modern first-person shooters. This new Tribes largely de-emphasized the focus on massive maps and slower gameplay that was typical of Tribes 2 in favor of the swifter action of the original Starsiege: Tribes and Tribes Aerial Assault. Battles were faster paced, and teamwork and vehicles were less necessary. Tribes: Vengeance was released with almost no marketing support in autumn 2004 shortly after the release of Doom 3 and Far Cry and just before the releases of Half-Life 2 and Halo 2. Sales were predictably poor: after six months, only 47,000 copies of the game had been sold. In March 2005, all support for Tribes: Vengeance was dropped, including a planned patch that would have addressed several bugs and added PunkBuster support.
In February 2006, GarageGames "leaked" short videos of a tech demo which featured "tribes like" game play on their Torque Shader Engine or TSE.[2] The demo made its debut at the 2006 GDC as "Legions", an obvious allusion to the Tribes series for which the team is famous for. Announced officially in 2007 as a "spiritual successor" to Tribes, Fallen Empire: Legions was released to the public in June 2008 on InstantAction, and is currently being developed by the community after InstantAction was shut down in November 2010.[1]
In March 2009, GarageGames announced it had obtained the rights to the Tribes franchise from Activision Blizzard and would be bringing Starsiege: Tribes to InstantAction as PlayTribes.[3] However on November 11, 2010, InstantAction was shut down, thus cancelling development on PlayTribes. A leaked build of PlayTribes was released in March of 2010.
On October 23, 2010, Hi-Rez Studios announced that they were the new owners of the Tribes franchise, and were developing a new Tribes MMO called Tribes Universe.[2]
Hi-Rez Studios attended PAX East 2011 and announced Tribes: Ascend, a multiplayer-only successor to Tribes 2 for the PC. The game was released on April 12, 2012.[3]


How about we give MWO some more time to mature. You know, just because comparing it to games that started life 14 years ago is not at all productive.

I swear, some folks could suck the Joy out of a Snow Globe. :P

#35 Tornado Dash

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 35 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:45 AM

Because its BETA, we aren't even close to the finished product of the game and people are ******** that it sucks. we have a long time to go before this game goes live, don't give up on it now

#36 Bguk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,159 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:46 AM

Isn't the OP also the guy who said he would spend every waking moment he could putting the game down?

#37 Mathmatics

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 275 posts
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:50 AM

So if you stomp some pugs, you would rather do it with 8 people?? How about instead of looking to beat up on pugs, you try to educate them....just running with your mates and beating up on the pugs only helps with your personal enjoyment and does nothing to help retain new players, in fact it is likely to chase new players away.

I know im far from the best writer but you sir need some work on reading comprehension. My whole point was saying I don't like pugstoping either way, 8v8 or 4v?. I prefer it with 8 because then we can pilot whatever we want and still have a fun game. with 4 man we all have to pilot our best incase we are facing 2 4mans also piloting their best. I hate it at 4 for more reasons that I can list. My point was I hate pugstomping on both sides. I want to be able to premade vs premade. This should have been done before open beta, also I think pugs should have a chance to join those ques to fill in the holes and get a taste of tactical combat because those pugs would actually be interested in playing with the team they got on.

#38 Taizan

    Com Guard

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts
  • LocationGalatea (NRW)

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:51 AM

Less than four weeks of having to play with 4 other random people, who love to finally play a Mechwarrrior game again, makes you sound bitter. Is it really that bad for you? Why all this hatred about a temporary change without understanding the benefits and the reasons behind it? I cannot comprehend this vitriol.

All the time before November 8th you founders were playing 8 man teams and the way things are looking from December 4th you'll be able to do so again with an improved experience, but you write about it like this is the status quo for the next 10 years.

Edited by Taizan, 28 November 2012 - 06:53 AM.


#39 Mathmatics

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 275 posts
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

View PostBguk, on 28 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Isn't the OP also the guy who said he would spend every waking moment he could putting the game down?


Yeah that was me. I am ashamed of myself. Like I said in this very thread I get very hung up on the depressions these guys make, I take it personally because it personally effects me. This whole paint thing. Plus you calling me out on that gave me a little epiphany Those things you cant control you must let go. Thank you for that sir. It is not my aim to do that I assure you but I also assure you I appreciate you calling it out.

View PostTaizan, on 28 November 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Less than four weeks of having to play with 4 other random people, who love to finally play a Mechwarrrior game again, makes you sound bitter. Is it really that bad for you? Why all this hatred about a temporary change without understanding the benefits and the reasons behind it? I cannot comprehend this vitriol.

All the time before November 8th you founders were playing 8 man teams and the way things are looking from December 4th you'll be able to do so again with an improved experience, but you write about it like this is the status quo for the next 10 years.

Well we thought (I didnt) but they told us we would get it back nov 24th. That whole week my TS was filled with people raging and other people saying "just relax its only a few more days and you will never have to deal with this **** again" so we are all a bit butt sore and some of us SHOCKED <gasp> (not me) about the delay. I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed this way.

#40 miscreant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 823 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

The game would be better with:

-Server browser
-Respawns
-Larger maps

I love it regardless, but it's SO short of what could have been.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users