105 replies to this topic

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I disagree with you. A more accurate view would be that people mostly drop in Atlas D-DCs with ECM and all the latest gadgets they can stick on there.

We'll find out tomorrow I suppose. Have you been killed by LRMs lately? I haven't, but I expect to see a lot of them tomorrow.

[JohnnyC]

Rifter, on 17 December 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Removing the economy from the game hardly counts as economy changes. Once you have the mech you want(and with 8 million free cbills that wont take long) there is no economy.

EDIT, beat by wired in this response by 60 seconds lol

I don't want one mech... I want ALL MECHS. And I won't get them without playing... and I'll have to pay real money for mech garage slots to fit them all in. PGI gets what they want (some of my money and a loyal player), I get what I want (all the mechs for me to play with as it suits me). If you get one mech and you think that's enough for you, then why the heck are you worried about the changes to the economy? It would have zero effect on you since you undoubtedly already have your mech and you already don't have to spend any more C-Bills or real money on anything else if you want to.

Maybe it's just one of those, "If you really want to be disappointed, you will find a way to be disappointed", type of things?

[GalaxyBluestar]

DirePhoenix, on 17 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Right. No repair costs, no significant meaning for Planetary Control. Might as well remove it. No significant value for C-Bills since everyone just stacks it up with no consistent sinks and everyone can afford to get anything they want, might as well remove those too, and just let everyone put whatever they want on their 'mechs since they would be able to afford it anyway.

No planetary control, no community warfare, no C-Bills, what do we have? A MechWarrior game that is pretty indistinguishable from every other multiplayer MechWarrior experience, without the single player campaign. Thanks for the not-so-unique game. Might as well toss in some third-person action on there too, just to ice that cake.

over reaction there, to test the game properly the devs are easing the cbill grind part, i think their focus is correct, the base of this becoming succesfull is in match gameplay now and now we're being given more space to do it. CW better mech lab interface etc is a long term goal that won't be reached if gameplay keeps tumbling.

btw MW2 and 3 and 4 all had 3rd person cameras. why people think it's unmechwarrior is beyond me. yes purist for simulation prefer cockpit as do i but mechwarrior has predominantly supported 3rd person play oddly enough.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 17 December 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[Wired]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

over reaction there, to test the game properly the devs are easing the cbill grind part, i think theire focus is correct, the base of this becoming succefull is in match gameplay now and now we're being given more space to do it. CW better mech lab interface etc is a long term goal that won't be reached if gameplay keeps tumbling.

btw MW2 and 3 and 4 all had 3rd person cameras. why people think it's unmechwarrior is beyond me. yes purist for simulation prefer cockpit as do i but mechwarrior has predominantly supported 3rd person play oddly enough.

Because 3rd person view as well as a few other things killed multiplayer in mechwarrior 4.

Edited by Wired, 17 December 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

btw MW2 and 3 and 4 all had 3rd person cameras. why people think it's unmechwarrior is beyond me. yes purist for simulation prefer cockpit as do i but mechwarrior has predominantly supported 3rd person play oddly enough.

You'll note that I tossed in the third-person action as the "icing on the cake" that would add to the rest of the stuff that would make this game less of a new experience and more like all the previous MW games and "not special".

[JohnnyC]

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

My issue is that they've removed part of the game which made sense with CW. Now that it isn't there, CW doesn't make much sense. That is my problem. I'm not "crying" over every change, I'm being concerned over a major change to the game. It almost feels like we've lost progress and now we're back to last august. We can always see how it goes, but it feels like we've been here before.

Well... CW is a long way off... They need players in every mech, using every variation they can come up with to get the most out of testing (which is what this is supposed to be). They also need to keep players... which wasn't happening as much as it should with the R&R/payout setup they had going. Let's worry about how the economy affects the CW system when we get there. For now, there are other priorities and I think this is going to make a huge difference in the right direction.

[steelblueskies]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

over reaction there, to test the game properly the devs are easing the cbill grind part, i think their focus is correct, the base of this becoming succesfull is in match gameplay now and now we're being given more space to do it. CW better mech lab interface etc is a long term goal that won't be reached if gameplay keeps tumbling.

btw MW2 and 3 and 4 all had 3rd person cameras. why people think it's unmechwarrior is beyond me. yes purist for simulation prefer cockpit as do i but mechwarrior has predominantly supported 3rd person play oddly enough.

heh mw2 had more than third person. it had sat uplink, missile cams, gun cams, rear and down view cams. literally if i wanted to play watching what was happening between my mechs legs, it had a cam just for that. but let us not get into being un mechwarrior, i mean for the love of gawd, have you actually read through what the "mechwarrior" tt publication covered?
by and large it was an attempt to larpify bt. so my pilot can have enemies? there's rules for that? and obsessions? psychological breakdowns that affect actions and performance in the cockpit? yeah. that's what it covered. for you d&d fans, yes, there was a toughness trait in mechwarrior as well.

Edited by steelblueskies, 17 December 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Wired]

JohnnyC, on 17 December 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Well... CW is a long way off... They need players in every mech, using every variation they can come up with to get the most out of testing (which is what this is supposed to be). They also need to keep players... which wasn't happening as much as it should with the R&R/payout setup they had going. Let's worry about how the economy affects the CW system when we get there. For now, there are other priorities and I think this is going to make a huge difference in the right direction.

See DirePhoenix's post about lack of uniqueness.

[JohnnyC]

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Because 3rd person view as well as a few other things killed multiplayer in mechwarrior 4.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a while since I played it... but wasn't Mechwarrior 4 primarily a single player game with a half cocked multiplayer mode? I seem to recall loving the single player and thinking the multiplayer felt like an afterthought.

[Wired]

steelblueskies, on 17 December 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

heh mw2 had more than third person. it had sat uplink, missile cams, gun cams, rear and down view cams. literally if i wanted to play watching what was happening between my mechs legs, it had a cam just for that. but let us not get into being un mechwarrior, i mean for the love of gawd, have you actually read through what the "mechwarrior" tt publication covered?
by and large it was an attempt to larpify bt. so my pilot can have enemies? there's rules for that? and obsessions? phsychological breakdowns that affect actions and performance in the cockpit? yeah. that's what it covered.

Larpify is a good term, but it doesn't apply to that. A better term would be DnDify.

Neeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrd.

JohnnyC, on 17 December 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a while since I played it... but wasn't Mechwarrior 4 primarily a single player game with a half cocked multiplayer mode? I seem to recall loving the single player and thinking the multiplayer felt like an afterthought.

One of the things often mentioned about the multiplayer's lackluster experience was that people could use 3rd person to line up a shot they actually couldn't see normally, jump jet up and take the shot, than go back to cover with little to no risk.

[JohnnyC]

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

See DirePhoenix's post about lack of uniqueness.

I have... I think he's dead wrong. I think DirePhoenix is being a bit melodramatic. He's obviously passionate, but I think he's favoring emotions over rationality at the moment.

[Wired]

JohnnyC, on 17 December 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

I have... I think he's dead wrong. I think DirePhoenix is being a bit melodramatic. He's obviously passionate, but I think he's favoring emotions over rationality at the moment.

I disagree. I feel that you are just overlooking the far greater implications behind removing RnR.

[DirePhoenix]

JohnnyC, on 17 December 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

If you get one mech and you think that's enough for you, then why the heck are you worried about the changes to the economy? It would have zero effect on you since you undoubtedly already have your mech and you already don't have to spend any more C-Bills or real money on anything else if you want to.

Because if all you want is your one 'mech and you get it, as well as all the weapons you want for it, what then? Why would you keep playing? It no longer takes anything to upkeep it, there is no reason to keep improving*. You'll never lose it, never need to upgrade it, and no need to even maintain it. Mission Accomplished! Your game is done. You stop playing. And if you're not playing, you're certainly not paying. And if people aren't paying this game stops existing.



*On a slightly related note, that is also why the XP progression system we have now is /fail. If you only want your one 'mech and discover that early, you either suck it up and buy and pilot 'mechs you don't want, or stop progressing your pilot skills. And once you're done, Game Over.

[JohnnyC]

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

One of the things often mentioned about the multiplayer's lackluster experience was that people could use 3rd person to line up a shot they actually couldn't see normally, jump jet up and take the shot, than go back to cover with little to no risk.

I'm not really worried about the 3rd person camera. It isn't a big deal to me... and if someone wants to try that in MWO, let them try. Also, isn't 3rd person down the road too? Not something pertaining to today's patch (it's officially the 18th where I am) and therefore not really on topic for a Dec 18 patch prediction thread?

[Adeptus Odren]

DirePhoenix, on 17 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Because if all you want is your one 'mech and you get it, as well as all the weapons you want for it, what then? Why would you keep playing? It no longer takes anything to upkeep it, there is no reason to keep improving*. You'll never lose it, never need to upgrade it, and no need to even maintain it. Mission Accomplished! Your game is done. You stop playing. And if you're not playing, you're certainly not paying. And if people aren't paying this game stops existing.

That issue is and will remain present even with R&R.

[Wired]

JohnnyC, on 17 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

I'm not really worried about the 3rd person camera. It isn't a big deal to me... and if someone wants to try that in MWO, let them try. Also, isn't 3rd person down the road too? Not something pertaining to today's patch (it's officially the 18th where I am) and therefore not really on topic for a Dec 18 patch prediction thread?

Because someone brought it up.

Adeptus Odren, on 17 December 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

That issue is and will remain present even with R&R.

This conflicts with the messages posted by people being upset they can't field mechs with 150,000 cbill rearm costs.

Edited by Wired, 17 December 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[JohnnyC]

DirePhoenix, on 17 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Because if all you want is your one 'mech and you get it, as well as all the weapons you want for it, what then? Why would you keep playing? It no longer takes anything to upkeep it, there is no reason to keep improving*. You'll never lose it, never need to upgrade it, and no need to even maintain it. Mission Accomplished! Your game is done. You stop playing. And if you're not playing, you're certainly not paying. And if people aren't paying this game stops existing.

Because the point is not to buy your mech, it's to pilot your mech and have fun with it. The people who only want one mech are going to be very very rare. Most players are going to want as many mechs as they can afford to get. And with a smooth running economy that doesn't prohibit the purchasing of new mechs and loading them up how you like... they will buy more mech garage slots...

My mission isn't to get my favorite mech and stop playing because I like it just how it is... My mission is to get on the field of battle in my favorite mechs and outwit, out-maneuver, out-gun, and out-shine my opponents. Because I like playing the game... not just collecting the mechs.

Is it that way for you? When you get your favorite mech and outfit it how you like, do you stop playing?

It really seems like you're tilting at windmills here.

[Mavairo]

My prediction.
People fitting XL engines for the first time in ages will get their engines blown off, and suddenly ''tough'' mechs won't be so durable anymore. They'll then quietly go back to non XL engines.

People will actually have to play the game instead of just suiciding at the spawn point, and going into another match, and another and another.
People will actually have to do damage, spot targets etc. So it will screw over most of the afk farming that goes on in the game.

We'll be seeing more pricey mech options being fielded for the first time in a long long time as well too. Things like Ferro Fibrous mechs on non XL engined chassis. Artemis.

I also predict, that we'll probably see more ballistic weapons hitting the field as well.

[Wired]

Mavairo, on 17 December 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

My prediction.
People fitting XL engines for the first time in ages will get their engines blown off, and suddenly ''tough'' mechs won't be so durable anymore. They'll then quietly go back to non XL engines.

People will actually have to play the game instead of just suiciding at the spawn point, and going into another match, and another and another.
People will actually have to do damage, spot targets etc. So it will screw over most of the afk farming that goes on in the game.

We'll be seeing more pricey mech options being fielded for the first time in a long long time as well too. Things like Ferro Fibrous mechs on non XL engined chassis. Artemis.

I also predict, that we'll probably see more ballistic weapons hitting the field as well.

You know, XL was pretty much a standard regardless of the risks BEFORE repair costs. People didn't get shouldered to death nearly the same rate.

[Mavairo]

DirePhoenix, on 17 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Because if all you want is your one 'mech and you get it, as well as all the weapons you want for it, what then? Why would you keep playing? It no longer takes anything to upkeep it, there is no reason to keep improving*. You'll never lose it, never need to upgrade it, and no need to even maintain it. Mission Accomplished! Your game is done. You stop playing. And if you're not playing, you're certainly not paying. And if people aren't paying this game stops existing.

I already have the 3 mechs I want and love. I already also have more than enough cbills to buy new toys for them sporadically (and thus have extra toys to shunt to other chassis) I still play. I still enjoy the experience. The fun aspect for me isn't acquiring new mechs over and over again. I have 3 mechs that I dearly enjoy playing, and that's that really.

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

You know, XL was pretty much a standard regardless of the risks BEFORE repair costs. People didn't get shouldered to death nearly the same rate.

Wired, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

You know, XL was pretty much a standard regardless of the risks BEFORE repair costs. People didn't get shouldered to death nearly the same rate.

Depends on the chassis. some mechs it's a great idea (Kitty Cats, Dragons, Cicadas, and Lights) others that actually have STs that are relatively easy to hit not so much. That will be the big change, and then people will run right back to their standard engines again.