36 replies to this topic

[AlexEss]

This falls in to the World of Mechcraft problem.

Since this game takes place on several planets you can not just create one world and then be done with it (the WoW/PS2 approach) or you need to come up with a very strange solution to everybody and their grandma being here.

Not saying it would be VERY cool to have a few hundred fully fleshed out planets to fight over but to create something like that you would need the bloody Tardis hooked up to the office.

[Solis Obscuri]

Having played both, the difference between MWO and PS2 is that one game is a run-and-gun circle-strafing first-person twitch-shooter where "magic" future technology hands out big advantages and balance is expected to take care of itself on a team level, and the other is a sim-lite first-person combat experience on a futuristic battlefield where huge armored war machines of improbable design reign supreme.

I was surprised, though, that PS2 turned out to be all about armored combat and MWO the cheese-gear twitch-shooter...

[Vassago Rain]

Solis Obscuri, on 03 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Having played both, the difference between MWO and PS2 is that one game is a run-and-gun circle-strafing first-person twitch-shooter where "magic" future technology hands out big advantages and balance is expected to take care of itself on a team level, and the other is a sim-lite first-person combat experience on a futuristic battlefield where huge armored war machines of improbable design reign supreme.

I was surprised, though, that PS2 turned out to be all about armored combat and MWO the cheese-gear twitch-shooter...

I'm not.

[Thirdstar]

Solis Obscuri, on 03 January 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Having played both, the difference between MWO and PS2 is that one game is a run-and-gun circle-strafing first-person twitch-shooter where "magic" future technology hands out big advantages and balance is expected to take care of itself on a team level, and the other is a sim-lite first-person combat experience on a futuristic battlefield where huge armored war machines of improbable design reign supreme.

I was surprised, though, that PS2 turned out to be all about armored combat and MWO the cheese-gear twitch-shooter...

Whut you did there, I see it.jpg

[Ultrabeast]

cdlord, on 03 January 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

.......And I hate it. But it got me thinking.

Could MWO benefit from constantly in-contest HUGE maps where one can go 36v36 or even larger?

HUGE maps with several sub-zone objectives where the time constantly changes from day to night (every 4 hours or so). Where I can be in Forest Colony, crest a ridge, and be on the outskirts of River City......

Building off what I know of RVR in WAR (extensive) and PS2 (limited), this would be a viable way to do CW.

Thoughts?

The bad thing about Planetside 2, even though it's really fun, is those massive fights you're asking for lag the crap out of most people, even with graphics turned basically off and a decently fast machine, making it basically unplayable. (Low framerates)

[Acenan]

Ultrabeast, on 03 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

The bad thing about Planetside 2, even though it's really fun, is those massive fights you're asking for lag the crap out of most people, even with graphics turned basically off and a decently fast machine, making it basically unplayable. (Low framerates)

There will allways be lag in a MMO, whay you ask? beacuse one(or more) off those 150 TR charging agenst you is most likely sitting on a old laptop from the stone age with a "tin can-string-tin can" connection to the rest of the world. .

[CDLord HHGD]

AlexEss, on 03 January 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

This falls in to the World of Mechcraft problem.

Since this game takes place on several planets you can not just create one world and then be done with it (the WoW/PS2 approach) or you need to come up with a very strange solution to everybody and their grandma being here.

Not saying it would be VERY cool to have a few hundred fully fleshed out planets to fight over but to create something like that you would need the bloody Tardis hooked up to the office.

PGI could set up a random generator with basic requirements. Have the system render it randomly, then go in, clean it up, and test it. Save it as Planet X and have the system randomly generate the next one. Not as simple as this sounds, but once started, could become a good process.

[El Penguin]

Star Citizen runs off cryengine 3 and will be having around 100 players per instance. I was very hoping that Mechwarriors CW will be like this or at least 64 players. Would be very awesome if it was a huge map with 50 vs 50 with multiple bases to capture that you would have to split up your forces since the map would be huge and the round will take around an hour or over.

[ElmoWithAGun]

Netcode is already horrible as it is...what makes you think it will be able to handle 12v12, let alone 36v36? lol

[jakucha]

Mechwarrior online could use randomly generated maps when we get into Community Warfare. I can't see stock maps working if we're going to be battling for planets... unless they make a shitload which I doubt.

Edited by jakucha, 03 January 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[Davers]

I ask this every time one of these '36 vs 36 would be cool' topics come up, but I never get an answer.

Does games like P2 have an LRM equivalent? I'm talking about a weapon with a long range and indirect fire?

[xRaeder]

CapperDeluxe, on 03 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Planetside 2 is running a custom engine that is made to handle those big maps, I don't think the cryengine was similarly designed

MW:LL was a mod developed using Cryengine 2... a precursor to the engine that MWO uses (Cryengine 3).

Cryengine 3 is more advanced in all departments. MW:LL had far larger player counts than MWO does. Having developed with both engines I can say conclusively that it isn't an engine limitation that is preventing PGI from having 64 player battles and map sizes.

Instead the reason is poorly designed netcode, and PGIs apparent lack of experience with server side position tracking (which is where the lagshield comes from). WW2OL was based off a very early version of the Unity Engine and also has server side location tracking and hit detection (instead of client side... which can lead to hacks as people can modify local game files). WW2OL was released all the way back in the summer of June 2001 and they have managed to solve the server side location tracking problem.

I suspect that once PGI has solved the netcode issues they will dramatically expand the player counts and also inevitably add respawn and game modes similar to what is seen in MW:LL.

Davers, on 03 January 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

I ask this every time one of these '36 vs 36 would be cool' topics come up, but I never get an answer.

Does games like P2 have an LRM equivalent? I'm talking about a weapon with a long range and indirect fire?

Planetside 1 had artillery that could fire about 2 kilometers and that was... I think a 2005 game. It's not an engine limitation... but the back end server location tracking. So far as I know PS2 doesn't have an equivalent.

Edited by xRaeder, 03 January 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[Alcatraz968]

The idea is great. Can the Dev's do it... Only time can tell.

[Just Another Poster]

Alcatraz968, on 03 January 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

The idea is great. Can the Dev's do it... Only time can tell.

A safe bet is that the answer is no.

[N0MAD]

Just a quick question here, those of you crying about 30v30+ games, are you in a team that can field 30 players? If so why is the 8v8 loby so sparesly populated. From the sounds of threads relating to 8v8 most say we CANT field an 8 man most of the time, so whats the big deal about 30v30+ games.
Just saying...

[Ashnod]

Would be sick.

[Kaelus]

Sad is to say, I fear it might be another browser style map of planets and when you take over a planet you get a badge of +1 awesomeness and 1% reduction in price of buying energy weapons. I would be sad if this were so, but this is PGI, just gotta look at conquest to see how they took the path of least resistance. I hope I'm wrong.