605 replies to this topic

[Anastasius]

If you build it we will come....

[Threat Doc]

ShadowStriker, on 05 November 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

Maybe they should had a few missions that are orginated towards learning the game and the key multiplayer aspects?

Boy, I sure hope they do have some manner of basic training, a la MWIV.

Hawkcrest, on 05 November 2011 - 10:07 PM, said:

If you engage an enemy that has purchased equipment and they lose thier mech can you salvage it?

I think that would be awfully nice, but then if there's something that's been paid for, the player who paid gets to keep it, and the person who won actually has an opportunity at a percentage roll, a chance for you non-role-players, to see if it comes up for salvage with them as well.

Razor Kotovsky, on 05 November 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

The whole permadeath business is in question as losing something you bought for real money is impossible.

So if there will be salvage it'll magically appear out of thin air.

You shouldn't say it's impossible, especially if a finite number of iterations of the same product, before it has to be purchased again, is what was purchased. Also, other pay MMOs are paid for, right, $60 for the cover, $15 per month; are you saying their money is less important than those paying for items from an in-game store, most likely for less than the pay-player has already paid? In these paid MMOs players have already paid for unrestricted access for items and goods, and yet a death, or incapacitation, or whatever they call it remains, something is lost, whether it's a level, a piece or few of gear, or whatever other penalty(s) the game developer has called for. Players who buy from a store should be every bit as limited, and penalized, as those in pay-to-play games.

[Tempered]

Thorn Hallis, on 06 November 2011 - 05:09 AM, said:

Vast majority? I don't think so. All those ppl longing for a new Mechwarrior are those who played it online in one of the various (planetary) leagues.

Ask any game publisher and they will tell you that the majority of gamers play single player. Out of thousands of copies of the mechwarrior games sold, how many of those people did you see online in leagues? How many did you see drop in online once or twice and then disappear?

[Insaniti]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

It totally ruins gameplay for competitive clan matches. You are forced to buy gold ammo and kits if you want to even hope to have a chance to be competitive.

This is the issue that needs to be directly addressed by the Devs.  There must be a clear statement that NO aspects of the game that affect tactical or strategic outcomes must require money OR time on a continuing basis to acquire.  
Ammo shouldn't cost money/time.  
Weapons shouldn't cost money/time.
Mechs shouldn't cost money/time.
Why?  Because this prevents causal players from competing at a high-level skill-based simulation as noted by the original poster.
\I don't have a problem with a mild ramp to get access to certain mech classes or weapons, but once you've 'unlocked' them, that's it.  No further costs on a continuing basis.  The Pay2Win aspect might be a 'zero-time' ramp to get access to weapons/ammo... but once you have access (and this shouldn't be a grind), you should be able to continue using them without further 'penalty'.
Insanity

Edited by Insaniti, 06 November 2011 - 08:08 AM.

[Tempered]

kay wolf, on 05 November 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

I'm curious, where did you read that it was going to be ONLY multiplayer? I don't remember reading that anywhere, and I've read the PC Gamer article and Dev Blogs at least twice each, unless I'm just monumentally blind?

They say that there will be no single player campaign. They say that you will join a mercenary group (other players) and fight other such groups. This sounds to me like multiplayer only. I could be mistaken and there could be some type of instant action game play against bots.

Okay, here it is from the game announcement.

Quote

MechWarrior Online lets players command at will: go head-to-head online alone or with friends in high-octane Conquest and VS modes. Band together and form your own Mercenary Corp, invite friends and battle other player-made Merc Corps for prestige and power. Pledge your allegiance to one of the five great houses and fight for control of precious Inner Sphere planets.

Head to head generally means pvp.

Edited by Tempered, 06 November 2011 - 08:13 AM.

[BoldarBlood]

snowridr, on 06 November 2011 - 07:12 AM, said:

One last point - F2P means some people will be able to outspend you, and have better gear than you no matter how much you play/grind for free. Get over it. If those paying people didn't pay for the gear, there would be no game, and you all would be stuck playing mw2/3/4 till 2020.

i dont see a positive point in your posting. it just says, the game will suck for everyone who isnt willing to spend a lot of money and is ok with a low quallity of the game.

there are NO benefits for the players from F2P. even the "full server" **** isnt a real argument because of:

1. the game wont support massive battles, just small lanceplay, like a normal multiplayer game. so no benefit here, because there would be allways ppl to play online.
2. there a lot of other possiblilites to increase the playerbase in a normal boxed game, like regular weekend trials, friendincentitives and so on.

the only benefits here are for the company, not for the players.

[brraaap]

Tempered, on 06 November 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

Ask any game publisher and they will tell you that the majority of gamers play single player. Out of thousands of copies of the mechwarrior games sold, how many of those people did you see online in leagues? How many did you see drop in online once or twice and then disappear?

I actually played MW4 and 3 mercs had all the mech paks blah blah i ahve almost all the books exept the wiz kidz stuff i did play the single player stuff and i did go online i played some clan /ladder it was my intro to online gaming i do have most of the MW titles MW 2 titanium MW3 and the expansions MW4 and all the expansions i actually have earthsiege starsiege and i think before that shattered steel im a mech fanatic ive not played the BT board game i guess im not hard core but i love the MW franchise had soooooooo much fun on the game zone I would be playing the MW4 free d/l but im kinda pc illiterate and cant seem to get through the whole port forwarding thing i think i tried multi player 3052 i think it was called didnt really enjoy it I dont have much time to devote to online playing my skill level was much to be desired back in the MW3 and 4 day too where does FTP leave players like me i dont consider the time i played online once or twice and dissappear maybe i did after a couple of years though because of my skill level I was expecting to pay 60 bucks and have a fun online gaming experience but FTP kinda scares me but being the mech freak i am i will try to play

[Sholto MacLeod]

I really really really want MechWarrior to be free to play. The reason is this: I'm an old hand without a lot of money. I played MW 2. It was the first video game I ever enjoyed playing. I remember MW3 Being kind of a disappointment, and I enjoyed MW4, but wished dearly that it had been more tactically complex.

I can't wait for this game.

[R66Y]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

With regards to WOT, it doesn't ruin gameplay...for random matches.

It totally ruins gameplay for competitive clan matches. You are forced to buy gold ammo and kits if you want to even hope to have a chance to be competitive.

But yes to certain mechs, custom paintjob, or forming a full lance or even multiple lances, to form a mercenary company, extra mechbays etc etc.

I would disagree about WoT not being p2w. I find the game incredibly "grinding" oriented to obtain the tanks, and often even in random matches you can end up being effectively beaten by someones wallet when they are packing gold ammo. I'll grant you, it's not Gunbound, but I personally hate WoT's "f2p" method. It does everything to lock the game experience away from you and make it as onerous as possible to get to to try to get people to pay cash (and I consequently refuse to spend any money on their game).

Contrast that to something like LoL, where it takes only a week or two of casual playing to unlock any champ I want, all champions come up on rotation, and some of the better champions are also some of the cheaper ones, and you've got a game where money becomes insignificant. Yes, unlocking the game in it's entirety probably would take enormous time, but the amount of time to unlock any given part of the game is small (unlike WoT, where I have to spends weeks working through a tech tree with tanks I'll have to sell due to severely limited garage space).

F2P can be done well or it can be done very poorly. I'm excited to see what happens with MWO, and hoping it doesn't follow in the footsteps of games like WoT. If they do, I'll probably still play, but I doubt it will be nearly as avidly and I can guarantee they will have lost at least this customer.

[KsHowie]

F2P gives me the option of trying out the game before blowing my wad on something stupid! Enough said

[Kaemon]

kay wolf, on 05 November 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

I'Yes, one individuals perception of what is fair and doesn't grant a large advantage is not the same as another individuals perception. However, should we trust the devs to do what's right and argue about it AFTER we find out about what's available and what's not, please?

All right, you hear a noise... Perception check, everyone!

I'm saying that just because the community demands all carrots, it may not be in the best interest of said community. Most of us have no idea what it takes to run a successful dev shop (some of us do), so when we say we want DLC, unlimited cosmetics, bug/lag free gameplay oh and make sure it doesnt ever cost anything, it's unrealistic.

It's nice of Brian to say 'all carrots' but honestly I'd rather hear 'as many carrots as we can', knowing that there will be times when we won't get carrots (but maybe then it'll be cake).

It's pre-BETA, I'm all for hype and warm fuzzies, once BETA starts, it's down to business.

Edited by Kaemon, 06 November 2011 - 11:42 AM.

[Shadowmask]

I am sold and gonna play when it is out, I dun care if I am f2p all the way it's MW and it's online.

[Shadowmask]

I dun care if it's PvP and multuiplay only, as long as I can avoid facing other players until I am ready I am fine. However I may bounce between merc groups as my sense of loyalty depends on if I am having fun with the current group I am in. Also the kind of support I get, if the support is lacking and I'm not having fun I'll move on.

[Bishop L]

Shadowmask, on 06 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

I dun care if it's PvP and multuiplay only, as long as I can avoid facing other players until I am ready I am fine. However I may bounce between merc groups as my sense of loyalty depends on if I am having fun with the current group I am in. Also the kind of support I get, if the support is lacking and I'm not having fun I'll move on.

Hear Hear! Sometimes it can be hard to find a good group to play with, so I hope we don't have a big problem switching groups.

[XGhostX]

Just glad that this is finally getting done....THAT IS ALL!!!

[alaric]

If the game doesn't have solid pve & co-op I will pass F2P or no. I am an OLD school Table top BT player and have been playing MMOS since UO but from how the game has been described, to me the game sounds more like a glorified lobby system with all pvp matches (Boring).

/waits & sees before giving up on it

[Breeze]

There could be an interesting gameplay mechanic in the F2P model, if the BV idea from the boardgame is somehow incorporated. Perhaps you could buy components that impact the game, but doing so increases the BV of your mech, and thereby exceeding the allocated BV for the team. So giving yourself the advantage takes away from the other individual members of your lance, so a re-balance has to be negotiated and enforced between team-mates?

If the game is properly done, there's no way a lance of one overpowered mech and 3 underpowered ones can prevail against a lance of evenly balanced mechs.

[anditheway]

While I'm not super thrilled or...umm... "sold" (lol @ the people saying that. It's F2P ) I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now. With nothing really shown and just text to go on it's hard to say how things will turn out. I'll give it a go when it releases and find out for myself if turning it F2P was the best idea. But on a positive note, like the announcement said, since it's F2P I (and everyone else) gets to give it a go pretty much risk free.

[Bryan Ekman]

Shadowmask, on 06 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

I dun care if it's PvP and multuiplay only, as long as I can avoid facing other players until I am ready I am fine. However I may bounce between merc groups as my sense of loyalty depends on if I am having fun with the current group I am in. Also the kind of support I get, if the support is lacking and I'm not having fun I'll move on.

This can be handled by good match making. The only risk with really aggresive matching, you might find yourself without a lot players in your skill level. I've seen a bunch of models used to pair people together. In the end, a match should play well with a mix of skill levels if everything is balanced.

[Rebeldad]

As you men have related this to World of Tanks some. I pray that this developer makes a better MatchMaker. The disparity in tank tiers is horrendous sometimes.