47 replies to this topic

[Targor Avelany]

I'll just say something from myself quickly in regards to intergrated comms:
1) more load on servers
2) more time spent by devs on it and not on the game
3) people still will primarely use TS

But, if it gets implemented it might get better comms to puggers and newer players.

Always two sides, huh?

[Frostiken]

Noth, on 23 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

With how easy players walk by each other without knowing on the current maps, much larger maps will just mean it happens more often.

That's the dumbest excuse to not have them ever, especially considering the current maps are entirely about ridiculously close quarters and lack of visibility. On Forest, the trees are exactly at cockpit level for half the mechs. I routinely get blinded in them and have to rely on red boxes (god help me if there's ECM).

[MechWarrior001347]

I like it like it is, join a Quick Match is realy Quick and i am Courius about the fraction Game Play, but:

I miss Brawling with Fists and Feet.
Something like MS Gaming Zone was would be Cool to pick fights.
Ad something like the Pay Save Card, i dont want to set up a Credit Card or Pay Pal Acc.

[Frostiken]

IceSerpent, on 23 January 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'll let you in on a secret - we got this idea from knowing that word "simulation" means imitation or enactment. Now the big question is where crackheads like yourself got the idea that simulator absolutely has to be "button-pushing mayhem and slower-paced"?

Imitation of what, frantic fast-placed explosive gunplay?

There's no depth to this game, and very little to Mechwarrior in general.

If you disagree, please explain where there is legitimate depth. Managing your heat is about as deep as the gameplay gets. I find it hard to qualify things like movement given jumpjets are useless (as they usually are) and the very basics of movement aren't any different from driving a tank in Battlefield, except the throttle acts funny.

Go read a Battletech novel, there's pages dedicated to playing with things besides being Mr. McShooty. Things that are not or cannot be made manifest in the current gameplay. The extent of that gameplay being "Form big blob, smash into other big blob".



Mechwarrior is as much a simulation of big robot gameplay as Call of Duty is a simulation of being in the Army. Just because headshots kill you doesn't mean the rest of it is realistic or even remotely believable.

Edited by Frostiken, 23 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Noth]

Frostiken, on 23 January 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

That's the dumbest excuse to not have them ever, especially considering the current maps are entirely about ridiculously close quarters and lack of visibility. On Forest, the trees are exactly at cockpit level for half the mechs. I routinely get blinded in them and have to rely on red boxes (god help me if there's ECM).

They aren't going to make super wide open maps. The bigger the map, the more chance of no combat happening. Not all map sizes fit with a gameplay design.

Frostiken, on 23 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Imitation of what, frantic fast-placed explosive gunplay?

There's no depth to this game, and very little to Mechwarrior in general.

If you disagree, please explain where there is legitimate depth. Managing your heat is about as deep as the gameplay gets. I find it hard to qualify things like movement given jumpjets are useless (as they usually are) and the very basics of movement aren't any different from driving a tank in Battlefield, except the throttle acts funny.

It is not as deep as the previous MW games, it is deeper than pretty much any other FPS out there.

[Frostiken]

Noth, on 23 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

It is not as deep as the previous MW games, it is deeper than pretty much any other FPS out there.

Again, explain. Imagine if Mechwarrior had the heat system removed - what would you be left with?

Pewpewpewpewpewboomexplode.

What makes Call of Duty popular is the dynamics of the game. Any single player with care packages or kill streaks can bring in something unique to the game that dramatically changes up the gameplay. It lets players feel like they're having an impact on the game, and even the perk system serves as a secondary level of countering those same features. There's a lot more depth to the game then you're giving credit for.

What do we have? TAG, NARC, and ECM, and the first two are seriously doubtful with regards to what they add to the gameplay. BAP adds nothing, Artemis adds nothing, all they do is give you little passive bonuses to something that's already in-game.

Hell, even Battlefield's weapon attachment system could be argued as adding an element of depth, as it allows you to tweak your weapons and even change your playstyle by using a suppressor.

Edited by Frostiken, 23 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[DeadlyNerd]

Adrienne Vorton, on 23 January 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

ahm, he wasn´t deaf all his life... he wrote many of his pieces from his remembrance about things he heard before he got deaf... but nice try anyway

You kinda wrote my next argument yourself. He wrote those from remembrance, kind of what I hope PGI is trying to do now. If they made MWO look like Planetside, a zerg fest, I'd never forgive them.

Yes planetside has all those side missions and a giant map, but in the end it turns into a zerg fest on a single hub. The whole implementation may be pleasing to CoD and BF masses but is not what MWO should feel like.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 23 January 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[InspGadgt]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?
2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?
3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?
4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
4) No

Graphics seem fine except for maybe being a bit dark.

Stability is fine for me as I rarely have crashing problems.

On the maps...It feels like they took all the terrain features from a map10 times bigger and crammed them all into 1 small map. Now I understand that some of that is needed to give the game more of a 3D feeling but they've way over done it.

Immersion...it is getting better but it isn't there yet. Adding in the computer voice in a previous patch was a big step forward and I suspect the new start up sequence will be as well (Haven't been able to log in yet). But it is still lacking.

[IceSerpent]

Frostiken, on 23 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Imitation of what, frantic fast-placed explosive gunplay?

Imitation of whatever one wants to imitate.

Quote

There's no depth to this game, and very little to Mechwarrior in general.

Depth (or lack of such) is subjective and is not required for a simulator - one can successfully simulate an AK-47 with half a dozen buttons and no depth whatsoever, and the result would qualify as a simulator.

[Frostiken]

IceSerpent, on 23 January 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Imitation of whatever one wants to imitate.



Depth (or lack of such) is subjective and is not required for a simulator - one can successfully simulate an AK-47 with half a dozen buttons and no depth whatsoever, and the result would qualify as a simulator.

Yet, we know that an AK-47 has one input mode, the trigger. So there's little to expect there. Yet you could still simulate different kinds of jams (failure to feed, double feed, failure to eject) and ways to clear them, and simulate the full dynamics of aiming and shooting (trigger control, not jerking the trigger, orienting the sights properly). You can even simulate different kinds of ammo and the impact they have on the targets.

Mechs are packed to the brim with technology, buttons, and the lore is jam-packed with stories about using camouflage, long-range scouting, using seismic sensors, etc. What is ECM? A magic box that provides a passive bonus to the area and praise Jesus you don't even have to worry about it beyond that. What is ECM in real life? An incredibly fragile, heavy, hot, and expensive system that operates in several distinct modes for specific purposes and usually requires someone with a full-time job to operate.

Edited by Frostiken, 23 January 2013 - 03:58 PM.

[Davers]

The Devs have described themselves as gamers. Why would you think they have not played PS2?

Large maps do not always equal more fun. I remember my first FPS- Battlefield 1942. I remember playing on large maps where I couldn't find the enemy, let alone my own team! I much more enjoyed the much smaller 'Saving Private Ryan' beach landing map. Plus, with a 15 minute time limit, how large do we want the maps to be?

[Solis Obscuri]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I went and tried Planetside 2, and you know that is how I expect this game to turn out

Why the **** would I want this game to be Planetside?

[Solis Obscuri]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.

1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?

I find it ACCEPTABLE.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?

This is also generally ACCEPTABLE for me.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?

As what? I consider them rich and detailed, and generally expansive enough for an 8v8 match.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?

Absolutely.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

Spellcheck is an awesome tool when you want to speak condescendingly to people on the internet.

[Odins Fist]

IceSerpent, on 23 January 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'll let you in on a secret - we got this idea from knowing that word "simulation" means imitation or enactment. Now the big question is where crackheads like yourself got the idea that simulator absolutely has to be "button-pushing mayhem and slower-paced"?

.
MWO: Advertised as, and I quote "A Thinking Person's Shooter"... END OF STORY.
.
MWO is "NOT" a simulator. "READ" at 9 seconds in... There ya go buddy
.

Edited by Odins Fist, 23 January 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Will3019]

SpajN, on 23 January 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

PS2 direction of mwo would mean they had to rework the entire game and make respawning possible and do a more arcade feeling instead of simulator..

Wow, my biggest problem with the game as it is now is how arcade-like it is. If it were a simulator, there would be at least a dozen analog axis, and hundreds of buttons. We're talking single pilot 100 ton nuclear powered machine networked with other mechs and outfitted with electronic warefare devices. Where do you program in waypoint series and send it to a wingman? How do you change sensor modes? What's the startup sequence for a fusion reactor? Where are all the buttons around the map that access settings pages in the cockpit? How do I change the fuzing on my missles? How do I redirect coolant flow so it's not pouring out my blown off arm? How do I duck down and look under the dashboard to see what my feet are doing in the cockpit?

DCS-style Mechwarrior. I'd love to see that, but it's not the game they're making, sadly.

[IgnisInCaelum]

Noth, on 23 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

They aren't going to make super wide open maps. The bigger the map, the more chance of no combat happening. Not all map sizes fit with a gameplay design.

Because combat happening is the whole point of the current game modes, right? Y'know, the "light 'Mech base rush always wins" mode and the "run around between points keeping them capped, hope you brought something fast" mode. Larger maps wouldn't be at all beneficial because then there might be a chance of scouts being useful, combat other than blob vs. blob or blob vs. some poor ***** who might as well have disconnected and not been replaced while matchmaking was happening (when the objectives are completely ignored, as decent folk do), etc. Things we very much don't want, right?

On ignoring the objectives: really, they make no sense at all, especially in these small maps. I tend toward Assault because it usually ends up blob vs. blob (the best of the possible situations so far, in my opinion) and there's little possibility of anything of medium class or above making any sort of base attack. It's all lights base rushing (and of course no one can catch them but other lights, who get to either base rush themselves or deal with the base rushing enemy lights) or being pests and everyone else moving to the middle for the brawl. I say "decent folk" because if one team *does* just base rush then the game's over before anyone has a chance to play it. Some people seem to think it's perfectly valid to "play" a game this way, cutting out the vast majority of it in favor of cheap "wins," but I disagree and would love to see more sensible modes and maps.

Also, if it's not clear from my perspective on how games play out, I play pub games. I'm not entirely interested in hunting down a bunch of people using my least favorite communication medium just to *really* play a game I'm not that committed to. Sure, I should be, but I'm not, so you get my opinion based on what I *have* done.

Edit: Wow, the censorship here is ridiculous.

Edited by IgnisInCaelum, 23 January 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Araevin Teshurr]

One thing I would disagree with is the 'we need maps many kilometers across'
Think about the game as it is now, are you going to have capture points many kilos away so that all the fast mechs can cap the points, while the slow assault mechs never get to the other side of the map in time to do anything? Or better yet, have heavy mechs caught solo trying to guard cap points, getting slaughtered by light mechs that can move twice as fast, and attack as a pack of piranha? No thanks.

The game is ok as is for combat, but there is still no reason to do combat. MWO just needs the other side of the game to kick in: Company HQ, Galaxy wide inter-house conflict, missions and territory.

I have the feeling that is far off in the future. My guilds chapter already closed up due to lack of interest, the guild I joined after that closed up to do lack of interest. We need something to fight for, or there is no reason to fight. I'm cool with that, will keep reading the forums for the real game release and see what it contains.

I'm playing STO waiting for MWO, it took STO almost 3 years to get good. 8-)

Peace Out!!

Edited by Relaed, 23 January 2013 - 04:57 PM.

[Davers]

IgnisInCaelum, on 23 January 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Larger maps wouldn't be at all beneficial because then there might be a chance of scouts being useful, combat other than blob vs. blob or blob vs. some poor ***** who might as well have disconnected and not been replaced while matchmaking was happening (when the objectives are completely ignored, as decent folk do), etc. Things we very much don't want, right?

Why do you think larger maps will make people not stay together and focus fire?

[Protoculture]

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

You miss the point entirely. So let me ask you a series of questions.
1) Is the game graphically in your opinion at an exceptable level?

Yes (except that I'm forced to use Thermal mode so much I rarely see it).

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

2) Is the game in your opinion at an exceptable level of stability?

No. Play for more than a couple hours and you will definitely get the 4 fps bug, a urine screen of death, a CTD, or whatever.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

3) Are the Game maps as rich and detailed, not to mention expansive enough?

They could be more detailed, and I would very much like to see destructible terrain. But having said that, the smoke/steam/fog/whatever and all the trees you can't see through and all that looks cluttered hence my comment about Thermal being the only way you can see anything.

I've seen a lot of people say they think the maps are too small. I don't. I pilot Assaults probably 90% of the time and they're slow. I think the people complaining about the map sizes are mostly flitting around in their FOTM 3L Raven.

Beo Vulf, on 23 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

4)Do you feel that the combat is immersive enough?
These are simple questions requiring no other answers other than a simple Yes, or No.

The combat itself is very good, and probably one of the best aspects of the game if not the single best; and that's important. I love the armor damage, taking out of weapons systems/ammo/whatever, if anything it could go a slightly more granular and let you take out say a hand instead of an arm etc. maybe show some more battle damage (or variations of battle damage like instead of taking the arm of just have it be molten slag hanging there). Being able to shoot pilots ejecting or something would be cool too but like I said it's very good right now.

[Beo Vulf]

Ryvucz, on 23 January 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

BETA

EXCUSE!
Just look at the industry, and compare across the board what "Open BETA" is. Call it what they will the fact remains the current level of game development is only at the level of "Alpha", or at best "closed BETA".