Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Eh... MWO is not exactly... playable... after years of no balancing. I tried to go back to it recently and it took me nearly 10 minutes to find a match. Large chunks of the lobby would insta-leave over and over because, I assume, there is a huge disparity in enjoyment between the different game modes and maps. When I did get a match, the tonnage disparity between the teams ensured the fight was often boring and quick. The mechlab encourages stacking the same weapon. It doesn't feel very "mechwarrior" to me, more like a desperate grab at the free-to-play market with a mechwarrior skin.
Do not take my word for it. Try it yourself.
I would think twice before directing people to MWO without warning if they wanted MW PvP. I am too afraid it will sour their opinion of PGI. MWO was NOT PGI putting their best foot forward, by any means. MW5 definitely was. Bullock even disparages MWO in his interviews, describing the mechlab as "bloated" and "fatigueing" for new players. I assume this was the impetus behind MW5 Mercs and Clans getting radically different mechlabs.
Try Living Legends instead.
New balance patces and new weapons are getting game back to live.
Thre is for both MW5 and MWO (with HOTAS), use the search engine Luke
That's sad to hear. I used to play MWO a lot (I was a founder), and I only stopped because I got bored of the same thing over and over. Just 1-shot battlegrounds. That was fun for a bit, but I never wanted that to be the totality of my experience of "Mechwarrior" online.
I don't know if the mechlab became bloated, but it didn't seem to be when I was playing. If they decided based on that it was better to tone down the mechlab (to the point where you can't even change engine), I'm not very confident these people understand the game or the people that play it. Additionally, they decided to simplify things further for Mercenaries (from MWO) by treating all ammo crits as full for the purposes of ammo explosions (even if you've used all the ammo). Overall, I think (or thought - I haven't played it recently) that the functionality of the gameplay in MWO was a lot better in every regard.
Do you know that Clans mechlab will be more or less the same as MW5: Mercenaries mechlab?
PGI is responding to feedback from console players and casual PC players because those supply the vast majority of their revenue. There really isn't a reason to appease the table-top traditionalists. They complain a lot and are few in number. Games need to evolve to be successful and there are many in that community that reject change on principle. There is no place for that in a capitalistic video game market.
See this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mechwarrior5/comments/1dt3jnn/new_information_on_mechlab_in_clans/ Summary: Clans mechlab will likely be identical to Mercs, hardpoint sizes and all, but with omni-pods that can alter hardpoints.
PGI is done with table-top style mechlabs and, honestly, I can't blame them. It just doesn't work in a video game (not well enough to sell, anyway). Bullock gets shifty when asked what the future of MWO is. You can tell he wants to say "that game was a mess and was never more than a stopgap so stop asking". He can't be blunt because fans are emotionally attached. What he actually says is "it keeps the lights on" (actual quote from one of his interviews). Remember this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2lsZU_Y4A That project burned and put them in a hole. MWO was a cash-grab to get them out.
It might seem weird to veterans of the series, but Bullock has stated several times that the MWO mechlab was non-intuitive and tiresome for the modern gamer. He is not stupid and PGI did not alter the mechlab arbitrarily. They were never listening to the passionate essay-writers on Reddit. They were seeing a sea of console players saying "mechlab hard, me want shooty" on their Discord. They added that ♥♥♥♥-ass FPS control mode because console players are a damn gold-mine. MW5 Clans has such higher production value compared to Mercs because Mercs made a ♥♥♥♥-load of money. Part of it's success is owed to the "streamlined" mechlab.
I highly recommend you listen to the last 3 of Bullock's interviews on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@NoGutsNoGalaxy. This is where 90% of my opinion on PGI's intentions came from.
I think they can bring in engines, sensors, and actuators as swappable parts, but they need to set some tabletop lore aside to do so.
Thanks, that is equally interesting as it is depressing.
I didn't realise they'd previously failed to make a mech game, but if it didn't release, that's hardly the fault of anything to do with gameplay (I'm not suggesting you said that). Not a good way for them to start off - perhaps it would have been better if someone else had taken over at that point rather than a company with that hanging over their heads.
They could be making the wrong deductions from their feedback. I think we're in a strange middle ground, where people who are familiar with the franchise are not overly enthused because of the dumbing down (affecting review scores), but it's still much further away from the arcade style FPS shooter with robots that would bring in the casuals. Anyone coming here with that mindset would be very disappointed with this game (hence, the feedback). Also, while they are a bigger audience, there are a lot of games like that already, including plenty that cost a ton of money and fail. The problem with those types of games, is that they are so much like FPS shooters, they end up being in competition with every FPS shooter.
I see no reason why the more classical Mechwarrior style couldn't be really successfull again, but in order for it to be so they would need to commit to that and market it at the right people, namely people that like simulations or tanks. If you include every game like that, it's a big enough market to be very successful, with maybe a better chance than competing in a bigger but overcrowded market.
Just my thoughts. I'll eat what I'm given so long as it's palatable, and I'm sure mods will more or less plug any gaps related to the mechlab.
There wasn't years of balancing, there was years of not giving a f about balance.
But last years it has been actively balanced by the some kind of team of pro players. Every mech has adjusted quirks to be effective. They fight agains boating and old meta builds.
i have never seen large chunks of a MWO lobby leave, even when there were bugs that required a rejoin to fix.
the matchmaker does make an effort to balance team tonnage, but is not perfect. perhaps one game in 20 all the lights will be on one team, and all the assaults on the other.
yes, the mechlab encourages boating, as does YAML, which is pretty much the same mechlab. THIS game encourages boating. so i really dont understand why you're even complaining. i bet if i sat down and lookoed at tabletop mechanics, i'm sure i'd find they they also encourage boating.
You mean the gap that was largely caused because they failed in their attempt at Mechwarrior 5 in 2012, while holding onto the IP preventing anyone else having a go before and after? I guess we'll never know, but Harebrained Studios certainly showed some interested when they bought the IP to make a Battletech game.
Disclaimer: Everything I write here is an essay on what PGI and the new expanded audience want for the game. Any discussion of any game system is not meant to be disparaging. I will specify if/when my personal wants are revealed.
There is strong evidence that they are making the right deductions from feedback, or more importantly, sales figures. If PGI is in a middleground, they won’t be for long. It’s increasingly hard to take fans seriously when they say PGI is ruining the series. Are they ruining it for MW veterans? Sure, I could believe that. Are they ruining it as a product? Nah, not unless Clans tanks then I will eat my words. The only definition of “right” that we can have a discussion around is what brings in the most players. I cast my vote on what I want, but I won’t convince others to accept my definition of fun, nor should I. What I will do is discuss with other players what PGI might do and what we can pitch to them without contradicting past successes. We all know game developers almost never backtrack core design. Mercs was resoundingly successful compared to MWO, as shown by the huge jump in trailer quality and marketing budget for Clans. Bullock continues to praise the new mechlab and ♥♥♥♥ on the old one in interviews. I assume he sees that as a reason for success. They know YAML is popular and are choosing not to implement any of it into Clans. He doesn’t even mention it in the last three interviews with NoGutsNoGalaxy. As insulting as it might be to the authors, they see the classic mechlab as a non-starter.
Bullock and NoGutsNoGalaxy discuss how MWO’s mechlab can feel like tetris rather than mech customization to a modern gamer. https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=JlASczWNGTY&t=5514 Granularity is high. Weapons and equipment can have many sizes. Engines can have many ratings. Hardpoints are loose maximums per location. Do things wrong from the start and you run out of space, use too little space, go under tonnage, over tonnage, have poor cooling, etc. That “game of tetris” is popular with MW and tabletop veterans and likely not so much with the expanded audience. Bullock even thinks the repair mechanics of Mercs are a bit exhausting and a “tough sell” to publishers. https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=JlASczWNGTY&t=5637 Keep that in mind when considering who PGI wants to sell too. Many modern gamers have a low threshold for “inconvenience”. Juggling critical slots may have fallen into the category of inconvenience at this point. Bullock coins the term “mechwarrior werdities” risking the ire of veterans. https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=JlASczWNGTY&t=5671 He and PGI are comfortable with ignoring established mechanics from old MW and tabletop, in case anyone needs more convincing.
A base line for an acceptable level of granularity in mech customization could be Armored Core 6. The best metric I found for comparing popularity is number of reviews on Steam because sales numbers are usually private. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1888160/ARMORED_CORE_VI_FIRES_OF_RUBICON/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/784080/MechWarrior_5_Mercenaries/ Combat-wise, they couldn’t be more different, but they are two of very few games with a mechlab-type mechanic. Armored Core 6 is the only one I am aware of that has mass appeal. AC6’s customization is lower granularity than MWO’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0XNeYLppCo&t It’s highly plug-and-play and appeals to people who may be “bad at tetris” as NoGutsNoGalaxy says. You can cobble together any weapons and parts and have a usable build while risking somewhat un-optimal combinations of FCS, generators, and arms. Even overburdening your arms and legs is allowed with the penalty of struggling with recoil, walking, and landing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm0b_lNYVoU This game is, sadly, the nearest goalpost for PGI’s customization system in a world bereft of mech games. Rest in peace, Hawken.
Does anyone else think PGI will get a better reaction from veteran fans if they showcase the Clans mechlab uncensored before launch?