MechWarrior 5 is Alive!

[Jayof9s]

While I don't have a lot of trust in PGI, I am very interested in seeing a new MW campaign so I really do hope it turns out well. A successful MechWarrior game is good for the entire community.

[martian]

While I don't have a lot of trust in PGI, I am very interested in seeing a new MW campaign so I really do hope it turns out well. A successful MechWarrior game is good for the entire community.

On one hand, I hope that the campaign will be long, if possible.

On the other hand, I remember procedurally-generated missions from previous MechWarrior installments, and those missions tended to be pretty bland. Go to planet [INSERT RANDOM NAME] and destroy the objective [INSERT RANDOM TYPE OF OBJECTIVE]. The objective is protected by [INSERT NUMBER 5>x>0] Mechs. Random drops where you always destroyed some airfield, HPG station or reactor defended by 2-4 'Mechs got boring pretty fast.

[Burning Chrome]

Looks interesting and the possibilities... :)

Like several things so far...but will there be CoOp against the AI Enemies?

I hope so.  Some goofs with the timeline and a Raven running around...then again this a just a concept glimpse.

Good luck PGI.  I'm hoping you pull it off.

[The_Caveman]

XCOM 2 runs on Unreal, the mod scene is jumping. Hell, Unreal Engine 3 has Steamworks support baked in. Devs won't have to put in the effort you're suggesting they'll need to in order to support mods.

Well, that's promising then. There were several games that used UE3 where getting anything modded was pulling teeth because all content was archived in such a way that it couldn't be altered. It made patching console versions of those games a pain too because the whole multi-GB archive had to be replaced. I was told back then that the issue was an engine limitation, maybe they were wrong.

[worktroll]

Raven 1X - with the 7.5 ton "electronics gear" - dates from 3024. If the campaign covers the period, that'll work.

OTOH, it could just be "what do I feel like throwing in the demo script?"

[Empyrus]

Raven 1X - with the 7.5 ton "electronics gear" - dates from 3024. If the campaign covers the period, that'll work.

OTOH, it could just be "what do I feel like throwing in the demo script?"

A PCgamer article noted had a tidbit that the campaign cover 3015-3049.

[worktroll]

I'll put my money on a programmer working to a crash deadline, and grabbing something he thought looked cool ;)

[trboturtle]

http://www.pcgamer.com/mechwarrior-5/

PC Gamer talks to Russ about MW5....(Through CGL's Tumbler page)

Craig

[PurpleDragon]

WOOHOO!  no STEAM.   That would be a deal breaker for me.   

So, a single player game with a story to follow.  Along that lines, I'm hoping it is somewhat like the first Mechwarrior 16 color game wherein you could follow the story or not.  If you did complete the story, you could continue playing by taking new contracts, and playing out the scenarios generated.  I'm also hoping it is like Mechwarrior: Mercenaries 2 wherein you could repair and modify the 'mechs more like it's done using the Tabletop rules.   MW4:Mercs, while a good game/simulator, felt to me a little too Clanny.  You couldn't customize your 'mechs per the TT rules.  You were limited to "Spaces by type".  I really hope they don't bring that back. 

Anyway, that said, I believe this is the game I was hoping for back in 2011, when they turned it into another version of World of Tanks and dashed my dreams.  Don't get me wrong; I do like a little multiplayer co-op type play or even a little competition on occasion.  But when you make it where it's Online only, then you lose money as there are still people who can't keep internet going because of their locations or other. 

[Empyrus]

Hard-point customization actually makes 'Mechs different. With TT customization, i have zero reason not to use optimal chassis for speed X and armor Y and for optimal shape (MW4 Vengeance had a massive issues with, for example the Daishi's center torso where the AI hit so much on harder difficulties i was better off using an Atlas).
For light category, i'd just grab a 35-ton chassis because it can do more or less everything lesser ones can do. Or might just go straight to medium category.

Sure, they will have different torso twist rates and ranges but i don't find those meaningful enough.

MWO almost got the balance right between freedom and differentiating 'Mechs but not quite, a major issue there is that hardpoints don't have size limits. This leads to a situation where a small and large laser are equal in hard point value, meaning i'll pick the bigger weapon. If they were different, i could have many smalls in a HP that could hold only one large.

We can safely assume complete freedom won't happen. This is due to art limits: MWO 'Mechs have hardpoints and limits how many things can be applied to them. I highly doubt they'll change this for MW5 as it would require significant tweaking of the models.
So, you won't get an Atlas with laser battery in place of the missile launchers... Probably.

[Mech42ace]

Personally I'm hoping for no Steam release, period. I want a physical copy, if possible in a Jewel case for nolstalgic reasons.

Interesting that the campaign will cover such a broad period. I wonder what the pacing will be like? How much time will pass between missions?

[The_Caveman]

Personally, I would hope for little or no customization at all. If the game is set in 3015, custom 'Mechs should be very rare and have lots of unique "quirks" (read: mechanical problems).

Fighting enemy 'Mechs should also be a big deal in a mission, the way it is in TT. None of that "kill 11 mechs and 342 vehicles to complete this mission" crap like in MW4. Surviving a fight with a single BattleMech should be a challenge.

Although the thing that *really* drives me up the wall about this demo is the 'Mechs are way too big scale-wise. The people don't even come up to the Shadowhawk's ankle, they should stand closer to the height of its knee. These are BattleMechs, not WH40K titans. You can see Strikers in the video that are 35 tons, but are puny in size compared to the 35-ton Raven.

[Cyc]

WOOHOO!  no STEAM.   That would be a deal breaker for me.   

They only said no Steam Early Access.

[Mech42ace]

Although the thing that *really* drives me up the wall about this demo is the 'Mechs are way too big scale-wise. The people don't even come up to the Shadowhawk's ankle, they should stand closer to the height of its knee. These are BattleMechs, not WH40K titans. You can see Strikers in the video that are 35 tons, but are puny in size compared to the 35-ton Raven.

That's true... here's an example of MWO's scale issues that shows it nicely. On the left is a 55 ton tank, the height of the CBT/unseen shadowhawk, and the height of the MWO Shadowhawk... quite the difference eh?

If we want the scale of the mechs to change, now is the time to be vocal about it. I know that PGI looks at Twitter at the very least.

[PurpleDragon]

They only said no Steam Early Access.

Oh, well, if the only way to get it becomes "you must load steam to get it" I will not be getting it.  I really like Battletech and all the things related; however, I will not give a game company excuse or reason to data mine my information.  It disturbs me that so many people are ok with it. 

[pheonixstorm]

At least you don't have to worry about a scratched, broken, or lost copy of a game when using steam.

[Empyrus]

Digital distribution is the reality on PC. You either use Steam, Origin, GoG, UPlay or the like, or you don't play, not really (or you play old games, nearly all new physical releases use one of the existing platforms for authentication, GoG being something of an exception).

Also, this is the first time i've heard of Steam datamining personal information... Obviously it may gather info to the same extent your web browser and other stuff connected to internet do but any deeper? Don't think so.

I don't like information gathering at all but i know unless i stop using internet, i can't avoid that. (As it is, i use large amount of extensions for cookie and tracking preventing, etc.)

[Jayof9s]

Also, this is the first time i've heard of Steam datamining personal information... Obviously it may gather info to the same extent your web browser and other stuff connected to internet do but any deeper? Don't think so.

If you opt in they will take a snapshot of what hardware you're running in order to get a good idea of how powerful (or not) the majority of members are using.

The opt in may also allow them to get a snapshot of what software you have installed as well but I can't recall for sure on that one. So I'd actually read the agreement before taking that as the truth.

[solmanian]

That's true... here's an example of MWO's scale issues that shows it nicely. On the left is a 55 ton tank, the height of the CBT/unseen shadowhawk, and the height of the MWO Shadowhawk... quite the difference eh?

If we want the scale of the mechs to change, now is the time to be vocal about it. I know that PGI looks at Twitter at the very least.

I actually thinks they're too small. Battlemech and vehicle structure work differently. Vehicle are more condenced comparatively, with battlemechs taking much more space. If you want battlemechs dominating the battlefield, they need to have a dominating presence. People looking like ants from the cockpit, is a common trope of BattleTech. Nailing that sense of scale is very important, battlemechs should be more than tanks with legs.

And they should definitely be bigger than titans; fistbumping an Atlas should a life threatening experience.

[Hythos]

I am wondering how long the campaign is, it seems to start in 3015 but they have a lot of Clan assets in MWO, so they can in theory have it extend into the Clan invasion.

I have a play-through of MW1, in 3200+ time-line (Gideon was quite old :) )  - also, the game caps at 999,999,999 C-bills.

More than single-player only, I want co-op PVE. (My many hundreds of hours in MW1 is the reason). MW2 Mercs was great, but still single-player; and while NetMech was fair, my interests are with a persistent universe with multi-player PVE.
Personally, I've had enough single-player & PVP-style of games to not want any more, in any fashion.

[The_Caveman]

People looking like ants from the cockpit, is a common trope of BattleTech.

 :o



This is the appropriate scale for a BattleMech standing next to a human. The guy comes nearly to the knee and a Cyclops is much bigger than a SHD. Hardly "like ants". That's how it's always supposed to have been since the '80s. If you want skyscraper-sized super-robots, look to anime. BattleTech was never meant to be that kind of universe.

[Bren]

I'd say that Cyclops is a bit short for my tastes. As per the rules 'Mechs are about 12 metres tall.

[martian]

I'd say that Cyclops is a bit short for my tastes. As per the rules 'Mechs are about 12 metres tall.

Per rules, yes. But there are individual variances between individual 'Mech types. For example the Thor is one of the taller 'Mechs, while on the other hand the Ostroc is very compact and small.

[Bren]

Not that much variance. That Cyclops wouldn't be able to fire any of its weaponry over level 1 terrain.

[pheonixstorm]

That Cyclops might look short but I'm sure we could stand 6 of that guy next to it to show a good 12 meters. 2 meters would be roughly 6 feet.

[solmanian]

:o



This is the appropriate scale for a BattleMech standing next to a human. The guy comes nearly to the knee and a Cyclops is much bigger than a SHD. Hardly "like ants". That's how it's always supposed to have been since the '80s. If you want skyscraper-sized super-robots, look to anime. BattleTech was never meant to be that kind of universe.

That's one adaptation. Cyclops, IIRC, is suppose one of the tallest mechs. This representation is only slightly bigger than what I'd expect a protomech to be... At all representations of protomechs, humans arrive just about to their knee. Would you expect a 90t battlemech to be anything close to the same height as a protomech weighing 2t??? If you take an Erinyes and an Atlas that is 50 times his/her mass, I'd expect his/her height to be more comparable to the Atlas shoe size...

Point is, you can take a single non-representative art, and proclaim it to be representative of your head-cannon. You certainly have no right to say that it's the only one that is "true" and all other artwork is false, and tell anyone who doesn't agree with your view to go play something else. The earliest art of the Mackie showed it to be so big that the barrel of his main gun (an AC/5 mind you) to be several times the size of the Merkava tanks he was destroying.

End of the day, the vast majority of art depicts humans to barely reach a battlemech heel. With BAs and Protos, there's no point of depicting Battlemechs as tiny minivan-sized machines.

[Vampire_Seraphin]

I'm also hoping it is like Mechwarrior: Mercenaries 2 wherein you could repair and modify the 'mechs more like it's done using the Tabletop rules.   MW4:Mercs, while a good game/simulator, felt to me a little too Clanny.  You couldn't customize your 'mechs per the TT rules.  You were limited to "Spaces by type".  I really hope they don't bring that back. 

I think hardpoint systems are here to stay. In MW2 & mercs, there were only 1-2 mechs in each weight, so chassis differentiation was mostly about picking the only mech in that weight and using it. The modern games have many more choices at each weight. MWO has at least 5 50 tonners, and 4 55 tonners for example. Under TT rules, those mechs are all functionally the same except for appearance. Hardpoints serve to make the choice between a wolverine and a griffin mechanically relevant.

That's a good thing, because it gives different players niches to fill, and enforces some variety among your opponents as different people get comfortable with different mechs.

Weapon weight, damage, and ammo was all over the place in MW4, but the size limited hardpoints it introduced were one of its best features. By the time modders got done with it, that were around 100 mechs, and even the ones with similar weapons load outs were all subtlety different.

[PurpleDragon]

I think hardpoint systems are here to stay. In MW2 & mercs, there were only 1-2 mechs in each weight, so chassis differentiation was mostly about picking the only mech in that weight and using it. The modern games have many more choices at each weight. MWO has at least 5 50 tonners, and 4 55 tonners for example. Under TT rules, those mechs are all functionally the same except for appearance. Hardpoints serve to make the choice between a wolverine and a griffin mechanically relevant.

That's a good thing, because it gives different players niches to fill, and enforces some variety among your opponents as different people get comfortable with different mechs.

Weapon weight, damage, and ammo was all over the place in MW4, but the size limited hardpoints it introduced were one of its best features. By the time modders got done with it, that were around 100 mechs, and even the ones with similar weapons load outs were all subtlety different.

I'm not convinced it's a good thing.  It's not the battletech I grew up with.

[Maingunnery]

I'm not convinced it's a good thing.  It's not the battletech I grew up with.

The only other alternative is fixating the chassis, and will just lead to players using only the optimal chassis for each weight class. 

[Scotty]

Hey OP.  What you did with the title?  I see it.

Also Protomechs are only 1 level tall (maximum cap of call it 8 meters for the big ones) and people should be coming to the waist or taller on them.  Imagining them the size of that Cyclops (~10-14 meters, depending on the size of the guy and how far away the 'Mech is) is unfortunately just plain wrong.  Which isn't to say that you can't play them like that at your table, just realize that your table and what is published do not match up.