I was browsing the SF2 forums and found this:
http://www.skill-specialforce2.com/

I Think this is the European version of Soldier Front 2 but dedicated to Europeans.   
...but if they are gonna make SF2 separate as NA and EU then we will not be able to compete with each other.

FlamingBear wrote:

I was talking about MWO. Its hard to run. I did just try hawken and i cant run it either unfortunately. but i does look good

Well we got a predicament...undoubtedly I want to get into one of these mech fighting games.....the question is which...or both.  It is like the World of Warplanes or Warthunder predicament...same types of games, possibly different styles, same release periods, different communities.  

According to a bunch of reviews I've read Mech Warrior Online is more "realistic" and they compare that to the likes of ARMA or such.  MWO is supposedly more detailed in customizations and stuff (almost no two mechs are alike).  MWO is more for the "hardcore" mech gamers and has a more hardcore background for its base.

On the other hand...hawken is more fastpaced and is compared to the likes of BF3/COD (Yes BF is fast paced itself, at least 3 is).  Hawken is for the more "skilled" gamers (the MWO base probably won't admit that though).


I haven't played MWO yet but its community looks bigger or at least more active/dedicated--its forum (a common metric I use) has like 8x more posts on it than the hawken forums.  (2.4 million posts vs 282,000 posts).  But I wouldn't say MWO has 8x the player base; according to regulars its about even.





Yeah death I'm afraid we cannot have both squads, well it wouldn't work out as best as it could.

I have been a big fan of the mech warrior universe for a while those games are really tactical and require the use of light- super mechs to win its good. i havent played hawken so i cant give you a fair decision but id go MWO probably. Mech games are really dun if anyone hasn't played them. my first was mech assualt 1 and 2 which are made by the same people that made MWO and mech warrior 1 2 3 and 4

Im enjoying Hawken quite a bit (though I still suck at it). in no way is it pay2win, all mechs and items can be bought with ingame credits and they dont seem to be hard to get, the only things that can only be bought with cash are aesthetic items, paintjobs and different looks for the mechs. Another nice thing is you can change mechs, items AND ingame settings while INGAME! OMG who wouldda thunk it, certainly not slEASYz.

Also upgrades are not OP. Internal upgrades (think weapon attachments) offer slight buffs in an area but also come with a drawback. And optimization points (skill tree/training points) offer VERY slight benefits that can add up, but dont add up so much that you get completely owned by someone of a higher level. Like bronx said its a skill based game which is very refreshing compared to P4F.

The only real drawback which Flaming pointed out it can be a graphically intense game even on low, so this may rule out some people depending on their rigs (also Flaming, go into your options and turn things down if you havent already, itll help)

Im all for Hawken being one of our next supported F2P games, I'll hopefully try out soldier front 2 sometime this weekend aswell (though I'll likely be out of town for atleast a day)

Maybe we should look at something like this, Play out P4F for the rest of its life cycle (which we were planning) and pick up 2 games in the F2P division, Hawken (probably) and another less graphically intense game, and see where this gets us.

FlamingBear wrote:

I have been a big fan of the mech warrior universe for a while those games are really tactical and require the use of light- super mechs to win its good. i havent played hawken so i cant give you a fair decision but id go MWO probably. Mech games are really dun if anyone hasn't played them. my first was mech assualt 1 and 2 which are made by the same people that made MWO and mech warrior 1 2 3 and 4

Well, MWO apparently has the steeper learning curve.  What do you think of the slow-paced, more-strategic based gameplay of MWO to fast-paced, more skill/tactics-based gameplay of hawken (in general)?


EDIT: Shady, nice to see you tried out hawken, fellow pilot :)Yeah Hawken apparently has the  most generous business model of any online. My callsign on Hawken is thebronxbomber if you guys want to add me
EDIT #2: Soldier Front II or Warface will probably take up that less graphically-intense game for FP division.

added you bronx, mines ShadyCharacterr (with 2 R's) for everyone else

I will definitely try MWO and Hawken when I get the chance. they look very cool  

... and I agree with shady's idea of playing out p4f but picking 2 games for F2P division

the problem is bronx that alot of people will leave, becouse a lot of them dont like mech games (one of them is me ) just saying but it is for the clanmates to decide

bebris wrote:

the problem is bronx that alot of people will leave, becouse a lot of them dont like mech games (one of them is me ) just saying   but it is for the clanmates to decide

Bebris, as we've been discussing, those aren't going to be the only [types of] games the FP division will play. Most likely we are going to get into a standard modern-fps like Warface or SF2

or LoL! Im not the only one anymore! haha

Stop brainwashing people...

I do prefer more stragic gameplay over the gun and run, and thats a down fall to MWO it is a pay to win platform but its not as bad as P4F. and shady i couldnt even get to the options it was running so bad :/. im gonna try SF2.

FlamingBear wrote:

I do prefer more stragic gameplay over the gun and run, and thats a down fall to MWO it is a pay to win platform but its not as bad as P4F. and shady i couldnt even get to the options it was running so bad :/. im gonna try SF2.

Well I don't even know if its more strategic per se, but apparently these are two total different types of games. MWO is a simulator mech game sort of while Hawken is more like a FPS

Bronx, is there a conclusion as to what titles we'll be managing so far?

From what I can tell, Warface/Sf2, Hawken, and maybe World of Warships.

thebronxbomber wrote:

FlamingBear wrote:

I do prefer more stragic gameplay over the gun and run, and thats a down fall to MWO it is a pay to win platform but its not as bad as P4F. and shady i couldnt even get to the options it was running so bad :/. im gonna try SF2.

Well I don't even know if its more strategic per se, but apparently these are two total different types of games.  MWO is a simulator mech game sort of while Hawken is more like a FPS

Wed probably get more recruits for hawken then.

After trying SF2 its a decent game i run it about 2-5 fps in a full server sadly. I do think the training mode is cool though, you can add the bots were you want them and whole bunch of stuff.

What about AVA guys?

Probably Hawken right out the bat.  I don't know, flaming, Hawken has 10x less forum posts (not that its the only thing).  But the Hawken community is really pleased with Hawken's payment system.  It's for aesthetics and such.  MWO on the other hand can cost you $10-30 for a new Mech.  


And then SF2 right after that (still don't know what we will be doing with 2 different versions of the game) and then Warface when that comes out.


I want to get into World of Warships and WarThunder/World of Warplanes too.  Will fit well with the new clan name



And lol no flaming, that's already been discussed earlier in the thread--it's pretty old.

Damn, I'd join Hawken, Soldier Front II, Warface, and WarThunder.

In the discussion of World of War, wouldn't WarThunder suffice with the aerial, naval, and ground element? After all, you'll be able to play with all three combat forces in one game, whereas in the World of War franchise, you have to play three separate titles to play a separate combat element.

In addition, I'd still be interested in Planetside II in the future, where the Playstation IV will support the game.

Well it could but WarThunder doesn't have its fleet or army components out/ready yet. I think the World of Warships for the naval element looks/will be better than its counterpart in WarThunder though

I am downloading PS2 right now

Lets just face it i need a new rig  

Not the only one :/

The majority of people have concluded that War Thunder is a lot better than World of Warplanes. I don't think it'll be able to beat the gameplay of World of Tanks or World of Warships, though, so World of Warships should be considered right when it gets into an alpha/beta phase with clan members participating in them.

I just think we didn't get into PS2 because of the poor effort that was put into recruiting and playing (we barely had any members of the squad show up to practices).

I tried Hawken a while ago, but I didn't like the gameplay of it very much. Maybe I'll have another go at it since you're all playing it now

Well the fact that War Thunder will include all three types of warfare (Land, Sea and Air) it will be a much larger battlefield on a massive scale. Sure, he gameplay in World of Tanks and World of Warships will be better than the corresponding War Thunder part, but the fact that you'll have three (hopefully together) makes it awesome and means there'll be a lot of possible recruits. That is unless War Thunder is actually three separate types of gameplay in which I will be disappointed.

Why don't we just create squads for MWO, Hawken, Soldier Front II, Warface, World of Warships and WarThunder/World of Warplanes. Then whichever squads succeed we keep and the ones that don't we can get rid of. Not sure if this would work just an idea.