Talk:MechWarrior Online Legends

Line Developer statement

On 20 November, 2011 BattleTech Line Developer Herbert A. Beas gave this reply to an inquiry about the upcoming game's canonicity in an official chat:

---

<Frabby1>: MW Online: Does this project have any impact on the universe development? Does it contribute new, original (as in, previously unpublished) Canon?

<Habeas2>: Frabby1 - Absolutely none. We at Catalyst Game Labs are presently under no pressure to adapt our product line and canon for the MW Online system. As ever, electronic and print games run largely autonomously, with one having no direct impact on the other.

---

(End quote) Frabby 10:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mechwarrior: 3015

i have heard that the original teaser was to be called "Mechwarrior: 3015" from several (admittedly unreliable sources), can anyone confirm this? - FellBlade 11:55, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

Incorrect. At the time of the release of the trailer, Smith & Timker said in interviews that the projected game was to be named "MechWarrior", without any addition. They reasoned that this title would mark the game as one of the MechWarrior series, while at the same time omitting the numeral would indicate a fresh start (their reasoning, not mine). MechWarrior: 3015 seems to be a fan-created apellation. It's not official. Frabby 12:25, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

"Mechwarrior 5" and Mechwarrior online

I have seen these two games (the teaser for mw5 and the ftp multi-player game MWO) grouped together very often, i find that this creates confusion for the casual observer and i personally see them as 2 separate games, if its alright i would like to separate them by creating a page for the (never made) Mechwarrior 5 (or mechwarrior 3015?) and update this page with current information for MWO. - FellBlade

Fair enough. I recommend "MechWarrior (MWO predecessor)" or something like that for the article name, because "MechWarrior" was the official title; redirects should be put in place for common fan names such as MW5. Frabby 12:25, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

Should we even bother updating the page?

Notice most of the stuff, while arguably true (sadly), isn't 100% current and the write up is pretty heavy on the opinion, not the fact. For example project related names are way out of date and mechs link to generic pages where as other games, see the Blazing Aces have way more of an actual wiki feel. --SixStringSamurai (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (PST)

By all means, if you see something as wrong, go ahead and change it; remember to be bold! Past versions of articles are always kept in the page's history, so you can't really hurt anything. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (PST)

Indeed as Bob said feel free to update and correct information, I often do minor updates to this page based entirely on what pop up on the MWO home page (Not played since about October 2014 as the play bored me to death) So maybe an active players input would be vastly more useful?--Dmon (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

I contacted some MWO fans on a forum and they might help out; we'll just have to wait and see. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Controversy Section?

An anonymous user tried addressing the "Pay to Win" aspect of the game, and that reminded me: Should we have a section over the controversy around MWO? For wikipedia articles, they often have such sections, and I think it'd be a good idea to add it in an effort to truly be neutral, as PGI has, at the very least, not been perfect when dealing with this game and its community. Let's try to not turn this into an argument, but what do you guys think of this? -BobTheZombie (talk)

I'm in favor of this idea, as I feel people should get some information on all aspects of a game they find interest in. Such a section could also be applied to MWLL, as there has been some controversy there as well, but that isn't particularly important right now.--Raven 2C (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2014 (PST)

We can certainly go back to that, but I had no idea there was controversy there. I just believe that PGI really wronged and alienated some people, so to keep the article truely neutral, we should include some level headed information about this. I'm really not an expert about what went on, so perhaps we could bring people in from both sides and get a balanced account of what happened? -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (PST)