76 replies to this topic

[Imperius]

I will say this this first. I do consider new mechs and chassis content. However they take far too long to complete due to the insane amount of patterns each mech has to have. But the biggest downside of them at this point is over saturation. New mechs hardly provide new types of play now.

So I consider the needed content lacking in this game to be the lack of story/lore, PVE, and immersion items. These immersion items would consist of: destructible environments, dynamic weather and cockpit glass effects, music, propaganda advertisements of mechs, in game TRO that could be accessed via mechlab, and pilot development.

Edited by Imperius, 28 September 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[RestosIII]

I consider content to be game modes, maps, actual changes to FW that aren't just turning it into QP, immersion fluff, weapons, and fixing the game's mess of an engine.

[Y E O N N E]

Technically, anything that isn't a modification to existing assets is new content. "Existing assets" does not include the game itself, because then nothing would ever be new content after release.

Since I prefer a more objective view, even new 'Mechs are new content to me. They are just uninteresting new content, mostly. Every niche has been filled, and the only interesting 'Mechs left are Inner Sphere Omnis because they are the only type left that offer an unexplored set of build challenges.

New equipment, on the other hand, would create new build challenges for all 'Mech types.

New game-modes would also create new build challenges, depending on the parameters.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 28 September 2016 - 04:51 PM.

[JediPanther]

I partially think new mechs are not content. for the past year its been nothing but meds,heavies and *** mechs. Not one light mech is or clan so i'd consider any new light to be new content. What this game needs is one hell of an engine upgrade or straight port to newest cry engine. It runs like Krap even on newer systems. Crytek as a free version of cry engine out and I've started to learn it.. It won't make me a game designer but it'll be something I have an interest in as far as character animator.

I dislike pgi's maps a lot. The FW maps are horrible with moba choke points limiting any thing but snipe and brawling. If you count the long tom as a weapon it is the newest weapon in game in years since the clans were added. I don't count one time use things as a weapon despite them doing damage and triggered by a player's input.

New mechs really don't do much any way since there are three basic weapon types in the game. Mechs only look different and have more or less space for weapons and ammo. You can fire laser,ac, or missile with nearly any mech in the game.

[Gen82]

On the upper end of the scale - new maps. new weapons (since this introduces a possible new play style). Fixed or new FW.

New mechs are lower down on the list as often the weapon loadout dictates how you play it, though they are still new content.
Reworked or new game modes are lower down the list also as winning favours playing everything as simple TDM.

[FupDup]

For me, I would honestly prefer to see the existing content (e.g. gundams and guns) more polished/refined rather than adding more bloat to the mix.

[Imperius]

FupDup, on 28 September 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

For me, I would honestly prefer to see the existing content (e.g. gundams and guns) more polished/refined rather than adding more bloat to the mix.

That's a toss up to me. I don't think they can improve the current state of the game past what it is. So a new engine would be the only way to get that polish feel. Otherwise polish would have been happening over the past 3 years and it has not happened.

[FupDup]

Imperius, on 28 September 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

That's a toss up to me. I don't think they can improve the current state of the game past what it is.

They can, they just don't want to.

[Imperius]

FupDup, on 28 September 2016 - 06:28 PM, said:

They can, they just don't want to.

I'm not going to argue that's not true. I just don't understand how a game looks better in beta and worse out it. Sure maps are looking better but 12 v 12 did its damage. They can't expand without losing more FPS it seems. So I'm going to say it's stuck where it's at. 8 v 8 would be a lot less CPU draw calls in the game. That is the only option I think that will increase performance at this point.

[El Bandito]

I'd be happy if the FW mattered more. After all, the prospect of roleplaying as a House/Clanner is what drove me to play the game in the first place.

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 28 September 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

For me, I would honestly prefer to see the existing content (e.g. gundams and guns) more polished/refined rather than adding more bloat to the mix.

I'd consider Iterative balance a feature


A feature long neglected.
Even better if it were competent changes!

[Imperius]

El Bandito, on 28 September 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

I'd be happy if the FW mattered more. After all, the prospect of roleplaying as a House/Clanner is what drove me to play the game in the first place.

What's the difference between rolepaying against AI? At least AI doesn't quit the game and is always on to fight. Never had to search 30 min for an AI fight.

[El Bandito]

Imperius, on 28 September 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

What's the difference between rolepaying against AI? At least AI doesn't quit the game and is always on to fight. Never had to search 30 min for an AI fight.

The difference is the amount of resources and know hows PGI needs to gather for a competent AI in the game. Considering the amount of variables in this game, I sooner believe cows can fly before we get a decent 12v12 Coop vs. AI mode.

[DaZur]

Content =/= Anything new that is not derived from and existing asset.

One could argue that a modification of an existing asset begets something "new"... and they would fundamentally be right.

The line in the sand is when there's an intrinsic "value" assigned to something.

In short, if it's free and it's something derived from an existing asset it's content. If I pay for it... It better be "new".

Edited by DaZur, 29 September 2016 - 07:19 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

DaZur, on 28 September 2016 - 09:55 PM, said:

Content =/= Anything new that is not derived from and existing asset.

One could argue that a modification of an existing asset begets something "new"... and they would fundamentally be right.

The line in the sand is when there's and intrinsic "value" assigned to something.

In short, if it's free and it's something derived from an existing asset it's content. If I pay for it... It better be "new".

this ^^^

[Vellron2005]

Yes, new mechs are content. Sadly, I agree that new mechs, a this point, provide only one thing - PGI revenue.

They don't add to balance, they don't add to the gameplay, they, don't add to anything other than being a "new shiny of the month".

There's no thing at a new mech can do that an old mech could not.

We don't need more mechs.

What we do need is a serious, quality laden, fluffy, lore-full FW. We need more maps, better game modes that don't all add up to "skirmish", we need more immersion, not only in items but in the little things - descriptions of stuff, the why and the how of stuff, and generally more things to read about or see and go "wow, so that's why my mech does that".

Plenty of ideas in the feature suggestions, (many added by yours truly, and some other highly creative forum folks). Just read the forums and you will find them.

So please, make us FEEL like Mechwarriors in the Battletech setting, not just like we're playing a shooter game and want to buy a mech pack.

Here are some things you, PGI has done right and could build on:

1) Daily faction missions - Special rewards for doing special things that day, by order of the faction leader - this was great, why did it stop?

2) Introduction of "Battletech celebrities" - I've freinded Joanna of Jade Falcon, and fought against the Bounty Hunter - This is great! I don't know if you sponsor people to play those accounts or not, but Its nice to see them on the field - one remark however - They need to take more active roles.. If I'm playing under Adam Stainer, I would like him to take the lead, and use Voip to tell me what to do. Not rush headlong into the enemy and get pummeled. (hypothetical situation)

3) Cockpit, cockpit monitors and kill counter - these were great additions to the game, and have made me feel more immersed. Good job. Especially in some mechs, I can already know exactly which button on the dashboard powers up the mech, its sensors, and weapons. (Atlas in particular)

4) Dropship "drop off" on begining of match - Added to immersion greatly. I suggest you build on this, by making our mechs "walk into" a map on some maps at full throttle and then stop, and walk out off a downed Union dropship or actual mech bay on other maps. Maybe even a nice orbital jump..

5) Decals - Also a very nice addition. You tried, but are, in my opinion, still just short of the mark. You should make it so we can stick basic shapes over more mech surfaces, perhaps painting the mech in our own custom-created cammo. Also, you should let the most prominent in-game units like Mercstar, 228, 12th Donegal Guard, CWI and others send you their own custom decals, and then offer these decals.. naturally, only if the pilot is a member.. Also, decals MUST be cheaper

6) Pilot models actually pilot the mech - I giggled like a little girl when I saw this.. The pilot model responds to my contols and inputs, and the mech moves accordingly - Super immersive! My suggestion is to let us customize the mech model itself, and to make it more distinctive from faction to faction, not jus Clan vs. IS..

7) Destructible columns on Crimson Strait: I once again giggled like a girl in glee as I saw the steel mesh showing, and peices of concrete falling of after a nice balistic shot..Please add more of this on all current and future maps.

8) Climbing into mech in the academy: One of the things that made me a happy camper in this game - you showed me the ability to make this game fluffy.. Please, like you added the droping from dropship animation to some maps, let us start on some maps, by actually climbing into out mechs.. it would be super immersive!

Things that kill immersion in MWO:

1) Assault game mode: I know you guys are working on this, and I hope you do it right. Assaulting something should be asymmetric, and we should be assaulting something more important than a command vehicle surrounded by laser markers..

2) FW planets: I know you've made alot of planets on the map. But please, PLEASE, add (make up) some distinctive descriptions of planets, add a little history, add a little lore.. this way, they all look the same to me

3) FW Maps: Its just silly that to win a planet, I can invade a base on it's snowy region, and then a base on its moon, clearly orbiting a giant blue star not present before, and then visit a little borg space that looks like a different planet entirely.

4) FW planet value: Right now, most or all planets are the same, and you only get a little MC for having your tag on a planet. Planets need to be strategic targets, with some having more and some less value. Make them reflect that.

5) Domination game mode: This particular game mode makes absolutely no sense. Its purely arcade, and such a battle would not happen on an actual battlefield. It would be waaay better if it was asymmetric with one team having to hold the antenna while an important message was broadcast, and the other team having to destroy it. This way, its just time-dependant skirmish.

6) Poor game mode descriptions - This has been a sore spot of this game since the beginning. I've tried to introduce new players into the game. Most were confused about game mode rules, and could not find any explanation of this in-game. New players are rarely interested enough in this game to go to the academy and learn how to play. Nobody wants to take a training-course to play a videogame. Such simple things, like game mode rules, should be self-evident, and their descriptions full of lore, fluff, and the how and why you are doing what you are doing. This has recently improved with the addition of Adams explaining stuff. But QP still does not have this.

7) Sized weapons: Why does a PPC look huge on a Mauler, and tiny on a raven? I'm pretty sure it should not work that way in real-life. So why is it like that in MWO?

8) No hardpoint selection: I'm pretty sure that if, as a Mechwarrior, I want my mech to use it's highest slot for the single weapon I put in the pod that can hold three of a kind, my technicians should be like "no problem boss".

9) No out-of-drop immersion: The clan invasion is on, right? So why didin't I hear about it in the news? How will I know which unit to join if I can't see it's achievements, and read-up on its lore?

10) Lack of an economy: No black market, no brand name items, no ability to buy an empty chassis, or a pre-customised chassis.

11) Field testing: Why can't I test-drive a mech before I buy it? I can test drive a car! Let me customise a mech, and field test it before I buy it! How else am I to judge if it will suit my piloting style?

12) Horrible, low-description skill tree wich makes no sense: Please, add a better skill tree, and lots of descritptions of every item in it.

Sorry for the long post.

Here's a text of a potato:

POTATO

[NeoCodex]

Very simple.

1. More maps and environments
2. New technology and weapons - actual gameplay
3. Updated skill tree
4. Solaris game mode or a brawl, fun game mode with respawn in small arenas. Basically like MW4 DM or Solaris. Key difference: smaller maps FFA game type (no teams)

That's pretty much what comes to mind first, what I actually want. Besides that there are smaller QoL things like:

5. Loadout hardpoint fix, let us choose where exactly we place our weapons

Edited by NeoCodex, 29 September 2016 - 03:45 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

NeoCodex, on 29 September 2016 - 03:45 AM, said:

Very simple.

1. More maps and environments
2. New technology and weapons - actual gameplay
3. Updated skill tree
4. Solaris game mode or a brawl, fun game mode with respawn in small arenas. Basically like MW4 DM or Solaris. Key difference: smaller maps FFA game type (no teams)

That's pretty much what comes to mind first, what I actually want. Besides that there are smaller QoL things like:

5. Loadout hardpoint fix, let us choose where exactly we place our weapons

This is very close to my feelings as well.

"Content" is just a matter of drawing the line somewhere. When people complain about lack of new content it's mostly about getting new experiences, I think. For example, if PGI changed all weapon values and jump jets and quirks to perfection, it would be a huge improvement in the game, but it wouldn't be new content. A new mech would technically be new content, but new mechs rarely offer significantly different experiences at this point, so I don't consider them new content anymore, except as a technicality.

New decals are new content, but don't' offer a new experience. Supply caches are new content, but don't really change the MWO experience significantly.

New maps are new content, and have something of an impact on the MWO experience, but with so many maps in the game already, their impact is increasingly small. Each new map creates a smaller and smaller addition to the pool of maps, percentage-wise.

Game modes are very important new content, if they offer new experienes. Domination is not a very new experience, it's just team deathmatch with a big circle instead of two squares or five squares. Skirmish is nice, but not really that different from Assault. A new game mode like Convoy escort, Commander headhunt or Capture the Flag would potentially offer a completely new way to play MWO, so that would be very valuable content.

New tech is in the same category as game modes. Potentially changing the MWO experience, but not necessarily. (e.g. melee would be huge, IS ER MLs would not be huge)

Solaris and PVE are at the top of the list.

[Bud Crue]

There is new content and new substantive content.
The former can be anything: look we now start the match being dropped from drop ships. Decals. Map is now prettier. Etc.
The later is where the game play is at. It is changes/content to the game that forces you as a player to adapt to it.
i.e. the new content forces you to do something new.

I'm all for lore (though I have given up on PGI ever caring about it). I'm all for making things pretty and making things perform better. That isn't new content that will make the game play better or different. It might add to immersion or increase my aesthetic appreciation of the game but that's it. Its more akin to a new coat of paint on the wall vs a new addition to my house.

New substantive content to me are mechs or weapons that are truly unique in configuration and capabilities (for good or ill) over what currently exists. Maps that require time and effort to learn and use. Modes that make me learn a new way to play. etc.

While a fresh coat of paint is always nice, it is the later more substantive new content that will make the game and its long term players grow and keep playing (and spending).



As an aside I think this is why PGI keeps mucking with core game play mechanisms. It is a way for them to make the game "change" and feel different. To them that is substantive new content, but to the players it feels like 4 years of them not knowing how to code the game.

Edited by Bud Crue, 29 September 2016 - 06:00 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Content is just stuffing.

Once the features are added that allow say camo swapping and the decal system, adding new camos, decals, mechs, variants and maps, are all content.

If single player would be added, it would be a feature and likely come with many new game features such as gameplay modes and likely contain new content as well, ie maps for said game modes.

Edited by Ghogiel, 29 September 2016 - 06:10 AM.