659 replies to this topic

[Scarcer]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Hammer and Scarcer, does it not concern you that as the 2 current defenders of PGI actions, you yourselves aren't spending any money? I mean there's only 5 of us, but we all have reasons why this game is lacking don't we?

Oh of course I'm concerned; and I'm not defending everything they do but I like to find the middle ground.

PGI's prices suck; I can't defend that. They do dumb stuff all the time. Like how they plan to fix boating (don't get me started.)

Now with that said; it appears I'm defending everything they do because I like to confront existing
arbitrary/outlandish/hyperbole arguments where people lash out. While it's vain of me to attack the logic and thought process, I like it when I finally receive bare-bone arguments that are about actual details, facts, and hypothetical possibilities (without mistaking them for fact.) If I'm proved wrong, great, if not, at least the hyperbole is gone.

The last couple posts are far better, and I'm happy.

Ask me about my issues with PGI and I'll be honest.

I hope that clears up the miss-understanding.

Edited by Scarcer, 16 June 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[hammerreborn]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Hammer and Scarcer, does it not concern you that as the 2 current defenders of PGI actions, you yourselves aren't spending any money? I mean there's only 5 of us, but we all have reasons why this game is lacking don't we?

I spend money. I think only last month and maybe this one i haven't bought anything with MC. Probably will end up spending money on the Sarah's Jenner if its unique and not called Sarah. Probably will buy new cockpit items when released if they are interesting (not a huge fan of the non-Jenner mech statues which have been the releases of late). If premium time helps with CW rep gathering I might as well have a subscription.

I really only like light mechs, and since the flea has been delayed I haven't had any inclination to buy more mech bays or premium time. When the flea comes out it'll probably be 3 mech bays, maybe some patterns if I actually like it, and probably premium time to master it faster.

[ICEFANG13]

hammerreborn, on 16 June 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

I spend money. I think only last month and maybe this one i haven't bought anything with MC. Probably will end up spending money on the Sarah's Jenner if its unique and not called Sarah. Probably will buy new cockpit items when released if they are interesting (not a huge fan of the non-Jenner mech statues which have been the releases of late). If premium time helps with CW rep gathering I might as well have a subscription.

I really only like light mechs, and since the flea has been delayed I haven't had any inclination to buy more mech bays or premium time. When the flea comes out it'll probably be 3 mech bays, maybe some patterns if I actually like it, and probably premium time to master it faster.

I also used to play light mechs, but they have been messed around with too much to be effective strikers. Between seismic, weak SRMs, able to core you instantly, SSRMs always coring (and the only common close missile type because of that), we don't need mechs who can tell what direction they are being fired at (if the camera is even slightly away, then they can see being shot in the legs or back.

Game balance is my primary concern, right now, its severely lacking, and seems to get worse each patch. Putting 3rd person in, will not fix, but probably make things worse. It may add new players, but its hard to do anything in a light anymore.

I always said that I would use my skills to the extreme to still do well with a Jenner, but I can't sneak through 400m to release a spread out weak pay-load, and now I can only fire once for sure. There is no real reason to be scouting in this game either. There is no information warfare pillar. And the immersion pillar is about to take a hit. Like it or not, 3rd person will always break up immersion at least a little.

[Scarcer]

ICEFANG13, on 16 June 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

I also used to play light mechs, but they have been messed around with too much to be effective strikers. Between seismic, weak SRMs, able to core you instantly, SSRMs always coring (and the only common close missile type because of that), we don't need mechs who can tell what direction they are being fired at (if the camera is even slightly away, then they can see being shot in the legs or back.

Game balance is my primary concern, right now, its severely lacking, and seems to get worse each patch. Putting 3rd person in, will not fix, but probably make things worse. It may add new players, but its hard to do anything in a light anymore.

I always said that I would use my skills to the extreme to still do well with a Jenner, but I can't sneak through 400m to release a spread out weak pay-load, and now I can only fire once for sure. There is no real reason to be scouting in this game either. There is no information warfare pillar. And the immersion pillar is about to take a hit. Like it or not, 3rd person will always break up immersion at least a little.

Here is what IMO PGI should do.

Bump up the effectiveness of ECM 50% back to previous levels, now that we have more methods to counter them so fewer people will complain; it no longer makes friendlies invisible on the hud so most of the disorientation is gone.

Bump up the damage of LRMS, SRMS. SSRMS by aproximatly 0.1-2 points. LRMs have a better flight path, but all missiles right now are a tad underpowered. Bump up the heat created when firing missiles; this will minimize abuse by boats a little bit.

Keep Guass and PPC damage unchanged. Restore heat created by PPC's/ER PPC's back 50% to previous levels. I believe this will be a sweet spot.

Lower the heat cap; but increase the heat dissipation a little bit.

Have JJ distortion durration for 50% of the fuel capacity (or when ever they are initially fired.) This keeps some of the disorientation without eliminating pop-tarting, because it is reasonably realistic.

Implement 3PV for normal play, the camera mode is a free choice and can be changed by a bound key like any other game.
Implement Pro/Hardcore mode for those who want that only; Normal Play will not effect them what so ever. Always give a slight C-Bill boost to those who use 1PV only in any match.
Ranked/Scheduled matches 1PV only.
(I honestly think this is already what PGI is doing)
Another argument is that this will segregate the player base further, though it is going to be regardless with community warfare so I'm not sure what people expect. There is hypothetically going to be a huge increase in active players after launch.

And more:
1PV (especially Hardcore) should be completely and only 1PV; It's not exciting watching my mech fall or die from 3rd person view. I want the simulation experience of seeing it from the cockpit; so much more thrilling.

I think these changes will make the game better balanced; and make the most people happy.

The main issue PGI needs to learn from is to stop making sweeping changes to the same items knowing that they are going to stack more changes on top of it.

Using ECM as an example, because of complaints they tuned it way down which balanced it out. Further they stacked on a change by keeping friendlies visible with ECM. Next they stacked on seismic sensor. ECM is not very viable IMO any more.

Edited by Scarcer, 16 June 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[ICEFANG13]

Scarcer, on 16 June 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

Here is what IMO PGI should do.

Bump up the effectiveness of ECM 50% back to previous levels, now that we have more methods to counter them so fewer people will complain; it no longer makes friendlies invisible on the hud so most of the disorientation is gone.

Bump up the damage of LRMS, SRMS. SSRMS by aproximatly 0.1-2 points. LRMs have a better flight path, but all missiles right now are a tad underpowered. Bump up the heat created when firing missiles; this will minimize abuse by boats a little bit.

Keep Guass and PPC damage unchanged. Restore heat created by PPC's/ER PPC's back 50% to previous levels. I believe this will be a sweet spot.

Have JJ distortion durration for 50% of the fuel capacity (or when ever they are initially fired.) This keeps some of the disorientation without eliminating pop-tarting, because it is reasonably realistic.

Implement 3PV for normal play, the camera mode is a free choice and can be changed by a bound key like any other game.
Implement Pro/Hardcore mode for those who want that only; Normal Play will not effect them what so ever. Always give a slight C-Bill boost to those who use 1PV only in any match.
Ranked/Scheduled matches 1PV only.
(I honestly think this is already what PGI is doing)
Another argument is that this will segregate the player base further, though it is going to be regardless with community warfare so I'm not sure what people expect. There is hypothetically going to be a huge increase in active players after launch.

And more:
1PV (especially Hardcore) should be completely and only 1PV; It's not exciting watching my mech fall or die from 3rd person view. I want the simulation experience of seeing it from the cockpit; so much more thrilling.

I think these changes will make the game better balanced; and make the most people happy.

Although I would do a few things different, I agree that those suggestions would make the game better, most of what people say would make the game better, if they just took one of them and did it, it would probably be better (of course there are a few crazies too).

[Lavi]

Tennex, on 14 June 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

please don't put convergence back in.

Its a very vague and ambiguous/inconsistent mechanic (depending on where ur cursor is before the hit). that doesn't bring a whole lot to the table for the effort.

it wont be fun to always have to remember to put cursors at the ground near the enemy before hitting. will just be a pain in the ***

Its just not a transparent mechanic, and it adds nothing to player skill

Convergence is something this game really needs ATM.
Convergence is one factor that can ease the pressure High alpha builds puts on the players.
If I have to choose between the new heat system for boated weapons or the convergence I would choose 100% convergence
(and I'm a defender of the heat penalties for boaters, but not sure about the system our devs are trying... will have to try to make an oppinion)

[Beef Hands]

Sigh.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

stjobe, on 16 June 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Paul Inoye, July 17, 2012:
(http://mwomercs.com/...is-when-needed/)

Bryan Ekman, June 14, 2013:


So...

From "100% first-person view only" and "3rd person in the far off distance for special game settings" to "We anticipate most players will play the first mode" and "FPV being something that you use if you are a true sim-head" in just under a year.



And the thing that really has me questioning if they've completely gone off their rockers: "TT is just a guideline and not really applicable to a realtime simulation".

What happened to "we want to stay as close to TT as possible"?

Really PGI. Go back and re-read your dev blogs. That's the game you promised us and got us to spend our founder's money for. That's the game you should strive to deliver.

And Ladies and Gentleman the winner of the biggest Con of the decade goes toooo..........

[John Mechlane]

Bryan Ekman, on 14 June 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Viper69 : If we are going to be able to choose to play against people using 3PV or not to, how are you going to address the then fractured and smaller groups that then have to wait in queue for a match that meets their perimeters?
A: There will be two modes Normal and Hardcore (FPV) only. We anticipate most players will play the first mode leaving the hardcore mode for the those wanting a challenge. 3PV will be going onto test servers in the next 60 days and we’ll see how it goes from there.

At first, 3rd person was out of the question...and everyone was happy.
After that, PGI started considering the idea.... some of us felt a disturbance in the force.
So now, the new "normal" mode will be 3rd person...thank you.....


I understand that making this game is business. And if the majority of people want to dress the mechs in pink tutus, we will see that implemented next month.
We should be angry at the people who supported this idea, not the devs who made it happen.
(The only question is, did the majority of players really ask for 3rd person?)

Edited by JaniTheWeedman, 17 June 2013 - 02:39 AM.

[RedDragon]

JaniTheWeedman, on 17 June 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

At first, 3rd person was out of the question...and everyone was happy.
After that, PGI started considering the idea.... some of us felt a disturbance in the force.
So now, the new "normal" mode will be 3rd person...thank you.....


I understand that making this game is business. And if the majority of people want to dress the mechs in pink tutus, we will see that implemented next month.
We should be angry at the people who supported this idea, not the devs who made it happen.
(The only question is, did the majority of players really ask for 3rd person?)

Well, we have to be realistic here. 3PV will most likely bestow some advantages upon you that you don't have in 1PV. And the moment you get something in 3PV you don't get in 1PV, most players will change over to that mode, making it the "normal" mode, even if they were against it in the first place. And as soon as more players play 3PV than 1PV, even more players will migrate to that mode because they don't want to be left alone on empty 1PV-servers. And then PGI will rejoice and tell us "We were right from the beginning!"
You can and should blame them for even considering 3PV, but you have to blame the individual players for actually playing 3PV when it's out. Most players tend to take the way of the least resistance, meaning they will play whatever style gives them the (perceived) easiest victory. No matter if it's boating and jump-sniping or 3PV, players will use it to gain an advantage, even if the enemy has the same advantage. And that's why 3PV will be "normal" mode, even if no one will like it.

[HRR Mary]

I don't understand where PGI gets it's infos regarding "desired features". I know now though that the money I spent on this game has gone in the wrong pockets.

3PV not giving any sort of advantage? either you have the worst QR team in the world and missed the crucial points to look for (or no QR team at all, which would explain some things), or you have spent DEV time on an unimportant feature, that player will despise (in Mw4, what the 3PV users liked about it was to have advantages, not to see their mechs).

For the last time, stop muddying the waters :

- How many players are left playing that game? => My personnal friends list, with 40+ players (most hardcore fans of Btech and previous Mw titles) is now showing at best 2 players online on US time.

- WHERE are you picking up those allegedly HUGE demands for, in this instance, 3PV ? as far as I know, nobody in my entourage has received any polling mail, or feedback request.

Either the numbers are bad, and you are struggling to retain players, or the numbers are good and you are cattering to that newfound audience, communicating via a non visible way.

In the first case, ASK US which feature we would like, we have been there since closed beta, and for some, discussing mw for over 10 years. We would be happy to help make this game a success, enrolling our friends in it.

In the second case : release the info, and show us how we're wrong, and only a "vocal minority".

As for now, PGI upper echelon (marketting, direction, not the dev team) feels like conmen intend only to make a quick cash grab.

Edited by HRR Mary, 17 June 2013 - 03:26 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I, for one, welcome our new non-hardcore third-person persective gamer masses overlords that will make this game successul and prospering.

At least there is now a chance that there will be a new Mechwarrior Title in 10 years. Maybe it will even appeal to so called "hardcore" players.

---

maybe the sad truth is this:

The current numbers of players is not sufficient.
They now chase after a new audience. One that will not feel interested in this game without 3PV, and maybe one (the same, overlapping or completely different) that also has mostly low-powered gaming PCs.
It could turn out that they are chasing a myth. But maybe it doesn't matter, because if it's a myth, then this game will not be economically viable.

I know that I spend my Founder's Money and about 150 $ on this game for MC. I have used all my MC up, and I have decided to only spend money again if one of the following two happens:
- An MC sale (might have to wait for Christmas for that)
- A significant move at the game balance front.

Of course it could be I suffer a moment of weakness along the way, and buy something after all without this..

Maybe this hardcore gamer crowd is too stingy with its money, considering how small it is, if I am an example of it?

Quote

Gaureth: Regarding Mech upgrades (DHS, ENDO, FF, Artemis): Have you guys considered perhaps turning these into "unlocks" per mech instead of charging C-bills every time a player wants to revert to one or the other?This would be heaps better in trying different mech configurations without fear of spending again. You could charge a slightly larger fee to get the "upgrade", but after that the player would be free to switch back and forth between the two should the requirements allow.
A: It costs an engineer a lot of time and money to change a mech’s core configuration.

I might elieve that for Endo or DHS. But Artemis? Out go the old launchers, in go the new launchers. If the Artemis upgrade costs money everytime you down- or upgrade, so should ripping out 2 LRMs, 2 SRMs and 4 Large Lasers to replace them with PPCs. Or adding 2 medium lasers on a mech...

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 17 June 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 June 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

I might elieve that for Endo or DHS. But Artemis? Out go the old launchers, in go the new launchers. If the Artemis upgrade costs money everytime you down- or upgrade, so should ripping out 2 LRMs, 2 SRMs and 4 Large Lasers to replace them with PPCs. Or adding 2 medium lasers on a mech...

Gasp...surely you don't mean....no you could not mean a form of repair and rearm!....

[MustrumRidcully]

DV McKenna, on 17 June 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

Gasp...surely you don't mean....no you could not mean a form of repair and rearm!....

No. I am talking about a refitting fee. You can play your customized build as often as you want, and get shot up as much as you want. The client pays for that, because if he doesn't, he'll not get anyone working for him anymore, because all mercenaries are broke and without a mech, or only talking milk runs.

But you want to change something? Pay for it.

But that is purely theoretical. It is too late for the game to add something like this. Espeically if we're now after the 3PV "casual gamer" crowd.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 17 June 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[Tolkien]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 June 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

I, for one, welcome our new non-hardcore third-person persective gamer masses overlords that will make this game successul and prospering.

At least there is now a chance that there will be a new Mechwarrior Title in 10 years. Maybe it will even appeal to so called "hardcore" players.

---

maybe the sad truth is this:

The current numbers of players is not sufficient.
They now chase after a new audience. One that will not feel interested in this game without 3PV, and maybe one (the same, overlapping or completely different) that also has mostly low-powered gaming PCs.
It could turn out that they are chasing a myth. But maybe it doesn't matter, because if it's a myth, then this game will not be economically viable.

I know that I spend my Founder's Money and about 150 $ on this game for MC. I have used all my MC up, and I have decided to only spend money again if one of the following two happens:
- An MC sale (might have to wait for Christmas for that)
- A significant move at the game balance front.

Of course it could be I suffer a moment of weakness along the way, and buy something after all without this..

Maybe this hardcore gamer crowd is too stingy with its money, considering how small it is, if I am an example of it?


I might elieve that for Endo or DHS. But Artemis? Out go the old launchers, in go the new launchers. If the Artemis upgrade costs money everytime you down- or upgrade, so should ripping out 2 LRMs, 2 SRMs and 4 Large Lasers to replace them with PPCs. Or adding 2 medium lasers on a mech...

I'm in the same boat as you in a lot of ways Mustrum. I spent my $150 to show support for the project and am happy to see the mechwarrior universe get a game though the longer I see the development process grinding on the more fearful I get that this rendition of the universe might not be viable commercially.

I have been watching the Xfire stats for this game since before christmas, and back in early January accross the ~200000 Xfire users they were posting up ~120 hours of daily play. Now in June I am seeing the average at around 95. Part of this decline is probably due to the Xfire install base itself shrinking, but this is the only reliable proxy I can find for MWO player stats since they removed the counter. By this estimate the number of users is probably still growing (indeed it can only grow...) but the number of hours played daily is stagnant to declining. Not too surprising 9 months into a beta that was supposed to see core gameplay delivered after 90 days.

The fact that they have recently decided to increase machine gun range by 33% (90-120m), and damage by 250% (0.04 - 0.10 in the next patch?) indicates that they are having serious and fundamental problems getting basic balance down, and we haven't even seen clan tech hit.

Substantial progress has been made in areas like host state rewind but I'm of the opinion the game should have stayed in closed beta until a lot of these issues were sorted out. As it stands the game has blown a large part of its wow factor by going open beta in such a rough condition that it may have squandered its 15 minutes of fame with most of the gaming public.

Again, while the numbers of subscribers can only go up, the number of hours played per day or 'popularity' of the game certainly seems to be stagnating and/or declining. I contend that this decline is due to the game being over promised and so far under delivered.

Sometimes simpler is better: MPBT3025 was for those who don't know a 30MB download that had only stock variants of only 3025 technology era mechs. Matchmaking was done exlusively by having each team decide what was fair before agreeing to launch against each other in tight 4v4 combat. Community warfare was held by having to be a member of a successor state and economic benefits flowing to the side that controlled more territory giving an incentive to fight. Role warfare was even in this game in so far as you could only field light mechs along your borders, mediums closer to home, heavies within a jump of your main supply lines, and assaults only on the regional capitals. This meant that every player had to be a damn fine light pilot, yet assaults were holy terrors that could eat a lance of lights - but were almost never deployable. There was also a clear progression from light to medium to heavy to assault that this game lacks. The supposed end game content of pilot module unlocks is an interesting idea but I find it leads gameplay to be a sticky directionless morass - assaults aren't intimidating, lights don't feel eminently vulnerable. The chassis variations are visual with their functional differences blending together into a samey morass.

I hate to say it but it looks like a project that was launched as beta in summer 2001 and killed on 6 december 2001 was more full featured than MWO mercs currently is after nearly twice that time and I believe much more financial support.

Pulling collisions and implementing HSR are the two things I think the devs have done right. I propose they now need to bow their heads, cancel the clans and focus on delivering a tight compelling gameplay experience.

Edited by Tolkien, 17 June 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Sir Trent Howell]

Can we call 3rd Person View "easy mode" rather than "normal." It's a bit more accurate...

[shellashock]

Ryvucz, on 16 June 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

Configuring the game to run on low end machines makes me laugh.

It's CRYengine for.. crying out loud.

I don't see the developers of Crysis dialing back the graphics for people that refuse to update their 2005 and before machines.

I want my crisp graphics, a sky that LOOKS like a sky and not some low definition astro dome.

I understand wanting to tailor the game for low end machines, but come on, this thing has been in low definition since, well.. always.

Show us what this engine can do and go all out, make the game cry baby compatible later.

How would this help anything? This game is already suffering from low population numbers. Limiting it to only the people with the most powerful hardware possible will definitely lower the population and likely discourage people from trying out the game. Sure the game will look great, but who cares if most people can't play it faster then 5-10 fps?


Right now, I can only play at 10-15 fps max and I am happy with it, but most people I know would never stand for it longer then a day or two. Yes i know my computer stinks, but this is my current computer until i upgrade next month. Most free to play games are usually dominated by the lower end of the spectrum. User wise and computer wise I mean. Most people here right now are likely the hardcore mech warrior players who can afford to buy the best of the best gaming computers and can deal with an uptick in graphics.


However, PGI is now gunning for the more casual audiences to bring in more players and more money. These casuals are not likely to have hyper powerful computers because they are just that: casuals. They just want a game to play with a decent computer. If the graphics are given a boost, the casuals would likely complain that they cannot play this game at a decent speed and might leave.

If this game is composed of only the hardcore mech warrior players, then this game is near guaranteed to fail. I am not saying that hardcore players are bad for the game, but there is simply not enough mech warrior hard core players around to sustain the player base and to keep PGI flush with cash for development. And even if there are enough, the numbers of these players dwindles every day because of the mistakes PGI makes. The hardcore players have fond memories of mech warrior, and the majority of them probably want MW:O to be exactly as they remember their original experiences to be. IE, they want it their way or the highway (for them). You see it everyday. "Fix this or I'm leaving!", "Ditch 3PV or you will never see another penny from me again PGI!", etc. This is the hardcore player group. This is a tough crowd to please and to be honest, PGI is not impressing them one bit.

The casual players on the other hand will probably be more lenient to changes or decisions PGI makes and will still continue to supply PGI with cash for development. What we need here is a mix of hardcore players that are patient enough to wait for PGI to make the right moves and give them a great mech warrior game and are able to educate the casual crowd on how mech warrior works, and also a large amount of casuals coming in to supply PGI with cash, good reviews, and more beta testers. Right now, PGI sees this coming only through the implementation of a great 3PV and having this game work great on your average computer.

I can't give you the exact quote right now, but someone had said somewhere that PGI was gunning for the World Of Tanks crowd. This is probably the group that PGI is trying to attract. if you have seen how well optimized World of Tanks is for performance, then you would want your performance standards to be around that point too.

Edited for formatting that i was too lazy to bother with before.

Edited by shellashock, 17 June 2013 - 12:27 PM.

[WarHippy]

I would like to propose a change to the name of the two modes for 1st person/3rd person. Calling 1st person hardcore is purposefully trying to hurt that game mode by keeping most new players away from it. Most new players of any game are not going to try a hardcore mode since they are new to the game, and add to that hardcore mode in most games is normally associated with permanent loss of something in game when you die. For instance in Diablo 2 when you played in hardcore mode your character was deleted when you died. Call first person queue 1st person/cockpit mode and 3rd person queue 3rd person mode.

[RedDragon]

Or just call it Normal (1PV) and Arcade (3PV) Mode

[Sug]

armyof1, on 16 June 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

I think PGI has sucked out all the money from people wanting to play big stomping robots already, too little faith left in another company doing something similar.

Pretty much. Though $800,000 for a new heavy gear game seems like a bargain after the $5,000,000 Founder's deal.