592 replies to this topic

[fil5000]

Stormwolf, on 23 July 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Those are the bare bones of what goes into a mech once again, the real difference here comes with level 2 tech. The standard AC was pretty much made obsolete with the coming of the LBX and Ultra variants, but it still has merit in era approriate games. Selecting a era you like is currently one of the strengths of the TT.

Anyway, there have been many suggestions for targeting at range that don't allow for pin point accuracy. But I guess that people just can't get the old fashioned shooters out of their heads.

Your mech is supposed to have a targeting system that allows you to lock on to a enemy and somewhat helps you with aiming. Here you can implement the long, medium and short range brackets that all weapons are statted with. It would also make the actual targeting computer viable.

Yeah, I wasn't being pro or anti convergence/cone of fire or what have you here, just that in the current state of the game where we don't HAVE any of those things, there's levers that PGI could be using in terms of weapon weight and size to balance them. Remaining shackled to the TT weights and sizes isn't useful.

[Rappo]

This game is beyond saving. Just asked for my refund for Phoenix.

Words can not describe the stupid that must be going on behind closed doors at PGI.

[Deux]

#1 Tactics (does grouping up and all mechs rush the cap a tactic?)
#2 The ability to team up with or against friends (translation: i want to sync drop with 7 other buddies to rofl-stomp pugs.)
#3 Realism/immersion (what immersion...drop randomly, fight, win/lose, collect cbills drop again, there is no immersion,there is nothing to fight for at this time.)
#4 Salvage and the need to shop for 'Mech parts (this would be awesome,but so much harder to do as you would then have to calculate how much damage x-mech did to y-mech and how much salvage they would get)
#5 Complex damage models (broken splash damage, CT-seeker Streaks, underwhelming damaged-suffering-criticals implementation, poor heat penalty implementation)<---agree with this.
#6 Highly detailed control schemes (A lright)
#7 Special effects (PGI's art team has done a damn fine job)
#8 Ranked play (meh ranked play doesnt interest me at all? ELO anyone??)
#9 Ease of access for new players (ouch, guys, really? ) (a big problem, gotten worse)
#10 The ability to command AI 'Mechs or vehicles (its mechwarrior online, not tank commander online,sorry if you want to drive a tank there is a game for that.)

[Talrich]

I can't make it, but best of luck to you all on having a fun and productive discussion.

[GaussDragon]

Deux, on 23 July 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

#2 The ability to team up with or against friends (translation: i want to sync drop with 7 other buddies to rofl-stomp pugs.)

Rather, people want to team up and have lobbies so that they can choose worthwhile opponents instead of steamrolling hapless pugs who present no challenge.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Stalkerr, on 23 July 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

Hey everyone,

Just a short update right now, as I plan to post a larger update later. We have had an INCREDIBLE response so far, with nearly 30 unit, league and community reps signing up for the #saveMWO panel, with these folks representing multiple thousands of Mechwarrior Online players. This is a thing, and you are part of it! If you aren't part of it, it's not too late to join in!

I'm really looking forward to 9 PM EST, this Thursday, because whatever else we accomplish, MWO has never seen this many diverse groups come together for a single purpose (other than shooting robots, that is). Thanks, all.

Add me to the list as a panel member.

[Lord Ikka]

@ Stalkerr, you can add me as a panel member representing the 9th Sword of the Dragon regiment of House Kurita.

[MechFrog1]

Rappo, on 23 July 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

This game is beyond saving. Just asked for my refund for Phoenix.

Words can not describe the stupid that must be going on behind closed doors at PGI.

I don't believe the game is beyond hope, or else I wouldn't be here. I do however think there needs to be a coordinated community response to current trends or we risk the game sputtering to a premature halt. There has been a systemic and deliberate breakdown in the lines of communication over the past 6-9 months, with PGI filtering information through a few select sources, and limiting input from sources other than a chosen few. It has lead us to a game that is less fun to play than it was a month ago, two months ago, etc.

If nothing else is accomplished from this town hall, it will be a proof of concept that we as an MWO community can speak with a unified voice in order to save the game we love.

Good luck and happy hunting.

[Chronojam]

Rappo, on 23 July 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

This game is beyond saving. Just asked for my refund for Phoenix.

Words can not describe the stupid that must be going on behind closed doors at PGI.

It's been great playing with you, Rappo. Hopefully PGI can prove you wrong and we can drop together again sometime in the future.

[Victor Morson]

I think it might be nice if the OP were to drop Garth a PM (I have no idea if he'll get it) inviting him to this event, even as just an observer. I think it would be very constructive for all parties if the community manager were to be present as such a milestone community event, to hear the feedback and discussion within.

mint frog, on 23 July 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I don't believe the game is beyond hope, or else I wouldn't be here. I do however think there needs to be a coordinated community response to current trends or we risk the game sputtering to a premature halt.

I absolutely believe MW:O is savable. The main reason why, too, is that the problems we're seeing aren't due to incomplete game design, technical problems, or budget constraints but rather overly elaborate (and bad) systems being added where a few number tweaks are actually called for.

I honestly believe that almost every problem we have could be on track literally overnight, and ironed out in under a month if they were to step up in this regard.

It's also the main reason I've campaigned more for change in this game than any other, because greatness is literally a few numbers away. If they'd only tweak them instead of writing new ill-thought out code, we'd have one hell of a great game!

Some games problems are too deep to fix, but the only systems I think are non-salvageable are the ones most recently added. Our deeper problems need about an hour a week of tweaking some database numbers until everything settles in, nothing more.

EDIT: This is the first time I've ever seen a situation at this level. Usually there's enough wrong with a game to make me walk away, or enough right to make me overlook flaws but MW:O is hovering on just a few stat changes away from being really awesome if they'd get back on course.

Edited by Victor Morson, 23 July 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Oh PS: I'd like if the meeting broke down to two different types of changes:

Surface Changes - The stat tweaks. Changing refire rate, heat, velocity, terrain angles - all stuff that can be initially done in minutes before gameplay testing, and that could easily be accomplished without costing PGI a lot (in Programmer time.)

I'd argue removing systems falls into this category too, like Arm Lock and the boating heat system.

System Changes - Changes to mechlab, mech quirks, convergence, etc. Things that might take more work but ultimately still be in the realm of possibility for a small crew to adjust without derailing PGI's overall plans.

.. I think it is important to have both solutions readily available, as they may be far more likely to try the tweaks first (and that may be enough to sort out 90% of our problems in the process.)

[Victor Morson]

Stalkerr, on 21 July 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Why are goons doing this? Because we listen, and we've seen tons of folks crying out for change, and honestly that change has not come yet. Those who know me know that I care about people and this community, so this is your meeting MWO players.

One thing I'd like to say for those people on the fence is no matter your opinion of goons (Much of their negative reputation is honestly based on myth more than fact), these guys really do care about the game... and more than that, they understand it well. Even an inexperienced goon pilot is going to be equipped with the best stuff in the game, and their upper tier will always strive to find those good combos.

Really there's few units better qualified at understanding what makes things tick than WoL. So if you are someone out there on the fence because this is being hosted by goons, put that aside and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Victor Morson, on 23 July 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

I think it might be nice if the OP were to drop Garth a PM (I have no idea if he'll get it) inviting him to this event, even as just an observer. I think it would be very constructive for all parties if the community manager were to be present as such a milestone community event, to hear the feedback and discussion within.

I think it would benefit almost everyone on PGI's team who is involved with game design and the community to attend as observers. They need to see that the competitive community, while a relatively small part of the player base, is a pretty big friggin "island".

For Word of Lowtax: I understand this will be a moderated event (I'm guessing a similar format to the VCRS round table podcast). Please use your ability to shape people's emotions and opinions for the good of the game (I believe that's your intent). If this degrades into a random internet poo-flinging contest, it will be time and energy wasted.

I sincerely look forward to listening to the recording once it is posted (I'd be there, if it wasn't smack-dab in the middle of my work day).

Edit: added the "island" bit.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 23 July 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[JadeRaven]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 23 July 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

I think it would benefit almost everyone on PGI's team who is involved with game design and the community to attend as observers. They need to see that the competitive community, while a relatively small part of the player base, is a pretty big friggin "island".

For Word of Lowtax: I understand this will be a moderated event (I'm guessing a similar format to the VCRS round table podcast). Please use your ability to shape people's emotions and opinions for the good of the game (I believe that's your intent). If this degrades into a random internet poo-flinging contest, it will be time and energy wasted.

I sincerely look forward to listening to the recording once it is posted (I'd be there, if it wasn't smack-dab in the middle of my work day).

Edit: added the "island" bit.

The offer is there. We know some will be there. We're offering anonymous access to our server to them should they wish so the whole night doesn't turn into a witch hunt should they not wish to actively speak and participate.

[Stormwolf]

fil5000, on 23 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Yeah, I wasn't being pro or anti convergence/cone of fire or what have you here, just that in the current state of the game where we don't HAVE any of those things, there's levers that PGI could be using in terms of weapon weight and size to balance them. Remaining shackled to the TT weights and sizes isn't useful.

I think that the TT weights and sizes really have to be maintained because I want to play stock only matches. You can't t really do that if some builds become impossible.

[Ken Fury]

Stormwolf, on 23 July 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

I think that the TT weights and sizes really have to be maintained because I want to play stock only matches. You can't t really do that if some builds become impossible.

Most weight changes needed are weight reductions on smaller ACs, the freed up weight could be used for more Ammo/SHS. Which Stock designs actually need. Especially if you happen to drop on Caustic. Because the smaller ACs have also been badly balanced in the TT. An AC/5 for example takes at least 9tons and 2 crits, you can add a LL to a Mech with 4 SHS for the same weight. Or a ML, a LL and 3 SHS. Giving you a lot more firepower at slightly less range but close up you're actually better off with the heat (the ML).

[fil5000]

Stormwolf, on 23 July 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

I think that the TT weights and sizes really have to be maintained because I want to play stock only matches. You can't t really do that if some builds become impossible.

In the case of Autocannons, what they really need is a weight and size reduction, which wouldn't actually stop any TT builds from functioning, they'd just be under tonnage. But as a wider issue, what you're talking about actively hampers good design decisions. If certain things are off the table "because canon" then fixing the balance is going to be like fighting with one arm tied behind your back. Just because someone wrote it in a TRO 20 years ago doesn't mean it has to stay.

[MustrumRidcully]

I will probably not be able to make it, but I hope that something constructive comes out of this. I want this game to succeed so very much, and I personally believe that they have most of the stuff they need for that, too - the strong part missing might be balance (and even all the tutorials and game modes in the world will not save them from that - it can delay the inevitable, or give them time to get things right. But to believe that they'll get it right, they need to be on the right track, and I don't see that)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 July 2013 - 12:33 AM.

[onipanda]

Stormwolf, I like TT as much as any of us and prefer playing stock IS mechs when I play TT, but face it: TT was never balanced, the stock mechs had horrible loadouts most the time, and it's a completely different system that does not translate to real time. You cannot follow the TT rules with any sort of adherence because of real time and direct control. TT was centered around the inherent randomness of rolling, that's what gave certain weapons a role. PPCs were hot and heavy, but they put all their damage in one location where as if you had 5 MLs, they'd be spread all over the mech. And as has already been mentioned, some weapon's/mech's role was combat stuff that isn't in the game and won't be. So if keep things stock, it makes some **** useless to begin with, which is a newbie trap.

[Protection]

fil5000, on 23 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Weapon tonnage and slots for one thing, and the damage levels on ballistics for another. Canon values weren't a bad place to start, but there's no reason we should still be as close to them as we are in a game that throws out the randomised nature of TT piloting and shooting.

The other option is to increase the damages for each weapon to be more in proportion to their tonnage.

And why aren't they playing with rate of fire on weapons more?