592 replies to this topic

[Alex Gorsky]

Good idea. But a problem that PGI don't listen, in the suggestions an over 10500 of topics and any of them wasn't accepted.
The only one way to save MWO - clean it from PGI...it never happened.
Works as indeeded (c)

[Kyle Reece]

Love the idea, shame that works out to 2am in the UK

BTW. One of the things that PGI could do to improve life for all would be to list the times for things across multiple timezones i.e. this event in your timezone...

[Teralitha]

Hubis, on 22 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

In order for this meeting to be the most productive, I think we need to focus on coming to a consensus at the most broad level, and then drilling down, rather than focusing on individual peeves from the get-go (even if they are very well-founded).

To that end, I'd suggest that groups who want to take part in this talk among themselves and come up with a very short list of bullet points, starting at a very high level and going into specifics as separate items. This will allow us to quickly compare our thoughts, pull out what we agree on, and both collectively recognize that these are agreed upon problems, and jump straight into discussing what we think the solutions are. There's no point in debating mechanic changes if the parties involved don't even think the problems they're trying to solve exist. As an example, I'd suggest a list that consists of the following:

• What are your main problems with MWO right now?
  
  • (Very high-level: "Tactical game is not fun", "Low mech variety", etc.)

• What are the causes of these problems?
  
  • (Directly related to the above: "Sniping is too good", "Objectives are too simple", etc.)
• What types of changes would fix these problems?
  
  • (Generic changes rather than systems: "Weapons need rebalance", "Time to live needs to increase", "Need more motivation to split forces", etc.)
• What would you suggest to implement these changes?
  
  • ("Increase heat on PPCs", "Buff mech armor/structure", "Fix SRMs", etc.)

I think this will also be maximally useful to PGI as feedback if we can come up with a similar "consensus opinion" from this, since it will let them know what the highest level problems and symptoms are, even if they don't like the suggested solutions themselves. Part of the problem with the "Heat Scale" fiasco is that a lot of people are in disagreement on what it's even supposed to fix, let alone whether it's a good way to fix it. If we can provide a vision for what we want the game to be and why we think the current situation is a problem, hopefully this will inspire PGI to do the same and outline their entire chain of thought better as well.

God I hope that isnt how you would present a suggestion to PGI. It leaves them too much room to think for themselves, and as we all know... they cant. The solutions will need to be in detail, right down to the core mechanics. Not.... "mechs need to live longer...' Thats just dumb.

[GaussDragon]

Hubis, on 22 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

In order for this meeting to be the most productive, I think we need to focus on coming to a consensus at the most broad level, and then drilling down, rather than focusing on individual peeves from the get-go (even if they are very well-founded).

To that end, I'd suggest that groups who want to take part in this talk among themselves and come up with a very short list of bullet points, starting at a very high level and going into specifics as separate items. This will allow us to quickly compare our thoughts, pull out what we agree on, and both collectively recognize that these are agreed upon problems, and jump straight into discussing what we think the solutions are.

Beat me to it, and this.

From the most broad perspective, the general grievance(s) that I cam determine stems from

• Not so much the state of the game, but the direction of the game. Our major overall frustration is that certain solutions (new heat scale being the poster boy) are regressive in terms of what many of believe contributes to a good game. Slow progress is something most of us can tolerate, it's the negation of progress that we can;t stand.
  
• Developer communication: This has been brought up a lot; we currently have to go on a scavenger hunt to aggregate critical information about the game. I like the NGNG guys but I detest having to sit through an hour of chit chat about things I don't care about in order to hear a dev say two sentences about something extremely important regarding the game. The ask the devs segments are a good idea but often times they're lacking, and they almost always omit the most important thing; why things are the way they are and where they should be so that we can encourage a discussion about each other's reasoning instead of dropping questionable features on us and watching us explode. The direction of progress should be proactive and it should involve a more commutative way of doing things with the player base so that unpopular ideas can get nixed before development time is dumped into them and time gets wasted being reactive to unpopular features. This is done to some degree, but IMHO, not well enough.

I'll stop here with these two and follow up on these ideas and more on Thursday.

[Ningyo]

Hubis, on 22 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Spoiler

In order for this meeting to be the most productive, I think we need to focus on coming to a consensus at the most broad level, and then drilling down, rather than focusing on individual peeves from the get-go (even if they are very well-founded).

To that end, I'd suggest that groups who want to take part in this talk among themselves and come up with a very short list of bullet points, starting at a very high level and going into specifics as separate items. This will allow us to quickly compare our thoughts, pull out what we agree on, and both collectively recognize that these are agreed upon problems, and jump straight into discussing what we think the solutions are. There's no point in debating mechanic changes if the parties involved don't even think the problems they're trying to solve exist. As an example, I'd suggest a list that consists of the following:

• What are your main problems with MWO right now?
  
  • (Very high-level: "Tactical game is not fun", "Low mech variety", etc.)

• What are the causes of these problems?
  
  • (Directly related to the above: "Sniping is too good", "Objectives are too simple", etc.)
• What types of changes would fix these problems?
  
  • (Generic changes rather than systems: "Weapons need rebalance", "Time to live needs to increase", "Need more motivation to split forces", etc.)
• What would you suggest to implement these changes?
  
  • ("Increase heat on PPCs", "Buff mech armor/structure", "Fix SRMs", etc.)

I think this will also be maximally useful to PGI as feedback if we can come up with a similar "consensus opinion" from this, since it will let them know what the highest level problems and symptoms are, even if they don't like the suggested solutions themselves. Part of the problem with the "Heat Scale" fiasco is that a lot of people are in disagreement on what it's even supposed to fix, let alone whether it's a good way to fix it. If we can provide a vision for what we want the game to be and why we think the current situation is a problem, hopefully this will inspire PGI to do the same and outline their entire chain of thought better as well.

Very good point.

Not sure if I will be listening/joining in, but here is my breakdown



Main Problem: Extremely bad new player experience

---New players are stuck in stock death traps, going against min/maxed mechs with experienced pilots

• Add in stock mech mode (if you select mode in menu your present mech will be entered in stock configuration, champion mechs will be entered as their standard variant, unsure if hero mechs would imbalance too badly?)
  
• Add mech battle value (or similar) to matchmaker to make a more level playing field in all modes

---There is no in game tutorial, player handbook ( Beginners Guide to MW:O), or useful testing grounds

• They say they are working on a tutorial, and this can take some programming so leave this
  
• Either write a handbook or maybe if you ask Waddehaddedudeda very nicely you could use his extremely professionally done one
  
• make testing grounds use same rules as real game, and give target mechs at least basic movement patterns (jenner runs in circle, atlas walks forward for 5 seconds the in reverse for 10 seconds repeat type of things)

---Mech skills are too powerful

• Most of these should be reduced to 1/2 to 1/4 of what they presently do.

Few viable tactical options

---Excluding ultrafast light mechs entire group sticking together is clearly the best and only viable tactic

• Not sure how to deal with this, might need to have more various objectives that require splitting into separate groups

---Base capping reduces tactical options

• Capping gives advantage to the attacker not the defender this is caused by bases normally being in less defendable locations, a bad base model, and attacker can move in and out of base zone, defender has to stay in it. (simplest partial fix: capping does not start till a mech has been in a zone for 5 seconds, then attacked has to stay in zone, defender can move in and out freely)
  
• Capping by groups is too fast preventing even fast mechs from returning in time especially on large maps (make cap speed slower on large maps : reduce cap speed bonus for multiple mechs)

---Imbalanced Weapons

• Heat scale gives no penalties before shutdown making it smart to keep firing till you are just below max heat, this exasperates the high pinpoint alpha problems
  
• Heat sinks are poorly balanced (I prefer DHS does 2 dissipation, 1 threshold, and SHS does 1 Dissipation 1 threshold idea)
  
• pinpoint alpha is too strong against a hit location design (convergence changes, recoil, inability to fire multiple weapons at once, changing PPC to beam/AC to rapid fire variants : are all options)
  
• Sniper weapons are as good or better than most short range weapons even when you get close
  
• some are just bad (Flamer, LB10-X etc... : adjust ranges, damage, heat etc till they are useful)

---Mech skills are too powerful

• due to engine there is a max speed, speed tweak reduces ability to make some mechs faster or slower
  
• max torso twist reduces variation between chassis as you do not want at least most mechs to be able to fire directly behind them (40% is huge, maybe 10% or a different skill)
  
• Heat bonuses compound the problems with balancing weapons/Alpha by using heat.

---Movement penalties from terrain slope (good idea bad implementation)

• Need to have it so you are slowed to a minimum of 10-20% speed instead of a dead stop
  
• Need to reduce your speed at a slower rate (combined these will probably make it excellent instead of highly annoying)

I would suggest that the people running this keep a few good things about the game to bring up in case things get too negative like: Games art / mech designs (lets face it while the game isn't the best looking thing out there it does look pretty kickass, and the modeling department did design some cool looking big stompy robots)


Good luck with this townhall discussion, hope it goes well and PGI listens to some feedback.

Edit: its been destroying my formating trying to fix (gave up and did it a different way)

Edited by Ningyo, 22 July 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Teralitha]

GaussDragon, on 22 July 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Beat me to it, and this.

From the most broad perspective, the general grievance(s) that I cam determine stems from

• Not so much the state of the game, but the direction of the game. Our major overall frustration is that certain solutions (new heat scale being the poster boy) are regressive in terms of what many of believe contributes to a good game. Slow progress is something most of us can tolerate, it's the negation of progress that we can;t stand.
  
• Developer communication: This has been brought up a lot; we currently have to go on a scavenger hunt to aggregate critical information about the game. I like the NGNG guys but I detest having to sit through an hour of chit chat about things I don't care about in order to hear a dev say two sentences about something extremely important regarding the game. The ask the devs segments are a good idea but often times they're lacking, and they almost always omit the most important thing; why things are the way they are and where they should be so that we can encourage a discussion about each other's reasoning instead of dropping questionable features on us and watching us explode. The direction of progress should be proactive and it should involve a more commutative way of doing things with the player base so that unpopular ideas can get nixed before development time is dumped into them and time gets wasted being reactive to unpopular features. This is done to some degree, but IMHO, not well enough.

I'll stop here with these two and follow up on these ideas and more on Thursday.

As you know they prefer telling us details about an upcoming feature, only when its about to be released. Which leads me to believe CW is going to suck as well...

[Jess Hazen]

MWO has had a very abysmal development since the begining. We founders were promised Community Warfare since the begining. Everyone knows that the meta game is what keeps f2p games such as this one a float, and I'm not talking about game play when saying meta...

But instead of concentrating on the important features for this game such as basic game function and stability or the meta game the developers are creating garbage like cockpit items and charging the devoted battletech fans through the tooth a second time for limited (cash money grab) edition mechs.

They have still to deliever any sort of information on the vital life preserving system that is CW since they suckered us Fou(A)NderS into paying oodles of money for limited edition mechs two years ago. What I have outlined here in a few short words is where PGI has failed and could very well continue to fail us on for the foreseeable future.

Edited by Jess Hazen, 22 July 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[101011]

Hubis, on 22 July 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

In order for this meeting to be the most productive, I think we need to focus on coming to a consensus at the most broad level, and then drilling down, rather than focusing on individual peeves from the get-go (even if they are very well-founded).

To that end, I'd suggest that groups who want to take part in this talk among themselves and come up with a very short list of bullet points, starting at a very high level and going into specifics as separate items. This will allow us to quickly compare our thoughts, pull out what we agree on, and both collectively recognize that these are agreed upon problems, and jump straight into discussing what we think the solutions are. There's no point in debating mechanic changes if the parties involved don't even think the problems they're trying to solve exist. As an example, I'd suggest a list that consists of the following:

• What are your main problems with MWO right now?
  
  • (Very high-level: "Tactical game is not fun", "Low mech variety", etc.)

• What are the causes of these problems?
  
  • (Directly related to the above: "Sniping is too good", "Objectives are too simple", etc.)
• What types of changes would fix these problems?
  
  • (Generic changes rather than systems: "Weapons need rebalance", "Time to live needs to increase", "Need more motivation to split forces", etc.)
• What would you suggest to implement these changes?
  
  • ("Increase heat on PPCs", "Buff mech armor/structure", "Fix SRMs", etc.)

I think this will also be maximally useful to PGI as feedback if we can come up with a similar "consensus opinion" from this, since it will let them know what the highest level problems and symptoms are, even if they don't like the suggested solutions themselves. Part of the problem with the "Heat Scale" fiasco is that a lot of people are in disagreement on what it's even supposed to fix, let alone whether it's a good way to fix it. If we can provide a vision for what we want the game to be and why we think the current situation is a problem, hopefully this will inspire PGI to do the same and outline their entire chain of thought better as well.

Heh, my list is already a page long and growing.

[Itsalrightwithme]

More broadly speaking, BattleTech fans are flogged for trying to run balanced builds inspired and encouraged in BattleTech. The game rewards min/maxed builds too much, to the point that I can't even blame players for bringing FOTM builds.

Thus, the new user experience for BattleTech fans is even worse than it is for non-BattleTech fans.

Is this really the direction that PGI wants to take?

[Chronojam]

Teralitha, on 22 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

As you know they prefer telling us details about an upcoming feature, only when its about to be released. Which leads me to believe CW is going to suck as well...

This is definitely something that causes tension between the players and PGI. It forces us to be awfully reactionary, since there's little opportunity to give feedback on proposals before they come out. The most warning that's given is a sort of preliminary patch notes for something that's already sitting on the shelf, without any good chance to head off bad ideas before programmer time is invested. Sunk cost fallacy means PGI sticks it in and keeps it in anyhow, one good counterexample being repair & re-arm that was poorly balanced between new and veteran players and was simply removed.

[Phorashi]

INCOMING TRANSMISSION DETECTED:

The following message is a leak from WoL Jabber

(2:57:46 AM) Someone talk me out of asking for a refund for my Project Phoenix preorder
(2:57:50 AM) the sp stuff is mostly campaigns, some you get for free some not, but yeah, don't treat it like a sp game
(2:57:51 AM) No
(2:58:03 AM) I want to believe things can be fixed.
(2:58:04 AM) don't do it, and by it, I mean don't give PGI money
(2:58:08 AM) help
(2:58:11 AM) get the refund
(2:58:14 AM) get the refund
(2:58:21 AM) get the refund
(2:58:25 AM) phorashi: get the refund
(2:58:30 AM) get the refund
(2:58:33 AM) fight the man
(2:58:34 AM) pend it on spaceships / warplanes
(2:58:37 AM) get the refund
(2:58:47 AM): welp
(2:58:57 AM) : "A pre-order is a good-faith style agreement. I've lost my faith in your company's ability to deliver a product I want."
(2:58:58 AM) Counterpoint: get the refund.

E: NAMES REDACTED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT

Edited by Phorashi, 22 July 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[TheMagician]

The #1 core problem is that PGI tried to make a battletech game, instead of making a good game. I encourage PGI to consider a massive dedesign. Part of this is to remove or heavily modify (including away from True-To-Btech (TTB) mechancis) all items in the game that do not conform to making a well constructed game. This includes:

-Heat sinks: From a game design point of view, the current method is bad, as its better to use DHS 99.9999% of the time.

-Weapon tonnages: This goes along with TTB stock configs, as removing TTB stock configs opens up the ability to change weapon tonnages for better balancing.

-Matchmaking system: Let's give up on 'role based warfare' or the idea that its not an arms race. The only way it isn't an arms race, is if special abilities and vulnerabilities exist for each mech, as in, being similar to a game like team Fortress 2, where say an assault has access to weapons that a light doesn't, and vice versa. However, that is not a good idea for this game. Thus, adjust the game to incentive a wide range of classes. I posted on this before that it can be done by using class-based drop queues.

This wouldn't be a big deal if we had private matchmaking, but even then, it would be nice if 'game types' took care of this as a problem. Make private matchmaking a priority, enabling people to play this game the way they want to play it, with custom rules (such as match timers, maps, settings [e.g. fog, time of day]).

-Pilot skills/Modules: Some modules are fine. But I think if we are going to have unlocks, that it would be far more interesting if they were specific to the mech or chassi, and perhaps fit their role.

-Variants: Add the ability to save variants. Completely redesign the mechbay. Have it so that you unlock weapons/engines for each chassi, or weight class, not that you have to buy each weapon separately (basically have to do something of the sorts to have saved variants). There current system is clunky, designed to be a cbill sync, and is not gamer friendly.

---

General patch/development complaints:

PGI has claimed that one reason that changes come slow is due tot he need for internal testing. However, it is clear to players that the internal testing fails to identify 1) bugs caused by adopting new mechanisms, and 2) extreme changes to the balance).

PGI should more rapidly patch these games and adjust balance. A patch every few days to tinker with balance is acceptable in beta. Every two weeks is way too long. And not changing a broken mechanic for 2 months is unacceptable to many paying customers. If a balance tweak turns out to not work, PGI should be prepared to turn it back fairly quick. This being said, players want depth of gameplay, not necessarily balance. Depth will come with improved matchmaking and the introduction of private matchmaking.

PGI can use the test servers to assist with this as well, but that means opening them up more often.

Edited by TheMagician, 22 July 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Phorashi]

Itsalrightwithme, on 22 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

More broadly speaking, BattleTech fans are flogged for trying to run balanced builds inspired and encouraged in BattleTech. The game rewards min/maxed builds too much, to the point that I can't even blame players for bringing FOTM builds.

Thus, the new user experience for BattleTech fans is even worse than it is for non-BattleTech fans.

Is this really the direction that PGI wants to take?

With respect, This is not a table-top simulator. MWO is a tank-fighting FPS with independent torso and leg control. If PGI wanted this to be a tabletop simulator then it would look like MW:T with better mech models.

I feel like that's an issue a lot of old-school tabletop players have with this game. Tabletop builds are just NOT viable in an FPS with aiming and the way mechs can move. The min/max'd builds are just optimal for an FPS. I can see how that would rankle on a longtime fan.

Edited by Phorashi, 22 July 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[B0oN]

Sees Liao Birdies´ campaign to try and rally the community ... laughs
Also :
Say no to hashtags & what community

[Itsalrightwithme]

Phorashi, on 22 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

With respect, This is not a table-top simulator. MWO is a tank-fighting FPS with independent torso and leg control. If PGI wanted this to be a tabletop simulator then it would look like MW:T with better mech models.

I feel like that's an issue a lot of old-school tabletop players have with this game. Tabletop builds are just NOT viable in an FPS with aiming and the way mechs can move. The min/max'd builds are just optimal for an FPS. I can see how that would rankle on a longtime fan.

This game should NOT be a copy of BT tabletop. But PGI seems to try to take the middle ground between adhering to the tabletop game, and allowing for greater customization, and I think we get the worst of both worlds.

[Stalephreak]

Teralitha, on 22 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

God I hope that isnt how you would present a suggestion to PGI. It leaves them too much room to think for themselves, and as we all know... they cant. The solutions will need to be in detail, right down to the core mechanics. Not.... "mechs need to live longer...' Thats just dumb.

The goal is to play nice on this one. For once, can we try to work as a community? Are we sure Fuzzy can't represent you guys?

[Pando]

TheMagician, on 22 July 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

The #1 core problem is that PGI tried to make a battletech game, instead of making a good game. I encourage PGI to consider a massive dedesign. Part of this is to remove or heavily modify (including away from True-To-Btech (TTB) mechancis) all items in the game that do not conform to making a well constructed game. This includes:

-Heat sinks: From a game design point of view, the current method is bad, as its better to use DHS 99.9999% of the time.

-Weapon tonnages: This goes along with TTB stock configs, as removing TTB stock configs opens up the ability to change weapon tonnages for better balancing.

-Matchmaking system: Let's give up on 'role based warfare' or the idea that its not an arms race. The only way it isn't an arms race, is if special abilities and vulnerabilities exist for each mech, as in, being similar to a game like team Fortress 2, where say an assault has access to weapons that a light doesn't, and vice versa. However, that is not a good idea for this game. Thus, adjust the game to incentive a wide range of classes. I posted on this before that it can be done by using class-based drop queues.

This wouldn't be a big deal if we had private matchmaking, but even then, it would be nice if 'game types' took care of this as a problem. Make private matchmaking a priority, enabling people to play this game the way they want to play it, with custom rules (such as match timers, maps, settings [e.g. fog, time of day]).

-Pilot skills/Modules: Some modules are fine. But I think if we are going to have unlocks, that it would be far more interesting if they were specific to the mech or chassi, and perhaps fit their role.

-Variants: Add the ability to save variants. Completely redesign the mechbay. Have it so that you unlock weapons/engines for each chassi, or weight class, not that you have to buy each weapon separately (basically have to do something of the sorts to have saved variants). There current system is clunky, designed to be a cbill sync, and is not gamer friendly.

---

General patch/development complaints:

PGI has claimed that one reason that changes come slow is due tot he need for internal testing. However, it is clear to players that the internal testing fails to identify 1) bugs caused by adopting new mechanisms, and 2) extreme changes to the balance).

PGI should more rapidly patch these games and adjust balance. A patch every few days to tinker with balance is acceptable in beta. Every two weeks is way too long. And not changing a broken mechanic for 2 months is unacceptable to many paying customers. If a balance tweak turns out to not work, PGI should be prepared to turn it back fairly quick. This being said, players want depth of gameplay, not necessarily balance. Depth will come with improved matchmaking and the introduction of private matchmaking.

PGI can use the test servers to assist with this as well, but that means opening them up more often.

It would be neat as **** to have an unlock system IMHO for battlemech variants.

Having to play a variant unlocking EXP that auto-unlocks weapons as i progress as a pilot...juicy.

[Protection]

Another issue that I've had since closed beta is that the community is effectively cut out of the production process.

One of the many reasons a lot of people are hyped for Star Citizen is that the game will be fully modable and player mods are being given full support by the developers. Games like TF2 have continued to support a huge community long after release, with no small part due to the endless contributions and content created by the community.

I realize that MWO can't give modders the same level of freedom, but is it really so much to ask to let some people play around with the map editor? We're well aware that many of the people on these forums are insanely talented, especially in programming and game design, and we could likely see a dozen new functioning maps by years end with the right support for the community. Maps would still have to go through a PGI test and approval before being accepted into the game, but can there really be that much harm in letting people toy with the map maker.

There's gameplay issues for sure, but we shouldn't overlook the lack of content either. We have less than ten maps, and a third of those are the same map with different day/night conditions.

[Flying Judgement]

new maps that would shake things up. i think the lack of tactic is also due to the same maps u know how what to do there isnt any surprise. Also dropping to the same map 5-8 times in a row or not seeing tourmaline or dessert map in 2 days playing is disappointing.
i would love to make some insane concept art for a REAL futuristic city or a space station waoo if we would have a map editor waooo releasing 3-4 map in a month wouldn't be a dream.
now that would excite ppl for sure.

[GingerBang]

I can't be there thursday, but can somebody mention for me that the game is just boring? Brawling IS fun, but even balancing this game out for brawlers can be a trap. DO you really want every fight to be a bunch of mechs hugging? Think about it. Really though, maps and strategies. There are none. Give us some maps, and the ability to do more than blindly pick a mech for out next fight, and you will see a lot of new life in this game very, very quickly.