20 replies to this topic

[cheapcamper]

Sup y'all

Well, I was just, curious about what you guys would prefer:

1. Balance gameplay? (Tonnage wise or match result wise)

Or

2. New features ( might be glitchy or OP but new contents and game modes/ play)


Cause I was thinking, if they could add more gamemodes (capture the flag, protect VIP/assassination, payload, protect the dropship, etc) and limit the choice of picking the individual game type, wouldn't it be more dynamic then what we have right now? Well compairitively it takes less manpower/hours to create a new gamemode( Correct me if I am wrong) as existing maps and stuff could be recycled, but I do believe the balance would be out of the box as new players who didn't grasp the concepts would be eaten alived by experienced veterans and premades, or the gamemode it self would have imperfections, so what are your opnions?

Cheers!

Camper

[Joseph Mallan]

Depends on the features!

Having a real game (if glitchy) in place would be lots better than all this scrimmage match ...stuff we have had for a year! I wanna play the game now.

[fandre]

New content! Would be nice to see more map variations (different wheater/time ...)

IMO the game is quite good balanced by now, without the urgend need to make major chances for balancing

But you should make a poll and add a third option: none of them, give us community warfare.

Edited by fandre, 14 January 2014 - 06:00 AM.

[cheapcamper]

I don't know how to make a poll@.@

[Dawnstealer]

Really, there are other first-person shooters out there, even online ones, that do it far, far better than MWO. The reason I'm here is because I grew up with the Battletech universe and want to play through the Clan invasion against other players. So I'm all in for CW, and hope it actually happens soon.

[Para B]

I couldn't are less about new mechs, weapons or maps as long as 2/3 of my matches end in a 12:1 roflstomp for one side.

[Roland]

This game needs the following most:
1) Lobby system - Basically just give us control of the game settings, and let us do it ourselves, because we better understand how we want the game to play.
2) Removal of group size limits - This is basically crippling the player base, because people who play multiplayer games with their friends want to actually play with their friends.
3) Matchmaker Fixes - We need a matchmaker that actually works, and which incorporates some sort of tonnage limit with the removal of the player number cap.
4) Actual functional community warfare - Not just the ability to form groups.. because frankly, that on its own is effectively trivial functionality that adds nothing. I'm talking about real functionality along the lines of what PGI described two years ago.

[Para B]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

2) Removal of group size limits - This is basically crippling the player base, because people who play multiplayer games with their friends want to actually play with their friends.

Only if they add a separate PUG queue. Otherwise you will have full 12-player premades dominate the matches so badly that the current premade meta would seem like PUG heaven in comparison.

[Roland]

Para B, on 14 January 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Only if they add a separate PUG queue. Otherwise you will have full 12-player premades dominate the matches so badly that the current premade meta would seem like PUG heaven in comparison.

Quite frankly dude, separating out the 12 man queue did nothing to reduce the complaints from bad pugs.

All it did was make it such that a ton of players left the game because arbitrary size limits prevented them from playing with friends.

If tonnage limits were tied to group size, then that could be used as a balancing tool.. larger groups would end up getting less tonnage per player, or something like that.

Ultimately though, whatever. If you want a separate solo queue, that's fine too.

The current system is actively driving away players, and PUG's still complain about premades, so the current system is basically total fail.

[Joseph Mallan]

Para B, on 14 January 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Only if they add a separate PUG queue. Otherwise you will have full 12-player premades dominate the matches so badly that the current premade meta would seem like PUG heaven in comparison.

This would kinda be against the idea that PUGs will fill the ranks of say a 7man to be a 12 player group. PUgs and Lone Wolves are the crunchy bits the new recruit in an established unit.

[Noesis]

Both

[cheapcamper]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Quite frankly dude, separating out the 12 man queue did nothing to reduce the complaints from bad pugs.

All it did was make it such that a ton of players left the game because arbitrary size limits prevented them from playing with friends.

If tonnage limits were tied to group size, then that could be used as a balancing tool.. larger groups would end up getting less tonnage per player, or something like that.

Ultimately though, whatever. If you want a separate solo queue, that's fine too.

The current system is actively driving away players, and PUG's still complain about premades, so the current system is basically total fail.

Wow, is it that bad? How come every thread end up a giant PGI BASH?

Although what you say is quite true IMHO, I had been getting stomped bad lately and the result does not matter if I did 800 damage or 50..... Kind of like it is predetermined depends on if you PUG or PREMADE.

My experience recently: in 4 man: the carry lance with over 60% of the kills in the lance and 80 ish percent win rate

PUG: got lolrofstomped in the face no matter if carry hard or suck bad , 3 kills or no kills, with most of the enemies alive and many of our team did 100 ish or 2 digit damage.

So.....I sense your pain

[FupDup]

In a way, balance does effectively add "new" features by making some pieces of existing content actually desirable to use. I.e. buffing the LBX would effectively add a new weapon to MWO, buffing the Awesome would add a new mech, etc.

[Varent]

cheapcamper, on 14 January 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

Sup y'all

Well, I was just, curious about what you guys would prefer:

1. Balance gameplay? (Tonnage wise or match result wise)

Or

2. New features ( might be glitchy or OP but new contents and game modes/ play)


Cause I was thinking, if they could add more gamemodes (capture the flag, protect VIP/assassination, payload, protect the dropship, etc) and limit the choice of picking the individual game type, wouldn't it be more dynamic then what we have right now? Well compairitively it takes less manpower/hours to create a new gamemode( Correct me if I am wrong) as existing maps and stuff could be recycled, but I do believe the balance would be out of the box as new players who didn't grasp the concepts would be eaten alived by experienced veterans and premades, or the gamemode it self would have imperfections, so what are your opnions?

Cheers!

Camper

I would prefer they stop focusing on balancing and changes and game modes etc etc etc.

and devote every resource they have to an Alpha/Beta version of CW to put on a test server for people to try out and look at.

[Mcgral18]

I would like the "aggressive weapon balance" they were talking about awhile back. Changing something every patch cycle, just a little bit and try to get those less desireable weapons up to snuff. Narc and Flamer come to mind.

[C E Dwyer]

Balance with reservations.

Features brought into a game unbalanced, cause a different kind of stagnation, which has a double effect, both negative to the community.

The first being the new feature becomes the thing that everyone has to have if they're you be even slightly competitive, even in casual play, the game becomes one dimensional and dull causing people to look elsewhere for entertainment.

The second hit comes when after months of delay and realising usually to late, that a certain feature is damaging the game, gets nerfed, the people that relied on it to play rage quit because the fotm just got taken away.

Having said that if balance becomes the mantra to deeply imbedded, that features arrive so slowly, people get jaded with the rinse and repeat and go elsewhere.

Its a fine balance, and despite my continued spending in mwo and support, its one that for whatever reason PGI just don't seem to get right, I've been in the pitchfork crowd and I've also been in the woah neddy take a step back and think before you rage.

The latest fail is the servers seem extremely unstable again for no apparent reason, even the website is painfully slow, and I have to say I've walked away from games with far less problems than this.

I guess I just like Battle Tech, even though they did make the clans

Edited by Cathy, 14 January 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Khobai]

balancing features

[zhajin]

I would say leave the game play flat where it is and working on the meta (CW, game modes ect) and out of game features (UI, lobbies, groups and corps).

the game play is far from perfect, but its good enough for now. and PGI will likely just screw it up more if they do too much...

Edited by zhajin, 14 January 2014 - 12:27 PM.

[Abivard]

I would like to see either!

All I see them doing are putting new items up for sale.

[Will9761]

We need new features now. I understand in business that things do change or backfire sometimes, but you can't keep ignoring these problems eventually. The the less effort you put in, the more people will get agitated and leave. That is mostly what 85% percent of the people are angry about in the forums.

Edited by Will9761, 14 January 2014 - 03:03 PM.