430 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

DevlinCognito, on 23 July 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Aye, I agree to some extent, but you're forgetting to deal with the realities of PGI. They want monies to be spent to buy Mechs, so I buy the Timberwolf, but I cannot use it till I have ground out a certain number of virtual points? And then what? Every player can use whatever meta mech is most meta at the time?

I'm sorry, I'm a lore player, I like to play what I like to play, and it has zero to do with the meta. Though there are a LARGE number of players who like to play the meta -which is also PGIs fault, by the way- I would say nearly a third of this community prefer to play whatever it is they're going to play, and I hear the word meta less-and-less from my guys in Armageddon Unlimited, and it's almost like a surprise when they say it. So, I think people are beginning to settle into the non-meta. With the system Cimarb and I outlined, and I'll say this one last time for the cheap seats, it covers the lore factions, allows players access to their 'Mechs in an extra-lore fashion, rather than keeping the 'Mechs from them altogether, which is PGIs current plan, and it would not restrict play outside of CW.

Quote

What exactly is the point of CW?

The point of CW is that players, particularly lore players, want something more to fight over. The only way it has ANYTHING to do with the 'Mechs, whatsoever, is in the fact that it is NOT in the lore to allow even House's to have Clan 'Mechs before 3052, at the earliest, and 3058 for Mercs, because Mercs were paid very highly to turn over their captured Clan 'Mechs, or otherwise had them confiscated by the House's. Indeed, it was written into contracts, from the get-go, that House's claimed ALL Clan OmniMech technology salvage for themselves. Some Houses paid dearly from it, some Houses simply stole it, without compensation -ahem, Liao- from Mercs who had earned it. I'm not saying Mercs couldn't hide away the tech and keep it for themselves, which would actually be a breach of contract, but the likelihood they would prefer to be paid in spare parts, munitions, sundries, and bonuses is much greater, especially since they had no ability to produce replacement parts for the Omni's, themselves.

The point of CW is to play the story, the way the story is meant to be played. Up until the Clans were released, I had high hopes that was exactly what was going to happen. Now, however, Cimarb and I have come up with a highly logical means of allowing play through the story AND potential early access for Inner Sphere pilots, including mercenaries, to gain access to the 'Mechs they have purchased WITHIN COMMUNITY WARFARE, within the contracting portion of the game, within the story portion of the game. PUGs, competitive scene, anything OUTSIDE of CW, take it for a spin, there's nothing restricting you. This, of course, will keep many of the shiny-twitch gamers in PUG matches, and will allow for those of us who care about the story to play through the story. Cimarb and I have developed a system that is logical, is not slow, and opens possibilities PGI have, in all likelihood, considered, but are waiting to hear from the community, in a fashion much like we are doing, now.

Quote

I have 40 plus Mechs, some of which I have tuned to perfection, what do I care if the price of Hunchies goes up or down? I've got 'em already. Why spend real monies on a Stormcrow? I cant use it till I've done the grind anyway, so I may as well buy it with virtual monies.

What do I care if you have 40 'Mechs, and if you were silly enough to buy a Clan Pack, when you SHOULD have figured -due to the lack of OVERT warning- that Clan 'Mechs would not be allowed for use by Inner Sphere factions. I have twelve 'Mechs, though I've mastered more than that, three Jenner variants, three Wolverine variants, three Catapult variants, and three BattleMaster variants. I also mastered, but subsequently got rid of, three Highlander variants; I got the Highlander for its Jump Jets, but the 'Mech drives like a piece of **** on legs, so I got rid of it. I've tried out many other 'Mechs: Centurion, Thunderbolt, Shadow Hawk, but I hated all of them. The twelve I have, now, are the twelve I want, for now. The Catapult and BattleMaster will make excellent command 'Mechs for me, once we have a command interface that's worth a damn, the Wolverine IS perfect for skirmishes, and the Jenner is great when I need to drop in a Recon match, myself, to see what's going on.

Your purchase of 40 'Mechs, whether you earned those through C-Bills or you purchased them with MCs, is your fault, and shows that you're part of the problem regarding the play of the lore. PGI handed us all the ability to outfit our accounts the way we chose to do so, so you're forgiven. But, you need to understand this... in the BattleTech universe -and I understand WHY it's not that way in THIS game- you would have ONE BattleMech, and one only. Once you had that shot out from under you, because you don't understand what are required for real tactics and strategy, you would become what's known as Dispossessed, which is a really horrible way for a MechWarrior to go out. So, PGI have already transgressed on many fronts to allow us to have a fun and long-lasting -hopefully- game to play, have given us the ability to outfit ourselves so we don't have to do a lot of waiting to play our favorites. However, they still OWE US for transgressions of the lore, and the best way to take care of that is through the plan Cimarb and I have developed in this thread, after Kyrie started the discussion, to allow "unlock achievements" of foreign faction -whether Inner Sphere or Clan- 'Mechs -which I believe it should be done on an individual chassis type basis, but where Kyrie believes it should be whole- and, once you've got that 'Mech unlocked, the only thing holding it off the battlefield is repair/rearm and salvage. To allow unfettered use, except to have a certain amount of down-time if the 'Mech is shot out from under you, would be another way to go, but that would piss me off worse than not having the 'Mech until I unlock it, and then having use restricted only by repair/rearm and salvage. If I want to take the 'Mech just shot out from under me into the very next mission, I should be able to pay for it, whether through C-Bills earned in-game, or MCs I pay.

Quote

Your way is still utterly frustrating, more so because you cant use your 'big guns' when it really matters, fighting for your own Faction, plus it gives a point to CW which effects everyone, will cut down on the staleness (same repeated meta builds) and still give everyone a chance to use the shiny.

If EVERYONE has to work on unlocks in order to get their 'big guns' on the field, then the playing ground is leveled, and even those pilots who've not purchased Clan 'Mechs, or alternate faction 'Mechs, will have the opportunity to fairly work up to those very same unlocks, at the very same time, and purchase 'Mechs with C-Bills or MCs as they become available to the individual pilot. The 'big guns' that will be on the field at the beginning of CW will be placed on the same level as the 'big guns' further along in CW; the chassis' may change, but the ability to kick ass at the same tech levels will remain.

What you're talking about is the shiny-twitcher side of things. Your 'big guns' will be there at the beginning and, though you may change 'Mechs on earning new ones, your 'big guns' will still be there, when it really matters, fighting for your own faction. Your argument is null.

[Cimarb]

Kay Wolf, on 24 July 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

If EVERYONE has to work on unlocks in order to get their 'big guns' on the field, then the playing ground is leveled, and even those pilots who've not purchased Clan 'Mechs, or alternate faction 'Mechs, will have the opportunity to fairly work up to those very same unlocks, at the very same time, and purchase 'Mechs with C-Bills or MCs as they become available to the individual pilot. The 'big guns' that will be on the field at the beginning of CW will be placed on the same level as the 'big guns' further along in CW; the chassis' may change, but the ability to kick ass at the same tech levels will remain.

Totally agree with your post, but wanted to elaborate on this part...

The benefit for PGI is that people "playing lore" will unlock a chassis that they do not own through the natural course of things and say, "hmmm, I had not considered that mech before, but it is unlocked, so maybe I will try it out...". Maybe it could be used for a small rental fee as a Trial mech in CW once unlocked, and then paying for it (through cbills or MC as usual) would fully unlock the mech for all modes and allow you to modify it (camo, modules, loadout, etc). This system would make the buying transition much, much more user friendly, and therefore better for the game (and PGI) as a whole.

[Gorgo7]

I must say that I am very unhappy with the idea of mixing Clan and IS mechs in the CW aspect of the game. Certainly during or shortly after roll out.
Perhaps after a period of time they could set up an alternative server for CW that allows them to mix.
Frankly, if I own it I should have access to it in the right setting (IS, IS mechs, Clan, clan mechs.). Working to unlock what I have already acquired sucks balls.
Arguing that a merc unit should be allowed the use of both while supporting one side or the other is silly for all sorts of reasons.
Better to mirror the merc unit so that you can play both sides of the fence.

My 2 cents.

[Cimarb]

Gorgo7, on 24 July 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

I must say that I am very unhappy with the idea of mixing Clan and IS mechs in the CW aspect of the game. Certainly during or shortly after roll out.
Perhaps after a period of time they could set up an alternative server for CW that allows them to mix.
Frankly, if I own it I should have access to it in the right setting (IS, IS mechs, Clan, clan mechs.). Working to unlock what I have already acquired sucks balls.
Arguing that a merc unit should be allowed the use of both while supporting one side or the other is silly for all sorts of reasons.
Better to mirror the merc unit so that you can play both sides of the fence.

My 2 cents.

Just for clarification, what Kay, Kyrie and I are proposing does not stop you from using faction-based equipment with that faction. If you are Davion, and want to use Davion mechs and equipment, this system would not stop you, and they would be available for standard purchase and repair/rearm costs as long as your faction controlled the planets they were built on. It just provides a means to unlock cross-faction items, such as that Liao Cataphract or Clan Wolf Dire Wolf you have always wanted.

Merc units, IMO, need to be tied to an existing faction at least initially. There are lore-based reasons why merc units could even have access to Clan equipment, but it should be locked to a Faction allegiance somehow regardless. That can be a whole discussion in itself, though...

[Threat Doc]

The initial idea PGI put out was that EVERYONE would be tied to a House, initially... no Clans, no Mercs, no Pirate/Periphery... EVERYONE was going to start out in a House, which makes sense to me. Later, when you have the money to purchase your first DropShip, and you can put together your unit, such as with the upcoming Merc Unit Creation module, you could break away from the House and begin recruiting other like-minds.

I don't know where that is, now, but I'm hoping it's still SOMETHING like this.

No argument, here... PGI have expressed there are going to be faction limitations, period, and that's not just about paying a little less or a little extra for your beloved 'Mech depending on where you reside in the Inner Sphere, it was about EVERYTHING. If there are going to be faction limitations, wouldn't you guys like to have those limitations eased a bit? Or, would you like to have it done the way Paul said it would be done?

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 24 July 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

The initial idea PGI put out was that EVERYONE would be tied to a House, initially... no Clans, no Mercs, no Pirate/Periphery... EVERYONE was going to start out in a House, which makes sense to me. Later, when you have the money to purchase your first DropShip, and you can put together your unit, such as with the upcoming Merc Unit Creation module, you could break away from the House and begin recruiting other like-minds.

I don't know where that is, now, but I'm hoping it's still SOMETHING like this.

No argument, here... PGI have expressed there are going to be faction limitations, period, and that's not just about paying a little less or a little extra for your beloved 'Mech depending on where you reside in the Inner Sphere, it was about EVERYTHING. If there are going to be faction limitations, wouldn't you guys like to have those limitations eased a bit? Or, would you like to have it done the way Paul said it would be done?

In general I am warming to the idea of cross-factional unlocks on a mech by mech basis; but I am hoping that the method of unlock is not tedious. This is where I am having trouble, coming up with a reasonable system.

PGI has laid out several different visions for CW, and they have not clarified where they stand at present. The last clear presentation left me with the following impressions:

1) Loyalists (aka House non-merc players) will essentially be lemmings, running missions where they please and helping to "flip" the frontiers on behalf of their house. There will be no chain of command, no district/theater/unit/lance structures, nothing one would expect from the two Kesmai games (MPBT-EGA and 3025). Loyalists would have a "lite" version of CW, for casual involvement (perfect for solo dropping while still contributing to your House.)

2) Mercs -- not so clear. The in-depth implementation of CW mechanics will be for mercs, they will have some definite structures (companies/lance level at the very least, perhaps larger structures as well). Its still not clear if mercs will have a World of Tanks tournament style system with set time for matches, or ad-hoc matchups via the group queue (not necessarily fighting the same groups who are battling over a specific target, but through global group queue...) Mercs will have the "cool" stuff in CW in terms of maps and the like. "mwomercs.com" is not an accident. The idea is that if you are a hardcore BT fan, you more or less have to go merc to get the in-depth involvement you assumed would be part of the House military stuff.

For CW and lore to make sense, I would assume that mercs would have to align themselves with a particular faction to effect changes on the universe-map... but that such alignments can change. I believe that everyone will start off by choosing an alignment as an individual player, that is overwritten when joining a merc corp (the merc corp decides everyones alignment by accepting a house-alignment).

Edited by Kyrie, 24 July 2014 - 03:30 PM.

[Cimarb]

While I cannot argue with your assumptions, as they make sense from the little we know, I am hopeful that the delay on Loyalist info is because they have changed that part significantly and Loyalists will fill at least as large of a role as Mercs do. Otherwise, Clan players will be forced to make "faux merc" units to play CW fully.

I would just really like to get more info on what PGI is planning, and whether this R&R/Salvage system is even possible...

[Gorgo7]

Yeah!
*pumps double fists in the air!*

Edited by Gorgo7, 24 July 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[Kyrie]

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

While I cannot argue with your assumptions, as they make sense from the little we know, I am hopeful that the delay on Loyalist info is because they have changed that part significantly and Loyalists will fill at least as large of a role as Mercs do. Otherwise, Clan players will be forced to make "faux merc" units to play CW fully.

I would just really like to get more info on what PGI is planning, and whether this R&R/Salvage system is even possible...

I'm caught in the same un-enviable position as well; I am a hardcore Kuritan who is likely going to be forced to go merc to get the in-depth CW experience I assumed would be part of House to House warfare. If I am not mistaken, Bryan at some point (over a year ago) posted that they were "open" to the idea of an in-depth implementation of House structures (ala MPBT EGA/3025) in the future, but were quite reluctant to allow players to exercise leadership within a faction. Which would end up with the lemmings-for-loyalists I hinted at earlier.

In general, I do not believe that PGI is fully committed to having CW be the "end all - be all" of BT roleplaying that was an integral part of Kesmai's vision. I am fairly certain they wish to abstract away as much of the nitty-gritty to focus as much as possible on the combat-shell side of the game; relegating the "out-of-combat" stuff (what Kesmai termed the "role-playing shell") to a tertiary concern. As a concrete example, three years into the project we still do not have simple chat channels implemented in the game. Nor lobbies.

MWO, I believe, will always have the combat-side as their primary focus, with everything else being of minor importance. MWO will never be about living the campaigns, either a a House military warrior or as a merc; it will be more about endless deathmatch drops with some kind of minor map overlay. I do not expect to get the experience of developing a character from private to top ranking general in command of a huge area of space; much as I would wish for this game to evolve in that direction.

[Kristen Redmond]

Perfectly fine with it

We should start the invasion when you get CW running imo

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 24 July 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

In general I am warming to the idea of cross-factional unlocks on a mech by mech basis; but I am hoping that the method of unlock is not tedious. This is where I am having trouble, coming up with a reasonable system.

Okay, now THAT moves the conversation forward a bit! How could we make the system so that it's NOT tedious? To me, tedium means something I have to do over-and-over again to accomplish something, such as the grinding we do for mastery on 'Mechs, especially three variants of the same 'Mech chassis. Again, what I'm suggesting has nothing to do with grinding that I have to do, but rather something that remains in the background.

Quote

1) Loyalists (aka House non-merc players) will essentially be lemmings, running missions where they please and helping to "flip" the frontiers on behalf of their house.

Not the frontiers... Mercs will have those. The faction worlds will be the responsibility of the Houses, the border worlds for the Mercs.

Quote

For CW and lore to make sense, I would assume that mercs would have to align themselves with a particular faction to effect changes on the universe-map... but that such alignments can change. I believe that everyone will start off by choosing an alignment as an individual player, that is overwritten when joining a merc corp (the merc corp decides everyones alignment by accepting a house-alignment).

This sounds absolutely accurate, and sensible to me.

Cimarb, on 24 July 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

While I cannot argue with your assumptions, as they make sense from the little we know, I am hopeful that the delay on Loyalist info is because they have changed that part significantly and Loyalists will fill at least as large of a role as Mercs do. Otherwise, Clan players will be forced to make "faux merc" units to play CW fully.

I believe that all of the factions should have the exact roles they have in the game lore. For example, House units are posted where they're supposed to be posted, historically, and players in Houses get to take part in battles being fought between Houses, and against and in conjunction with Merc units. Merc Units get to work for Houses, sometimes side-by-side... I'm having difficulty trying to figure out why PGI has to change these things?

Quote

I would just really like to get more info on what PGI is planning, and whether this R&R/Salvage system is even possible...

Oh, it's not only possible, it's still on their slate, reportedly -I do too much reading on these forums-, but it will be some time down the road, if the Dev VLOGs and Command Chairs are to be believed. However, I believe it's well beyond time for us to hear something more about it.

[Cimarb]

Kay Wolf, on 24 July 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

However, I believe it's well beyond time for us to hear something more about it.

That is my point: official details PGI...pls?

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 24 July 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

MWO, I believe, will always have the combat-side as their primary focus, with everything else being of minor importance. MWO will never be about living the campaigns, either a a House military warrior or as a merc; it will be more about endless deathmatch drops with some kind of minor map overlay. I do not expect to get the experience of developing a character from private to top ranking general in command of a huge area of space; much as I would wish for this game to evolve in that direction.

I don't think I've ever really expected to develop a character from the bottom to the top, except in the most nebulous of ways, like this, but I also don't believe it's ONLY going to be about the combat engine. They've pretty much perfected that -with the caveat, of course, that there remain hiccups here and there-, so why would they go into Community Warfare at all?

[Threat Doc]

It's funny that much of what we've been talking about, here, is also well under conversation here, as well.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 24 July 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

I don't think I've ever really expected to develop a character from the bottom to the top, except in the most nebulous of ways, like this, but I also don't believe it's ONLY going to be about the combat engine. They've pretty much perfected that -with the caveat, of course, that there remain hiccups here and there-, so why would they go into Community Warfare at all?

I am, of course, speculating wildly here. But permit me to indulge myself. The problem PGI has is that CW is being grafted unto what is a game almost explicitly designed against immersion into the lore behind the game.

The potential to create an immersive game where you are living out the stories in the lore is what got me to buy into the game at the very start, sight unseen. Instead, the game went with the collect-mechs and grind model of World of Tanks.

Socialization and character development are completely absent from the game.

The Kesmai model was premised on developing the game not as a shooter first, but rather as a hardcore military RPG with the combat engine a useless droid-killing orgy. As such all kinds of elements were prioritized: maps, units, mercs and so on.

It is not realistic to expect PGI to shift emphasis from MWO as a casual shooter to implementing the complete role-playing shell I dream of. It is not a type of game they understand, I feel.

Now we factor in the minimum-viable model of development and apply it to CW... the kind of depth I have been dreaming of since 1992 just isn't going to happen. At each opportunity, PGI has expressed a vision of CW that is focused on a much more casual market than on the hardcore fanbase that wants to live out the grand campaigns.

The fact that the combat engine is basically done is my point of greatest concern... the Clan Pack revenues are likely to be the highpoint of potential revenues; it is likely to be all downhill from here.

This begs the question: how long before the beancounters begin the process of placing MWO into mantenance mode, milking the game until its eventual demise?

[Heffay]

Kyrie, on 25 July 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

This begs the question: how long before the beancounters begin the process of placing MWO into mantenance mode, milking the game until its eventual demise?

[Threat Doc]

Kyrie, on 25 July 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

I am, of course, speculating wildly here. But permit me to indulge myself. The problem PGI has is that CW is being grafted unto what is a game almost explicitly designed against immersion into the lore behind the game.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying the game is designed counter to being lore immersive? I would 100% agree with you, there. I think something could still be done about it. I don't know about CW being grafted onto the combat engine, but I do think the cart was definitely put before the horse. PGI could have had a full year of development time to get out what they wanted to with regard to CW, and then another six months or so to complete the combat engine, enough 'Mechs and maps for people to be happy with, if they had just not announced the game until about late June of 2013. I understand about the funding model, but considering they were, reportedly, actually working on the game up to a full year before they even made the initial announcement for MWO, and could have worked harder to secure private funding through non-traditional sources, they could have made this happen.

Quote

The potential to create an immersive game where you are living out the stories in the lore is what got me to buy into the game at the very start, sight unseen.

The VERY same reason, here. Actually, for me, the moment they announced the game, I had my account set up, here -you'll notice I'm the 363'd person to have signed on, here, and that's mostly after investors, developers, and other pre-announcement interests had signed up- and, within ten minutes I had my Facebook page for this set up, as well. Within days, the initial workings of the current AU web site, and all of that because what I saw, what I read, the 2009 trailer, all of it was burning a hole in my brain, and driving me on. I expected a LOT and, for the most part, I haven't been disappointed; but, then, after I saw the news about Duke Nukem Forever, the Transformers game, the racing games, I think I lowered my expectations. However, in recent weeks, PGI have shown me even more, to the good, and I believe they're intent to deliver what they said they would. Intent does not always equal progress, however, or a right direction, because the Clan Packs weren't supposed to be put out until CW was on the table. Now, we're two years away from Community Warfare -Dev Blog 0 was put out on 23 October 2011- and that's where a LOT of people, including me, started counting the time until this magnificent thing known as Community Warfare was supposed to be put out. I remember those times like anyone, and I know the growing disappointment I've had. However, since February, and UI 2.0, which a lot of people still ***** and complain about, PGI have been getting better, showing their METL, and things really are starting to get done, in my estimation.

Quote

Instead, the game went with the collect-mechs and grind model of World of Tanks.

I played War Thunder, recently, at the behest of a friend of mine, who was once a member of AU, actually, and the ONLY aspect of the game I liked was that you could purchase multiple copies of the same plane, go fly those and, when you got killed, you could grab another one and get right back into the game. Once your copies were gone, you were done, and had to purchase new copies. I wouldn't mind something like that happening in MWO. However, I agree with you that it's a hard thing to go with a Collect-a-Mech mindset, which is absolutely lore-breaking, and does not bode well for the integrity of the game universe.

Quote

The Kesmai model was premised on developing the game not as a shooter first, but rather as a hardcore military RPG with the combat engine a useless droid-killing orgy. As such all kinds of elements were prioritized: maps, units, mercs and so on.

It is not realistic to expect PGI to shift emphasis from MWO as a casual shooter to implementing the complete role-playing shell I dream of. It is not a type of game they understand, I feel.

You may be right on that. But, then, as I expressed, above, I feel like they're beginning to come into their own, and they have managed to surprise me a couple of times since February. It may not be realistic to expect them to shift, and their shift may not be 100% what we desire to have in our game, but they are shifting, and I think we're going to see something very weakly resembling the RP aspect, as it applies almost strictly to combat, contracts, and shifting borders, but we WILL see something.

Quote

Now we factor in the minimum-viable model of development and apply it to CW... the kind of depth I have been dreaming of since 1992 just isn't going to happen. At each opportunity, PGI has expressed a vision of CW that is focused on a much more casual market than on the hardcore fanbase that wants to live out the grand campaigns.

The fact that the combat engine is basically done is my point of greatest concern... the Clan Pack revenues are likely to be the highpoint of potential revenues; it is likely to be all downhill from here.

Wow, I don't think that's necessarily true at all. Bryan and Russ have both expressed they desire to put this game, eventually, into a PvE model, with campaigns for team and single-player games. I'm sure those campaigns will go for MCs, since P2W can't really be programmed into the campaign, itself, if they want to be able to continue selling campaigns. You want to make the campaign difficult, but not impossible and, if they are able to do it just right, it's very possible they could charge exorbitant prices for each campaign. Just imagine being a part of the Kell Hounds fighting House Kurita on Chara III/Pacifica, as in Warrior: Riposte, or the blood feud between Wolf's Dragoons and House Kurita, or Andrew Redburn's fight against the Liao Goliath's on Hanse and Melissa Davion's wedding day, beginning the Fourth Succession War. Or, even just fighting in Objective Raids, maybe even being allowed to act out your own Unit's history... oh, my... that alone would have me paying through the nose for the rest of my life. The Debacle on Tsitsang, putting out OpOrders for Operation Blender against the Ghost Bears, the pirate hunting contract working FOR House Liao.

The dynamic duo have each expressed, in their own ways and times, that they want to bring the role-playing aspect full-forward, as much as the game will allow, but there will likely never be an MMORPG for the BattleTech universe. That's sad, but I have a feeling one such wouldn't actually do very well, anyway. Too many shiny-twitchers expect to mod their 'Mechs between battles, expect to be able to purchase as many 'Mechs as they want, just want to shoot at one-another. There simply aren't enough BT/MW veterans left to support a game of that magnitude, I'm afraid.

Quote

This begs the question: how long before the beancounters begin the process of placing MWO into mantenance mode, milking the game until its eventual demise?

I honestly do NOT believe that's something which will come along for a long time to come. PGI have expressed, multiple times, the solvency of this endeavor, and they have thousands of environments, hundreds of 'Mech chassis' and variant's they can work with, and there are just too many things they can put on offer, and take tons of money for, that even thinking of putting this game into a 'maintenance mode' just seems foolish, to my mind.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an eternal optimist, or a proverbialW hite K night, but it would be the height of stupidity, like was FASA Corp did in 2001, to shut this game down, when there is just so much further to go. PGI are also turning the corner and coming back to catering more to the veteran's of the game and universe, which is obvious in the recent things they've introduced such as Jump Jet power and heat. Everything they've done in the game thus far, even the most controversial stuff, such as heat scale, 3rd person view, 'Mech coolant modules before their time, etc., has had a positive effect on this game, it's just really hard to see it, sometimes. Cockpit glass, 3D, and other immersive qualities to the game have helped me to feel like I'm there, even when I'm sitting in my plush chair doing nothing but pushing buttons.

Shut down, when they're just getting going? I don't think that sounds legit.

Actually, just now reading through the Dev Blog 0 for the first time since it was originally written, MechWarrior has obviously been a labor of love for them for a long time, and they worked hard to get it where it was. Their initial investors, all of them, said no, and they funded the initial work for this game out of their own pockets, basically. We, the players of MWO, ARE their investors.

Let's just hope that PGI doesn't lose their way, that they continue turning back to their roots, until finally we DO have a game that fits much of the bill, at least, that most of us have always wanted.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 25 July 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 25 July 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

...good stuff...

Very thoughtful reply, and I agree with much of what you say. However, permit me a small measure of paranoia, by observing the development pattern to date:

1) Combat Engine, very simple objectives, few maps.
(a) Sell as many founders packs as possible
2) Create and release a special "CW" set of mechs (Project Phoenix) with an expansion pack. Imply that CW would be in soon with its loyalty points.
3) UI 2.0: Allows for sales without recompiling the front-end for every single change, implement a poor UX to go with this marvel of marketing.
4) Keep releasing new content that is mostly new mechs, heroes, etc.

The pattern I am attempting to make clear is that almost every single dev-hour has been spent on directly-monetizable items, to the extreme point that even three years into the project we do not have lobbies and chat channels in the game.

The minimum-viable model has been applied religiously: develop with minimal resources that which will generate the most revenues.

Please bear in mind that this is not really a criticism of PGI, I respect their need to run a profitable business. However, until I actually see a meaningful expression of CW I am less than convinced such a thing is even possible. The bean-counters are in control of the development priorities, and its not clear how CW will make money. Developing a new Hero mech? Makes money. Clan Pack Reinforcement? Makes money. I personally believe that PGI would be well served to "build an awesome game and let the people come and pay" model of development, but I believe it is fairly clear that the development of this game is tied much more to quarterly revenue calls than anything else.

The current model of development of premium content <--->revenues is working quite well, but I fear that it has reached its peak with the Clan Pack. The windfall of over $3,000,000 is not likely to be repeated again. How PGI chooses to spend its cut of the revenue, how much is going to be re-invested into the game is the key question.

I am almost certain that investing in an "awesome CW" experience will extend the life of the game considerably, and raise more revenues in the long-term. However, there is a legitimate business argument to be made that they can pocket the difference, milk the game for what its worth until the license dies. Please note that, in effect, that is precisely what happened: CW was shelved until the license was renewed. PGI might be forced into the position of trying to maximize revenues to an extent that will prevent enough resources being allocated for a truly meaningful CW experience.

It is not an issue of shutting the game down, the danger is someone running the numbers and concluding that the developers need to move on to the "next big thing", slip into maintenance mode releasing monetizable content but not much else. Which is what has happened right up until now, where we hope PGI is well and truly working on an awesome CW experience.

Edited by Kyrie, 25 July 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[Threat Doc]

I agree with everything you had to say. It is unfortunate that things are the way you say they are, and may very well -now that you've put it the way you have- turn out to be the same as what you've said, as well. That's just depressing.

Kyrie, on 25 July 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

I personally believe that PGI would be well served to "build an awesome game and let the people come and pay" model of development, but I believe it is fairly clear that the development of this game is tied much more to quarterly revenue calls than anything else.

...

I am almost certain that investing in an "awesome CW" experience will extend the life of the game considerably, and raise more revenues in the long-term.

I often say, in these very forums, that PGI needs to build the game and let the rest of us build the community; I am thinking they got that message and, as a result, I've begun recruiting in earnest, both in and out of these forums. I agree with what you said about how PGI would be better served, but I'm afraid you're also right about quarter-calls instead of worrying about the game.

Quote

Please note that, in effect, that is precisely what happened: CW was shelved until the license was renewed.

Was it that CW was shelved as a result of the license, or a result of inexperience on their part, with everything, and they were trying to make the most prudent decision possible, at the time, to show the profitability of the game, so they could get the license back? Was it prudence, or impudence?

Quote

It is not an issue of shutting the game down, the danger is someone running the numbers and concluding that the developers need to move on to the "next big thing", slip into maintenance mode releasing monetizable content but not much else. Which is what has happened right up until now, where we hope PGI is well and truly working on an awesome CW experience.

I have the type of mind that doesn't run in the same circles as the minds of many others, so my hope is that they see it the way you and I would like to believe, that shelving CW was a prudent business decision until they had the right to be able to dedicate resources to it, and that something good is coming down the pipe. If they do come to a point where they're making only what can be monetized, I will be among the first to go, I'm afraid; I may be very serious about how I run my merc unit, and it's a major of my life, I'm telling you, but if it does come down to nothing more than a grind, and a push to get me to buy new things all the time, that's when they'll lose my business, forever.

[Kyrie]

Kay Wolf, on 25 July 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I agree with everything you had to say. It is unfortunate that things are the way you say they are, and may very well -now that you've put it the way you have- turn out to be the same as what you've said, as well. That's just depressing.

I often say, in these very forums, that PGI needs to build the game and let the rest of us build the community; I am thinking they got that message and, as a result, I've begun recruiting in earnest, both in and out of these forums. I agree with what you said about how PGI would be better served, but I'm afraid you're also right about quarter-calls instead of worrying about the game.

Was it that CW was shelved as a result of the license, or a result of inexperience on their part, with everything, and they were trying to make the most prudent decision possible, at the time, to show the profitability of the game, so they could get the license back? Was it prudence, or impudence?

I have the type of mind that doesn't run in the same circles as the minds of many others, so my hope is that they see it the way you and I would like to believe, that shelving CW was a prudent business decision until they had the right to be able to dedicate resources to it, and that something good is coming down the pipe. If they do come to a point where they're making only what can be monetized, I will be among the first to go, I'm afraid; I may be very serious about how I run my merc unit, and it's a major of my life, I'm telling you, but if it does come down to nothing more than a grind, and a push to get me to buy new things all the time, that's when they'll lose my business, forever.

On why CW was delayed -- it became fairly obvious that all development was dedicated to monetized content; and then the license was renewed. I do not believe it is a coincidence. :-) In essence, PGI and IGP had to prove to Microsoft that the game was viable; investing in CW would have curtailed immediate revenues and thus made renewal less likely. My conjecture is that:

1) PGI/IGP were forced to raise revenues dramatically and consistently for various reasons (debts, investors, licensing, etc).
2) At some point within a year of the license renewal, PGI and IGP came to the realization that there was a danger to investing in anything that wasn't directly related to revenue growth; either because the license would not be renewed (and they had a fiduciary responsibility to maximize whatever they could) or, even more importantly, without good numbers to show the license holders there would be less chances of a renewal.