155 replies to this topic

[Escef]

Sandpit, on 05 August 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Hate the game?
Please show me anywhere at anytime I've said that. Anywhere

I've never seen you say anything but negative things about the game. You might like/love the Battletech and/or Mechwarrior franchise(s), but you obviously do not like MWO. But I guess this is one of those times when your true feelings are obvious to everyone but you.

Edited by Escef, 05 August 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[Anjian]

I played Final Fantasy 14 ARR from August of 2013 to February of 2014 when I closed my sub. Admittedly it was fun until a certain point. That point is finally beating the main storyline, reaching level 50 and its the post story scenario that leaves me grasping. Then you get a lot of grind, long long queue times for dungeons, waiting and farming FATES to level up alternative jobs, nonsense disco floor game mechanics for winning bosses and dungeons (watching YouTube videos of how others did it is a must), and the PvP is a laugh. The game also is more of a tribute to past MMOs but isn't breaking new ground. Anyway, its a great case of how a franchise can be rejuvenated from a bad game.

Although I don't play MWO as often, I do still dip in it once in a while, and its been a much longer time than FF14 ARR. Is this game so bad? I don't think so. Can it be improved? Definitely. Quite frankly I am sick of the maps (not all, but the small, blurry, muddy ones, you know what I mean) and the lack of goals in the game. So you bought the mech? What now? Just leveling them to master. Then that's it. It feels empty.

PGI and MWO has done remarkably well for its limited resources. I think the main complaint on this game can be summed up in a single sentence: Mechwarrior dumped into an F2P format. Its World of Tanks with mechs instead of tanks. Maybe it should be called World of Mechs.

But can you blame PGI? World of Tanks is enormously successful. It rivals World of Warcraft in the number of active players and the money it draws. Its not perfect but its fun and simple, though difficult to master.

F2P formats are better known outside of North America which is why those games work in places like Asia and Europe. F2P still feels alien to the North American game culture which is the homebase for most of Mechwarrior players (this despite two of the most successful F2P games are from North America, Defence of the Ancients 2 and League of Legends).

I don't think the game needs an overhaul, or changing its development and art teams. I do think some leadership changes need to be made. Right now I don't know if there is any clear vision that is taking the game in the future. It definitely needs new maps that are larger, allow for more tactical movement and for god sakes, visually look good (some of the current maps are in that direction), and best of all, these maps must emphasize that Mechwarrior lives in a Sci-Fi environment. The game certainly needs more goals, like acknowledgement to a set of achievements (special mechs and badges for attaining specific goals for example). What are you fighting for? What is your ultimate achievement? What is there to bring you back to the game the next day? The game needs events, events that celebrate and underline important battles in Battletech lore. It needs to bring the universe to the players. Successful games celebrate their lore and the last three games I have been to (World of Tanks, War Thunder and FF14 ARR) does tons of it. MWO on the other hand, seem to carefully avoid its own lore, and when you open up the client, it feels like an ebay offer to buy mechs, more mechs, and other stuff. For that reason I feel MWO feels creatively empty and lacks real soul.

[RedDragon]

meteorol, on 05 August 2014 - 12:50 AM, said:

Mechwarrior is a niche product. No one is willing to invest serious amounts of money into a mechwarrior game because chances are that they will lose it. Mechwarrior never had and never will have the playerbase that justifies shelling out the money it costs to produce a AAA game nowadays.

Ahem. May I refer you to this quote (source):

Quote

As a result of the acquisition, Microsoft gains exclusive and perpetual electronic rights to the BattleTech property, which includes one of the most successful franchises in the computer game industry, "MechWarrior," and its recent real-time strategy extension, "MechCommander ™ ." "MechWarrior 2" and its related add-ons have accounted for more than $70 million in sales.

[MeiSooHaityu]

meteorol, on 05 August 2014 - 12:50 AM, said:

That is something that any company will lack. Did you ever wonder why they couldn'f find a single publisher on this planet that was willing to shell out money for the Mechwarrior 5 with singleplayer (the one with the trailer guys keep reposting every now and then).

Mechwarrior is a niche product. No one is willing to invest serious amounts of money into a mechwarrior game because chances are that they will lose it. Mechwarrior never had and never will have the playerbase that justifies shelling out the money it costs to produce a AAA game nowadays. Hence, not a single publisher was willing to do it. That won't change with a different dev studio. Publishers are not interested in financing good games, they want to finance games that make money.
Why did microsoft do nothing with the IP for years? Probably because they thought the IP isn't worth the investment.

PGI/IGP may want you to believe that, but I highly doubt it is really the case. Since MW2, these games had done extremely well financially.

I think the real reason we had a drought in MW games is because Microsoft owned the rights and lost interest in making big title games.

I'm sure the whole Harmony Gold thing didn't help.

I do agree that the main gaming focus as of late is all about the "Bro Shooter" aka Battlefield and COD, but this game would do well as a standard release FPS game.

PGI/IGP just made a better F2P business case to Microsoft.

You have to admit, PGI/IGP and Microsoft probably earned just as much money on this game as they would have for single player game. Best thing is, with MWO, they only had to put in about 10% of the cost and effort. 2 Years of essentially Beta has proven that lol.

Actually, stating what I did above probably doesn't help my argument for a single player title lol.

[Escef]

MeiSooHaityu, on 06 August 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

PGI/IGP may want you to believe that, but I highly doubt it is really the case. Since MW2, these games had done extremely well financially.

I think the real reason we had a drought in MW games is because Microsoft owned the rights and lost interest in making big title games.

Yeah, because they totally stopped making Halo games, right?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Escef, on 06 August 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah, because they totally stopped making Halo games, right?

Ok, let me put it this way. Microsoft lost interest in making PC games. Mechwarrior never translated well to consoles (too many controls). MW2 on the PlayStation was neat, but very limited.

Yea they backed Halo, but it is the uber popular FPS genre they wanted to sell consoles. A game that doesn't port well to consoles won't move 360s.

It probably doesn't also help that many consider PC gaming a dieing market due to consoles and mobile gaming :/

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 06 August 2014 - 04:51 AM.

[Escef]

MeiSooHaityu, on 06 August 2014 - 04:48 AM, said:

Ok, let me put it this way. Microsoft lost interest in making PC games. Mechwarrior never translated well to consoles (too many controls). MW2 on the PlayStation was neat, but very limited.

Yea they backed Halo, but it is the uber popular FPS genre they wanted to sell consoles. A game that doesn't port well to consoles won't move 360s.

It probably doesn't also help that many consider PC gaming a dieing market due to consoles and mobile gaming :/

I heard that MechAssault 2 had really disappointing sales figures. It's likely not about a lack of desire to make games, it's about opportunity cost. You could have a team make yet another Halo game that you know will sell well, or you can get them to try to resurrect an older franchise who's last entry was a disappointment, but you can't have them do both at once. Just like risk assessment, a sequel you know will sell, or something that has no market traction? Hollywood does the same thing, why do you think most movies are based around some kind of known identity? Transformers, GI Joe, Avengers/Marvel Superheroes, X-men, Spider-man, anything with they can throw a big name actor into, etc. People will see or play stuff they recognize, and studios (game and movie) know these things will sell.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Escef, on 06 August 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

I heard that MechAssault 2 had really disappointing sales figures. It's likely not about a lack of desire to make games, it's about opportunity cost. You could have a team make yet another Halo game that you know will sell well, or you can get them to try to resurrect an older franchise who's last entry was a disappointment, but you can't have them do both at once. Just like risk assessment, a sequel you know will sell, or something that has no market traction? Hollywood does the same thing, why do you think most movies are based around some kind of known identity? Transformers, GI Joe, Avengers/Marvel Superheroes, X-men, Spider-man, anything with they can throw a big name actor into, etc. People will see or play stuff they recognize, and studios (game and movie) know these things will sell.

There ya go. The disappointing release was a poorly done console-ification of franchise. Mechwarrior is a PC game, it doesn't do well on consoles (too many controls, higher graphic demands).

I think the real issue is it couldn't be made to fit their XBOX image so they abandoned it (despite it's PC sales successes).

I agree with you that companies are leary of failure and want a sure thing due to development cost. Thing is, Microsoft really had their blinders on with this product.

Oh well.

[Bhael Fire]

The four main problems with MWO right now are:

1. Maps/Game Modes: Each map is a generic arena. Maps should be custom tailored to a specific game mode with specific objectives other than "kill the enemy."

2. TT Rules Coversion: They F*cked up trying to do a straight conversion from the TT rules as far as weapons balance goes. This lead to some VERY weird and convoluted "balancing" rules. They should have just kept it in the spirit of the TT rules, but not slaved to it. That is, instead of trying to copy stat values, it should have been generalized.

3. Role Warfare: Or lack thereof. They missed the mark on this. But this largely has to do with the first point above. Without meaningful game modes and maps, role warfare will be virtually impossible.

4. Matchmaker. I think Elo was a bad idea for a game like MWO.

That said, the good news is that each one of these issues can be remedied without "starting over."

1. From here on out, each map should be a specific game mode in itself. The current maps are perfect for casual deathmatch arena-style play — which is still a lot of fun, so no need to trash them. But from now on, each new map should be designed specifically with a game mode in mind (e.g., Escort Mission, Raid Mission, Sabotage Mission, Rescue Mission, etc.).

2. While I'm perfectly fine with where weapons balance is now, I wouldn't mind if they did a complete overhaul of the weapons design. Rather than trying to adhere to TT stats, they should balance according to what works in a real-time environment like MWO, but keep the weapons in the same spirit of the TT rules (e.g. small laser has shorter range and less damage than medium laser, medium laser has shorter range and less damage than large laser, etc.).

3. Once we have maps that call for specific tasks other than killing the enemy outright, there will be much more of a necessity for specific roles like scouts, skirmishers, brawlers, etc.

4. It's time to ditch Elo and 3/3/3/3 and bring in a custom BattleValue system to MWO....one that specifically rates the loadout that the player is bringing to the table. While it's hard to rate player skill, you CAN rate the value of their gear and their experience.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 06 August 2014 - 08:27 AM.

[Ambuscade]

Quite awhile back I made a assessment on MWO that it had to clear two major milestones to secure a solid foundation. The first was the Clan mechs. For many BT/MW fans its Clan mechs or nothing. So, naturally PGI would have to craft excellent clan mechs for it to continue to survive. Honestly, I think they did a phenomenal job. Clan mechs look and sound absolutely amazing. I'm going to overlook the balancing issue (because releasing mechs that in lore are vastly superior in a "balanced" setting is tough).

Ultimately, PGI passed that milestone with flying colors. Now remains the second one, CW. This, more then the Clan mechs, will make or break this game. If PGI can clear this milestone with a reasonable amount of success, then this game will continue to survive. I don't believe its a matter of success or redesign. Its a matter of success or the death of MWO.

Ambuscade

[Noesis]

WIP.

Evolution > Reboot.

[Yokaiko]

Escef, on 06 August 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Yeah, because they totally stopped making Halo games, right?

Halo was for the longest time the only reason to buy an X-Box, back when it was PS2 vs X-Box EVERY other titles was on both platforms.

[Sandpit]

Escef, on 05 August 2014 - 10:02 PM, said:

I've never seen you say anything but negative things about the game. You might like/love the Battletech and/or Mechwarrior franchise(s), but you obviously do not like MWO. But I guess this is one of those times when your true feelings are obvious to everyone but you.

then you might want to educate yourself and check post history

I don't think
mech Building Guides
Starting and promoting an MWO radio station
Threads regarding how to improve the MM, NPE, PPC/Gauss situation, etc. are negative but hey to each their own.

[CeeKay Boques]

I can't answer until they reveal the super ultra secret hush hush Community Warfare on the 19th. Then I'll know.

[Sandpit]

Technoviking, on 06 August 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

I can't answer until they reveal the super ultra secret hush hush Community Warfare on the 19th. Then I'll know.

well of course not. Top secret stuff ya know. That's how PGI has already operated. We still have to dig through 3-4 sources to find updated accurate info from the devs.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Bhael Fire, on 06 August 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

The four main problems with MWO right now are:

1. Maps/Game Modes: Each map is a generic arena. Maps should be custom tailored to a specific game mode with specific objectives other than "kill the enemy."

2. TT Rules Coversion: They F*cked up trying to do a straight conversion from the TT rules as far as weapons balance goes. This lead to some VERY weird and convoluted "balancing" rules. They should have just kept it in the spirit of the TT rules, but not slaved to it. That is, instead of trying to copy stat values, it should have been generalized.

3. Role Warfare: Or lack thereof. They missed the mark on this. But this largely has to do with the first point above. Without meaningful game modes and maps, role warfare will be virtually impossible.

4. Matchmaker. I think Elo was a bad idea for a game like MWO.

That said, the good news is that each one of these issues can be remedied without "starting over."

1. From here on out, each map should be a specific game mode in itself. The current maps are perfect for casual deathmatch arena-style play — which is still a lot of fun, so no need to trash them. But from now on, each new map should be designed specifically with a game mode in mind (e.g., Escort Mission, Raid Mission, Sabotage Mission, Rescue Mission, etc.).

2. While I'm perfectly fine with where weapons balance is now, I wouldn't mind if they did a complete overhaul of the weapons design. Rather than trying to adhere to TT stats, they should balance according to what works in a real-time environment like MWO, but keep the weapons in the same spirit of the TT rules (e.g. small laser has shorter range and less damage than medium laser, medium laser has shorter range and less damage than large laser, etc.).

3. Once we have maps that call for specific tasks other than killing the enemy outright, there will be much more of a necessity for specific roles like scouts, skirmishers, brawlers, etc.

4. It's time to ditch Elo and 3/3/3/3 and bring in a custom BattleValue system to MWO....one that specifically rates the loadout that the player is bringing to the table. While it's hard to rate player skill, you CAN rate the value of their gear and their experience.

This makes alot of sense and for the most part wouldn't require a complete redesign, rather it would just be a re-focus toward a much different type of game play and one that would tie into CW very well.