Anyone Aside From Me Really Wish Pgi Would Just Stop And Redesign The Game?
#1
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:34 AM
Anyway, anyone wish PGI would just stop and reboot the game?
Honestly about 2 weeks ago I saw my first video of Mechwarrior: Living Legends and immediately thought to myself that this was what I was hoping MWO would be. Sure it needed better graphics and some tweaks but for the most part it looked perfect.
So here we are with MWO which is well just lacking pretty much everywhere. Maps too small, battles don't feel like battles, no real sense of purpose behind the battles, no community warfare and no way to really add it in any substantial format without greatly expanding the map selections among other things.
I say start over. You already have most of the assets so you wouldn't need to fully start over, just start over on things like maps. Make them larger and more like MM:LL where you have objectives that have to be held or destroyed in order to gain victory points. Open up respawns, perhaps where you can select 4-5 mechs as "reinforcements" Add tons of maps to the game, design them so they randomly generate to make every battle unique. Add in actual faction vs faction warfare that has meaning. Just start over.
Hell I might even be convinced to buy some sort of re-boot package to hell finance it.
Anyway, yeah I know, wishful thinking but it sure would be nice.
#2
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:39 AM
It's basically an all new game, and not a redesign - is what I'm saying.
#4
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:44 AM
Playing this game should be fun....not an excuse for a small core of Players who use Art/Air strikes to ruin the game.
This is supposed to be a team game, yet the team game is not viable due to Cheap as chips RED SMOKE.
#5
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:45 AM
Vassago Rain, on 04 August 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:
It's basically an all new game, and not a redesign - is what I'm saying.
I would subscribe to your newsletters and this option.
On the other hand, there would actually have to be a real wait for various reasons... to salvage whatever is there... or worst case, start all over.
That doesn't even begin to cover the stuff people already paid for (hero mechs for instance).
#6
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:47 AM
#7
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:48 AM
The graphics (and overall performance) is ehh, but I still think it is a descent looking game. If they can honestly deliver some mild destructable enviroments (crushed cars, falling trees, etc...), I think that will go a long way. Some optimization to the performance would be nice too.
The Weapon balance and convergence is more of a PGI preference and less of them unable to deliver or lack of capabilities. They just want it to work the way they want it, so there.
Lastly, content is the real big sticking point for people. People want things like CW and Maps. Starting a game over from scratch would get us even farther from content.
Overall, the game has an excellent framework IMO. The core mechanics and bare bones product is solid. Most of the problems lies with PGI's slow development times and balancing decisions. That goes beyond the core game itself.
Just my 2 cents.
#8
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:52 AM
However there are areas of the game that have been completely neglected, namely role warfare.
The module system and skill system are in desperate need of attention.
#10
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:53 AM
Khobai, on 04 August 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:
However there are areas of the game that have been completely neglected, namely role warfare.
The module system and skill system are in desperate need of attention.
Yes, I totally agree with you.
#11
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:01 AM
MeiSooHaityu, on 04 August 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:
The graphics (and overall performance) is ehh, but I still think it is a descent looking game. If they can honestly deliver some mild destructable enviroments (crushed cars, falling trees, etc...), I think that will go a long way. Some optimization to the performance would be nice too.
The Weapon balance and convergence is more of a PGI preference and less of them unable to deliver or lack of capabilities. They just want it to work the way they want it, so there.
Lastly, content is the real big sticking point for people. People want things like CW and Maps. Starting a game over from scratch would get us even farther from content.
Overall, the game has an excellent framework IMO. The core mechanics and bare bones product is solid. Most of the problems lies with PGI's slow development times and balancing decisions. That goes beyond the core game itself.
Just my 2 cents.
While I agree with you, PGI has unfortunately done little to no work improving upon it. Want multi-caps? We got Conquest. Want no-caps? We got Skirmish. Wow. Exciting. Ben Stein's Clear Eye commercials are much more enjoyable than this.
If more effort was put into designing new modes or variations, the game's state would not be so dire. It's hard to want to play similar modes that are more or less the same.
That doesn't even begin to express my disdain for the lack of tutorials.
#12
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:02 AM
Hit launch..
Die/Lose? great you get some Cbills, and start your next match.
Win? Great, you get a few more Cbills and start your next match.
There is no bonus to playing to survive, no penalty for dying like a moron...
No reason to play any role warfare.. (Scouts? wtf for? Just blob around and if the enemy finds you, shoot better than him.)
-------------------------
As much as I would love for Comm warfare to be meaningful.. I suspect it is just going to be a special set of the same battles we are already fighting. Take the current 12v12 battles, and give them a planet to fight over.. it is the same thing.
(PGI could do a lot of good in making the battles mean something to the individual.. after the battle.)
I suspect this will not be the case.
SMH.
#13
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:05 AM
Deathlike, on 04 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:
While I agree with you, PGI has unfortunately done little to no work improving upon it. Want multi-caps? We got Conquest. Want no-caps? We got Skirmish. Wow. Exciting. Ben Stein's Clear Eye commercials are much more enjoyable than this.
If more effort was put into designing new modes or variations, the game's state would not be so dire. It's hard to want to play similar modes that are more or less the same.
That doesn't even begin to express my disdain for the lack of tutorials.
Yea, I agree with you too.
Really it comes down to...Good core mechanic gameplay with no substantial content to back it up.
I still play the game because I find the core mechanic so solid, but man am I bored of what we have to play with. I play on mixed (Conquest/Assault/Skirmish) just for SOME variety. It rarely delivers so I play about 20 min and then I am done.
And no kidding about the tutorials. I signed up and played Hawken a bit, their tutorial was actually pretty descent.
PGI would make a tutorial, but it has new MC mech packages to make :/
#14
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:14 AM
Quote
yep its one dimensional gameplay with zero depth whatsoever. the most effective tactic is simply to group up and focus fire because there is no need to do anything else. even the primary objective is ignored most of the time in favor of just killing the enemy team... because you arnt even rewarded properly for capping.
role warfare needs to be addressed in two ways: modules/skills and gamemodes.
first, mechs need to be divided up into their classic battletech roles (striker, assault, fire support, command, recon, etc...). a mech's role should determine what modules, skills, and equipment it can use. no single mech should be able to do everything. creating dependency on other roles adds tactical depth to gameplay.
second, we need a gamemode that gives both assaults and lights something to do. right now we have gamemodes that favor one weight class or the other, but not a gamemode that requires both. If base assault and conquest were combined into a single gamemode it would give every weight class something to do. The primary objective would be to destroy the other teams mobile hq, the secondary objective would be to win by points, by capturing 3 points spread out across the map. And the tertiary objective would be to destroy all enemy mechs. a gamemode like that has strategic depth because theres multiple ways to win.
Edited by Khobai, 04 August 2014 - 08:24 AM.
#15
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:40 AM
What does need to be done is a redesigning on core features of gameplay. IE. Convergence/weapon balance, role warfare/class balance, ect...
I guess the main problem is they over sold and took on too much at one time. Now they have a game that is a patchwork of incomplete of broken ideas.
#16
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:44 AM
Ambuscade
#17
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:47 AM
Quote
its by no means the "ideal" gamemode. but given the current limitations of PGI, it seems the easiest way for them to implement a gamemode with more strategic depth.
#18
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:55 AM
1. PGI Blocked MW:LL from releasing their mechlab. In a way, this isn't so bad, because, surprisingly, the stock builds in MW:LL are really, really nice.
2. The way the 'mechs interact with the terrain. There are some issues in MWO right now where we get stuck on little rocks. This is worse in MW:LL.
That's about it. MW:LL beyond that is superior in every way. The game is a million times more fun, has far more depth, the maps are superior, the ticket based system allows for LARGE amounts of VARIETY in every game due to how the spawns work, so there isn't this... "deathball here and hope to win."
I wish upon wish people would play MW:LL.
#19
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:58 AM
Mister Blastman, on 04 August 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:
Set a date, preferably on a PGI Patch Day Tuesday. Give links (to downloads and/or TS servers),
It would be a great wakeup call for PGI, and some exposure to what we're all missing.
#20
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:59 AM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users