48 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Guys, we're talking about Lostech.

It won't happen anytime soon™.

[SirSlaughter]

I don't really care about n. 3-2-1 but the others would be really useful

[Fut]

As stupid as this sounds, changing the "Launch" button to "Drop" would make me extremely happy! I also like the idea of a static "DropShip" screen for when the MM is looking for a match.

Also, the ability to chat with people while the MM is searching would be a nice addition.

No to Map Selection in the PUG Queue though. People would no longer drop on Caustic or Therma with Laser heavy builds, which in turn would make people lazy with their heat management skills (which is already a bit of a problem).

[Kushko]

By far my biggest one is not seeing mechs i dont own (trial mechs) in my "owned mechs" mechlab section.

This has been requested over and over but they just refuse to listen...i seriously cant believe it would require much work to accomplish, since the whole sales pitch for UI 2.0 was "we can make little changes easier". So yah... :S

[Jonny Taco]

This is a really good list! I agree with everything other than the ability to skip matches in non private drops.

[xhrit]

I just wish you were able to target friendly mechs.

[William Mountbank]

Carrioncrows, on 27 August 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:

8 - Heatsinks, Engine size and number of jumpjets listed when I hover my mouse over a mech in mechlab.

It is annoying as XXXX having to view the mech sheet just to find that info out every stinking time.

I think I would rather just drop straight into a smurfy style page when I click on the mechlab, rather than have to drill down through endless, laggy, menus. Smurfy's is clear, concise and powerful - the actual game it's based on is anything but.

Great suggests though, although Wolfways modifications are even better.

[Slackjawlocal]

only the ones in your mechbay, witch are mechs you own and Trial mechs in the store it doesn't.

[Carrioncrows]

lartfor, on 27 August 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

This is a really good list! I agree with everything other than the ability to skip matches in non private drops.

It costs them about 220k to make a map. The can make that back instantly by allow us to pay MC to skip it.

And I'm not talking about skipping maps I don't prefer, or don't like. I just talking about a map that I flat out loathe to play on. It rarely ever is even remotely fun, and is always frustrating.

I can suffer through it for community warfare

But for casual play, I just want to drop and have fun. And Terra Therma isn't fun, not even remotely.

[Slackjawlocal]

220k a map? Can't be that much. I made maps for Counterstrike for free. Give me the program to make maps and I will pump out new maps daily for the cost of nothing along with 100's of other creative MWO players.

Or create a pack of 10 maps and sell them for MC. People by map packs for COD and games like that the will buy these.

[Carlos Vinson]

Carrioncrows, on 27 August 2014 - 02:09 AM, said:

1. Give me an option to skip bad maps.

I WOULD PAY MC TO NEVER PLAY TERRA THERMA AGAIN IN CASUAL PLAY

It would be a good thing to be able to choose which map you want in PUG play.

[Arkadash]

Johnny Z, on 27 August 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

1. Play button properly renamed "DROP" because this is a mechwarrior game.

...

3. Mechlab renamed "Mech Bay" because this is a mech warrior game.

QFT

[Kushko]

Carrioncrows, on 27 August 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

It costs them about 220k to make a map. The can make that back instantly by allow us to pay MC to skip it.

And I'm not talking about skipping maps I don't prefer, or don't like. I just talking about a map that I flat out loathe to play on. It rarely ever is even remotely fun, and is always frustrating.

I can suffer through it for community warfare

But for casual play, I just want to drop and have fun. And Terra Therma isn't fun, not even remotely.

220k to make a map? Do they also model it irl in 1:1 ratio or something? 22k would be too much, 220k is absurd.

[Dimento Graven]

Wolfways, on 27 August 2014 - 02:37 AM, said:

...
No...mainly because people would skip maps that are bad for their favourite build (for example we'd never see energy-heavy builds on Terra Therma) but also because all the maps (except most of Crimson Straits) are bad.

Disagree, I can't think of any aspect of the BattleTech Universe where the 'Mech Warriors had NO IDEA what planet they were going to end up on, and just left it up to chance that their 'mech was currently configured appropriately for where ever they were going to end up.

PLUS, it's stupid to NOT allow the users some options on the map, be it via a vote, or another drop menu, like game mode, of:

Map Options:
All Maps
Alpine Peaks
Caustic Valley
Canyon Network
Crimson Straight
Forest Colony
Forest Colony Snow
Frozen City
Frozen City Night
River City
River City Night
Terra Therma
Tourmaline Desert
HPG Manifold

Allowing us the users to select which maps we wanted to play on is NOT a bad thing.

IF NOTHING ELSE, it would surely provide PGI with some valuable data on WHICH maps the users actually liked and they could then prioritize similar maps, OR, possibly investigate why certain maps are avoided and MAYBE fix them.

It's never a bad thing to give your customers options.

[Dimento Graven]

Fut, on 27 August 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

As stupid as this sounds, changing the "Launch" button to "Drop" would make me extremely happy! I also like the idea of a static "DropShip" screen for when the MM is looking for a match.

Also, the ability to chat with people while the MM is searching would be a nice addition.

Agreed.

Quote

No to Map Selection in the PUG Queue though. People would no longer drop on Caustic or Therma with Laser heavy builds, which in turn would make people lazy with their heat management skills (which is already a bit of a problem).

Disagree. I like Caustic, don't mind Terra Therma that terribly, but #$%@#$%#$%@#%$@#$@#$#$ River City Night and Frozen City Maps. @#%$@$@#$@#$@#$ all to heck and back (and HPG Manifold with it's craptastic geometry issues is making its way up on my 'most disliked maps too)!

[Vlad Striker]

Skipping map is a bad option because some maps will be played more often than other. But true mechwarrior have to be good on every map

AMS shoots the wall some times not missile. That's bad programming - no LOS, no shot.

What i want is view mech details on purchase screen like mech lab screen. Second - reduce visual explosion of small rounds - LB autocannon or AC2/5.

Edited by Vlad Striker, 27 August 2014 - 10:32 PM.

[BumbleBee]

I hope you NEVER get to choose what map you play on in the public queue. People will outfit their mechs to work on 1 particular map and that is the only map that mech will ever see. At least now you have to build a mech that is viable on most/all maps and you have some variety.

I vote against map selection.

[EvilCow]

BumbleBee, on 28 August 2014 - 02:05 AM, said:

I hope you NEVER get to choose what map you play on in the public queue. People will outfit their mechs to work on 1 particular map and that is the only map that mech will ever see. At least now you have to build a mech that is viable on most/all maps and you have some variety.

I vote against map selection.

Never gave a #$@# about people knowing the map in previous MW games, how is this different now?

From the game perspective, usually it is normal to be equipped for the environment you expect to fight in. I don't need snow equipment if expect to fight in an hot desert.

I see that as an improvement, more reasons for people to play in the mechlab, one more dimension in configurations, more potential business for PGI because people may want to have more than one particular mech in order to not have to change it each time.

[Impyrium]

Carrioncrows, on 27 August 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

It costs them about 220k to make a map.

Seriously? Can you back that up? Because that would explain so much about PGI's inability to consistently create decent MW maps. LL created had better maps that were made for free. PGI is STILL hung up on the tiny little details and visual elements of a map, rather than making it feel like a MW map.

EvilCow, on 28 August 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Never gave a #$@# about people knowing the map in previous MW games, how is this different now?

From the game perspective, usually it is normal to be equipped for the environment you expect to fight in. I don't need snow equipment if expect to fight in an hot desert.

I see that as an improvement, more reasons for people to play in the mechlab, one more dimension in configurations, more potential business for PGI because people may want to have more than one particular mech in order to not have to change it each time.

MWO matches don't compare to previous MW games. Don't do that. MWO matches are small scale arena matches that would only make sense lore wise if they were in Solaris. Previous MW games, LL included, had much larger maps and game modes which tended to be less 'kill everything'. Not only did the map scale make sense, it allowed for a broader amount of maneuvering and tactics. Even MWO's Alpine ruins itself with oversized landmarks and ruins any decent tactics due to how everything revolves around that mountain.

You'll find there'll be less depth in gameplay, because everyone will run the exact same optimized builds on each map. Similar to the 'meta' now, you'll be considered stupid for not bringing these 'optimized mechs'.

And, MWO feels like a competitive online action game. Previous MW games felt like giant mech simulators with multiplayer functionality. There is a significant difference.

Edited by AUSwarrior24, 28 August 2014 - 02:30 AM.

[Huor]

I´d love to see a battle-summary in my mechlab after i have left the battle. Why do i have to spectate a match till the end to get a view of the result.