222 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Kay Wolf, on 31 March 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

You are not worthy of my response. Good day.

He's right. You're wrong.

Proof: MWO as it is today.

[Rebas Kradd]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

@Rebas: What you're ignoring is that this game exists because of people like the Founders, many of whom are die-hard BT nerds or old time MW league players. While I don't think this game should should backtrack and rebuild itself according to what a few people wish it was, I also don't think it would be smart to completely ignore that old pre-existing playerbase.

I appreciate that. But if those players generally want features or philosophies that are arguably bad for the game, as many of them do, then you know what? They need to be ignored. That's just the tough reality of it. A Founder's title doesn't make your ideas right nor your wallet bigger in PGI's eyes. They can't afford to think like that.

Repair and rearm is not a good idea. Even other BT hardcores don't want that. Sticking players into one weight class for their entire career, as I've seen some of them want for "story" and "immersion" purposes, is just pure inaccessibility for no good reason. Large MWLL-style maps that require ten minutes of looking for the enemy is only going to drive players away.

Now, you want to talk about gameplay issues that affect us all, that don't immediately drive people off but involve simple choices, and are indisputably GOOD for the game, fine. Like better mechlab, better economy, single-player and co-op missions, and a deeper CW that involves force movement and drop costs, real Merc life, etc. That stuff is great. Or, if you want to put things like RnR and large maps into a separate game mode for the players jonesing for a more immersive challenge, that works too, as long as you've got the player base to support it.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 01 April 2015 - 09:57 AM.

[Tarogato]

Rebas Kradd, on 01 April 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

I appreciate that. But if those players generally want features or philosophies that are arguably bad for the game, as many of them do, then you know what? They need to be ignored. That's just the tough reality of it. A Founder's title doesn't make your ideas right nor your wallet bigger in PGI's eyes. They can't afford to think like that.

Repair and rearm is not a good idea. Even other BT hardcores don't want that. Sticking players into one weight class for their entire career, as I've seen some of them want for "story" and "immersion" purposes, is just pure inaccessibility for no good reason. Large MWLL-style maps that require ten minutes of looking for the enemy is only going to drive players away.

Now, you want to talk about gameplay issues that affect us all, that don't immediately drive people off but involve simple choices, and are indisputably GOOD for the game, fine. Like better mechlab, better economy, single-player and co-op missions, and a deeper CW that involves force movement and drop costs, real Merc life, etc. That stuff is great. Or, if you want to put things like RnR and large maps into a separate game mode for the players jonesing for a more immersive challenge, that works too, as long as you've got the player base to support it.

You remind me that I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.

I've kinda found myself as a semi-comp to comp player with a focus on twitchy meta... I was never even around before 2014, yet...

I would love to have repair and rearm, and an in depth salvage system that hearkens back to MW2:Mercs, MW4, or even Earthsiege if you're familiar with that game. I would also love larger maps that require you to actually FIND the enemy and use tactical positioning. All this spawn, walk 300m, engage entire enemy force ... is getting tiring. I would love if these kinds of these were introduced into CW, and I simply don't understand why so many people are so against it. Shouldn't CW be that immersive challenge?

But such is the life of one individual. =/

I think the biggest problem is people are imagining the worst case scenario instead of best case. All these things can be great for the game if they're done right. For instance: Alpine. PGI has stated that they don't want to do large maps anymore because they've deemed Alpine as unsuccessful. Yet they never tried to fix Alpine! If only they made a handful of tweaks... it could be the most successful map in the game! ... but PGI is lazy and doesn't want to waste time on fixing old things, only making new things without ever seeming to learn from their old mistakes.

Edited by Tarogato, 01 April 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Tarogato, on 01 April 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

You remind me that I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.

I've kinda found myself as a semi-comp to comp player with a focus on twitchy meta... I was never even around before 2014, yet...

I would love to have repair and rearm, and an in depth salvage system that hearkens back to MW2:Mercs, MW4, or even Earthsiege if you're familiar with that game. I would also love larger maps that require you to actually FIND the enemy and use tactical positioning. All this spawn, walk 300m, engage entire enemy force ... is getting tiring. I would love if these kinds of these were introduced into CW, and I simply don't understand why so many people are so against it. Shouldn't CW be that immersive challenge?

But such is the life of one individual. =/

Hey, I'd like it, too. Sounds great to have to actually use scouting instead of just glancing into the one valley. But every time I myself bring up larger maps, you always get reps of the silent majority going "I don't want MWO to be a walking simulator."

I do think there's a fine line PGI can try walking, though, that they aren't even approaching. And I think CW would be a fine place for larger maps that demand role warfare. That's the home for hardcores anyway. Salvage sounds great, also...no burden on players, nothing but an extra bonus game for players.

And yeah, Russ completely misinterpreted the angst over Alpine. I hope Tina is paying attention; so much of the community's position gets passed over.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 01 April 2015 - 12:19 PM.

[CyclonerM]

Well..

I am occasionally a casual player of other games like World of Tanks or War Thunder. That means i play for as much as a week or a month at best, then stop playing it altogheter and move to something else or back to MWO (which i usually do not stop playing at all). How much cash did i drop on those games? 0. Even though they are good or very good games in their own right, they do not have that something (the BTU universe and the depth) that makes me still play MWO and pay more than 1 hundred of € to get my favourite 'Mechs earlier or get my new Cluster's camo colors.

Many say that "twitchers" are the main flow of cash, but how many of them do actually stick around and pay ? How many of them just switch to another game that catches their attention?

I am no business man (not going to become one anytime soon) but i think it would be better to have a stable player base before seeking new opportunities risking alienating the old, long time players. The game should have something for everyone, just like War Thunder has arcade battles for when you just do not have time or look for a quick and exciting battles, and other modes for when you want a more immersive, authentic, and realistic experience with more thinking involved.

Why CW cannot be such game mode? Why cannot it be the hardcore roleplaying mode Russ promised?

[Rebas Kradd]

Kay Wolf, on 01 April 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

Every time you bring something up that would be "arguably bad for the game", you make me sick. You don't have the first frackin' clue what would be good or bad for this game, because NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN TRIED YET!!!!

Investigate any thread discussing Repair and Rearm. Plenty of people are glad to see it gone. And it WAS tried.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 02 April 2015 - 06:13 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Rebas Kradd, on 01 April 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

And it WAS tried.

But there are other ways it could be implemented. I invite you to read my ideas about R&R and CW here. Even if they probably sound too hardcore for twitchers and friends, i have received positive feedback and my ideas for the R&R mechanics are, in my opinion, not too hard to implement, and they could give a meaning to onwing planets and joining a faction.

[Heffay]

Kay Wolf, on 02 April 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

::snip::

Relevant: http://nodontdie.com/anonymous/

Particularly the final paragraph.

Quote

Here's a truism: No one happy goes out of their way to **** on other people's work. No one I'd want to be friends with would find that a useful or productive use of their time. So the only way to deal with people like that is to remove their power by not paying any attention to them.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kay Wolf, on 02 April 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

[Redacted]

My stance is that the game you want, and the game PGI originally promised, is financially inviable. That opinion is based on reading the opinion of other forum users and MWO community members over the course of several years; PGI's own statements; and the relative success of the current game despite numerous potholes.

It's regrettable that PGI cast that original vision and THEN realized it wouldn't fly, all while keeping mostly mum about it. But that's not the same as a scam, regardless of your personal feelings. And again - you're ignoring the fact that early design concepts are subject to change. Few final products out there resemble what they looked like at such a stage.

I am quite jonesing for new and interesting gamemodes and missions with real story and decision-making, logistics and costs in CW, progression through and proper rarity of weight classes, melee if they can manage it, and a few other things. That's where you and I have common ground. And it's worth noting that PGI is not done. You critics keep falling back to your cynicism and assuming the game won't go anywhere. We've crept through CW Beta, better balance, performance improvements and now a new mechlab while you've continued to hold onto that position. We're not done. There is still room for a lot of things to be added. It's just going to take some time.

But on some other things I'm just not convinced that they're good for the game, nor are many other people. And I'm not going to be bullied and insulted into changing my mind. You seriously need to reexamine how you deal with people.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 06 April 2015 - 04:55 PM.

[Gorgo7]

The more depth this game has the better.
R&R could easily be a very small but interesting part of it.
R&R doesn't have to be punitive but could be implemented in game as a reload station or armour replacement station in a multi-map campagn. It could be part of a convoy interdiction or assassination themed game. All are possible and all are coming with time.
To be so against it is to be very narrow minded indeed.
Yes they tried it once and it flopped. So what?
Try it again.
Currently CW is all about taking out the AA guns. Next phase will be about taking and holding territory. Multi map anyone? How about some R&R that only effects armour and ammo. Wrecked in the last fight but need that mech back for the next campaign board? R&R. Perhaps only ammo and Armour for free but destroyed components for cash...
There are lots of options and lots of ways of doing it.
More depth. The game needs more depth and R&R is a simple way of adding some.

[Heffay]

R&R could be incorporated into CW somehow, but not into the base game. It leads to undesirable game play if it doesn't have something to control it.

But keep in mind there are many ways to add depth that aren't a R&R mechanic. The public queue should continue to be easily accessible to people. But adding complexity to CW does make sense.

[Gorgo7]

I agree, R&R in the base game would be short sighted.
R&R as CW stands now would also be...funny. Not haha. Just funny.
However, should the devs build a mod whereupon you play a small four man team game before proceeding to another, small four man, R&R in the second match could be very interesting indeed. If you end up in a damaged machine before the game proper starts. Spending some money and time repairing it as opposed to bringing your second string mech would add a new dimension. How about taking a piece of territory and holding it for as long as possible against all comers? Enemy drop, you win. R&R in the field and another enemy drop. etc. Don't want R&R? bring a lesser Mech for free.
i don't have the answers but it could be part of a superior game that they already have a mechanism for.
Keep an open mind, that's all.

[Heffay]

You'd really need a separate currency for it. At the end of the day, R&R is just another resource pool you have to manage. It's only compelling if it affects something outside of the matches themselves. Which are resource constrained by , heat, etc.

If you use it to limit choices for the player (i.e. bring a lesser mech or bring a damaged mech), it's not fun. People work hard for their mechs. They don't want to have to deal with the same mundane BS that is just like real life.

[Gorgo7]

Perhaps you could purchase "repair modules" and use them as you see fit. Limited to a fixed number per game. People are happy spending CBills on Arty and Air as well as UAV's why not R&R in the right context.
Currently no hope of it. But the future is probably closer than some would think.
Anyway, my point was for those in this OP not to dismiss it too fast. It could be useful and enriching in the future.

[Tina Benoit]

Hello,

Let's please stay on topic and constructive on this thread or it will have to be locked.
Nonconstructive posts will be removed.

On a side note; yes there are plans for another Dev Vlog very soon.
In fact it is currently in planning phase.

[slide]

Whilst you are planning your Vlog can please keep in mind that most people who want to see it, would like some information on what is coming.

The last couple of Vlogs were really recaps of what we already had in game and were largely wastes of time as you were preaching to the choir.

Most anybody who visits the forums wants some idea of where this game is headed over the next 6 months or so. You can throw all the Maps and mechs you want at us, but unless there are some fundamental shifts in the game play and some bones are given to your existing players (and I don't mean more free mechs) things are going to continue on a downwards trajectory with regard to veteran and new player alike.

The new player experience is absolutely terrible (always has been) but it is far worse now with new players being able to get into CW with zero experience where they get absolutely smashed and then abused by friend a foe alike for being terribads. It is hard enough for veterans let alone new players.

If you think my downward spiral is hyperbole, talk to any unit leader and compare their registered numbers, vs those actually playing.

Despite some peoples thoughts to the contrary this game needs pugs. Pugs get stomped by everyone in every game mode. If you want them to stay and spend money they need an opportunity to learn and get better, then they might have a chance.

The match makers continued failures to put similar opponents against each other are a direct result of low population, I might see this more acutely in the Oceanic timezone but in is endemic no matter the time of day. I am an average player, don't profess to be anything different, I get matched against new players in trial mechs and I slaughter them, in just the same way as I get stomped by the really good players. What is really bad is the times, which are all too frequent, when those very same new players are pitted against those very same good players. I have seen it happen far to many times to count. These people Good, Average and New should not be in the same matches together. EVER! It is bad for everyone. CW just exacerbates the problem because there is simply not people enough playing it.

Edited by slide, 08 April 2015 - 08:09 PM.

[jay35]

Looking forward to the next vlog.

Rebas Kradd, on 01 April 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

I appreciate that. But if those players generally want features or philosophies that are arguably bad for the game, as many of them do, then you know what? They need to be ignored. That's just the tough reality of it. A Founder's title doesn't make your ideas right nor your wallet bigger in PGI's eyes. They can't afford to think like that.

Repair and rearm is not a good idea. Even other BT hardcores don't want that. Sticking players into one weight class for their entire career, as I've seen some of them want for "story" and "immersion" purposes, is just pure inaccessibility for no good reason. Large MWLL-style maps that require ten minutes of looking for the enemy is only going to drive players away.

Are people actually still asking for things like that? This is why I hardly ever come to the forums (got linked here from another site regarding the news that a new vlog is coming and then noticed the discussion going on in the thread), and why I am disappointed that PGI is constantly exposed to such ridiculous requests from people who can hound a forum but clearly don't play the actual game very much. Their demands would completely ruin MWO and its core gameplay and all because they can't cognitively separate a turn-based tabletop dice-based game, from a real-time, first-person skill-based game that happens to share the same universe and generally nothing more.

The two products couldn't be any more different. Notice that none of the Mech Warrior games mention Battletech. Look at Mech Assault and notice it doesn't mention Mech Warrior or Battletech. They are each distinctly different product lines that happen to share a universe for storyline, general concepts, and the naming of things but very little else.

Yet we still have people who want to turn MWO into some sort of safety-vested Battletech simulator where they can take a mech out into an open field, stomp around, and hold staring contests with enemies, push a lot of buttons that do very little damage to each other but make a lot of cool noises and explosions, and after about thirty minutes of low-IQ salivating, eventually someone dies but it's almost completely random and not based on actual skill. Basically the tabletop game turned into some sort of lousy computer game.

And the scary part is they think that vision would be a healthy direction for the current product. It's also strange that they think people with that mindset make up the whales in the community, which is also a baseless belief. Whales are not people who bought a founders package three years ago and then passive-aggressively demand things from PGI or else they won't continue to throw a few bucks in once in a while for some MC while they are generally disappointed in the game. Whales are people who like what they're playing enough to invest significantly in it today in order to skip some of the grind and access the majority of the content in the game as quickly as possible. Whales spend thousands of dollars on the game. If you're not at that level, you're not a whale, sorry.

I hope this post is viewed as constructive, because it's crucial that we correct certain posters here that apparently are isolated into their own warped view of things and still desire bad mechanics for MWO, think they're the core audience when they aren't, and waste everyone's time with their demands that bring little value to discussions around the future of this product.

[Rebas Kradd]

jay35, on 08 April 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

I hope this post is viewed as constructive, because it's crucial that we correct certain posters here that apparently are isolated into their own warped view of things and still desire bad mechanics for MWO, think they're the core audience when they aren't, and waste everyone's time with their demands that bring little value to discussions around the future of this product.

I would like to think that there is still room in the game somewhere for a lot of these features. But starting out with them, or implementing them into the "instant action" side that new players are going to see, is the bad idea in my view.

[jay35]

I wish MW:T had survived, in part because that could have satiated a lot of the Battletech-based desires and kept MWO free from some amount of those requests that are happening more often here. There is still MegaMek and things like that, but I can't blame them for wanting to take the more visually-appealing MWO and bend that to their will instead.

Edited by jay35, 08 April 2015 - 07:26 AM.

[Heffay]

jay35, on 08 April 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

This is why I hardly ever come to the forums (got linked here from another site regarding the news that a new vlog is coming and then noticed the discussion going on in the thread)

(sorry, had to )