RalphVargr, on 10 December 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:
Preface: Do not "Blame Canada" ™.
I think the two biggest problems that MWO has are essentially unfixable, structural issues. These are *not* unique to PGI, or the Battletech I.P., as other games suffer from them too. In increasing order: 1) Free To Play (F2P) The model of F2P is fundamentally flawed, as it forces monetization of all content at some point in time (pay to win), and divisions inside the player base (the "entitlement" muck). Additionally, it drags out the development cycle. No pay-to-play game could hope to survive releasing what is essentially a beta version, and bringing it up to speed as free-to-play playtesters proof the game. I have spent more money, in this year (my first try at this mode of payment), on F2P, then I would have on entering the World Series Of Poker. The results, in terms of entertainment value, for me, have not been superior to a standard pay-to-play game. I do not think I'm alone in thinking this. 2) Competitive Team Play. This is by far the worst problem. Online games are notorious for poor social conduct (and I claim no exemption). But the group model of play brings out the worst in online gaming behavior. Team killing, petty tyrants, group drama, berating and blaming/shaming- team games bring out the worst in people. Not to mention the forums... Again, I claim no special exemption. Guilty as charged. When you have a team environment, a vicious Darwinian cycle begins, in which only the most skilled and equipped players can hope to survive and compete. Community/Clan Warfare only shifts the most competitive players/teams into even more harsh cycles of deadly gameplay, while the main, casual community withers into a stale environment. I've seen this occur in World of Tanks/Warplanes, as an example. The only alternative is a player-versus-environment solo mode, or a limited amount of player interaction. This can be the sandbox model, or the RPG model. MWO would need to be completely rebuilt to address both these issues. That is not a realistic expectation. It is futile to expect a small company, with limited resources, to fix an industry-wide set of issues. Lecturing the company, or the game community is equally futile, and toxic. It may simply be that one either accepts the current state of affairs, or moves on. In my case, it will result in reduced time spent playing MWO, and more time spent on other activities. I look forward to a prettier galaxy map in CW.
I don't think the solo queue will shrivel and die. I think there are far more casual players, or players in small units, then there are hardcore players. If anything the CW queue is the one most likely to have difficulty.
CyclonerM, on 10 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:
Why not? I actually hate when a franchise is adapted to work with a F2P structure.. There have been LOT of good and awesome MW videogames before MWO, all with their flaws, but they have had good things neverthless. MW2 was amazingly immersive (especially when you are 7-8 y.o.), MW3 was the best simulator of the series i think, MW4 had a lot of 'Mechs and lot of multiplayer possibilities (and MW4 Mercs also had an intriguing campaign that left the player some choices), MWLL is just awesome, the first true BattleTech game, the MechCommander series is good too.. Actually, the perfect MW game , in my opinion, cannot be a F2P. It should be a very open project like Star Citizen, with community-created content. I bet CIG would be the only software house that could create a truly big, immersive and awesome MechWarrior game. Imagine Star Citizen with a focus on 'Mechs instead of ships, but keeping a space combat and travel component ...
But CIG could not do any of the things they promised if players had not fronted millions of dollars up front for an unseen product. If CIG had the MW franchise then Atlases would cost $1000 dollars.
Vassago Rain, on 10 December 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:
MWO is one of the most P2W games ever made. Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but it is. They routinely lock meta and new stuff behind a paywall. For instance, all the clan stuff was behind a paywall for 6 months. That was tons of fun, now wasn't it? F2P is also not doing well at all in 2014, and will do even worse in 2015. It's a bit like kickstarter. They've both served their purpose as experiments, and proven to not really work. All you get out of both is mediocre games that don't update, other than to add more monetized content. Which isn't necessarily because the devs are greedy or awful, but because the model itself requires that you do it. Of course, there are some shining examples of both done right, but comparing MWO to path of exile isn't really fair.
The paywall is gone now though. Maybe PGI will bring new equipment in in a similar style, such as MC only Light Gauss, in the future, but right now there is no difference between the tech available to a F2P player and a whale.
Gyrok, on 10 December 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:
The issue is not the competitive teams, they want to win. The issue is the derps who like to troll the play2win crowd by not helping and then enjoy watching the other guys break their backs trying to carry their inept robots. EDIT: Actually, neither of these are issues. Truthfully...this is closer: 3/3/3/3 does not work. The matchmaker has lost elo, and he has not been found in quite some time. Large premade groups must form by contrived rules that 2-3 smaller groups do not, giving a possibly large tonnage advantage to one side in spite of similar skill on both sides. ECM. Clan energy runs too hot, clan ballistics are terribad, and clan LRMs/SRMs are generally inferior to IS weapons IS customization is OP, and all but energy weapons are outright better than the "superior" clans. Light mechs. Clans do not really have any, and IS has some ridiculously good ones. PP FLD + convergence. LBX has no alternate mode. CERPPC does splash damage. Hit registration is borked. No MASC yet... Jump jets are mislabeled, as they are actually hover jets. Aside from that, it is a great game though...
Sorry for my formatting, but Multiquote just lumped everything into one large block of text. I'll address the points below.
1. 3/3/3/3 never got a chance, because heavier mechs have no downsides. People refused to leave their heavier mechs and complained about wait times. Just like people refused to play anything other than their preferred game mode. Russ stated one of these things need to change to improve MM.
2. Are you actually arguing that a 12 man is at a disadvantage vs 3 4 mans?
3. If players got their way, ECM would be pretty worthless. "Ooh, it negates Artemis!" Yeah. Clan ballistics? I thought everyone said that was how ballistics were supposed to be? I guess people just wanted to make IS ballistics worse than Clan. Also, Clan SRMs are flat out better than IS. How do you think they are worse?
4. I don't know what Clan players are thinking when they say they don't have good light mechs. Since when did scouting become so important? Having a 35 ton mech with the firepower of a 50 ton mech will come into it's own with tonnage limits/CW.
5. So the LBX doesn't just flat out replace the regular AC? Good. It's one less upgrade people have to make. Players have asked for splash damage on PPCs for over a year. It only makes sense that the CERPPC would get it.
6. If MASC made it into your top 10 problems with the game, then the game must be doing pretty good.
7. If JJs worked like in TT people would complain that the game was like Tribes, but with robot avatars.
2
