25 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Not a personal attack at all, but, that is the kind of "attitude" we need to shed here on the Forums. Forget the past. It is in the past. Let's keep feeding in data (playing) and general feedback and see what transpires.

CW is not even fully 3 weeks old. The Dev Team are on Christmas Holiday ffs, one they rightfully deserve too imho.

If it was all done by Magic, fine, we could have it all tomorrow. Sadly, there is no magic. There is just coding, testing, more coding etc. etc. It takes TIME. (coding is sorta magic though)

Not to quibble with you, but in my experience it's the few who say "it's new let the devs decide" who give the developers a reason to think the current implementation is good enough. From there they let a bad thing fester until it's too late then take half measures to rectify it. I'd rather push on the developers to course correct early.

Sure, fixing CW will take months but having a vision doesn't. As a developer myself, I completely understand the time difference between design and delivery. :-)

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Sure, we are 3 years in now. Guess what? If this were not a F2P game model, your CD in a Box would just be arriving in stores. If you were one of the lucky few, you may have gotten a BETA key 3-4 months ago to try MWO. But it is a F2P model and we got let in the basement.

So let's focus our efforts where they may do the most good. Helping PGI and ANY new players we meet in the game, instead of tearing some poor Dev or Newb a new one because they are "coding too slow", or driving a Trail, that they had no choice but to take, in a effort to fulfill the needs for participation in CW.

I thought MWO would produce a more mature audience/community. At times I have been sadly disappointed. (Yes, I may have even contributed a smidge to that "tood" as well) and will try harder in the future to keep it in check.

And thank god it's not a boxed game (I don't play those), but saying "it's beta" isn't my point. Beta is to test robustness, scalability, performance, etc. Beta is not for testing core design. Again, my issue is with the core design of CW - I think the coding is fine, it's the management/design team who I feel have failed me.

64K RAM SYSTEM, on 30 December 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

...

The current trend seems to be really driving CW to be a competitive player only area leaving the public matches the only comfortable place for a casual player. It is a pity since I really like the updating galactic map with planets changing and having the ability to play for a house. Would be great if they could implement the galactic map and factions to the current public matches somehow...

Everything 64K said is spot on and huge issue. Really wish the developers would look at their own stats are recognize that competitive players are a small portion and they do not drive game adoption by the masses.

[Davers]

focuspark, on 30 December 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

I've been here since just after closed beta and things don't really change dramatically. ECM is still crap with bandaids for example despite reams of forums complaints about it.

Truth is, we need PGI to think big here and actually listen to feedback. My concern is that they don't actually read their own forums and we're better off communicating via Reddit or Twitter with them.

PGI has never 'thought big' with this game though. It's one of the failings. The game's concepts have always been unambitious and their content always comes with the caveat "In the future we might expand this".

[Dracol]

focuspark, on 29 December 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

That's what I assumed. It seems as if PGI feels there should only be Clan vs IS Invasions. There's more to BTech and MechWarrior than Clan vs IS. I'd really love to see IS vs IS more often and not always in drop ship mode. CW is a means to enabling this, adding backstory, and giving us a reason to fight.

So far it's delivering none of this. :-(

PGI designed it to included Clan v Clan, IS v IS, and Clan v IS. It's the large units within opposing factions that are making deals that has been narrowing the selections available the majority of the time down to Clan v IS.

[focuspark]

Dracol, on 02 January 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

PGI designed it to included Clan v Clan, IS v IS, and Clan v IS. It's the large units within opposing factions that are making deals that has been narrowing the selections available the majority of the time down to Clan v IS.

There's also the fact the in-game UX only prompts users to defend against Clan invasions (if they're IS aligned)

[Star Witch Esperanza]

Davegt27, on 29 December 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

So Battle Tech guys how does a campaign on TT work out with the overpowered Clan tech?

Clan mechs are designed largely for asymmetrical encounters or clan mech vs clan mech in TT.

[KhanJames]

I agree with most of the OPs statements. I wish there were "bonuses" or negatives attributed to your mech based on your faction and the Mechs "faction" (lore Faction producer / user (ex Kurita and the Dragons)). (not to encourage Steiner Atlas scouts but..... ). as it stands there doesn't seem to be much division aside from clan or Is. (although on occasion I wish I had some IS isorla, Clan mechs aside from the Dire aren't really made to "brawl" properly)

And as for IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan I remember a few back when CW first started but I agree that it seems most of the (12+ man) "clans" / groups seem to want to focus on Clan vs IS, and since they are usually the ones who take planets (since randoms vs randoms usually is more equal / no rapid planetary takeovers like a large group can) it makes it seem like its only Clan vs Is.

As for PGI, developing a game when the last predecessor was how many years ago (not counting MechAssault) and is exclusively online with a fanbase which is used to the older games and/or TT isn't going to be a rapid thing. I agree that I wish they would have everything ready instantly but I would rather it take longer and get it right (along with showing that MW on PC is viable, so that there might be a campaign/offline MW made/funded even if it was literally only that and simply tied into MWO for online/multiplayer)