1. Why do you still play this game?
The style of it is unique. It isn't a twitch shooter, it isn't an RTS, it isn't DOTA. It falls somewhere in between in a space of action, timing, and optimization that I really enjoy.
2. Do you take regulary breaks? If so, why?
When real life demands it. This is my primary game, though. I've somehow gotten myself labelled an "officer" of my unit, probably because I hold out hope that we can be top-10-units level competitive if we can ever convince enough of our people to cut the bullshit and play effectively.
3. How can PGI improve? What would you like to have see it changed?
Interesting. This isn't quite the same as asking "How can MWO be improved?" The way PGI works does seem to have genuinely improved after splitting from IGP, but I don't think that quite answers the question, either. Nearly all of our indicators of how PGI works are indirect, in the results we see in their products. Their announcement of Transverse shows that they
really don't understand the space sim market, which may or may not have much bearing on MWO. The fact that nearly everything on the front page of the website is a sale might also be telling.
I'll answer the question I think you intended, "
How can MWO be improved?", instead.
MWO desperately needs an
interesting and engaging tutorial system to get new players involved. There are a lot of levels that need to be covered, and the instruction in them needs to be fun and interesting. It bothers me quite a bit that
I just can't recommend MWO to real-life friends because there really isn't a good place to get started. YouTube videos are not a substitute for learning-by-doing.
The economy and grind are punishing, and experimenting with far-from-optimal chassis and builds is particularly punishing. A player that wastes their Cadet Bonus on a mech or two that they end up not necessarily totally loving has basically wasted that account and really ought to just start a new one. This adds to the problems that leave me feeling like I just can't recommend the game to friends.
The door has already been shut on features that could have been awesome like destructible terrain, which is a little sad. The game has probably suffered in a wide range of more-or-less subtle ways through the slaving attention to following BattleTech cannon, which I also find disappointing. I feel like a developer of more creativity and boldness would have started with the concept of BattleMechs, and maybe the overall features of the BattleTech universe, but built their own mechanics, chassis, weapons, and stats in a manner that's easier to balance and enjoy in a real time setting. PGI's attention to cannon has severely constrained their design options, and I believe it's played a big role in some of the wonky attempts at balance.
Community Dropship Warfare Mode desperately needs two high-level additions:
1. Player input in the strategy of their faction. What planet are we attacking? Why? As it stands, the "grand scheme" of CDWM is super random and arbitrary, which probably makes it a lot less interested to lots of players.
2. An economy. In BattleTech, resources are a big deal when running a campaign. Not having a proper in-universe economy makes most elements of CDWM seem superficial and inconsequential.
CDWM also needs a wider variety of objective types and match formats. Why are we spending so much time assaulting stupidly positioned gates and remote gun emplacements? There should be a lot more in this universe.
Some underlying infrastructure like the ability to generate new maps and terrain on-the-fly might have made the game really shine, but the door is probably closed on that too. (To the downers: It's the 21st ******* century, folks. Don't tell me that isn't possible.)
Edited by ProfessorD, 27 March 2015 - 12:58 PM.