108 replies to this topic

[Fire for Effect]

AkoolPopTart, on 27 April 2015 - 05:08 AM, said:

Kiss ass

Good artists need to know they are actually good.
Shimmering Sword is also very good and I also told him that already.

[TheSilken]

I seriously doubt that they will renew the license in 2017 to continue this game so don't expect much more than money grabs and a few small trinkets here and there. I think that it is time here soon for another company to take the reins, maybe even a community started one?

Edited by TheSilken, 27 April 2015 - 05:48 AM.

[Athalus]

TheSilken, on 27 April 2015 - 05:43 AM, said:

I seriously doubt that they will renew the license in 2017 to continue this game so don't expect much more than money grabs and a few small trinkets here and there. I think that it is time here soon for another company to take the reins, maybe even a community started one?

Wasn't the licence renewed untill 2020?

[Serpentbane]

TheSilken, on 27 April 2015 - 05:43 AM, said:

I seriously doubt that they will renew the license in 2017 to continue this game so don't expect much more than money grabs and a few small trinkets here and there. I think that it is time here soon for another company to take the reins, maybe even a community started one?

If this is true, does anybody know if Bill Gates or anyone else with shitloads of money have a crush on MechWarrior

Edited by Serpentbane, 01 May 2015 - 04:06 AM.

[Serpentbane]

However, seriously, if the community continue backing the game I see no reason why PGI should not continue development. However, if PGI want to keep the community playing, the gameplay need some kind of extension, and depth.

[Serpentbane]

This is from the King Crab description on Sarna.
"Its primary weapons, super-heavy autocannons mounted in its arms, can strip the armor off of any 'Mech in a few bursts." "The only reliable way to destroy a King Crab is with overwhelming numbers of heavy and assault 'Mechs, and casualties will be suffered in the attempt."

Needless to say, assaults in MWO cannot be what they are supposed to be, there is simply no way to balance the gameplay as there is no room to do any kind of real maneuvers, no focus on roles and no use of cooperation between classes and roles.
Today, every single match is about making contact in the exact same location on the map and fight to the death. This is pretty much true in every game mode. The only reason one could call lights spotters is because they are faster and gets there 20 sec before the rest. They do not spot however, instead they run circles around heavies/assaults or do occasional hit and runs. Actually, many players actually avoid targeting as much as possible.

With assaults being real badass, lights would have a huge role just in locating, tracking and spotting. Being able to move about without the enemy team knowing would become just as important as tracking the other team. Thus, the enemy spotters would need to be held off while key units are placed at key target areas.

Now, I’m going to write something that I think looks cool on paper, however, I have not decided if it would work well in the game.
The current 4 mech drop and weight limits from CW could be used in ordinary larger scale maches as well. As this somewhat translates into the total drop weight limits in mechwarrior. However, I would like to make a few changes. First I would make a 300 ton drop limit, then up the max number of mechs droped to 8. That’s 8 35 ton mechs or 3 100 ton mechs per player.
One match could then be 96 35 ton mechs against 36 100 ton mechs, with maximum 12 players ingame at any time, although I’d prefer less drops and more players ingame. Each drop would also let players choose from the mech bay freely, as long as the tonnage limit is not exceeded, and each mech are available once per match.

These numbers are just examples, but doing something like this could make the game more like mechwarrior should be. With assaults considerably more powerful, but fewer in numbers. That way they need not be balanced to fit a gameplay with a fixed number of mechs.

As a team is about to lose, dropping in an Atlas as last line of defense could just turn the tide.

I’m also thinking, having larger maps also means further traveling distances. Now, in Conquest capping only gives points. I’d like to blend Conquest with Assault. Where the goal is to capture the enemy base. However, around the map there are drop points that can be captured. Controlling these drop points could let players drop at select locations. Then the team need to decide if they should defend this drop points, or use all mechs in the attack. etc. Perhaps choosing select drop points to support a given maneuver. However, not keeping eyes on drop points could let the enemy drop in for a flank.

Tactics and strategy. Only downside of this would of course be the time it takes to finish a round. Sometimes it’s OK to sit down for 15 minutes just to play one round, but I’ll gladly sacrifice this for a more combat simulator kind of game.

I’m just dropping thoughts as I write here. Might be going over board, but there you go….

[102_devill]

I really agree with these thoughts, and I would have loved to see a more "sim" experience in MechWarrior.
However, our society is in a state of decline (intellectually) ; people are only up for quick fun and quick bucks.
And as the famous movie line goes: "no bucks - no Buck Rogers".

It is a bit ironic, but I think the "sim" games of the '80s and the '90s are LOST TECH in the 21st century.

Edited by RokerSaMoravu, 03 May 2015 - 01:32 AM.

[Thunder Child]

It is sad really. Some of my greatest Matches in MW4 were with Passive Sensors, spotting from a Ridge and relaying coordinates to the rest of the team. I never played MW LL, but (apart from the funny run animations), it looks like it would have been my dream Mechwarrior Game. IT HAS THE ARROW IV!!!

[Appuagab]

MWO really needs more complicated electronic warfare. ECM and UAVs significantly moved game to right direction so every next similar addition will be a big step forward.

[Serpentbane]

This post have 500 views soon. Cool.
So, why do I only see 34 votes?

This is the place for the community to at least show witch directions we want MWO to take, regardless if PGI listens or not. If people are interested enough to read the post then spend that extra 5 sec’s placing a vote.

I do not vote on all suggestions either, as some have 400 questions. Nevertheless, if someone suggests features or game changes I would assume you either think the idea is good or bad. Moreover, if the vote is either this or that, or yes and no, then take a vote.

I’d rather have a community disagreeing with me than a community not caring.

[0rionsbane]

they should have mad this turn years ago when the founders all but up and left. fact is they wont but good post I agree we need more open maps and sensors need a redesign so we can fix ecm and lrms, and add role warfare.

[Aethelred Kell]

From what I have seen this post is exactly the reason you only see lights at like 5-10% of total Queues. Most of the maps are so small that lights have very little ability to make maximum use of their speed over the long-haul. You get into a map like forest colony and it is simply to constricted to allow the "Spotting and Scouting" mechs to really accomplish much. The engagement usually starts within 30 seconds of everyone beginning to move which really makes the long-term tactics pointless.

A light mech running out and finding the enemy force and relaying their positions to their commanders first is not really a tactical advantage when there isn't a real ability to move far enough away from the other force to avoid detection while you take up advantageous positions. This is especially true when many maps are so small that some of the drop zones are nearly within visual range of the enemy when the game screen loads up and reactors are hot.

[Burktross]

PS2 with stompy battlemechs

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 13 May 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

I’d rather have a community disagreeing with me than a community not caring.

Serpentbane, it's not about whether anyone in the community agrees or disagrees with you, it's a fact that PGI is NOT listening, NOT making the game the way it should have been made in the first place, the way people WOULD have played it, WOULD have then recruited for it to bring more into the game, etc. The way PGI has done things in many ways makes so little sense as to be laughable, so the reason your thread has not been terribly popular is because we all know PGI gives little more than lip service when they say they're listening. Yes, there is a LOT of separation, here, in this community, on which way MWO should go, but ultimately there is only ONE direction it ever should have gone in the first place, but PGI gave up on that by the end of 2012.

0rionsbane, on 13 May 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

they should have mad this turn years ago when the founders all but up and left. fact is they wont but good post I agree we need more open maps and sensors need a redesign so we can fix ecm and lrms, and add role warfare.

Amen to everything you said. I haven't left, yet, but I've been with the game since 1984, and I can actually kick some ass in this game, so I stick around and keep playing. And, I'm a die-hard, because I allow PGI to string me along with more ******** I know is going to be turned away a couple of months after it's said. Hey, at least I'm admitting it, now.

[Threat Doc]

Cryll Ankiseth, on 13 May 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

Even if you design bigger maps the scouts would still be relegated to the role of spotter/fire support.

That is one of several jobs they're supposed to do...

• Find ambush spots for the main force to inhabit and attack from,
  
• Locate the enemy force and direct their own forces to the best possible contact points from which to hit the enemy force, if not ambush them, as above,
  
• Act as spotter's for fire support,
  
• Divert enemy forces and keep their attention while an ambush or improved position is being made,
  
• Work capture points, whether for resources, intelligence gathering, rescuing someone or executing someone,
  
• Locate mission objective points and reveal their location to their friends,
  
• Fighting other Light 'Mechs to destroy them, or otherwise stop them from performing the same types of missions or counter-missions, and
  
• etc.

Quote

...and the lights end up playing the role of fire support and harasser rather than what they are intended for.

What, precisely, do you think Light 'Mechs are intended for? Do you think they're supposed to play a main battle line role?

Quote

For lights to be able to shine in their role enough there would need to be game modes that specifically cater to their roles.

This makes much more sense than what you were talking about a moment ago.

Quote

Assaults see less use than heavies because they are generally too slow to keep up with the constant nascar-ing by people and too fragile to actually do what their intended purpose is and hold the line while letting the other lances flank. There will never be any "Barlow Gap" (MW4:M) missions because nobody in an assault feels confident they will last more than 5 seconds in a pure straight up brawl with zero cover.

Especially against Lights and Mediums. Lights are so damned maneuverable that it's nearly impossible to hit them when they're actually on you. It makes no sense to me; however, I've made multiple suggestions in the past to allow Assaults to be the true Kings of the Battlefield, and allow the other 'Mech's to fill the roles they're supposed to, but it's always ignored.

[Nightmare1]

Become a real boy!




In my opinion, I think that the two approaches should be combined. Identify what each game does well and combine those elements to make the perfect MWO!

[Threat Doc]

And, if the game were improved to the point where roles actually had import to the game, then Lights could do what they were originally supposed to be built for. My thought was that you were actually aiming for the face-to-face combat role; I appreciate more than you know that you want to see more than the norm.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 13 May 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

Serpentbane, it's not about whether anyone in the community agrees or disagrees with you, it's a fact that PGI is NOT listening, NOT making the game the way it should have been made in the first place, the way people WOULD have played it, WOULD have then recruited for it to bring more into the game, etc. The way PGI has done things in many ways makes so little sense as to be laughable, so the reason your thread has not been terribly popular is because we all know PGI gives little more than lip service when they say they're listening. Yes, there is a LOT of separation, here, in this community, on which way MWO should go, but ultimately there is only ONE direction it ever should have gone in the first place, but PGI gave up on that by the end of 2012.

I see your point, however I still think it's important we show PGI how we want the game to evolve, I think they see us even if they do not often reply or do what we ask.

A lot of the changes I ask for in this thread, like multiple drops per match allready exist within CW, and with a few changes to allow for asymetric numbers of mechs per match based on tonage, larger ordinary maps in CW and some new changes to mech balancing would take us far down the road in a flash.

"Ordinary" matches within CW could be like build ups for base sieges. Where you first have to deploy and take out ground defences before moving for the orbital guns etc. Taking a planet would then require more game types.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 16 May 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

I see your point, however I still think it's important we show PGI how we want the game to evolve, I think they see us even if they do not often reply or do what we ask.

That's what I've been doing since October 2011, and I don't see me stopping anytime soon, unless of course Tina and crew ever see a reason to ban me.

Quote

A lot of the changes I ask for in this thread, like multiple drops per match allready exist within CW, and with a few changes to allow for asymetric numbers of mechs per match based on tonage, larger ordinary maps in CW and some new changes to mech balancing would take us far down the road in a flash.

Asymmetric numbers based on tonnage is not going to work... it's the individual designs of the 'Mechs that should be accounted for, and the only way to do that is to break these 'Mechs down to their component parts, with each part already having been gauged and a number applied to each, and add all of the individual part values together to get an offensive and defensive rating total for the 'Mech, as designed, and then modify that by a multiplier to the 'Mech rating total as determined by the game for the usefulness of the pilot with that design. Then, add all of these numbers together when a group of people hit the launch button, and then find a group that also has a series of 'Mechs that are close to the other group's number, make it so you don't have to have an equal number of 'Mechs (asymmetrical, as you've suggested), but remain with the maximum of 12 on a side, and then you'll have a fair match.

Quote

"Ordinary" matches within CW could be like build ups for base sieges. Where you first have to deploy and take out ground defences before moving for the orbital guns etc. Taking a planet would then require more game types.

I'm going to say something that's really odd for me, at this point, but if Community Warfare 3 is supposed to be about the Logistics and control of a unit -whether mercenary or loyalist-, it may be the prelude to objective-based warfare. This is what the vast majority of the community wants to see, as far as I know, and I know I definitely want to see it, as well.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 16 May 2015 - 03:03 PM.

[Vellron2005]

This is how I feel MWO should develop and grow down the road:

1) More maps for both CW and PUG drops
2) Bigger maps, with more objectives, weather and destructable environment
3) More game modes for both CW and PUG drops
4) More FLUFF and immersion
5) Making CW the dominant playing mode (Campaing), and PUG drops "Arcade" mode
6) Inter-faction economy, black market and making couquering planets profitable
7) PVE game modes with tanks, planes, helicopters and other vehicle types as bots. Includes Co-Op play.
8) Add ability to excange mechs and items between player accounts
9) News feeds about what's going on with the game inside the client
10) More tactics oriented gameplay options instead just kill-all style of play
11) Dev sponosored "Celebrities" that play and fight, and issue faction commands. I wanna meet Victor and Katrina Steiner ingame.
12) Mini-campaign PVE co-op tournaments (mini story oriented PVE campaigns in place of some tournaments)
13) Raid-like PVE co-op story oriented mini-campaigns
14) Solaris.. with leaderboards and game-worthy rewards like mechs and MC
15) Stronger on-line marketing to attract new players (not just uber-mega-cool mech packs that cost as 3 blizzard games combined)

That's what I hope PGI will do with this game..

Edited by Vellron2005, 18 May 2015 - 05:00 AM.