121 replies to this topic

[Lootee]

Burktross said:

Its hard to matchmake on afk status well...

True but it still doesn't make the almost inevitable steamroll because your team's Dire/Atlas/Stalker isn't there any more enjoyable.

Those 10 vs 12 matches because players can't connect to the match are simply inexcusable.

Edited by Lootee, 24 June 2015 - 09:03 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I figured as much Soy, as to why you came back, same reason I always come back to it for 20 years now.

And to those who keep saying there's no content to this game, it's an empty shell, and other things along those lines, I have a question...

How many of you played Battlefield, any of them, or CoD or CS or Tribes or Tribes 2 or even LoL?

What content did we have in those games, which are the largest and best selling PvP online games out there that we don't have in MWO?

Those are all games where you PvP until you kill the other team, either through tickets/flags, capturing flags or simply kill the enemy team totally. That's all folks, there's nothing else going on, there's no special content, extra things, nothing but PvP over and over and over, except LoL, where you can PvP against bots as opposed to real players.

I have over 5000 hours in BF2 alone, and that's JUST my time on official servers, that doesn't count all the hours on non-logged servers.

What exactly is so different with MWO from those games that demands this need for more? Previous MW titles did have single player games, but the ONLINE portion which we all loved didn't have PvE, it was just PvP over and over on the same handful of maps. Why is there this expectation and demand for more?

[masCh]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 June 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

How many of you played Battlefield, any of them, or CoD or CS or Tribes or Tribes 2 or even LoL?

What content did we have in those games, which are the largest and best selling PvP online games out there that we don't have in MWO?

Those are all games where you PvP until you kill the other team, either through tickets/flags, capturing flags or simply kill the enemy team totally. That's all folks, there's nothing else going on, there's no special content, extra things, nothing but PvP over and over and over, except LoL, where you can PvP against bots as opposed to real players.

I have over 5000 hours in BF2 alone, and that's JUST my time on official servers, that doesn't count all the hours on non-logged servers.

What exactly is so different with MWO from those games that demands this need for more?

A proper user interface.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 June 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

I figured as much Soy, as to why you came back, same reason I always come back to it for 20 years now.

And to those who keep saying there's no content to this game, it's an empty shell, and other things along those lines, I have a question...

How many of you played Battlefield, any of them, or CoD or CS or Tribes or Tribes 2 or even LoL?

What content did we have in those games, which are the largest and best selling PvP online games out there that we don't have in MWO?

Those are all games where you PvP until you kill the other team, either through tickets/flags, capturing flags or simply kill the enemy team totally. That's all folks, there's nothing else going on, there's no special content, extra things, nothing but PvP over and over and over, except LoL, where you can PvP against bots as opposed to real players.

I have over 5000 hours in BF2 alone, and that's JUST my time on official servers, that doesn't count all the hours on non-logged servers.

What exactly is so different with MWO from those games that demands this need for more? Previous MW titles did have single player games, but the ONLINE portion which we all loved didn't have PvE, it was just PvP over and over on the same handful of maps. Why is there this expectation and demand for more?

Better/more maps and better/more engaging game modes. The maps in MWO are abysmal. The BF2, 2142, CoD, DoD, CS maps are all balanced and engaging. The MWO maps are pretty one stratted and the CW maps are tower defense. The gamemodes are also far more player engaging than the gamemodes we have in MWO.

The gunplay in MWO is top notch. It's the engaging gamemodes and maps that keep it from being as amazeballs as BF2 or DoD.

[Kristov Kerensky]

masCh, on 24 June 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

A proper user interface.

Which MWO has, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but then again, I'm not really tickled by the UI in CS or LoL to be honest, so what? They are functional despite my not liking them, and MWO's is functional and I rather like it mostly. It has it's weak points and could use a few more features, but I can say the same for any UI out there, from CS to LoL to Windows 7 or 8.x.

Again, what is this need and expectation of more from a game that was and still advertised as being online PvP only?

Lord Scarlett, ok, finally, a real answer, and one that I agree with no less. Map design is lacking and they are working on that, we'll have to wait until July 21st when we see River City redux to see if they are going in the right direction on that.

Game play modes, yes, we could use more, but what exactly do we want to see? Lets get some specifics on that, not just a generic 'moar' answer. Capture the flag? Defend/Attack like we have in CW, which is something they are working on for non-CW? First person that says 'escort the' gets to visit the Baliff and get whacked!

[Midax]

I believe the population has fallen so much because people expected more out of the game. The hype on the gaming sites was all about role warfare and every mech type being important to the outcome of a game. What we had at the start of open beta was a CS team deathmatch and the only thing that mattered was how much damage you can do. This caused many to give up on the game right away. After some time we saw mechs being released and no significant change to the game modes. Even more people got upset and left. Then CW hit. People expected CW to be the thing that brought depth to the game, but the maps are MOBA maps that push all the fighting into lanes. This reinforces the damage is the only thing that matters game balance. More people leave. Then you have statements for Russ about the move to add features to increase the MLG factor of the game. Further reinforcing the impression that MWO will never be more than an arena shooter.

The saddest part of all of this is they try to market this game as a thinking man's shooter. Yet Battlefield has more depth than this game. Every move we have seen from PGI has given the impression that they have no interest in taking MWO away from the short match CS and MOBA game play. This is what is killing the game because Battletechs fan base does not want to see the gam go in that direction and the people that do really enjoy that stile of play have other better games out there to play.

[Lugh]

Poptarting didn't crimp the power gamers style, we still brawled if we wanted to and did well doing it, because the tarts were popping because they got so hot and they couldn't do sustained damage in a brawl like some of us could.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I personally think the biggest reason we lose players, both in the past and now, is that they expected something else totally and didn't get it.

I've seen many many posts asking where is the PvE, where is Solaris, where is the coop, where are the tanks, infantry and aerotech. And all of these posts have something in common, the poster was EXPECTING these things for reasons beyond my understanding.

MWO has been advertised since day 1 as an online PvP only game. That's it, nothing else. PvE content has always been mentioned as something PGI would LIKE to do, someday, maybe, if the game does really really well, but it has never been promised or advertised as a feature of MWO.

The 'depth' was supposed to be Community Warfare, and it may still give us that, once it's finally done, I honestly don't know at this point if it will ever be more than a TDM with objectives. I hope it will be, I hope they bring in logistics and make it something more than TDM, but I just can't say that I see that happening at this point in time.

But that's ok, I will still spend my money and play the game if CW just stays as TDM with objectives, I enjoy playing the game, it's fun and that's enough for me. I spent years playing MW2-4 online without ANY content provided by the makers of those games, so I'm good with it. I spent years playing Tribes, BF and other games that are PvP online only games with the same content I have in MWO, I enjoyed them so much.

[Koniks]

Wintersdark, on 24 June 2015 - 03:20 AM, said:

that is a very low estimate. Simple math says there's at least 20k on concurrently during prime time.

Yeah, no.

https://www.reddit.c...tukayyid_stats/

17k players in a rewarded tournament. Not all of them were on concurrently. Sure, there was some number of players in group and solo queue.

But we're talking about peak population for a premier in-game event with rewards. That doesn't seem like standard pop is going to wildly exceed it.

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 June 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

I personally think the biggest reason we lose players, both in the past and now, is that they expected something else totally and didn't get it.

I've seen many many posts asking where is the PvE, where is Solaris, where is the coop, where are the tanks, infantry and aerotech. And all of these posts have something in common, the poster was EXPECTING these things for reasons beyond my understanding.

Because they've been parts of the franchise for most of its existence?

PGI can advertise whatever they want. If their advertisement and product don't meet their customers' expectations, that's not the customers' fault.

Edited by Mizeur, 24 June 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Mizeur, on 24 June 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yeah, no.

https://www.reddit.c...tukayyid_stats/

17k players in a rewarded tournament. Not all of them were on concurrently. Sure, there was some number of players in group and solo queue.

But we're talking about peak population for a premier in-game event with rewards. That doesn't seem like standard pop is going to wildly exceed it.

One that:

1) Is in a game mode that's extremely hard on casual players
2) Is flat out awful to play if you're not in a group
3) Requires a set of 240t worth of mechs (NOBODY likes playing trials!)
4) Had rewards that were really uninteresting for a lot of people.

I'm a long term, active player, who enjoys CW, in a large unit that participated heavily in Tuk. I didn't do a single drop in Tuk. Not one. No interest. I know a hell of a lot of IS players that just didn't bother as well, hearing the absurd waiting times, and a lot more who didn't bother because they didn't want to be matched as solo IS players against Clan units.

CW is absolutely NOT a good way to judge active player counts. Not at all.

On the other hand, just working the math shows there needs to be around 10-20k people playing concurrently in prime time to get the solo dropping results that we get. it just doesn't really work otherwise.

Edited by Wintersdark, 24 June 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Mizeur, on 24 June 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Because they've been parts of the franchise for most of its existence?

PGI can advertise whatever they want. If their advertisement and product don't meet their customers' expectations, that's not the customers' fault.

Let me get this straight, because previous MW games were single player games with a multiplayer added on, advertised as single player games with multiplayer added on, you expect MWO to have a single player game despite NONE of the advertising, reviews, or articles on MWO mentioning anything about a single player game?

Well, that's certainly...wait..what? Hold on, you actually expect things NOT advertised nor promised to be in the game and are upset because they aren't? WTBF kind of logic is that?

We were promised online only PvP, Community Warfare that featured taking and holding planets, with limited impact upon the game world. Please note that last part, LIMITED IMPACT UPON THE GAME WORLD, because PGI was clear from day 1 that the players would NOT be able to alter the set timeline and history already established by FASA for BattleTech. We were offered Role Warfare and we were told we could create our own Merc units, and we could become members of the Houses and Clans, again with the caveat that we would NOT be able to influence events outside of the strict FASA/BTech history.

We actually have exactly that right now, we WANT more from CW, but reality is, it's what was offered. We even have Role Warfare, not that anyone bothers with it, but it does actually exist, so people complaining about that not being in the game are full of it. Is it what we WANT? No, it's not, we WANT more than we have, but that doesn't mean jack because PGI has already delivered, technically and legally, what was offered. They tell us more is coming for CW, they don't give specifics, just that more is coming. Already touched on how I feel about that. And as I said, I'll keep playing the game and keep spending money on it because it's as much, if not more, than any previous MW game gave us for online play.

PvE was never part of the package I bought as a Founder, it wasn't on the table, never offered, never promised, nor was Solaris, so how the hell can people complain about not getting these things that were never promised?

[Koniks]

OK.

[Fate 6]

I have nothing to add to this argument so I will go pilot a mech with PPCs

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 June 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Lord Scarlett, ok, finally, a real answer, and one that I agree with no less. Map design is lacking and they are working on that, we'll have to wait until July 21st when we see River City redux to see if they are going in the right direction on that.

Game play modes, yes, we could use more, but what exactly do we want to see? Lets get some specifics on that, not just a generic 'moar' answer. Capture the flag? Defend/Attack like we have in CW, which is something they are working on for non-CW? First person that says 'escort the' gets to visit the Baliff and get whacked!

I actually want LESS, but more in-depth. Look at BF2, it was one game mode with a slight variation on a map to map basis. You had three maps sizes for 16v16, 32v32, and 64v64 but they all had more or less the same things in common: hold on to important areas.

Strike at Karkand was my absolute favorite map in BF2 and quite possibly the absolute most fun and is actually ENTIRELY relevant to MWO CW:

Spoiler

But what made it good? It was balanced. The US had to assault and the MEC had to defend. Pretty simple concept actually, so what kept it from being the ****** Attack/Defend that we have for CW?

Well... for starters, the MEC could defend that first spawn with everything they had. But that was an all or none strategy that could often backfire. Because unlike here, the US could send small teams to the left and right and back cap. And if the US took the spawn to the far right, they gained an extra tank, APC, and HMMWV and deprived the MEC of all available vehicle assets AND artillery/UAVs. The US taking the spawn at the top left also gave the US a buggy and cut the map in half for the US, dividing the MEC forces.

Smart MEC teams would actually give up those first two spawns and the bridge to defend their back spawn and the spawn in the top left because they could keep the advantage in spawn locations and keep the US tickets constantly draining and it put pressure on the US to keep on the offensive to prevent them from suffering a passive drain, while at the same time trying to avoid losing the shooting war.

There were so many different strats and counter strats on just Karkand alone.

What does CW have? Not many strats or counter strats. And none of them are dynamic and can be adjusted on the fly.

Hell, Karkand was SUCH a well done map it was in BF2, BF2142, BF:F2P, BF3, and people are legitimately mad it's not in BF4 or BF:BC2.

All of the BF2 maps were supremely well done with multiple strats and tactics viable for play and counter play and dynamic, natural way the fights flowed was what made BF2 so engaging time after time after time.

The MWO maps are pretty static. Especially the CW ones, where they essentially force you pick path A or path B and once you pick a path you can't deviate from it even if you wanted to. The maps are designed to prevent dynamic flow.

Until PGI takes a few pages from the book from DICE about map design, we'll be stuck with the maps and shallow game modes we have.

Fate 6, on 24 June 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

I have nothing to add to this argument so I will go pilot a mech with PPCs

Don't forget your JJs!

[Y E O N N E]

Just to add to Johan's post:

Battlefield also offers play options for people who are not that great at combat, i.e. killing other players. You could spend the whole match just ratcheting on vehicles to keep them running, throwing out ammo boxes, medkits, and revivals, etc., only occasionally engaging in a firefight. The game rewarded you for doing these tasks, because these tasks were essential to winning. Sure, the highest scoring players were those with lots of kills and lots of points in their class-specific jobs, but the players dedicating to just the job weren't exactly poor as long as they were good at that job.

Even the new Battlefield games, for all their flaws, maintain this. You are a god on the scoreboard if you are a good medic, and now you have the option to basically select any type of weapon you want for any class so you are never stuck having to use weapons you are not good with just to play the job you want.

MWO needs that kind of depth. It deserves that kind of depth.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 June 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

Just to add to Johan's post:

Battlefield also offers play options for people who are not that great at combat, i.e. killing other players. You could spend the whole match just ratcheting on vehicles to keep them running, throwing out ammo boxes, medkits, and revivals, etc., only occasionally engaging in a firefight. The game rewarded you for doing these tasks, because these tasks were essential to winning. Sure, the highest scoring players were those with lots of kills and lots of points in their class-specific jobs, but the players dedicating to just the job weren't exactly poor as long as they were good at that job.

Even the new Battlefield games, for all their flaws, maintain this. You are a god on the scoreboard if you are a good medic, and now you have the option to basically select any type of weapon you want for any class so you are never stuck having to use weapons you are not good with just to play the job you want.

MWO needs that kind of depth. It deserves that kind of depth.

O mai Gad Yas!

Medic for days yo... Dem shock paddles bruh... rez some homies. Blast a few baddies, cuz homie don't play dat ****.

I used to regularly clears 100 points a match in just revives. Or if we had a helicopter, just pilot kill assists.

Talk about a game rewarding proper team play.

[YueFei]

Yeonne Greene, on 24 June 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

Just to add to Johan's post:

Battlefield also offers play options for people who are not that great at combat, i.e. killing other players. You could spend the whole match just ratcheting on vehicles to keep them running, throwing out ammo boxes, medkits, and revivals, etc., only occasionally engaging in a firefight. The game rewarded you for doing these tasks, because these tasks were essential to winning. Sure, the highest scoring players were those with lots of kills and lots of points in their class-specific jobs, but the players dedicating to just the job weren't exactly poor as long as they were good at that job.

Even the new Battlefield games, for all their flaws, maintain this. You are a god on the scoreboard if you are a good medic, and now you have the option to basically select any type of weapon you want for any class so you are never stuck having to use weapons you are not good with just to play the job you want.

MWO needs that kind of depth. It deserves that kind of depth.

You mean like, role warfare and information warfare?

......

=(

[Sarlic]

I stopped playing Battlefield after BC2. The medic class was my favourite.

I find BF series does not deliver quality anymore. EA use it as a milking cow. Porting the game engine all over the place and ask standard game prices of $50-$60 for a game. See Hardline for example.

BF1942 plus BF2+mods were the best..

[Kristov Kerensky]

Ok, that's the kind of feedback we need Johan! And I too am and was a BF fanatic, thousands of hours in BF1942 an Vietnam and DC and PoE, over 5k+ hours on official BF2 servers alone, every badge and award there is except the Helo awards, never was any good in those.

Karkand is a great map btw, it shows exactly how to create a map that has flow and uses set lanes while still making it SEEM like you have choices to make. That's one of the things about the BF maps starting with BF:Vietnam and going into BF2, while BF3/4 remove the illusion, ALL of the maps APPEAR to allow you have choices so there's no perception that you are being funneled, but all of them actually do funnel the players. They do that by NOT always using terrain/map borders to force your options but also by giving flag points specific vehicle spawns so that the best tactical move is to hold/take those points. It was something we were very aware of in the top comp circles because it directed our tactics, and it's much more obvious on the smaller maps sizes which were used in the leagues, but once you are aware of it, you see it on all the maps at all sizes.

Yeonne, we can't get all the non-combat related options from BF in MWO, we have no medics, no engineers, because Mechs don't do those things. We DO have Role Warfare, but very few people bother with it, they are all too concerned with doing as much damage as possible and that's it. My Raven 3L is a recon Mech, some medlasers, SRMs, BAP, Adv Sensors, so I can target the enemy from over a klick out or sneak up on them and pop a UAV on their rear so they don't realize it's up there, despite the fact that anyone with ECM is given an indicator that a UAV is over them. Same way we get an audible warning whenever we're targeted, few people realize it, fewer pay attention to it. ECM Mechs get the ECM jammed indicator on the HUD WHILE still showing ECM is active, that means you are under a UAV, how many knew that? How many knew there is a sound that indicates you've been targeted?

We generally have 3 Lights outside of CW drops, how many of them are recon configs? How many of them DO recon? We have other Mechs in other weights that are recon, how many of them are EVER configed for it, much less do it? I'm constantly amazed at how few people EVER hit R, regardless of the situation, they just don't do it. I've had people with top comp tags tell me to get my OWN LRM locks, they aren't going to hit R just so I can get easy kills, when I'm in a Mech that doesn't have LRMs at all. People are just plain selfish and are playing a 1v1 game with 23 other people, 12 of whom are targets, 11 of whom are just in their way. So we don't see Role Warfare despite having it.

In CW, I STILL see an amazing amount of people who don't hit R, again even top comp players, sometimes in groups, sometimes dropping as PUGs in CW, who simply refuse to play as a member of a team, so there's no Role Warfare, there's no coordination. PGI can't fix that.

And we get paid for scouting, it pays real well actually, but since so few people do it, they aren't aware that it pays. All they know is that damage and kills gets good payouts, they don't realize that scouting also gets good payouts. I make cbills well over what most make even on a loss because I scout, which means I hit R on a target no one has targeted, that's all it takes. See that empty red dorito, HIT R! you get paid! And it lets your team know where the enemy is!

12 man coordinated teams do these things constantly, but only because they've been ordered to, it's something you MUST do as a member of the team. When those players go out and PUG, they don't hit R, it's not a habit, its something they ONLY do when they are with their unit, that's it. It should always be a habit, you see the enemy, you hit R.

The maps in MWO definitely need to be revamped, we'll see if PGI is figuring out that out after we get River City redux in July. If they aren't getting the message, we can crank up the volume about it, start hitting Russ and others up on Twitter. CW maps, well, I get the IDEAL behind the designs, but the fact is, they suck goat balls, pure and simple. PGI needs to go and look at other game maps for objective based modes and see how they do them and adapt them over for Mech combat. Mech combat is the biggest issue really, many of the games out don't have 12m tall walking tanks, which really does limit some of the things you can do with your map design, but they can do a LOT better than the current CW maps. Interesting terrain and textures and colors is all well and good, but that does NOT a good map make.

[Y E O N N E]

I never hear a sound when I'm targeted, for some reason, but I do see the yellow light flash overhead in the cockpit. A very useful feature, if I do say so myself.

The thing about the role warfare in MWO is that it's not engaging for the type of player I mentioned earlier: the type that is apparently the most common according to developers, the type wants to always feel like a bad-ass. One of the ways this can be alleviated would be with increased rewards for under-paying roles, and increasing the visibility of those awards. The giant number dialogues that pop-up on every single little action in Call of Duty or Battlefield are there precisely to encourage the player to keep doing what he's doing, to make the player feel like he's contributing and making progress. Adding a C-bill/XP/score counter somewhere on the HUD with more visible pop-up numbers and animations would be more arcadey, but also provide players an indicator of performance and something of a motivator. Furthermore, it would increase awareness of what pays what amount, how often it can be attained, and all sorts of economic meta-game information.

This might require an adjustment to general income, but it's an idea.

Edit:

As for not having all of those types of roles found in Battlefield, I just want to say that I think we'd have a much more successful 'MechWarrior game if it were built with a concept more closely resembling Planetside 2/Battlefield with combined arms where players can play functions such as field repair/rearm vehicles, dedicated anti-armor platforms, commando units, etc. Objectives would involve jumping behind enemy lines to neutralize generators while a battlefront keeps the enemy occupied, capturing requisition points that allow you to spawn in new 'Mechs and vehicles around the map, etc.

I know that's not what necessarily MWO promised, but I think such a game would make a lot of people very happy.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 25 June 2015 - 07:02 PM.