136 replies to this topic

[burns]

Night Thastus, on 02 November 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

Communicating mechanics, rules, and edge-cases the player must understand to be effective. These are often very poorly explained (if at all) though it has gotten a little better with the tutorial.

Could need another episode how not to bunch up at one entry on Terra Therma, or how not to block friendlies on the backpedal

[sneeking]

Havok engine would of been better in my opinion.

[Funkin Disher]

FupDup and McGral have it.

If the devs kept up communication with the community and kept working at tweaks and improvements that sometimes amount to just xml tweaks there would be more satisfaction amongst the customers. If there were more developments like game modes then the last 2 years or so wouldn't have felt to meaningless.

[Cyborne Elemental]

The 3 P's are to blame

Paul
Paul
Paul

[adamts01]

I have to agree with stagnation. I don't understand programming, I get a lot of this stuff take a time and money. But when every single comp team runs the same mech with the same overquirked load out, don't take 1 year to fix it. Or 3 years to fix ecm, or let pop tarting last 1+ years. And my God, if you can't get all the crap laying around the bog to work right just remove it.

[Otto Cannon]

Dev inaction and attitude. There are plenty of issues that have technical reasons for not being easy to fix, but I think players would understand and forgive those if they saw PGI bothering to address the more simple problems instead of being too stubborn or afraid of failure to even try. There is no excuse for leaving the game borked for months because you refuse to change a number in a file when trying something different can't make things any worse.

[Naduk]

sneeking, on 02 November 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

I don't get the xl v xl thing at all, clan tech is advanced and is tech is archaeological rediscovered so an engine made of light weight materials with the same strength of heavy materials makes sense if it occupies more space when compared to advanced materials tech with superior strength without compromising cubic volume.

I always played is regardless and accepted the limitation because it made sense.

it makes a lot of sense when your reading a book
it makes no sense in a player vs player setting

lets play a game of chess
you only get pawns and a king because your playing as a historically poor kingdom ?
i get all the normal pieces AND my king can slay all pieces within a 2 square radius because my army is from Camelot and my king has Excalibur

i think a good solution to CL vs IS XL's is CASE
if you applied CASE to both torso's of an IS XL engine and it afforded the protection equal to a Clan XL, it would be a nice middle ground , IS can mitigate their weakness with a bit of sacrifice or take a std engine for a full strength build
STD engines should also provide a structure buff to all CT's so they do not get completely overshadowed by XL engines

[Alistair Winter]

Stagnation is a good one.

I'm gonna go for:

Shallow gameplay.

A total lack of a coherent vision for how different mechs with different roles are supposed to work together and against each other.

Role warfare would have been one solution to this problem, but PGI rejected it because only 98% of the players actually wanted it and Russ decided they needed 99% for a true consensus.

[MauttyKoray]

PGI taking too much stock in the players that whine about game mechanics, thus creating a horribly balanced game.

Here's looking forward to these PTS runs using more data and structured feedback and less catering to the 'Wah-Wahs'.

[DAYLEET]

Powercreep sucks imo.

[Wintersdark]

Alistair Winter, on 02 November 2015 - 09:19 PM, said:

Role warfare would have been one solution to this problem, but PGI rejected it because only 98% of the players actually wanted it and Russ decided they needed 99% for a true consensus.

To be fair - and certainly not in defense of them here - one of the biggest problems of "role warfare" is shared with a lot of issues here: it means different things to different people.

As well, PGI *is* trying to bring some measure in with the rebalance, though it's met with substantial resistance.

I'd argue that the problem isn't that they don't want role warfare. I'm sure they do. But they (like us) lack a coherent vision of what that means. But that's just another symptom of the overall problem, in the first part of your quote.

Stagnation.

If they were constantly trying to improve these things, I wouldn't mind at all. But it often seems that they're very willing to simply let things be, even objectively broken things like mech skills you are required to take but literally do nothing at all, for years.

Flamers, LBX, ECM, pilot skills, lack of role warfare; all these things are symptoms of the true problem.


With that being said, I understand as well that there needs to be a balance between maintenance (all this stuff) and growth, and their team is very small. And while I appreciate that they've come forward very far in the last year, there's still so many seriously broken things that have always been broken that - even if they are individually little things (eg. flamers) - simply must be fixed to show players that they ARE serious about making the game great.

Yes, I want to see them move forward. I want to see CW grow, and not suck. I don't hold "dev time to date" against them because that's useless; I try to keep "but what have you done lately" as my meterstick. But what faith can we have that they'll make these new features great, when there are so very many half-finished projects left behind. I can't have a lot of faith in these up coming projects, for fear that they'll be nearly great, then left to rot in the pursuit of the next shiny thing.

[Homeskilit]

So it seems the consensus is that leadership is the games biggest flaw. So does anyone got ideas on how we can affect MWOs leadership?

[badaa]

the players

[Mcgral18]

Homeskilit, on 02 November 2015 - 09:45 PM, said:

So it seems the consensus is that leadership is the games biggest flaw. So does anyone got ideas on how we can affect MWOs leadership?

Try to make them listen.

I'll have to ask Paul himself one of these days how balance decisions are made and passed, since it's been going on 3 weeks now and no answer from Tina.


I spent 2 hours adjusting .XML variables, and theoretically bridged balance between a few of the weapon systems, while breaking isSLs.



The fact they've tried next to nothing over 2 years confuses me, with what even a half hour could do to a Public Test Server session (with those 4 hours of compilation, some testing, etc...).

The process is what I want clarification on...why does it take so damn long? YEARS!

[Felbombling]

The biggest problem with MW: O is the fact that the lead designers made some pretty horrible decisions in a board room in the very beginning, and they are trying to force those core game mechanics into working with Band-Aid solutions like ghost heat and quirks. It isn't just one thing... it is a combination of ten different core game mechanics all not working together.

[Random Carnage]

Paul.

[Timuroslav]

lawls the finger-pointing and trolling in this thread are hilarious.
I feel like this is a setup for a troll-zapper.

I'd say the biggest flaw is role warfare.
Right now it's Get Big or get out.
If you're not doing 300 damage per match you're deemed useless.
Even if you're in a light mech with 4-6 weapons you better do damage and act like a brawler.

There are not really roles at the moment it's just Damage Class 1, Damage class 2, Damage class 3, and Damage Class 4
It's like World of Warcraft Everyone plays Warlocks, Hunters, and Shamans, No one wants to be a healer or a Tank lol

Scouting is " you better use a UAV light mech!"
Tanking is *hide behind the mediums and Heavies and snipe.

possible solutions?:
Decrease heat threshold by half, make some weapons hotter.
Give Light mechs the ability to share radar not just targeted mechs. Give light mechs the best radar mechanics.
Make maps bigger with multiple pathways; not just the 3 pathway maps we have.
Give Light mechs their faster Capture speed back, games were much more interesting with the fear of Light mech caps, and Conquest was actually fun because of it.

Spread the Conquest capture points out again, stop pandering to whiny assaults.

Edited by Timuroslav, 02 November 2015 - 10:09 PM.

[ChapeL]

For me it's always been building a game using the same mechanic that was used in MW2 all those years ago for delivering damage to an opponent aka convergence of every weapon on a battlemech into a tiny point on your target.

Might as well have this :

Spoiler

http://vignette2.wik...=20130417042535

Find a better system for damage delivery and suddenly our mechs feel like what the base material says they are.

[Khobai]

Quote

What Is Mwo's Biggest Flaw?

weekend events with ridiculously random timberwolf prizes.

Quote

Cryengine. It was a huge mistake to develop the game in Cryengine, in my opinion. I think if they'd forked out the cash to license an engine more suited to online multiplayer the game would be in a much better state because they would have been able to focus more on adding features early on than figuring out how to make basic stuff like hit registration work in Cryengine.

um they didnt have the cash to fork out for another engine. thats WHY they chose cryengine.

youre basically saying they shouldve spent money they didnt have to buy a license they couldnt afford. lol.

Edited by Khobai, 02 November 2015 - 10:19 PM.

[Homeskilit]

Khobai, on 02 November 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

um they didnt have the cash to fork out for another engine. thats WHY they chose cryengine.

youre basically saying they shouldve spent money they didnt have to buy a license they couldnt afford. lol.

You have to spend money to make money.