56 replies to this topic

[Meathook]

Salvag3, on 25 January 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

@ throutmokey

I feel you, it drove me nuts in Battlefield that people could run ranked servers and enforce rules on the players that don't allow them to use certain weapons or game play styles. Even more in that game because their TOS clearly stated that was not allowed. But EA refuses to do anything about it

Yes, there could be some options for restrictions or gamemodes like IS vs Clan, Mediums only or All Assault, but one shouldn't be allowed to prohibit weapons, certain mechs or something like that.

[SmithMPBT]

Oh the horror, dozens of pre-mades waiting all night for the prey that would never come.

[TexAce]

In game lobby would be ok, servers hell no.

I'm playing games for over 20 years now and never liked having to search through servers to find the one group I like to play against, and then to find out they are playing one map 24/7.

So....to make short I declare a simple NO.

Lets just stick to matchmaking and instead try to make the actual gaming experience better. The rest can be done with private matches.

It's not the year 2003 anymore.

Edited by TexAce, 25 January 2016 - 04:46 PM.

[LordNothing]

i rather miss games that allowed for players to set up their own dedicated servers. they went out of favor when developers decided they want absolute control over their game's servers. most of the reasons for this benefit them rather than you. this makes you dependent on them to keep the game alive. when they decide to pull the plug, they arent obligated to give their customers a way to keep the game alive. they dont have to release their server side software or any source code. they can just let it die if they want, you are pretty much at their mercy. i worry that the past 10 to 15 years is going to be known as a dark age of gaming. because of all the permadead games caused by this practice.

of course the reality is that the internet is full of hackers to create workarounds and asm level patches, and game companies themselves are full of people who dont want to see their work die, and will leak the relevant parts to the community. then there are games where the devs are good and just do a full source code release and let people go at it.

[WarHippy]

Jetfire, on 25 January 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

The only reason I dislike this is the present voting allows them to add game modes without splitting the community, not that they have put any in yet, but I really want the eventuality that we have 6-8 game modes.

My problem with your line of thinking is that even now we have a lot of people that dislike or even hate one or more of the current games modes. I'm not sure adding 3-5 additional game modes that are likely to be just as divisive as the current ones(considering what the devs have given us so far) is going to make anyone more accepting of being forced to play crappy/lackluster game modes. In my opinion voting needs to go, but a compromise would be allowing for one game mode to be avoided completely and more can be avoided as additional modes are added. For example with 3 game modes 1 can be avoided, and at 5 games modes 2 can be avoided etc..

[DAYLEET]

Jetfire, on 25 January 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

The only reason I dislike this is the present voting allows them to add game modes without splitting the community, not that they have put any in yet, but I really want the eventuality that we have 6-8 game modes.

I don't see how adding more game mode split the community. Those who only queue Conq and Assault right now would also queue the other game mode. Those who only want skirmish right now would also only queue skirmish with more game mode and those who queue all right now would also queue all.

Tarogato, on 25 January 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

lol, no. That would be terrible in this game. Finding matches would be annoying, matches would be completely imbalanced, people would ragequit and whine hax and premade stacking, ... it just wouldn't work in this game the way things are now.

We had servers in every game, your concern were easily avoided and in fact, balance could be achieved by the players rather than a match maker. You could make your own balance with people switching sides, you could just go play somewhere else if it wasnt your place. Eventually you found servers with people of your own skill and mindset, they became your home and you got to know the people playing there. This is futile though, i can't imagine pgi ditching their game structure that would be insane, im just arguing that it is a much better system.

Edited by DAYLEET, 26 January 2016 - 12:14 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

KodiakGW, on 25 January 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

I want the choice of what mech to take on it. Especially Conquest mode. I guess you never had a player mocking everyone in chat that he made that map/mode happen. I've experienced it too many times. The current map/mode voting is enabling troll behavior. That needs to stop.

You "Want" the choice.

Guess what, as a soldier, you don't GET a choice. You go where command tells you to go, with the equipment you have.

[Astrocanis]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 26 January 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

You "Want" the choice.

Guess what, as a soldier, you don't GET a choice. You go where command tells you to go, with the equipment you have.

You aren't a soldier. This is not war. It's a game. For fun.

[Shirow]

DAYLEET, on 26 January 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

I don't see how adding more game mode split the community. Those who only queue Conq and Assault right now would also queue the other game mode. Those who only want skirmish right now would also only queue skirmish with more game mode and those who queue all right now would also queue all.



We had servers in every game, your concern were easily avoided and in fact, balance could be achieved by the players rather than a match maker. You could make your own balance with people switching sides, you could just go play somewhere else if it wasnt your place. Eventually you found servers with people of your own skill and mindset, they became your home and you got to know the people playing there. This is futile though, i can't imagine pgi ditching their game structure that would be insane, im just arguing that it is a much better system.

Yes that made a game better, the group of players were tight, I speak from experience , use to be in a 34 person clan in COD 4, we
Had our server we rented for family , friends, clan mates, visitors that was family friendly where we could always start a game up, admins to keep the hackers out( I was one of the admins . )

I don't play COD anymore too many kids cussing up a storm, arguments , racist players kinda ruined it for us old timers lol.
I like this game cause it's FPS with Big Mechs, always been a big battle tech fan growing up ✌️.

That was before DEVs took away mod tools, and servers to use matchmaking so they could increase sales in the console area������.
I don't mind the matchmaking but gives us a option please.

[Choppah]

PGI will never allow private servers for MWO because that opens it up to modding. PGI can detect modifications to game clients now because they are in control of the server and thus the authentication process. Once they let go of that control, anything goes. The community for vanilla MWO would vanish in a flash to modded servers with tags like "30 heat cap", "no gauss charge", "fixed MG/Flamer", "Gundams vs Battlemechs", "Urbanmech only 24/7 Karkand", etc.

I would love for this to happen, MM has been a scourge on gaming for years now. Instead of having private servers with admins to kick the griefers off their servers we have to rely on a reporting system, which only recently even existed. On top of this, with such a small population, the MM "release valves" constantly have to be opened, leading to horribly balanced matches even during peak times. Alas, it shall likely never be.

[Davers]

Choppah, on 26 January 2016 - 02:02 PM, said:

PGI will never allow private servers for MWO because that opens it up to modding. PGI can detect modifications to game clients now because they are in control of the server and thus the authentication process. Once they let go of that control, anything goes. The community for vanilla MWO would vanish in a flash to modded servers with tags like "30 heat cap", "no gauss charge", "fixed MG/Flamer", "Gundams vs Battlemechs", "Urbanmech only 24/7 Karkand", etc.

I would love for this to happen, MM has been a scourge on gaming for years now. Instead of having private servers with admins to kick the griefers off their servers we have to rely on a reporting system, which only recently even existed. On top of this, with such a small population, the MM "release valves" constantly have to be opened, leading to horribly balanced matches even during peak times. Alas, it shall likely never be.

I am not sure how replacing the MM with whoever the first 24 players to queue up on a random server will eliminate horribly balanced matches.

Every reason argument people have made for servers seems to make the game even more exclusive ("only these maps", "only this tech", "only these players"), thus limiting it's general appeal.

[KodiakGW]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 26 January 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

You "Want" the choice.

Guess what, as a soldier, you don't GET a choice. You go where command tells you to go, with the equipment you have.

And only a piss poor commander sends his soldiers into a battle with suboptimal equipment when he has optimal equipment available.

Guess that's why you're not my commander.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Astrocanis, on 26 January 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

You aren't a soldier. This is not war. It's a game. For fun.

You're a fighter, in a virtual war.

That is the fun.

Otherwise, why are you playing this? Seriously why? What is your reasoning? Because you want to shoot giant robots? Hey, there's a wonderful series called Armored Core that offers that.

This is a Mechwarrior game, meaning you play the role of a mechwarrior, you go where command tells you, and you fight on the virtual battlefield.

KodiakGW, on 26 January 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

And only a piss poor commander sends his soldiers into a battle with suboptimal equipment when he has optimal equipment available.

Guess that's why you're not my commander.

Go read some battletech novels.

Ever hear the old "Military intelligence" joke? It rings very true in Battletech's setting. You don't always get to fight in the optimal settings. and often times, information is days, if not weeks old because the unit had to take 2 days to burn up to the dropship, a day to load the dropship into a jumpship, 2 weeks to jump to the destination, then 3 more days unloading and getting to the surface, setting up a FOB and working towards last known position.

[Choppah]

Davers, on 26 January 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

I am not sure how replacing the MM with whoever the first 24 players to queue up on a random server will eliminate horribly balanced matches.

Every reason argument people have made for servers seems to make the game even more exclusive ("only these maps", "only this tech", "only these players"), thus limiting it's general appeal.

Oh it doesn't, but why waste resources on continuous MM development when the end result is lopsided matches either way?

[Davers]

Choppah, on 26 January 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

Oh it doesn't, but why waste resources on continuous MM development when the end result is lopsided matches either way?

Well, you are ALWAYS going to have lopsided matches no matter what you do. It's the nature of a no-respawn game mode. If you lose a couple mechs you simply do not have enough firepower or armor to turn the fight around (without superior positioning and communication that is).Plus, it's not like PGI can install a breathalyzer on everyone's computers- never assume that your team is sober.

. However, the ideal goal would be to expand the playerbase and hard lock the tiers, possibly adding more to further distinguish player skill. Also, there should definitely be more potential to lose tier points.

Plus there needs to be (IMHO) a real hard look at the balance between the weight classes

[KodiakGW]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 26 January 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

This is a Mechwarrior game, meaning you play the role of a mechwarrior, you go where command tells you,

Wrong! We are all Mercs. We buy all of our equipment. Command gives us nothing, and we decide what contracts we want to take. If a contract comes up saying you are expected to stand on a bunch of points next to a volcano, possibly never engage the enemy, and get only enough CBills to buy a flamer, you know what I would say? "NOPE! Next contract! Oh, a fight on a moon for a HPG Uplink? I'll take that one."

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 26 January 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Go read some battletech novels.

Ever hear the old Military intelligence joke? It rings very true in Battletech's setting. You don't always get to fight in the optimal settings. and often times, information is days, if not weeks old because the unit had to take 2 days to burn up to the dropship, a day to load the dropship into a jumpship, 2 weeks to jump to the destination, then 3 more days unloading and getting to the surface, setting up a FOB and working towards last known position.

And a dropship would allow you to take multiple mechs, not just one with a specific loadout. If intelligence was so bad that they said you would be assaulting or protecting a base on Hoth, yet when you arrive you find you are fighting other lances on Degobah, you would shoot the intelligence officer for gross incompetence upon your return. That is, if you were in a Battletech novel.

And before you fire back with a planet have multiple temperate zones, only incompetent intelligence would tell you you were capping points in the Amazon, then upon arrive would be "NOPE! You need to go fight in New York City. Yeah, that's the ticket." They would have some general idea of what part of the planet would be attacked.

[NextGame]

Meathook, on 25 January 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

-Matches would start right after one another, instead of 10minutes of playing, then 5-10 minutes of searching for the next game

I'd rather people weren't able to search for me

quips aside, private lobby is as close as you are going to get. I prefer server the browser list type approach myself, but it wont happen for this game.

[Meathook]

Bait Thread successful, found next game.

[KritterBug]

omg i would just die if they brought back the old MW4 style of finding games the current method totally sucks being forced to play limited heat limited ammo and being forced to play stupid game variants like escort and conquest is ridiculous. anyone else remember when you could jump into a server knowing what game type you were playing and then make a mech that was Actually suited to what you were playing???? this game totally blows in this regard you pick the mech you want to play then oh **** ive got a shotgun srm lbx build on something stupiud like polar highlands or alpine peaks. its toally ******** and inhibits peoples ability to help their teams respectivly. also why are we limited to one life per match why cant we have a respawn system like the old days? get back to the things thta actually made mechwarrior an awesome game to play not just charge us a *** load of money for mechs and no content

[Shiroi Tsuki]

I remember when you get to choose game modes.
I believe it was about ~2-3 years ago in UI 1 (or early UI 2.0). There's a little drop down next to the launch button where you can check and uncheck gamemodes