197 replies to this topic

[5th Fedcom Rat]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 23 April 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

Because that would be unrealistic. They would never drop a group of mechs that close to each other because the first ones off the drop ship would instantly win while the other ones fall from theirs and get their asses handed to them in mid air. Makes no sense even for a video game.

I can remember dozens of times in the battletech fiction where one mech formation would literally hover drop on top of another. Happened a lot at the battle of Tukayyid. Heck, it already happens half the time in community warfare battles. Also, this game is already pretty divorced from realism when tank shells can only fire a few hundred meters with terrible accuracy.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Just played a game where the fast mechs ran off, watched half the team die....

Enemy started capping our base, so they ran back to defend...and then just stopped when they realized they'd have to get shot and said..."Oh well, I'd rather lose...at least we got some kills"

^^ It's not "steam players" leaving. It's people that don't want their time wasted by some inconsiderate man child chasing stats.

Edited by Ex Atlas Overlord, 23 April 2016 - 11:17 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

It's a multiple of issues.

There's no point to this game, there's no hook for anyone not vested in Mechwarrior/Battle tech.
The game play at lower tiers is hardly the epitome of fun...

The list is quite large

[kapusta11]

That's just your subjective opinion OP, no need to call it "Real reason". In group queue and CW the one who wins is usually the one who executes a good push.

[Dee Eight]

Mechs die fast because of the automatic convergence of all direct fire weapons even when mounted meters apart on your mech, and the bastardization of the heat scale / weapon values from tabletop. Hell they just reduced the heat of PPCs and ER-PPCs. So now people can shoot them more often. Oh but they have ghost heat... that's supposed to solve the broken system... except then it applies strangely... dual AC-20s generate not 12 heat, but 23 heat... but run four LB-10Xs and they generate the 8 heat they're correctly supposed to generate. In tabletop, the Clan ERLL out ranges the ERPPC but not in our game here it doesn't. For that matter it also generates MORE heat for less damage than in MWO. In Tabletop its 12 heat for 10 damage...in MWO its 10 heat for 11 damage. Also on the subject of heat scales... in tabletop... ALL of a mech's heatsinks remove heat at the same rate regardless of whether in the engine or not, but again, not in MWO, and double heatsinks do that at twice the rate as singles...but again...not in MWO.

[Aresye]

Malorish, on 23 April 2016 - 09:45 PM, said:

But really, wouldn't we all rather be playing the game in the trailer?

I would. . . .

Then get yourself a team and brawl, because that's the only time brawling actually works.

The reason people sit back and poke isn't because the game is designed that way. Brawling is actually a more successful and used tactic in high end competitive play.

No, the reason people sit back and play mid-long range poking is because most players in this game have no idea how to work as a team.

Want a thinking man's shooter? Want intense, in your face brawling action like that video? Play comp.

[MadcatX]

I'm going to have to echo a previous poster's comment: That one of the primary reasons (There's a multitude but I consider this the big one) is that it's a niche F2P game on Steam. When it was first rolled out, you had your mass of people come in to check it out. Then you have the mass exodus as either a new F2P comes around or wait for a couple Steam sales.

Losing players is a pretty normal thing for F2P's until it reaches the point that what's left is it's new fanbase.

[MrMadguy]

Yeah, I agree. This is the second major problem after poor matchmaker. What we usually expect for such a game and what advertisement videos usually show us? Epic combat of big stompy 'Mechs at close range and complete freedom of customization. What do we have in reality? Shotting gallery maps, like Polar Highlands and Alpine Peaks, Gauss+ER-LL long range Meta and Lights, that are best close range 'Mechs in this game. Do we need such game? No. Most terrible thing about new players - is that PGI manages to milk some money from them, while they're in Tier 4/5, only to force them to quit via Tier 3. New players should be warned, that what they experience in Tier 4/5 - ISN'T REAL GAME, they are going to play, so they shouldn't hurry with investing money into this game.

[invernomuto]

meteorol, on 23 April 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

It's f2p. People installed it, didn't like it, uninstalled again.

Many f2p titles lose a lot of players after the first initial release spike. It's neither unusual nor suprising.

This.

My experience is that I discovered this game during steam release with a couple of friend. We're still actively playing, IMHO MWO is a very good game, if you like battletech role.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I read

Real Reason Mwo Is Losing Steam

and clicked O.o

Malorish, on 23 April 2016 - 09:45 PM, said:

So we all know that Steam players are jumping ship on MWO. IMO, the biggest reason isn't balance (better, but not great . . . too many underperforming mechs), community warfare (getting better), or lack of new maps.

The problem is that the game doesn't deliver on it's advertisement. I mean, look at this awesome looking game in the Steam Advertisement below. The one where mechs battle at close, intense ranges in exciting combat!



Does this look like MWO? Not even remotely.

It can get worse

see :25 in or so.

and its still on Youtube from the official mechwarrior looking guys tag lol

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 24 April 2016 - 01:12 AM.

[Wolfways]

Malorish, on 23 April 2016 - 09:45 PM, said:

But really, wouldn't we all rather be playing the game in the trailer?

No.

[AnTi90d]

Steamer, here.. (for now)

Two things that haven't been mentioned that really pissed me off, as a Steamer:

1.) Steam purchase selection is crap. Each of the four packs is really expensive and only gives you one IS and one clan mech with each pack. You can't master a mech, and the assault pack is $60. For that, you could go to the MWO website and get 3 Archers, 3 Marauders and 3 Warhammers.. or six of those and a hero.. (They do have exclusive S mechs in the packs, but still, there should be more stuff in the Steam store.)

2.) You can't purchase MC directly from Steam. Instead, you have to deal with a wonky 3rd party payment system that has a history of technical issues. (Support responds pretty quickly, though, to their credit.)

Edited by AnTi90d, 24 April 2016 - 01:25 AM.

[Lykaon]

Malachy Karrde, on 23 April 2016 - 10:04 PM, said:

Well thought out post. I've always thought that weapons in mwo do too much damage. Mechs in the books were tough. Mechs in the previous games were tough. It should take a minute or two of pounding on someone to take them down. Maps are too big, and being able to alpha someone down in one or two shots is just ridiculous.

One minute is a very long time in a video game two minutes in an eternity. But,I do also feel that that time to kill is on the short side. A slight adjustment that increases the time needed to utterly slag a mech one vs one would be a good thing and it would encourage cooperative tactics by requiring two plus mechs to focus down a single target to aquire that near instant kill time we currently "enjoy" .

My choice would be to go in the direction of a meaningful heat scale with accumulative penalties for over heating that reduced the performance of a mech. This would allow for an alpha strike every so often instead of as the primary attack option. if you opt to spam alpha strikes then be prepared to have you mobility and/or accuracy impaired because of it.

Maps are in actuality way way too small. And I will explain.

The smaller a map is the less import manuvering becomes and the movements of teams becomes more predictable. A small map removes the need to think about where to go and how to do it because ...

One: even the slowest of mechs can reach any point on our smallest maps is a very short amount of time.Speed is no longer an important choice when you only need to plod to the same old spot and point in the same direction match after match.Having to think about where to deploy is equally meaningless if you can quickly redeploy because the map is tiny.

Two: Small maps limit potential avenues of approach.With predictability comes routine with routine comes ZZZzzzzzz boring. As it is now our maps are highly predictable with nearly every skirmish (and I say skirmish because,it's all about the skirmish with MWo players) occuring on the same map grids time after time.

Three: Small maps destroy any need for role warfare. Do we need fast scouts if we always know where the enemy will go and why bother we will be in visual range in a second or two because ...tiny map. Do we need medium mechs to rapidly deploy to hotspots to attack or defend objectives and hold until the big boys get there? nope we don't even have objectives really and why split off your faster mechs from the rest of the group if the map is so tiny you can cross it in a 2 minutes even at 50 kph?

If anything we need larger maps with dynamicly placed drop zones and objectives. If we don't know where the enemy landed or even where the objective will be scouting becomes very important. Finding the objectives earlier allows for the deployment of your heavy hitters before the enemy can respond with their assault mechs. Skirmishing fast attack mechs deployed to slow down approaching heavy and assault mechs is meaningful on a larger map.

So much of the game's strategy and tactics changes when role warfare is meaningful and making strategic and tactical choices are meaningful.

As it is now we all know that G9 is the place to go on forest colony every fricken time and it doesn't mater if you get there by moving 50 or 150 kph you will be there in time.

[Lykaon]

Aresye, on 23 April 2016 - 11:53 PM, said:

Then get yourself a team and brawl, because that's the only time brawling actually works.

The reason people sit back and poke isn't because the game is designed that way. Brawling is actually a more successful and used tactic in high end competitive play.

No, the reason people sit back and play mid-long range poking is because most players in this game have no idea how to work as a team.

Want a thinking man's shooter? Want intense, in your face brawling action like that video? Play comp.

Yep. If you play in organized team play a frequently used tactic for skittish hidey pokey enemy teams is an organized charge to engage in close quarters.

One of the primary rules of engagment is never let the enemy dictate the conditions of the battle. If they want to hide and poke charge them! If you focus your tactics and strategies on close in brawling with very aggressive movements you even remove the enemy's ability to prevent your team from executing your strategic choices. There are very few ways to handle an aggressive push early in a game.

one: be very very well organized and place an early match kill zone that allows for mutual fire support and focus firing on called targets. Takes time and requires careful drill practice so every one knows the best spots on every map.

two: Out brawl them in close quarters. And even this isn't removing the initiative from the enemy if they opt for aggressive charging early match it's just hoping your guys are better at it.

If ever a pug team were to coordinate an aggressive push early match and fired on the called targets provided by the drop commander the other pug team would be nearly incapable of stopping it. This strategy would win 9 out of 10 pug matches only IF puggies could muster up the fortitude to execute this plan.

[dervishx5]

5th Fedcom Rat, on 23 April 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

Stuff
.

Go back to nuking your friends you Blakist wannabe.

[TyphonCh]

No end game besides Try Hard Meta Game FW?
No heat scale that resembles anything like past MW games? Covered up by convoluted mechanics like ghost heat
Insta convergence?
There are tons of reasons. Take your pick

[RAM]

Malorish, on 23 April 2016 - 09:45 PM, said:

look at this awesome looking game in the Steam Advertisement below. The one where mechs battle at close, intense ranges in exciting combat!



Does this look like MWO? Not even remotely.

Would pay to play this game

Mind you, Battlemechs are neither robotic nor particularly huge...


RAM
ELH

[Random Carnage]

Stefka Kerensky, on 23 April 2016 - 10:37 PM, said:

And me too.... and I'm playing it!
The problem maybe is that noobs (and maybe u too) do not watch closely at that trailer.

I'm a brawler and have a good team. Brawling action succedes when all the team does a coordinate brawling push.
That's the way I like to play and it requires experience and good teamates.

But sadly noobs wants to succed inmediately:
-using bad mechs
-never torso twisting
-going rambo
I see this in noob-ish players..and that's why they are instagibbed.
And then qquing here in forum, or unistalling the game they didn't learn how to play.

Which helps the game how?

[Dino Might]

Malorish, on 23 April 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

If it was up to me, we'd cut all weapon damage in half (or double armor and structure values, whatever floats your boat).

Then we'd shorten a lot of weapon ranges (maybe everything except machine guns). Finally, we'd need to double the ammo/ton to make sure missile and ballistic systems keep pace with energy weapons. (I'd also standardize ammo around a damage/ton number, but that's another topic and another post).



I don't know how you get rid of pinpoint convergence that translates into fun gameplay. I've seen the proposed systems in the forums, and they're terribly unintuitive or complex, IMO. I think we could live with pinpoint convergence (which people expect in a FPS style game) as long as you can't unleash ungodly amounts of damage with a push of a button.

I find it hard to imagine that most people expect pinpoint convergence in an FPS, given that most games don't involve shooting more than one weapon at once, and those that do almost always have an accuracy penalty for doing so. Dynamic CoF is pretty much the most intuitive way to fix the problem AND get this game a few centimeters closer to tabletop / simulation. The strange thing is that some of the people arguing against dynamic CoF are also the same ones who rail on about how a Raven shouldn't be able to fire an AC-20 with perfect accuracy while running at 100kph because it's "unrealistic," or "not how battletech works." The solution stares us right in the face and we reject it out of hand, because it would make things more difficult. Hint: the OP claims it's too easy to kill mechs from range, so the game has devolved to peek and poke. You have to make it more difficult (not arbitrarily longer). We added durability quirks and people raged about atlas strength blackjacks. What do you think will happen when everything is re-doubled armor? Good bye forever, lights.

We should try something that, on average, will increase TTK, but is dependent on user input (i.e., skill and decisions).

[Richard Hazen]

My issue atm is assaults are less tanky than lights, everything seems to favour lights but assaults can't take as much fire power as lights can both avoid and spread.