232 replies to this topic

[Lazor Sharp]

ok you said wrong, i was pointing out how right it was in the last paragraph.

Ok a Different UI, But any PvE AI assets would be very useful in PvP, and any new maps or missions are directly portable to the PvP game modes.....

So I think that the time spent developing PvE will help PvP in the long run, and make a very large segment of the MWO player base very happy, that they dont have to face the premade 12man bogymen any more..... and make it easier for new players to learn the game and not be baby seals so much.....

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 30 April 2016 - 01:42 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Mcgral18, on 30 April 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

It gives the new players a test of what CW is, without the PUG Stomping.

That's it. No long term investment or changes in the faction map, but can still give them a mechbay or two


Not referring to anything, that's just what my idea of a Solo CW Queue would be. Something with such a small playerbase doesn't need 20 planets, where the majority of the players are locked out from ever seeing each other.

I dunno about small player base. I always thought, from seeing what so many people on the forums expressed as a trueism, that FW didn't support a lot of the player base... but according to Russ last night, the number of people playing FW at any given time represents between 40-50% of the simultaneous player count for MWO, so perhaps more people are playing FW than people have historically believed.

[Mcgral18]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

I dunno about small player base. I always thought, from seeing what so many people on the forums expressed as a trueism, that FW didn't support a lot of the player base... but according to Russ last night, the number of people playing FW at any given time represents between 40-50% of the simultaneous player count for MWO, so perhaps more people are playing FW than people have historically believed.

I tried Ghost Bear last week

100% dead FW
5 people playing Scouting


Not sure about the other factions, but there was nothing I could do to get a CW match

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

Honestly, the AI and event coding would be of great benefit to multiplayer... the systems, not the implementation, mind you. Right now, one of the primary reasons we're stuck on with such simple symmetrical game modes is a lack of AI and event programming. PGI has almost no capacity to have anything dymanic happen during matches and on their maps in the current game state.

So game modes which would be very interesting for MWO are ruled out by virtue of a lack of coding for these events. Conquest is a pretty easy mode to code for, but it's really fun for a game based around big stompy robots of destruction. A Rush-style game mode is impossible without dynamic drop zones and map sectioning... not to mention all the individual goals on different sections of the map. Escort missions wouldn't be possible without AI. And so on.

If you want something more than just modes that are based on "kill everything with a red dorito over its head" or "stand in a specific place for a specific amount of time," we'll at least need AI and dynamic event systems. PvE needs those too, but so much more. PvE is largely a significant investment into game assets, more than hard coding.

AI isn't a generic thing. You have to construct AI for the purpose. The kind of AI present in PvE is not going to be useful in PvP. Scripted events and triggers, sure, but enemy units capable of combatting players? Mission-specific story scripts and dialogue? Eh. Not really.

Personally, I still think the direction for this game should have been more Planetside and less Counter-Strike.

[Afuldan McKronik]

There is a reason HBS's kickstarter was so succesful... This is kind of a PR train wreck for PGI, IMHO. Saying that the players just don't matter when it comes to developing stuff now is a Bad Idea™.

Maybe if Russ had ceased official communication through his personal Twitter account, and had some sort of official Forum for his game that his consumers could suggest ideas, where changes were discussed and balance ideas were discussed... oh wait...

[ScarecrowES]

Afuldan McKronik, on 30 April 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

There is a reason HBS's kickstarter was so succesful... This is kind of a PR train wreck for PGI, IMHO. Saying that the players just don't matter when it comes to developing stuff now is a Bad Idea™.

Maybe if Russ had ceased official communication through his personal Twitter account, and had some sort of official Forum for his game that his consumers could suggest ideas, where changes were discussed and balance ideas were discussed... oh wait...

There are a lot of companies that do this much better... community involvement. Ignoring your forums and getting your development advice from the refuse of humanity on Twitter is very bad policy.

The forums here manage to produce a lot of well-reasoned ideas that never get to Russ's attention because it takes more than 140 characters to explain them.

And PGIs community management staff is non-existent on their own forums... relying on volunteer moderators and only popping by occasionally to let us know they released another pic on Instagram - the 6th one in 2 years. Awesome.

It's a basic recipe for only ever hearing the worst possible ideas.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Some of the balance and suggestion threads have been pure gold. Yet are seemingly never seen by a Dev, just moderators to make sure that we arent being Naughty™. Sure, lots have been shovel worthy. But that doesnt mean that the GREAT IDEAS need to be ignored. It is easy enough to weed out the troll and broken suggestions before discussing the great ones and implimenting changes based on these threads.

Can't recall who had the latest threads on balance suggestions, but they have been great. And no, mine wasn't. It was just an idea thread, that I now know, means jack ******* **** to the devs.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

Personally, I still think the direction for this game should have been more Planetside and less Counter-Strike.

Preach it, brother. This match-drop 12v12 things are killing us. When you have a match maker that's dependent on a large population in order to get decent fairness, but you have a niche game with stooping numbers, it's not ganna work.

This has been something I've been repeating for a little over a year now.
... Here's a little more comprehensive post...

I was thinking about creating a thread that outlines exact details for a while now for the new community warfare and merger of solo/group queue... but now that I finally hear that Russ doesn't care much about feature suggestions, well I guess it's a complete waste of time.

Further more, PGI keeps cuttting up the community (solo queue, group queue, SOLO CW queue, and Unit queue), well no wonder CW is dead and solo queue matches aren't fair. Literally, there's no logic here, and a complete misunderstanding on PGI's part about the size of the community vs population demand of their features. And the proof was in the pudding when they didn't have enough numbers to support solo and unit CW queues.
I'm sure Russ's defensive statement would be, "We just had to test the waters to see how it would play out."
Here's some advice, "Do some basic math and research and you could have spent that time on implementing something that mattered."

A while ago, Russ said that IGP didn't want CW to happen, and honestly, I think IGP had a point for once...

I feel bad that I wasted time on this as well, only to hear that the hours of time I've spent into creating and discussing this idea is simply thrown into the waste bin.

Fix the FCKNG skill tree so it's fun.



Seriously, is feedback@mwomercs.com just a "compliment" box to boost their ego?

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 30 April 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of companies that do this much better... community involvement. Ignoring your forums and getting your development advice from the refuse of humanity on Twitter is very bad policy.

The forums here manage to produce a lot of well-reasoned ideas that never get to Russ's attention because it takes more than 140 characters to explain them.

And PGIs community management staff is non-existent on their own forums... relying on volunteer moderators and only popping by occasionally to let us know they released another pic on Instagram - the 6th one in 2 years. Awesome.

It's a basic recipe for only ever hearing the worst possible ideas.

I am legitimately curious about what Tina's job entails as community manager...

[Afuldan McKronik]

MoonUnitBeta, on 30 April 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

Preach it, brother. This match-drop 12v12 things are killing us. When you have a match maker that's dependent on a large population in order to get decent fairness, but you have a niche game with stooping numbers, it's not ganna work.

This has been something I've been repeating for a little over a year now.
... Here's a little more comprehensive post...

I was thinking about creating a thread that outlines exact details for a while now for the new community warfare and merger of solo/group queue... but now that I finally hear that Russ doesn't care much about feature suggestions, well I guess it's a complete waste of time.

Further more, PGI keeps cuttting up the community (solo queue, group queue, SOLO CW queue, and Unit queue), well no wonder CW is dead and solo queue matches aren't fair. Literally, there's no logic here, and a complete misunderstanding on PGI's part about the size of the community vs population demand of their features. And the proof was in the pudding when they didn't have enough numbers to support solo and unit CW queues.
I'm sure Russ's defensive statement would be, "We just had to test the waters to see how it would play out."
Here's some advice, "Do some basic math and research and you could have spent that time on implementing something that mattered."

A while ago, Russ said that IGP didn't want CW to happen, and honestly, I think IGP had a point for once...

I feel bad that I wasted time on this as well, only to hear that the hours of time I've spent into creating and discussing this idea is simply thrown into the waste bin.

Fix the FCKNG skill tree so it's fun.



Seriously, is feedback@mwomercs.com just a "compliment" box to boost their ego?

It's really just a dead email adress. /S

You have such a beautiful skill tree there. Why can't we have beautiful things?

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 30 April 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

I am legitimately curious about what Tina's job entails as community manager...

They actually have a small handful of community staffers. I can't figure out what any of them does that supports a 40-hour work week.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

They actually have a small handful of community staffers. I can't figure out what any of them does that supports a 40-hour work week.

Or even the people who are responsible for the game mechanics, if I'm being completely honest...

[adamts01]

LordNothing, on 30 April 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

ive been waiting for them to man up and say that for years. its there game and they need to rely less on all the whining of the biggest babies on the forum.

But the thing is they rarely relied on any player input. I see that as a huge mistake. So many times they'll release something completely off the wall just to have it scrapped after so much effort. Take Ghost Damage for example, how much time did that take to implement? If they had done a poll then most players would have shot that down before any man hours were wasted. Look at a successful poll, mech re-sizing. We all voted, arguably the worst offenders are getting fixed, most people are happy, little to no time wasted. I admit that the forums aren't a perfect representation of the players, so why not include little votes in the loading screens, or even a extra button in the mechlab to vote for changes? I realize not everyone can be made happy, but this game is doing too much wrong after too many years. I do have to commend them for getting the project off the ground and as successful as it is. It looks like sales and business might be their thing, but it's not game development.

[KodiakGW]

Alaric Hasek, on 29 April 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

Russ finally said it: the player base needs to stop thinking that it knows better than PGI how to develop this game. They don't. If you _can_, let me know when you finish your perfect game and I'll come play it. Until then, put up or shut up.

They think what they have is the perfect game. Spend money on it if you agree.

[MechWarrior319348]

adamts01, on 30 April 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

But the thing is they rarely relied on any player input. I see that as a huge mistake. So many times they'll release something completely off the wall just to have it scrapped after so much effort. Take Ghost Damage for example, how much time did that take to implement? If they had done a poll then most players would have shot that down before any man hours were wasted. Look at a successful poll, mech re-sizing. We all voted, arguably the worst offenders are getting fixed, most people are happy, little to no time wasted. I admit that the forums aren't a perfect representation of the players, so why not include little votes in the loading screens, or even a extra button in the mechlab to vote for changes? I realize not everyone can be made happy, but this game is doing too much wrong after too many years. I do have to commend them for getting the project off the ground and as successful as it is. It looks like sales and business might be their thing, but it's not game development.

Do they run these kind of things in the test server? If players are giving this stuff a ride in that server, then how do you give your impression after testing it? It doesn't seem like the devs would go rifling through the forums hunting for feedback. Hell it doesn't seem like they look at patch feedback, in the patch feedback section of the forums.

Yet they talk a lot about how experienced players are reflecting on their test experiences (in their town hall meetings), where are they getting the feedback for their town hall meetings?

Edited by Gigliowanananacom, 30 April 2016 - 08:07 PM.

[carl kerensky]

The only thing I got from this townhall is reasons why mwo can't become more in depth or cant get an improved heat scale.
It's so frustrating hearing all about what can't be done with this game. Mwo suffers from a lack of vision. We have tepid developers running this show that are afraid to take a risk or too. So we are left with the same old stuff. Same problems same issues. When mech 2 was being developed by activision they took a huge risk and scrapped the original engine to create an amazing engine that was ahead of its time. Mech 2 did incredible. To me it's an insult to my intelligence to be fed the excuse mwo needs to stay simple and very FPS to retain players. At least that's how I see it. Proof is in the pudding. Mwo is nothing but a FPS. Closed beta started out more sim than FPS. The reason they dumbed it down was because they were fearful that people would lose interest or little Johnny won't play because he is used to halo or cod. Essentially they created mwo for the wrong player base. That's why there was a huge exodus of the founders. Those players that invested in the sim quality that was initially released. What a waste. I guess I've become jaded. I'm glad there are players that enjoy it the way it is but for me I've lost interest because it's gotten card board thin to play. Decisions based on fear or loss will never create a visionary game. not going to happen.

[SplashDown]

Lord0fHats, on 29 April 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Honestly, being completely fair to the guy because the community puts way too much on his shoulders, Russ' track record can be hit and miss, and sometimes in very obvious ways. PGI in general can be hit and miss, but that's development. PGI takes a lot of flak for it because after so many years, tangible progress on lots of long standing issues is kind of meh while PGI itself continually indulges some bizarre notions, and takes round about routes to solve problems (like this whole drop clans to 50 tons in sct, leave IS at 55 which ignores entirely the real issue to introduce a host of other issues)

Ima have to go with 90% miss

[adamts01]

Gigliowanananacom, on 30 April 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

Do they run these kind of things in the test server? If players are giving this stuff a ride in that server, then how do you give your impression after testing it? It doesn't seem like the devs would go rifling through the forums hunting for feedback. Hell it doesn't seem like they look at patch feedback, in the patch feedback section of the forums.

Yet they talk a lot about how experienced players are reflecting on their test experiences (in their town hall meetings), where are they getting the feedback for their town hall meetings?

They only did the PTS thing that one time. I didn't have access to internet at the time to use it so I don't know how they communicated with players. The only way they get feedback now is through twitter, it's stupid really. There are a handful of prominent players that have personal contact as well, almost all the feedback actually considered is through those few I'm sure.

I got stomped that last match with you.... managing 196 damage with a classic streak2 Raven in that kind of loss isn't too embarrassing though. Meta or go home, so sad.

[Y E O N N E]

Gigliowanananacom, on 30 April 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

Do they run these kind of things in the test server? If players are giving this stuff a ride in that server, then how do you give your impression after testing it? It doesn't seem like the devs would go rifling through the forums hunting for feedback. Hell it doesn't seem like they look at patch feedback, in the patch feedback section of the forums.

Yet they talk a lot about how experienced players are reflecting on their test experiences (in their town hall meetings), where are they getting the feedback for their town hall meetings?

I'm fairly certain their "experienced feedback" is coming from NGNG and NGNG's closest friends.

[xe N on]

ScarecrowES, on 30 April 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

A good example is splitting the CW queue in such a way that solo players never had to play units. A handful of players stomped their feet and swore up and down they would never play CW if they had to play against "seal-clubbing 12-mans." So PGI gives us separate queues... players need never play against units ever again. And yet, these same players then started creating 1-man units so they could play against units in the unit queue.

That was mostly because as solo you could only choose freelancer or loyalist, but not merc. Freelancer was to limited. I played some scouting matches as freelancer, but the call to arm appeared was quite too random.

And they canceled the test after two days of testing.

In addition, PGI could have prevented formation of 1 man groups quite easily. Simply auto disband all Units with < 2 people. Unit formation should need at least two people, after all.

We will see if CW can be successful without causal players. Without events, CW is usually quite dead.

Solo queue could have brought more players in contact with CW that might also joined a unit after some time.

Edited by xe N on, 30 April 2016 - 09:38 PM.