98 replies to this topic

[TheArisen]

adamts01, on 27 June 2016 - 01:57 AM, said:

You shouldn't agree with me, you'll get a bad reputation.

Haha, it's because as others have noted that the community is very split. It may take a bit of work but it makes a lot of sense to have game modes for different types of players.

[Maugged]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

• I ask for a few maps where sniping is a viable tactic. The community complains that there's hardly any brawling in MWO.

That's not the problem.


You ask for sniping maps and instead of making new sniping maps they take away some pretty popular map which guaranteed brawling for brawlers to replace it with a sniper version. That's the problem.

Personnally i'm not against sniping maps, just against turning small maps into a sniperfest.

Edited by Maugged, 27 June 2016 - 10:29 AM.

[Revis Volek]

I was under the assumptions our direction was always 1 step forward and two steps back.


I don't think anything has changed, well they might have missed a few forwards steps these past few patches.

Par for the course.

[Metus regem]

Revis Volek, on 27 June 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

I was under the assumptions our direction was always 1 step forward and two steps back.


I don't think anything has changed, well they might have missed a few forwards steps these past few patches.

Par for the course.

I've been feeling it's more like this:

[AztecD]

This is what i want MWO to be

https://www.eveonline.com/

set in the Battletech universe, but alas i can dream of winning the powerball and spending it on making it on my own.

[Novakaine]

If PGI was smart crowd funding a PVE environment would work.
Human's have short memories even most of us salty vets.
Hell they could have crowd funded Aerotech and had a bombshell instead of Transverse dud.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 26 June 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

I dunno. Maybe they're in a good midpoint? It's all guesswork till it happens.

I know personally I can't give up more mechsimishness myself. Any direction other than more battletech would mean I'd likely stop playing entirely. I imagine the same applies to many.

Note that I agree, and a more focused direction would probably be a better game, but it may not be a more commercially successful one.

In sports, there is a mindest: "Playing not to lose". What that usually means is being overcautious, taking no risks, etc.

In the short term, it works OK, if you have the talent to actually avoid losing. In the long term, you never actually win. And after a while the fanbase get's tired of holding around .500 and changes happen, franchise get blown up.

The same mindsets pervade in business. There are times, you play not to lose while you patch up weak areas, address concerns, etc. But eventually if you don't grow a pair, and play to win? It's all for naught anyhow, as people get tired of your product circling around in mediocrity (at best).

Retail is a buyers market, not a sellers. Very few game companies have the cachet to consistently offer middling product and survive. (Wow being a good example of what massive marketing budgets can let you keep afloat, something MWO and PGI don't have). There are simply too many alternative offerings. Yes with an IP like Battletech/Mechwarrior if buys you a little more immunity, because other stompy robot games aren't part of said IP. But dilute it far enough, leave it mediocre long enough, and even the most rabid fans of the IP get burned out and go elsewhere.

Do you know of any fans of Battletech more frothing than myself, Sturm Wealh or Koniving? I am willing to bet if one was to look at their play logs, they would resemble mine, with a decline showing around mid 2013 in play time, a slight bump around mid 2014, that has turned into an every steepening dive ever since mid 2014. When people like myself are barely interested enough to log in any more.... that tells me they are surviving on the few hardcore Comps that are left (and trust me those teams are not what they were in quantity, and possibly quality, compared to 1 year ago, let alone 2) and casuals.

Niche games don't survive long on casual support, especially mediocre niche games. There are too many other options for entertainment.

So yes, PGI can keep chasing it's tail, playing not to lose as it were... and it will slow down the eventual demise of the IP. But unless they cowboy up and take a chance, they will never "win", and it will still die. Yes, if they make the wrong choice (and it would have to be a pretty categorically bad one, to actuall crash and burn utterly with this fanbase... we played MW4 for a decade despite all it's massive flaws) they will die a bit quicker. But they more likely to rejuvenate the franchise, the fanbase and be surprised by the outcome.

People tend to respect strong decisions and confidence, even if they don't always agree with the initial idea. People have no trust in indecision and bravado (which is what Russ's "we know better" spiel came across as), nor should they. Even skeptics will usually fall in line when they see RESULTS, simply because it is progress.

Going all in on Esports, I think is ultimately limiting, but at the same time at least is SOMETHING, and I do believe MWO would have some success, though small market. Going all in on a SimLite, likewise would lead to more success, and even bring back a LOT of the departed Whales and Founders. Either will breed some discord and discontent, and lose you a some players possibly. But even for all the bluster (no CoF!) etc,? Most would stay. And those that do stay would have more confidence in the product, and thus, spend more. That's basic economics. Developer Confidence (no arrogance and bravado) and Direction breed Consumer confidence, which in turns opens up wallets.


A good plan NOW, is better than maybe finding the perfect plan tomorrow.... and a whole lot better than having NO PLAN today or tomorrow.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 June 2016 - 02:04 PM.

[Mystere]

TheArisen, on 26 June 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

Bishop Steiner commented that PGI seems to not know what they really want MWO to be or they're not sticking to their decision.

So that presents the question, where should PGI take MWO?

On a more serious note ... nope, I just don't have it in me right now.

[Johnny Z]

Novakaine, on 27 June 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

If PGI was smart crowd funding a PVE environment would work.
Human's have short memories even most of us salty vets.
Hell they could have crowd funded Aerotech and had a bombshell instead of Transverse dud.

Aerotech should totally be a thing in this game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Novakaine, on 27 June 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

If PGI was smart crowd funding a PVE environment would work.
Human's have short memories even most of us salty vets.
Hell they could have crowd funded Aerotech and had a bombshell instead of Transverse dud.

PGI is often too secretive for their own good. And in truth, too wasteful with their assets.

The playerbase has BEGGED that the old 250k a pop maps stay in rotation, even if simply used for a 4v4 or 8v8 mode. But most of us would still be ok with seeing them pop up in 12v12 (I really wish maps were simply random)

Well, 4 maps tossed.... that's 1 year worth of work, and 1 million dollars in resources chucked.

Transverse? *SMH*

Fiasco, much? A serious lack of self awareness to release it, especially the way they did, at the time they did with SC and Elite Dangerous right there. No consumer confidence earned, and whatever the development truth may be... it came across as a knockoff.

Admittedly, PGI doesn't want to typecast themselves as a "Battletech Developer". But they are now. Their only glimmer of real success has been MWO, without which we wouldn't be seeing HBS's Battletech. So give credit where due, I suppose.

But that they didn't see the writing on the wall then, and rebrand it as an Aerotech Expansion for MWO, showed how little awareness they had/have. And if Bryan hasn't spent the last year plus doing just that with what they had, then it's another example of money and resources squandered for no tangible gain. And that, is simply bad management.

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

Aerotech should totally be a thing in this game.

I doubt the could make it a "thing" in this game. Just doesn't work with their coding capability, the engine chosen (and can't just scale things down like Star Citizen did since you already have the mech scale built in, so that means likely never breaking the speed barriers).

It COULD have been a stand alone addition that affected the same Global Faction Warfare Map though and determined which worlds and invasion corridors were open for Battlemech landings in the MWO side.

But that is apparently too far reaching a concept.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 June 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

PGI is often too secretive for their own good. And in truth, too wasteful with their assets.

The playerbase has BEGGED that the old 250k a pop maps stay in rotation, even if simply used for a 4v4 or 8v8 mode. But most of us would still be ok with seeing them pop up in 12v12 (I really wish maps were simply random)

Well, 4 maps tossed.... that's 1 year worth of work, and 1 million dollars in resources chucked.

Transverse? *SMH*

Fiasco, much? A serious lack of self awareness to release it, especially the way they did, at the time they did with SC and Elite Dangerous right there. No consumer confidence earned, and whatever the development truth may be... it came across as a knockoff.

Admittedly, PGI doesn't want to typecast themselves as a "Battletech Developer". But they are now. Their only glimmer of real success has been MWO, without which we wouldn't be seeing HBS's Battletech. So give credit where due, I suppose.

But that they didn't see the writing on the wall then, and rebrand it as an Aerotech Expansion for MWO, showed how little awareness they had/have. And if Bryan hasn't spent the last year plus doing just that with what they had, then it's another example of money and resources squandered for no tangible gain. And that, is simply bad management.


I doubt the could make it a "thing" in this game. Just doesn't work with their coding capability, the engine chosen (and can't just scale things down like Star Citizen did since you already have the mech scale built in, so that means likely never breaking the speed barriers).

It COULD have been a stand alone addition that affected the same Global Faction Warfare Map though and determined which worlds and invasion corridors were open for Battlemech landings in the MWO side.

But that is apparently too far reaching a concept.

And here is me imagining player owned dropships with Mechs and Aerospace fighters trying to get around the universe to attack and defend planets and visiting Solaris now and then. Maybe an expedition to a far off planet for loot and exp and adventure.

[Novakaine]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

And here is me imagining player owned dropships with Mechs and Aerospace fighters trying to get around the universe to attack and defend planets and visiting Solaris now and then. Maybe an expedition to a far off planet for loot and exp and adventure.

Yeah there we go thinking again huh?

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

And here is me imagining player owned dropships with Mechs and Aerospace fighters trying to get around the universe to attack and defend planets and visiting Solaris now and then. Maybe an expedition to a far off planet for loot and exp and adventure.

which would be another good way to tie in two games that don't interact directly... but yes, the way they could interact on the same persistent FW map, and one opens avenues for the other? A bit of work, for sure, but I think only one other game off the top of my head has ever tried it.

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

In sports, there is a mindest: Playing not to lose". What that usually means is being overcautious, taking no risks, etc.

(not posting about this thread, but about your words. I've been in sport - real one - for decades and military study too, and "there isn't" such mindset.
The truth is that bad coaches (and generals) exist.
"Taking no risk" is a secondary effect while attacking, because if you attack, enemy team cannot not defend...and so they cannot attack. In grand strategy is esactly what Napoleon did in his uber glorious carrier. Nothing new, best defence is a good attack.)

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

(not posting about this thread, but about your words. I've been in sport - real one - for decades and military study too, and "there isn't" such mindset.

There is such a mindset, just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The mindset boils down to trying to play it safe 100% of the time, which always results in stagnation and eventual decay.

[Johnny Z]

....

Edited by Johnny Z, 27 June 2016 - 01:20 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

(not posting about this thread, but about your words. I've been in sport - real one - for decades and military study too, and "there isn't" such mindset.
The truth is that bad coaches (and generals) exist.
"Taking no risk" is a secondary effect while attacking, because if you attack, enemy team cannot not defend...and so they cannot attack. In grand strategy is esactly what Napoleon did in his uber glorious carrier. Nothing new, best defence is a good attack.)

um. sorry to argue with you so succinctly, but you are every much wrong. You might not recognize such, but those who fight and play to not lose, are a very real thing, in war, sports, business, etc. You might have a different term for it in your neck of the woods, but it is indeed a very real thing, as Quicksilver just attested to.

A simpler way to describe it might be "persistent over-caution". Or "risk aversion". Over caution and risk aversion are sometimes essential when you are recouping, or even building up to an "offensive" (can't squander resources prematurely) but staying in a bunker mentality eternally get's you surrounded, cut off, and eventually, starved out.

Which are all just different ways to say "playing not to lose".

A lot of mid tier football clubs that's only real goal is to stay in the Premier League, but never win it, might be a good analogy. But retail products rarely develop the fan fervor FCs too.

[Bishop Steiner]

Johnny Z, on 27 June 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Losing never enters the mind of a winner. Losers had no idea what they got themselves into to begin with.

Pretty sure Bill Belichick would disagree. Or Lombardi. They are very aware of the razor edge between winning and losing... and know the only way to not end up on the wrong side of that blade is to be aggressive and proactive, not eternally reactive. In a sports match, or a fight (street or war) if I wave you consistently reacting, then I have almost certainly won.

But only the fool ignores the spectre of possibly losing. And consistent winners are seldom fools. The winner sees the potential calamity coming, and does his all to prepare for it, instead of just hoping to steer away from that iceberg at the last moment.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

A simpler way to describe it might be "persistent over-caution". Or "risk aversion". Over caution and risk aversion are sometimes essential when you are recouping, or even building up to an "offensive" (can't squander resources prematurely) but staying in a bunker mentality eternally get's you surrounded, cut off, and eventually, starved out.

I wouldn't say it is essential to recouping since during a market downturn trying to play it safe can actually hurt you even further in the long run, especially since others tend to have the same thought, but I guess that's diverging a bit. The market isn't the only place I would expect this parallel either.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 27 June 2016 - 01:00 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 27 June 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

I wouldn't say it is essential to recouping since during a market downturn trying to play it safe can actually hurt you even further in the long run, especially since others tend to have the same thought, but I guess that's diverging a bit. The market isn't the only place I would expect this parallel either.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 June 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

A simpler way to describe it might be "persistent over-caution". Or "risk aversion". Over caution and risk aversion are sometimes essential when you are recouping, or even building up to an "offensive" (can't squander resources prematurely) but staying in a bunker mentality eternally get's you surrounded, cut off, and eventually, starved out.

hence the addition of the term "sometimes". Different markets, different resource realities may indeed call for short term caution.. Other times, you need to get more aggressive. It's seldom all one or the other, all the time.