141 replies to this topic

[AnimeFreak40K]

Johnny Z, on 05 December 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

I don't think that is intelligent at all. On the contrary its made up nonsense. Think every guild wants comp or teamwork OP? I don't think so. Some just want to be casual to. That entire post you called intelligent is nonsense.

Think casual player not in a guild don't want to work as a team, or cant?

Like I said, a bunch of nonsense.

If he hadn't of included "mutually exclusive" and alluded to that so often it may well be an intelligent reply.

Bottom line, guild/units are player made content. Players shouldnt want games to force players into guilds or even push them in.

I did not say that *all* guilds/unit/whatever are contrary to casual players. I have been in *several* casual units, and found them to be very fun and a bunch of great people to play with.

...but the mentality that often makes up those casual guilds/units *are* mutually exclusive to the mentality that makes up comp players and tryhards, whether they're in a unit or not.

And I completely agree that players shouldn't want games to force players into units/guilds or even push them in that direction... BUT IT HAPPENS!

The most common answer to a question I see from someone on Steam asking about this game is "join a unit". People complaining about gameplay "are you in a unit? if not, you should join one", that type of stuff.And admittedly, I've even fell into this more than once, so I'm guilty of it as well.

My general point is that one of the problems with CW is the types of players that want it and care about it. Their reasons for wanting and caring about are differing and while there is some overlap, there are points where they're mutually exclusive. Does this apply to everybody all the time in all units? No.

To put it another way, Windbourne Highlanders are a casual unit. They want CW because it's different and interesting. They like dropping with their friends and they don't care who they face as long as there is fun. Their mentality runs directly counter to MercStar, which is a comp-unit who really wants to put tags on planets more than anything else and they want to play against other units. Sure, individuals are more in it for the fun, but there are entire groups that form 12-man teams that's all about the tags.

What WBH and what -MS- want out of CW are mutually exclusive to each other. There is overlap in places, sure. But to fix things such that either units like WBH are happy will make units that are like -MS- unhappy... and vice-verse.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

-have 256 Mechs
-for all bying Camos (750 MC for used by all mechs of a Chassie, 75 for One shot Camo)
-now all Mechs leveling for Years ,or stand unused in Hangar ? selling and lost all the MCs for Camos ?
-destroyed the own Mechbuy system

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 06 December 2016 - 03:27 AM.

[Johnny Z]

AnimeFreak40K, on 06 December 2016 - 03:09 AM, said:

I did not say that *all* guilds/unit/whatever are contrary to casual players. I have been in *several* casual units, and found them to be very fun and a bunch of great people to play with.

...but the mentality that often makes up those casual guilds/units *are* mutually exclusive to the mentality that makes up comp players and tryhards, whether they're in a unit or not.

And I completely agree that players shouldn't want games to force players into units/guilds or even push them in that direction... BUT IT HAPPENS!

The most common answer to a question I see from someone on Steam asking about this game is "join a unit". People complaining about gameplay "are you in a unit? if not, you should join one", that type of stuff.And admittedly, I've even fell into this more than once, so I'm guilty of it as well.

My general point is that one of the problems with CW is the types of players that want it and care about it. Their reasons for wanting and caring about are differing and while there is some overlap, there are points where they're mutually exclusive. Does this apply to everybody all the time in all units? No.

To put it another way, Windbourne Highlanders are a casual unit. They want CW because it's different and interesting. They like dropping with their friends and they don't care who they face as long as there is fun. Their mentality runs directly counter to MercStar, which is a comp-unit who really wants to put tags on planets more than anything else and they want to play against other units. Sure, individuals are more in it for the fun, but there are entire groups that form 12-man teams that's all about the tags.

What WBH and what -MS- want out of CW are mutually exclusive to each other. There is overlap in places, sure. But to fix things such that either units like WBH are happy will make units that are like -MS- unhappy... and vice-verse.

Ok. But I still think the units you mentioned want the exact same thing when it is concerning legit players.

Random players can handle losing to guilds in a fair fight. GUILDS CANNOT HANDLE LOSING TO RANDOMS IN A FAIR FIGHT.

The cheating going on in this game and other games( I say this so that its clear its not just a MechWarrior Online problem) is absolutely through the roof to fix matches.

I have beat guild groups in random groups on more than one occasion. In both faction play and group queue and especially before the group queue was split off.

The top teams in faction play cheated ALMOST EVERY MATCH I HAVE PLAYED AGAINST THEM. Lag hacks so they don't take damage mostly. The old charge in with a lag hacker leading the charge not taking damage. Seen it countless times. ENTIRE RANDOM TEAMS SHOOTING ONE MECH THAT DOES NOT GO DOWN. Then the stomp that happens because of that. You know how many players stick around after seeing that 20 times?

If this game listens to those bunch of cheats even for a second they are making a big mistake. Because those guys are cheating to make guilds look unbeatable but at the core to completely remove legit players from this game.

My main point is that players, just want a good game, in guilds or not. The interests of a few hackers/cheats/bullies/trolls from competitor games or what ever have little to do with making this a good game.

Edited by Johnny Z, 06 December 2016 - 05:59 AM.

[Mystere]

KoalaBrownie, on 05 December 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

I dunno dude, what's the point of Faction play if you can't get a game?

This 4.0 update is obviously consolidating the playerbases so people who want to try it can actually get into a lobby and do something. Every time I tried faction play I got the same empty lifeless lobby and I'm sure a lot of other players felt the same and went straight back to quick play.

Snarky. But it will let it pass this time.

KoalaBrownie, on 05 December 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

And also, compare a game like Mechwarrior Online to Planetside 2. A game of probably comparable scope and support from a playerbase and company-standpoint.

Planetside 2 as I understand it revolves entirely around Faction play. Factions vie for control of a few planets through ongoing, planetary battles with vehicles, troops, fighters, etcetera. That is as far as I know the whole game.

So Planetside 2's mode revolves around "Faction Warfare", and how many factions are in the game? THREE.

How many were in MWO's Faction play? TEN or so? And it's not even the main game mode, but a separate mode?

Maybe Faction Warfare has problems. I don't know, I've never been able to play it. But part of fixing it will involve first off, people actually playing the thing, getting more data, more feedback from the player base, more REASON to actually fix those problems because it makes up a greater proportion of the game.

If Faction Warfare is a dead game, better to jump start its heart with a defibrilator and adrenaline before worrying about combing its hair, yeah?

You basically stated one of the major reasons CW is failing in MWO. A whole lot of time and effort went (wasted I should say) into what was really just meant to be a filler (i.e. Quick Play) while the main game (i.e. Community Warfare) languished in either neglect, mismanagement, incompetence, or a combination of those and more.

Merging people into buckets, without addressing the other main issues with CW, does not really solve the problem. Getting faster games do not solve the underlying problems.

A better analogy is not a defibrillator but a stillborn baby suffering from near complete exsanguination coupled with underdeveloped or even missing internal organs.

Johnny Z, on 05 December 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

... getting a match ...

And that is a symptom of one of the other problems plaguing MWO. People think in terms of "matches", when people should really be thinking in terms of "battles". This prevailing eSport mentality just does not fit well with the purpose of CW.

Lostdragon, on 05 December 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

Forgive me if I don't get excited for FW being reduced to a shell of what it was supposed to be none of the issues that make Invasion not fun being addresed.

I think you got is all wrong. CW is currently already just a shell. Soon it will become even less than that. See my "stillborn baby" analogy above.

Edited by Mystere, 06 December 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[Mystere]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 05 December 2016 - 01:23 PM, said:

I'm just excited to try and play more new content is all.

Except you're not really getting that, are you?

kuma8877, on 05 December 2016 - 01:27 PM, said:

There's wisdom in this, but until the update drops it's all speculation and theorycraft by either side. So in 2 weeks some reality can settle in and the real discussion about how improvements can be implemented to the new features can start. Getting revved up and calling for change now to things we haven't actually experienced yet is silly, especially based on a couple of screenshots and video clips.

What is needed is a planetary-level campaign system. Without that, each "invasion" is just a mishmash of -- gasp! -- matches. Did PGI hint on having such a thing?

kuma8877, on 05 December 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

The intent, if my memory serves, is to use the game modes and maps to further flesh out the overall feel of of a planetary invasion. Certain game modes should be available during different points during the tug of war. There should now be an overall feel of continuity to taking a planet, from orbit, to landing planetside and then to taking the final strongholds securing the planet for your side. Dropdecks added across all gametypes. Long Tom removed.

See above.

Edited by Mystere, 06 December 2016 - 08:13 AM.

[Mystere]

Johnny Z, on 05 December 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

I have always had complaints. Tell me that MW5 gameplay demo didn't look good. Tell me MechWarrior Online isn't the best battles around especially if tanks and gunships and mines are added.

What makes you 100% sure that "gameplay demo" was not entirely automated/scripted?

[PhoenixFire55]

Guys, guys, relaaax ...

[Mystere]

AnimeFreak40K, on 05 December 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

... DEMANDED by this community! ...

You seem to talking as if this "community" speaks with one voice. It does not.

What could be argued is that PGI is listening to the wrong section of this "community".

Edited by Mystere, 06 December 2016 - 08:39 AM.

[DaZur]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 06 December 2016 - 03:26 AM, said:

-have 256 Mechs
-for all bying Camos (750 MC for used by all mechs of a Chassie, 75 for One shot Camo)
-now all Mechs leveling for Years ,or stand unused in Hangar ? selling and lost all the MCs for Camos ?
-destroyed the own Mechbuy system

Serious question... of those 256 mechs... How many to you actually use?

I hear you and do understand your fundamental concern. That said, those superfluous Pokemechs are only devalued if you choose to see them as such.

Does not the prospect of being able to tailor fit / craft a mechs skill tree to fit YOUR play style versus what we presently have, seem more appealing? Did you appreciate that you were effectively forced to master all those mechs to a largely arbitrary skill tree just to feel competitive?

Edited by DaZur, 06 December 2016 - 08:45 AM.

[Bud Crue]

DaZur, on 06 December 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Does not the prospect of being able to tailor fit / craft a mechs skill tree to fit YOUR play style versus what we presently have, seem more appealing? Did you appreciate that you were effectively forced to master all those mechs to a largely arbitrary skill tree just to feel competitive?

Aren't you still forced to do this under the new system...perhaps even more so?

I mean if under the new system I take the attitude that I ought to throw out all my mechs and focus on my unique play style of wanting to be the brawling "Atlas Guy" then don't I still need to level those Atlases if I want to be competitive? Moreover, since under the new system all the structure and other quirks which makes an Atlas competitive is now gone. So with the new system I must "waste" significant numbers of my squirks to get the mech merely to the level of comparative performance that the un-leveled mech has under the current system...and then at that point I can start applying additional squirks to make it appeal to my individual play style. I may not be forced to do this, but if you want that Atlas to play like it currently does (or better) you damn well better get grinding.

Now if you want to have different play styles or provide individual character to each of your, say, couple hundred mechs...especially those that are under performers now...well, let me know when you have a free moment from the next several years of grind and we can talk it over.

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 December 2016 - 09:02 AM.

[DaZur]

Bud Crue, on 06 December 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

Aren't you still forced to do this under the new system...perhaps even more so?

I mean if under the new system I take the attitude that I ought to throw out all my mechs and focus on my unique play style of wanting to be the brawling "Atlas Guy" then don't I still need to level those Atlases if I want to be competitive? Moreover, since under the new system all the structure and other quirks which makes an Atlas competitive is now gone. So with the new system I must "waste" significant numbers of my squirks to get the mech merely to the level of comparative performance that the un-leveled mech has under the current system...and then at that point I can start applying additional squirks to make it appeal to my individual play style. I may not be forced to do this, but if you want that Atlas to play like it currently does (or better) you damn well better get grinding.

Now if you want to have different play styles or provide individual character to each of your, say, couple hundred mechs...especially those that are under performers now...well, let me know when you have a free moment from the next several years of grind and we can talk it over.

Yes and no...

Difference is the existing/defunct skill tree, it was largely arbitrary... Name of the game was "race to master to feel competitive". This was norm be you a newb or a top-tier player.

Under the new / proposed tree, you're still grinding for efficiencies but the skills are no longer purely arbitrary but "tunable" to each and every mech and the intended play style.

It's the "with purpose" part that truly intrigues me... I've long wanted each of my mechs to fill a particular role and with the new proposed system, I think we will finally have this.

Absolutely... min/maxers are going to min/max. No way to avoid this... That said for players (like myself) who are counter-meta and who value diversity and options... This holds a lot of opportunity IMHO.

Edited by DaZur, 06 December 2016 - 09:10 AM.

[Bud Crue]

DaZur, on 06 December 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

Yes and no...

Difference is the existing/defunct skill tree, it was largely arbitrary... Name of the game was "race to master to feel competitive". This was norm be you a newb or a top-tier player.

Under the new / proposed tree, you're still grinding for efficiencies but the skills are no longer purely arbitrary but "tunable" to each and every mech and the intended play style.

It's the "with purpose" part that truly intrigues me... I've long wanted each of my mechs to fill a particular role and with the new proposed system, I think we will finally have this.

Absolutely... min/maxers are going to min/max. No way to avoid this... That said for players (like myself) who are counter-meta and who value diversity and options... This holds a lot of opportunity IMHO.

This could be true, but if I need to waste say, half my available squirks to get that Atlas to have sufficient structure/armor to have the endurance it has now, then am I not at a disadvantage for that available pool of squriks with which to direct my mech to adapt to my playstyle? It comes down to some mechs are inherently better than others. If mechs have 75 squirks to use with which they can customize the mech to their individual play style, some mechs...a lot of mechs...will need most of those squirks applied to just making them not outright suck. That is the role now played by quirks and those quirks are gone. Thus my ability to customize according to my play style is severely hampered if I choose to focus on a mech that is already less than ideal. As such I think rather than increase players ability to customize, it is going to direct players into a few very specific chassis.

Edited to fix the most blatant spelling errors

Edited by Bud Crue, 06 December 2016 - 09:23 AM.

[KoalaBrownie]

Mystere, on 06 December 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

You basically stated one of the major reasons CW is failing in MWO. A whole lot of time and effort went (wasted I should say) into what was really just meant to be a filler (i.e. Quick Play) while the main game (i.e. Community Warfare) languished in either neglect, mismanagement, incompetence, or a combination of those and more.

Community Warfare came out 2 years after the main beta release and yet it's the main game rather than Quick Play? How does that logic follow exactly?

MischiefSC, on 05 December 2016 - 08:34 PM, said:

The population is small because factions and worlds mean nothing, there's no logistics of any sort to add depth or purpose to the above and a long list of other issues.

Logistics in any strategic game will quickly lead to snowballing for the winning side, killing the playerbase.
Factions in Battletech are also not all created equal, House Liao for example is extremely weak at the start of the clan invasion. Decreasing the likelihood that people will want to play those factions in the first place.

The only real logistics that would both impact gameplay and remain relatively balanced would be to restrict mechs available to each faction and then allow unlocks for holding certain worlds. But that would decrease the relevance of many worlds that don't have mech factories on them.

[DaZur]

Bud Crue, on 06 December 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

This could be true, but if I need to waste say, half my available squirks to get that Atlas to have sufficient structure/armor to have the endurance it has now, then am I not at a disadvantage for that available pool of squriks with which to direct my mech to adapt to my playstyle?

Yes... but understand everyone is going to be in this boat. (Save the people who can play 24-7) You're grinding for a goal... I'm grinding for a goal... we're all grinding for a goal.

I think folks got fat and happy racing to master and now because of it... Folks are missing to forest for the trees.

This is what the skill tree was supposed to be. Not an aimless and arbitrary grind. Now, while still a grind (theoretically) "any" Atlas can be used as a dedicated brawler... not just the mech that had the best quirks and hardpoints to accommodate this.

You want the -D to brawl? skill it to brawl. Want it to be ranged support... skill it to be.

Yes, all mechs will skilled to be proficient. But now they won't be pigeonholed into a singular role because the quirks says so.

Edited by DaZur, 06 December 2016 - 10:37 AM.

[Mystere]

KoalaBrownie, on 06 December 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

Community Warfare came out 2 years after the main beta release and yet it's the main game rather than Quick Play? How does that logic follow exactly?

You read it all wrong. CW is supposed to be "The Game", not QP. But PGI botched the entire thing.

[Bud Crue]

DaZur, on 06 December 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Yes... but understand everyone is going to be in this boat. (Save the people who can play 24-7) You're grinding for a goal... I'm grinding for a goal... we're all grinding for a goal.

I think folks got fat and happy racing to master and now because of it... Folks are missing to forest for the trees.

This is what the skill tree was supposed to be. Not an aimless and arbitrary grind. Now, while still a grind (theoretically) "any" Atlas can be used as a dedicated brawler... not just the mech that had the best quirks and hardpoints to accommodate this.

You want the -D to brawl? skill it to brawl. Want it to be ranged support... skill it to be.

I think we are talking past each other. I agree with you that the new system provides lots of options for customization and individualism...if all mechs were equal. But they're not and this is supposedly a competitive game, and to make those crappier mechs competitive we use quriks. But those are gone now.

In the new system if It takes merely 35 squirks to make an Arctic Cheetah the best spl, agile, jumping brawler that it can be, but it takes 55 squirks to get a Firestarter to that same level of spl jumping bada55ery, because you need to blow 20 of them just to effectively recover its current system level of quirks, no one is going to play that Firestarter. And thus we are in the same position we are in now, but with a worse grind for worse mechs.

[KoalaBrownie]

Mystere, on 06 December 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

You read it all wrong. CW is supposed to be "The Game", not QP. But PGI botched the entire thing.

According to the original announcement, the game is supposed to be 4v4 as well, did they botch that too?

Fact of the matter is that game development is an organic process and any company is going to focus on their money makers. If Community Warfare isn't popular, then Quick Play will get more development time & money. That lack of popularity may be due to decisions by PGI, by the player base or by the demands of the game mode itself.

Maybe PGI implements a decision which is unpopular and decreases the number of players.
Maybe the player base focuses on a type of gameplay which others don't enjoy, driving them away. This is by the way the #1 complaint I heard about FW prior to MechCon.
Or maybe Community Warfare is just not that appealing in general. Having to fight for your faction every day is not fun, it's a job. Many players just want a quick game, they don't want to try out for a guild, or be required to come for drops/raids 2 or 3 times a week at certain times. They don't want to get kicked out of a guild for not performing.

Some people on this board have complained that MWO is having too many events. Imagine playing in CW, taking a break for 2-3 weeks and finding that all of the planets you fought hard to capture have been taken by someone else because you had the audacity to live your life away from the game for a while.


Not only that, but balancing a persistance universe is not easy. About the only game that compares is EVE Online, and EVE is a game which has been built organically, it does not force factions on the player with set planets and starting conditions and tech disparities. People complain about Clan mechs in a game where the clans have been neutered as it is. C-ER PPCs for example don't do their real damage in this game. And IS/Clan battles should really be assymetrical affairs which are in turn even harder to balance than a straight up game.

[Baulven]

Appogee, on 05 December 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

You know what would have made more sense...

"Protect the Pugtatos" missions.

You drop into your Tier 1 match and you have six pugtatos on your team. You have to encourage them to not hide behind rocks, or derp into the enemy guns, while escorting them to the capture point.

In fact, I already play this mission every day.

Every time I land on a team with you from now on I am going to pugtatoe as hard as I can.

[Appogee]

Baulven, on 06 December 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Every time I land on a team with you from now on I am going to pugtatoe as hard as I can.

How will that be any different to when I've dropped with you previously...?

Edited by Appogee, 06 December 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[DaZur]

Bud Crue, on 06 December 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

I think we are talking past each other. I agree with you that the new system provides lots of options for customization and individualism...if all mechs were equal. But they're not and this is supposedly a competitive game, and to make those crappier mechs competitive we use quriks. But those are gone now.

In the new system if It takes merely 35 squirks to make an Arctic Cheetah the best spl, agile, jumping brawler that it can be, but it takes 55 squirks to get a Firestarter to that same level of spl jumping bada55ery, because you need to blow 20 of them just to effectively recover its current system level of quirks, no one is going to play that Firestarter. And thus we are in the same position we are in now, but with a worse grind for worse mechs.

You talking to me?

This is where clearly we diverge... I'm (one of few apparently) who believe some mechs are inherently/organically better than others and the lesser mechs should not be artificially elevated with intent to keep them viable and relative with their class equivalents.

The answer why is because "constantly moving finish line". As we move forward in timeline, there will always be a mech they pushes that classes power creep... Either in design, hardpoint, hitbox or technology. It's inevitable and unavoidable.

If the line will constantly move is the expectation for PGI to re-balance everything off that apex example? I argue it tough enough to balance this game without the finish line constantly moving.

I hear you and understand your point regarding potential obsolescence and wanting to keep all things viable... IMHO, it's just not possible without diluting everything to a watery beige glob.