Please Pgi, Don't Kill Your Own Game...
#1
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:23 PM
Am genuinely happy that PGI has put some effort into a couple of different game modes. At least they are trying.
The whole idea of the fix for faction play is to reduce the buckets and use quickplay maps is short sighted and I do not think I have heard one person in the community that believes it will draw new player or make old player come to faction play. Maybe I am wrong and it is only about getting matches quickly for a lot of people.
The biggest thing is however, the insanity that is removing modules and quirks. Why on earth after all of the effort to balance mechs, are we going back to ground zero? I really think that this, if implemented, will kill off a lot of players.
This game is already waaaaay up on grind. To increase that is quite possibly going to go down in gaming history as one of the dumbest ideas of all time. I have bought a lot of mastery bundles. Easily one of the best deals in the game and I like the variety in the chasis that I get. Now why on earth would PGI make it so if we take the Raven for example, I would only have reason to buy the 3L? Not only this but now I either have to buy two 3L's to set one up as a narcer and sp it out that way, and another for the sniper build or only choose one role and not have the flexibility to customize how I have always been able to customize...
What if you set up a mech and the Meta changes? Taking away the ability to change loadouts and severely limiting customization to allow for multiple rolls is so assinine I am actually shocked that they have even considered it.
Back to the painful grind...Now you are telling me, all of my new mechs are not only going to take longer to grind, but I will have to wait for essentials like rader derp which will increase how bad the new mech sucks for even longer.... Are you kidding me?
PGI seems absolutely unable to step back and take an honest self appraisal. It has taken quite some time and continual work to balance out and quirk mechs to ensure at least some diversity. This nonsense is going to erase that and make things more difficult. It also is a slap in the face for those of us who have spent hundreds or more (in one year I am close to 1600$ in) and the time and effort that has gone into grinding out and configuring mechs. Now that will be changed and I can start over??? BLEEPITY BLEEP, PGI.
I have never in my life seen a company so disconnected from their own product and customers.
#2
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:37 PM
As for radar derp, in the video I noticed that there was at least two levels of it, which means that it might finally get nerfed, with each level lowering the amount of time you stay on sensors, rather than instantly disappearing.
I'm keeping a wait-and-see mentality, but if done right this could be an amazing system that promotes more distinct roles.
#3
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:37 PM
I keep coming back to how nearly all the threads on these various topics come back to the community merely wanting more information on these various mechanisms and fixes hinted at during mechcon.
Are we really being so unreasonable here to want more than a tease? Does PGI really think this sort of teasing is a good idea, given their history of difficulty in transitioning from what they tease to what they provide? For that matter why is providing a brief explanation of these things so hard for this developer?
Here's an idea: maybe if you engaged the community NOW as opposed to after you put in something completely different into the game (as is inevitably what you will do given your history) you could then manage expectations and even increase enthusiasm for what you are trying to accomplish.
Sigh. Sorry. I'll go back to the island...but I really am just trying to understand your reasoning here PGI.
#4
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:40 PM
#5
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:47 PM
There was a simple solution to this.
It's called transparency and playtesting.
We could've told you months ago about the skill tree plan and had you fans trying the new FP.
But we subscribe to the surprise model of business, where making things a surprise is far more important than making something that's sane and/or functional.
Sorry if this all turns out to be a turdburger, but we hope you liked your surprise!
--The Management
#6
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:47 PM
Gentleman Reaper, on 05 December 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:
As for radar derp, in the video I noticed that there was at least two levels of it, which means that it might finally get nerfed, with each level lowering the amount of time you stay on sensors, rather than instantly disappearing.
I'm keeping a wait-and-see mentality, but if done right this could be an amazing system that promotes more distinct roles.
I have to agree that I wanted a progression mechanic that would allow me use my excess XP to improve my mechs. I will also agree that I wanted to see the module system removed or revamped. However what I didn't want was all my mastered mechs to be reset to zero and have to grind 500 matches each to make the competitive again.
What I was hoping for was new pilot progression system that would allow you to use your extra XP to purchase skill that would be universal to all the mechs you owned and I wanted it to take a lot of XP to improve. Call it pilot or character customization. However I wanted this independent of the individual mechs because quite frankly alot of the mechs I own were purchased with both C-bills and Cash, based on the quirks they have. I mean I wouldn't have invested in the Linebacker at all if they didn't have the quirks they do and the last thing I want is to grind 100s of matches with that mech without those quirks. I am also sure there are ALOT of people that feel the same way. I mean I just don't understand why they are resetting the balance they have achieved back to square one especially when they could add an independent system like I describe and not go about pissing off virtually every player they have currently supporting the game.
Edited by Viktor Drake, 05 December 2016 - 04:49 PM.
#7
Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:53 PM
Edited by Animus41, 05 December 2016 - 05:19 PM.
#8
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:02 PM
In short, the Great Refundening needs to be a 1 to 1 conversion when it comes to already mastered mechs.
#9
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:12 PM
Animus41, on 05 December 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:
In short, the Great Refundening needs to be a 1 to 1 conversion when it comes to already mastered mechs.
Yeah actually, if they want to go to 750,000 XP grinds on each mech then yeah, they need to do exactly as you have said.
Honestly this is the biggest issue I have. I own I think between 110-120 mechs. The vast majority are at least Elited to get the speed Tweak and the 2x basic skills with a good portion fully Mastered. Under the new system even if they put ever drop of XP I have every earned including GXP into one big pool, I will only have something like 5 maybe 6 million XP. At 750,000 XP required per mech, instead of 80-100 mastered or near mastered mechs, I will be reduced to 7-8 mastered mechs and be forced to grind 750,000 XP each for over 100 mech variants to get them back to the same levels they are now. When I think about how much time, effort and money I have invested to get to where I am today and think about being reset back to virtually zero I just feel sick.
Edited by Viktor Drake, 05 December 2016 - 05:13 PM.
#10
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:14 PM
#11
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:15 PM
#12
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:18 PM
We don't know for sure yet that all special purpose tweaking has been tossed out the window.
#13
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:27 PM
MacClearly, on 05 December 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:
talk with people in the community and you will have a solid answer. The inclusion of QP maps into FW was an idea that was generally well received by the Community. What basis do you have to say it was shortsighted? that needs more explanation as to why. The inclusion does not seem to have any negative appeal, if the invasion was 48 vs 48, it will be the same concept except with QP. Rather than fight again and again at a base, instead its on different maps. Then the last bit will simulate a final push to the base. Once again to re-clarify, how do you find this short sighted. On the issue of Buckets, I did a re-evaluation of FP when looking at the total number of buckets we have now. Its insane, Some factions have 3 attacking them. Meaning 6 buckets, and some factions elect to attack one faction and 4 factions are attacking them. This is counter-intuitive if you want to speed up the process of finding a match. I actually like better the idea of a faction just picking planets to attack, and the bucket is just made up of 2 entities. Simple, initiative, straight to the point. Now, if the population picks up, then its possible to go back to the old system.
So as not to jam all the contentions I have with the OP, I will make a few post here and there. It would be too long to fit it into one.
Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 05 December 2016 - 05:29 PM.
#14
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:39 PM
BLOOD WOLF, on 05 December 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:
So as not to jam all the contentions I have with the OP, I will make a few post here and there. It would be too long to fit it into one.
Well I consider myself part of the community and i don't want QP merged with FW. All i wanted were better-designed maps + Economy + Manufacturer Worlds.
#15
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:50 PM
Wecx, on 05 December 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:
Well I consider myself part of the community and i don't want QP merged with FW. All i wanted were better-designed maps + Economy + Manufacturer Worlds.
well, Unfortunately, or very fortunate, depending on who you are. They have to weigh in different peoples ideas. The Inclusion of QP maps doesn't negate the things you wanted, so by that reason they should be included. maybe not the things we still want, but at least incorporating other maps adds a little variety.
Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 05 December 2016 - 05:51 PM.
#16
Posted 05 December 2016 - 05:58 PM
Edited by Mister Blastman, 05 December 2016 - 05:59 PM.
#17
Posted 05 December 2016 - 06:02 PM
BLOOD WOLF, on 05 December 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:
The inclusion of QP maps doesn't give FW anymore value, the worlds are still just dots on a map.
#18
Posted 05 December 2016 - 06:05 PM
BLOOD WOLF, on 05 December 2016 - 05:27 PM, said:
So as not to jam all the contentions I have with the OP, I will make a few post here and there. It would be too long to fit it into one.
Why you ask? A couple of reasons. First the quick play maps were not designed for respawns and most would need a major overhall to avoid outright spawn camping.
To address the buckets is also in a way throwing in the towel. It only fixes making it easier for the tiny population to get into a fight and does not address the problem people have with the game mode in the first place. It also makes being Davion or Marik meaningless for some. I know some (being exHHoD myself) who will never, ever fight side by side with Liao players. So if this new mode doesn't attract new players and has the effect of driving away the one to two hundred (at the very most) regulars who play.....
#19
Posted 05 December 2016 - 06:07 PM
#20
Posted 05 December 2016 - 06:15 PM
"I want the skill system to remain just the way it is now," said absolutely no one before Mechcon. There are xp expenditures in there that do nothing, for crying out loud.
It is a testament to the fickle nature of this community that we are finally getting something else --anything else-- and low, before we've even tried it out, here come the complaints.
CW is a mess, and maybe 4.1 isn't a solution. I don't play CW so I don't care. I don't care about the Roughneck or 1vs.1 either. You say these things suck? Fine. "Killing their own game?" Considering the number of times Mechwarrior: Online has been "killed" in the past, you'll forgive me for a little skepticism.
I flat out disagree on the skill tree, however. PGI's proposal for the skill tree looks good to me, in that it's not the skill tree we have now, which is pretty lame.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users