363 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Hey guys,
What kind of roadmap can we expect for PGI to take a dump on MWO and shift everything to MW5? Just wondering if there are any plans to improve the gameplay, or will you just be pumping out more money-gra... err mech packs right up until MW5? Nice to see our mechpack purchases going towards MW5 development! Any plans to offer MWO whales a free copy of MW5 for keeping the lights on? lol

Patiently awaiting your response

is this a troll post?

[0Carbon0]

You wouldn't like to know their intentions? Dev has been pretty unexciting other than Faction play. I want to know what they are going to do with MWO. I'd like to know how much MWO money has been used for MW5 development. Will MWO become the multiplayer component of MW5? If the games remain separate, will MWO just get abandoned, and will it just be more money grabs in MW5?

Edited by 0Carbon0, 15 January 2017 - 12:32 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

You wouldn't like to know their intentions? Dev has been pretty unexciting other than Faction play. I want to know what they are going to do with MWO. I'd like to know how much MWO money has been used for MW5 development. Will MWO become the multiplayer component of MW5? If the games remain separate, will MWO just get abandoned, and will it just be more money grabs in MW5?

How do you know other players didn't find certain details of the patch notes so far unexciting? that's just your opinion. Whatever money is used and where is their businesses, as long as the continue to develop MWO. Game companies have been diverting funds to other projects for years, where do you think the sales money goes for games that have been developed and have been selling hot even after years of their development. I'll excuse the ignorance. I don't believe and there is evidence that MWO will be abandoned especially when MWO has good prospects, so why are you convincing yourself of nonsense is beyond me. Better just deal with the facts as they are.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 January 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[UnseenFury]

Maps, please. Current maps feel like cod arenas that promote corner peaking and weapon building to one side of the mechs.

Please, check the MWLL or any previous MW game to see how a proper Battletech maps should be like. Our current maps doesn't have the Battletech feeling at all.

Also, consider allowing dropping engine heatsinks for Clan mechs with locked engines. That will promote more ballistic builds instead of laser vomit ones.

[Bogus]

Kael Posavatz, on 15 January 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

A lot. My understanding is that since Unreal is in a completely different family of game engines than Crysis, porting MWO over to it would essentially require a complete rewrite of the game. Going to a newer Crysis (such as Lumberyard which is what Star Citizen) is doing may be more practical, but I don't know if it would be practical enough to make it possible/worthwhile to do

I spent an inordinate amount of time looking into that stuff as I'm planning to run a SC private server and have, some shall we say, issues with Amazon that make anything AWS a bit of a minefield. What I gather from both situations is basically this: Crytek is a sinking ship and everybody knows it, and future projects aren't going to use an engine that's going to stop getting updates at some point in the future. Lumberyard and CIG's franken-engine are both forks of the same version of CryEngine, but Amazon has a $50 million license to do whatever they want with it and CIG probably doesn't so they're basically swapping out the backend for licensing/maintenance reasons while also getting the benefit of much better netcode and the ability to do some sophisticated server management. These things won't affect a 24 person arena match very much so I doubt there's much of a push to migrate MWO to Lumberyard, and certainly not UE which is as you say a major undertaking.

Meanwhile, MW5 being a new project might as well use something with a future so they'll start with Unreal. It does surprise me a little bit as I've always had a sneaking suspicion that MWO was a lean-style minimum viable product for the MW5 that everyone wanted in the first place (under which model it would be iterated from MWO and CE), but as noted CE is dead and UE is cheap so who knows what PGI is thinking.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Paran01ac, on 15 January 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

Maps, please. Current maps feel like cod arenas that promote corner peaking and weapon building to one side of the mechs.

Please, check the MWLL or any previous MW game to see how a proper Battletech maps should be like. Our current maps doesn't have the Battletech feeling at all.

Also, consider allowing dropping engine heatsinks for Clan mechs with locked engines. That will promote more ballistic builds instead of laser vomit ones.

they really need to go back and redo not only the scale of the maps, but using LL as an example would be a start.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 January 2017 - 12:59 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Hey guys,
What kind of roadmap can we expect for PGI to take a dump on MWO and shift everything to MW5? Just wondering if there are any plans to improve the gameplay, or will you just be pumping out more money-gra... err mech packs right up until MW5? Nice to see our mechpack purchases going towards MW5 development! Any plans to offer MWO whales a free copy of MW5 for keeping the lights on? lol

Patiently awaiting your response

I'd really like to know what dump you are referring to here. What you refer to as "pumping out more... mech packs" is really something that caters to two things; 1) Players always want more mechs. 2) They earn the money they need to keep the game going by selling those mechs. So if you are upset that they are trying to maintain a viable business model by incentivizing us to buy mechs, I would really like to hear what your idea for them receiving funding is.

And what is wrong with the road map? A lot of people here have referred to it as just being fluff, here you call it a "dump". Are you upset that they informed you that you are able to expect a new skill tree and IK in the upcoming months? Are you disgruntled at all the time they put into making FP 4.1 more like the requests they received during the round table last year and their subsequent plans to build and improve upon it in the very near future? Maybe you dislike that they gave a more honest time frame and set f expectations for the new incursion mode. Hell, maybe you're angry that they are putting resources into developing the single player campaign that people have been begging for for years now.

If you're going to type your disappointment as roughly as you did, you may want to add some basis or facts as to why you feel that way. Allow other people to understand why you are disappointed (by a seemingly fair and reasonable road map) because your comments are coming off as thankless for the big improvements they made recently and plan to further develop, not mention how spoiled you sound that you are not getting YOUR specific set of ideal changes made on the time frame you want.

[0Carbon0]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 January 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

I'd really like to know what dump you are referring to here. What you refer to as "pumping out more... mech packs" is really something that caters to two things; 1) Players always want more mechs. 2) They earn the money they need to keep the game going by selling those mechs. So if you are upset that they are trying to maintain a viable business model by incentivizing us to buy mechs, I would really like to hear what your idea for them receiving funding is.

And what is wrong with the road map? A lot of people here have referred to it as just being fluff, here you call it a "dump". Are you upset that they informed you that you are able to expect a new skill tree and IK in the upcoming months? Are you disgruntled at all the time they put into making FP 4.1 more like the requests they received during the round table last year and their subsequent plans to build and improve upon it in the very near future? Maybe you dislike that they gave a more honest time frame and set f expectations for the new incursion mode. Hell, maybe you're angry that they are putting resources into developing the single player campaign that people have been begging for for years now.

If you're going to type your disappointment as roughly as you did, you may want to add some basis or facts as to why you feel that way. Allow other people to understand why you are disappointed (by a seemingly fair and reasonable road map) because your comments are coming off as thankless for the big improvements they made recently and plan to further develop, not mention how spoiled you sound that you are not getting YOUR specific set of ideal changes made on the time frame you want.

I'm just raising concern over MW5, and the possible effects that can have on the community. Chill out. I still have fun playing the game, but PGI has under-delivered on the gameplay aspects. Look at MWLL, the map sizes etc. Seems more "BTish" than the MWO we have right now. I'm not saying its all bad, but PGI has done things to alienate the community in the past, and I'd just like to know where the $500+ I've spent on this game is going in the future. Right now we have an arena shooter, but I feel like it could be better considering the amount of time its been in development.

[Tul Duru]

Oh god trying to read all this was a mistake. This argument seems to have gone bad like 5 pages in, and this is where page 13 is.

So first, not sure the factions are going to move, as much as timeline advance would put us at clan wolf in exile and so on.

New weapons make for an interesting additions, and open experiments with quirks or hidden buffs in the weaker mechs to bring them back to the game. That being said, there's a ton of tech that could be added, which leads to 2 options where they slowly add it piece by piece, which makes it easier to look at and balance out, but takes months to get through, and slows down mech releases that need it. The other option is the tech dump, where it all hits at once, which would destroy the meta completely, and larger imbalances get harder to catch between each thing that strays too strong or too weak. But all we can do is wait and see.

As for the clan vs IS that never ends.......the problem with hitting clan XL engines is that most of clan is omnimechs that can't change the engine. So if an omnimech is struggling, weakening xl engines cripples it further. If they are made equal, structure quirks go away, IS take standard engines, and clans still have XL engines they can't remove, which kills entire mech lines. So the hope is Light Fusion Engines are the answer to lose a side torso and not die for IS. The joke there is that it still results in structure quirks that were to compensate for that and the tonnage difference evening out which will give a month for some IS players to adjust to the health numbers, when clanners are learning to fight against much greater weight.

In the end, I just need to get ready to brawl constantly. Cause if the IS brawl mechs with lower heat push in and kill side torsos, the heat gap goes up, and it's easier to keep pushing. It's a weird limit where it either goes for ultra long range with ER PPCs and Gauss Rifles, or right into the brawl, because mid range had the hit problems, and was easiest to brawl into. Adjust play styles as the patch is pushing, but this is my thinking to roll with the patch rather than try to change it. If things start going bad one way or the other, I'm sure there's a place to report exactly what happened to help PGI balance the game as accurately as possible.

[BLOOD WOLF]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I'm just raising concern over MW5,

You are making up concerns that are either none of your business or not really legitimate

[Kelev Ra]

Yeah baby, Nerf Clans!!!
It's funny that you can't balance existing mechs, but want release new one, LOL.
Last year I bought lot of new Mech pack. but currently I've lost interest to this game.
Maybe when PGI will lose money they will understand that they are in wrong direction.

[MovinTarget]

Tul Duru, on 15 January 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

This argument seems to have gone bad like 5 pages in, and this is where page 13 is.

And this differs from every other protracted thread how?

[AncientRaig]

InnerSphereNews, on 13 January 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

‘Mechs hailing from the 3060+ era.

Allow me to express my joy with a terrible meme that nobody will understand. Ahem.

Edited by Sidefire, 15 January 2017 - 03:41 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I'm just raising concern over MW5, and the possible effects that can have on the community. Chill out. I still have fun playing the game, but PGI has under-delivered on the gameplay aspects. Look at MWLL, the map sizes etc. Seems more "BTish" than the MWO we have right now. I'm not saying its all bad, but PGI has done things to alienate the community in the past, and I'd just like to know where the $500+ I've spent on this game is going in the future. Right now we have an arena shooter, but I feel like it could be better considering the amount of time its been in development.

I'm pretty sure the $500+ is going to feed people, pay mortgages, maybe even a car to take their families around when they're not using it to get to work .

Every decision they make is going to alienate one group or another because that is the consequence for choosing how things work, that shouldn't be a surprise. If you're just trying to get an idea of what the future of the game is, I would suggest just reading the road map to get a general idea of the next 3 months and I'm sure they'll fill us in on what actually makes it to a patch with some sort of "patch notes" when it gets closer to the time for them to come out.

When you say that there are "undelivered aspects", would you clarify next time what you are referring to? In this case, I can only assume that you mean the new assault mode, now known as incursion, as well as the implementation of IK. Both of those "undelivered aspects" were addressed in this road map. If you are referring to MWLL size maps, I don't recall hearing about that being a priority in the last 3 or 4 years since I started playing. I've seen people mention it on the boards, but I can't say I've seen PGI promise to address that in the last 2 years at least.

If you are concerned about MW5's effect on MWO, I think that a thread dedicated to that would be a much more appropriate place to raise a discussion about that.

[MovinTarget]

0Carbon0, on 15 January 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I'm just raising concern over MW5, and the possible effects that can have on the community. Chill out. I still have fun playing the game, but PGI has under-delivered on the gameplay aspects. Look at MWLL, the map sizes etc. Seems more "BTish" than the MWO we have right now. I'm not saying its all bad, but PGI has done things to alienate the community in the past, and I'd just like to know where the $500+ I've spent on this game is going in the future. Right now we have an arena shooter, but I feel like it could be better considering the amount of time its been in development.

Pretty sure with this customer base they can't utter a single syllable without alienating someone... or at least someone claiming to be alienated.

MWO is this weird thing where people from different countries/backgrounds/etc all look at and see something different.

Some see it as a distillation of Lore and TT and expect it to be as close to a RTS implementation of such as possible, regardless of the effects.

Others want it to be a Mechwarrior title that breaks free of some/all of the inherent restrictions that Lore/TT espouse so that it can be a fun FPS where they get to play big stompy customizable robots, history be damned.

Then there are those who are convinced PGI peed in their cheerios and can do no right at this point.

Every comment has to be taken with a grain of salt as the poster's motivations may not align with one's own, nor be diametrically opposed either...

btw - pretty sure your $500 went to beer...

[Livewyr]

Hmm.. great toys, pretty stuff, nifty stuff. Great.

(But I keep looking at these hoping for some core gameplay changes like having heat mean something before 100% and having something to stop low flying comets shooting as though they were in the prone supported position.)

Looks like I won't be updating for a while. (Assuming the servers don't go down before I update again.)

Edited by Livewyr, 15 January 2017 - 05:40 PM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Livewyr, on 15 January 2017 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hmm.. great toys, pretty stuff, nifty stuff. Great.

(But I keep looking at these hoping for some core gameplay changes like having heat mean something before 100% and having something to stop low flying comets shooting as though they were in the prone supported position.)

Looks like I won't be updating for a while. (Assuming the servers don't go down before I update again.)

It looks like they want to finish what was promised from the last town hall, but its an idea worth trying to push when they are finally ready to handle the next wave of ideas.

[TheLuc]

My thought on the Roadmaps,

January,

XL engines balance, at least they try some things.

New music, that is welcome. Can we have music in the matches too ??

Art fix, since its been mentioned, hitboxes will probably change for a few mechs but no specifics given. it will be very minor changes so no big deal.

New IS Light, just an other Mech.

Release of the Bushwacker, same as above.

February,

Skill Tree, while it has absolutely nothing to do with actual skill, the Mech adjustment section could be interesting, only thing we can do now is to try it on the PTS when available, we will see how much it will offer versus what we currently have.

FP/FW/CW fixes and improvements, well its FP, I gave up so doesn't affect me anymore.

Beyond February,

Incursion game mode, like all other game modes, a skirmish mode with a different sauce. I'm still disappointed that scouting is just a 4vs4 skirmish with little flags.

Mech IK, purely cosmetic, doesn't add anything to game play.

FP/FW/CW reward adjustments and special events, no change to game play so I wont bother.

Improved spectator tool, nice for those who use it.

Floating chat function, can be practical.

New Tech & Mechs from the 3060 era, many can get excited about this, will it be truly new ? I got big doubts about that.

Nothing truly new, same stuff but served on a different plate.

true new stuff would be for Mechs, quads.

Game modes, with real objectives and rewards for succeeding those objectives.

getting in and out of the Mech.

having other stuff than just Mechs to shoot at or maybe even control like Tanks, VTOLs , Aerospace Fighters and Clan Elementals / IS Battle Armors as random hazards that are defending / attacking a zone. This could be useful for new players to have a cheaper way to play in a group since Mechs cost like top CBills and for Clan Elementals / IS Battle Armors, one player could take the small guy so others can take bigger Mechs.

its PGI, so having no expectations is better to reduce disappointment.

[Edward Hazen]

Koniving, on 15 January 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

I'm well aware.
This said... PGI has said they are giving us this technology for Mechwarrior 5 on the Unreal engine.

I wonder what it would take to convert MWO onto the Unreal engine....considering they are making MWO's single player component aka MW5 onto the Unreal Engine and it already looks better than MWO.

People already complain about "lack of content" would you really want PGI to skip two or three patches in order to take the time to port the game over to Unreal Engine?

[Mechteric]

Laser AMS please please please!!!

S0ulReapr, on 15 January 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

People already complain about "lack of content" would you really want PGI to skip two or three patches in order to take the time to port the game over to Unreal Engine?

Two or three? I would think more like a whole year. It would not be an undertaking to be taken lightly.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 15 January 2017 - 06:28 PM.