363 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

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?

If that's all it would take, yes.
But it would take quite a bit more than that.

[Marius Romanis]

The reason everyone is pissed is theirs a lot of "soon.tm" in that roadmap and pgi saying soon usually means years.

Of course some of your mechpack money is going to develop MW5 , blizzard etc do the same thing, WoW funded hearthstone and HoTStorm and SC2. DiD PGI say 100% of mechpack money was going to only mwo development salaries?

We can only hope PGI keeps to the promise that MW5 will be single player only and its launch and people playing it will bring more people into MWO when they finish mw5 single player game.

And when/IF they update/replace MWO engine they let us keep all our stuff not make it a new game.

[BLOOD WOLF]

CadoAzazel, on 15 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

The reason everyone is pissed is theirs a lot of "soon.tm" in that roadmap and pgi saying soon usually means years.

What are people talking about. The evidence shows that when PGI lays out a roadmap they actually keep to it except a few examples, which nobody has demonstrated other than a couple of items.

The reason they are pissed is because they want to be despite anything that does get done. People said this same crap when the first roadmap came out.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 January 2017 - 07:29 PM.

[Livewyr]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

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.

These are very old ideas. (We were pushing some of them in Closed Beta.)

Go forth and push for them. I'm tired of it. I just come back every once in a while, see if there is a sniff of it- so far being disappointed, and go play other games.)

[SuperFunkTron]

Livewyr, on 15 January 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

These are very old ideas. (We were pushing some of them in Closed Beta.)

Go forth and push for them. I'm tired of it. I just come back every once in a while, see if there is a sniff of it- so far being disappointed, and go play other games.)

I'd suggest checking out Faction play if you haven't already. They did quite a bit of work there and have made it clear that they are working to still improve that. I think that there is still a lot of potential to add depth to it even after they sort out the new live events they are working on. If they added something to the effect of your specific faction restricting mech availability (lore based of course) that it would create meaning to faction choices as well as start developing a sense of community and fight style based on those mechs that they have most readily available. This last part is something I'm working on pushing to become a priority and hopefully it will in the near future.

[Edward Hazen]

CadoAzazel, on 15 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

The reason everyone is pissed is theirs a lot of "soon.tm" in that roadmap and pgi saying soon usually means years.

Of course some of your mechpack money is going to develop MW5 , blizzard etc do the same thing, WoW funded hearthstone and HoTStorm and SC2. DiD PGI say 100% of mechpack money was going to only mwo development salaries?

We can only hope PGI keeps to the promise that MW5 will be single player only and its launch and people playing it will bring more people into MWO when they finish mw5 single player game.

And when/IF they update/replace MWO engine they let us keep all our stuff not make it a new game.

Yes, Blizzard might as well have copyrighted "soon" and everyone loves them, same with RSI and Star Citizen, they promise "soon" and people can't stop throwing money at them.

[Kael Posavatz]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 January 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'd suggest checking out Faction play if you haven't already. They did quite a bit of work there and have made it clear that they are working to still improve that. I think that there is still a lot of potential to add depth to it even after they sort out the new live events they are working on. If they added something to the effect of your specific faction restricting mech availability (lore based of course) that it would create meaning to faction choices as well as start developing a sense of community and fight style based on those mechs that they have most readily available. This last part is something I'm working on pushing to become a priority and hopefully it will in the near future.

yeah...no. Livewyr is talking about what community warfare was actually described as back in 2012. If you have a chance, check out Mech the Dane's video of the history of CW from announcement to first implementation. It's description compared to what we currently have is...very different. And frankly I'm not sure how much depth these 'live events' will add since they've been repeatedly described as IS v IS, but we're supposedly is 3052 (by the official MWO clock).

I have no idea what will happen when the timeline advances regarding factions (Inner Sphere Clans!), but the fact that we should have the Federated Commonwealth and don't makes me think PGI will be going lore-optional. As in, it is an option to add whenever their game manages to align with canon.

[SuperFunkTron]

Kael Posavatz, on 16 January 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

yeah...no. Livewyr is talking about what community warfare was actually described as back in 2012. If you have a chance, check out Mech the Dane's video of the history of CW from announcement to first implementation. It's description compared to what we currently have is...very different. And frankly I'm not sure how much depth these 'live events' will add since they've been repeatedly described as IS v IS, but we're supposedly is 3052 (by the official MWO clock).

I have no idea what will happen when the timeline advances regarding factions (Inner Sphere Clans!), but the fact that we should have the Federated Commonwealth and don't makes me think PGI will be going lore-optional. As in, it is an option to add whenever their game manages to align with canon.

I'm aware that the original plans for the game are far from being achieved, but that often happens when there is an attempt to implement them in a sandbox world as opposed to creating a significantly more linear, story based experience. I too am disappointed that we don't have the game they said they were going to make, but I am also very happy that I've seen as much progress and movement in trying to improve the current features on which that original plan needs to be built.

Rather than focus on PGI not having achieved the original goals set out in the very beginning, I am choosing to look at the work they are putting in (especially since they split with the other company a couple of years ago) toward improving the game play. In reality, its likely another year or 2 at least before MWO will start to resemble their original plan, and thus, I'm taking forward steps, even small ones, in a positive way. I think FP 4.1 was a big step forward. Sure the 2 buckets aren't the ideal system, especially since the factions lose their identity, but I believe that it sets the ground work for them to be able to find ways to reestablish that sense of identity through other means (I'd personally like to see mech choice limited or heavily influenced by faction choice).

There is plenty of work still to be done, and we still have to wait patiently to see all the ideas they have to deepen FP 4.1, but I'd still advocate for taking a look at the improvements they are making along the way as the game develops.

[FireDog]

A Map, A Map! My Kingdom for a Map!

[TheLuc]

SuperFunkTron, while you might be correct in some points of that view of yours about the game, at the snail pace it goes most likely MW10 will be out , most of us will be dead and our kids will play some Gundam card game online

[AncientRaig]

CadoAzazel, on 15 January 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

The reason everyone is pissed is theirs a lot of "soon.tm" in that roadmap and pgi saying soon usually means years.

Of course some of your mechpack money is going to develop MW5 , blizzard etc do the same thing, WoW funded hearthstone and HoTStorm and SC2. DiD PGI say 100% of mechpack money was going to only mwo development salaries?

We can only hope PGI keeps to the promise that MW5 will be single player only and its launch and people playing it will bring more people into MWO when they finish mw5 single player game.

And when/IF they update/replace MWO engine they let us keep all our stuff not make it a new game.

If they make it a new game, or remove all of our stuff, I can safely say that I'll finally be done with this game. I've put over 400 hours into this grinding to get to where I am, plus all the money I've put into mechpacks and MC over the years and if they wipe it all out just so they can change an engine, they seriously don't deserve our time and business anymore. The only way that it would be even close to acceptable is if they gave us the purchase value, not the sale value, of each mech, weapon system, etc. back in full, but that still wouldn't cover the loss of stuff like the Phoenix variants of the Shadow Hawk, Locust, and Thunderbolt that I have. I doubt that'll happen though. They know how pissed off their playerbase would be.

[Livewyr]

SuperFunkTron, on 15 January 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

I'd suggest checking out Faction play if you haven't already. They did quite a bit of work there and have made it clear that they are working to still improve that. I think that there is still a lot of potential to add depth to it even after they sort out the new live events they are working on. If they added something to the effect of your specific faction restricting mech availability (lore based of course) that it would create meaning to faction choices as well as start developing a sense of community and fight style based on those mechs that they have most readily available. This last part is something I'm working on pushing to become a priority and hopefully it will in the near future.

I appreciate your efforts, but my primary issue is with the game play mechanics. The game isn't fun for me in QP, let alone FP.

Until they fix the gameplay, I'm just not interested.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Deathlike, on 13 January 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

While there may be more additional tech additions, balance between techs is still fraught with problems. Adding more tech only convolutes balance AND requires rebalancing existing tech more often than not.

... or it'll just be different flavours of ice cream. Rebalancing tech isn't needed if they balance the new tech into existing tech. Most people say "well then what's the point!" but it's all going to blob together anyways.

I'm hoping most of the differences with the weapons will come about like how different the Clan AC's and LRM's fire from IS's.

Imbalances will most likely happen with items that bring in completely new features will be the most imbalanced. Like reflective armor for instance, that singles out a specific type of damage.

Weight tonnages and critical slots will probably be the kings of how this new tech is balanced as well.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 16 January 2017 - 06:12 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

MoonUnitBeta, on 16 January 2017 - 06:09 PM, said:

... or it'll just be different flavours of ice cream. Rebalancing tech isn't needed if they balance the new tech into existing tech. Most people say "well then what's the point!" but it's all going to blob together anyways.

I'm hoping most of the differences with the weapons will come about like how different the Clan AC's and LRM's fire from IS's.

Imbalances will most likely happen with items that bring in completely new features will be the most imbalanced. Like reflective armor for instance, that singles out a specific type of damage.

Weight tonnages and critical slots will probably be the kings of how this new tech is balanced as well.

They will probably leave out the crazy armor types and I think that the alternate ammo types are a 50 / 50 chance at best. Most likely it will be ER lasers, larger LBXs, larger capacity Streaks, Light Fusion Engines (to stop the Clan XL whining) and maybe RACs for IS and probably Heavy Lasers (they will be nerfed to the point that you fire once and have to wait the rest of the game to cool down) and maybe HAGs for Clan and probably MRMs for both.

I am hoping for Snub-nosed PPCs though, so we can turn the Protector into Kerensky's actual Orion.

Edited by S0ulReapr, 16 January 2017 - 09:41 PM.

[ZachMan119]

Are IS going to get UAC/2s, 10s, 20s? How about IS Streak 4s or 6s? Or IS LB/2s, 5s, 20s? Are RACs going to be introduced? Still, overall, not too bad of a future for MWO

Edited by ZachMan119, 16 January 2017 - 06:48 PM.

[gloowa]

Ovion, on 13 January 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

Please, with this time jump, include the weapons we're already missing:


There'll be absolutely no reason to not have them, along with any other shiny new toys.

Why would you want single-fire dumb missiles? I can only see them used in a troll oxide build - mount 6 RL 20's and proceed to fire once. And screw your team over over in the process.

[Duvanor]

Hum, everytime I see that small list I am asking myself who actually would want to use that stuff. Blazer deals 12 damage while generating 16 heat and weighting 9 tons.

Rocket Launchers eat up crits and have one single salvo, make that 2 in MWO maybe. At least their weight is not that bad.

And Silver Bullet Gauss? That thing got scrapped in 3051 (the same year someone at the NAIS thought it was ready to roll) and did not resurface before the end of the 3070s. Besides that - who wants a 15 ton weapon with charging mechanism that fires 15 1 damage pellets at the range of regular Gauss Rifles.

The Rifles are a bit lighter than ACs, but only the Heavy Rifle has advantages over the AC/10 worth mentioning of and just 60% of the AC/10s ammo per ton.

Edited by Duvanor, 17 January 2017 - 12:06 AM.

[ProfPyro]

The ammo per ton can be adjusted for rifles no sweat. Silver Bullet Gauss sounds so cool but I'm a fan of LBX so take that how you will. Maybe SBG could be given wicked sweet crit bonuses or something.

[Kmieciu]

gloowa, on 16 January 2017 - 10:06 PM, said:

Why would you want single-fire dumb missiles? I can only see them used in a troll oxide build - mount 6 RL 20's and proceed to fire once. And screw your team over over in the process.

6 RL on an Oxide?
That would be even more OP than the dreaded 6 MG Spider!

Edited by Kmieciu, 17 January 2017 - 12:52 AM.

[Vellron2005]

What I like and don't like about the January / February and beyond roadmap:

Likes:

1) The fact that there's a roadmap

2) Plans for the skill tree

3) New music (Twas about time!)

4) FW updates

What I dislike about the roadmap:

1) Clan XL nerf - its not fair, cose' we can't use standard engines, so we have no choice weather to get nerfed or not. Clan engines are supposed to be better, and it seems to me that IS has it better, cose' they can use standard engines.

2) New weapons - I know many have asked for this, but it took years to get any semblance of balance in this game. New weapons will mess with that in a huge way, and the meta will automatically shift to those weapons. I understand "shaking things up", but PGI has a knack for not doing it properly, so we can expect months of extreme OP-ness from one side or the other..

3) Incursion mode - Seriously?! The game needs NEW modes, not old modes revamped to look differently! Revamping an old mode, and using it along with the old mode (that needed a revamp for a reason) is a cheap and easy way of increasing the numerical versatility, while not actually making the game better - its a cheat! Also, the original assault revamp video featured two bases with generators, turrets, walls and radar towers.. remember what was happening back when assault had turrets? NOBODY went near those things, nobody capped bases, and it was just another skirmish.. So why would it be any different if you add walls? This mode can only work if it is asymmetric, if there is only one base.. only then does the "objective" matter, otherwise, its just another skirmish - with walls.

4) Skill tree removing zoom modules - this means that we will no longer be able to move our zoom from mech to mech, and this ability will potentially cost more.. On the other hand, if it does not cost cbills any more, than more of my mechs will have it.. but still.. I think some things should remain transferable among mechs, for experimentation sake..