236 replies to this topic

[RussianWolf]

Bush Hopper, on 16 March 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

I know. That's why I think it would have been great in-game. As I said in another thread: lights and to some extend mediums are at a disadvantage because of their lower weight and the brutal agility of heavies (and partly assaults). Having better radar profiles would have helped those classes negate some of the inherent chassis limitations

not with the visibility that the maps provide. You can spot a light across the map with your eyeball in the popular maps. Without atmospherics that hamper vision, radar signature is barely of any value.

[RussianWolf]

SmokedJag, on 16 March 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

The massive reduction in up front costs would help with new player appeal and retention, yes. Games don't die from long term sunk cost players leaving (turnover and lapsing/reupping is massive even in ultra commitment games like EVE and WoW), they die from inadequate new/casual interest.

Three 'Mech mastery and tens of thousands of GXP takes a massive dump on the current "new player" enticements of the cadet bonuses. As does how much the underpopulated MM making new players with Basic skill 'Mechs face fully elite, module buffed ones subjects newer players to abuse. If people do not enjoy this experience they are not going to spend money on it and then who are entrenched whales going to kill? Eh?

Honestly, how was this any great improvement?

A newb comes in... plays trial mechs for a while (no skill nodes, but earns a little XP) and gets his cadet bonus. Now the choice. Buy a mech, but which one. A high cost mech that then leaves the person with no cbills to buy skill nodes? or a less expensive one that allows for some nodes, but not enough to actually compete because you still don't have the XP to unlock them?

So, you are in the same situation really.

[R Valentine]

RussianWolf, on 17 March 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

Honestly, how was this any great improvement?

A newb comes in... plays trial mechs for a while (no skill nodes, but earns a little XP) and gets his cadet bonus. Now the choice. Buy a mech, but which one. A high cost mech that then leaves the person with no cbills to buy skill nodes? or a less expensive one that allows for some nodes, but not enough to actually compete because you still don't have the XP to unlock them?

So, you are in the same situation really.

Not to mention the BS web of deception and uselessness they have to navigate to get their mech anywhere near some semblance of optimal performance. And that's on top of paying for XL engines and new weapons, half of which are going to be wrong and useless because they tried to make use of those two points in missiles they were forced to take to reach the last range node. oh yes, that's a vast improvement over the good ol' "rule of three".

[Weeny Machine]

RussianWolf, on 17 March 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

not with the visibility that the maps provide. You can spot a light across the map with your eyeball in the popular maps. Without atmospherics that hamper vision, radar signature is barely of any value.

You have no idea. Even in T1 you can sneak up on peeps if you do it right - and seismic doesn't screw you. Situational awarness is one of the biggest "skills" imo...yet, seismic curbs that brutally. Lights could easily get into range with a lower radar detection range / radar detection delay to get a salvo off

Edited by Bush Hopper, 17 March 2017 - 06:41 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Bush Hopper, on 17 March 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

You have no idea. Even in T1 you can sneak up on peeps if you do it right - and seismic doesn't screw you. Situational awarness is one of the biggest "skills" imo...yet, seismic curbs that brutally. Lights could easily get into range with a lower radar detection range / radar detection delay to get a salvo off

sneaking up on someone is different than radar signature.

If I stay out of sight and when close only move when you move, I can get close enough to trip you even with Seismic.

I've watched lights on Caustic moving around when they didn't show on my radar. They were more than a KM away with no dorito over them, but visually you can still see them. So what's the point of radar signature?

[WarHippy]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 15 March 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:

actually a lot of people liked most of what was in InfoWar... they just didn't like ghostrange.

Eh, I had more problems with InfoWar than just the ghostrange part of it. I think they realized they went about it all wrong and needed to start from scratch. I would hope they would return to it at some point, but I think they need to come at from a different angle to make it more feasible for us and them. They also need to learn not to test so many things at once or you end up creating a far too convoluted test that gives you very poor data and feedback

[Weeny Machine]

RussianWolf, on 17 March 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

sneaking up on someone is different than radar signature.

If I stay out of sight and when close only move when you move, I can get close enough to trip you even with Seismic.

I've watched lights on Caustic moving around when they didn't show on my radar. They were more than a KM away with no dorito over them, but visually you can still see them. So what's the point of radar signature?

Still, you have no idea how important radar signature is obviously. But I stop here, because I am not good enough when I read your description how awesome you are

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

WarHippy, on 17 March 2017 - 07:19 AM, said:

Eh, I had more problems with InfoWar than just the ghostrange part of it. I think they realized they went about it all wrong and needed to start from scratch. I would hope they would return to it at some point, but I think they need to come at from a different angle to make it more feasible for us and them. They also need to learn not to test so many things at once or you end up creating a far too convoluted test that gives you very poor data and feedback

Info War isn't even that hard... literally all they have to do is institute radar like it works in every other Mechwarrior game [mech 3, and 4 specifically] where you can go passive, active, and have radar detection based on size profiles, and electronics suites, and it's done. PGI wants to overcomplicate this mechanic, when most of us just want to see active/passive radar return!

This isn't bloody hard PGI, You have several games literally just sitting there, showing you how to do it.

[Scout Derek]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 March 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

Info War isn't even that hard... literally all they have to do is institute radar like it works in every other Mechwarrior game [mech 3, and 4 specifically] where you can go passive, active, and have radar detection based on size profiles, and electronics suites, and it's done. PGI wants to overcomplicate this mechanic, when most of us just want to see active/passive radar return!

This isn't bloody hard PGI, You have several games literally just sitting there, showing you how to do it.

it is bloody hard for them, you forget.

They had problems even listening to the new minimal feedback. guess what happened there.... and then the fact that they're using a modified engine of the original, which limits some things they can do.

[RussianWolf]

Bush Hopper, on 17 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

Still, you have no idea how important radar signature is obviously. But I stop here, because I am not good enough when I read your description how awesome you are

Oh please, Uber Tier 1 Ninja, please explain how radar signature is important given that you can visually see the smallest light mech on the other side of the map with no issues?

I'm a decent player, I claim no elite skills. But I'm not buying what you are selling.

[RussianWolf]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 March 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

Info War isn't even that hard... literally all they have to do is institute radar like it works in every other Mechwarrior game [mech 3, and 4 specifically] where you can go passive, active, and have radar detection based on size profiles, and electronics suites, and it's done. PGI wants to overcomplicate this mechanic, when most of us just want to see active/passive radar return!

This isn't bloody hard PGI, You have several games literally just sitting there, showing you how to do it.

PGI makes even the most simple ideas complicated. Everything they have done proves this time and time again.

I love the idea of passive/active radar, but (as I'm trying to explain above) they wouldn't have much if any effect in the game because we can see each other too easily. There is no (or very little) atmospherics to hamper our vision. I don't need radar for line of sight in this game. I can already see the locust at 1200 meters. So what's the point?

PGI has used the worst radar model (line of sight only in your visual arc only) so that the only benefit of radar in game is the automatic sharing of radar which is supposed to be limited. Then they make maps (at people's request) with no or very limited atmospherics so you can see 2km out without a problem. So again, what;s the point?

Now if they would put some real atmospherics in the maps, then I would love to see some form of radar tech added to aid with it. And sized radar signatures to make it harder at the same time. They are good ideas, but just are rendered moot by the lack of atmospherics.

Edited by RussianWolf, 17 March 2017 - 08:10 AM.

[Dodger79]

Bush Hopper, on 17 March 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

Still, you have no idea how important radar signature is obviously. But I stop here, because I am not good enough when I read your description how awesome you are

I think his point is as followed: with most weapons you can shoot at what you see and you just need a visual "detection" (read: see it) to know where someone is going, the red "radar detection dorito" is not neccessary for both. So radar signatures are not _that_ important.

[MacClearly]

SmokedJag, on 16 March 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

The massive reduction in up front costs would help with new player appeal and retention, yes. Games don't die from long term sunk cost players leaving (turnover and lapsing/reupping is massive even in ultra commitment games like EVE and WoW), they die from inadequate new/casual interest.

Three 'Mech mastery and tens of thousands of GXP takes a massive dump on the current "new player" enticements of the cadet bonuses. As does how much the underpopulated MM making new players with Basic skill 'Mechs face fully elite, module buffed ones subjects newer players to abuse. If people do not enjoy this experience they are not going to spend money on it and then who are entrenched whales going to kill? Eh?

If you think that retention is a lost cause because of a natural tendancy to move on, I think you should read up on business. Also, this is not a draw for new players. Even if PGI did market this new feature it is not going to be a huge selling point. So while killing the rule of three might help a new player out a bit, the skill maze will just be one more complexity.

Don't get me wrong, after the first PTS I was far from happy. The second however showed promise. There was obviously some key issues that need to be worked out, but I can't see this benifiting anybody but those of us who really know the game's mechanics.

That is why there were a bunch of us asking PGI to tone it down and perhaps take it into a direction where you pick a set defined by what 'role' you would like your mech.

Either way, this is not going to be something PGI is going to make that will be new player friendly or be a draw for new blood. So keeping the dedicated people who spend money and keep the game going should absolutely be a consideration.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

RussianWolf, on 17 March 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

PGI makes even the most simple ideas complicated. Everything they have done proves this time and time again.

I love the idea of passive/active radar, but (as I'm trying to explain above) they wouldn't have much if any effect in the game because we can see each other too easily. There is no (or very little) atmospherics to hamper our vision. I don't need radar for line of sight in this game. I can already see the locust at 1200 meters. So what's the point?

You're missing the point of Radar, and it's use in city/wooded areas.

Yes, if we're on flat terrain, or a locust is hilighting themselves on a ridge, you can easily see that mech.

In the old system [mech 3 or 4] if a mech was out of sight, but running active radar, other mechs with active radar could see the mech through the terrain via radar [thus why most people ran passive] passive radar required an enemy with active to be within a certern distance, this distance was increased with BAP [this giving more reason to take BAP]

Currently, no map is a simple, flat terrain, all maps have some level of cover, concielment, and in some cases, weather effects, that block normal line of sight to some degree.

Imagine this for a moment, you take a Raven into Frozen City... and work your way through the miriad of cover, under ECM, you have BAP as well, masking your approach from active sensors, while also extending your active radar range with BAP, because of ECM you are hidden from most mechs Radar, but you have sight on them, and are able to relay information from cover to your team regarding the enemy's movements. You can NARC/TAG relatively safely in this mode, unless someone is actively trying to counter your ECM, or trying to screen for scouts.

There's an entire plethroa of reasons for ehanced info-war, and a return of active/passive radar, EVEN in open terrain, these tools have proven effective in EVERY iteration of Mechwarrior since 3. and you want to talk about long, open sightlines, MW3 was the king of that! Yet Active/Passive radar mattered due to passive increasing the distance you had to close for locks on LRM'S/Streaks and the like.

[Mystere]

RussianWolf, on 17 March 2017 - 06:05 AM, said:

Honestly, how was this any great improvement?

A newb comes in... plays trial mechs for a while (no skill nodes, but earns a little XP) and gets his cadet bonus. Now the choice. Buy a mech, but which one. A high cost mech that then leaves the person with no cbills to buy skill nodes? or a less expensive one that allows for some nodes, but not enough to actually compete because you still don't have the XP to unlock them?

So, you are in the same situation really.

Kiran Yagami, on 17 March 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

Not to mention the BS web of deception and uselessness they have to navigate to get their mech anywhere near some semblance of optimal performance. And that's on top of paying for XL engines and new weapons, half of which are going to be wrong and useless because they tried to make use of those two points in missiles they were forced to take to reach the last range node. oh yes, that's a vast improvement over the good ol' "rule of three".

I have a thought. Why not just ditch the concept of a skill tree altogether? Because either way, a new player is screwed anyway.

Just let the players' actual skills be the determining factor.

[RussianWolf]

Mystere, on 17 March 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I have a thought. Why not just ditch the concept of a skill tree altogether? Because either way, a new player is screwed anyway.

Just let the players' actual skills be the determining factor.

Well some games keep similar level "vehicles" together. So if you were to be a newb running trials, that's pretty much all you'd be competing against also (or a brand new, unbasiced, owned mech). But we know where that suggestion has led us in the past.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 17 March 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I have a thought. Why not just ditch the concept of a skill tree altogether? Because either way, a new player is screwed anyway.

Just let the players' actual skills be the determining factor.

It is rare that I agree with you.

If players want "progression" allow us to unlock camos, cockpit items, and/or decals on a per chassis basis (only a set amount mind you). Kinda like the events that we have after a mech that is released that give us swag for our new mechs or stuff that come in the collector's edition or early adopter bonuses.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 17 March 2017 - 09:22 AM.

[RussianWolf]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 March 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

You're missing the point of Radar, and it's use in city/wooded areas.

Yes, if we're on flat terrain, or a locust is hilighting themselves on a ridge, you can easily see that mech.

In the old system [mech 3 or 4] if a mech was out of sight, but running active radar, other mechs with active radar could see the mech through the terrain via radar [thus why most people ran passive] passive radar required an enemy with active to be within a certern distance, this distance was increased with BAP [this giving more reason to take BAP]

Currently, no map is a simple, flat terrain, all maps have some level of cover, concielment, and in some cases, weather effects, that block normal line of sight to some degree.

Imagine this for a moment, you take a Raven into Frozen City... and work your way through the miriad of cover, under ECM, you have BAP as well, masking your approach from active sensors, while also extending your active radar range with BAP, because of ECM you are hidden from most mechs Radar, but you have sight on them, and are able to relay information from cover to your team regarding the enemy's movements. You can NARC/TAG relatively safely in this mode, unless someone is actively trying to counter your ECM, or trying to screen for scouts.

There's an entire plethroa of reasons for ehanced info-war, and a return of active/passive radar, EVEN in open terrain, these tools have proven effective in EVERY iteration of Mechwarrior since 3. and you want to talk about long, open sightlines, MW3 was the king of that! Yet Active/Passive radar mattered due to passive increasing the distance you had to close for locks on LRM'S/Streaks and the like.

My point is that in MWO, Radar is a line of sight system. Go behind a rock or tree and you disappear. So active/passive versions of that would be of no real benefit.

MW3 and 4 used a different radar model as you said. I would love to see this system in MWO even without passive as its a much more realistic system. ECM also shouldn't hide a mech, it should overload the sensors on the other mech with info so the system becomes effectively useless.

[Almond Brown]

Deathlike, on 14 March 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

I'm gonna keep calling you out.

Do you actually play the game? Let alone, do you actually pay attention to what PGI does (let alone say)?

When the things listed by PGI about why they were doing the changes AND they simply did not happen to be followed, that would literally be a core problem with the design process, let alone the results.

You don't try to say one thing, and then do something totally different... that would be problematic in convincing anyone you were doing the right thing.

I will let your ignorance about my playing the game slide, this one time. I would almost believe what you say to be true if I did not know from 5 years of reading this Forum and playing MWO that many of the "dissenters" would have to take their fingers out of their ears and stop chanting NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA to ever have heard what PGI actually ever said.

If the Arm-Chair Developers would just sit the **** down once and while and let the real Dev do something new, anything FFS, maybe MWO could grow and become more. But, no that would dbe out of character for them. One has to keep appearances that is for sure.

For years the "WHINERS" spout on about the "lack of GD" everything in MWO. Then when "anything" new gets proposed, those same folks jump up and down crying foul.

It has gotten tiresome really and if anyone is killing MWO it is its own GD community of "Concerned Armchair Developers". Anyone who prefers stagnation in their games should go build their own F'ing game and let them stagnate and let PGI to actually build MWO like the real player base seems to want.

The Taint around here is so bad, it is likely to never recover. To bad really as MWO did have more potential left. Alas, Anti-Social Media seems to be winning more and more. As the OP stated. Well done to the A-SM crowd.

Edited by Almond Brown, 17 March 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 17 March 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

It is rare that I agree with you.

If players want "progression" allow us to unlock camos, cockpit items, and/or decals on a per chassis basis (only a set amount mind you). Kinda like the events that we have after a mech that is released that give us swag for our new mechs or stuff that come in the collector's edition or early adopter bonuses.

Problem: Then where is the monitization.

This isn't a "buy the game and you're done" game, it's a F2P game, and is thus beholden to the business model.

Right now, camo's, colors, ect. are earned via real world currency [and sometimes ingame events, and if you play CW, you can access real world currency via that]

This is actively a good thing, as you're not paying for power, you're paying for cosmetics [mechpacks fall under this, though you can argue early access to new stuff is power, the fact that these mechs eventually get released for c-bills with the exception of hero's is a well discussed topic already.]

Progression, is content for some people. You can argue it's skinner-box nature all you want, but people CRAVE progression tree's in games like this. every modern shooter has it with the exception fo ArmA, but even games like DayZ are working towards such systems, such as crafting progressions and inherent character bonuses and the like.

It's a reality of modern game design. People like "leveling up." So it's not going to go away.