131 replies to this topic

[C E Dwyer]

My input is don't bother.

It's another bucket this game hasn't the population to support

[Dread Render]

1v1 Ranked is my #1 want and I would pay for it.
I want to use my own mechs though.

[Cy Mitchell]

Dread Render, on 24 June 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

1v1 Ranked is my #1 want and I would pay for it.
I want to use my own mechs though.

Agreed. I have my own stable of Mechs. I have them painted in my own livery. All I need is the arena to showcase them myself or with one friend as a teammate. That would allow me to compete in 1v1, 2v2 and FFA without the hassle of being a member of a big unit and depending on other people to show up for matches or practices. I have done the big unit competitive thing in other games including previous MechWarrior games and it has always transformed my game playing into a second job which I can do without. Solaris would be a better fit as a competitive mode for me.

Edited by Rampage, 24 June 2017 - 07:22 AM.

[BloodKnight101]

I would like to hop back in here. People should not get flack for not being happy with FW, I watched a video from about four years ago that promised the world in FW to the point that it sounds a lot like what Russ was saying in the town hall. I personally just don't see it happening the way everyone wishes and it definitely won't have the level of depth that Russ was suggesting it will last night. You can be hopeful all you want, everything he said sounded great, but I am going to stay firmly in my cottage in Skeptical Town which is in Realism City, USA.

For those complaining that the complainers have no solutions for how to fix the issues or that if people aren't willing to pay there will be no development, I get it but you by saying that are feeding the negativity. I pay buy a lot of the packs and mc when I can, actually so far in the year that I have been playing I've probably bought 3 full triple A retail costs in this game. I have a right to be upset with what I want to be upset with cause I have dumped as much money into this as I have. As for solutions for the FW system, consolidate it make the giant IS map smaller make the maps bigger and allow for continuous battles to be fought on unique maps (ie, combine the maps that share the same assets) and allow for example 5 lances and 4 stars to go head to head but each star/ lance is its own queue to allow for specific objective captures. That is just an example.

Lastly this is being kicked around a lot with the trailer of MW:5 disclosing it is usin the UE4 engine. I will be honest I would find a way to give at the highest backer level if they turned around and said new development would be halted (excluding maintenance and balance problems) to move the game to Unreal. That engine is going to provide us player with so much more that is just inherently in the engine (like replay and scalable UI). I'm no computer scientist, but I also think that unreal is less demanding to run making overall system performance better for the end user.

So why as a community are we not actively seeking a port to unreal, it gives PGI another chance at really marketing the game and a chance to get more active players. If we talk about what benefits the community, a port to unreal does the most. Yes it will take some time (I've seen other games do it between 8 months and 1 year), but I see it as the only option to really move the game forward from a "small, old, dying game" to a fresh, eye grabbing, modern game.

Edited by BloodKnight101, 24 June 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Rhaegor]

My

Cathy, on 24 June 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

My input is don't bother.

It's another bucket this game hasn't the population to support

Agreed. It will be dead. Waste of time and resources. Just like competitive mode was.

Edited by Rhaegor, 24 June 2017 - 08:56 AM.

[Khobai]

fix whats wrong with the current game

before adding solaris esports crap that only a small number of players will actually play

[HollowBassman]

I think Solaris could be a lot of fun but I'm not gonna pre-order it.

There are a few things that I would gladly pay for and I've mentioned them in the past:
(a)Weathered/rusty paint patterns and textures
(b)Different "custom" cosmetic geometry for mech parts
(c)Fixing the forearms of the Trebuchet!

[Bud Crue]

HollowBassman, on 24 June 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

I think Solaris could be a lot of fun but I'm not gonna pre-order it.

Only way they will get significant pre-order interest is to incentivize the crap out of it with game content. It would have to be relatively good stuff too. Something akin to:

25$ supporter pack includes a mech pack so that the customer can at least think "well a mech pack costs $20 anyway, its just another 5$ to support this. What the heck." Do keep in mind that said mech pack incentive actually costs PGI nothing after the fact so its really $25 bucks, period. But it will have to be on that sort of level. Given their history, PGI is not going to get "buy in" on a promise of a game mode without putting up some serious bling to tempt even the most willing.

[Weeny Machine]

Sorry, but please not Solaris. I will also explain why. Solaris is more than a simple arena game. Solaris is about stables, warrior lodges, intrigues & conspiracies, and placing bets.

Do you really think PGI can get even a fraction of that right? If you really think it, consider the FW planetary map. It is totally pointless if you attack Hesperus, a world with a main battlemech producer or a backwater planet which exports sheep.

And without wanting to insult PGI, I also doubt they get the dynamic Solaris maps right. Those arenas are (in)famous that they change their layout from match to match and some even during a match.

Long story short: please no watered down pseudo e-sport Solaris. Thank you

Edited by Bush Hopper, 24 June 2017 - 09:21 AM.

[Jettrik Ryflix]

I would be all for Solaris mode(s). I will help pay to make it happen.

[KodiakGW]

Love all the comments about "adding another bucket." Invalid since we have see PGI willing to separate out players into 8v8 (Comp team) and 4v4 (Scouting) buckets. In order to make this work, all the current buckets need to be changed. I'd make suggestions on how to do that, but at this point I know they will never be seen, and all I'd get is crap from the white knights, so why bother. Prove me wrong, any PGI employee, and I'll make them.

Here are two on paying for the development/post development income. New cockpit or mountable items that only provide post kill effects, like the flare guns in Planetside 2. I would buy post win fireworks being launched from my mechs. Also, free to play, but you only get to make bets if you are running premium time.

So, if someone wants to take those ideas, go ahead. I doubt my post will be read. I've got 5 paying friends who might think about coming back if this was introduced.

Edit: Yep. Guess I was right about this never being seen. I might have actually bought a couple of the new heros.

Edited by KodiakGW, 28 June 2017 - 08:50 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Without thinking about details, I would like to have some seasons that have qualifying games for different brackets
1vs1
2vs2
and 4vs4
FFA (mayb 12-16 players max?)
Then have something like requires 5 of 8 games per season to qualify for semi/finaly for each bracket.
I think Solaris was the best part of MW4merc (even tho MW4 and the rest was very arcadish).

At least 12 specators or some kind of live-stream mode to watch.
Some kind of betting system is a big selling point.
Not sure about how exactly it could work, but maybe some total money pool with rates for each player/team and a small fee (MC) so PGI makes some money out of it.
Prices could be CBills and also some other items, e.g. Supply Cache/Key or some special Solaris Coins...

[Deathlike]

Ratpoison, on 24 June 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

Your seething negativity makes it plainly obvious why your suggestions don't get heard. It's all over nearly all of your posts and your profile. You aren't willing to even acknowledge what they do without implying extreme incompetence on an unfair level. F2P games, especialy today, are full of cesspool cash vampires that have no concern for the players or games at all, fully embracing pay to win mechanics in the name of profit, and PGI has absolutely handled this game better than most of them. You unfairly expect results on par with companies that have budgets a dozen or more times larger than PGI has ever had, and project your disappointment onto them rather than checking your own unrealistic expectations.

The amount of work PGI has put into community demanded features(like that long tom you hate) is staggering compared to most F2P games of its size, yet you put them on par with the most extortive F2P games in existence. Of course, I don't expect you to change at all after commiting to this attitude for 28k posts, but you absolutely stand as a strong example to others of how spiteful negativity stagnates progress and communication.

I wasn't this salty years ago, but my hopes died over time because once I saw the results, it wasn't pretty. See UI 2.0.

A UI design that was heavily criticized to be inefficient for just labbing... not that it wasn't functional or working, but drastically worse than what was available before. It took a year plus before it was actually addressed, and for something that important to the game (games can be won or lost in the mechlab)... it gets ignored for that long.

A lot of the parallels can be seen about the Skill Tree, and there actually is legit criticism about it. Heck, the first thing that SHOULD have been made available is a way to copy skill tree templates... but that at best is "in the works". Even before the skill tree, people had even asked for the ability to copy mech builds and store it for later, allowing the ability to multiple builds for the same mech w/o having to buy a different variant (not so useful for Clan omnimechs in most instances, but very useful for IS and Clan Battlemechs). Still nothing has come out of that.

It's easy to just to blame me or others for speaking out for things necessary for the game... but hey, if you think your solution for anything is going to be listened to (for whatever logical or illogical reason), go for it... I'm sure PGI is listening...

Edited by Deathlike, 24 June 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[LORD ORION]

Can you fix the other modes first before you go off and make another 1/2 baked game mode?

[Ratpoison]

Bud Crue, on 24 June 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

You've been around since 2012. You've seen the "amount of work PGI has put into community demanded features". Surely you can't have helped but notice that the "community demanded features" we have now in terms of CW or the arena shooter that forms the basis of this game is NOTHING like what PGI once promised nor continues to promise? Yes, surface changes. Yes, constant tennis like changes to mech an weapons values. But beyond that, PGI's development of this product is not remotely what the community was promised nor what PGI even continues to promise. The "seething negativity" within some elements of the community is simply a consequence of that continued failure.

How exactly? MW3&4 multiplayer modes were always arena shooters and it was plainly obvious that MWO was going to follow that tradition from the very start. Community warfare features in any game have always been a huge struggle to create that requires iterative design, which will frequently work out different than hoped. Since beta I have not seen a single suggestion on the forums, not a single design from any other game that would fulfill the starry eyed expectations that the community's most bitter users have held on to.

And no, the negativity is a nonconstuctive choice that some players cling to so they don't have to check their expectations or review their blind nostalgia for past experiences. The only "consequence" involved is the lack of engagement these people predictably receive in return.

Quote

Consider the town hall last night. The community both here, and on reditt and even twitter has been in a lather regarding energy rebalance for the last week. Yet, PGI dismisses those concerns with two questions that come down to "we have some internal values that we balance against" ...and that's it. That is not what was asked, that is useless "information" it is insulting, condescending and frankly lazy. It is, in short, exactly how PGI engages its community and has for the last 5 years and people have every right to be "negative" about it.

Looking over these places, I fail to see the supposed lathering. A tiny handful of people complaining about the cSPL nerf does not count, and your adherence to spiteful negativity over pet issues only serves to reinforce the lack of engagement you claim to hate. In the end, only you are the one choosing to shut down communication with your bitterness.

Quote

We all hope for the best, but you would be an idiot to expect some shocking alternative to a minimally viable product, if that is all that has been delivered in the past. Thus, what you see as negativity, I see as a realistic outlook.

There is nothing realistic about misusing phrases like "minimally viable product" to create a self-fulfilling cycle of spiteful bitterness while actively refusing to seek out possible constructive solutions.

Imperius, on 24 June 2017 - 04:17 AM, said:

I've told Russ multiple times how to sell maps. Last night he shot that idea down for good. MWO is pvp only! Ok, so enjoy only being able to sale mech packs!

My suggestion I've offered for years was to add single player missions for the maps. Each new set of missions would feature a new map. The map would be added for free for pvp and paid for by us who would like some PVE action!

Have you played other games that have done this? It never works out because reusing the same maps strongly limits the possibilities for missions, it doesn't make the maps feel new, and it always fails to garner significant attention or support. This community especially would roast PGI heavily for trying it.

BloodKnight101, on 24 June 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

I would like to hop back in here. People should not get flack for not being happy with FW, I watched a video from about four years ago that promised the world in FW to the point that it sounds a lot like what Russ was saying in the town hall. I personally just don't see it happening the way everyone wishes and it definitely won't have the level of depth that Russ was suggesting it will last night. You can be hopeful all you want, everything he said sounded great, but I am going to stay firmly in my cottage in Skeptical Town which is in Realism City, USA.

You can very easily be unhappy with the state of FW while maintaining a constructive attitude that lends a chance to improvement. Being bitterly negative about it only condemns you to your own unhappiness. You don't watch E3 press conferences expecting the incredibly scripted showcases to result in a game as dynamic and exciting as what you were shown, and this is no different. Being realistic involves curbing your expectations, both positive and negative, and accepting that a constructive approach to unforseen issues is the only way significant improvement can happen.

Quote

For those complaining that the complainers have no solutions for how to fix the issues or that if people aren't willing to pay there will be no development, I get it but you by saying that are feeding the negativity. I pay buy a lot of the packs and mc when I can, actually so far in the year that I have been playing I've probably bought 3 full triple A retail costs in this game. I have a right to be upset with what I want to be upset with cause I have dumped as much money into this as I have. As for solutions for the FW system, consolidate it make the giant IS map smaller make the maps bigger and allow for continuous battles to be fought on unique maps (ie, combine the maps that share the same assets) and allow for example 5 lances and 4 stars to go head to head but each star/ lance is its own queue to allow for specific objective captures. That is just an example.

AAA games rely on the prediction of huge numbers of sales, a limited development period that is drastically reduced after launch, and the potential for additional monetization options in the future in order to make money. Unfortunately, you can't at all expect the same kind of results from a niche game that demands continuous development like MWO. The fact is that a full price AAA game isn't that much money, as is evidenced by how often said AAA games these days sell over a million copies while getting called a financial failure by their publishers.

Map consolidation was attempted, the current engine prohibits continuous battles, and asymetrical teams has been shot down multiple times for a wide range of reasons. Making community warfare work involves overcoming a huge number of potential problems that no one person can possibly forsee. That is why constructive feedback and continuous development are the only ways that it can ever improve.

Quote

So why as a community are we not actively seeking a port to unreal, it gives PGI another chance at really marketing the game and a chance to get more active players. If we talk about what benefits the community a port to unreal does the most.

This is absolutely true no matter how you look at it. The cynical refusal to look forward by some parts of the community needs to stop.

[G4LV4TR0N]

Ratpoison, on 24 June 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

How exactly? MW3&4 multiplayer modes were always arena shooters and it was plainly obvious that MWO was going to follow that tradition from the very start.

Yep, it was Mechwarrior 2 that was last (pseudo)sim in series. In fact for most MW2 players MW3 and MW4 ain't even part of series, just different games under common name. The only attempt to remake MW2 gameplay in more arcade environment was AssaultTech1, game made completely from scratch by few Mechwarrior 2 fans, murdered by treacherous "MekTek":

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 24 June 2017 - 11:23 AM.

[Deathlike]

G4LV4TR0N, on 24 June 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

Yep, it was Mechwarrior 2 that was last (pseudo)sim in series. In fact for most MW2 players MW3 and MW4 ain't even part of series, just different games under common name. The only attempt to remake MW2 gameplay in more arcade environment was AssaultTech1, game made completely from scratch by few Mechwarrior 2 fans, murdered by treacherous "MekTek":

I'm not sure what Mektek's involvement is, but when you don't have the license anymore, you can't distribute or continue projects w/o the license.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 June 2017 - 11:27 AM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

If you don't know then why you do post?

[Deathlike]

G4LV4TR0N, on 24 June 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

If you don't know then why you do post?

Because, it's kinda on you to explain why you said what you said.

I'm asking for clarification, so unless you going to leave it as it is, it's hard to take your word for it.

[BloodKnight101]

Ratpoison, on 24 June 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

How exactly? MW3&4 multiplayer modes were always arena shooters and it was plainly obvious that MWO was going to follow that tradition from the very start. Community warfare features in any game have always been a huge struggle to create that requires iterative design, which will frequently work out different than hoped. Since beta I have not seen a single suggestion on the forums, not a single design from any other game that would fulfill the starry eyed expectations that the community's most bitter users have held on to.

And no, the negativity is a nonconstuctive choice that some players cling to so they don't have to check their expectations or review their blind nostalgia for past experiences. The only "consequence" involved is the lack of engagement these people predictably receive in return.


Looking over these places, I fail to see the supposed lathering. A tiny handful of people complaining about the cSPL nerf does not count, and your adherence to spiteful negativity over pet issues only serves to reinforce the lack of engagement you claim to hate. In the end, only you are the one choosing to shut down communication with your bitterness.


There is nothing realistic about misusing phrases like "minimally viable product" to create a self-fulfilling cycle of spiteful bitterness while actively refusing to seek out possible constructive solutions.


Have you played other games that have done this? It never works out because reusing the same maps strongly limits the possibilities for missions, it doesn't make the maps feel new, and it always fails to garner significant attention or support. This community especially would roast PGI heavily for trying it.


You can very easily be unhappy with the state of FW while maintaining a constructive attitude that lends a chance to improvement. Being bitterly negative about it only condemns you to your own unhappiness. You don't watch E3 press conferences expecting the incredibly scripted showcases to result in a game as dynamic and exciting as what you were shown, and this is no different. Being realistic involves curbing your expectations, both positive and negative, and accepting that a constructive approach to unforseen issues is the only way significant improvement can happen.


AAA games rely on the prediction of huge numbers of sales, a limited development period that is drastically reduced after launch, and the potential for additional monetization options in the future in order to make money. Unfortunately, you can't at all expect the same kind of results from a niche game that demands continuous development like MWO. The fact is that a full price AAA game isn't that much money, as is evidenced by how often said AAA games these days sell over a million copies while getting called a financial failure by their publishers.

Map consolidation was attempted, the current engine prohibits continuous battles, and asymetrical teams has been shot down multiple times for a wide range of reasons. Making community warfare work involves overcoming a huge number of potential problems that no one person can possibly forsee. That is why constructive feedback and continuous development are the only ways that it can ever improve.


This is absolutely true no matter how you look at it. The cynical refusal to look forward by some parts of the community needs to stop.

I thank you for your critique of my post. While writing I didn't think I was being blatantly negative, but I guess I can see how it would be interpreted this way. I really do love this game, I have really only been playing PC games again for about a year and I easily have spent exponentially more time playing MWO in comparison to any other game I play. Are things perfect, no, Will they ever be, no. I was hoping to react to both sides of the negativity, and try and better the community with my posts. may be it wasn't interpreted as I hoped.

If Solaris does get backed and developed it will bring a simplified game play that may benefit new/newer players and may generate interest. I am not saying I don't like the idea, or that it wouldn't be fun. I was just hoping that resources would be spent bringing the game up to modern standards.

My mentioning of AAA titles was more to give a scale how much I have spend in game, not as a comparison between AAA games and MWO. Once again, thank you for your response.