27 replies to this topic

[Christophe Ivanov]

Hey Folks!

With quite a few not happy about the current state of MWO, what would you like changed to have you keep playing MWO or more than what you are doing now?

My biggest beef is PGI trying to do the so called, "Balance the game" which I really see as mucking up the game in general. YES I do understand weapons, mechs and systems progress over time and have NO problem with that.
What I DO have a problem with is being forced to use whatever change they do to my Mech, weapons etc. I get it, you need to do this for whatever the current reason is. But you should re-do your weapons and systems to give us a selection of VERSIONS of said weapon system.

Example: The UAC10..how many times has this weapon been nerfed? Buffed? Instead of doing this, RELEASE a variant of that weapon for sale. SO the original would be, say a UAC10 Mk. 1 and your buffed or nerfed version would be UAC10 Mk. 2 and so on.

I understand not everyone wants this, but I would myself.

Opinions?

Edited by Christophe Ivanov, 28 June 2017 - 10:53 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Predictability. That would get me playing more, get me invested into the more competitive aspects of the game and perhaps even get me back to spending serious cash on it.

I just want the confidence that if my mechs perform a cerrtain way now, that in 1 month or 3 months from now, they will still perform to that known level. That's it. That's all it would take.

That is not going to happen because PGI has not yet figured out, even after all these years, how they want mechs to perform. They dont know. So it isn't possible for them to give me that confidence. But that's what it would take.

Also giving CW a whiff of lore or immersiveness wouldn't hurt either.

[PurplePuke]

Bud Crue, on 28 June 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

Predictability. That would get me playing more, get me invested into the more competitive aspects of the game and perhaps even get me back to spending serious cash on it.

I just want the confidence that if my mechs perform a cerrtain way now, that in 1 month or 3 months from now, they will still perform to that known level. That's it. That's all it would take.

That is not going to happen because PGI has not yet figured out, even after all these years, how they want mechs to perform. They dont know. So it isn't possible for them to give me that confidence. But that's what it would take.

What you're really asking for, though you may not realize it, is for the game to be stale.

If your favorite mechs and builds always perform the same, then that means so do all others, because your mech's performance is determined by its relation to other mechs in the game. It's all relative.

If the performance of your mech has to stay the same, then nothing can ever change. That makes the game stale.

Careful what you wish for.

Also, the idea of different variants of each weapon in the game to account for all nerfs and buffs is unworkable. What an enormous headache that would be. The introduction of new weapons is a much better approach.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Improve client stability.

[Bud Crue]

PurplePuke, on 28 June 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

What you're really asking for, though you may not realize it, is for the game to be stale.

If your favorite mechs and builds always perform the same, then that means so do all others, because your mech's performance is determined by its relation to other mechs in the game. It's all relative.

If the performance of your mech has to stay the same, then nothing can ever change. That makes the game stale.

Careful what you wish for.

Also, the idea of different variants of each weapon in the game to account for all nerfs and buffs is unworkable. What an enormous headache that would be. The introduction of new weapons is a much better approach.

I didn't say "same" I said: "that they perform to that known level".

There is lots of room for so called iterative balance in that. But there is no room for what PGI does: decide on an apparent whim that mech X is going to be randomly blessed with 25% more armor and structure while mech Y is turned from a fairly agile brawler into a doorstop. That kind of crap drives me nuts. By all means make iterative changes but when your "iteration" turns a mech from being fun and playable into utter garbage in one sudden patch, that is not iterative balance; rather that there is a bunch of BS.

Edit: think about it this way: Why is it that people say "never sell a mech?" The answer is because you never know what PGI is going to do in the future, and it is a distinct possibility that the mech you are about to sell is given god tier quirks or base line attributes than make it the next great thing. That works both ways. That same fear of not wanting to sell because PGI, is the same reason I have no desire to buy anything and why I often find myself not wanting to bother playing when the opportunity presents itself. Why hon my skills and try to get better in my favorite mechs, when PGI is quite possibly going to ruin them next Tuesday.

Edited by Bud Crue, 28 June 2017 - 10:46 AM.

[Metus regem]

Honestly? Immersion and actually roles for mechs to play.

The role of a Locust is vastly different than that of the Adder, yet as far as MWO is concerned both should be doing the same job (seeking direct combat). One (Locust) was built around the idea of a scout and infantry suppression unit, while the other (Adder) was built around the idea of direct fire support. Now is it right to ask both of those mechs to fill roles they are not designed for, yet if you do not go after that role that they are not built around you are actually punished by MWO's scoring system on top of already being punished for using a light mech.

[JediPanther]

I play a lot of mwo. I still see people I droped with in my closed beta and cw unit years. Many have left that I knew but a few remain. Better out of game communication would be nice. An actual chat lobby to hand out and nerd out on mwo and stuff. Fix the in game voip. It always sounds muted, filled with static or cuts out. My unit always used team speak for com.

An after match lobby would be cool. Talk to and with the people you just had a match with. If it was one of those good long drawn out hard won matches people could talk about their builds, support each other on how some one did etc.

[Linkin]

Bud Crue, on 28 June 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

*Snip*.

Also giving CW a whiff of lore or immersiveness wouldn't hurt either.

Metus regem, on 28 June 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

Honestly? Immersion and actually roles for mechs to play.

*snip*

Both of those would be good for me too.

Then, shooting for the fences, Co-Op PVE would be a nice change of pace every now and then. It would certainly get more of the group I used to play with back.

[-Teiwaz-]

I'm all for NBT!! Roll play = league play.

[Captain Polux]

Remove map voting.

[knight-of-ni]

The balance changes don't bother me. I just go play another mech, rebuild the mech(s) I have, and/or get new mechs. Doesn't matter to me.

What I'd like to see is content, an end game, something more than stats to fight for, etc. One could possibly rephrase that request to mean "make faction warfare fun", but I've given up hope that will happen.

[Old dirty B]

ranked 1v1 quickplay, multiple win conditions other then outright killing your opponent (capping, destroying, collecting etc)

thats all i need

[Rhaegor]

More maps and more spawn point randomness.

[KodiakGW]

Why bother? They already have proven who they listen to, and made the changes they want. So those people can play more and spend enough to save they game they wanted. When they end up only putting in a fraction of games as compared to posts giving their assessment of the game, stop spending, and give their money and time to another Battletech product, it will be too late to get the rest of us back.

[Leone]

Honestly, adding Incursion to CW'll get me to put some more time in. Splitting Invasion mode and gating it really took some wind from my sails. But mostly I'm not playing as much cuz my play times have become a bit desynced from my unit's. I've actually had pugs request my team report me for assuming they were competent and playing like normal. Don't get me wrong, I'll drop in my alt an pug for games no problem, but, well, there's a reason I joined my unit. It's nice to know your team has your back, an going it alone does get old after a bit.

~Leone.

[PurplePuke]

Bud Crue, on 28 June 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

I didn't say "same" I said: "that they perform to that known level".

There is lots of room for so called iterative balance in that. But there is no room for what PGI does: decide on an apparent whim that mech X is going to be randomly blessed with 25% more armor and structure while mech Y is turned from a fairly agile brawler into a doorstop. That kind of crap drives me nuts. By all means make iterative changes but when your "iteration" turns a mech from being fun and playable into utter garbage in one sudden patch, that is not iterative balance; rather that there is a bunch of BS.

Edit: think about it this way: Why is it that people say "never sell a mech?" The answer is because you never know what PGI is going to do in the future, and it is a distinct possibility that the mech you are about to sell is given god tier quirks or base line attributes than make it the next great thing. That works both ways. That same fear of not wanting to sell because PGI, is the same reason I have no desire to buy anything and why I often find myself not wanting to bother playing when the opportunity presents itself. Why hon my skills and try to get better in my favorite mechs, when PGI is quite possibly going to ruin them next Tuesday.

Good grief, if you're so bitter and angry about a friggin' game just go do something else.

[Bud Crue]

PurplePuke, on 28 June 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Good grief, if you're so bitter and angry about a friggin' game just go do something else.

Calm down sunshine. The question was asked and I answered. My response (both of them) are honest and based on historical reality as well as PGI's actual conduct. We all have to put up with it. I merely assert that if they did iterative balance (actual iterative balance) I, and likely many others would be more engaged as a result. They don't do iterative balance though (see every patch ever). That isn't "bitter and angry", that's just the way it is around here. If you want to play a mechwarrior game, you have to put up with it. Cest la vie.

[Deathlike]

The simple answer is that MWO needs and end game. CW/FP was supposed to be that, but PGI did "at best" a mediocre job and that's a problem ultimately.

At some point, acquiring all the mechs should be used to do something and when that's not the case, there is no long term sustainability of people's interests in said game... unless you're primarily a mech collector.

[Valdarion Silarius]

I would like to see the return of the Rifleman IIC since it was only featured in MW2 and MW2:GBL in a canon mechwarrior title.

After that, maybe fill out the remaining MW2 mechs and possibly add a little more immersion to MW:O. I would really like to see MW:O have access to community made content like custom maps, offline features like user made scenarios, and perhaps a workshop with modding/reskinning capabilities for perhaps offline content. This might be the appropriate time to port over to Unreal 4 to have such features.

[MaximusPayne]

JediPanther, on 28 June 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

An actual chat lobby to hand out and nerd out on mwo and stuff... An after match lobby would be cool. Talk to and with the people you just had a match with. If it was one of those good long drawn out hard won matches people could talk about their builds, support each other on how some one did etc.

So much this. A true game lobby to pull the already small community together for units to recruit and organize drops with each other. It baffles me to no end that in this day with social media at its most popular that games cater to the individual and not the community. PGI is blowing a massive opportunity here.