167 replies to this topic

[chucklesMuch]

1 or 2 mechs per month - I'm fine with either. Or maybe 2 new every 2 months (1 IS, 1 clan) and new variants (for existing chassis's) for alternating months maybe?)... and:
> premium time bankable
> option to select which mech gets a cbill bonus,
> option to switch one standard pack mech with a reinforcement pack mech
> option to buy multiple reinforcement pack omni pods (for mechs you buy), prior to cbill release date.

> if what mechs then 20 ton Clan light! (Firemoth or Piranha)


and... 1 new map every 6 months...

Edited by chucklesMuch, 24 July 2017 - 11:02 PM.

[Vellron2005]

SQW, on 24 July 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

Maps.
And okay if you skip the mechs.

THIS.

We have more than enough mechs.. we need a dozen new maps to play them on..

[Appogee]

One a month.

BUT they have to work on maps, modes and FP in parallel.

I already have 280 Mechs. To keep supporting MWO, I want more GAME, not just more Mechs.

chucklesMuch, on 24 July 2017 - 11:01 PM, said:

and... 1 new map every 6 months...

Nowhere near enough, given we've had none for 12 months. They need to catch up. One every two months for a year should do it.

Edited by Appogee, 24 July 2017 - 11:08 PM.

[LordNothing]

i think i like the mech a month arrangement better. id also like to see more one off heros (hero only option perhaps) and varients.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 July 2017 - 11:14 PM.

[Thrudvangar]

What is wrong with that guy???

Why does it needs players asking his twitter questions also in the official game forums for him?

Why isn't this clown using his own f.ucking OFFICIAL GAME FORUMS?

[Escef]

One, maybe 2 mechs per month sounds about right, and perhaps a new map once every 3 or 4 months.

As for maps, I know Russ said there are some odd technical reasons that make bringing pre-revision versions of maps back a lot of hoops to jump through, but I think bringing some of them back for promotional events would be good. I also am not super pleased with the voting system as is. It's ok, but part of the lack of variety we see is a direct result of this system. Canyon and Mining are both good maps, but I don't see them nearly enough because people keep voting Frozen City, Polar Highlands, and Grim Plexus.

[Black Ivan]

I'm with Carl and the others. We need more good maps to play on and FW needs serious help

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

FupDup, on 24 July 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

I'd like to be able to select which variant gets the special 30% C-Bill boost, because usually the variant that gets it sucks. :\

I'd like to vote you for being our ambassador for consumer relations with PGI.

New maps are apparently enroute so that's good news, unless it means revamping the nice ones like Tourmy, Canyon and Mining.

[Mystere]

Yay! We're getting more Mech packs ... in this still skeleton of a game after 5 long years.

[Jingseng]

from most to least (edit: well I guess this is more pre-order bonuses and less mech packs, but then again... could always change mech packs):
Extra variants
patterns
colors
war horns
Banked premium time
Cbills
Active premium time
Hanging items
Decals
standing items

[JC Daxion]

I like the single mech packs. (though i do like how they added many heroes in one shot, but those are a lot easier in the grand scheme of things)


I also like how they have been adding colors are pre-order items

Edited by JC Daxion, 25 July 2017 - 12:20 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Appogee, on 24 July 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Nowhere near enough, given we've had none for 12 months. They need to catch up. One every two months for a year should do it.

actually last map was last October. You also forget that they added escort, and incursion, which took a good amount of work as well to update old maps.


I'd be happy with 2 or 3 maps a year if that is possible going forward, that would be great. This has been the longest stretch with out a new map.

But as i said they did add 2 modes that had a crap ton of work to update old maps for said modes.

Edited by JC Daxion, 25 July 2017 - 12:29 AM.

[Paigan]

I would prefer a new map as a bonus in the mech pack .
(meaning I would actually pay for the map and don't care about the Mechs. I have more than enough, already)

[davoodoo]

Double preorder cbills, 6.5mil is not enough to fit 1 mech anymore.

[Lily from animove]

RestosIII, on 24 July 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Easily mech a month. I blame the 4 mech setup for the MCII walk animation.

this, quality over quantitiy.

[Appogee]

JC Daxion, on 25 July 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

actually last map was last October.

Was that Terra Therma? I guess it's effectively a new map ... but then, it replaced an old one, so net = zero increase in maps for well more than a year.

JC Daxion, on 25 July 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

You also forget that they added escort, and incursion, which took a good amount of work as well to update old maps.

But that's beside the point. We need more maps, not just new ways to play old ones.

JC Daxion, on 25 July 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

I'd be happy with 2 or 3 maps a year if that is possible going forward, that would be great. This has been the longest stretch with out a new map.

When you're playing this game daily, as I do, and you also have the same small selection of maps (typically, cold ones or Lurm-friendly ones) being voted much more frequently than the others ... then you just need more maps. Many more.

What I'd most dearly love is a random, procedurally-generated map option. While it would never be balanced or fair (so leave it out of tournaments) it would be a better simulation of actual warfare, which is never balanced or fair.

They should also get the community to contribute maps. I'd even fund PGI to permit the community to do their work for them.

Edited by Appogee, 25 July 2017 - 01:01 AM.

[- World Eater -]

Fire Moth

Also, I agree with the post about allowing us to choose the variant that receives the 30% boost

[MW Waldorf Statler]

In the Moment the 53 Member from PGI have not Time for Quality or Great Projects ...to short Deadlines ,to many to fix...Crossworking by Projects..no time for good animations, and not time for Maps by to many Mechpacks ...not the Manpower for ea Good quality MWO, and many of the Old PGI Crew from the Open Beta is leaving ...many to Relic
Russ saying many in all the Years ...each Month a Map...Nowhere 3PV ...no Problems with HG by working to MWO...Russ lived in his own Universe ...many different from his Crew

Procedual terrain ...

in the moment its give no Game engine with a Creator for procedual terrain in the high Quality of a MWO Map...thats a Option in 10 -15 Years..in the Moment the Gameengines can handle only simple procedual Terrain like ARK survival or No Mens Sky ...a handfull texturelayers (in MWO a Map hase up to 10 Texturelayers) and good in placing natural enviroment , the Gameenigenes cant or only bad handle streets, or Bridges or Logical Placements (like a Waterfall over a River) thats only for High Prices Engine for Movies...the procedual Tools in UE4 and Cry 5.2 good for creating fast Cloneterrains ...Woods and fields with the Vegatation Paint Brush Tool or make a Ground Terrain for further work by Hand

Thats the simple Look of PT in games

Advantages of Procedural Generation

• 
  
  
  Can easily scale your maps / designs to truly large sizes, much larger than you could create by hand.
  
• 
  
  
  By creating a system where chunks of terrain are created on the fly, you can avoid having to write pieces of code to load in chunks from permanent memory.
  
• 
  
  
  Over the long term, you may be able to discover more viable levels using procedural design than with manual map editing.
  
• 
  
  
  For your 'explorer' game, you can generate many dozens, hundreds or even thousands of levels that are different to one another which keeps the player from getting bored.

Disadvantages of Procedural Generation

• 
  
  
  Requires much work to ensure that generated terrain looks 'how you want it to'.
  
• 
  
  
  Creating 'test levels' becomes a hassle.
  
• 
  
  
  Placement of items and other such things, as you mentioned, must be done carefully, though for a top down explorer game this would probably be less of an issue than you think.
  
• 
  
  
  Unless extensive testing is done, you may get a scenario where your gameplay breaks completely with a particular procedural level, more so than if you made a level by hand.
  
• 
  
  
  For truly complex terrains, you may end up spending more time on bug fixing and design work then you would have spent making a basic map design tool and file loader.

Advantages of Manual Design

• 
  
  
  The game designer can be more assured that gameplay functions as it should within the context of each level.
  
• 
  
  
  It is possible to create and place 'fine details' more easily then you can with procedural generation.
  
• 
  
  
  Some terrain features are very difficult to produce procedurally, such as water that flows down a mountain. Doing so would require very thorough evaluation of an elevation map which may be difficult to design.
  
• 
  
  
  Easier to guide the player along a 'linear path', though as you say you are building an 'explorer' game, this may not be so relevant.

Disadvantages of Manual Design

• 
  
  
  Applying widespread changes to your terrain will be time consuming, whereas with procedural generation, merely the modification of a few values will yield completely different terrain.
  
• 
  
  
  You will have to store each map in memory, which might be acceptable for small levels, but for larger levels, procedural generation might be your only option. Increases the permanent memory installation requirements of your game.
  
• 
  
  
  May require the construction of a map editor and file loading system.

and PT is very very performance hungry

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 25 July 2017 - 02:53 AM.

[patataman]

Same as the general opinion on this subject... maps, more meat for cw and comunication throught their own forums. That would be my perfect "mech" pack.

[Tyroki]

1 mech per month is better than 4 mechs every few months, so long as it doesn't get in the way of other improvements to the game.