167 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

I dont care about third party maps

I just want mech hats and funny moustaches

[SuperFunkTron]

Abisha, on 25 July 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Here is one improvement they can add which will fix most FP issues.
Absolute no Premades VS. PuG not even a 3 VS. 12 PuG.
I refuse and will forever refuse to play FP so long premades exist and most people think this way.
That's why Quickmatches are most popular ingame it's fair.

As much as people like to ***** abut pre-made teams, its really just he skill disparity that is the key issue. It'd make a lot more sense to start using an improved matchmaker/tier system in FP than telling people that they can't play with their friends because cooperation and planning is unfair. I've seen plenty of cases where 12 PUGs destroy pre-made teams, but it was clear that the key factor was player skill and coordination, prepared or not that had the biggest influence.

And aside from that, why would you want to set such a low bar for "improving" FP when we clearly need much more done than just that.

[Papaspud]

In my pack I want to see...NEW MAPS, anything else is a joke.

[Bishop Steiner]

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. :\

As I have long said....
Mech of the Month, but reduce the cost of the "Collectors" version 5-10$ and allow us to choose which Variant gets the "Collectors" token, the same way we got to choose faction patterns, etc. Once assigned, that's it.

Since Special Geo for collectors hasn't been a thing for a while now (resistance 2 was it?) there is ZERO mechanical limitations to use as an excuse to limit our choice.

It sounds like Sales have been taking a pounding of late. I'm not one of the "Watch MWO Burns" types.... but I also will speak up when they could improve something.

Skill Tree, Civil War Tech, all are good opportunities to freshen the game some. But change also brings confusion, disgruntlement (you'll never have everyone accept it) etc. Add in the apparently less than stellar reception to the last few packs, the Harmony Gold Uncertainty, and other complaints, real or imagined....

This is the time, especially with the 3 mech Model kind of negating the "need" and value of Mech Packs in general, to re-evaluate, and maybe, just maybe... LISTEN to the playerbase.

[Moebius Pi]

Bud Crue, on 25 July 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

Ya know, I sometimes get worried about this game shutting down due to PGI's incompetence. Then again there are times when that incompetence is on such display that I cease worrying and instead become resigned to it. That tweet is in its own special category of arrogant incompetence and tone deafness.

It is effectively asking: would you prefer the option to give us of $20-$55 or $80-$210 per month for nothing more than more mechs.

The tweet is asking such a question despite the continued failure to explain (these are just off the top of my head):

Why IK is still not in the game despite it being promised in July of last year that it would return in October of 2016?
Why CW has not changed substantively (oh boy a map reset and "victory conditions") this entire year despite a statement in January that 2017 would be a renewed focus on CW development?
Just when we can expect -exactly when- new maps to be put into the rotation (that right, I said maps, not map, but maps...plural)?
Why escort sucks so bad and if that is the best you can do for an AI why on earth we should be remotely excited for MWV?
Just when will the graphic fixes be instituted so that new tech actually looks like new tech on all the mechs?
Just when the MKII animations are going to be fixed?
Etc.

So here is humble suggestion: instead of asking us how we would prefer to give you money, how about instead you ask what it would take to make me want to give you money at all? How about instead of asking us for anything, you appologize for failed promises and rushed broken content that folks paid for? How about you tweet out an explanation as to the lack of quality control in the last patch and what steps you are taking to ensure that it doesn't happen again? How about you say just about anything other than request that we tell you just how we would like to throw money at you?

Just some ideas for you to consider.

That, right there. Nail on the head. Consumer confidence and incentivized sales. Of which we lack both (beyond over-weened nostalgia keeping things sorta trucking). That and work on smoothing over the new player experien

ce, so, you know... we'd retain the ones that sniff around more readily (which is a huge, HUGE and really overlooked thing). Hell, even all the conditions that affect some game modes (does shooting a mech in a circle stop the timer? Does it on Conquest? Are their alternate win conditions? Etc.) are rarely clear, or even touched upon -on the main game site- with any clarity that isn't the community trying to cobble together a response.

Trying to milk an ever-decreasing player-base of diehards is just going to consistently net less and less revenue no matter what precautions are taken; people move on. Unless you're filling that vaunted, leaking bucket to keep a waterline stable, it's just going to drain, and it sure doesn't look to have enough quality development right now to keep the faucet on. The bugs alone each patch, and the rushed sloppiness for civil war (incomplete as it is even modelling wise...) makes me regret the MKII purchase more than I figured.

Personally, I'm not seeing enough in regards to really making the game accessible and enjoyable enough to the greenhorn to ever want to drop cash on this save a mech pack one-off (if that; "its cheaper than a new release, and as cheap as a one month sub in many games, **** it, why not" sorta purchases).

As is, the old-timers are having (and have been for years) a long time justifying dumping money in beyond "I WANT MY FAV MECH" and carrot on the stick promises that never reach real fruition (vs a plastic or wax representation being handed our way, and a timeline increase for a content/feature's release being dragged out ridiculously long).

I'm with Bud on this one. Stop asking on Twitter how we would spend our moola, and start asking what would make us spend money -whatsoever- so it feels like we're getting something worthwhile each month. Dear god, at the least do some real work on Invasion/FP/CW beyond a rename and bucket shuffling, and put some honest work into utter garbage modes like Escort; Seriously, the community doesn't give a flying **** if -the devs- "think it's a viable, quality mode" if nobody wants to play the damn thing. Get a clue.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 July 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

As I have long said....
Mech of the Month, but reduce the cost of the "Collectors" version 5-10$ and allow us to choose which Variant gets the "Collectors" token, the same way we got to choose faction patterns, etc. Once assigned, that's it.

Since Special Geo for collectors hasn't been a thing for a while now (resistance 2 was it?) there is ZERO mechanical limitations to use as an excuse to limit our choice.

Often suggested, always liked

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 July 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

As I have long said....
Mech of the Month, but reduce the cost of the "Collectors" version 5-10$ and allow us to choose which Variant gets the "Collectors" token, the same way we got to choose faction patterns, etc. Once assigned, that's it.

Since Special Geo for collectors hasn't been a thing for a while now (resistance 2 was it?) there is ZERO mechanical limitations to use as an excuse to limit our choice.

It sounds like Sales have been taking a pounding of late. I'm not one of the "Watch MWO Burns" types.... but I also will speak up when they could improve something.

Skill Tree, Civil War Tech, all are good opportunities to freshen the game some. But change also brings confusion, disgruntlement (you'll never have everyone accept it) etc. Add in the apparently less than stellar reception to the last few packs, the Harmony Gold Uncertainty, and other complaints, real or imagined....

This is the time, especially with the 3 mech Model kind of negating the "need" and value of Mech Packs in general, to re-evaluate, and maybe, just maybe... LISTEN to the playerbase.

And if PGI didn't want to go through the hassle of coding "tokens," then they could easily tie it to cockpit items. Just shove the item in the variant you want. They're actually already doing this with the Civil War packs, but the current offered items have much smaller bonuses...

I also think PGI should just ditch the idea that we need to purchase 3 variants at once after the skill tree just changed that whole paradigm. We should be allowed to cherry-pick the variants we want, with a slight bulk discount as you add on more variants.

[Cementi]

I am fairly indifferent myself. Not that I have closed my wallet or anything, I did just buy the Uziel and Osiris. It is just that I am getting to the end of the mechs that I really wanted. Even those two I mostly bought because I wanted premium time.

For me I guess I would just want whatever is the most sustainable for them. Mech per month or a large pack every quarter makes no difference to me but for their development it might.

What I do want is for them to start selling other types of items, like the rewards for buying the ultimate packs. The little knick knacks that add 5% cbill or xp earnings. That kind of stuff I would totally buy. More stuff like that as long as it gives a tangible reward that does not actually impact gameplay I am all for it.

Maps would be nice but it was not the question that was asked. However since people brought it up and I am assuming someone reads the forums (I have seen enough of Chris Lowreys posts to know he does) I would like to ask for a true map rotation. I get tired of people voting for the same maps all the time. I get that some are not popular.......still I would like the choice to be a bit more random.

I like the current game modes, at least at their core. I would like to see Escort tweaked so that instead of a slow plodding Atlas it was several different vehicles that take random routes. Harder to spot and snipe. Make them go faster as well, if your worried it will shorten the game to much just make them time longer windy routes, use some of the more interesting spaces on the map. Then give a reward for each one that makes it or for the other team each one they destroy.

Skirmish.......personally I could do without every seeing this mode again as I hate having my time wasted by one sore loser trying to protect his KDR. These days I just keep a book handy and if someone is really intent on hiding I just park in the open and let my group use me as bait as I read a book. I could care less if the person gets a kill on me. At least then I can move on to another match.

[Abisha]

SuperFunkTron, on 25 July 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

As much as people like to ***** abut pre-made teams, its really just he skill disparity that is the key issue. It'd make a lot more sense to start using an improved matchmaker/tier system in FP than telling people that they can't play with their friends because cooperation and planning is unfair. I've seen plenty of cases where 12 PUGs destroy pre-made teams, but it was clear that the key factor was player skill and coordination, prepared or not that had the biggest influence.

And aside from that, why would you want to set such a low bar for "improving" FP when we clearly need much more done than just that.

we know that's just ******* you talk Premades can optimize their tatics while PuG would never get optimized unit.
making winning for a PuG at least 70% more harder.

their for have fun playing with nobody in FP.

[SuperFunkTron]

Abisha, on 25 July 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

we know that's just ******* you talk Premades can optimize their tatics while PuG would never get optimized unit.
making winning for a PuG at least 70% more harder.

their for have fun playing with nobody in FP.

Did you see Russ's tweet about FP population? He said that there are regularly about 1000 players daily and that the numbers are higher during the events. I'm not a statistics expert, but that seems like it's far from a ghost town. There's a lot of typed abuse of PGI's choices in how they set up matches, but they have to be at least mildly competent if the game is still running this long, even if they are leaving the most hyped mode as a skeleton.

I understand your frustration, but as long as the choice to PUG or find group is open to all, finding a group of guys to play with is going to be the only way to counter other people choosing to group up. Realistically, sorting players by skill an the filtering that by group size is the only practical way of trying to get more balanced matches. Otherwise it's open season for guys who are sync dropping or lone wolves switching to an all starch diet.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 25 July 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 July 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

As I have long said....
Mech of the Month, but reduce the cost of the "Collectors" version 5-10$ and allow us to choose which Variant gets the "Collectors" token, the same way we got to choose faction patterns, etc. Once assigned, that's it.

Since Special Geo for collectors hasn't been a thing for a while now (resistance 2 was it?) there is ZERO mechanical limitations to use as an excuse to limit our choice.

It sounds like Sales have been taking a pounding of late. I'm not one of the "Watch MWO Burns" types.... but I also will speak up when they could improve something.

Skill Tree, Civil War Tech, all are good opportunities to freshen the game some. But change also brings confusion, disgruntlement (you'll never have everyone accept it) etc. Add in the apparently less than stellar reception to the last few packs, the Harmony Gold Uncertainty, and other complaints, real or imagined....

This is the time, especially with the 3 mech Model kind of negating the "need" and value of Mech Packs in general, to re-evaluate, and maybe, just maybe... LISTEN to the playerbase.

IMO, they should have spaced apart the Civil War mechs and the most popular ones over a longer monthly period. I did find it odd how we got the Mad Cat MK.2, the Annihilator, Nightstar and Novacat in less than 2 months apart from each other. I think the other fact that they forgot to consider is how all players might not have Mechwarrior 4 nostalgia? Congrats to the people who got their favorite mechs from those Civil War packs, but personally I could care less about any of them. There are probably others that have the same mentality when it came to those mech selections.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Arnold The Governator, on 25 July 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

IMO, they should have spaced apart the Civil War mechs and the most popular ones over a longer monthly period. I did find it odd how we got the Mad Cat MK.2, the Annihilator, Nightstar and Novacat in less than 2 months apart from each other. I think the other fact that they forgot to consider is how all players might not have Mechwarrior 4 nostalgia? Congrats to the people who got their favorite mechs from those Civil War packs, but personally I could care less about any of them. There are probably others that have the same mentality when it came to those mech selections.

To be fair, only half the 'mechs from the Civil War packs made their video game debut in MW4 (though I admit to not knowing anything prior to MW2)

Cougar - MechCommander (1998)
Nova Cat - MechCommander Gold (1998?)
Annihilator - MechWarrior 3 (1999)
Osiris, Uziel, Mad Cat Mk II - MechWarrior 4: Vengeance (2000)
Arctic Wolf - MechWarrior 4 Clan 'Mech Pak (2002)
Nightstar - MechWarrior Online (2017)

I'm sure there were people who did not care about the Marauder/Warhammer/Rifleman/Archer/Phoenix Hawk releases, no need to frame it like non-MW4 lovers were somehow hurt by the Civil War 'mech choices.

[invernomuto]

Mystere, on 25 July 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

I'm of the view that "work on new mechs has no impact on the rest of their development processes" is only true because not much of the latter is actually happening.

Having said that, I must admit that I temporarily got weak-kneed with the release of the K-9. Those things are so cute I got two of them.

I think some of us have to (re)set realistic expectation on this game. I hope to be wrong, but I haven't see a F2P game that had a complete "remake" during its life cycle. MWO is 5 years old (an eternity from an IT perspective), it's a "mature" product, major overhauls are not going to happen. We can ask for new map or gamemodes, and there will be some minor additions and improvements, but IMHO the game will be, more or less, the same. If PGI will ever switch to Unreal Engine for MWO (a major task that will require a huge allocation of IT resources) probabily things could change but untill then it's better not to develop any expectation about "major improvements".

[Novakaine]

Time to branch out!

[Angel of Annihilation]

KodiakGW, on 25 July 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

Slow down on mech bundles. Mech a month was fine. You just need to bring back/bring in interested players. More maps. Even just switch up the drop zones more often so people don't always fight on the same section of the map. Clean up the existing maps so there is less terrain clipping. Fix things. You fix things, more players will come back. More players come back, you'll sell more existing mechs.

I have to agree. I like mech packs as much as the next guy, maybe more since I seem to buy most of them but what this game needs is more maps, lots more maps. It shouldn't be mech a month we are worry about, it should be a new map a month at least. Also they can use alot of their existing resources to make these maps. I know I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing 2-3 variations of most of the maps we currently have in game. For example we could have a Caustic without the volcano in the middle, a Canyon Network without the Canyons, a Forest Colony deeper in the Forest, a Virdian without the plateaus, a River City, without the River. Hell we could have 4-5 variations of each map representing different places on the same planet and we could even use the textures and assets from several of the FW maps that don't appear anywhere else in the game. This would have to reduce the production times on maps by at least half I would think. I mean I am no programmer or 3D artist but the textures and assets have to be at least half the battle I would think.

[Carl Vickers]

Khobai, on 25 July 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

well if we want maps and possibly some better gamemodes

and pgi wants monies

pgi should do a map kickstarter for monies

otherwise pgi isnt making money off adding new maps to the game


so kinda like what they did with the phoenix packs, where they sell mech packs, and if they sell enough of the mechpacks we get additional rewards like new maps or gamemodes for each threshold that we achieve

Do you really think PGI will get much cash if they tried another kick starter, specially for something that should have been doing from the start. Regular new maps every 3 months. I dont buy Russ's explanation of maps costing $250K to make per map, I call shenanigans of the highest order.

If he was really interested, he would get the player base to do most of the work for him and let PGI do the last couple of parts, cheaply done and most likely good maps too.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 25 July 2017 - 04:22 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Single mech announcement incoming next week is my guess, given that that is winning.

[Ngamok]

Khobai, on 25 July 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

I dont care about third party maps

I just want mech hats and funny moustaches

They can start making stuff like this:

https://www.redbubbl...arrior+t-shirts

[Otto Cannon]

What does not tempt me to buy: Trash variants bundled with active premium and a load of tacky cockpit crap.

I'd like to see individual mechs presented for sale with the option to only buy variants you want, and a decent incentive to buy them all consisting of 10 million Cbills and some banked premium.

We should be able to buy a skin which comes with a Cbill bonus that can be applied to any variant of the mech for $20. Possibly like camo patterns it could be bought for a higher price like $50 and used on any or all variants of the chassis that you own.

[Deathlike]

Ideally, a new map every 3 to 4 months needs to be a thing.

Moreso, revised maps (as in, maps that need their terrain and magical/mystery/hidden/building/structure hitboxes fixed every 3 to 4 months as well (at the same rate AND NOT alternating) because that schedule of "bugfixing" for maps is woefully inconsistent to the point where it has no meaning (it's hard to believe maps are being fixed when you still see artifacts like the topside of the HPG pillar not feeling fixed, let alone the CW/FP gun structure hitboxes that are woefully visible (because, fights happen there all the time).

So, unless this changes, I don't see progress happening.