Jump to content

- - - - -

Roadmap For September, October, And Beyond


253 replies to this topic

#221 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 25 September 2017 - 09:17 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on



How is this a downgrade?

Lets go on a trip down memory lane... Were you around when FW first dropped? over the course of a match, many players experienced a degradation of FPS/performance... why? because of all the mech corpses still on the field from previous waves added overhead to the game! They "fixed" this by cleaning up the mech corpses after a certain period of time WHICH MEANS THE GAME WAS NEVER OPTIMIZED TO HANDLE SO MANY MECHS ON THE FIELD (ACTIVE OR DEAD)!

Sooooo increasing the # of mechs on the field not only dilutes the experience and makes herding cats more likely to be herding epileptic quadrapeligic kittens, IT WILL IN ALL LIKELYHOOD RENDER THE GAME UNPLAYABLE FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE!

...is that an improvement?

So unless you have suggestions that are rational and grounded logic about how to better optimize the code (lol good luck w/ that) for more mechs in play simultaneously, I would suggest living in the real world and not in the realm of faulty expectations that have littered this forumscape for so many years.

Because even if they overcome the technical challenge, the idea of potentially dropping with 35 potatoes instead of just 11 doesn't exactly appeal to guys that want more than just being on the field in big stompy robots.

I would much rather there was an FFA mode for that many players and just throw the idea of teamwork out the window all together...

Edited by MovinTarget, 25 September 2017 - 01:03 PM.


#222 TheFallOfTheReaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Captain
  • Star Captain
  • 334 posts

Posted 27 September 2017 - 03:45 PM

+1 to ffa, and cbf to argue with y’all, the whole point is herding epileptic kittens is entertaining, well at least to some of us

#223 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 27 September 2017 - 06:00 PM

View PostShadowHimself, on 27 September 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

+1 to ffa, and cbf to argue with y’all, the whole point is herding epileptic kittens is entertaining, well at least to some of us


Its can be entertaining, but only for the first half dozen consecutive matches or so...


Its fine if you wanna punt, a lot of people forgot the game struggles w/ too many mechs on the field...

Edited by MovinTarget, 27 September 2017 - 06:01 PM.


#224 A Really Old Clan Dude

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 268 posts

Posted 27 September 2017 - 06:54 PM

I still want 12v12 in QP as a option.

It should be like the server selection, you can either tick or untick the type of play you are willing to participate in. In 8 V 8 you cant carry anyone and a single DC is huge.

8V8 in faction play would be welcome but once one team got the upper hand it would still be game over.

#225 Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The All Seeing
  • The All Seeing
  • 53 posts

Posted 30 September 2017 - 11:45 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 27 September 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

+1 to ffa, and cbf to argue with y’all, the whole point is herding epileptic kittens is entertaining, well at least to some of us


Well, I think I finally get your point of view, dear mr. Troll.

We, people which are waiting for 8vs8 as an improvement, we are talking about it as a general gameplay improvement.

And, I think, you are talking about putting even more players into battlefield as a technical improvement.

I am not sure am I right, but this is the only statement I've found which is not making you a, well, "stupid" man, to be nice. Why? You haven't used any substantive argument so far... It gets boring to try to explain you, why some things are right.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 30 September 2017 - 11:46 AM.


#226 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,182 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 03 October 2017 - 11:24 AM

PGI you sure have been quite lately

any congrats to the teams headed to MechCon?

anything you want to share?

#227 Aidan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 536 posts
  • LocationFlorida, USA

Posted 08 October 2017 - 10:43 AM

As far as I can tell, still no mention or effort for the development of Virtual Reality implementation for MWO or the new Mechwarrior 5.

Very disappointing PGI !!!

What a great opportunity and challenge to this studio but still no leadership from the top !!!

Sad, very sad :(

Edited by Aidan, 08 October 2017 - 10:44 AM.


#228 Lord Damian GTO

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 04:55 AM

RANT ON
--------------
I have played for 2-3 years and I can easy so there has been some improvement, but much has been dumbed down.
Map has been changed to force speed battle to the middle. You are forced to use less strategy to win.
Now they want to make it even worse with 8v8. Soon they just put both team on side of a hill, so they can run over and kill each others. I did love viridian bog, as it was a challenge to play. Now its just a slather feast and you can only hope you are on a good team.
Dont get me wrong. I love MechWarrior, but not the way its going. Its going like all arena games, fast pointless action that luck is the big factor if you win. Strategy is not that important anymore.

I also think 16v16 and more would be fun, but they have done the game engine slower and slower and the game more and more graphics intense. They focus on wrong things. They should focus to make the game better to play and not more easy. Even the new event system is a joke. Why not just give away stuff for free? its close to that now. Its no challenge at all, even for a beginner.
The new maps and change of the old one only is for one thing, make the game easier to play and faster. I guess its for luring the FPS people to the game and they will complain if the game is more then 5 minuts. I rather play 20 minuts with a good game, then 5 minuts with just luck if you win with the team.
I do welcome more new maps, but make them interesting to play and not more forced action play, like you almost see your enemy from the start, like Alpine peeks.
Even the faction wars is bad today. it take long to play, but you know the first 2 minuts how the game will go. Its so unbalanced and if you end up in a beginners team and face an elite team you know what is coming. It dont matter how good you are, you will loose anyway and you wasted much time for nothing.
Even QP suffer from this. Its unbalanced and you most of the time win big or loose big. There must be a better way to match people against each other.
Even the new intrusion game mode is flawed. I can not count how many time I've done and seen match ended up with one mech that destroyed the base. Its to easy to destroy and you can easy do it with one light mech.

Make better maps that force you to use strategy to win and not luck. Also that they dont force you to go to the middle to fight.
Make a gamemode that force you to use strategy to win and you cant win just to destroy the other team.

RANT OFF
---------------

I do love the game, as I love to play mechs, So keep working with this game, but dont destroy the fun with it.

#229 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:18 AM

View PostLord Damian GTO, on 11 October 2017 - 04:55 AM, said:


<stuff>



This is the trouble with this game and perhaps, their implementation. When you throw around phrases like "don't destroy the fun", you are getting into subjective territory... territory where you may find other people have a very different idea of what "fun" is. Add to that the varying degree of investment (from whale to "cheapskate") and you kinda have to take the compromises they make since, based on my observations, they tend to try to please everyone, and then fail (to varying degrees) because that is essentially impossible.

Having said all that, there is a really good chance that had they not gone about things the way they did (freemium, extended open beta) perhaps the game would never have made it to the gate, let alone out of it. We.just.don't.know.

#230 Lord Damian GTO

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:22 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 11 October 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:


This is the trouble with this game and perhaps, their implementation. When you throw around phrases like "don't destroy the fun", you are getting into subjective territory... territory where you may find other people have a very different idea of what "fun" is. Add to that the varying degree of investment (from whale to "cheapskate") and you kinda have to take the compromises they make since, based on my observations, they tend to try to please everyone, and then fail (to varying degrees) because that is essentially impossible.

Having said all that, there is a really good chance that had they not gone about things the way they did (freemium, extended open beta) perhaps the game would never have made it to the gate, let alone out of it. We.just.don't.know.


Sure I know fun is different for different people. The point is not make it worse and make it just a bad arena game. I invested both money and time into the game, and I dont like how it turns out and the future plan they have is not promising. I looks like the change the game for new players, but forgets the people already played it for long time.
So it looks like they just want to earn more money and dont care much about the game, more then make it so more people buy stuff from them. I have seen this in many games and its never e good thing. Sure I understand that they need to earn money, but they do it the easy way.
I also think they try to please all people, but thats a stupid thing to do. You just cant do it and in the process you destroy what you are making.
I wish they made a gamemode that the goal was not to kill all other, lika all gamemode is today. It dont matter what gamemode they have done, as they keep the same rules to them. So people tent to play the same way, ignoring the gamemode and just kill the other team. Just to remove the rule so you can with if you kill the other team would make the game much better and the gamemodes would work like that are made for.

#231 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 11 October 2017 - 07:03 AM

That's the crux of it though right?

They have to keep the game engaging for us long time players, many of us have tons of mechs and may not feel the need to purchase more. There is no money in that unless they push new mechs/tech that render what we possess as obsolete (power creep).

But if they introduce power creep (or push it further, better said) there will be blowback and they lose players (but perhaps not paying customers, there is a difference).

However, if they attract new players, they can make new whales (hopefully) and get an influx of cash WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING IN AND OF ITSELF so that they can keep providing a game at all.

I don't think this is unique to MWO, other than this is an IP *rich* in history with a loyal fanbase that stems from various products, whether it be Table Top BT, MW PC games, or any other gaming convention... They all came here expecting this game to conform to their idea of what the modern MW universe should be like...

...and to some extent we will all be disappointed because they can't possibly please all of us.

About the only thing I can think of the do here is (and they don't have the population for this) is break games out into "eras" so that you have a pre-3050 era, a 3050-3069 era, etc... The idea is that:
1) you can't drop in a mech that predates an "era"
2) each variant has a prime era when it was produced and perhaps gets quirks during that era
3) you can drop in a mech in an era *after* its "prime era" but it has aged and quirks degrade the further from your prime era you get.

This would introduce a concept of obsolescence that is *plausible* as they advance the timeline but allows all mechs to be played in their prime era against other mechs in that era (balance). However, if you want to compete in the most recent era with the shiniest toys, you need to buy a mech pack. Otherwise, you have to drop in a (slightly?) inferior mech outside its prime era....

Like I said it may be too late for something like that, but that's my thought...

#232 Lord Damian GTO

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 08:20 AM

MovinTarget



I do agree with some of it. I know they need get more player to pay and the easy way is getting new player, as they tend to spend more then player that already plays, but its a short term deal. If the older player dont want to spend more money they will run out of player that pays. Many good games has gone that road and now they are gone or free to keep some player there.

I dont mind to buy more mechs or other stuff if they are interesting. But as I think the game is going downhill I not sure I will invest more money into it.

But I do feel they need to make so even older player like to play it, not just the new players. Make challenge that is worth the word. The event now you can finish just to play. You dont even have to do it well. Like the 5 kill. The 2 first game I played for that I got 10 kills. So has all event been, beside the headshot, as I did not have time for that and I think that is a hard one for me.

But the gamemodes they need to change an force it. I think you should choose the gamemode then you get the chose of the map. Then you decide yourself what you want to play. IT would open up more they can work on those gamemode that is not good.
Also add much more maps. I cant see why there is so few maps. They have a map maker and its not that hard to make one. If they make atleast one in a month they can easy make the game more interesting.

One thing I would like to do is kick or punch. Its a mech and why should you not be able to use your legs or hands?
Sure I know it would be vary hard to make, but it would make the game more fun and fair. That would give atlas etc more chance against lights. Now if an atlas is alone with a light they have no chance to defend them. with the smallest mechs you can stand infront of an atlas and just kill them and they cant do anything about it.
One funny gamemode would be that you need to go to a building and get a box with instruction/key to be able to look up the final base. They could be spread out, like the conquest, but instead of a counter you get a key. If you have 3 you could go to the enemy base and take it. You could easy to some other gamemode on the same concept. Bottom line it would break the "rush to the middle and kill the other team" mentality there is now. It would demand more of the team and it would be harder to win.

Edited by Lord Damian GTO, 11 October 2017 - 08:21 AM.


#233 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 11 October 2017 - 08:38 AM

See? And just like that, we've both fallen into the trap of "it would be nice if they..." we both have plausible, seemingly reasonable ideas that may either take an exhorbitant amount of work or are possibly a tecnical impossibility based on backend design.

I mean sure it'd be great to have melee, that'd keep people from stripping arms/legs to meta, i just know there have been physics issues in the game which is why knockdown was taken out years ago, never to be seen again...

Edited by MovinTarget, 11 October 2017 - 08:53 AM.


#234 Lord Damian GTO

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 10:07 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 11 October 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

See? And just like that, we've both fallen into the trap of "it would be nice if they..." we both have plausible, seemingly reasonable ideas that may either take an exhorbitant amount of work or are possibly a tecnical impossibility based on backend design.

I mean sure it'd be great to have melee, that'd keep people from stripping arms/legs to meta, i just know there have been physics issues in the game which is why knockdown was taken out years ago, never to be seen again...


Maybe, but I try to explain what I think its wrong with the game and also some change that would make it better. Sure I know that "trap" but still its hard to talk about things if you cant talk about the problem and a possibly solution for it.
Sure I know the problem they had, but still the game Engine has moved forward a lot since then. But still I can understand the problem with the kicking etc. It still would make the game much better.
But also I think thats a problem with the game. Its more important for them to work on the mechs interior graphics, then fix the gameplay. Since I started to play i been through 3 generation of graphics card. I get that it must look better and better, but the gameplay is suffering from it. Also I know the game engine they use lets you custom the look a lot, but they only use a very few things and some is just bad. So why dont open that up so you can change it more, as its already in the game engine?

#235 KHAN ATTAKHAN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 446 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 12 October 2017 - 03:18 AM

Bolt on geometry, cool, I want bolt on sharks, if sharks can have frikkin lasers then I can have frikkin sharks

#236 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 12 October 2017 - 04:45 AM

View PostKHAN ATTAKHAN, on 12 October 2017 - 03:18 AM, said:

Bolt on geometry, cool, I want bolt on sharks, if sharks can have frikkin lasers then I can have frikkin sharks


I would have bolt-on kittens... That would be hard-core.

#237 g4borg

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 25 posts

Posted 23 October 2017 - 05:13 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 25 September 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

So unless you have suggestions that are rational and grounded logic about how to better optimize the code (lol good luck w/ that) for more mechs in play simultaneously, I would suggest living in the real world and not in the realm of faulty expectations that have littered this forumscape for so many years.


to be honest, all i see littering the forums is people who militantly want 8v8 to come back.

i mean i get it, 12v12 is above the dogfight format, it is more chaotic, it allows single "heroes" of the game less show of their mighty carry powers. And there is this nostalgia about 8v8 that seems this. but lets be honest, your tales of a client side problem in FP which caused fps drops because of dead body polygons is not really an example of why 8v8 is better.

first off, they only change QP, not FW. second, such issues happen, and can be fixed. third, this is clearly a client side issue, as if you have the option to reduce model complexity client side, you can fix it. and last, for me as a programmer, that only shows, that these problems were occuring anyway, it was just less prevalent in 8v8.

as long as the sim speed of the game is not impacted (which i doubt between 16 and 24 players to be the case in any engine), and the network code is not suffering (which yet again is pretty unlikely between these two numbers), technically there should be almost no reason why 8v8 was "just better", and the whole "technical aspect" of "the game not being optimized for 24 players" is quite questionable for me, as I do not see technical reasons to play a role in this, at all. I can imagine secondary game design decisions, like map size of course, but I am more the programmer who sees the mechanics rather than the dynamics.

View PostMovinTarget, on 25 September 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

How is this a downgrade?


It is a downgrade, because there already is an option to play 8v8 in teams, which seems to be underused. It is a downgrade, because the number gets smaller.

If you are not coming from battletech - which most new players might be, as i think the greater part of the battletech fanbase already is or was present here - the only things that you see in this game beyond mechs stomping each other is the game sizes and group tactics, so the gameplay itself. and yes, there 8v8 is quite small to average for todays standards, and not really enticing, while 12v12 sounds just about right.

Games that had 12v12 when MWO started, so the same age, already experiment with 16v16 or higher nowadays, simply because you can rely on your clients to upgrade their rigs over time. Not that I won't agree with you, that at a certain number, you won't see a difference (there isn't much difference in mount&blade between an 80 player and 100 player instance, the chaos is basicly the same)

If we talk about being more enticing to new players, its is less the gameplay itself anyway, we should look at. It's more the whole uninviting UI which showers you with things you never heard of before, which is partly interesting for geeky people like me, but intimidating and confusing for many average players; it is the loading times between scene transitions, popups not disappearing, unexplained things, and generally, i could just go on why most of the people will turn this game down not because of its gameplay, but because of it's UI impressions, before they even enter their first match.

Personally, I will just wait how this whole thing plays out. 8v8 will be a downgrade for me, as waiting for 5 minutes to get a medium sized game kinda isn't enticing at all; In terms of game design, this game cries for 12v12 or 16v16 format, also because of the 4-classes-of-mechs setup, and larger amounts would mainly also solve the whole deathballing issue, because you can easily divide a larger force, while aoe damage and line of sight gets an issue in a larger crowd.

I only read one thing out of this roadmap: lets try it, get the feedback, and kinda also hope that those who militantly fight for 8v8 realize, it was not their real issue in the first place.

View PostMovinTarget, on 11 October 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

About the only thing I can think of the do here is (and they don't have the population for this) is break games out into "eras" so that you have a pre-3050 era, a 3050-3069 era, etc...

Funny. I played thousands of hours of star confl., which basicly suffers exactly from the problem of a tiered/ranked shiptree, and the idea that you cannot simply take any ship into the fight, with all the ensuing balancing problems. There it is more than obvious, that the approach of MWO to provide all endgame units was not just bold for their time, but proved to be the right choice aswell. Large amounts of SC hardcore population left that game to become a kindergarten cash grab - while mwo is still kicking with extremely old players present and active. Both games started around 2012-2013.

So I really hope they never ever do this, and rather focus on going broader, and add the "tactical aspect" of battletech into it inbetween the matches, maybe even try to add aerial combat one day or stuff like this.

At least, there is a vacuum for 3rd person tactical arena space shooters.

#238 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • Mercenary Rank 10
  • 3,793 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 23 October 2017 - 05:56 AM

So again, the response is that if you like the idea of 8v8 then you have to cobble together a team and play comp mode.

Not everyone wants to play comp mode.

You are entitled to your opinion, I just don't understand why I'm not entitled to mine...

To restate since you left it out of your quotes of me, I have no problem with 12v12 *when the population can support multiple 12v12 happening simultaneously* (i.e. you don't see the same people every game).

So during peak playing hours, 12v12 should certainly be an option, however, lots of us play off-peak and if there are say, only ~100 players online ATM you could have 4 12v12 concurrently (4x24 = 96) or 6 8v8 (6x16=96) which would give you more variety in combinations, lower wait times, etc.

I am sure there can be some drawbacks to 8v8, but off-peak/low pop servers could use some love too.

So what do you really lose if you pug drop solo in 8v8 instead of 12v12? Pug armor?

You mention that 12v12 gives players an opportunity to show off their "Carry powers"... It can easily swing the other way which is why I try not to use player matching too much in my arguments because ELO matching is a whole different ball of wax.

BTW, I am not saying 8v8 is an upgrade, only that it is not wholly a downgrade. 12v12, 8v8, 4v4 would all have advantages/drawbacks. I only dismiss the mega-games (36v36?) as being not universally supportable by machines running near/at minimum specs.

Edited by MovinTarget, 23 October 2017 - 05:57 AM.


#239 Ahernar

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 33 posts

Posted 23 October 2017 - 09:08 AM

I really really like the ideea of first person mechbay , but please let us move a little , 5 meters / 5meters or so , this will help with depth perception . Just a fixed camera will not be enough . 8 vs 8 is ok ...i survived the good old days of group stomps .

#240 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts

Posted 23 October 2017 - 04:17 PM

View Postg4borg, on 23 October 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

[...]
It is a downgrade, because there already is an option to play 8v8 in teams, which seems to be underused. It is a downgrade, because the number gets smaller.
[...]

By this same logic, 8v8 is not a downgrade because FW already has 12v12. What I'm saying is that It's a different game mode.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users