84 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

As a thank you to all the guys who have provided written transcripts of previous Town Halls and Podcasts, today I've stepped up and done the hard yards of documenting the latest NG:NG podcast myself.

I've contained my personal commentary and reactions to a bare minimum, indicated by italics.

---

Questioned about PGI's energy/exhaustion level, Russ says lots of hard work has been put in by the team but his personal energy level is just today picking up. "There are things we didn't do, but..." (ominous)

<30 tickets available at this point, almost sold out. There will be major attendance by "VIPs" (rattles of a list of streamers plus George Ledoux). 50% growth in size year on year. It's a bigger venue/hotel.

(10 minute mark)

MechCon will be 12 hours - noon to midnight. HBS, Catalyst Games and PGI will there.

Daeron wants to talk about MWO. Russ would prefer to talk about other participants first. Russ wants to know from Daeron what Catalyst are planning to show because Daeron has been to more MechCon meetings than Russ (!) Daeron replies they will be showing off their tabletop gaming (surprise!) in a bigger booth than last year.

nVidia is supplying the PCs to be used in demos and WC.

HBS are going to have multi- and singleplayer versions of their game available on 10 machines. Russ speculates that it will be a fairly-close-to-final version of BattleTech. HBS will also give a presentation from the stage.

More about how MechCon has grown. "Everything's just bigger and better, Daeron!" says Russ.

An MWO city map is coming up, by the same designers who gave us Rubellite Oasis. Map with some gameplay footage will be shown at Mech Con. Artistically it "might surprise people". Russ has "some nervousness" about it. (ominous?) Russ isn't sure when it will be patched in. He was originally targeting Feb, but now thinks it will be March.

"A lot of map work" besides the city map is going on. Paul is uncomfortable about this being discussed. Russ defers further questions to Paul. Paul doesn't want to discuss it.

(23 minute mark)

Phil wants to know more about Solaris and Mech personalisation. Paul just wants to avoid answering questions, and after a (tedious) minute asks Phil and Daeron to lay out what they think they know about it (FFS). More minutes of trying to get Paul to say something about anything. Eventually, even Russ gets mildly irritated by the level of non disclosure and asks Paul to say more.

Eventually it is disclosed that four other arenas (ie besides the already seen Steiner Arena) are planned. Each has a different theme. Paul helpfully discloses that one will have "a lot of dirt and rocks in it".

The bolt-on cosmetics that are being introduced along with Solaris wont affect hitboxes. They will fall off if hit. The bolt-ons are more than just new arms and legs. Many are ready already. Amazing Mech designs will be possible.

Some bolt-ons will look melee-like. However, Russ cautions us not to expect melee combat in Solaris. Makes a vague statement about Maybe One Day™. (pause while I repair the monitor that I just put my head through)

MWO will have some significant time on the stage: video on Solaris, video on new map, release month announcement for Solaris ("closer than most anticipate", further away than some might want)... "This is a BIG FEATURE. This is a MAJOR feature update." They are adding aspects to MWO that aren't directly related to Solaris... functionality to Mechs that is far-reaching.

"MWO is not the forgotten product. MWO is significant to us, still very important. MWO is still getting significant development time, resources and features development."

(34 minute mark)

Conversation moves to MW5... Alexander Garden was the pilot seen in the recent promo video. The purpose of the video was to give a sense of the scale, see map aesthetics and destructability, procedural map. Bombadil says there's "another year of development" ahead for MW5. Don't pick the video apart on gameplay matters. Criticism is premature.

Russ says the build featured in the video was a month ago. The demo he is playing today is 10x better than the one shown in the video. Demo will be playable at MechCon. The need to be ready for PC Gamer, then PolyGon then MechCon has really helped them push the game's development.

Russ "feels like he is one of us" in making the game we all want. He is trying to give players what we have always wanted. Says he is completely sincere in this. Discusses how MW games became more linear as they went on. Wants MW5 to be more open and free. MWO was the fulfillment of what Russ always wanted in a multiplayer environment. MW5 will be what Russ always wanted as a single player - replayability, run a business as an entrepreneur in the IS.

MW5 will have no loading screens.

(45 minute mark)

Engine choice is very important. PGI have enough expertise and staff to change the engine, BUT that takes up time and resources. For MW5 they want to use the engine "as is" so they can focus their dev time on the game and content.

Discussion about persistent immersion while playing MW5. Russ has always wanted to walk around the hangar, see his Mech being repaired, etc. Every time a Mech gets damaged, you'll feel it in not just in your Mech, but in your hip pocket as you manage your business.

4 map biomes will be playable at MechCon. Canyon, Mars, Moon, Earth-like Forest. The latter is the best looking one so far.

Replayability is critical. We are pushing hard for it and its turning out well. 40,50,60 hours of gameplay probably (this seems to relate to the length of your career in a single end to end game). You're running your Merc business. Your location in the IS will affect the chassis available, and the contracts/enemies you get.

Mentions "reaching Elite Status by end of your career time" might not be possible if you try to traverse the entire IS. But you can start in different places. Says the game "could be infinitely replayable".

Regarding what "procedural map" means for MW5... (Gist is that it's only half procedural in the way that many of us would understand.) They are using "rule based generation". Designers make the most interesting levels, but they don't have 20 years to build the game. So PGI are taking a mixed approach. Designers are creating the tilesets and rules for assembling them into maps. Biomes will be applicable to all tilesets.

Sentry posts, base locations, Mech opponents will vary by mission. (yay!)

(55 minute mark)

Russ is open to questions from chat. But cautions that he is holding news for MechCon and so may choose not to answer many questions.

MW5 is "you buy it and you own it". It is not F2P. It is a single purchase. Doesn't mean there won't be DLC. But DLC will be extra content (not loot crates). He doesn't know yet, but more traditional model, such as expansion packs.

Russ wants to take a break and confer privately. (Maybe Russ is counselling Paul over his almost complete non-contribution. Or maybe Paul is complaining to Russ about saying things :-)

(1hr 7 minute mark - podcast resumes)

There will be a MechLab in MW5. Your Mechs will be constantly getting damaged. Unlike MWO, you have to repair. MWO has an "insane" level of customisation as it adds unending depth. But MW5 has a different reliance to achieve its variety... lore and marketplace.

Marketplace will be a critical aspect of MW5. Purchasable goods will constantly update based on period of time, location in space, etc. It will be a big deal when you eventually see a Mech with a tech upgrade like Ferro. In the marketplace, different manufacturers will offer different versions of the weapons. Technicians (that you apparently will need to hire) will have different expertises with different weapons and manufacturers. The marketplace can't be overwhelmed by too much customisability, so it has to be different to MWO.

Russ says there are still some major announcements to be made at MechCon.

Phil and Daeron wax lyrical about how happy they are with what they've heard, and how important it is, that MW5 will have depth in terms of equipment, economy, logistics, replayability etc... things missing from MWO.

On this Russ says MW5 isn't just about taking missions, fight Mechs, come back. Managing how little damage you take also matters a lot due to the economy. Fighting is a consequence of the mission, not the only goal of the mission. Eg. some missions might be to destroy farms and you can choose whether to engage with defenders or not.

Will there be moral choices? Will you have a relationship with your unit's mercs? Russ is vague and his reply suggests "no". It will be more basic ... "reputation level with different Houses".

Russ invites design/mission suggestions via his Twitter.

(1 hour 24 minute mark)

MW5 will be available on Steam and elsewhere, including a PGI portal. It will require Steam as PGI want to use the Steam API 100% for features like friend lists.

There will be a Solaris 1v1 Arena at MechCon. Preview of what you can do in the new MWO Mech Bay (part of the Solaris patch) will be shown at MechCon.

Russ enjoys an existentially philosophical moment... "When I die of a heart attack who will take the MechCon torch forward?" (Clarifies that he is not alluding to a genuine health issue.) "Sometimes it's cool to reflect on the last 6 years of being immersed in BattleTech. We've accomplished a lot. That's really cool I think."

Hosts and guests express love for the WC finalist teams, most of whom they will see again at MechCon.

(1 hour 33 minute mark)

More MechCon hype. Logistics of the event. List of VIPs. Decision not to announce Mech Pack today.

Thank you sponsors, don't forget to subscribe, etc.

Edited by Appogee, 02 December 2017 - 02:41 AM.

[The Lighthouse]

I mean they can promise a lot of things. Promising something is not hard.

Actually doing is.

So it will take more than a year, which means MWO will suffer at least more than a year. I guess at that point my interest in this game will diminished to the point that I would not even bother checking this forum anymore.

[Kotzi]

Anyone can talk the talk. Sounds like a lot for one year. But as i dont have any experience in creating such an project its just my 2 cents.

[Juodas Varnas]

Nothing about quads?

That's a lame podcast.

[Sjorpha]

[Appogee]

LOL, only just worked out what that gif related to

Edited by Appogee, 02 December 2017 - 04:12 AM.

[arcana75]

Thanks @Appogee for the transcript! I missed the podcast, got the day wrong.

[Bud Crue]

So nothing on the current mess that they call balance in this game? No follow up to their assertion that after skills tree balance was nearly perfect across the board, but despite that near perfection we needed 5 months of constant and seeming random nerfs? Nothing on that?

Screw MW5. I want to know when, and in what proposed manner they are going to fix the mess they made in the one actual product they have. Somehow I don't think "we will fix what we broke and clean up our mess" will be a big reveal at mechcon.

Thanks for the summery Appogee, but these people are killing my will to buy, to play and to trust that their future endeavors will be worth my time or money.

Edited by Bud Crue, 02 December 2017 - 04:25 AM.

[Xetelian]

Some people seem to be really hard on Paul.
Then Paul literally has to be coaxed into saying anything about anything while doing a podcast about a future event and its features.
I'm sure he is a really nice guy and PR isn't his strong suit but you'd think they'd know enough about these interviews ahead of time to have a prepared list of things they will talk about and a definite list of what they wont.

I understand why they are using procedural generation but I'm terrified of it because I've seen it go very wrong enough times to worry. Maybe I just have had bad examples in my life, but hearing about it makes me long for well constructed maps and lots of them. I also understand they don't have a decade to work on the game.

I am also quite worried about the Repair and Rearm and economy in MW5. A good question would be "can you end up stuck and unable to proceed with a play through? How easy will it be to lose like this? How dependent are good results and progression based on how good a pilot you are? Will lower skill players ever be able to reach elite?


This really makes me long for the days with story missions and linear game play. Less replay value, maybe, but you don't have to start from scratch because you stretched your resources too thin, if that is the case. Also, I really liked the stories.


I'd also like to know if they will be having DLC, Season Passes, Microtransactions, or have any actual expansions already planned. This may have been covered at some other point but I didn't see it.


I'm with Bud Crue in feeling my will to continue being a paying customer waning.

[Rodrigo Martinez]

All I hope that the developement of MW5 won't hit hard the MWO developement. And would be great to see the MWO on a new engine in first half of 2018.

[Jonathan8883]

Xetelian, on 02 December 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

I am also quite worried about the Repair and Rearm and economy in MW5. A good question would be "can you end up stuck and unable to proceed with a play through? How easy will it be to lose like this? How dependent are good results and progression based on how good a pilot you are? Will lower skill players ever be able to reach elite?


This really makes me long for the days with story missions and linear game play. Less replay value, maybe, but you don't have to start from scratch because you stretched your resources too thin, if that is the case. Also, I really liked the stories.

Back when we were kids, you could actually lose at a game, not just "barely make it past the final boss." I'm fine with a game that gives me the ability to completely screw up and have to restart, versus "I always win, it's just a question of how long."

Heck, that's what happened in my first game of MW2: Mercs. I kept adding more and more heat sinks to the mech (a bug), and then sold it for a slightly bigger one, which I couldn't afford to equip. I think I ended up with a half-equipped Urbanmech and not enough money to pay the bills.

[Appogee]

Xetelian, on 02 December 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

Some people seem to be really hard on Paul.
Then Paul literally has to be coaxed into saying anything about anything while doing a podcast about a future event and its features.
I'm sure he is a really nice guy and PR isn't his strong suit but you'd think they'd know enough about these interviews ahead of time to have a prepared list of things they will talk about and a definite list of what they wont.

Picture me biting my tongue.

Xetelian, on 02 December 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

I understand why they are using procedural generation but I'm terrified of it because I've seen it go very wrong enough times to worry.

If I understood them correctly, what they're doing can barely be described as 'procedural' in the way most of us would understand that term.

They are creating tilesets, and designers are going to assemble those tilesets into a library of tile layouts which form the base map. Once the basic tileset is assembled into a map, the game will then 'decorate' the tiles with one of four sets of biome textures.

The game will then place key things like base assets, sentry towers, enemy Mechs into the map. I conjecture that this will be the only 'rule based' part of the map creation.

Personally, I'd prefer fully procedural maps. I could live with the occasional odd landmass and glitch if it meant infinitely variable landscapes.

What I don't want is 16 or so basic map configurations, colored with four different sets of textures. That will get boring quickly, as we'll start to recognise the map layouts and they will play out in similar ways.

BTW: if we had genuine procedurally generated maps in MWO, as I suggested in 2013, the game wouldn't feel anywhere near as stale as it does today, we wouldn't be waiting years between maps, and PGI would have more dev time to spend on gameplay and features.

Edited by Appogee, 02 December 2017 - 06:02 AM.

[Xetelian]

Jonathan8883, on 02 December 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

Back when we were kids, you could actually lose at a game, not just "barely make it past the final boss." I'm fine with a game that gives me the ability to completely screw up and have to restart, versus "I always win, it's just a question of how long."

Heck, that's what happened in my first game of MW2: Mercs. I kept adding more and more heat sinks to the mech (a bug), and then sold it for a slightly bigger one, which I couldn't afford to equip. I think I ended up with a half-equipped Urbanmech and not enough money to pay the bills.

Never said I didn't want a challenge or the possibility of losing. I play rogue-likes and Darksouls but I remember how Repair/Rearm was implemented in MWO and how frustrating that was and have little faith they know how to make an economy that isn't stupid.


I just want to know how much am I expected to micromanage and budget (not my strongest suit) and how much my tier 2 skill level can expect to achieve. I want to know if I am going to be completely screwed if I hire an extra technician or buy a PPC and how often I can expect something like that to happen.

Some of you are Spreadsheet warriors and I am not.


I grew up on Nintendo and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game, I know the burn of an impossible game. I also beat Mario before I could read and don't mind putting the time in to 'get gud' when it is fun.



I'm just really worried about a fledgling studio that has a 'Paulconomy' and 500 gold mechs balancing a single player experience around its own economy and having that tied to progression.


At this point I am WAAAY more excited for Battletech than I am MW5.

Appogee, on 02 December 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Picture me biting my tongue.


If I understood them correctly, what they're doing can barely be described as 'procedural' in the way most of us would understand that term.

They are creating tilesets, and designers are going to assemble those tilesets into a library of tile layouts which form the base map. Once the basic tileset is assembled into a map, the game will then 'decorate' the tiles with one of four sets of biome textures.

The game will then place key things like base assets, sentry towers, enemy Mechs into the map. I conjecture that this will be the only 'rule based' part of the map creation.

Personally, I'd prefer fully procedural maps. I could live with the occasional odd landmass and glitch if it meant infinitely variable landscapes.

What I don't want is 16 or so basic map configurations, colored with four different sets of textures. That will get boring quickly, as we'll start to recognise the map layouts and they will play out in similar ways.

BTW: if we had genuine procedurally generated maps in MWO, as I suggested in 2013, the game wouldn't feel anywhere near as stale as it does today, we wouldn't be waiting years between maps, and PGI would have more dev time to spend on gameplay and features.

I totally agree that having a handful of maps would get really old really fast.

I just have a concern that placement of things could completely screw a campaign.

Edited by Xetelian, 02 December 2017 - 06:10 AM.

[arcana75]

Appogee, on 02 December 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

Picture me biting my tongue.


If I understood them correctly, what they're doing can barely be described as 'procedural' in the way most of us would understand that term.

They are creating tilesets, and designers are going to assemble those tilesets into a library of tile layouts which form the base map. Once the basic tileset is assembled into a map, the game will then 'decorate' the tiles with one of four sets of biome textures.

The game will then place key things like base assets, sentry towers, enemy Mechs into the map. I conjecture that this will be the only 'rule based' part of the map creation.

Personally, I'd prefer fully procedural maps. I could live with the occasional odd landmass and glitch if it meant infinitely variable landscapes.

What I don't want is 16 or so basic map configurations, colored with four different sets of textures. That will get boring quickly, as we'll start to recognise the map layouts and they will play out in similar ways.

BTW: if we had genuine procedurally generated maps in MWO, as I suggested in 2013, the game wouldn't feel anywhere near as stale as it does today, we wouldn't be waiting years between maps, and PGI would have more dev time to spend on gameplay and features.

The way I interpreted the "procedural" part, was based on the clue about rules for assets placed within the map. Because these rules exist, I think each tile's contents are hand-crafted or fixed, and each "floor" procedural. The best facsimile are popular tile-based boardgames like Tsuro and Carcassonne, where players have decks of fixed tiles, and the game is based on players playing tiles to turn by turn build a world map. There are rules around the way the tiles connect, eg in Carcassonne if a tile had a road or river or castle wall, the next tile had to "connect" it to continue it: it cannot end abruptly. As the world forms, players can start putting game assets onto the world to begin playing the game, eg in Carcassonne, players can rush to "seize" a castle by placing assets onto castle-land tiles, and once a castle is fully enclosed by castle-wall tiles, the castle is seized by the player with the most assets in play within the castle walls.

There are many such tile-based boardgames, and they all have similar tile rules. I conjecture that MW5's procedural system will follow such boardgame systems and that there's going to be only 2 "random" parts, the world-map building using fixed tiles, and the placement of assets within each tile.

The trick is having enough tiles to make each world feel fresh, based on the procedural aspect of world building. 16 isn't that bad, depends on how many tiles used per world. I think the polygon article said 4? I forget, but with enough tiles say 100, you'll have a huge variety of worlds. With 4 tiles per world and 100 different tiles you can get 94 million different worlds; with 9 tiles, 850 billion different worlds. 16 tiles and 4 tiles per world, and each world has 4 biome configs? 174,720 different combinations.

Though hopefully the procedural system becomes more like Skyrim's than No Man's Sky's.

Edited by arcana75, 02 December 2017 - 06:37 AM.

[Appogee]

arcana75, on 02 December 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

The way I interpreted the "procedural" part, was based on the clue about rules for assets placed within the map. Because these rules exist, I think each tile's contents are hand-crafted or fixed, and each "floor" procedural. The best facsimile are popular tile-based boardgames like Tsuro and Carcassonne, where players have decks of fixed tiles, and the game is based on players playing tiles to turn by turn build a world map. There are rules around the way the tiles connect, eg in Carcassonne if a tile had a road or river or castle wall, the next tile had to "connect" it to continue it: it cannot end abruptly. As the world forms, players can start putting game assets onto the world to begin playing the game, eg in Carcassonne, players can rush to "seize" a castle by placing assets onto castle-land tiles, and once a castle is fully enclosed by castle-wall tiles, the castle is seized by the player with the most assets in play within the castle walls.

There are many such tile-based boardgames, and they all have similar tile rules. I conjecture that MW5's procedural system will follow such boardgame systems and that there's going to be only 2 "random" parts, the world-map building using fixed tiles, and the placement of assets within each tile.

I think you are probably right.

[Asym]

Bud Crue, on 02 December 2017 - 04:24 AM, said:

So nothing on the current mess that they call balance in this game? No follow up to their assertion that after skills tree balance was nearly perfect across the board, but despite that near perfection we needed 5 months of constant and seeming random nerfs? Nothing on that?

Screw MW5. I want to know when, and in what proposed manner they are going to fix the mess they made in the one actual product they have. Somehow I don't think "we will fix what we broke and clean up our mess" will be a big reveal at mechcon.

Thanks for the summery Appogee, but these people are killing my will to buy, to play and to trust that their future endeavors will be worth my time or money.

Thanks Appogee !!! I really wanted to be involved but life got in the way.... Go figure.

Hey Bud, there is a correlation between the "random nerfs" and this podcast's "Solaris" intent.... I've been reminding the forum of that fact for months now: the nerfs are necessary for Solaris to work and, they (PGI), aren't done because they need maximum battlespace time for Solaris to actually work; which means, weapons need to be less deadly...... I know what most will say but, I'm pretty sure I'm right....

Will PGI fix MWO: yes and no. Yes, they will create Solaris and the brawling community that wants to shoot stompy robots till they go blind will have their way. No, a small faction will go to HBS and BT because MWO FP is dead. No again, for another small population that will defect to MW5 and not come back (especially, if it is good or at least reasonable) because of the R³ aspects of the game and the economy aspects of the game.... So, realistically, everybody sort of get a little of what they want: brawlers can brawl till they go blind; Lore-ists can sit around and whip themselves into a frenzy in a turn-style game; and, those that want "everything" else and want to "play alone" have another game to indulge their independant desires to excel or fail in private.... A good business model................but, quite possibly a niche breaking move....

[Bud Crue]

Asym, on 02 December 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

Hey Bud, there is a correlation between the "random nerfs" and this podcast's "Solaris" intent.... I've been reminding the forum of that fact for months now: the nerfs are necessary for Solaris to work and, they (PGI), aren't done because they need maximum battlespace time for Solaris to actually work; which means, weapons need to be less deadly...... I know what most will say but, I'm pretty sure I'm right....

You may be right but if Solaris is going to focus on 1v1 and 2v2 play, then I don't see the nerfs and other changes being a big impactor on such matches. There has to be more to it than that, otherwise it is just simple misunderstanding of their own game mechanics.

I mean none of the nerfs, not one, do anything to cut down on clan alpha potential for example. If these +70 point alphas are maintained then maximizing the battle space is a nonissue. 2-4 shots and done for most matches in the 1v1 and 2v2 setting. There is no way PGI can or will nerf those weapons and mechs to such an extent that they will some how be a less significant factor in the Solaris mode as currently proposed. If Solaris is the prime mover of the recent nerfs then the VAST majority of mechs in the game will be out classed -even within their as yet unknown tiers- relative to their betters.

So much would need to change, and frankly in the direction of buffs not nerfs to make a lot of mechs viable in that setting; and PGI has given no indication of a plan to provide massive buffs to crap mechs, and crap weapons but instead keep nerfing the under performers and mediocre of both. That can't be good for expanding the proposed "battle space" of Solaris, when the top is just so much better than everything else and PGI keeps changing things to make that difference even more pronounced.

Frankly I don't care as to the why. I want it fixed. Now. Not after Solaris. Not after MW5 drops. I want to have a reason to play more than a handful of mechs and builds. I want PGI to give me a reason to believe that they have some inkling of a plan and that plan actually involves a whiff of effort at making things balanced. If they want me to send time and no small amount of continued spending on this game they need to do this and do it pretty damn quick.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Xetelian, on 02 December 2017 - 05:04 AM, said:

I'd also like to know if they will be having DLC, Season Passes, Microtransactions, or have any actual expansions already planned. This may have been covered at some other point but I didn't see it.

Appogee, on 02 December 2017 - 02:05 AM, said:

MW5 is "you buy it and you own it". It is not F2P. It is a single purchase. Doesn't mean there won't be DLC. But DLC will be extra content (not loot crates). He doesn't know yet, but more traditional model, such as expansion packs.

So DLC is a probably-maybe, loot boxes are out (for now), ExPacs are likely.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Asym, on 02 December 2017 - 06:37 AM, said:

Hey Bud, there is a correlation between the "random nerfs" and this podcast's "Solaris" intent.... I've been reminding the forum of that fact for months now: the nerfs are necessary for Solaris to work and, they (PGI), aren't done because they need maximum battlespace time for Solaris to actually work; which means, weapons need to be less deadly...... I know what most will say but, I'm pretty sure I'm right....

Will PGI fix MWO: yes and no. Yes, they will create Solaris and the brawling community that wants to shoot stompy robots till they go blind will have their way.

I just don't see it, with all the nerfs to brawling weapons.

Medium & Small class lasers, SRMs & UACs have all been hit in the last 12 months.

Unless you think PGI want us to brawl with LRMs & Large class lasers, you're working with a pretty flawed premise.

[s0da72]

hmmm, lets pull out the check list for 'last' years mech con promises.

1. Incursion mode
A complete disappointment. Basically it's Assualt mode with walls. It did not improve my enjoyment with the game nor did it make me want to play.

2. Skill tree
I found it enjoyable being able to tweek these settings if I want more armor verses fire power. But any fun or enjoyment from it is soon killed by the high cost. If PGI hadn't been so generous with the skill points conversions I probably would have walked away. The only reason I can think of this being here is to offer the player base a 'Sense of pride and accomplishment' putting 'day 1' users at a disadvantage giving them an incentive to spend money. At least with the old module system you could place fully updated modules on a new mech being leveled to help even the playing field bit.

3. new Tech
This is the only thing added this year that I found enjoyable. It added new options and possiblities to explore. But in the end eventually after exploring the different possibilites you're still left with the game modes that has become quite stale and predictable in quick play.

So what could they possibly annouce at this years mech con that will improve my enjoyment of the game?

Maybe a new game mode? Given the track recorded for quick play game modes even if they were to annouce a new one being added I would not be very excited about it.

Reduction in skill tree costs? LOL, in a F2P game? not going to happen.

new tech? doubtful..
oh well