69 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

They should bring back the Pink Boxes. They were sweet!.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:

There you go again.

Returning to 8v8 is a regression, an admission of failure. It is not something that will encourage new players to join. It will cause existing players to finally leave.

How is admission of failure a bad thing? You cannot improve unless you admit your mistakes.

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Going back to 8v8 is not a regression?

How is it a regression when it could potentially be an improvement? At the very least it is something that should be tested on the PTR.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 December 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[TheHurp]

going back to 8v8 could equally be seen as a return to the "good ol' days". why does it have to be considered a regression? why would people leave? i wasn't around for that but in no way do i have a sense that i'm going to leave simply because the match teams become smaller. i'm interested in experiencing how the match dynamics would change. i'm no comp player or vet who has been around forever but i don't feel any particular desire to quit based on 8v8 matches or feel threatened by the idea of it. likely, it would force me to improve and run off on my own less often.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 13 December 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

How is admission of failure a bad thing? You cannot improve unless you admit your mistakes.

How is it a regression when it could potentially be an improvement? At the very least it is something that should be tested on the PTR.

From a PR perspective (i.e. acquiring new players), it means PGI is incapable of finishing what they set out to do.

TheHurp, on 13 December 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

going back to 8v8 could equally be seen as a return to the "good ol' days". why does it have to be considered a regression? why would people leave? i wasn't around for that but in no way do i have a sense that i'm going to leave simply because the match teams become smaller. i'm interested in experiencing how the match dynamics would change. i'm no comp player or vet who has been around forever but i don't feel any particular desire to quit based on 8v8 matches or feel threatened by the idea of it. likely, it would force me to improve and run off on my own less often.

PGI should be expanding the game, not shrinking it. Going back to 8v8 is "shrinking" the game.

Edited by Mystere, 13 December 2017 - 09:07 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

PGI should be expanding the game, not shrinking it. Going back to 8v8 is "shrinking" the game.

8 VS 8 makes for a better experience, if you didn't know


Carrying 7 Potatos is easier than carrying 11 Potatos

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

From a PR perspective (i.e. acquiring new players), it means PGI is incapable of finishing what they set out to do.

That's a load of bull, especially on attracting new players. Other FPS games have even smaller teams and they do just fine. If anything, lower requirements on this unoptimized resource hogging game using 8v8 means more players can play MWO.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 December 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

From a PR perspective (i.e. acquiring new players), it means PGI is incapable of finishing what they set out to do.

True, but just like FP, some ideas were terrible and a fools errand that is a waste of time to try and finish because it wont solve anything. So still trying to make 12v12 or FP work is just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

PGI should be expanding the game, not shrinking it. Going back to 8v8 is "shrinking" the game.

Then lets shrink the game. The important part is that it's an improvement. Expand upon something that works better.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 13 December 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

That's a load of bull, especially on attracting new players. Other FPS games have even smaller teams and they do just fine. If anything, lower requirements on this unoptimized resource hogging game using 8v8 means more players can play MWO.

The forward-looking -- and PR friendly -- solution is to better optimize the game (among other things). If PGI cannot do that and instead continue to do things half-cocked, then they are making my point.

Edited by Mystere, 13 December 2017 - 09:44 AM.

[El Bandito]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

The forward-looking -- and PR friendly -- solution is to better optimize the game (among other things). If PGI cannot do that and instead continue to do things half-cocked, then they are making my point.

They did try to make the game run smoother, and succeeded in small ways, but that was the extent of their ability. In addition, Cry engine is a mess in the first place. Instead you should learn to ask them about solutions that are simpler to do, like 8v8.

[Wolfways]

Wookieelover, on 13 December 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

When is MWO getting a HD graphics upgrade?

Why would you update graphics in a game that is losing players?

[Khobai]

Quote

When is MWO getting a HD graphics upgrade?

3 years ago the graphics were a lot better than they are now

but a lot of people play this game on potatos so they had to lower the graphics

dunno why they couldnt just have an ultra low graphics setting instead with mechwarrior 2 graphics

Quote

Why would you update graphics in a game that is losing players?

why would you add 1v1 solaris in a game thats losing players?

great idea. lets add a new gamemode that less than 10% of the playerbase actually belongs in and the other 90% will have no interest in once they get shamed and humiliated and realize they dont belong there lol.

Edited by Khobai, 13 December 2017 - 10:32 AM.

[JediPanther]

Wolfways, on 13 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

Why would you update graphics in a game that is losing players?

You could ask blizzard why they updated visuals in wow or ea/bioware why they did updates on swtor. The biggest difference is those two games older than mwo don't lose a lot of players due to poor blanancing and unwanted changes by the devs.

For the graphics I really can't tell the difference between low,med,high or a mix of settings except for two things. My frame rate takes a hit or gains a few frames and the damage glow effect of mechs taking damage is nice to see as is the rare ammo explosion.

I've used extremely low budget laptops literately bought from pawn shops to my then brand new 2012 $1300 gaming rig to play mwo. I've posted youtube videos showing the game running on those pcs. From the not-even-lrms-playable 2.5 fps to 35 fps-42 fps you can still run a light mech.

Pgi's mess of heavy modification to make mwo is one of the biggest if not the main reason why the game runs bad enough not even modern budget or mid level gaming rigs can't run all the settings max and have high fps.

While I want pgi to make a version 2 of mwo in unreal now that they have more experience after mw5 I won't pay or buy any backing or mech packs or whatever they try and fund it. They've had plenty of chances to take my money and got some when they put out a few hero mechs I had interest in.

The best people can hope for from mwo is that it just keeps going as is with the mech-a-month keeping it on. If you're that worried about your 'investment' in your mechs just make a copy of the game data and export the mechs into different 3d program/engine of choice.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 13 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

They did try to make the game run smoother, and succeeded in small ways, but that was the extent of their ability.

Khobai, on 13 December 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

3 years ago the graphics were a lot better than they are now

but a lot of people play this game on potatos so they had to lower the graphics

dunno why they couldnt just have an ultra low graphics setting instead with mechwarrior 2 graphics

You do realize you are illustrating the validity of my assertions, right?

El Bandito, on 13 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

Instead you should learn to ask them about solutions that are simpler to do, like 8v8.

Again, that is not a "solution". Maps were enlarged -- probably at great cost in terms of time, money, and people -- to support 12v12 gameplay. What do we do next, junk them?

Edited by Mystere, 13 December 2017 - 11:06 AM.

[Teslacoil]

Appogee, on 13 December 2017 - 02:23 AM, said:

Yeah. Why on earth would PGI spend all the money and dev time to port a game in which they've already sold 90% of what they can sell to the 20% of us who still play it...?

There's no way future incremental sales of Mech Packs, bolt-ons and cosmetics would anywhere near cover the developmental cost.

MWO will never be ported. People need to come to terms with that.

I doubt the cost would really be all that high. Probably 80-90% of what they'd need to do would already be done thanks to the effort put in to MW5.

[Mystere]

Teslacoil, on 13 December 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

I doubt the cost would really be all that high. Probably 80-90% of what they'd need to do would already be done thanks to the effort put in to MW5.

What makes you think porting a game from one engine to another is an easy task?

Are you aware that MWO has a lot of custom netcode that will also need to be moved if not redone?

Edited by Mystere, 13 December 2017 - 01:18 PM.

[AncientRaig]

I'd settle for them making it so that the parts of your mech that you can see from your cockpit on certain mechs didn't look like they were from 2005. Seriously, why are the "cheeks" on the Griffin and the nose on the Stalker so poorly textured?

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

When is MWO getting a HD graphics upgrade?

On the current engine? Never. It's already too kludgy to function efficiently, adding higher graphics will turn most computers into slideshows.

Quote

Again, that is not a "solution". Maps were enlarged -- probably at great cost in terms of time, money, and people -- to support 12v12 gameplay. What do we do next, junk them?

You could literally split most 12v12 maps in half and still have enough room for a good 8v8 match. And the ones you couldn't are small enough for 8v8 anyway.

[MechaBattler]

Not on this engine. It's a FrankenEngine now. They've had to rebuild parts of it to make things work. It's why everything runs a little wonky at times. Perhaps if they recreate it MWO in unreal4.

[process]

Mystere, on 13 December 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Again, that is not a "solution". Maps were enlarged -- probably at great cost in terms of time, money, and people -- to support 12v12 gameplay. What do we do next, junk them?

Can't say I'm sympathetic to that argument. Those maps are also used for 4v4. PGI hasn't figured out the biggest maps in the world don't lead to diverse gameplay so long as the center of conflict remains the same.

Edited by process, 13 December 2017 - 01:56 PM.

[Troa Barton]

Wolfways, on 13 December 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

Why would you update graphics in a game that is losing players?

That is exactly why they should update them, to draw in new players that see games like battlefront and to retain existing players.
I wont buy an EA game but Dice sure outdid themselves with the stunning graphics that game has.
For all the flaws that game has at the hands of it's publisher it is gorgeous.
Battlefront is proof that you can indeed polish a ****.