64 replies to this topic

[cyclist1994]

I requested to bring back the maps.
I also have a vote for this going on, see my signature.

[Dran Dragore]

admiralbenbow123, on 18 December 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

PGI is bringing classic maps back because everyone was asking them to. Why do people keep trying to blast PGI for no reason?
Do you know how hard it is to make a new map? It's not as easy as you think.

So, its too much too ask for 1 or 2 Maps over a Year to be anounced? And i repeat myself: there was good reasons to sort this maps out! Even PGI told it when they introduced the new Versions of the Map. But hey, who are i am for wanting some Progress in a game which i supported for so many years with my money.

From one moment too another the Developer decides: we just make small cosmetics to the game, bring old maps, dont make any new stuff like Engine Change (even if would take the whole year), IS Omnimechs, missed Weapon Systems or Maps. Meanwhile there are developers who are bounded on Bolt ons which no one buys because they are far too expensive.

You missunderstand me: i like to see the game evolve and maybe get some more new players, but it looks for me that they slowly abandon the Project MWO. But hey, take the "new" maps. And think for yourself this will safe the game. Doesnt matter.

[MechaBattler]

I always find it funny when people are like "No one wanted this!", exclaiming it as loud as they can. Yet I've seen threads over the years asking for old maps to come back. Even Solaris was something that was asked for. When they made maps bigger, people said the same thing, and of course people had been saying to make them bigger for years.

Here's a suggestion for improving map variation. Remove map voting. Dropping on HPG and Grim Plexus repeatedly is really obnoxious.

[Cypherdrene]

Ok, perhaps people asked for this, so lets move on.

There's more obvious changes and additions needed to be done, more new maps, new tech, better pricing for mech packs and MC (lets face it, not everyone's made of money) additionally, old packs could be bundled like a la carte for a nice discount.
Jumpjets are a joke and mostly a waste of tonnage in the majority of mechs over 55T.

Clan AC's are useless and inferior to IS, better to have different ammo types for LB's and call it a day.

my 2c

[Spheroid]

It bothers me how Russ was surprised people want more from MWO. As a tiny dev without a publisher where does he think his funding comes from?

The cost of borrowing is going up. He is very brazen to think his cash reserves can last until fall 2019. The only thing keeping people around this fall was the tinniest hope of MWO improvement. Mechcon dashed those hopes. I expect a continued fall in population, most certainly a decline in the Anglophone population that actually buys your goods.

Edited by Spheroid, 18 December 2018 - 12:43 PM.

[kuma8877]

Hanky Spam, on 18 December 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

There is most likely a bit more necessary than just opening the access to the modding tools or even a SDK.
Like the questions:

How will the maps be distributed
How should the future map selection work
Who will be doing the QA of a map to avoid crappy maps?

I mean cmon guys, this is not Counter Strike, or Quake 3 where you just had to connect to a server and the maps have been downloaded automatically.

Beside allowing the access to the modding tools, PGI would also have to rework major parts of the game and we all know how unlikely this will be to happen...

What about running 2 community map contests per year? With PGI producing another official map in between. So, a 3 map a year cycle. This allows the map team time to curate, clean up and integrate the community's map winners. And doesn't bog down too many other devs if a shift to UE is in the future after re-securing the license and releasing MW5.

Edited by kuma8877, 18 December 2018 - 01:04 PM.

[Nightbird]

kuma8877, on 18 December 2018 - 01:01 PM, said:

What about running 2 community map contests per year? With PGI producing another official map in between. So, a 3 map a year cycle. This allows the map team time to curate, clean up and integrate the community's map winners. And doesn't bog down too many other devs if a shift to UE is in the future after re-securing the license and releasing MW5.

Producing the tools that would allow the community to produce maps will take 10 maps worth of effort.

[Gully D]

Gartenlaube, on 18 December 2018 - 06:37 AM, said:

Even for a small company, they should be able to understand their community and their game / mechanics and what the game needs to remain succesful. NO one wanted Solaris, resources were just WASTED and are still wasted by more BOLT ONS...
Every criticism on twitter towards Russ leads to beein blocked (me and others I know).

The community provided ALL the input over YEARS and they DID nothing. My patience has ended, beeing a legendary founder and having BOUGHT EVERYTHING till Solaris, I saw the game come a LONG LONG way with some GOOD stuff, then stagnation and then going down the drain... Community still supported the game and I had been defending it but every patch made it worse (balancing OVER YEARS and no clue what they do, errors that persist FOR AGES, patches that need hotfixes, no content, planets that mean nothing, artillery that is still announced in FP via voice (satellites have been linked to artillery, lol, this has been removed ages ago)... They can't even fix a single voice sample or THEY JUST DON'T CARE! It is one million tiny bits of stupid stuff and broken things and they don't get fixed.

Looking back, all they care for over the last years was: DO YOU WANT TO BUY ANOTHER MECH PACK?

I AM UNDER AND OVER IT

MW5 is all they care about and that has already been delayed and I only believe it will ever finish when they release it.. (But in WHICH STATE will it be?)

Sorry, I am just an old salty mechwarrior that had put all his hopes and a lot of money into this company...

#boycottpgi
#makeFPgreatagain

Hey Garten

Totally get it. Major issues. Longstanding grievance. Failure to communicate.
However, whats the solution?
After working in both small and large industry, customers often feel this. Now usually they make the mistake to think that they get to decide. Parettos rule. 80% of the income comes from 20% of the patronage. and 80% or problems come from 20% of the customers that think they can do the job of directing.

But whats the way forward. You've got a product you used to like. I still like it.

I have a solution. Radical as it seems. "FLOAT PGI"

lets buy it and then have an ownership voice. I would
any thoughts?

[Stridercal]

Mech of the same (i.e., nothing).

[Akillius]

Nightbird, on 18 December 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

Producing the tools that would allow the community to produce maps will take 10 maps worth of effort.

Well I'm certain theres players here who have done mods decades back in the dark ages when some devs didn't care but they also didn't provide any help. Back then it was up to the few players who could+wanted to buy software like 3D Studio and spend their time creating unsupported mobs, weapons, vehicles, maps, campaigns.
Of course if PGI released some information and permission then it would make things easier for the community to build.
However I would imagine that all maps would need to be submitted to PGI for evaluation before PGI allowed them into the game. Testing a map solo could easily be accomplished now with the PST installation and editing existing map names.
(And hopefully those phoenix\omicron .max file location references on a drive P: won't be a hassle...)

[Gully D]

HammerMaster, on 13 December 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

I see what you're saying.
Accolades for a non flame post.
But asymmetrical is what we really do need.
It just needs to be done better.

AGREED

Edited by Gully D, 18 December 2018 - 05:40 PM.

[Akillius]

Another option is crowd funding new maps?
I really think that this won't fly for so many reasons its crazy, mainly because someone would have to design some giveaway stuff for people funding the maps and can only do so many virtual ticket-Like or TSP-Like things in a year.

I also don't believe MWO would survive yet another year of being ignored by PGI.
It was their cash cow and like any animal if you stop feeding and watering it then at some point you got nothing.

By the same token I don't see boycotting as an alternative because Russ just isn't smart enough to get it...

Edited by Akillius, 18 December 2018 - 05:42 PM.

[Kell Aset]

Meh, this makes me sad even tho I didn't expect much after this tragedy that MechCon was.

So MWO is not getting anything next year, Paul and his silly FP updates are just smoke & mirrors, honestly there is nothing on his list that will make this so called "Faction Play" actually somewhat deep & worth playing. As long as PGI will continue to refuse to put actual work and resources into FP, FP will be just a shallow pointless game mode without consequences, basicly quick play with drop decks + occasional siege map, a game mode where wins/losses/planets/borders/factions/ranks don't matter, it is really a shame.

Seems like making Faction Play into something that is worth playing & interesting is a "pie in the sky" idea from the start, since PGI is mostly interested with "low hanging fruit" kind of ideas and such just won't cut it.

So we are also not getting any new maps, instead we are getting some of the old small maps from the time when game was still 8vs8, personally i have no love for old Frozen City nor old Forest Colony (I wonder if they will make trees breakable on that one). and we have to wait for those old maps till march.

If you PGI won't give us good end game (Faction Play) then give us at least some new maps to keep us interested and if u don't want to make maps for us then please give the community map maker tools.

MWO is starving for new content and the only thing we will get next year are old maps & perhaps if Russ will give this idea a green light, reskins of maps that we already have in game (canyon network with bog textures) that is just not good enough.

Edited by Kell Aset, 19 December 2018 - 01:37 AM.

[Arkhangel]

Guess you guys are completely forgetting about the Corsair and other new mechs that'll being added.

I have heard some scuttlebutt about it actually having its parts change massively dependant on weapons loadout (to really pull off the FrankenMech schtick, I.E. Small Arm Ballistics being Jager Parts, Shoulder ones could be Shawk, etc.). could be the precursor to seeing some of the IS Omnis, a fair humber of which are beloved mechs like the Sunder, Templar and Hauptmann.

the classic maps coming back is nice, and it's less work for them as they work on MW5. It should also be noted that as they add in more mechs, those assets aren't just going to go towards MWO, but MW5 as well. It's already been mentioned the Corsair's getting into it.. I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to try and get the Crusader and a couple of the other classic unseen in there now that HG's basically been legally told to piss off permanently.

As for the FP bit being "Smoke and Mirrors".. we don't know until it hits. Conjecture on it ain't helping anyone. Honestly what I'd love to see is some sorta "Asset Defense" mission for the faction holding a planet that has, say, a parked Union the attackers have to disable as a rare mission, or defending/attacking a supply convoy (either of which could reward with a supply crate if done in a specific timeframe or something). I will say though, Paul did mention this at MWO that one of the main changes he wants to do is make Loyalty actually MEANINGFUL again...

come to think of it, a good way to do that would be giving discounts on Mechs in the Store that faction's known for using heavily, like Steiner for Atlases, Davion for Victors, Clan Wolf for Timberwolves, Diamond Shark for Mad Cat Mk. IIs, so on. a secondary currency kinda like Accolades would also be an incentive to stay with a faction, especially if there's faction-specific goodies to be bought with it (Banners, cockpit Items, bolt-ons, etc.)

Edited by Arkhangel, 19 December 2018 - 02:31 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I think more than anything else. Having better and more modes would be the biggest singular improvements they could make to the game. Just a sense of more dynamic gameplay. I know it's beating a dead horse. But a game mode with some AI tanks and vtols would be interesting. Even if it was just moba level AI that walk a set path and attack anything they meet. I dunno. Just some variety.

[K19]

It is possible to make a tool to zoom in on mechlab for Decals if they are too small not easy to do. I would like Tuning my mech

[pacifica812]

Old Frozen City and Forest Colony maps...

YES!!!!!!

[Alreech]

Dran Dragore, on 17 December 2018 - 10:30 PM, said:

But the whole year, since the flop of Solaris i have the sence that PGI is a abandon MWO and focus the developers to MW5 because this ship is sinking. Sure, there are nice, brand new cool looking Mechs like the Corsair and WH IIC. But in the end this Mechs dont bring more game depth to MWO, just some Money to PGI.

Selling Mechpacks is obviously the only way for PGI to make cash.
Improving gameplay mechanics and making new maps won't make cash.
As long as MWO players are willing to spend around 20 US $ for 3 Mechs in early access MWO isn't sinking.

Quote

There are a lot of ideas making the rest of the players happy (and maybe bring new ones): bringing new Maps (!); bringing new Tech (HAGs, MML, ...); introduce IS Omni Technology (Hauptmann, Avatar, Sunder, Templar and many more - this would means new Money for PGI!), solve the Bugs in the game (like the Shadow problem of open Door bays); transfer it to a new Game Engine and bring some life to Faction Warefare.

If you want new players and a new engine for MWO when Mechwarrior 5 is the best chance for that.

Quote

MWO still have so much potential compared to older parts and its the only serious Mech Simulator for me out at the moment. It would be very sad to me if the game dies slowly. So, PGI: it would be happy to see some *realy* inovations other than bringing old Maps which are unbalanced (your own words!) and outdated back to live and sell us this as an inovation.

Yes, MWO has still potential, but Quickplay is basically killing it.
Most players prefer Solo Quickplay because the waiting times in Group Quickplay and Faction Warfare are to long.
In Solo quickplay you don't know nothing about your teammates mechs, so teamwork is very difficult. Without a respawn it's also sensible to avoid any risks and use the teammates as meatshield.
Lack of teamwork kills the fun in Solo Quickplay (and leads to simple tactics like NASCARing), but why bother with teamwork if your "team" is disbanded after one match ?
Groups are at the moment the only kind of team what is persistent over more than one match, so joining a group would be a solution to improve teamwork...
But Looking for Group Lobby isn't used because you can drop in groups of 2 - 12 players, making it usless to fill up the group with strangers.
10 different Group sizes from 2 - 12 players (some of them only compatible in one combination like 9+3 & 10+2) makes matchmaking complicated and slow.

Solution to that problem ?
Fix group sizes to 4/8/12 and force the players to invited strangers from the LFG to fill up the group.
With fixed group sizes 4 vs 4 or 8 vs 8 matches on small maps could be organized by the matchmaker if not enough players are aviable for 12 vs 12.

Add small dropdecks with 3 Mechs to group & solo quickplay to give respawns and the posibility to chose a fitting mech for the map. The dropdeck also balances the tonnage.
Increase the number of Trials to 4 per class & tech to give new players the chance to fill up their dropdecks with Trials.

All of that stuff (limited group sizes in Scouting and Competetive Play, Dropdecks, small maps) are at the moment in the game, but most players won't like to be forced to invited strangers to their group, so nothing of that would be changed by PGI.

[Ninjah]

Let's just hope MW5 sells well and maybe they'll build MWO 2.0 in Unreal Engine using edited single player maps and mechs. UE is much much better then CryEngine which is dying and it has a lot of problems (see MWO now). I don't want to return to this since I have overplayed it in the last 5-6 years but I would gladly give new MWO a shot.

[Alreech]

Ninjah, on 21 December 2018 - 02:27 PM, said:

Let's just hope MW5 sells well and maybe they'll build MWO 2.0 in Unreal Engine using edited single player maps and mechs. UE is much much better then CryEngine which is dying and it has a lot of problems (see MWO now). I don't want to return to this since I have overplayed it in the last 5-6 years but I would gladly give new MWO a shot.

The problems of MWO are not sourced in the use of the CryEngine.

The CryEngine doesn't forbidd PGI to give players a faction specific discount on the typical Mechs of their faction depending on their rank (for example: the Dragon should be cheaper for House Kurita Players).
The CryEngine isn't the cause that players loyal to a Inner Sphere House can buy Clan Mechs for C-Bills and than choose not to play Faction Warfare because they can't use those Clan Mechs in FW.
The CryEngine doesn't force PGI to use a matchmaking what ignores Faction and makes up the teams new for each match (preventing every chance of organize the team before the match starts).
The CryEngine wasn't the cause why PGI didn't use the Mechwarrior 4 Hardpoint System ("boring, can't put 2 AC20 on a catapult or 6 PPCs on a Stalker") and used Ghost Heat instead ("ZMG !!!! double AC20 and 6 PPCs are IMBA !!!111 PGI plz nerf!!!!).
...

Most of the Problems of MWO are PGIs decissions to not enforce faction & group play from day one of the open beta and to use only variants of Team-Deathmatch as game modes instead using a objective driven game play (like in Battlefields "Rush Mode" or CoDs "Search and Destroy") and to ignore the balancing problems of Mechwarrior 2 & 3 in Multiplayer that lead to the Hardpoint System of Mechwarrior 4.

Edited by Alreech, 22 December 2018 - 04:54 AM.