67 replies to this topic

[VaudeVillain]

3025 tech only and not just stock. That made the game fun again and I still managed to get to Tier 2.

[Anjian]

FupDup, on 27 December 2018 - 02:11 PM, said:

At most I could maybe see this as an option for custom games. Definitely lolno for a main game queue though. Too much of the game's balance paradigm is based on puretech, heat, and ammo. A few buffs or nerfs wouldn't be enough to make those work, you'd have to basically rewrite the entire IP to the point that you might as well just make your own competitor to MWO that has its own new IP.

Respawns aren't quite as bad in terms of game balance but they would require special maps and modes built specifically for that purpose.

The thing is, if you create a new IP that happens to be more fun than BT/MW, then it will be the old IP that will be withered away into a tiny niche corner.

[HammerMaster]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:

How would you know unless its actually been tried.

Not saying it will be good, not saying it will be bad. But you have to try and test it to be absolutely be sure of your answer.

Because I've played MechWarrior since DOS days sir. I've been and seen EVERY ITERATION.
IT.
IS.
TRASH.
Every time I saw one of THOSE servers I didn't choose it.

Edited by HammerMaster, 27 December 2018 - 04:01 PM.

[Bombast]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:

The thing is, if you create a new IP that happens to be more fun than BT/MW, then it will be the old IP that will be withered away into a tiny niche corner.

Sometimes it's better to end a franchise in its current state and start anew then it is to continually butcher an IP to make it fit into every new whim and gimmick that people can think of.

As a wise old country man once said, "Sometimes dead is better."

[HammerMaster]

Bombast, on 27 December 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

Sometimes it's better to end a franchise in its current state and start anew then it is to continually butcher an IP to make it fit into every new whim and gimmick that people can think of.

As a wise old country man once said, "Sometimes dead is better."

[Y E O N N E]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

Popular is the main metric of success for any game.

Financial profitability is the main metric of success for any game, popularity just happens to have a strong correlation with that. This does not mean that things which are popular are good, i.e. smoking, BMW 3-series, and Star Wars.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:

How would you know unless its actually been tried.

Never been shot, still know it hurts...

[Kroete]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:

How would you know unless its actually been tried.

Not saying it will be good, not saying it will be bad.  But you have to try and test it to be absolutely be sure of your answer.

I dont need to test how it would play with 120+ laser-alphas or 6+ cerppcs.

So tell me, are you just wanting to make mwo another generic shooter or did you not thinked once about your claim?

Edited by Kroete, 27 December 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[Anjian]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

Financial profitability is the main metric of success for any game, popularity just happens to have a strong correlation with that. This does not mean that things which are popular are good, i.e. smoking, BMW 3-series, and Star Wars.

Financial profitability is tied to popularity. That is how the free market works.

If you want to be more financially profitable with a smaller market, guess what? Each head in the smaller market ends up paying a lot more.

In turn, because the cost of playing Game A with less people is much higher than playing Game B, less and less people will play Game A resulting in a spiral downward.

Don't confuse this game as a product. This game is a service. Service operations have an operating cost.

Edited by Anjian, 27 December 2018 - 05:31 PM.

[Anjian]

Kroete, on 27 December 2018 - 05:03 PM, said:

I dont need to test how it would play with 120+ laser-alphas or 6+ cerppcs.

So tell me, are you just wanting to make mwo another generic shooter or did you not thinked once about your claim?

What is "generic shooter" that you keep talking about? Generic shooters don't use lasers.

"Thinked" about my claim? What about over two decades and countess games.

Don't give me this "elitist" view about generic shooters. How is a game a generic shooter or not a generic shooter? This game is far more of a generic shooter than World of Warships where you have to mentally calculate landing your shots, or even worst War Thunder Naval Battles, where speeds of shooter and target will have to be calculated before you can even land a shoot.

[Bombast]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

Financial profitability is tied to popularity. That is how the free market works.

That assumes a 1 to 1 ratio per invested costumer. Where one customer always contributes 1 unit of profit in support of the product.

This is not how a large portion of the modern gaming market works. It is absolutely not how MWO operates.

Quote

In turn, because the cost of playing Game A with less people is much higher than playing Game B, less and less people will play Game A resulting in a spiral downward.

And completely butchering the IP will resolve this?

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 05:28 PM, said:

What is "generic shooter" that you keep talking about? Generic shooters don't use lasers.

Uh... generic shooters have used lasers.

Quote

"Thinked" about my claim? What about over two decades and countess games.

'Gamers,' more than probably any other group, have been proving pretty hard that length of interest doesn't equate to length of thoughtful introspection.

Quote

Don't give me this "elitist" view about generic shooters. How is a game a generic shooter or not a generic shooter? This game is far more of a generic shooter than World of Warships where you have to mentally calculate landing your shots, or even worst War Thunder Naval Battles, where speeds of shooter and target will have to be calculated before you can even land a shoot.

Neither World of Warships or War Thunder Naval Battles are shooters.

[Y E O N N E]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

Financial profitability is tied to popularity. That is how the free market works.

No it is not, it is tied to margins. There is strong correlation, but it is not a direct link. Case in point: any form of simulation game. They are not, each, popular to the same degree as games such as whatever the current Call of Duty installement is, but they make that up by jacking the price.

Quote

If you want to be more financially profitable with a smaller market, guess what? Each head in the smaller market ends up paying a lot more.

Hey, so you do get it...so what's the problem?

Quote

In turn, because the cost of playing Game A with less people is much higher than playing Game B, less and less people will play Game A resulting in a spiral downward.

This is not a strict truism. Every single game has a downward spiral no matter how much it costs. You think WoW has been trending upward on the net? Hell no. But ultimately, that spiral isn't particularly relevant unless your game is strictly multiplayer and, even then, it's only relevant if the way you've built your product requires you to provide continual outlay for it to function.

TL;DR: this is only true if what you are selling is a service and not a product.

[Anjian]

Bombast, on 27 December 2018 - 05:35 PM, said:

That assumes a 1 to 1 ratio per invested costumer. Where one customer always contributes 1 unit of profit in support of the product.

This is not how a large portion of the modern gaming market works. It is absolutely not how MWO operates.

That is how every game needs to work. A customer needs to contribute some measure of profit to a company. The smaller your customer base is, either your profits are smaller, or you have to take more out of each customer to get the same revenue. Without revenue, you cannot develop the game any further or to the level required. AAA rated games have already an expectation how many people are going to buy the game

Quote

And completely butchering the IP will resolve this?

Nope. But its likely the IP will be forced into a corner, thanks to other "more fun" IPs.

Quote

Uh... generic shooters have used lasers.

Surely not, unless you are a SF shooter, where you have lasers or phasers. Like Star Wars.

Most shooters (FPS) use guns like Glock or an AR-15 or a Type 95 assault rifle.

Quote

'Gamers,' more than probably any other group, have been proving pretty hard that length of interest doesn't equate to length of thoughtful introspection.

Any empirical basis to show this. Games like those playing World of Warcraft or DoTA 2 or League of Legends would show otherwise.

Quote

Neither World of Warships or War Thunder Naval Battles are shooters.

No. Anything that shoots, is a shooter. Just that some have far more complicated physics to deal with, like ballistic arcs and armor deflections.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:

How would you know unless its actually been tried.

Not saying it will be good, not saying it will be bad. But you have to try and test it to be absolutely be sure of your answer.

Why would we need field testing for what people would do, if they could fire 10+ ERPPCs or HLLs with no drawbacks?

Some results are so obvious that they require no experimentation.

[Anjian]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2018 - 05:35 PM, said:

No it is not, it is tied to margins. There is strong correlation, but it is not a direct link. Case in point: any form of simulation game. They are not, each, popular to the same degree as games such as whatever the current Call of Duty installement is, but they make that up by jacking the price.

You jack up the price and less people will play it less. Less people buying it, means potentially less profit either. There is always a downward pressure for games to cost lower despite the costs of developing the game may have gone higher. That's because of the affordability of the customer, and because of competition.

Quote

Hey, so you do get it...so what's the problem?

Because it initiates a death spiral.

A product with a higher cost would have to attract customers with more features, better quality and so on. But this requires a higher development cost, which in turns need to be shared to the customer. As costs spiral, the smaller your customer base size will be.

Plus this game isn't just a product. Its a service and a social community. The less players it has, the lower the quality of experience as a player.

Quote

This is not a strict truism. Every single game has a downward spiral no matter how much it costs. You think WoW has been trending upward on the net? Hell no. But ultimately, that spiral isn't particularly relevant unless your game is strictly multiplayer and, even then, it's only relevant if the way you've built your product requires you to provide continual outlay for it to function.

TL;DR: this is only true if what you are selling is a service and not a product.

WoW has lasted much longer and it has its ups and downs. Its not a downward spiral, more like a graph that resembles the stock market.

Warframe has a graph that goes upward in general trend, with periodic ups and downs.

League of Legends, DoTA2, CSGO, even Pokemon Go has shown sustainable numbers.

[Bombast]

Anjian, on 27 December 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:

That is how every game needs to work. A customer needs to contribute some measure of profit to a company. The smaller your customer base is, either your profits are smaller, or you have to take more out of each customer to get the same revenue. Without revenue, you cannot develop the game any further or to the level required. AAA rated games have already an expectation how many people are going to buy the game

That ship has sailed, particularly for F2P games. Your pie in the sky economic dreams simply don't apply to MWO.

Quote

Nope. But its likely the IP will be forced into a corner, thanks to other "more fun" IPs.

I'm fine with this. If Battletech/Mechwarrior doesn't work anymore, so be it. Let it die for what it is, not live on wearing the skin of another game.

Quote

Surely not, unless you are a SF shooter, where you have lasers or phasers. Like Star Wars.

Or Halo. Or Borderlands. Or Serious Sam. Or Wolfenstein...

Sci-Fi shooters are pretty much as old as shooters are. They're part of the generic landscape.

Quote

Most shooters (FPS) use guns like Glock or an AR-15 or a Type 95 assault rifle.

And lasers and plasma throwers and flame throwers and lightning guns.

Quote

Any empirical basis to show this. Games like those playing World of Warcraft or DoTA 2 or League of Legends would show otherwise.

If you're using DOTA and LoL as proof that gamers are level headed, rational people, you're calling artillery on your own position.

Quote

No. Anything that shoots, is a shooter. Just that some have far more complicated physics to deal with, like ballistic arcs and armor deflections.

That is not the definition of a shooter, and I wont be dragged into an alternative 'Well technically every video game in existence is an RPG' argument tonight.

[Anjian]

LT. HARDCASE, on 27 December 2018 - 05:49 PM, said:

Why would we need field testing for what people would do, if they could fire 10+ ERPPCs or HLLs with no drawbacks?

Some results are so obvious that they require no experimentation.

You are still limited by weight and hard point size. You can't fit 10 ERPPCs or AC20s if you want to.

And yes, TTK would be much shorter, but then again, you can respawn endlessly.

There are ways to lengthening cooldowns without resorting to heat mechanisms. You can reduce the rate of fire or increase the cooldown time between firings. There you can increase TTK again. But then again, this feels more like a different robot IP.

Results are never obvious without experimentation.

Back then, during MW4, it was fun. For me, I play whatever room is available. If there is a room that uses heat, I play it. If there is a room without heat, I play it too. The problem is finding the rooms so availability is paramount and I am not choosy because every room is an opportunity. As the game goes on, the number of rooms would gradually decrease as the players decrease, so you don't get to be very choosy.

Edited by Anjian, 27 December 2018 - 06:10 PM.

[Anjian]

Bombast, on 27 December 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

That ship has sailed, particularly for F2P games. Your pie in the sky economic dreams simply don't apply to MWO.

Really? The numbers don't say so.

Quote

I'm fine with this. If Battletech/Mechwarrior doesn't work anymore, so be it. Let it die for what it is, not live on wearing the skin of another game.

I got no problem with that either. I am more loyal to a genre than a franchise.

If something better comes along, I will play it.

Quote

Or Halo. Or Borderlands. Or Serious Sam. Or Wolfenstein...

Sci-Fi shooters are pretty much as old as shooters are. They're part of the generic landscape.

Think of what shooters are now. The main CoD. Crossfire. CSGO. Battlefield. PUBG. Fortnite.

Quote

And lasers and plasma throwers and flame throwers and lightning guns.

And so, how is MWO different from Halo exactly?

Quote

If you're using DOTA and LoL as proof that gamers are level headed, rational people, you're calling artillery on your own position.

Rationality of players are not relevant. Games are for the irrational in the first place. Seeking fun is an irrational action.

Quote

That is not the definition of a shooter, and I wont be dragged into an alternative 'Well technically every video game in existence is an RPG' argument tonight.

I would say these games are shooter because the primary engagement activity is shooting. In fact, far more thought are placed into the guns and weapons of these games, which are literally modeled from historical data, ballistic curves, penetration curves, etc,.

http://www.navweaps....S_16-50_mk7.php

Edited by Anjian, 27 December 2018 - 06:06 PM.

[Sagara Sousuke 011011001]

Ilfi, on 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

Not saying the game absolutely needs it, but I am saying the above combination of settings was one of the most popular server types in MechWarrior 3 and 4, if not the most popular. Just seems weird to still not have it as an option in Solaris, and to be forced into team last man standing all the time.

I didn't play MW4 online a whole lot (mainly because at its prime, I didn't have a PC that could run it well).

I did play MW3 a ton in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Because of the mechanics of the game and lag shooting required, I must admit I mostly played UA. MW3 allowed mechs to get knocked over from damage, and so a unique game play came out of using two AC20s (or 3 when the ice maps arrived). You'd knock them over and kill them before they could stand. Falling = dead. I even played in UA leagues and it was alot of fun. Of course it wasn't really battletech. Not sure it makes sense here in MWO.

(As a side note, it was sad to see the MW3 game room (microsoft gaming zone) go from 10s of thousands of people logged in at any one time in 1999 to a trickle of maybe 150 by 2001.

Edited by Sagara Sousuke 011011001, 27 December 2018 - 06:19 PM.

[Mystere]

Ilfi, on 27 December 2018 - 03:21 AM, said:

Not saying the game absolutely needs it, but I am saying the above combination of settings was one of the most popular server types in MechWarrior 3 and 4, if not the most popular. Just seems weird to still not have it as an option in Solaris, and to be forced into team last man standing all the time.

More mindless buckets will not save this game.

Edited by Mystere, 27 December 2018 - 10:08 PM.