98 replies to this topic

[JediPanther]

Wil McCullough, on 14 February 2019 - 05:36 PM, said:

Pgi seems to have some problems with direction for the game in that everyone seems to want something different for the end product and they're all responsible for their own little slice of the game so the end result is something quite confused. That's quite common in corporate though.

The main issue i see is that pgi is quite hamfisted and has a reputation for some kind of reverse midas. You give them gold, they turn it into ****. Chris is revisiting weapon balance so that's a step in the right direction but mwo is being overwhelmingly carried on the shoulders of alex's art.

The sad reality of mwo is right here. Pgi takes some very good ideas that would improve the game and makes them into gold plated piles of dog doo. Without Alex and the rest of the art dept this game would have went under years ago. I'd not be surprised if the art dept were some of the higher paid on the pay scale just because pgi MUST have a new mech a month to sell.

[Khobai]

Its not great because they charge money for new features that used to be free. Like Glowing Eyes.

[Anjian]

Having CoF has potential, and its been on some of the most popular shooters in the world --- including World of Tanks and Fortnite. But then again, CoF is also one of the things some people also complain with these games.

Again, controversial. I myself don't have a strong stance on it. Lets say 50/50.

[Anjian]

There is a phrase that I am trying to look for that expresses everything for me in a wink. Finally got it.


Lack of investment protection.

Edited by Anjian, 15 February 2019 - 11:09 PM.

[Nyte Kitsune]

MWO ditched a lot of some of its best features

Knock Down physics - Removed because of whiny players face tanking and getting knocked down then shot while prone. PGI's solution "Lets remove it!" instead of encouraging people not to face tank, that should be a risk of getting too close.

Gauss Rifles- Too easy to use (Its a point and shoot weapon thats prone to exploding when hit, not the safest weapon to use), PGI's solution... Lets put a long charge time on it making almost all other weapons more viable

AC's- Advantage to IS, which are all pinpoint damage, as Clan are nothing more than Big Machine guns that miss a lot and spray their damage everywhere, thats what the LBX's are for, all clan AC should not be LBX's.

Clan Weapons - In general were supposed to be superior in every way (including generating more heat which was their trade off), PGI- Lets make them do the same damage as IS weapons and only slightly better range and still generate more heat, sorry PGI, but clan weapons SHOULD do more damage, they spent time improving their designs instead of massive infighting resulting in the loss of technological advancement.

Yet we still play as at times (when people aren't using hacks) the game still manages to be fun even with its flaws.

[R E X I OS]

Nyte Kitsune, on 16 February 2019 - 07:29 AM, said:

MWO ditched a lot of some of its best features

Knock Down physics - Removed because of whiny players face tanking and getting knocked down then shot while prone. PGI's solution "Lets remove it!" instead of encouraging people not to face tank, that should be a risk of getting too close.

Gauss Rifles- Too easy to use (Its a point and shoot weapon thats prone to exploding when hit, not the safest weapon to use), PGI's solution... Lets put a long charge time on it making almost all other weapons more viable

AC's- Advantage to IS, which are all pinpoint damage, as Clan are nothing more than Big Machine guns that miss a lot and spray their damage everywhere, thats what the LBX's are for, all clan AC should not be LBX's.

Clan Weapons - In general were supposed to be superior in every way (including generating more heat which was their trade off), PGI- Lets make them do the same damage as IS weapons and only slightly better range and still generate more heat, sorry PGI, but clan weapons SHOULD do more damage, they spent time improving their designs instead of massive infighting resulting in the loss of technological advancement.

Yet we still play as at times (when people aren't using hacks) the game still manages to be fun even with its flaws.

Yea and with some IS mechs that have 10% energy range bonuses they can reach the clan mechs with their lasers and do more damage since they can shoot 3 ER large lasers (3 and 3).

[Tesunie]

Nyte Kitsune, on 16 February 2019 - 07:29 AM, said:

MWO ditched a lot of some of its best features

Knock Down physics - Removed because of whiny players face tanking and getting knocked down then shot while prone. PGI's solution "Lets remove it!" instead of encouraging people not to face tank, that should be a risk of getting too close.

Gauss Rifles- Too easy to use (Its a point and shoot weapon thats prone to exploding when hit, not the safest weapon to use), PGI's solution... Lets put a long charge time on it making almost all other weapons more viable

AC's- Advantage to IS, which are all pinpoint damage, as Clan are nothing more than Big Machine guns that miss a lot and spray their damage everywhere, thats what the LBX's are for, all clan AC should not be LBX's.

Clan Weapons - In general were supposed to be superior in every way (including generating more heat which was their trade off), PGI- Lets make them do the same damage as IS weapons and only slightly better range and still generate more heat, sorry PGI, but clan weapons SHOULD do more damage, they spent time improving their designs instead of massive infighting resulting in the loss of technological advancement.

Yet we still play as at times (when people aren't using hacks) the game still manages to be fun even with its flaws.

Okay. You are slightly incorrect on why some features were removed.

Knockdown: Besides the minigame "Dragonbowling", it also caused problems resulting in teleportation and general glitching when a mech was knocked over. This made it difficult to not only escape (even if you managed to survive to stand back up and try to run), but also caused opponents to be unlikely to be able to hit a target that was knocked down (because the server couldn't figure out where who should be). They wanted to reintroduce it back, but the net code probably can't effectively handle it. (Considers the two mechs being in the same location.) (Recall, we are running on a heavily modified Cryengine platform, which wasn't made for knockdown, missiles and multi-hit box locations. As mentioned above by me, I suspect IGP is the reason for this.)

Gauss Rifles: They were too easy to use, not that I agree with the new system. They were starting to replace every weapon as an easy to use, no heat alternative. Running too hot with AC20s? Replace with a Gauss. Pushing your heat scale, but have tonnage left over? Place in a Gauss. It needed "something" to place it more into it's "sniper" role, rather than a general purpose weapon. That was just how PGI decided to do it. (AKA: Not in total disagreement here.)

ACs: A lot of people actually wanted ACs to all shoot like how the Clan ones do (but with a much faster burst), even if it's just visually and not how it applies damage. ACs are suppose to fire a "cassette" of bullets in a rapid burst of bullets. I agree that Clan ACs bursts are probably a little too long, but it's suppose to off set their range and lighter weight. The burst fire mechanic is suppose to help IS forces be able to roll damage easier, as Clans tended to have higher alphas due to lighter gear that also often took up less slots. Maybe it was taken a little too far into one extreme, but I think all ACs should have that burst feel, not just Clan. (Of course, with aforementioned much faster burst of bullets to massively reduce their spreads.)

Clan Weapons: I might want to remind you that this is a PvP game with even number of players on each side. If Clan everything was as superior as "it's suppose to be by lore", we might as well dump all IS off a cliff because there would be no point in playing IS equipment besides to handicap yourself. Something needed to be done to keep the tech levels relevant to each other. (The advantage IS had in lore was mass of numbers, as well as more adaptive tactics. Something that can't be well represented in this game. And before you go "but we could have X vs Y numbers", Match maker doesn't work well with trying to configure uneven teams, not to mention additional buckets to the match making search queues.)


I find this game is most fun with played with friends. Group Queue may be more difficult overall, but it can be far more fun. Even solo play isn't bad. It may not be the best game, but I find it's enjoyable. Balance also seems to be good, leading to less disparity between different options within the game.

[Tesunie]

R E X I OS, on 16 February 2019 - 07:42 AM, said:

Yea and with some IS mechs that have 10% energy range bonuses they can reach the clan mechs with their lasers and do more damage since they can shoot 3 ER large lasers (3 and 3).

I do agree that IS seems to be able to do more because of more relaxed GH limits... That new seasonal reward Warhammer IIC is going to be a pain to get something effective to work with only 5 energy hardpoints. I can't do triple LPLs and two ERMLs due to GH. My Huntsmen does dual LPLs and quad MPLs... which already falls into more firepower than I can pulse out of a Warhammer IIC...

If anything, GH is the system that is really hurting. BUT, GH was added for a reason, and it does it's job reasonably well. It keeps single weapon boating more reasonable and limited high alpha values (to some extent).

[Angel of Annihilation]

Tesunie, on 13 February 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

You do know where that money actually went to, right? IGP most likely.

Otherwise, I don't know of any other projects PGI has actually had. They tried Transverse, which was attempted to be crowd funded (but people freaked and thought PGI was taking money from MW:O projects. Only one person was shared between the two projects, otherwise Transverse was completely new staff). Then the only other project I know of that PGI has worked on was MW:5, which they were very clear they were working on for some time now.

I'm not overly certain of any other projects PGI's been involved in since.

I don't recall specifically but there was a pretty big article back in the day that said something like 60% or more of the money raised through the Founders program when to other projects. I forget the projects and from what I do remember, none were well known or even looked interesting so I think the reason why your asking, "What other projects?" is because all those other projects failed and have been erased from history. Honestly there was a hell of alot of mismanagement back in the day, including Russ's infamous, "We are on an Island" debacle and the announcement that the Founders, "Weren't the demographic" they were designing the game for. Honestly PGI lost a hell of a lot of dedicated fans and players to that stupidity and I can't help but thing that if PGI had paid more attention to its founders and fans and had designed to the game for us, that MWO would have been a much more successful game.

Honestly, It has always boggled my mind why a company would invest in a strongly established intellectual property then blatantly go against the entire fan base that made the intellectual property strong in the first place but PGI did just that. I mean if you just wanted to do what ever the heck you wanted to do without having to conform to an establish intellectual property, why not just create an intellectual property from scratch?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

alone the Knock Down Problem was big and the Important Factor to work on it and the Cryengine was ...Karl Berg ...

https://mwomercs.com...courtesy-phone/


and Karl leaves PGI after the Transverse Disaster ...and thats was the end of each future Evolution , to personal modified the Engine now was

https://www.reddit.c...o_longer_works/

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 17 February 2019 - 02:11 AM.

[slide]

GoodTry, on 14 February 2019 - 07:03 AM, said:

MWO isn't an RPG, it's a shooter.

This is exactly why the game fails.

Every iteration of BT before this was an RPG is some form. That's why a lot of founders bought into the game, because they were promised an epic first person mech sim with RPG elements and what they got was a 1st person shooter which isn't even that good for a shooter.

Most people agree that the basic game play is good, sure there are balance issues but generally once you get a handle on things it is good. For the majority of people the endless grinding of new mechs, is not enough motivation to keep playing. Likewise trying to get to the top of whatever respective pile is only motivation for so long. Lack of any RPG elements, which is what appeals to a lot of people about BT, is why this game continues to die.

-1 Bucket killed FP because people could no longer fight against their hated faction, it also made loyalists meaningless because there is no point being Davion if you can't shoot Capellans (or the other way)
-map resets made taking planets and moving borders likewise meaningless
-quick play was never meant to exist, but was kept to appease the masses because no other mode had any meaning either
-no goals (other than grinding mechs) equals boring stale game play, made worse by the fact that once you rise up the tier system you basically gimp yourself by not playing only the best, full skill tree'd mechs making grinding new mechs a chore
-no reason to accumulate resources except to buy more mechs (ie no strategic level game)

RPG elements added to this game will keep people playing long after the grind and stale game play otherwise forces them to stop through boredom. As an example:

I played as much as I could in the lead up to CW, because I wanted to save enough Cbills (215m) so I could buy my unit a dropship so we could play in community warfare. When I created the unit I immediately donated 50m Cbills and another 50m over time (1m a week for a year). So I went with out mechs for a time to save and then donate 100m Cbills to the unit for a dropship that never eventuated. To this day I have all that money locked in my unit that I can't get back and the unit has absolutely nothing (not even invites any more) to spend it on. Do you have any idea how demoralizing that is? I guess I could get it back if I disbanded the unit but that would be the last RPG element left in the game for me. I don't need it now anyway (over 800m in the bank).

Having more goals (RPG elements) in this game will keep more people playing longer ie
-personal goals, special mechs gained through the loyalty trees that no one else can get (think gold mechs with out the $500 price tag)
-unit goals, tagging planets but with real benefits to the units, ie cheap mechs/weapons, drop and jump ship access, planetary fortifications, stuff you can spend unit Cbills on. Unit mech pool.
-faction goals, with universal bonuses for all loyalists, ie more planets owned=buff to cbill earnings per player

Essentially the game needs more reasons to play, not less and less as mentioned by many in this thread.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

MWO has nothing more gaming Substance as a Grinding Game by Facebook ...Mechfarmville...buy a new Mech..otherside , thats the goal of teh most F2P Games , only many have better MP FW modes like Battlestar Galactica Online (sadly P2W only)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 18 February 2019 - 03:23 AM.

[BIOHAZARD]

The only real problem this game has is a lack of good matchmaking system, that pulls similarly skilled teams together. And all the stomp c***p that follows.

Everything else is more or less acceptable.

[Tesunie]

BIOHAZARD, on 19 February 2019 - 01:49 AM, said:

The only real problem this game has is a lack of good matchmaking system, that pulls similarly skilled teams together. And all the stomp c***p that follows.

Everything else is more or less acceptable.

No matter what MM system is used, stomps will still happened. Typically, stomps actually happen even with very closely matched teams.

Part of that is how the game is set up. Being PvP without respawns (or with respawns being limited and typically far away from the action) means that, once a side loses a single pilot , they start to snowball to their own destruction.

Stomps would be inevitable no matter the MM system used, so I don't exactly think it's a MM issue as much as people make it out to seem. I mean, we've had no MM, Elo ranked MM and now PSR MM systems through the life of this game. In all three systems, stomps have happened. Out of all of those systems, the PSR MM is the most forgiving to the different tiers as it will not match T5 with T1 players (population depending).

(Of course, it might also be mentioned, are you talking MM for Group, Solo or Faction play?)

[Asylum Choir]

Greyhart, on 13 February 2019 - 05:11 AM, said:

*snip*

The playerbase.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Asylum Choir, on 19 February 2019 - 12:23 PM, said:

The playerbase.

There's no such thing as a good playerbase...

But there is such thing as coming up with a proper match balance, and PGI should give it a try.

[Tesunie]

Humble Dexter, on 20 February 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

But there is such thing as coming up with a proper match balance, and PGI should give it a try.

Give it a try...

Give it a try...

Please. Explain this more.

Give it a try...

What would, perhaps, might that include?
Going from absolutely no MM to an Elo based one, such as that used in Chess tournaments (which it's flaw here is it's use in a 1v1 setting to a random group setting)?
Or... Might it also include realizing that Elo isn't designed for a game involving random groups and changing it over to another system (PSR) which is in theory suppose to find a player's typical skill level and attempt to pair them with evenly skilled players from within the queuing pool of players available? (Said "average skill level" being determined by match score, which is influenced by what you do in a match, which typically can be an indicator of your skill level.)

So... Give it a try...

Please. Explain where PGI hasn't "given it a try" yet? What magic can you come up with that creates the perfect system, incapable of any possibility of being "played" by a player who wishes to abuse it, and "works every time"?


Sorry if I sound like I'm being a little harsh on you. I've just heard this finger pointing too much. Too many people are willing to forget what has been done, so they can say that nothing has been done. It's like my boss walking up to me whenever I'm on break, saying "I don't ever see you doing anything, go do your job" as though I don't actually do anything besides taking breaks from work... And that boss is willing to ignore the extra hours I put in covering for another co-worker, the jobs I did sign off on, the work logs I filled out saying what I did...

[Greyhart]

Tesunie, on 20 February 2019 - 08:30 PM, said:

Give it a try...

Give it a try...

Please. Explain this more.

Give it a try...

What would, perhaps, might that include?
Going from absolutely no MM to an Elo based one, such as that used in Chess tournaments (which it's flaw here is it's use in a 1v1 setting to a random group setting)?
Or... Might it also include realizing that Elo isn't designed for a game involving random groups and changing it over to another system (PSR) which is in theory suppose to find a player's typical skill level and attempt to pair them with evenly skilled players from within the queuing pool of players available? (Said "average skill level" being determined by match score, which is influenced by what you do in a match, which typically can be an indicator of your skill level.)

So... Give it a try...

Please. Explain where PGI hasn't "given it a try" yet? What magic can you come up with that creates the perfect system, incapable of any possibility of being "played" by a player who wishes to abuse it, and "works every time"?


Sorry if I sound like I'm being a little harsh on you. I've just heard this finger pointing too much. Too many people are willing to forget what has been done, so they can say that nothing has been done. It's like my boss walking up to me whenever I'm on break, saying "I don't ever see you doing anything, go do your job" as though I don't actually do anything besides taking breaks from work... And that boss is willing to ignore the extra hours I put in covering for another co-worker, the jobs I did sign off on, the work logs I filled out saying what I did...

For balancing in match maker barring some estimate of player skill the use of weight is the problem.

I am at a loss as to why they don't allocate a battle value to every mech and competent so that the deployed mech has a value based on what is in it and what the mech is. 100 ton mech with 1 small laser is not the same as a fully equiped mech.

Then balance the teams on battle value and player skill.

Player skill is always going to be an ify criteria and therefore a robust method of valuing the mech is needed.

Battle value can then be adjusted on a regular basis and used for FP rather than tonnage.

[Bud Crue]

Tesunie, on 20 February 2019 - 08:30 PM, said:

Please. Explain where PGI hasn't "given it a try" yet? What magic can you come up with that creates the perfect system, incapable of any possibility of being "played" by a player who wishes to abuse it, and "works every time"?

PGI may have tried in the past, but they are no longer tying at all these days, and that according to Paul is intentional. I don’t recall which NGNG twitch-cast-episode-thingy it was but a while back when complaint was made about the tier system and the resultant horrid MM system, Paul said (I’m paraphrasing here): “The system is working as intended. It is designed to keep truly new players away from the more experienced population and nothing more.” So, no, they are not trying to make a system that provides “proper match balance”, they are not trying at all.

[Jyrox]

Greyheart isn't very good at understanding the game mechanics.

Small Pulse Lasers are the best lasers going.