200 replies to this topic

[Alreech]

DAEDALOS513, on 26 April 2020 - 05:37 PM, said:

NONE of the CW updates ever fulfilled the original purpose of Faction Warfare.. that was to give real purpose to being in a unit and wearing a faction's flag. THIS was key in locking down their playerbase and PGi failed to do it.

I completly agree with this. And I'm still mad about that.

Rant incoming
PGI took dam to long time to create even the first step of CW, so most players get used to Quickplay.

Quickplay was bad from the start:
1. No respawns = egoistic game style to avoid damage and early game over = no teamwork
2. No Mech selection for the Map = all Mechs have to build for close combat = NASCAR Tactics on all maps.
3. Maps to small for 12 vs 12 or even 8 vs 8 = all Mechs have to build for close combat
4. Maps to big for NASCAR
5. No faction grouping in the match = faction meaningless
It was tolerated 2012 - 2014 by the players because we expectet PGI will deliver soon a better match system with factions, units, ect...
6. No clear Attacker/Defender roles, making modes like Assault or Incursion a lot more demanding with random teams.

1. & 2. could have been done in the CryEngine map editor with a few clicks, but PGI waited until the Leopard Dropships and the big Siege maps have been ready.
3. Small maps could have be used for smaller matchsizes like 8 vs 8 or 4 vs 4.
4. Even big maps could be use for smaller matchsizes if the play area is reduced.

5. Faction grouping could have worked with a faction lobby system in the MWO game so players can meet other players of their faction easy to form up groups.
Instead players have to got to 3rd party teamspeaks or have to join other forums to find players of the same faction. That was 1998s style of grouping up in a 2012 game.

Designing & Branding Faction Warfare as "Game Mode for big organised groups" was also a mistake.
Most players tend to play in smaller groups than 12 (to bring 12 players to a match, a Unit needs also more then 12 regular players).
Ignoring those players by not offering also smaller match sizes and forcing them to play "12 vs 12 or GTFO" was not a good idea.

The whole "Units claim planets on a strategey map" sounds nice, but don't work if most players want to play a Mechwarrior game and not "Risk in Space with extra steps".

What do I expect from Units and Factions?
I expect what the Units name is displayed in game in the Score Screens, not only the TAG.
I expect what a team has players of the same faction or the same alliance (FedCom = Steiner & Davion) and in the other team players of enemy factions (Kurita & Marik).
I expect what symbols of the defending side - like Flags and stuff - are on the map, and on the Drop Ships of the attacking side.
I expect to get faction stuff like Flags, Stands, Decals, Bonsais (for Kurita) or Burgers (for Davion) as faction reward. Instead I get a Mechbay and a Gazelle Drop Ship cockpit item...

But MWO went the "competetive players" focus.
It was now no more: "You and your Unit fight for that faction, build a good drop deck, work as team" instead it went "K/D is everything, fast matches with no respawns, get ASAP out of the match to grind with the next Mech XPs & Credits"

Sorry, if i want to play a game with fast matches what are all about K/D and have no factions...
Where are a lot of other games doing that better than MWO.
Some of them - like Titan Fall - have even big stompy robots.

Other games like the Battlefield Series have better teamplay on the servers than MWO.
And it's not the matchmaking of EA that does that wonder:
If you can respawn you can risk to help a teammate if he is under attack.
In MWO if the Anhilator stays back and get swarmed by lights let him die, because if you help him it's game over for you for that match.

Squads and Teams on the Battlefield Servers a keept together over multiple matches.
Teams and Lances in MWO get dissolved after each match.
What is better for teamwork with random players you never met before?

Battlefield is even better in displaying factions: if you play Defender on China side the map has your faction mark all over: flags, posters, ect. If you take as attacker a control point, you factions flag is rised. And that since 2002.

DICE even made "the Unit thing" in 2011s BF 3 with Platoons & Battlelog better than PGI from 2012 - 2020.

So what should MWO be, and what is it now?
A competetive team deathmatch shooter like CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake?
Some kind of "Mech Battle Royal" with team deathmatch, random players on each side but no looting (like in PUG) or building (like in Fortnite) and a Charakter designer from a 1984 boardgame that was never balanced from 1984 - 1996 ?
A tactic shooter like Battlefield with small player groups (Squads/Lances) working together and factions to rank up and stuff like faction flags on the maps?

[Bud Crue]

DAEDALOS513, on 26 April 2020 - 05:37 PM, said:

NONE of the CW updates ever fulfilled the original purpose of Faction Warfare.. that was to give real purpose to being in a unit and wearing a faction's flag. THIS was key in locking down their playerbase and PGi failed to do it. The vocal Solaris group you speak of was completely overshadowed by the massive CW group that was loyally standing in the wings while PGI kept lying through their teeth, postponing and breaking promises about finishing CW.. CW was the reason most players were sticking it out with the game.. certainly not Solaris.

And this sums up nicely why your original premise up above, that if only PGI had dedicated their Solaris efforts toward CW instead, they would have provided long term player growth is erroneous. In all those years, and even now, none of PGI's "updates ever fulfilled the original purpose of Faction Warfare" but you think if they would have just thrown more of those same PGI level efforts at it instead of Solaris, we'd have had population growth and "real purpose" in the mode?

You recognize the historical incompetence, but insist it would have been different but for Solaris. To me this is like, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me; but in this case PGI fooled us more than four times, but you think that if PGI would have just skipped out on Solaris, that oh boy, that their fifth phase would have been what saved the day? I just can't see that as a reasonable outcome.

DAEDALOS513, on 26 April 2020 - 05:37 PM, said:

Even if there was a sizable group that wanted Solaris, PGI should have prioritized CW and finished it before beginning a new project. Any potential player loss due to not implementing Solaris and focusing on Faction Warfare would have been miniscule compared to the losses they experienced for not finishing C-dub. On top of all this, finishing Faction Warfare would have brought in new players because units would be clamoring for members.. Solaris doesn't have that same benefit.

Here too, your position that PGI should have "prioritized CW and finished it", suggests to me that you think PGI hadn't already "finished CW" to their standards. What makes you think that? There is nothing in the record over the years of Russ's or Paul's comments that they ever had any intention of making the mode substantially different once it was in game (we can all accept that the mode as originally advertised was never put into the game in the first place, but that is a different debate). Your hypothesis that if only PGI would have skipped Solaris and thrown those efforts into CW I don't think would have changed that.

Four+ phases over as many years and the mode is still essentially the same. Do you remember Phase 3, with Longtom, and the rest, and the spiffy video they even had made to advertise it to their new STEAM customers...their biggest potential market since launch? I think it more reasonable to hold that out as the example of just what level of development effort that PGI was ever willing and able to put into the mode to make it as appealing as possible, in their own eyes; and that, as we all can recall was meme worthy bad. Even this level of dedicated development still lacked even a sniff of elements that would "give real purpose to being in a unit and wearing a faction's flag", as you appear to think they would have provided but for Solaris.

DAEDALOS513, on 26 April 2020 - 05:37 PM, said:

BTW, my opinion isn't 'pure conjecture', it's educated opinion. I've been with the game almost since the beginning (less a few months), in that time I have stuck it out with PGI's good and bad decision making... I've dropped around 50,000 matches and own over 460 elited mechs.. during most of that time I also created and led one of the top units in the game. When I speak it's coming from experience.. and despite what you might be thinking.. i'm not trying to brag.. i'm trying to put some weight behind my words by showing you what a big MWO fan I am.

I'm sorry but it is conjecture, and it is conjecture that ignores the history of the game, its population data, and the record of the developers themselves. How much you have played, how many mechs you have, or how good you are at the game has zero impact on your premise put forth above. Also, your note that you dropped 50,000 matches in a mode that you claim PGI failed to properly develop, and that you led a top unit in a mode you insist never had any real purpose from the beginning, undercuts just about all of your criticisms of PGI's conduct here.

Edited by Bud Crue, 27 April 2020 - 05:33 AM.

[Horseman]

Nearly Dead, on 26 April 2020 - 05:47 AM, said:

Matchmaker needs to look at some key metric from the players last 100 games. I propose measuring (Damage / Tonnage) in each match.

That would heavily lean towards builds specialized for dealing damage and would encourage farming damage rather than focusing on efficient kills. Win/Loss Ratio is a better metric and pretty much agnostic to the selection of mech - if your WLR is a net positive, you're an asset, if your WLR is a net negative, you're a liability.

DAEDALOS513, on 26 April 2020 - 08:16 AM, said:

There are too many variables to consider and you guys are living in la-la land if you think all you need is 24 players to create even a reasonable match-up. You're hanging on a hope and a dream for MM to work wonders when it's impossible because of lack of player base.. I've seen this problem in other games.. players whine that their mm needs to be tweaked and reworked when the problem of lack of player base must be solved first and foremost. It's a catch-22..

All you need is 24 players... if your matchmaker assigns them to teams based on meaningful performance metrics. Currently the tier-based matchmaking is all GIGO.
Again, any improvement towards equalizing teams at all would reduce the frequency of stomps. Perfectly equalizing them is something to aim for but not realistically attainable - but that's OK, the dirty little secret is that it just needs to get them close enough for randomness to take it the rest of the way.

[DAEDALOS513]

Alreech, on 27 April 2020 - 12:13 AM, said:

I completly agree with this. And I'm still mad about that.

Rant incoming
PGI took dam to long time to create even the first step of CW, so most players get used to Quickplay.

Quickplay was bad from the start:
1. No respawns = egoistic game style to avoid damage and early game over = no teamwork
2. No Mech selection for the Map = all Mechs have to build for close combat = NASCAR Tactics on all maps.
3. Maps to small for 12 vs 12 or even 8 vs 8 = all Mechs have to build for close combat
4. Maps to big for NASCAR
5. No faction grouping in the match = faction meaningless
It was tolerated 2012 - 2014 by the players because we expectet PGI will deliver soon a better match system with factions, units, ect...
6. No clear Attacker/Defender roles, making modes like Assault or Incursion a lot more demanding with random teams.

1. & 2. could have been done in the CryEngine map editor with a few clicks, but PGI waited until the Leopard Dropships and the big Siege maps have been ready.
3. Small maps could have be used for smaller matchsizes like 8 vs 8 or 4 vs 4.
4. Even big maps could be use for smaller matchsizes if the play area is reduced.

5. Faction grouping could have worked with a faction lobby system in the MWO game so players can meet other players of their faction easy to form up groups.
Instead players have to got to 3rd party teamspeaks or have to join other forums to find players of the same faction. That was 1998s style of grouping up in a 2012 game.

Designing & Branding Faction Warfare as "Game Mode for big organised groups" was also a mistake.
Most players tend to play in smaller groups than 12 (to bring 12 players to a match, a Unit needs also more then 12 regular players).
Ignoring those players by not offering also smaller match sizes and forcing them to play "12 vs 12 or GTFO" was not a good idea.

The whole "Units claim planets on a strategey map" sounds nice, but don't work if most players want to play a Mechwarrior game and not "Risk in Space with extra steps".

What do I expect from Units and Factions?
I expect what the Units name is displayed in game in the Score Screens, not only the TAG.
I expect what a team has players of the same faction or the same alliance (FedCom = Steiner & Davion) and in the other team players of enemy factions (Kurita & Marik).
I expect what symbols of the defending side - like Flags and stuff - are on the map, and on the Drop Ships of the attacking side.
I expect to get faction stuff like Flags, Stands, Decals, Bonsais (for Kurita) or Burgers (for Davion) as faction reward. Instead I get a Mechbay and a Gazelle Drop Ship cockpit item...

But MWO went the "competetive players" focus.
It was now no more: "You and your Unit fight for that faction, build a good drop deck, work as team" instead it went "K/D is everything, fast matches with no respawns, get ASAP out of the match to grind with the next Mech XPs & Credits"

Sorry, if i want to play a game with fast matches what are all about K/D and have no factions...
Where are a lot of other games doing that better than MWO.
Some of them - like Titan Fall - have even big stompy robots.

Other games like the Battlefield Series have better teamplay on the servers than MWO.
And it's not the matchmaking of EA that does that wonder:
If you can respawn you can risk to help a teammate if he is under attack.
In MWO if the Anhilator stays back and get swarmed by lights let him die, because if you help him it's game over for you for that match.

Squads and Teams on the Battlefield Servers a keept together over multiple matches.
Teams and Lances in MWO get dissolved after each match.
What is better for teamwork with random players you never met before?

Battlefield is even better in displaying factions: if you play Defender on China side the map has your faction mark all over: flags, posters, ect. If you take as attacker a control point, you factions flag is rised. And that since 2002.

DICE even made "the Unit thing" in 2011s BF 3 with Platoons & Battlelog better than PGI from 2012 - 2020.

So what should MWO be, and what is it now?
A competetive team deathmatch shooter like CoD, Unreal Tournament, Quake?
Some kind of "Mech Battle Royal" with team deathmatch, random players on each side but no looting (like in PUG) or building (like in Fortnite) and a Charakter designer from a 1984 boardgame that was never balanced from 1984 - 1996 ?
A tactic shooter like Battlefield with small player groups (Squads/Lances) working together and factions to rank up and stuff like faction flags on the maps?

So many good points.. I can feel the passion in your words.. I don’t think any other game has such a devoted, patient, forgiving and educated player base like this one.. it’s truly a sin and hard to comprehend how a company can screw things up so badly for players like you.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 28 April 2020 - 10:37 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Bud Crue, on 27 April 2020 - 05:32 AM, said:

And this sums up nicely why your original premise up above, that if only PGI had dedicated their Solaris efforts toward CW instead, they would have provided long term player growth is erroneous. In all those years, and even now, none of PGI's "updates ever fulfilled the original purpose of Faction Warfare" but you think if they would have just thrown more of those same PGI level efforts at it instead of Solaris, we'd have had population growth and "real purpose" in the mode?

You recognize the historical incompetence, but insist it would have been different but for Solaris. To me this is like, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me; but in this case PGI fooled us more than four times, but you think that if PGI would have just skipped out on Solaris, that oh boy, that their fifth phase would have been what saved the day? I just can't see that as a reasonable outcome.

What they did with Solaris was a beautiful work of programming art.. From the user interface.. to the Solaris competitions... the cool bolt on prizes.. the variety of maps... oh man I DO wish they had put that same effort into cw..

Forgive me I want to read all your message but will take some time... I will read and reply as I go

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 27 April 2020 - 06:17 PM.

[Alreech]

DAEDALOS513, on 27 April 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

What they did with Solaris was a beautiful work of programming art.. From the user interface.. to the Solaris competitions... the cool bolt on prizes.. the variety of maps... oh man I DO wish they had put that same effort into cw..

Forgive me I want to read all your message but will take some time... I will read and reply as I go

The fun thing is that many things in Solaris would do also fine in 4 vs 4 / 8 vs 8 / 12 vs 12:

• Spawning in Mechhanger: Attacker could spawn in Dropship, defender could spawn in Mechhangar
  
• Faction themed Bolt Ons like banners, Katana / Dao / Longsword for Kurita / Liao / FedCom/Marik...

Edited by Alreech, 27 April 2020 - 11:50 PM.

[Belorion]

Re-spawns in games are typically a stupid idea. The only time I have seen it even close to being a good idea is in MWO Faction play (granted I haven't played a huge number of games).

One of the reasons I don't play FP a whole lot is that it takes a lot longer than QP. I have to want to be invested to play FP.

[Alreech]

Belorion, on 28 April 2020 - 09:24 AM, said:

Re-spawns in games are typically a stupid idea.

Re-Spawns in games were pretty common before the Battle Royal stuff started.
Even in the high competetive Quake and Unreal Tournament E-Sport Scenes.
Deathmatch / Teamdeathmatch with Respawn was the standard.

Call of Duty and Battlefield use respawns, even Games like ARMA.

[Belorion]

Common doesn't make it good.

[Alreech]

Yeah, Quake, Unreal, CoD and Battlefield are games no one has played because they are not good...

[Horseman]

Alreech, on 28 April 2020 - 10:24 AM, said:

Yeah, Quake, Unreal, CoD and Battlefield are games no one has played because they are not good...

He was talking about the mechanic. Just because it's common in the genre doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing or a thing that needs to be included here.

[DAEDALOS513]

Bud Crue, on 27 April 2020 - 05:32 AM, said:

Here too, your position that PGI should have "prioritized CW and finished it", suggests to me that you think PGI hadn't already "finished CW" to their standards. What makes you think that? There is nothing in the record over the years of Russ's or Paul's comments that they ever had any intention of making the mode substantially different once it was in game (we can all accept that the mode as originally advertised was never put into the game in the first place, but that is a different debate). Your hypothesis that if only PGI would have skipped Solaris and thrown those efforts into CW I don't think would have changed that.

Four+ phases over as many years and the mode is still essentially the same. Do you remember Phase 3, with Longtom, and the rest, and the spiffy video they even had made to advertise it to their new STEAM customers...their biggest potential market since launch? I think it more reasonable to hold that out as the example of just what level of development effort that PGI was ever willing and able to put into the mode to make it as appealing as possible, in their own eyes; and that, as we all can recall was meme worthy bad. Even this level of dedicated development still lacked even a sniff of elements that would "give real purpose to being in a unit and wearing a faction's flag", as you appear to think they would have provided but for Solaris.

When they rolled out faction warfare for the first time and blasted everyone's eyeballs with that gorgeous, humongous sector of space.. that right there told us that they had big plans for c-dub.. much bigger than what we got.. That map told us that units would be conquering planets 'RISK' style (as someone else put it). Why have so many stars if units couldn't hold onto them for more than a short while until reset? I seem to recall plans for using MC earned to add fortifications to planets, a way to buy assets for the planet, etc.. was this just the players talking and wishful thinking? I don't remember..

[Belorion]

Despite the noise here on the forum... everyone in game seems to like it.

There was definitely talk of merc companies being able to hold planets.

[General Solo]

I hate it

[Alreech]

Horseman, on 28 April 2020 - 10:55 AM, said:

He was talking about the mechanic. Just because it's common in the genre doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing or a thing that needs to be included here.

He was literally saying:

Quote

"Re-spawns in games are typically a stupid idea."

Talking about game mechanics:
Quickplay at the moment is just a Team Deathmatch with no respawn.
It's like Battle Royal without looting (PUG) or building (Fortnite)

Re-Spwans can be done different:
Unlimited, only time limit for the match:
typical for early death match games like Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament.
In those games K/D is a very good indicator for player skill.
Works great in all kinds of Death Match Games were all players avatars have the same loadouts (hitpoints & weapons)

Limited by a ticket system:
Done by Battlefield 1942.
Every kill / respawn costs the enemy 1 ticket, if the team tickets went zero it's Game over for that team.
Opposite tickets are also slowly dropping if one team helds the majority of Control Points.
Works great in games with many players and a game play centered around holding control points.

No respawn:
Works great with small teams and clear objectives / clear attacker & defender role.
Example: Counter Strike
And even Counter Strike has game modes with respawns.

Using dropdecks with limited spawn in MWO has many benefits:
- Matchmaker doesn't have to consider tonnage during match making
- Players can choose the fitting Mechs for a Map
- Players can risk one of their Mechs to scout or to help an other player

The four Mech Drop Deck of Faction Warfare was designed for the big siege maps and is too big for smaller maps.
That doesn't mean that "Re-spawns in games / MWO are typically a stupid idea."
It just shows that smaller drop decks are needed on other maps.

Edited by Alreech, 29 April 2020 - 01:54 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

DAEDALOS513, on 28 April 2020 - 11:15 AM, said:

When they rolled out faction warfare for the first time and blasted everyone's eyeballs with that gorgeous, humongous sector of space.. that right there told us that they had big plans for c-dub.. much bigger than what we got.. That map told us that units would be conquering planets 'RISK' style (as someone else put it). Why have so many stars if units couldn't hold onto them for more than a short while until reset? I seem to recall plans for using MC earned to add fortifications to planets, a way to buy assets for the planet, etc.. was this just the players talking and wishful thinking? I don't remember..

No, I remember being shown a video of Russ touting all this stuff. Looks like it was the original pitch, though, and not anything from after they released it.

[C337Skymaster]

So something that I'd like to see, that I'll probably be shouted down for, but I'll say it, anyway, is for all trial 'mechs to be removed and replaced with a more immersive loyalty system.

Basically, as a new player, you're broke and dispossessed (you don't own any 'mechs). In order to participate in combat, you have to sign up with a faction's military, and be issued a 'mech by their quartermaster. This can take one of two forms: either there's a limited inventory and you're "issued" a 'mech based on your performance in the training grounds, or you can just pick any 'mech that is traditionally associated with that faction, and you would be placed in a stock 'mech.

So in order to pilot the Atlas-K, Dragon, Jenner, Panther, etc, you would need to be signed up with the Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery. The Stalker-5M, Banshee-3M, Awesome-9M, would all require you to be enlisted in the Free Worlds League Military. To pilot a Raven-3L, or a Cataphract (except the 3D), you have to enlist with Liao, etc. This would be combined with tech trees, so each faction has "their" 'mechs, and then all factions have access to the same "common" 'mechs (Stalker-3F, Awesome-8Q, Atlas-D, etc). It would make being a new player much more immersive. At the same time, new players should resume earning XP on their 'mechs (they can't apply any of it until they buy it, but they're earning it, in the mean time, since they'll probably want to buy what they're used to).

Honestly, I can't wait for PGI to go belly up so this game becomes community run and updated like MWLL. Then the community can implement all the changes that they've been begging for for the last 8 years. I've seen the work that gets put into MWLL and Battletech mods: the talent definitely exists in this community to accomplish everything PGI promised and failed to deliver.

[Alreech]

C337Skymaster, on 03 June 2020 - 08:40 PM, said:

So something that I'd like to see, that I'll probably be shouted down for, but I'll say it, anyway, is for all trial 'mechs to be removed and replaced with a more immersive loyalty system.

Basically, as a new player, you're broke and dispossessed (you don't own any 'mechs). In order to participate in combat, you have to sign up with a faction's military, and be issued a 'mech by their quartermaster. This can take one of two forms: either there's a limited inventory and you're "issued" a 'mech based on your performance in the training grounds, or you can just pick any 'mech that is traditionally associated with that faction, and you would be placed in a stock 'mech.

So in order to pilot the Atlas-K, Dragon, Jenner, Panther, etc, you would need to be signed up with the Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery. The Stalker-5M, Banshee-3M, Awesome-9M, would all require you to be enlisted in the Free Worlds League Military. To pilot a Raven-3L, or a Cataphract (except the 3D), you have to enlist with Liao, etc. This would be combined with tech trees, so each faction has "their" 'mechs, and then all factions have access to the same "common" 'mechs (Stalker-3F, Awesome-8Q, Atlas-D, etc). It would make being a new player much more immersive. At the same time, new players should resume earning XP on their 'mechs (they can't apply any of it until they buy it, but they're earning it, in the mean time, since they'll probably want to buy what they're used to).

I would like all of that (plus passive skill nodes on the trials), but:

And then the new players enters the match and is mixed in the same team with players from other factions.
His Mech is build for teamwork (like the NARC Raven) but no other players run lame LRM builds.
Or he drops on polar Highlands with an short range build and getting wasted by LRMs.
Or he drops in a slow Assault like the Atlas, is left behind in the Nascar and killed off by faster Mechs.

Quote

Honestly, I can't wait for PGI to go belly up so this game becomes community run and updated like MWLL. Then the community can implement all the changes that they've been begging for for the last 8 years. I've seen the work that gets put into MWLL and Battletech mods: the talent definitely exists in this community to accomplish everything PGI promised and failed to deliver.

"But the Community want's only Solo Quickplay without that faction stuff and without the need to group up first. Quick and fast Games, no respawn and teamwork. Get killed, respawn in an other match with an other mech, YOLO. MWO is a competetiv Shooter about grinding up Tiers to make it to the top. That's why Solo Quickplay is the most succesful game mode"
Honestly, why shoud the community change anything on MWO if those players take over from PGI?

Edited by Alreech, 04 June 2020 - 04:03 AM.

[Horseman]

C337Skymaster, on 03 June 2020 - 08:40 PM, said:

So something that I'd like to see, that I'll probably be shouted down for, but I'll say it, anyway, is for all trial 'mechs to be removed and replaced with a more immersive loyalty system.

Basically, as a new player, you're broke and dispossessed (you don't own any 'mechs). In order to participate in combat, you have to sign up with a faction's military, and be issued a 'mech by their quartermaster. This can take one of two forms: either there's a limited inventory and you're "issued" a 'mech based on your performance in the training grounds, or you can just pick any 'mech that is traditionally associated with that faction, and you would be placed in a stock 'mech.

So in order to pilot the Atlas-K, Dragon, Jenner, Panther, etc, you would need to be signed up with the Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery. The Stalker-5M, Banshee-3M, Awesome-9M, would all require you to be enlisted in the Free Worlds League Military. To pilot a Raven-3L, or a Cataphract (except the 3D), you have to enlist with Liao, etc. This would be combined with tech trees, so each faction has "their" 'mechs, and then all factions have access to the same "common" 'mechs (Stalker-3F, Awesome-8Q, Atlas-D, etc). It would make being a new player much more immersive. At the same time, new players should resume earning XP on their 'mechs (they can't apply any of it until they buy it, but they're earning it, in the mean time, since they'll probably want to buy what they're used to).

This belongs ina a single-player MW game. There, it would be great.
In the PVP online environment we have here, it would mainly hobble and confuse new players.

Edited by Horseman, 04 June 2020 - 04:36 AM.

[C337Skymaster]

Alreech, on 04 June 2020 - 04:02 AM, said:

I would like all of that (plus passive skill nodes on the trials), but:

And then the new players enters the match and is mixed in the same team with players from other factions.
His Mech is build for teamwork (like the NARC Raven) but no other players run lame LRM builds.
Or he drops on polar Highlands with an short range build and getting wasted by LRMs.
Or he drops in a slow Assault like the Atlas, is left behind in the Nascar and killed off by faster Mechs.


"But the Community want's only Solo Quickplay without that faction stuff and without the need to group up first. Quick and fast Games, no respawn and teamwork. Get killed, respawn in an other match with an other mech, YOLO. MWO is a competetiv Shooter about grinding up Tiers to make it to the top. That's why Solo Quickplay is the most succesful game mode"
Honestly, why shoud the community change anything on MWO if those players take over from PGI?

Horseman, on 04 June 2020 - 04:36 AM, said:

This belongs ina a single-player MW game. There, it would be great.
In the PVP online environment we have here, it would mainly hobble and confuse new players.

Thing is, how is that different from a new player taking the trial Highlander, or trial Atlas, now? Both slow, the Highlander is built awkwardly and the Atlas is all short-ranged, with no particular defenses against being left behind or LRMed on Polar Highlands... And honestly, there are a lot of 'mechs, especially a lot of assaults, that carry a single LRM launcher as their "something with range to shoot while I'm getting there", which could take advantage of the Raven's NARC. In theory, these same players who are new and playing with stock "faction" 'mechs are supposed to be playing with other new players who are in the same situation. Yes, we know the population is dwindling so much that that's not how it's working, anymore, but that's how it's "supposed" to work.