544 replies to this topic

[DAEDALOS513]

Javin, on 08 October 2020 - 06:58 PM, said:

Release the map tools and let us make maps for the game. Please!!! I could care less about more mechs. New maps would create new tactics, new content, something for players to do, just... please?

I suggested this a while ago.. someone mentioned there are copyright? issues which make this not possible..

[DAEDALOS513]

Lockheed_, on 09 October 2020 - 09:24 AM, said:

If you believe an old game with a clunky, dated engine can be turned around to the degree that it's generating more revenue and getting lots of players back (and this seems to be PGIs objective, not to make a couple of existing players happy) then you are living a pipe dream.

I really tried bringing friends to MWO, I got about 15 people interested and everyone took a look at the graphics and said "bro, i'm not playing a game that looks like 2005!"

The game has many things going for it that will always give us hope.. it's very unique in many ways, has a very loyal fan base and it's hella fun to play with friends... just to name a few..

If minecraft taught us anything it's that you don't need state of the art graphics to be a success.. it's all about the fun factor!

[dario03]

DAEDALOS513, on 08 October 2020 - 02:25 PM, said:

Lovin your common sense.. and yep, it doesn't take long for a pir with all those guns to crit out an assaults' weapons.. by the time the assault calls for help the damage is done.. not sure where this bizarre agenda against streaks is coming from.. especially since they are rarely seen..

I like your rock paper scissors analogy.. but unlike rock paper scissors which is based on luck.. here you can actually rely on your wits to win..

Its not bizarre for players to find somethings balance weird and to suggest better ways to balance it. What is bizarre is saying that players should just adapt to and accept anything but then adamantly fight against balance suggestions. Like if you can just adapt to anything and don't mind things being unbalanced then why do you care if streaks were buffed vs bigs and nerfed vs lights? Can't you just adapt to its change?

Edited by dario03, 09 October 2020 - 10:25 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

dario03, on 09 October 2020 - 10:21 AM, said:

Its not bizarre for players to find somethings balance weird and to suggest better ways to balance it. What is bizarre is saying that players should just adapt to and accept anything but then adamantly fight against balance suggestions. Like if you can just adapt to anything and don't mind things being unbalanced then why do you care if streaks were buffed vs bigs and nerfed vs lights? Can't you just adapt to its change?

That's fine, I'm all for freedom of opinion, but the 'pro streak nerfers' aren't providing any good reasons to justify the nerf. If you go by their reasoning that they are low skill or that they can 1v1 any light then many other weapon systems should be nerfed alot sooner than streaks.. like ATMs for example (which are more low-skill than streaks by far) that can own lights all the way to assaults.. or dual heavy gauss that can one-shot kill or core any class of mech. Do you see what I mean.. it's an endless rabbit hole.. and because of this there is always going to be a difference of opinion based on perspective.. a light pilot will always vote for nerfing streaks while an assault pilot will vote for nerfing pir's or lrms.. and on and on..

Bottom line: imo, nerfs and buffs are necessary sometimes and should be based on metrics that PGI has access to.. they are able to see at a glance what weapon systems or mech chassis dominate.. and alternatively which ones are lacking.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 09 October 2020 - 10:54 AM.

[dario03]

DAEDALOS513, on 09 October 2020 - 10:50 AM, said:

That's fine, I'm all for freedom of opinion, but the 'pro streak nerfers' aren't providing any good reasons to justify the nerf. If you go by their reasoning that they are low skill or that they can 1v1 any light then many other weapon systems should be nerfed alot sooner than streaks.. like ATMs for example that can dominate lights all the way to assaults.. or dual heavy gauss that can one-shot kill or core any class of mech. Do you see what I mean.. it's an endless rabbit hole.. and because of this there is always going to be a difference of opinion based on perspective.. a light pilot will always vote for nerfing streaks while an assault pilot will vote for nerfing pir's or lrms.. and on and on..

Bottom line: imo, nerfs and buffs are necessary sometimes and should be based on metrics that PGI has access to.. they are able to see at a glance what weapon systems or mech chassis dominate.. and alternatively which ones are lacking.

Its only a nerf if it didn't include enough offset buffs. What I have mainly pushed for is nerfs and buffs, so a rebalance. I also wouldn't mind changes to other weapons, just haven't commented much in this thread because not much was said while I've been posting.

[DAEDALOS513]

Lockheed_, on 09 October 2020 - 11:07 AM, said:

mine craft has a certain aesthetic that works for the game. MWO just looks dated. And it's not that much fun for most, just looking at the forums after PSR reset and apprently the very loyal fan base is not enough to keep the game/company afloat. so just because there are a few people still crazy about the game doesnt mean that it can generate enough revenue. I really dont think there are many people left. I keep seeing the same names pretty much all evening. The active player count can't be over a couple thousand and with many people screaming that the game is dead or sucks in other ways I don't think that more than 1/3 would be willing to spend money on the game.

I think the game itself IS fun.. the reason for the drop in playerbase falls squarely on the dev's decision making and for putting their focus on the wrong things over the years.. (Solaris.. lack of maps and distinguishing game modes.. no CW love.. etc).. and then the game went into a 'maintenance mode' and got stagnant.. do you see the difference? Completely not the games fault and the dev's have to work on prioritizing the right things.. which hopefully this forum will help them with.

To PGI: if it helps get more created.. I would gladly pay for a map pack. But for now.. re-release all the old maps and allow the CW maps to be used in soup queue.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 09 October 2020 - 11:38 AM.

[FullAlchemy]

Fix the arms on the NightStar, please.

[C337Skymaster]

Lockheed_, on 09 October 2020 - 09:24 AM, said:

If you believe an old game with a clunky, dated engine can be turned around to the degree that it's generating more revenue and getting lots of players back (and this seems to be PGIs objective, not to make a couple of existing players happy) then you are living a pipe dream.

I really tried bringing friends to MWO, I got about 15 people interested and everyone took a look at the graphics and said "bro, i'm not playing a game that looks like 2005!"

Man, this triggers me. I've been complaining for years that game companies are focusing too much on graphics and not enough on depth of gameplay or campaign story, and here you've got friends that are proving them right and me wrong. My issue is that a well made story, or a deeply fleshed-out game has more replayability than a superficial game that looks cool.

Take MWO for example: literally the only people that are still playing it are the ones who remember the books, or the earlier first-person games with a memorable and engaging story. Everyone else looks at it, goes "what's the point?" and leaves.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 09 October 2020 - 12:12 PM.

[MovinTarget]

DAEDALOS513, on 09 October 2020 - 09:37 AM, said:

I suggested this a while ago.. someone mentioned there are copyright? issues which make this not possible..

Not a deal breaker. I still have MW4 and could probably relearn map building, for example. If we had a set of criteria for a "concept walkthrough" people could render their own videos using whatever tools, post them for community review/voting and then PGI can use the files to either "inspire" new maps or recreate it to some extent.

However, I would vote that if we increase the # of maps, we also switch up the queue types to 4 v 4 (non scouting), 8 v 8 and 12 v 12... Having different-sized maps for different types.

[Daeron Katz]

OK caught up again. Lots of great feedback and ideas. Please keep it coming, and have a great weekend everyone!

[Unconstructive Waste of Time]

To allure totally new player to start and stay with MWO, make a simplified set of keyboard controls for beginners. I guess a lot are scared away by the initial complexity of the total set of controls: the list is impressive and difficult to understand in the beginning. Give also general easy solid tips to start with a mech.

Edited by Unconstructive Waste of Time, 10 October 2020 - 09:51 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Not a lot to say right this moment, but I want to recommend as much as possible:

If new IS 'mechs happen, take a long look at the IS Omnis for potential.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 09 October 2020 - 08:41 PM.

[Pinkie Pie]

Massively streamline the skill tree. This would have a twofold effect of bringing back interest to check it out, but also make it so much easier for a new player to grasp and not feel overwhelmed. It would mean easier experimentation to both find builds you like as well as change builds as tastes change.

No more fractional skills!

[Red October911]

[color=#030303]Well I haven't played in years but I wouldn't mind going back. I think what gave me the most sour taste in my mouth in MWO from DAY1 CLOSED BETA was that WoT copy paste having a garage, mechs and quickplay. It works for lore-less games like WoT because you're just controlling WW2 - early Cold War era tanks, no real story attached to that. But Battletech to me always felt like it would be better off having context behind its battles. I understand why Piranha went with that model at that time bc it was popular/works with mechlab + mech aesthetics but I feel like it was never suited for MWO. [/color][color=#030303]

What I would love to see now would be a complete change in development philosophy and a pretty huge redesign/shift IF possible. MWO stops being PVP and now focuses on PVE. We get in: Smarter AI, Tanks, Infantry, Aerospace, Choppers, Turrets, core meltdowns a la MW:LL you name it.[/color]

Quickplay is nuked and FactionPlay becomes your PVE where you have two different coop campaigns depending on whether you go clanner or IS. Completing campaigns/missions unlocks you swag for a given faction that you chose, maybe even a unique final mission for each faction if we're going full on redesign.
Monetisation could maybe be done on mech swag/ certain unique weapons/components/mechs that are LOSTECH levels of rare hopefully not game breaking but still worth your time.[/color]

And if going PVE is redundant because there is MW:5, at the very least I want that in MWO my battles MEAN something, not like random battles in WoT. Not sure how to achieve that in PVP but if you guys can pull it off, kudos. Still I'd like to see it be PVE but meant for a bigger audience than MW:5 like a MMOPVE in the vein of Warframe. Although then it's trying to justify why someone would purchase MW:5 in the first place instead of F2P MWO MMOPVE. Not really sure how to make MWO's PVE unique...

Edited by Red October911, 09 October 2020 - 09:47 PM.

[Horseman]

Daeron Katz, on 09 October 2020 - 05:32 PM, said:

OK caught up again. Lots of great feedback and ideas. Please keep it coming, and have a great weekend everyone!

From my perspective:
QP Matchmaker: the Saga continued
Please go back to 2 tier matchmaker from the current 3 tier.
1. The QP matchmaking went bad again once the tier separation was expanded to 3. The time when it was capped to 2 tiers produced longer matchmaking times but considerably better match quality.
2. This also prevents Cadets from being forced into matches with T1 players right off the bat (a situation that's painful for both sides)
3. This also reduces PSR inflation since nobody will be facing against substantially worse players

Solaris, the undead mode
Solaris has serious player activity problems. The numbers go up to reasonable whenever a season kick-off starts but then take a nosedive again shortly after and don't recover until next season.
What I think needs to be done is prop up the mode with events just enough to get some sort of regular population going that's more than single-digits.
1. Restructure the kick-off event to promote daily activity for at least a week or so (perhaps focus on a different division each day? Might help concentrate the numbers)
2. Never start a season kick-off on a weekday again, please. Weekends or, at most, Fridays.
3. Introduce recurring weekend events that promote Solaris activity after the kick-off runs out.
4. Quite possibly shorten Solaris seasons to 2 months from 3 months. 2 months is still plenty, 3 months just draaags on.
5. Perhaps a season-long event which tracks the players reaching 25 matches per each division? That would promote activity for the completionists.
6. Maybe, juuust maybe a yearly Solaris loot bag event?
7. Minor gripe: The seasonal reward warhorn has been the same exact warhorn every season since Season Four! It would be sufficient to just put the S1-4 warhorns on a rotation even if no genuinely new ones are introduced.
8. On that note... the buildup time and noise in S3 (? the "neurohelmet" one) warhorn makes it terrible. Cut out that buildup from the sound and animation and it would be pretty damn sweet.

Edited by Horseman, 10 October 2020 - 01:58 AM.

[Cruor vult]

Leonid, on 09 October 2020 - 11:04 AM, said:

Выскажусь.
Если политика работы останется прежней (а она останется) - на будущее этой игры смотрю скептически...
Если для начала перелопатить форум, отбрасывая бредовые и уже сделанные предложения, а потом проaНaлизировать все, что писали, отбрасывая все нежизнеспособные концепции, и как минимум отчитаться о результатах, что берут в работу - может что-то и выгорит. Но сама игра в любом случае останется камерной, не для всех.

I will speak out.

If the policy of work remains the same (and it will remain), I am skeptical about the future of this game ...

If you first shove through the forum, discarding delusional and already made proposals, and then about aNalizirovat everything that you wrote, discarding all non-viable concepts, and at least report on the results that they take to work - something may work out. But the game itself will in any case remain chamber, not for everyone.

[RRAMIREZ]

Horseman, on 10 October 2020 - 12:44 AM, said:

From my perspective:
QP Matchmaker: the Saga continued
Please go back to 2 tier matchmaker from the current 3 tier.
1. The QP matchmaking went bad again once the tier separation was expanded to 3. The time when it was capped to 2 tiers produced longer matchmaking times but considerably better match quality.
2. This also prevents Cadets from being forced into matches with T1 players right off the bat (a situation that's painful for both sides)
3. This also reduces PSR inflation since nobody will be facing against substantially worse players

I totally back that.
We didn't get the Tiers population evolution since long but I think that T1 and T2 are much more populated than what they were when valves were changed from 2 to 3... (no clue for T4 and T5)
But are the ones that prefer consistant quality over match making shorter time is an answer I don't have.

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 10 October 2020 - 01:38 AM.

[Horseman]

RRAMIREZ, on 10 October 2020 - 01:37 AM, said:

I totally back that.
We didn't get the Tiers population evolution since long but I think that T1 and T2 are much more populated than what they were when valves were changed from 2 to 3... (no clue for T4 and T5)
But are the ones that prefer consistant quality over match making shorter time is an answer I don't have.

I mean, the same guys who were screaming they want fast matchmaking are the ones screaming they don't like the stomps now... it just hasn't dawned on them that one leads to the other.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Cruor vult, on 10 October 2020 - 01:12 AM, said:

I will speak out.

If the policy of work remains the same (and it will remain), I am skeptical about the future of this game ...

If you first shove through the forum, discarding delusional and already made proposals, and then about aNalizirovat everything that you wrote, discarding all non-viable concepts, and at least report on the results that they take to work - something may work out. But the game itself will in any case remain chamber, not for everyone.

THIS!!! We need a scope of potential improvements by the developers first ... until then, we can not judge upon the future prospects of this game!

[Farix]

When you don't even peak 900* players in the last year and generally average 300-450* players per month, it becomes nearly impossible to have a working MM.

* According to Steam Charts