Jump to content

Looking To The Future Of Mechwarrior


566 replies to this topic

#401 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 19 October 2020 - 07:15 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 18 October 2020 - 03:53 PM, said:

Most of the voices I hear calling for "balance" also scream "screw the lore, just make a pokey shooter", which I feel completely dishonors the game we're playing, and strips away anything and everything that is special about it.

I'm on board with isolating those people into a "cannon fodder" role that everyone more interested in the rest of what makes Battletech "Battletech" can manage and throw into the line of fire.

The life of "the only nerd in class" surfacing unbidden, once again.
If I could have attached a Facebook-like heart to this post, C337, I would have added five. Well said.

MechWarrior Online was supposed to honor the Lore. In 2013, I think it was, Russ got hold of the books that made up the latest set of rules for BattleTech, which included almost everything from the Mercenaries Handbooks, both the original and 3055, and he set them up on his desk, took a picture and posted it. I guess they found their way to a wood chipper pretty quickly after that because nothing ever came from there. His goal had been to say -and I believe it's counted in the post where the picture was placed, as well- they were working on putting in things like resource, unit, and contract management.

This was from September 26, 2013, but that's just when Koniving posted it...



I just looked across the YouTube sphere and can no longer find Dev Vlog 0. I had it saved in my Watch Later list for reference, just like the 2013 video, above, but it was apparently removed. Shame on you, Piranha! However, there's this,



At around 2:15 he's talking about eliminating an Arms Race... yeah, Russ, how's that goin' for ya?

I will reiterate that I think the combat simulator, at least as it was in 2017, the last time I played, was in really good shape. What this game needs is purpose, more Command and Control, resource management, actual units, not a list of names, but names, assignments, placement and command by Commanders, and play by those who are in the units. If there are holes to fill, it's up to the Commanding Officer in the fight to allow or disallow those holes to be filled; almost no one on this planet is able to put so much time into a game that they can be ready to drop every hour of every day, so that leaves holes, sometimes, and those can be filled by Ghosts.

I want to see unit pages on the Piranha servers that allow Commanders to arrange their forces and resources, to manage contracts, to call for simulator training and tightening up, where Officers can set criteria necessary give awards to their people and be able to work up schemes for promotion, moving those who are responsible in the game up to positions of authority where they can gain prestige, earn more C-Bills and MC, and eventually be able to develop and assign missions, objectives and people to achieve them. I do want a means of being able to perform repairs on the Battlefield -perhaps not as lore-breaking as the Mobile Repair Units from the video games, but a LOT closer than having to send a 'Mech back to a rack or DropShip to get repairs that WOULD take hours and, sometimes, days to achieve; I'm not stupid, I know you can't slow a game down that much. I also want to see the number of C-Bills and MCs paid out to folks slowed to about one-tenth of what it is, now, to bring the economy more in-line with the books and FORCE Commanders to think on a strategic level, with estimated losses compared to the importance of the mission, and where Players would think on a more tactical level so they don't get their 'Mech shot out from under them. One of the reasons I, and many others, picked up and stuck with BattleTech was because of the history and lore of the game, the romantic notions within about management of all sorts of things and about using tactics and strategy to defeat your opponents, not just brute force and hope.

I want to see a return to BattleTech.

#402 DAEDALOS513

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • LocationArea 52

Posted 19 October 2020 - 08:03 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 18 October 2020 - 11:40 AM, said:

No, my point being that the defending team would be 11 combat-capable 'mechs and the VIP, and the attacking team would be 12 combat-capable 'mechs. So you're already fighting at a 12-11 deficit. The AI nature of the VIP/Convoy allows the combat to take place between three full lances of 'mechs on each side. The AI for a Mobile Field base doesn't have to be any more complicated than the one they already have: it just moves along a set path at a set speed. The difference would be the ability for the Company Commander to dictate objective waypoints, so they can adjust the convoy route.

The real "cream of the crop" (which still shouldn't be TOO hard to code, I'd hope) would be the repair functionality.

Would it be that hard to add a 13th player on the VIP team?

View PostC337Skymaster, on 18 October 2020 - 06:06 PM, said:

I honestly don't remember a time when there wasn't voting, and I've been playing since August of 2015. Escort came about a year or two later. The only change was hiding what the votes were at before you cast yours, and locking your vote once cast, to mitigate some of the multiplier hoarding.

If i'm not mistaken.. voting was added for a time, then removed, then re-added again.. just not sure where VIP falls in..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 19 October 2020 - 08:08 AM.


#403 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 434 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 19 October 2020 - 08:52 AM

View PostDAEDALOS513, on 19 October 2020 - 08:03 AM, said:

Would it be that hard to add a 13th player on the VIP team?

I wouldn't ordinarily think so, but PGI seems hell-bent on even teams only. There was a massive clamor for YEARS, it feels like, to have FP be 10v12 (Two stars vs three lances) to more accurately balance the Clan vs IS tech imbalance, rather than the series of buffs and nerfs to weapons and chassis that we got, but PGI shot it down each and every time, adamant that they were unable to execute any kind of imbalance, whatsoever.

View PostDAEDALOS513, on 19 October 2020 - 08:03 AM, said:

If i'm not mistaken.. voting was added for a time, then removed, then re-added again.. just not sure where VIP falls in..


Well, the game started in 2012, and I didn't get my hands on a computer that could play it until late August 2015 (and I didn't seriously start playing it until I got back from deployment in December), so I feel like I missed out on most of that, or didn't recognize the change for what it was, at the time, due to being very wet-behind-the-ears. I do remember when Escort was added, and that I'd just recently discovered Critical Rocket on YouTube, although I think it was someone else who pointed out that it was a ripoff of his videos and I saw the evidence afterward. It felt like it was around for several years, and that it's been gone for several years, but that doesn't fit very well into my "only been playing for 5 years" timespan. :)

#404 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 19 October 2020 - 09:06 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 18 October 2020 - 03:53 PM, said:


So the possibility of satire did occur to me, about an hour after I hit "post". In short: his post was extremely triggering, as that mindset is exactly what frustrates the crap out of me, personally, since I feel like I run into it almost everywhere. Most of the voices I hear calling for "balance" also scream "screw the lore, just make a pokey shooter", which I feel completely dishonors the game we're playing, and strips away anything and everything that is special about it. Seeing it in writing in such a "straight faced" tone set me off. IF it was, in fact, satirical, then Alreech, I apologize.


No, It was not satirical.
You can't improve MWO without changing it's "most succesfull Game mode", Solo Quickplay.

VIP won't work for the same reason why Conquest or Assault don't work in Solo Quickplay:
It's too complex for a team of 12 random players who can't communicate prior and during the match.
How many times you lost a Conquest game because some players left the team to go capping instead of moving & killing with the rest of the team?
Same would happen in VIP: some players will attack the enemy, other will guard the VIP and in the end the team is splitted up and get killed by the opposite team what isn't splitted.
IMHO improving MWO - a 8 year old game with a now uncommon engine - is a waste of time and money.

Porting Mechwarrior 5 to the new X-Box & Playstation consoles would allow to get new customers.
Mecha games have been also popular to the old generation of consoles (Mech Assault, Steel Battalion, Armored Core, Gundam, Macross,...) so there is a chance to get new customers.
Using the existing MWO Mech models to create & sell DLCs with Clan Campaings is also possible.

Adding more Multiplayer modes to Mechwarrior 5 can be done after all MWO Mechs are ported to the MW5 Engine.
An if PgI is sensible they should avoid the things that went wrong with MWO:
Too many Queues
Too many "Game modes for experts"
Too unrestricted mechlab that makes few Mechs good and most Mechs useless
Bad tools for grouping up
Bad tools for communication, command and control
Too complex matchmaking by not enforcing things like fixed group size & fixed tonnage

IMHO Mechwarrior 5 would need 2 multiplayer modes:
Solaris:
small Maps, no respawns.
Variable matchsizes depending on aviable players & their tier: 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3.
No AI units

Faction Warfare:
Dropdecks with 3 spawns, group only, fixed group sizes of 4 or 5 players (IS & Clans)
Each faction gets a lobby to group up before launching (create group, join group, filter by ping, language,...).
medium & large Maps
Variable matchsizes depending on aviable groups & their tier:
4 vs 4, 8 vs 8, 12+1 vs 12+1 (IS)
5 vs 5, 10 vs 10, 15+1 vs 15+1 (Clans)
8 vs 10, 16+1 vs 15+2 (IS vs Clans)
Conquest style game mode with control points to capture.
AI units as defenders for control points and reinforcements.
Clear Attacker/Defender roles instead of both teams doing both.

The +1 Player in bigger modes acts only as commander & organiser
He has access to spectator view & battlegrid and can command AI units like VTOLs, Tanks ect to support his team.
This Player can select a planet and invite groups of his faction for a big 12 vs 12 or 16 vs 15 battle.
Selecting a planet would trigger a challenge to the controling faction to also team up with a dedicated player acting as commander / organiser.

Edited by Alreech, 19 October 2020 - 09:13 AM.


#405 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 19 October 2020 - 10:00 AM

View PostAlreech, on 19 October 2020 - 09:06 AM, said:

No, It was not satirical.
You can't improve MWO without changing it's "most succesfull Game mode", Solo Quickplay.
Then the game should die, period.

Quote

How many times you lost a Conquest game because some players left the team to go capping instead of moving & killing with the rest of the team?
Fortunately, intelligent folks who've actually trained other people, before, can make it happen. As long as there's a plan for it, everyone's on the same sheet of music, communication is good, as you've pointed out, it can not only work but be enormously successful. BTDT.

Quote

IMHO improving MWO - a 8 year old game with a now uncommon engine - is a waste of time and money.
Russ was talking about moving things to a newer engine, however, I don't remember which one, so it is possible this game could pick up, again. However, if Daeron and Russ and the crew are not listening, then yes this game is dead.

Quote

Adding more Multiplayer modes to Mechwarrior 5 can be done after all MWO Mechs are ported to the MW5 Engine.
An if PgI is sensible they should avoid the things that went wrong with MWO:
Too many Queues
Too many "Game modes for experts"
Too unrestricted mechlab that makes few Mechs good and most Mechs useless
Bad tools for grouping up
Bad tools for communication, command and control
Too complex matchmaking by not enforcing things like fixed group size & fixed tonnage
My God!!! You're making a whole lot more sense then you were a couple of days ago. Bully for you!!! Were it up to me, I would also put in an amalgam of the old Battle/Combat Value system that helps matches be weighted better, even though there would be uneven sides. Better players with poor 'Mechs are still better than poor Players with awesome 'Mechs.

And then the rest of your post returns to nonsense.

Edited by Threat Doc, 19 October 2020 - 03:56 PM.


#406 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,507 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 19 October 2020 - 10:17 AM

Quote

I also want to see the number of C-Bills and MCs paid out to folks slowed to about one-tenth of what it is, now, to bring the economy more in-line with the books and FORCE Commanders to think on a strategic level, with estimated losses compared to the importance of the mission, and where Players would think on a more tactical level so they don't get their 'Mech shot out from under them. One of the reasons I, and many others, picked up and stuck with BattleTech was because of the history and lore of the game, the romantic notions within about management of all sorts of things and about using tactics and strategy to defeat your opponents, not just brute force and hope.
You're essentially talking about Repair & Rearm. That happened during MWO's beta - which you probably know - and didn't go over very well in practice - which you probably also know.
It is, as you put it, a romantic notion that is A-OK for a single player game, but in this case would cause the game to undergo another exodus of players if it ever got reintroduced.

#407 ambosen

    Rookie

  • Knight Errant
  • 6 posts

Posted 19 October 2020 - 11:26 AM

You really want to know what's driving people away from this game? I'll tell you point blank what it is. It's the temper tantrum having "meta" obsessed people who are increasingly the *only* people you see on the forums or even in quick matches. God knows it's difficult enough to put together a team for anything more then a quickplay match even before you get some whiner who takes exception to people actually securing objectives, offering ECM and AMS coverage for allies, doing spotting for the missile boats and artillery strikes, ect before they do stuff like randomly refuse to even power up their mech to play because not everyone's in a 100 ton assault mech, or just randomly wait until somewhat late in the game, and suddenly start shooting the backs of teammates.

This results in a massive imbalance where basically, any team where people actually do even the most basic of civil communications wins by default, not the least reason being because many people don't *trust* even longstanding teammates to support an advance or rotation. I've personally seen teams composed mostly of lights obliterate teams mostly composed of assault mechs simply because the light players were communicating. I've seen quickplay teams where all but one partial lance out of the team not just survives, but wins the game despite taking 10 losses within the first 3 minutes of the game because the opposing team, which by any suddenly broke down into an argument over chat.

You really want to fix this game?

You could start by totally disregarding a good chunk of what was previously posted in this very thread. It doesn't matter how good or bad your game is balanced, if the average player is worried about even playing the game, oft times specifically because of the people left who *are* you're inevitably going to lose players. That alone caused me to leave this game for almost 3 years, simply because I got tired of stuff like watching half a team randomly disconnect mid match after arguments over the stupidest crap imaginable via text or audio chat.

What this game really needs is a culture change within the community at large. God knows how you're going to pull that one off.

Edited by ambosen, 19 October 2020 - 11:27 AM.


#408 Galahad2030

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The King
  • The King
  • 149 posts

Posted 19 October 2020 - 11:45 AM

View Postambosen, on 19 October 2020 - 11:26 AM, said:

You really want to know what's driving people away from this game? I'll tell you point blank what it is. It's the temper tantrum having "meta" obsessed people who are increasingly the *only* people you see on the forums or even in quick matches. God knows it's difficult enough to put together a team for anything more then a quickplay match even before you get some whiner who takes exception to people actually securing objectives, offering ECM and AMS coverage for allies, doing spotting for the missile boats and artillery strikes, ect before they do stuff like randomly refuse to even power up their mech to play because not everyone's in a 100 ton assault mech, or just randomly wait until somewhat late in the game, and suddenly start shooting the backs of teammates.

This results in a massive imbalance where basically, any team where people actually do even the most basic of civil communications wins by default, not the least reason being because many people don't *trust* even longstanding teammates to support an advance or rotation. I've personally seen teams composed mostly of lights obliterate teams mostly composed of assault mechs simply because the light players were communicating. I've seen quickplay teams where all but one partial lance out of the team not just survives, but wins the game despite taking 10 losses within the first 3 minutes of the game because the opposing team, which by any suddenly broke down into an argument over chat.

You really want to fix this game?

You could start by totally disregarding a good chunk of what was previously posted in this very thread. It doesn't matter how good or bad your game is balanced, if the average player is worried about even playing the game, oft times specifically because of the people left who *are* you're inevitably going to lose players. That alone caused me to leave this game for almost 3 years, simply because I got tired of stuff like watching half a team randomly disconnect mid match after arguments over the stupidest crap imaginable via text or audio chat.

What this game really needs is a culture change within the community at large. God knows how you're going to pull that one off.


I don't agree with the way you are presenting your opinion. I found it borderline toxic.

Regarding your points - the community has some valid reasons for being enraged. The game development basically stopped a couple years ago. Dedicated community members have dedicates $100's if not $1000's of dollars into the game with the expectation that the developer would use their payments to continue development and maintenance of the game. PGI also had the Gold Mech debacle which defaced their reputation with gaming communities worldwide.

There will always be loudest and most attention time posters on forums. Take it with a grain of salt as negative comments come with the territory.

The toxicity level ingame is nowhere near as bad as other online games I've seen, and they are cash cows with millions of players. Toxicity might just come as games scale upwards.

Lastly, any comment good or bad is a good thing. This shows the game is still relevant to that individual.

#409 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,507 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 19 October 2020 - 11:53 AM

View Postambosen, on 19 October 2020 - 11:26 AM, said:

You really want to know what's driving people away from this game? I'll tell you point blank what it is. It's the temper tantrum having "meta" obsessed people who are increasingly the *only* people you see on the forums or even in quick matches.
Given you are T5 and the three tier separation limit, you are not seeing the competitive crowd in the same match you are.

Quote

you get some whiner who takes exception to people actually securing objectives, offering ECM and AMS coverage for allies, doing spotting for the missile boats and artillery strikes, ect
There's time and place for all of the above. Keeping in mind that "securing the objectives" in the wrong mech can (and often does) hurt the team more than it helps them and a lot of people are prioritizing it when they shouldn't or aren't prioritizing it when they should.

Quote

before they do stuff like randomly refuse to even power up their mech to play because not everyone's in a 100 ton assault mech, or just randomly wait until somewhat late in the game, and suddenly start shooting the backs of teammates.
That's not the competitive crowd. That's just other T5s being toxic ********, and that's likely the behavior that landed them in T5 to begin with.

Quote

I've seen quickplay teams where all but one partial lance out of the team not just survives, but wins the game despite taking 10 losses within the first 3 minutes of the game because the opposing team, which by any suddenly broke down into an argument over chat.
I don't know who the hell you've been playing against, but in T1-3 matches I haven't seen that happen. Hell, I haven't seen that happen once in more than 20 000 matches I've played over past five years.

#410 Joshua McEvedy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ogre
  • The Ogre
  • 478 posts
  • LocationDuchy of Oriente, Free Worlds League

Posted 19 October 2020 - 02:58 PM

View PostThreat Doc, on 19 October 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:




I just looked across the YouTube sphere and can no longer find Dev Vlog 0. I had it saved in my Watch Later list for reference, just like the 2013 video, above, but it was apparently removed. Shame on you, Piranha! However, there's this,


At around 2:15 he's talking about eliminating an Arms Race... yeah, Russ, how's that goin' for ya?



Unfortunately, it was all a lie.



https://www.gamingne...ries-Interview/

#411 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 19 October 2020 - 04:12 PM

View PostHorseman, on 19 October 2020 - 10:17 AM, said:

You're essentially talking about Repair & Rearm. That happened during MWO's beta - which you probably know - and didn't go over very well in practice - which you probably also know.

It is, as you put it, a romantic notion that is A-OK for a single player game, but in this case would cause the game to undergo another exodus of players if it ever got reintroduced.
I'll guarantee you there's a way to fix it, but I don't presently know what that would look like.

View Postambosen, on 19 October 2020 - 11:26 AM, said:

You really want to fix this game?

What this game really needs is a culture change within the community at large. God knows how you're going to pull that one off.
I have already provided an outline of the means for changing the culture in the community at large, if anyone even read it.

View PostGalahad2030, on 19 October 2020 - 11:45 AM, said:

I found it borderline toxic.
Whaa whaa whaa, I want my milk and cookies. You know what's truly toxic? People, especially SJWs, who tell people their posts are borderline toxic. Knock it off and just have a conversation, please?

Quote

Regarding your points - the community has some valid reasons for being enraged. The game development basically stopped a couple years ago. Dedicated community members have dedicates $100's if not $1000's of dollars into the game with the expectation that the developer would use their payments to continue development and maintenance of the game.
Your statement is correct, but your timeline is not. The developers should have built the game the way they said they were going to build it in the first place, and then they would have had enough players they would have had to hire a third-party company to keep things running.

Quote

Lastly, any comment good or bad is a good thing. This shows the game is still relevant to that individual.
Again, you're both right and wrong with this statement. I agree that any comment can add to the conversation, unless it's just all yelling and screaming about irrelevant nonsense; then, it needs to be handled. As for the relevance of the game... I picked up my first box set in November '84 at Union Station Hobbies in Sandy, Utah, but with the advent of MWO my fervor for BattleTech has fallen off over the years for everything attached to the name... I am here because, although I would still love to see a BattleTech level computer game -all the bells and whistles, baby- I remain at a point of interest where I can actually take it or leave it.

#412 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 434 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 19 October 2020 - 05:58 PM

View PostHorseman, on 19 October 2020 - 10:17 AM, said:

You're essentially talking about Repair & Rearm. That happened during MWO's beta - which you probably know - and didn't go over very well in practice - which you probably also know. It is, as you put it, a romantic notion that is A-OK for a single player game, but in this case would cause the game to undergo another exodus of players if it ever got reintroduced.


Man, it REALLY sounds like Beta was the time to play this game... It started out amazing and quickly went to ****...

You got any video or anything showing this repair/rearm in action? It's something I've been wishing for for several years, now, but as I've said before: I was 3 years late to the game, and missed all the early fun.

EDIT: Do you mean mid-match Repair & Rearm, or after-match R&R? I've heard of the after-match version, and what with the cost of the old module system, it was impossible to save up for more than just a couple 'mechs. Ironically, now that I'm bored with collecting every variant of every 'mech, I'm wishing for exactly the game where it's difficult to afford more than just a couple of 'mechs at a time, but I fully understand the opposition to that. I thought you were saying there used to be mid-mission Repair and rearm (repair bays), and I was surprised, and simultaneously excited ("it IS possible!") and dismayed ("they already tried it and got bitched out").

I wonder if there's a way to make it relatively easy to pilot the chassis you want, while also making it hard to own more than a few at a time, so we can kinda get the best of both worlds...

Can't afford it? Buy a CBill pack. :) "Monetization"

Edited by C337Skymaster, 19 October 2020 - 07:11 PM.


#413 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,507 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 19 October 2020 - 10:23 PM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 19 October 2020 - 05:58 PM, said:


Man, it REALLY sounds like Beta was the time to play this game... It started out amazing and quickly went to ****...

You got any video or anything showing this repair/rearm in action? It's something I've been wishing for for several years, now, but as I've said before: I was 3 years late to the game, and missed all the early fun.

EDIT: Do you mean mid-match Repair & Rearm, or after-match R&R? I've heard of the after-match version, and what with the cost of the old module system, it was impossible to save up for more than just a couple 'mechs. Ironically, now that I'm bored with collecting every variant of every 'mech, I'm wishing for exactly the game where it's difficult to afford more than just a couple of 'mechs at a time, but I fully understand the opposition to that. I thought you were saying there used to be mid-mission Repair and rearm (repair bays), and I was surprised, and simultaneously excited ("it IS possible!") and dismayed ("they already tried it and got bitched out").

I wonder if there's a way to make it relatively easy to pilot the chassis you want, while also making it hard to own more than a few at a time, so we can kinda get the best of both worlds...

After-match. It was before I started playing the game myself, even though I pre-registered the nickname way earlier.

Quote

Can't afford it? Buy a CBill pack. Posted Image "Monetization"
Of a pretty annoying heavily P2W kind, though.

Edited by Horseman, 19 October 2020 - 10:26 PM.


#414 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 174 posts

Posted 20 October 2020 - 01:27 AM

To gain a somehow structured, subsummarized and (mebbe) realistic understanding of several points that have been asked for in the on-going discussion, check out the following discussion on the MWO-Comp channel.

Discussion to improve MWO - on MWO-Comp

If you have not already, please join / participate on the MWO-Comp Discord to add your opinion and broaden the base of discussion in terms of target groups. Thank you!

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 20 October 2020 - 01:54 AM.


#415 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 6,815 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 20 October 2020 - 01:29 AM

View PostAnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

To gain a somehow structured, subsummarized and (mebbe) realistic understanding of several points that have been asked for in the on-going discussion, check out the following discussion on the MWO-Comp channel.

Discussion to improve MWO - MWO-Comp Channel


Link ain't working bro.

#416 Aidan Crenshaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,989 posts

Posted 20 October 2020 - 01:37 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 20 October 2020 - 01:29 AM, said:


Link ain't working bro.


Fix'd

Edited by Aidan Crenshaw, 20 October 2020 - 01:37 AM.


#417 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 174 posts

Posted 20 October 2020 - 01:55 AM

View PostAidan Crenshaw, on 20 October 2020 - 01:37 AM, said:



Double fix'd! Thanks again, Mr. Crenshaw!

#418 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 434 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 20 October 2020 - 04:18 AM

View PostHorseman, on 19 October 2020 - 10:23 PM, said:

Of a pretty annoying heavily P2W kind, though.


Oh, I agree, but the cynical me that sees a company looking for money "by any means necessary", sees that as something they'd look at with a greedy gleam in their eye.

#419 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,507 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 20 October 2020 - 05:08 AM

View PostThreat Doc, on 19 October 2020 - 04:12 PM, said:

I'll guarantee you there's a way to fix it, but I don't presently know what that would look like.

There is, but the big question to ask is if that change is something MWO itself needs our could even handle at this point.
What you and a lot of lore fans are pushing for? Amounts to a Battletech grand strategy game with the shooter component serving as window dressing, very different to what MWO is now.
Grand strategy metagame has been - admittedly in a half-assed way - attempted with previous versions of Faction Play and stagnated due to fairly low population until we ended up with the current, simplified FP model.
Let's face it: however complex, at its' heart the game is still a shooter and many players are just here to pew-pew at giant robots.
This kind of a drastic shift would alienate a lot of those players, which isn't something that should be happening given the game's already small playerbase.

With Paradox having both Stellaris and, through HBS, the Battletech license, it might be a better idea to campaign for them to consider developing the grand strategy BT game the world deserves than to campaign to remold MWO into one.

Edited by Horseman, 20 October 2020 - 05:09 AM.


#420 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 174 posts

Posted 20 October 2020 - 05:31 AM

View PostHorseman, on 20 October 2020 - 05:08 AM, said:

There is, but the big question to ask is if that change is something MWO itself needs our could even handle at this point.
What you and a lot of lore fans are pushing for? [...]
Let's face it: however complex, at its' heart the game is still a shooter and many players are just here to pew-pew at giant robots. This kind of a drastic shift would alienate a lot of those players, which isn't something that should be happening given the game's already small playerbase.


Valid point. The quickly played (Team)SimShooter-Aspect combined with Mechlab-Tinkering that MWO delivers (despite it's age n flaws) seems to be the primary source of joy/engagement for a majority of audience groups.

Developing engaging/motivating side-systems and variations around it, to keep the general gameplay experience fresh / up to date (mission design / refinement etc.) seems to be a long-term way even if this means catering the masses first somewhat. The daily engagement a lot of gaming folks show nowadays seems to be of short-term nature and very volatile regarding the number of games/genres played in a certain timeframe.

This does not mean audience groups interested in more in-depth / strategical modes of play are not to be served, but the needed flow of revenue is more likely to be created/sustained via the average player - him being a BT-enthusiast or not.

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 20 October 2020 - 05:40 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users