544 replies to this topic

[Horseman]

Threat 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.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Horseman, 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.

[Galahad2030]

People like co-op experiences in multiplayer, whether it be team vs team or team vs ai. Having developed MW5 with AI, that should be ported over to MWO with a pve campaign system. This could be integrated into faction war, but see the comments below.

Faction war is senseless in terms of strategy game play for the average player that can only quick join faction pop ups. it makes no sense that i have to wait several days to a week for my faction to come up for battle, and there is no meaningful advancement of any faction in faction wars.

Give us the following in faction war and it will net a large population:

PvE campaigns that have special rewards and/or special mechs as rewards.

• A progression ladder for each House is not enough.
  
• Introduce characters and lore, fight famous battles in the MWO universe as a scenario campaign.
  
• Connect players with the lore and universe through PvE Coop campaign missions
  
• Introduce NPC factions like Comstar (if I remember right that's what they were called), and Mercenary forces
  
• Fight against famed Mercenary groups like Wolf's Dragoons

Revamp the faction war system (again) so it makes sense to new and intermediate players.

Consider adding optional smaller queues for faction war. In it's current state lance vs lance options makes more sense.

Fix scout decks to have some use. scouting faction matches almost never happen.

Add strategic resource value of planets to Houses. Have the benefits conferred to all active members of that House. This could be something like +10% supply cache points per battle while that star region is held, or discounts on certain weapons. Ranking could matter in the House, applying benefits more generously for a general rank vs a lieutenant.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 06:01 AM, said:

[...]

While I really like a lot of these ideas / their potential, the actual range of possible changes for PGI is very limited. What we - as a player base - gotta work on actually is to show them short-term revenue creation possibilities, that cater as many of us as possible without being in need of big coding work.

That does not mean, a general(ly needed) overhaul of MWO is off the table ... but to be honest, I highly doubt PGI has the manpower (in terms of coding-expertise) or incoming revenue (to hire the needed expertise) at the moment.

So creating steady revenue by re-thinking their price-politics (mechpacks!!!), by taking care of those "low hanging fruits" and by granting us new input (like new hero-packs of existing mechs as short- and the Unseen as mid-term content) has to be priority for now.

More sophisticated upgrades are further away ... we should not delude ourselves into believing otherwise. One step at a time is all we can hope for now.

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 20 October 2020 - 06:53 AM.

[Galahad2030]

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 06:50 AM, said:

While I really like a lot of these ideas / their potential, the actual range of possible changes for PGI is very limited. What we - as a player base - gotta work on actually is to show them short-term revenue creation possibilities, that cater as many of us as possible without being in need of big coding work.

That does not mean, a general(ly needed) overhaul of MWO is off the table ... but to be honest, I highly doubt PGI has the manpower (in terms of coding-expertise) or incoming revenue (to hire the needed expertise) at the moment.

So creating steady revenue by re-thinking their price-politics (mechpacks!!!), by taking care of those "low hanging fruits" and by granting us new input (like new hero-packs of existing mechs as short- and the Unseen as mid-term content) has to be priority for now.

More sophisticated upgrades are further away ... we should not delude ourselves into believing otherwise. One step at a time is all we can hope for now.

Don't be deluded by Russ's laser focus on 'monetization'. Games don't thrive on monetization, they thrive on new content and new game mechanics/features. If PGI doesn't bring those to the table there's nothing to talk about. Low hanging fruit is exactly that, a limited supply of quick and dirty fixes that don't address the main problem - PGI's lack of innovation and content production.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 07:03 AM, said:

Don't be deluded by Russ's laser focus on 'monetization'. Games don't thrive on monetization, they thrive on new content and new game mechanics/features. If PGI doesn't bring those to the table there's nothing to talk about. Low hanging fruit is exactly that, a limited supply of quick and dirty fixes that don't address the main problem - PGI's lack of innovation and content production.

You are certainly right 'bout PGI havin' done a lot of things wrong in terms of development focus, identification and adressing of target groups, communication, human ressource management etc. pp. ...

Still we gotta be realistic: there won't be no general new content, no engine-port etc. without sustainable revenue perspectives. Simple business logic. And even though your statement that "good games sell, cause em are good!" is totally valid, I personally do not expect new content, game mechanics and features with a playerbase and revenue that small (even though that is self-imposed, I don't question that at all). For several reasons there won't be no big development bang coming, just steps towards a better version of what we have now (if at all) ...

... but I do believe and sincerely hope that PGI has understood the gravity of their situation for now and start some sort of active, feedbacking and transparent communication to re-build inches of trust thrown away at least and that the existing playerbase understands this as a chance to bring their expertise into this process.

Don't get me wrong: I won't spend not a single € without some kind of countervalue in terms of content. All I am saying is that "soft content" is what we should expect for now and "hard content / overhauls" is what can be hoped for later.

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 20 October 2020 - 07:21 AM.

[Threat Doc]

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 01:27 AM, said:

...check out the following discussion on the MWO-Comp channel.

DUDE!!! That's not a "check out the following", that's a half-day! I can't do that. Break it down into one-hour segments I can digest over a few days and I'm good. Someone in this thread wrote about people not having time to go playing in matches with an expanded in-universe sort of deal, but folks have time to listen to a three-and-a-half hour podcast?!?! (turns head to side and grimaces like I can't believe what I'm hearing)

Quote

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!

Let me guess, anything lore-based is shat upon immediately because of the happy shiny people who don't want anything better?

Horseman, 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.

There's a lot I hate about the outcome of MWO and the fact that only the twitchers play the game, now, because they're alright with the wash-rinse-repeat aspect of the whole game. However, I will give Piranha props for producing a game, even if it is a last-generation game, now, that was extremely good for its time. I did get a lot of enjoyment out of this game because, even if they didn't have the numbers and ranges right and even if Light 'Mechs, which should not be able to maneuver like they do at the speeds they travel, etc., do, Piranha went through one hell of a learning curve to get MWO out for folks. Had they promised, from the beginning, nothing more than a MechWarrior-style mission and shooter game, I think a hell of a lot of the old guys would still be here, like me, and they would have helped build the community of this game, bringing money in for Piranha to, hopefully, expand on the game, to go beyond the previous MechWarrior titles -which they did with the combat, but nothing else- and surprise everyone.

So, in essence, I have to give Piranha their due.

Quote

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.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought that might be what I was advocating for! No, not at all (perfectly innocent, here)! LOL

Quote

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.

It was not the attempt that sent people away, it was the half-assed attempt that was pushed on everyone, with no development feedback, nor listening to the feedback post-release. They ****** it off, period. My plan would make it so the people who just want to play, just want to kill ****, can, while those who want to move higher and have that game (not a meta-game, that's the wrong term for it) in their face, want to see and interact with those things, can.

Quote

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.

What percentage, roughly, makes up a standing Army of enlisted soldiers? There are a lot fewer upper-level NCOs and fewer still Officers that make up any manner of military. Who, among those two crowds, is required to see any of the logistical stuff and, at lower levels of the upper levels, how many of those actually have to deal with more than lip and circumstance from the lower enlisted? This is not rocket surgery!

Quote

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.

If there is organization -which lower level folks, like Ghosts, never have to deal with-, planetary, resource, personnel, and contract management -which lower level folks, like Ghosts, never have to deal with, they never see it unless they want to climb to that level- people will come, even if they choose to not enlist with any unit. They choose from games that have slots open for units and, if there are no slots to fill for a fight, they can always go back to simulator training -which is just like normal games, but no one loses anything. Horseman, really, have you read ANYTHING I've written?!

Quote

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.

Here's the problem with that. Piranha have already developed a superior 'Mech combat game, a more realistic version which is going to waste because they didn't develop the rest of it; so, if Paradox wants to develop the game, if Piranha wants to work with them to develop the grand strategy game and then have combat launched through the updated MWO, I don't see why that would be a problem. However, to make the rest of the game work, and to give some meaning to the wash-rinse-repeat, the grand strategy game HAS to be put in place.

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 05:31 AM, said:

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.

For simulator battles there's no reason that couldn't continue. However, with a grand strategy/Inner Sphere universal sort of game only so much can be modified at a time. Ghost pilots could still modify their 'Mechs by earning money through matches and making purchases in-line with the rest of the game, but they would not be allowed to take just whatever 'Mech design they wanted into standard game-play, unless they earned the ability to modify it.

Quote

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.

Hmmm, that is an extraordinarily astute observation... follow it to conclusion.

Quote

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.

Unfortunately, this observation is wrong, and you're sitting in the wreckage of the proof of that line of thought, right now.

Cater to the BattleTech enthusiasts, those who've been paying since Battledroids in 1982 through the first BattleTech box set in 1984 and all those who've purchased the books and played the games to make the computer games a viable gaming alternative in the first place, all those who bought the first BattleTech computer game in 1995, Crescent Hawks Inception, Revenge, the entirety of ten computer games prior to this one, plus the hundreds of man-hours and money shelled out by enthusiasts NOT supported by FASA or any of the game producers, so all of US could have a game where we fought within the Inner Sphere, especially since many of those Leagues didn't start up until the Clans came along, and then you will have a community worth playing with.

We, the predecessors, remain and will play as long as there's something that goes BY THE DAMN RULES to play with.

We, who came and played before, introduced EVERYONE we could get our sticky paws on to BattleTech and, at one point, more than 25 MILLION people around the world played BattleTech, BEFORE THE COMPUTER GAMES, and we will do it, again.

Stop dodging the point, stop dodging the truth, let's get this done, and let's play.

Edited by Threat Doc, 20 October 2020 - 07:39 AM.

[Galahad2030]

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 07:18 AM, said:

You are certainly right 'bout PGI havin' done a lot of things wrong in terms of development focus, identification and adressing of target groups, communication, human ressource management etc. pp. ...

Still we gotta be realistic: there won't be no general new content, no engine-port etc. without sustainable revenue perspectives. Simple business logic. And even though your statement that "good games sell, cause em are good!" is totally valid, I personally do not expect new content, game mechanics and features with a playerbase and revenue that small (even though that is self-imposed, I don't question that at all). For several reasons there won't be no big development bang coming, just steps towards a better version of what we have now (if at all) ...

... but I do believe and sincerely hope that PGI has understood the gravity of their situation for now and start some sort of active, feedbacking and transparent communication to re-build inches of trust thrown away at least and that the existing playerbase understands this as a chance to bring their expertise into this process.

Don't get me wrong: I won't spend not a single € without some kind of countervalue in terms of content. All I am saying is that "soft content" is what we should expect for now and "hard content / overhauls" is what can be hoped for later.

I understand your viewpoint. It's that of a good mech pilot. Cautious and practical, knowing the odds and fighting battles you can win.

I don't expect all my ideas to be accepted and implemented. Internal discussions, public discussion, and weighing of the effort, cost and benefits are all factors. I understand that.

My point is that no matter how PGI wants to slice the bread, an increasing smaller population means less bread to slice from. Thus, monetization on smaller bread loafs won't solve their income problem. Only by signficantly increasing the potential customer base, and THEN optimizing monetization from them will PGI get out of this hole they've dug themselves into.

Wake up Russ. Monetization is an optimization strategy, and MWO is far from being a stable source of income OR having enough income to be optimized. Radical, but measured and community focus grouped, changes need to come in to build a new generation of players and SIGNIFICANTLY increase the player population.

Building a great game is not enough, true. You need to build a game that can attract more players constantly to combat player churn and other competitors. That does not come from monetizing off your players. That comes from building content, getting players to refer you more players, and keeping players online and in the game.

[Threat Doc]

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 06:01 AM, said:

People like co-op experiences in multiplayer, whether it be team vs team or team vs ai. Having developed MW5 with AI, that should be ported over to MWO with a pve campaign system. This could be integrated into faction war, but see the comments below...

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 06:50 AM, said:

While I really like a lot of these ideas / their potential, the actual range of possible changes for PGI is very limited. What we - as a player base - gotta work on actually is to show them short-term revenue creation possibilities, that cater as many of us as possible without being in need of big coding work.

Oh, my gosh, I think I felt my **** move with this exchange, here, and I ain't kiddin'.

Now, listen, both of y'all are RIGHT, BOTH OF YOU!!! AAA, you're right that there have to be short-term accessible means of monetary generation, but it doesn't have to ALL be about generating their own money. What they need is a contract with Players that they will be stair-stepping the game up from those smaller money generators, as you have said, to what Galahad and I have been going on about, the full-blown experience. Those parts can be added and announced for those who want them, who want to grow more in the lore and careers with their units, etc. Actually putting up TRUE Mercenaries Handbook style unit and resource management is already done, it just needs to be refined and developed more in-line with being able to set up a UNIT-COMMUNITY that can deal with rank, awards, mission assignments, tasks to complete in the unit for the sake of advancement points and time-in-service, so folks can feel like they've accomplished things within their chosen unit, can feel like they actually belong, have that camaraderie and the ability to drop in and train with buddies they know, can talk to in general and communicate with effectively in both simulations and games. Most of that coding infrastructure already exists within MWO and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why it was NEVER fleshed out when that was a HUGE point with the fans at the September 2013 MechCon?!?!?! Faction Warfare had ALL OF THAT built in, the statistics were there, etc.

Now, Galahad's point about fighting against AI and known units, etc., I absolutely agree with that, but it's going to take a hell of a lot more time to put together than unit management. However, they would also need to convince Micro$oft to ALLOW them to use those unit names, likenesses of statistics and folks, so that's not going to be easy, methinks.

Edited by Threat Doc, 20 October 2020 - 07:42 AM.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Threat Doc, on 20 October 2020 - 07:21 AM, said:

DUDE!!! That's not a "check out the following", that's a half-day! I can't do that. Break it down into one-hour segments I can digest over a few days and I'm good. Someone in this thread wrote about people not having time to go playing in matches with an expanded in-universe sort of deal, but folks have time to listen to a three-and-a-half hour podcast?!?! (turns head to side and grimaces like I can't believe what I'm hearing)

Totally valid, but there should be some sort of sum-up document incoming soonish. And this is only one of the initiatives directing input towards PGI / Bombadil atm.

Threat Doc, on 20 October 2020 - 07:21 AM, said:

Let me guess, anything lore-based is shat upon immediately because of the happy shiny people who don't want anything better?

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to advocate any sort of "dumb down the gameplay into some silly sort 0815-shooter!" nor do I wanna take part in an on-going bickering between comp-players, lore-enthusiasts and what not audience groups feel like being in hold of the truth. I don't want this game to die and I want it to be as close to any players dreams of the BT-Universe as possible, but I gotta ask myself if this is realistic at this given point.

So I want as many and diverse people to take part in this communication process to achieve the best results possible for as many people as possible. What we have now does not make any of us very happy anymore, that is given. How and where to start some sort of overhaul / rejuvenation is part of the on-going discussions ...

[DAEDALOS513]

Wow this is truly and honestly refreshing.. it's been a while since i've heard so much logic and common sense in the threads.. my 'like' button finger is starting to get sore.. I hope pgi is listening..

[Horseman]

Threat Doc, on 20 October 2020 - 07:21 AM, said:

Let me guess, anything lore-based is shat upon immediately because of the happy shiny people who don't want anything better?

No. Lore has its' part, and nobody denies that - but lore alone doesn't a good game make. Pushing to compromise the core gameplay or balance in service to lore will get ridiculed because it will objectively lead to a worse game.

Quote

It was not the attempt that sent people away, it was the half-assed attempt that was pushed on everyone, with no development feedback, nor listening to the feedback post-release.

I'm not saying that it was the attempt that did. I'm saying that the mode hemorrhaged the playerbase so much that after being condensed to the single queue we have now it still suffers from low population.
A sweeping mercenary / strategy metagame could have worked if they had it in place five years ago, when there was still a population sufficient to fuel it, but now the population just isn't there.

Quote

My plan would make it so the people who just want to play, just want to kill ****, can, while those who want to move higher and have that game (not a meta-game, that's the wrong term for it) in their face, want to see and interact with those things, can.

The term metagame has multiple meanings - and trust me, on account of these it is perfectly applicable in this situation.

Quote

What percentage, roughly, makes up a standing Army of enlisted soldiers? There are a lot fewer upper-level NCOs and fewer still Officers that make up any manner of military. Who, among those two crowds, is required to see any of the logistical stuff and, at lower levels of the upper levels, how many of those actually have to deal with more than lip and circumstance from the lower enlisted? This is not rocket surgery!

Quote

If there is organization -which lower level folks, like Ghosts, never have to deal with-, planetary, resource, personnel, and contract management -which lower level folks, like Ghosts, never have to deal with, they never see it unless they want to climb to that level- people will come, even if they choose to not enlist with any unit. They choose from games that have slots open for units and, if there are no slots to fill for a fight, they can always go back to simulator training -which is just like normal games, but no one loses anything. Horseman, really, have you read ANYTHING I've written?!

Again, you're missing the point.
QP was supposed to be a filler mode until FP went online, but guess what happened? Most of the playerbase didn't care enough about FP to engage with it, that's what.
The players engaged by the mode you envision would be a fraction (officers) of a fraction (organized units). It wouldn't drive substantial engagement from the rest of the player base, nor would it entice new players to engage with the game.
From a business perspective, that just doesn't warrant substantial - if any - resources to develop and given PGI's budget for MWO, well... it would end up as another Solaris-style {LT-MOB-25}-up, just with less polish.

Further, given that you want to drastically clamp down on the economy chances are your changes would lead to another player exodus. And we don't have many - MWO lost 2/3rd of the playerbase it had in 2016.

Quote

Here's the problem with that. Piranha have already developed a superior 'Mech combat game, a more realistic version which is going to waste because they didn't develop the rest of it; so, if Paradox wants to develop the game, if Piranha wants to work with them to develop the grand strategy game and then have combat launched through the updated MWO, I don't see why that would be a problem. However, to make the rest of the game work, and to give some meaning to the wash-rinse-repeat, the grand strategy game HAS to be put in place.

For simulator battles there's no reason that couldn't continue. However, with a grand strategy/Inner Sphere universal sort of game only so much can be modified at a time. Ghost pilots could still modify their 'Mechs by earning money through matches and making purchases in-line with the rest of the game, but they would not be allowed to take just whatever 'Mech design they wanted into standard game-play, unless they earned the ability to modify it.

Again, you're talking about a game which MWO might have been but isn't - and is too far down its' current course to change that without another population crash.

Quote

Cater to the BattleTech enthusiasts, those who've been paying since Battledroids in 1982 through the first BattleTech box set in 1984 and all those who've purchased the books and played the games to make the computer games a viable gaming alternative in the first place, all those who bought the first BattleTech computer game in 1995, Crescent Hawks Inception, Revenge, the entirety of ten computer games prior to this one, plus the hundreds of man-hours and money shelled out by enthusiasts NOT supported by FASA or any of the game producers, so all of US could have a game where we fought within the Inner Sphere, especially since many of those Leagues didn't start up until the Clans came along, and then you will have a community worth playing with.

We, the predecessors, remain and will play as long as there's something that goes BY THE DAMN RULES to play with.

Thing is, there is no guarantee that "you, the predecessors" will be enough to keep the lights open.

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 07:28 AM, said:

My point is that no matter how PGI wants to slice the bread, an increasing smaller population means less bread to slice from. Thus, monetization on smaller bread loafs won't solve their income problem. Only by signficantly increasing the potential customer base, and THEN optimizing monetization from them will PGI get out of this hole they've dug themselves into.

Exactly.

Threat Doc, on 20 October 2020 - 07:34 AM, said:

Those parts can be added and announced for those who want them, who want to grow more in the lore and careers with their units, etc.

And are they willing to foot the entire bill for the development of these parts? If yes, then reach out to PGI for an estimate and ask them again.

Quote

Most of that coding infrastructure already exists within MWO and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why it was NEVER fleshed out when that was a HUGE point with the fans at the September 2013 MechCon?!?!?! Faction Warfare had ALL OF THAT built in, the statistics were there, etc.

Because PGI put a freeze on development when their license was up for renewal the first time, and then lost a fair chunk of the developers who got MWO off the ground.

AnAnachronismAlive, on 20 October 2020 - 07:42 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to advocate any sort of "dumb down the gameplay into some silly sort 0815-shooter!" nor do I wanna take part in an on-going bickering between comp-players, lore-enthusiasts and what not audience groups feel like being in hold of the truth. I don't want this game to die and I want it to be as close to any players dreams of the BT-Universe as possible, but I gotta ask myself if this is realistic at this given point.

Drastic changes lose population, every time (skill tree, dequirkening, engine desync). Expensive changes that only cater to a fraction of the playerbase lose population, every time (Solaris).

[Alreech]

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 07:03 AM, said:

Don't be deluded by Russ's laser focus on 'monetization'. Games don't thrive on monetization, they thrive on new content and new game mechanics/features. If PGI doesn't bring those to the table there's nothing to talk about. Low hanging fruit is exactly that, a limited supply of quick and dirty fixes that don't address the main problem - PGI's lack of innovation and content production.

Games thrive on gameplay and community.
If the gameplay is boring more content wont help.

The community aspect - playing with your friends - keeps a game going.
New players are usually introduced by their friends.
Events like competitions are usually organised by groups in the community.
MWOs problem was: in most cases those groups are not big enough to field a full team of 12 players for Faction Play or Group Quickplay, and MWOs tools to group up ingame were not very good at the beginning (no LFG, no VOIP,...).

[Galahad2030]

Alreech, on 20 October 2020 - 12:19 PM, said:

Games thrive on gameplay and community.
If the gameplay is boring more content wont help.

The community aspect - playing with your friends - keeps a game going.
New players are usually introduced by their friends.
Events like competitions are usually organised by groups in the community.
MWOs problem was: in most cases those groups are not big enough to field a full team of 12 players for Faction Play or Group Quickplay, and MWOs tools to group up ingame were not very good at the beginning (no LFG, no VOIP,...).

MWO gameplay is not boring. Point one.

Community aspect keeps a game going. I agree with this, but it's not as simple as just playing with friends. It's about making new friends in-game and having interesting things to do together.

Point two. MWO's problem. I believe being perceived as being greedy (PGI) is one of them. Other games are simply more generous in terms of daily content, weekly content, special events, and prizes and rewards. To woo a player from another game they are vesting time into, you'd better be able to compete on terms that player will understand. Don't target existing players so much for monetization. Target a larger group of players that come from friends & family and the gaming community as a whole. Do I have daily objectives? Do I have co-op play? Do I have something interesting or at least different every day for my players to experience?

[Alreech]

Horseman, 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? 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.

Faction Play was way too late, many players left before.
Faction Play / Faction Warfare was also promoted by PGI as "Endgame content for experts", and only for "big organised groups".
For most smaller groups it was easier to go for Group quickplay instead of "grouping up with other groups for faction play". Coordination in such teams made up from mixed groups was also not very good.
Most of the faction play rewards are also non faction related (Cup of Pop or Gazelle Dropship cockpit items, really?) making the whole "ranking up in your faction" more or less a joke.

IMHO faction play could work with smaller matchsizes ( 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8) for smaller units and better coordination for bigger matchsizes (12 vs 12).

Quote

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.

Shooters are a very diverse kind of games, ranging from games like Quake / Doom to games like Rainbow Six Siege & Counterstrike to Sims like ARMA.
MWO Solo Quickplay is 12 vs 12 Team deathmatch without respawn and with random teammates. Mechwarrrior Lore (factions) don't matter. Coordination is more or less zero.
To be honest, "big robot team deathmatch without Mechwarrior lore" does Titan Fall 1 & 2 better...

Quote

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.

One of the reasons to wide up the player base by porting Mechwarrior 5 to X-Box & Playstation.

[Alreech]

Galahad2030, on 20 October 2020 - 12:28 PM, said:

MWO gameplay is not boring. Point one.

It's just nascaring around the middle of the same 2 - 3 small maps, with the same good Mechs.

Quote

Point two. MWO's problem. I believe being perceived as being greedy (PGI) is one of them. Other games are simply more generous in terms of daily content, weekly content, special events, and prizes and rewards. To woo a player from another game they are vesting time into, you'd better be able to compete on terms that player will understand. Don't target existing players so much for monetization. Target a larger group of players that come from friends & family and the gaming community as a whole. Do I have daily objectives? Do I have co-op play? Do I have something interesting or at least different every day for my players to experience?

PGI runs events on regular basis, with MCs, C-Bills, GPX and Premium Time as reward.
On of my friends still playing MWO hasn't spend one dime on his Mechs & Mechbays - and he collected & mastered from each Mech one chassis.

Nascaring around the middle of the same 2 - 3 small maps, with the same good Mechs - is what something different every day?

[Galahad2030]

Alreech, on 20 October 2020 - 01:03 PM, said:

It's just nascaring around the middle of the same 2 - 3 small maps, with the same good Mechs.


PGI runs events on regular basis, with MCs, C-Bills, GPX and Premium Time as reward.
On of my friends still playing MWO hasn't spend one dime on his Mechs & Mechbays - and he collected & mastered from each Mech one chassis.

Nascaring around the middle of the same 2 - 3 small maps, with the same good Mechs - is what something different every day?

I'm not going to try to talk you out of boredom.

I am going to tell you compared to any other World of Tanks/World of Warships/MMO game MWO has the least number of events, and potentially less rewards as well relatively speaking. Take for example this Loot Bag contest for a free heavy mech and bay. It's generous by PGI standards, but World of Warships will give you a free premium battleship tier 6 (about $45 value) for just being recruited in their referral program and playing to tier 6 (a week or two).

Let's not kid ourselves. PGI has a lot of virtual currency to throw around and they aren't leveraging that like Fortnite or World of Warships.

Whether PGI, or you, like it or not players that try MWO are comparing it to other systems out there. We had better be up to par or better.

[Bowelhacker]

Horseman, on 19 October 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, you need to get into faction for that **** to happen.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

So if you haven't already: sort yer thoughts and wishes by short- and long-term improvements that would make ye or friends of yours come back and play MWO potentially. It does not matter if you are a comp-player, a faction-warfarer, a quick-player or a lore-enthusiast ... all feedback helps to identify certain parts of them game in need of improvement. It is just natural that every audience group has a different focus, are more organized and/or more vocal. So if you want your voice to be heard / desires be taken into account, ye gotta speak up!

When doing so pretty pretty please be realistic and don't just place claims like "Full Rollback gief personal dropships with sugar surrat pets in new engine else me gone, freeborn scum"!

Think about what minor improvements you are interested in for now. Vocalize what actually keeps you from buying existing stuff (if there is stuff ye think about buying at all) or else what new stuff ye gladly would invest some bucks into (as long as reasonably priced).

Then go on with mid- to long-term wishes / improvements ye want to see. Be it improves social features, new maps, etc. pp ...

Furthermore: while discussing your input within these forums is a good thing, I'd advice to place it into the specified Comp-Discord Channel or send them directly to Bombadil as well! Or post em on Twitter, discuss them on the MWO-Reddit, place em into the steam-forums! Broaden the discussion, show folks we are trying to move something. More people means for weight that can be placed into discussions.

Do not hold back, but don't make it into some kind of tribunal ... ye can bash digital skulls / lay MWO to rest if our input does not show ANY substantial improvements anyway.

And thank you all for being part of this community over the last couple of years. Never had the pleasure of being part of such a decent community in my gaming life so far. Let's try to do what we can from our side of the bargain!

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 21 October 2020 - 01:53 AM.

[Lith Dael]

Alreech, on 20 October 2020 - 01:03 PM, said:

It's just nascaring around the middle of the same 2 - 3 small maps, with the same good Mechs.

I disagree. It may look like that for us veterans & the metabuilders, but think of the new players. The core gameplay is good. Not stellar, but good. And the freedom and complexity of the mechlab adds a LOT to that. New players will experiment, will make mistakes, will learn. We need to help encourage these players and make things better for them (UI, anyone?), not turn the forum into a saltmine.
If the gameplay wasn't good, we would not be having this conversation. I would be long gone.