Jump to content

Looking To The Future Of Mechwarrior


566 replies to this topic

#461 Threat Doc

    Member

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

Posted 22 October 2020 - 06:38 AM

Okay, since those of you quickplay bunnies refuse to understand what it is I'm saying and, since I understand your points completely, I'm just going to leave this conversation. But, let me sum up...

Those of you who think QP is the ONLY way to revive this game, take a look at your game over the past three-plus years, look at your population over the past three-plus years, then pull the wax out of your ears and the scales from your eyes, re-read what I wrote, above, compare it with what I'm about to say, ruminate on it for a while rather than opening your fingers and typing various styles of stinging rebukes right away, and understand.

1) the bottom - Ghosts will be allowed to participate in any game that comes up on their monitor screen, it will NOT be automatic, it will be a choice of where they want to fight and they can choose from the 'Mech weight limits available to them for the fight. Each fight will start at the end of a five-minute time-frame, whether the slots for the fight are full or not, or it will start a one-minute countdown once all the slots are filled, reverting to the remainder of the previous five-minute countdown should someone decide to bounce due to computer failure. Once you've joined a match, unless your computer fails or something catastrophic is taking place that is measurable by the game, you're locked in there and you cannot get into a different match, if you somehow fool the game, until the entirety of the match you were locked into is finished, whether that be five minutes or two hours. The only automatic drops there will be are non-training simulator matches, which non-training simulator matches will act like QP.

Force Commanders will set up all other matches and those matches WILL PLAY, whether it is 3 v 7 or 12 v 12. This 8 v 8 nonsense is for the birds and will go away.

That's it, I've had it with being dissed-understood, so I'm gone.

#462 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 181 posts

Posted 22 October 2020 - 07:13 AM

Seems like a first "DropYerPantsPoint" for PGI is getting closer ... since there still ain't no scope of potential changes openly communicated (dunno if reading between the lines of the NGNGtv-Podcasts helps much), discussions somehow feel like gettin' outta hand and fragment all over the places more 'n more.

Harder to keep track and save some momentum day by day tbh ... Posted Image

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 22 October 2020 - 07:20 AM.


#463 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 3,520 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 22 October 2020 - 07:44 AM

View PostThreat Doc, on 22 October 2020 - 06:38 AM, said:

Okay, since those of you quickplay bunnies refuse to understand what it is I'm saying and, since I understand your points completely, I'm just going to leave this conversation.
We understand your points perfectly. You just refuse to acknowledge the reality of what MWO has become and still believe it can do a sudden 180* course-correction and magically have the entire former player base return thanks to it.
That's not how reality works.

Quote

Those of you who think QP is the ONLY way to revive this game, take a look at your game over the past three-plus years, look at your population over the past three-plus years, then pull the wax out of your ears and the scales from your eyes, re-read what I wrote, above, compare it with what I'm about to say, ruminate on it for a while rather than opening your fingers and typing various styles of stinging rebukes right away, and understand.
Take a look at your beloved FP and realize that in some time zones it doesn't have the population to create matches on any regular basis.
You are again demanding PGI to push away a larger base of players - yes, including paying ones - in order to cater to a small, eternally dissatisfied, minority.

Quote

1) the bottom - Ghosts will be allowed to participate in any game that comes up on their monitor screen, it will NOT be automatic, it will be a choice of where they want to fight and they can choose from the 'Mech weight limits available to them for the fight.
Given the frequency of FP games that are getting formed? They won't have much of a choice.

Quote

or something catastrophic is taking place that is measurable by the game,
Let me stop you there: neither the game nor the server would be able to distinguish pulling out your network cable from equipment failure.

Quote

Force Commanders will set up all other matches and those matches WILL PLAY, whether it is 3 v 7 or 12 v 12. This 8 v 8 nonsense is for the birds and will go away.
Congratulations, if you give them that power then there will be degenerates who will consistently set up 8v1 matches to favour "their guys".

Quote

That's it, I've had it with being dissed-understood, so I'm gone.
And nothing of value was lost.

To put it bluntly, I do not support your premise annihilating the game's playerbase just because you think your particular demands must be catered to. And, as it happens, I am one of the enthusiasts who pay PGI's bills - just slightly more in touch with the realities of the situation than you are.
Now excuse me, I need to spend some time deciding which final two Collector packs to get to qualify for the Ultimate reward tier for the fourth year running.

Edited by Horseman, 22 October 2020 - 07:56 AM.


#464 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 438 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 22 October 2020 - 08:46 AM

View PostHorseman, on 22 October 2020 - 07:44 AM, said:

We understand your points perfectly. You just refuse to acknowledge the reality of what MWO has become and still believe it can do a sudden 180* course-correction and magically have the entire former player base return thanks to it.
That's not how reality works.
Take a look at your beloved FP and realize that in some time zones it doesn't have the population to create matches on any regular basis.
You are again demanding PGI to push away a larger base of players - yes, including paying ones - in order to cater to a small, eternally dissatisfied, minority.
Given the frequency of FP games that are getting formed? They won't have much of a choice.
Let me stop you there: neither the game nor the server would be able to distinguish pulling out your network cable from equipment failure.
Congratulations, if you give them that power then there will be degenerates who will consistently set up 8v1 matches to favour "their guys".
And nothing of value was lost.

To put it bluntly, I do not support your premise annihilating the game's playerbase just because you think your particular demands must be catered to. And, as it happens, I am one of the enthusiasts who pay PGI's bills - just slightly more in touch with the realities of the situation than you are.
Now excuse me, I need to spend some time deciding which final two Collector packs to get to qualify for the Ultimate reward tier for the fourth year running.


As someone who already qualified for 4 years worth of Ultimate Rewards, and is opting to pass up a 5th year, let me say that I agree much more with Threat Doc than with you or any of your ilk.

What this game is missing is a point. A story. A campaign. A purpose. From what I hear of MW5, that's not something we can trust PGI with even in the slightest, but it's still what's missing. Literally the ONLY reason I play this game is because I played MW2, 3, and 4 ad nauseum (and still was, right up to 2015 when I bought a new computer specifically for MWLL and MWO), had the story fresh in my mind, and hadn't heard the retractions, yet, on the concept of progressing MWO day-for-day, with one day in-universe corresponding to one day out-of-universe (thus setting them up for 20 or 30 years' worth of story to play out in real time).

I started a new account in May. I'm already done with it. I've got 22 'mech bays, 18 'mechs, all of them mastered, and I'm starting to accumulate more CB than I can spend. If I were purchasing 'mechs with hard cash instead of CB on this second account, that situation would be even worse. Beyond leveling 'mechs, and affording more, there's no "point" to this game, and it gets very old and repetitive very quickly. I stick around because I'm a stubborn addict, but even that's not been enough to keep me playing 5 hours a day, 7 days a week, like I used to.

My first introduction to Halo? Just like this: two guys who play the game were dueling with endless respawns: one would kill the other, the other would respawn and kill the one, back and forth, with no point, no purpose, no objective other than endless, mindless combat. I swore off Halo after about 10 minutes. 10 years later, I'm told it actually has a rich and compelling back story that I'd probably be really interested in.

Now take MWO: if your ONLY exposure to Battletech is through MWO, what's the point? You go kill that guy, he kills you, at the end of the match you've got some money that you're not sure what to spend on except to do the same thing slightly differently, and you go do the same thing all over again. There's no purpose. There's no point. Anyone picking up MWO without any history of the franchise will drop it again in a matter of months. The ONLY people who still play this game are those who remember the other, better ones that came before it, that established that sense of purpose, and that gave everything its objective, and explains WHY Clan Technology is so much better than Inner Sphere tech. (The balance for that is uneven teams, not endless nerfs and buffs, by the way).

What Threat Doc wants is the same thing I want, and the ONLY thing that's going to keep a new player around if they have zero other knowledge, history, or exposure to Battletech: a purpose for the fighting. A campaign to progress through. A context that this game is SORELY lacking. Hell, even Call of Duty, or War Thunder, or World of Tanks or Warships, have context, even with this exact same combat mechanic, and the exact same level of in-game story telling: Everybody learns about WWII in school. Everybody knows who the sides were, what their objectives were, and even what some of their equipment was, and which equipment was better and worse. Nobody expects a P-40 to be able to survive a turning fight with a Zero, and nobody expects a Zero to survive a hit. Everyone has the context, already.

The reason FP population has declined to the point that it has? The game has no point. FP matches are poorly designed, and have no objective purpose. Every time PGI listens to a request to fix a broken game mechanic, they screw up two other things in the process (they added a token "story" that's hard to read and has no follow-through beyond the next one or two combat phases, and simultaneously removed units being able to attach their tags to planets and earn MC, as well as removing any point and purpose to pledged Loyalty. They added the Loyalty bit back, but only after most of the loyalists quit).

FP would honestly have more interest if it were a unique set of perpetuating scenarios on one planet where the outcome of one match would have a direct impact on the next match. Nearly impossible to do, that's fair, but it would still have more interest if it was dynamic like that, instead of the same static match on the same stale maps.

Age of Empires II has lasted for DECADES, with a much larger continuous player base than either the original Age of Empires, or Age of Empires III. Why? AoE II is the only one of the three to include dynamic map generation. You can select a map based on a particular theme, but the actual layout and design of the map is randomly generated by the game when the match starts, and you cannot know what the map looks like until the game is launched and you've begun to explore it. Also with the context: people are familiar with the factions involved, approximately where they originate in the world, and approximately what they are famous for, and can make up why they might be fighting if it isn't blatantly obvious like Britons vs Franks. They know all this because they learned it in History Class in school (whether they wanted to or not).

To put it bluntly, Threat Doc's proposal will hardly annihilate the player base, but continued focus on balancing QP and sucking money out of players for 15 minutes of broken-record repetition most assuredly will.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 22 October 2020 - 08:47 AM.


#465 Lith Dael

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 54 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 22 October 2020 - 09:44 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 22 October 2020 - 03:29 AM, said:


It's still a good approach considering that you need less players to drop, and our population is quite low.


Plus, the "added impact" for an inexperienced player is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you have potentially 4 less alpha builds pointed at you at any given time. Generally this should enhance the staying power of all mechs, which is better for those still learning and making mistakes, charging in open space etc.
Just my 2 eurocents.

Just kidding, I am not getting paid in serious currency ;-)

View PostThreat Doc, on 22 October 2020 - 06:38 AM, said:

That's it, I've had it with being dissed-understood, so I'm gone.


Your actual points may be missed, but certainly not your abrasive writing style.

#466 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 22 October 2020 - 08:46 AM, said:

What Threat Doc wants is the same thing I want, and the ONLY thing that's going to keep a new player around if they have zero other knowledge, history, or exposure to Battletech: a purpose for the fighting. A campaign to progress through. A context that this game is SORELY lacking.

A campaign isn't realy needed for a multiplayer game with factions and guilds.
Fighting with your guilds for your faction gives a player a purpose to play.
Things like earning faction ranks and factions specific rewards can improve that.

That would work in Mechwarrior online too, but PGI didn't even try to encourage that.

MWO started with quickplay as "placeholder gamemode" without considering faction during matchmaking.
PGI payed a lot of money for the strong lore of the Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise and decided to not use the part that was ideal for a multiplayer shooter: the factions.

Not matching the teams in quickplay by faction and allowing players without faction killed faction play before it even started.
It prevented the formation of player units from solo players.
It enabeld a "faction don't matter mindset".
Most players have had a pretty diverse friends list with players from all factions (or no faction), so for faction play a large parts of thier friend list can't play with them.

Quote

The reason FP population has declined to the point that it has? The game has no point. FP matches are poorly designed, and have no objective purpose.

Well, that's no difference to the gameplay of quickplay.

Quickplay is team deathmatch without respawns and randomized teams.

Typical for deathmatch is the lack of objectives on the map.
In objective driven game modes the objectives work as focus points , preventing the teams from splitting up over the whole map.
Classic team death match shooters like Quake, Unreal Tournament ect don't have that problem due the small maps, fast movement and the respawns.
MWO has lare maps, slow movement and no respawns in quickplay.

Domination is one of the few modes in MWO there objectives work as intended.
All other modes can be played by "kill the enemy first, than capture", making it more or less a matter of informal consent of the team were to fight.
That informal consent works if all players of a team know the map and know the usuall choke points, but that also means what every game is played like the other games before...

And if only a small faction of the team don't play by this informal consent about how to play that map the team gets splitted and stomped by the other team.
We all know that situation when some players try to cap the enemy base solo in Assault or stay back to prototect the own base while the rest of the team moves out...
And MWOs matchmaking active prevents team cohesion by disolving the team after each match and creating a new team with random players. With each new match you get new team mates you don't know, so achiving that informal consent in the team is more or less luck.

Let's take a look how other video games avoid this problem, using the old Call of Duty united offense & Battlefield 2 as examples.
First thing: clear attacker and defender roles for clear objectives. The teams have either to attack or defend, not trying to do both at the same time.
Objective placement to set focus points, sometimes objectives have to be captured in a specific order (Battlefields Frontline & Rush modes). Imagine conquest, but you can only attack the control point near the enemy starting zone after capturing one CP in the middle.
Variable placement of objectives: CoDs Headquarters were the placement of the radio station switches between different places after each map. Imagine big maps like Tourmaline, Alpine Peaks, but with variants in the placement of spawnpoints & objectives for Assault, Domination, Conquest...

Also PGI did a bad thing by not naming the objectives. Objective Alpha sounds lame, objective "Dropship Wreck", "Fuel Storage Area", "Comstar Station", "old Battlefield" or "Space Port" ect adds flavor to the game.

One of the few things MWO did right was the approaching dropship in Faction play Scouting or Escort, and the Mechhangars in Solaris, and it's a shame PGI didn't use that stuff to spice up quickplay.
Like landing dropships on the end of the round, or spawning one team in Solaris style mechhangars instead of dropping both teams with Dropships.

Quote

FP would honestly have more interest if it were a unique set of perpetuating scenarios on one planet where the outcome of one match would have a direct impact on the next match. Nearly impossible to do, that's fair, but it would still have more interest if it was dynamic like that, instead of the same static match on the same stale maps.

Direct impacts for the next match are IMHO a no-go, remember the long tom fiasco.

Unique scenarios could be done as events.
For example a set of maps could get the same skybox by a patch prior the event and those events took place on that maps, d.h. "on the same planet".

Indirect impacts of the event could be price changes or changed aviability for certain Mechs for the victorious faction.
But that would need stuff like faction price modifiers for faction specific Mechs or even faction exclusive Mechs like the Grand Dragon for Kurita or the Enfield for Davion not yet in the store.

#467 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 438 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 22 October 2020 - 11:32 AM

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

A campaign isn't really needed for a multiplayer game with factions and guilds.
Fighting with your guilds for your faction gives a player a purpose to play.
Things like earning faction ranks and factions specific rewards can improve that.

That would work in Mechwarrior online too, but PGI didn't even try to encourage that.

There still needs to be something for the Faction or Guild to work towards. Previously, that was getting their unit tag on as many planets as possible to earn MC which they could distribute back to their members. That objective has been taken away, and consequently, we've seen a steep decline in groups playing that game mode.

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

MWO started with quickplay as "placeholder gamemode" without considering faction during matchmaking.
PGI paid a lot of money for the strong lore of the Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise and decided to not use the part that was ideal for a multiplayer shooter: the factions.

Not matching the teams in quickplay by faction and allowing players without faction killed faction play before it even started.
It prevented the formation of player units from solo players.
It enabeld a "faction don't matter mindset".
Most players have had a pretty diverse friends list with players from all factions (or no faction), so for faction play a large parts of their friend list can't play with them.

This makes a lot of sense, and leans into something I've proposed further back in this thread: rather than custom-built Champion 'mechs for trial 'mechs, which get out-dated, ALL the 'mechs in-game should be available as trial 'mechs, divided up by associated Faction (AS7-D is universal, but AS7-K is only available to the DCMS, etc). New players have to pick a faction, and then pick a 'mech from that faction to be "issued" as an enlisted 'mechwarrior in that faction's military. They need to purchase the 'mech to skill it or change the loadout or camo pattern. Perhaps a basic 30 or 40 skills could be added (such that the ECM nodes are equipped on all ECM trial 'mechs).

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

View PostC337Skymaster, on 22 October 2020 - 08:46 AM, said:

The reason FP population has declined to the point that it has? The game has no point. FP matches are poorly designed, and have no objective purpose.

Well, that's no difference to the gameplay of quickplay.


That's been everybody's point all along. That stale repetitiveness exists in both modes, and is killing all parts of this game, equally.

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

Quickplay is team deathmatch without respawns and randomized teams.

Typical for deathmatch is the lack of objectives on the map.
In objective driven game modes the objectives work as focus points , preventing the teams from splitting up over the whole map.
Classic team death match shooters like Quake, Unreal Tournament ect don't have that problem due the small maps, fast movement and the respawns.
MWO has large maps, slow movement and no respawns in quickplay.

Domination is one of the few modes in MWO there objectives work as intended.
All other modes can be played by "kill the enemy first, then capture", making it more or less a matter of informal consent of the team where to fight.
That informal consent works if all players of a team know the map and know the usual choke points, but that also means that every game is played like the other games before...

And if only a small fraction of the team don't play by this informal consent about how to play that map, the team gets split and stomped by the other team.
We all know that situation when some players try to cap the enemy base solo in Assault or stay back to protect their own base while the rest of the team moves out...
And MWOs matchmaking actively prevents team cohesion by dissolving the team after each match and creating a new team with random players. With each new match you get new team mates you don't know, so achieving that informal consent in the team is more or less luck.

Let's take a look how other video games avoid this problem, using the old Call of Duty united offense & Battlefield 2 as examples.
First thing: clear attacker and defender roles for clear objectives. The teams have either to attack or defend, not trying to do both at the same time.
Objective placement to set focus points, sometimes objectives have to be captured in a specific order (Battlefields Frontline & Rush modes). Imagine conquest, but you can only attack the control point near the enemy starting zone after capturing one CP in the middle.
Variable placement of objectives: CoDs Headquarters were the placement of the radio station switches between different places after each map. Imagine big maps like Tourmaline, Alpine Peaks, but with variants in the placement of spawnpoints & objectives for Assault, Domination, Conquest...

Also PGI did a bad thing by not naming the objectives. Objective Alpha sounds lame, objective "Dropship Wreck", "Fuel Storage Area", "Comstar Station", "old Battlefield" or "Space Port" ect adds flavor to the game.

I see your point, and I see theirs. The whole "objective code-name" bit is a real military tactic, to minimize the damage in the event of compromised communications. If you're after "objective dog" (or Delta, since shortly after WWII), and the enemy has no idea what "objective dog" is, then they can't use that information against you, whereas "objective crashed dropship" tells them exactly where you're going and where to defend against you.

Intercepted Comms isn't a thing in MWO, and even if it were, the objectives are named the exact same thing to both teams so each team would know what you're talking about, anyway, but trying to simulate that was the original intent...

I can also see the mixed match-making intent: if you get 12 people randomly matched together who are really good and absolutely trounce the other team, they might change 'mechs for the next drop, or they might just work exceptionally well together and start handing out losses to EVERY other player in MWO, which would sour a lot of other players' experiences and cause them to quit.

I know I called an earlier comment of yours toxic, but a TRUE and indisputable example of toxicity was an old Ghost Bear unit that I dropped with a couple of times called "Bad News Bears [BNB]". They were a Faction unit, but they were exactly the type that was guilty of dunking the objective without fighting the enemy, and their leader even said straight up at the start of one match "let's make them not want to play, anymore [by beating them so badly and so quickly]".

If you wind up with a QP unit doing that.... my understanding is that's why group and solo queues were originally separated in the first place. So PGI makes sure to split up the losing team and the winning team after every match, hoping to pit the two best players in every 24-player matchup against each other.

The non-stop search for the almighty "balance"...

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:

One of the few things MWO did right was the approaching dropship in Faction play Scouting or Escort, and the Mechhangars in Solaris, and it's a shame PGI didn't use that stuff to spice up quickplay.
Like landing dropships on the end of the round, or spawning one team in Solaris style mechhangars instead of dropping both teams with Dropships.


Direct impacts for the next match are IMHO a no-go, remember the long tom fiasco.

Fiasco?! I loved the Long Tom!! I never had so much fun in Scouting as when the Long Tom was the end-result. Scouting actually meant something, and had a real purpose, and something to fight for. They were also tough, scrappy fights, too. Yes, I played a classic streak crow, and I'll say I was even better than a lot of other streak crows, but you run up against SRM Griffins, or Assassins, and we got about as good as we gave. Add stealth armor to that mix, (they got rid of the Long Tom before stealth armor arrived), and you've got a real doozy of a cat-and-mouse game, with definite real-world consequences on the ongoing Faction matches.

It depresses me to see the Scouting objective indicators at the top of Faction matches, these days, with no chance of ever lighting them up again...

View PostAlreech, on 22 October 2020 - 10:36 AM, said:


Unique scenarios could be done as events.
For example a set of maps could get the same skybox by a patch prior the event and those events took place on that maps, d.h. "on the same planet".

Indirect impacts of the event could be price changes or changed availability for certain Mechs for the victorious faction.
But that would need stuff like faction price modifiers for faction specific Mechs or even faction exclusive Mechs like the Grand Dragon for Kurita or the Enfield for Davion not yet in the store.

I love this idea. I just wish PGI had coders that could make it happen.... See my above idea about splitting the different 'mechs and equipment up by tech tree (MRMs, Heavy, Light, and Snub-nosed PPCs, are all Kuritan equipment. RAC's are Davion, Heavy Gauss is Steiner. Stealth Armor is Capellan. Light Gauss is Marik. Poor Rasalhague is lucky to have 'mechs and planets...).

Edited by C337Skymaster, 22 October 2020 - 11:33 AM.


#468 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 23 October 2020 - 02:04 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 22 October 2020 - 11:32 AM, said:

There still needs to be something for the Faction or Guild to work towards. Previously, that was getting their unit tag on as many planets as possible to earn MC which they could distribute back to their members. That objective has been taken away, and consequently, we've seen a steep decline in groups playing that game mode.

Giving out premium currency to encourage playing a specific game mode is the lowest form of reward, and also leads to farming.

Same with the mechbays as reward in faction play.
If one of the most common tips for new players is "play faction play to farm mechbays, change factions to maximise that farming" you don't encourage faction play, you encourage farming.

It also applies to "PGI is greeedy, they have to give out moar rewards for playing, moar daily missions, more free MCs, free Mechbays, free Mechs..."
Playing a game only to farm free stuff can kill motivation real fast. Especially if like in MWO framing works best in Quickplay.

Quote

This makes a lot of sense, and leans into something I've proposed further back in this thread: rather than custom-built Champion 'mechs for trial 'mechs, which get out-dated, ALL the 'mechs in-game should be available as trial 'mechs, divided up by associated Faction (AS7-D is universal, but AS7-K is only available to the DCMS, etc). New players have to pick a faction, and then pick a 'mech from that faction to be "issued" as an enlisted 'mechwarrior in that faction's military. They need to purchase the 'mech to skill it or change the loadout or camo pattern. Perhaps a basic 30 or 40 skills could be added (such that the ECM nodes are equipped on all ECM trial 'mechs).

MWO started with 4 Mechs, so that wasn't possible in the beginning.
Mechwarrior 5 has now more than 50 Mechs in game, and faction variants could be done in a Mechwarrior 5 multiplayer mode with factions.

Quote

I see your point, and I see theirs. The whole "objective code-name" bit is a real military tactic, to minimize the damage in the event of compromised communications. If you're after "objective dog" (or Delta, since shortly after WWII), and the enemy has no idea what "objective dog" is, then they can't use that information against you, whereas "objective crashed dropship" tells them exactly where you're going and where to defend against you.

Intercepted Comms isn't a thing in MWO, and even if it were, the objectives are named the exact same thing to both teams so each team would know what you're talking about, anyway, but trying to simulate that was the original intent...

I think they have been just to lazy to come up with names.
The thing is that stuff like "crashed dropship" is already in the game as object on the map. Many multiplayer games - here is Battlefield also a good example - place unique objects on the map and use them as objective to make that map more unique.

Giving a code name to the objective can still be done, especially if a map contains more such unique objects as potential objectives and the matchmaker can use different layouts (spawnpoints & objectives).
It would be also possible to add flavor text or audio at the start of the match, like:
"Objective Alpha" + "Crashed dropship, secure it so we can salvage it's cargo"
"Objective Bravo" + "Space port, hold it so we can land reeinforcements"
"Objective Charlie" + "Old battlesite, one of the mech wrecks contain critical information, secure it"

Objects now in MWO that can be used for that:
Crashed dropship = dropship wrecks (Tourmaline, Frozen city,...)
wrecked Mechs = old battlesite
Large Tanks = Fuel Tank Area (River City)
wrecked Cargoship =... (Frozen City, Forrest Colony)

#469 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,456 posts

Posted 23 October 2020 - 02:28 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 22 October 2020 - 11:32 AM, said:

I can also see the mixed match-making intent: if you get 12 people randomly matched together who are really good and absolutely trounce the other team, they might change 'mechs for the next drop, or they might just work exceptionally well together and start handing out losses to EVERY other player in MWO, which would sour a lot of other players' experiences and cause them to quit.
...
If you wind up with a QP unit doing that.... my understanding is that's why group and solo queues were originally separated in the first place.

The split between Solo & Group in Quickplay was done in the early days of MWO with 8 vs 8 matches.
Search for PUGs vs Premades in the archive.

The problem is that a group of players (=premade) has advantages in coordination over players that drop without group (PUG). Especially if the premade group is big (8 players, 12 players)
The obvious solution to that problems would be:
  • nerf the groups somewhat by limiting it's size, for example to 4 (the size of a Lance)
  • make it easier for Solo players to group up by adding a "Looking for Group" Lobby with build in VOIP
You will find such suggestions in the old PUG vs Premade threads.




Quote

So PGI makes sure to split up the losing team and the winning team after every match, hoping to pit the two best players in every 24-player matchup against each other.

Honestly i don't think PGI planned that far.
Remember, quickplay was a placeholder game mode until the famous "dropship mode" is ready.
PGI didn't bother to set up the CryEngines Server with things like maplists or autobalance (things the CryEngine support out of the box) to keep the teams together and balanced.

Also most players used Solo Quickplay to grind up XPs for Mechs (and later to farm Events) That was faster in Solo because you are able to leave the match and start the next with a new Mech.

Edited by Alreech, 23 October 2020 - 02:29 AM.


#470 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 181 posts

Posted 23 October 2020 - 02:36 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 22 October 2020 - 08:46 AM, said:


As someone who already qualified for 4 years worth of Ultimate Rewards, and is opting to pass up a 5th year, let me say that I agree much more with Threat Doc than with you or any of your ilk.

What this game is missing is a point. A story. A campaign. A purpose. From what I hear of MW5, that's not something we can trust PGI with even in the slightest, but it's still what's missing. Literally the ONLY reason I play this game is because I played MW2, 3, and 4 ad nauseum (and still was, right up to 2015 when I bought a new computer specifically for MWLL and MWO), had the story fresh in my mind, and hadn't heard the retractions, yet, on the concept of progressing MWO day-for-day, with one day in-universe corresponding to one day out-of-universe (thus setting them up for 20 or 30 years' worth of story to play out in real time).

[...]

To put it bluntly, Threat Doc's proposal will hardly annihilate the player base, but continued focus on balancing QP and sucking money out of players for 15 minutes of broken-record repetition most assuredly will.


To be honest I don't see what we are arguing about here. While Horseman's reply towards ThreatDoc might have been a little rough, I assume it was some kind of reaction caused by his somewhat dismissive kind of wording used. All this clucker ain't and can't be about the desires of ONE target / audience group only and Horseman usually tends to show very sophisticated argumentation on topics. We are all sitting in the same boat here, the difference between us lying in our opinion on what part of the boat is in need of repairs first with the assumed ressources at hand for now. We don't wanna make this game into some sort of stupid quickplay-mill (even though quickplay has a place in it) and we don't want this game to be some sort of 45 minutes minimal high strategy game only (even tough it has a place in it). We are asking ourselves and wanna discuss WHAT short-term measures may help to stabilize and bolster the existing playerbase so PGI can create revenue ... and we try to do that while keeping in mind PGI has not shown the ability and/or has the ressources to create some grand overhaul of central game mechanics over a couple of weeks and being in need for revenue to potentially hire the experts for it.

So while we totally appreciate the several, massive and well-thought-off proposals being made in terms of how to improve faction play and the implementation of meta-objectives (lore, unit-management etc.) a lot, we do not believe this will create the short time / low effort / high reward revenue stream that seems to be in need of to set bigger changes in motion.

That is why we - beside minor gameplay-tweaks - are asking for stuff like new hero packs etc. for now / as a first step, since we believe (albeit do not know) such measures are comparably easier to implement, offer some revenue stream and can be ONE stepping stone for further implementations from a business perspective to build on-going overhaul steps on.

That is no guarantee for nothing! And I can totally agree if that is not enough for most of us, since we have been ****-fanned (year of faction-play etc.pp.) kinda often over the last couple of years. But we simply don't see your totally legit proposals as something PGI is able to deliver currently / at this point.

So pretty prettly please let us not make this into some kind of audience-clash again ... but let us ask ourselves, what realistic content can PGI produce short-term we are willing to spend money on. If there ain't nothing they can do short-term to make ye play again/more often/spend money on = fair n square, no offense taken. But please do not make us into some advocatus diaboli promoting things we actually don't.

Again: it is not the result we have different opinions on, since we all want an engaging, immersive and fun game as close to our wildest BT-dreams as possible! That is for sure! But our assumption of the most practical way to go there from here is a different one.

O7

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 23 October 2020 - 03:30 AM.


#471 Lith Dael

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 54 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 23 October 2020 - 06:59 AM

View PostAnAnachronismAlive, on 23 October 2020 - 02:36 AM, said:


Again: it is not the result we have different opinions on, since we all want an engaging, immersive and fun game as close to our wildest BT-dreams as possible! That is for sure! But our assumption of the most practical way to go there from here is a different one.

O7


Anachronism, your positivity and attitute stand out as a beacon on these forums. This is exactly what this game needs.

#472 AnAnachronismAlive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 181 posts

Posted 23 October 2020 - 07:37 AM

View PostLith Dael, on 23 October 2020 - 06:59 AM, said:

Anachronism, your positivity and attitute stand out as a beacon on these forums. This is exactly what this game needs.


Thank you, though my ex-wife would tell ye otherwise. Does not matter anyhow, since all the quality-feedback/concepts provided by players of ALL sorts here and elsewhere is of much bigger importance than my cheap words.

Anyhow: I can full-scale identify with a lot of people having invested much more time, effort and heart-blood into this game and its community being fed off regarding what happened / or not happened during the last years. The defeatism PGI experiences in this forum is somewhat well deserved (though not very helpful), despite having delivered an extremely solid bt-sim-experience being the small studio they are. Thank you for that! I really mean it.

But what people makes so sad n bitter is all the lost potential ...

So lemme make one thing clear: foremost it is PGI that has to deliver a honest and transparent scope of possible short-, mid- and long-term changes as soon as possible now. Their communications is - and I know what I am talkin about PR-wise - a mess, even though one has to admit that communication with gaming communities is one of the **** tasks ye can be confronted with. Still there ain't a main and well administered channel of communication with customers. There is (and has been for years) so much feedback (high quality even so) all over the places (forum, reddit, discord, bilateral messages, e-mails, streams n podcasts) it seems impossible already to melt it into a structured and transparent conjunction.

The balloon of expectations is bulging again ... and since a lot of other balloons have been bulging before with nothing but some gum-fart coming out in the end, anticipated disappointment is the status quo a lot of people feel about MWO/PGI announcements.

So please ... PGI ... give us a scope of potential short term changes for now, so we can - together and step by step - work on short-term-solutions satisfying the playerbase in general and you as a company alike FOR NOW! Every new journey starts with a first step ... it should be well placed though if ye found yerself being off the path.

O7 - make this override version of MWO happen!

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 23 October 2020 - 07:45 AM.


#473 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 438 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 23 October 2020 - 08:56 AM

View PostAlreech, on 23 October 2020 - 02:04 AM, said:

Giving out premium currency to encourage playing a specific game mode is the lowest form of reward, and also leads to farming.

Same with the mechbays as reward in faction play.
If one of the most common tips for new players is "play faction play to farm mechbays, change factions to maximize that farming" you don't encourage faction play, you encourage farming.

It also applies to "PGI is greeedy, they have to give out moar rewards for playing, moar daily missions, more free MCs, free Mechbays, free Mechs..."
Playing a game only to farm free stuff can kill motivation real fast. Especially if like in MWO farming works best in Quickplay.

You know, now that you put it in writing, I'm kinda confronted with it: The only reason I play, anymore, is the free stuff. If it weren't for farming 'mech bays in Faction, I wouldn't even bother with the mode, and I've cut back on QP to just farming the events. Were it not for any of that, I'd have been able to go back to MW2, MW3, and MW4 with a clear mind two or three years ago. This is what I mean about needing an objective, or a purpose. Winning free stuff seems to be the only reason to play, anymore. At least for me. And there are a LOT of players for whom even that wasn't enough.

View PostAlreech, on 23 October 2020 - 02:04 AM, said:

MWO started with 4 Mechs, so that wasn't possible in the beginning.

Okay, that's fair enough. They've got a helluva lot more than 4 'mechs, now, though, and have had for quite some time. My proposal would have been viable around the time Origins IIC came out, as there were then enough faction-specific 'mechs in the game to make the faction-tree division work.

View PostAlreech, on 23 October 2020 - 02:04 AM, said:

I think they have been just to lazy to come up with names.
The thing is that stuff like "crashed dropship" is already in the game as object on the map. Many multiplayer games - here is Battlefield also a good example - place unique objects on the map and use them as objective to make that map more unique.

Giving a code name to the objective can still be done, especially if a map contains more such unique objects as potential objectives and the matchmaker can use different layouts (spawnpoints & objectives).
It would be also possible to add flavor text or audio at the start of the match, like:
"Objective Alpha" + "Crashed dropship, secure it so we can salvage it's cargo"
"Objective Bravo" + "Space port, hold it so we can land reeinforcements"
"Objective Charlie" + "Old battlesite, one of the mech wrecks contain critical information, secure it"

Objects now in MWO that can be used for that:
Crashed dropship = dropship wrecks (Tourmaline, Frozen city,...)
wrecked Mechs = old battlesite
Large Tanks = Fuel Tank Area (River City)
wrecked Cargoship =... (Frozen City, Forrest Colony)

Yeah, can't argue with "lazy" on the part of PGI...

#474 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 438 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 23 October 2020 - 09:14 AM

View PostAnAnachronismAlive, on 23 October 2020 - 02:36 AM, said:


To be honest I don't see what we are arguing about here. While Horseman's reply towards ThreatDoc might have been a little rough, I assume it was some kind of reaction caused by his somewhat dismissive kind of wording used. All this clucker ain't and can't be about the desires of ONE target / audience group only and Horseman usually tends to show very sophisticated argumentation on topics. We are all sitting in the same boat here, the difference between us lying in our opinion on what part of the boat is in need of repairs first with the assumed resources at hand for now. We don't wanna make this game into some sort of stupid quickplay-mill (even though quickplay has a place in it) and we don't want this game to be some sort of 45 minutes minimal high strategy game only (even tough it has a place in it). We are asking ourselves and wanna discuss WHAT short-term measures may help to stabilize and bolster the existing playerbase so PGI can create revenue ... and we try to do that while keeping in mind PGI has not shown the ability and/or has the resources to create some grand overhaul of central game mechanics over a couple of weeks and being in need for revenue to potentially hire the experts for it.

So while we totally appreciate the several, massive and well-thought-off proposals being made in terms of how to improve faction play and the implementation of meta-objectives (lore, unit-management etc.) a lot, we do not believe this will create the short time / low effort / high reward revenue stream that seems to be in need of to set bigger changes in motion.

You say you appreciate the proposals, but the argument was that those proposals aren't feeling very appreciated at all, and are rather feeling quickly dismissed as "old sod's whose gamemode already failed, and so isn't worth looking at".

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there's no such thing as a "low effort/high reward" anything. Either a high effort must be made to achieve a high reward, or low effort will result in very low, if any, reward. The other problem is PGI's track record, and I'm starting to feel like it's time for the community to give up on PGI, start hacking the source code, and take over MWO kinda like what happened when MWLL was abandoned.

View PostAnAnachronismAlive, on 23 October 2020 - 02:36 AM, said:

That is why we - beside minor gameplay-tweaks - are asking for stuff like new hero packs etc. for now / as a first step, since we believe (albeit do not know) such measures are comparably easier to implement, offer some revenue stream and can be ONE stepping stone for further implementations from a business perspective to build on-going overhaul steps on.

That is no guarantee for nothing! And I can totally agree if that is not enough for most of us, since we have been ****-fanned (year of faction-play etc.pp.) kinda often over the last couple of years. But we simply don't see your totally legit proposals as something PGI is able to deliver currently / at this point.

Do we see ANYTHING as something PGI is able to deliver, currently? Maybe we, as a community, should start there: what do we actually trust PGI to follow through with? Where is our faith and hope level with regards to PGI right now? Because it's starting to sound like it's at or below zero. Yeah, I know "we're a company. We need to make money". But begging your customers for money isn't how you make money, and if you're incapable of producing a worthwhile product, then you go bankrupt. I REALLY would like to see the MWLL team take over MWO, and see what they can do with it...

View PostAnAnachronismAlive, on 23 October 2020 - 02:36 AM, said:

So pretty pretty please let us not make this into some kind of audience-clash again ... but let us ask ourselves, what realistic content can PGI produce short-term we are willing to spend money on. If there ain't nothing they can do short-term to make ye play again/more often/spend money on = fair n square, no offense taken. But please do not make us into some advocatus diaboli promoting things we actually don't.

Again: it is not the result we have different opinions on, since we all want an engaging, immersive and fun game as close to our wildest BT-dreams as possible! That is for sure! But our assumption of the most practical way to go there from here is a different one.

O7


Something my Driver's Ed instructor taught us: you keep your eyes on the end of the visible part of the road, and you will naturally follow your gaze. If the road is turning, look at where it goes to, and you'll naturally follow behind your gaze. If you just look at the road straight in front of the car, you'll be all over the place and have no idea where you're going, or what's ahead of you.

I feel like too much focus on the short-term blinds us to the long-term goals, and only the long-term goals will save the game. New 'mech packs has been done. It was Modus Operandi for six years. New maps has been done, albeit not nearly often enough. Interest usually only piques for about a month, then starts to drop off again. New game modes has been done. Domination is the only one that people actually seem to like, because it prevents anyone from taking advantage of the large maps.

All these short-term solutions have been tried, already, and they've all either failed, or been botched by PGI incompetence, so I feel like trying them again is a waste of everyone's time and effort...

#475 Tiamat Cordia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 1,326 posts

Posted 23 October 2020 - 12:05 PM

Ohhhhhkay, so this is gonna be a bit long, probably somewhat rambly, and I may choose words badly here and there, so please bear with. There's a lot I want to comment on.


Preface
Spoiler


Definitions (Because sometimes people use words to mean different things than each other)
Spoiler


Concerning Champion 'Mechs
Spoiler


Concerning Ghost Heat
Spoiler


Concerning 'Mech Balance (including quirks)
Spoiler


Concerning New Mechs
Spoiler


Concerning the Non-'Mechlab UI (very important)
Spoiler


Concerning the 'Mechlab UI and Visual Customization (Also very important, but distinct from the previous)
Spoiler


Tips and Tricks (wait, this gets a whole spoiler to itself?)
Spoiler


Regarding 'Mech Purchases
Spoiler


Concerning Game Modes and Maps
Spoiler



....I think that covers all my thoughts. Took me a while, but I've been busy.

Hope this comes in useful.

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 23 October 2020 - 12:19 PM.


#476 BuckleUp

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 25 posts

Posted 24 October 2020 - 07:20 AM

Quick idea regarding lessening the skill tree grind and monetization: what if the XP-boosting cockpit items were available for purchase with MC? There's surely a larger discussion to be had on skill tree, but maybe this could be a quick & easy way to help in the meantime?

#477 Lockheed_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hawk
  • The Hawk
  • 467 posts

Posted 24 October 2020 - 10:35 AM

Why do so many people complain about the skill tree being a grind? Just a few days ago I bought a new Shadowcat. I haven't played much but I am at 37 skill points already. it's really not that diffcult to get XP.

#478 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Corsair
  • The Corsair
  • 480 posts

Posted 24 October 2020 - 12:06 PM

View PostBuckleUp, on 24 October 2020 - 07:20 AM, said:

Quick idea regarding lessening the skill tree grind and monetization: what if the XP-boosting cockpit items were available for purchase with MC? There's surely a larger discussion to be had on skill tree, but maybe this could be a quick & easy way to help in the meantime?


No, for 3 reasons.

1. I & others bought Ultimate mech packs to get all the Hanging and Standing cockpit buffs (also as a way to support PGI).
Now its the Only reason to buy any of those ultimate packs: Civil War(IS+Clan), Civil War Escalation(IS+Clan), Evolution(IS)

2. You will hate PGI for those cockpit items because you will buy a 2nd one after loosing the first on one of your +400 mechs.
Remember: IS buff only for IS mechs while clan is for clan (I know shocking).
Plus can't buy enough cockpit buff items for entire drop deck (FP).
If switching mechs often you must remove from mech to install into another mech which is bad QoL-gaming.

3. They make all other cockpit items useless dust collectors.
That's if you want to get all the "value" you perceive out of these cockpit buffs.

PGI has been asked time and again but doesn't want to improve quality of life for gamers who Bought and Own those cockpit buffs by simply putting the buffs across all owned mechs.
IMO if a player owns 3 IS +5% XBill cockpit buffs then give 15% buff for all IS mechs to let us use any other cockpit items again.


PGI wants ideas to revitalize well there's one.

All this topic did so far was rehash what's already been discussed in far greater details with far more ideas by a much larger playerbase on these same forums in the past.

I've not logged in for almost 1 year, Hey nothing new to buy or try anyways...
However its blatantly obvious that a revitalization of MWO won't be fast or easy, but I'll bet that's all Russ wants.

#479 Garran Tana

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 124 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 25 October 2020 - 06:28 AM

I was listening to the podcast, Daeron asked for ideas for store upgrades. One thing I don't like in MWO is lack of mech looking like the fit in the environment. You get a snow map and drop in a desert camo etc. Few simple ideas that could improve this:
Create a system where the basic paint job (skin + colors) is the default one, but you can unclock (with MC, or for a tiny amount of real money for all of them at once in a pack for a mech or all mechs) slots corresponding to the specific maps where you can pick a paint job and colors that will be used if you drop on that map. And you can unlock it for every map if you wish.
Another thing is a similar idea for Unit paint job - if a Unit wants to buy a special camo slot for a chunk of MC, every unit member can choose that skin for free.

Also Daeron please take a look below at my signature for game modes ideas.

Edited by Garran Tana, 26 October 2020 - 02:18 PM.


#480 Lith Dael

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 54 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 25 October 2020 - 09:32 AM

View PostGarran Tana, on 25 October 2020 - 06:28 AM, said:

I was listening to the podcast, Daeron asked for ideas for store upgrades.


Also, every promotion/sale is a huge mess in the in-game store. I mean, look at it now. Nine pages. Nine. Pages. Of dozens of mech icons.
It's completely unreadable.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users