544 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

C337Skymaster, on 12 October 2020 - 03:26 PM, said:

Okay, I see the term a lot, but what exactly do you mean by "bracket builds"? If you're talking about not focusing literally everything on a single range, then I'll say that I find myself screwed over by that more often than I find it useful, and I find having different range options useful more often than it's a handicap.

Bracket builds are generalist builds, typically boating weapons for all ranges. The thing with generalists is that, while they can participate at all ranges, the specialists could participate better when they can maintain range -- and a good team can help the guy maintain range.

C337Skymaster, on 12 October 2020 - 03:26 PM, said:

As for "undergunned", I'd debate that one, too, since I run stock weapons as a matter of preference, and do quite well with about 90% of the available loadouts. (I don't own Assassins. They have no business in a stock-weapons account). There's only a small handful of 'mechs that are actually undergunned.

Clan mechs maybe, but the IS would typically be undergunned because they are built not for a mercenary but for an army -- as in cheap. Cicada barely has tonnage for anything, so are lights, because they usually have to be upgraded to Ferro-Endo with XL.

C337Skymaster, on 12 October 2020 - 03:26 PM, said:

And tell me the stock Highlander is "undergunned" compared to the trial 'mech. I dare you...

It's not supposed to work at every single Stock Mechs, it's supposed to criticize the general philosophy of stockmechs as a collective.

But okay, Stock Highlander is undergunned versus the Trial Highlander.

[C337Skymaster]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2020 - 03:51 PM, said:

It's not supposed to work at every single Stock Mechs, it's supposed to criticize the general philosophy of stockmechs as a collective.

But okay, Stock Highlander is undergunned versus the Trial Highlander.

I challenge you to a trial of Refusal!! My stock Highlander 733C vs you in the trial version of the same 'mech. (Pretty sure I still have the SHS's on that one, too. It doesn't run too hot).

[The6thMessenger]

C337Skymaster, on 12 October 2020 - 04:28 PM, said:

I challenge you to a trial of Refusal!! My stock Highlander 733C vs you in the trial version of the same 'mech. (Pretty sure I still have the SHS's on that one, too. It doesn't run too hot).

No. I already uninstalled. Try asking someone else. But I'm pretty sure you'd lose once the Trial Highlander gets in range, it has constant DPS versus your hodgepodge of weapons.

[Paladin IIC]

Ahem...

MW5 wise, coop as it currently is, is completely meaningless and half assed. There are work arounds available. There really aren't any excuses for flat out lazy programming. There really isn't much of an incentive to have a friend come join my game, get into one of my mechs, and spend hours of grinding through my campaign, and then have jack to show for it when they get back to their own campaign.

Speaking of lazy programming, they aren't getting another dime of my money until they introduce NEW content into MWO. New game modes, hell, even returns of classics like Capture the Flag would work. No reskinned maps, mechs, etc. They need to put their money where their mouth is if they want to win the community's faith in them back. Letting both games sit stagnant for a year definitely doesn't help.

Create a community map maker tool for MWO and let the community go wild. Every month or 2, incorporate a fan made map into the rotation to keep things from getting stale. You have one of the most passionate communities in gaming - I'm pretty sure with the right tools, folks could create some kick *** content. If this came off as too harsh, oh well.

Love,

A concerned member of the MWO community.

PS: Add the Avatar or Sunder and I will name my first born son after a random Dev.

[Ridir Semii]

Lockheed_, on 12 October 2020 - 05:56 PM, said:

Has the new community manager done anything else but post 2 notifications that he has caught up reading this one thread?
When are we gonna see some engagement, some communication, some action, a sign that this is not just gonna move ahead at at a slow crawl and run out of steam in a couple of weeks?

Something about Canadian Thanksgiving being today, just maybe the company is probably on holiday right now

[evil kerensky]

this has been going on for a while now. im curious to hear what pgi's taking from this all. maybe daeron can summarize his understanding of the situation so far, BEFORE pgi settles on a course of action, so we can verify that our wishlist (for lack of a better term) is being understood correctly.

pgi has historically not done well interpreting data on what the players want. id like to see common sense steps, like the above, taken to help avoid that this time.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Just a few suggestions;

(1) Remove the mech packs, they are no longer necessary to level out skills with the release of the skill trees over the rule of three mechs.
(2) Change the pricing on custom mech purchases, they are chronically out of sync with the packs, but could easily be a simplified money stream (see point 1 for skilling)
(3) Allow exp and skill point accrual for trial mechs (don't allow loadout customisation though) - this would allow newer player to have a slightly more valuable role to play in CW
(4) Fix the overheat issue with Clan XL's. The heat spike kills most mechs just as effectively as if they were IS Xl engines and makes the Clan version worse than the IS Light engine.
(5) Fix hit boxes on certain lights - not going down the argument as to which, you know quite well the ones that are hugely unbalanced )
(6) Introduce some form of participation reward (not faction point based) for actually playing in CW, say something for every 3 or 5 matches dropped AND actively participated in per day or a higher target per week - this would benefit everyone playing.
(7) Rather than the wasteful skill trees we have now where you have to buy unwanted or redundant skills to progress, make them a form of silo selection (maybe with a fractional increase in cost per tier) so efforts are directly rewarded. This might shift the meta slightly, but with a refund of skill points, would be consistent across all players.
(8) Create an Avatar that can be customised with C-Bills/MC and have restricted ones for cash/MC as well (Would love a WWII flying cap and goggles )
(9) Formal evaluation of the new PSR system WITH player feedback - don't just present something that the Dev's believe we want.
(10) Add a function to get rid of unwanted clutter/undergrowth on the maps from Veridian bog onwards - its just an additional lag element for older rigs.

Final and probably an unwelcome suggestion to some - add a low level subscription element that allows access to MC already available camo/decal/colours or cockpit items and xp/C-Bill reward cockpit items as already exist from previous events.

Have fun ripping apart the above

[Lith Dael]

C337Skymaster, on 12 October 2020 - 06:46 AM, said:

This fits with something I've started pushing since the last "trial 'mech" event: Rather than custom-built trial 'mechs that get woefully outdated as they get left behind by the meta and chassis quirks, I want to open up the trial 'mech pool to ALL 'mechs, with the specific exception that, as a new player, you have to declare for one faction or another, or join a mercenary unit (we can say Wolf's Dragoons, since a lot of the in-game 'mechs were unique to them), then your 'mech options are restricted to what that faction would have had available to its regular army (ie: "you just enlisted" sort of a scenario). 'Mechs that were common to all factions (Atlas-D, Stalker-3F, Archer-2R, etc.), are available across all the different factions. 'Mechs that were unique to a specific faction (Atlas-K = Kurita, Stalker-5M = Marik, Archer-5S = Steiner), are only available from that faction. We could (and should) extend this to the store: you can only buy from your current faction, but get to keep what you own when you desert (maintaining the possibility to own everything, eventually). This should tie into Faction Loyalty and those rewards, and tie the whole game together with a story, plot, and the underlying lore, without which, nothing makes much sense (particularly the tech divide between the Clans and IS).

Sorry, this seems too complicated for new players, who just want to jump in their mech and do something spectacular. Making them take big uninformed decisions before they can play is *not* the way.

It seems so much simpler to provide some decent, easy-to-use trial mechs. Especially those that have good survival quirks.

[C337Skymaster]

Lith Dael, on 13 October 2020 - 07:22 AM, said:

Sorry, this seems too complicated for new players, who just want to jump in their mech and do something spectacular. Making them take big uninformed decisions before they can play is *not* the way.

It seems so much simpler to provide some decent, easy-to-use trial mechs. Especially those that have good survival quirks.

So my proposition is that there be no penalty for deserting a faction. At least not at first. That way, a new player can move around, find a faction they like, find tech and 'mechs they like, and because all of the stock 'mechs are available for them to try, they don't have to make any decision other than where to go first. They can take a 'mech out for one match, and if they don't like it, they can try something else. It's not like buying a 'mech that's totally different from anything on trial and having to find out the hard way that it's not particularly good at what you want it to do. Honestly, a lot of players will probably wind up with House Liao, because they've got most of the fancy new stealth tech.

Tech Trees that differ from faction to faction are a common thing in other games. Why is it so hard to believe new players would figure it out here, too? Ever play Age of Empires? You've gotta pick a civ... If you don't like how it plays, then pick a different one next time.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 13 October 2020 - 08:16 AM.

[D1G17AL]

So a lot of people have said things like Maps, Mech scales, knockdown/melee.

One thing I think could help the new player experience is having bots in low tier matches. For the newest players in other games they usually put them up against bots for the first like 5 to 10 matches in a quasi-live environment. Spellbreak comes to mind with this. In that the first 5 matches are player versus lobby full of mostly bots to allow them to learn the game and get their feet wet.

Also having useful tool tips for new players would be good.

On the issue of monetization. Make mechs cheaper to acquire. Make decals, colors, other cosmetics cheaper. If you do that then you will likely see an increase in volume of sales. It's prohibitively expensive to buy cosmetics at current. Spending money on just a couple colors does not allow for creativity as other games provide. If you want to monetize better then do these two things and you will likely see more sales.


Another edit, Adding Mech repair bays into modes like Faction Play, Quick Play's Incursion, and other modes would enable a system other than respawns that would allow players to utilize them to repair armor and resupply ammo on the field. I saw this suggestion elsewhere and it was great. Another part of it was that any destroyed components are still destroyed. This would allow higher Time to Kill/Death for players. It would also extend matches beyond the 5 to 7 minutes they currently are in the quick play queues. Make them destructible like other base equipment so that it's actually important to protect them along with the bases. A really interesting dynamic that would bring new life to the game in a way that hopefully wouldn't be too difficult to implement.

Edited by D1G17AL, 13 October 2020 - 08:43 AM.

[SkubaSteve]

As someone who is pretty middle of the road on mwo and the conversations I’ve had with players like myself, (that being someone who plays many different games instead of exclusively 1), I think what I’m about to suggest would benefit the game greatly from a broader consumer standpoint and new player experience.

1.) The game is f2p, but is also limited in its fulfillment without deep pockets. The in game currency is fine honestly. But the value of real money purchases are almost offensive. For the price of a mech pack someone can just buy a whole game. Many people I’ve talked to have agreed with me that if mechs were cheaper they’d alot buy more. Personally if mechs were $5 a piece you guys would have gotten an easy $200-$300 extra off me over the few years I’ve played were I’d have an impulse to buy a particular mech but I had to wait for in game currency build up to justify buying it. If it were a quick $5 I’d have bought dozens on the spot over time.

2) Quick play with groups has been a great improvement. The problem we are running into, both individuals and groups, is the groups have screwed up the lance drops. Currently you get half your assault mechs dropping in alpha lance where they are put waaaayyyy out of position to be useful early game or are outright killed by lights. All that’s needed to fix the issue is to organize the drop by weight as it used to be. The group shouldn’t have any issues organizing and the team will benefit by a more organized drop which will reduce alot of the sporadic advancing we see currently.

3.) Faction play can be optimized by doing seasons where the board resets every month and then rewards come when a season wraps up. The more you do for your faction during the month the more rewards you can earn. This will encourage experienced players who can spend longer amounts of time online to do faction and QP will no longer be the default leaving it more viable for newer players to gain experience more naturally without as many stomps. Limiting faction drops to groups of 4 like QP would lessen the curb stomping we see currently and encourage cross pollination of groups and individuals helping build a stronger community among units. Making the game smaller, say 8 a side even without limiting the group size would speed up match making which can currently take a long time and give faster turn arounds.

4.) Maps is something that comes up alot. But I think a good short term solution isn’t necessarily more maps, but better map cultivation. Most of us do QP. Everyone I know hates pulling particular maps. The single constant is they are all larger maps with little cover. Main gripe isn’t even the cover issue really unless the lrms are going nuts, it’s the distance needed to travel. Everything takes forever to get too and the first half of the game is just moving around so it’s kinda boring. Anything other than dominate on these maps can quickly devolve into 15 minutes of peeking and its just not enjoyable for most people.

I feel like most other subjects have been well covered. I know you guys are on a tight budget with mwo being pretty slow these days so I thought you might like some more minimal changes that don’t require completely restructuring large aspects of the frame work that’s already there. While smaller I believe these changes would have a dramatic effect of quality of life for the player base and encourage new and retired players to try out mwo again. Thanks for the opportunity to give my input, best of luck.

Skuba

[Horseman]

D1G17AL, on 13 October 2020 - 08:32 AM, said:

It's prohibitively expensive to buy cosmetics at current. Spending money on just a couple colors does not allow for creativity as other games provide. If you want to monetize better then do these two things and you will likely see more sales.

In my experience, they pile up heavily over time and from events (not that I'd mind lower pricing) - my F2P clan alt has some 30 different paints despite spending MC on maybe ten.
But simply making them cheaper won't garner a lot of interest. What about appealing to the lore side of the fandom with "uniform packs" consisting of a combination of colors + decals for a selected lore faction/unit?

One place where they CAN improve the cosmetic model is the completely incongruous way the bolt-ons are handled. Where cockpit items are globally shared with only a few restricted in any way (by techbase), right now every bolt-on is tied to a single specific chassis which makes it a royal pain to use the system (and makes most of the bolt-ons awarded by Solaris caches simply useless). Bolt-ons should be interchangeable to any chassis that supports the given bolt-on cosmetic (and I'd argue that some of them should be interchangeable between the right/left version of the bolt-on if both exist), and players should have an inventory with an overview of what exact bolt-ons they own. Then you might see an actual uptick in their use (and more people spending MC/cash on them!).

On that note, a central inventory showing which chassis camo unlocks you own can be beneficial too. I have a LOT on my main, and still a bunch on my F2P clan alt.

Another possible improvement is giving us a way to copy decals placement between mechs of the same chassis (perhaps "camo export/import" as a whole?) and FREAKING DECAL SEARCH (there are a LOT of them). Further, certain decals are heavily bloating the categories - I've got over a hundred Solaris decals earned over the seasons, and they simply shouldn't share a category with my other decals, they NEED a separate one so that they don't flood the display pointlessly.

Quote

Another edit, Adding Mech repair bays into modes like Faction Play, Quick Play's Incursion, and other modes would enable a system other than respawns that would allow players to utilize them to repair armor and resupply ammo on the field. I saw this suggestion elsewhere and it was great. Another part of it was that any destroyed components are still destroyed. This would allow higher Time to Kill/Death for players.

Major lore-breaking there, though.
Per lore, just refitting ammo and armor would take hours if not days, way outside the scope of a MWO match.

Quote

It would also extend matches beyond the 5 to 7 minutes they currently are in the quick play queues.

It wouldn't. The mechanic would require disengaging from combat and retreating while your team continues the fight effectively one mech down (yeah, that's a snowball and then your damaged mech gets shot in the back while running to the magic healing circle rather than goes down shooting).
If implemented, you'd quickly find the repair bays get hogged by LRM100 assaults.

I'd rather see a limited implementation of drop decks into QP (perhaps allowing you to select up to two mechs to drop with, 100 tons combined, into QP and switch to the other once your first drop goes down? Just spitballing )

Edited by Horseman, 13 October 2020 - 11:50 AM.

[FallGuy0815]

Sorry if it has already been asked: But what good is the "respec skill tree" button by now? And would it not be _the_ low hanging fruit to kill it and double the size of "revert changes"?

As far as i see it you gain nothing by respec. You might consider changing it to deactivating all the nodes (instead of locking them by again), but as you can also just switch off the root node in each skill tree and it is a very outlying use case i would prefer the cleaner interface with a bigger "revert" button.

Yes, in the one case every three years i want to reset the complete tree i would have to click a few times more, but usually you want to adjust and do not start over. And in the very rare cases you want to, you would assign new points to almost every tree anyay starting with the root node, clearing the board.

/edit: I did not state it: It might be a minor nuisance for experienced players, but it might turn new players away from the game who do not have umpteen skill points ot spare and just mastered their first owned mech. Meaning lost money, making this viable from a business perspective. Little Invest vs. possible high return.

TL;DR: Kill the "Respec Skill tree" Button, use the space for a bigger "Revert changes" Button

Edited by FallGuy0815, 13 October 2020 - 03:40 PM.

[Kakia]

Congrats Daeron "Bombadil" Katz on your position as Community Manager with PGI. I think the MWO player base would appreciate further game optimizations to MWO such as support for DX12, bug fixes, and network code optimization.

The introduction of some new mechs and new maps would most certainly benefit the game community. An update would attract some old players back who may have believed that game development had ended. Renewed interest and new offerings would reinvigorate revenue streams. I'd like to see more war horns variety like a "la cucaracha horn" you'd hear on the street from a lowrider car because it's funny. I'm also thinking about maps like a low gravity moon map, a bombed city ruins map, and a great house palace attack and defense map. Imagine the classic MW4 game intro of the Davion palace siege with recreated courtyard, barracks, and breached walls. Obviously copyright issues should be avoided. As far as new mechs, I'll defer all of that to you Daeron because I don't know the lore. All of these things I think would help to renew interest and investment into the game from players. An expanded sound pack has been tossed around...I know you know about that. Would Microsoft share some sounds under the license agreement with them?


The following are some suggestions that could be added to the game. The ability to easily tweak the game modes on your side of things to support fine grain details or special events is paramount for PGI:

Like no tonnage restrictions challenges.

Certain weight class only game modes and/or chassis.

Low gravity event (due to solar polar magnetic flip or new moon map with low gravity).

Solar storm day on the new moon map where ECM (game mechanic = every mech is ECM temporarily to create the illusion of the global environment interference with the ECM counter option greatly reduced or non-countered during those times), Stealth only or all mechs (over heating due to solar particle forcing, add small or variable heat spike), and in game communications would be affected. Some garbled voice communication with a static noise effect added to the in game chat would be temporary and but will not stop in game chat feature. "Bitching Betty" would clue you in to the problem. Bitching Betty could say "Geomagnetic Storm detected, sensor range limited, communications degraded." I.E. Geomagnetic storm for 15-45 seconds thrice or twice in a game drop. UAV's could provide a tactical counter to a "no or slow mini map updates" during those fleeting times at a reduced range.

Planetary instabilities such as random earthquakes that can rattle the cockpit and your aim for short unexpected duration of time thus rendering seismic sensors incapacitated or confused with false readings due to small earthquake swarms that could signal the coming of the "big one" ! Think heavy gauss mechanic shake, sway, and rumble noise over time in the cockpit but tweaked for all players with some environmental destruction for effect. For those with seismic sensors, random seismic readings flood the mini map as the earthquake swarm could be the precursor to the main quake either to just shake and/or topple the mechs. Should a successful or limited fall mechanic be implemented in game, an earthquake environment that shakes all mechs in game and causes them to all tumble would be an awesome introduction. It could precede a full melee mechanic knock down innovation. Who will recover the fastest? Those mechs with most improved gyros, skill nodes and quirks? Perhaps those flying with jump jets at the time of shaking will be spared from toppling? Will jump jets prevent falls if activated in time?

A swamp creature(s) on both sides of the Viridian Bog map could randomly surface and have a chance to grab one nearby mech while traversing the battlefield. It could hold onto to a mech temporarily for a few seconds stopping it in its tracks. A pilot could break free by twisting or firing weapons. Or perhaps powering down will calm the beast to allow for an earlier release. A struggle could result in a small amount of damage to the mech from the creature wrapping and squeezing. Think collision damage over time.


Well that's my two cents! Good luck Bombadil!

Edited by Kakia, 13 October 2020 - 04:17 PM.

[Threat Doc]

I haven't read the rest of this, because it's eighteen pages in length, so far. However, as someone who's been here since the very beginning -I think I was the second actual Player, not staff, media, programmers, friends or family, but second Player to actually sign up to these forums- I'm going to put my two cents. I'm reticent to see how things will go, but here goes, anyway...

EDIT: I've now read the first seven pages of this thread and it's the same BS we've always had. Piranha never listened to the BS, before, so why now?

I think everyone's definition of fun can be taken care of. Let Players select the account type they want, how high they want to go in MWO.

NOTE: The Clans do not accept Inner Sphere folks in their ranks to fight, unless they've been captured and seen as someone that can be retrained, per the canon. Stop practicing that crap where anyone fits anywhere; that's not how it works and I'm sick and tired of the everyone gets a trophy mentality.

1) Ghost (can play anywhere as a unit filler without really gaining or losing anything; this would be great for solo players)

2) Play With My Buddies (can play with the friends he has in his friends list; can also play as a Ghost; could be great for Lance sizes of friends)

3) Non-serious Unit Play (this is what I left behind in 2017 when I stopped playing with the faction play, when very stupidly Piranha decided they were going to limit folks; can play as a non-serious unit, finding spots to fit a Lance or two into playing across the Inner Sphere; can also play only with their buddies and/or as a ghost, and this is where training simulators against AI or live-pilot teams become available)

4) Unit Play (can play as a low-ranking individual in the unit; you have the ability to accrue points and use simulators as part of a more role-play capable experience, but have access to all lower tiers of account types; once you have taken yourself to a high-enough rank, you can be invited to play as...)

5) Command Staff (this is where the contract, resource, and overall unit management takes place; lower tiers don't deal with these, but Command Staff, as with all lower steps, can play in all lower account tiers).

Why do things this way? Because the greater portion of your Players don't want anything to do with any sort of management of resources, whatsoever, but those resources can be responsibly controlled from the top, which affects everyone in the lower tiers without their real knowledge. How does game-play work? It's an actual Inner Sphere with contracts, resources, units, etc., though only the Command Staff and Unit Play folks know what's going on, while everyone else participates in simulators if they're not participating in a shooting war, without knowing or needing to know what and why they are fighting. Why are Command style folks, who enjoy the unit management thing, coming to play MWO? Because this is what MWO was, originally, going to be. Those of you who wish to remain unwitting pawns can do so without any sort of penalty or nasty effect, except maybe in being told what weight class of 'Mech to bring to participate with a particular unit/element.

This will likely not be well-received because there are just too many folks who only want to pound on one-another ceaselessly, mindlessly, without considering what the rest of us who have been left out, have been marginalized, want to play. It's a matter of logistics for Piranha, it's a matter of desired fun for the community that is not, presently, nor since 2011, being represented. The unit leaders are the ones that have held things together since 1995, who CREATED warfare where there was no support for it in MechWarrior II, Mercenaries, and Ghost Bear's Legacy, in MechCommander and MechCommander Gold, in MechWarrior III and Pirate's Moon where independent, unpaid support was created by the absolute fanatics of the BattleTech universe, and in MechWarrior IV, Black Knight, and Mercenaries where we saw as much of perfection from unpaid developers as we could possibly get, built over thousands of man-hours of beating the learning curve, developing new maps, 'Mechs, and modes, even if they were unregulated by the programming, etc. Piranha ain't done **** in this realm, and the CW/FW changes that allowed a list of Players with their 'Mech and extraordinarily weak contracting do NOT count.

I, myself, learned how to build web pages in 1997, and I learned how to use the phpBB forums, php in my headers, footers, and menu's, where I raised and lost Armageddon Unlimited to greedy pretenders who couldn't care less about the reason AU existed and preferred to act like little kids and run around killing all the bad guys with impunity and zero honor whatsoever, because there was ZERO STORY, and a second and third time and, finally, MWO killed AU in 2017 due to the lies and nonsense and theft when we, the BattleTech community who were told what sort of game Piranha wanted to build and we all agreed with it and put in money, I think it was $16.4 million, to build THAT game, the GAME they told us they wanted, and then we got the ******** we've got, now.

Why in hell can't we have unit, resource, and contract management in a game WE PAID FOR?

There is a way to salvage it, all of this hard work, and make it a game for EVERYONE!!! My God, if I could get the game you, Piranha, originally told us you wanted to do, without all the nonsense that Paul threw into it, which likely cost the greater portion of the FORTUNE you had available to develop the game, originally, I would be singing from the rooftops, and you, Piranha, would NEVER have to put out nonsense, like the 'Mech Packs, EVER again. I've been telling you this since 2011, damn't and, perhaps, you may actually listen this time!!!

Make me sing across the rooftops the good news of MechWarrior Online and I will figure out how to **** a new computer, if I have to, so I could come play with my buddies, with my Armageddon Unlimited, again.

Otherwise, you may as well quit, now, because those subscriptions, new and old, WILL NOT BE THERE to help keep MWO alive. I've been telling you THAT for a decade, as well.

~ Colonel Kay Wolf, Armageddon Unlimited (Commanding Officer; ret.)

Edited by Threat Doc, 13 October 2020 - 07:43 PM.

[Sereglach]

I casually check on the forums from time to time, and I suppose timing is everything. I just read these recent news announcements and watched the NGNG VOD last night. If you're serious about getting player feedback, I suppose I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents.

As someone who hasn't played regularly in about 2 years, when PGI essentially stopped giving the game any notable amount of attention, here's a "must have" and "wishlist" combination of what I'd like to see from PGI and the reasoning. I'm sure other people have probably mentioned similar things in some regard or another, and I'm sorry, but I'm not reading 18+ pages of feedback to cite anyone else making similar points. Just call it a +1, if you wish.

1. WEAPON AND EQUIPMENT BALANCE:

Spoiler

First and foremost, there is ALWAYS room to make a few nudges and adjustments to weapons and equipment each and every month to put things in a more ideal state. You even hired someone specifically for this back in the day, and I personally feel they got to do very little before being seemingly pushed into the MW5 team.

Flamers look great in MW5, if even a bit OP (yes, I -the Flamer fanatic- said they can be bit OP in MW5), and should be given similar functionality in MWO . . . this is my personal pet peeve (if you don't know what I want, seriously, look at MW5 or the plethora of posts I made over the years).

Another one is the IS XL engine dynamic. Seriously . . . please consider giving IS XLs the current Clan 60% loss of stats and give Clans 40% for their XLs. Save Instant ST Death for the XXL engines, when the same gameplay dynamic will apply to both Clans and IS XXL engines (and makes it easier to balance gamplay).

Consider adding more burst projectie counts to current AC types and save the single-shot slugs for Mech Rifles. We have rocket launchers . . . why not Mech Rifles. Besides, they're a sorely needed addition to fill gaps between .5 ton MGs and 6 ton AC/2s for ballistics.

What ever happened to playtesting rapid fire Pulse Lasers? Make them truly different with 50% burn times and heat per shot with 30% damage and cooldown rates vs. their current forms. Something drastic to make them truly different instead of "normal lasers with 10-20% less burn time and a lot more weight."

Outside of that, Jump Jets (after how many promises they'd be addressed since pop-tarting was destroyed?), Command Consoles (abandoned for years), AC/2s, AC/10s, SPLs, and any other regularly underused weapon should be getting looked at in depth for regular adjustments. If they're underused or overused, there's a reason for it that needs to be addressed.

As a final note, PLEASE consider readdressing the 30 heat fixed cap with higher dissipation system. There were good points and bad points. It was best received in early playtesting and it went downhill as you tried to make the system conform to builds instead of making the builds conform to the system. Ghost heat is just a nightmare of making builds to game the specific weapon cap system instead of making builds that are the most fitting or most enjoyable.

2. RE-ADDRESSING RESCALE:

Spoiler

You did rescale . . . but you did it poorly. Lets admit that and look at it objectively. Just look at the polls you originally put out. OVERWHELMINGLY people expected and voted for mechs to get smaller, not bigger. Then you implemented this "volumetric rescale" and went the exact opposite direction that people unilaterally wanted. If you said, "We did volumetric rescale and almost all mechs got smaller, except . . . like . . . the Stalker", then people would have rejoiced. Instead the opposite happened and you utterly butchered the viability of many mechs.

For a simple solution, just look no further than the community mods put out in MW5. There are two GREAT mods that are easy to find on Nexus. Navid's Volumetric Rescale and Oraeon's TTRulez Rescale. They bring the mechs within very similar sizes of each other's mods and almost all mechs got smaller. Oh, and they're volumetric rescales. Go figure.

Regardless, readdressing rescale makes many chassis more viable and drastically helps address the poinpoint accuracy problem by making almost all of the targets smaller. It would also do a great deal to return lighter mechs to a state of better viability for more than the most die-hard of pilots. After the rescale is address, you can then also go back and readdress any quirks that might feel out of place, but I honestly doubt that would be necessary.

3. MAPS:

Spoiler

You need a map team that's putting out at least one new map every 4-6 months OR making adjustments and refinements to the maps we have within the same time-frame. Plain and simple. You need more maps.

There are LOTS of talented people from the community who can even help in this regard, and would likely do so for free. Even if you're just taking layout suggestions and applying landscape templates to them, you're not alone on this front.

4. MECHLAB TWEAKS:

Spoiler

Mostly the ability to actually choose which location a weapon appears on when we mount it to the mech. The mechs are already made to be modular with what appears in which hardpoint. If there are limits then there are limits, but most smaller items (MGs and Lasers, in particular) shouldn't be a problem here. Mount item in crit slot, hardpoint locations highlight on mech in bay, click location, and weapon mounted. Feasible?

5. SKILLTREE BALANCE AND FIXES:

Spoiler

We've had bugs in the skill tree since day one that were never fixed. Namely with cooling.

Also, while plenty of us were fine with the various elements/upgrades in the skill tree, we just wanted direct lists of upgrade selections . . . "Upgrade heat sink efficiency 1.5%, 1 of 5" for example. We didn't want an obscure web. Let people choose what they want to mix and match for various builds. In addition, we don't need 81 skill points across 300+ nodes . . . give us 20 points over 60 upgrades, where each point is more impactful, and I'd be much happier.

If Flamers are fixed you can also change the Flamer nodes to being a slight increase in heat damage . . . you can make Flamers basically energy MGs with a little heat damage unless you invest in the skill tree.

6. MELEE, KNOCKDOWNS, AND QUADS:

Spoiler

You already mentioned melee in the stream, and people have asked for that for AGES with various suggestions of how to implement it. Knockdowns go hand-in-hand with melee (pun not intended) and were also mentioned in your stream. We had knockdowns ages ago, which were removed pending improvements in coding and HSR . . . of which HSR was improved exponentially, over the years, with no indication knockdowns would ever be revisited. It's about time to look into it.

While you're at it, consider quadmechs. The mechlab seems like it'd already support the implementation there; and you've got the manpower to do it . . . you've already animated vehicles and infantry for MW5. Quad-mech dies on 3 of 4 legs being destroyed, otherwise loses 30% speed on fist legging and 75% speed on second legging. You've already got the tech to limit certain mechs for 360% torso rotation (Tarantula) or limited-to-no rotation (Scorpion).

7. RESPAWNING AND OBJECTIVE BASED MATCHES:

Spoiler

We have respawn mechanics. We already use them in Faction Warfare. Change up the quick-play matches to be more objective based and utilize respawn mechanics to put emphasis on completing the objectives instead of just eliminating the enemy team. Incursion until the base is destroyed, escort until extraction/destruction, Assault until full capture, and Conquest until max point cap, etc. Skirmish can literally be about racking up points through kills to a max score. Even if you're only launching with a single mech in quick play, it completely changes the game mode dynamic if they become more objective based.

8. AI IN MWO:

Spoiler

You have AI in MW5. You have mods for MW5 that vastly improve the AI. You can utilize both of these to put in NPC vehicles and mechs into various game modes. This could be used to add new dynamics to our current game modes, improve future gameplay, and create a better New Player Experience.

Escort could become an entire lance of well-kitted assault mechs with score based on remaining armor/structure points at extraction (51% remaining/destroyed to determine overall match winner). Vehicles, Infantry, and maybe even AI mechs could be used to enhance Seige and Counter-attack game modes with a more MOBA feeling or larger-scale warfare. I don't think anyone will complain if you say "Hey, we can do this, but we need to despawn the dead chassis over X# amount."

You could theoretically even utilize AI skill levels to equal the average matchmaker PSR if you need/want to fill in mechs in matches to replace a lack of players . . . or to implement Player VS. AI matches like many matchmaking MOBA/Arena games have. Games such as League of Legends, For Honor, Smite, Overwatch, Paladins, and others all do this . . . look into these gameplay models . . . seriously . . . do it.

9. ALTERNATE MONETIZATION VENUES:

Spoiler

First, you have bolt-ons. Get universal mounting points assigned as "Arms", "Back", "Head", "Legs", or whatever you need to, in order to create the ability to universally add tagged bolt-ons that automatically work on any mech out-the-gate. This helps you crank out little cosmetic knick-knacks to help with easier monetization.

Consider laying out roadmaps of content into season passes. I know many people don't like the concept . . . but this is a F2P model here. Make Season Pass content exclusive for a set time frame similar to what you already do for mech packs. Hell, put basic mech packs or the Hero Mechs into the Season Pass as an alternate venue for unlocking mech chassis, if it seems viable. People who want to Poke-mech their lineup could buy the season pass with all its cosmetics, camo patterns, and mech packs at a deal if they want to buy in bulk.

Consider more camo patterns that are more faction specific AND specific to chassis within said faction. "Hey, here's 2nd Sword of Light camo scheme, but it's only available on these Kurita themed chassis/variants." That way you can also knock out more camo schemes AND add more faction flavor to the game. You can also still occasionally knock out generic camo specs that are available on all mechs, but it's not as necessary. Every other game out there with cosmetics needs character-specific cosmetics. Why can't we have faction themed cosmetics available only to certain faction-themed mechs?

10. MECHS AND MW5 MECH-PACK SYNERGY:

Spoiler

Yes, mechs. There are still mech packs people want to see. It's one form of monetization you have available . . . or is it actually two?

Really, when you release mech packs you could also give download codes, for the collector's editions of these mech packs, that provide a DLC download code to add the mech to MW5's roster. If people don't want them in MWO, then they can pay a modest sum to add them to their MW5 roster separately, via direct DLC content for those games for a modest price. It adds a new and significant incentive to pay a premium price to get a collector's pack of a new mech.

Mechs I'd personally like to see are the remaining Classics (Wasp, Chameleon, Crusader, and Longbow in particular . . . which would make a great 4-mech pack with MW5 DLC option), Mongoose, Griffon IIC, Shadow Hawk IIC, Clint (IIC), and Urbanmech IIC. Throw in Quads and/or Melee and you can add the Tarantula and Hatchetman to the list.

Prove to me you'll consistently work on the other above items and I'll happily shell out for the above mechs as well as some in the current store that I never bought, over time (I'm not made of money, after all). Even if it's a mech I don't care for in MWO, I can assure you I'd spend a few bucks here and there to add mechs to MW5 when a pack is added to MWO.

Again, consider this my list of "This is what would make me come back as a regular player and even consider spending money on the game." Hopefully you find it helpful. 1-4 are personal priorities that I feel 100% NEED attention ASAP . . . with various facets of them being more low hanging fruit than others (especially weapon balance, which should be the lowest-hanging fruit of all). However, no matter what, PGI needs to SHOW that they're going to make a concerted effort to address these issues, communicate with the player base, and follow through on implementation consistently over multiple regular patch cycles. That, I feel, is the path to bring people back to MWO . . . it'd certainly bring me back.

On the other hand, I mean, really, if PGI doesn't address any of the issues and MWO either stays how it is or outright dies. I still win. MW5 hits GOG and Steam on December 10th and I still get a Mechwarrior fix where everything I want from MWO can be done with mods . . . if it isn't already in MW5 (yay for viable MW5 Flamers). HOWEVER, even as everyone in the VOD said, there's nothing wrong with liking both games and supporting both games. At this point, PGI just needs to give me a damn good reason to actually be willing to support both.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 October 2020 - 06:37 PM.

[D1G17AL]

Quote

Major lore-breaking there, though.
Per lore, just refitting ammo and armor would take hours if not days, way outside the scope of a MWO match.
It wouldn't. The mechanic would require disengaging from combat and retreating while your team continues the fight effectively one mech down (yeah, that's a snowball and then your damaged mech gets shot in the back while running to the magic healing circle rather than goes down shooting).
If implemented, you'd quickly find the repair bays get hogged by LRM100 assaults.

I'd rather see a limited implementation of drop decks into QP (perhaps allowing you to select up to two mechs to drop with, 100 tons combined, into QP and switch to the other once your first drop goes down? Just spitballing )

See this is where we disagree. Other Mech games had mechbays and they fixed all sorts of mechs mid-game. Lore be damned. This is a video game. This instance the lore can go out the window. Mechbays that repair like 25% of your armor and say half your ammo wouldn't be hogged by LRM boats as you claim but everyone would be interested in using them. I think you have been stuck in the MWO mech mentality for too long.

[PlagueBastard]

So, i've been playing off and on for about 6 years now, its a fantastic game for what it is, how old it is, and how free it is, and I love that the focus recently has been on community building and potentially new features, and well, No other game out there scratches the Mech itch quite like MWO, so here I am in the forums.


First off, Tanks and other NPC controlled units, Infantry is probably off the table, but having bots on certain game modes or maps that either function as an independent force to both sides or, dare I say it, like a "Creep Wave" in a MOBA. Possibly even as an addition to existing game modes like Incursion, which doesn't get the love it deserves imo, could be revamped with a more "living war" feeling.
Bases being fleshed out with possibly a "factory" building that produces them based on the amount of resources collected, or even a "Garrison" force that will guard the base unless a Company Commander is steps up, who will be able to command them, maybe?
Either way, if bots are added in any capacity to the PvP experience, giving the Company Commander the ability to command them is an excellent way to encourage people to play that role, add to its toolbox greatly, and, mitigate at least some of the "bots are dumb" problems that are sure to happen through player focused means.

If not in a PvP experience, having an optional 4player, 8player, and/or 12player PvE wave survival mode, or "missions" using the existing maps, but gussied up with Fortifications, Primary and Secondary Objectives, bots, possibly a leaderboard with high scores and best times etc, etc...

Stop me if i'm asking for the moon here, but, possibly an opposing player slot that plays as a "commander" role, playing the game as an RTS almost, against the player Lance(s), but with full top down control of the Bots, turrets, some call ins, full radar that must be interrupted by the players... (and their own Mech?).

I don't know what is and isn't possible, but, well, Daeron said get over here and talk about it, so here I am. NGNG. lol

I love this game and I want to see where it will be, and what it can become in another 10 years.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

I m nearly one year gone...CW Leaderboard still not fixed. Nothing done to get CW started again.

....I stay off.

[Threat Doc]

Daeron, I'm afraid I have to agree with Lockheed_, here. I am seeing nothing beyond page 3 from you; I stopped reading after page 7, and I didn't even see a Like from you from pages 3 through 7.

So, once again, THIS is a waste of time. So, here's what you do...

Pick some community leaders, here, a Company of planners, who would be willing to help make MWO better, again.

Whom do you pick? Start by reading some of the most recent posts by the poster with the most posts in the Member list, as long as they are players and not folks with close ties to Piranha or a huge stake in MWO. If they are too angry, too bombastic, or their posts are full of actual nonsense -like, real-world crazy talk, not MWO crazy talk-, then move on to the next highest post-count person in the Member List. If, on the other hand, they're good and seem more reasonable than those around them, contact them about whether or not they would like to participate in the revamping of MechWarrior Online.

Continue that same type of selection process for the next post count down, and so on until you have your 12.

Part of their ability to participate is they may either choose, or be assigned, one portion of the major problems MWO does have, they begin and moderate a post here on MWO addressing that part and they compile specifics from all those who do respond. Each moderator would be responsible for advertising and/or contacting folks across the 'net to come and participate, even if it means forming a new account for MWO. Each moderator can run an extended poll, which closes when the thread does, and/or ask specific questions to help direct the conversation.

Each of the twelve group threads closes automatically after fourteen days of either no posts or only argumentative posts. All postings close 30 days after they are opened, period.

The last part of each group's postings is then compiled and interpreted by the moderator for that group into a report to you.

Does that sound a bit more reasonable?