Jump to content

Podcast 204 - Mechwarrior Online's Future


150 replies to this topic

#101 Shade 03

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Talon
  • Talon
  • 38 posts
  • LocationFL

Posted 10 October 2020 - 07:37 AM

Brace for Long Post
I wanted to collect my thoughts before posting in this thread to offer a few ideas
First a little background
I have played tabletop since Battledroids, played City tech, Aerotech, did the one on X box, played Crecent hawks inception, Netdemo, MW2, MW3, and MW4.
I have played MWO from the beginning until the present. (founder. No breaks.)
I frequent QP, Solaris, FP(CW), and have played a several seasons of Comp.
I have played solo and have been in a few organized groups.
From that background I have seen the ups and downs of MWO through the years.
With this license extension, PGI has asked for a few suggestions.
The majority of the ideas I’ve brainstormed impact the vets with a focus on Faction Play and to a lesser extent Comp and QP. I leave solaris out of this discussion because it just never really did it for me. Too many leg hugging piranhas.
Let’s start with what is required to make these new changes happen and what is needed to keep the process moving.

Money.

To start, I think QP and Solaris should remain free to play. It is the only way to attract new players. Beyond that, I’ll be frank. Aside from the starter mechpack that people have mentioned in this thread, which I fully support and think is a great idea for the new guys and QP, I believe the traditional method of selling mechpacks won’t be sufficient to solidify real work/change in the product that is meaningful and will have a satisfying impact.
For those of us that love the battletech/MWO universe, have jobs, and really want to see this work, I think a monthly subscription is needed to bring some stability to this undertaking. Before you throw your hands up in the air and scroll down….think.

I would pay 10-15 bucks a month for someone to work on this game………. IF, and only IF they were working on this game and not funneling the money into other side projects. (Cough MW5)
This subscription would be tied more to the ability of a player to participate in the current “active conflict” in faction warfare with ongoing admin moderation.
  • ACTIVE CONFLICT
The Starmap would have a box on it surrounding several star systems/planets which would be designated as the active conflict.
These star systems/planets will be those in contention for the upcoming month.
For example the box would surround several systems/planets on the Davion Kurita Border.
Players must designate who they are going to fight for in the upcoming conflict. (automation already in place)
Davion or Kurita. Players can fight as:
Loyalists for a side
Or Mercs for a side
Loyalty points will be tracked for the conflict (new) and applied to advancement in that houses rank (already in place)
Loyalists will retain their LP bonus.
Loyalty points for that conflict will fill a ‘conflict progress bar’ and apply to conflict rewards (see D.) If the player switches sides during the conflict, the progress bar will empty and need to be refilled for the rewards.
The Merc conflict progress bar will take more points to fill to receive rewards from the conflict.
  • MECHS ALLOWED IN ACTIVE CONFLICT
Mechs allowed in the active conflict by loyalists will conform to those of the house they are fighting for
Reference : https://www.sarna.net/
ie
Kurita- Dragons, Catapaults, Crabs, Hatamoto chi etc…
Davion- Rifleman, dervish, kintaro, nightstar etc…..
Mechs allowed in the active conflict by mercs fighting for a house will be from a preselected list from the admins who will take into account the mechs fielded by the loyalists and assign a list which is comparable in utility/effectiveness.
Mechs allowed can be set in the dropdeck selection screen the same way mechs are slotted for the solaris divisions (already in place)
Once a list is approved and set up it can be saved for immediate future conflicts with underlying code on a command screen for the admins scheduling the conflict.
Appropriate trial mechs or preset trial dropdecks can be set for those who have not yet filled their stables.
  • CONFLICT SETUP
In the past the status of a planets control was determined by a slider or progression circle divided into segments.
A better approach may be to set a tonnage value which would be assigned by the admins for the attacking house and the defending house when fighting over a planet.
Planets or areas of interest on the planet may be depicted as some sort of planetary or continental map which is divided into zones with targets of interest in each of the zones.
Victory conditions for the attacker and defender should be stated before the conflict begins.
For a simple example Kurita invades a system and brings 350,000 tons. The planet in question has 4 zones of interest.
Zone:
  • Beachhead (landing zone) (Skirmish or domination)
  • Contains a Mine and refinery (Search and destroy: Modified incursion or Assault)
  • Contains a salvage yard (Modified Incursion assault or conquest)
  • Contains a weapons manufacturing plant and an orbital cannon (Siege)

Max tonnage allotted for the invasion will be divided among the objectives. Once the tonnage for a zone is used up, the attack will proceed to the next zone and the process repeated until all zones have been played out. The results will be compared to the victory conditions for each side and one side will be declared victorious

NOTES ON CONFLICT
Scouting Phase to obtain Jammer and planetary satellites
Will address in another post, but bringing this back for a single phase wouldn’t be a horrible Idea. In my opinion it needs a revision such as reduced max tonnage(say 45) and a rework of the mode. I hadn’t thought about this one much. Maybe make it 4 v 4 conquest with big maps. May address in a later post.

Conflict zones
May need to add some new destructible buildings and maps to spice up the conflict (more on maps later)
Modified Incursion: Remove attacking factions base from the map. Increase health of defending bases buildings, increase number and diversify defense installation weaponry. Make 3 levels of base difficulty. (light armor weapons.. med.. heavy etc) Level of base toughness depends on the planet value.

Zones in conflict early in the invasion could have reduced dropdeck tonnages such as 210 for IS. Later zones would revert to the standard current values.
  • CONFLICT REWARDS
In addition to the normal LP rewards progression already in the game, I propose a Specialty reward mech be created for each of the houses in the conflict each month. In this example one for Kurita and one for Davion. The Loyalty points earned in that particular conflict will apply to a ‘conflict progress bar’ that when filled will unlock one of the mechs for the player. The player may choose either house mech as their pick to cut down on side swapping. The player may not obtain both specialty mechs in the span of one conflict. The number of loyalty points needed to fill the conflict bar and obtain the specialty mech should be difficult but not impossible. If the player is unable to earn sufficient loyalty points to obtain the mech before the end of the conflict, they may purchase the mech in the STORE for MC or say $5.00. (monetization) The player may also buy the second specialty mech in the STORE after the conflict for the same price. (more monetization)

SPECIALTY MECHS
Specialty mechs should be a mech characteristic to the house in the conflict with a unique addition setting it apart from all other variants in that class (new mechs for the vets)
The specialty mech chosen should focus on increasing that mechs utility, revive it as a viable chassis, and branch the mech into the realm of FP and Comp making it an attractive addition.
For example, the specialty mech for Kurita could be a dragon with an additional Ballistic hardpoint in the left arm or torso and one or two jump jets. This would breathe life back into the chassis which has been pushed to the wayside because of powercreep and the outdated and overmatched design/hardpoints when compared to the mechs which came after it.

ADDITIONAL REWARDS FOR TAKING A PLANET
If a planet is ‘taken’ or defended by a faction, then players taking place in the conflict should receive some kind of perk depending on the planet and its resources/infrastructure.
Examples would be
Loyalist perks
10% reduction in prices of components such as
engine purchases
Weapon purchases
MC costs
A bulk MC reward to the pilots group or as an individual reward.
C bills

Merc rewards should be a lesser version of the loyalist reward.

PLAYER CONFLICT HISTORY PAGE
Many games I have played, and several groups I have been in have a page for each player which lists their accomplishments and/or campaigns the player has participated in.
All I have to do is say “Remember Wazan” To evoke feelings of that system which was fought over tooth and nail in the early days of MWO.
This can be an additional tab on the top of the screen which when clicked opens a circle divided into the house symbols. When a house symbol is clicked, it will open a page showing the players campaign ribbons earned from conflicts. Mousing over each ribbion will give a date and a small detail about the conflict. Making these pages accessible to be viewed by others, through the main interface would be a nice touch. This page will be accessible but become inactive if the player cancels their monthly subscription.
  • MAPS
Yes Maps.
More Maps
New Map designs should be created to cut down Nascar
For example:
Open center of the map with trenches and surrounding hills.
Center of the map containing a huge multilevel warren of tunnels which require nightvision
Large radial chasms
Increase the z axis of maps making highs higher and lows lower. Ditches, Plateaus, Deep water.
Make the maps BIGGER.
It was suggested in the past to let the community get their hands on the map maker. I think this would increase the diversity of the maps brought to the table. This would cut down a lot on production costs. I’m not sure of the legal nuances of this arrangement though. Maybe let the player name the map (within reason) or immortalize their name somewhere on the loading screen.
I would Pay for a map pack.
Other things which I think would help the game without getting into too much detail would include:
Have the map picked first in QP and then get to decide your mech.
More as I think of it

#102 BenMillard

    Member

  • PipPip
  • CS 2020 Participant
  • CS 2020 Participant
  • 33 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 10 October 2020 - 08:17 AM

A brainstorm is only actionable if a scope and timeline have been given.

The weasel words about "if resources permit" make very clear PGI are just looking for revenue, not actual improvements to the game.

Navid's suggestion of a 2020 meta starter pack (with premade builds and skill tree) is the only idea that seems in scope and actionable so far. And entirely useless to the rest of us; aside from paying the server bill a little longer. The long tail of MW5 Steam release and Workshop modding should send a trickle of new players to MWO.

I doubt new player pockets will be deeper than £10 at a time. There could be one IS starter and one Clan starter. Maybe another pair of packs for either side of Faction; or even split into differently ranged decks with the Drop Deck itself included (as already suggested).

Then again, if the Solaris pack didn't perform, even this idea might be inadequate. (Although putting better mechs with preloaded top-performing builds and pre-skilling them to current meta might have sold better.)

So, be under no illusions. This is about profit and not about the quality of our experience. If it won't make hard cash for PGI then it will not happen.

Look how hilariously out-of-date the Trial Mech chassis and builds have become. That doesn't take programming to update. The community has even told them what to do multiple times.

Edited by BenMillard, 10 October 2020 - 08:23 AM.


#103 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,955 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 10 October 2020 - 01:14 PM

we have managers, and Loyalitst from NGNG ...and no Workers ( the new Team only use UE5)and only a small team for little Bugfixing when its not a Problem of the Karl Berg Team Engine programming & Coding,,,The NGNGs now have the Cry Engine Coding Avengers in the Backyard to bring it on the Playfield????or will only help to press the last money from the dying Milkcow

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 10 October 2020 - 01:15 PM.


#104 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 01:24 PM

View PostBrauer, on 09 October 2020 - 12:23 PM, said:

From a balance point of view a HBK-IIC seems like it's potentially more OP than the Veagle imo as you can carry ridiculous guns in high mounts, so I can see a reason for it to be relatively less agile than the Veagle (compared to other 50 tonners). In today's game I think the agility nerfs they gave it go too far though.


Of course, though I tried to specify "Such Superior" to show, I believe it should have less agility - high mounts are godly on that thing, though once you get into the open, it's large and easy to isolate hitboxes retract from the entire chassis. Though I mainly mean in todays game, it's absurd how it's punished for existing. Give is 10-20% less agility than the Veagle and stop there. It's lower HP, worst hitboxes, and less tonnage should make up for the fact it has great high mounts in comparison to the Veagle.

#105 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 01:25 PM

I miss HBK-IIC superiority days :(

#106 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 01:34 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 09 October 2020 - 01:19 PM, said:


I don't think they have the staff to do this. If you look at the charts they would need civil war/cw/Solaris type updates every quarter to keep people happy. Problem is they been taking over a year to make one of these type of updates.



More successful monetization = More maps + More development
To break down.
More successful monetization means proper monetization of they assets they have/aren't too hard to make. From better mechpacks that actually create reason for purchase, E.G Starter packs, to small items players may continuously pay for that creates a steady revenue stream.

With more money, they can hire more people, undertake more development, leading to more features, such as maps, gameplay expansion, and other things people want.

Though note, the first step is the money in my argument. PGI don't need to keep sh1tting out mechpacks to keep fans happy, they have somehow kept a semi consistent player-base - 10 seasons of no content and the numbers are about equal. Just small development is enough to keep enough players, so long as they actually implement systems the current players want, alongside create a starting atmosphere that enables new players. MWO should still be able to be profitable, it's a complete game with interesting mechanics, they just need to make it more universally fun - and balance thing in a proper way.

Personally, community dev server that enables balancing testing should come back, make F tier mechs playable and competitive - look at re-vitalizing sub-par weapon systems (SPL), and overall making the game feel engaging again.

#107 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,955 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 10 October 2020 - 02:13 PM

You let the captain's hat go around on the Titanic in order to get money from the remaining passengers for sailors to seal leaks or a lifeboat for the crew, but
the money is of no use, the land is far away where there are sailors and lifeboats, which you would have to buy before you leave the Habour

Quote

With more money, they can hire more people, undertake more development, leading to more features, such as maps, gameplay expansion, and other things people want.


Money is not all ...Its give no People by the Jobmarket thats can use and handle the from Karl berg and his Team heavy coded and Modified Cry engine, its a Safe without code and Key

Collisions system ,inverse Kinetic...many many Problems thats PGI not can handle without the Old Engine Team

And Russ say self , im **** of the Founders, thanks for the Money for starting this Show , now the Esport and younger Guys my target Group ...bye bye Whales , you can leave the party

Only Hope...Bombadil have the magical Power of the Lord of the Rings Bombadil

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 10 October 2020 - 02:21 PM.


#108 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 10 October 2020 - 03:36 PM

View PostD U N E, on 10 October 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

More successful monetization = More maps + More development
To break down.
More successful monetization means proper monetization of they assets they have/aren't too hard to make. From better mechpacks that actually create reason for purchase, E.G Starter packs, to small items players may continuously pay for that creates a steady revenue stream.

With more money, they can hire more people, undertake more development, leading to more features, such as maps, gameplay expansion, and other things people want.


Again and again, they have to make people willing to pay first, and people will NOT be willing to pay to a dying game. You must first make it a bit more alive again, more matches, better variety of things to do. You have low population count, so make do of it by having smaller matches -- 8v8s, 4v4s, or even 4-man PVE COOP to game modes with rudimentary AI.

Once it shows promise, then you monetize.

View PostD U N E, on 10 October 2020 - 01:34 PM, said:

Though note, the first step is the money in my argument. PGI don't need to keep sh1tting out mechpacks to keep fans happy, they have somehow kept a semi consistent player-base - 10 seasons of no content and the numbers are about equal. Just small development is enough to keep enough players, so long as they actually implement systems the current players want, alongside create a starting atmosphere that enables new players. MWO should still be able to be profitable, it's a complete game with interesting mechanics, they just need to make it more universally fun - and balance thing in a proper way.


Mechpacks will only go so far. A lot of us have hangar queens at this point, and don't need anymore.

The newbies? Sure. But how are you going to retain them when they are forced to faced with seal-clubbing veterans due to low population count?

#109 Panoy V Knicks

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 57 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 03:55 PM

If you want more money put in server in Asia

#110 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 02:21 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 10 October 2020 - 03:36 PM, said:


Again and again, they have to make people willing to pay first, and people will NOT be willing to pay to a dying game. You must first make it a bit more alive again, more matches, better variety of things to do. You have low population count, so make do of it by having smaller matches -- 8v8s, 4v4s, or even 4-man PVE COOP to game modes with rudimentary AI.

Once it shows promise, then you monetize.

Mechpacks will only go so far. A lot of us have hangar queens at this point, and don't need anymore.

The newbies? Sure. But how are you going to retain them when they are forced to faced with seal-clubbing veterans due to low population count?



You seem to miss the main point of what I said: "From better mechpacks that actually create reason for purchase, E.G Starter packs, to small items players may continuously pay for that creates a steady revenue stream."
"From" - It's a start, it's not an end. MWO should even at it's current point, be monetizable. Customizations such as boltons had so much promise to be easy money makers, except most of them look like crap, they are overly priced, and fall off your mech like wet toilet paper. You go into a match and you can rely on everyone having some custom colours, though mech boltons are much, much rarer.

As I already stated, I don't think mechpacks are the answer to retaining fans - which is why I stated "Community dev servers" and in past comments "stop making monotonous events" - Though just making the game more fun does not help the fact the community play like dog-**** most the time, and new players fall into noob traps by "veterans". Proper information on meta, starter packs that help reinforce how to actually build for new players, and generally better balancing are all part to make the game better. Though for much larger things (maps, drastic new game modes, extensive development) you need money to make that happen.

Which is why I am not going to pretend "JuSt GiVe Us 10 nEw MaPs tO sAvE tHe GaMe" - Because new players, and existing early-stage players with under 50ish mechs have a high rate of leaving the game after 5 seasons. To grow the community we need to entice these players, and new game modes and maps aren't going to be as significant to these players as it would the old guard. Arguably, PGI need to focus on player retention in the early stages more than getting the old whales to start spending in droves again.

#111 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 11 October 2020 - 02:30 AM

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

You seem to miss the main point of what I said: "From better mechpacks that actually create reason for purchase, E.G Starter packs, to small items players may continuously pay for that creates a steady revenue stream."

"From" - It's a start, it's not an end. MWO should even at it's current point, be monetizable. Customizations such as boltons had so much promise to be easy money makers, except most of them look like crap, they are overly priced, and fall off your mech like wet toilet paper. You go into a match and you can rely on everyone having some custom colours, though mech boltons are much, much rarer.


Preceded by: "More successful monetization means proper monetization of they assets they have/aren't too hard to make."

To which the problem is exactly, they do not have one, which was the point. The game is already monetized, and people are still leaving in droves, people aren't buying **** -- monetization isn't the problem, the problem is that the game isn't worth spending money right now.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

As I already stated, I don't think mechpacks are the answer to retaining fans - which is why I stated "Community dev servers" and in past comments "stop making monotonous events" - Though just making the game more fun does not help the fact the community play like dog-**** most the time, and new players fall into noob traps by "veterans". Proper information on meta, starter packs that help reinforce how to actually build for new players, and generally better balancing are all part to make the game better. Though for much larger things (maps, drastic new game modes, extensive development) you need money to make that happen.


Proper meta? You mean you want players to just play the common styles, instead of their own. This **** is why I question the extremely free mechlab in the first place, you just end up with the common playstyles, and the common builds in the first place.

They will play dogshit, and the meta-builds while allow them to play less bad, they are playing bad at someone elses' build.

What they could do is instead remove the veteran enemies from the equation and just have PVE game modes, against hoards of might-as-well-be Zombie-Mechs, to steal **** from a base, etc. etc.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 02:21 AM, said:

Which is why I am not going to pretend "JuSt GiVe Us 10 nEw MaPs tO sAvE tHe GaMe" - Because new players, and existing early-stage players with under 50ish mechs have a high rate of leaving the game after 5 seasons. To grow the community we need to entice these players, and new game modes and maps aren't going to be as significant to these players as it would the old guard. Arguably, PGI need to focus on player retention in the early stages more than getting the old whales to start spending in droves again.


I agree.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2020 - 02:31 AM.


#112 Lovas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Cadet
  • 421 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 04:48 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 10 October 2020 - 03:36 PM, said:


Again and again, they have to make people willing to pay first, and people will NOT be willing to pay to a dying game. You must first make it a bit more alive again...


Russ is 3 years too late to make this realization now. 5 Years too late (and still counting) before he realizes he doesn't have the right staff. He needs more than artist and people who can run events, he needs real game designers and people who know how to make maps.

#113 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 04:57 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 11 October 2020 - 02:30 AM, said:


Preceded by: "More successful monetization means proper monetization of they assets they have/aren't too hard to make."

To which the problem is exactly, they do not have one, which was the point. The game is already monetized, and people are still leaving in droves, people aren't buying **** -- monetization isn't the problem, the problem is that the game isn't worth spending money right now.



Look at Jarls List, game is slowly dying, though so far despite minimal development, we have (currently) the same population as 10 seasons ago. Literally just making mechpacks better value (example, throw in some GSP with them to skill up mechs) would entice more players to actually buy them. MWO can sell stuff, it's just large things like mechpacks are overpriced for their generically low value - especially when only like 1-2 mechs in that mechpack are any good.

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 11 October 2020 - 02:30 AM, said:


Preceded by: "More successful monetization means proper monetization of they assets they have/aren't too hard to make."

Proper meta? You mean you want players to just play the common styles, instead of their own. This **** is why I question the extremely free mechlab in the first place, you just end up with the common playstyles, and the common builds in the first place.

They will play dogshit, and the meta-builds while allow them to play less bad, they are playing bad at someone elses' build.

What they could do is instead remove the veteran enemies from the equation and just have PVE game modes, against hoards of might-as-well-be Zombie-Mechs, to steal **** from a base, etc. etc.


Subpar builds and bad advice is a reason why new players do ****, which means they get irritated losing to, well the few good players that know what they are talking about. MWO IS PVP, MW5 is PVE - making a PVE mode is not the answer. There are many different combinations you can do on a few mechs, and understanding what is meta, and how to build around it is important. I see too many people using lrm 5, with a MRM 10 - ECM and then adding in a MG and thinking it's a good mech for "Suppression" Also, so many Veteran players play like crap, Veteran players aren't the issue to fight against, though there is a large issue around what proper builds are in MWO.

Rebalancing with a "Community Dev Server" and making the vast majority of mechs meta (better quirks that actually raise a mech up/work well with it's hardpoints and mount locations) to make mechpacks better value overall, as well as stop players from going into the noob trap of mechs and getting something like a spider and questioning why they lose every light fight. New players need to actually learn the game, and not from the people that try to advocate for bracket builds. Might work in some circumstances, but you need to know the core mechanics and positioning before you try the real silly stuff if you want to do well while having fun.

#114 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 11 October 2020 - 06:09 AM

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 04:57 AM, said:

Look at Jarls List, game is slowly dying, though so far despite minimal development, we have (currently) the same population as 10 seasons ago. Literally just making mechpacks better value (example, throw in some GSP with them to skill up mechs) would entice more players to actually buy them. MWO can sell stuff, it's just large things like mechpacks are overpriced for their generically low value - especially when only like 1-2 mechs in that mechpack are any good.


https://leaderboard....ats#playerchart

Um, New players are at a downward trend, and the overall players are similarly at a downward trend. 10 months is misleading, it actually went from 15K, to 17K, to 15K back. The projected reduction in player is actually down to 10K in 5 months. I'm not confident with that.

I mean, sure, fine, monetize the **** out of the players. I still don't see the population improving, but only PGI's bottom-line.

And you might think that "it gives them money to do actual work with the game", until you realize that "actual work" they have done so far isn't in a good track record. So this really comes down to the adage "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 04:57 AM, said:

Subpar builds and bad advice is a reason why new players do ****, which means they get irritated losing to, well the few good players that know what they are talking about.

...

There are many different combinations you can do on a few mechs, and understanding what is meta, and how to build around it is important. I see too many people using lrm 5, with a MRM 10 - ECM and then adding in a MG and thinking it's a good mech for "Suppression" Also, so many Veteran players play like crap, Veteran players aren't the issue to fight against, though there is a large issue around what proper builds are in MWO.

...

New players need to actually learn the game, and not from the people that try to advocate for bracket builds. Might work in some circumstances, but you need to know the core mechanics and positioning before you try the real silly stuff if you want to do well while having fun.


I love the word dogshit, it doesn't get censored.

Anyways, new players do horseshit because they aren't accustomed to the game. Bad players build subpar builds and stay bad because they do not want to improve.

My concern is putting new players at a narrow experience of the game, that it's just PVP with point-and-click from lasers/acs, and then move on. What if they don't like this? And that narrow band of effectiveness is exactly what is stopping new players from staying in the game? Expecting a stompy-swissarmy-robots, you got Robots-Point-And-Click-Adventure.

Not everyone has time to get invested and git-gud in this game. This franchise is already niche to begin with. Sure there's the pandemic right now, but honestly there are better games.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 04:57 AM, said:

MWO IS PVP, MW5 is PVE - making a PVE mode is not the answer.


"MW5 = PVE, MWO = PVP" is irrelevant.

We are talking about game longevity here, and staying on that narrow definition isn't helping the game. If it works, let it work.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 04:57 AM, said:

Rebalancing with a "Community Dev Server" and making the vast majority of mechs meta (better quirks that actually raise a mech up/work well with it's hardpoints and mount locations) to make mechpacks better value overall, as well as stop players from going into the noob trap of mechs and getting something like a spider and questioning why they lose every light fight.


Sure. I agree, I want to get the underperformers buffed, the overperformers nerfed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2020 - 06:10 AM.


#115 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 07:15 AM

I'm not gonna keep quoting cause it takes too long.


It is at a downward trend, though overall it has remained pretty stable for a game with no new content, the projected populace is gonna drop, though that seems to have happened since the launch.


You miss-understand what I mean by monetizing players. Just telling people to buy stuff doesn't work, though lets look at mechpack sales which have become unprofitable, if they made more players see reason to purchase those packs now that you only really want 1 mech in the pack anyway - we might have seen more of those. Instead people see no reason to spend as there is little value in what you get. Research has suggested people that pay into something are more likely to stay and pay more. A high value pack for starting players could lead to an increase in player retention, purely as some people feel like now they have spent money they need to stick to it. - Alongside this, I would personally want to see more cool/interesting content brought to the game - even if it cost. Not P2W items, not more effort given to mechpacks, though if we look at bolt-ons - why don't they look interesting? We could have gotten a tophat for the urban mech, we could have gotten the ability to "reskin" a mech to look different **cough** Phoenix/Invasion/Etc.. mechs **cough**, the cosmetics department in many games is a gold mine, in MWO the colours/camos are all you really get. Now remodeling new mechs is expensive, and I don't see them doing that unless it proved to make money, though once again, these are the start of some things they could have looked into to make more money on existing assets. - Not the answer to make the game more interesting, that's in balancing mechs and weapons to actually be fun and interesting again.

Also thanks for that, I might use the word dogshit more. Of course new players do horseshit cause they aren't accustomed, though I remember my start to the game well, I didn't know you could see weapon stats, I mixed a uac 20 with lrm 15s and ERSmls on a timberwolf. The lrms might have farmed a little - though if I lets say, bought a Hellbringer, put 2 HLL and 4 ER meds on it, and started with a mech that was easy, engaging and taught good habits. I might have been much better much faster. - Many new players are encouraged by mechdads to go freestyle to achieve "good builds/damage" - If someone want to do that, that's fine, many elite players in the game run funky builds, though for a player to understand the game, they also need to see what the meta is to build something that works around it for them to have fun and do well. You don't need to force a narrow mind set, though you do need to show what an optimal build is - if people get creative afterwards, that's their call. Though many players don't care about the mechlab and just want to shoot mechs, you shouldn't need to force those players to have a deeper understanding to enjoy the game. The mechlab, should not be forced on people that don't want it.


MWO PVP vs MW5 PVE is important, for PGI. They at the end of the day control the game, they aren't going to divert the audience of either game to the opposite product as it lowers the sell ability of each game. Why play MWO if MW5 is PVP and you can self balance everything? Why play MW5 if MWO has overall better gameplay and has PVE - you need to try and make the arguments from PGIs perspective if you want them to listen to your proposals.

#116 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 11 October 2020 - 08:33 AM

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

It is at a downward trend, though overall it has remained pretty stable for a game with no new content, the projected populace is gonna drop, though that seems to have happened since the launch.


But the thing is that, it is going to drop, which in turn compromises the potential income, that which is needed to develop the game in the first place. The game is at a downward trend, that even questions the viability of the game being updated at all -- whether it is possible, or even has a point considering the playerbase.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

You miss-understand what I mean by monetizing players. Just telling people to buy stuff doesn't work, though lets look at mechpack sales which have become unprofitable, if they made more players see reason to purchase those packs now that you only really want 1 mech in the pack anyway - we might have seen more of those.

Instead people see no reason to spend as there is little value in what you get. Research has suggested people that pay into something are more likely to stay and pay more.


You mean sunk-cost fallacy? Sure.

But as a consumer, I don't see the point of paying for something, when it wouldn't really improve the experience. I bought GPS, now I don't have to grind my mechs -- as in I don't have to play them, so it's counter intuitive.

FP? Well, it's kind of barren in my experience, sure there's time of day, but not everyone could play the exact time. Solaris? Same thing.

QP? Sure, but again it comes down to, does this value-pack improve my experience? It's a resounding no. So far the only reason for me to play the game, is to grind again -- and to grind mechs for FP that barely has any people in it.

For me, people is the problem, I'm going to need more than Sunk-Cost-Fallacy.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

If someone want to do that, that's fine, many elite players in the game run funky builds, though for a player to understand the game, they also need to see what the meta is to build something that works around it for them to have fun and do well. You don't need to force a narrow mind set, though you do need to show what an optimal build is - if people get creative afterwards, that's their call. Though many players don't care about the mechlab and just want to shoot mechs, you shouldn't need to force those players to have a deeper understanding to enjoy the game. The mechlab, should not be forced on people that don't want it.


Alternatively, the meta should not be forced on people that don't want it -- but they are, at least if they don't want to lose. And they have to play meta to keep winning, so they keep coming back to the game, right?

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

MWO PVP vs MW5 PVE is important, for PGI. They at the end of the day control the game, they aren't going to divert the audience of either game to the opposite product as it lowers the sell ability of each game. Why play MWO if MW5 is PVP and you can self balance everything? Why play MW5 if MWO has overall better gameplay and has PVE - you need to try and make the arguments from PGIs perspective if you want them to listen to your proposals.


MWO is Online, it's point is actually multiplayer, while MW5 is singleplayer. And for some people, playing with other people instead of just bots are an improvement. It doesn't have to be PVP, it can work cooperatively.

I have control of MW5 through mods, and so far that is the selling point for me, since MWO is mishandled and to me and it's quite a shame that only PGI can implement the changes I want. playing with People isn't really selling point, but an unfortunate requirement in MWO.

As to why MWO vs MW5 when either offers the feature of one another even assuming same engine, again this comes down to multiplayer vs singleplayer. Those not interested with people can just go to MW5 where they can play on demand or change aspects they don't like through mods, those who want a more comprehensive interaction with other people such as competition is MWO.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2020 - 08:34 AM.


#117 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 112 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM

To increase players they need to have a game which entices new players and keeps old players.
Old players want new content, new players want accessibility, both want interesting gameplay.

GSP has always been odd to think about, personally I love the stuff, helps me play comp and enjoy the game. I play less games, though I arguably spend more now it exists. Doesn't help with Match Maker, does help with increase of spending. Not really the type of think I would want PGI to look more into for continuation of the game however, as much as I love the stuff. I'd like to see more "Mini" content in the game, something they can develop that is fresh and new, adds to the experience in some way, and that people would pay for. Issue is what that is, I think an increase in the cosmetics area could be that solution - though there are likely more/better things they could do.


The meta doesn't need to be forced on people, though in other games you can equip a gun, the gun is balanced, your overall loadout might be crap, though in other games you can get away with it due to how good the gun is in the first place. In MWO you can make a mech that is just solid crap and can do nothing. It's a PVP game, the point is to fight players. Many enjoy the graphics, though at the current point there is no easy way to just get into the meta without searching for communities that will teach you or doing some research into the weapons. Why can't a new player just come into the game, see a mech titled "Long range sniper", play the mech, have fun and then log off for the day? Why does they need to go through hoops to find "long range sniper, short range brawler, skirmisher" why can't new players that just want to embrace the mech combat play the game and be meta without needing to know what's on their mech indepth. There are plenty of options to be not-meta, though near no options to be meta. Saying PGI should make a starter pack for new players that has meta mechs with easy to digest taglines on them to make playing the game easy is "Forcing players to be meta" when the store is literally full of non-meta crap is an overstatement. Solaris pack exists and many people ask "Is it good, is it worth it" players need to be able to be meta without using the mechlab, as much as I love the mechlab, it's scary to many, and is a reason that so many players don't play. It's a detriment to the gold fish gamer that just wants to have generic loadout to do generic task.

In battlefield/cod, if you want to be a sniper, you equip a sniper rifle - that's it. Your loadout can be dogshit, though you hit heads and you can do just as good as any other sniper. In MWO, if you want to be a sniper you have 4 weapons that can all kind of do that. Though depending what mech they are on changes if they are good or bad, depending on quantity, quirks, etc, all change to how that mech reacts. A arctic wolf being a ac2 sniper is not going to beat a Vapor Eagle, Rifleman or Direwolf - a a new player needs to be able to skip the mechlab if they wish. Saying they need to use it and be non-meta is gatekeeping. The option of meta should exist, PGI should promote the option exists, and it should be seen in a location that helps the new player that wants to be good. Already stated, mechlab is a reason why this game is so good, them balancing weapons can turn the entire shift of how people design mechs. Though it is also a reason why not many people play it when they first install it.

Playing with people is literally the selling point of MWO - It's Mechwarrior Online - I think some more non player interactions could be interesting, though at it's core, it's a PVP experience online. If you want MWO to be a PVE experience where you can bring your favorite builds from lore, you are looking at it wrong. The core part of a PVP experience is to beat your opponent. To be your opponent you are restricted to a set of rules, the game rules - and are given set things you can do based within those parameters. I have non-meta mechs I play. PPC locust is one of my favorite, though regardless I try to win with it, and I build it out to do what it does the best it can. Meta doesn't need to be monotonous, better balancing, as well as making more chassis better is the key to make meta diverse and interesting. Meta should not be a thing people are scared off, but rather something people should be able to embrace, and develop play around.

So far I wouldn't say anything in the game really needs a nerf in reference to your earlier comment, Veagle 3 is rather strong, Annihilator does it's job well - though I personally think (expectation to no skill Veagle), the top of the meta shouldn't be nerfed, they aren't overperformers to what the Kodiak used to be - we just need to start lifting up more chassis, and balancing mechs to interact with the meta better. The meta isn't an evil, it's literally just what is good in the game. 'Toxic' metas should not be promoted - LRM spam, Improper Nascar, they are generally a boring mechanic with an irritating betty notification soon after, Though promoting proper paring of lasers, having good aim and precision - using effective DPS builds and taking a strong point/holding ground rather than nascar. The lack of people embracing how the game is meant to be played is why nascar meta is the only meta - there are so many better ways to play, yet all we get is that.

Edited by D U N E, 11 October 2020 - 09:52 AM.


#118 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,955 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 11 October 2020 - 11:35 AM

Of Course Dune, for all it you must have Guys with experience ...and PGI has for the CRY MWO Engine nothing from it..an little Fixing crew ,thats was all, the MWO engine is from karl berg and his old Team heavy modiefied sealed and Locked ,a Work for Specialists,without a Change to UE5 MWO is dead

#119 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 11 October 2020 - 04:02 PM

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

To increase players they need to have a game which entices new players and keeps old players.
Old players want new content, new players want accessibility, both want interesting gameplay.

...

I think an increase in the cosmetics area could be that solution - though there are likely more/better things they could do.


Mini content is what they can do, but so far it's not going to be any more than short-term improvement of their bottom line.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

The meta doesn't need to be forced on people, though in other games you can equip a gun, the gun is balanced, your overall loadout might be crap, though in other games you can get away with it due to how good the gun is in the first place. In MWO you can make a mech that is just solid crap and can do nothing. It's a PVP game, the point is to fight players.


But again, isn't that being seal-clubbed is the reason why we can't retain new players? That means you inevitably have to play meta to git gud, that means you have to play meta to stay.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

In battlefield/cod, if you want to be a sniper, you equip a sniper rifle - that's it. Your loadout can be dogshit, though you hit heads and you can do just as good as any other sniper. In MWO, if you want to be a sniper you have 4 weapons that can all kind of do that. Though depending what mech they are on changes if they are good or bad, depending on quantity, quirks, etc, all change to how that mech reacts.


I agree, but being "meta" ultimately means you will only be able to select a handful of mechs that work best.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

Playing with people is literally the selling point of MWO - It's Mechwarrior Online - I think some more non player interactions could be interesting, though at it's core, it's a PVP experience online. If you want MWO to be a PVE experience where you can bring your favorite builds from lore, you are looking at it wrong.


But it doesn't have to be defined by PVP, only by multiplayer online experience.

No, I am not looking at it wrong, you are. If it stays exclusively PVP, then there is no hope for this game.

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

So far I wouldn't say anything in the game really needs a nerf in reference to your earlier comment.


ATM definitely needs a nerf, considering that it's an auto-aim weapon that deals fuckton amount of damage on it's sweet-spot, and before you say "minimum range", that's not exactly a problem to mobile mechs.

#120 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts

Posted 11 October 2020 - 04:28 PM

View PostD U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 09:47 AM, said:

'Toxic' metas should not be promoted - LRM spam, Improper Nascar, they are generally a boring mechanic with an irritating betty notification soon after, Though promoting proper paring of lasers, having good aim and precision - using effective DPS builds and taking a strong point/holding ground rather than nascar. The lack of people embracing how the game is meant to be played is why nascar meta is the only meta - there are so many better ways to play, yet all we get is that.


So, you say the most powerful armored mobile ground based weapons plattform in the history of humanity in regard to Battletech Lore should be used in a WW1 Style combat?

Man, that is as dystopian as it can get...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users