149 replies to this topic

[D U N E]

Thorqemada, on 11 October 2020 - 04:28 PM, said:

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...

What? This is a game, real war isn't fun. If lrm meta was pushed, you'd spawn, and then be stuck in cover for 10 minutes since 10 enemy mech all are boating a lrm 60, as soon as one sees you. They all lock and now you've taken, let's pretend some hit the walls and miss, a conservative 400-500 damage. Their stealth light pops a UAV, and now you are being showered by hundreds of damage. Direct fire is fun because its hard for enemies to always position to collectively focus you.

LRM meta is literally WW1 simulator. Be stuck in cover from enemy artillery, and when you pop out you are mowed down by the defender.

It has its place in the game, though it's a bad meta to promote saying it's literally one of the most broken weapon system in the game.

To put an example. Lightest mech for lrm 60 - Arctic wolf
Largest sustainable lrm 100-110 nova cat/sun spider

Modern mechs should be firing at extreme ranges, though that's not as fun as brawling. So they added arbitrary restrictions, just because.

Edited by D U N E, 11 October 2020 - 05:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

It's an online PVP game, trying to make the excuse "but my PVP game doesn't have PVE so I can stop playing meta waaaah" is not an argument.

...

MWO is PVP, MW5 is PVE, the game can run fine being purely PVP if it had a good core gameplay loop.

Strawman isn't an argument either.

The reality is that, this game is bleeding players, and keeping to "its an online pvp" game, isn't doing anyone any good. Niche players on already a niche game, appeal to everyone is important.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

Now back to my core argument with new player retention. Trial mechs are irritaitng most of the time, being made of old meta that just isn't that good now. I find many to give lacklustre performance that takes away how you feel you input into a match. Some people are fine doing nothing, though players need to be able to feel like they can contribute with their starting tools. Not get 25 matches done, not know how to build a mech, build it wrong, get confused and annoyed. Continue with lacklustre performance, the. Quit cause it isn't fun. If a player is given the option to do be meta and can decline it, that's on them, though if you conceal the meta and make it irritaitng to seek out, that's on the game and it's community. This is a PVP game, its core is PVP, no one cares that some guy wants to run around in a brawl centurion.

Remember when we were hating on LRMs prior to dual-arc? We are still hating on LRM guys that lurm shamelessly on the background -- well, that's the social aspect of the game working, so quite simply people do care what other people run, and it's even more so if they are a detriment to their team, because this is after all a team-game. Your choices affect the rest of the team.

If it were 1v1, fine, but this is marketed as a teamgame, the FP as the arguably-forgotten major part of the game, since it's supposed to be for coordinated units, where it is expected to have some form of team cohesion which also involves proper builds to fill in proper roles.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 05:05 PM, said:

Outside of lobbies the game is going to have people playing top tier meta, no one wants to get face ****** by that when they are stuck in a double standard PPC vindicator. If they are old school mechwarrior, fine, if they enjoy playing non meta and getting cucked, good for them. They should drop down tiers and have fun. Though for people wanting intense skill based PVP, the option needs to present itself. Which is something I am personally hoping to help players with in the future.

I agree with dropping down tiers, problem is the PSR is horseshit, and the population is so low that it's inevitable to mix in tiers just to have matches at all.

That is why PVE and lowered drop-tonnage is important, even if it's "contrary" to the "pvp core", because it's realistically untenable to keep on operating this way for very long.

If anything, PVE gives the ability to fine-tune the difficulty more consistently, as opposed of leaving it to the hands of seal-clubbing veterans, or trolling veterans, both of which are wildcards, and that is without taking the core aspect away from the game -- and that is teambased online multiplayer.

My only real concern is that, well, PGI sucks at AI.

[D U N E]

"Remember when we were hating on LRMs prior to dual-arc? We are still hating on LRM guys that lurm shamelessly on the background -- well, that's the social aspect of the game working, so quite simply people do care what other people run, and it's even more so if they are a detriment to their team, because this is after all a team-game. Your choices affect the rest of the team.

If it were 1v1, fine, but this is marketed as a teamgame, the FP as the arguably-forgotten major part of the game, since it's supposed to be for coordinated units, where it is expected to have some form of team cohesion which also involves proper builds to fill in proper roles."

I hate in lrms because you don't aim. Nothing to do with how useful they are - I can understand their place, though I don't have time for players trying to protest how high-skill they are, or arguing they need a buff. Laughably though, most lrm players bring anemic lrm builds and self balance themselves.

MWO staying PVP is going to happen until they actually have money to do any real development, which given the games current position, is going to be a while, likely never. Arguing you need an entire new element to keep players is surreal, especially with the fact the player bleed has always been down to poor balancing decisions and implementation.

I can see slight usage of AI enemies, though given the AI of their Atlas, and lest we not forgot the AI of MW5, any mech they implement is not going to know how to walk. I'd personally want to see items such as infantry. Tank or VTOL 'powers' - though replacing major assets with AI is not a good decision. Quick Play should remain it's ***********, AI have no reason to belong there in most of it's game modes, and would only serve to distract players for 'easy kills' meaning you gave a higher chance of people not fighting the enemy in the core PVP game mode.

Incursion and siege are the only things I think should consider AI, and not mechs, VTOLs that don't increase your damage number. Though given my understanding of the situation. - That would be classed as major development, for effectively more irritating turrets. And already stated, PGI sucks at AI, building destruction in MW5 was just so the AI didn't need to have effective path finding. Escort Atlas was rage enducing. PGI also stated they are never going to do a PVE experience in MWO, and from this point onwards I am just not going to waste my time writing a response to PVE when PGI already stated it won't be happening. It's like trying to argue we need quad mechs after PGI said they'd never develop them.

They serve to be a larger distraction to players, will likely be implemented poorly, and due to this make games even more RNG based to see who's mechs are actually in a useful spot, people will likely want them to have the most garbage lore builds, meaning players trying to learn the game will once again have a harder time finding good examples of what to do, and if they offer damage you will create a portion of the player base that avoid destroying players in game so they can farm defenceless AI mechs and claim superiority, allowing the cycle of bad advice to proceed as well as overly rewarding players (likely with an increase in PSR) for being less effective team mates, and worst players. If you make the mechs a legitimate threat PGI will likely just give god aim, which further punishes light players especially. As you will have some players off chasing AI mechs, nascar will likely get worse for the losing team.

AI could be used to set a front line, push players into taking good positions and holding them, though personally I'd just go the easy route and building more turrets around the map to enable lone assaults better defence from light mechs to hold power positions.

Edited by D U N E, 11 October 2020 - 10:49 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

I hate in lrms because you don't aim. Nothing to do with how useful they are - I can understand their place, though I don't have time for players trying to protest how high-skill they are, or arguing they need a buff. Laughably though, most lrm players bring anemic lrm builds and self balance themselves.

Which still involves the social aspect of an online multiplayer. It's not fun losing when you realize that the other guy isn't pulling it's weight, especially with a poorly kitted out LRM Atlas... of all mechs that you can LRM.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

MWO staying PVP is going to happen until they actually have money to do any real development, which given the games current position, is going to be a while, likely never. Arguing you need an entire new element to keep players is surreal, especially with the fact the player bleed has always been down to poor balancing decisions and implementation.

Then this game will die, it needs to evolve, it needs to do something else. Insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting a different result.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

I can see slight usage of AI enemies, though given the AI of their Atlas, and lest we not forgot the AI of MW5, any mech they implement is not going to know how to walk. I'd personally want to see items such as infantry. Tank or VTOL 'powers' - though replacing major assets with AI is not a good decision.

PVP does not mean AI is excluded. There are plenty of multiplayer games that have AI, Team Fortress 2, DOTA2, L4D2, and these PVP games have nothing taken away from them by having AI and ability to play on your own, or against an AI team. If anything, AI is useful to teach the Newbies the basics, until they are good enough to fight against another player.

That is important, make PVE as the introduction for PVP.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

If you make the mechs a legitimate threat PGI will likely just give god aim, which further punishes light players especially. As you will have some players off chasing AI mechs, nascar will likely get worse for the losing team.

AI could be used to set a front line, push players into taking good positions and holding them, though personally I'd just go the easy route and building more turrets around the map to enable lone assaults better defence from light mechs to hold power positions.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

Quick Play should remain it's ***********, AI have no reason to belong there in most of it's game modes, and would only serve to distract players for 'easy kills' meaning you gave a higher chance of people not fighting the enemy in the core PVP game mode.

I agree, yes and no. That depends. Ideally, they should be mostly PVP, but AI should be able to spot for them when the player is unable such as Disconnects and AFKs. It's better to have a dumb AI to soak damage despite being short-lived, as opposed of being just nuked at the end of the game by being the last player surviving.

As AI in PVE, I don't see the problem of AI having good aim that deters lights. They are lights, that is the point, they are poorly armored, they are for completing objectives, and it's cooperation that requires players to find a way that the light will do it's job. Tip-of-the-spear tanking is a good strategy to keep aggro from lights as they complete objectives.

With PVE, there's good reason for the combat to be stacked against you, because you are against dumb AI, it's supposed to be unfair, it's supposed to be a challenge. Instead of invoking "it will punish lights", why not instead "how can I make our lights survive"?

Conquest is a good example of lights employing strategy, as you can win the game by simply capping, and avoiding direct conflict. If your team survives long enough, that even if they all die, you can still with the game for your team by having the most cap, and surviving long enough that you can accumulate said cap.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

Incursion and siege are the only things I think should consider AI, and not mechs, VTOLs that don't increase your damage number. Though given my understanding of the situation. - That would be classed as major development, for effectively more irritating turrets. And already stated, PGI sucks at AI, building destruction in MW5 was just so the AI didn't need to have effective path finding. Escort Atlas was rage enducing.

I agree. These need to be PVE with AI. It's not fun going through the objectives through rush, as the game is inevitably kill other mechs.

D U N E, on 11 October 2020 - 10:43 PM, said:

PGI also stated they are never going to do a PVE experience in MWO, and from this point onwards I am just not going to waste my time writing a response to PVE when PGI already stated it won't be happening. It's like trying to argue we need quad mechs after PGI said they'd never develop them.

They mentioned that "nothing is off the table", which hopefully they commit to.

But if they really stick with "No PVE" in MWO, then I don't know what to tell you, this game is going to die; not a matter of "if", but "when" and it is answered by "soon", and due to the mishandling it got over the years, people can only say "good riddance".

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 October 2020 - 11:29 PM.

[D U N E]

"Which still involves the social aspect of an online multiplayer. It's not fun losing when you realize that the other guy isn't pulling it's weight, especially with a poorly kitted out LRM Atlas... of all mechs that you can LRM"
I don't understand why you are trying to talk about the social aspect of losing/winning - Generally I no longer care what my team mates are doing so long as they just deal **some** damage to the enemy.

"Then this game will die, it needs to evolve, it needs to do something else. Insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting a different result."
You keep missing how new players don't stay, despite the fact the content should be fresh to them. The game doesn't need to evolve new gameplay mechanics, it needs to make it's current mechanics more accessible to a complete newbie.

"As AI in PVE, I don't see the problem of AI having good aim that deters lights."
As stated I will ignore the vast majority of the AI argument, I gave my reasoning why it is bad, it retracts from the real areas that need development. Though I do want to focus this one point "God Aim" is not "Good Aim", PGI turrets have laser precision on one component, you can twist to spread damage, though unless you get to cover, you will take 100% of the damage the turret inflicts. Ultra-lights are only good because they can dodge most of a weapons damage. Luckily PGIs turrets only take like 10 damage to destroy, but for lights those turrets deal major attrition. <

"They mentioned that "nothing is off the table", which hopefully they commit to."

<div>But if they really stick with "No PVE" in MWO, then I don't know what to tell you, this game is going to die; not a matter of "if" but "when" and it is answered by "soon" and due to the mishandling it got over the years, people can only say good riddance"
I personally feel the addition of AI would just cause a more rapid death of the game, likely it would create another que causing more of the player base to split between two ques. Really good if the game had a health player base since it could separate people that want to run stock, from people that want to fight. Not good when you barely have enough players to actually keep group que in the first place. PVE is either in the QP/FP que or it is not. At the current stage of MWO they need to use what they currently have and find a way to keep ques together, have better new player retention in both old and new players, as well as find a way to appeal to people that don't yet have the game installed. PVE can potentially do all of this, though pure PVE questions the point of MW5, I suppose it's F2P so more F2P players may come, some of them willing to pay into the game. which is important for MWO to live in the first place. This new PVE game mode, your argument saying it could "Help new players"- that's debatable - I would argue giving new players actual builds that are well made would give a new player an experience of what the game is, rather than create a PVE mode to pretend it is something else. Then many players in MWO feel like NPC, so it wouldn't make the game easier, just make it less gratifying for a new player to get a kill.

Though that's a gamble in-of-itself, by releasing a new mode you are potentially halving both main ques, the PVP que suffers more if that's the case because you will likely have double wait times, luckily for the PVE, you only require half the players to start a game, so you should get your fun. If there is not enough new players entering the game to fill out the other PVP que quick enough, that element dies. Though now I suppose in PVE all the mechpacks are useful because the enemy is going to be crap. You rapidly lose PVP player-base if the PVE siphons enough players, many mechwarriors from MW5 that see MWO pvp to be superior stop playing MW5 as much - though that's not an issue so long as they are still willing to buy future DLC for it. Though it will make selling a new MW6 game to be slightly harder given how MWO can create constant development if successful. The argument is PVE would likely kill a large portion of the PVP within MWO due to the current playerbase. Though then the question arises, how good is the PVE, maybe MWO players are fine with it, though many new players may find it monotonous - they learn how to play PVE which will be a different meta, come to PVP and then get wrecked, because the atmosphere would be completely different, congratulations, you haven't prepared them and instead made the situation worse. This is assuming PVE is decent in the first place, if it's crap, which it likely will be, you siphon off part player base into a new que, which once again makes the PVP ques take longer to make a match, leading to more people getting frustrated, though I mean, if it's a quarter or a fifth of the players that go to PVE, then it shouldn't be too much longer. In comparison to doubling the time it takes to get a game. PVE is seen as a largely wasted development cost because people going in for F2P PVE I would argue spend less than people wanting F2P PVP or PVE that costs money (MW5), PVP drives competition, and many love to try and endorse P2W or reduce grind to get better. The competitive community in MWO likely are a healthy portion of it's profits.

Though instead you talk about PVE likes it's the cure to all issues in MWO, the core of MWO is good, though it's a bunch of ingredients in the wrong order - the meta is obscure, most mechs players first buy are crap and feel unfun. They aren't rewarding or impactful, and in a PVP game, if you feel like you aren't contributing you can get irate pretty quickly. Widely agreed balance patches with better initial player experience are what are going to save MWO. Not adding in another feature, the old guard stick to the game with or without PVE currently, the game is slowly dying, though all games lose players, it just usually enough new players come in and stay that it results in a net gain. MWO doesn't need more gameplay features - though it does need to clearly define it's current gameplay features. When every game mode is Skirmish, that's somewhat of an issue. When the meta is hidden, that causes problems. Once again, in other games - Warthunder, vehicles have battle ratings, you get in a tank and you can feel and see roughly what that tank should do - against comparables in the meta. It has PVE before you point that out, though last I checked, it's PVE mode is usually dead. Air battle has AI planes, though they tend to be in minor/useless roles that are more sponges for your damage than actual components of the game. Ground force used to have some starter tanks, though once again, they were there just so you had another thing to shoot at. Though saying that game has proper respawn/health regeneration mechanics - taking a hit by a AI will usually lead to nothing.

<div>Heroes and Generals has PVE galore in it's game, though once again, the AI is crap and nonconsequential, and really is there to add bodies to make things look nice/more alive. Once again, respawns and health regeneration mechanics.

<div>MWO is a PVP game, if PGI want to develop something for PVE, they literally have MW5 to develop and sell to people. Most games that have you compete against players make more sales than games without competition, look at Gatcha games, while they tend to consist of PVE, they really front leaderboards and other players to make it a competitive experience between players, despite the fact they are only taking on AI. There is no point in PVE at this stage of the game to fix it, if it can't stand on it's own merits of being a PVP game, PGI will likely see no point in developing it further if people want a PVE game. So any argument for PVE will need to be in joint usage of a PVP environment.

Now if you are going to rehash "But muh PVE, muh not wanting to play with other players, muh want a completely different experience to what the core design of MWO is" - Then this will be the last time I waste my time writing a wall of text. Making gambles when you have something to lose isn't smart when you have lost all your other gambles thus far. PGI really don't need another experimental idea, they need small and solid improvements that will assure they can flatten the curve of players being lost, and maybe look at increasing player base again. PVE is neither a small, or solid improvement. It might work amazingly, though it could also be the final nail in the coffin - and personally I feel there are so many better solutions for their current situation. Maybe in 1 or 2 years if they bring MWO out of the ditch will I agree with that being cool, I know I did 1.5 years ago. Though it needs to work in the PVP environment, not separate from it.

Edited by D U N E, 12 October 2020 - 04:42 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

I don't understand why you are trying to talk about the social aspect of losing/winning - Generally I no longer care what my team mates are doing so long as they just deal **some** damage to the enemy.

Okay, let me clarify this for you. Other people and their opinion exists, and you aren't god.

Some people do care whether a teammate is contributing properly, and it is important that you carry your weight in the game especially in FP where the team relies on you. It is a team game after all, and so it is reasonable to assume that your teammates got your back.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

You keep missing how new players don't stay, despite the fact the content should be fresh to them. The game doesn't need to evolve new gameplay mechanics, it needs to make its current mechanics more accessible to a complete newbie.

I didn't say "new gameplay mechanics", I said new gamemode. It's the same stompy robot whether it's PVE or PVP, it's only a difference in environment you apply said game mechanics. The beauty in PVE is that it is a safer environment which the newbies can learn the game in their own pace.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

I personally feel the addition of AI would just cause a more rapid death of the game, likely it would create another que causing more of the player base to split between two ques.
...
At the current stage of MWO they need to use what they currently have and find a way to keep ques together, have better new player retention in both old and new players, as well as find a way to appeal to people that don't yet have the game installed.

Then reduce the amount of players per drop, you get more matches that way.

And on another note, I don't think you should be forcing people to play with one another -- like what happened with GQ murking the waters in Solo. If they opt in for AI, why would it matter? They are still playing the same game, they would still bite on the monetization of PGI all the same.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

PVE can potentially do all of this, though pure PVE questions the point of MW5, I suppose it's F2P so more F2P players may come, some of them willing to pay into the game. which is important for MWO to live in the first place.

As to the point with MW5, as have stated, it's the difference between paid and free-to-play, likewise the freedom to mod it, when PGI has shown to be incompetent in many regards.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

This new PVE game mode, your argument saying it could "Help new players"- that's debatable - I would argue giving new players actual builds that are well made would give a new player an experience of what the game is, rather than create a PVE mode to pretend it is something else. Then many players in MWO feel like NPC, so it wouldn't make the game easier, just make it less gratifying for a new player to get a kill.

PVP is ultimately rooted in competition, and not everyone is like that. We are looking for new players, so alienating a good amount of playerbase isn't in the game's best interest. That's like when Ferengi withheld females on their race, until they realize the remaining 50% of their population could do some good.

(Ferengis are profiteering alien race in Star Trek, known for their Rules of Acquisition).

And if they don't find it gratifying to shoot down NPCs, why not go to QP and shoot actual people? Seems like a non-issue.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

Though that's a gamble in-of-itself, by releasing a new mode you are potentially halving both main ques, the PVP que suffers more if that's the case because you will likely have double wait times, luckily for the PVE, you only require half the players to start a game, so you should get your fun.
...
The argument is PVE would likely kill a large portion of the PVP within MWO due to the current playerbase. Though then the question arises, how good is the PVE, maybe MWO players are fine with it, though many new players may find it monotonous - they learn how to play PVE which will be a different meta, come to PVP and then get wrecked, because the atmosphere would be completely different, congratulations, you haven't prepared them and instead made the situation worse.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

Though instead you talk about PVE likes it's the cure to all issues in MWO, the core of MWO is good, though it's a bunch of ingredients in the wrong order

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

There is no point in PVE at this stage of the game to fix it, if it can't stand on it's own merits of being a PVP game, PGI will likely see no point in developing it further if people want a PVE game. So any argument for PVE will need to be in joint usage of a PVP environment.

That sounds like you making strawmen again. Here is the thing, we veterans have done mostly everything that there is to be done in the game, we have seen it all -- hell, I even went to Comp once! I have experienced pretty much all what this game can offer me, and I bet that is the same as other vets.

You need people to come back to this, you need people to have faith again, and that is shown by actual development besides just the same-old scheme of new mechs, disturbing balance decisions. Quite simply, if PGI wants me to pay for something again, I want something new to do that is other than the same **** I have seen before.

Just as newbies will experience the game fresh, we want something different that we'll be willing to pay for this game again. And depending on how PVE is handled, it could be helpful for the newbies to be eased into the game.

Just monetize right now, all you will be doing is to milk the whales. The game is dead, it's not being updated, why would anyone put money in this, why would the noob would when it's possible to be not playable in the immediate future?

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

MWO is a PVP game, if PGI want to develop something for PVE, they literally have MW5 to develop and sell to people.

Except it doesn't have the same level of multiplayer, likewise people aren't exactly willing for them moment considering that it's an Epic Exclusive.

And it's not exactly that good either as said by other people in the other threads, it's a subpar experience that is paywalled.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

There is no point in PVE at this stage of the game to fix it, if it can't stand on it's own merits of being a PVP game, PGI will likely see no point in developing it further if people want a PVE game. So any argument for PVE will need to be in joint usage of a PVP environment.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

Making gambles when you have something to lose isn't smart when you have lost all your other gambles thus far. PGI really don't need another experimental idea, they need small and solid improvements that will assure they can flatten the curve of players being lost, and maybe look at increasing player base again. PVE is neither a small, or solid improvement. It might work amazingly, though it could also be the final nail in the coffin - and personally I feel there are so many better solutions for their current situation. Maybe in 1 or 2 years if they bring MWO out of the ditch will I agree with that being cool, I know I did 1.5 years ago. Though it needs to work in the PVP environment, not separate from it.

Did you play Academy? You know they have rudimentary AI there? Battlezone has this patrolling mechs, Onslaught has these dozens of mechs. Don't get me wrong, I get that it's already AI there, but it's a dumb implementaiton.

I mean sure, they have to be careful with their money at this point, but that's the catch-22. You can't monetize anything that isn't viable, and right now, the game isn't just promising.

Something different must be done, we have seen most of the game at this point. Monetization will only milk from the whales, and if ******* them is what you want, the least you could do is reach around and give them a kiss.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

Now if you are going to rehash "But muh PVE, muh not wanting to play with other players, muh want a completely different experience to what the core design of MWO is" - Then this will be the last time I waste my time writing a wall of text.

That sounds like a strawman talking to you. And keep your statements short and properly formatted. One thought short and sweet in one paragraph, you seem to drone on with long-winded elaboration in one extended paragraph. My god. Also using quotes would make it easier to indicate which point you are responding.

D U N E, on 12 October 2020 - 04:38 AM, said:

Widely agreed balance patches with better initial player experience are what are going to save MWO.

Citation needed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2020 - 06:00 AM.

[Tenchuu]

Crosspost because this is so important and frankly unbelievable. DEVS: Open up a World of Warships account and play through level fifteen and absorb every damned bit of it. They have a huge player base because they do exactly what they should. There are explanatory videos linked into things, there are awards for completing things, and most importantly there are constantly new achievements and narrative goals for the players that show immediate progress from a single game. GIVE PLAYERS A REASON TO LOG IN.

I've had the game since the KS, and this is the first time I've posted because I dropped it for years because of the inaccessibility. Now I'm playing again, and *I* am one of those few people you talk about that is still spending money. I want that going towards a reason to log in and play, reasons to actually join clans, and a system that actually awards things like "being the mech with ECM that keeps all the assaults hidden and is critical to the match but barely does any damage" instead of "200 xp and welcome to tier 5." It's bad enough the text is absolutely microscopic on my current monitor. Updating your engine, that's probably the expensive ask. The inclusion of a system like World of Tanks or World of Warships should be a comparatively simple thing that adds huge value the minute any player opens the game. If you can't do that and you can't run a Twitch stream where you answer player questions monthly please give the IP to someone that can. Why are you hiding interesting stuff related to clans? Why are you not showing how clan conflicts are going on the launch page? Why is there no map of that right there? Why are there no bundles related to specific achievements available? Look at the shipyard drydock in World of Warships. Look at how it's possible to do it without spending but it's easier if players spend money. LOOK AT HOW THEY USE FLAGS. Flags are burnable items that give minor boosts. ADD FLAGS TO YOUR GAME. The guys that make that and World of Tanks are absolute pros at this. Learn your money making from them and copy it shamelessly. Don't hem and haw and act like you're out of ideas. The online community is FULL of games that make money and have for many years. It's YOUR job to go out and research those things, not the community.

[D U N E]

"I don't understand why you are trying to talk about the social aspect of losing/winning - Generally I no longer care what my team mates are doing so long as they just deal **some** damage to the enemy."

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2020 - 05:54 AM, said:

Okay, let me clarify this for you. Other people and their opinion exists, and you aren't god.

Some people do care whether a teammate is contributing properly, and it is important that you carry your weight in the game especially in FP where the team relies on you. It is a team game after all, and so it is reasonable to assume that your teammates got your back.

I left this post for a few days see what would happen, turns out I was right with the response I was gonna get. Hopefully the community aren't full of short sighted people like you.
When 90* of your argument is trying to insult a person, avoid looking at the other persons suggestions, and generally promoting the death of the game through idiocy, you the remove reason to continue a debate.

I still don't get why you are trying to argue me not caring what people do so long as they deal damage means I somehow think I am a god - It's a game - so long as they play it and try their best I don't care. That by no means invalidates others opinions - just means I reserve mine unless they are being mindless morons and not playing the most basic element of the game. Ironically it's you wanting to gatekeep meta mechs from the start of the game. Guess I must be god for wanting players to have the choice to play meta mechs and not use areas of the game they don't want to play. You must be using 100% of your brain to think of that answer.

Well best of luck, hopefully PGI can restart this game with the best methods it can apply - whatever those methods may be. Reply or not to this, I won't be reading it - though I know you will be reading this.

Edited by D U N E, 14 October 2020 - 08:33 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

D U N E, on 14 October 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

I left this post for a few days see what would happen, turns out I was right with the response I was gonna get. Hopefully the community aren't full of short sighted people like you.

When 90* of your argument is trying to insult a person, avoid looking at the other persons suggestions, and generally promoting the death of the game through idiocy, you the remove reason to continue a debate.

I think you're just projecting at this point.

D U N E, on 14 October 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

I still don't get why you are trying to argue me not caring what people do so long as they deal damage means I somehow think I am a god - It's a game - so long as they play it and try their best I don't care.

That by no means invalidates others opinions - just means I reserve mine unless they are being mindless morons and not playing the most basic element of the game.

And that's the thing. Other people do. So this part right here, is actually completely irrelevant to be brought up.

When you say that I'm short-sighted, you're using personal incredulity.

D U N E, on 14 October 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

Ironically it's you wanting to gatekeep meta mechs from the start of the game. Guess I must be god for wanting players to have the choice to play meta mechs and not use areas of the game they don't want to play.

Not really, you're just too self-absorbed to think of other people's perspective on things.

[Heavy Money]

Don't waste time arguing with 6thMessenger. He says ridiculous things, then when you point it out, he acts like you're the one who can't understand other people's perspectives. All his posts are just the pot calling the kettle black. He already said in the other podcast thread that he hasn't played the game in years and hates what it is, which is why all his suggestions are to change the game into something it isn't and never was. And while others may be sympathetic, that's way outside the scope of what the devs are going to invest, so its pointless to discuss.

The reality is that the playerbase is too small to split further. There's tons of suggestions for different modes, both PvP and PvE, and each would appeal to a few people, but would kill the population overall. Trying to do something radical like change the game to not be a battlefield PvP game is a giant gamble that won't be taken.

Their best bet is to focus on the parts of the game that already work, improve them, improve accessibility for new players, etc.

[The6thMessenger]

Heavy Money, on 14 October 2020 - 04:00 PM, said:

Don't waste time arguing with 6thMessenger. He says ridiculous things, then when you point it out, he acts like you're the one who can't understand other people's perspectives. All his posts are just the pot calling the kettle black.

What you're doing is called projection.

Heavy Money, on 14 October 2020 - 04:00 PM, said:

He already said in the other podcast thread that he hasn't played the game in years and hates what it is, which is why all his suggestions are to change the game into something it isn't and never was.

https://leaderboard....The6thMessenger

Excuse me? I may not be that good, but I played the game, even recently.

I participated with season Aug '16, stopped at Aug '19, started again at Aug '20, and stopped Sep '20.

Seems like you have your own bias apprehending your reading comprehension when I said "i already uninstalled", no wonder you can't keep to the discussion.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2020 - 04:18 PM.

[Heavy Money]

Oh no, i didn't remember the details of your timeframe of quitting exactly. This isn't the own you think it is, and doesn't change the point. Anyone else can go read for themselves: https://mwomercs.com...te/page__st__20

You make massive hyperbolic sweeping claims and crap on everything in every thread you're in, then get antagonistic when people disagree and accuse everyone else of projecting. All while seeming to hold as a position of pride that you think the game is S***.

[The6thMessenger]

Heavy Money, on 14 October 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

Oh no, i didn't remember the details of your timeframe of quitting exactly. This isn't the own you think it is, and doesn't change the point. Anyone else can go read for themselves: https://mwomercs.com...te/page__st__20

You mean this one right here?

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2020 - 07:30 PM, said:

Nice red-herring. You ever thought that maybe I'm curious if it got better? Maybe it's a habit at this point?

But guess what, I'm in the forums, I already uninstalled my MWO waaay back.

What's your idea of "waaaay back"? Years?

Because with my usage, it's actually different. https://leaderboard....The6thMessenger

Hell, my last play is actually Oct 5, but I uninstalled, so with our encounter at Oct 9, that is 3-4 days ago.

Heavy Money, on 14 October 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

You make massive hyperbolic sweeping claims and crap on everything in every thread you're in, then get antagonistic when people disagree and accuse everyone else of projecting. All while seeming to hold as a position of pride that you think the game is S***.

That's quite an assumption, and you seem to operate on the idea that "s***" from me meant that the game is bad -- though it's bad on some aspect, the usage in this case actually "thing". You are rather fixated on the words that aren't understood to their proper context.

What I am doing is discussing, defending your points is part of discussion, don't mistake my harshness for utter malice -- you aren't worth it. If you can't take that, I don't know what to tell you, don't participate in a public forum.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2020 - 04:59 PM.

[Heavy Money]

->Gets mad when other people disagree with his opinions
->"If you can't take that, I don't know what to tell you, don't participate in a public forum."

Its always the people doing the projecting constantly calling everyone else projectors.

[The6thMessenger]

Heavy Money, on 14 October 2020 - 05:09 PM, said:

->Gets mad when other people disagree with his opinions
->"If you can't take that, I don't know what to tell you, don't participate in a public forum."

Its always the people doing the projecting constantly calling everyone else projectors.

Sure, whatever lets you sleep at night buddy.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Knight Captain Morgan, on 10 October 2020 - 02:37 AM, said:

Everything is on the table EXCEPT keeping premade comp teams from farming casual solo pugs for the roflstomp LULZ

That is what MWO is all about now and we just don’t understand why it’s not super profitable. So community, please help us brainstorm new ways to get the filthy casuals to throw money at us so they can continue to enjoy being farmed over and over.

give PGI Money ...and the great ideas

https://www.crowdfun...refund-process/

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Shade 03, on 10 October 2020 - 07:37 AM, said:

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

thats Ideas to find in the Archive from MWO since 2013 ..ever and ever and ever and more ideas... Give FP planets a sense (lost of ammo factory=by the lost Side, each Player has 3 t less of LRM Ammunition for 2 Weeks in each FP Game )

and now im play further Warframe in Coop and PvE Grinding

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 16 October 2020 - 08:14 AM.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Step 1 : Give teams (FP or QP) a rating, based on their odds of winning.

Step 2 : Balance that rating with something, anything, so that the match becomes remotely playable instead of being the same one sided stomps that have been chasing players out of MWO for years.

Step 3 : Do it before MW5 hits Steam, and casual Steam players come check what MWO's grouped vs ungrouped matches look like (unplayable and counterfun).

Because if you can't have a separate solo and group queue, then at least you need to make up for it with something else, to keep those unfair matches playable and remotely fun. That's something MWO never did, and a big reason why it can't keep new players.

[C E Dwyer]

Crusader, Wasp, Stinger

[The6thMessenger]

Warning incoming Humble Dexterer, on 16 October 2020 - 02:40 PM, said:

Step 1 : Give teams (FP or QP) a rating, based on their odds of winning.

So like Elo MMR?