Jump to content

Podcast 204 - Mechwarrior Online's Future


149 replies to this topic

#81 ingramli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 553 posts

Posted 08 October 2020 - 11:46 PM

Just a few words from a player left for around 2 years. IMHO many people missed the point... the biggest problem of PGI is too much effort on monetization, not enough (if any) effort in making a game that people will enjoy playing, it is pointless to go into all the details if the mindset doesn't change, people spend on a game because that is fun, not for the sake of relief from grind or p2w (skill tree, MC exclusive hero mech / omni pods, mech bay, consumables and premium time should all be removed from the game), IMO PGI never demonstrate any care about the happiness of player base, and they got what they deserve today.

I rather not to be lame, but i believe nothing will change unless the people running it got replaced.

Edited by ingramli, 08 October 2020 - 11:51 PM.


#82 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 128 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 10:15 AM

MWO is one of the least monetized F2P games out there. They rely on mainly mech-packs and MC to stay afloat. Since a large portion of people don't ever pay for MWO, they need some ways to make money.

Hero mechs, not a problem. They aren't that P2W, many being straight up ****, the best mechs in the game are all grindable, and saying the amount of MC they give out in events, you can grind hero mechs too.

Grind - Is minor compared to many games. Always a bit irritating, though if you immediately got everything there would be no reason to play for the next thing. Kinda ******, though really not an issue - Look at Warthunder, World of Tanks or other F2P collect-a-thon games out there for ****** grind. - They need some element of grind to create a reason to buy mechpacks or MC. Their two main ways of generating income.

Consumables, are literally not an issue- perhaps less bulk damage per strike for light mechs, though overall they should be in the game, the skill tree while polarizing, isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things - many argue the old system maybe better, though a skill system for mechs I find to be a good idea that helps customize loadouts and designs.

Premium time, no reason to complain, stock grind is fine, premium time is even better. So long as you know the meta, once you get like 10-20 mechs, the rest of the things you get are oddballs anyway. Actual grind to become meta in MWO is fairly low.


I don't want to be simping for PGI of all companies, they make some of the worst mistakes in the most stupid areas, if you complained at how overpriced their mechpacks were - or complain about balance/general gameplay (0 agility anyone?), or ****, how all the events are monotonous compared to competitors - though you chose the least worst offenders, especially in todays market.

#83 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,379 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 09 October 2020 - 10:29 AM

I am not a fan of how PGI has ran this game or MW5......but they gave up development on MWO because it wasn’t making profit (income - expenses) to develop content. A focus on how they can make money again at this game is going to be the only way we get new content. It’s that simple. No profit = no development

So, we can hate on PGI for all the stupid things they have done....but if we want to have a game here, much a less a better game they have to make money on it.

#84 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 128 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 11:03 AM

More successful monetization = More maps + More development

It can be hard to understand, but it is partly in out interests for them to create better monetization for the game.

That said, they also need to balance the game to make it fun ***Cough*** AGILITY ***Cough*** Like why does the vapor eagle have such superior agility than the Hunchback IIC - saying the Veagle is at it's core a weapon carrier like the Hunchy. Overall they need to look at some mechs which are irritating/underplayed, and raise them up to be fun and engaging again... Not tearing down the fun mechs to make everything monotonous and slow.

#85 Brauer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Silver Champ
  • CS 2020 Silver Champ
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:23 PM

View PostD U N E, on 09 October 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

More successful monetization = More maps + More development

It can be hard to understand, but it is partly in out interests for them to create better monetization for the game.

That said, they also need to balance the game to make it fun ***Cough*** AGILITY ***Cough*** Like why does the vapor eagle have such superior agility than the Hunchback IIC - saying the Veagle is at it's core a weapon carrier like the Hunchy. Overall they need to look at some mechs which are irritating/underplayed, and raise them up to be fun and engaging again... Not tearing down the fun mechs to make everything monotonous and slow.


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.

#86 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14,355 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:47 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.


iic mechs were pretty strong at first and then turned into glass cannons with subsequent balance passes. i think its more noticable on the jenner iic, its not quite the srm divebomber that it used to be.

also supprised there hasnt been a nerf to the ultraviolet. its certainly in the top 10 on my spreadsheets. not to say it should be nerfed or anything, id rather the trash tier get buffed because a lot of those mechs are completely useless.

atm boats are extremely strong, at least they are when i play them, 2 of the mechs in my top 10 are atm boats. i think the veagle 3 and the mad dog h. and i play pretty close to the min range. few players know they could simply close a 50m gap and render me useless.

Edited by LordNothing, 09 October 2020 - 12:53 PM.


#87 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,910 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 09 October 2020 - 01:19 PM

View PostD U N E, on 09 October 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

More successful monetization = More maps + More development

It can be hard to understand, but it is partly in out interests for them to create better monetization for the game.





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.

population has been decreasing for years every with everything they have done. Any change they do will have to be completely different something that has never been done before.

maps, balance,modes,mechs, have all be done.

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.


Veagle is good because the hit boxes are great . or the animation on the server is bad. It takes half the damage of any other medium clan mech. Its up there with iv4 levels of survival.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 09 October 2020 - 01:19 PM.


#88 Suko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,225 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 09 October 2020 - 02:22 PM

Is it too late to make MWO into a "remaster" of MPBT 3025? Posted Image

#89 Brauer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Silver Champ
  • CS 2020 Silver Champ
  • 1,050 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 03:02 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.

population has been decreasing for years every with everything they have done. Any change they do will have to be completely different something that has never been done before.

maps, balance,modes,mechs, have all be done.



Veagle is good because the hit boxes are great . or the animation on the server is bad. It takes half the damage of any other medium clan mech. Its up there with iv4 levels of survival.


The main reason the Veagle is good is that it is a clan battlemech with good hardpoints on many variants and decent mobility. The hitboxes are good, but they're not otherworldly.

It is far squishier than the IV4, not sure how that's even a comparison.

#90 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,697 posts
  • LocationUnder 60KPH in an Urbanmech with a UAC20. Sending people to their makers.

Posted 09 October 2020 - 04:28 PM

View PostMarquis De Lafayette, on 09 October 2020 - 10:29 AM, said:

I am not a fan of how PGI has ran this game or MW5......but they gave up development on MWO because it wasn’t making profit (income - expenses) to develop content. A focus on how they can make money again at this game is going to be the only way we get new content. It’s that simple. No profit = no development

So, we can hate on PGI for all the stupid things they have done....but if we want to have a game here, much a less a better game they have to make money on it.


That is fair. Of course, how do you expect people to give money to PGI without any good product? How can they retain new players when they are being seal-clubbed by being forced against the loyal veterans due to low population?

The Catch-22.

I think they should just ask Microsoft a loan, or make a crowdfund or something.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 October 2020 - 04:28 PM.


#91 ingramli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 553 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 05:26 PM

I would say the F2P model is the fundamental problem. Because it is F2P it needs ways for monetization, all the things that i dont like (skill tree, MC exclusive hero mechs/omni pods, consumables, premium time...) are the outcome of monetization through micro-transactions, if they have to make a game fun, all of these have to be ditched, and switch to a subscription based model like WoW.

TL;DR : F2P is BAD, period.

#92 Terrorsdawn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 7
  • Mercenary Rank 7
  • 197 posts

Posted 09 October 2020 - 06:49 PM

You want to make this game better? Start by kicking Sean Lang and his views to the curb. 2nd look at MWO in it's glory days and undo all the bad changes PGI made to it. Skill system, resize, ect,ect, ect. Give the players the Faction Play you promised not the crap we got.

#93 Volume

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 12:19 AM

View PostGuardDogg, on 08 October 2020 - 08:35 PM, said:

Still waiting for that one, where you get to walk in/out of your mech. Be a soldier on foot as well.

MW:LL has this Posted Image

#94 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,577 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 12:59 AM

View PostTerrorsdawn, on 09 October 2020 - 06:49 PM, said:

You want to make this game better? Start by kicking Sean Lang and his views to the curb. 2nd look at MWO in it's glory days and undo all the bad changes PGI made to it. Skill system, resize, ect,ect, ect. Give the players the Faction Play you promised not the crap we got.


Sean isn't involved with pgi.

#95 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,450 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 10 October 2020 - 02:26 AM

First and the biggest part! find Guys thats can handle the old most From Senior Staff Karl Berg (goning 2015 to Amazon)modified cry engine,when no change to UE5 , witout Programmers,and Technicans, each Hope is lost ...Managers and Staffs can nothing doing to the gameplay,The problems, the bad designed and small parts of Maps ...without Drivers and Yockeys each Race is lost.Thats was the biggest Problem , the thinking each Boy can doing each Job and learn each tool perfect in a handfull weeks and not holding the old guys with experience (Relic do a better Job and recruit many MWO Guys)or find new Guys before shes gone

The Staff from MWO like a Military HQ thinking we can won a Battle only with new Recruits and after lost all Veterans and teachers thats have learn to fight...and only can make propaganda

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 10 October 2020 - 01:08 PM.


#96 Knight Captain Morgan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 340 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 02:37 AM

View PostHeavy Money, on 06 October 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

TLDR;
  • They want to revitalize MWO
  • There is no competition between MWO and MW5
  • The core problem is how to make MWO profitable again. In the past, it was based on releasing new mechs and relying on people to buy them. But now there are tons of mechs, and the problem is keeping the game engaging and regrow playerbase. Perhaps find new things for people to spend money on who already own lots of mechs.
  • They understand complaints about merging group and solo que, but say it had to be that way due to current population. They might consider stuff like reducing max premade group size.
  • An engine upgrade isn't really viable as it would take ~2 years and wouldn't necessarily solve the money problem.
  • They seemed short on ideas of what to actually do, but say they will talk to the community and that everything is on the table. They say they have talked about a lot of stuff in their meetings, but it will take time to survey the community.


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.

Edited by Knight Captain Morgan, 10 October 2020 - 02:46 AM.


#97 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,697 posts
  • LocationUnder 60KPH in an Urbanmech with a UAC20. Sending people to their makers.

Posted 10 October 2020 - 03:38 AM

View PostKnight 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


"everything" meaning what is "viable". They just want monetization, but not want to improve the game so that it's worthy of monetization else that would have been their priority.

#98 Terrorsdawn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 7
  • Mercenary Rank 7
  • 197 posts

Posted 10 October 2020 - 05:18 AM

View Postthievingmagpi, on 10 October 2020 - 12:59 AM, said:


Sean isn't involved with pgi.


His soapbox NGNG and continued relationship with PGI makes Sean involved. Instead of asking questions he blathers on and on with his views. His ideas are not that of the community. Sean's ideas are BAD and self serving.

#99 Ryokens leap

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,178 posts
  • LocationEdmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 10 October 2020 - 06:48 AM

Whatever PGI does it will fall drastically short of what was announced, ie: community warfare. Unrealistic expectations are the norm, kinda like rebranding MWO as Solaris 7 cuz it’s gonna be super popular and become the main feature of the game.

Edited by Ryokens leap, 10 October 2020 - 06:59 AM.


#100 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





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users