35 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

I've been thinking about it, and honestly, I think MWO right now just have no chance of a future, not in it's current state. Yes, obviously, it's going to change once they start updating it again, but my issue is that with what we've seen, it will going to be just little-by-little instead of drastic.

The recent podcast is kind of obvious and on the nose, it's really about monetization than anything. You can toss around more content as you like, but in the end it's about how you wring money from your patrons. And if your concern is just the question of how to wring it in, you are simply going to milk the existing, albeit dwindling base, instead of having new ones to milk at -- that new ones is what you want.

It needs to be more than what it currently is fundamentally, not the same-old QP, Faction Play, Comp, it's just the same **** with different color and intensity. You can balance the game all you like, add more mechs, but if we're doing basically the same things as we were doing before, only with more gimmicks, We (at least I) will get bored easily.

Do PVE cooperative campaign missions. Even a basic Onslaught Gamemode (basically Zombies with Mechs), imagine an infinite wave of AI-Controlled dumb Stock-Mechs that you have to try and survive. At least that will offer something different.

It's about 7-8 year old for god's sake, aren't people tired of going around the same maps, through the same mechs, employing basically the same **** over and over and over again? It's a good gameplay loop, but I think we have run it's course, we need something different.

Now you might be thinking, "the shift to UE wouldn't change the gameplay loop", and you're right, it'll only open up better potential for development. While I am not confident of PGI's ability to code in UE, at least they look like they can do ****.

I think PGI had milked out all it can from the Cry Engine, considering that it can't really do a lot within it, not with engine limitation but proficiency. I would rather they take actual work in reworking MWO in Unreal-Engine, and while that takes longer -- well, I don't know what to tell you, you need to put in actual effort than basically Skinner-Box.

"If you like UE mechwarrior so much, why don't you go buy MW5?" -- I would if it's on steam. That being said, that still does not pull MWO out of the mud it is in.

MWO, it's architecture, it's features, all of it has to evolve into something better if it were to have any future. And sticking to an engine they can't even properly code with isn't going to help.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 06:28 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

I agree only thing that would work is a shift to unreal. It would give new life to the game with basically unlimited maps and every plug and play upgrade unreal comes out with. No other improve/change they have done has increased the population for more than few months.

Issues is, it's going to take years. So they can try to do a presale and hope people jump but how many will? I see mw5 screw ups coming back to haunt them. If they said we get to play the beta and wouldn't cost us more I would have zero trust.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 07 October 2020 - 09:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Monkey Lover, on 07 October 2020 - 09:23 PM, said:

I agree only thing that would work is a shift to unreal. It would give new life to the game with basically unlimited maps and every plug and play upgrade unreal comes out with. No other improve/change they have done has increased the population for more than few months.

Issues is, it's going to take years. So they can try to do a presale and hope people jump but how many will? I see mw5 screw ups coming back to haunt them. If they said we get to play the beta and wouldn't cost us more I would have zero trust.

They have MW5, just build from there.

[Monkey Lover]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 09:25 PM, said:

They have MW5, just build from there.

They will but it will still take years and that's if they start now. From what I have seen from pgi they might start working on it this time next year as they will take a whole year looking In to seeing if it's worth doing.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 07 October 2020 - 09:37 PM.

[Unnatural Growth]

One of the things that bugs me about Russ's statements during the podcast was when he said that melee, knockdowns and collisions are "on the table". As in they "can" be done.

Wut?

Because I seem to remember that for YEARS we've been told (by Russ and Co.) these things are NOT possible in the Cryengine code. This was the reason we were told it can't happen. We were also told the engine will only support a max of 2 "teams" of players. So we couldn't have game modes like "free for all" or "king of the hill" type matches.

So which is it?

Are these things realistically possible, or not?

[General Solo]

I remember they were working on melee, so its possible
But remember that working on melee takes production resources away from mech pack production monetization

Also their was the little incident where players melee spammed Paul into a teabag during some games, then over night melee was removed from the game

It went something like that from memory
Wow that was like 7 or 8 years ago

So its possible kinda, as I recall the melee had issues with de-sync but may have been resolved with further development if not for the Paul melee spam incident.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 08 October 2020 - 03:34 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Unnatural Growth, on 08 October 2020 - 03:10 AM, said:

One of the things that bugs me about Russ's statements during the podcast was when he said that melee, knockdowns and collisions are "on the table". As in they "can" be done.

Wut?

Because I seem to remember that for YEARS we've been told (by Russ and Co.) these things are NOT possible in the Cryengine code. This was the reason we were told it can't happen. We were also told the engine will only support a max of 2 "teams" of players. So we couldn't have game modes like "free for all" or "king of the hill" type matches.

So which is it?

Are these things realistically possible, or not?

It means they are allergic to meaningful work.

[Kodyn]

Players right now, this many years in still can't unlock their arms, aim, not run into each other ceaselessly, and mostly panic when an enemy mech is near them.

You want to see that player base with melee and knockdowns? I sure don't. A few people will find the meta "ramming" mechs and troll every match, except it won't be Paul, it'll be all of us, all the time. No thanks.

[The6thMessenger]

Kodyn, on 08 October 2020 - 04:01 AM, said:

Players right now, this many years in still can't unlock their arms, aim, not run into each other ceaselessly, and mostly panic when an enemy mech is near them.

You want to see that player base with melee and knockdowns? I sure don't. A few people will find the meta "ramming" mechs and troll every match, except it won't be Paul, it'll be all of us, all the time. No thanks.

Haven't people watched Goons Heart Paul? There used to be Knockdowns, and it was removed because of it's "abuseable nature".

I could do away with Knockbacks and Melee at this point, it's not like we will lose that much from not having it. What I want is proper game development, not just some gimmicks. Game's pretty old and crusty at this point, it needs proper revamp.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 04:26 AM.

[KodiakGW]

I was going to write a long post, but opted out. The short is that it can be saved, but they need to do research. There were plenty of forum arguments between those backing the game killing changes they made, and those with better ideas. The will find most of those that fought tooth and nail for the changes have left a long time ago. Some still come back here to say the changes were great. Them not playing is proof they weren’t. Find all those people who argued against those people, and invite them to a Zoom meeting to discuss. You have their email addresses. Most were also posting over on Outreach Reddit only a couple of months ago with a number of simple changes to help bring back players right after the PSR change.
Do it now, next week. There has been two months of declining player numbers after the bump from the PSR change. Wait too long (90 days) and it will be too late, if it isn’t already.

[The6thMessenger]

KodiakGW, on 08 October 2020 - 04:53 AM, said:

I was going to write a long post, but opted out. The short is that it can be saved, but they need to do research. There were plenty of forum arguments between those backing the game killing changes they made, and those with better ideas. The will find most of those that fought tooth and nail for the changes have left a long time ago. Some still come back here to say the changes were great. Them not playing is proof they weren’t. Find all those people who argued against those people, and invite them to a Zoom meeting to discuss. You have their email addresses. Most were also posting over on Outreach Reddit only a couple of months ago with a number of simple changes to help bring back players right after the PSR change.
Do it now, next week. There has been two months of declining player numbers after the bump from the PSR change. Wait too long (90 days) and it will be too late, if it isn’t already.

Um, to clarify, that's not addressed to me right?

[KodiakGW]

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2020 - 06:06 AM, said:

Um, to clarify, that's not addressed to me right?

No, just a general thought. Not intended to argue.

[Unnatural Growth]

I guess to put a finer point on my previous post, I would like to know exactly WHAT is possible and what is NOT. Instead of some vague "pie-in-the-sky" platitudes (or "Russ-isms"), I want to know what can be done with this game running on this engine, and what can't (or instead of "can't", maybe WON'T as far as what PGI is willing to do).

Some kind of realistic list of options, from the years-long List of Things ® that we have been asking PGI for since 2012.

What I'm afraid of is, we (the players, ie "customers") have already jumped far too much forward with our expectations for THIS go around with PGI, and we're only setting ourselves up for disappointment.

No more of this "It was our position at the time" B.S.

Just let us know straight up.

It was my understanding that the glass wall PGI was up against for game play enhancements was all due to the limitations of the aged and custom coded Cryengine game engine. It was the reason given for whatever the Soup of the Day we asked for at the time. Everything from "knockdowns" to "free for all game mode" to even whether or not we could get a real changeable color pallet for the on screen HUD display (for those of us with color blind issues). It was always "Can't do it, blah, blah, blah, Cryengine, blah, blah, blah".

So before we go crazy and start eating each other in the forums, how about a "PGI sanctioned" list of possibles?

[GARION26]

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2020 - 03:39 AM, said:

It means they are allergic to meaningful work.

Knockdowns as noted have been in the game before - but seemed to be a negative play experience per report (before my time) maybe it takes more work to make it 'non abusable'

But to your general point in all fairness it's a business decision. How much revenue can they get from doing that kind of work. Serious work requires a lot of manpower investment (read money.)

If they built the greatest mechwarrior product of all time how much of the video gaming public would play it? How much would they spend before leaving it? CandyCrush is a junk game but it made incredible amounts of money because the base was potentially huge and it was easy for them to monetize. Some video game sports franchises have been going on for decades because the base is huge and people will happily pay for a new version each year.

A mechwarrior product (even the best designed and run franchise) has a pretty low cap on the max number of gamers it can attract and a currently intrinsically FTP product isn't going to easily generate huge revenue streams.

So before we cast aspersions on their work ethic lets recognize there is a real economic math here underpinning the decision. If they could reliably make 1 million dollars (pick your currency, or amount ) off a 100,000 investment they'd probably jump at it and take the loans if needed to make it happen. But if it's a potential 110,000 return on 100,000 investment that's understandably a harder decision. (All financial numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only of course.)

How many players are playing - how much would they be willing to pay for new content, how many new players who are willing to pay would new content attract? How many dollars would it take to make the new content? That's the math problem involved.

Edited by GARION26, 08 October 2020 - 01:13 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

GARION26, on 08 October 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

But to your general point in all fairness it's a business decision. How much revenue can they get from doing that kind of work. Serious work requires a lot of manpower investment (read money.)

The way I see it, they could keep the game as it is and just monetize it some more, see if they can maximize the money off the whales.

Or they can put in actual serious work into a game of quality, and attract more players. They want my money, they better have a good product, and MWO right now isn't.

GARION26, on 08 October 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

If they built the greatest mechwarrior product of all time how much of the video gaming public would play it? How much would they spend before leaving it? CandyCrush is a junk game but it made incredible amounts of money because the base was potentially huge and it was easy for them to monetize. Some video game sports franchises have been going on for decades because the base is huge and people will happily pay for a new version each year.

Dude, you might as well appeal to EA, the most hated company in the world. They are the leading developers of psychological-traps that you call a "game", they launch basically the same game every year with FIFA, now with Madden. At least COD has the decency to have some gimmicks.

I don't want PGI to be EA-Junior.

GARION26, on 08 October 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

A mechwarrior product (even the best designed and run franchise) has a pretty low cap on the max number of gamers it can attract and a currently intrinsically FTP product isn't going to easily generate huge revenue streams.

Then don't do MechWarrior then. MechWarrior is a niche franchise, they should have known what mess they are going into.

GARION26, on 08 October 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

So before we cast aspersions on their work ethic lets recognize there is a real economic math here underpinning the decision. If they could reliably make 1 million dollars (pick your currency, or amount ) off a 100,000 investment they'd probably jump at it and take the loans if needed to make it happen. But if it's a potential 110,000 return on 100,000 investment that's understandably a harder decision. (All financial numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only of course.)

How many players are playing - how much would they be willing to pay for new content, how many new players who are willing to pay would new content attract? How many dollars would it take to make the new content? That's the math problem involved.

Business decisions shouldn't be the problem of the consumers.

You can play all the math you like. But if MWO isn't a good game, it's not worth the money, it won't retain players more than the Whales. It's that simple.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 04:33 PM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

They could revitalize the game if they want to. The big key word is "if". Left 4 Dead 2 recently had a surprise update out of nowhere, and arguably that game is older than MW:O. They reworked some things and sparked some player interest back into the game again. I'm curious to see what they do to draw back the old player base on hiatus, and new players with any meaningful content to keep them intrigued for a bit.

[The6thMessenger]

Arnold The Governator, on 08 October 2020 - 05:50 PM, said:

They could revitalize the game if they want to. The big key word is "if". Left 4 Dead 2 recently had a surprise update out of nowhere, and arguably that game is older than MW:O. They reworked some things and sparked some player interest back into the game again. I'm curious to see what they do to draw back the old player base on hiatus, and new players with any meaningful content to keep them intrigued for a bit.

I think the "want" is the more important word in your sentence there. They are out of ideas, we gave them our ideas, but there is always this caveat of "what is viable", the don't want the game to die, but don't want to put an effort in it on grounds of "business decision". Why should we be congratulate them for not going out of our way to appease us?

Haven't we got shafted by their incompetence for far too long? Poor balance, incomplete promises, questionalbe direction, Epic Exclusivity? Trust is wearing thin, and they need to earn that trust back. Don't just give them an "at least you tried" cake, or a participation trophy.

**** man, at this point, might as well close the game, file bankruptcy, and restructure. MWO is not going to go far with hastily-put jury-rigs of monetization.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 06:29 PM.

[Heavy Money]

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2020 - 06:24 PM, said:

I think the "want" is the more important word in your sentence there. They are out of ideas, we gave them our ideas, but there is always this caveat of "what is viable", the don't want the game to live, but don't want to put an effort in it on grounds of "business decision". Why should we be congratulate them for not going out of our way to appease us?

I'm not trying to be rude, but is this supposed to be satire? You're saying that because some suggestions aren't financially viable, that they aren't trying. "My suggestions would cost more to implement than they can afford to invest. Obviously they just aren't trying!"

Those damn Devs, letting what is financially viable and technically possible get in the way!

[The6thMessenger]

Heavy Money, on 08 October 2020 - 06:28 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be rude, but is this supposed to be satire? You're saying that because some suggestions aren't financially viable, that they aren't trying. "My suggestions would cost more to implement than they can afford to invest. Obviously they just aren't trying!"

Those damn Devs, letting what is financially viable and technically possible get in the way!

No it's not satire. Well, I don't know what to tell you. Just close the game, file bankruptcy, restructure. They might as well just beg for our money at this point.

What "going out of their way" shows promise, that they can be trusted again, hell maybe if they crowdfund even, we might be generous enough to give money, but that requires a product that shows promise. MWO has been mostly broken promises, do you really just expect people to fork money on this, when they are short on sympathy?

You can invoke all the "business decision" "Financially viable" excuses all you like. If it's not a good product, then it doesn't deserve money and attention.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 06:42 PM.

[Heavy Money]

The6thMessenger, on 08 October 2020 - 06:36 PM, said:

No it's not satire. Well, I don't know what to tell you. Just close the game, file bankruptcy, restructure. They might as well just beg for our money at this point.

What "going out of their way" shows promise, that they can be trusted again, hell maybe if they crowdfund even, we might be generous enough to give money, but that requires a product that shows promise. MWO has been mostly broken promises, do you really just expect people to fork money on this, when they are short on sympathy?

I expect that, if they create decent content, that people will be willing to pay an amount based on how much fun they are having. Plenty of people are still enjoying the game as it is. The only issue most of the people I play with have with the game as it stands is concerns about the playerbase drying up. Of course, this is partly survivor bias. The people still playing are those who are not affected or don't care about the various things that have driven other players away. I'd reckon 90% of people playing the game aren't even familiar with the various issues that have caused people to lose trust in the devs.

A lot of people basically seem to be saying that to get them back in would take MWO2, or an engine upgrade (which is basically making a new game anyway, so might as well be the same thing.) I think that's a fair position. But it seems a bit silly to me to claim that anything short of that is pointless, or that them not wanting to do something that large means they don't care and don't want to improve the game.