146 replies to this topic

[martian]

Alreech, on 07 November 2020 - 04:27 AM, said:

Dude, MWO uses every stupid table top rule:
...

Dude, the previous poster talked about "gameplay", not about the design rules.

[Alreech]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 05:28 AM, said:

Dude, the previous poster talked about "gameplay", not about the design rules.

And design rules don't affect gameplay because... ?

[martian]

Alreech, on 07 November 2020 - 06:17 AM, said:

And design rules don't affect gameplay because... ?

Because BattleTech tabletop gameplay and MWO first person shooter gameplay are quite different even though the design rules are similar.

Edited by martian, 07 November 2020 - 06:30 AM.

[Alreech]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 06:23 AM, said:

Because BattleTech tabletop gameplay and MWO first person shooter gameplay are quite different even though the design rules are similar.

So if i shoot & destroy the side torso of an IS Mech with XL-Engine the Mech won't get destroyed in MWO, because MWO is a First Person Shooter?

[martian]

Alreech, on 07 November 2020 - 09:14 AM, said:

So if i shoot & destroy the side torso of an IS Mech with XL-Engine the Mech won't get destroyed in MWO, because MWO is a First Person Shooter?

Of course it will, but while in MWO targeting that side torso is a trivial task, it is a rare thing to do in BattleTech. See? The same design rules, but a different gameplay in both games.

[ghost1e]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 01:43 AM, said:

Perhaps you do not understand that the majority of the MWO players are just casual players who do not want to play competitively.

Haven't you noticed that:

• Competetive/Group queue died due to the general disinterest?

How do you explain multiple tournaments with 30+ teams of 10+ people signed up for it then?
Also might be worth taking a look at the current comp Q... not like there were 78 teams playing.

[martian]

TheUltimateGhost, on 07 November 2020 - 10:39 AM, said:

How do you explain multiple tournaments with 30+ teams of 10+ people signed up for it then?

When compared to the then functioning separate Solo casual Queue? Not so great.

TheUltimateGhost, on 07 November 2020 - 10:39 AM, said:

Also might be worth taking a look at the current comp Q... not like there were 78 teams playing.

You mean the special event that takes place once a year?


When I tried to get a game with my friends in Group Queue, the waiting was fruitless, so after a few attempts we gave up.

People coming to the forum with questions like this:

Vargir, on 23 November 2019 - 08:33 AM, said:

So I just started playing again recently and have been finding games quite quickly in Quickplay by myself, but as soon as my brothers and I group up we hit a brick wall - in that searching goes on for ages and nevers seems to find a game for the 3 of us.

Does anyone know of workarounds to make the game playable for small groups/duos?

Or this:

Monkey Lover, on 24 November 2019 - 12:35 AM, said:

Only 3 of us tonight but we couldn't find any matches after about half hour searching.

Saturday during prime U.S time.... Few sync drops and we went to star citizen.

or

Roaming Raven, on 20 November 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

So, I have a friend that plays with me sometimes, and we group up and queue....forever later, we give up ..

Only to get answers like this:

justcallme A S H, on 21 January 2020 - 06:36 PM, said:

It was a 1-day thing. For ~4hrs during NA Peak.

There was about 3-4 x 12mans, 4-5 x 8mans and then a bunch of other sized groups in and around.

It was a semi-organised event because, despite the claims of people that don't play, GroupQ is absolutely DEAD an has been for 9 months or so.

and this:

Vxheous, on 20 November 2019 - 09:17 PM, said:

I don't, I've pretty much stopped playing outside of practices/comp and the occasional faction play game

or like this:

Bud Crue, on 21 January 2020 - 07:12 PM, said:

F

Played GQ almost exclusively for the last couple of years. Even for those of us willing to wait a half hour or so for a match, GQ has been dead since June. This last weekend, I managed to convince my fellows to give it another shot and waist time trying to drop GQ during last weekend's "event", but screwed up the time and dropped before said event was scheduled to start. Got a lot of grief for that period of sitting on our hands.

GQ was great fun. Was. It's well and truly dead now outside of these sorts of organized and advertised "events". Nothing but memories now.

Brauer, on 21 January 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

RIP Group queue.

In April PGI toyed with the idea of 8v8 in GQ, but in the end even PGI gave up on GQ. Since April we have groups in the Solo queue.

[Alreech]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 09:43 AM, said:

Of course it will, but while in MWO targeting that side torso is a trivial task, it is a rare thing to do in BattleTech. See? The same design rules, but a different gameplay in both games.

And that makes the IS XL Engine in MWO worse than in Battletech. So PGI used a stupid Battletech Design role and it affects MWOs gameplay.

[martian]

Alreech, on 07 November 2020 - 11:59 AM, said:

And that makes the IS XL Engine in MWO worse than in Battletech. So PGI used a stupid Battletech Design role and it affects MWOs gameplay.

First, the rule is not so stupid in BattleTech and it is just one rule from the entire ruleset. It is dependent on other rules to work well. In the end PGI decided not to implement those other BattleTech rules, even though they planned to do so.

Secondly, as I wrote above, "Only some rough gameplay similarity is present." Exactly as I described here.

[Mashayach]

I cant wait to see what you come up with. In particular with faction play. I want to love it. All I ask is to keep MWO relevant!

[BROARL]

some great ideas so far.
allow me to muddy the waters a little with my own potato contribution;
how about put the 4v4 maps and the solaris maps into faction?
or at least put solaris city and the classic maps (incl terra classic) into faction?
obvioulsy there be no need for scouting in the solaris maps so just spawn us in two at a time out the elevator until there are minimum 48 ruined hulks in a smouldering pile somewhere...?
copy and paste mining collective together so it's 4x the size and let us play faction on it, or join two HPG maps together and put the incursion crap in the basements, or let us play scouting in assault mechs?

or just maybe make MW5 PvP and start looking to the future...

[T e c h 4 9]

Hey martian,

Good points to all my ideas. Since you obviously know much more about this game than I do, please bestow upon us all the wisdom of how you suggest MWO can move forward. I see you are quite active still, both in-game (over 400 matches per month since July) and here (0.78 posts per day average since 2011), you must still find something attractive about this game, otherwise you'd have quit already. On that, why haven't you quit already?

By all means, go ahead and post up your suggestions to PGI for improving the game. Or, better yet, link to your post where you already did. I'm betting you won't, because I'm betting it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

Good day, Sir.

[martian]

T e c h 4 9, on 07 November 2020 - 06:32 PM, said:

Hey martian,

Good points to all my ideas. Since you obviously know much more about this game than I do, please bestow upon us all the wisdom of how you suggest MWO can move forward. I see you are quite active still, both in-game (over 400 matches per month since July) and here (0.78 posts per day average since 2011), you must still find something attractive about this game, otherwise you'd have quit already. On that, why haven't you quit already?

Hey T e c h 4 9,

I have not quit already because the positives have outweighed the negatives so far. But with the presence of premade groups in the Solo queue and with the current weight imbalance my enthusiasm for MWO is disappearing.

And as they say: "Old habits die hard."

T e c h 4 9, on 07 November 2020 - 06:32 PM, said:

By all means, go ahead and post up your suggestions to PGI for improving the game. Or, better yet, link to your post where you already did. I'm betting you won't, because I'm betting it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

Good day, Sir.

I am sorry that you feel so disappointed after being told that your wishes to turn MWO into competetive esport and making some big changes are not realistic.

MWO is a niche game.

It is based on an old and heavily customized game engine.

MWO had its peak approximately five years ago and it has lost a significant part of its playerbase since then.

MWO is in the "Decline" phase of the typical game life cycle.

The number of MWO players has fallen so low that Russ Bulock folded the Group Queue into the Solo Queue.

Realistically I expect that PGI will do some small changes and adjustments. If they attempt to do some big changes, they should be very very very very cautious, so they will not end up with something like the disastrous Escort mode (that was so horrible that it had to be withdrawn from the game) or the Solaris 7 mode (barely used part of the game that cost PGI lots of work and money to develop).

As for Russ Bullock's words regarding some improvements of MWO, my past experiences with him tell me to stay calm and wait to see what will be actually implemented and how.

There are no miracle cures for MWO.

I posted my ideas some time ago, but my oldest posts that I can access from my account are just one year old. I can not return to my older posts. You can see this limitation on your account too.

[Alreech]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 12:22 PM, said:

First, the rule is not so stupid in BattleTech and it is just one rule from the entire ruleset. It is dependent on other rules to work well. In the end PGI decided not to implement those other BattleTech rules, even though they planned to do so.

It was not stupid in 1989. It was a balancing rule for the Star Leauge tech introduced with the Technical Readout 2750.
Same with the IS Double Heatsinks & Ferror Fibrous & Endo Steel & CASE rules.
It became a balancing issue with the introduction of Clan Tech in 1990, and a hot topic in the Battletech scene.

And you are some kind of right: it depend on other rules to make it even worse.
Rules in the MWO Mechlab & Battletech like the Engine Heatsinks:
XL Engines need more slots, Double Heatsinks need more slots. But if your XL Engine is bigger than 300 you can save slots by using the internal heat sinks.

Using all those stupid design rules from the Battletech Tabletop created the same balancing issues in MWO, and the First Person Shooter gameplay with it's pinpoint damage and aimed shoots make it even worse.

[Alreech]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 11:22 AM, said:

When I tried to get a game with my friends in Group Queue, the waiting was fruitless, so after a few attempts we gave up.

In April PGI toyed with the idea of 8v8 in GQ, but in the end even PGI gave up on GQ. Since April we have groups in the Solo queue.

Well, it's hard to create a match if you allow group sizes that are hard to combine.
In 12 vs 12:
A 10 player group works only with a 2 player group
A 9 player group works only with a 3 player group

In 8 vs 8:
A 6 player group works only with a 2 player group
A 5 player group works only with a 3 player group

It's also hard to create a balanced 12 vs 12 if most groups are very small (2-3 players) and others are very big (8 & 9 players), the matchmaker will end up with creating a team of many small groups against a team of one big group & a smaller one.

So PGI to limit group size to 4, but also kill the group queue...


One way to speed up matchmakig in group play would be to fix the group size to 2 & 4.
Groups of 4 players are easy to match in 12 vs 12, 8 vs 8, 4 vs 4.
2 Groups of 2 player would also fit, groups of 3 players would have to invite friends or players from the LFG.
The other benefit: the group size match the lance size, that prevent splitted lance ingame and improve lance cohesion.

IMHO the best way to bring back Group Queue is some kind of "Faction Quickplay".
Only Solo Players and Groups of max 4 players, or fixed Group size of min 4, max 4 (so you have to invite players to fill up the group).
Adding VOIP to group screen would be also helpfull for ad hoc groups without own TS or Discord.

Game mode:
Smaller Dropdecks & 15 or 20 minute time limit on non-siege maps.
Players can earn faction rewards in that game mode

Matchmaking:
Matchmaker puts groups of same & allied faction in one team, enemy factions in the other team.
Allied Factions:
Crusader Clans (Jade Falcons, Smoke Jaguars, Ghost Bear)
Warden Clans (Wolf, Nova Cat, Diamond Shark, Steel Vipers)
FedCom & Rasalhauge
Concord of Kapteyn (Marik & Liao & Kurita)

Matchmaker creates 4 vs 4 / 8 vs 8 / 12 vs 12 matches depending on the number of groups in the Queue.

[martian]

Alreech, on 08 November 2020 - 03:10 AM, said:

It was not stupid in 1989. It was a balancing rule for the Star Leauge tech introduced with the Technical Readout 2750.
Same with the IS Double Heatsinks & Ferror Fibrous & Endo Steel & CASE rules.
It became a balancing issue with the introduction of Clan Tech in 1990, and a hot topic in the Battletech scene.

I have already said that: "First, the rule is not so stupid in BattleTech and it is just one rule from the entire ruleset."

Alreech, on 08 November 2020 - 03:10 AM, said:

And you are some kind of right: it depend on other rules to make it even worse.

I have already said that: "It is dependent on other rules to work well. In the end PGI decided not to implement those other BattleTech rules, even though they planned to do so."

Alreech, on 08 November 2020 - 03:10 AM, said:

Rules in the MWO Mechlab & Battletech like the Engine Heatsinks:
XL Engines need more slots, Double Heatsinks need more slots. But if your XL Engine is bigger than 300 you can save slots by using the internal heat sinks.

The previous poster talked about the gameplay, not the design rules.

Alreech, on 08 November 2020 - 03:10 AM, said:

Using all those stupid design rules from the Battletech Tabletop created the same balancing issues in MWO, and the First Person Shooter gameplay with it's pinpoint damage and aimed shoots make it even worse.

As I said: "The same design rules, but a different gameplay in both games."

In BattleTech you typically do not have to worry about your opponent specifically targeting your vulnerable XL-engined side torso.

Anyway, complaining today about these things is pointless. It is 2020, not 2012. PGI is not going to rework the entire game from the ground up.

[T e c h 4 9]

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 11:56 PM, said:

I am sorry that you feel so disappointed after being told that your wishes to turn MWO into competetive esport and making some big changes are not realistic.

I'm not disappointed by anything you said. Are you some sort of prophet? Nostradamus maybe? There already is a comp scene - I've participated in it since the first MWOWC and MRBC days, and the more recent community run events like the ToC events as well as the current MWOCS 2020. Comp is alive and doing just fine. And, I disagree that PGI is not willing to make big changes. What would be the point of renewing the license for 5 years, hiring Daeron, and opening up a conversation with the community to discuss a way forward that the playerbase wants.

Point me to another game that has been successful enough for the developer to stay in business from said sole product for over 8 years while developing another game for 2 years of that 8, that is willing to listen to the playerbase customer and risk additional dev time for questionable gain? There are games out there that have managed to be successful for a long time.

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 11:56 PM, said:

MWO is a niche game.

It is based on an old and heavily customized game engine.

True. That's why I personally beleive the way forward is UE4 or maybe even UE5. But that dream is years away. The players don't want to wait 2 years. So PGI has to do things now. It should be understood that those measures are a stop-gap to something new and better. But what will the "new and better" be? This is where I believe the community has an opportunity to steer PGI in the "right" direction.

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 11:56 PM, said:

MWO had its peak approximately five years ago and it has lost a significant part of its playerbase since then.

MWO is in the "Decline" phase of the typical game life cycle.

The number of MWO players has fallen so low that Russ Bulock folded the Group Queue into the Solo Queue.

Realistically I expect that PGI will do some small changes and adjustments. If they attempt to do some big changes, they should be very very very very cautious, so they will not end up with something like the disastrous Escort mode (that was so horrible that it had to be withdrawn from the game) or the Solaris 7 mode (barely used part of the game that cost PGI lots of work and money to develop).

As for Russ Bullock's words regarding some improvements of MWO, my past experiences with him tell me to stay calm and wait to see what will be actually implemented and how.

There are no miracle cures for MWO.

While you have valid points, and I don't necessarily disagree, people can change too. Are you the same person you were 8 years ago? 5? I'm not looking for a "miracle cure". Personally, PGI could leave the game exactly as it is and I'll keep playing untill the servers go offline. I imagine most players do not feel the way I do.

Keep in mind also that some of the changes PGI made to MWO over the years came from the vocal few, not the silent majority. The "squeaky wheels" got the "grease" so to speak.

martian, on 07 November 2020 - 11:56 PM, said:

I posted my ideas some time ago, but my oldest posts that I can access from my account are just one year old. I can not return to my older posts. You can see this limitation on your account too.

Well, I'm not sure how you are trying to find your posts over a year old, but it's not that difficult. See the "Search" box in the upper-right corner of your screen? Try that. I did. I searched simply for "martian", and got 734 pages. On page 10 I found multiple posts from you from 2013. Shall I need link to screenshots to prove it? So, again, link to your previous posts with your ideas - or better yet, just post your current ideas right here, in response to my post, instead of trying to rebuke me. Don't tell me it can't be done. It can. Don't tell me it's too tedious or takes too much time - you spend plenty of time 'round here, so you have the time. And if you really beleive it to be too tedious or too time-consuming as you have better things to do with your time and energy - fine, I'll accept that answer - then just post your constructive feedback of how to improve MWO, right here, right now. Can you do that?

I hope so, because I think you might have some valuable perspectives and thoughts that could be relevant. Ditch the negativity man. it's not helpful in any way.

[martian]

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

I'm not disappointed by anything you said. Are you some sort of prophet? Nostradamus maybe?

I am just somebody who has been present on this very forums since the very beginning and has its experience with PGI.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

There already is a comp scene - I've participated in it since the first MWOWC and MRBC days, and the more recent community run events like the ToC events as well as the current MWOCS 2020. Comp is alive and doing just fine.

Nothing personal, but this is a minority in already niche game.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

And, I disagree that PGI is not willing to make big changes. What would be the point of renewing the license for 5 years, hiring Daeron, and opening up a conversation with the community to discuss a way forward that the playerbase wants.

• Without having the MechWarrior licence, PGI would not be able to sell its new MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries and its old MechWarrior Online games. It is simple as that: You can not sell the trademarked goods if the trademark owner (Microsoft in this case) disagrees. This is why PGI needs that licence.
  
• As far as I know, Daeron Katz is not a programmer working on MWO, MWO map designer, texture artist, VFX artist or something like that. He is Russ Bullock's public spokesman. Actually he has been around and paid by Russ Bullock since 2012.
  
• Talk costs nothing and stoking the community a bit can not hurt to revive the interest of MOW fans.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

Point me to another game that has been successful enough for the developer to stay in business from said sole product for over 8 years while developing another game for 2 years of that 8, that is willing to listen to the playerbase customer and risk additional dev time for questionable gain? There are games out there that have managed to be successful for a long time.

I think that a significant part of the MWO's success is the core of MechWarrior fans who simply can not move to another MechWarrior title because no other currently exists. It's either this or nothing.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

True. That's why I personally beleive the way forward is UE4 or maybe even UE5. But that dream is years away. The players don't want to wait 2 years. So PGI has to do things now. It should be understood that those measures are a stop-gap to something new and better. But what will the "new and better" be? This is where I believe the community has an opportunity to steer PGI in the "right" direction.

That will depend partially on Russ Bullock's whim and partially the most vocal group of people that reaches him.

As for the community, the problem is that every single memeber of the MWO community has different ideas what PGI should do.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

While you have valid points, and I don't necessarily disagree, people can change too. Are you the same person you were 8 years ago? 5? I'm not looking for a "miracle cure". Personally, PGI could leave the game exactly as it is and I'll keep playing untill the servers go offline. I imagine most players do not feel the way I do.

But Russ Bullock has not changed much. He still ignores the forums as he has always done. As for the game, Minimally Viable Product, you know.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

Keep in mind also that some of the changes PGI made to MWO over the years came from the vocal few, not the silent majority. The "squeaky wheels" got the "grease" so to speak.

Yes, that's something I agree with. But it works both ways: If you are not a part of this vocal group, you opinion does not matter much.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

Well, I'm not sure how you are trying to find your posts over a year old, but it's not that difficult. See the "Search" box in the upper-right corner of your screen? Try that. I did. I searched simply for "martian", and got 734 pages. On page 10 I found multiple posts from you from 2013. Shall I need link to screenshots to prove it? So, again, link to your previous posts with your ideas - or better yet, just post your current ideas right here, in response to my post, instead of trying to rebuke me. Don't tell me it can't be done. It can. Don't tell me it's too tedious or takes too much time - you spend plenty of time 'round here, so you have the time.

First, I simply do not care about my posts older than one year.

Secondly, I am not going to go through two and half thousand posts to please some anonymous MWO player - especially if I can expect to get posts where I was merely quoted on top of it. Not to talk that some of my posts might no be even visible anymore if they were in some threads that were "disappeared" by the mods.

T e c h 4 9, on 08 November 2020 - 07:15 AM, said:

And if you really beleive it to be too tedious or too time-consuming as you have better things to do with your time and energy - fine, I'll accept that answer - then just post your constructive feedback of how to improve MWO, right here, right now. Can you do that?

I am not a man especially close to Russ Bullock's heart, so I see no point in wasting my effort on something like that again. I think that I will rather drop into the game to enjoy it, while it still exists.

[eggyh4ck99BarrelsAndRumAint1Yar]

I just saw this on the internet

Why did hawken die ?

It's really simple actually. Lack of content update, very little communication between the development team and the community, and little to no marketing.

So to keep mwo alive we need, content update, communication, and some form of marketing...

[AnAnachronismAlive]

@ Martian
@ Tech49

Do not make this into some kind of personal feud, lads. Opinions on

• how to make this a better place to spend time/money on (if possible at all),
  
• PGI's ability and (truthful) willingness to make this a better game to spend time/money on (if possible at all),

may differ and that is fine. Oneself has to decide about his willingness to invest (any more) faith, effort, time or lifeblood into a somewhat uncertain future of MWO including the risk of being burned (another time). No matter what choice any of us is going to make here, in the light of the past years it is justified - be it proactive or refusing.

But please do not succumb to the general "(WorldWideWeb)Zeitgeist of unwillingness" when it comes to reflecting upon oneselves and others opinions. Opinions are nothing static, but should be the result of on-going debate (ye, I know ... time-consuming and painful, so not very valued these days) based on arguments. And once it hits the space of speculation/dogmatism we gotta accept another belief for what it is without branding it or the person promoting it as the devil himself ...