Monday Mechwarrior Update With Daeron #02
#81
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:25 AM
above mechs - Dragonfire (credit to jjm1), Brigand (credit to jjm1), UrbanmechIIC (seriously low hanging fruit), Bane/Kraken (because it's BA). Bonus mention - CRUSADER. Extra Bonus - FLASHMAN
Honorable Mention -
Also some people think IS Omnis like the raptor would be good, but whatever.
Fix accel/deccel (no mech should float)
Fix Torso Speed (scalar)
Fix Torso Range (flat range across all mechs)
Revamp skill tree
Seriously figure out how to convert to UE4 without pissing off too many people. Regardless, the general pop is going to moan about it, but it is the right thing to do moving forward especially business wise; if you want to bring more than piecemeal new players into the fold bringing the tech base up is first and foremost. Come up with some sort of player loyalty program that provides former MWO 1 players with premium time/ decals/ bonus extras based on actual $ invested. Hardcore F2P players can suck it up and grind from the fresh because they don't actually contribute outside of appeasing their own whims.
More worried about the concern of the license running out in 5 years, 2025 ( major red flag). How can you expect to stay in business if your plan is to milk a 10 year old game engine?
Monetization will be done by actually showing excitement and new development for the product, rather than the downward spiral/maintenance routine of the last 3 years. Face the music, get !@#$ done.
New Map - Sand/Desert with Volcano in ocean ala Crimson Strait
New Map - Grasslands with Monuments
New Map - Daytime sprawling low level city w/o a central point.
#82
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:25 AM
Mister Maf, on 10 November 2020 - 04:12 AM, said:
Standardized laser color is vital for telling what is going on in the heat of battle. There's a huge difference between a large laser and a medium laser. Color customization runs the risk of making it more difficult to tell what's going on in a game that is already packed dense with information.
As long as it is client-side - and it would be - who cares?
#83
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:31 AM
Daeron Katz, on 09 November 2020 - 09:27 PM, said:
Hi Dearon, to be honest I am kind of disappointed by your list. Thats to vague, I would say every player with 1 year experience could have wrote 80% of this list right the top of his head.
Apart from that, you should distinguish btw. the often mentioned low hanging fruits and the long term plan. My advice would be to create separate threads for the low hanging fruits as fast as possible, to make communication easier and faster (e.g. spawn points, trial mechs etc. these are really no topics to discuss if they have to happen. they are just broken). That would also make it easier for you, to crwal through all this feedback and ultimately save your time. You really have to start channeling the feedback.
Connected to this: I really fear that the outcome of the discussion could be something that nobody wanted in the first place. That happens a lot, bc people arguee based on the current situation. So you should create scenarios for the whole game. Having 8vs8 quickply is different, if you have 12vs12 faction play at the same time from having 8vs8, if faction play is only availible once in a while.
In this regard I am really a kind of worried, what you wrote about faction play and solaris. It is not the first time you metion these 2 game modes in one sentence in regards to be event based. I got the impresion, that you follow the idea, that faction play should only happen during events.
However I think the majority of people argue, that solaris should only be event based. That makes totally sense. Currently I see litteraly only a handfull of players in this mode. The reason is probably, that the mode is horrible implemented and there are only a few people, that want to be hammered by tryhards in the ever same builds. If you want to keep the mode alive you should reduce it by queue and mechnumbers to figure out, what even could work, bc currently there is so much wrong with this mode.
In contrast so many people used to play faction play and only left, bc you failed to develop this mode. Even though there are less people playing faction play these days, they are a lot more then solaris players. These people want to play faction play constantly, but have it spiced up with events. Preferable specific faction play events, when no quick play event takes place at the same time! It would be nice if you could carify this in your documents and statements. I think this was mentioned so many times over the last years, but was never really adressed by PGI.
Also you should think about, what great difference there is btw. solaris and faction play in regards to the invested resources. People who play faction warfare have invested a lot of time in getting dropdecks, learn how to play these modes and knowledge of the maps. If you make faction warfare event based, people will be frustrated, that you made all this efforts worthless. I cant believe that they will forgive you that. Apart from that, it will be difficult to maintain and build up the knowledge needed to play siege mode, if it is not availible all the time. Actually I had the impression, that you did not consindered this.
Edited by TWLT S, 10 November 2020 - 10:57 AM.
#84
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:40 AM
Pipe dream - allow for camo scale, cockpit coloration, and bolt on placement.
#85
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:46 AM
1) Lock tier movement during cadet phase. I thought I was doing great, watching the bar change, then was told it fills from left to right, not empties right to left...
2) Bring scouting back to Faction Play. It was a ton of fun, and gave an additional mode. But also change it up so win/loss isn't just hey, lance on lance skirmish mode! No, each team should have a primary objective that has to be completed regardless of the enemy team, not unlike Incursion where winning against the enemy team isn't enough. Since each phase gave an advantage to the main fight, say scouting phase 1 would require you knock out a radar dish, or jammer. Defenders knocking out the jammer means defenses are on around the dish, radar knocked out means the jammer becomes untargetable.
3) Don't make Faction Play purely event based. But instead a particular fight should top out in a day of a particular match type. Say a day of all conquests and the planet goes to the victorious side. Gives some events that can happen, without taking away non-event fun.
#86
Posted 10 November 2020 - 04:48 AM
Quote
Conquest game mode:
On large maps like "Polar Highlands" you can win a game by focusing on the capture points. On smaller maps however the best strategy is to wipe out the enemy team and then cap. This is so effective that smaller maps on conquest mode play as skirmish. How to make capture points more important on the smaller maps? Perhaps reduce the cap points needed depending on map size?
Domination game mode:
It is skirmish at a forced location. To spice it up the domination circle should be moving around the map. Lets say the circle changes location every two minutes?
Skirmish mode:
Well it is your basic team death match with the added annoyance in the end of having to hunt down hiding players. A last man standing radar sweep would help here.
Assault game mode:
It's just like skirmish but instead of hunting the last mech you can cap a base. There is also the occasional silly base rush with both teams doing almost zero damage to each other...
One possible way to improve this game mode would be that if both teams had mechs standing at their opponents bases then capture rate would slow down significantly. This way you could buy some extra time to engage in actual combat.
Incursion game mode:
The radar jammer range could be increased. And the dropship could be made more useful.
#87
Posted 10 November 2020 - 05:14 AM
Voice of Kerensky, on 09 November 2020 - 10:57 PM, said:
Dude, you don't seem to understand. The current low game population cannot withstand separating the queues. It's why Paul merged them in the first place---the matchmaker had quit working and player loss was accelerating because of it.
#88
Posted 10 November 2020 - 05:27 AM
I like the progress being made in a logical and project planning approach.
dr3dnought's priority list is pretty good, i dont agree with all of it, but mostly on point. (i'd probably increase the number of levels of priority, taking into account the interlinking effects of various changes and how much can be done in each patch cycle).
I have some ideas regarding spawn points I need to flesh out the details, but its rooted in work I did with Tarogato many years ago, when he had some neat map tweak/redesign ideas for Crimson Straight and Viridian Bog.
The key to it is 'sets of spawn points' with variable drop locations, where the midpoint between each sets spawns is a good and fair battle location. as long as there are enough sets to keep each match being different, make scouting relevant, and make it so that people don't automatically guess where the enemy team is spawning.
#89
Posted 10 November 2020 - 05:34 AM
Looks good for all the new players.
So the Flea and locust will get smaller right for the volumetric adjustments, lol?
#90
Posted 10 November 2020 - 05:36 AM
Need to take advantage of the returning players and Steam launch new players. We need a patch planned now, not planned sometime after six weeks. Including some things that have been complained about for a long time. Here is what I think can be done in a patch prior to December 10.
1 - New player tier to 4.5.
2 - TBR mobility set to equal Sun Spider. Logic: engine size difference compensates for +5 ton difference. It is one of the most iconic mechs, and one most returning and new players will try first. Right now, it is more than lackluster.
3 - CSPL to 5 damage, all other stats back to pre 2017 change. DPS spreadsheet does not show that you need excessive engagement time to deal noticeable damage. It hurt too many smaller mechs that have limited laser points and/or available tonnage.
4 - Up anemic and lackluster Skill Tree percentages. Three suggestions. Speed Tweak to 2% per node. That way we get back to old skill 10% for spending all those nodes. Torso Pitch to 4%. Most mechs torso is 20 or 30 degrees. Current 10% total for all equals 2-3 degrees. Changing to 4-6 degrees is not game breaking. Reinforced Casing to 2%. Again, not game breaking for what is a 'gating' node.. There are plenty of others that need (temporary until it can be reworked) better percentages.
5 - If can be done easily, resize some of the most criticized mechs back to where they were prior to volumetric scaling. Jenners and Firestarters come to mind.
Now, make sure to mention that changes are not final, and are subject to change in the larger passes. Something to get the ball rolling.
#91
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:00 AM
I see a ton of varying feedback so I'll keep an eye out for specific discussions on each issue as they happen.
I'm most interested in the community driven new map -- hopefully it even pans into multiple maps.
Heat spikes, matchmaker balancing, starter bonuses, skill tree grind reduction, mobility/scaling changes, all these things will be nice quality of life improvements as well. Should make the game more appealing for new and veteran players alike.
Excited to see where this leads!
Edited by Lieutenant Hedgehog, 10 November 2020 - 06:00 AM.
#92
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:06 AM
A possible idea for adding novelty to the game to bring players back would be new weapons. I know this would be much later, and make balancing even more difficult, but the civil war weapon release was huge, to me at least, in terms of making the game last longer. Another idea would be to add weapons that are unique to a mech, such as a hatchet on a hatchet man or something along those lines.
Also, I think removing the side torso heat mechanic for Light Engines and Clan XL Engines isn't the best idea. I already find XL to be the better choice almost always, and buffing it... I know that it is confusing for new players, and probably worth removing but something else would need to be done to keep them balanced and I have no clue what that could be.
Edited by Gr Armpit, 10 November 2020 - 06:36 AM.
#93
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:09 AM
#94
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:10 AM
Gr Armpit, on 10 November 2020 - 06:06 AM, said:
If only we had established such a thing years ago... Oh wait, we have!
Next Mech Pack Poll!
Edited by Aidan Crenshaw, 10 November 2020 - 06:11 AM.
#95
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:13 AM
#96
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:17 AM
On the grind/gsp front, i've gotta say, as someone that whent hard on MC purchases EVERY time there was a GXP conversion sale, the GSP bundle was a kick in the face.
It was also a god send....I love it, but...still, the amount of money wasted on gxp conversions...I don't even wanna think about it.
Right now the skill tree is punishing with testing out new things, unlock all of the nodes so that we can skill mechs freely using our sp/gsp rather than losing that sp if we pick up a node we don't want.
-More CHOICE! in the skill trees guys. Right now every skill tree is more or less the same.
What if we had select able skill trees? Say we have 4-5 skill tree slots, and we choose what trees we want. Then... add in more skill tree types, maybe role skill trees that are dependant on mech chassis. (I.E atlas has choices between Juggernaught, Brawler, Command, Fire Support), different weapon trees that we have to choose between, (Ballistic Focus, Missile Focus, Energy Focus, Mixed Weapon, Multi Ranged) that alter the way our weapons work with lock-out nodes. (3 options, pick one, each alters autocannon behaviour differently, for example).
Role skill trees can have give and take trade off nodes with conditional effects.
Example: Juggernaught "Skill name": Reduce damage taken by 30% when taking fire from more than 2-mechs,(1.5s activation window) reduce movement speed by 45%.
Theres a tonne of games that use skill trees, look to them. People like clicky trees, they don't like a hundreds of tiny nodes that do nothing. Even the smallest nodes in trees in other games are looking at performance boosts of 5-10% and even then, their skill trees are smaller and you have less points to put in.
You can have nodes that cost more than 1SP for greater effects. Or stacking nodes, that increase in effect the more points you put into that node, which usually only goes up to 3, with the 3rd node point adding greater effect than the first two combined.
Right now, you could just roll our current skill trees into the base stats of the mechs and for the most part it wouldn't be any different.
-Survivability is a problem, the survival tree isn't optional, its necessary, and it doesn't provide enough of an armor boost for larger mechs. Mechs cant eat damage, there is no "tank" role in the game, nothing can survive for more than a few seconds with concentrated fire from 2-3 mechs, let alone more.
Give us a base amount of back armor, move the 5 points of back armor that we put there to the general pool. The fact that we all front load so much despite the low mobility and risk from instant rear death is a clear indicator that we need more.
Split hit-boxes...a hit box location between 2 spots on a mech that splits damage between 2 locations.
-Balance updates....other games do these constantly, shifting things around. They don't only do this for the sake of balance, its also to shift the meta, which in and of itself breathes freshness into the game, it gives people new things to play with, new ways to do things.
Its difficult to do in mwo, because every time the balance shifts we have to pay an arm and a leg to re-adjust our stuff. You can get around that simply with a C-bill drop to everyone, whenever a balance patch goes out.
Anyways, good stuff so far Daeron. Looking forward to updates.
Edited by MechTech Dragoon, 10 November 2020 - 06:19 AM.
#97
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:23 AM
Quote
Heat Management Values Not Representative of Heat Efficiency
Could someone elaborate on what this means?
Quote
Simplify? I thought the consensus was that the command wheel could do with some extra commands.
Edited by selfish shellfish, 10 November 2020 - 06:24 AM.
#98
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:26 AM
selfish shellfish, on 10 November 2020 - 06:23 AM, said:
I think this targets the command wheels for company resp. lance commanders, which have way more options than are useful.
#99
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:30 AM
selfish shellfish, on 10 November 2020 - 04:48 AM, said:
Conquest game mode:
On large maps like "Polar Highlands" you can win a game by focusing on the capture points. On smaller maps however the best strategy is to wipe out the enemy team and then cap. This is so effective that smaller maps on conquest mode play as skirmish. How to make capture points more important on the smaller maps? Perhaps reduce the cap points needed depending on map size?
Domination game mode:
It is skirmish at a forced location. To spice it up the domination circle should be moving around the map. Lets say the circle changes location every two minutes?
Skirmish mode:
Well it is your basic team death match with the added annoyance in the end of having to hunt down hiding players. A last man standing radar sweep would help here.
Assault game mode:
It's just like skirmish but instead of hunting the last mech you can cap a base. There is also the occasional silly base rush with both teams doing almost zero damage to each other...
One possible way to improve this game mode would be that if both teams had mechs standing at their opponents bases then capture rate would slow down significantly. This way you could buy some extra time to engage in actual combat.
Incursion game mode:
The radar jammer range could be increased. And the dropship could be made more useful.
See - this here is excellent.
Also - thanks so much Daeron for putting in all the time on responding to a lot of points/discussions in this thread. I think that you (specifically) can continue to build good faith by really keeping up the good work and responding - and keeping in touch super consistently. (Posting/responding on a daily basis REALLY helps that out a lot.)
I like the direction we are heading - and I hope that we can keep it up in a manner that makes MWO a viable product/game again.
As a side note... this is just the opinion of someone who is outside looking in... it does kind of seem like PGI is hedging their bets with the future of MWO. I would really like to see the team say "Here is the plan for MechWarrior for the indefinite future" as opposed to "Well... we might lose it in four years..." Screw that - throw caution to the wind and build a product that is so good, it is unthinkable for anyone BUT PGI to have the licensing down the road - I know you can!
You guys have competent people, and a super enthusiastic community, and you can knock these products out of the park. Every time I read a post/listen to a podcast, I think of what Mitch Gitelman used to say about BattleTech - "In success, all things are possible" - and I think his killer-instinct (for lack of a better term) is what drove BattleTech to great places.
#100
Posted 10 November 2020 - 06:41 AM
Aidan Crenshaw, on 10 November 2020 - 06:10 AM, said:
Yes, this absolutely... Really shows that I'm a Mechcommander 2 player with my votes
If we could get it in game--thus allowing more players to see it--and have short descriptions for each mech so players who aren't as deep in the lore as some of us have more to go on than just those with the coolest names, I think this would be an incredible tool for PGI. Also potentially adding something to say "which weight class do you most want?"
16 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users