339 replies to this topic

[WiNNiep00h]

i would like to see a VR mode where i can look around in my mech cockpit

[Horseman]

MaschineGott, on 10 November 2020 - 04:12 PM, said:

Also if we're FINALLY doing IS omnis, are we going to see omni variants of existing mechs such as the Blackjack BJ2-O and the Centurion CN11-O? Or are we finally going to get some wanted stuff like the Templar and Avatar?

I expect we'll see the Blackjack and Centurion before Templar and Avatar.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Buenaventura, on 10 November 2020 - 04:33 PM, said:

Sorry for the nitpick, another missed one (that has so few variants that we won't see it in MWO anyway):
Gunslinger GUN-1ERD

It's rear firing MPLs are in the legs. I only remembered that one because I had it for a while in our unit.

...holy cow how did I miss that? I love the Gunslinger!

I must have just eventually started assuming all the lasers were in the shoulders like the Battlemaster (since it's a very close design to a Battlemaster, and I don't get to play tabletop very often).

[Y E O N N E]

IS OMNIMECHS YEEEEEEEEEEEES

[udoshi]

udoshi, on 10 November 2020 - 03:20 PM, said:

This is your chance to turn the game around and all you 'have' to do is convince senior management not turn their ship around and not hunt whales with it; and there's a better way.
Thats it.

Lastly, and I forgot this as the most important one:

you need an advertising budget. also a QA budget.

PGI: No matter what you do, no matter how you fix the game, somehow, you -have to- have tono uncertain ifs and ors buts

Promote the game somehow. that's going to take some investment to figure out how and where you're going to do it.

You are also gonna need a fresh-eyes QA pass and to make sure that management has open and fresh minds about turning their stuff around, and that the game is fun and the progression isn't crap.

As long as you can manage these things and the message is backed up by fact and not a thin coat of lies over going back to your old ways after a player boom, you will succeed, but the message has to be backed up and unified across the board.

[MaschineGott]

udoshi, on 10 November 2020 - 05:23 PM, said:

Lastly, and I forgot this as the most important one:

you need an advertising budget. also a QA budget.

PGI: No matter what you do, no matter how you fix the game, somehow, you -have to- have tono uncertain ifs and ors buts

Promote the game somehow. that's going to take some investment to figure out how and where you're going to do it.

You are also gonna need a fresh-eyes QA pass and to make sure that management has open and fresh minds about turning their stuff around, and that the game is fun and the progression isn't crap.

As long as you can manage these things and the message is backed up by fact and not a thin coat of lies over going back to your old ways after a player boom, you will succeed, but the message has to be backed up and unified across the board.

This.

I have NEVER seen an ad for MWO. Everything I have EVER seen has been word of mouth or through mechwarrior lore/BT Universe people.
Word of mouth is not enough for a game like this.

AND DO NOT DO ADS THAT TARGET JUST BTU FANS, make sure they appeal to people who may have NEVER heard of Mechwarrior/BattleTech.

[Sereglach]

Alright, you want those of us who gave our two cents sticking with the conversation, I'll stick with the conversation as long as I have a hope it can be fruitful. I sincerely hope you're able to prove to all of us that PGI means it's serious about revitalizing MWO.

First off, commentary on the bullets listed within your original post:

NEW PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Spoiler

Quote

Change Starting Tier (to 4.5)

Honestly, I think everyone should start at the bottom. I'm presuming this means starting in Tier 5 but half way to Tier 4; and if that's the case then I 100% approve.

Quote

Update Trial 'Mechs (regularly with appropriate consultation)

Okay, here's the thing that needs to happen with Trial mechs. Trials need to be solid builds that are universally simple and easy to use. No more than 2 weapon groups, weapons as evenly spread on the mech as possible (a new player is NOT skilled or even versed in shielding techniques), as little heat issues as possible, always having energy weapons for backup, and making sure the trial mechs have their weapon groups bracketed by range.

Also, in the mech lab you can assign nicknames to mechs. See if you can forcibly add nicknames to trial mechs that identify them by a solid role or function (LRM support, Brawler, Hit and Run, etc.).

Quote

Increase Cadet Bonus

As long as its enough to buy at least 1 mech and fully kit it out then you're set.

Quote

Update In-game Tutorial

Good move. Update all the loading screen "tips" while you're at it, since most of them are inaccurate.

Quote

Establish New Player Video Tutorials (official and community)
MWO Discord Channel (update MW5 Discord to MWO/MW5)
Update Wiki / Add Wiki Contributors

More ways and guides for people to get help and find useful information is always a good thing. Also, I'm sure you'll find plenty of volunteers for this.

However, make sure the videos/guides/wiki are information driven within the function of the game and not opinionated based on any sort of gameplay meta. For example, "These are jump jets and this is how to use them." vs. "These are jump jets, but don't mount more than one because otherwise they're trash and you just want to use them for making snap-turns."

If people want meta advice that's when they can hop into a Discord Channel or in-game VOIP and start getting meta-based input.

FEATURES

Spoiler

Quote

Skill Tree / Grind Reduction

I don't care about the grind reduction, per se. There really isn't that terrible of a grind, except for maybe the c-bill expenditure; and that could be addressed. However, what I care about is addressing the web. Let people invest points specifically into what they want to invest in (someone running a gauss build doesn't want to invest in a bunch of heat reduction to get to cooldown nodes, for example) while also cutting down on the number of tiers, thereby each upgrade becomes more pronounced and noticable.

Quote

Remove Torso Heat Spike Mechanic

Are you specifically referring to the loss of cooling on loss of a side torso, or is this something different that's eluding me at the moment? If it's the latter, then I don't care. If it's the former, then I think that it should be retained for the sake of giving you a means of balancing IS vs. Clan XL and LFE engines.

Quote

Heat Management Values Not Representative of Heat Efficiency

This does need addressing. I think the best would be to actually add the Heat Capacity, Cooling per second, Alpha Heat, and Heat per group to the UI. Heat per group could even be done in the weapon grouping UI, if it's easier to do that way, so people can see how heat-hungry various groups are. Also, flamers are bugged in this regard until you fix flamers, as they throw the current heat management completely out of wack . . . more on that later.

Quote

Simplify Command Wheel

Sure, plenty of junk on there that doesn't really need to be there and/or should be shunted to the battle map and people who take on command roles.

Quote

Remove Time of Day Change in Matches (FPS hit)

Fine by me, I thought it was a neat feature, but it did feel odd watching ~6 hours pass in 10-15 minutes.

Quote

UI Performance Pass / Scaling?

Bug fixes and improvements should always be done and always being worked on. Period.

MAPS

Spoiler

Quote

New Community-Driven Map (Community input from start to finish)

As outlined in my previous post, you've got LOTS of people from the community to help you with maps. Even if they're just handing you layouts and you apply a tileset to them, it's still help in PGI making more maps; and MWO needs more maps.

Quote

Update Unbalanced Maps
Spawn Point Fixes

These go hand-in-hand in a lot of ways and should be addressed. If you're not actively making a new map then you should be working on improving/reusing the maps you already have.

There was talk about taking current good maps and reusing them with different tilesets and a few layout tweaks. That's a lot of easy wins in making new maps, as well.

MECHS

Spoiler

Quote

New Community-Driven 'Mech (Community input to new 'Mech chassis choice)

This should be plural; and I think we all know what some of them are. First get the rest of the classics out. You can readily do a "Succession Wars Classics" pack with the Wasp/Stinger (not unlike the Charger/Hatamoto-Chi), Chameleon, Crusader, and Longbow to good success.

Outside of that I'm interested in the Mongoose, Clint (IIC), Shadow Hawk IIC, Griffon IIC, and Urbanmech IIC, as well as the Tarantula and Hatchetman if you can throw in quads and melee.

If PGI wants to do it through community polling, here's how you need to lay it out. You need to cite what mechs you're considering, what variants you're considering, and what their hardpoints are going to be. There are a lot of people with confusion and false assumptions over some chassis and variants. For example, a lot of people think of MechCommander's Hollander as the original, when in reality that's the Hollander II. Where the original Hollander would be a completely unviable gimmick in MWO without breaking the builds (1 location with hardpoints), the Hollander II could possibly be a reasonable addition to the game.

Then, once people can see what you're thinking, let them give feedback and input on the chassis, variants, and hardpoint layouts before you go putting anything to a vote. At the very least, you could use this method to narrow down to a "finals" or something.

Quote

New 'Mech Variants

As long as they have a unique flavor within any given chassis I'm fine with all the variants you could possibly dream of. There's plenty of ways to make similar stock variants unique via AMS hardpoints, significant differences in overall hardpoint inflation/counts, engine limits, jump jet limits, and quirks. Just be sure to make them truly unique with significant changes.

Quote

Rescale 'Mechs (for fun and role vs volumetric)

As I talked about previously, look very long and hard at the two big MW5 resize mods available. They are both volumetric AND make sense; and almost all mechs get smaller. Again, PGI did the resize, but they did it POORLY by going the exact opposite direction that everyone expected and wanted. You can have both volumetric rescaling AND rescaling that makes gameplay more enjoyable . . . it's already been done.

Quote

Fix Mech Mobility (Desync)

Keep engine desync, in my opinion. Using unique mobility values for turn and twist rates, as well as arm movement, allows you to make mechs unique. While there are some mechs that might need some help, make sure to maintain the viability of all chassis in the game. As soon as an assault can easily track and shoot a light mech running across their screen at 130-170kph within 300m then you've pushed the balance too far in favor of the heavy slow mechs. Even if you ditch the desync, then you need to maintain that level of balance between weight classes.

The early days of MWO had a decent

Quote

Update Bolt-Ons (Stay Attached)

Do it. I don't truly understand why they weren't this way in the first place. I understand a bolt-on falling off when the section of mech is destroyed, but they shouldn't fall off the second they're grazed with a laser.

Quote

Quirks / Set of 8's for Under Performers

Quirks should always be the subject of balance, same with weapons. If a specific chassis is regularly over or under performing, then it should be getting assessed for balancing by the next patch.

Quote

Armor Balance for Arm Weapon-Only 'Mechs (Jenner, Jagermech, Rifleman)

This is pretty simple. Bonuses need to actually be on both the arm and torso. Structure bonuses on the torso don't mean much when crit-hunter builds shred internals significantly faster than armor, even with quirk buffs. If you want to have both armor and structure buffs on the torso sections, that's great, but they do need armor buffs in those areas.

Quote

Weapon Balance Pass

MW5 Flamers in MWO . . . we need this to happen. Even if the values aren't exactly the same (everything should always be subject to balance, and even I'll admit the MWO Flamers could be considered a bit OP). However, fixed flat values that turn Flamers into energy MGs with heat damage should have been done years ago. Besides, the current implementation is bugged for it's heat management values in the UI, it's borked with it's gamey firing mechanics that are still exploitable, and you can repurpose the Flamer skill nodes to increase heat damage, making basic flamers energy machine guns, but making them do more notable heat damage with skill tree investment.

As for the rest, there should be weapon and equipment changes every patch. EVERY. SINGLE. PATCH. WITHOUT. FAIL. Until a time is reached when every weapon and piece of equipment actually feels like it's in a good spot. It's one of the easiest things to do, and there are lots of weapons and equipment that need attention (Flamers, Jump Jets, Command Console, Targeting Computers, Small Lasers, Pulse Lasers, etc.).

Also with this, reassess and actually try the rapid firing pulse lasers. If we're being honest with ourselves, PGI didn't really try it on the test servers, despite their claims. I'm talking cutting recharge rates and burn times down to 1/4 of what they currently are, while cutting heat generation and damage down to 1/3 of what it currently is (ratios merely for example). It needs to be an actually drastic change that makes them feel like a truly unique type of laser.

Quote

IS Omnimechs / Engine Discussion

IS XL get the current 60% penalties that Clans get on ST destruction.
Clan XL and IS LFE get 30% penalties on ST destruction.

There, that fixes it. That's seriously all you need to do. Save the single ST loss = Death for the XXL engines, when it'll apply to both IS and Clan mechs. At the same time the difference in penalty is stark enough to actually give IS players a viable choice between XL and LFE aside from crit/tonnage savings (otherwise XL will almost always win out).

MODES

Spoiler

Quote

Review / Update Game Modes

Implement respawns in all game modes and make the emphasis on the mode, and not your single life in the mech. Incursion until base destruction, Conquest until max resources, Skirmish until a certain kill count is reached, etc.

Save the limited lives and importance of your mech's life or Solaris and Faction Play.

Quote

Solution for Faction Play

First off, I'd say make any and all games you play as a member of a faction beneficial towards your faction, even if at slower rates than in a Faction Play event. You can show on faction leaderboards, or whatever, how well each faction is doing in whatever metric you want. Even during events, you can have those quick play "points" apply to the event if you so desire.

As for "Freelancers" we need incentive to fill slots. Period. Give a Freelancer 1/2 the faction points that a loyalist, or signed merc unit receives, for whatever faction they fill in for. Make up the difference with a large % c-bill bonus for filling in the gaps in the match. This is especially beneficial for the Freelancers that are newer players who need c-bills above just about all else, but also encourages maximum effort for the best yield.

Quote

Solution for Solaris

When Solaris was pitched, everyone thought of and was hoping for -primarily- the huge Free-For-All matches known in Solaris Lore. 1v1 was for grudge matches/championships and small team play is still multi-faction (a lance from every house, for example).

If you can't get free-for-all matches in Solaris, then consider using it for faction events or just premium private lobbies.

Quote

General Match Maker Improvements

There was some progress made in this regard, from my understanding. Why did it stop?

Quote

8v8 vs 12v12
Solo / Group Queues

Whatever gets more and better quality matches.

Quote

Examine Match Scoring (AMS)

I don't think that AMS itself is the problem. It's the fact that the overwhelming number of support actions a person can take in match mean almost nothing for match score. Look at the match score of light mechs that spend the whole match capping in conquest. They could be the lynch-pin that wins the match, but have one of the lowest scores on the team. There were older threads that went over this back in the day.

Quote

Remove 2 Minute Requirement for Reconnection

If you reconnect, you're good. If you disconnect before you die and never come back, you lose credit for the match. Yes, there'll still be fringe cases in extenuating circumstances where someone loses credit by no fault of their own, but it'll be far less than the 2 minute limit creates.

Quote

Private Lobby Updates (More Options, Maps, Host Assignment, More Spectators)

Sure, why not?

Quote

Dailies/Weeklies

Again, sure, why not?

SOCIAL . . . skipping this section because I have no opinion here and don't really care as long as whatever is done doesn't take too many resources away from other facets of improvement.

NEW FEATURES

Spoiler

Quote

Special Event Queue (Possible Faction Play/Solaris and 8v8/12v12 Solution)

Right along with daily and weekly events . . . why not?

Quote

Advance the Timeline

No. We have next to ZERO reason to actually advance the timeline right now into the Jihad era.

However, there's still plenty that can be added to the game within the current timeline era. There are lots of mechs, equipment, etc. that aren't too far off from where we are and still within the current timeline. Including, but not limited to, ER Flamers, Plasma Rifles, Plasma Cannons, Mech Rifles, HAG systems, Mag Shots, AP Gauss, Mech Mortars, XL Gyros, Compact Gyros, Small Cockpits, Heavy Ferro Fibrous, Heat Resistant Armor, Reactive Armor, Reflective Armor, and Hardened Armor.

That's not even mentioning the HORDE of mech chassis we still have to pull from; and with PGI making their own variants there's really no reason to be ignoring any possibility at this point for the "3 variant rule".

MONETIZATION

Spoiler

Quote

New Player Packs
Starter Packs (Brawling, Long Range, Heavy)

Sure, just make sure they're balanced for what was mentioned above regarding trial mechs and NOT things based purely off of the meta.

Quote

Themed Packs (Pop Culture, NASCAR)

Sure, why not? Most probably won't be anything I'm interested in, but more monetization venues are always worth looking into.

Quote

New Items (Metallic Paints, Custom UI Colors, Voice Packs, Sound Packs, Laser Color

Absolutely. Vanity is a great way to go for monetization. The only thing I'd say is that laser color should stay within a recognizable purview of the laser type if it will affect all other players within the match.

Quote

Customization, MechLab Customization)

As I said in my first post in the previous thread. First slot the item in the crit slots, then show on the mech where the item can go with glowing holograms and click the desired location, then see it slotted into the appropriate hardpoint slot.

Quote

Improve Cockpit Item Bonuses (added value)

Sure, why not . . . it makes the items people have spent real money on a bit more valuable and useful.

As for things not mentioned within the main thread, these are things I'd like to add into the discussion:

• MWO to MW5 monetization. Again, collector's editions of mech packs could come with DLC codes to put the chassis into MW5 as well as putting up DLC for MW5 to get the mechs into the game standalone.
  
• AI should be looked into for the game, and not just for use in tutorials. To put emphasis on this, online games such as Smite, League of Legends, Paladins, Overwatch, and For Honor have PVE or single-player-esque modes with reduced rewards that let them get used to the game or just play more casually. Yet these people still often spend money either while getting used to the game or because it caters to a play style they like. There are even MW5 mods that take the simple, but clean, AI of MW5 and enhance it greatly. See if you can utilize that and build upon it further.
  
• Engine upgrades NEED to put put onto the long-term roadmap. If you don't push forward with an engine upgrade now, then you're already conceding defeat and that you'll lose the license in a few years; and Microsoft will see that right away. Every long-term online game goes through engine upgrades if it wants to survive. Start planning now if you're serious about keeping MWO alive past the 5 year mark.
  
• Melee and knockdowns go hand in hand and should be looked into. It was brought up as a possibility, but seems to have been looked over. Are we just going to ignore it?
  
• Also I'd love to see investigation into quad mechs. I think the current mech lab can support it, and implementing them mechanically I don't think is as difficult as it seems. Destroying 1 leg = 80% speed, destroying 2 legs = 40% speed, destroying 3 legs = dead.

Edited by Sereglach, 10 November 2020 - 07:05 PM.

[cougurt]

udoshi, on 10 November 2020 - 05:23 PM, said:

Lastly, and I forgot this as the most important one:

you need an advertising budget. also a QA budget.

PGI: No matter what you do, no matter how you fix the game, somehow, you -have to- have tono uncertain ifs and ors buts

Promote the game somehow. that's going to take some investment to figure out how and where you're going to do it.

You are also gonna need a fresh-eyes QA pass and to make sure that management has open and fresh minds about turning their stuff around, and that the game is fun and the progression isn't crap.

As long as you can manage these things and the message is backed up by fact and not a thin coat of lies over going back to your old ways after a player boom, you will succeed, but the message has to be backed up and unified across the board.

any advertising is going to have to come after some serious improvements have been made to the new player experience and general level of polish, potentially even a complete re-launch on a new engine. the game in its current state simply isn't very palatable even to the relatively niche audience it may appeal to.

[TheCaptainJZ]

As a side note, although the graphics of this game are clearly dated, people will play an old looking game as long as it runs well and is fun and enjoyable. I would like to see a migration to a new engine but I realize that would be a major commitment that PGI just might not be able to afford. Should actively be working on it in the background with as much energy as possible though.

[Big-G]

Jackal Noble, on 10 November 2020 - 04:25 AM, said:

Easy









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.

Shutup and take my c-bills!

[SoulRcannon]

I've done a couple of threads on this already, one of them quite recently on the possible direction of all of this:

https://mwomercs.com...gestion-thread/

https://mwomercs.com...love-then-what/

Happy to see a lot of what's discussed being on the table. I'll try to keep this a little more brief.

Let's put the most important bit first; as many have said in this thread, there are things that need to be addressed ASAP, preferably before the Steam release of MW5. Some of the New Player Experience points need to be pushed through fast. Then with the steam release you could add a link to a MWO page on the MW5 main menu.

Now onto some other stuff. I'm not a fan of the custom laser colours idea. Have you considered making these "metallic paints" you mention another layer (perhaps labelled "finish") in the camo tab? It's already in the game - variants or camo patterns having a metallic sheen to them, or being more glossy or matte. You could then sell differently tinted metallic sheens to use with colours/camo players already have, alongside more pearlescent, gloss or matte finishes to give the player the opportunity to change/remove their finish on patterns where that finish was once fixed. A matte finish would be a nice choice for those who like to paint their mechs "tactically" too!

It would be really disappointing if the "Faction Play solution" ends up relegating a mode with more depth than most of the game to being partially active in the "event queue". Please don't shelve Faction Play for your event queue. If group queue comes back, I think that that'd be the place to screw with mutators or special event bonuses for 48h-or-so periods. At least in that case Faction Play would still be there for people who want that sort of thing more.

If IS Omnis are being considered, IS XL (or all mech engine) mechanics need revising. My suggestion is to add a bonus to STD engines (a carefully considered -% crit chance, or +% CT structure), make IS XL behave like cXL/LFE does now, then on cXL/LFE cut by between a third and half the current effect ST loss has on speed, dissipation and heatcap. It should fit in well alongside moves like more agility passes or scaling mechs smaller/better to increase the TTK (these latter things raising the skill ceiling more than the former lowers it). Seems like everyone likes getting rid of the heatspike too, which is nice.

If more mechs are coming, consider working on them alongside development of MW5 content. And please try to move away from the old mech pack model, at the very least it needs to be priced down and have GSP thrown in with it. MW5 synchronised events and bundles would mean more IS mechs in the immediate timeframe, but there's no reason why it can't also be done alongside real potential money making chassis like the Urbie-IIC, Bane or the Phoenix Hawk-IIC. It's not like IS doesn't still have some lovely classic chassis to rustle up either, stuff like the Wasp, Valkyrie, Wyvern, Crusader, Guillotine, Flashman, Longbow, Devastator... the list goes on.

Finally, would you like an idea for a theme pack? You could go a couple of ways with this, could be Goldilocks-like, could be like Pokemon evolutions, could be a "don't talk to me or my son again" father's day pack... At any rate, look at the Urbie IIC, Flashman and Imp next to one another and try telling me they don't resemble each other a little bit.

So much for brief... I'll leave it on that note, hope things will work out well

Edited by SoulRcannon, 10 November 2020 - 08:32 PM.

[RJF JES]

I propose to organize a system in which players could contribute to the development of MBO

[Belorion]

I am ok with the addition of 8v8, but not the removal of 12v12

[Voice of Kerensky]

Joshua McEvedy, on 10 November 2020 - 05:14 AM, 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.

You know. I've been in the game since 2016. Never during this time have I seen a matchmaker have problems in solo quick play. The maximum waiting time for a match was no more than two minutes during my playing time (and I have the worst playing time, when North America has mostly stopped playing and Europe has not started yet).
Perhaps you are now talking about the dead the group game? Well, yes, she died a long time ago. But is her death a reason to also kill a solo quick play?
I'm certainly not sure ... maybe my head is some kind of defect. But something whispers to me that group play for those who want to fight group against group, group play has a considerable sporting component. A solo game for those who want to quickly play a match, perhaps with a bottle of beer, just relax. I repeat, maybe I have problems with my head, but it still seems to me that mixing the above two things is simply illogical.
The main mistake of the PGI will be that they will probably listen to the whining of people who say simply: "And I want to run with my friend with a bottle of beer in this game in the evening. We just like to spend time this way." At the same time, these people for some reason forget that there is a faction play in MWO, where you can go with even 11 friends.

Best regards, your Voice of Kerensky

Edited by Voice of Kerensky, 10 November 2020 - 10:28 PM.

[eddieb]

Quote

Quote

Advance the Timeline

No. We have next to ZERO reason to actually advance the timeline right now into the Jihad era.

However, there's still plenty that can be added to the game within the current timeline era. There are lots of mechs, equipment, etc. that aren't too far off from where we are and still within the current timeline. Including, but not limited to, ER Flamers, Plasma Rifles, Plasma Cannons, Mech Rifles, HAG systems, Mag Shots, AP Gauss, Mech Mortars, XL Gyros, Compact Gyros, Small Cockpits, Heavy Ferro Fibrous, Heat Resistant Armor, Reactive Armor, Reflective Armor, and Hardened Armor.

That's not even mentioning the HORDE of mech chassis we still have to pull from; and with PGI making their own variants there's really no reason to be ignoring any possibility at this point for the "3 variant rule".

If the community isn't for advancing the timeline, adding new weapons and armor types as you have above is a great idea. It's a way to bring new life to old mechs, and bring back old players. And open up new variants and mechs. And shake up the meta.

[ORIGINAL SteelWolf]

Id like to see multi monitor display support for mo itors od mixed sizes. I have a 1366x800 32 inch tv for my primary. On the ledt is a 17 in sqaure dell and the right is a wide screen 2p inch. . maybe have options to have maps open on them? Break out and dragable modules. Leave your primary screen almost blank and the chats and stats tracking and maps can be left open in windows on onther monitors.

[XDevilsChariotX]

I got bored tonight, sat down and did this as most of us complain about it.

239 total nodes currently.
51 total nodes without the JJ tree
55 total nodes with the JJ tree. < rather see this removed and global buff to JJ's


There are two ways we can all look at this. 1) Have PGI pick a number of skill points were allowed.
2) This will be the new "Mastery System" where we unlock all the nodes once and were done with it.
3) With either option chosen, we should not have to follow a certain line, just pick whatever nodes we need.
The 2nd option is what I'm most hoping for. I also imagine the %'s would have to be tweaked?, but I think it's a start. I cut down the number of nodes the best I could. Thoughts? For me right off the bat I see this could help a ton with Mobility across the board.

Will post this in an official thread about the skill tree if we get one as well.



Edited: Made a change to weapon tree layout and Armor from a suggestion here in the forums.

Edited for Proposal 2 with New Player experience in mind.

Edited by XDevilsChariotX, 12 November 2020 - 11:21 AM.

[Ruediger Steiner]

Why does it have to be a skill TREE?
Where i have to use nodes i don´t need.
Can´t we just have the nodes?

[XDevilsChariotX]

Wishmast3r, on 11 November 2020 - 01:39 AM, said:

Why does it have to be a skill TREE?
Where i have to use nodes i don´t need.
Can´t we just have the nodes?

That wouldn't be off the table at all if the 1st option in my post was chosen. Set number of nodes allowed and we could pick any nodes without having to follow a certain line in the tree. I guess that could be used as well in the 2nd option. Good idea!

PS: edited my post to include your suggestion.

Edited by XDevilsChariotX, 11 November 2020 - 01:49 AM.

[_Sherman_]

So here's a suggestion

Can you finally allow members of units to use the Cbills in the unit coffers for personal needs outside of FP?

iirc that's how the coffers were originally supposed to work