67 replies to this topic

[InnerSphereNews]

Check out the Town Hall Archive on YouTube!

Original Post Below

Greetings MechWarriors,

Are you interested in being a part of, or hearing about the future development of MechWarrior Online? Then come join us this coming Friday, December 11th at 4PM PST / 7PM EST / 12AM UTC on NGNGtv for a Community Townhall, and hear for yourself what's in store for MWO in 2021! We've been getting great feedback on the FORUMS, and this will be the last official opportunity to get your comments, questions, or concerns in front of Russ, Matt and Daeron before the holiday break. We will then process all of this information over the break and into the New Year, and go live with a flexible* roadmap for updates in January. Questions for the Townhall will almost exclusively be taken from this forum thread. For the best chance at getting your questions or concerns addressed, please be sure to get caught up on the relevant thread(s) in the COMMAND CHAIR, and get your post up here as soon as possible. Thank you for your participation thus far!

WHAT: MECHWARRIOR ONLINE 2021 COMMUNITY TOWNHALL

WHEN: FRIDAY DECEMBER 11TH @ 4PM PST / 7PM EST / 12AM UTC

WHERE: TWITCH.TV/NGNGTV

WHY: TO GIVE MWO FEEDBACK TO DEVS BEFORE HOLIDAY BREAK

WHO: YOU AND US

*Why flexible? Although some of our goals may be somewhat easily achieved and without complication, we have to be prepared to alter our plans based on new information, such as the potential affects of a change as significant as rescale, for example.

[CFC Conky]

First!

[C337Skymaster]

I'm interested, but it's a matter of getting the wife to let me ignore her for an hour or two at 7pm on a Friday Night... aka: not gonna happen. But I'm interested, nonetheless.

Honestly, though, my opinions are well documented in the forums, (even redacted in one case), and overlap about 80% with everyone else's opinions. I'm sure the community will be well represented on Friday, and I'd just get shouted down, regardless.

[C337Skymaster]

Suggestions for the new year:
1. Tanks with fixed loadouts and no heat mechanic to spice things up and give something for World of Tanks recruits to drive. (Balance no heat with longer cooldown, or something).
2. There's a post on Monday Update 5 talking about ways to implement the FP promises from the very first on-stage presentation announcing the mode. Implement that. Make FP it's own, completely isolated universe, for all I care, but give us a real economy, scarcity of resources, etc. Make it REAL, and make it FEEL real, even if it has to be isolated from QP/S7. I already started a new account because my old one was "full" and I wanted a challenge again. I'm open to FP being a real challenge to keep a 'mech running, a-la the actual Battletech universe.
3. Develop a "tech tree" for each faction (AS7-K is Kuritan, AS7-S is Steiner/Fedcom, AS7-D is universal, etc). All players must declare for a particular faction when they start playing. No penalty for switching, they just have to pick one, at random if need be. From the associated tech tree, they can pick ANY 'mech in its stock configuration as a trial 'mech. Basically: they've just enlisted with the faction military and have been "issued" a 'mech by the quartermaster. 20 basic skills should be applied, mostly to cover ECM (which should be maxed on any and all 'mechs that equip it), but could also include things like Advanced Zoom on the Adder-Prime or Awesome-9M, a few armor skills on the Atlas, that easy-reach Anchor Turn on all 48 KPH 'mechs, etc. Faction selection can spill over into Faction Play, but doesn't have to if that new, fully isolated, real-economy FP is implemented.
4. Short of player tanks for WoT recruits, AI tanks and aerospace fleshing each team out to 16 or 20 per side. (Get HBS to do the AI coding, just without the taking-turns bit). Battletech is supposed to be "combined arms", but we're not "combining" anything when it's just 12 'mechs facing off against 12 other 'mechs.
5. Crit Splitting. It can't be THAT hard to code. MW2 did it in 1995!!

And "crit splitting" is my idea of low-hanging fruit. You guys have your work cut out for you, and it's going to take much more than tweaking LRM flight trajectories again.

EDIT: I don't want to blow up this thread too much (two posts is already a lot if we want people to be able to find things again), so I'm putting a quote ahead of the original post, instead.

I just want to second this, wholeheartedly (and I'm also guilty):

Domenoth, on 07 December 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

• Faction Play has some anit-teamwork behaviors incentivized:
  
  • You earn XP in FP matches. But you should never bring a Mech that "needs" XP (I am guilty of this). Should rewards be reworked/redirected? Maybe only grant GXP? Or stop giving XP but increase the number of CBills?

Edited by C337Skymaster, 07 December 2020 - 07:05 PM.

[Domenoth]

Biggest things for me that I think have been buried a bit or not discussed recently:

• Ferro is ALWAYS worse than Endo for the cost (14 slots IS or 7 slots Clan...the CBill cost is irrelevant). Can we give Ferro some additional benefit so some builds would want Ferro over Endo?
  
• Faction Play has some anit-teamwork behaviors incentivized:
  
  • You earn XP in FP matches. But you should never bring a Mech that "needs" XP (I am guilty of this). Should rewards be reworked/redirected? Maybe only grant GXP? Or stop giving XP but increase the number of CBills?
    
  • Your match score is dependent on how many Mechs you use (i.e. higher if you only use 1 Mech). Mechs are meant to be used. We would never grant extra match score based on how many tons of ammo a Mech equips but doesn't fire. My suggestion is to always divide score by 4.

[TheCaptainJZ]

What are PGI's actual expectations and goals over the next 5 years for MWO? Please be specific.
What does PGI believe the playerbase's expectations and goals actually are? (Are both parties in agreement?)
How will "success" or "degree of success" be measured?
Will progress be regularly communicated with the playerbase for the next 5 years on a predictable schedule? e.g. quarterly or monthly? And in what format?
What can we expect to be included in every patch? I.E. weapon or quirk balances/adjustments? Map adjustments or changes? Obviously some change might only happen once, but what incremental changes will happen every patch cycle?
Will there be other specific people assisting Daeron in collecting feedback and consolidating it for PGI? It's clear there is no shortage of feedback, but being able to digest it all is, imo, too much for one person.
Along with that, can we get the forums cleaned up of old threads? Unpin or archive some things?
One thing PGI has had a difficulty of doing is making a change and then following up on the effects of that change. What steps will PGI take to ensure followup more than once on changes?

[crazytimes]

What actual changes are on the table? There is no shortage of ideas- but what are the actual resources and scope for change? All other discussion is meaningless without knowing the scope.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Hopefully, in the new series of conversations about MWOs, we will hear something specific, and not typical general phrases. Looking forward.

[Nightbird]

I will attend to hear the sound of ten thousand dreams shattered.

[Gagis]

Im still concerned over the risk of consistently wrong forum warriors shouting over the players who might have valuable things to say, Forums are a bad platform for this.

Question: Have you considered doing another round of rescaling mechs?

[shameless]

I logged in just to like Nightbird's comment

here's hoping PGI does something right

[SoulRcannon]

It'll be interesting to see how much of what has been discussed is up for possible implementation, and I'll appreciate any way to take a peek behind the curtain to see what's going on, IE what's on a more definite list. I hope that there's enough cohesion to our collective suggestions (I know I put forward some of my own) to clearly paint a picture of what we all think MWO should be in future, and that enough of it can be done to bring that picture to life next year.

So, a question to bring to the round-table... How much have you seen of the community balance presentation and documentation put forward by the gulag via mwoleague on twitch, and what do you think of what was presented as a whole? And if there is any resistance to certain aspects of it, could you state what those points of contention are, and is there anything they can do or provide to help clarify their collective conclusions?

I for one agreed with it's overall vision for the future for the game, but was taken aback somewhat by the amount of green (buffs) on the weapon balance sections, for the following reason; many of the same people tried to suggest some similar things on the community balance document, only for the whole document to be hand-waved away because it was regarded as being too buff-heavy. What was it Albert Einstein was said to say about insanity again? Because the overall gist of it is a good thing IMO, and it'd be a shame for that level of specificity and insight into the game, effort and real number-crunching to be dismissed because of some level of disconnect in how it is interpreted. I think it'd be good to help them to help clarify what they mean, act on the good faith offering in kind, y'know?

Bonus question: If the first MW5 DLC is coming out near when the second DLC is released, is there any thought into combining both DLCs to offer more value, or to bundle the game with them all together in time for x-platform release?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Sadly my english to bad for this Townhall in hearing and understand

what is with the new Owner EG7? which future has MWO now? when not make big Profit in fast time? whats now Russ and Bryans Position and Influence to MWO ..now fast change to UE4 for a MWO2

[Will9761]

Questions:
How will you deal with IS Omnis? Will you give them speed, mobility and armor buffs or do engine changes to the IS XLs?

Any plans to get rid of the "Rule of 3" Mechpack system for a more individual and personalized option?

Any chances to see the rest of the Unseen Mechs coming out next year?

Concerns:
My only concerns is that this will feel like a half-hearted effort. Where these may only feel like ideas that will appeal to them, instead of what the community wants. The thing is I want to see some good changes, whether they be new mechs (Clan, IS, Battle and Omni), maps, decals, etc. I want to see improvements to the mech pack system that gets rid of the old "Rule of 3" Mechpack structure. The reason I rarely play MWO is due to the lack of content and the only reason I hop on is so that I can gather MC. Don't get me wrong, although I love MC, it's pretty sad when that becomes the only motivator I have to play the game. I just hope that this thread doesn't get passed over because despite the negativity and cynical players (although the feelings are understandable) on the forums who don't want any change, there are some good and smart people here that have good ideas about how to improve the game and they are the ones who need to be heard. I hope Daeron can fish through the toxicity and get all the feedback he can from these posts and act with the rest of PGI on them.

Edited by Will9761, 08 December 2020 - 11:02 AM.

[evil kerensky]

i want to know. what is PGI's vision for mechwarrior online. either abstractly or specifically? it feels like you dont understand what direction the game should be heading in, so your outsourcing it to the community. are you truly lost or do you have a dream of what you want mwo to be?

also, whatre the genuine odds of mwo2 ever happening? with what you know now about balance and design, coupled with the resurgence of players that wed see in a theoretical relaunch of the game, i believe you could have an even more successful mwo than the current iteration.

[-P U R E-]

Domenoth, on 07 December 2020 - 05:22 PM, said:

• Faction Play has some anit-teamwork behaviors incentivized:

Teamwork works in team. Not in 12 man group of randoms. Main anit-teamwork behavior is bringing useless builds into FP and expecting them to work. Not even mentioning LRM spam on siege maps ( both attack and def ) which is funny and easy to counter.

[Bud Crue]

crazytimes said:

1607392573[/url]' post='6363511']
What actual changes are on the table? There is no shortage of ideas- but what are the actual resources and scope for change? All other discussion is meaningless without knowing the scope.

This.

Dear Russ et al.,

Please start out the cast with an honest assessment of what you hope to achieve and what you are realistically willing and able to do. Otherwise we are just going to assume this whole “effort” is more BS akin to past promises of improvements that have never come (waves at ammo switching, IK and all the rest) or those that have been implemented in a way no one asked for (grimaces at Longtom, and Solaris) or were just outright exaggerations (shakes head at “the year of faction play”).

This process started out with you asking for ways to improve the game that would lead to better monetization of it. In other words, you are asking your customers to help you find ways to be customers again of a product you admit needs improvement. Think about that. Think about it before you speak, so that you can avoid the mistakes of telling us how great MWO is or has been. Don’t waste our time yacking about how successful MWO has been for PGI, or how wonderful PGI is as proven by its recent acquisition. Do not even think of restating any of your ridiculous talking points about how thousands of people are still logging in every day. We. Don't. Care. All of that usual puffery and braggadocio is insulting given that it is you who are asking us, to tell you how to make your product worth spending money on.

So, rather than the usual schtick, I suggest that as an alternative, start off with a bit of honesty about the process and what you are realistically willing and able to do. To that end, be precise, be specific and err on the side of caution. No open ended promises of “yeah we might be able to do that at some point, or lines of indefinite placation (e.g. “we’re considering that”, etc.). When someone asks for something that you know is beyond your capabilities, or willingness, or investment tolerances, be honest and openly admit that such a thing is not going to happen; but ideally you can head a lot of that off by just being honest about the process from the get go.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 December 2020 - 05:41 AM.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

• With the partnership with EG7 is PGI going to actually advertise the game? Word of mouth only goes so far.

• Any plans to take another look at merged queues? Its been highly controversal among the playerbase and even if nothing comes of it people would appreciate the effort.

• Has anyone from PGI looked over the new community proposal, particularly the second part?

• Why only field questions from the forums?

[Punkarelli]

Is anything solid as far as planned content/changes going to be announced or is this going to be yet another plea for the same community input that you have already been getting and ignoring for the past 5 years? Because this seems like another "we are planning to eventually announce a plan for releasing the plan of the plan" announcement.

[Hellfire666]

More hot air being blown around with promises made only to be let down once again.

How many times are you going to try this sad tactic PGI?

Do you want me and other to open our wallets again? The do something meaningful besides lie and blow smoke up our rears. Stop talking and start doing.

Until then it's the same old song and dance. Over Promise and Underdeliver.