67 replies to this topic

[crazytimes]

justcallme C L O U D, on 08 December 2020 - 06:29 AM, said:

[list]

• Why only field questions from the forums?

Because any awkward meaningful questions can be screened and deleted beforehand this way.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

crazytimes, on 08 December 2020 - 12:50 PM, said:

Because any awkward meaningful questions can be screened and deleted beforehand this way.

They can do that on Reddit, Twitter or Facebook too. The question is why specifically the forum to draw questions from, not why we can't ask questions during the townhall.

[C337Skymaster]

justcallme C L O U D, on 08 December 2020 - 05:27 PM, said:

They can do that on Reddit, Twitter or Facebook too. The question is why specifically the forum to draw questions from, not why we can't ask questions during the townhall.

The real reason is to just make their lives easier. They only have one place to check, and they can deflect the blame if they forgot to check page 22 of a thread from three months ago where there was one relevant question/point among a debate that devolved into a two-person argument for awhile before getting back on track (every post with more than 50 comments has at least one page of that, somewhere, and I'm as guilty of it as the next guy).

[Greygor 727]

Please return control of the Units to their Unit Leaders.

If a Unit is loyal to a specific House or Clan, then the Unit Leader sets the loyalty of the Unit to a single House or Clan. If a member does not want to pledge loyalty to that Unit's House or Clan, then they can seek out a Unit that matches their choice. Now, a unit that was previously loyal to a specific House or Clan is now a mixture of Houses, Clans and Mercenaries. Can we please return to the old ways? Thank you!

Edited by Greygor 727, 09 December 2020 - 02:19 PM.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

Dear PGI, dear community,

while looking forward to the upcoming townhall-meeting and appreciating the effort invested by the community and PGI into the digital future of the BT-Franchise in general, it kinda pains me to say that - even if we assume most of the (more or less) reasonable proposals being realized over the next couple of months / next year and a new rush of players adding to the existing MWO playerbase - the general problems of sustaining a healthy and "revenueable" playerbase are not adressed and will likely grow even bigger over time.

While I had to calm my own inner horses over the last couple of weeks by questioning own expectations in terms of realism / business-logic, I on one hand fear and the other hand kinda accept that the primary goal might be to keep MWO somewhat sustained as (one of) the only team-based multiplayer-title (no intent to devaluate MWOLL here) in the way it is. And while a lot of the proposed changes (balance changes, new mechs now n then, a new map may be?) certainly will re-fresh the feel of play for a certain period of time for the "habitualized player" and MWO does already provide - even though a little clunky - enough content for new players to chew on, meta-achievement or meta-incentive keeping players interested / hooked up over a longer timespan is still lacking.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate MWO the way it is to a certain extent - else I would not have invested a ridiculous amount of time and money into piloting mechs over the same maps/modes again and again and again, but after some time it really starts to feel stale (despite the crapload of mechs n playstyles available and even despite all the amazing people to play, chat and socialize with).

After all the mainly cosmetic changes / more of the same adaptions with the old system (while really appreciated) feel more like a "golden shot" and less like a sustainable rehabilitation programm, add the "age" of the engine and it's graphical appeal to it ... it is somewhat likely we gonna be at the same point as we are now in around 12 months anyhow.

Is there really another way than an engine-port or hard-hiring of some expert manpower to overhaul and adapt the existing game modes (IF the used version of CryEngine does even support the second option)? While I doubt there is, I still can understand and accept why you shy away from such a risky endeavor (hold of licence that is etc.), but gotta state that I sadly don't see no sustainable future for MWO - even assuming most of the (consensual) proposals being implemented.

Yours
A3

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 09 December 2020 - 08:21 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bud Crue, on 08 December 2020 - 05:39 AM, said:

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.

This, really this.

PGI, please stop the auto-fellative speak and do something of substance.

While asking feedback and suggestions isn't new, the thing is that you asked for it, and we graciously provided. Nevermind the look of how you came crawling back to MWO when MW5 wasn't a success in EGS, and still isn't even released for other stores, and apparently other platforms.

You asked for this, you got our hopes up again.

[MrVaad]

So far, i'm a little worried that the performance and tech issues are put on the side (even in the command chair forum topics).

I'm not a game dev or a 3D expert, i work in software dev and i have a small background in 3D dev.
Last year, I spent a lot of weeks :
- reading cryengine docs, forums.
- reading some old lumberyard code (it's the cryengine bought by amazon and open source)
- testing/benchmarking/analysing settings in the cryengine editor and in the game.

In order to write this guide and a custom user.cfg (but this is only a part of what i've found).
https://mwomercs.com...de-and-usercfg/
And so far, a lot of people have improved their game with this.

Contrary to the popular belief, i found that the main problem is not the cryengine but :
- some MWO map assets/objects (and perhaps some mechs)
- some particle effects (weapons and map environment) which create "fill rate" bound situations.
- some cryengine settings set though the graphic options in game.

Quote

Soooo my question is :
There are a few "quick wins" that can be done, Would PGI consider :
- changing a few CryEngine Settings (the ones i've tweaked in my user.cfg and one more which is locked).
- changing the most impactfull particle effects (it's only two or three xml files that are edited in the cryengine editor)
- changing a few building so that they occlude more things (hide).

Edited by MrVaad, 10 December 2020 - 01:29 PM.

[Gagis]

There is also the stuff with HUD being super CPU intensive and settings for that like

-- FLASH UI/HUD
sys_flash_newstencilclear = 1
sys_flash_curve_tess_error = 4
 
-----------------------------------------------------
-- INGAME HUD
gp_hud_ams_update = 36
gp_hud_compass_update = 4
gp_hud_ecm_update = 24
gp_hud_engine_update = 2
gp_hud_heading_update = 4
gp_hud_heat_update = 2
gp_hud_targetinfo_update = 12
gp_hud_textwarning_update = 7200
gp_hud_throttle_update = 2
gp_hud_weapon_update = 4

nevermind the wacky value of the textwarning setting in mine. I've been using that to keep the override warning from flashing in my field of view all the time.

Edited by Gagis, 09 December 2020 - 05:00 PM.

[Brauer]

My question, will PGI be revamping mech agility both with an eye toward increasing agility for all mechs other than the mechs which are currently most agile? Connected to that, will PGI finally address the atrocious pitch of so many mechs (FSR as one of the worst examples of this)?


PGI, I hope you all have taken a close look at the MWO balance and update discussions that have taken place on the MWO Comp twitch account. Some very knowledgeable players have put together proposals for balance and skill tree changes and a variety of issues with the game/potential improvements. I personally am generally on board with all of their proposals and hope you all will consider implementing all of those changes. In particular I think the following items are critical:

• Reduce the grind to skill a mech by at least half. When I was a new player I put off getting more mechs simply because it took me so long to skill a mech. Right now if I wanted to grind xp to skill a mech it would take me at minimum 40 matches, back when I was a new player it took me 100 or more matches. This is not new player friendly and does not encourage players to make cash, MC, or cbill purchases.
  
• Shake up your monetization model particularly with an eye toward enabling players to have more choice in their purchases and to purchase a set of viable mechs (rather than paying money for a mech pack with 1-2 viable chassis)
  
• Remove the torso heat spike mechanic. This mechanic was sold as a way to end the heat bug, which it did not, and is simply not fun or grounded in anything like reality.
  
• Increase mech agility (especially for underperforming chassis)
  
• Buff underperforming weapons so there is a reason to take them other than to meme (LGRs, LBX5s, SPLs on both sides, RAC5s, etc.)
  
• Add more HSL quirks for flavor (AC20 HSL+1 for the KGC for example)

There are plenty of other areas where I am in agreement with the proposal put together by players through MWO comp, like the value of changing how the camera works when you exceed your torso twist limit, revamping the skill-tree to reduce the number of nodes while retaining the current power level, and the potential benefits of a second re-scale which splits the difference between current mech scaling and true-volumetric scaling. I also see some potential for PGI to benefit itself and the community by doing more marketing, so there's plenty more from the proposal discussed on MWO Leagues that I hope you all will work towards.

[Greygor 727]

Something players have casually talked about for years is IS vs Clan Faction Play.

What would Faction Play be like if IS/Clan Mechs and Weapons were reset to their original Lore strengths/settings? It would be an interesting battle of three IS Lances (of four mechs per lance) vs two Clan Stars (of five mechs per star). Thank you!

[C337Skymaster]

Greygor 727, on 10 December 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

Something players have casually talked about for years is IS vs Clan Faction Play.

What would Faction Play be like if IS/Clan Mechs and Weapons were reset to their original Lore strengths/settings? It would be an interesting battle of three IS Lances (of four mechs per lance) vs two Clan Stars (of five mechs per star). Thank you!

My understanding is this is how the weapons and 'mechs were set on day-1 of Clan Wave 1, but for some stupid reason, PGI has never been able to figure out how to code unbalanced teams. That's the point they keep sticking on. I'm sure there's something else in there about how "things need to be balanced for QP AND FP," but the fact that Flamers are different in Solaris calls BS on the rest of that.

For that matter, most of the people calling for a Solaris mode were hoping for the 8-way free-for-all from MW4, but PGI couldn't figure out how to code more than two teams, either.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 11 December 2020 - 04:00 AM.

[Gagis]

It is actually really really impressive how well PGI has managed to balance IS and Clan tech, while still maintaining their identities. Lets not mess with that.

The original stats, design and lore of clans is so absolutely pants on head dumb that the board game and none of the Battletech and Mechwarrior branded videogames other than MWO have even tried to bring some balance to that mess. Clan tech completely breaks the board game (and makes the fictional universe too dumb to care about past 3050) and makes IS tech obsolete in the other videogames. Despite the seemingly impossible task, MWO eventually does have them in pretty good balance, which is honestly really amazing.

Edited by Gagis, 11 December 2020 - 04:26 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

InnerSphereNews, on 07 December 2020 - 04:14 PM, said:

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

Dude, WTF is this?

So is this like Dec 11 4PM PST / Dec 11 7PM EST / Dec 11 12AM UTC? Because I'm pretty sure Pacific Standard Time if that is what PST meant here, then the succeeding two should be at DEC 10 instead because PST is ahead. Then again I usually use PST and not any other time, so IDK.

[General Solo]

Gagis, on 07 December 2020 - 07:38 PM, said:

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?

Maybe you should be silent
PGI listened to a bunch of you premads when they did Matchmaker
What a success that was.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 11 December 2020 - 06:34 AM.

[Brauer]

OZHomerOZ, on 11 December 2020 - 06:31 AM, said:

Maybe you should be silent
PGI listened to a bunch of you premads when they did Matchmaker
What a success that was.

No, they listened to a bunch of people who don't play the game like Larsh. Many of the players blamed for the queue merge were against it.

[Farix]

The6thMessenger, on 11 December 2020 - 06:06 AM, said:

Dude, WTF is this?

So is this like Dec 11 4PM PST / Dec 11 7PM EST / Dec 11 12AM UTC? Because I'm pretty sure Pacific Standard Time if that is what PST meant here, then the succeeding two should be at DEC 10 instead because PST is ahead. Then again I usually use PST and not any other time, so IDK.

EST is ahead of PST by 3 hours, not behind by 21 hours. And UTC is 8 hours ahead of PST, not 16 hours behind.

[Nightbird]

The6thMessenger, on 11 December 2020 - 06:06 AM, said:

Dude, WTF is this?

So is this like Dec 11 4PM PST / Dec 11 7PM EST / Dec 11 12AM UTC? Because I'm pretty sure Pacific Standard Time if that is what PST meant here, then the succeeding two should be at DEC 10 instead because PST is ahead. Then again I usually use PST and not any other time, so IDK.

Everything in moderation.

[VonBruinwald]

Hi Russ,

Starting slightly off-topic. Is your new "original IP" Transverse 2.0 and when can we expect an announcement, was kinda getting excited for that.

Back on topic:

• Are you going to read/answer these questions...
  
• How much time do you guys spend playing MWO each week?
  
• How much money is in the pot for MWO and what is realistically possible with this amount.
  
• Any plans to address the underlying issues that make IS omnis nonviable so that we can get some?

Also, since Juodas Varnas is no longer around, I gotta ask... quads?

Edited by VonBruinwald, 11 December 2020 - 01:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 11 December 2020 - 12:42 PM, said:

Everything in moderation.

Yeah well, it confused me. I forgot they already gave the time I use, and tried to figure out PST from the UTC once again.

I mean after all, it was already past 5 hours, and I still don't see the Townhall on NGNG. Not sure what to think.

VonBruinwald, on 11 December 2020 - 01:22 PM, said:

Starting slightly off-topic. Is your new "original IP" Transverse 2.0 and when can we expect an announcement, was kinda getting excited for that.

I heard that was just an Elite-Dangerous wannabe.

Maybe Transverse 2.0 would be a No Man Sky's ripoff this time.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 December 2020 - 06:04 PM.

[Arkhangel]

Hellfire666, on 08 December 2020 - 08:58 AM, said:

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.

couple hundred less times than Star Citizen's devs.

Edited by Arkhangel, 11 December 2020 - 02:54 PM.