99 replies to this topic

[Lanzman]

Hey we hired a PR guy and now we have money from a deal we just made and our license is good for another five years and we're gonna fix and upgrade a bunch of stuff and oops it's all gone sorry same old tired song and dance from PGI. Bye!

[Paladin357]

Why are spawn points set for quarter 2? Priority should be given to playability improvements over aesthetic improvements. Moving the spawn points and implementing static time-of-day can drastically improve playability. Keeping bolt-ons on a 'mech or gaining new titles won't. And spawn points have been changed before; it shouldn't take much effort. Just drop everyone at a single point and be done with it. Getting community feedback sounds nice, and can still be done for a future update, but we really need an immediate change, since mech size no longer dictates what lance you drop in.

Again, please prioritize changes that increase performance over those that just make the game more flavorful.

[Erik Krieger]

No word about BALANCING????!!!!

I don't care if my Bolt On is gonna stay on mech... (most are uninspired or silly anyway)

if I am dying after 40 seconds -->

... against a team with 5 assaults while my had 2
... or because the spawns are messed up
... or because groups of 4 destroy the single queue

Edited by Erik Krieger, 20 January 2021 - 02:14 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

FupDup, on 16 January 2021 - 12:53 PM, said:

TL;DR:

Pretty much says it all right there. Hope you guys can see now PGI were just lying to boost the player base during their acquisition process. As much as it brought them revenue and kept them going for years, Russ really doesn't like MWO or its players. The feeling is mutual.

I understand greed, but milking a game and playerbase you hate by deceiving them is pretty despicable.

[Mister Maf]

Regarding bundles, I think it would be good to see some affordable bundles of commonly recommended starter mechs for new players. Like a bundle that includes a Bushwacker 1X, a Hellbringer or Roughneck, and a MCII-B. No thematic commonality other than being easy to configure and pilot. And I have to emphasize that it should be affordable, especially because these are just standard variants that you can easily get with c-bills. Foot-in-door, not door-in-face.

Edited by Mister Maf, 20 January 2021 - 07:18 AM.

[Zulu211]

I would like a more accurate damage chart for range and what range a weapon does 50% total damage. ie; AC2 range 720(modifier) 50% range()* (modifier). The charts given dont appear to be very accurate.

[FallGuy0815]

Zulu211, on 20 January 2021 - 09:31 AM, said:

I would like a more accurate damage chart for range and what range a weapon does 50% total damage. ie; AC2 range 720(modifier) 50% range()* (modifier). The charts given dont appear to be very accurate.

There is always this:
https://mwomercs.com.../list/full.json

[Kodan Black]

Paladin357, on 18 January 2021 - 07:29 PM, said:

Why are spawn points set for quarter 2? Priority should be given to playability improvements over aesthetic improvements. Moving the spawn points and implementing static time-of-day can drastically improve playability. Keeping bolt-ons on a 'mech or gaining new titles won't. And spawn points have been changed before; it shouldn't take much effort. Just drop everyone at a single point and be done with it. Getting community feedback sounds nice, and can still be done for a future update, but we really need an immediate change, since mech size no longer dictates what lance you drop in.

Again, please prioritize changes that increase performance over those that just make the game more flavorful.

Keep in mind we are 1/3 through Q1. Not sure how PGI does their software but typically in an agile shop they'd run 2 or 3 week sprints which would mean that you don't start the work of the 2nd sprint until that time and during the previous sprint you would plan it. Given the issue of resources they also have to fight for that. As much as it always seems easy to just change a number, you have to look at more than that before you do it or you will cause all kinds of issues.

Long way of saying, it takes time. Immediate in software is really only for critical stuff that causes downtime. Everything else is planned.

[BEARDOOM]

Other words... No UE on MWO. Engine was and is the everlasting problem.

I dont play anymore, neither my friends. We all tough that MW5 will give that engine to MWO.


APEX RULES!!!

[FallGuy0815]

Kodan Black, on 20 January 2021 - 10:23 AM, said:

Long way of saying, it takes time. Immediate in software is really only for critical stuff that causes downtime. Everything else is planned.

This day was quite a bummer, but this made me genuinely laugh. Thanks for that.

[Buenaventura]

Add map banning to the stuff to add asap. Your matchmaker is a sad joke anyway, so it doesn't matter if it takes a bit more time to find a match, but if you don't plan to cut both forest colony classic maps (which are the worst maps in current MWO by miles), you need to offer other options to let me evade these failures of map design.

[Bert Bert]

What I'd like:

- More maps
- visual update
- higher player count
- Maps with some AI tanks or planes
- Maybe a new play mode where you can keep dropping mechs but easier/quicker to get into than faction play. Like a quick play drop deck.

Edited by Bert Bert, 20 January 2021 - 01:29 PM.

[Luiz O Piloto de Summoner]

• Feature Enhancements - Remove the doubled heat Treshold and keep the classic (With that, solving the ghost heat need, meta builds and constant alpha strikes)
  
• Bug Fixes - Overtonnage must be removed from mechlab when customizing mechs.
  
• Game Mode Changes - Incursion should be one Base, one attacker team and one defender.
  
• Map Availability Changes Solaris map needs to be redone to reduze FPS drop
  Newer Forest Colony is too big and must be shrinked a little
  Polar Highlands is too big and must be shrinked a little
  
• UI Repairs (Still wondering when someone will fix the Server Selector so it's ALWAYS available... It should not be merely intermittently available!!!) Being able to buy and modify mechs while the matchmaking is searching for battles (Excep the selected mech obviously)
  
• New Mechs - Inner Sphere Omni Mechs (Many actual variants already in the game like Firestarter)
  
• New Existing Variants - Jaegermech JM7-F
  
• Any mech with ECM variant wich is not in game already should be added.
  
• New Maps - More urban city maps and more Lunar maps (Example HPG Manifold)
  
• New Game Modes - Escort the convoy
  
• Camo Bug Fixes (I'm looking squarely at you, Mech_Con Camo!!!) - Many Cammos is ugly in Square based mechs like Atlas, Bushwacker or even the Commando.
  
• Mechanics changes: Remove the mechsize-per tonnage and bring back the original size of each mech.

[Enamillion89]

**Please add these variants to the already existing mechs**!!


Medium:
Centurion (Omni-mech)
CN9-D9
CN9-D3D, or CN9-D4D

Heavy:
Thunderbolt (could you please lengthen the stubby legs on the Thunderbolt design?
They look alot like chunky tree stumps. Almost as if That mech were "forced" to a certain height).
NCT-G. (With ECM)

Assault:
ZEU-6Y
KDK-V1

Edited by Enamillion89, 21 January 2021 - 08:13 AM.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Enamillion89, on 20 January 2021 - 06:23 PM, said:

What I'd like to see:
-Weather changes to maps.

Simple changing lighting from PGI causes monstrous FPS drawdowns, and you want a change in weather.
If I were you, I would good think about whether to say such desires out loud. God forbid they come true.

Edited by Voice of Kerensky, 20 January 2021 - 06:53 PM.

[LordNothing]

Beadhanger, on 17 January 2021 - 07:39 PM, said:

I was told there´d be a whole new team dedicated to work on MWO due to new money influx...and now i have to read this "cant do anything because MW5 " stuff again...i was really excited to see new things beeing done for the game but this is a sad joke...sorry but im a bit pissed off here

would be more convincing if there was actually stuff happening on the mw5 dlc front. the delay had absolutely nothing to do with cp77. but the total lack of hype and no release date shows that they just weren't ready and everyone is too busy crunching to slap together some promo material. they would have something to show for it by now if they were just sitting on it. like i have stimulus money in hand and there is no mw5 dlc, so if you are just sitting on it, you are losing money. il even preorder if i get a bunch of mwo stuff.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 January 2021 - 08:46 PM.

[AnAnachronismAlive]

We gotta stop to act like rabid dogs chasing/fighting over every little piece of meat waste that gets thrown towards us once in a while. Been guarding that house long enough just on the promise we'll be treated well someday soon ... but we won't and are slowly learning that fact.

How much feedback has been given over the last couple of months alone? Has there been ANY structured answer been given on certain proposals? About pros and cons?

This is not even about feedback being validating or devalidating regarding certain points, but about a RESPONSIBLE, PUBLIC and RECIPROCAL feedback cycle in general.

Not happening at all ... and that is what freaks me out personally. I am all fine with changes taking time, with precise weighting of benefits and downsides, with placing business logic first. What I am not fine with is devaluating sophisticated feedback by handling it amateurish or even by not picking it up at all.

Edited by AnAnachronismAlive, 21 January 2021 - 05:20 AM.

[IronSpirit]

During the last Event, it seemed to me that the game balance became better, the number of losses-win became about the same. Although it is noticeable that players used more heavy mechs to deal a lot of damage and earn a lot of points per match for the Event.

Also, the terribly crooked spawn of the players became noticeable, when many assault and heavy mechs spawn against the lighter mechs of the enemy on the left side of the map. In this game, all players move counterclockwise. Therefore, the players who appear on the left always risk the most, especially if they have low speed. There was also a case of a terrible spawn on a Tourmaline Desert when one squad was spawned literally near an open area on the left and when moving to the right was heavily fired upon by opponents in the first minute of the game.

But balance in this game was the main problem. The previous time I played at the New Year's event and before it was very difficult there on the pilot's ratings Tier 2-1, the whole game I played like an Odysseus tied to the mast, trying to achieve victory. Most of the games were losses no matter how much damage I inflicted and made kills, everything was decided by luck, about 5-6 loses to 1 win. On the pilot rating 1, most of the games were just either pure wins or pure losses 12:1, it was just not interesting at all. It seems that the curve balance throws into the team of bottoms that have poor mech builds, often do not see opponents, they choose maps on which they do not know how to play. And it turns out that if you have 1-3 players left against the entire opposing team, this means that there is not only just a lot of opponents, but they also have high DPM. If a team loses with a score of 0:12 to 2:12, this means that in this team only 1-2 players play who do 300-400 damage, and the rest of the team are just bottoms, which then, according to statistics, have about 90-200 damage. If a team loses with a score of 5:12 to 6:12, this means that in this team only 3-4 players play who do 380-550 damage(usually 1-2 players do about 550-600 damage and 2 players do 380-480 damage in this case), and the rest of the team has about 150-300 damage (1, maximum 2 players will have about 300 damage done, the rest is much lower), etc. Therefore, if you play for a long time, the result becomes predictable and it is clear who plays in your team.

And what about IS ER PPC? Is the problem with not registering damage solved, when not dealing about 30-50% of damage? How can you talk about new builds and mechs if the weapon that exists has bugs and cannot be used? I deal significantly more damage on Clan mech with 2 ERPPC than on IS mech with 3 IS ERPPC with greater heat dissipation and with more hits.

About map lighting - not desirable to make maps too dark at night or too bright, this is unpleasant and annoying. In this game, most players are accustomed to the fact that the game itself highlights their opponents and they often do not see them, and in poor light conditions they are simply blind, I can stand and shoot at the enemy directly in the face and he will look around. Also do not make the cards too bright, as Hibernal Rift, it just corrodes eyes and harder to see blue lasers.

Edited by IronSpirit, 21 January 2021 - 05:14 AM.

[Ajantise]

How can somebody be a developer if the game is not being developed?

[D V Devnull]

Luiz O Piloto de Summoner, on 20 January 2021 - 03:56 PM, said:

• Feature Enhancements - Remove the doubled heat Treshold and keep the classic (With that, solving the ghost heat need, meta builds and constant alpha strikes)
  
• Bug Fixes - Overtonnage must be removed from mechlab when customizing mechs.
  
• Game Mode Changes - Incursion should be one Base, one attacker team and one defender.
  
• Map Availability Changes Solaris map needs to be redone to reduze FPS drop
  Newer Forest Colony is too big and must be shrinked a little
  Polar Highlands is too big and must be shrinked a little
  
• UI Repairs (Still wondering when someone will fix the Server Selector so it's ALWAYS available... It should not be merely intermittently available!!!) Being able to buy and modify mechs while the matchmaking is searching for battles (Excep the selected mech obviously)
  
• New Mechs - Inner Sphere Omni Mechs (Many actual variants already in the game like Firestarter)
  
• New Existing Variants - Jaegermech JM7-F
  
• Any mech with ECM variant wich is not in game already should be added.
  
• New Maps - More urban city maps and more Lunar maps (Example HPG Manifold)
  
• New Game Modes - Escort the convoy
  
• Camo Bug Fixes (I'm looking squarely at you, Mech_Con Camo!!!) - Many Cammos is ugly in Square based mechs like Atlas, Bushwacker or even the Commando.
  
• Mechanics changes: Remove the mechsize-per tonnage and bring back the original size of each mech.

Hi there. I get that you're rather passionate about your opinions on what to do with the game. Due to certain giveaways however, I noticed that you copied a whole section of my earlier post (what is Post #13 on this thread, to be specific), but did not use any quote tags and/or provide attribution prior to your addition/inserting of your further thoughts. In this instance, I'm not gonna get super-angry about this, but if you could at least have the kindness to attribute (if nothing else) when grabbing a chunk of another person's post like that in the future (and not break the conversation flow in such an extremely unusual manner), it would be very much appreciated.


Now, that said... I have to severely disagree with your idea of making the Incursion Mode into an asymmetric game mode, particularly after how the Siege Mode from Faction Warfare has ended up, and the fact that we already have that kind of asymmetric play as an option elsewhere. Personally, I like how the game can shift in any of several directions with Incursion currently being symmetric, including a dual base rush, or even the option to either Team to simply defend their own Base Area on the map. And that's if the game doesn't just devolve into Skirmish like everything usually does. Taking away options at this point is what is killing MWO slowly, and I'm at the point of understanding the only good thing that can be done is to be additive. So let us not go around further reducing stuff, alright?


By the way, I do like your want to have the Escort Mode return with a different item to defend. But, you have left a question in the air for someone to ask. Is there to be a convoy for each Team to protect, allowing for the potential of a Tie Condition to happen for people to learn by, as well as the option for a Team to try just smacking down the Enemy's convoy on the field? If not, it would sadly leave out some useful options in the gameplay mechanics where symmetry would have been desired.


Also, in terms of map design in general, shrinkage actually is not needed, but change of a kind could be very much of some use. In my opinion, what would be more appropriate is...

• Add more cover on Polar Highlands, as buildings/stations in regions like that realistically should be a little more dense, instead of being so few and/or far between. Like, would people really make themselves have to suffer those kinds of distances to get anywhere? I don't think anyone would be that crazy. Also, terrain could use a few big rocks here and there sticking up in order to add some reasonable challenges, as the higher standing points should not be complete 360-degree easy-hit zones that feel more like something which one would instead see in a hot desert. Obviously though, it should not be as close as Hibernal Rift happens to have it. After all, this is polar terrain which we're talking about, not flattened sand-loaded regions or small canyons.
  
• Newer Forest Colony, as you call it, actually needs to be expanded. No, more like REALLY expanded, as there happens to be major unused zones and severe bucketloads of potential that has been massively lost with the current borders. Up on the Northern Side, the outer border around "D10" needs to be pushed back to "C11", and the zone around "I4" (as in, "India 4") to "M9" needs to have the "J6-J7" border line yanked down to "M5-M6", followed then by having paths cut through from "I4" (as in, "India 4") and "I6" (as in, "India 6") that both run down to "L6" (as in, "Lima 6", unlike the earlier "India" references) in order to emerge in the right place and provide new venues of area to battle within. In particular, the Conquest/Assault/Incursion Game Modes are all suffering from tight packing on this map, and adding all of that area to being traversible would also enable PGI to change the layout of certain elements on the board and make gameplay become far more interesting. For the play in Conquest, being able to shift "Nav Kappa" down to the "K6/L7 Corner" would provide a whole new style of situation in the southern waters to function within, "Nav Theta" could be pushed into the northern space of "D7" where it personally feels to me like it always belonged, and "Nav Gamma" & "Nav Epsilon" could both then receive the positioning that would be more rightfully and suitably afforded to them. Assault could end up with "F6" and "J11" positions for the two bases, giving a distance more like what Tourmaline Desert and/or Solaris City feels like between them, which would make the struggle to attain victory feel more like the challenge that it should be. Incursion could have the Eastern Base shifted a little bit to the south and get rid of the clunky traffic jamming that should not have been put into the construction when it was first built. All told, that would potentially enable a far more symmetric and enjoyable environment for gameplay to happen within on this map.
  
• As for the Solaris City map... Well, that's one where you and I can probably agree on around 99% of things there. Some of those huge buildings really have too much animating texture on them, and most certainly need it reduced by a fair amount. Tons of those animations need to be slowed down too, because they're just shifting along way too quickly, resulting in forced lag where it should not have been present. Thankfully in this case, I can say that the lovely-looking Tina Benoit's face on the big building near the "E4" area is absolutely NOT something that should be touched. That's one of the items which is explicitly NOT posing an issue in terms of texture layering and/or animation speeds. In case you're wondering, I am explicitly avoiding being biased here, but NOT avoiding being honest about what looks like something needing adjustment.
  
• In the case of HPG Manifold, the areas of "C3 to B3" & "G5 through G6/F7 into E7" (the coordinates as of when this is posted, future readers may find these have changed) should have ALL been made into traversible area. The lack of a completed outer circle around the inner one actually reduced the level of enjoyable gameplay on that map in general. Also, the gravity on that map should likely be made a bit lighter, as the gravity of an actual lunar site does not have the same rate of fall as on a map with a habitable atmosphere, and therefore falling damage taken should not be made anywhere near harsh as the non-lunar other maps.

...and that set of changes would fix those regions in a reasonable manner, plus make people have to use more of their mind in how they play being as MWO is supposed to be a "Thinking Man's Shooter" like many others have posted before me in other threads. It's been a long-standing reality that Communication/Planning/Thinking really is a lost art that needs restoration!


Getting to your thought on Over-Tonnage and the MechLab Functions as they are now, it's actually NOT a Bug of any kind to be showing values greater than the Mech's limit. If you're changing things like Structure/Armor between Endo-Steel/Ferro-Fibrous and the Standard states, there is an associated change in Tonnage which your Mech Loadout has to compensate for in order to remain within the game's rules. It is explicitily NOT allowed to break the game rules by having things like a Light-Class Mech Chassis that is equipped with 5 Tons more of stuff than what it really can carry. Further, the silent disabling of functions and leaving no indication of why they are not selectable is thoroughly anti-constructive to people still trying to learn how to build a Mech in their bays. This is why we have the Over-Tonnage Alert Error as something that gets displayed in order to warn why the Mech's Loadout will be invalid if saved. Please avoid going around trying to remove the game's various safeguards and Weight Class Rules which help with providing part of the challenges/design that some players actually enjoy, alright? Keep in mind that we need to avoid making the game problematic for New Players to function within, otherwise the population will fail to increase! This is another case where subtraction would be detrimental to MWO surviving... or are you trying to make MWO end up dead?


With all of those thoughts posted, I've hit the end of this post. Unfortunately, I don't really have an opinion on the rest of your own thoughts, so I apologize if you were looking for any response on that. See you out on the battlefields, perhaps?


~D. V. "Your post's 2021 Ideas for Mechs/Maps/Modes contains discord-causing things... Hey, watch the text robbery!" Devnull