313 replies to this topic

[Rogard]

I am really excited for what you all have planned here. Nice job Daeron and Matt. The only thing I would make comment on is I feel like the quality of the matches for QP need to be a higher focus. I saw Q4 was the first place where this was listed and this I feel is the biggest quality improvement that would help drive all the other changes you want to make around Maps and gameplay.

• Match Maker Improvements based on new modes etc.

Currently quite often we are seeing group drops impacting game play because you can have 4 lights group up and pack hunt or all 4 Missile based mechs and so on. I was really hoping you all would have taken a look at moving to a 1 of each per Lance/group model that requires us to go away from tonnage and instead focus on Class, as each class has a role. This way every lance would have a balance of 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy , 1 assault. This results in 3 of each class in a match and role you play becomes more critical.


We all see way to often in QP 6 or more assaults/heavy/Medium or Lights on 1 side and none on the opposing side. This type of matchmaking really ruins the QP experience and the ability to play tactics and play role in a battle. I sure hope something like this is being considered as I really think it would change how you approach map changes and drop points.

Thank you again for putting so much hard work in to breathing life back into a game we all LOVE and have a lot of passion for. With these changes it would help balance the Group Drops that are mixed in with QP and still make it a possible feature which me and my friends LOVE in the QP experience.

Edited by Rogard, 30 January 2021 - 09:10 AM.

[D V Devnull]

Daeron Katz, on 29 January 2021 - 10:08 PM, said:

I have no idea how long it will take. Could be a week, could be a month, could be more.

Hi there, Daeron... I'm going to say this before I say anything else, and that is...

Regardless of how long anything might take, PLEASE make sure to have the various Staff who will be involved take whatever time that it will be of use to do it right, have it ready properly, and not trying to rush to meet some overly harsh & pre-defined schedule. The very history of MWO is loaded full of instances where rushing to meet a time limit resulted in ugly Bugs of varying kinds which made the overall experience into a nightmare, and that is something which I think we can ALL definitely agree should be avoided at all time costs and not allowed to happen ever again.

Now that the above item has been said, I'll get to a bunch of others from my looking down the list, being as Real Life previously kept me from getting involved over in the Command Chair Threads that have been running for quite a long time...

• "Lower the volume on Intro Movies - MARCH" — I'll be looking forward to this. Getting the ears blown off and/or having to mess up sound settings to dodge the Intro Movie being too loud when trying to load up carefully has been annoying for the last few years since the Solaris 7 Mode was added to MWO and the login screen changed.
  
• "Remove Dynamic Time of day changes in Maps - DONE" — I understand that we're trying to remove some serious performance issues, which I also happen to be affected by. I very much appreciate this, and look forward to that change being completed. However, I would like to ask that all of these maps which are getting their Time-Of-Day put in a Hard-Locked State receive Night Versions for ones that will be locked in Day Mode, and Day Versions for ones that will be locked in Night Mode as equally. Even if this change being made has to be delayed briefly, please give it the same forethought and positive treatment as the Frozen City Classic Map received when it was given both Day & Night Modes for everyone to play on. Some people actually want to enjoy places like Viridian Bog with Thunderstorms, Forest Colony with a Starry Night Sky overhead, and River City in the darkness of a Night where something can sneak up. Not everyone wants to always play maps like these in the Day Conditions without the choice of otherwise. These alternate forms could even have their own unique Temperature setting to match their visual situation as well. But, please do not let the improvements to game performance totally wipe away alternate versions of maps!
  
• "Update Bolt-ons (stay attached) - DONE" — I understand that some people want their Bolt-Ons to always stay on their Mech because they wish to show them off during the whole Match and don't care if it makes them stick out in others' views. However, there are people who still want them to fall off when hit, and severely distaste the mere thought of being forcibly given away during the whole Match if they equip Bolt-Ons at all. That first group of players who want the Bolt-Ons to stay on is effectively making the other bunch of players who want it to fall off either have to unnecessarily accept the burden of game balance being disrupted, or end up removing most equipped Bolt-Ons altogether from their Mechs which they own in order to be able to hide on the battlefields from spotting & weapons fire. In turn, that hurts PGI's own corporate bottom line in terms of Monetization through Cosmetics as a business too, because then players are less inclined to get and/or use Bolt-Ons due to the knowledge of unwanted exposure on the battlefields. However, there is a way to fix this issue, and that is to provide the players an individual choice with each of their Mechs on the Bolt-Ons Equip Screen as to whether or not they will remain or fall off when hit during the course of battle. Please hold off from releasing the changes to Bolt-Ons until this choice of whether or not to fall off when hit can be added to MWO's capabilities. Without this choice, unnecessary alienation ensues against part of MWO's Community, which repeats a past & well-known PGI History of making choices that push away players from the game. Remember when they tried to remove positional orientation from the Mini-Map on the HUD during battle? That was a nightmare which I never want to see repeated with something else ever again. Therefore with this post, I'm asking for re-working and enhancement of this Bolt-Ons change before it can cause a backlash from any part of the Community that does not want things to only be this one way.
  
• "Increase Requirement for Reconnection from 2 to 4 minutes - DONE" — This is another positive change with no drawbacks which gets complete appreciation from me. Other than it helping with the New Player Experience for people with problematic internet connections, it also helps in general with people just trying to get things to load and play after a random crash and/or connection failure. It also stops auto-punishing people who had an issue before and were a few seconds too late in reconnecting, as well as provides more time to ensure that people can have the choice of sending a Bug Report in for you folks to look at. Nothing but positives here. Well done!
  
• "Examine Match Scoring (AMS) - MARCH" — Unless you're planning to severely nerf the Match Score given to Damage Dealt (as it currently prevails over literally all the others, and ruins Teamwork through reinforcing selfish behaviors) too, please avoid changing this at all! There are Multi-AMS builds which would otherwise be completely ruined without appreciation given to those who gave up tonnage and certain Skill Allocations in order to help keep their Teammates alive. Further, it takes a fair bit of mental & physical skills to figure out how to best position the AMS-Equipped Mech in order to protect Teammates from Enemy Missiles trying to hit them. I've personally found myself moving all over the place during any given Match in order to get in all the right spots in time, knowing that if I had not been there then my Team would have taken more Damage than when I have protected them. That very need to work on positioning means in and of itself that AMS usage is explicitly never some kind of "No-Skill Thing" that others wrongfully deride it as being. One can not just sit anywhere and auto-knock Enemy Missiles out of the air for their Teammates merely because the AMS was some random place on the field. They literally must be actually close to their Teammates and actively present to provide Support to the whole Team in general, or the AMS is rendered meaningless and would then end up not giving Match Score anyway. So, as I said earlier, please avoid altering Match Scoring for AMS at all, and instead look at boosting the Match Score given to Objective-related game actions, as earning an underdog-variety & come-from-behind type of Win from actually doing & completing an Objective really should never penalize the player who sacrificed to help their Team in getting it.
  
• "Add GSP amount to Mech Bay UI (near CBills, MC, etc)" — This is a very good idea, and would be worth accelerating to happen sooner over some others which I've talked about in the above text. The best possible spot to put it certainly would be right above/below the orange GXP (General XP) amount, and more preferably below so that it doesn't split the (C-Bills) away from the GXP value. I'll be looking forward to this!
  
• "Weapon Changes Pass 1 - MARCH" (and entries from later Quarters down the list) — I'm jumping back up the list a little here to cover this, but if it's possible, then I would appreciate seeing a summary of what was discussed and/or decided upon in other threads and communications on this matter, as I was personally forced to miss all of that discussion due to Real Life causing interference. Was the aspect of keeping the game friendly to people who do not have a perfect body/mind/computer discussed at all with these changes? In particular, some players of MWO suffer from the permanent issue in their lives of their body shaking and messing with their aim. With how heavily nerfed that Lock-On Weapons already are, the current game state forces those people to make a choice of whether or not they should even try to play. Some even find their playtime limited entirely by how effective that Lock-On Weapons are due to Teammates making choices one way or the other as to working with that person who is already fighting with their own disabilities. Some of these people with shaking-type disabilities equally end up also very limited in how much that they can use Direct-Fire Weapons if they're able to at all, and are forced to go offline if they can't use Lock-On Weapons because of Teammates making it impossible. Last time that I checked, that is a hit which we do not need against the active population's online numbers, because the MatchMaker has a harder time when there is less people online to play. Further nerfs need to strictly be avoided now, and Teamwork needs to instead be reinforced through Match Score Bonuses to things like "TAG Damage", "TAG Kill", "NARC Kill", "Spotting Assist", and so on down the list of those supporting actions. For the person using the Lock-On Weapons themselves, there really should be a re-expansion of the Lock-On Angle Limits by at least a degree or two from dead-center, as people who can not hold it perfectly steady end up wrongfully forced to lose locks in some situations where they should have been able to keep the lock held & active against the Enemy Mech which they're fighting. Heck, it needs to happen in terms of General Game Balance anyway simply because an Enemy Mech can literally stop the Lock merely by pushing themselves point-blank against the Mech which the player is piloting, without need for ECM/Stealth/PPC/etc. of any kind, and that is totally not fair when certain Lock-On Weapons are supposed to never have a Minimum Range to their operation. All of this said, I therefore hope that whatever changes may occur happen to avoid alienating people based on any element of their Real Life existence. Otherwise, those changes to the game's weapons may result in a loss of part of the current Player Base that exists, and that would not be good for MWO in general, given that BattleTech itself has precedent in the Lore (at least, as far as I know) of Pilots /w Disabilities being able to still help with fighting out on the battlefields. I most certainly would hope that MWO would not ignore/lose that positive side that makes MechWarrior in general appeal to far more than young/functional people!
  
• "Improve select Unbalanced Maps - Changing Paths and Cover" — This is another spot where a heads-up on the matter would be useful, as I got left out of the loop again. However, I can say that there are maps like Canyon Network which are simply too small, and it would be much appreciated if a larger version with more paths to travel through was made for people to enjoy playing on. Do keep the Classic Edition in the rotation which we currently have now so that variety is maintained, but please consider making a larger version as well with much more of an outright maze-like network of pathways to it at varying height levels. I started to see something positive with Hibernal Rift and the differences in it, but it would be nice for Canyon Network to get a new version with an even better treatment, adding things like a third deck across the map's entire area along with the expanded total region to battle within. I'm going to leave thoughts about Canyon Network at that however, because it would be interesting to see what you and the others at PGI come up with when you go wild on designing natural-looking terrain with a three-deck approach put into it. For a different map, the Crimson Strait region really needs a third path in order to expand combat from just revolving around that D5/E6 Mountain Area most of the time. In this case, my suggestion is to expand over into the "H5 through H8, up then to F8" sectors, and upgrade the map with appropriate scenery/terrain/buildings for a path run through there. Also, the outer boundary in the "B5 through B2, down to D2" area could be let out a little bit, in order to help prevent/block accidental suicides in the NorthWest corner of this map's space. While it will probably be best to keep the Classic Edition in the rotation for Crimson Strait battles, this is one where the newer completed product might actually gain traction in completely replacing the older version. There's also zones on HPG Manifold that seem like they would be reasonable to expand the map into, such as "B3/C3" and "G5/G6 around through F7/E7" due to the overkill choke that the current map shape causes. Plus, I almost forgot about the Tunnel Zone on the two Forest Colony Classic Maps which is currently rather unfriendly to some of these newer Assault Mechs (Annihilator & Kodiak are likely the two most heavily affected here) which we have now in MWO's game. I'm glad terrain can not headshot a Mech like it could in the "MechWarrior 3" game! To deck off this "Rogue's Gallery Of Maps" which could really use help, there's also Solaris City because of movement issues around the various ramps between walking levels. I'll leave it at saying that I really look forward to decreased traffic jamming, because that's about all I know on that topic, and I know that Solaris City has already gone through more than enough chatter (which I need not add to here) over its' serious performance issues.
  
• "8v8 and 12v12 modes" — This is one last item that made my mind bubble with immediate thoughts. I would also personally like to see a dynamic system like others have mentioned that creates the battles with their size based on the Active Population which happens to be Online & In-Queue at the time the battle is put together. Along with that, please make checkboxes in the Server Selector (which I'm thankful & glad you're already aware needs A.S.A.P. repairs applied) which would allow players to opt-in/opt-out of the "Larger 12v12"/"Smaller 8v8" battles that are being composed, as to keep players happy with having further choice in the matter on how they play, even if they have to accept varying Queue Times to get a Match to battle in. If I had the option of what battles that I got into, I would definitely play some in both size types! The only reason this has met with pushback before was because people kept trying to force only having one way (8v8 limited), instead of allowing for both. Having the ability for both sizes of battles would remove that issue, and create something which I know people would look forward to.

...and with that, my brain has chugged until I need to take a break. I'm looking up and down the list now, only to feel myself hit that "Writer's Block" which people have spoken of. I wish for you and the others who work on the 2021 MWO Roadmap to have a good outcome happen, and I hope that you'll manage to get the concerns/suggestions & thanks/appreciation which I've posted about here routed to all the right places in PGI's environment.


~D. V. "a friendly Mech Pilot who wants to help make MWO's 2021 outcome be better than things currently are" Devnull





(p.s.: By the way, I liked the "Great Developer & Streamer Hunt Event", and look forward to a longer-running version happening. I don't know what happened to force the Forum Thread for it into being shut down & locked, but I wish it had not needed to end up that way. Here is to the hope that the next time will not end up bad like this one!)

[Rogard]

Increase Requirement for Reconnection from 2 to 4 minutes - DONE" — This is another positive change with no drawbacks which gets complete appreciation from me. Other than it helping with the New Player Experience for people with problematic internet connections, it also helps in general with people just trying to get things to load and play after a random crash and/or connection failure. It also stops auto-punishing people who had an issue before and were a few seconds too late in reconnecting, as well as provides more time to ensure that people can have the choice of sending a Bug Report in for you folks to look at.

Just as food for thought, this does have an impact if by the time you get into the fight and say 3:30 later and a light pack has already circled you and killed you what fun is that and you lose your skill rating due to this. Have we thought about not dropping the players mech until he reconnects to prevent disconnect murders that always happen?

Edited by Rogard, 30 January 2021 - 09:07 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Commander Solivagant, on 30 January 2021 - 12:56 AM, said:

I had an idea to make games more competitive dependent on the map chosen. The Variants

An example of the issue I am talking about would be:

I have chosen an LRM Warhawk, getting all keen to shoot people from afar. Map selection says Solaris City.

I am now completely ineffective based on luck.

If a variation mechanic/menu was introduced it would give pilots 3 variants to the currently selected mech (so no weight difference for matchmaking).

Being able to assign loadouts to the specific mechs variant menu in the mechlab.
After the map is selected, having something like a drop down menu in the drop preparation screen would be great.

This would ensure that maps would be played more effectively.


Just an idea.

Do you really want to see 8+ lrm boats on polar, alpine or caustic? Having the option to choose builds will ruin these maps..

Having one bad match every once in a while based on luck is not a big deal..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 30 January 2021 - 09:13 AM.

[Buenaventura]

Alreech, on 30 January 2021 - 07:17 AM, said:

The MM works as intened.
Good players have to wait longer to get a match, so they don't have to play with medicore and bad players, and all are happy about the higher quality of matches.

So you aren't even playing QP? You don't have to write that so complicated, it's ok.

No idea what the MM currently does, but it sure doesn't even remotely try to balance anything, neither tonnage, nor "skill", nor speed (very fun to have the lights of one team being Urbanmechs and Cougars, while the other has Commandos, Piranhas and the like and it's conquest on polar highlands) nor ECM (6 in one team, 2 in the other? right ...) nor LRMs/ATMS ...

[Rogard]

F4CTOR, on 29 January 2021 - 08:25 PM, said:

Please PLEASE get rid of the idea of laser color customization. Laser sound customization could be cool maybe, but changing the colors is a horrible idea, since laser colors serve as an instant account for threat level and damage received.

What if the laser color change was only seen on your side would that then solve this? Then those wanting it would be the only ones seeing these changes.

[w0qj]

1) MWO/PGI, please fix the MWO welcome splash page where it still says (C) 2012-2019.
(I'm logging into MWO via Steam game client, if that makes any difference).

2) +1 Agree.
Having the option to choose builds will ruin maps like Polar Highlands, Alpine, Causitic, etc.

In fact, even fewer players would bother to equip AMS, if they have a backup mech choice to counter Polar Highlands.
Daedalos513's comments that there may be more LRM boats on Polar Highlands is valid, if players can pick/choose which mech to deploy.

IMHO, the chance of rolling Polar Highlands is keeping the greater population mech builds a bit more balance overall.
Which is GOOD for variety MWO playability.

DAEDALOS513, on 30 January 2021 - 09:12 AM, said:

Do you really want to see 8+ lrm boats on polar, alpine or caustic? Having the option to choose builds will ruin these maps..

Edited by w0qj, 30 January 2021 - 09:24 AM.

[D V Devnull]

Rogard, on 30 January 2021 - 09:02 AM, said:

D V Devnull, on 30 January 2021 - 08:50 AM, said:

"Increase Requirement for Reconnection from 2 to 4 minutes - DONE" — This is another positive change with no drawbacks which gets complete appreciation from me. Other than it helping with the New Player Experience for people with problematic internet connections, it also helps in general with people just trying to get things to load and play after a random crash and/or connection failure. It also stops auto-punishing people who had an issue before and were a few seconds too late in reconnecting, as well as provides more time to ensure that people can have the choice of sending a Bug Report in for you folks to look at. Nothing but positives here. Well done!

Just as food for thought this does have an impact if by the time you get into the fight and say 3:30 later and a light pack has already circled you and killed you what fun is that and you lose your skill rating due to this. Have we thought about not dropping the players mech until he reconnects to prevent disconnect murders that always happen?

Can you present a solution for what the Game Server does if ALL of the Disconnect's Teammates are dead, and they're the last Mech needed to complete the battle in any Game Mode that is being played? The much-loathed Skirmish Mode has a narrow requirement to wipe the whole Enemy Team completely out. That's not possible if not all of a Team's Mechs are already in the battle area. Also, if you're on the losing Team and have not been deployed, what is PGI supposed to do about your PSR (Pilot Skill Rating) anyway? It was not fair to your Team at all to fail in participation at the battle, and also is not fair to the Enemy that you were not there for the fight, so perhaps the loss in PSR is deserved? Like sure, you should not have to take the hit on the KDR (Kill/Death Ratio, an item separate from PSR) for the connection dropping dead, but it sounds like the MatchMaker needs to put you in a battle with a lesser PSR requirement in order for you to have more fun when you can once again connect & fight during the round. Not to be cold here, but if you're having serious connection issues, you might want to get that fixed, as that is not messing up other people, and they equally do not deserve any of the other effects from what is happening.


Also, if you're going to reply to me, could you at least have the decency to properly quote me? I had to spend extra time just fixing up the quote to display properly, and it accidentally gave the impression of stolen text for a moment before I was able to shake my mind loose.


~D. V. "Your idea of not dropping still needs a balancing solution to be possible to implement in a proper manner." Devnull

[DAEDALOS513]

MarsThunder, on 30 January 2021 - 06:04 AM, said:

I would like to remind everyone that classic Terra Therma is quite exacting of good teamplay (more than other maps) and there were many votes against it in the past.

Terra was/is a great map that favoured the brave when teams rushed to take the center first in skirmish mode.. but watch out because if it was assault mode, a bold rush to the center was punished because the enemy may have gone for your base so scouting was actually a thing.. conquest was also really cool with mini-battles happening throughout the map because caps were actually important on such a big map where matches lasted longer than usual and lances had to stick together capping the outskirts (yes even assault lances had to cap).. base defense was fun too with all the terrain to hunker down and defend from.

NEW GAME MODE:

This reminded me.. a great and easy to implement game mode would be to give one team a base to defend from the enemy. For the attacker the game is not won by kills, but by taking down base in time (kinda like incursion).. for the defenders the game is won by killing all the attackers or having the time run out with their base still intact.. Its a twist on incursion but better because there is less running around and guess work.. each team has a purpose and they know it.

[w0qj]

Daeron has already explained that it is a [game] client-side laser color customization.

ie: Only you can see your custom laser colors (that you've presumably paid for).
ie: All other players will see the regular ingame laser colors (for easier weapon identification) from your mech. In fact, other players would never know that you have paid for custom laser colors at all.

Trust this clears things up?

F4CTOR, on 29 January 2021 - 08:25 PM, said:

Please PLEASE get rid of the idea of laser color customization. Laser sound customization could be cool maybe, but changing the colors is a horrible idea, since laser colors serve as an instant account for threat level and damage received.

Daeron Katz, on 29 January 2021 - 09:04 PM, said:

This would be client side only, so you would not see anyone else's color choices. and they would not see yours. ...

Rogard, on 30 January 2021 - 09:20 AM, said:

What if the laser color change was only seen on your side would that then solve this? Then those wanting it would be the only ones seeing these changes.

[AnimePops]

It is very cool to see new life being injected into the game again. Also very nice to see dialog with the community to the developers. Most exited to see rescale of mech's back the other way and new quirks and balancing of under preforming variants. It would be cool to see mech's rarely played back out on the battlefield.

[DAEDALOS513]

Alreech, on 30 January 2021 - 07:29 AM, said:

Also no changes in Faction Play rewards?

Obviously changing no-faction related rewards like "Cup of Pop", "Hamster Huey" & "Gazell Dropship" cockpit items to faction related cockpit items like flags, decals, warhorns is too much work.

Yep I was disappointed about this one.. switching out those rewards for specific faction one would make sense.. i also had suggested putting in 'real' rewards for serious milestones like a free mech at rank 15.. even sprinkle in some MC here and there.. these would be VITAL first steps in getting cw going again..

They also need to make it infinite in length so rewards never end.. maybe loop back to the beginning once you complete it but giving you a star on your rank every time you finish it.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 30 January 2021 - 09:45 AM.

[suffocater]

I read nothing of a new engine? I think that would be the only way to make this game long term relevant.

[DAEDALOS513]

Buenaventura, on 30 January 2021 - 09:18 AM, said:

So you aren't even playing QP? You don't have to write that so complicated, it's ok.

No idea what the MM currently does, but it sure doesn't even remotely try to balance anything, neither tonnage, nor "skill", nor speed (very fun to have the lights of one team being Urbanmechs and Cougars, while the other has Commandos, Piranhas and the like and it's conquest on polar highlands) nor ECM (6 in one team, 2 in the other? right ...) nor LRMs/ATMS ...

It does balance skill.. i loaded up my alternate tier 3 account after having not touched it for years and tried dropping.. it was a complete noobie fest.. so ya MM does match by skill.. the problem is population. So tell your friends about this great free-to-play game with stompy robots!

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 30 January 2021 - 09:55 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

w0qj, on 30 January 2021 - 09:24 AM, said:

1) MWO/PGI, please fix the MWO welcome splash page where it still says (C) 2012-2019.
(I'm logging into MWO via Steam game client, if that makes any difference).

2) +1 Agree.
Having the option to choose builds will ruin maps like Polar Highlands, Alpine, Causitic, etc.

In fact, even fewer players would bother to equip AMS, if they have a backup mech choice to counter Polar Highlands.
Daedalos513's comments that there may be more LRM boats on Polar Highlands is valid, if players can pick/choose which mech to deploy.

IMHO, the chance of rolling Polar Highlands is keeping the greater population mech builds a bit more balance overall.
Which is GOOD for variety MWO playability.

Agreed.. what makes matches interesting is the variety of mechs you encounter.. do you really want to see all ac2 boats on hot maps? or all lrm/ppc on no cover maps? Besides, I've had some of my best games in matches I didn't think would turn out so well.. like when I drop on polar with a brawl mech.. if team listens and we ball up and charge them when they get close, those matches are epic win OR lose. Much more memorable anyway than lurming from 1000m and winning.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 30 January 2021 - 10:31 AM.

[Paul Meyers DEST]

Looks decent but you dont put any work into faction play is still a bad move. It is the most interesting game mode. Just increase the XP, LP and CBills output.

[Sereglach]

Instant knee-jerk reaction to this: If flamers aren't included in phase one of weapon tuning I'll be extremely disappointed. MW5 Flamers in MWO . . . it's not hard. We know it's not hard. People long ago data-mined the game to know it's not hard.

That said, even with COVID BS if Flamers get fixed then I'll find a way to keep my promise from years ago and instantly spend some money on MWO. Just saying.

With that out of the way, this looks much better than the very vague information given in the first dev vlog. Although I'll admit I'd like to see WHAT weapons/equipment are being targeted for changes and WHAT those changes will entail. I'd also like to see the skill tree addressed on there, as I know it was a big talking point for a long time, and seemed to be mentioned a lot in wish-list discussions . . . maybe that's in the 2nd year plan?

Anyway, as a few final input points:
- Trial Mechs: For the love of all, 3 weapon groups max (2 preferably), maxed armor and as survivable as possible (STD and LFE/Clan XL engines), no 1-sided "shielding" loadouts (newbies don't understand the concept or are too unskilled in it), and as heat neutral as possible. Then when/if you add skills to these things, they should always have a maxed out survival tree.

- New Mechs: Said it many times, there should have been a "Screw Discord Pyrite" celebratory mech pack. I'd still buy it even if I had to put it on credit (pending Flamer Fix, mind you). If you're not doing full mech packs consider these for individual chassis. IS "Renaissance" Pack with Stinger/Wasp (like Charger and Hatamoto, since they share so many parts), Chameleon, Crusader, and Longbow. For the Clans there aren't really enough to make a full pack, but the Horned Owl, Shadow Hawk IIC, Griffin IIC, and Phoenix Hawk IIC are some good Classics still left to be made. Of course, there are so many good mechs left to be made and everyone has their personal favorite. Regardless, I don't think there's a need to push the timeline forward unless you're going just a few years to get new equipment (Plasma Rifles/Cannons, HAG, AP Gauss, Magshots, etc.) to flesh out more available chassis with better variants.

[K19]

Not bad, but for when it will be applied in the game. Because the only factor of performance is only a night and day cycle. I think on the best maps like TT HP should be FPS are good. expect to see but work for graphics engine and even for tool Portal. To be able to move the settings before entering the game. Low mid high. Strength for this game not to loose now that they have been bought.

[account redo v1]

2 things interest me:
Possibly a buff to cerppcs to make it easier to get match score/damage.
A buff to my viper-b so I can use 2erppc on it more effectively.

[Alreech]

suffocater, on 30 January 2021 - 09:53 AM, said:

I read nothing of a new engine? I think that would be the only way to make this game long term relevant.

Playing Mech Nascar with 11 random dudes against other 12 random dudes get's better with a new engine?