75 replies to this topic

[Daeron Katz]

Voice of Kerensky, on 24 February 2021 - 11:36 PM, said:

Thanks!
Some news made me happy, some upset, some left confused.
Tell me, the upcoming hunt for streamers and developers will again leave those people who live in the UTC time zone more than +2 (+5...+11) on the roadside of life?

I'm adding more streamers and making it for 3 days instead of just one. I'll continue to improve these as much as possible each month.

[A21B]

well im glad your fixing the lighting on caustic

[Voice of Kerensky]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 11:38 PM, said:

I'm adding more streamers and making it for 3 days instead of just one. I'll continue to improve these as much as possible each month.

Спасибо, Даэрон!
Sorry.
Thanks, Daeron!

[YUyahoo]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:21 PM, said:

16 people on that forum thread. As I mentioned, it's not my only source of gathering feedback. Some people like the 'Mech, some people don't. Every single 'Mech is going to have that to an extent. But if more people would have spoken up about "better" 'Mechs, then maybe it would have been different. There's a lot of "they're wrong and I'm right" responses I see often from the community regarding what other players like or don't like, and well I guess that just is what it is. Can we (PGI) do better? Absolutely, with the time to bounce feedback back and forth a bit with the community, like we'll be doing with the upcoming follow-up Clan pack, and hopefully all packs moving forward. But that 'Mech was a direct result of community requests, not because it's what Matt and I wanted. Regardless, they're the 'Mechs in this pack and we hope to make them as fun as possible.


I appreciate that, help us decide on the Clan 'Mechs when I drop that thread, either tonight or in the morning!

Hey Daeron I think you are missing some of the feedback in the Stryker Pack post about the Dragon 1G. Compared to other Dragons already in the game (and other mechs in general), the biggest issue is the 1G lack of hard points/hard point placement. The 2 missile points in the CT severely limit their usefulness and only having 4 energy hard points are also quite limiting. PGI has taken many liberties in the past on the number of hard points a mech ought to have and where certain hard points are placed and all the community is asking is that PGI take the same liberties with the dragon 1G so it is viable...move one (or both) of the missile points to a side torso and/or add 2 energy hard points (one to each side torso). This should be easy enough to do before the mech is in the game given that it is still weeks away and would really demonstrate just how much PGI is listening to the community (might also increase sales too since the Dragon seems to be the major reason why some people aren't as enthusiastic about the Stryker Pack as the rest of us are).

Aside from that, I see a lot of great things happening and about to happen to MWO...it is greatly appreciated (at least by me) and I'm excitedly looking forward to see what comes next.

[DeadWeight18]

I guess that the Gand Dragen DRG-1G will work or called OP, if you give him the left torso and arm of DRG-1C and the right arrn of the DRG-FLAME with quirks similar to DRG-FLAME.

[IshanDeston]

25:00 Please, stop trying to "get a reaction" we do not have the playerbase left to "get a reaction". If you get the Faction Warfare redesign reaction to Scale or Weapon re-balance, then this game is done.

25:25 Words you do not want to hear from a Dev: "I am not the spreadsheet warrior [...] I don't do the math". Yeah, and that is why currently we have weapon combinations in the game that can insta delete enemy mechs despite being at full health. Which is super enjoyable for these people, because someone "liked big guns" and "didn't do the math".


This is precisely why i am so apprehensive of everything you guys are doing... well statements like the above... and past experiences like the Faction Warfare Re-balance. the Solaris implementation... ruining quickplay match-quality with groups in solo que.

33:15 There is plenty of cover in Polar Highlands, people just don't use it, because everyone is just pressing down W and ending up in the center of the map, instead of using the cover around center. Alpine would be more in need of the addition of cover, that thing has a couple hills and otherwise just flat areas, unlike Polar that has channels and ravines all around the center.

34:00 Instead of promising a new map, you guys should rather work on fixing what is wrong with the existing maps first, and when that is done, work on new maps. Announcing a new map will most likely just get in the way of fixing the old maps. There is so much that could be done with the existing maps to make them more enjoyable, so that its not an question of which of the 4 maps on display do i like the least to vote against that one by picking what i assume most will pick.



As for value of the pack:

I really don't care about yet another type of Heavy Mech... sometimes it feels like this game is heavy mech warrior online. Have we already reached the point where Heavy Mech variants make up 50% of the total mech variants yet? It feels like we can't be far off anymore.

Bolt-ons... i don't care for bolt ons. I would take some patterns please... maybe fixing the way Decals attach to mechs so you do not have shoulder decals bleed through joints on the front view? How about more dynamic patterns? Like let me choose Apple Jack for the legs and Snowfall for the top? I am sorry, i am just not a bolt on person. Its gonna be a sweltering hot day in Hel before i am going to put a bolt on onto my mechs.

GSP are also not "Value" to me, as i have no interest in playing Mechs that are "leveled" and as such GSP take my reason to play the game.

[Son of the Flood]

thanks gents, enjoyed the update! Appreciate the communications and looking forward to things to come.

[Kodan Black]

Son of the Flood, on 25 February 2021 - 06:16 AM, said:

thanks gents, enjoyed the update! Appreciate the communications and looking forward to things to come.

Yeah, this is all exciting. Try not to just see the negative posts.

[Vladokapuh]

can we finally get solo queue back?

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:21 PM, said:

16 people on that forum thread. As I mentioned, it's not my only source of gathering feedback. Some people like the 'Mech, some people don't. Every single 'Mech is going to have that to an extent. But if more people would have spoken up about "better" 'Mechs, then maybe it would have been different. There's a lot of "they're wrong and I'm right" responses I see often from the community regarding what other players like or don't like, and well I guess that just is what it is. Can we (PGI) do better? Absolutely, with the time to bounce feedback back and forth a bit with the community, like we'll be doing with the upcoming follow-up Clan pack, and hopefully all packs moving forward. But that 'Mech was a direct result of community requests, not because it's what Matt and I wanted. Regardless, they're the 'Mechs in this pack and we hope to make them as fun as possible.

While it is good that you're looking towards and listening to the community for what they want but don't just blindly go with what the majority of people ask for, the final (and the only one that matters) decision rests with you guys and you should look critically at something regardless of how popular it is.

We obviously don't have the quirks yet but the DRG-1G is already outclassed by the DRG-1C and it brings up a catch 22, do you remind people that it was the most voted and have some think you're shifting blame on the community or do you shoulder the blame and be seen just adding mediocre stuff?

Edited by Monke-, 25 February 2021 - 07:35 AM.

[Buenaventura]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:21 PM, said:

16 people on that forum thread. As I mentioned, it's not my only source of gathering feedback. Some people like the 'Mech, some people don't. Every single 'Mech is going to have that to an extent. But if more people would have spoken up about "better" 'Mechs, then maybe it would have been different. There's a lot of "they're wrong and I'm right" responses I see often from the community regarding what other players like or don't like, and well I guess that just is what it is. Can we (PGI) do better? Absolutely, with the time to bounce feedback back and forth a bit with the community, like we'll be doing with the upcoming follow-up Clan pack, and hopefully all packs moving forward. But that 'Mech was a direct result of community requests, not because it's what Matt and I wanted. Regardless, they're the 'Mechs in this pack and we hope to make them as fun as possible.

I'd add some changes to the DRG-1G to have it be something really different and/or interesting:
1. Replace one of the missile hardpoints from the CT and add an energy hardpoint in the RA or LA.
2. Increase the engine max rating to 360, so it would be possible to recreate the DRG-5K on the 1G chassis.
3. Allow MASC to be installed optionally. So one would even be able to build a DRG-7K (ok, that would need 3 energy hardpoints in the LA).

All 3 changes can be done without much effort.

[TheBigMountain]

I am unaware if the option has been presented, is it possible/ feasible to tie bolt-ons to armor value? Bolt-ons fall off when armor it is attached to reaches zero? Granted this does not solve the new player confusing bolt-on for mech problem, but may be an interesting idea to some.

[Agent Super Chicken]

Gas Guzzler, on 24 February 2021 - 05:49 PM, said:

The value is good. Grand Dragon -> Bad

Grand Dragon being requested by far is a classic example of where we need to step back and say "Does it really add anything". Because at the end of the day, its not just the people in the forums who are going to be buying this. 16 people asked for the Grand Dragon...

Jeez, really? They won with 16 votes?
Guess that shows how dumb the rest of us are for not talking to our friends and getting them to hit the forums and hype up our top choices.
I might, tongue in cheek, say "I don't understand - I didn't vote or campaign and my guy lost - what gives?"

I am optimistic, as they say that they plan to have a bit more time to back and forth the next one, that our choices and their responses to our choices will get more exciting over time.

On a separate note, there's always the argument of power creep, and I haven't read anyone comment on it yet.
If you release something that makes all past things obsolete, it's less fun to play those old things.
Now that I've actually sunk a fair bit of money into hero mechs, and lots of time into standard mechs, I don't want them to suck. I want the new releases to be B+ or an A- to a solid A tier, if I'm being perfectly honest.

I'm no expert, but the Stryker, for my money, is like a Warhammer 4L. Solid C-tier. It's faster and more nimble and five tons lighter, for the cost of just one laser, so with the right quirks I could see it landing B tier ultimately - as long as the left torso isn't a terrible liability in the end. If quirked right, that's not a bullseye - but it also didn't miss the target paper.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more of a healthy debate about giving us sexy new choices vs. power creep ruining the fun of older choices. That I paid for. With real money.

[Agent Super Chicken]

Has a launch of the new Solaris season been forgotten?
Dying for a new roadmap thread so we can get some info on this.

The problem:
New player experience in Solaris. Which leads to no new players. So old players can't get a match.
More specifically:
"So, you're new and you're not going to win because you don't have the intimate knowledge and skills and the right mechs, and there's no way for your team to carry you while you learn, and we haven't done an advanced tutorial...
..OK but what if we make it MUCH worse: let's put you in a not-best mech with zero skill points, have you get walloped endlessly by the top people, and then have a winner-take-all reward system... hey, why can't we get new players?"
The good news is, this problem is so obvious, it gives away the answer.

Encouraging Developments:
I FINALLY got interested in Solaris last season, thanks to their guaranteed 14 million C-bills + 350 MC for anyone who plays 25 games in each of the divisions. The GXP was kinda useless without an improvement to the c-bill ratio, but it's closer to reasonable than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Which is what Solaris was entirely, and is mostly.

... Now I'm hearing nothing. Are you guys pulling the plug now, just as you got me to go put the effort in to figure it out? I hope not...

This was a GOOD thing for me. After 175 matches because I needed the money, I accidentally got better at the game - on QP and in FP, I win more 1v1 exchanges than I used to, and I'm of slightly more use to my team.
This was a GOOD thing for old players - the people who actually enjoy Solaris got a competitor in me, so they didn't have to stare at an empty screen all day. I gave them 175 decent fights. Well, let's say 50 decent fights. Towards the end maybe. Maybe.
This was a GOOD thing for MWO - people were playing their game, consistently. In a variety of ways, which is less boring.

What we've learned:
You want people to like your game? "Reward attendance" should be top of your mind, and excellence will (eventually) naturally follow after that.
Basic psychology: rewards should be prompt - make the 25-game thing part of a 3-month long clickable event instead of a next-quarter-patch, so they receive the reward AS SOON AS they do the work, not 2.5 months later. For a new player who owns 4 mechs, this earlier cash infusion is HUGE to build their stable and increase the fun.
Actually, let's improve that even more: Make the current reward chart happen at the 15 games per division mark, delivered immediately because it's in the event framework, and then have a SECOND tier at 40 games /div where you hand out the same C-bills again and twice as much MC.
People respond to frequent and immediate incentives. It's crazy to dream you'll be top 25 - until you are, anyway!! It's realistic to dream you'll get 15, then 40 matches... and then you start to see performance results and figure "meh, might as well keep playing, then!"

This season, with the 14 million that just dropped in my account, was the first time that I dared to ask some friends to join me next season. If they keep tweaking that formula, things might happen. And that's good news for EVERYBODY. The newbies who need cash, and the advanced players who want Solaris to continue to be an option.

You CANNOT play Solaris without the best mechs and builds. You CANNOT have that without cash. New players are BROKE.
You also CANNOT play Solaris without a match - old players need new players to match with.
It's disrespectful enough to be kicked in the teeth 25 times in a row - and don't even get me started on old players who are unhelpful, or worse, rude.
On top of facing that, PGI not giving new players the tools to win (money for the RIGHT mechs) and the incentive for trying, only a thoroughly batty person would choose to start playing MWO.
Is this an incorrect analysis?

Short term goals, minimum labour:
Increase the attendance reward: change the 25 game reward to 15 games, and add a second set at 40 games, and AT LEAST make the first 15 games an event that you can click to collect on immediately.
Announce that you're committed to continuing in this style for the next few seasons to see if it increases player engagement, so we know that if we take the time to learn this play style, you're going to be *consistent* and give us a reward for our time and effort - at least for the next 3 seasons or so.

Second step:
As SOON as you figure out how to put 85 skill nodes into the trial mechs, hop over and do the same for the existing Solaris trial mechs.

Third step:
When you have a moment, fix the trial mechs to match one of the top 3 best performers in each division.
And get the Solaris maps into private lobbies for large groups, so MWO units can hold classes in there properly.

I think you'll find, with this minimal amount of work using your existing assets, and some consistency, you'll have people using the game you ALREADY built more, and in more varied ways.
Does this analysis seem incorrect? Are these steps too much to complete? Are they not worth trying out?

[Agent Super Chicken]

Heavy Money, on 24 February 2021 - 10:28 PM, said:

I second the idea of having AMS still be good for making money. Give more people a reason to run it!

I also think that support mechs should be supported. If there was a way for them to get a cash bonus without getting up-ranked into tier 1 without firing a shot, I'm ALL FOR THAT.

"Hey guys, at my DnD table, you get to level up for getting kills. The healer and the bard can go eat dirt."
That's the sign of a bad DM. Let's not go that direction.
I acknowledge that getting to tier 1 without firing an accurate shot is a problem. But making money for intercepting 1000 damage coming to your team - when people WHINE about LRMs endlessly - is not something to "fix."

LRMs aren't a skill weapon? They can be when you have enemy AMS positioned so you have to struggle to acquire a target where you can land damage on targets. Keep the game intricate and challenging.
You hate getting LRMed? Permit your teammate who's helping you with that to be compensated for giving up some of their damage potential.
It's a FANTASTIC tool for teaching new players how to position and communicate, and how teams move during a match, and how to watch their HUD. "See that "incoming missile" icon over your friend's head? GO HELP!"
What's wrong with teaching those skills?
"But it's not pinpoint shooting!!! I'm a great player with pinpoint shots and everyone should be like meee!" ... so what? They'll learn that tomorrow, when they get bored of this / have learned this lesson, and they change it up.

[Heavy Money]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:35 PM, said:

Well of course a guy named Heavy Money would say that.

Gotta keep my Jester a good option!

To expand a bit more: Its good if people run AMS more often. Right now most mechs can only run a single AMS, and people don't bother because it doesn't do much, and they are often sacrificing firepower and/or ammo to do it. Some good builds make or break on that last 1.5tons. So we only really see it on mechs that can run a lot. It would be good for the game if it was more viable to run that single AMS. If AMS impacts score less than now, that's even less reason to run it. So making it generate a bunch of money is a good incentive. Having more people running their single AMS will give it a more even distribution on the battlefield. Fixing the heat on Laser AMS will help a lot too.

Also I listened through the full podcast. Good work! I'm especially happy to see the quirk discussions, and the new Bolt-On direction.

[Gas Guzzler]

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:21 PM, said:

16 people on that forum thread. As I mentioned, it's not my only source of gathering feedback. Some people like the 'Mech, some people don't. Every single 'Mech is going to have that to an extent. But if more people would have spoken up about "better" 'Mechs, then maybe it would have been different.

I understand that, when I made that post I hadn't got to the point of the video when you mentioned the other sources of feedback.

Thank you for the level of communication, and I totally get that you can never please everyone.

[Daeron Katz]

Agent Super Chicken, on 25 February 2021 - 10:06 AM, said:

Jeez, really? They won with 16 votes?
Guess that shows how dumb the rest of us are for not talking to our friends and getting them to hit the forums and hype up our top choices.
I might, tongue in cheek, say "I don't understand - I didn't vote or campaign and my guy lost - what gives?"

I am optimistic, as they say that they plan to have a bit more time to back and forth the next one, that our choices and their responses to our choices will get more exciting over time.

On a separate note, there's always the argument of power creep, and I haven't read anyone comment on it yet.
If you release something that makes all past things obsolete, it's less fun to play those old things.
Now that I've actually sunk a fair bit of money into hero mechs, and lots of time into standard mechs, I don't want them to suck. I want the new releases to be B+ or an A- to a solid A tier, if I'm being perfectly honest.

I'm no expert, but the Stryker, for my money, is like a Warhammer 4L. Solid C-tier. It's faster and more nimble and five tons lighter, for the cost of just one laser, so with the right quirks I could see it landing B tier ultimately - as long as the left torso isn't a terrible liability in the end. If quirked right, that's not a bullseye - but it also didn't miss the target paper.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more of a healthy debate about giving us sexy new choices vs. power creep ruining the fun of older choices. That I paid for. With real money.

We, PGI, are super aware of the issue of power creep. Comes up every day. Typically, players don't like to discuss it much, they just want more power. Player behavior tends to favor OP 'Mechs. I'll stress that this is in general, there are always exceptions of course.

[account redo v1]

I'd like to note that some of the clan mechs don't have a lot of spare tonnage and I think it would be nice to give them a heat dissipation quirk (some of the other ones have that) to offset not being able to pack as many heat sinks.

This of course would hopefully help with my 2 erppc viper build.

[FupDup]

account redo v1, on 25 February 2021 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'd like to note that some of the clan mechs don't have a lot of spare tonnage and I think it would be nice to give them a heat dissipation quirk (some of the other ones have that) to offset not being able to pack as many heat sinks.

This of course would hopefully help with my 2 erppc viper build.

What the Viper needs is the VPR-F variant added so it can pack 4 MGs in each arm. It got a fair amount of attention in the intel gathering thread so there's a decent chance of getting it.