382 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

KingCobra, on 29 December 2023 - 06:50 AM, said:

P. S you also spelled Nuro Helmet wrong.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

No one cares, or should care, what you think other people's motivations are. Especially when you live in a fairy-tale storybook land where LRMs can fire through buildings if you just care enough. No amount of skill is going to make a 310m weapon system competitive over the vast distances involved in Alpine Peaks, and no amount of ad hominem sophistry on your part is going to change that.

As for the map voting system, I don't mind if we change it up, but... the multiplier literally exists to allow people to play the less-popular maps. If it's not working well enough, well, that's one for the suggestion box, as it were, but as long as we do have a voting system that's capable of discouraging bad matchups like LRMs and Solaris, or Alpine and anything ranged under 800m, I'm fine with it in principle.

[KingCobra]

Void Angel, on 29 December 2023 - 12:07 PM, said:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

No one cares, or should care, what you think other people's motivations are. Especially when you live in a fairy-tale storybook land where LRMs can fire through buildings if you just care enough. No amount of skill is going to make a 310m weapon system competitive over the vast distances involved in Alpine Peaks, and no amount of ad hominem sophistry on your part is going to change that.

As for the map voting system, I don't mind if we change it up, but... the multiplier literally exists to allow people to play the less-popular maps. If it's not working well enough, well, that's one for the suggestion box, as it were, but as long as we do have a voting system that's capable of discouraging bad matchups like LRMs and Solaris, or Alpine and anything ranged under 800m, I'm fine with it in principle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure most people know by now the map voting system we have has never really worked to balance anything its only function was to allow the same few maps to be played for years. And you could not build that system to balance mech choice per map it was all random mech choices by players with many varied weapon systems.

I truly cannot believe you thought the map voting system could actually balance mech choice/weapon systems to a map choice it was all this fantastic dream in your mind and in reality, players have no real choice unless they build a great amount of points and vote for a map they rarely get to play and be very lucky to get their map choice.

Edited by KingCobra, 29 December 2023 - 05:11 PM.

[Void Angel]

Appeal to common wisdom: check! Can you try to get through one diatribe without a well-known logical fallacy? For me?

As for the map system (and your incoherent begged question,) while the system might benefit from adjustment, it allows people to avoid maps that are bad, and vote for maps they like - your entire argument boils down to "all the maps are good, you're just unskilled," and "other people like maps that I don't, and giving them their preferences makes the game bad." It is a self-evident fact that the map voting system can (and is) used to prevent maps like Alpine from being inflicted on people - it is also self-evident that those who vote for that map invariably have long-range builds. It's pretty obvious from the concentration of long-range builds whenever you do get forced to play that map.

If you removed map voting, everyone with certain builds will be playing Russian roulette with the mapmaker. LRMs, ATMs, Brawling... all of these build types have severe disadvantages on certain maps, even after the missile arc change targeted at Crimson Strait. Some players will just suck it up and take their chances, but most people will gravitate toward builds that can function on any map over time, rather than take the bullet every time Alpine kicks their brawler in the teeth.

Feel free to actually produce a factual argument to support your opinions at any time, but until you do so, I'm going to continue to laugh at your logical fallacies and slap down your arguments as the counter-factual sophistry that they are. You seem to think that just deriding my arguments and throwing in some fallacious non-argument is all someone of your overwhelming stature needs to do to support their opinion.

That's a lot of narcissism for a 46-percenter.

[KingCobra]

Void Angel, on 29 December 2023 - 09:14 PM, said:

Appeal to common wisdom: check! Can you try to get through one diatribe without a well-known logical fallacy? For me?

As for the map system (and your incoherent begged question,) while the system might benefit from adjustment, it allows people to avoid maps that are bad, and vote for maps they like - your entire argument boils down to "all the maps are good, you're just unskilled," and "other people like maps that I don't, and giving them their preferences makes the game bad." It is a self-evident fact that the map voting system can (and is) used to prevent maps like Alpine from being inflicted on people - it is also self-evident that those who vote for that map invariably have long-range builds. It's pretty obvious from the concentration of long-range builds whenever you do get forced to play that map.

If you removed map voting, everyone with certain builds will be playing Russian roulette with the mapmaker. LRMs, ATMs, Brawling... all of these build types have severe disadvantages on certain maps, even after the missile arc change targeted at Crimson Strait. Some players will just suck it up and take their chances, but most people will gravitate toward builds that can function on any map over time, rather than take the bullet every time Alpine kicks their brawler in the teeth.

Feel free to actually produce a factual argument to support your opinions at any time, but until you do so, I'm going to continue to laugh at your logical fallacies and slap down your arguments as the counter-factual sophistry that they are. You seem to think that just deriding my arguments and throwing in some fallacious non-argument is all someone of your overwhelming stature needs to do to support their opinion.

That's a lot of narcissism for a 46-percenter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be a somewhat intelligent person but you're fighting as a white Knight to a map voting system that has no bearing on Balance but promotes lethargic game play and boredom? So here is your chance to prove me wrong and be the best posting forum warrior here.

And I say prove your theory? Prove the Map Voting System does what you say it does to the community in any logical way let's see you say it promotes balance and it promotes better game play and not just repetitiveness and lethargic game play also you say that some maps are bad and unplayable with any type of weapon system prove that?

So, prove all your points about this wonderful voting map system to everyone on this forum Sport.

[Void Angel]

Genetic fallacy: check! Begged question: double-check! Straw man argument that you'd like to argue about? Demand for additional proof without answering points already made? Check, and check.

I asked you to stop with the logical fallacies, not lay into more of them.

The map voting system isn't designed to balance the game, nor have I said so. What the map vote system does is allow players to choose, from among several options, the maps they'd like to play. This has the primary benefit of allowing them to possibly avoid maps like Alpine Peaks or Solaris if they have builds that struggle there; it also allows them to play maps they do like, which is why you see a lot of HPG, Canyon Network, etc, as well as the occasional forcing of Alpine Peaks by LRM teams or snipers who want people to play the worst map in the game so they can farm rewards easily. This is self-evident, yet I have nevertheless had to explain it to you three times now.

If you want to pretend that letting people choose maps they like makes the game "boring and horrible" for the general populace, you're going to actually provide a reasonable argument backed up by some kind of fact. Good luck, though; you've already painted yourself into a corner. You've claimed that the all the maps are fine for all the builds, but playing some maps more than others makes the game "horrible." But if having to play a good, balanced map twice in a row makes the game "boring," doesn't that mean that the actual gameplay isn't fun for you? I can see wanting more variety or whatever, but it seems like you either just don't like MWO, or else are throwing a melodramatic tantrum because you dislike the map voting system.

[bilagaana]

I feel like Bearclaw II should be modified to add an additional long runway feature on the other side. It has developed that most regular players now know the fights are likely to be along the 3 and 4 lines. With only occasional exceptions, the rest of the map is going unused. It's devolving into something as boring and predictable as Hellebore Outpost, where every match ends up fifteen minutes of peeking at D4/E4 and the rest of what would otherwise be an interesting map is rarely being used.

[KingCobra]

bilagaana, on 31 December 2023 - 12:58 PM, said:

I feel like Bearclaw II should be modified to add an additional long runway feature on the other side. It has developed that most regular players now know the fights are likely to be along the 3 and 4 lines. With only occasional exceptions, the rest of the map is going unused. It's devolving into something as boring and predictable as Hellebore Outpost, where every match ends up fifteen minutes of peeking at D4/E4 and the rest of what would otherwise be an interesting map is rarely being used.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might work but after all these years in MWO I can testify to one thing in Solo Quick Play unless a player becomes a Drop Commander for the group and changes the battle location things never change it is not the maps that have huge drop problems ECT it's that after a few times playing a map most players just go to the old regular spots and duel it out.

Thats why I was promoting a 8v8 team only game mode where teams with drop commanders can change battle locations per map and apply more tactical gameplay like we once had. But even then, it's not guaranteed teams and players would find different locations that would give them a better advantage in battles it would be more fun to fight on more map terrain per map I agree with that idea.

Edited by KingCobra, 01 January 2024 - 08:23 AM.

[CwStrife]

KingCobra, on 01 January 2024 - 08:21 AM, said:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might work but after all these years in MWO I can testify to one thing in Solo Quick Play unless a player becomes a Drop Commander for the group and changes the battle location things never change it is not the maps that have huge drop problems ECT it's that after a few times playing a map most players just go to the old regular spots and duel it out.

Thats why I was promoting a 8v8 team only game mode where teams with drop commanders can change battle locations per map and apply more tactical gameplay like we once had. But even then, it's not guaranteed teams and players would find different locations that would give them a better advantage in battles it would be more fun to fight on more map terrain per map I agree with that idea.

Would be interesting if they did something with faction play like turning it into an 8v8 with multiple drops.... might revitalize stuff a little bit. Not sure why they never tried to use faction play as another game mode.... it could work if they simplified it. Sucks they gave up, whoever had the initial ideas stunk at em which is the reason FP kept failing to catch on.

Edited by CwStrife, 01 January 2024 - 11:41 PM.

[KingCobra]

CwStrife, on 01 January 2024 - 11:41 PM, said:

Would be interesting if they did something with faction play like turning it into an 8v8 with multiple drops.... might revitalize stuff a little bit. Not sure why they never tried to use faction play as another game mode.... it could work if they simplified it. Sucks they gave up, whoever had the initial ideas stunk at em which is the reason FP kept failing to catch on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Strife you have been around since Beta 1 so you know Faction had over 100,000 players year 1-3 until 90% of the old MW2-4 players left MWO Faction play was a big reason for there departure and other things all they wanted was more Balance and a few changes that to them would have enhanced game play.

After they all left Faction dragged on very unbalanced and farming teams and seal clubbing lower teams became the normal routine along with bad attitudes toward new and other players that tried to enjoy the game mode but who wants to wait 10 min for a match and all of your team die in 3 minutes?

I mentioned a few solutions to revive faction play one was a system change to the faction play MM where it first tried to match a 12v12 if not then an 8v8 then last a 6v6 then drop the match into a battle not as grand as a 12v12 but there would be matches to play.

Then they need to control those teams that just dominate all the others by placing into the MM a bracket system of some kind to balance teams to play only their level of teams with the same skill levels to make it fun and completive for all teams.

It was not a matter of FP catching on it was a matter of bad management and failing to see changes were needed plus they stripped all of the faction rewards out that made FP exciting as well.

Edited by KingCobra, 02 January 2024 - 07:25 AM.

[Void Angel]

Faction Warfare's problem was a combination of game balance, people gaming the system for fun and profit, and an inadequate strategic overgame to keep people interested in it as endgame team content. After the shine wore off, people started to feel that there wasn't enough reward for the effort - Mercstar didn't fracking help, either. Once they got big enough to pretty much control any conflict they entered through sheer numbers, the end was in sight.

But Mercstar was a symptom; like getting thyroid cancer after exposure to radioactive iodine fallout. The main issue driving people away from Faction Warfare in my unit was a lack of progression and agency in the overgame (although it was never much fun to try and fight the Clanner Skyling Laser Rave.) People would put in the effort to get together for the longer FW matches, sit in queue waiting for a match... and the rewards weren't matching the effort, win or lose. Of all the things that might have helped Faction Warfare, I actually think hiring a game board designer to set up the strategic overgame (and then just using seasons) would have helped the most.

[KingCobra]

Void Angel, on 02 January 2024 - 01:30 PM, said:

Faction Warfare's problem was a combination of game balance, people gaming the system for fun and profit, and an inadequate strategic overgame to keep people interested in it as endgame team content. After the shine wore off, people started to feel that there wasn't enough reward for the effort - Mercstar didn't fracking help, either. Once they got big enough to pretty much control any conflict they entered through sheer numbers, the end was in sight.

But Mercstar was a symptom; like getting thyroid cancer after exposure to radioactive iodine fallout. The main issue driving people away from Faction Warfare in my unit was a lack of progression and agency in the overgame (although it was never much fun to try and fight the Clanner Skyling Laser Rave.) People would put in the effort to get together for the longer FW matches, sit in queue waiting for a match... and the rewards weren't matching the effort, win or lose. Of all the things that might have helped Faction Warfare, I actually think hiring a game board designer to set up the strategic overgame (and then just using seasons) would have helped the most.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree on many points in your post in my unit it was not enough rewards for the time spent even though as a Clan unit we did very well in the stats had over 1000 Clan Members battles lasted from 10 min to 30 min depending on the units we were engaged with PGI started down the path right in rewards they should have continued the Faction rewards program with the special Faction Mech's and faction specific weapons camos and decals ect plus more CB and MC rewards.

But even then, the end game content was lacking excitement MWO did not go far enough into BattleTech lore the best way to put this is BTU- BattleTech Universe was MechWarrior's first and biggest Faction Play League it spanned MW2-MW4 and to compare MWO faction play to it was like BTU= Bronk's Zoo to MWO= a small petting zoo in Oklahoma.

MWO does use the BTU faction play map though, but it is not a complete map system it once had a separate client you downloaded, and the map system was live 24 hours a day with statistics on planets drops base captures ETC. BTU was a very complicated Faction League. It offered salvage and captured mechs and assembly bases on planets.

A link to what the BattleTech League was built on = https://www.sarna.ne...-van-der-plank/


I think the only way to bring MWO and real faction play, and the other game modes back would be to rebuild the game with a dedicated Dev team.

But for what we have now I have stated my opinions on the game and map and mode system weather PGI would consider them who knows.

P.S a link to the past I remember playing ever mech game I could get my hands on back then after our TT group quit playing regularly. https://www.bing.com...2D6B&ajaxhist=0

Edited by KingCobra, 03 January 2024 - 08:34 AM.

[Void Angel]

Well, you know that map isn't unique to BTU. It's the Inner Sphere, and part of the franchise IP. I think putting faction-specific stuff would have helped, but for a lot of people it also just wasn't enough fun. Part of the effort v. rewards equation is the rewards, but the effort also matters - and there were structural problems in FW that made that effort greater. Allowing huge units was one thing that was probably bad, in retrospect. Again, this isn't something you can blame MercStar for; they were just a symptom - like an opportunistic candida overgrowth after a treatment of antibiotics. But large units made the planetary occupation rewards less rewarding by spreading them thinner, and probably increased the severity of the population imbalance.

(And trying to adhere too closely to the lore hurt FW, too. Because let me tell you, I cannot stress enough how little anyone enjoyed trying to take Boreal Vault from the Clanner Skyline Laser Rave. There was a reason the Inner Sphere started Light rushing base generators, and it's not because it was terribly fun to do.)

So you're waiting a long time to even get into a match sometimes, then you do a 20-ish minute average fight, and then sit for ten minutes trying to find another match... and what's the payout? Watching the Inner Sphere lose Tukayyid again? I had a ton of fun when Faction Warfare first opened. My unit was the reason House Marik was still standing in Beta 1. But once the maps were solved, and the meta was established, it just ended up being too much effort for the fun - and the rewards weren't worth grinding for, to most people.

PS: My first Battletech computer game came on a floppy disk, and had physical copy protection - speaking of maps of the Inner Sphere.

[Deadeye254]

So I think you guys are on to something here some quick fixes would be get units involved again bring back unit tags on planets offer Legendary mechs that can only be obtained through faction loyalty system no wallet warrior just purchase it, you have to grind for it this is similar to WoT and other free2play games that have seen a ton of success. Also as a die hard loyalist we have to be able to choose our attack path the ability to vote attack and tag what planet I wanted to was a HUGE deal PGI why cant you see this.

Edited by Deadeye254, 27 January 2024 - 09:17 AM.

[Deadeye254]

Also big FP only events are a must at least once every quarter or so like Tukayid was this will bring in new players to FP some will stay some wont but any more interested players to the mode is a small victory you will not fix this in one patch it will take small steps here and there but Rome wasn't built in a day.

[KingCobra]

Deadeye254, on 27 January 2024 - 08:27 AM, said:

Also big FP only events are a must at least once every quarter or so like Tukayid was this will bring in new players to FP some will stay some wont but any more interested players to the mode is a small victory you will not fix this in one patch it will take small steps here and there but Rome wasn't built in a day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Events ETC have been tried for faction play for years now and it works for a few weeks during an event then faction dies out again. Rome was not built in a day I believe that, but Rome did burn down and was conquered in 1 day at its end Many have given PGI the solution to fix faction play and the Map voting system but as you can see nothing has been changed and we all just get ignored.

[Besh]

KingCobra, on 29 January 2024 - 07:51 AM, said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Events ETC have been tried for faction play for years now and it works for a few weeks during an event then faction dies out again. Rome was not built in a day I believe that, but Rome did burn down and was conquered in 1 day at its end Many have given PGI the solution to fix faction play and the Map voting system but as you can see nothing has been changed and we all just get ignored.

The amount of dedication, time and work having been poured into making suggestions for improvement by individuals and groups of people over the Games lifetime so far is staggering . Seeing almost all of it getting ignored over and over again was unbeliveable.

I still think the community can make a difference and impact . Even the business decisions leading to PGI's stance at this time (no more devtime etc...) are not hammered in Stone . What if outside funding was possible ?

[KingCobra]

Besh, on 30 January 2024 - 11:36 PM, said:

The amount of dedication, time and work having been poured into making suggestions for improvement by individuals and groups of people over the Games lifetime so far is staggering . Seeing almost all of it getting ignored over and over again was unbeliveable.

I still think the community can make a difference and impact . Even the business decisions leading to PGI's stance at this time (no more devtime etc...) are not hammered in Stone . What if outside funding was possible ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piranha games was sold to EG7 not long ago to finance Mechwarrior5 I presume I don't believe any of the cash flow was used on MWO so I personally doubt the new owner EG7 would finance a rebuild of MWO. Prianna still has the maintenance and development role of MWO and Mechwarrior5 but for how long I don't know.

And I don't know all of what the deal was for the sale of piranha games I only know of what I have read in articles on the pairing of their company's but I do believe EG7 is in control now of both games' futures.

[Besh]

KingCobra, on 06 February 2024 - 07:42 AM, said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piranha games was sold to EG7 not long ago to finance Mechwarrior5 I presume I don't believe any of the cash flow was used on MWO so I personally doubt the new owner EG7 would finance a rebuild of MWO. Prianna still has the maintenance and development role of MWO and Mechwarrior5 but for how long I don't know.

And I don't know all of what the deal was for the sale of piranha games I only know of what I have read in articles on the pairing of their company's but I do believe EG7 is in control now of both games' futures.

The arguments most people come up with with when for instance changes to the MatchMaker are suggested are mainly "Yeh, but MW:O = maint mode, Mr. Bullock has said there is going to be no more dev time being put into MW:O ( that apparently has changed already...), Game is dying!"

I for one am thinking about "What would it take to get devtime being put into MW:O Matchmaker ?"

Whenever I type that out on these Forums, there are people who think they need to inform me about the hurdles . I am aware of them . The hurdles are what make me think "What would it take to overcome the hurdles ?"

I think PGI gets their agenda largely set by EG7 as you wrote, so probably, someone there would have to be talked to first.

*shrug*

Edited by Besh, 06 February 2024 - 10:08 AM.

[KingCobra]

Besh, on 06 February 2024 - 10:04 AM, said:

The arguments most people come up with with when for instance changes to the MatchMaker are suggested are mainly "Yeh, but MW:O = maint mode, Mr. Bullock has said there is going to be no more dev time being put into MW:O ( that apparently has changed already...), Game is dying!"

I for one am thinking about "What would it take to get devtime being put into MW:O Matchmaker ?"

Whenever I type that out on these Forums, there are people who think they need to inform me about the hurdles . I am aware of them . The hurdles are what make me think "What would it take to overcome the hurdles ?"

I think PGI gets their agenda largely set by EG7 as you wrote, so probably, someone there would have to be talked to first.

*shrug*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say to get over the hurdle of fixing MWO to be popular with players and fans it would be money and a commitment by who is in charge as in Russ Bullock or someone at EG7 to basically find a profitable direction to go with this game and I'm talking fix all the core problems MWO has had for 12 years.

But MWO is not a desirable game type in the gaming industry. and to repopulate an old game like MWO would require a more diverse type of meta possibly an Armored core or Titanfall 2 approach or even a possibility of a BattleTech MMO using mechs and humans in armor like planet side 2.

I know this is beyond what you were asking about but I believe it would take a lot to make real viable changes to MWO to live a longer life a lot of older game do this all the time look at EVE /Lord of the rings ETC there 20 years old and still retain and gain new players to their venues.

[Void Angel]

MWO is still worth the time to develop, but a complete overhaul would probably require an MWO2. Too many of those "longstanding problems" are baked into the game code to the point that it would take more than the return to fix them, from what I understand. Dude from EG7 in that one video saying that Battletech has a rabid, long-term fanbase that, (while relatively small) will be there for Battletech game products does lend some hope to SOME kind of online presence going forward.

I mean MWO has been whined about rationally critiqued for over a decade now, and it's still here; that should indicate some kind of market for an online product.