52 replies to this topic

[Davegt27]

I just finished watching the latest NGNG Pod cast with Russ enjoy

[w0qj]

Discussion highlight/timeline please!

I (naively) thought this was a 2-minute video, but it was a 2 hour video!!

[LordNothing]

i was watcning at 2x speed despite being constantly interrupted by rude people and cats. but i jot down the more interesting talking points. in no particular order.

mw5: clans stuff:

game will be very story driven. it will have linear story storytelling. very character driven.

its not as sandbox as mercs.

it will be on ue5. its gonna use nanite.

its gonna be pve-coop, not an mwo successor.

all maps will be custom and not procedural.

it will have mission oriented gameplay, no cookie cutter modes.

it will have lots of cinematics.

mods support is planned but not initially.


mwo stuff:

mwo has very low margins.

no pathway to upgrade mwo.

successor if it happens would be completely different, will come out after clans, wont be f2p.

mwo will maintain the status quo.

longbow confirmed. mwo will continue to have mechs backported from mercs (though no mention of additional mercs dlc).

russ is not involved very much with the mwo team.

mwo will no longer get engineering support.

mm is unfixable.


franchise/business stuff:

license extension from ms. pgi has a good relationship with ms that have been generally productive. doesnt sound like ms will pull the license and ms is always willing to do extensions so long as they are turning a profit.

steam rates are absurd, russ called it a monopoly.

ms wont develop a mw game unless they can sell a lot of units.

general discussion about making the mw franchise draw in more casuals. eg simplify combat or the mechlab ui. growing the niche. mech assault kept coming up. but they still want to keep an advanced mode for more seasoned players.

non-zero chance of another mech con. depends on success of clans.

pgi has become more transparent.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 October 2023 - 09:20 AM.

[martian]

Davegt27, on 14 October 2023 - 05:48 AM, said:

I just finished watching the latest NGNG Pod cast with Russ enjoy

Thanks for the link.

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 09:16 AM, said:

i was watching at 2x speed despite being constantly interrupted by rude people and cats. but i jot down the more interesting talking points. in no particular order.

Thanks for the summary.

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 09:16 AM, said:

mw5: clans stuff:

Yeah, just a single player MechWarrior. Nothing surprising here.

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 09:16 AM, said:

mwo stuff:
...
mwo will maintain the status quo.
...
...
mwo will no longer get engineering support.
...
mm is unfixable.

In plain language, MWO is going to suffer all those flaws that it currently has, such as unbalanced games in general, premades adding another hit to balancing the games in particular, and probably the same existing stale meta until PGI pulls the plug on MWO definitely.

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 09:16 AM, said:

steam rates are absurd, russ called it a monopoly.

And yet, when PGI announced MW5: Clans three weeks ago, they did not mention GOG.

[Thorqemada]

Well, if PGI would like to attract a lively modding scene there needs to be room for mod content and a purely story driven game does not have that much room for mods while a game like MW5 has plenty of room for mod content.

A lively modding scene imho helps growing the niche like a trickle of waterdrips that eventually pave the way for a stream - ofc that would be a quite lengthy future perspective i guess but when you never start or when you cut it that has no chance to ever happen...



PS: And obviously MW5:Clan is a game only for Clanners so it will not reach the complete audience...

PPS: My ideal for MW would be a Conan Exiles Situation were the niche grows bigger and bigger with each content release!

And the difference to MW is that MW changes content with MW5:Clan but does not in an additive way but accompanied by cutting anything b4 it!

How is that meant to grow the niche?

Edited by Thorqemada, 14 October 2023 - 04:33 PM.

[SafeScanner]

Good vid i have forgotten most of it though 2 hours is alot to take in

only question i would really ask why not port over MW5M to UE5 (not sure if it was mentioned i am not sifting around 2 hrs of a vid)

Edited by SafeScanner, 14 October 2023 - 10:45 AM.

[Davegt27]

SafeScanner, on 14 October 2023 - 10:43 AM, said:

Good vid i have forgotten most of it though 2 hours is alot to take in

only question i would really ask why not port over MW5M to UE5 (not sure if it was mentioned i am not sifting around 2 hrs of a vid)

well not an exact answer but Russ mentioned that a lot of people makes suggestions saying "why don't you do this"
Russ said they don't realize you just asked us to spend 10 million dollars

I am sure he was speaking generally

[Meep Meep]

If they are using ue5 then there is no roadblock to an mwo2 past funding. On the upside of getting an mwo2 is that the bulk of the work will already be done via the clans update as all the time and money consuming assets needed will have already been created and fine tuned and since it will have online coop there will even be a network layer implemented.

That just leaves design and coding of the framework to stick all that stuff in and historically thats the easy part with only a small focused team needed to bang it out. It's ~always~ been the filling out of that framework that takes huge teams and huge budgets. I mean you see one man indy devs banging out incredibly complex code with incredibly satisfying gameplay but they only sport the most primitive of graphics due to cost of development.

They crowdfunded the original launch with those legendary founders packs so why not do that again? I'd drop a hundred on an mwo2 founders pack easy. I mean look at how much they took in with the comp pack? If the public had the confidence to drop a combined hundred thousand or so that would go a looong way to pry money out of the owners to match it.

[LordNothing]

i really don't think it needs it. porting to a new engine is expensive, and if you are going to put the effort in then why not make a new game. upgrading the engine does not mean all your problems are fixed, it means you have a lot of new problems in addition to the old problems. fixing those will take effort and time and that's before you add new features for which the upgrade was necessary.

it does kind of make sense if your game is intended to have a 10+ year lifespan, as there is an upgrade path. however it seems like f2ps frontload the more technical work and then expect to have a turn key game at some point, which is a far cry from the continued development we were promised back when people were praising the f2p model as the way of the future. what a bleak future that turned out to be.

from a modding standpoint, finalized games are a lot more attractive and easier to work with. your developments don't have to hit a moving target. the games are still in active development. a new release is a dreaded thing that will almost certainly break things forcing modders to play catch up. that's certainly a thing that turns me off to modern modding. especially when i can go work on my own engine and end up with something i can sell.

mwo successor is at least on the horizon, if it might be a product or two down the line. and who knows what kind of engine tech will be available at that point.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 October 2023 - 02:44 PM.

[JediPanther]

mwo stuff: stale same old same old but keep buying stuff to fund other stuff not mwo. Russ has said a lot over the years and here we still are.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 02:35 PM, said:

it does kind of make sense if your game is intended to have a 10+ year lifespan, as there is an upgrade path. however it seems like f2ps frontload the more technical work and then expect to have a turn key game at some point, which is a far cry from the continued development we were promised back when people were praising the f2p model as the way of the future. what a bleak future that turned out to be.

I'd actually say the technical parts aren't the hard part, the hard part is:

• Live service games require more infrastructure, especially if you don't allow for community servers or anything like that. For a game that is also probably resource intensive or poorly optimized that also doesn't help margins as compute can get to be expensive pretty fast. The expansive inventory probably didn't help much either, the nickling and diming of players also impacts database costs and performance (performance is more important for UX).
  
• Microtransactions need forethought on how you keep players spending and I just don't think that ever existed. This game got more money from basically trying to do mini-kickstarters essentially compared to stuff you could get with MC, I just don't think they had planned much there or really known what to expect. Plus I imagine they also didn't want people buying MC to start saving up for things like that so they would require cash sales for these things to keep those separate which is kinda scummy IMO.
  
• Established communities I think is a big part at this point for F2P games, Valve has turned two titles now from paid for games to F2P either because they have established a strong enough community that F2P just keeps players engaged and they have paid off effectively the investment money (ie the money it took to build the base game) and just need to keep cash flow (and profit) for maintenance or for content (I think Valve paid 150k for a player/community made map and pays more than that for some of the skins that are made by players/community).

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 02:35 PM, said:

general discussion about making the mw franchise draw in more casuals. eg simplify combat or the mechlab ui. growing the niche. mech assault kept coming up. but they still want to keep an advanced mode for more seasoned players.

So I'm glad they don't want to go down to Mechassault . Also, actually good stock mechs help the basic/advanaced stuff since well, they help guide players to what are actually decent builds.

I think Mechassault definitely oversimplified things, I mean yeah it brought some people in, but you might say it also didn't have much staying power either. I think a good comparison is really to DnD, where Mechassault seems more like 4th edition. It was an over-reaction to the complexity of 3/3.5 (which is more akin to Mechwarrior 2 and 3 imo). Mechwarrior 4 I still feel like was going the right way to finding that balance between the two and like 5th edition of DnD found quite the sweet spot and I still think it was PGI's biggest mistake to throw all the MW4 had learned out the window and try to go back to the days of 2 and 3.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 October 2023 - 06:25 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

LordNothing, on 14 October 2023 - 09:16 AM, said:

general discussion about making the mw franchise draw in more casuals. eg simplify combat or the mechlab ui. growing the niche. mech assault kept coming up. but they still want to keep an advanced mode for more seasoned players.

Yeah.

I've always been a proponent of simplifying the game even further, for the reason that I am casual, and will more attract people that way. I always wanted to link the missile lockon-system with hard-lock and soft-lock, with auto-aim.

Though the argument against it is that, people want to keep the game smart, not dumb, and doesn't really entertain the idea of allowing and being lenient to bad-play, while in a feedback-loop reinforcing "good-play" with only what they think that is permissible. Looking at the comps and the cauldron.

And lo and behold, like I expected, the game isn't easy and isn't pulling in new players as a result. No wonder the game is in life support.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2023 - 06:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2023 - 06:27 PM, said:

And lo and behold, like I expected, the game isn't easy and isn't pulling in new players as a result. No wonder the game is in life support.

I wouldn't say that's what is holding this game back. Old engine, complexity of the UI, overwhelming complex mech building that doesn't actually add depth to the game, overwhelming number of variants with no indication really on what a good build looks like on them outside of trials (which aren't on the mechs when you buy them), complex mechanics that really serve no purpose in the game (ECM is still overly complex even though it used to be worse and all it's really used for is pseudo-stealth), etc are. The cauldron and balance fall low on the list of issues.

That and the appeal, I feel like MWO was always aimed at appealing to an older crowd that only keeps getting older, gotta find ways to attract gamers outside that demographic.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 October 2023 - 06:36 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 06:34 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that's what is holding this game back.

But development is surely linked on the amount of people willing to play it, considering that this is player-backed live-service game. And because of lack of population to justify it, MWO isn't further being developed, thus retaining the old and crusty engine.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 06:34 PM, said:

The cauldron and balance fall low on the list of issues.

No, gameplay is important as well, and the gaming environment that people can play. And the way the comps of the cauldron has handled it, in a feedback loop of what they think the game should be. And the game is pretty hardcore competitive as a result.

Sean Lang is be like "nothing is stopping you from playing the game that way", but the reality is that people don't, and wouldn't/couldn't. So yes, balance just caters the comp, the competitive.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

But development is surely linked on the amount of people willing to play it, considering that this is player-backed live-service game. And because of lack of population to justify it, MWO isn't further being developed, thus retaining the old and crusty engine.

That's kind of putting the cart before the horse. As Russ mentioned, you might as well redo the game rather than port and that's in part because this game doesn't have the active community that CS:GO did, where they DID port to a new engine with CS2. However it is making boat loads more money that this game is where they could justify an engine change (ie pay down tech debt). I mean even he seems to acknowledge there were flaws with how they designed MWO with regards to PvP so I think even they know they could fix some things to attract new players. Plus people do like new shinies, after all CS:GO did move to a new engine/game and that game was just a year older than MWO (which is actually pretty crazy that MWO is almost as old).

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

No, gameplay is important as well, and the gaming environment that people can play. And the way the comps of the cauldron has handled it, in a feedback loop of what they think the game should be. And the game is pretty hardcore competitive as a result.

Sean Lang is be like "nothing is stopping you from playing the game that way", but the reality is that people don't, and wouldn't/couldn't. So yes, balance just caters the comp, the competitive.

I mean gameplay is important, but balance really isn't the only factor there (or even one of the largest) and it's not like the playerbase is especially skilled, I feel like it has actively gotten worse over the past several years as the playerbase has shrunk. Balance really at the end of the day doesn't matter too much for QP. People play what they like more often than not regardless of whether they are effective or not. I mean how many NARC Ravens do I still see in games despite being pretty meh most of the time? I mean I'm able to out-damage waaaaay too many people playing a Windicator. QP is loosy goosy, it is waaaaaaay more forgiving than comp when it comes to effectiveness. Regardless of rewards, I just don't think people care, they will play what they want to play. Some just enjoy being contrarian (in fact I would say a lot of QP players) and try to play "anti-meta" builds.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 October 2023 - 07:07 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 07:07 PM, said:

That's kind of putting the cart before the horse.

Well, I don't know how to tell you, that is how it worked. MWO is free to play, in perpetual "beta". You can't really argue around that, around reality.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 07:07 PM, said:

I mean gameplay is important, but balance really isn't the only factor there (or even one of the largest) and it's not like the playerbase is especially skilled, I feel like it has actively gotten worse over the past several years as the playerbase has shrunk.

Isn't just the factor, but it is also big factor that shapes the experience of a multi-player PvP game, and so far the only thing that could be developed as the cauldron actively develops it, and PGI isn't. At such point, they have the responsibility because they have the power, and surely they have the blame.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 07:07 PM, said:

Balance really at the end of the day doesn't matter too much for QP. People play what they like more often than not regardless of whether they are effective or not.

...

Some just enjoy being contrarian (in fact I would say a lot of QP players) and try to play "anti-meta" builds.

I don't disagree with the idea of people running what they like, my issue is that people should be able to do that, and have a moderate amount of success -- but it's not. Balance is set up in such a way that people gravitate to the successful build that embrace the meta. And such meta is reinforced and dictated by the Cauldon, only based on what THEY think how it should work in a feedback loop.

And it's not fun being dogpiled, and being unable to play effectively, at least for me. While sure others would just run with what they want, we are not all the same people, we all have our opinions and our own way of fun. Problem is that what is fun, only for the comps, is being forced onto me.

The problem with Sean's insistence of "comps want to see more weapons and build working", is that it only includes what they think it should be. Oh, I'm salty that I just didn't get what I want? That's not really mutually exclusive to the fact that, they only cater to the comps, because in this scenario it's only what the Comps that get what they want. And the dude just dismiss it as "scapegoat", because it's convenient.

"But you can just play just like them" said Sean. So you mean to tell me that, everyone can get what they want -- when they just change what they want?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2023 - 07:32 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2023 - 07:29 PM, said:

Well, I don't know how to tell you, that is how it worked. MWO is free to play, in perpetual "beta". You can't really argue around that, around reality.

I mean I can, developing an entirely new game is different from promising a port. Yeah, it might be Mechwarrior but that is also a bit of a nebulous thing.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2023 - 07:29 PM, said:

Isn't just the factor, but it is also big factor that shapes the experience of a multi-player PvP game

It really isn't, I mean balance is ever-shifting in most PvP games. Yes you can have absolutely broken states of balance that are bad for things, like say the LRMpocalypse, but for the most part everyone should be walking into a PvP game expecting a meta and the really broken states have generally been fixed decently fast. There are a lot more things that impact first impressions like pacing, how the game feels to play, etc that have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more impact than balance itself on whether someone sticks around. Does the game "feel" fun, even when you lose?

But also, how can you even judge balance when you don't have players all trying to play as effectively as possible? We have established already that some playstyles and weapons can swing wildly in the fact of different tiers of play. That is kinda to be expected to some degree and is definitely acceptable (within limits). For example the Cauldron shouldn't nerf lights just because players that play assaults don't understand how to play assaults, that's not really how that works or should work.

Another side note, this game had lost most of its players WELL before the cauldron got involved AFAIK, I don't exactly remember when it was introduced, but I feel like it wasn't until after 2019 (I could be wrong though). And there is only so much a "balanced" game can do to win players back.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 October 2023 - 08:33 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 08:25 PM, said:

I mean I can

But it wouldn't be reality now would it?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 08:25 PM, said:

It really isn't, I mean balance is ever-shifting in most PvP games.

It being shifting does not really dismiss it, it just says different states and configuration, and the problem is when it is incongruent with what would be a fun experience to the player.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 08:25 PM, said:

Does the game "feel" fun, even when you lose?

Losing isn't it. It's being so utterly helpless it's frustrating. Why even bother to play, when you don't have a chance?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 08:25 PM, said:

But also, how can you even judge balance when you don't have players all trying to play as effectively as possible?

To whom do you give the authority to say what is even effective? As in, why can't the current "bad" play, is just the normal play and it's the comps that are doing too good of play, and must be reigned in?

If it was just a matter of effective, then Exploits are effective; using macro to boost RAC ROF was effective; taking advantage of the 40-lock cone and the high-alpha to nuke lights off the map was effective; using command-wheel to disable gauss charge to avoid firing was effective.

Yet those are pretty much squashed, right?

Comps as the masters of the game abide by what is the optimal and effective, as the current setup suggests. But if they are the same people that says what is and should be optimal and effective, kind of like the same people who is the judge, the jury, and the executioner. There's a conflict of interest, that I do not see to be good. Dismissing "just caters to comp" is just dishonest.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 October 2023 - 08:25 PM, said:

Another side note, this game had lost most of its players WELL before the cauldron got involved AFAIK, I don't exactly remember when it was introduced, but I feel like it wasn't until after 2019 (I could be wrong though). And there is only so much a "balanced" game can do to win players back.

Great power comes great responsibility.

Don't like that? Okay Great ability comes great accountability.

The balance issue of the past is irrelevant, balance issues now is what is relevant. They have the power to not make things worst.

[LordNothing]

the cauldron has done a good job with mech quirks, and a lot of mothballed variants are playable now. but they still have some massive blindspots. comp bias definately exists. they cant nuke the blue lasers (people have been complaining about them for many, many patch cycles). they still dont know how to balance dps weapons. and there are still a lot of dead tech weapons and equipment in the game. some soft counters for weapons other than lerms would be nice. reflective/reactive armor and blueshield to name a few. i really hope something like that is on the to do list. if missiles are a problem for you, you can always install ams, but the only thing you can do if you are being out ranged by erlls is to either hide or join the club.

as for an engine upgrade, there just arent the funds. is the upgrade going to bring back the populations we had a decade ago? i dont think so. a new game has a better potential for that and its easier to sell a new game to new players, and if that is well executed it can be a boost to the population. and you can throw out most of the accumulated cruft, as well as the attrocious f2p model. im actually kind of happy with what russ said about mwo's successor. if buying clans is what it takes to ensure those plans come to fruition, so be it. this game is still viable for now, though with razor thin margins. and if it can no longer be maintained, an mw5 pvp mod exists as a stopgap (its kind of limited so as not to compete with mwo, but i figure it could be expanded in its absence).

Edited by LordNothing, 14 October 2023 - 10:10 PM.

[LordNothing]

sounds like, with the state of their relationship with ms, that pgi will be able to develop mechwarrior games as long as they can turn a profit and give ms their cut. but mwo is in decline, and all good things must end sooner or later. when it does tank the demand for a pvp mw game will go up.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 October 2023 - 10:30 PM.