73 replies to this topic

[sycocys]

Tarl Cabot, on 11 February 2024 - 12:54 PM, said:

This part. The real question would be, why make a MWO2 with its overhead (servers, etc) when there is the potential of adding add PVP to the MW5 series? And I can see them definitely going that route when it comes time to close down MWO servers. And no, I am not looking forward to that, but I will take my enjoyment where I can, while I can.

If they were smart they'd not be rebuilding the entire game for Clans and portal'ing it side-by-side with MW5. Shouldn't be a huge jump to build out a pvp installment and other projects into that system and intermingle sales/share assets between them.

Most of the basic concepts they have for modes in MW5 would with some tweaking make for much more interesting pvp.

[LordNothing]

so what's changed? post clans pvp mechwarrior product was announced months ago.

the only thing i want is for it to not be an f2p. because if it is i aint touching it.

Edited by LordNothing, 11 February 2024 - 05:42 PM.

[Alexander of Macedon]

Barring the unlikely event of it being a dramatic improvement over what they've done with MWO and MW5, I won't be particularly interested unless it's one of two models:

1. "MWO 2" built on a new engine, with better netcode, &c. but progression and purchases from MWO carry over.

2. It's attached to MW5 as a free expansion and allows you to create and save 'mech designs and take them into matchmaking, with no progression elements. Ideally as a separate client so you don't have to deactivate your modlist every time you want to play multiplayer.

[Ilostmycactus]

I probably wouldn't be able to play it unless I got my system upgraded in time.

They need to be very, very careful with microtransactions, battle passes, seasons, etc.
The game should follow Deep Rock Galactic as an example and not Halo Infinite or Fortnite. It probably won't, I'm guessing those latter systems make a lot more money, but personally it burns my goodwill.

I'd rather the game was fully paid with no mtx at all, but games like that are rare now.

[Meep Meep]

Going off memory from some leaked documents and such about pgi and their owners there will be no mwo2. The new pvp game will be smaller teams possibly in an ai bot environment and ~not~ free to play. Think mw5 pvp mod or titanfall. This makes sense because team based pvp/pve shooters are gaining popularity with titles like helldivers and the starship troopers fps.

Those of us with large investments in mwo though I think might be served by releasing the server code so that private servers can be ran and the hardcore community kept alive. Supreme commander went that route with FAF who crowdfunded both a brand new client/lobby app and server and they have thousands of active users.

[Frost_Byte]

While I'm sure everyone is excited at the prospect of a future PvP game(we at PGI are as well), we still have the hurdle of finishing the massive game we're currently working on first! Can't start thinking about the next masterpiece when you haven't finished the current one

We all have dreams on what comes after, but nothing concrete and ready to share yet.

[Meep Meep]

Ok this is my pitch for future mw pvp/pve game.

Think of a large map divided into a 3x3 grid with the first three grids being the start with a middle set of three then the final set of three with the objectives. It would be 12 vs 12 like now but each starting grid has a 4 man lance facing each other with paths to get from each grid from the other. Drop decks would be in play so you have multiple mechs as reinforcements and meeting certain goals during the match could open up additional reinforcements. Certain objectives would have to be met by the attackers to open up the next grid closest to the objectives. To keep mechs from simply running into the rear and taking out objectives there would be plentiful ai defenses making that a suicide run. But by destroying certain structures to 'open' up the grid those ai defenses would either be disabled or greatly reduced.

This is just a rough idea so plenty of room for refinement but I think a more strategic type of game would be popular especially among the current mw5 base who are not keen on the pure pvp of mwo.

[An6ryMan69]

If it's going to be more than a small, niche game MWO 2 need to be like other full budget, full priced products.

- Public release is a finished product that does not need (not even close) monthly patches, or perk and quirk adjustments (don't even think about it).

- Public release is free from interference from any manner of interference by subgroups of players.

- Any additional content or occasional patches that comes out are always compatible with existing product and never downgrades existing product (nerfs).

-Product is balanced for the general gaming public, most of which are not hardcore gamers and have little patience for steep learning curves, overly technical gameplay, overly competitive gameplay, or only being successful under certain circumstances.

- Game modes that match up solo vs solo, group vs group, and also match up skill levels.

- Map design that works well for all kinds of play; player selectable maps.

- Gameplay taking precedent over lore.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Meep Meep, on 11 February 2024 - 10:05 PM, said:

Ok this is my pitch for future mw pvp/pve game.

Think of a large map divided into a 3x3 grid with the first three grids being the start with a middle set of three then the final set of three with the objectives. It would be 12 vs 12 like now but each starting grid has a 4 man lance facing each other with paths to get from each grid from the other. Drop decks would be in play so you have multiple mechs as reinforcements and meeting certain goals during the match could open up additional reinforcements. Certain objectives would have to be met by the attackers to open up the next grid closest to the objectives. To keep mechs from simply running into the rear and taking out objectives there would be plentiful ai defenses making that a suicide run. But by destroying certain structures to 'open' up the grid those ai defenses would either be disabled or greatly reduced.

This just seems like the invasion game modes with extra steps.

[feeWAIVER]

A twin stick shooter would be cool.

[1453 R]

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

If it's going to be more than a small, niche game MWO 2 need to be like other full budget, full priced products.

- Public release is a finished product that does not need (not even close) monthly patches, or perk and quirk adjustments (don't even think about it).

So the game has to be absolutely pitch perfect from the word go, with absolutely no room for iteration, correction, or even just some fresh funky changes to keep the game from going stale?

Sounds like an impossible pipe dream. Even the best companies in the world can't pull that one off.

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

- Public release is free from interference from any manner of interference by subgroups of players.

Ahhh yes, another 'the Cauldron hates brawling!' whine. Same answer as usual: stop charging tatas-first into the fire of thirteen enemy 'Mechs from across an open field and you'll find that your 'brawling' games improve tremendously. Fight smarter, not harder.

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

- Any additional content or occasional patches that comes out are always compatible with existing product and never downgrades existing product (nerfs).

So endless infinite power creep forever? Again - impossible pipe dream. People who whine about nerfs don't understand game design. The levers need to be able to go both ways, especially in a PvP game where player habits and skills can evolve over time and show something that was once thought to be 'balanced' is in fact way overtuned when someone uses it to its maximum potential.

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

-Product is balanced for the general gaming public, most of which are not hardcore gamers and have little patience for steep learning curves, overly technical gameplay, overly competitive gameplay, or only being successful under certain circumstances.

While I agree that the idea of "trickle-down" balance is stupid...this is MechWarrior. They made a "MechWarrior" for the General Gaming Public. It was called MechAssault, and the BattleTech fanbase absolutely despised it. MechWarrior players want that 'overly technical' gameplay, the heavy learning curves, all the stuff that makes them feel like they're truly mastering their giant combat robot. Can you make onboarding new players easier? Absolutely. Hell, I learned just last month that MWO has a freaking tutorial now - a fully voiced one, even! Watched my friend run through it all "when the **** did this happen?", but hell if it didn't do a decent job of introducing the fundamentals.

As for the rest? You're asking for a competitive shooter game to be made deliberately uncompetitive. How, precisely, does that work?

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

- Game modes that match up solo vs solo, group vs group, and also match up skill levels.

Ahhh yes, the "people with friends are Ruining MWO Forever™!" tirade. Because the matchmaker has infinite players to draw on to quickly form perfectly balanced matches as well as being able to perfectly predict the behavior of every single player in every single match in order to form matches guaranteed to go down to the wire, 12-11, every single time.

Oh, wait. That's right. Impossible Pipe Dream #3. if Call of Freaking Duty can't do it with infinite money and literally millions of players in a game with less than a tenth of the customization and potential for memedickery as MWO, you sure as hell aren't gonna get it in your niche high-customization robot shooter game.

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

- Map design that works well for all kinds of play; player selectable maps.

You don't think they try? Cauldron-hating terribad 'brawlers' are angry because sniping is possible. They will not be happy until all weapons are caped at 270 meters and they can charge codpiece-first at the enemy across wide-open ground Braveheart-style without taking a single point of damage before entering AC/20 range.

Maps are fine; stop Leeroy Jenkins-ing into the enemy like an eighty-ton rabid chihuahua and you'll start doing way better. Does that mean exercising patience, waiting for your moment, and even occasionally losing a match because the long-range players did better at playing long range than the short-range players did at playing short range? Yes. Nature of the game. Sometimes the guys doing the thing you don't like/aren't good at get to win, too.

Also we have player-selectable maps. it sucks. I never get to play on the maps I like to play on because every-damned-body in MWO always votes for GOD DAMNED HPG. Even when HPG isn't available, people manage to somehow vote for it. It's not even a bad map, I just want to play somewhere bloody else. I've barely gotten to see Free Worlds League Colosseum, which sucks because the few times I've played on that map it's been bloody awesome. Fully randomize maps again, and tell players to stop being doinks that take hyperspecialized fits which only work on one spawn of one map and invest in generalist builds again.

An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:

- Gameplay taking precedent over lore.

That's what the Cauldron's been doing! You can't ignore lore entirely because this is a game franchise driven by a forty year old highly entrenched and fanatically loyal playerbase, but you also have to accept that the needs of a real-time shooter game are different than the needs of a turn-based tabletop combat game where one player controls an entire unit rather than a single machine. 'Mech geometry and shape doesn't matter for spit in tabletop; it's vitally important in MWO. "DPS" doesn't exist in tabletop (and most autocannons are ******* terrible because of it); it's a critical aspect of combat in MWO. Half the equipment in tabletop will randomly cripple your 'Mech if you roll poorly, and even just a few points over "no heat" can cause catastrophic failures; neither of those is acceptable when each player has one 'Mech they get to play per game.

And yet when Piranha leans too far towards gameplay, the 'Mech Dads ooze from the woodwork screaming about LORE ACCURACY and saying "BattleTech is perfectly balanced if you just use the tabletop numbers exactly as printed!". Despite the fact that the game's FREAKING CREATOR updated and rebalanced a ton of the rules for his turn-based squad tactical shooter - or do we not remember HBS BattleTech changing the damage on autocannons, adjusting the slot totals of different 'Mechs so they have more room in the CT, and doing a bunch of other rules tweaks to the forty year old books everyone holds up as Perfect Pillars of Balance?

The company can't win. It's why Russ washed his hands of MWO and left it to a skeleton crew and what amounts to a bunch of glorified unpaid interns. It'll be the same no matter who you give such a project to. 'Mech Dads and Arena Shooter Players are fundamentally incompatible. So, once again - impossible pipe dream.

[Void Angel]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 11 February 2024 - 02:23 PM, said:

I mean you can spin it in different ways, whether the universe is reset "seasonally" or not, but you are talking about the existence of state beyond a leaderboard. There are so many factors at play it just seems better to avoid it entirely and just have very simple events like Tukayyid where it's just two sides against each other and you pick a side and go into a queue. Pretty much something like the current event queue could solve. The event queue was what FP/CW/Solaris/etc should've been all along.

Pointing out that a seasonal reset can and has worked for games isn't "spin." There's nothing magically un-doable about a strategic overgame that people can participate in - you just have to design the system to balance agency against unintended consequences, and implement mechanics that keep things fun even if you're losing - board games do this all the time.

Insisting that faction play wouldn't work now, simply because it didn't work well before, is a gambler's fallacy.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 February 2024 - 02:09 PM.

[Void Angel]

Hi, laser!

1453 R, on 12 February 2024 - 12:29 PM, said:

invest in generalist builds again.

Well, we call those "Gaussvomit," "1453R boat" and "PPC builds." There are a few builds that work at all ranges, and certain weapon systems that are deeply affected by map selection. LRMs and ATMs come to mind - or any brawling build on Alpine Peaks. On the other hand, I do get a bit tired of playing a few maps so much more often than others.

Now, with brawling... I'm the poster boy for telling people to brawl smarter, not harder, but brawling has been pretty hard for a while. Big brawlers like the Atlas can have a terrible time getting to grips with an enemy, and smaller brawlers are more fragile compared to the amount of incoming fire. It's not impossible to brawl or anything, and you get some great matches in, but you end up with better average performance with an all-range laserboat, Gaussvomit, or sniping build. It's all tied up with the acknowledged problems with excessively low time to kill, though - it's not (usually) a map issue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 01:55 PM, said:

Insisting that faction play wouldn't work now, simply because it didn't work well before, is a gambler's fallacy.

It's not that it simply hasn't worked well before, it's that the only one that I've seen successful with a persistent MMO universe boiled down to a spreadsheet simulator. To that end, I am curious what games you refer to below.

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 01:55 PM, said:

Pointing out that a seasonal reset can and has worked for games isn't "spin."

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 02:10 PM, said:

Now, with brawling... I'm the poster boy for telling people to brawl smarter, not harder, but brawling has been pretty hard for a while. Big brawlers like the Atlas can have a terrible time getting to grips with an enemy, and smaller brawlers are more fragile compared to the amount of incoming fire. It's not impossible to brawl or anything, and you get some great matches in, but you end up with better average performance with an all-range laserboat, Gaussvomit, or sniping build. It's all tied up with the acknowledged problems with excessively low time to kill, though - it's not (usually) a map issue.

Slow brawl becoming a thing just means that the game has devalued cover enough that in coordinated level play is basically mindless W key smashing into each other. In uncoordinated environments where you can't get anyone to coordinate, having more range is always going to be the safer play. In coordinated environments currently however, brawl is probably the strongest its ever been outside of the Splaturion days and maybe the brief Snubpocalypse. I mean the Splatapult and Brawl Victor are tier 1 mechs in IS only tourneys if that tells you anything (granted 6v6 and 3 cap conquest also have a serious hand in how powerful that is as well).

So no, the brawl Atlas probably shouldn't ever be wrecking through QP because that's a symptom the game has reached a particularly bad point. That said, Warlords are particularly potent even in QP.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 12 February 2024 - 02:21 PM.

[1453 R]

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 02:10 PM, said:

Hi, laser!

Hey, Void! Heh, I still remember your lessons on not being a damned chickenwing. Have been imparting them to my new buddy and ensuring he understands that aggressive action directed at the enemy is how to win games.

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 02:10 PM, said:

Well, we call those "Gaussvomit," "1453R boat" and "PPC builds." There are a few builds that work at all ranges, and certain weapon systems that are deeply affected by map selection. LRMs and ATMs come to mind - or any brawling build on Alpine Peaks. On the other hand, I do get a bit tired of playing a few maps so much more often than others.

Now, with brawling... I'm the poster boy for telling people to brawl smarter, not harder, but brawling has been pretty hard for a while. Big brawlers like the Atlas can have a terrible time getting to grips with an enemy, and smaller brawlers are more fragile compared to the amount of incoming fire. It's not impossible to brawl or anything, and you get some great matches in, but you end up with better average performance with an all-range laserboat, Gaussvomit, or sniping build. It's all tied up with the acknowledged problems with excessively low time to kill, though - it's not (usually) a map issue.

I get that, and some 'Mechs haven't kept up as well as others. The great Fatlas wading into the thick of heavy combat and laying all its foes low with mighty fusilades of fire from its bellybutton-mounted everything while its invincible armor shrugs off all meager counterattacks doesn't work anymore, no. Frankly I'm not sure it ever should have worked, but in my view 'brawling' is what happens when you manage to ambush someone at close range and hammer them to scrap before they can disengage or get to reinforcements. Everybody else seems to think 'Brawling' means having a big twenty-robit 'Mech Tyson punch-off in the middle of an open plain, like a giant mechanized prison riot.

There's steps that could be taken, I've long wanted missiles to work way differently than they do, but we're kinda stuck for it now, for the most part. Are midrange-y poke builds going to average better than specialists? Yeah. But they also don't pop off as hard as the specialists do when the stars align, and mostly there's only a few maps I know of that markedly favor or disfavor certain weapon types. Solaris, Alpine, Polar (which, weirdly enough, tends to heavily favor close-range builds given how easy it is to trench run people in that map), maybe Caustic since there's not much tall cover to avoid LRM fire with? I've been out a while, I don't know which maps people are jonesing against now. Other than the nigh-constant meming of The Sniper's Wall at HPG, and frankly anybody who falls to wall snipers on HPG deserves what they get. Y'all know exactly where the Wall Snipers are gonna be and where their fire is coming from and there is ample cover against it, if you get blown up at 700m by an ERLL boat on the Wall at HPG it's only because you allowed it to happen.

Honestly? I think the solution to Make Brawling Great Again™ isn't to muck with weapon balance or map design, it's cutting a lance off of each team. Brawling was perfectly fine in the 8v8 days, but the existence of twelve 'Mechs per deathball means there's just too much outgoing fire. It's harder to ambush people, and there's more folks on each team to run to when you get ambushed. I've observed, in both my Olden Days matches and the fights I've had since I came back, that the longer a fight goes the more the brawlers get to play. After the first few kills happen on each side the brawlers start getting more aggressive, pushing in and finding their prey (provided they don't chickendick the whole match, of course), and things start to feel more like The Before Times. Just on bigger, nicer maps. Cut a lance off each side and outgoing fire on both sides decreases, time to kill goes up, and 'Mechs can be bolder/more reckless earlier in the match. There's a reason the event queue always seems to be 8v8, I'd say.

[LordNothing]

feeWAIVER, on 12 February 2024 - 11:22 AM, said:

A twin stick shooter would be cool.

make joysticks great again!

just do what mechwarrior 2 did, eg support first order control. trying to control a mech torso with a second order rate stick (like all gaming joysticks), sucks. high resolution contactless rotory encoders exist now. the main difference is the centering mechanism is removed and replaced with rotory dampers. then your stick position maps 1:1 with your torso angle, the setpoint (actuation lag would be simulated since no control system is instant). using such a stick in mw2 is awesome.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 February 2024 - 03:05 PM.

[Void Angel]

Quickplay is where the game lives; it's where most of us play, which makes it the primary game mode. So we can't just say, "well it's great in comp when the team is both coordinated and pre-designed for it," and leave it at that. We can say that the gains to quickplay aren't worth the disruption of organized play, because organized play exists and is important, too. But my point to Laser was that the people he's hearing probably don't just hate sniping because it exists, but likely because they find that brawling is relatively harder in quickplay - and because high-alpha trade builds have a tendency to just wreck people's armor without the relative vulnerability of a brawler. It's not that simple, but people gravitate toward simple explanations, and with MWO being as complex as it is, it's not always obvious to players what the correct answer actually was.

As for "persistent universes," you're using a definition which isn't universally applicable - there's a huge difference between the formats of EVE and FW. Yes, EVE has a giant persistent faction control system, and is dominated by crazy people who really enjoy spreadsheeting out their space corporations - and engaging in real-world cyber crime to gain an advantage. But that's not the kind of persistence that Faction Warfare aspired to. Instead, MWO attempted to simulate planets being taken in the Succession Wars/Clan Invasion. The problems with that were in the specific mechanics they used, and the lack of perceived rewards. But those things didn't have to be true - add in a seasonal reset and the format becomes literally every board game you have ever played. You just use matches instead of die rolls.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 03:09 PM, said:

Quickplay is where the game lives; it's where most of us play, which makes it the primary game mode.

Yes but the question needs to be asked, what is the end-game that keeps people playing, and its not a question any of us but PGI can answer.

The routes I see are the following:

• Persistent universe, the end game that PGI intended CW to be
  
• Competitive, this is a team game after all so people should be encouraged to actually play, talk on the mic, etc
  
• Go the route of battlefield and make the game more about chaotic battles

Now I've seen several want the last option, but IMO it holds people's attention the least of the three, and honestly, the first is the most hardcore of the three options and can be captured through third party leagues anyway so I kinda prefer option 2 the most. If that were true then yeah, quickplay shouldn't be the focal point of games given that you would want people to aspire to play that (but not force them, having options no different than other competitive games have is perfectly fine). There is a balance to be had though, you can't completely focus on competitive, but you can't just balance everything by quickplay especially since by its very nature, not everyone is playing to their best ability. The point of QP isn't to make it balanced but to make it fun even if you are losing, that's an important distinction to make here.

Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 03:09 PM, said:

As for "persistent universes," you're using a definition which isn't universally applicable - there's a huge difference between the formats of EVE and FW. Yes, EVE has a giant persistent faction control system, and is dominated by crazy people who really enjoy spreadsheeting out their space corporations - and engaging in real-world cyber crime to gain an advantage. But that's not the kind of persistence that Faction Warfare aspired to.

I mean you can say that taking planets is somehow different from what EvE has, but having played in a 3rd party planetary league that functioned much like people envisioned for FW, it very much was about spreadsheets. Figuring out what planets you needed to garrison and what with, investing in "industry" to increase your income from the planets you held, producing mechs and buying factories to produce more, building jumpships. Doing raids in-place of scrims for friendly low risk fun, doing bigger raids to prepare for the big planetary assaults that allowed you to take planets from people. Even for TT/Megamek people have tried to accomplish a way to do that without locking people out of units and entirely different issues arise (some units attract worse players that anchor factions for example).

Now there might not be real world money on the line, but part of me actually doubts that a mechwarrior that went that route wouldn't eventually succumb to that sort of scheme just given the kind of people that EvE attracted anyway (I mean the promises of CW is what attracted Word of Lowtax back during Closed Beta for this game).

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 12 February 2024 - 05:00 PM.

[kalashnikity]

https://mwomercs.com...84#entry6525484

Indeed.

Somewhat similar to consumables, we could each bring a certain amount of tanks/VTOLs for every drop.

When your mech is destroyed you will have an option to switch into one of your VTOL or Tanks (if you have any left), until that time they could be controlled by a combination of AI and you giving orders to them via Command Wheel, "move here, attack this target, defend me" things like that.

I was thinking something like 1 or 2 tanks each, or 2 to 4 vtols each. Since VTOLs have lower HP and less weapon capacity (in general) than tanks, so maybe you would get twice as many vtol as tank..

Tanks would be easy to adapt to, it would literally be like piloting an urban mech, VTOLs would need a little control adjustment.

I know tanks and vtols come in a variety of shapes and sizes, so you could do something like 2 light tanks and 2 light vtols vs one super heavy tank and one light VTOL, or one big VTOL and one small tank.

If you don't want the game to possibly be decided by AI, you could perhaps start in a tank or vtol and have the mech drop later once you tank/vtol was destroyed or vise versa so we don't have AI tanks and VTOLs zooming around the map.

Or we could have the AI control regulated to about a Tier 5 level of accuracy and tactics, and use things like aggro% to decide who or what the AI Attacks.

Obvious I would want BIG maps mostly, and semi randomly generated terrain, etc.

I like how Bearclaw 2 has indoor and outdoor areas, that would be a great feature to have, including hiding in hangers and buildings! And the destructible environment of MW5 is definitely a bonus. You could hide your mech in a building then jump in a VTOL then get back int he fight later in your mech again.

And for goodness sake, we need melee! No more face hugging a gauss Thanatos in a flea!

Edited by kalashnikity, 12 February 2024 - 05:35 PM.