311 replies to this topic

[Pr8Dator]

Anyway, IMO I don't think that letting experienced players into the trial mech only queue would be game breaking... if anything new players would benefit watching more experienced players handle the heat managment...

I am sure as hell newbies won't be appreciating that kind of lesson! hahahhahaa!!!

[Imagine Dragons]

Pr8Dator, on 30 November 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

Anyway, IMO I don't think that letting experienced players into the trial mech only queue would be game breaking... if anything new players would benefit watching more experienced players handle the heat managment...

I am sure as hell newbies won't be appreciating that kind of lesson! hahahhahaa!!!

Meh, I really ment watching as spectating once dead... the other "benefit" is proving whether or not if trial mechs are really terrible compared to non-trial (I think they are terrible)

[Taryys]

Yea, I know. With stat based match making going on there should be complete newbs with people who are not complete newbs, but are with in a few % better (~5-10%) that they can learn from when spectating.

Trial mechs are not built for MWO, they come from stock TT builds based on TT heat and firing rates. They are sub-optimal at best, and then only if you know how to use them, which new players will not, and they will be really frustrating to learn from unless they have some ability to modify. Since they are frustrating to use since they are not balanced for online RT play they will be great learning tools if they have the ability to modify and unsuckify the mechs a bit.

XenomorphZZ, on 30 November 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Meh, I really ment watching as spectating once dead... the other "benefit" is proving whether or not if trial mechs are really terrible compared to non-trial (I think they are terrible)

[Taryys]

Premium: A week of premium after completing tutorial... great idea. Yonk.

Mech Modification: I had not thought about mechs that come with non-level 1 stuff like Gauss Rifle. Good point, as well as BAP, etc. I cleaned up the language a little bit in that section. Hopefully, you will find this more specific and to your liking. Please take a look at my original post so you can see. I do not want to post that whole section in here.

I removed the role toggle based balancing for rewards/XP. I see your point, but the rest of that text I agree with completely and are the sorts of changes that that I am alluding to in that section. I added your suggestions to my post. Good ideas there.

AFKers/Suiciders: Yea, ban away. I have not problem with that, but we can also fix the system so people cannot take advantage of the system, since there are always going to be people that will take advantage of it.

Fixing the rewards system and the R&R will get rid of any possible reward for AFKers/Suiciders at all. I have not looked into the R&R costs at all, but I do think that they and the reward system need to be rejiggered a bit. I start a thread on the fixing the reward system to stimulate the conversation a while ago, but do not know enough about these two topics to have an informed decision.

Text Chat System: I am not familar with the LFD system, but a new robust system is needed.

Ally Designation: I have suggested this too. Not here, mind you, but in threads that talk about such things. Yes, I would like to see this too.


Good stuff there! Thanks for commenting.

Hayashi, on 29 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Start the 1 week free premium time as the reward for completion of the tutorial. That settles both with one stroke.

I've an issue with restricting to Tier 1 tech, as some Tier 2 Tech is available on Trials.

....

[DragonsFire]

+1 Some solid ideas in here.

[Belorion]

I am against a trial only que. It doesnt address anything really and just fractures the player base. If there will be any que splitting it should probably be for pug only matches.

[Taryys]

Yup.

Trial queue only = bad!

[FoxyFlashbang]

Ahhh I made a post about this myself not knowing this was here. Many of these ideas are quite nice. I feel like we should be wary of reducing the grind TOO much, because it does serve a purpose. But overall, I agree with this.

[Taryys]

Agreed. There will definitely be a careful balance to keep.

FoxyFlashbang, on 30 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Ahhh I made a post about this myself not knowing this was here. Many of these ideas are quite nice. I feel like we should be wary of reducing the grind TOO much, because it does serve a purpose. But overall, I agree with this.

[RumRunner151]

One more thing to consider:
Add a "Drop ID" field. If there is a value in the Drop ID field when launch or launch group are used, the following happens:
Matchmaker ignores # of mechs(max 8), classes etc. and searches for another single/group with the same code and matches them together.

Not only would this be awesome for tournaments, 1v1 battles, etc., but think of the teaching opportunity. Plenty of people in the community would volunteer to help new people in a controlled environment like this. Newbies could launch into a battle against a friend and both spend time getting used to the controls without worrying about getting blown to bits. A teacher could launch against several students...the possibilities are endless and it would allow the community to help develop ways to overcome what is arguably this game's biggest problem ATM while the Devs continue working on content.

Note: You would have to disable both penalties and rewards and give 100% free R&R. (I.e. you cannot gain or lose cbills or XP and you do not have to pay to repair/re-arm). This has to be done so people don't abuse the system like "We meet in the middle and this time leg your whole team, next time you leg us".

This couldn't be that hard to implement. The only Issue I see is I think they said whether 2 mechs were in a match or 16, it uses the same server resources. So, it would increase the # of simultaneous matches meaning use more sever resources, but wouldn't the long term benefits outweigh the short term costs?

[Taryys]

What you are effectively talking about private server hosted practice areas.
I love the idea and it would rock, however there is a significant amount of server overhead involved in hosting private rooms and would detract from the ability for the actual play instances. This is something specifically that the devs have said.

The programming involved would on no way be trivial, and I say that as a programmer.

I would love it, but I imagine something like this will not happen until they become really, really successful.

That is also the reason in my post that I specify client side practice reason due the devs statement of the difficulty of setting up private game instances.

RumRunner151, on 30 November 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

One more thing to consider:
Add a "Drop ID" field. If there is a value in the Drop ID field when launch or launch group are used, the following happens:

Edited by Taryys, 30 November 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[RumRunner151]

Just for my own clarification, why would significant programming be required? As a programmer who writes business and web database applications, I have no clue what would be require in a game like this. In my mind frame, adding a field should be fairly easy. Adding the skip matchmaking routine and only look for the code is a little harder, but still trivial. Making it skip rewards and such...a little more challenging but not hard. The rest is already there. As I admitted, I think server resources would be an issue. Even possible that a game with 2 people is similar to a game with 16. You could limit it to new players for say 2 weeks and other players x # of drops/week. Still more programming but not that tough from my perspective. Why would these things be so hard to implement form a game programmer's perspective?

And again, the potential benefits of giving the Community the ability to essentially make various meta games including and beyond training which would give new people a less steep start and existing players more reasons to play...larger player base = more $$ while we wait for CW.

Again...not doubting...just trying to understand.

[Mjting]

Signed. PGI REALLY has to get their a-game going or else this game will tank.

a lot of people are REALLY getting tired of the non responses on the aforementioned issues such as the fps bug, armor bugs, shutdown bugs, even some weapon balancing that can be easily tweaked, while they keep feeding us with content that CAN WAIT till everything gets fixed.

really agreeing on the economy and the reward suggestions. I have seen way too many suiciders and afk people.

PGI, PLEASE read this through and at the very least give the suggestions consideration.

[Watchit]

Love your post Taryys! Especially the part about allowing simple modifications of the trial mechs.

Also, there already is an unofficial wiki.

http://mwowiki.org

[Sirous]

Like most of the ideas, they are great and besides a few points that may not work out so well. They are going ahead with 3rd person apparently.

The whole getting 1 week of premium time is probably about the best idea on there, along with the addendums of having to finish a tutorial in order to get it.

Simple modifications to the Trials seems like a grand idea as well, not sure if PGI could pull that off though. Not exactly a knock on them but that is a lot of extra code that they may not have time for at the moment. Plus getting GXP for playing in Trials seems like a no-brainer, you should earn xp for doing just about anything no matter where or when. Trials or not GXP I thought was just basic piloting.

[Zero Neutral]

A lot of what you suggest is already slated to be released..............................................

[Liam Neeson]

You said everything I was gonna say. Thanks.

Except you missed FFA gamemode.

[Sifu Bob]

These are great ideas! thank you for the time and effort spent compiling them.

spending hours running around in a catapult i didn't own to get enough dough to buy a hunchback was ok at first. but after a couple of hours of getting my butt repeatedly kicked (due to both my general suckiness, and abysmal frame rate) i seriously considered just going afk for a game while i had a ciggie. couldn't bring myself to do it cause its just so lame, but the idea was nagging in the back of my mind.

doing something to make it a little less annoying can only be a good thing

my friend i introduced to the game got sick of the grind after half an hour or so, and has stopped playing, which is a real pity, because he did enjoy mech 4: mercs a lot.

[Taryys]

Yea, that is an important part of fixing the farming and new players issues.

Sifu Bob, on 03 December 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

doing something to make it a little less annoying can only be a good thing

Yea, I am have been actually thinking about yanking that part.

I would, rather see an official one that is run by PGI that people can contribute to, and that the Devs specifically update with the official numbers etc...

Watchit, on 01 December 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Love your post Taryys! Especially the part about allowing simple modifications of the trial mechs.

Also, there already is an unofficial wiki.

http://mwowiki.org

Yea, I know, but I am tying all of that together with other things to come up with a comprehensive plan to fix stuff.
Perhaps I should change my post to state that some of this is already slated to be released at some point... hmmm...

Zero Neutral, on 01 December 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

A lot of what you suggest is already slated to be released

[PANZERBUNNY]

Apparently there's grind in this game or as normal people call it, "playing the game".

I think arcade style COD games have ruined generations of gamers to come.