63 replies to this topic

[Kain Demos]

Khereg, on 23 January 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

It's an interesting discussion, and it seems the OP is making the point that following lore to an excesive degree is not in the best interests of MWO. I'd have to agree. I know there are many folks who want this game experience to be as lore-loyal as possible, but the reality for PGI is this is a business that must attract as large a user base as possible to be successful. Catering to any subset of the user base undermines that objective by potentially alienating new players. This is true whether that subset is comp players, lore purists, or what have you.

PGI is trying to walk a fine line where current committed players stay interested in the game, but the game continues to attract new players who, in large part, are not going to be die hard Battletech fans. If PGI is successful in doing this, the fraction of the user base pounding the table for more accurate representation of lore will diminish. That isn't PGI's goal, but an inevitable outcome of attracting more players to the game.

Not to say that lore doesn't have a place. It creates the framework inside which we all play. But IMHO expecting all (or even most) players to role play and adhere to the events from canon are unrealistic. The players are going to write their own history within this game, which, ironically, is what role playing is all about. This isn't a reenactment exercise, it's an open-ended story waiting to be written within the context of the Battletech universe. Also, it's just human nature to chafe under the yoke. New or casual players who get told they can't do X, Y, or Z because of the desires of other players are going to be resentful of the restrictions.

PGI needs CW to be more open and unrestricted (and frankly we do too) because there are relatively a small number of potential players out there to support a lore-specific retelling of canon and those players are likely not sufficient to keep the game viable financially. Any MWO is better than no MWO (again, IMHO). I know this won't sit well with some people, but I don't see it evolving any other way.

So, back on point with the cease fires:
1. There is no game mechanic to establish faction leadership among the player base nor to enforce agreements between factions, so expecting cease fires (or any other inter-faction diplomacy) to be upheld is not realistic
2. Based on what I wrote above, I think it's better for game mechanics and the growth of the user base to let CW be a free-for-all anyway.

I disagree with all that.

When MW2 came out all it received was universal praise--I don't recall a bunch of QQ about "why isn't clan xxxx in this game?" or "where are my IS 'mechs?".

If you adhere to the lore the people that fund this game due to their love of battletech will stay. Whatever people that don't know or care for battletech and here for whatever reason (can't seriously understand why someone who didn't would be here though--there are far more popular fad of the week games available) but are nonetheless already hooked will stay as well. The new players that arrive will be discovering the IP for the first time and I doubt their first thoughts will be "why can't I do x or y" because they will be new and wouldn't have been around in beta when things were different. To them it will just be the character of the game and they will either like it or not.

Edited by Kain Thul, 23 January 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Mr G]

I for one enjoy the way CW is working out and allowing player driven diplomacy to have an effect on the state of the galaxy adds a lot of depth and intrigue that PGI would have a seriously hard time implementing on their own. The dramatic swings factions have had are proof that this is a good base for the real CW system that eventually comes out. If certain cease fires are bothering you well then try some diplomacy and convince other units that your goals and vision of how the game should be coincide better than whoever they are currently working with. There is more to this particular game mode that just getting into a mech and fighting. Which is as it should be. If you just want to drop and fight there is the public queue.

[CyclonerM]

Besides, we are not strictly renacting the invasion. We are not losing at Tukayyid it seems

If you make a game that tries to cater to every kind of player, you will disappoint everyone, btw.

[-Natural Selection-]

pbiggz, on 22 January 2015 - 07:50 PM, said:

None of you are as scary as the russians. russians are what lost the germans their war.

You referring to before or after they turned into the Mexico of weapons production?

[cranect]

I have to say I think most of the NAPs are more due to a faction not wanting another front than anything else. I know in the early days marik tried taking on all three of our neighbors and it didn't work out so well so we and Liao decided not to attack each other because it benefitted us both. Now occasionally a few people do attack but either side shuts it down before too long. Liao definitely needs a way to attack more than davion to make their lives more interesting but as it is if they attack marik they will likely be losing on two fronts. So they don't attack us and we don't attack them because its practical. Plus there are enough people to attack between davion Steiner and defending against the clans.

[Kriwan]

Kain Thul, on 23 January 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

Whatever people that don't know or care for battletech and here for whatever reason (can't seriously understand why someone who didn't would be here though--there are far more popular fad of the week games available)

There are far, far, far more people playing who have no idea what Battletech is that are playing than you seem to think.

[Krivvan]

Kain Thul, on 23 January 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

When MW2 came out all it received was universal praise--I don't recall a bunch of QQ about "why isn't clan xxxx in this game?" or "where are my IS 'mechs?".

It was also a very different time where games could survive off of very small and niche populations. It wasn't a F2P game that required a consistently large population. MW2 came out when I was a little kid, and for a lot of people my age the only thing they know about Battletech is "that MechAssault game" at best. I know when I played MW2 and MW3 I had barely any conception as to what the plot was.

[CyclonerM]

Krivvan, on 24 January 2015 - 02:47 AM, said:

It was also a very different time where games could survive off of very small and niche populations. It wasn't a F2P game that required a consistently large population. MW2 came out when I was a little kid, and for a lot of people my age the only thing they know about Battletech is "that MechAssault game" at best. I know when I played MW2 and MW3 I had barely any conception as to what the plot was.

True, but: even if a kid's imagination makes it easier, i could become an avid fan of a series/saga/franchise i previously knew nothing about thanks to a game. I had little idea of the lore of Battletech when i was 7 y.o. but MW2 brought me into BT, and if now i am a big fan of the universe is thanks to that game. Why MWO could not do the same for some people? Just like after i read the first book i became an avid fan of A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones?

[Khereg]

Kriwan, on 24 January 2015 - 02:45 AM, said:

There are far, far, far more people playing who have no idea what Battletech is that are playing than you seem to think.

And even among those of us that do, for many (most?) the roleplaying aspect runs a distant second to the combat. That was my main point that probably got lost in the wall of text. This game needs to appeal to a wide audience to survive, period. The economics of F2P demand it.

Mech combat is already a niche market. Trimming it down further by catering to subsets of the population is just not good business strategy for PGI. That is nowhere near trying to make a game that appeals to "every kind of player".

Edited by Khereg, 27 January 2015 - 12:02 PM.

[Kain Demos]

Kriwan, on 24 January 2015 - 02:45 AM, said:

There are far, far, far more people playing who have no idea what Battletech is that are playing than you seem to think.

I sincerely doubt that based on the comments I see in game.

That and the fact that, to be honest, considering all the issues without the battletech IP this ship would have sank long ago without the die-hards that need to get their battletech fix.

[CyclonerM]

Khereg, on 27 January 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

And even among those of us that do, for many (most?) the roleplaying aspect runs a distant second to the combat. That was my main point that probably got lost in the wall of text. This game needs to appeal to a wide audience to survive, period. The economics of F2P demand it.

Mech combat is already a niche market. Trimming it down further by catering to subsets of the population is just not good business strategy for PGI. That's is nowhere trying to make a game that appeals to "every kind of player".

Kain Thul, on 27 January 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

I sincerely doubt that based on the comments I see in game.

That and the fact that, to be honest, considering all the issues without the battletech IP this ship would have sank long ago without the die-hards that need to get their battletech fix.

That, and: if you try to make a game that makes happy everyone, you will likely end up with everyone being partially disappointed. Food for thought.

[Mordale]

Beta,...Map Resets will happen,...those of us that have been here since the start know it will happen,...Its a GAME,..have fun!

[Kain Demos]

Mordale, on 27 January 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

Beta,...Map Resets will happen,...those of us that have been here since the start know it will happen,...Its a GAME,..have fun!

Not necessarily. Latest from Russ seems to be that it will be up to the players.

[CyclonerM]

Mordale, on 27 January 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

Beta,...Map Resets will happen,...those of us that have been here since the start know it will happen,...Its a GAME,..have fun!

Kain Thul, on 27 January 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

Not necessarily. Latest from Russ seems to be that it will be up to the players.

[Kenyon Burguess]

CyclonerM, on 27 January 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

pretty sure everyone would vote to reset just to screw another faction from landing on terra first.

[Kain Demos]

Geist Null, on 27 January 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

pretty sure everyone would vote to reset just to screw another faction from landing on terra first.

Not so fast. While some factions seem to be counting on one (Kurita) and others needing one (Liao, FRR) I doubt anyone from the factions that are expanding will want any sort of a reset.

[CyclonerM]

Geist Null, on 27 January 2015 - 12:32 PM, said:

pretty sure everyone would vote to reset just to screw another faction from landing on terra first.

Even i, a Wolf, would vote against the reset, because i am ideologically against it.

[Karl Marlow]

I'm glad this logic doesn't work IRL. North adn South Korea have been under a ceasefire for 60 years. It's a good thing neither side has said, "This ceasefire is stupid. I've got an army here. Lets use it!"

[Dracol]

ThomasMarik, on 28 January 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

I'm glad this logic doesn't work IRL. North adn South Korea have been under a ceasefire for 60 years. It's a good thing neither side has said, "This ceasefire is stupid. I've got an army here. Lets use it!"

It helps that Koreans don't get respawns.

Edited by Dracol, 28 January 2015 - 06:36 AM.

[pbiggz]

ThomasMarik, on 28 January 2015 - 12:03 AM, said:

I'm glad this logic doesn't work IRL. North adn South Korea have been under a ceasefire for 60 years. It's a good thing neither side has said, "This ceasefire is stupid. I've got an army here. Lets use it!"

I am also glad of that, if your ingame politics match your real world politics I worry for you.

Dracol, on 28 January 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

It helps that Koreans don't get respawns.

God help us if they did.

Edited by pbiggz, 28 January 2015 - 06:37 AM.