108 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 16 May 2015 - 06:38 AM, said:

I see your point, however I still think it's important we show PGI how we want the game to evolve, I think they see us even if they do not often reply or do what we ask.

That's what I've been doing since October 2011, and I don't see me stopping anytime soon, unless of course Tina and crew ever see a reason to ban me.

Quote

A lot of the changes I ask for in this thread, like multiple drops per match allready exist within CW, and with a few changes to allow for asymetric numbers of mechs per match based on tonage, larger ordinary maps in CW and some new changes to mech balancing would take us far down the road in a flash.

Asymmetric numbers based on tonnage is not going to work... it's the individual designs of the 'Mechs that should be accounted for, and the only way to do that is to break these 'Mechs down to their component parts, with each part already having been gauged and a number applied to each, and add all of the individual part values together to get an offensive and defensive rating total for the 'Mech, as designed, and then modify that by a multiplier to the 'Mech rating total as determined by the game for the usefulness of the pilot with that design. Then, add all of these numbers together when a group of people hit the launch button, and then find a group that also has a series of 'Mechs that are close to the other group's number, make it so you don't have to have an equal number of 'Mechs (asymmetrical, as you've suggested), but remain with the maximum of 12 on a side, and then you'll have a fair match.

Quote

"Ordinary" matches within CW could be like build ups for base sieges. Where you first have to deploy and take out ground defences before moving for the orbital guns etc. Taking a planet would then require more game types.

I'm going to say something that's really odd for me, at this point, but if Community Warfare 3 is supposed to be about the Logistics and control of a unit -whether mercenary or loyalist-, it may be the prelude to objective-based warfare. This is what the vast majority of the community wants to see, as far as I know, and I know I definitely want to see it, as well.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 16 May 2015 - 03:03 PM.

[Vellron2005]

This is how I feel MWO should develop and grow down the road:

1) More maps for both CW and PUG drops
2) Bigger maps, with more objectives, weather and destructable environment
3) More game modes for both CW and PUG drops
4) More FLUFF and immersion
5) Making CW the dominant playing mode (Campaing), and PUG drops "Arcade" mode
6) Inter-faction economy, black market and making couquering planets profitable
7) PVE game modes with tanks, planes, helicopters and other vehicle types as bots. Includes Co-Op play.
8) Add ability to excange mechs and items between player accounts
9) News feeds about what's going on with the game inside the client
10) More tactics oriented gameplay options instead just kill-all style of play
11) Dev sponosored "Celebrities" that play and fight, and issue faction commands. I wanna meet Victor and Katrina Steiner ingame.
12) Mini-campaign PVE co-op tournaments (mini story oriented PVE campaigns in place of some tournaments)
13) Raid-like PVE co-op story oriented mini-campaigns
14) Solaris.. with leaderboards and game-worthy rewards like mechs and MC
15) Stronger on-line marketing to attract new players (not just uber-mega-cool mech packs that cost as 3 blizzard games combined)

That's what I hope PGI will do with this game..

Edited by Vellron2005, 18 May 2015 - 05:00 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Vellron, you have managed to compile all of the things I am hoping for, as well; thank you.

[Vellron2005]

Kay Wolf, on 18 May 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

Vellron, you have managed to compile all of the things I am hoping for, as well; thank you.

You are most wellcome.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 16 May 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

Asymmetric numbers based on tonnage is not going to work... it's the individual designs of the 'Mechs that should be accounted for, and the only way to do that is to break these 'Mechs down to their component parts, with each part already having been gauged and a number applied to each, and add all of the individual part values together to get an offensive and defensive rating total for the 'Mech, as designed, and then modify that by a multiplier to the 'Mech rating total as determined by the game for the usefulness of the pilot with that design. Then, add all of these numbers together when a group of people hit the launch button, and then find a group that also has a series of 'Mechs that are close to the other group's number, make it so you don't have to have an equal number of 'Mechs (asymmetrical, as you've suggested), but remain with the maximum of 12 on a side, and then you'll have a fair match.

First off my initial suggestions are based on what I think is achievable without too much changes in coding or gameplay, using elements already in the game. This way PGI could actually make a change with less effort besides making larger maps, containing a more natural environment and enhanced game modes.

I somewhat disagree regarding the calculation system for pairing, but not completely. Even if there could be some ways of making games even, mechs and pilots are different, and should remain so. A super complex algorithm like you suggest could really make this an rock, paper, scissors kind of game, where every mech, weapon and player on one side is paired with a counterpart on the other. Fair, yes. However, I do not necessarily believe the game will be more fun this way.

By using tonnage instead, and allowing a variety of mech types and skill levels in the same match opens for a more varied and surprising gameplay. Yes, that noob is a dumb f***, but in war you get reinforcements in the form of unexperienced people, and it’s your bloody task to enlighten them in the heat of the battle. Quirks could still be used to make certain mechs more useful in their primary roles.

With communications and more time for planning and maneuvering, I think this will work out just fine overall.
In CW each side drops with 48 mechs today. I think all matches should be in CW, but instead of a fixed number of 48, the numbers on each side should differ based on total weight. Perhaps those numbers should be different between clan an IS to.
There could how ever be none CW matches in more arena style matches with a maximum of 12 mechs for those times you just want to do a quick drop.

The most important part for me is for PGI to start doing a change one way or the other. Then we can discuss the details when this happens

[Threat Doc]

Okay, it's already way too much of a rock-paper-scissors game... I want PGI to add the lizard-spock to that, as well. If you watch Big Bang Theory you'll understand that reference. Now that I look back on what I wrote, before, I could see the individual weapon systems being used modified individually, and then added into the offensive rating. You're right that new pilots have a stiff learning curve, and they have to be "manned up" in the heat of the fight, but the Battle Value idea I've written about for everyone could be a great way of showing trainers about improvements that need to be done, as well.

In NetMech 95 I was terrible at the game, as in MechWarrior II: Mercenaries multiplayer (Kali, Heat, MPlayer, etc.). However for MechWarrior III and Pirate's Moon multiplayer, I held an average of 3:1 kill/death ratio, when it was actually important to read KDR. For MechWarrior IV, I was so horrible I completely reversed that average. For this game I'm working my way up, from June 2012 to now, where I now have more better days of play than bad ones, and I can only afford to get in about 15 - 25 matches in per week. Today, for example, in seven games, I had one where I had zero kills, two games with one kill, three games with two kills each, and on game with three. This time last year, I was happy to be able to get one kill every other game. If we were to measure my growth over this time period, if I had used the very same Catapult design over the entirety of this past three years, with the existing system, which you're basically supporting, there would be absolutely no ability for me, or my opponents, to benefit from the changes in my abilities. Whereas, with Battle Value, my Catapult would have gone UP in value, instead.

The point being that if I am with a really good team of people, even PUGs, if there is a bucket for my team, and a bucket for the enemy team, and they're within 5% of one another, if the other team is crappy, they would be allowed to have more 'Mechs, up to a maximum of 12 for PUGs, or 48 for CW, against fewer 'Mechs on my team, and a far more balanced game in the process.

I don't know how better to express what I'm trying to get across, without doing a whole lot of work that I don't have time to write up at this point in my life.

[Johnny Z]

Vellron2005, on 18 May 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

This is how I feel MWO should develop and grow down the road:

1) More maps for both CW and PUG drops
2) Bigger maps, with more objectives, weather and destructable environment
3) More game modes for both CW and PUG drops
4) More FLUFF and immersion
5) Making CW the dominant playing mode (Campaing), and PUG drops "Arcade" mode
6) Inter-faction economy, black market and making couquering planets profitable
7) PVE game modes with tanks, planes, helicopters and other vehicle types as bots. Includes Co-Op play.
8) Add ability to excange mechs and items between player accounts
9) News feeds about what's going on with the game inside the client
10) More tactics oriented gameplay options instead just kill-all style of play
11) Dev sponosored "Celebrities" that play and fight, and issue faction commands. I wanna meet Victor and Katrina Steiner ingame.
12) Mini-campaign PVE co-op tournaments (mini story oriented PVE campaigns in place of some tournaments)
13) Raid-like PVE co-op story oriented mini-campaigns
14) Solaris.. with leaderboards and game-worthy rewards like mechs and MC
15) Stronger on-line marketing to attract new players (not just uber-mega-cool mech packs that cost as 3 blizzard games combined)

That's what I hope PGI will do with this game..

I like everything here except the "arcade mode" players looking for a sim like experience may be turned off by this. There are PLENTY of arcade mode games out. I hope this game sticks to the character of Battletech and doesnt offer a watered down version. Just a bad idea.

Edited by Johnny Z, 20 May 2015 - 08:15 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Actually, there shouldn't need to be an "Arcade Mode" at all. Instead, why not have several levels of game membership? When someone first signs up and logs into the game for the first time, no screens come up until one question is answered...

"What sort of game do you prefer to play?"

The answers would, basically, be... (NOTE: multiple choice is allowed for at least many of these.)

• Competition Only, Please?
  
  • I am interested in light in-game competition play (the forthcoming Solaris mode)
    
  • Let me into some deep competition, such as eSport
• Depth of Involvement in the Main Game
  
  • Just some stress relief, such as running around and killing other 'Mechs (Lonewolf, or Ghost mode)
    
  • Service is the name of my game, so I want to become part of a House, Clan, Duchy, Pirate, Periphery, or Mercenary unit
    
  • Give me the whole experience, please? I want to be an officer, a leader, maybe even have my name forged on the planets of the Inner Sphere

Of course, these levels COULD be expanded to include more variations of depth, as necessary to the game.

Ghost mode is basically the "Arcade Mode" spoken of, earlier. The difference is that the player would be playing the full-deep CW mode, but they would be filler, filling slots in unit actions where one side or the other is low and needs help. The Lone Wolf still gets their game, and the unit has an improved possibility, or at least the increased firepower, for winning. Win-win.

[TheArisen]

http://mwomercs.com/...s-mean-for-mwo/

This is an interesting thread, got some possible MW implications.

[Vellron2005]

Johnny Z, on 20 May 2015 - 08:10 AM, said:

I like everything here except the "arcade mode" players looking for a sim like experience may be turned off by this. There are PLENTY of arcade mode games out. I hope this game sticks to the character of Battletech and doesnt offer a watered down version. Just a bad idea.

I didn't mean "Arcade mode" as watering anything down... it's more of a spiritual designation... like.. playing without story elements, just for the fun of it..

If you ever played...saaay... NFS Most Wanted (Original game), the CW would be "career" and PUG drops would be "quick race"

That's what I meant.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2015 - 05:36 PM, said:

The point being that if I am with a really good team of people, even PUGs, if there is a bucket for my team, and a bucket for the enemy team, and they're within 5% of one another, if the other team is crappy, they would be allowed to have more 'Mechs, up to a maximum of 12 for PUGs, or 48 for CW, against fewer 'Mechs on my team, and a far more balanced game in the process.

So, I think we agree in most aspects, only you want to scale down the total available number of mechs where I’d rather scale up.

I see your point. Moreover, it could most certainly be a more valid solution in the current smaller arena style matches. With larger maps I’m not so sure. Smaller numbers takes away some of the possibilities of tactics as you have fewer strings to play on.

If the game should take the direction I suggested, one way to make people use mechs less favorable than the few that for some reason inevitably would become a little more powerful than the others, PGI could make a score like you suggested, but instead using this score to directly issue higher bonuses if your mech has a low score. This would make more experienced players trying to shine with less favorable designs.

Anyways, I think this path needs to be threaded as (if) we start walking it.

Edited by Serpentbane, 26 May 2015 - 11:08 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

I'd love to have bigger maps as long as it isn't filled with flat nothings. Must be cover all over the place.
But sadly PGI won't do it. Creating such large maps is just something they won't do for some reason....But i voted for the turn.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 26 May 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

So, I think we agree in most aspects, only you want to scale down the total available number of mechs where I’d rather scale up.

I don't disagree with being able to scale it up; I would love to see Battalion on Battalion fights. I just think the way resources are in the game, right now, wouldn't allow for it. And, it's not just the game... there's no reason to build larger fights until the numbers and strengths of the various computers across the entirety of the community agree with the ability to play in larger fights.

Quote

I see your point. Moreover, it could most certainly be a more valid solution in the current smaller arena style matches. With larger maps I’m not so sure. Smaller numbers takes away some of the possibilities of tactics as you have fewer strings to play on.

I would be all for smaller maps being used for reconnaissance and small unit tactics (Lance's) missions, light to medium 'Mechs, with medium maps used for light company skirmishes, assaults, etc. as they are, now, CW maps being used for objective-based combat and Company-sized fights, and then large maps -yes, larger than CW maps- for actual Battalion v Battalion fights. Of course, many different missions types to be... http://www.wolvesau.net/AU/CMTC3.pdf

Quote

If the game should take the direction I suggested, one way to make people use mechs less favorable than the few that for some reason inevitably would become a little more powerful than the others, PGI could make a score like you suggested, but instead using this score to directly issue higher bonuses if your mech has a low score. This would make more experienced players trying to shine with less favorable designs.

No. The bonuses we have, now, have to go away... they have nothing to do with BattleTech, and they're a cheap-ass way for the devs to attempt to level things out. All of the work they're doing to try and balance everything out they should have poured into an MWO style BV system from the beginning. Look, the BattleTech board game had the VERY SAME PROBLEMS MWO has had from the beginning, and they solved it through Combat Value, first, followed by Battle Value I and Battle Value II. Battle Value II dealt with an Offensive and Defensive Rating that were added together; my recommendation is to develop an Offensive and Defensive Rating, as well, but not everything fits properly into either Offensive or Defensive, especially some of the equipment. So, you average your Offensive and Defensive Ratings together, and then add the special gear. All of that is, then, modified by a small to moderate percentage bonus based off a player's in-game piloting and gunnery scores, scores that, for the most part, already exist.

If you want to change the game to make it so there are bonuses given to weaker 'Mechs, on an automatic basis, you may as well build a system that makes more sense, AND sticks within what exists in BattleTech Canon.

Spleenslitta, on 26 May 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

But sadly PGI won't do it. Creating such large maps is just something they won't do for some reason....But i voted for the turn.

PGI SHOULD NOT be building those sorts of maps, just now, until they're sure everyone in the game can handle dropping on them. Look, as it happens, now, there are many players in the game who, despite encouragement, are either unwilling or unable to upgrade, and there's no way to know who is who, who is capable and who is not. So, until everyone who plays the game meets the minimum requirements necessary to build those maps, and to allow for larger fights, there's no reason to develop the maps. This is not, unfortunately, rocket surgery.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 26 May 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

No. The bonuses we have, now, have to go away... they have nothing to do with BattleTech, and they're a cheap-ass way for the devs to attempt to level things out. All of the work they're doing to try and balance everything out they should have poured into an MWO style BV system from the beginning. Look, the BattleTech board game had the VERY SAME PROBLEMS MWO has had from the beginning, and they solved it through Combat Value, first, followed by Battle Value I and Battle Value II. Battle Value II dealt with an Offensive and Defensive Rating that were added together; my recommendation is to develop an Offensive and Defensive Rating, as well, but not everything fits properly into either Offensive or Defensive, especially some of the equipment. So, you average your Offensive and Defensive Ratings together, and then add the special gear. All of that is, then, modified by a small to moderate percentage bonus based off a player's in-game piloting and gunnery scores, scores that, for the most part, already exist.

If you want to change the game to make it so there are bonuses given to weaker 'Mechs, on an automatic basis, you may as well build a system that makes more sense, AND sticks within what exists in BattleTech Canon.

With bonuses I meant bonuses to your base rewards. If your mech has 20% lower overall efficiency score than the baseline, then your reward should also increase accordingly, or a little more perhaps.

If mech A were just on the baseline and mech B 15% below, average players would perform an average of 15% worse in mech B than a comparable player in mech A. With today’s system, this mech is not widely used due to its low performance, and PGI tries to even this out with quirks.

If mech B gets a reward multiplier of 20%, experienced players could earn higher bonuses compared to average players in baseline mechs. If both players is rewarded with 100.000 C-bills, the pilot in mech B would get 20.000 C-bills extra. PGI could even give extra bonuses in public games, like MC’s if you have the highest score on the team, and even a little more if your team wins, and you’re running a mech scoring 15% below the average baseline efficiency score.

This way the mechs could be different, but still valid choices in the game. The numbers are just examples. In addition, if the mech is 15% above the baseline, it could get an 10% decrease in rewards.

Edited by Serpentbane, 29 May 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[AkoolPopTart]

Give the game to a more qualified developer?

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 28 May 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

With bonuses I meant bonuses to your base rewards. If your mech has 20% lower overall efficiency score than the baseline, then your reward should also increase accordingly, or a little more perhaps.

Okay, I definitely misunderstood what you meant, and think this would be a fantastic idea.

AkoolPopTart, on 28 May 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

Give the game to a more qualified developer?

You won't find one, now. PGI has had the game too long. You will hear me say, all over these forums, that the combat simulator is amazing, it's exactly what it should be for BattleTech on the computer. What they really need help with is the metagame, much of which could be done on their web site, and then any required data from their databases would be used to inform in-simulator files of the types of missions that needed to be done. Then, PGI continues to develop maps and mission types, 'Mechs and other portions of the game that would actually allow us to play in planet-side objective-based warfare missions.

Could PGI add anyone formerly of Microsoft, of Blizzard, of Activision, of Cyberlore, who might be able to help them destroy the envelope and put this game where it really needs to be, all the way around? Yes.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 28 May 2015 - 06:59 PM.

[carl kerensky]

Give me my Mechwarrior simulator back. Give me back my MWO closed Beta gameplay. The one I invested in way back then because I believed it was headed in a good direction. But no...the powers that be decided to appeal to the arcadeites. The lovers of all COD and OCD. Twitch happiness. Whatever. Nope you flipped the switch and decided complexity and depth doesnt matter. I stopped playing awhile ago. But there is always hope isnt there.....like this thread. Go OP go...

[Serpentbane]

carl kerensky, on 31 May 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

Give me my Mechwarrior simulator back. Give me back my MWO closed Beta gameplay. The one I invested in way back then because I believed it was headed in a good direction. But no...the powers that be decided to appeal to the arcadeites. The lovers of all COD and OCD. Twitch happiness. Whatever. Nope you flipped the switch and decided complexity and depth doesnt matter. I stopped playing awhile ago. But there is always hope isnt there.....like this thread. Go OP go...

Thnx.

Yes, I do think making deals with the forces of evil, aka millions of casual players used to playing CoD, are a little to tempting. Somewhere MWO took a turn from the MW sim for enthusiast over to the Armored Nascar game we have today.

However, if you want to play MechWarrior today MWO is what you get. So I can only hope PGI starts listening to the community even more. Not only when it comes to small adjustments to the current game, but also when they find themselves at the next intersection deciding where to go from then on.

That’s why I also try not to go overboard, suggesting rather simple things that can be achieved without huge changes to the game, but still could make a huge impact on how the game can be played.
PGI made a slogan for MWO. The thinking person’s shooter. When was the last time you used your head more in MWO than you ever did in CoD or BF? In my opinion we and PGI need to dig up this slogan and think about how this should reflect on the game.

I’m confident that the community and PGI can make an even better experience. Stick around.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

What MWO needs from MWLL is specific era STOCK MODE, in this case mostly 3025, in opposite to MWLL.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane... you might be absolutely right. Step-by-step as opposed to one large one. However, PGI has shown they can easily handle step-by-step with certain larger steps, huge steps, in-between. I think what we really need to do is set some waypoints, and then outline steps to get to each one.

For my part, I believe much of what needs to be done can be done outside the combat simulator. Move the in-game lobby to the web, along with the logistics, contracting, unit management and maintenance, and make it so commander's can launch from that web site, or at least quickly change into the game interface rapidly. The combat simulator is in pretty dog gone good shape as-is, except for the maps and mission/mode types, and our community at large has always worked through web sites, before, and they've worked just fine... why reinvent the wheel, when it's unnecessary?