21 replies to this topic

[Sirisian]

This game would have worked much better as a completely persistent MMO. I'll explain that below after a quick summary. It sounds like the development team spent a lot of time wondering how F2P could work in such a game. PC Gamer covered this topic briefly:

[quote name='"PC Gamer"]Ekman also promises that while players will be able to buy items with real money' date=' nobody can buy anything that will confer a tactical advantage. “Anything that would affect or give you a tactical advantage, you can’t purchase with real cash. You have to earn that by playing the game,” he says.[/quote']

Starting with assumptions. I fear the game will turn into a repetitive grind through a tree of mech unlocks where one mech is better than others. I assume that players don't want their favorite mech to be one of the weak ones, and it's a very real fear if the developers went that way.

Also, because the term "item" isn't defined it begs the question, what incentive do these items give? Are they merely convenience items to get rid of the unnecessarily long waitplay that's designed into the game. If so that could be a turn-off to some players.


Okay onto the alternative and what I think is a better rounded solution toward gameplay instead of the current instanced combat approach. That is keep a full currency system and split the game into three factions a la Planetside design. Allow each faction to use all the mechs in the game so there is no favorite side and completely redesign the game so that it's an MMO with one or a few large maps with territory control.

Then allow players to join lances or squadrons. Focus the weaponry on not only solo-play but teamplay. For instance, countermeasures as choice instead of rockets.

Players would fight and kill enemy mechs and capture factories (spawn points) and other objectives on huge open maps with regenerating trees and buildings. Players would then be rewarded cash directly for kills and for kills made in their lance/squadron along with objective rewards.

Now when a player died they'd keep whatever money they have in the bank,up to a fixed amount. (This amount could be raised for instance to support the F2P system), but they'd need to build their mech from scratch. Now the difference that makes this idea much more appealing is that mechs would cost different amounts along with different costs for weapons and gear loudouts. Players would end up having hundreds of choices and the terrain and environment, along with weight, heat, armor etc would dictate which mech would be more suited for an area.

Players in this sense could go back to a factory and deconstruct to pull a favorite configured loadout for specific areas if they had the correct cash in reserve.

The reason a persistent world is required is mostly because players might not feel the same way if they were losing their stuff in small instanced skirmishes just to be gimped the next round or be forced to fight against an uber mech just because someone saved up after so many matches. When you have a group in a persistent world there's no sense of disadvantage. The battle continues without you if you decide you need to fall back and repair. (Could have repair mech arms for assist kills after healing a friendly. Has mechwarrior ever had healing? I digress).

On the F2P side there would still be cosmetics and players could buy say cash multipliers for a duration of time or increase their cash cap permanently. However, what these wouldn't allow is really a huge unfair advantage depending on how one defines selling power. Another idea would be permanent discounts on mech prices. Sounds unfair but it's not that bad really. Just allows one person to have more concentrated fun with slightly less grind.

For the reward of playing for months or years players could rank up on mechs and get discounts through the game for playing a mech for a long period of time and also unlock specials items. Vanity skins would be reserved for the F2P real-cash shop.

That concludes the basic outline. Am I the only one that thought of something like this when they heard about the "new online only PC gaming Mechwarrior". Kind of a pipe-dream. I'll say that before someone else does I guess. However, it's something I've always imagined as being a real online Mechwarrior game with larger wars and diverse environments.

[size=5]TL;DR[/size]

• MMO Persistent Large Maps
  
• 3 Equal Factions Same Mechs (huge upgrade choices)
  
• Earn cash to buy mechs and parts (no mech inherently better than others for the most part)
  
• Weight limit, hundreds of choices with rock paper scissor advantages
  
• Focus on teamwork roles in lances and squadrons (countermeasures for instance)
  
• Thoughts? Anyone else expect this when they heard "online only"?

[dh crow]

MMOs are expensive to design and hugely overrated. I'm glad it's not.

Edited by dh crow, 31 October 2011 - 11:43 PM.

[Fury]

I was going to write a detailed breakdown of why this is a bad idea for MWO but I found a simpler way.

MWO is not Eve Online. It cannot be, it would not work. It would also take many years to develop and pretty much be forced into a subscription model to handle server costs.

MWO as it is now is a better idea. It's cheaper for everyone, easier to develop and easily expandable.

[Duncan Idaho]

Despite the length and complexity of the opening post I'll just leave you all with something quite simple.

An MMO mechwarrior game would be a ******* nightmare. Really, it would, because the result would, essentially, be an unrestricted 24 hour battlefield with in which players were constantly hopping in and, under the OP's terms, hopping out whenever they got slagged. And as it has been thus far stated, any work put in to build any given mech would be entirely lost when it went poof, and with the F2P model you'd be paying for every death out of your own pocket even if the real monies were just a supplement to what you earned in game, and without the guarantee that your next venture will be any more successful than the last. Though considering that your A loadout just got totaled, it's not an unreasonable presumption to make that choices B and C and so on will do a lot less than is needed to rebalance multiplayer considering the facts that you just died and whoever killed you just got that much richer for it.

Edited by Duncan Idaho, 01 November 2011 - 03:33 AM.

[Lynce]

On one side i'm happy to see a mechwarriors game again, on another i'm not so happy that is going to be just a online multiplayer slugfest (not bad, but not enough)

I understand why they went this way, cheaper to do and maintain, that's it. If they don't have the funds it's the best choice, but it still saddens me.

The battletech lore is huge, one of the bests out there, it would be perfect for a real mmo, why hasn't been done yet i have no idea.

Joining a faction, earning prestige by doing missions, unlocking weapons and mechs as you go, multiplayer battles for area control, gladiatorial games for fame and cash, so much could be done.

Well it's better than nothing, but i'll keep hoping on a real Mechwarriors mmorpg one day.

[minobu tetsuharu]

Fury, on 01 November 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

I was going to write a detailed breakdown of why this is a bad idea for MWO but I found a simpler way.

MWO is not Eve Online. It cannot be, it would not work.

This is false.

Quote

It would also take many years to develop <removed false statement>
MWO as it is now is a better idea. It's cheaper for everyone, easier to develop and easily expandable.

This is true.

[garrett]

Having a persistent open world map wouldn't make as much sense in this setting--wars can be on an interplanetary scale and key troops are frequently extracted to new planets as needed while other forces remain to hold the territory. Some level of abstraction was inevitable.

Having match-based combat also means they can add whatever persistent features they want to the out-of-combat experience without impacting the core gameplay.

[Amarus Cameron]

I like the idea of a persistent IS map that is conquerable, and from what they have told us to far that sounds to be the case. It will be fun to have terrain control.

And if I cannot play as my clan of choice perhaps I will role Kuritan and fight them my hardest with the hopes that Kerensky may smile upon me and let my aggressive combat show them I am worthy to be a bondsman, and perhaps abtaka.

[Sirisian]

This is going to sound extremely defensive, because it is.

dh crow, on 31 October 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

MMOs are expensive to design and hugely overrated. I'm glad it's not.

Valid point that they are expensive to design. That's actually why I said it was a pipe-dream. Sounds like you prefer matched games which is legitimate. However, they said they are planning on groups of lances fighting so the concept of extending their system to a larger map isn't infeasible. That and it sounds like they'll be controlling the dedicated servers so they're basically setting themselves up with the hardware. Also they're already planning to have a ton of mechs and items so it's a bit an assumption to say they'd be designing much past that. The concept of switching the game to an MMO world format while retaining the ideas of the match based game is definitely possible also. It seems like when players imagine an MMO version of mechwarrior they suddenly think everything has to change. It doesn't.

Fury, on 01 November 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

I was going to write a detailed breakdown of why this is a bad idea for MWO but I found a simpler way.

MWO is not Eve Online.

I never mentioned EVE online. Try not to use strawman arguments. I specifically mentioned Planetside, which was this old open world MMOFPS not many people played. The system I explained was nothing like EVE online. There was no economy explained. Just a system for an endless mech war. How you could take something as different as Mechwarrior and think for a second it could function in an EVE universe is beyond me. The cockpits are far too small for that many spreadsheets.

Duncan Idaho, on 01 November 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

An MMO mechwarrior game would be a ******* nightmare. Really, it would, because the result would, essentially, be an unrestricted 24 hour battlefield with in which players were constantly hopping in and, under the OP's terms, hopping out whenever they got slagged.

That's the general gameplay behind matched games is it not? You join and either get kills then hop out (or respawn if they add that) when you die. Not sure why you assumed there would be a combat difference in an MMO version.

Duncan Idaho, on 01 November 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

And as it has been thus far stated, any work put in to build any given mech would be entirely lost when it went poof, and with the F2P model you'd be paying for every death out of your own pocket even if the real monies were just a supplement to what you earned in game, and without the guarantee that your next venture will be any more successful than the last. Though considering that your A loadout just got totaled, it's not an unreasonable presumption to make that choices B and C and so on will do a lot less than is needed to rebalance multiplayer considering the facts that you just died and whoever killed you just got that much richer for it.

That's kind of an assumption I didn't make. You're assuming that mechs are really expensive and hard to come by? I was more imagining quick cash intake where you die and usually have enough to buy a decent mech. Maybe not all the parts or features you want at that spawn but you're not gimped for 3 deaths until you can save up enough. That and favorite configurations would make spawning at a factory to get back into the battle a fairly simple operation.

You're also making the assumption that Piranha is out to ***** over their customers at every chance to nickle and dime their players. I didn't get that feeling from reading their press releases. Also what I explained was a system where real cash was mostly left out of the equation except as a convenience and for aesthetics. (Highly debated term though in F2P game, the word "convenience"). Ideally players wouldn't have much downtime. The in game cash would allow players to spawn with almost any mech they want but they might not have the cash to equip it correctly so they might wait a few kills then go back to pull out what they really wanted. That and players that just completely suck wouldn't be left out. The system I described rewards teamwork by giving cash among a lance (not sharing, just extra cash bonuses) for players that say are close to one another or assist in a kill or take an objective.

[uebersoldat]

Well you can obviously put me in the persistent MMO group per my EvE post earlier. I think if they just laid the groundwork or infrastructure for that it's very much possible in the future. If it's a slugfest, fine but don't close the book there, keep those doors open to something much more grand. I'd pay $25 per month for an EvE style Battletech MMO.

[fullmetaljacket]

I myself would like to see a persitant world MMO to. Granted it may or may not happen is understood. I played in world war II online for several years, and it was a persitant world. Granted only one world but it was persitant. I know the battltech universe in thousands of planets, but how much detail would some really need? Most are just dust bowls, or jungles.

A MMO of the Battltetech Universe would be awesome, ever since i stopped playing MW3 and MW4 online for many years. I have waitied for some one to take the franchise and rework it into a PC game again. The XboX games where ok but lost interest real quick with them, Could have many classes and skill trees. Mech warriors, Aero Pilots, Techs, Spys, Grunts etc.. etc.. I know years ago there was a battletech 3025 game that was being worked out and developed, that never was finished. I think you can still see the trailer on youtube! Only my two cents worth.

I play WOT(world of Tanks) all though its a great game and F2P. After many months of grinding and going from one tier tank to the next tier tank it gets old some times. Just hope that they all do the Mechwarrior Universe justice.

Fullmetaljacket

[Wynter]

I'd like it too. So say this is successful, and they decided to make more of an MMORPG for MW. To do it right... yes it'd take years to do, but I'd play it.

If it happens great, if not, I'll take what ever MW game I can get.

[Elucid Ward]

@OP TL:DR: No.

Just. No.

Your suggestions effectively ignore the entire canon lore, the current state of affairs as at the timeline of the game (3048 - 3049 on release), and show a marked lack of understanding of the universe your dealing with, be it through oversimplifying or blatant ignorance.

Your suggestions do not work.

EDIT: Reading further, it's clear you've no idea about the BT/MW universe. Read up first, then make suggestions that fall in to line with this IP.

Edited by Elucid Ward, 02 November 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[Sirisian]

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

Reading further, it's clear you've no idea about the BT/MW universe.

Actually I just ignored the silly timeline debate and thought "what would make a multiplayer mech game fun set in a war focused battletech universe?". If you get caught up following the battletech lore you're ultimately just going to limit the game design severely both ways. (Tons of threads doing that already). If you want to stick to it then the factions I described could just loosely be Houses fighting for planets which would be the maps of the persistent world. Then the goal would be to kill the other Houses and become the leader of the star league. For simplicity you can say that only 3 of the houses are fighting unless the population of the game warrants 5 factions fighting on one map at a time.

I'm actually kind of amazed you didn't just make a more constructive post since you claim to know the lore better. If you're against turning the game into one huge war then you could have just said so instead of making BS arguments that I didn't follow the timeline/story to the T. (I ignored mostly to distance the thread of those trivial debates).

Edited by Sirisian, 03 November 2011 - 11:03 AM.

[Adridos]

No way. This universe never had any good proportions for MMO. As have been said, they are too expensive to maintain and it isnt worth it.

[mbt201188]

No. Mechwarrior is a unique IP and needs to be handled as such. If you dont like it then you can go play some other game that you do. Im tired of Mechwarrior conforming to be like other IP's ie, Mechassault.

[Grimjax]

I think alot of you are selling this development team short, they have already said there will be some persistant aspects to this game. While it might not be on the EVE scale, you can easily show how campaigns are fairing on a big IS map display. Your matches might be held on a variety of planets along a border between one faction and another. The more wins, guess what starts to change, The Map and who owns what.

We will have to wait and see what the Devs do but, let me say if they do not make a dynamic ever-evolving game, it will stagnate and people will eventually move on to something else. While some people might like playing the same 4-5 maps every day, it will get old sooner or later.

[Bagheera]

Hard for me to imagine a modern MWO style game that doesn't retain it's "Shooter" element. Any move to an MMO style "target and to-hit check system" would be a **** shame.

Persistent world on the other hand has its place in B-tech/Mechwarrior lore, so a hybrid Persistent World FPS model (think planetside) would be very appealing.

Edited by Bagheera, 03 November 2011 - 12:16 PM.

[Sirisian]

adridos, on 03 November 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

No way. This universe never had any good proportions for MMO.

Hint: the Battletech universe is all about large wars with mechs. How you see the proportion being off is beyond me. Look at the old games based on the IP with large maps and lots of mechs attacking your lance. Mechwarrior 4 really accented this. There was level with a lot of mechs attacking you. It would be no different to those cases except each mech would be player controlled.

mbt201188, on 03 November 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:

No. Mechwarrior is a unique IP and needs to be handled as such. If you dont like it then you can go play some other game that you do. Im tired of Mechwarrior conforming to be like other IP's ie, Mechassault.

You seem to have preconceived ideas about how an MMO mechwarrior game would play out. No one suggested changing the combat or anything. It would be the same gameplay as any of the Mechwarrior games except that instead of their being AI like in some of the larger maps it would all just be players fighting for the objectives in lances or larger groups.

So in that sense it wouldn't be conforming to any new IP. It doesn't have to. Or do you mean simply making it an MMO requires that it change radically? Remember MWO will have multiple lances fighting each other in their game so the population problem has already been shown not to be a problem. That is a lot of mechs fighting at once doesn't present a balance issue or one that requires the game to be changed so much that it isn't Mechwarrior anymore.

Bagheera, on 03 November 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

Persistent world on the other hand has its place in B-tech/Mechwarrior lore, so a hybrid Persistent World FPS model (think planetside) would be very appealing.

Yeah that's why I mentioned Planetside in my original post. Always been a fan large open world combat with teams. Especially with component based damage which is sounds like MWO will be using.

At that point the game would be focused on taking objectives. The number of which would be large enough to separate lances from one another so there isn't a huge grouping problem. Actually how Planetside 2 is handling things wouldn't be a bad idea. That is hexagon territory system where players are forced to split up to deal with a huge front line and multiple enemy objectives.

[Foxfire]

I would like to see them use a model closer to what WWII Online uses to maintain persistance. Obviously they couldn't do the open world that WWIIOnline uses due to space... but having factional based resources, both across the entire held territory and regionally, would be a good way to go.

With that model, things become much more tactical in nature than just 'spawn, blast, respawn'.