31 replies to this topic

[Agent1190]

At about 1:30:00 into the stream - they started discussing Lore and it's role in the game. I believe the term they used is "Civil War Re-enacters."

Something to think about - Star Wars has lore, the original expanded universe was merely based on that lore. Now, those story lines do not follow the "canon" of Star Wars - they labelled them "Legends" and the content of the old Expanded universe novels are now apocryphal at best. CW should follow this idea - CW is not lore, it should be part of the Mechwarrior expanded universe. Use lore to dictate specific boundaries for the game - factions, internal conflicts, timeline (to an extent). But even though lore may states Kurita and Steainer hate each other, that shouldn't dictate how the players drive the game.

Sarna.net (the Battletech Wiki) feels the Mechwarrior games are not canon and all content is apocryphal. Treat the game as such.

[C1Rob]

Agent1190, on 06 February 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

At about 1:30:00 into the stream - they started discussing Lore and it's role in the game. I believe the term they used is "Civil War Re-enacters."

Something to think about - Star Wars has lore, the original expanded universe was merely based on that lore. Now, those story lines do not follow the "canon" of Star Wars - they labelled them "Legends" and the content of the old Expanded universe novels are now apocryphal at best. CW should follow this idea - CW is not lore, it should be part of the Mechwarrior expanded universe. Use lore to dictate specific boundaries for the game - factions, internal conflicts, timeline (to an extent). But even though lore may states Kurita and Steainer hate each other, that shouldn't dictate how the players drive the game.

Sarna.net (the Battletech Wiki) feels the Mechwarrior games are not canon and all content is apocryphal. Treat the game as such.

Agreed, I also like the part about civil wars, historic events, or events happening as a result of earlier CW play (ex. steiner takes over a lot of marik planets, marik teams up with liao and kurita to strike back, davion + steiner strike back).

Of course the relationships between houses dont have to be this way as Agent1190 stated as those should also be a result of CW play.

I also think the idea of a base planet for a Unit should be a thing. Everyday a planet is kept by the unit they receive a certain amount of cbills or w/e(maybe a new special "currency") to upgrade/maintaine the defenses. This gives other units(or even houses!) a reason to keep or attack certain planets.

This maybe a weird example but I used to play alot of FSX (Flight sim) and had a "multiplayer-mod" called FSE. You could buy planes, FOBs at airports etc. These FOBs needed to be build with building materials that had to be bought at a bigger airport and flown there and upkept with supplies which would drain daily(also flown in or bought if at bigger airport).

I feel something similar would benefit the CW sphere as it would provide some much needed immersion in the universe. This would also change up each planet as it would all depend on how the current occupying force outfitted the base and how they maintained it.

Once a planet/sector of that planet is taken, the base will need to be rebuild with building supplies. Then, the base could be upgraded over a period of time(no instant upgrades) during which the reinforcements are not complete yet. Once the reinforcements are complete these will need to be maintained every hour/day/week.

The reinforcements could be extra armor on generators, gates, extra turrets, extra tank traps, etc. Maybe even a second inner wall?

Ofcourse the defending unit will need to be with less mechs than the attacking units to actually make it fair but that would have to be tested well to achieve the right balance.

I also like the idea of having a base in the center like Sader suggested(polar highlands style map, base in the middle). This would eleminate the "stand between 2 gates" tactic that is most used now.

Edited by C1Rob, 06 February 2016 - 04:28 PM.

[Sader325]

pbiggz, on 06 February 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

actual comment: Singleplayer solves alot of problems. There's no place for players to learn the mechlab, mech dynamics, piloting and gunnery skills, etc. Multiplayer isn't a great place for a BRAND NEW player to learn because more than likely they'll get crushed. Singleplayer gives them the place to learn in a vacuum. Of course its not perfect, but it at least mitigates a ton of the problems they have.

They could easily incorporate single player into the CW maps as well. Allow solo players to run PVE missions on worlds that are owned and operated by units. Units that can improve the rewards of these missions through investing their own money into the planets the missions take place on.

[pbiggz]

Sader325, on 06 February 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

They could easily incorporate single player into the CW maps as well. Allow solo players to run PVE missions on worlds that are owned and operated by units. Units that can improve the rewards of these missions through investing their own money into the planets the missions take place on.

certainly. I was referring to an actual single player campaign though, which as i hear, will be in the works soon, that is, if russ at the townhall is to be believed (and I think at least for the most part he is). Having a pve scenario that ties into CW would certainly work as well. I'd love to see both.

[C1Rob]

Bump, some good ideas in here. Please chime in!

[Tasker]

suP?

[PraetorGix]

Sjorpha, on 06 February 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

NKVAs philosophy about creating drama intentionally to make matches matter more for both sides is actually something I can really sort of respect, it does depend a little on where you draw the line and against who.

I think if you're trolling other decently strong units that can legitimately funnel that polarization into an ongoing conflict or vendetta it can be really fun and I have no problem with it.

Yeah, except they do this against anyone. I had the bad luck of joining 11 of them once, vs a team of PUGs. At half match I was so sick of the idiotic **** talk that it made me wonder if these guys actually do auditions to check their members are douchebaggy enough.

[Kin3ticX]

Agent1190, on 06 February 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

At about 1:30:00 into the stream - they started discussing Lore and it's role in the game. I believe the term they used is "Civil War Re-enacters."

Something to think about - Star Wars has lore, the original expanded universe was merely based on that lore. Now, those story lines do not follow the "canon" of Star Wars - they labelled them "Legends" and the content of the old Expanded universe novels are now apocryphal at best. CW should follow this idea - CW is not lore, it should be part of the Mechwarrior expanded universe. Use lore to dictate specific boundaries for the game - factions, internal conflicts, timeline (to an extent). But even though lore may states Kurita and Steainer hate each other, that shouldn't dictate how the players drive the game.

Sarna.net (the Battletech Wiki) feels the Mechwarrior games are not canon and all content is apocryphal. Treat the game as such.

Probably a safe assumption that the map will restart for phase 3. Starting out the clans as little slivers at the top every time is already old. This is just a replay of the Clans pushing towards terra (clans winning and IS eating ****) and people are not very invested in this anymore afaik. Bringing in the lore every which way is fine, but they need to spice up the configuration of the map.

We havent seen any IS faction get wiped out by another IS faction down south which means IS-IS border wars struggle to become self sustaining hotspots. (trying to beat a dead or unwilling faction w/ turret drops would be maddening)

Edited by Kin3ticX, 08 February 2016 - 05:06 AM.

[Jon Gotham]

Conreg, on 06 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

Be honest. You miss them.

Hahahaha! Sh-! Caught myself;)

[Kristian Radoulov]

Sader325, on 06 February 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

Our third in a series of roundtables, this time our guest was Scoops Kerensky from [NKVA]. We at [-MS-] hope you find these discussions interesting and would love for you to participate in them in the future. If you have any ideas for other guests and Unit members or leaders you would like to hear from let us know.

We want to have the most open and frank discussion we can about the current state of this game and encourage everyone to join us for our round table sessions.

If you really want to do anything to change the state of CW, disband your units.

[Kin3ticX]

Kristian Radoulov, on 15 February 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

If you really want to do anything to change the state of CW, disband your units.

Good for the lulz

Edited by Kin3ticX, 15 February 2016 - 08:40 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

Sjorpha, on 06 February 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

NKVAs philosophy about creating drama intentionally to make matches matter more for both sides is actually something I can really sort of respect, it does depend a little on where you draw the line and against who.

Maybe if the whole CW thing wasn't watered down they wouldn't have to? Maybe if planet defense mattered?

And people looking for reasons to be douchbags doesn't mean deep down that isn't who they are.