16 replies to this topic

[Ludo Valiseek]

Hello all,

The more I read about this game, the more exciting it gets...

Well, Ive been thinking about the PVP model and how it will be implemented in this game. Here are my thoughts.

• Would we fight into Open PvP maps???:

This model would be very realistic, I always liked open PVP games but I guess it would be much more difficult to implement technically. There's also another problem, What would you do in a open world when there's no PvP action?. In tradicional MMOs you have quests and PvE content... but I dont see MWO like that.

• Would we fight into PvP instances???:

Almost every online game has instances and I doubt MWO would be the exception. If they go to implement battles into an intanced world, it would be really interesting if these instances are linked among them. For exmaple, if one Lance is attacking whatever complex and they can get down a power reactor, another Lance of the same MechCorp fighting into another instance would see that some static defenses are going down because they lack of energy... I like the idea of "living" intances where events into instance A has an effect into instance B.

Thanks for reading this post.

Edited by Ludo Valiseek, 21 December 2011 - 07:51 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"

Would we fight into PvP instances???:

Almost every online game has instances and I doubt MWO would be the exception. If they go to implement battles into an instanced world, it would be really interesting if these instances are linked among them. For example, if one Lance is attacking whatever complex and they can get down a power reactor, another Lance of the same Merc Corp fighting into another instance would see that some static defenses are going down because they lack of energy... I like the idea of "living" instances where events into instance A has an effect into instance B.

It seems Instances are going to be the method used.

That interactive idea would be very solid. Especially if the two Lances could communicate that info to each other, as in,

"Hold up Lance 2, we are about to destroy the power station, then you can commence your run."

"Roger that Lance 1. Thanks. Beers on us when we get back!"

Edited by MaddMaxx, 21 December 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[Dihm]

From Q&A 1:

Quote

I assume that game play will be in the form of some type of match system. If so, how long would you estimate a typical match would last?


[PAUL] Right now we’re thinking a normal match with objectives would take approximately 20 minutes. But please keep in mind, this number might change through gameplay testing.

Quote

Is this game going to have lots of servers like a WoW or are you hoping for a single persistent server world like EVE Online?

[MATT C] Each game spawns its own dedicated server, these are not persistent like WoW, as mentioned that would take us into MMO territory. There is persistent game world information, i.e. match results are communicated to affect the balance of power in the Inner Sphere, who owns what planet etc. but there is no true persistent world, more of a persistent meta-game.

[MATT N] Lots of Servers Lots and Lots of servers

Edit: wow, no clue what was up with the formatting.

Edited by Dihm, 21 December 2011 - 08:06 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Dihm -something went wrong with your formatting -your post is garbled.

[Dihm]

Still? It looks like it is fixed to me...

[StonedDead]

The only real problem with instanced matches is the element of surprise. You can't have a sneak attack in an instanced battlefield, the enemy always knows you are coming. Not much for guerrilla tactics this way, which is the way I like to fight. Surprise wins wars.

[KingCobra]

Zeke that depends on how many they let into the instance and how often teams are let into the same instance say we all play in a persistant instance(all on one map) and teams are let in every 20 sec?it would be a fun chaotic mess trying to figure out where everyone was and what there objectives would be.and if the maps are large hundreds could be fightinging for the GoldenSpoon=Mission objectives and the same time.

[Dihm]

Zekester81, on 21 December 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

The only real problem with instanced matches is the element of surprise. You can't have a sneak attack in an instanced battlefield, the enemy always knows you are coming. Not much for guerrilla tactics this way, which is the way I like to fight. Surprise wins wars.

If the maps are large enough and they do a good job with Information Warfare, this is still possible. I think all-seeing-eye radars are more of a hindrance than instancing to ambushes. Yes, they'll know you're there, but with proper IW and ECM, they shouldn't know WHERE you are.

[CeeKay Boques]

I really wish they had gone for giant maps instead, like ArmA. I can accept them sticking to the MechWarrior formula though.

[StonedDead]

Dihm, on 21 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

If the maps are large enough and they do a good job with Information Warfare, this is still possible. I think all-seeing-eye radars are more of a hindrance than instancing to ambushes. Yes, they'll know you're there, but with proper IW and ECM, they shouldn't know WHERE you are.

Yeah, I will still play it regardless, and yes I agree the all seeing radar is a very bad thing. I hope they are real big maps and allow lots of players. It would be easy enough to get lost in the confusion then, even in an instanced battlefield. My predatory instincts just always tell me to ambush, lol.

[BerserX]

Technoviking, on 21 December 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

I really wish they had gone for giant maps instead, like ArmA. I can accept them sticking to the MechWarrior formula though.

What do you mean? Do you expect the maps to be small, Halo or SW RC -style maps?

Dihm, on 21 December 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

If the maps are large enough and they do a good job with Information Warfare, this is still possible. I think all-seeing-eye radars are more of a hindrance than instancing to ambushes. Yes, they'll know you're there, but with proper IW and ECM, they shouldn't know WHERE you are.

I would like to see some MASSIVE maps. I wouldn't even mind if certain detail schemes (like canyons, valleys, hills, and rivers) were repeated multiple time to make it so. The main thing that I want to see is a real purpose to lighter recon-style 'Mechs, and enhanced sensory equipment. My favorite tactic is to sneak in close with ECM, and then make my enemies' heads spin with a hard blitz. This works with limited success, due to the ineffectiveness of sensors (BAP is only useful if you're mounting LRMs, Light Gauss, or Arrows; and ECM is almost impractical also).

On a large map (with effective sensory equipment), a reconnaissance lance could scout-out the enemy perimeter (while maybe disabling minor targets), and relay information back to the main attack force. This would give both purpose to recon tactics, and more realistic simulation for battlefields.

[SquareSphere]

Everything they've told us is that you go into a "drop" map and matches should average 10-20 mins.

Think of it more as match making rather and MMO open world concepts of PVP.

[StonedDead]

SquareSphere, on 21 December 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

Everything they've told us is that you go into a "drop" map and matches should average 10-20 mins.

Think of it more as match making rather and MMO open world concepts of PVP.

In an instanced "drop map" with 10-20 min matches it would be hard to play a game on a large scale map and have more thorough battles involving different classes of mech. I hope they don't go the route of limiting game time, mostly so it could allow usage of larger maps and detailed objectives. Hard to do more than have a death match in under 20-30 mins and there are enough death match style games out there. If that is the case, I would probably stick to mektek, which I don't even use now. But for now, this is all conjecture as far as I know. We will just have to wait and see when it gets closer to release.

[Vile Joker]

Unfortunately, with the maps sized for 10-20 min matches between 12 or so people, IW tactics will be very limited as compared to their effects in large battlefields. Urban maps wiull be better suited for them, it seems. Where they can scream along through the streets, find enemies who might be trying to hide, and then high tail it out of there before getting blasted to bits. Open terrain maps will just lead to them being appetizers before hitting the main course of heavies and assaults. I hope I'm proven wrong, though. I could just be blindly missing several aspects that are out there.

Edited by Vile Joker, 21 December 2011 - 01:51 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

Zekester81, on 21 December 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

In an instanced "drop map" with 10-20 min matches it would be hard to play a game on a large scale map and have more thorough battles involving different classes of mech. I hope they don't go the route of limiting game time, mostly so it could allow usage of larger maps and detailed objectives. Hard to do more than have a death match in under 20-30 mins and there are enough death match style games out there. If that is the case, I would probably stick to mektek, which I don't even use now. But for now, this is all conjecture as far as I know. We will just have to wait and see when it gets closer to release.

They could always implement a dynamic timer. Meaning the matchtime countdown starts only after first contact. This would have several benefits IMHO:

• First, it would allow for large, even huge maps. No issue if you have to get an enemy detect before countdown starts.
  
• Second, it would make the recon (lighter Mechs) more meaningful.
  
• Third, it would enable a more in-depth tactical approach, as your mediums should be able to get to the enemy faster than your assaults e.g.
  
• Fourth, noone would have even a right to complain about "too campy" matches, because if you don't scout out the enemy and get the battle going, it's nothing but your team's very own fault. And failure.

And would still mean a match could last as short as 20 minutes max. Or not. Totally depending on the players themselves. Obviously there would need to be some sort of hard cap on maximum match time, PGI won't want a match to be open for several hours because the last 2 players remaining are AfK but logged in.

[StonedDead]

Dlardrageth, on 21 December 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

They could always implement a dynamic timer. Meaning the matchtime countdown starts only after first contact. This would have several benefits IMHO:

That's not a bad idea either, but I was thinking of maybe if an individual was going to be hosting, that they might have the option of time limits or even none. Camping is not a big issue for me, just gives me more time to play with my giant bi-pedal tank! I know it can be bothersome, but then maybe you could filter games by various means.....say one way by time limit.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Timers..I haven't seen any mention by PGI of their being a timer, they only said that a typical objective based match would probably take approximately 20 minutes. Nothing about 'you have X time to do the round and it's over'..

Map sizes..no idea, but with company vs company as their projected drop size, 12v12, the maps will hopefully vary from really huge to fairly small depending on the enviroment and scenerio. The engine supports some rather large map sizes, so that's probably not an issue What will be the issue is, are those maps any good? Can you use the terrain and IW to sneak around? Can use those same factors to set ambushes? And on and on and on...soooo many things that we all want..sooo many things that we probably won't get