63 replies to this topic

[Odin]

@ empath

Sorry , if i didn't express myself clear - English isn't my Muttersprache.
I'd like to say that a quarter of a hour is way too fast/short.
For big scale battles.

S!

Edited by Odin, 07 November 2011 - 02:19 AM.

[Lori Black Widow Carlyle]

Maximum of 15 minutes of intense gameplay without a break. Anything more than that is annoing and too exhausting to keep playing for 6 hours at once. My subjective point of view.

[Odin]

I, for one, love a slower paced, tactical/team oriented engagement,
on conquest mode anyway. There are lots of fun modes, designed for a faster pace, imaginable.
There should be at least one objective based mode without any time restriction.

I don't like the "fps_in_giant_robots_syndrome" becoming the core of gameplay.

[FlystreesVagann]

Odin, on 07 November 2011 - 04:22 AM, said:

I, for one, love a slower paced, tactical/team oriented engagement,
on conquest mode anyway. There are lots of fun modes, designed for a faster pace, imaginable.
There should be at least one objective based mode without any time restriction.

I don't like the "fps_in_giant_robots_syndrome" becoming the core of gameplay.

Totally agree with these,there should be several different modes to play,something like CS/UT/Quake deathmatch,then something which takes allot more time and its team based ojective,lets say like Project Reality/Arma/BF 2.

15 minutes for one match is way to short really.

[Lori Black Widow Carlyle]

OK I agree. It totaly depends on game match model.

For instance if you look at DeathMatch and TakeAndHold. If for DM 15 minutes are quite suitable, TAH could easily go for 30 minutes.

Edited by Lori Black Widow Carlyle, 07 November 2011 - 04:59 AM.

[A C E]

30 min should be enough for a full 12 on 12 engagment. 15 minutes seems rushed. you have to give time to setup.
remember that not all engagments are close range in your face fighting. There will be running and finding, hit and run tactics ect. ect. 15 minutes if hardly enough time for attrition.

[Amarus Cameron]

Odin, on 07 November 2011 - 04:22 AM, said:

I, for one, love a slower paced, tactical/team oriented engagement,
on conquest mode anyway. There are lots of fun modes, designed for a faster pace, imaginable.
There should be at least one objective based mode without any time restriction.

I don't like the "fps_in_giant_robots_syndrome" becoming the core of gameplay.

Though a clansman likes quick trials, I believe that what Odin suggests is the best in my opinion. Jockeying for position on the map is tense and extremely important, then you try to set you line of battle or ambushes, who ever has the most forward thinking and tactically minded leader will win. Even if the other team is four atlases, if they decide to charge the entire time I can see two heavy mechs using cover hold their attention, while two light or medium mechs get behind them, stay there and chew their armor and internals out from behind.

I think setting something up that works is the best feeling when playing a battletech game, the other guy realizing he just walked into your trap, but now it is too late. Then his indecision adds to his doom and you take him down with minimal damage. These things take time, but are the most rewarding.

Edited by Amarus Cameron, 07 November 2011 - 05:07 AM.

[Sam Slade]

One thing to bear in mind is that the game is going up against the likes of World of Tanks, SW:TOR, WoW and EVE for players. Personally I'm leaning towards a 'lobby' wait option as well as the wider campaign based batttles. If these could be merged all the better but I think peopleare going to have to grit their teeth and prepare for quite a shock in the available mechs, weapons game modes department.

To put it in perspective, WoT has one game mode and is massive. As much as their is great scope in the Mechwarrior 'world' the practicalities have to be considered. The game has to run on most machines and has to have new content added periodically.

Edited by Sam Slade, 07 November 2011 - 05:26 AM.

[Grei]

I don't think there needs to be a timer at all. This is Battletech after all--either you fight until the other side is scrap (or disengaged) or you manage to hit the objective. Throwing a timer into the mix just adds artificial pressure to the battle and leads to people just ignoring the battle and going straight for the capture.

If there is a timer though, it should be something realistic within the theme of the game. Like you only can be on the ground an hour because the Dropship needs to get back to the Jumpship in time for the jump. But I wouldn't have it be an hour every game...have it be more random depending on the map and objective. Or if a battle goes too long without any action (like 10 minutes without any actual damaging combat), have the Dropship be under threat of attack since that would be the legitimate target if you can't find the attacking mechs which will start a final countdown.

Just my two C-Bills,

Grei

[Grei]

One more note I wanted to make here and it's something anyone who's played tabletop Battletech has run into more than a few times. _Every_ mech can be destroyed in one hit, sometimes even with just one point of damage. Many a time I've taken the head off of a mech with a Gauss round or PPC shot, and many a time it's happened to me. And then there's the ever so wonderful curse of the dice where a single point of damage can crit the cockpit or doublecrit your gyros or engine and end the match for you real fast.

This is part of the game though and it can happen to everyone...so I've never seen anyone (outside of tournaments anyway) get upset about it. And it's the rarest of shots (unless you catch the person in partial cover at optimal range with a targetting computer and a sharpshooter skill--then it's just intentional).

Grei

[Jack Gallows]

Really depends on the mission type.

I want them to be a decent length without feeling like they're going to slog down because the game is paced poorly, but it shouldn't be a quick game unless people get a string of lucky head shots. Need some time for scouts to do their work, and set up an interesting pre fight environment, then let things unfold naturally from there.

[Michael Fury]

15 MINUTES?

Guys. This isn't a FPS. There are no spawn points. This is NOT Call of Duty.

It should take you 30 minutes just to find your opponents. Another 10-20 minutes to get in range and gather intel with your scouts. And the fights should be an hour or two.

It's the one thing I hate about most of the games out there. They're designed for console ADHD kids.

This should be a game for adults. You should get one good fight in each night after work before bed.

MAYBE 2 if it's a smaller/more intense fight.

It's the one things I HATE in EVE online. Small scale combat takes seconds.... Even capital ship combat is under a minute in most cases. And that's after all the time you spend getting into position, scouting, and so on. It's a massive buildup of time, then BLAM it's over in seconds...

I want the fight to be slower. More drawn out. More intense. More emotional. I want a build up of anticipation, then 20-45 minutes of intense combat.

I want the choice's I make in mechs, in loadouts, hell, even in ammo and cammo to be important.

Just the intel gathering that they showed in the video a few years ago shows that things should be a little slower paced.

I want the scout mechs to sneak though the hills. Though the canyons. Though the forest. Letting the tension notch up over 10-20 minutes. Sweeping through the tree's. Lightly moving around a large rock outcropping. Investigating tentative contacts..Nothing.. then CONTACT CONTACT.. ATLAS INCOMEING FROM 189 DEGREES AT FULL SPRINT....

Tension... build it..

[fakey]

Dude, I don't have time for an hour or two for just one match up. Sure that could be the case for gigantic sprawling maps and hunter/killer missions but the average match up? Even if we look at it from purely a commercial viewpoint 1 to 2 hour matches would be the death of this game as no one other than people who are into that sort of thing would play it, and I'm sorry to say there aren't many. Furthermore, if you want to look at it from a gameplay view, 20-30 minutes of combat doesn't make much sense either unless we're talking about two assaults fighting it out with one small laser apiece.

The combat in Mechwarrior has always been (when it comes to the actual shooting part) quick and dirty, this goes for both the games and the table top version and that's what most players are looking for. The scouting I can see taking up more time in this game than it did in others (since it was virtually non-existent) but 40 minutes to an hour of running around looking for the other team is a poor design choice for any game.

Edited by fakey, 07 November 2011 - 10:08 AM.

[GoatHILL]

15 minutes is to short. Why have a time limit at all? Matches should go till 1 side is dead or the objective is met.

[Odin]

There is an old saying:

There is place for everything, everything on its place

Da ist Platz für alles, alles an seinem Platze

Edited by Odin, 07 November 2011 - 11:03 AM.

[CobraFive]

It doesn't have to be a hard time limit. But even without a hard limit... how long should an average match between relatively even teams last?

Spending half an hour to even meet the enemy... I would not play a game like that for very long. This was one of the main issues preventing me form getting heavily into LoL (Edit: Refering to length of game, not lack of meeting enemies). Moreover, when the game lasts so long people will quit when they realize their side is probably not going to win- another big problem with LoL which they had to solve by dumping huge penalties onto players that quit, because there really IS no incentive to stay in a long game when its obvious your team isn't going to do well.

again, to me, it depends on if there are respawns or not. Battlefield is a great model to use as a springboard. Obviously 'mechs are very different and many considerations need to be taken into account (most of all survivability) but I think the battlefield games have some of the best balance of action/tactics. These matches can last a bit longer then 15 minutes, but you have many respawns which are shared between your teamates.

And look at World of Tanks as well. For all I feel is wrong with it (and there's a lot), its a very tactical, very "sim" game and the matches rarely last the full 15 minute timer, usually more often in the 5min-10min range. On a game without respawns, this is definitely the kind of times we should be looking for.

Edited by cobrafive, 07 November 2011 - 11:06 AM.

[GoatHILL]

The maps in WoT are tiny.

[Barantor]

GoatHILL, on 07 November 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

The maps in WoT are tiny.

Honestly I hope it isn't the deathmatch style like WoT and the devs have stated that it will be conquest style more than deathmatch anyway. Correct me if I am wrong but conquest requires the capturing of specific points on the field in order to win, so it might be variable how long the matches last. If one team has all assaults and can't even catch up to the lights while they catch points... could be over quick...

I would rather not have the glorified Solaris matches please and thanks.

[Tsula]

element snow, on 06 November 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

The length of a battle will be a huge concern to anyone that is using only ballistic and missile weapon systems. If the battle is drawn out, those pilots will be at a huge disadvantage. That being said, the thought of a long, drawn out battle, shows the need for more then just one weapon system. It'll be a big guessing game at first is my thought.

Agree but as you pointed out going in with just Missile, and Ballistic its a risk and well honestly sometimes your going to run out of even in short battles if you waste your shots. This is where skill, is going to be a factor. Honestly I say 15 mins is sounding good to me, but some longer battles might be good. In that case its all about conservation and take the shot with the A/C 20 you know is going to count. Running low or out of ammo is fact in warfare. This why maybe have supply line and battle field ops to re arm, and maybe make hotfixes in some systems would be a idea for MWO. And a great objective for other force to capture or defend it. Keep your supply lines open and you can keep getting ammo for your tubes and guns thou at a cost.

[Tsula]

Barantor, on 07 November 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

Honestly I hope it isn't the deathmatch style like WoT and the devs have stated that it will be conquest style more than deathmatch anyway. Correct me if I am wrong but conquest requires the capturing of specific points on the field in order to win, so it might be variable how long the matches last. If one team has all assaults and can't even catch up to the lights while they catch points... could be over quick...

I would rather not have the glorified Solaris matches please and thanks.

ya but in most conquest match you have to hold said points for a period of time even after said time its still open to be recaptured.
This would allow Assults to get ther blast, and just stay there while the lights try and get it back. but from the dev blog it sounds as thou your going to need scouts, attacker, defenders, and commander. Last I checked its hard scoutting in somehting like a Atlas or Battlemaster. it can be done but your going to stick out.

Edited by tsula, 07 November 2011 - 02:14 PM.