63 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

I'd be fine with upto an hour. However the amount of ragequits goes up with length of game in my experience.

[R Gunslinger]

A 15 minute time limit would totally negate the core concept as stated by Piranha when they described how the specific mech roles would need to be played, unless the maps are like Cityscape in MW4 it could easily take your scouts 10 min or more just to find the enemy, let alone engage with your heavier mechs.
Time limits inevitably lead to "noob rushing" which is fine and dandy if its all about the points, and how many respawns you get, but in a tactical match you need the time to use everything you have to its best advantage, terrain, pilot skills, range etc. this simply cant be done properly in such a short time frame.

Personally i hope they also do away with the 3rd person perspective, your supposed to be riding IN the mech, not ON it.

[Red Beard]

Grei, on 07 November 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

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

In absolutely no way should this new game follow any kind of the tabletop rules like that.

[TheRulesLawyer]

red beard, on 07 November 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

In absolutely no way should this new game follow any kind of the tabletop rules like that.

For once I agree. At least not in 1 in 36 head shot sort of way. However a gauss slug to the head should still drop a mech. That should just be really really hard to pull off.

[Stormwolf]

I'd only like to see timelimits for missions where a unit needs to escape before a large army shows up.

[Sergei Smirnov]

Do not worry, death comes quick.

[Colaessus]

10-20 min in public rage cage
20-50 for clan & friend matches.

[MaddMaxx]

As long as there is a limiter of some sort in place to assure that some loser ***** doesn't get to run around hiding and thinking he will win the fight for his mates doing it.

[Stinger]

Really depends on the type of mission, but 15 minutes does seem like a good number. I wouldn't expect a Solaris battle to last that long, even a large melee. But a fight over a planet, I could see being 15-30 minutes...

[Everett]

There's a couple different timetables that are really relevant here:

One is matchmaking. Having a good matchmaking system with powerful tools to help minimize organization time, game finding time, and ensuring fair game setups is great. No one wants to spend over 10 minutes just finding a game.

Another is setup, loading, and preparation time. Again, no one wants this to take too long, but too short can also be detrimental, especially if the games are tactical objective based and require team planning.

Then there's the game itself. You definitely don't want any single game to take too long, otherwise it falls outside more and more players' entire available play session times. 45 minutes is probably the upper limit I'd look at for an online action game even with relatively complex game formats. Simple "deathmatch arenas" and the like should probably be even shorter, like 15-30 minutes.

[Bishop L]

I am conflicted over this subject. On the one hand long missions can be fun, a lot of hit and run, a slugfest, a breakaway and chase.

On the other quick and simple hit and run raids can be fun as well.

This will require much thought....

[wolf on the tide]

gut feelings and off the top of my head ?

lance V lance <4X4> (smaller map) =5 mins?
company V company <12 X 12 > (normal sized map) =15 mins?
regiment V regiment <36-40 X 36-40> << 3 X 12 mech companys + optional "Command Lance". Per side) =30 mins? (possible larger map)

1)lance V lance could be for starter pilots in light/medium mechs
1a) seperate version for heavy/assault pilots with a 10 min duration

2)company V company could be light/medium/heavy mechs (standard match type)
2a) medium/heavy/assault mechs

3)regiment V regiment could have A) light/mediumheavy
B ) light/medium/heavy/assault
C) medium/heavy/assault

Edited by wolf on the tide, 07 November 2011 - 07:27 PM.

[Glare]

Hehe, your 3) choice is only Battalion vs. Battalion. Regiment vs. Regiment would be on the order of 108-120 vs. 108-120.

Edited by Glare, 07 November 2011 - 07:36 PM.

[terminator]

I'm good with 15 to 25 minutes... I'm not sure I want to see a full alpha take out a cockpit because if the rest of the battle was longer, that person would be sitting there for a good 20 minutes... unless they can return to the map and go do something else.

[Phades]

I've been in fights for hours before. It gets exhausting after awhile seriously. These were not mechwarrior bouts though. That said, a good solid drawn out fight is rather satisfying even if the end result is admitting a loss and yielding the field. First one in and last one out was typically how it played out for me.

The underlying problem for longer fights, especially protracted firefights ends up being 2 primary issues which have been touched on by others so far in the thread. The first ends up being munitions running out. Energy weapons already have a natural bias, but this gets compounded the longer the match goes especially with the absence of melee attacks no matter how suicidal they seem. An "escape" mechanic for this is refitting and re-arming options. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the battletech universe doesn't really accommodate for such things very easily or in a very believable way mid fight. The second problem of an overly protracted battle ends up being the player. Not everyone has the luxury of dropping an unbroken hour or longer due to real life concerns and players dropping out of a fight mid match pretty much ruins it for both sides.

Personally I am not a fan of timed matches and much more prefer objective based victories or the ability to concede or have tap out rules as well. Let them take as long as it takes to determine a victor, but do not setup the objectives to draw out the fight more than it has to be. Granted, much of this may end up being a non-issue with coordinated alpha strikes on targets similar to what occurs in eve online (never had the pleasure of coordinated groups online in a mechwarrior game). However, the threat of that alpha strike focus fire is going to make folks gun shy and reluctant to engage if there are no respawn options as well (hell even in mmorpg games, people get rather gun shy due to ranged assailants clustered).

I think what it will invariably come down to more than anything else will be core map design that encourages team work, but not roaming zergs if for nothing else to encourage smaller skirmishes and reduce the fear of the 1 shot volley leading to a automatic or near automatic kill. Unlike FPS games, it will be rather difficult to break up a unit with any single quick or well positioned player, so the core design can't rely on a lucky hero or distraction as well.

It will be a tough balancing act for the dev team.

[Dozer]

Frankly I think there should be no timer. It's objective based. Putting artificial limits on it turns it into a sporting sim.

People should always have the ability to drop out when they want (yes I know its a bit artificial but RL happens). Whether that with timer penalty for entering other battles is another discussion altogther. I don't beleive it's completely unrealistic to drop out and be replaced given that at times in battle people are often dragged off the firing line to do other things, even in the middle of a firefight. I know this for a fact having been in the army for many years. As for spoiling people's fun, well not really much can be done about that. It happens, who can tell really if it's due to a disconnect or someone ragequiting (beyond a chat announcement or guildie/friend notification of course)

Edited by Dozer, 07 November 2011 - 10:28 PM.

[Phades]

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 10:24 PM, said:

I don't beleive it's completely unrealistic to drop out and be replaced given that at times in battle people are often dragged off the firing line to do other things, even in the middle of a firefight. I know this for a fact having been in the army for many years. As for spoiling people's fun, well not really much can be done about that. It happens, who can tell really if it's due to a disconnect or someone ragequiting (beyond a chat announcement or guildie/friend notification of course)

If they can implement an active seeding mechanic that fills empty spots, that would be a rather good feature to include within the game. It wouldn't be too different than hockey or water polo with a player sitting out in penalty and forcing the team to suck it up and react until he can re-enter the game. A slower paced game like mechwarrior has been traditionally could accommodate for this.

[terminator]

MMMM objectives based, ALA Battlefield.......... I was just thinking of that, instead of Mpbt 3025 where you just battled 4vs4, they can have objectives in the "scenario". capture X plant and hold it for 5 minutes (like a battlefield element to it), Defend this convoy, Destroy X plant... And all the while the enemy will get the same or opposite mission.

In addition, your team can have total of 20+ lives that you share with your mates. After the lives are gone, you lose. Along with a drop in/out mechanic, the game can broadcast when someone has left or disconnected from a battle scenario and then put someone new in there.
Can be even further enhanced where you can capture the enemy spawn point/base which will also end the scenerio.
This will promote more teamwork, longer battles if you opt for these scenerio's, bigger battles like battlefield...

[Phades]

Another feature that could be interesting that would give the feel of a longer fight, but break it up into segments. For example, have two groups of 24 broken up into lances of four with each having a different objective on a separate part of the same map. The winning groups and survivors within those groups move on to the next round and retain some damage and reload. Match up two groups of 12 from that initial pairing and yield a new objective on the combined map, while having minor perks for objectives completed in the previous round. It would retain the feel of an ongoing fight, but break it up a little more into shorter intervals with the concept of rounds.

To add another layer to this, you could integrate the player replacement concept with the actual time of completion for each group together. For example, if one group completes the objective at say 5 minutes into the match, they move on to the next set with another group. Then as another match finishes, they get added into the new match as "reinforcements". Use any missing or players who drop out within the same mechanic. Then have a series of 3-5 segments adding players or eliminating them within the series as needed until the overall victor is determined by the house/mercenary unit/clan that the players are representing.

Edited by Phades, 08 November 2011 - 07:54 PM.

[Chris Fetladral]

Personally, I prefer longer bouts without a time limit. In large scale engagements, it, in essence, demands some strategy and places more emphasis on teamwork.

Generally speaking, I will take the assumption that most rooms will be 'friends oriented. Even public rooms are going to have a significant amount of close friends playing together with the occassional 'oddball' who randomly joined regardless of which side an individual is on.Taking this into account, it is almost a given that most conflicts will be drawn out- with the exceptions of well-sprung ambushes, or the 'i am elite I shall win' player getting caught in crossfire and burned to a cinder.

In the latter scenario, it is merely an object lesson that one has to learn. Teamwork offers a slightly longer life expectancy than overreaching.
In the former scenario, it is simply a matter of superior strategy.If most of your players are slugging it out (lets say 16v16 or 32v32) but nobody notices that duo or lance of lights, you can't be upset if you end up with an assault or heavy chassis left and have to deal with harassing attacks from lights.

I think a decent option would allow for refits but not the same system used in the previous games. Allow partial refits. have a set amount of armor and ammumition replacements for each side. This would somewhat null the 'boating' concept. and force players to be a bit more conservative with their weapons. The only drawback i really see to said option, however, are spawn-campers.
Since MWO will take place before the Clan Invasion, the weapon's range will be equal so anyone refitting will have to be sure that their comrades are keeping the "support mechs" at bay till they can return to battle.