17 replies to this topic

[Damion Stranik]

Posting this here because I'm not able to post in the suggestion forums

So what is it about the Battletech experience that enthralls us? For many people, they would answer the experience of piloting a battlemech, or the storyline and atmosphere that encompasses the setting. For a lot of the people who grew up playing Mechwarrior on the PC, the missions were a very important part of our experience. We'd get the briefing, customize our forces just so, and launch with the thrill that we were as prepared as we were going to be as we went off into the unknown. It is vital that we do not lose this thrill in moving to the Online Free To Play model.

So, we now have a very real problem: If we go to round based gameplay with two sides lining up and clashing into each other, we lose the excitement of uncertainty that made single player such an enthralling experience to look forward to. We know how many mechs we're going to fight, we know how big they are, we know who is piloting them, we know exactly what the objectives are. Every. Single. Time.

Don't get me wrong, the combat alone I think (hope?) will be very fun. However, adding uncertainty to the engagement in small ways I feel would go a long way to making the gameplay feel more dynamic rather than just a round based grind fest of the same few missions on the same few maps with slightly different people and mechs each time around. So I hope I've convinced people at least somewhat that we need to have some kind of game mechanics that captures the thrill of being in a living and uncertain world.

A few ideas that could be used to help - not all of them are necessarily good - but I do hope we see something like the following in order to make our experiences more unique and thrilling.

1. Add a chance to each mission for some extra-valuable objective to spawn. Tie this in to more C-Bills/better salvage/unique cosmetics if the objective is completed successfully.

2. Have a chance for a normal battle mission to launch and instead be a completely different mission. Perhaps allow for people to cue for these random missions. Give incentives to do these missions by jacking up the rewards, but allow for the potential of one side or the other being favored in some obvious fashion to really challenge the opposing team.

3. Let arranged groups of players queue up for these missions in a way that random players can jump in the mass "random player queue" and the teams in the "Team Queue", match these arranged teams up against the randoms in a way that favors the randoms but allows the team the potential for a large reward if they succeed.

4. Add in the potential for misdrops/misdeployments to some missions.

5. Most of all - PLEASE design some ingenious missions and ways of teaming up that make us feel like the experience is being tailored to our personal skill and dedication. A lot of these ideas don't necessarily require heavy amounts of programming expertise to implement. You can do a lot of small things to improve the player experience in a dramatic fashion and I hoping that PGI is willing to go that extra yard to really give this game some staying power.

[Cake Bandit]

I would really like to see some way to hide opposing sides from one another until they're actually on the battlefield. Someone was talking about a battle value similar to how tabletop wargames have a point value per game. I keep thinking of the threat ratings in Heavy Gear II and how something like that might be applied.

Something to let you know roughly what you're up against without giving out all the juicy details.

[Sporkosophy]

I'd like to go into battle knowing nothing more then objectives/opponent numbers; it'll give the recon types something to do with all their lack of armor and proper Steiner weaponry.

[Mercurial]

If I manage to completely blunder into an Assault Mech around a corner a few feet away that I didn't even know was there (on radar or otherwise) as a Light mech and experience a moment of sheer PANIC, I'll be satisfied.

[Thomas Hogarth]

sporkosophy, on 07 November 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

I'd like to go into battle knowing nothing more then objectives/opponent numbers; it'll give the recon types something to do with all their lack of armor and proper Steiner weaponry.

Take it even a step farther. With balancing based on values, and a random total value per game, you can end up having no idea how many enemy there are. That would be ideal in my book.

[Bishop L]

Yes, we should definetly have "fog of war" to contend with. Otherwise Scout\Recon units will not be a valuable resource on the battlefield.

[Zakatak]

So long as the feel of the game captures MW3, which IMO was the most atmospheric, I'm happy.

In terms of gameplay, I really hope the dynamic extends beyond "kill the opposing team and capture these flags!". I want a dynamically changing battlefield. I want misdrops, snowstorms and fog, varying time-of-day, civilians, air drops, troop support, EMP's, I want no battle to feel the same.

[Zyllos]

Agreed Zakatak! Adding mission objectives or a chain of objectives that depends on the developing battle will not only help make the game feel unpredictable, but it will also help with heavy/assault mechs from just totally dominating the scene.

[Bubba Gump]

I would love to see someting like escort missions, capture and hold missions, and something like defend/attack type match.

[Helborne]

The developers' description of "information war" makes it sound as though scouting, recon, and intel gathering will be integral in determining the winner on the battlefield. Every battle should be somewhat of a journey into the unknown. You have some information, just not all the information. The unexpected should be expected. This is how real war is and would add significant excitement and realism to the Mechwarrior experience.

[Halfinax]

Bubba Gump, on 07 November 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

I would love to see someting like escort missions, capture and hold missions, and something like defend/attack type match.

For the love of pete, no escort missions. The rest I of that I can get behind. Escort missions in SP games are bad enough. They are absolutely infuriating in most cases in MP games.

[Sporkosophy]

halfinax, on 07 November 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

For the love of pete, no escort missions. The rest I of that I can get behind. Escort missions in SP games are bad enough. They are absolutely infuriating in most cases in MP games.

Agreed, I don't see how escort missions are doable in pvp unless they're massively over armored compared to everything else. It's just too easy to focus fire and ignore the players.

[The Chief]

I for one would like to see combat areas that are larger relative to the size of the units engaged alongside the ability to create waypoints on the fly.

I would really like scenarios where scouts can actually sneak around and try to find a weakened defense point for their attacking force to hit.

[Damion Stranik]

Its good to see a lot of people jumping in on this and mentioning mission types. The thing we really need to avoid is the tedium that rules World of Tanks. The customization is fun, but there is a real limit to the amount of times you can take two teams and just smash them together in a deathmatch before people go off and find something more interesting. Clever mission design, a strong backstory, and gameplay that is deeper than merely the combat itself is what will keep people interested in this game over the long term. =)

[Octavian Dibar]

I think variable weather and good electronic "fog of war" would be a good start.

Have the mission orders get FUBARed every so often--whether it be the player's fault or some random event. No plan survives contact with anything. Couple of ideas on what could affect the mission parameters:

1) A friendly dropship gets shot down, and you get retasked to secure the crash site. Showing the dropship actually going down in flames 5 or 10 miles away would be a nice touch.

2) Friendly reinforcements show up late--or not at all. Hang tight, because the cavalry stopped to get donuts.

3) Oh ****, you get bad intel. Your main target turns out to be a baby-milk factory, and not an ammo dump. What do you do? Burn it to the ground in frustration? Back off and try to track down the real target using your recon assets?

On my third point, some Ares Convention-sized moral choices would be interesting as well. Not mandatory, but it could add a "reputation" factor. Get a good rep and you get certain missions. Get a bad rep, and you get the dirtier kinds. Maybe it affects pay or salvage, or who'll hire you.

[Damion Stranik]

Quote

Have the mission orders get FUBARed every so often--whether it be the player's fault or some random event. No plan survives contact with anything. Couple of ideas on what could affect the mission parameters:

1) A friendly dropship gets shot down, and you get retasked to secure the crash site. Showing the dropship actually going down in flames 5 or 10 miles away would be a nice touch.

2) Friendly reinforcements show up late--or not at all. Hang tight, because the cavalry stopped to get donuts.

3) Oh ****, you get bad intel. Your main target turns out to be a baby-milk factory, and not an ammo dump. What do you do? Burn it to the ground in frustration? Back off and try to track down the real target using your recon assets?

I think the problem with doing a lot of fancy missions right off the bat is that PGI is going with a very aggressive release schedule. I feel like we're going to see a lot of polish directed at the combat and not necessarily a lot of content that give's everything context.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to see these types of things added to the game, but I think we might have to wait for such bell's and whistles until after the game is launched.

[Cake Bandit]

Not like that's going to be a bad thing though. Remember how big it was when TF2 got Payload mode? and hats? People are going to eat updates up!

[Creel]

In one of the interviews, the Dev was talking about gameplay. He talked about all of the innovative role based stuff that they were going to do, and talked about how dynamic they want to make the battlefields, then tossed off something like "there will also be some deathmatch modes", almost as an afterthought. I find this attitude very encouraging.

Edited by Creel, 08 November 2011 - 10:03 AM.