2
I know this topic may have come up already. If it has, well…apparently what I am about to say bears repeating. I apologize, in advance, for the lengthy post, but I felt it was necessary to cover as many topics as I could at once, rather than create several posts.
Gameplay should always be king, and right now, it seems to be playing second fiddle. New mechs, colors, paint patterns, cockpit items, etc. are nice, but I prefer to have something meaningful. While I realize that my circle of friends do, in no part, constitute the majority of the community, I do believe I feel an undercurrent of discontent over several issues surrounding maps, map selection, and game modes.
In the following discourse, I will be sharing my opinions based on over 30 years of gameplay spanning nearly every genre of game from casual to hardcore, and 10 years of development experience as a database designer, developer as well as a programmer and Application Systems Engineer, and several years of experience in creating community content of my own for various games such as Neverwinter Nights, Neverwinter Nights 2, Shadowrun Returns, Dragon Age: Origins, and some map making scattered in for games like Crysis and Shogun 2: Total War. In addition to all this, I have been an active beta (and sometimes alpha) tester for several very popular online games such as World of Warcraft, EverQuest, EverQuest 2, Dungeon & Dragons Online, Lord of the Rings Online, Anarchy Online, Age of Conan, Star Wars, the Old Republic, The Secret World…the list is quite extensive, and I will not bore you with its entirety. While I do not pretend I am a professional game programmer, I do believe my extensive experience in testing games, playing games, developing mods, and developing maps gives me a pretty good idea of what works.
I have had the benefit of seeing how other games have succeeded (or failed) over the past three decades. I communicating my experience because I wish to convey that my opinions aren’t formulated from teen angst, or from the fact that I am an angry Battletech player (though I do dearly love playing Battletech on the tabletop, and I enjoy the books, etc.). My opinions are formed from the genuine desire to provide workable solutions. As with any opinion, I assume everyone knows and realizes there are some gameplay issues I probably have not considered, but then again, that is what you folks at IGP/PGI get paid for. I am just positing suggestions that you (hopefully) will be at least willing to consider, if not conform to your design process, improve upon and use.
Game Modes:
Before beginning this, I will make this statement up front: I assume that PGI/IGP is already working on different game modes. The fact that I do not know what they may be must be taken into consideration. With that said, let me begin by saying that one of the things that make Battletech unique, both in its lore and in its gameplay, is that objective based missions were regularly used. For example: missions where you had to defend certain objectives. Maybe you are protecting a convoy with HVC (High Value Cargo). Whatever the case may be. While I cannot possibly provide all of the different possibilities, I can provide two suggestions:
Attack/Defend Mode:
I think this mode pretty much speaks for itself. The defending team has a flag that must be captured, and the attacking team must capture it.
Defending Objectives:
1. Prevent the capture of the objective you are guarding.
2. Kill all opposition.
Attacker Objectives:
1. Capture the objective.
2. Destroy all defenders (and logically you will then be able to capture the objective unopposed)
Sabotage/Raid Missions:
I personally like this idea because it is reminiscent of many Battletech Tabletop and Battletech RPG’s I’ve played. Also (like the attack/defend mode), it can be played in pug matches, but can become MORE MEANINGFUL in community warfare. This mission simulates a surprise raid by an enemy force. As such, the “Raiders” begin the match a set period of time before the defending forces can “react” by climbing into their mechs and exiting their mech bays. In this match, the raiders must DESTROY all objectives to win. These objectives may be buildings, ammo dumps, mech bays…whatever. Obviously the gameplay would probably need tweaked for balance, but the premise (I think) is pretty damn cool.
Defender Objectives:
1. Protect multiple objectives from being destroyed.
2. Destroy all opposing mechs.
Raider Objectives:
1. Destroy multiple objectives.
2. Destroy all opposing mechs (and logically all objectives afterwards).
Additional Ideas/Suggestions on Sabatoge/Raid missions:
1. Calliope turrets can be brought online for defenders
a. To offset this advantage, maybe only have 8 or 10 defenders to 12 raiders (?...just an idea).
b. You could also allow this for the attack/defend game mode.
2. Objectives could provide a “progression” in which there are some objectives difficult to defend because they are closer to the raider’s starting area, but as the raiders progress by destroying objectives, the fight could get more difficult.
3. In Community Warfare – a successful raid could apply some very real consequences, just as a successful defense could also yield some reward.
4. What about allowing field repairs for mechwarriors (maybe charge cbills for it)? This is a very traditional Battletech concept that has been used for a long time, and it could make gameplay interesting – ESPECIALLY for community warfare. For example, let’s say you are in a catapult and you’ve sustained quite a lot of damage…maybe even lost a weapon or two. You manage to get back to where your repair facilities are (in the case of raiders, maybe they have a mobile repair vehicle or something). Mechs can get field repairs (perhaps limit the number of times you can get repairs in the field) for a percentage of your overall armor. For example, let’s say 10%. If you have no CT armor, then you gain 10% of your overall CT armor back (an likewise other mech sections). Again – just an idea, but I think this would be interesting.
a. You could also allow this for the attack/defend game mode.
Well, I think you get the idea with the game modes…and now I’ve provided you a couple of workable examples on how MWO can make gameplay a little more interesting and meaningful. To be honest, I am sick of assault – especially when you get caps without firing a shot (and why the heck can’t you just take caps out? I would like team deathmatch for that game mode a little better than that…), and conquest simply does not work very well for pugs due to general disorganization (though I can see it maybe working a little better in CW). On to a few map suggestions…
Map Suggestions:
Again, I assume that work is already being done, and obviously since PGI/IGP has clamped down a lot on how much they tell us, I write this knowing that some of this may already be in the works…or maybe not… I don’t know. Here are a few things I would like to suggest or upon which to provide my perspective:
Maps are too big, even for 12v12:
When larger maps were introduced, I was quite excited, though cautiously so. I knew going in that the maps would be too big for 8v8 matches, just as I knew that 12v12 was coming, so I reserved my judgement. Now that 12v12 is in, and has been so for a few weeks now, I must regrettably say that some of these maps are still too large to be used – in pugs. In CW, I think these maps would be pretty cool, especially if you understand that battlemechs were made to maneuver, not to stand on some stupid hilltop like a bump on a log waiting for something to shoot at, but often map size has been the cause of assault matches ending in a cap with nary a shot being fired at the opposing team. It provides very unsatisfactory gameplay. Of course, the other mission types I have suggested above negates this, assuming you have a group of intelligent players trying to accomplish mission objectives in a meaningful way (but then, that’s where game theory comes in, does it not?).
Destructible Environments:
One of the major “disconnects” I have when playing MWO is the lack of destructible environments. Let’s be honest. While I know that MWO doesn’t use the Frostbite engine, the Crysis engine is pretty powerful, and I believe is fully capable of this. I find it difficult to believe that trees do not fall, buildings do not crumble…so on, and so forth. Additionally, this was also a major factor in the tabletop version. Some cover could be destroyed. Walking through buildings could possibly damage a mech – but sometimes the tradeoff of surprise was worth it. This, to me, is a pretty big deal.
Metropolis Environments:
When I say this, I am thinking of the skyscraper of major metropolis around the world. Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York City, or the sprawls similar to places like Dubai, berlin, or Cincinnati (by sprawls, I mean not necessarily a lot of skyscrapers, but dense urban develoments…look at google earth and you’ll see what I mean). I’m also thinking of cityscapes set in fictional places from various other sources as well, such as Shadowrun’s Seattle, Judge Dredd fiction, and more. This, coupled with destructible environments...wow! That would be a blast! Also, it could put more emphasis on medium and light mechs rather than the glut of heavy and assault mechs we currently seem to see. Can you imagine a raid here? Or attack/defend missions? The idea of it alone is exciting…
Jungle environments:
We really don’t see…well, ANY of these. This could provide an interesting change of pace…and the color palette would be a lot better than the dark colors we currently see in a majority of the current maps. Again, another cool idea if you consider destructible environments….
Environments that impair detection:
One of the things I think would be cool would be an anomalous environment that makes detection of enemy mechs difficult for both sides. By necessity, the map would have to be small(ish). It would also provide a necessity to use specialize your loadouts for that map (which brings up another issue…ahem…let us choose which mech to bring based on the map we are about to play!!)
Gravity Effects:
Okay, so you’ve done the heat thing. Great. Kudos. Let’s not forget about maps with some REAL gravity effects, shall we? I know there are some out there with more or less than normal gravity, but so far the effects have not been noticed too much. That said, I would not suggest you put this into any of your maps until you provide the ability to choose which of your mechs you wish to bring on the map. For example, bringing an assault mech on a high gravity world is tantamount to suicide. I’d like the option to bring a medium mech instead, thank you very much!
Well…I guess I should wrap this up for now. I have a lot more ideas, but (as I expected) this post has become quite lengthy. I’ll open this up for all the naysayers, flamers (and hopefully a few supporters) now…
Regards,
Drakken
Edited by Drakken, 02 September 2013 - 10:33 AM.
