26 replies to this topic

[Charons Little Helper]

I just read a review of MWO - and one of their biggest complaints was the lack of mission diversity. And while I like MWO - I'll have to agree.

I think the key is to come up with AI controlled tanks/turrets etc. That would make it easy to come up with a variety of attack / defend missions.

For example:
- One side has a bunch of AI controlled turrets / vehicles.

The other side gets to respawn once (perhaps even with different mechs if they want to) - and with a time limit to destroy a pair of factories in the base.

Just as an example. The AI wouldn't have to be good. Just there.

A few tutorial missions could even be set up where the sides were skewed towards the new players. (I think it would be fun to play the outnumbered 'bad guy'.)

Am I on the right track - or being stupid?

[Threat Doc]

I don't believe you're being stupid at all. A LOT of the community have asked for AI vehicles, 'Mechs, turrets, etc., and destructible environments. PGI have stated a few times in the past they will reconsider these things when the time is due for them. Frankly, I think PGI are missing a damn large ship with the omission of PvE play. I hate PvP, and the only reason I play PvP is for MechWarrior, in general. You won't catch me in PvP in ANY of my MMOs, however, because they offer PvE, as well, and there are a {Scrap}-ton more players in my MMORPGs than there are for MWO. This dearth of population would change if PvE were added. PvE Missions, Campaigns, and Operations that change with the universe, could automagically be generated based on strategic operation points assigned to each world and, in particular when a live-player element takes over on a world.

The idea of leaving behind garrison forces when trying to further a conquest, for Merc Corps, is not going to fly without bots in the game, so hopefully they're considering that?

Edited by Kay Wolf, 06 October 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Fut]

Although I agree that adding AI elements into some game modes could be a decent way to evolve the game a bit - I don't think that respawns should be included. The moment this game has respawns is the moment it takes a turn towards being an arcade shooter. First respawns, then ammo re-arming in game...etc.etc. (Slipperly Slope or something).
I don't think my cautious attitude is too paranoid either, I mean, we already have an arcade style 3PV, right?

Edited by Fut, 06 October 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Threat Doc]

I couldn't agree more with you, Fut. Players won't get smart, won't think strategically or tactically, if there are respawns; they'll simply just throw themselves at the enemy like water breaking against a rock wall. Stupid. Nah, I think the AI is a great idea, and I think having objectives is an even better idea, because the latter will force live-pilot forces to think, and the AI can be there for times when live-pilots will not be online. In fact, without AI to take the place of live-pilots when they can't be on, planets will change hands so quickly there will be no time to get anything done, such as setting defenses, planning to keep a planet, etc. Players from the same unit will simply not have a solid force online at all times, 24/7, and it's wrong to make an attacking force wait to complete their objectives, when those objectives are available for the taking.

My experience from MWII and III games, and even a lot of the MW IV games was that trying to set up drops for worlds, especially across multiple drop types, for live-pilot forces is akin to pulling teeth from Crocodiles. It just doesn't work really well.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 06 October 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

over arty strikes even cooler would be being able to drop some tanks that have to be destroyed & engage the enemy, or machine gun infantry even.

[Davers]

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

I don't believe you're being stupid at all. A LOT of the community have asked for AI vehicles, 'Mechs, turrets, etc., and destructible environments. PGI have stated a few times in the past they will reconsider these things when the time is due for them. Frankly, I think PGI are missing a damn large ship with the omission of PvE play. I hate PvP, and the only reason I play PvP is for MechWarrior, in general. You won't catch me in PvP in ANY of my MMOs, however, because they offer PvE, as well, and there are a {Scrap}-ton more players in my MMORPGs than there are for MWO. This dearth of population would change if PvE were added. PvE Missions, Campaigns, and Operations that change with the universe, could automagically be generated based on strategic operation points assigned to each world and, in particular when a live-player element takes over on a world.

The idea of leaving behind garrison forces when trying to further a conquest, for Merc Corps, is not going to fly without bots in the game, so hopefully they're considering that?

If PvE was added and it brought many PvE players to the game, it wouldn't mean jack to me. I play PvP and the fact that there was a large portion of the playerbase off playing by themselves would just mean even less people dropping against each other.

[General Taskeen]

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

I couldn't agree more with you, Fut. Players won't get smart, won't think strategically or tactically, if there are respawns; they'll simply just throw themselves at the enemy like water breaking against a rock wall.

This is false and has no evidence, only conjecture. MW:LL's Terrain Control, I have seen players continue to think tactically despite respawns. If their attack fails, they try a different approach, and different team tactics to get the job done.

[Davers]

General Taskeen, on 06 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

This is false and has no evidence, only conjecture. MW:LL's Terrain Control, I have seen players continue to think tactically despite respawns. If their attack fails, they try a different approach, and different team tactics to get the job done.

MW:LL had a small community of hard core fans who wanted to explore mech tactics and team work. MW:O has fans that complain that they have to walk to the middle of the map before they can shoot each other.

[Threat Doc]

Davers, on 06 October 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

If PvE was added and it brought many PvE players to the game, it wouldn't mean jack to me. I play PvP and the fact that there was a large portion of the playerbase off playing by themselves would just mean even less people dropping against each other.

Not necessarily. What do you think you would feel if you NEVER knew whether you were playing against bots or not? What if it was never revealed to you whether the forces you were going to face were live-pilots or bots, or a mixture.

General Taskeen, on 06 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

This is false and has no evidence, only conjecture. MW:LL's Terrain Control, I have seen players continue to think tactically despite respawns. If their attack fails, they try a different approach, and different team tactics to get the job done.

You're false, you have no evidence, you don't exist. I have no proof that you are who you say you are, you could be someone else playing on this account.

Now, most players are incapable of thinking, or playing tactically to begin with. Again, they simply smash themselves against the rocks and hope to win. This does not cover every one, I did not imply or say outright that it covered everyone. You read into what I said, made a wrong call, and decided to blast me for it. Kudo's to you, you failed to think tactically. The incentive to think tactically goes out the window when you have respawns; frankly, I like the idea of the DropShip, where you would be allowed to bring up to four 'Mechs with you. This means a lot of people will smash themselves up on the rocks, and those who think tactically, and survive the smashing, will then get to face off with one-another, tactically.

Honestly, how many games have you truthfully seen -don't make me call you a liar, please?- where, if a team is attacking and fails, they try a different approach, and different team tactics, to get the job done. More often than not, if their attack fails, they back off and get overrun, and have no time to think their way through a new approach.

Now, for those who do think tactically, they can run a game and clobber the other team into submission, unless there's another true tactician...

See, it bothers me when people call things like pop-tarting or legging tactics. Those aren't tactics, those are just shooting and brutality. Tactics typically requires a team effort, a means of drawing out and smashing the enemy while avoiding taking more damage than they should. Tactics runs a gamut of skills, including resource management, fire and fade execution, and many other things that most players in this game are simply incapable of processing. Watching the matches of the Launch Party, I saw some amazing skills on display, I saw teamwork, and those matches are how the developers, and how people who understand tactics and choose to use them, want to see this game. In truth, however, most folks in this community couldn't define the word, let alone use them, and so you have all manner of brutality and violence, but it is without aim or purpose.

Boo. And boo, again.

You may be tactically minded, Mr. Taskeen, but if you're also a leader, the people who follow you need direction, and will buff against needing to be told what to do in these forums; however, when you're in the game, they are desperately seeking that direction, and will follow it if it's laid down properly for them.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 06 October 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[Davers]

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Not necessarily. What do you think you would feel if you NEVER knew whether you were playing against bots or not? What if it was never revealed to you whether the forces you were going to face were live-pilots or bots, or a mixture.

We can pretend we are doing PvE games right now then. "Who programmed those bots to smack talk like that?"

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

You're false, you have no evidence, you don't exist. I have no proof that you are who you say you are, you could be someone else playing on this account.

Now, most players are incapable of thinking, or playing tactically to begin with. Again, they simply smash themselves against the rocks and hope to win. This does not cover every one, I did not imply or say outright that it covered everyone. You read into what I said, made a wrong call, and decided to blast me for it. Kudo's to you, you failed to think tactically. The incentive to think tactically goes out the window when you have respawns; frankly, I like the idea of the DropShip, where you would be allowed to bring up to four 'Mechs with you. This means a lot of people will smash themselves up on the rocks, and those who think tactically, and survive the smashing, will then get to face off with one-another, tactically.

Honestly, how many games have you truthfully seen -don't make me call you a liar, please?- where, if a team is attacking and fails, they try a different approach, and different team tactics, to get the job done. More often than not, if their attack fails, they back off and get overrun, and have no time to think their way through a new approach.

Now, for those who do think tactically, they can run a game and clobber the other team into submission, unless there's another true tactician...

See, it bothers me when people call things like pop-tarting or legging tactics. Those aren't tactics, those are just shooting and brutality. Tactics typically requires a team effort, a means of drawing out and smashing the enemy while avoiding taking more damage than they should. Tactics runs a gamut of skills, including resource management, fire and fade execution, and many other things that most players in this game are simply incapable of processing. Watching the matches of the Launch Party, I saw some amazing skills on display, I saw teamwork, and those matches are how the developers, and how people who understand tactics and choose to use them, want to see this game. In truth, however, most folks in this community couldn't define the word, let alone use them, and so you have all manner of brutality and violence, but it is without aim or purpose.

Boo. And boo, again.

You may be tactically minded, Mr. Taskeen, but if you're also a leader, the people who follow you need direction, and will buff against needing to be told what to do in these forums; however, when you're in the game, they are desperately seeking that direction, and will follow it if it's laid down properly for them.

Respawns would make every game longer and we already have players complaining about the Cbill per hour rate. Pugs would rather have an arena they can just charge in, kill or be killed, then quickly repeat.

Players serious about team work and tactics drop in 12 mans.

[Sephlock]

Charons Little Helper, on 06 October 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

I think the key is to come up with AI controlled tanks/turrets etc. That would make it easy to come up with a variety of attack / defend missions.

For example:
- One side has a bunch of AI controlled turrets / vehicles.

The other side gets to respawn once (perhaps even with different mechs if they want to) - and with a time limit to destroy a pair of factories in the base.

They decided that respawning is a big no-no, and the shining holy grail of compromise (Letting you choose up to four mechs and then spawn into them in succession) was dropped in favor of just letting us choose the map we drop on.

Quote

Just as an example. The AI wouldn't have to be good. Just there.

So basically, they need to be like noobs in Champion mechs.

Quote

A few tutorial missions could even be set up where the sides were skewed towards the new players. (I think it would be fun to play the outnumbered 'bad guy'.)

Yeah it would. Let me do it while piloting a Red Marauder and I don't think I'd ever do anything else. (+10 nerd points to anyone who gets the reference)

Quote

Am I on the right track - or being stupid?

Both- which means you'll fit right in amongst the masses ;D.

(J/K. You're ideas are good, which means they won't be listened to. Enjoy!)

[Threat Doc]

Sephlock, on 06 October 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

They decided that respawning is a big no-no, and the shining holy grail of compromise (Letting you choose up to four mechs and then spawn into them in succession) was dropped in favor of just letting us choose the map we drop on.

When did this happen? I just watched the Launch Party on the 26th, and it seemed to me they were still going with the DropShip idea... have they already changed it since then, and where did you find the information?

[Sephlock]

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

When did this happen? I just watched the Launch Party on the 26th, and it seemed to me they were still going with the DropShip idea... have they already changed it since then, and where did you find the information?

It was a while ago, and the information came from official sources that I am too lazy busy to find. Someone back me up here.

I did a quick search and came up with this: http://mwomercs.com/...-dropship-mode/

[Ceesa]

MWO wasn't even able to launch with all of their core features on time. No UI 2.0, no CW. What makes you think they have time to program an AI?

I mean, sure, it'd be great, but it's pretty clear it's not going to happen.

[Threat Doc]

Sephlock, on 06 October 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

It was a while ago, and the information came from official sources that I am too lazy busy to find. Someone back me up here.

I did a quick search and came up with this: http://mwomercs.com/...-dropship-mode/

Okay, well, Bryan Ekman mentioned it again in the features set on September 26th, so we'll just have to keep an eye out and see when, or if, they change it, again.

FireDrake, it just will take some more time. I am not going to naysay OR support too much at this point... I think I've finally come to the wait and see stage of MWO grief, hehe.

[Hillslam]

I hate to be the one to break it to you guys, but there's been ai mechs in mwo matches for awhile now.

Edited by Hillslam, 06 October 2013 - 08:41 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Really? How do you know? Screenshot or...

[MoPo]

@Hillslam: That would tie in with the comment from Brian W / Karl in ATD 44

Answer from Brian W and Karl:[color=#959595] A replay system is one of those features that has long been on our list of things to do. Unfortunately there are many challenges that we still need to address, such as the size of the replay file, building a system that can read in a replay and play back the file correctly, future integration with AI and scripted bots, and the ability to efficiently scrub the replay file. We currently have no time frame for when this feature will be released due to the amount of work involved, and our current commitments to essential launch and post-launch features that are considered higher priority.[/color]

But, as per Kay Wolf's question, evidence?

Edited by MoPo, 07 October 2013 - 02:02 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Fut, on 06 October 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Although I agree that adding AI elements into some game modes could be a decent way to evolve the game a bit - I don't think that respawns should be included. The moment this game has respawns is the moment it takes a turn towards being an arcade shooter. F

Kay Wolf, on 06 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

The incentive to think tactically goes out the window when you have respawns; frankly

Red Orchestra is the least arcadey current-gen competitive shooter with any significant population (caveat just incase someone pulls out some indie/smalldev shooter with fifty odd players and calls it 'current-gen') and that has respawns. They don't reduce tactics, they infact increase the need for tactics since you have to anticipate enemy reinforcements, and ergo counter-attacks. For reference, mostly this is because respawns are in "waves" with a reasonable delay timer between them to represent reinforcements arriving. Respawn =/= individual respawn on a 5s timer.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 07 October 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[Threat Doc]

MoPo, on 07 October 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

@Hillslam: That would tie in with the comment from Brian W / Karl in ATD 44

Holy smokes... I hadn't read what you quoted, anywhere, and it sounds great.

Gaan Cathal, on 07 October 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

Red Orchestra is the least arcadey current-gen competitive shooter with any significant population (caveat just incase someone pulls out some indie/smalldev shooter with fifty odd players and calls it 'current-gen') and that has respawns. They don't reduce tactics, they infact increase the need for tactics since you have to anticipate enemy reinforcements, and ergo counter-attacks. For reference, mostly this is because respawns are in "waves" with a reasonable delay timer between them to represent reinforcements arriving. Respawn =/= individual respawn on a 5s timer.

Do you think MWO is, now, or could be, eventually, ready for this level of tactical expression? I don't know anything about Red Orchestra, am not a PvP player anywhere but in MechWarrior, period, so I only have your word to go on, so forgive me if I would also ask you, "screenshot, or..."? I know this would take more than just a screenshot, hehe, to prove your point, so don't worry about it. But, about MWO... could it be ready, do you think?