311 replies to this topic

[Sam Slade]

People said:

Stuff about playing for only one faction.

This is all getting very myopic; all the assumption and opinion in the world doesn't address the question posed. This question as I understand it is "Why can we not add a simple method for players to use Clan and IS mechs in Community Warfare simultaneously?".

The most logical concept thus far has been to give players an alter ego of each 'race' with the most obvious issue being the complexity involved in programming it(no gameplay issues at all).

What's the problem? Why demand people choose one 'race' when it is better on every level(financial, gameplay, fun) to allow greater variety?

Edited by Sam Slade, 25 October 2014 - 08:50 AM.

[Dracol]

Corralis, on 24 October 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

OK so as I have also said, I am part of a very large gaming group that I have been a member of for over a year now. It has been decided by the higher ranking members of the community that we will be fighting for the IS. I had no choice in that decision. So what do you propose I should do? Leave? Say goodbye to a lot of friends I have made over my time with the group. That's not very practical really is it? I'm not the only person in my group that has bought Clan Mech's but no one was told prior to their purchase that we would be locked out of using them during CW.

As a member of a large group as well, this has come up in discussion for us as well. What CI is looking into is forming a second "Merc Unit" for those who wish to pilot their clan mechs. From reading your posts, this might be a solution for you and your group. Your earlier posts went into how you wish you could pilot clan on the side of IS, but it wasn't until the above quoted post that you mentioned you are aligned with a unit that is IS based.

I highly doubt there will be any change to IS pilots being able to run Clan mechs. CW revolves around IS v Clan as well as border skirmishes between the houses. The only defining feature between clans and IS are the mechs. Without that separation, IMHO CW would then just feel like what we have now, random gathering of tech fighting another random gathering of tech.

Another way to think of it is if a game was representing WW2. You might have Russian troops and German troops together in a random game with no consequences, but when it comes to more organized replication of WW2, you would never see mixed units.

Edited by Dracol, 25 October 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[AntleredCormorant]

If you don't want to pick a side you can take contracts for whatever faction you want, as the whim strikes you. Clan one week/month/whatever, IS the next.

Edited by AntleredCormorant, 25 October 2014 - 08:55 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Sam Slade, on 25 October 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

This is all getting very myopic; all the assumption and opinion in the world doesn't address the question posed. This question as I understand it is "Why can we not add a simple method for players to use Clan and IS mechs in Community Warfare simultaneously?".

The most logical concept thus far has been to give players an alter ego of each 'race' with the most obvious issue being the complexity involved in programming it(no gameplay issues at all).

What's the problem? Why demand people choose one 'race' when it is better on every level(financial, gameplay, fun) to allow greater variety?

Because it -isn't- better.

One of the core characteristics of MWO, that sets it apart from the vast majority of multiplayer games in existence today is that you only have -one- representation in the game universe. No alts, not multiple characters. Just yourself. You have to take all the rewards and penalties of your decisions, just like anyone who would be piloting a battlemech would.

Allowing multiple 'characters' is completely against the character and spirit of Mechwarrior, and has never been part of this game. It never should be.

If you want to play Clan, then play Clan. If you want to play Inner Sphere, play Inner Sphere. If you cannot make that decision, then you don't have the commitment to participate in CW, and can/should play in the normal mode of play. Remember, you can jump in and out of CW as you want, so play whichever is your favored Faction when in CW, and the other in normal play. If you are part of a Unit, but you don't want to be on the same side as that Unit, then you probably made a bad choice joining them in the first place and should look for another Unit to join that matches your preferences.

I agree the Devs put themselves into this position by rushing through Clan mechs before they, themselves, developed plans for (Clans were supposed to be something introduced a year or more after CW launched, if ever), but the simple truth is that they have left an option for people to play whichever side they want, and even change on a regular basis. Not only that, but they have even hinted that Inner Sphere and Clan forces might have access to the other's battlemechs and tech as some later time, so it isn't even a hard limit that will last forever.

So, there is already a simple way for players to play whichever tech they want. The problem is that the players themselves don't want to use it.

CW is not for those who don't want the harder edge to the game. If you want such things as complete freedom to be a Clan pilot from Tharkad who will shoot whatever target is being shot already and use leetspeak, then just play the normal gameplay mode. That is why it is there.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 25 October 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[Sam Slade]

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Another way to think of it is if a game was representing WW2. You might have Russian troops and German troops together in a random game with no consequences, but when it comes to more organized replication of WW2, you would never see mixed units.

Good analogy; sticking with that idea... could I play as the Germans in North Africa and the Allies on the Russian Front?

Quote

If you want to play Clan, then play Clan. If you want to play Inner Sphere, play Inner Sphere. If you cannot make that decision, then you don't have the commitment to participate in CW, and can/should play in the normal mode of play.

Funny... I have the commitment to buy a Founders pack the night they went on sale, buy Clan packs, buy more IS packs, new PCs and so forth to support playing MWO... even the commitment to argue for changes that I may not feel support lore but will result in deeper player pools for matchmaking in CW and deeper coffers for development...

exactly what kind of commitment should the community have for your Community Warfare?

Edited by Sam Slade, 25 October 2014 - 09:09 AM.

[Dracol]

Sam Slade, on 25 October 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Good analogy; sticking with that idea... could I play as the Germans in North Africa and the Allies on the Russian Front?

Not if you signed on with the 11th Panzer Division

[Logan Hawke]

Either stop comparing it to an MMORPG and simultaneously deriding multiple characters, or start comparing it to WoT and other games in MWO's actual genre please. There is a very good reason you get the option to make more than one character in any MMORPG, including ones on different factions.

And the whole 'you're obviously not a dedicated true Battletech fan, you don't get to play the meatiest chunk of the game, **** you' is getting really old.

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Not if you signed on with the 11th Panzer Division

Yeah, but another guy could easily be fighting for the Russians. Because that's what additional characters are. Different Characters. It's not the same guy fighting in all those places it's different people. Unless in your mind there's no disconnect between the player and the character, in which case, have you ever played a P+P RPG?

[Jakob Knight]

Logan Hawke, on 25 October 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Either stop comparing it to an MMORPG and simultaneously deriding multiple characters, or start comparing it to WoT and other games in MWO's actual genre please. There is a very good reason you get the option to make more than one character in any MMORPG, including ones on different factions.

And the whole 'you're obviously not a dedicated true Battletech fan, you don't get to play the meatiest chunk of the game, **** you' is getting really old.



Yeah, but another guy could easily be fighting for the Russians. Because that's what additional characters are. Different Characters. It's not the same guy fighting in all those places it's different people. Unless in your mind there's no disconnect between the player and the character, in which case, have you ever played a P+P RPG?

Here's the newsflash. There are -NO- characters in MWO. Just yourself.

This isn't WoW. This isn't WoT. This is a simulation of Battletech, which predates them by several decades. There -are- no games in it's genre, as they are all different games, and any attempt to compare them is an attempt at simplification and exuse.

The bottom line is this. If what mech you pilot is more important to you than who you fight for, stick to the normal game play. You'll never notice a difference that would matter to you. If who you fight for is more important than the mech you pilot, then play in CW. You. Not some vague notion of a character with stats and numbers for what they can do.

You.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 25 October 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[AntleredCormorant]

Seems to me these short-term contracts are there for the exact purpose of allowing people to play both sides, so I'm not sure what the problem is, actually.

[Sam Slade]

AntleredCormorant, on 25 October 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Seems to me these short-term contracts are there for the exact purpose of allowing people to play both sides, so I'm not sure what the problem is, actually.

I would agree except that people are so damned fickle about rationalising purchases and that Community Warfare will need the numbers 'alter egos' offer to remain dynamic and engaging... I fear that it will degenerate into a tyt-for-tat timezone governed slugging match and that players will lose interest. These are my two primary concerns honestly.

Edited by Sam Slade, 25 October 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Dracol]

Sam Slade, on 25 October 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I would agree except that people are so damned fickle about rationalising purchases and that Community Warfare will need the numbers 'alter egos' offer to remain dynamic and engaging... I fear that it will degenerate into a tyt-for-tat timezone governed slugging match and that players will lose interest. These are my two primary concerns honestly.

From what I gathered from the info was that the time zones were opened for the same contested planets, and only after all time zones had a chance would they "flip".

In other words, we all fight for the same planets for a day and then after the 24hr period up, a victor is declared and planet changes hands if the attackers are the victor. Which is a nice departure from a system like Warhammer Online had, were after a night of battle to take control of a land, you'd wake up and see the night crew failed and it was again back in enemy hands.

[Jakob Knight]

Sam Slade, on 25 October 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I would agree except that people are so damned fickle about rationalising purchases and that Community Warfare will need the numbers 'alter egos' offer to remain dynamic and engaging... I fear that it will degenerate into a tyt-for-tat timezone governed slugging match and that players will lose interest. These are my two primary concerns honestly.

The only problem is that if a player cannot be online at a certain time, it won't matter if they can play the other faction. They will -still- be offline. If they -can- be online, then why would they not be part of the fighting for the side they want to win?

Adding alts will not improve the number of people playing, but instead undermine the entire character of the game and give a much larger opportunity for players to distrust who they let into their Units. This has -always- occurred in -every- combat game that allows multiple 'characters', and MWO doesn't need this at all.

So, either way, the idea of multiple characters does not solve the problem.

Finally, the only way to eliminate the effect of timezones in a real-time, first-person simulation, is to eliminate timezone as a consideration by only allowing -one- period of combat per planet. This does eliminate the problem of multiple time zones, but at the cost of shutting out everyone who is not active during that time period. There simply isn't any other way it can work, because that's how playing on a worldwide, real-time game where people are all over the surface of a globe and on their own time schedules is.

The Devs have decided it is more fair to their playerbase to allow multiple timezones to decide the outcome of a contested planet, even at the cost of having flip-flops in the activities of various Factions. The only way to prevent flip-flops like this is to ensure your Faction has people in it from -all- time zones, which I can't say is a bad thing.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 25 October 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[Dracol]

Logan Hawke, on 25 October 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Yeah, but another guy could easily be fighting for the Russians. Because that's what additional characters are. Different Characters. It's not the same guy fighting in all those places it's different people. Unless in your mind there's no disconnect between the player and the character, in which case, have you ever played a P+P RPG?

And people have taken the initiative and made a second account so they could play a second Mechwarrior. And yes I play P&P games most my life and still do and unless ill fortune takes the life of your character, you play one character for the life of the campaign. CW is one, nice long campaign.

[Logan Hawke]

Jakob Knight, on 25 October 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

The only problem is that if a player cannot be online at a certain time, it won't matter if they can play the other faction. They will -still- be offline. If they -can- be online, then why would they not be part of the fighting for the side they want to win?

Adding alts will not improve the number of people playing, but instead undermine the entire character of the game and give a much larger opportunity for players to distrust who they let into their Units. This has -always- occurred in -every- combat game that allows multiple 'characters', and MWO doesn't need this at all.

So, either way, the idea of multiple characters does not solve the problem.

It really isn't anything more than a minor annoyance. Even in Planetside2 that sort of behavior faded pretty damn quick.

And I hope you don't actually believe that MWO is a super special snowflake all in its own genre. It's not at all. It's in the same genre as WoT and WT and other games like that. A vehicle based arena shooter with mild RPG and simulator elements. Pretending otherwise is just going to cause more problems than it's going to solve.

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

And people have taken the initiative and made a second account so they could play a second Mechwarrior. And yes I play P&P games most my life and still do and unless ill fortune takes the life of your character, you play one character for the life of the campaign. CW is one, nice long campaign.

I take it you've never played a campaign over again from a different side for 'what-ifs' and to get a different perspective? I highly recommend it, it adds unique views and insight into the world if your DM is worth his salt. And saying 'hey, some people made two accounts so suck it up' when it wasn't exactly mentioned, encouraged, stated as a good idea by PGI, or anything along those lines is pretty bogus, especially for all the people who don't participate on the forums (you know, the majority of players in this game?).

Edited by Logan Hawke, 25 October 2014 - 09:45 AM.

[Dracol]

Logan Hawke, on 25 October 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

I take it you've never played a campaign over again from a different side for 'what-ifs' and to get a different perspective? I highly recommend it, it adds unique views and insight into the world if your DM is worth his salt. And saying 'hey, some people made two accounts so suck it up' when it wasn't exactly mentioned, encouraged, stated as a good idea by PGI, or anything along those lines is pretty bogus, especially for all the people who don't participate on the forums (you know, the majority of players in this game?).

First off, you still have to play through the campaign as one character first in your example. Since MWO is not having seasons in which your analogy would be appropriate, they compromised and are allowing players to switch allegiance after their contract is up.

And I never said "So, suck it up" or anything to that affect. I just made an observation that some people have had the foresight to realize that IS and Clan tech was not going to mix and they then made a Clan account so they could play either faction at their choosing.

[Logan Hawke]

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

First off, you still have to play through the campaign as one character first in your example. Since MWO is not having seasons in which your analogy would be appropriate, they compromised and are allowing players to switch allegiance after their contract is up.

And I never said "So, suck it up" or anything to that affect. I just made an observation that some people have had the foresight to realize that IS and Clan tech was not going to mix and they then made a Clan account so they could play either faction at their choosing.

You are correct in both that this is not in seasons anymore (which is personally my preferred way to work the campaign, because then we could do different eras and the like too, which I think would open up the most variety for everyone) as well as the current 'compromise', but it's a close approximation to the reasoning behind multiple characters. Depending on how they work out switching factions (if you read my posts on 'loyalty gifts' vs 'loyalty points' you'll know my reasoning behind hesitancy with the current way things have been explained), things could work out fine, but earlier people were expressing... more than mild anger at the thought of being able to switch factions on contract basis at all which is why I originally suggested multiple 'characters'. I'm really hoping Paul weighs in here at some point with more solid information so we can have a constructive discussion with him.

No, you did not directly say it, and maybe I'm getting the wrong vibes off of you but that's definitely the undertone I'm hearing, which is why I've been responding with less than respectful tones (if you are in fact not trying to throw in that undertone, I apologize).

[Sam Slade]

Replies missed the point entirely; I'm talking about number of people playing the ENTIRE game... not numbers fighting over one world or another(also start thinking pugs in CW not organised groups... pugs are the majority).

Alter egos would effectively double the pool available for CW because once people had played their IS battles they could switch over and play their Clan battles: more battles, more variables, more depth, more interesting...

I should qualify that by saying the idea of coming back to my CW screen to find a series of defeats have carved a devastating hole in my factions territory is very appealing to me... this is ongoing campaigns not Hero's of Might and Magic after all...

Edited by Sam Slade, 25 October 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Dracol]

Logan Hawke, on 25 October 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

No, you did not directly say it, and maybe I'm getting the wrong vibes off of you but that's definitely the undertone I'm hearing, which is why I've been responding with less than respectful tones (if you are in fact not trying to throw in that undertone, I apologize).

The joys of forum discussions. And no, I was not going for that vibe but I do have a tendency to write with a condescending tone.

As for the multi character discussion, it boils down to "You can please some of the people all the time or all the people some of the time". IMHO, the compromise they have now (min 1 month with a faction but ability to play any owned mech in general queues) is a good middle ground between the two camps. But, I also understand both camps... those who wish to have CW be more then just faction hopping and those who wish to use all of their purchases in the next evolution of MW:O.

Sam Slade, on 25 October 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Alter egos would effectively double the pool available for CW because once people had played their IS battles they could switch over and play their Clan battles: more battles, more variables, more depth, more interesting...

From the answers posted by Paul, it sounds like they're not worried about having enough players in CW. They seem to be worried that general queue might dry up during CW periods. And if that is the case, alter egos would have no affect on general queue since we can only fight in one match at a time.

[Sam Slade]

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

it sounds like they're not worried about having enough players in CW. They seem to be worried that general queue might dry up during CW periods.

That is actually a really good point... if the general queue gets too thin then it'll be back to ELO mismatched faceroll battles again... bad for player retention.

Food for though there, will be interesting to see it play out.. short term contracts may just be a good middle ground... use pug play to Master new mechs for the next CW contract switch.

EDIT: Still doesn't help people in organised groups who have IS and Clan mechs... but Pugs will remain the majority. That being the case I may have to become a proverbial 'one man army' to switch contracts as I please in CW... if I have to buy a gazillion cbill dropship I will be cranky

Edited by Sam Slade, 25 October 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[Logan Hawke]

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

The joys of forum discussions. And no, I was not going for that vibe but I do have a tendency to write with a condescending tone.

As for the multi character discussion, it boils down to "You can please some of the people all the time or all the people some of the time". IMHO, the compromise they have now (min 1 month with a faction but ability to play any owned mech in general queues) is a good middle ground between the two camps. But, I also understand both camps... those who wish to have CW be more then just faction hopping and those who wish to use all of their purchases in the next evolution of MW:O.

Alright, good to know we're both at least trying to keep things civil

If the 'contracts' are done right, it could work fine, but there's a lot of room for error with it. I hope they can do it right.

I still wish they kept the 'seasons' though. I wonder if PGI had called them 'campaigns' instead if people would have been more approving of them. I've kinda been envisioning them like a D&D self contained campaign module, you know? You take a while to explore that story and world and when you complete it it's time to start the next adventure! (for this case let's say the next 'adventure' would be a fourth succession war campaign since we have all the tech necessary in game for it and it'd certainly be interesting to play with no double heat sinks) Wash rinse repeat. And, after you've played through all the 'campaign modules' (and boy oh boy we would have years worth of them for battletech) you come back to the very first one and see what you could have done differently. There's disconnects in the analogy because this is at heart a competitive game, but I've always thought that would work best. Plus there's the goals and victories and meaning behind things. But that's just me desperately beating my own drum in the hope that one man can change the minds of everyone on the forums.

Edited by Logan Hawke, 25 October 2014 - 10:34 AM.