74 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Just have to hope. I would like to see the more populous worlds needing multiple battles (which have to be contested by players not AI) - it would be ridiculous if a Merc Lance could take Tharkad 'cos no one was online to defend.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 28 November 2011 - 09:51 AM.

[Kalunta]

Why any time limit? I'm in a part of the world opposite those of you in the USA, and I don't want a window of playtime determined by USA-friendly-time --- that sucks for the rest of the world. It should be 24hours non-stop. League play should need to consider players in other time zones when forming their ranks and planning their missions.

[Threat Doc]

I agree with that... it should be 24-hour ops, which is why I would advocate so very strongly for the game to NOT be PvP centric. Now, I'm trying to set up my merc unit to handle other time-zones, but it's going to be difficult, at best, as it has been in the past with MW games and leagues, to make extra-US time zones work well.

[Korbyn McColl]

Uncle Monkey, on 27 November 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

Having played MW3 and MW4, a lot of the game was about the groups, but relative to individual combatants.

What if the first M in MMO is really Massive?

Suppose that individuals, lances and stars are the object of incredibly large battles?

How would this change the gameplay?

What if the only way to play the game is to be able to field 2+ stars? (other than individual trial or Solaris)

Actually, I think this is the very reason the devs have stated that MWO will NOT be an MMO. I think their afraid players will expect what you're suggesting: truly massive PvP combat. Even though it fits the definition of MMO as accepted by most MMO players, who group in 4 to 6 man parties quite frequently.

And, frankly, I do not want to see massive combat in MWO. BattleTech/MechWarrior was always about a lance or two facing off against an opponent of close to equal numbers. Huge battles just don't fit the feel, imho.

[Punisher 1]

Belrick, on 27 November 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Its being done in a F2P game as we speak, and I can only hope it happens for mechwarrior online as well.

No, NO, No, Hell No!

WoT sux it sucks so hard Black Holes are jealous.

Why? It's boring its a one trick PvP pony ( one game mode with two options capture the base or kill all enemy ) with a map interface ( for clan wars ) . If your idea of fun is waiting around until 1am in the morning in hopes of winning a battle for a smattering of gold coins that you have to share with 15 other people, I guess it's fun ( not ). I played this game since closed Beta and I am hugely disappointed. I spare the details of how a great concept has fallen so short it borders on a rip off pay to win game. ( Wargaming is Quick to talk about how future versions will be "awesome" but really slow to produce anything, Game modes and other critical features have been spoke of since closed beta almost 2 years ago )

As for MWO I would hope that they take a look at what is popular in games today and review the feed back on the forums learn from others mistakes and build an interesting and challenging game that’s not a pretty version of “Risk” with limitations for the fan base.

Edited by Punisher_1, 28 November 2011 - 11:27 AM.

[SaberCut Moffat]

Based on my not-inconsiderable experience with MW/BT online games, and the activity on this forum, this game truly has the potential to be 'MASSIVE'! This is one of the oldest communities in online gaming, if one considers the number of years/incarnations of the games, and probably has one of the most loyal player bases. Even though the game is rather niche, and probably will never reach the numbers that say WoW has, I think it will still have player numbers reaching into the tens of thousands, similar to WoT. One can always hope...

[Kaemon]

Agree with Punisher_1, WoT is not the model to use for this, The top clans reap benefits that border on hilarious (and are able to use them in pub as well, nothing like going against an top tier vehicle that is decked out with L33T P2W because they reap Pay currency due to massive clan terrority....womp womp...).

The only similarity should be they both have a type of map...period.


*edit* Yes SaberCut, but where WoT is a flash in the pan and will start to die off, MWO could live on for YEARS (which would put it in a very elite class of online games...not many last long).

Edited by Kaemon, 28 November 2011 - 11:46 AM.

[Aeolian]

Whoever mentioned ISW - that would be pretty cool. Only played it a little bit, it had the BT feel down. Wasn't it just PvE though? Would be cool for it to be PvP.

[Kyll Long]

SaberCut Moffat, on 28 November 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

Based on my not-inconsiderable experience with MW/BT online games, and the activity on this forum, this game truly has the potential to be 'MASSIVE'! This is one of the oldest communities in online gaming, if one considers the number of years/incarnations of the games, and probably has one of the most loyal player bases. Even though the game is rather niche, and probably will never reach the numbers that say WoW has, I think it will still have player numbers reaching into the tens of thousands, similar to WoT. One can always hope...

One of EA's predictions was 50k player base. They were disappointed because they wanted a game with a 150k player base. If I recall right, and there's one or two on here who might have had access to better numbers, we only registered around 35k.

[Helmer]

Boneripper, on 28 November 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

This would be very cool. The fighting would mean something. I don't like the time stamp on it. I work from 4:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Monday to Friday. The fight for an area should range 24 to 48 hours and battles can be anytime of the day. The team that wins the most fights in that time span takes the prize. That way more players on a team will be able to contribute. Just my 2 cents.

My thoughts exactly. It's how the earlier MPBT on GEnie worked. I remember 4am rushes very fondly.

[Woodstock]

Belrick, on 27 November 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Its being done in a F2P game as we speak, and I can only hope it happens for mechwarrior online as well.

World of tanks is not that impressive in this regard. You can still only play 15 v 15. Even if on a large scale strategically. Personally I would like to see really epic battles with full battalions on each side. (106 v 106)

That would be Massive!

[Phades]

As interesting as a large scale battle on a field the size of new york or bigger with 200+ folks stomping around and tearing things up, I don't think they are going to have the resources to do something that big. That is some serious server horsepower tracking all that, not to mention pretty large bandwidth use compared to a 4v4 match setting. Then there are the game minimum requirements to consider. If they peg the minimum requirements at rendering potentially 200+ folks plus terrain, it would be pretty decent hardware requirements to run the game well if it looks anything like the MW5 teaser trailer.

[Huntsman]

If this game ends up as just a bunch of instanced maps rather than huge open world areas, it will be the single most disappointing thing for me.

[Uncl Munkeh]

It's certainly not perfect, but then again, what is?

I can't say that a daily reset would be a good idea, how many of the die hard fans have 6+ hours a day to devote to MWO...

Though, the possibility of some combination of this may not be too bad. There has to be some way to create further strategy.

Maybe one of the polls should include something along the lines of when people are planning on playing. Determine full loading of the servers/service, etc.

I was hoping for a couple of hours on a Weds or Thurs GMT-7 between 6 and 10pm. Maybe 4-6 hours on a Saturday evening....

[Threat Doc]

Uncle Monkey, on 28 November 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

I can't say that a daily reset would be a good idea, how many of the die hard fans have 6+ hours a day to devote to MWO...

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. Someone mentioned the possibility of doing multiple battles in the space of a 24 to 48 hour period. Say one of your team mates, or two, or a lance, were able to launch into ONE iteration of a combat that's supposed to take place. Now, say they get finished and, a half-hour or so later, another guy up to a group of guys logs in and has some time to play, and throws themselves into the fight. Say now that sort of thing continues on for the time-limit of the battle, 24 to 48 hours, 72 hours, whatever. After EACH fight in which live-pilots are able to go against other live-pilots or, if our devs relent on PvP and get it put into the game somehow prior to release, against bots, the battle itself resets. At the end of the period, whichever side in the battle has the most wins, wins. Maybe it could be by points, accrued whether live-pilots or AI are at the control, or whatever would be the most fair between the teams.

The idea behind this is to allow the maximum number of players to have an actual effect on a battle over the span of the time period allotted. Not everyone can log in at the same time, whether it's due to working hours or just distance around the world, so it would be most fair to allow several iterations of the same fight as there are players to fight, and then average wins, points, tons, whatever would provide an accurate number, would point to a winner.

Quote

There has to be some way to create further strategy.

Absolutely agreed, but our hosts are going to have to determine what's best, or we may end up strategizing ourselves to death, hehe.

Quote

Maybe one of the polls should include something along the lines of when people are planning on playing. Determine full loading of the servers/service, etc.

I was hoping for a couple of hours on a Weds or Thurs GMT-7 between 6 and 10pm. Maybe 4-6 hours on a Saturday evening....

For me, especially if I get back to work fairly soon, it would be Friday and Saturday nights for several hours each, probably 3 to 5 on Friday and then 4 to 6 on Saturday. You know, those hours almost sound insane, but I think I'm willing to give up some time.

[Belrick]

Jeez. I dunno how many more times my post with WoT will be quoted.

I was only showing that larger based strategy in F2P can be possible. By "It" being done, I meant strategic gameplay, I wasn't demanding mechwarrior online just be a mech version of WoT.

Best case scenario (which won't happen) would be strategy on the scale of EVE online, but I just don't see how that would work in a F2P model, so I brought up world of tanks instead.

That being said it seems a third of the people on this forum want some sort of instanced / round based deathmatch game, so we'll have to come to grips with that (hopefully they're ignored), because in spirit I agree with Huntsman.

(*Note in advance* I said scale of EVE online, I didn't ask for a copy paste of EVE online's mechanics)

[DontGetCrabs]

The WoT's with a little alteration could work quite well. Put it in the hands of the Clan's. You hold planet A and B, and want to attack C. You put in your attack orders. Once those orders are submitted you have a fairly close time line to do it in i.e. 24 hours. Now the holders of planet C doesn't get a heads up for defended it until a shorter time like 18 hours away or 12. This would open up a branch of upgrades; better intel, better kept secrets, ect. This would shorten the time the other clan is notified of a pending attack, or give you more time when you are notified of a pending attack. If for whatever reason this can be used as a form of currency control. For whatever reason you and your clan cannot make a showing on a night you are being attacked, but you spent alot of c-bills on NPCed Merc units or whatever sort of auto computer controled defense that might be able to hold your ground for you.

[StoneRhino]

I guess my post did not post to this thread.
B
asically WOT is nothing more then counterstrike with tanks. I know, I know, people want to believe otherwise, but really thats all it is. Okay, its counterstrike with tanks, with the hampster wheel grind of a mmorpg. Grind matches to get to the next level only to realize that you need to grind more to get to the next level, in order to get to the highest level. From there you can start playing other content that all the lower teir players cannot get at. That is the problem with the world domination mode of WOT, you can't get into those fights without being tier 8-10 because if you do, everyone you encounter is going to be tier 10 stuffing your tier 5 tanks into the lockers while taking your lunch money from you. Its also nothing more then a set of counter strike matches set up in a tourney style system to determine who takes the ground for the day.


what I mentioned in the post that did not post was that people need to look at soe's Planetside. that game is what MWO should be looking to beat. The game was persistent, right now I can log in and there are players running about fighting over the ground that players will keep fighting for until one side secures it, or leaves the field. The maps are massive. The game, at it's peak was able to accomodate 133 players on a team, with 3 teams fighting it out on the map, and still has looooads of room to move about, that was not occupied. It was not a Counterstrike game with 32 or 64 players a side where you cant move an inch without running into someone.

New players, unlike in WOT, could jump in and join in the same battles as their friends that had played for years. That new player could take on, and kill, other players that had years of experience, without having to grind for days to unlock stuff needed to even scratch the other side. There is a new Planetside on the horizon that is going to be free to play as well, which I cannot wait for. However, this is the name that i used in that game for years, so you know that I am looking forward to a MW game regardless of if there is or is not a new PS coming out. The dream MW game would be massive in scale that allows for players to not just run around in mechs, but vehicles, fighters, battle armor, and infantry. It would have cities, bases, and just interesting areas to capture and hold for profit.

If you could combine EVE's one massive server with harvestable resources and ability to produce units, Planetside's massive ground battles, with Battletech's units of all scales and it's 25 years of history together...that would be an epic game. Not "epic" as in "this corndog is epic!" or "seeing that person fall was epic!", but I mean epic in scale. Beyond the scope of other games. To me, that game would be worth investing time into. It would remove the questionable aspect of sinking money into that I have for WOT. If it was free to play, the game would have a massive population that would ensure that there is plenty of competition around.

If people just want an update of MW3 or MW4, that can already be had. What we need is an actually BT MMO, and again..not WOT's cheesy, and absolutely incorrect use of the "mmo"term. But a game that lets us participate in battletech's world, not counterstrike with mechs, or tourney matches of counterstrike with mechs. Give us something that makes us feel as close as possible to being in a part of the BT universe. Even if theres just a few planets at a time to invade and defend, that would blow away any mw game in the past.

[Punisher 1]

Stonerhino hit it on the head.

What the Battletech and MW fan base needs is a game that really does this epic universe some justice.

I seen in the FAQs that there will be no other vehicles besides mechs - thats a mistake in Battletech the use of combined arms is hugely important along with air support. In addition to this it adds a much needed depth to the game. I can see using the multitude of vehicle as much fun as a mech in certian types of missions.

It migh be best for the development team to clue us in on the concepts they they want to follow and see if it floats with the fan base. A sort of research before development. It might save them alot of grief and aggrivation to ask around.

[Galen Shannow]

Kaemon, on 28 November 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

*edit* Yes SaberCut, but where WoT is a flash in the pan and will start to die off, MWO could live on for YEARS (which would put it in a very elite class of online games...not many last long).

For a flash in the pan it seems pretty damn successful.

Look , as someone put it, WoT is nothing more than counter-tank-strike with some mmorpg elements (including grind) thrown in. But you know what? Counter Strike was, is!, a damn popular game. I've spent many a night playing it over the last decade. My wish as is one of the major themes of this thread was that there was a point to it all. (sidenote: Why one of these FPS games hasn't introduced a strategic overlay to their game is beyond me).

However if you want a persistent world where you can make real strategic decisions and there are real winners and losers you are going to come up against a big problem.......people. Sounds funny right? But trying to balance winning/losing vs playing a game on the internet is damn difficult. I can tell you from experience in playing ww2ol that people don't like playing 'fair' when they can 'win'. How are you going to balance numbers for instance?


Huntsman, prepare to be really disappointed. A large persistent world will be too difficult on many levels. One, technology. You want a large persistent world that can hold 1000+ players, all with ability to receive FPS like frame rates and lag? Not going to happen. ww2ol does it and the graphics suck for it. Maybe a larger company with better funding could pull it off but why would they bother? Secondly comes the balance issues, how do you even the sides, how do you make sure one side doesn't just zerg rush an empty part of the map? How do you balance timezones?
A large persistent map is a great idea, just too difficult to implement.

I think a strategic overlay, with instanced battles will be just fine. But make the battles different. Different number of participants (some 4 vs 4, some 10 vs 10 and maybe some big 32 vs 32)...different types of battles , different levels of mecha (so it doesn't devolve to assault vs assault)....

Now the 100 million dollar question...who then makes the strategic decisions?