108 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, keep in mind the indirect fire rules from BattleTech, that data is shared the way it is between 'Mechs because of the implementation of those rules. Could the rules be a bit more discerning, perhaps not as loose as they are? Sure. But, then ECM needs to be weaker, as well. I've learned to get around ECM as it is, now, and it's not as powerful as it used to be, not by far, but it's still got a quirky side that makes it a bit stronger than I feel it should be.

[Ryoken]

When I saw this video:

I instantly liked the more realistic and more mech simulation and more military feel of the game. I think MWO can learn some things from this.

Right now MWO feels a bit to much on the arcade side and has to much colors and bling.

I really liked how this map and color palette did feel more wide and real. Gives a realistic feel for modern warfare ranged combat with big walking tanks. Also the sound effects/HUD did give a way better feel of piloting a real warmachine instead of an oversized toy robot.

To me MWO is to close to the old arcadeish Mechwarrior4 and instead should be closer to the more simulatorish Mechwarrior3.

So yes MWO can learn from MWLL to get a more military, realistic simulator feeling.

Edit:
We need burst fire on all autocannons and we need recoil for autocannons like it had on Mechwarrior3.

And yes Radar and ECM is a mess in MWO so a lot can be learned here.

Edited by Ryoken, 08 June 2015 - 10:26 AM.

[TygerLily]

I like what MWO is now but I'd like to see more "Battletech" in it.

MWO does combat well! It's fun, action packed but still much slower than a typical shooter giving it a unique place in the shooter world.

Roles:

I think it lacks making the weight classes different in regards to role. I think a development of map and objective gameplay would do the trick to round out the "role warfare" thing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

For example:

If we had a large map with a convoy escort objective using 4-mech Dropship mechanic. The convoy comes in 2 or 3 trucks per wave and they take 1 of 5 routes randomly each time.

This makes it necessary for the attackers to scout the field to determine how many trucks, what route they're taking, etc. Good scouting means Assaults can be used to intercept convoys b/c they got enough early warning to get moving.

Large maps means speed is important so Heavies with high engine caps who sacrifice offense for speed are rewarded. Mediums inherently balance speed and firepower.

Slow Heavies and Assaults who sacrifice speed for firepower ensure the convoy is well protected but should be relieved half-way by faster Mechs so they can hustle back to begin escorting the next convoy (if the slow guys escort the whole way, they will be too far out to escort the next friendly convoy wave).

Make the attacker's main reward come from how many trucks are destroyed. The Defenders reward is for how many survive. Neither side's focus should be mainly on just killing the enemy!

Optional capturable objectives (midfield repair bay, forward landing zones, etc.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Coop and Meaningful Skirmish/Assault/Conquest:

I'd also like to a see a killer 4-player coop mode rather than a single player campaign. Make the coop dripping in lore and storylines. Make them repeatable and dynamic (think Pay Day).

Have completion of coop grant your Faction resource points to launch attacks in CW.

Do the same for playing the solo/group queues of conquest, assault and skirmish.

That way lore-fans and robot-killing-game fans can both contribute to their factions resources how they want to.


CW:

Let Loyalists rank up in Community Warfare be the ones to access to these resources to launch attacks on planets. This makes the borders of the Factions player driven rather than determined by an algorithm.

Let Loyalists make contracts for Merc and Lone Wolf players.

This gives Loyalists a purpose!

Weekly lore-tastic video detailing who lost planets in CW, who gained. Reward Faction with biggest gains that week with a cbill or MC prize for its members (Loyalist, Mercs, LW, all).


Pointless Lore Bits:

Loadings screen tips: put nerdy lore crap in there. So after we read about "Gauss ammo doesn't explode. But Gauss rifles do" we see "The first BattleMech was the 100-ton Mackie developed in 2439. It was in production until the Amaris Civil War 2766."

Give every component in the game a brand name. That's it. It's not just a PPC but underneath "Manufacturer: Magna Hellstar" or "Tiegart"

That's it! Those things would add lots of flavor....no gameplay change necessary (and if designed correctly, not even visual clutter).

[Kh0rn]

TygerLily, on 08 June 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

I like what MWO is now but I'd like to see more "Battletech" in it.

MWO does combat well! It's fun, action packed but still much slower than a typical shooter giving it a unique place in the shooter world.

Roles:

I think it lacks making the weight classes different in regards to role. I think a development of map and objective gameplay would do the trick to round out the "role warfare" thing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

For example:

If we had a large map with a convoy escort objective using 4-mech Dropship mechanic. The convoy comes in 2 or 3 trucks per wave and they take 1 of 5 routes randomly each time.

This makes it necessary for the attackers to scout the field to determine how many trucks, what route they're taking, etc. Good scouting means Assaults can be used to intercept convoys b/c they got enough early warning to get moving.

Large maps means speed is important so Heavies with high engine caps who sacrifice offense for speed are rewarded. Mediums inherently balance speed and firepower.

Slow Heavies and Assaults who sacrifice speed for firepower ensure the convoy is well protected but should be relieved half-way by faster Mechs so they can hustle back to begin escorting the next convoy (if the slow guys escort the whole way, they will be too far out to escort the next friendly convoy wave).

Make the attacker's main reward come from how many trucks are destroyed. The Defenders reward is for how many survive. Neither side's focus should be mainly on just killing the enemy!

Optional capturable objectives (midfield repair bay, forward landing zones, etc.)
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Coop and Meaningful Skirmish/Assault/Conquest:

I'd also like to a see a killer 4-player coop mode rather than a single player campaign. Make the coop dripping in lore and storylines. Make them repeatable and dynamic (think Pay Day).

Have completion of coop grant your Faction resource points to launch attacks in CW.

Do the same for playing the solo/group queues of conquest, assault and skirmish.

That way lore-fans and robot-killing-game fans can both contribute to their factions resources how they want to.


CW:

Let Loyalists rank up in Community Warfare be the ones to access to these resources to launch attacks on planets. This makes the borders of the Factions player driven rather than determined by an algorithm.

Let Loyalists make contracts for Merc and Lone Wolf players.

This gives Loyalists a purpose!

Weekly lore-tastic video detailing who lost planets in CW, who gained. Reward Faction with biggest gains that week with a cbill or MC prize for its members (Loyalist, Mercs, LW, all).


Pointless Lore Bits:

Loadings screen tips: put nerdy lore crap in there. So after we read about "Gauss ammo doesn't explode. But Gauss rifles do" we see "The first BattleMech was the 100-ton Mackie developed in 2439. It was in production until the Amaris Civil War 2766."

Give every component in the game a brand name. That's it. It's not just a PPC but underneath "Manufacturer: Magna Hellstar" or "Tiegart"

That's it! Those things would add lots of flavor....no gameplay change necessary (and if designed correctly, not even visual clutter).

I like these ideas I still believe one of the most troublesome problems is the complete freedom with the mech lab with no regard too any draw backs too heavy modifying a mech into a role or way it was never meant too operate.

[Ryoken]

Kh0rn, on 08 June 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

I like these ideas I still believe one of the most troublesome problems is the complete freedom with the mech lab with no regard too any draw backs too heavy modifying a mech into a role or way it was never meant too operate.

Well I also always wondered why they did allow all mechs to field so much bigger engine sizes? I would prefer if the engine rating a mech can mount would be more restricted like only +/- 30 engine rating points difference from the stock eninge rating of that mech.
Examples:
Orion stock engine rating is 300 therefore it can mount engines from 270 to 330 engine rating
Panther stock engine rating is 140 therefore it can mount engines from 110 to 170 engine rating
(I did not suggest a certain +/- percentage of the stock engine rating because it would favour mechs with big engines)

Also maybe a global increase in weapon load cycle time would be an idea that comes to my mind when people demand a longer time to kill. This way players who blindly run into the open in front of an enemy lance or company still get punished but time to kill would increase for standard fighting situations.

Edited by Ryoken, 10 June 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Kh0rn]

Ryoken, on 08 June 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Well I also always wondered why they did allow all mechs to field so much bigger engine sizes? I would prefer if the engine rating a mech can mount would be more restricted like only +/- 30 engine rating points difference from the stock eninge rating of that mech.
Examples:
Orion stock engine rating is 300 therefore it can mount engines from 270 to 300 engine rating
Panther stock engine rating is 140 therefore it can mount engines from 110 to 170 engine rating
(I did not suggest a certain +/- percentage of the stock engine rating because it would favour mechs with big engines)

Also maybe a global increase in weapon load cycle time would be an idea that comes to my mind when people demand a longer time to kill. This way players who blindly run into the open in front of an enemy lance or company still get punished but time to kill would increase for standard fighting situations.

I like this idea as well MWLL was going too have a restrictive Mechlab based upon roles of each variant of each mech so whiley you could customize the mech it would keep it in the same general role as its production variant.

[Threat Doc]

TygerLily, on 08 June 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

I like what MWO is now but I'd like to see more "BATTLETECH" in it.

That's it! Those things would add lots of flavor....no gameplay change necessary (and if designed correctly, not even visual clutter).

I love EVERYTHING you said!!!

Kh0rn, on 08 June 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

I like these ideas I still believe one of the most troublesome problems is the complete freedom with the mech lab with no regard too any draw backs too heavy modifying a mech into a role or way it was never meant too operate.

I would like to see a sort of persistent 'Mech customization, which would have to be economically driven in accordance with BattleTech, where a pilot actually earns only so much at a time, but their unit earns a lot more, and players could put in requests for money to be able to mod their 'Mechs, but most of the modification would be performed based on combat losses. For example, a player's 'Mech has room in a torso for a Medium Laser, by hard points AND criticals, and that Medium Laser is shot off the 'Mech during a match. The salvage collected by the unit from a combat, or during a contract, if it had a Medium Laser -from ANY manufacturer- in it, could see the Medium Laser restored. If there is no Medium Laser, another weapon could go there, as long as tons, crits, and hard points allow. This also means the unit, or the pilot, could pay for modification to allow the hard point to support a different weapon, or both types of weapons. Anyway, in a persistent CW, all 'Mechs would begin in their stock MWO configurations but, over time, the 'Mech could be modified by the pilot paying money and/or salvage taken by the unit and/or the unit paying for the modification.

Ryoken, on 08 June 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

Well I also always wondered why they did allow all mechs to field so much bigger engine sizes? I would prefer if the engine rating a mech can mount would be more restricted like only +/- 30 engine rating points difference from the stock eninge rating of that mech.

Examples:
Orion stock engine rating is 300 therefore it can mount engines from 270 to 300 engine rating

Did you mean 270 to 330? Sorry, one of the classes I teach deals with tolerances like this, so it struck me funny.

In line with the ideas I presented, above -which, admittedly, are not 100% mine-, I believe the limitations you presented would become unnecessary. However, if the persistent ideas from above were not put into effect, this is what I would like to see, as well.

Quote

(I did not suggest a certain +/- percentage of the stock engine rating because it would favour mechs with big engines)

Oh, absolutely agreed.

Quote

Also maybe a global increase in weapon load cycle time would be an idea that comes to my mind when people demand a longer time to kill. This way players who blindly run into the open in front of an enemy lance or company still get punished but time to kill would increase for standard fighting situations.

This is absolute genius!!! I know Tabletop has a per-turn time of ten seconds, and I don't believe PGI should do that to MWO, but perhaps some lengthening of those times is in order. It would change player behavior to a point that, while it might turn some players off from the game, would also increase tactical planning so that some actually exists, both on a unit level and on the individual pilot level.
______________________________
Do you all understand how relieved I am to hear that I am actually NOT on an island, here!?!?! Thank you.

[Ryoken]

Kay Wolf, on 10 June 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

Did you mean 270 to 330? Sorry, one of the classes I teach deals with tolerances like this, so it struck me funny.

Yes I did mean 270 to 330. Thanx for checking!

Kay Wolf, on 10 June 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

Do you all understand how relieved I am to hear that I am actually NOT on an island, here!?!?! Thank you.

No worries bud, a lot of MWO players actually miss the military simulation feeling in the game. Even well known streamers like sidestrafe pointed out that MWO needs bigger maps for more spacious territorial combat. MWO right now feels like fighting in a parking lot or make shift arena. So it is fine for some quick drops or pugs.

But outside of this narrow arenas there is so much more landscape, territory, planets and a whole universe to explore. And I hope we will get the feel of large distances, actual unit movement, scouting and splitting forces some day.

PS: I for myself am right now so excited on the Wave III Invasion variant mechs which will get full camo support. As I mostly play C-Bill bonus variants as I got few time for grinding, the forced on striped racecar patterns on the Invasion variant mechs where a huge immersion breaker to me. So I can not wait to put appropriate Polygone, Woodland or Smoke Jaguar Camouflage on it and start grinding while looking like an actual warmachine should look like.

Now we just need a way to set up and save different camouflage patterns to be used on the different maps.

Edited by Ryoken, 10 June 2015 - 08:23 AM.

[EvilCow]

Difference is, MWLL people wanted to create something great and mostly succeeded. PGI wanted to create a minimally viable game and have yet to achieve that.

The only point that goes for MWO comparing with MWLL is artwork and animations, generations ahead, with the exception of lack of Inverse Kinematics, this makes MWO really look poor even compared to MW4 in that regard:



Really disappointing.

[Serpentbane]

Kay Wolf, on 08 June 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

Serpentbane, keep in mind the indirect fire rules from BattleTech, that data is shared the way it is between 'Mechs because of the implementation of those rules. Could the rules be a bit more discerning, perhaps not as loose as they are? Sure. But, then ECM needs to be weaker, as well. I've learned to get around ECM as it is, now, and it's not as powerful as it used to be, not by far, but it's still got a quirky side that makes it a bit stronger than I feel it should be.

Yeah, I know. However, I don’t think everything can be ported without change from a turn based tabletop to a real time shooter. In addition, I think some changes might need to be progressive. I have no problem with huge changes for the better myself, but we need to realize PGI having a business model here, and going from something well known to something entirely new does involve some risk even if you and me believes it will be for the better. We all play the game today, but if you look at the vote 1/3 do not want this change. Will they continue playing if PGI does these changes?

So, I’m trying suggest relatively small changes to the game that still will have somewhat larger impact on how the game is played. I try taking game dynamics as they are today, and mold them into something in the direction we want. Everything regarding electronics needs to change, but should everything be rebuilt from scratch immediately? Again, high risk is something PGI would avoid.

[Threat Doc]

Serpentbane, on 10 June 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

Yeah, I know. However, I don’t think everything can be ported without change from a turn based tabletop to a real time shooter.

No no no, and I have never asked for a direct translation. In fact, the way the game -and the rules as presented- are, now, I think PGI has actually captured, for the greatest part, what I always felt -especially during MW 4 days- BattleTech would be as a computer game. I truly do enjoy what PGI have done in this realm, and I've given them kudos time-after-time. Many folks know I've been a huge BattleTech fan since 1984, and I am most definitely a BattleTech purist, but I've also been a huge advocate for getting the FEEL of the tabletop game, not the specific rules converted over. Now, if PGI ever gets around to logistics, unit management, contracting and strategic deployments and actions, then I expect them to include all of the elements and make it as close to the universe, as possible. However, I also believe that all of those things need to be done from the web site, just like the old Leagues used to do them, and then any necessary elements pulled into the combat simulator at their appropriate times, perhaps using interaction/conversion tools.

Quote

In addition, I think some changes might need to be progressive. I have no problem with huge changes for the better myself, but we need to realize PGI having a business model here, and going from something well known to something entirely new does involve some risk even if you and me believes it will be for the better. We all play the game today, but if you look at the vote 1/3 do not want this change. Will they continue playing if PGI does these changes?

I don't care if that one-third of all players leaves because they don't want the change; why? Because the players who left the game because it was **** to them, would likely return and not only replace the one-third of morons who've left with the sort of people who should actually play in this community. Alternately, if they wanted to try to stay and learn about this amazingly humongous, detailed, and beautiful warfare universe, I know I would be up for teaching them everything I still have in this tiny little inflamed noggin' of mine.

As for the changes coming gradually, I absolutely most heartily agree with you, AS LONG AS PGI WILL SHOW US THEY'RE MOVING CONSTANTLY IN THAT DIRECTION! (capitalized for emphasis). I want to see a real plan, damn't!

Quote

So, I’m trying suggest relatively small changes to the game that still will have somewhat larger impact on how the game is played. I try taking game dynamics as they are today, and mold them into something in the direction we want. Everything regarding electronics needs to change, but should everything be rebuilt from scratch immediately? Again, high risk is something PGI would avoid.

Minimize, not avoid, or we wouldn't have a game at all.

Remember in February 2014, when GUI 2.0 was released? PGI came about and explained to us that several things were being developed for the backbone of the game, to make it stronger, and then the actual update to the game wasn't all that large? That's the sort of communication I want PGI to continue making happen, please?

I WANT to continue to have faith in PGI to push this game in the correct direction, but they've produced one or two good things -in my opinion- followed almost immediately by something that was horribly disappointing. Usually many things, unfortunately. I continue to understand that these horrible things are being set in place as lead-ins to other great things and that, eventually, this game is going to be so much more of what I want, than not. Right now, things are sort of neutral, meaning PGI are not adding anything that can be classified -again, my opinion- as either good or bad. In this case, no news is good news, especially since CW Phase III is supposed to be unit management and logistics. I still, however, have a problem with the fact that Russ said three Town Hall's ago that we would not see much more in the unit management portion, so that means we're looking at logistics, and that's about it. We need contracting -in accordance with Mercenary's Handbook and/or MH: 3055-, logistics, unit management, strategic operations planning and execution, and then objectives-based warfare. Until we have those things, ALL of them -and as close to the BattleTech rules as possible-, this will JUST be another MechWarrior game. That's just not acceptable to me.

[Grimm Hammer]

The Dark Age mechs need to be seen. You want to make money give us the coolest of the cool PGI!

[Threat Doc]

Grimm Hammer, on 13 June 2015 - 04:14 PM, said:

The Dark Age mechs need to be seen. You want to make money give us the coolest of the cool PGI!

I'm of the assumption you're making a joke, even if you're not, hehe.

[Grimm Hammer]

It's a game, games are made to be productive fun machines that make money. The dark age mechs are arguably the meanest and coolest mechs there are.

[Threat Doc]

Grimm Hammer, on 14 June 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

It's a game, games are made to be productive fun machines that make money. The dark age mechs are arguably the meanest and coolest mechs there are.

If this game were all about being a Mad Max clone one-thousand years from today, or if a Dark Age game were being built, then I would agree with you. Most fortunately, this game is about the already-LosTech of the BattleTech universe, which for me stops in 3068.

[Grimm Hammer]

But there could be a time rift where the Dark Age and the current age meld. This is far in the future so it is very possible.

[Ryoken]

Battletech Dark Age has some of the most ugly mech designs ever. They look like toy robots. MWO definetly should not go this direction style wise because those Dark Age designs do hurt my eyes.

P.S.: I will never pilot or pay for a mech (left DA-Atlas/right DA-Panther) that looks like this:

Edited by Ryoken, 14 June 2015 - 09:16 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Grimm Hammer, on 14 June 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

But there could be a time rift where the Dark Age and the current age meld. This is far in the future so it is very possible.

{grin} Hehe, okay. I have to admit, it would be funny for a ForestryMech to go after a Timberwolf with its chainsaw, hehe. In fact, I think I played a fight like that one time, at a now-defunct hobby store in Colorado Springs... the ForestryMech died something like nine hexes away from the Timberwolf. But, then a Heavy Helicopter -whose name I can't remember- came around from fighting some infantry and an artillery piece and utterly laid waste to the Timberwolf... so, I suppose anything's possible.

Ryoken, on 14 June 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

Battletech Dark Age has some of the most ugly mech designs ever. They look like toy robots. MWO definetly should not go this direction style wise because those Dark Age designs do hurt my eyes.

P.S.: I will never pilot or pay for a mech (left DA-Atlas/right DA-Panther) that looks like this:

Don't worry, Ryoken, this will never happen to MWO. Who knows, maybe THAT is what Hare-Brained Schemes new game will be about, instead... the Dark Age. Oh, and about that... it's called MechWarrior: Dark Age, not BattleTech: Dark Age, because it's definitely NOT BattleTech, hehe.

Now this thread is about IMPROVING MWO, so can we get back to that, please?

[Blitzkriegadier]

Open world exploration & faction vs faction PVP + dynamic PVE missions.

[Threat Doc]

And I thought I had a tall order for the game, hehe. I like it, though.