81 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

Logistics, individual planet fluff, single player missions: yes. I think all those things should be on the drawing board. I was mostly trying to limit the OP to things that could be readily implemented utilizing Cryengine or relatively low expenditure of resources. I think at least some of these things are already on PGI's radar, but I don't know for sure.

[xX PUG Xx]

Not sure if this would be the right thread to add this to but I recently replied to a thread which I initially wrote off as another solo player whining that he had been stomped by a large premade group in CW and that he should either accept that CW is engineered for just such premade groups or he should find a way to up his game to be able to compete in the “big kids pool” environment of CW if he chose to play solo there.

However it then got me thinking, firstly my reply may have come across as a bit harsh and for that I apologise. Secondly what could be done to “include” as much of the player base (the Community) into the Community Warfare section of the game?

At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.

I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.

Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role on the Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.

Contracts (game modes) available to Solo players

• Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.

Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.

• Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co-ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.

Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.

• Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).

LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co-ordinated gameplay.

Contracts (game modes) available to groups
2 - 4 players

• Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue

LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)

• Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)

LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

I am unsure how this would affect wait times but I assume it would actually help, since every player in the game is now in Community Warfare; albeit in various different aspects of it.

Now every player is included in the Community Warfare experience and has the choice of what level they wish to play at;

• The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.
  
• The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.
  
• Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.

I’m sure I have overlooked something but this is as far as I have gotten while putting my thoughts down. The next step would be diversifying on how the choice of Faction type (Loyalist/Merc/Lone Wolf) would affect how the planets become available to fight over or what types of rewards they offer. I haven’t gotten that far but again there are some really good and well thought out ideas out there already.

[Dawnstealer]

I think if you're saying that those maps and the pub game modes (Assault, Skirmish, Conquest) should be a part of CW in addition to Invasion and Counter-Attack, I could get on board with that. However, if you're saying that they should be rolled into CW (so there aren't any pub games - ALL games played in MWO would affect the invasion map of the Inner Sphere)? Not so sure.

Sometimes I personally like to drop and not have the match have any consequences. Or I want to try out a stupid build. It's nice there's an option out there where the match only impacts that single match and there's no broader implications. Steiner won't fall if I lose 12v12 Conquest, for example.

But if you're saying incorporate those modes in addition to the current CW modes? Incorporate those existing maps into CW (albeit with smaller numbers...maybe this "Scout Mode" Russ mentioned)? Sure - more variety never hurts.

[Gooner]

Just want to say there are loads of great ideas in the first post (and I'm sure the rest of the thread, but I've not read through it all yet), this is the kind of thing I was expecting to see in MWO. I'd be far more excited to see some of these features added, rather than more mechs, more skins, more cockpit items, etc. I don't even feel like we're desperate for more maps now, if we could find a way to include the maps that are currently not CW, in some kind of smaller CW gamemode for "less valuable" planets.

[Dawnstealer]

Gooner, on 30 April 2015 - 12:40 AM, said:

Just want to say there are loads of great ideas in the first post (and I'm sure the rest of the thread, but I've not read through it all yet), this is the kind of thing I was expecting to see in MWO. I'd be far more excited to see some of these features added, rather than more mechs, more skins, more cockpit items, etc. I don't even feel like we're desperate for more maps now, if we could find a way to include the maps that are currently not CW, in some kind of smaller CW gamemode for "less valuable" planets.

I'd even stay loyal if PGI said they were going to take a month or so break for an engine reset, if that's what it took.

[S13gtastic]

I like this thread a lot, mostly the idea of a skill tree that is sort of like WoW's old one pre-panda just because it would allow for more of a choose your class kind of vibe.

[GenJack]

I agree with Dawnstealer's ideas here! Changes like that would be amazing!

[HARDKOR]

Apnu, on 29 April 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

Everything here screams: DEPTH!
Its pretty clear a lot of players desire more depth in the game, more immersion, more options, more everything.

In discussions on HHoD comms this comes up a lot. A lot of our older guys are dreaming of a logistics system in game. It would be awesome if we had that.

Think about it, a logistics system can ensure that premades have scheduled matches against each other. And if we had other game modes in CW (like conquest for resource gathering or other such things) we could kill time playing those games in a solo/small group queue, then suit up when the drop ships arrive on planet for the real deal. Maybe a series of 2 out of 3 Invasion/Counter attack.

IMO, that would make this game tops.

If this game had any depth I would be staying home from work today.

[Grynos]

While I like most of the ideas from the OP and even have previously stated some of the same views in other posts on the forums, it is very unlikely to change. Honestly the issue is with the community. Now before everyone gets upset that I suggest this, hear me out. We as a community have to realize that very little will change because we continue to support PGI financially. Even though many of us want or even demand a more complete game, we still buy the new mech packs, we still purchase MC, so what reason is there for PGI to change the buissness model it currently has when all they have to do is present us with another set of shiny new mechs to purchase? I have watched most of the Townhall meetings yet the some of the same questions keep getting asked like about when MWO is going to be on Steam. Who really cares??? The "Steam" gamers have plenty of games to play what reason is there for them to play MWO? The more important question to ask though is what reason is there for them to stay?

[Apnu]

Grynos, on 30 April 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

While I like most of the ideas from the OP and even have previously stated some of the same views in other posts on the forums, it is very unlikely to change. Honestly the issue is with the community. Now before everyone gets upset that I suggest this, hear me out. We as a community have to realize that very little will change because we continue to support PGI financially. Even though many of us want or even demand a more complete game, we still buy the new mech packs, we still purchase MC, so what reason is there for PGI to change the buissness model it currently has when all they have to do is present us with another set of shiny new mechs to purchase? I have watched most of the Townhall meetings yet the some of the same questions keep getting asked like about when MWO is going to be on Steam. Who really cares??? The "Steam" gamers have plenty of games to play what reason is there for them to play MWO? The more important question to ask though is what reason is there for them to stay?

Giving PGI quality feedback, and unified community requests to they can easily identify our, the paying customers, wants is key to shaping the game.

If we can concisely, clearly, and respectfully make our desires known, PGI will certainly turn and produce it. I've also listened to the Town Halls and Russ often says/asks "what does the community want?". They are engaged, but have trouble deciphering the noise of the crowd.

There's plenty of people here who want to see more depth, (I'm one of them), but there's also plenty of people who demand more mechs and still others who demand more maps (not game modes, just maps).

How does PGI figure out which is the more important thing from all that?

They need more community interaction. They need Tina (and maybe a couple of others) going out to the community and find out what we want and survey us to find out what the community's prioritizes are.

PGI isn't stupid and they clearly aren't in the industry to make one game, milk it for a couple of mil. then fire everybody off and laugh on the way to Barbados. They're a real company, they're clearly in it for the long haul, otherwise after 3 years, they would have wound this down. They're here to make a go of this thing for a few more years at least.

Starving them financially is the best way to get less content and features. They'll look at the balance sheet, say "well the numbers aren't there to keep so much staff on and servers running" and shrink. Eventually they'll stop adding features and be done with the game.

Given they've got a 5 year lease on the Mechwarrior IP from Microsoft, if the game servers are shut down, that IP is still tied up for the life of the lease. Microsoft has no authority to recall the IP and sell it. Given that Micorsoft gave up on Mechwarrior after MW4:Mercs and the Xbox title, MechAssault, they'll be inclined to sit on the IP until the Sun burns out. This is the exact track EA's taken with Multiplayer Battletech. They bought that IP, directly form FASA Interactive and they own it. They've been sitting on that IP since shutting down the MPBT:3025 servers in 2002 to make a few more drift racing games that nobody wanted.

The best solution is to remind them that we are customers, we've paid, we like what we see, we want to see more, and we are willing to support them to deepen the game. That's a two way street of conversation.

PGI isn't the best at interaction, no game company is, but they've learned a lot about that and have improved greatly. Encouraging them to keep taking the right steps is win-win for everybody.

As they say, you get more flies with honey.

Edited by Apnu, 30 April 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[LiquidDivide]

I love the skill tree idea. The Quirks are awesome and have changed the game quite a bit, but I'd like the mechs to still be very customizable. With the quirks, you are sort of looked into a few different builds per variant. I'd like it if they were unlockable based on your XP, but I think they shouldn't be locked into your mech either. I want to be able to experiment and switch trees on the same mech in between matches. The blocking should be done by the tree you select, but you should be free to switch trees at any time. I don't even really care if the trees are focused per weight class. Why not allow lights to have cooldown/heat skills? Don't lock the player in a set path, that's all I want to add to that.

[Apnu]

xX PUG Xx, on 29 April 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

Not sure if this would be the right thread to add this to but I recently replied to a thread which I initially wrote off as another solo player whining that he had been stomped by a large premade group in CW and that he should either accept that CW is engineered for just such premade groups or he should find a way to up his game to be able to compete in the “big kids pool” environment of CW if he chose to play solo there.

However it then got me thinking, firstly my reply may have come across as a bit harsh and for that I apologise. Secondly what could be done to “include” as much of the player base (the Community) into the Community Warfare section of the game?

At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.

I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.

Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role on the Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.

Contracts (game modes) available to Solo players

• Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.

Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.

• Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co-ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.

Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.

• Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).

LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co-ordinated gameplay.

Contracts (game modes) available to groups
2 - 4 players

• Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue

LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)

• Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)

LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

I am unsure how this would affect wait times but I assume it would actually help, since every player in the game is now in Community Warfare; albeit in various different aspects of it.

Now every player is included in the Community Warfare experience and has the choice of what level they wish to play at;

• The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.
  
• The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.
  
• Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.

I’m sure I have overlooked something but this is as far as I have gotten while putting my thoughts down. The next step would be diversifying on how the choice of Faction type (Loyalist/Merc/Lone Wolf) would affect how the planets become available to fight over or what types of rewards they offer. I haven’t gotten that far but again there are some really good and well thought out ideas out there already.

These are really great ideas.

I like the c-bill and LP incentives to grouping up in large clumps. I like the idea that there's places for solos and small groups and places for larger groups and units but it all relates to the IS map in some way.

If we moved in this direction, I'd buy more MC today.

[Apnu]

LiquidDivide, on 30 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

I love the skill tree idea. The Quirks are awesome and have changed the game quite a bit, but I'd like the mechs to still be very customizable. With the quirks, you are sort of looked into a few different builds per variant. I'd like it if they were unlockable based on your XP, but I think they shouldn't be locked into your mech either. I want to be able to experiment and switch trees on the same mech in between matches. The blocking should be done by the tree you select, but you should be free to switch trees at any time. I don't even really care if the trees are focused per weight class. Why not allow lights to have cooldown/heat skills? Don't lock the player in a set path, that's all I want to add to that.

I'd love if the quirks were tied to the skill tree along with skills. I'd love it if we had different "pilots" that were like characters in other MMORPGs. Then you could really focus a "pilot" on unlocking the full potential of a mech. I'd love to have a pilot who specialized in brawling and quirked out a HBK-4G for it.

Maybe, for CW purposes, we allow all players to have 4 free pilot "births" (as in on a ship, not giving birth) and then spend MC for more like we do for mech bays.

Of course that idea changes the business model for the game, we'd have to throw out the "buy three mechs to master one" thing.

[Dawnstealer]

LiquidDivide, on 30 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

I love the skill tree idea. The Quirks are awesome and have changed the game quite a bit, but I'd like the mechs to still be very customizable. With the quirks, you are sort of looked into a few different builds per variant. I'd like it if they were unlockable based on your XP, but I think they shouldn't be locked into your mech either. I want to be able to experiment and switch trees on the same mech in between matches. The blocking should be done by the tree you select, but you should be free to switch trees at any time. I don't even really care if the trees are focused per weight class. Why not allow lights to have cooldown/heat skills? Don't lock the player in a set path, that's all I want to add to that.

Just to clarify what I was saying in my original post, my suggestion would be that, if someone had the XP for it, they could unlock the other branches of the tree for additional XP (but at a much higher cost, so x10 - that would be a balancing thing). The truth on that one is that PGI is a company that is trying to make money on a free-to-play game. The way they make money is by selling Premium Time, Mechs, and Mech Bays.

Making that additional threshold for the other branches on the tree means that people would have the usual F2P choice: grind for the additional XP, or pay money for an additional mech. The benefit of the second is that the XP already earned would be available, but unspent for that specific mech, so you wouldn't have to grind again: you could just level up the different branch with the XP you previously earned.

That's one idea.

Additionally, what I was saying about the Class-specific trees was not that Lights shouldn't have weapon trees, but that overall, Lights should favor (favor - not be exclusive to) a scouting role, while Assaults should favor a combat/damage role. And then Mediums and Heavies would be more hybrids leaning one way or the other.

So a Light would still have some weapon branches available to them, they just wouldn't be as large or involved as one you'd have for an Assault. Likewise, an Assault might (and probably should) get Torso Twist, but maybe they don't get Speed Tweak or the acceleration mods.

The goal with that section was to press home the currently lacking issue of Role-Warfare.

For tress, I was thinking there'd be a few trees, maybe three or so? So you'd have one for the Class (Lights, Mediums, Heavies, Assaults), one for the mech (Jenner, Shadowhawk, Atlas, Timberwolf), and one for the individual Chassis (Oxide, K, D, F). So you'd have at least three trees for each mech and while some would be same (so the Light Tree would be the same for a Jenner and, say, a Firestarter), the Chasis one would be very specific to that particular mech (and would take the place of Quirks).

EDIT: and I just wanted to add that the goal of the trees is to make people make choices. Right now, with the Quirk system, there are obvious builds you pretty much HAVE to build towards or you're wasting that mech. Take every Clanner's favorite mech: the Stalker 4N.

You are a straight-up idiot if you don't build the thing with Large Lasers. That doesn't mean you can't build it with something else if you want to be different, or make some fun build with 6 Flamers and 3 LRM20s (or whatever), but if you're playing competitively, if you're not building that thing to take advantage of those highly advantageous Quirks, you're hurting your team.

What the tree would do is balance things off against each other. So if you want your Stalker 4N to have the Large Laser run cooler, what if you had to select the "Cold Large Laser" branch over the "Large Laser Range" branch? It makes logical sense that a laser that runs cooler, probably wouldn't have the range (or maybe the damage?) of one that shoots farther. But the player has to make a choice about how their mech will play. If they want the 4N that can shoot across the map, maybe they have to sacrifice a cooler-running build.

This would be good for gameplay because if you're a player facing that 4N, and you see it's loaded up with the usual 6 Large Lasers, well...what tree did they go with? Is that thing going to melt your face at huge range? Or is it going to be one that can fire those things off like a machine gun at close range? Or is it heat neutral?

You get the idea.

Edited by Dawnstealer, 30 April 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

Dawnstealer, on 29 April 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Some words that made me realise I didn't fully flesh out the thought and stuck to the CW equation *shrug*

I do actually mean all the standard queue games are to have some sort of influence on the Inner Sphere map......

However, you are right there should still be "Training" queues, not sure how this would work but I agree it is necessary to have "fun" games where the outcome isn't so serious but I still believe the main emphasis of the game should be geared toward the larger conflict of CW (or whatever name it finally ends up with).

Perhaps the "training" queues could be termed as "raids", the 1 - 4 player queues have access to these and are based on grabbing CBills (termed as technology grabs?) from the enemy Faction rather than territory?

*Edit* This could even be locked to the Cadet level players.

I think rather than having totally meaningless matches it would perhaps be better to have low impact/repercussion modes that still contribute but on a MUCH lower scale. That way its still almost a throw away match played for fun but still has emersion in the CW mode.

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 30 April 2015 - 10:41 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Someone mentioned having Sirius VII be a training ground, as it was in [some other Mechwarrior game...3? 4?]. You play one-on-one, or you play against computer opponents, and learn the game. At the end of it, you have enough money to buy a mech. This sounds like a great idea: you still get your cadet bonus, you just get a little more eased into the game. You don't get shouted at for being a noob, you don't cost your team wins, and so on. You learn the basics in a quiet(ish) environment. And sure the main game is going to be a whole new world, but at least you'll know what the "R" button does or how to get out of 3rd person.

[Dawnstealer]

Thought of something else to add to the list.

This has been brought up a few times, but if you select a tree for, say, a Large Laser Range bump, what if it actually labeled the LL with the manufacturer? So "Martel" lasers would be the ones that shoot farther while the "whatevers" run cooler.

LOW priority, but definitely immersive and fluffy.

[xX PUG Xx]

Its a shame that this thread has fallen so far down, surely others have some ideas to add.

[Dawnstealer]

Well, a number of new threads have brought up a lot of the same ideas, over and over, but there's a lot of the usual PGI bashing that apparently needs a new thread every time someone loses a match.

[Vajhra]

I'd replace the lobby with training planets, where you can stomp around, group up, have a run through tactic courses and marked firing ranges etc.... where friendly damage costs MC's to try and limit people blasting each other. Have the function of planet selection and drop queing taken over by an inscreen menu which is accessible while on the "Rally Planets".

Then go about and make a different themed version for each Clan and IS factions... oh and I forget, each planet could have designated areas for duelling it out with no FF penatly - which would be useful for Clan culture!!

If you really wanted to go the extra mile, have CW game launches arranged so that queued players have to board a large dropship.

I don't think its impossible, but it beats sitting alone in a lobby looking at a star map
And gives something to do while waiting for drops to fill.

Oh, and then allow unit's to have their own, so only members can access the planet and create a real vibe!

Edited by Vajhra, 14 May 2015 - 10:16 PM.