63 replies to this topic

[metro]

Hodo, on 06 December 2011 - 10:15 PM, said:

That was the point. To FORCE people to work as nations. Unlike most other games where everyone wants to be a hero instead of doing their job to achieve victory.

Not to say there were "mercs" who did go to a merc faction. But they had to achieve a pretty high rep in a house FIRST before they could leave. Thus were experienced players not some greenhorn off the street, who doesnt know his PPC from a Gyro.

I am against 4 million merc units and a handful of house units. And if there are clans there needs to be a restriction, NO MERCS. Clans do not use them or tolerate them.

Great points Hodo.

I think MWO can provide Mechwarriors the opportunity to be the best they can be. MWO can also provide the MPBT group the lot as well.

The question is....are they going to do it.

[metro]

House Liao has great relations with many different Merc units, and those relationships go back decades.

I would hate to see them be told they cannot be a part of MWO as their sole entity being their unit.

However ...there has to be some discretion.

Many have already contacted House Liao concerning playing as their Merc Unit, for House Liao. So I think if we all determine to work together, things will work out for the BIG picture. We all have a new game to play.

This isnt about Mechwarrior fans versus Battletech fans...its about whether or not those two worlds will be brought together in MWO to compliment one another in a very successful adventure. One I am excited about the prospects that PGI will come through

Edited by Metro, 07 December 2011 - 04:11 AM.

[Kyrie]

Bumping this thread for Great Justice; a system like this one is precisely why I jumped in with $120 hoping that this might come to exist. I love the idea of the hex based map for planetary capture, adding a whole new level for strategic operations that didn't exist in the EGA version of MPBT.

[TG Xarbala]

Well, this is an old thread to see on the front page. A little thread necromancy can go a long way, especially since hindsight is 20/20.

While the plans for MPBT:3025 would have made a fascinating and dynamic game, there's a lot of problems in a large-scale MMO when character advancement is beholden to a social network. This in effect makes the game vulnerable to domination by a powerful guild and the officers of that guild would be the people with the power to promote players as they see fit. This by its nature would create an entrenched Old Guard that could well prove resistant to challenge and, therefore, change. This is a bad thing.

However, we live in the age of large, independent internet communities that exist as an outside context problem for these old guardsmen. 4chan, Reddit, and Goons, the last one the perennial elephant in the room, considering their successes in EVE (it would be disingenuous to say "our," seeing as how I don't play internet spaceships and don't much care for it).

Judging by peoples' reactions to the mere reputation of Goons, a social-based character progression model would prove self-destructive.

No matter what player-controlled party is given the authority to directly and materially determine the fates of another paying customer, if said party were given authority outside of its own guild there would be clear and obvious conflicts of interest. The backlash against which, frankly, would be catastrophic.

Nobody wants The Mittani to have veto power over whether or not you get to level up. Not even Goons.

Now that I've gotten the obvious out of the way:

A planetary contest model more detailed than "one company fights another company and the last `Mechs standing get the planet" would certainly be a boon. An Operational scale map between "single fight" and "star map" could potentially lend great depth to the metagame, rather than leaving things a simple de facto Trial of Possession. This could prove difficult to wrangle, given schedules and timezones for players around the world. How deep the system turns out to be would give advantages to larger groups, though, if it were possible for a guild to leverage resources in a way to indirectly affect the assets available to the players on the ground.

Extra UAVs, artillery strikes, improvements to modules and other role warfare aspects would be what I'm getting at. Capturing a planetary communications array could give bonuses to the side that controls it. Holding onto any orbital assets could give a healthy buff to UAVs. Holding a base could give discounts to repair costs and shorten repair time. However, any system with strategic metagame assets is more easily tackled by large and well-organized groups. While a simple 12v12 system might look even on the tactical level, when you start factoring in an entire planetary campaign being fought by many such company-scale engagements, the side that can coordinate its companies more effectively across the map and seize their objectives (or make tactical sacrifices on the planetary map to influence whether or not an enemy company is in condition to contest another, more vital objective despite losing the objective they actually fought for) will undoubtedly be the one that wins.

That, too, would be fascinating, and would add a great deal of depth and strategy to the planned role warfare aspect of the game. This would also be terrifying, because as I've mentioned, we have an elephant in the room known for strategic-scale successes in another game. However, that game was made famous, and remains profitable, precisely because of the grand strategic aspects of their high-level PVP. Not just military, but economic and political as well. That's well out of Mechwarrior's scale, it's not Battletech: Total War or Inner Spheuropa Universalis after all. But it makes for compelling narratives driven by players, and that's the holy grail of the MMO experience.

Even Planetside only had something as interesting happen once, and that's when an oversight meant one side was actually threatened with annihilation.

The only thing you need to do to prevent a theoretical Goon domination in a strategic context in MWO is to be more coordinated. Hell, half the battle is just being able to show up when the fight's scheduled to go down, and that's true in both WoT and EVE. So, really, it's worth thinking about.

Edited by TG Xarbala, 18 August 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[Harabecw]

I may have missed something (it was a long time ago) but, was all of this unseen by the 3025 beta testers?
I remember the beta pretty well, the star map with the ability to choose any planet etc.

There were a few screenshots floating around from a build I have never seen, with detailed command, units and resources. Was this some in-house version that was never allowed to mature?

[Kyrie]

Yeah, in one of the previous posts SS explains that none of that made it into beta. I actually missed out on the whole 3025 experience, never even heard of the mpbt:3025 beta. I remember preliminary discussions when I played (ever so briefly) mpbt: solaris, but somehow I lost touch completely after that.

[Kyrie]

TG Xarbala, on 18 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Well, this is an old thread to see on the front page. A little thread necromancy can go a long way, especially since hindsight is 20/20.

While the plans for MPBT:3025 would have made a fascinating and dynamic game, there's a lot of problems in a large-scale MMO when character advancement is beholden to a social network. This in effect makes the game vulnerable to domination by a powerful guild and the officers of that guild would be the people with the power to promote players as they see fit. This by its nature would create an entrenched Old Guard that could well prove resistant to challenge and, therefore, change. This is a bad thing.

However, we live in the age of large, independent internet communities that exist as an outside context problem for these old guardsmen. 4chan, Reddit, and Goons, the last one the perennial elephant in the room, considering their successes in EVE (it would be disingenuous to say "our," seeing as how I don't play internet spaceships and don't much care for it).

Judging by peoples' reactions to the mere reputation of Goons, a social-based character progression model would prove self-destructive.

No matter what player-controlled party is given the authority to directly and materially determine the fates of another paying customer, if said party were given authority outside of its own guild there would be clear and obvious conflicts of interest. The backlash against which, frankly, would be catastrophic.

Nobody wants The Mittani to have veto power over whether or not you get to level up. Not even Goons.

Now that I've gotten the obvious out of the way:

A planetary contest model more detailed than "one company fights another company and the last `Mechs standing get the planet" would certainly be a boon. An Operational scale map between "single fight" and "star map" could potentially lend great depth to the metagame, rather than leaving things a simple de facto Trial of Possession. This could prove difficult to wrangle, given schedules and timezones for players around the world. How deep the system turns out to be would give advantages to larger groups, though, if it were possible for a guild to leverage resources in a way to indirectly affect the assets available to the players on the ground.

Extra UAVs, artillery strikes, improvements to modules and other role warfare aspects would be what I'm getting at. Capturing a planetary communications array could give bonuses to the side that controls it. Holding onto any orbital assets could give a healthy buff to UAVs. Holding a base could give discounts to repair costs and shorten repair time. However, any system with strategic metagame assets is more easily tackled by large and well-organized groups. While a simple 12v12 system might look even on the tactical level, when you start factoring in an entire planetary campaign being fought by many such company-scale engagements, the side that can coordinate its companies more effectively across the map and seize their objectives (or make tactical sacrifices on the planetary map to influence whether or not an enemy company is in condition to contest another, more vital objective despite losing the objective they actually fought for) will undoubtedly be the one that wins.

That, too, would be fascinating, and would add a great deal of depth and strategy to the planned role warfare aspect of the game. This would also be terrifying, because as I've mentioned, we have an elephant in the room known for strategic-scale successes in another game. However, that game was made famous, and remains profitable, precisely because of the grand strategic aspects of their high-level PVP. Not just military, but economic and political as well. That's well out of Mechwarrior's scale, it's not Battletech: Total War or Inner Spheuropa Universalis after all. But it makes for compelling narratives driven by players, and that's the holy grail of the MMO experience.

Even Planetside only had something as interesting happen once, and that's when an oversight meant one side was actually threatened with annihilation.

The only thing you need to do to prevent a theoretical Goon domination in a strategic context in MWO is to be more coordinated. Hell, half the battle is just being able to show up when the fight's scheduled to go down, and that's true in both WoT and EVE. So, really, it's worth thinking about.

A lot of these problems are soluble, however. The main responsibility of the chain of command would be to create a good player experience for their members. If they fail to do so, they get voted out. And nothing would bring this about faster than blunders, poor planning, and lack of coordination.

People will also vote with their feet, leaving corrupt Houses to benefit others if somehow the "old guard" retain control to prevent this.

If, a pack of [insert feared gaming community here] grabs control and does a good job of running a House, I have no problem with it. Nor do I really mind not being promoted highly because of it as long as they are fulfilling the implied social contract.

Edit: To put this in context, an extremely deterministic, top down command system was in place in the EGA version of MPBT, that people gladly followed while paying initially $6/hour in non-prime time hours, and later $3/hour before the game was shutdown. People invested hundreds of dollars into running missions, shooting EGA quality graphics AI-droids (initially just legging them in one leg, as if they fell down they did not get up!) for the sake of the social interaction and the roleplaying done therein. Some of the problems actually did ocurr -- there was even an insurrection of leadership in several of the Houses. But it all worked.

Edited by Kyrie, 18 August 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[Shadowstarr]

Harabecw, on 18 August 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

I may have missed something (it was a long time ago) but, was all of this unseen by the 3025 beta testers?
I remember the beta pretty well, the star map with the ability to choose any planet etc.

There were a few screenshots floating around from a build I have never seen, with detailed command, units and resources. Was this some in-house version that was never allowed to mature?

A good deal was in the beta. Abet on a less grand scale. Planets weren't contested over individually but as parts of groupings ( fronts I think it was? if someone remembers better please correct.)

What I posted is the original software design spec.

Biggest lesson PGI should learn here is do the damn strat/tactical shell themselves and NOT farm it out a 2AM.


-----------

While I'll agree this is a bit of a post bump, many thanks for that, Community warfare is still a very open issue for MW:O Truthfully speaking this is the feature they'll make of break the game for me. I need a reason to keep at those 1000's of matches. I need a Cause larger then myself.

-SS

[Kyrie]

I am in the same boat. I mostly hate FPS games, I am not particularly brilliant in them; nor do I care to be. I do love team play though.

But community warfare is the reason I spent the $120 on this game; the hope and promise of resurrecting old glories. :-)

[Snowbourne]

Quote

To put this in context, an extremely deterministic, top down command system was in place in the EGA version of MPBT, that people gladly followed while paying initially $6/hour in non-prime time hours, and later $3/hour before the game was shutdown. People invested hundreds of dollars into running missions, shooting EGA quality graphics AI-droids (initially just legging them in one leg, as if they fell down they did not get up!) for the sake of the social interaction and the roleplaying done therein. Some of the problems actually did ocurr -- there was even an insurrection of leadership in several of the Houses. But it all worked]

Having been an avid fan of MPBT, and the Battletech universe in general, I think this is a great statement. There are many aspects of the meta game that was MPBT that made it something so much more. Having seen EVE mentioned here, for both the good and the bad, you have to admit that having a system where players have some say in what happens in the universe makes for a robust and passionate community.

Obviously not everyone who will play MWO is a passionate Battletech/Mechwarrior fan. Many will play for a short time to get their fix of the combat, just like a COD or BF3, and be done. For many of us, simply the idea that there was/is more going on outside of the individual battle you are in is powerfully immersive.

I certainly hope, that despite the potential negative that could come with the implementing of some type of system like this, that it does indeed make it's way into the game, simply because i believe the positives would far outway them. For those not interested in the "larger picture" they can just log in, have fun, and log out. They don't need to concern themselves with anything else. But for those that want more, and choose to engage in a more social aspect of the game, it could indeed be something. I always felt MPBT was ahead of its time. It was amazing how many people, how many passionate fans, could really care about what was going on. I'd love to see the same level of dedication to this product.

Edited by Snowbourne, 19 August 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[Kyrie]

Yes. Most definitely. Not only this, but games like Hawken will attract the people who prefer a casual mech-FPS arcade style game. The implementation of a system like this may be the one key thing that differentiates this game in the market; creating a system that people will care passionately about.

[Hodo]

I hope MWO implements the combat system and the gameplay mechanics, and doesnt follow the bad Mechwarrior games.

[Capzero]

I remember MBPT 3025. It had a horrible meta game. It promoted waiting for the right match ups to win planets. The average player doesn't want to wait it out for the sake of tactics. The specs from the OP are nice but really overdone and I don't think they are viable today.

I personally have no interest in social interaction in a shooter.

I would like to see complexity in tactical situations. The ability to win without blowing up the enemy. Some basic form of score keeping that represents progress for a house.

Today's NA gamer will broke no 'reduction' in their ability to play due to external factors. No supply impacts, travel time, military hierarchy, or other impediment to play.

Finally any open PVP game with multiple factions will , in time,. be dominated by one. I have yet to see an exception.

[CWSureshot]

I played 3025 aswell and i when i talk about these times to people, they are shocked that this concept was already achieved almost 10 years ago. those were the good old days.

[Rhyshaelkan]

MWO should have almost been a no-brainer game to make. As long as you have funds to pay the programmers.

You have 25+ years of source material, both strategic and tactical.

You have several sim/video game versions to draw weapon balance from. Learn from the other games mistakes and build something better.

You have a "recent" Battletech expansion with Total Warfare, Tech Manual, and Tactical Operations. [could throw in Strategic Operations here and there too]

With all the above history. You could construct a persistent universe. With battles on persistent worlds and locations. With massive multi-player interaction.


To PGI:

If the game, as it is now, was supposed to grab our attention. You have it. If it takes time to put in other elements, no problem. Just do not let us down. Give us Battletech.

[RAM]

Capzero, on 13 September 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

I personally have no interest in social interaction in a shooter.

Good thing we are not playing a shooter then

Shadowstarr, on 18 August 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

A good deal was in the beta. Abet on a less grand scale. Planets weren't contested over individually but as parts of groupings ( fronts I think it was? if someone remembers better please correct.)

Combat Regions/PDZs for the Davs – equivalent sub-commands for the other Houses…

Rhyshaelkan, on 13 September 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

You have a "recent" Battletech expansion with Total Warfare, Tech Manual, and Tactical Operations. [could throw in Strategic Operations here and there too]
With all the above history. You could construct a persistent universe. With battles on persistent worlds and locations. With massive multi-player interaction.

Heck, throw Interstellar Ops in there too.


RAM
ELH

[ArmandTulsen]

Bump for great justice.

I truly hope CW implements some of the features of MPBT: 3025.

[MustrumRidcully]

Well, this thread is old, but interesting.

I am still wondering what MW:O will have to offer...

[PANZERBUNNY]

Expect the most watered down House experience possible.

[Fuzzbox]

Shadowstarr, on 04 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

--Superb post--

This! This is what we want!
I don't know how, but this!