33 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

Up front a couple of basic disclaimers. I put realism in quotes because we don't truly have 'Mechs or any such system to reference in the real world. Second I don't know exactly how feasible such a system would be on a developer end, but I envision the system I'm going to explain as similar to simulators' realism settings, but hard coded in per tier.

As many of you will know there is a wide variety of players wanting everything from a casual almost arcade like gameplay to people that are looking for a fairly hardcore simulation from this reboot of the MW franchise, so I have been thinking that a tiering system of realism would be appropriate and appeal to a wider audience without compromising in one direction or the other.

In my mind a four tier system would be appropriate, and I imagine the tiers being something like:

Tier 4: This would be for beginning and more casual players. Matches would have unlimited or generous respawns. The matches would end when either all objectives are completed by one team or the other, or a match timer reaches 0. Game play or realism setting. Heat would not be a factor, and there would be no movement or other effects on the Mechwarrior or their 'Mech. Customization of 'Mechs would be only limited by imagination and possibly C-bills. No penalty for 'Mech destruction beyond being put in a spawn queue. Teams can field 'Mechs on a 1:1 basis for each team (straight X players VS X players). No ammo critical explosions perhaps even unlimited ballistic and missile ammo.

Tier 3: This would be for players that are looking for a bit more than the Tier 4 players. Heat starts to be an issue, but still no shutdowns perhaps instead you couldn't fire energy weapons until you're machine cooled off a bit (fairly quick heat dissipation). Respawns may start to be limited, but still generous. Customization may start to see limitations (I'm not going to state a hard customization limit at the level). Teams start to see balance based on total fieldable tonnage, but it's a generous tonnage allowing up to half of each team to field 100 ton 'Mechs and leaving plenty of room for everyone else to field an even distribution of other weight classes of 'Mechs. Losing a 'Mech will cost you a modest amount of C-bills at the end of the match before it can be fielded again (unless it's a free 2 play 'Mech).

Tier 2: This is where players would start to see strong levels of realism. Heat is a major issue and balancing heat and damage output is critical. Shutdowns, movement, targeting, core ruptures, ammo cook off can all be affected by excessive heat. Respawns are very limited (perhaps as little as 1-2 per player if at all). Customization of 'Mechs is limited by a tight Battle Value mechanic that make effective use of all weight classes and team work a must for success. Losing your 'Mech has consequences. You will have to pay for repairs and it won't be available until the repairs are complete. (Free 2 Play 'Mechs would still be available regardless of it's loss in combat)

Tier 1: Obviously the harshest realism settings to use a semi-common simulator term this is "Full Switch". No respawns. Teams have very limiting Battle Value system. Fielding more than one of any weight class per lance would be nearly impossible. Customized 'Mechs cannot be fielded stock and variant 'Mechs only. Losing a 'Mech is serious. You lose it or at very least have to pay a severe C-bill penalty and it will take at least a day to get it repaired.

Now this is not intended as a mechanic in which you must play in each tier for X hours before you can move to the next tier or any such thing. If you want to play Tier 1 your first go then that's your prerogative. Moving from 1 tier to the next carries no penalty for the player.

My view on how this could be handled in the persistent world metagame: Two options

1) Each tier has it's own persistent world.

2) Tier 1 and Tier 2 share a single persistent world and only Tier 1 and 2 have this persistent world.

Questions I see coming up:

But what happens to my super customized 'Mech I have on Tier 4 when I move to another Tier? I paid hard earned C-bills to get that baby just right.

I customization payment for each 'Mech is for every Tier. I.E. you pay to customize that 'Mech and you get to customize it as appropriate for every tier with a single transaction.

But what stops someone from grinding in Tier 4 or 3 for C-bills to get an advantage in Tier 1 or 2?

Different tiers give different levels of C-bill award. Higher risk higher reward. This shouldn't necessarily work the same for Mechwarrior levels or skills.

Parting statement. This is by no means meant to be an end all be all. I know there is lots of room to work with in here, but I see it more as a framework. Mostly I'm interested in what you guys think, and maybe even if PGI thinks such a system is viable.

Thank you, for the time you spent reading this. Let me know your thoughts, feelings, and constructive critiques.

Edited by Halfinax, 04 December 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[God of War]

/disagree

[Kai Valo]

I don't see any reason to split the playerbase like this.
I could see something like Tier 4 being 'simulator' matches for training or trying out matchups, but I'd like them to be treated as such.
I think most people here would prefer that the game feel like a persistent world and not just a standard multiplayer fps with mechs.

[Halfinax]

Kai Valo, on 04 December 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

I don't see any reason to split the playerbase like this.
I could see something like Tier 4 being 'simulator' matches for training or trying out matchups, but I'd like them to be treated as such.
I think most people here would prefer that the game feel like a persistent world and not just a standard multiplayer fps with mechs.

This is exactly what I'm addressing. I even covered the persistent world concept. This concept is just intended to allow players of various levels to play at a level that they are comfortable with. I don't see it as inherently breaking up the player base as you can move freely from tier to tier, but yes I could see how it might. It would be more an immersion mechanic.

@God of War. Do you mind clarifying what you disagree with or why?

[Korbyn McColl]

I don't know about a tiered system like you're suggesting, but a "ranked" system, where the game tried to match opponents against one another based on their performance could work.

[Mchawkeye]

I think splitting it up is overly complex and not required. I think, in game terms, we all have to fight on a similar level or the larger point of the game becomes nullified; a single larger community fighting it out amongst our selves.

In terms of ease of play, that's up to the devs to create a game of balance; the goldilocks zone of gaming. And it's up to the players to not be expecting a paint by numbers game aimed at simpletons; Mechwarrior isn't that game, lets not turn it into one.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 04 December 2011 - 12:35 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

I would like that tiered system for custom matches, so that players can go in to private matches with customized settings to fit what they want to play.

[GaussDragon]

I like your thinking. MW4 did have an informal tier of sorts which was the split in the player base between NH/UA and regular. A lot of us played both interchangeably. I like what you've started here though. If anything, the persistence aspect, the matches that actually determine progression, perhaps should be limited to the higher tiers (I.E., the OP's description of Tier 1 and 2). However, we can simply have servers that don't play into the persistence at all, just a classic hosted server of 16 people or however many the game supports slugging it out in whatever format they choose (I.E., attrition/destruction, team attrition/team destruction) with whatever setting they want, be it NH/UA or heat etc. Not exactly a brand-new idea however I think it's a good step because previously, none of the other MechWarrior games had any planetary/persistent aspect supported by the developers themselves, it was always created by the leagues.

Edited by GaussDragon, 04 December 2011 - 12:44 PM.

[Threat Doc]

In a perfect world, Halfinax, I would really enjoy playing under your ideas, and have thought of a system similar to this for if the BattleTech universe were ever put on-line, but at this point I would have to agree with my other colleagues, here, that it's unnecessary to split the player base like this. I think this would lead to more problems than it solves, for the time being. If the population turns out to be far larger than anyone is expecting at this point, and I'm thinking it's going to be pretty large once the game fires off, then perhaps it should be redressed.

[Halfinax]

I know it's far from perfect, and it would create some fracturing of the community, but it seems to my mind that it would have broader appeal through what amounts to various levels of realism or difficulty. With no penalty from moving from one tier to the next it allows players to graduate up or down at their discretion. More or less allowing people to ease themselves in. It gives the hardened veterans and simulation fans the ability to have those serious realism settings, and allows newcomers the ability to play without having to learn a bevy of complex rules or game mechanics until they fill comfortable with the basic mechanics. I am having a difficult time seeing how having varying degrees of realism would reduce the player population rather than the inverse.

[CeeKay Boques]

These are good thoughts, except for the splitting. Most advanced Sims these days have an "Arcade Mode". With various "on/off" toggles for a variety of difficulty factors. We don't need tiers, just on/off.

The only difference is, I don't you need you to split off the Arcade guys from the Sim guys. I'll shoot them all, its about my piloting experience. All I'm saying is, the more time I put into Simulating the meching, I want the advantage of doing so. If I go full switch, I expect to have... more switches.

Something like this from RoF would be fine.

Edited by Technoviking, 04 December 2011 - 08:56 PM.

[Halfinax]

If we do that how do we separate those going low or no switch from those going full switch? If it is all user preference then people will go as low switch as the game will allow them to gain an advantage. This is why I was diverging my idea to make the tiers hardcoded realism so there is no incentive for an unscrupulous player turning the realism down for that advantage. My intention was also for it to address a tiered level of mission payment system that is biased towards the higher tier (more realistic) modes.

If the switch level determines who you are paired with then you actually end up with more splitting of the player base than with my system. Your points are very valid, and I'm simply trying to show how I came to think a "realism" tiering system would be more optimal, barring a single realism setting for all users, to cater to various expectations of how sim like the game should be.

Edited by Halfinax, 04 December 2011 - 09:06 PM.

[Haeso]

@techno

The point with splitting people is unless there are arbitrary advantages to sim, or disadvantages to arcade, gameplay wise arcade will always be superior. It's like putting someone with a joystick against a mouse, the mouse is faster and more accurate. But more importantly, if the persistent elements and an economy is at all a big part of the game, you can't split those levels of simulation versus arcade.

You really think it'd be right to have people who don't have to buy a new 'Mech when theirs gets blown out from under them with those that do fighting each other, Techno? Or do you just not want any of the simulation aspects present when it comes to the persistence? To me that would almost entirely defeat the point. The persistent world would be the fun for me,. If all I wanted was a shallow shooter, I'd play one.

Is it me or is there a disconnect in the community between people who enjoy the universe, and those that just want big robots? Battletech is so much more.

[Kyll Long]

Haeso, on 04 December 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Is it me or is there a disconnect in the community between people who enjoy the universe, and those that just want big robots? Battletech is so much more.

It's not just you. Alot of us are getting the same opinion. Reference all the threads on I want bigger guns or my guns should look like this..... though ya can reference em in any BT forum for the last 10 years

[Threat Doc]

Haeso, on 04 December 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Is it me or is there a disconnect in the community between people who enjoy the universe, and those that just want big robots? Battletech is so much more.

Kyll Long, on 04 December 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

It's not just you. Alot of us are getting the same opinion. Reference all the threads on I want bigger guns or my guns should look like this..... though ya can reference em in any BT forum for the last 10 years

There is an absolutely massive disconnect! I'm glad this is NOT just me and, perhaps, the devs will listen to us and understand. We BT TT vets tend to argue to see BattleTech as it was meant to be -not necessarily dogmatically following the rules and lore, but getting the closest approximation we can to the rules and lore, which are huge in the BT universe-, and those I call twitchers, or anyone else who just wants big hokey robot combat, bigger guns, faster units, kill, kill, kill, and couldn't care less about ths universe, don't. What makes sense to me is to build MWO as true to BattleTech as actually possible, meaning not throwing away ANYTHING that can be appropriately translated, giving the closest 'feel' to the universe possible, and then tell the twitchers to come and play by the rules of the universe.

Look, I've never run into anyone who has been brought up on video games who, being willing to at least try a Play-by-Forum game, a tabletop role-playing game or, at least, BattleTech, such as with my two sons, who didn't absolutely fall in love with the rules, with the game-play. Other folks I've tried to run my RPGs for -BattleTech has been out for a while, except for my sons and I- who are twitchers, aren't interested in anything but instant gratification, whatever it is THEY want to do, and that's all that matters to them.

So, I would implore our hosts, from the deepest portions of my heart where BattleTech has lived since November 1984, build the game in accordance with the absolute closest approximation to the rules and lore you can get, without making it a turn-based mess, and then invite everyone to play; they will get it, I assure you, and those that absolutely cannot get it are going to leave, anyway, no matter how you make the game.

If you build it, they will come.

[Smoked]

I think it would be too much of a pain to implement and not really true to the BattleTech universe. I do believe heat should be a factor for everyone, not really fair that someone could spam the living hell out of ER Large Pulse Lasers and not overheat.

Also the size of the playerbase could be an issue for this tiered difficulty that you speak of. MWO will need to advertise heavily right before launch and right after and maintain a presence for a few years.

The adjustments to realism could be done via settings to toggle options to the players liking.

The only tiers that I might like see is possibly upgraded weapons based on either player's experience/proficiency or cbills.

Edited by Smoked, 05 December 2011 - 07:44 AM.

[Halfinax]

How would it be anymore of a pain than realism toggles?

What effect would the size of the playerbase have on the tiered realism, and how does that tie into advertising?

Again, if realism is purely a player set toggle then how do you separate those that are going full realism from those that are going more arcade level of realism? The point of the tiering system is to have people in each tier at the same realism setting.

No weapons shouldn't be more powerful because a player has more xp.

Edited by Halfinax, 05 December 2011 - 08:31 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Okay, so are you saying that all players would still play on the same battlefield, regardless of their settings?

If that's so, then what you're proposing is laughable, at best. If you have multiple degrees of separation on the battlefield, there will be an enormous disparity in how combat plays out. No, and no.

[CeeKay Boques]

Ah, I understand this thread more now, you're talking about a persistant world, where in (S)im universe you know that each planet was won by the sweat of a "full settings" sim, and in (A)rcade Universe, they live in a different, non Hardcore world, and never the two shall meet, except on Solaris day. I was only thinking of the battle itself, no the Universe. I will have to see how PGIs universe persistancy works before I can even guess on that.

What I'm saying is, if those options are "No Heat, Unlimited Ammo" fine, split those off on their own, those are server settings. I will play full sim, I'm a sim junkie. But if the options are "Single Reticule" or "Easy Piloting" or "Aim Help", "Automatic power redistribution" "Automatic Override" Depending on HOW they affect the game, they can play with me in my full sim server. I'm not afraid of granting an advantage to the opposition.

The biggest problem with the survivablity of MW4 was a lack of targets. If MWO gets split into a dozen little micro universes, the same thing will happen.

I'm not afraid of Arcade guys. I want to shoot them too. This is in "the open world", of "Join Now!" games. Would a series of "Arcade guys" pwning me 10 times in a row make me throw down my headphones and change my stance? Maaaaaybe.

In League, scheduled, or challenge battles, of course the settings will be bid/agreed on, and I'd like to see control toggles for those.. But if they MAKE switchology, and I enjoy it, I don't want you to not be able to play against or with me because you're not a fan of switchology.

I guess the biggest question is if there will be a persistant world, like a Hyperiums/MMO and battles come off of that, but it looks like "Severs, lots and lots of Servers" quote Mean that battles will be 20v20 (or whatever number) and there you go. Those settings don't requires seperate universes, or separating the community.

Bidding in MW4 Looked like this:

Frostbite (Map)
Radar On
Day
Pea Soup Fog
450 tons
30 kills

(this is not the place for a respawn discussion )

I'm not sure what other "toggles" could be made as concessions for arcade players? I'm not sure that "A little more heat" "A little more physics", Either On or Off.

In the Hardcore/Arcade split though, your Pilot can die in Hardcore and you have to reroll. That would be worth it to me. That would be worth splitting off from the community, playing in a universe where your character can die. It depends on if this game comes with an easy mode. It may very well not.

[Haeso]

Technoviking, on 05 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

What I'm saying is, if those options are "No Heat, Unlimited Ammo" fine, split those off on their own, those are server settings. I will play full sim, I'm a sim junkie. But if the options are "Single Reticule" or "Easy Piloting" or "Aim Help", "Automatic power redistribution" "Automatic Override" Depending on HOW they affect the game, they can play with me in my full sim server. I'm not afraid of granting an advantage to the opposition.

If you give advantages to those turning off simulation things that make the game more difficult, most of us who enjoy the simulation aspects but also want to win, will feel forced into turning off those simulation aspects.

Quote

The biggest problem with the survivablity of MW4 was a lack of targets. If MWO gets split into a dozen little micro universes, the same thing will happen.

As far as I understand it, they were talking about three. Though I still prefer making realism one the only way to play barring simulator which is exactly what it sounds like, just a simulator.

Quote

I'm not afraid of Arcade guys. I want to shoot them too. This is in "the open world", of "Join Now!" games. Would a series of "Arcade guys" pwning me 10 times in a row make me throw down my headphones and change my stance? Maaaaaybe.

I'm not afraid of anyone, advantage or not, but I'm not stupid or prideful enough to handicap myself either like some Clanner who wouldn't know real war until it bit them in the *** come Operation Bulldog.

Quote

I guess the biggest question is if there will be a persistant world, like a Hyperiums/MMO and battles come off of that, but it looks like "Severs, lots and lots of Servers" quote Mean that battles will be 20v20 (or whatever number) and there you go. Those settings don't requires seperate universes, or separating the community.

They absolutely do if the the universe is persistent, the scale and scope of individual battles is not the only thing that matters. The game doesn't need open worlds to have one unifying map of the inner sphere people are fighting over.

Quote

I'm not sure what other "toggles" could be made as concessions for arcade players? I'm not sure that "A little more heat" "A little more physics", Either On or Off.

None unless they're playing in a totally separate universe that does not impact the war for the Inner Sphere. A la simulator battles.

Quote

In the Hardcore/Arcade split though, your Pilot can die in Hardcore and you have to reroll. That would be worth it to me. That would be worth splitting off from the community, playing in a universe where your character can die. It depends on if this game comes with an easy mode. It may very well not.

I'd rather not see all the hardcore features gated to only those willing to play with the ultimate hardcore feature of pilot death. In principle I like the idea of a mode catering to hardcore players, but only the most hardcore players will go for it. And that has always been the problem with systems like that. Salvage, simulation controls, limited supplies, etc. Are all things that many people would be interested in, pilot death is something very few would be interested in, gating it based on that is shooting ourselves in the foot. I would personally play on such a server as long as the account was consistent Money/Garage wise and pilot death just meant you'd lose some skills and could then pay to buy another pilot somewhere around where your old one was, or perhaps if there is 5 tiers, green, regular, veteran, elite, ace. You could buy up to say, Regular or Veteran.