No replies to this topic

[Rasc4l]

Now that PGI has introduced the second map to the game, my point, which I've been wondering since I started playing last November, might be more clear. First, let me explain my point of view. I played the first Mechwarrior game in the 1980s, which was of course very much fun:



There, matches were 4 vs. 4 and difficulty was achieved by having the player face several lances so mission might be first against 4 mechs after which you still have to defeat another set of 4. Ever since I've been dreaming about a) doing this with your friends and b) doing this with much more than 8 (more like 80:) mechs per match in a huge theatre of war. PGI is doing a great job here providing exactly this but I'm just wondering if the b part is getting the attention it IMHO deserves.

I've been wondering this b part also in other fps-contexts ever since the original QTEST, which was a free demo with small maps, showing what Carmack's Quake engine could do. I think QTEST could do 4 vs. 4 or 8 vs. 8 at maximum but nevertheless the final Quakeworld could support 16 vs. 16 matches. Similarly here, ever since QW, I've been wondering when do we get, say 200 vs. 200 matches on huge maps but current Battlefield 3 offers 32 vs. 32, which is nice but falls a bit short. "You're crazy, the processing power it would take!", you exclaim. Well true, but coming back to the Mechwarrior context, I would rather see PGI work on 24 vs 24 implementation and map size rather than sacrifice processing power to dx11. I know that my 80 battle/omnimech matches fps-style are still a wet dream so I'm not even going that far. So basically I'm just wondering if anyone else is having similar thoughts or is graphics just so great? I would even take this game with 1-3 generation old graphics if it allowed 50 vs. 50 larger matches.

So what we pay for now: A very entertaining battletech deathmatch, which however has only 2 real maps (Alpine and Tourmaline), the others being small testing areas like the maps in QTEST. For example, the river city should be part of a bigger map maybe 10 times it's size. River city would be just one of the cities on a map and between there might be vast areas like in the Tourmaline. Which brings me to the latter part of my topic about LRM/SRM/ECM. If on such "real" maps you get lost in the cities, sure, you get blasted away by SRM-catapults. Again, fool around in the open and LRMboats will kill you. If a map is big enough, there is enough room for different types of areas for all mech types to display their strengths in. The current SRM/LRM/ECM debate seems naturally to focus on the current situation, which is the small boxes where we play currently excluding A+T. However, if the weapon balance is based on these maps, they may not work accordingly in what the game ends up being. And with bigger maps and balancing I don't just speak of range. They introduce a completely new aspect of LRM/SRM skill: saving ammo and making every missile count. With longer ranges, it's easier to just waste your ammo quickly by shooting mechs at 900+ meters which have ample time to take cover. And especially increase in player numbers, even if it's just to 12 vs. 12 creates situations where the SRM/LRM mech would wish it just had 1 ton more ammo. Ultimately we have 2 types of weapons in the game: weapons that have limited ammo and weapons that have unlimited ammo. Unlimited ammo weapons always have a certain "unlimited" advantage, which is hard to quantify in terms of game balance. Thus, extreme care should be taken in downgrading SRM/LRMs just because muchkins can kill newbies who should know better. Well, then they do know, don't they?

Unfortunately I think in a recent Ask Developers someone asked is Alpine gonna be the new default map size and the answer was "no" so I guess PGI is gonna keep us shut in these little boxes at least for now. And yeah, I know it's beta and I shouldn't expect too much yet but partially because it's beta, I'm "bitching" now when there's still time. PGI's way of handling the coolant critique with backbone and actually listening to people who play, prompted me to write this in the first place. I mean Mr. Oakman & co might actually be the good guys (vs. this http://i.imgur.com/0DnSCxs.png). ;) I just hope that during all this waiting and delayed mechs dripping every month, they have been secretly making the clan/community warfare ready. It should've been ready this month and their quietness is either worrying or making me hope they can release something big soon. With their earning model in place and working and little bits being added like the coolant I hope PGI doesn't get too comfortable in this, what is after all, just small scale deathmatch. It's damn fun, though.

edit: fixed typos

Edited by Rasc4l, 20 March 2013 - 07:00 AM.