It's hard work, being a longtime Mechwarrior fan. I've been captivated by the series and it's universe for 20 years now but through numerous generations, I've always been left wanting for more. And I'm sure there are others around who have invested even more time than I have who are feeling the same! The Battletech universe is one full of great stories, intrigue and diversity, make it one of the best settings for a video game, with the potential for much, much more than we have ever received. For various reasons, I don't feel like there is any one title out there that has successfully captured the rich magic of Battletech, so I've decided to pool together the thoughts and dreams I've been sitting on for these 20 long years in the hope of finding the Mechwarrior of the Future.
A few things to get out of the way first – this is about discussion and conversation. I'm not a designer of games, nor an absolute authority on all things Battletech, so there will undoubtedly be ideas or suggestions made in this post that might have better alternatives - or they could just be bad ideas full stop – but that's ok. I won't say that my way is how it has to be, or try to stamp out any form of alternative viewpoint, I love the series and hopefully you do too, so lets see what the future may look like.
This is going to be a long one so I've decided to split it into two main sections – one that focuses on the various components of mech combat, such as piloting, weapons system and the battlemechs themselves, with the second section being dedicated to the depth of the game itself, the universe, the game modes / game types and how to create a long lasting, refreshing and rewarding experience.
I'm completely expecting there to be some (perhaps even many) parts of my concept that some people may not respond well to, so the purpose of breaking everything into sections is so that each point can be taken on it's own merit. If you don't like or agree with one section, I understand completely, but please take the time to read on and see if there is anything else that you might appreciate.
1.0 – The BattleMech, Piloting and Combat
We've made great progress through the many different titles in the MW series, but one area that I feel as stagnated somewhat is the simulation element. A mech is an extremely complex creation, with the many different systems that come together in creating it's combat effectiveness, as well as the actual physical nature of the mech all being extremely important in regards to the overall character of the battlemech when compared to other vehicles. I feel like a major objective of any future MW title should be the delivery of an authentic simulation, allowing the player to at last enjoy the awesome experience that is piloting a mech. I expect this means the gameplay will be different, effective piloting will likely become more difficult, although it is important not to focus on difficulty for difficulties sake. The best paralell to draw is the differences between 'games' and 'sims' that we might find in the flight or racing genres.
1.1 – Building the mech, eliminating RNGeezus, discovering death
Complete modelling of every mech component, inside and outweighing
Simulation-esque direction over 'arcade' stylings
Each component having the ability to be damaged or destroyed
Damage of each component resulting in the loss of capabilities provided by that part
Spoiler
A lot of debate in the community stems from the fact that we're playing a First Person video game based on a Table Top game. These two things are not the same thing and getting it out of the way right now, I'm not one of the guys that believes a straight TT to FPS adoption is a good idea. I'm not even a TT player full stop. I dabbled in metamech for a short few months (and do believe that everyone should have a few games to see how it plays), but that's it. However, I believe we should be still taking influences from our roots, hoping to find a way of translating the experience provided from TT into FPS....and from the novels. I believe they're also just as important of a reference material towards what we should be looking for.
Right now, there is an enormous disparity in the way that mech combat takes place between the TT/Novels and the video games. I'd love to see this changed. The other hot topic in this debate is the great divider, the topic of TTK. Dissenters are quick to point out that with the luck of dice, single AC/2 shots can spell the death of untouched battlemechs and that insta-death is an experience is undesirable to all. Well, when you put it that way, yeah, of course. But there's more to it than that. A lot more.
Our current game makes use of large buffs to armour and survivability in an attempt to ensure more game time for the player. But as we've all seen, focus fire from multiple opponents quickly puts pave to that. So more buffs to health / nerfs to firepower are called for, but this doesn't really fix anything. As it stands right now, survivability in 1v1 engagements are far beyond what would be expected in the Battletech universe, which also then serves to negate the effectiveness of an individual pilot facing numerous opponents. A great hallmark of our source material is the heroic capabilities of the pilots of legend, the epic tales of fighting through adversity and coming through against all odds in the face of defeat. I'm not an elite player and I'm not calling for seal clubbing, but I want to see more weight put to the decisions of individual players over the snowball effect of strengths in numbers outweighing single talents.
But more game time is important, right? Of course it is. But we get there through slowing down the gameplay, not extending the life of the players. You can increase health until we can stand still in front of each other playing rock'em'sock'em robots for 15 minutes straight, but that doesn't make for much of a game, does it? I see there being far more to a Mechwarrior game than just walking to the enemy and shooting until they all fall down. I imagine piloting itself to be something that can require attention care, but be rewarding and satisfying in itself. Again, drawing that parallel to the genre of flight sims. But before we get to anything at all like that, we need to look at the mechs themselves, how they work and how they are constructed.
A mech is made up of many individual components working together to create the whole. But right now, what we have is effectively an outer shell and then non-specific information or values that are at the mercy of the RNG. As computing power increases and we gain the ability to make far more complex programs with ease, we can address the issues of RNG and TTK once and for all. We do that by creating and modelling each and every single individual component that makes up the battlemech, taking chance out of the equation entirely. And I don't just mean the components we see in the mechlab, but the structure, the skeleton, the engine, ammo feeds, life support systems and the myomer fibre that makes movement possible. It sounds like an impossibly big job, but like I said, this is for the future.
No longer will there be a spread of armour values split across 3 sections of torso, damage will go where the impact lands, individual components that are exposed will be at risk, whilst those protected by armour will remain relatively safe. Let's say a laser burn melts through a section of armour on the torso, if an AC round lands on the exposed section, whatever part of the mech that exists in that open section is what will receive the damage. No more health % chipping down, now more RNG crit hits or component destructions. So yes, a Gauss slug might take out an engine in one shot, but it would need to be a perfectly placed shot, with the chance element coming down only to the actions of the player and with the kill being possible through intentional skill.
To go along with this, the “death” of a mech will change as well. In this context, “death” is another word for “disabled”, removed from the fight. The obvious answers are cockpit and engine destruction, but with so many more components to work with, we open up so many more possibilities. Finishing up on the engine point, the engine itself would be modelled in an accurate and detailed fashion. So how exactly does a battlemech engine function? Are there different components of the engine that might have a different impact on effectiveness when damaged? Do different components power weapons, movement, instruments, etc?
And then we need to look at the rest of the mech, remembering that every component has a function and each part can be damaged, with an effect given to that damage. It might be a small difference in performance, but each part is important in it's own way and in some cases, intentionally targeting specific components would be something pilots would look for in combat. There is a passage in the first Jade Phoenix novel detailing the arm of a Warhawk falling limp from a blow to one of the actuators. Let's just think about that detail for a moment – there might be a number of different components within an arm, weapons, heat sinks and more, but a joint in the arm should itself be a specific part that can receive damage, influencing the performance of that arm. What if a joint could be damaged, then limiting the range of motion on the plane that said joint permitted? The same can be said for every other component of the mech. A mech is a collection of parts and each part is vital to the whole. Start removing parts and the abilities begin to change.
1.2 – Piloting, battlemech operation and the sensitive topic of TTK
Balance, terrain awareness and the effect of adverse conditions
Modelling footsteps and travel against the terrain
Systems awareness and variable sensors
Slowing down the gameplay thus increasing TTK
Spoiler
Piloting a mech isn't a walk in the park, with Mechwarriors being put through intensive training before seeing combat. A battlemech is tall, heavy and complex with many factors to be taken into consideration if a pilot is to fully maximize the potential of the mech. The novels detail the need to keep the balance of the mech in check and whilst I don't know if this would ever be achievable through our current peripherals, maybe one day this could change....but, I won't be talking about something like that at this stage. However, it is still reasonable to say that we should need to take the terrain into consideration when piloting. Debris and other objects should be crushed underfoot or impact the positioning of the mech when stepped on. Fallen trees, other larger objects should be traversable, but have the ability impede progress or even trip up a mech if encountered by a reckless or inexperienced pilot. Ice, sand, oil, sludge, rocks, these are all surfaces that should have a noticeable impact on the performance of a mech and careful piloting should be required to successfully navigate them. Mechwarrior shouldn't be a simple case of mindless full throttle ahead, it should take a certain level of preparation, caution and planning to successfully navigate difficult terrain and keep effective control of your mech.
This brings in the need to model the mech correctly in step with the terrain (inverse kinetics), whether it be on a slope, on an uneven surface, or some other situation which might see the mech standing in an awkward position. The position of the mech would then need to have an effect on it's abilities at that point in time. Perhaps if a surface is particularly uneven, the mech would be standing on an angle, leaving it more susceptible to a knockdown or fall.
I also wonder how much feedback the pilot should be receiving about the status of the many systems used in the running of a mech. Obviously we're all used to targetting and navigation information, but what about, for example, the status of the engine, or the heat sinks? How exactly does that fusion engine operate and does it require special attention to allow it to continue running at maximum efficiency? There has been discussion about a “power draw” system to curb alpha striking and weapons boating, but what if a similar system was to be brought in for everything that used made use of the power from the engine? I recall another book passage that makes mention of a pair of new mechs joining and ongoing fight, with the author describing them as being fresh and fully charged. So it raised the questions, are battlemech engines capable of running at maximum power through sustained combat indefinitly, or will there be a drop off in performance if they are run without break? Perhaps not a system like a traditional fuel tank, with an expendable range, but more a focus on the feasibility of pushing an engine to it's limits and beyond without consequence.
Sensor operation in general is also an area with the potential for a wide range of variety. What if different planetary conditions contributed to the quality and depth of sensor information? A planet with extreme weather might generate sensor interference, perhaps in the form of disrupted radar or unreliable targeting information. On the other hand, is it plausible to suggest that a warship in orbit of a planet could stream down detailed radar information to the ground troops below?
Whether or not that is a system to be brought in on fresh undamaged engines, I'm not exactly sure of, but I definitely feel as if it should be implemented throughout the course of combat, as a mech takes on more damage and progressively weakens in efficiency. Assuming that individual components of the engine can be put under excess stress, damaged or even destroyed without resulting in the total loss of the mech, that goes to say that the overall function of the mech should be called into question. Using round numbers for the sake of easy demonstration, let us say that an alpha strike, full throttle running and a jump jet leap all required 25% of the engines power, with the remaining 25% being diverted to powering the life support systems, the pilot instruments, heat sink operation, etc. If through the course of battle, the engine is damaged to the point of running at only 50% power, then the pilot would have to very carefully manage his options due to risk of further damage by overloading the engine. I don't mean for this to be incorporated into the heat system, but rather a slightly different take on it. Power usage doesn't cool off or build up, it simply is at whatever % it is at the time and pushing things too far should be a genuine risk. There should be more than just heat to careful manage when piloting a battlemech.
So what's the objective behind all of this? Beyond the satisfaction given from doing well in a comprehensive and detailed simulation, the point of it is to provide a style of gameplay that is in line with what one would expect to find within the battletech universe. Slow paced teamwork that still allows for flashes of individual brilliance. In my concept, if you put two equally skilled players on a perfectly flat, featureless terrain, then there's a strong chance that one would drop pretty quickly. But add in a far deeper level of gameplay beyond the combat itself and things will begin to head in a different direction. The current Mechwarrior environment is one with little to no thought given to features beyond the immediate act of combat and we're missing out on so much potential because of it.
Imagine finding yourself in an ugly situation, your mech is wounded, you've last all sensor and targeting function, you're now running purely on instinct. Your left knee has lost all dexterity and your mech can no longer reliable dissipate the heat generated by your weapons, with your heat sinks occasionally flickering on and off like an old fluorescent light. You're pretty much in the same position as Bravo Cadet in the MW2 intro. You know that help is on the way, but you're also well aware of the threat from the enemy mech that you weren't able to finish off. Do you bank on your opponent playing it safe and licking his wounds and take the opportunity to put some distance between you and your foe? Or do you stand your ground, diverting all remaining engine power to your weapons as a last stand?
1.3 – Weapons, heat and other related systems – looking to the novels for guidance
Aiming - movement, weapon position and recoil
A new mechanic – individual weapon heat
AMS – a more effective counter, but no longer automatic
Jump Jets – the difference between plotted and instant jumps
Spoiler
There has been a lot written about the weapons in Battletech – the way they should function, how they should be balanced, the right way for them to perform. Because this is such a hot topic with so many people weighing in with great suggestions and opinions, it isn't really something I've seen a need to focus on myself, so I won't be spending a lot of time on this section, but there are some points here that are definitely relevant to the overall picture.
I fall into the camp that believes aiming is currently far easier and more reliable than it should be. However, as with the theme of one of the earlier sections, I don't want to make accuracy a game of chance. Accuracy should be something that can be careful managed depending on the situation the pilot is in. Moving at a higher speed (relative the maximum speed of the mech) should make accurate shots harder to achieve. This wouldn't be done by RNG or other chance based mechanics, but would be made possible by the physical positioning of the weapons. The faster the mech is travelling, the less capable the legs will be of absorbing the impact of each step, resulting in a greater change of position from the torso or arms of the mech. All this would be modelled into the game and working in real time, not by random calculations. The other consideration is recoil. All weapons should have some amount of inertia that travels back through the mech, with higher powered weapons provided a greater degree of recoil, all of which will have an effect on the positioning of the mech. A high calibre Autocannon mounted in the arm of a smaller mech might result in the torso being twisted as an unintended consequence of firing. A large battery of SRM launchers mounted high in the torsos of a top-heavy Assault mech would see that mech tip backwards as a result of firing a heavy barrage of missiles. Every action needs a consequence.
A mech receiving fire would also be subject to recoil based on the force of the blow received. This would influence aiming, position, torso rotation, even leg positioning. By far the greatest example of the way we can use a high level of simulation to create a deeper, more varied system of combat comes in the form of a short exhange detailed in a novel. The passage is short, but the description and effect very clear – timing a shot to the leg so that it hits mid step can be an intentional move to unsettle an enemy mech. The second Jade Phoenix novel depicts this as being a favourite duelling move of Joanna's, as striking a leg whilst it is in the air upsets the balance of the mech under fire, throwing it's aim and misdirecting any weapons fire made during that time. A move of utter brilliance that would be a beautiful sight in any mechwarrior game.
On the topic of weapons, is a fan-favourite – heat and boating. I support a lower heat cap with quicker dissipation along with a far more aggressive heat scale. Overheating is not something you want to be doing on the battlefield! But again, this is a popular topic with many great suggestions already. Something I haven't heard mentioned though, is a little detail I picked up on in one of the novels that I feel could go a long way to addressing boating and high alpha gameplay. That detail is the heat of an individual weapon. There are two occasions in the Jade Phoenix series that this system is mentioned and I think it's worth looking into. The concept is fairly simple – the current heat system remains, with the engine being the primary unit in question and all of it's functions and sub-systems being influenced by it's heat level. Higher heat should start to compromise movement, accuracy, targeting and other systems and that should always be the case. But if individual weapons had their own heat levels on top of this, then a pilot might be forced to think sensibly about the way they manage their use. If you're pushing your mech to the higher end of the heat scale and keep using the same weapon or weapons repeatedly without letting up whilst overheating, those individual weapons should be able to take damage and potentially be destroyed as a result of the overheating in the same way that other systems might be aggressively punished through disregard to proper heat management. The rest of the mech might cool down and remain functional, but if you've toasted that PPC, too late, it's gone.
Another detail I picked up in the novels was the way that AMS needed to be operated by the pilot. I'm not going to go into the topic of guided missiles and how they should operate, as that's a hot debate on it's own already, but AMS is something that deserves attention. In the novels, AMS is described as being far more effective against missiles than what we currently see in game. And not just LRMs, but dumbfired missiles as well. A single system is repeatedly able to counter full volleys of missiles. However the catch is that the pilot needs to activate – and perhaps even aim – the AMS with each coming volley. If the pilot misses a volley or isn't aware that he is being fired on the, then the result is that the missiles should be deal considerable damage. I feel like this goes along well with the theme I see coming through in my concept, that being one of greater risk, but greater reward. An LRM salvo might easily take down an opponent, or he might easily counter that salvo through AMS, then take you out with return fire.
Jump Jets are another area with plenty of room to be expanded on their capabilities. I didn't take it to be definitive word on how JJ's operate, but there is a detail in the novels that gave me something of an idea. Jumps are often mentioned as being plotted by their pilots, which could obviously be something as simple as the pilot planning the action in his head. But what if you could pre-program a jump and have a more effective flight as a result of more effective jet management? Nothing too complicated, just a simple mechanic of aiming at a desired landing site, setting the desired height and flight path, then launching away. A jump should be much faster than we currently have, but far more violent as well. A well balanced mech might be able to fire weaponry through the middle stage of flight, but not during the initial take off or immediately after touching down from a large jump. A definitive example of what I have in mind is the two Firefly in the MW3 intro video leaping down from the buildings towards the Summoner. The flight they plotted didn't actually involve much height at all, it was more of a sustained descent than a jump and is a perfect example of how JJ's can better be implemented. The other method of using them would be similar to what we currently have, an unguided flight or a manual mode. This would require the mechwarrior to control the amount of thrust through the air using his own judgement, just as we currently do. The difference between our existing system would come through overall jump jet changes already hinted on in the description of the plotted jumps. The flight itself would be more violent, not as stable. The same goes for the landings, with a higher risk of fall damage if the impact is not managed with more thrust. Transitioning from landing into a run should be quite an impressive feat, dictated by the terrain upon landing and the intertia carried into the landing.
1.4 – Mech design and melee
Changing aesthetic differences into functional differences
Chicken walkers vs humanoids and different capabilities between the two
Arms, hands, mounts, making a genuine tradeoff
Mechs that should and should not be using melee
Spoiler
We all have an answer to the question “What mech do you think looks the best?”, but in a universe full of aesthetically diverse machinery, there isn't really any functional difference between the designs. The artists of the day created mechs without thinking of design traits that would be more or less effective in a current day video game, so we now run into new problems relating to mechs being helped or hindered by weapon placement that was selected with no thought given to functional reasons. Let's change that.
With regards to torso mounted weaponry, there is currently no benefit to having weapons mounted lower than the cockpit, meaning that some mechs end up disadvantaged compared to others due to nothing more than an aesthetic choice made by an artist. If we follow up on the early mentioned topic of recoil, things start to change though. The further away from the centre of gravity that a weapon is mounted, the greater recoil it should have. And on the flipside, a weapon mounted close the hip should keep the mech relatively stable during sustained firing. Look at the Atlas – what if that low mounted AC20 was positioned where it is to allow for more reliable accuracy during a sustained brawl? What if low mounts could be turned into an advantage in certain situations?
But I really wanted to look at taking things further than that....much, much further, looking into the way limbs should function based on their appearance, the way humanoids move compared to chicken walkers and seeing if there is some way we can create some genuine diversity in our mechs, rather than having them just be a range of skins with different weapon placements. This all comes back to the way we look at movement and accuracy. To my eyes, chicken walker legs appear to have a greater degree of 'give' to them compared to the more rigid looking humanoid legs. There's a potential trade-off we can make here – what if humanoid mechs were more agile, with chicken walkers having a greater level of stability? This goes along with the way the arms are designed too. Many humanoids have arms that fit that same design ethos, a shoulder, an elbow and possibly a hand. Nearly all battletech related media showing a humanoid mech in motion depicts the arms being swung in step with the legs, just like we humans do. This makes perfect sense for the purpose of balance, lending itself to the concept of greater agility. The question is then raised about the way that arm mounted weaponry would operated whilst the mech is in motion. The answer is through raisable arms. There's a brilliant piece of artwork floating around showing a group of mechs in motion, with the relevance here being an Atlas marching forward, one arm by it's side, the other extended outwards to allow for firing. There is a balance to be found here, as firing an arm mounted weapon whilst in motion could result in a loss of mobilty or agility whilst the weapon is fired. The other common type of arm is the 'underslung' type that is seen on many chicken walkers. Because this style of arm won't swing in step like a humanoid arm, it's reasonable to suggest that this layout could be more accurate at speed, or at least, effected less by motion, terrain, bumps etc. I'd also like to put some genuine value into arm mounted weaponry. I know that we currently have an increased range of targeting for arm mounted weapons, but I don't believe this is enough of an incentive not to just move weapons to the torso where possible. Perhaps arm mounted weapons could receive an accuracy boost through stability provided by shock absorption effects in the arms, whilst torso mounted weaponry bears the full effect of the mech moving over terrain and the torso movement generated by the walk / run cycle.
There are also designs that go between these two main themes, such as the Warhammer, with humanoid legs and underslung arms. Perhaps the designers wanted to keep the offensive capabilities of the mech on point, allowing the twin PPC's to be called into action whenever required. Mechs like the Jenner, Cicada and Locust could present another scenario, as their 'arms' are held close to the torso of the mech, keeping the centre of gravity in nice and tight, allowing for great mobility and balance to be shared alongside a reasonable level of weapon stability and accuracy. The tradeoff could be the limit range of motion provided by such an arm design. And then there are the asymmetrical mechs, such as the Summoner. The two arms should function in a different manner to each other, as their designs are completely different. The PPC arm is mounted low and wide, putting it in a great position to be used reliably when the mech is in rough situations or on the move, whilst the LB-10X arm is mounted in a more rigid extendible arrangement, completely different to that of the PPC arm. Remember the killshot in the MW2 intro? I see it being that the different styles of arms should each operate in a unique fashion in line with the capabilities that you would expect to find if it were to be modelled out and rigged, with the aiming capabilities of the weapons mounted in those arms to be different as required.
There are other important functions to be brought up, such as working hands and most importantly, melee attacks. There are a number of mechs within the battletech universe that make use of hand held weaponry and many others that are equipped with fully articulated hands that could be used to clear terrain or manipulate objects. I will be touching on situations where the use of hands might be effective in a later entry, but to quickly explain, I see them being used in tandem with a destructible environment to allow the players to find new ways to make use of their surroundings. That might be through clearing fallen trees on an escort mission, uprooting trees to clear a firing line, breaking through a building to create an ambush point (MW3 intro) and many other possibilities.
The most significant of those possibilities being melee attacks. They were a staple of the TT game, commonly mentioned in the novels and part of many great fan-favourite artworks (Atlas punching the Warhawk, anyone?) and as such a significant portion of the battletech environment, deserve recognition in a future MW title. I've heard stories from TT veterans of mechs being able to perform intricate and extensive gymnastic style manoeuvres, which I personally feel is a bit too far from the rugged, industrial, low-tech Battletech feel that I find so wonderful, but somewhere between that and our current situation (no physical combat at all), there surely must be a happy medium. I'd also expected melee capabilities to be tied into the concept of unique design properties as well. For example, a humanoid mech with fully articulated arms and fists should be far more effective in melee combat than something with a lower range of movement. Mechs without hands might not even be capable of punching at all (Rifleman, Warhammer, etc) and there would always be the possibility of damage as a result of using melee attacks, especially if there is arm mounted weaponry to be taken care of. Perhaps an advantage in this field could go to mechs with single weapon arms, such as the Centurion and Dragon?
1.5 – Combat
Maps, environments, diverse conditions and their effect on mechs and combat
High risk, high reward
Individual brilliance to outshine incompetent teamwork
Effective teamwork to become far more involved and complicated, but with greater levels of success
Spoiler
Everything described up to this point has been written with the objective of bringing about a new style of mech combat, with the indented result being gameplay driven by a balance between tactics and courage. Teamwork should be an integral part of any battletech experience, but outstanding individual efforts should have a genuine chance to overcome a poorly organized group. All of the mechanics that I've detailed so far should come together to put the player into a situation that places patience, cunning, planning and flexibility at the forefront of the skills required for success.
In this future verison of the game, there will be far more combat environments than we have ever seen before, with teams adapting their strategies around the battle as it happens, rather than expecting pre-planned operations to be followed repeatedly without issue. Different objectives and game modes will be put into place, with the equivalent of the current “quick play” format putting players into a situation that would fit into the Solaris 7 world of this universe. Regular tournaments and leaderboards would be the norm, with organized matches between top players being the highlight of each 'season' of competition. There would be team based arenas and free for all 'Grand Melees', with a great variety of maps and objectives punctuating the diverse experience that a player should receive. The traditional deathmatch would remain, but I would hope that it would be a very different deathmatch to what we see today. One of the side effects of the mechanics discussed is the breaking of the deathball. Positioning your entire team in such close quarters should be a poor strategy, one that would be avoided if mechs could be quickly disabled by savvy opponent. I imagine that battles would be dynamic and fluid, with the frontlines shifting from place to place as the momentum swings between the competing forces. Overcommiting to a weak engagement should be heavily frowned upon, as the tactical battle should be to manoeuvre the battle into a position that gives one side a strong enough advantage to commit to an all-out strike. Tactical retreats should be commonplace, decoy runs and distractions heavily valued, with mobile strikers being used to corral the enemy forces. Heavy and assault mechs could be used as figurative battering rams, driving the opfor into a position of weakness, perhaps into the range of faster medium mechs already set and waiting in prime position to strike. Light mechs should be crucial towards shaping an understanding of the battlelines, as their forward information will allow a commander to determine the best course of action based on the positions of his opponents. High ground or low? Push them towards a valley? Set a trap in heavy woods? Attack, defend, push, retreat – these should all be important considerations at any stage of the battle, rather than just the mindless advance and engage that we have all become so accustomed to.
The style of map will play a big part in shaping the battles and I expect it to be a tale of big contrasts, with open areas and rolling plains being just as likely battlefields as suffocatingly thick city sprawls. A common thread through both environments will be the value of covering as much ground as possible. A formation advancing with an even spread has a greater chance of locating the enemy first, whilst a huddled up deathball is at a high risk of walking into a trap. The environment should also be dynamic in it's ability to interact with and effect the course of the battle. Some maps or sections of maps should provide very little visibility, which I something to be taken advantage of from a tactical standpoint and some maps or sections of maps could provide sensor interference. Imagine finding yourself running without targeting or map information due to electrical disturbances? Communication and spotting would become critical in those situations.
-Closing-
Spoiler
Everything described thus far would be uniform across the entire game, but there would be two distinctly different modes for players to enjoy. The final section of this write up briefly touched on the battles of Solaris 7, which would take on a 'Quick Play' like position for a relatively simple and easy to enjoy gaming experience that would still allow for highly competitive play and plenty of variety for the fans. The other game mode would be a far more in-depth, lore-friendly recreation of warfare within the Battletech universe. An amalgamation of the Faction Warfare of today and the campaign stylings of Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries, but on an unprecedented scale with a level of depth unlike anything seen in a MW title before.
This game mode is actually the driving force behind my desire to put my thoughts to text, as I believe there is a very real chance of something like this one day becoming reality. I've separated this write up into two parts, so that my thoughts on the direction of the game mechanics can remain separate to the description of the ultimate Faction Warfare, as I understand there will be people who might agree with one but not the other and I believe they are worthy of independent assessment.
If you've made it this far, congratulations. I hope if was worth it, though I am well prepared for a barrage of TL;DR and the just as likely possibility of no responses whatsoever. But things like this need to leave the mind and be put out there to the world so that I'm not constantly running through it on my own. The reason for writing such an in-depth and thorough treatment to these mechanics is due to the heated discussion that comes up in regards to TTK and the correct 'feel' for a battletech game. Our current title doesn't have anywhere near the depth that I'd like to see, which would then allow us to enjoy a more accurate battletech experience, although given the circumstances, I must say that they are doing the best that can with what they have to work with. But there needs to be a clarification on the topic for those who don't understand when some of us say that as things stand now, mechs are too tough, TTK is too high and that we're attempting to slow the game down with the wrong system of changes. We don't want it to be COD. We don't want it to be a twitch shooter. We don't want games to be over in 2 minutes. We want Battletech.
Probably should have done that in the first place....here we go!
The short version is that it's a look at how to bring gameplay closer into line with what we would find in a battletech novel or an intro video. I was always mesmerized by that slow and dangerous style of combat, but the games never really pulled it off.
It covers many broad ideas that are supposed to link together, such as slowing down the gameplay and increasing average player life through the use of mechanics other than a heavily buffed health bar (recoil effects, terrain effects, balance, variable and sometimes unreliable sensors, etc), diversifying mech abilities based on their designs (creating a performance difference between humanoid and chicken walker, for example). The easiest comparison to make is the difference between an arcade game and a highly detailed simulator. Those familiar with flight or racing sims will know what I mean.
The second part is a look at a far more detailed Faction Warfare concept, linking our current style of gameplay in with the missing elements such as political struggles, factionwide economy, the value of cheap, mass produced units and creating a PvP experience closer to what a player would find in a PvE campaign.
LordKnightFandragon, on 03 June 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:
Holy
****
Thats not a thread or a post, that is a novel....Daaaayyyyyyuuummmmm
Yeah....across the two threads, it's 17 pages and 11408 words. Perhaps the biggest single thing I've ever written. But, better to have it out there with a ton of noonecares.jpg posts than leaving it trapped inside my head.
I appreciate the efforts that you took to convey your vision of what a great MechWarrior/BattleTech should be and I will read the entire thing and compare your vision with mine. Thanks for sharing.\
Edit: As promised I read every word of it. Much of it reads like BattleTech Nirvana for anyone who is a true fan of the franchise. While I believe some parts of it are a bit too intricate, I do see why, if all things were possible, you would want the game to play this way.
I sincerely hope that there are people out there that will read this and think, "Hey, that is a great idea!" about parts of it.
I, too, have ideas about how this game (MWO) could be better. Of course, they are only my opinions, wants and wishes. I have often thought about typing them out for consideration but I have not seen a whole lot of evidence that independent ideas for improvements to this game will get any recognition or chance of implementation from the people who are steering the development of the game. That is fine. It is their game and they have their own vision for it. I can chose to play it or not but that dissuades me from taking the time and making the effort to make a up a presentation like yours that will probably never be read anyway.
Instead, I do what many others do and respond to threads on various subjects with bits and pieces of my ideas for consideration by those in the community that may be interested or have an opinion.
Again, major props for you for taking the time and caring enough to make this presentation.
Yeah....across the two threads, it's 17 pages and 11408 words. Perhaps the biggest single thing I've ever written. But, better to have it out there with a ton of noonecares.jpg posts than leaving it trapped inside my head.
True, I often think the same way. Have you thought about putting in a google doc for later reference?
True, I often think the same way. Have you thought about putting in a google doc for later reference?
No, I hadn't thought of that, it isn't really something I'm entirely familiar with. Will it be available to the public to read? I can't see myself having a reason to return to it, but I link in my sig for any interested readers could be worthwhile I guess.
Rampage, on 03 June 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:
I appreciate the efforts that you took to convey your vision of what a great MechWarrior/BattleTech should be and I will read the entire thing and compare your vision with mine. Thanks for sharing.
No, I hadn't thought of that, it isn't really something I'm entirely familiar with. Will it be available to the public to read? I can't see myself having a reason to return to it, but I link in my sig for any interested readers could be worthwhile I guess.
You can set accessibility options to, for example, make it so whoever clicks the link can read it.
Probably should have done that in the first place....here we go!
The short version is that it's a look at how to bring gameplay closer into line with what we would find in a battletech novel or an intro video. I was always mesmerized by that slow and dangerous style of combat, but the games never really pulled it off.
It covers many broad ideas that are supposed to link together, such as slowing down the gameplay and increasing average player life through the use of mechanics other than a heavily buffed health bar (recoil effects, terrain effects, balance, variable and sometimes unreliable sensors, etc), diversifying mech abilities based on their designs (creating a performance difference between humanoid and chicken walker, for example). The easiest comparison to make is the difference between an arcade game and a highly detailed simulator. Those familiar with flight or racing sims will know what I mean.
The second part is a look at a far more detailed Faction Warfare concept, linking our current style of gameplay in with the missing elements such as political struggles, factionwide economy, the value of cheap, mass produced units and creating a PvP experience closer to what a player would find in a PvE campaign.
Yeah....across the two threads, it's 17 pages and 11408 words. Perhaps the biggest single thing I've ever written. But, better to have it out there with a ton of noonecares.jpg posts than leaving it trapped inside my head.
LOL, i know that feeling, I have that sometimes. I sit and contemplate things and it literally keeps me awake at night since I keep thinking about stuff as I randomly brainstorm ideas and I cant sleep for **** until I post it somewhere....hahaha.
Our current game makes use of large buffs to armour and survivability in an attempt to ensure more game time for the player. But as we've all seen, focus fire from multiple opponents quickly puts pave to that. So more buffs to health / nerfs to firepower are called for, but this doesn't really fix anything. As it stands right now, survivability in 1v1 engagements are far beyond what would be expected in the Battletech universe, which also then serves to negate the effectiveness of an individual pilot facing numerous opponents.
This is exactly why the key to raising TTK lies not in addressing the mechs themselves, but in reducing the number of mechs in any given location through dynamic gamemodes that force multiple smaller engagements.
Quote
The style of map will play a big part in shaping the battles and I expect it to be a tale of big contrasts, with open areas and rolling plains being just as likely battlefields as suffocatingly thick city sprawls. A common thread through both environments will be the value of covering as much ground as possible. A formation advancing with an even spread has a greater chance of locating the enemy first, whilst a huddled up deathball is at a high risk of walking into a trap. The environment should also be dynamic in it's ability to interact with and effect the course of the battle. Some maps or sections of maps should provide very little visibility, which I something to be taken advantage of from a tactical standpoint and some maps or sections of maps could provide sensor interference. Imagine finding yourself running without targeting or map information due to electrical disturbances? Communication and spotting would become critical in those situations.
Neg on both counts. Thanks for taking the time to read - it's encouraging to know that people are identifying with some of the concepts I've presented, it suggests that I'm not completely mad.
Sadly, many of these topics were covered back in the early 90's by Virtual World Entertainment.
The sim pods they used were fully immersive, and had peripherals to adjust power draw from the engine. The speed of weapons recycling had to be balanced between the speed of the mech itself, and coolant flow could be redirected so that your PPC barrel didn't melt from overuse, but your lasers would run hot as a result. If a limb was severed, you could direct all coolant and power from that severed limb into your remaining systems. It was a truly novel approach, and I was sad to see it go.
That being said, it was done with technology that's over 20 years old now. We're talking about the old 486dx processors (granted, each pod was running multiple processors and multiple GPUs to achieve this which is why, if a pod was down for maintenance, it was ALWAYS due to overheating). Current technology would most certainly be able to produce a much more superior game now, but the developers failed miserably by trying to restart a franchise from scratch, instead of building upon what worked before.
If PGI wouldn't have promised too much up front, and maybe if they'd teamed up with a more experienced group than IGP (which I honestly blame for rushing an unfinished product to the market). Sure, we probably would STILL be in BETA (aren't we still there?), but the promise of an "immersive experience" (LMFAO) and something much more akin to a true Battletech: MechWarrior experience, would be EASY if they'd conned a group like LucasArts into helping with the development.
As far as the story (economy/intrigue/etc...), see every topic I've posted over the last 5 years... There's only a couple, but watch how quickly I'm flamed for it.
Unfortunately, 97% of he simpletons who play this game aren't BT/MW fans. The fact that the Devs PROCLAIM they are fans, is a travesty in itself, seeing as how they consistently cowtow to the whiners who will never spend a dime to support this product, instead of those who were drawn in BECAUSE of the BT/MW branding, and have financed this endeavor since the beginning (which I feel I've seriously wasted at least $2000 by now...not counting PC upgrades). I still have faith (though, very little) that the Devs will eventually wake up and realize that if they went for something that was truly an authentic SIMULATION of the BT/MW, even the penniless whiners would be impressed enough to shut up, and open their wallets. Unfortunately, unless they go to a subscription-based game, I don't see that happening.
All MW games share a common approach to maps, squares of 1x1...8x8. It is time to try something different, model an entire planet... a bit scaled down.
Imagine having a square of 400x400 km, all environments would be seamlessly modeled on that huge map, cities, countryside, deserts, mountains, rivers, seas etc. The square is without boundaries, left size is connected with right side, low size is connected with high side, you could walk without ever meeting a boundary.
Solving problem of memory consumption
The map would be divided in smaller squares of 4x4 km, each client would cache in memory the square where it is and the 8 adjacent squares. When a square boundary is crossed the new 3 adjacent squares are loaded in background and the 3 disconnected squares are freed. The squares swaps can intelligently programmed to be performed in parallel with a low priority thread.
Solving problem of bandwidth
The server would only send clients info regarding the adjacent squares, the super map could contain hundreds of players. The map would have intelligent gateways (gates, bridges, roadblocks, fences etc) that would prevent players going into a zone with already too many players inside.
Global tactical info would be routed to all clients but those are relatively low-bandwidth.
Server load problem
Handling hundreds of players would be server-intensive, an approach could be to have server clusters, the map handling would be divided between many cores or even many servers. Crossing boundaries could bring you on another server. Other games already do this.
Game mode: persistent
The world is always active, you actions are persistent. When you connect a dropship brings you/team in a zone with relatively low load then it is entirely up to you to explore, it is a long game, deal with it.
Leaving the game would involve using friendly bases or having a dropship called for extraction.
Objectives
The whole world is an objective.
IS map
Multiply the above for how many planets you need or want.
Sadly, many of these topics were covered back in the early 90's by Virtual World Entertainment.
The sim pods they used were fully immersive, and had peripherals to adjust power draw from the engine. The speed of weapons recycling had to be balanced between the speed of the mech itself, and coolant flow could be redirected so that your PPC barrel didn't melt from overuse, but your lasers would run hot as a result. If a limb was severed, you could direct all coolant and power from that severed limb into your remaining systems. It was a truly novel approach, and I was sad to see it go.
That being said, it was done with technology that's over 20 years old now. We're talking about the old 486dx processors (granted, each pod was running multiple processors and multiple GPUs to achieve this which is why, if a pod was down for maintenance, it was ALWAYS due to overheating). Current technology would most certainly be able to produce a much more superior game now, but the developers failed miserably by trying to restart a franchise from scratch, instead of building upon what worked before.
If PGI wouldn't have promised too much up front, and maybe if they'd teamed up with a more experienced group than IGP (which I honestly blame for rushing an unfinished product to the market). Sure, we probably would STILL be in BETA (aren't we still there?), but the promise of an "immersive experience" (LMFAO) and something much more akin to a true Battletech: MechWarrior experience, would be EASY if they'd conned a group like LucasArts into helping with the development.
As far as the story (economy/intrigue/etc...), see every topic I've posted over the last 5 years... There's only a couple, but watch how quickly I'm flamed for it.
Unfortunately, 97% of he simpletons who play this game aren't BT/MW fans. The fact that the Devs PROCLAIM they are fans, is a travesty in itself, seeing as how they consistently cowtow to the whiners who will never spend a dime to support this product, instead of those who were drawn in BECAUSE of the BT/MW branding, and have financed this endeavor since the beginning (which I feel I've seriously wasted at least $2000 by now...not counting PC upgrades). I still have faith (though, very little) that the Devs will eventually wake up and realize that if they went for something that was truly an authentic SIMULATION of the BT/MW, even the penniless whiners would be impressed enough to shut up, and open their wallets. Unfortunately, unless they go to a subscription-based game, I don't see that happening.
Fantastic post, pretty sure I agree with all of it. And I had no idea that the BT Pods were that detailed in their simulation abilities, I thought they were just a fancy MW2 peripheral....very impressive. The way you've described diverting coolant, prioritizing some weapons over others, etc, all that sounds amazing to me. Thanks for sharing!
All MW games share a common approach to maps, squares of 1x1...8x8. It is time to try something different, model an entire planet... a bit scaled down.
Imagine having a square of 400x400 km, all environments would be seamlessly modeled on that huge map, cities, countryside, deserts, mountains, rivers, seas etc. The square is without boundaries, left size is connected with right side, low size is connected with high side, you could walk without ever meeting a boundary.
Solving problem of memory consumption
The map would be divided in smaller squares of 4x4 km, each client would cache in memory the square where it is and the 8 adjacent squares. When a square boundary is crossed the new 3 adjacent squares are loaded in background and the 3 disconnected squares are freed. The squares swaps can intelligently programmed to be performed in parallel with a low priority thread.
Solving problem of bandwidth
The server would only send clients info regarding the adjacent squares, the super map could contain hundreds of players. The map would have intelligent gateways (gates, bridges, roadblocks, fences etc) that would prevent players going into a zone with already too many players inside.
Global tactical info would be routed to all clients but those are relatively low-bandwidth.
Server load problem
Handling hundreds of players would be server-intensive, an approach could be to have server clusters, the map handling would be divided between many cores or even many servers. Crossing boundaries could bring you on another server. Other games already do this.
Game mode: persistent
The world is always active, you actions are persistent. When you connect a dropship brings you/team in a zone with relatively low load then it is entirely up to you to explore, it is a long game, deal with it.
Leaving the game would involve using friendly bases or having a dropship called for extraction.
Objectives
The whole world is an objective.
IS map
Multiply the above for how many planets you need or want.
That's...ridiculously ambitious for anything but the top developers. And it's not anything close to what we were promised by PGI.
LocationSomewhere where you'll probably never go to
Posted 05 June 2016 - 10:29 AM
you should use a .[spoiler function for saving space, otherwise wastes page space and makes it unfriendly to read. just a suggestion, and will read here in a minute.
That's...ridiculously ambitious for anything but the top developers. And it's not anything close to what we were promised by PGI.
I never stated that it could be retrofitted on MWO. It would require a custom/customized engine and some serious design/programming skills. Technically it was feasible already 5 years ago or so.
Game developers are sitting on old concepts.
My ideal of a MW game would be something like MWLL with MWO artwork and a persistent setup like the one I described.
0
