8 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

I've read an interesting post stating the worry about PVE greatly reducing the PVE aspects of the game..

So I thought to myself.. good gally, the man has a point. If PVE was introduced, much of the player population would no longer play PVP..

So how can we fix this?

A thought came to me.. why not make the game uber-realistic and make PVP campaigns? Why not make storied campaigns with multiple endings and branches of success, and instead of AI enemies, use real players?

For instance.. make a mini-campaign composed of 5 maps. Add a story and a set of mission objectives. For example's sake, a simple story of the clans invading a planet. Now, make realistic story-driven objectives like taking down the orbital cannon,(classic CW map) capturing a valuable base(classic or up-and-coming assault match), capturing a valuable comm array(classic domination match), an ambush battle(classic skirmish), and a grand finale battle for the planetary command(another classic CW match-hold territory)

As you can see, we could use all existing game-modes. The only added value is a story that links the various game modes together, and a need of 24 players to commit to 2:45h of play-time. If someone disconnects, and does not reconnect, let another player jump-in, or replace him with AI.

And what do you get? A fun campaign depicting planetary conquest, playable from both Clan and IS sides.

How do you do it? Take standard game modes and connect them with a rich, deep storyline, some cool voice-acting, and battletech lore.

Fun no?

[Vellron2005]

Oh, naturally, in such a campaign, success would depend on human aspects. So, to make it realistic, if the "invaders" are wiped out on their first match, reverse the assault by adding a few other maps in which the defenders become the invaders, and saaay, they have to take down a clan base, and after that a clan's dropship.

So either way the story turns out, you would get 3-5 consecutive story-rich matches.

But what if the battles end up being a back to back victory-loss? You win one, you lose one, then win one, then lose one? Simple - If after 4 matches certain mission objectives are not achieved, a truce is called, and the clan's cut their loses and evacuate. Alternatively, proceed immediately to a "retreat" mission where the objective is to evacuate the clans or sloughter them all if you play IS..

Naturally, the possabilities are endless, and any combination of existing matches could be made, with different stories, objectives, , heroes, villains, and on different maps

Edited by Vellron2005, 06 June 2016 - 05:49 AM.

[Jiyu Mononoke]

fun idea.
I think having different "games" besides 12-v-12 on map "X", with game mode "Y" where the objective is often ignored for the sake of skirmishing combat is good.
- Another idea (for our existing state) would be to simply make it so that if the team wins via combat, they get more exp... if they win via mission, they get way more C-Bills... that would help.
- I also remember when we had repair and re-arm costs. It made everyone way more conscious of the damage they received, and combined with increasing the C-Bill earnings for winning via "Game mode" instead of attrition (death) would also change the flavor of the game.

- If I just paid you 2 million to gather a team and go get me a rare item from evil-dude-x worth 20-mill, and you lost half your team, and tossed me a 15-mill bill upon return, id be pissed. If "you" had to be careful of your own losses, you'd consider your entry tactics a lot more to mitigate costs, and we'd both make bills.
- Today we play with reckless abandon because there is no consequence for taking serious loss on a failed mission. The cost is magically absorbed by the factions infinitely deep pockets, and costs just aren't a concern. Now, I don't think anyone should ever go negative (that would be bad business in regards to new players, and them going broke), but I think making "a lot less" for being destroyed or extremely beat up is good. And make ALOT more for achieving victory through successful game-mode victory.

- Money talks, B.S. walks ... make playing any mode properly more profitable, and you'd be set on a better path... so goes my thinking.

[TheArisen]

I like it & would play it. My main concern would be time. I think once you've completed a certain "mission" you should be locked in. You can play it with other players that are on the same mission (perhaps anyone that's completed the campaign). Basically, a save game/checkpoint feature.

Otherwise, few would play it because of the time required.

I'd also want to look at including 4v4 in a PvP campaign.

Those are my thoughts, hopefully Pgi implements this idea.

[Karl Streiger]

It is a good idea - but the problem is to bring 24 players to the game.

You can a lot of things even with the limited "options" for the lobby.
Really I don't need PGI to create a PvP MiniCampaign when I can do better. (sound bold, but it is the truth)

But it would be great to have some assistance:

• to alter the ticket value for conquest (or keep them as nav points)
  
• place turrets or NPCs
  
• change time to 30min or bigger
  
• add a stock mech button
  
• give some "logs" or mission summary after a game is finished
  
• a minuscule compensation for players participating in a lobby game
  
  • I think this is the main reason - our "idea" didn't lift off
• support that answer your questions and requests that would create money
  
  • wanted to buy several gift codes as compensation (small ones like 30.000 Cbills or 10 MC or similar, nothing big)

Here one of those Missions (a really really simple one)- it is a stand alone missions but could fit into a setting (its a head hunter mission) based on the outcome of a potential former mission - the VIP - could be on the map or not.


Its in german and I'm to lazy to translate

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 June 2016 - 02:28 AM.

[Vellron2005]

I admit my only concern about my idea is the time invested. It would probably be hard to get 24 people to play two and a half hours or more.. Hell, right now, I can't make that kind of time myself.. so I'm thinking maybe, make the campaigns "ongoing events" where anyone can jump in between missions (like the tukayyid event for instance, but with a waiting que and a 2 minute call to arms) and without limiting normal play, and ofcourse, with a deep rich story. Naturally, reward players for their effort, but make the rewards lore-based and logical. So for instance, if you have a campaign like to one in my original idea (planetary conquest) you could get cbills and MC if you play clan, and clan-tech salvage + cbills if you play IS. The MC reward would represent clanner bragging rights and prestige, and salvage would represent realistic tech finds from downed clanners.

Other campaigns could reward specific tech, specific mechs or other specific rewards. For instance, if the campaign centers around capturing a secret mech lab, let the players have a tough moral choice whether or not to saaay, save some civilians and be awarded a unique title, get a unique paint scheme or aquire a new mc-only mech that's currently on sale.

Or if the mission is centered around taking down a specific villain, let the player who got "kill most damage dealt" on that villain, acquire his hero mech.

The possabilites are endless, and rewards could be awarded after each mission within a campaign. Also, make the big rewards like mechs be achievable only once but MC and cbills as many times as you play.

Oh, another thought just occurred to me. Since campaigns would take place on various game modes and maps, give the players a full dropdeck and 2 minutes between missions to swap-out mech loadouts (from pre-saved designs) but not the ability to swap mechs in dropdecks (to maintain mechs fielded / bachall realism)

Naturally TELL the player what they are gonna be doing next, and on wich map, so they can set up for that specific map and develop tactics specific to each mission.

Really, I think that making campaigns in wich AI side is played by real people, essencially making them playable from both sides of this great conflict would be pretty awesome.

Edited by Vellron2005, 07 June 2016 - 03:51 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Vellron2005, on 07 June 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

Naturally TELL the player what they are gonna be doing next, and on wich map, so they can set up for that specific map and develop tactics specific to each mission.

Our idea was that a warrior stuck with just one Mech.
So when you choose to drop in a Brawl Atlas - and the 2nd mission is to hunt a squirrel you have to do it in your Atlas.
OK the underlying problem is that you have a more viable Mech when choosing a heavy. So it was again stock Mechs - maybe just 3025 Tech to (give the Assault some advantage in mass for SHS)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 June 2016 - 03:58 AM.

[TheArisen]

I took the liberty of creating a gen disc thread promoting this idea.
http://mwomercs.com/...-pvp-campaigns/

Hopefully it gets noticed.

Edited by TheArisen, 09 June 2016 - 01:27 AM.

[Vellron2005]

TheArisen, on 09 June 2016 - 01:26 AM, said:

I took the liberty of creating a gen disc thread promoting this idea.
http://mwomercs.com/...-pvp-campaigns/

Hopefully it gets noticed.

Thanks man. It's nice to see someone recognize good ideas when they see them :-)