42 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

CocoaJin, on 31 July 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Do Away With Match-Style Cw/fw

The fact that PGI and many players use the word "matches" instead of "battles" -- with a UI to match -- was already a gigantic hint that many people are not really interested in "A BattleTech Game". They all just want a "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots" game with extreme delusions of eSports grandeur.

Edited by Mystere, 01 August 2016 - 08:38 PM.

[Kyrie]

Mystere, on 01 August 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

The fact that PGI and many players use the word "matches" instead of "battles" -- with a UI to match -- was already a gigantic hint that many people are not really interested in "A BattleTech Game". They all just want a "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots" game with extreme delusions of eSports grandeur.

I have been posting about CW for years, and I am convinced a very sad turnover has taken place: most of those who were passionate about an MPBT/3025 style strategy game are long gone.

[Dino Might]

The beauty of the proposed idea is that with few simple changes, you can run various rounds (concurrent or not) that have different rulesets. Some could be Clan vs IS as now. Some could be 3025 IS vs IS. Once you get the basic maps set up and the scripting done, then all you need to do is tie the results to whatever star map you want.

To change the rulesets, you just change the allowable spawnable mechs at each base.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

There is no way they can handle a persistent battlefield. It's very, very complicated. There are bigger companies which haven't been able to follow through on persistent battlefield promises.

wwii online has been around for about 15 years and is a great example of how to do it right.

Edited by Mechwarrior1441491, 02 August 2016 - 09:24 AM.

[Dino Might]

You need extra databases to store unit/asset ownership, positions (for the structures), and status. All mechs, vehicles, and mobile combat assets should get wiped at the end of each server round (the one I'm used to wipes every 4 hours). Then you have a database to store the lives used by each player, which gets reset at (6?) hour intervals. Beyond that, I'm not sure how it's that much more complicated just to have the persistent world.

Now, coding the AI assets will be a complete beast of a project. That would take a huge amount of time and testing, but it would be well worth it.

[Lyoto Machida]

Kyrie, on 01 August 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

To reiterate, I love this idea CocoaJin. What I find really disturbing is that there are very few of us who stuck around from back in 2012 who are still proposing stuff for CW; many of us have been driven away by PGI's inattention.

I can't help but wonder how much lost revenue that represents.

No real loss to PGI as they weren't the target demographic anymore anyway...

[Kyrie]

Lyoto Machida, on 02 August 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

No real loss to PGI as they weren't the target demographic anymore anyway...

Yeah, money is highly overrated. ;-)

[Koniving]

Jason Parker, on 01 August 2016 - 02:49 AM, said:

Yep pretty much what most People always firgured CW/FP would be like. Won't ever happen sadly.

To share: I had a bit of a different idea with how I figured CW/FP would be like back then before CW/FP came out. But it has a number of similar traits to the "Planetside 2" concept pitched here.

Rather than persistent matches as in always happening, they would be a persistent universe (that doesn't get reset and doesn't run on a timer but instead on single to multiple victories). In this version I'm quoting, keep in mind that the idea of joining mid match hadn't quite hit the shelves yet but has come in later iterations of the idea, such as being able to launch and play and have additional players join later such as a relief force for attackers or defenders.

Essentially, the universe would be persistent.
And each world, its own 'semi-persistent' nature. That is while under attack, players could join and leave as needed. It would require a retreat function, too, since the concept essentially assumes that you could lose your mechs permanently (as far as "CW" is concerned). This part isn't fleshed out in the post.

The idea as originally pitched is here. It has so many likes. o.o (130 at the time of mentioning it here).
And such standing ovations as:

Lindonius said:

I read this fantastic description of what this game could have and should have been. The game we all wanted it to be.

And died a little inside.


Only Sad Cat can convey my reaction to Koniving's utopian MWO dream....

Quote

Yeah koniving, that is basically how we used to run things in the old mechwarrior 4 planetary leagues.

Roadbear said:

I want to play THAT game.

Your views intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Wintersdark said:

I think that practically every time Koniving posts anything.

YueFei said:

I wish you worked for PGI....

PhoenixFire55 said:

To only be kicked out like Garth? Nope...
I wish EVERYONE who worked at PGI was like Koniving ..

O.o;

And to quote someone not on the forums: "That's a lot like Battletech 3025 by EA played its faction warfare before it was shut down." Followed by an awesome tale of making a B-rush for an enemy faction's capital planet over the course of several nights, with forces rushing to jump from star system to star system in order to focus and intercept and their allies struggling to catch up with them in setting up garrisons and supply lines before they were cut off from supply lines and forced to a halt, where they spent another two days withstanding attack after attack until they had nothing left.

(Sorry about quoting some of the reactions, I'm just so proud of a happier time when we were excited and throwing ideas out of what something could be like. Back when PGI was producing genuinely new content for us to enjoy.)

Edited by Koniving, 02 August 2016 - 02:28 PM.

[Dino Might]

Can we make a twitter bot to spam this to PGI devs on that medium? I don't have an account, and the last time I tried to make one, I ended up friended with some randos and shut the dang thing down.

And again, marry this with my idea of providing dev tools to the players so that WE can make a trial of this concept. PGI doesn't put a lick of effort in other than the dev tools that would be an instant hit regardless. We make something workable, it becomes popular. PGI takes it and makes an official, polished gamemode.

I understand they don't want to invest heavy resources into something that may not pan out, so give us the tools to give it a shot.

Edited by Dino Might, 02 August 2016 - 02:57 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Mystere, on 01 August 2016 - 08:37 PM, said:

The fact that PGI and many players use the word "matches" instead of "battles" -- with a UI to match -- was already a gigantic hint that many people are not really interested in "A BattleTech Game". They all just want a "Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots" game with extreme delusions of eSports grandeur.

Yep the sim need work that's for sure. In matches sim has always been great and would be improved with tanks and many other additions. From title screen to mechbay it couldn't be hurtin more though.

[Dino Might]

I think Sim vs Arcade is really a question of battle mechanics, and this game will strictly be on the Arcade side, probably forever. That's okay, but what I think we are all looking for is more depth in the battles. You can have an arena shooter (what we have now) or a large-scale conflict, which is what we are proposing for FW.

The idea of respawns is something that was argued over for some time, but it appears that those who play FW prefer to have multiple mechs to use. The problem is that the current FW setup is TERRIBLE for this mechanic. It's still a arena shooter style match.

If we switch to a large-scale map (I'm talking about 20-30 times the size of the current FW maps, at least) and allow up to 60+ clients on the same map (each map is one planet), then we have a long-running conflict over that map for some number of days. You get limited lives, but can repair and rearm at bases, meaning that many engagements result in minimal losses, and you have a lot more maneuver, skirmish, and tactics. There should be room for a battlefield commander or two, who get a map that provides all enemy contact information that is available from friendly sensors (including fixed sensor emplacements that can be captured, providing huge area coverage). These commanders then vector available units to intercept enemy forces (GCI concept).

You would have each side forced to work with the limited drop slots available per base, restricting chassis type, but otherwise, anyone can jump into any open slot. Thus it makes it worthwhile to capture additional bases and other logistical elements before pressing against the final enemy bastion. This type of conflict could last days, easily, without a clear winner/loser. It would require concerted pushes and coordination to actually conquer a planet.

AI would fill in for significant force imbalances on either side, so there would always be something to do, and people could come and go as they please. Incorporate a server-state save for periodic resets of the server (as data errors and lag issues probably accrue over time), and a life system that tracks the total number of mech lives every six hours (each player gets 4 spawns every 6 hours). Then you've got a system where it's easy to group up, you have attack and defense all as a part of the ebb and flow of the battle. Information warfare becomes important. And most of all, you actually care about what's going on over the course of the battle, without seeing all progress reset every 30 minutes (as in match-style games).

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 02 August 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

If we switch to a large-scale map (I'm talking about 20-30 times the size of the current FW maps, at least) and allow up to 60+ clients on the same map (each map is one planet) ...

No! No! No! Think bigger.

Each map is a node in this directed graph, which represents a planetary campaign:

Mystere, on 02 August 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

Imagine the following (and shamelessly "borrowed") directed graph as a representation of a planetary campaign for "minor" planets:

• Each node is a location on a planet.
  
• Location 3 is a beachhead mission. If the invaders lose, then the invasion is cancelled.
  
• Locations 1, 4, and 5 involve skirmishes.
  
  • If the invaders lose on 1 or 5, the defenders get to counterattack 3.
    
  • If the invaders lose at 4, they are pushed back to 5.
• Nodes 2 and 6 are base assaults.
  
  • While 6 is still in defenders' hands, they get to skirmish on 4 and counterattack on 2.
• Location 7 is a recon mission which needs to be successfully completed before assaults on 2 and 8 are allowed.
  
• Node 8 is an assault on the capital city.
  
  • Invaders take the planet if they win here.
    
  • Defenders get to counterattack at 6 while they hold the capital.
    
  • Defenders get to skirmish at 7, and if successful, push the invaders back to 1.

That is just one way of configuring a campaign using the very simple graph above.


Note that by itself it already has a little more depth than the "take majority of pie slices for the planet" "campaign" "system" we have now.

The above provide the following:

• Directed graphs give players a better feeling of having campaigns and their progress because they actually do have and see them.
  
• There can be several different campaign types and sizes, depending on planet being invaded.
  
• If the CW planetary interface would allow it, small factions can decide when and where to allocate their scarce resources (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend assets 6, 7, and 8; alternatively, have their best unit make a last stand at the capital).
  
• Factions can coordinate their units to successfully stall or even halt the enemy's invasion using less resources.
  
• Factions can divert their forces to other "campaigns" that require them.
  
• Ceasefire periods are not required (!!!).

For more ideas, go here.

[Dino Might]

Problem with that is that each fight is still an arena fight on a small map. And you can't jump into/out of the fight while in progress. I want Blue Flag style fighting over the entire planet where you can come and go as you please.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 02 August 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Problem with that is that each fight is still an arena fight on a small map. And you can't jump into/out of the fight while in progress. I want Blue Flag style fighting over the entire planet where you can come and go as you please.

No quite. See my response to you in the other thread. It's all in the type of map you place in each "node" of the campaign.There is nothing preventing us -- other than PGI's abilities -- from using one or more of the maps you described.

A single map, unless it's really HUGE, is not enough to represent a planet for a Tukayyid-type event.

Edited by Mystere, 02 August 2016 - 04:00 PM.

[adamts01]

Dino Might, on 01 August 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Yeah, there is definitely a way to do it. I didnt think about the MWLL comparison.

What we need us more community support and less PGI piss and moan threads that don't contribute to fleshing out the idea. If you just come in here to make a quip about the devs, you are not helping.

Talking **** definitely won't help, but neither will constructive discussion, sadly.

davoodoo, on 01 August 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

I rather despise open world fpses after planetside 2, where it went something like that...

Rush quick cap and spawn camping.
or 50 guys pointed at chokepoint for 30 minutes.

Like always great concept but everytime ive seen it it fails to deliver this epic feel.

I just started PS2 and freakin love it. Zerg rushing and spawn camping is a little lame, but I can't think of a better option. I think a longer cooldown on re-spawns would be a good start, so there's not a constant stream of troops flowing out of a Sunderer, and kills would matter more. Then you'd also get few kamikaze C4 rushes. Plus, that big rush means that the rest of the map is uncontested, so the smaller battles have a chance to win if you can stall the Zerg. Or they need to implement a ticket counter that gives the enemy a victory point after so may kills, that could slow the Zerg spam. Either way, it's better than what we have in MWO, snipe like ******* till you have the numbers then rush, plus spawn camp if you're in CW.

[Drunken Skull]

A game mode where you can let your guard down and have some fun would be good, something that isn't the cut-throat Player VS Player Arena which is the only thing we have now. Something like a Co-Op player vs Environment campaign, and maybe a quick-launch single-player mission mode.

Seeing some Battletech assets that aren't just mechs would also be a welcome sea-change. Tanks, trucks, hovercrafts, helicopters, and aerospace fighters come to mind here. Not to mention Dropships we can interact with, such a shame that Dropships don't feature more in MWO, other than as slightly dangerous window dressing.

Edited by Drunken Skull, 02 August 2016 - 07:01 PM.

[Zordicron]

Ahhhhhh yes, the nice stroll down "what if" lane, looking at the clouds as we wonder how it could have been.....





This is Russ, and he made Marine Sharpshooter with battletech robots. The shooty part is "done" and he has little interest in anything else. Hence the espurts. Comp style shooty is the obvious progression after developing the shooty.




IMO, the entire premise of persistent world is lost on PGI. I mean it's not some new concept, it dates back to Ultima Online for Pete's sake, and probably farther then that in some other forms back to the creation of internet. There are numerous examples to copy bits and pieces from to make something work even with existing gameplay mechanics(well I mean all there is is the shooty part anyway haha) but Russ can't be bothered. There is more money to be made on espurts, and thats a win win for Russ in his mind: players play AND advertise the game and generate hype to get more players to buy more mechs!! WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS!! It does all sound so grand, and I suppose in a way if a game like SMITE can manage to pull it off, MWO could to.

Thing is, its just such a lost opportunity. MWO, as it is- it will fade and end. The gameplay is already stale for many, and has been for a long time. Lots of vets hung around(I suppose hang around yet, though the number diminishes I am sure) because it's Battletech. Russ has the monopoly, and holds on to his precious, even though in doing this, he destroys his own future by severely limiting the scope of his game.

A grand, persistant multi world game with ongoing battles, real benefits and consequences to gaining and losing territory- it's just not in Russ, or his immediate crew's, skill set. He can not imagine it, can not wrap his head around it, and NO ONE WILL HORN IN ON HIS PRECIOUS, NO ONE WILL MAKE MWO BUT HIM!!! The time had come, and probably has already past, for Russ to name a successor to development while he moved on to CEO of the company or something and focused his attentions on what he likes: the espurt part. Some one else needed to take up the General's Stars and continue..... a looong time ago, to create the game that is being bandied about here. Russ can not, and will not do it.

IF it was up to him, IMO he would have started a new Marine Sharpshooter some time ago. Heh, actually he did... remember the kickstarter who's name we must not speak? SHOOTY IN SPACE. The next chapter in the big book of shooty for Russ.

Deep down, Russ knows his kingdom is at unrest, but he does not want to deal with it. He knows something should be done, something is fundamentally wrong with the game mechanics, but he doesn't want to change thew shooty, I mean, it's been there for so long now, it's done... it has to be right? But still.... so we try to do some info warfare.... bah... what do these people want? I mean there is cool robots to shoot with cool lasers....

I used to dream more. I used to fit right in and contribute to these threads. I have had the makings of one of the most epic pilot cockpit chair/battlestations for this game(including my 52" plasma screen) in a pile in the corner for a couple years now. I thought things were going to happen this year, after reading the roadmaps, after hearing about game engine changes and mech rescales and CW phase 3's etc. But it hasn't, I mean, the stuff they have done is good. but it's stuff that should have been patched in open beta. Back when I bought a Phoenix pack, that money should have been for a CW phase 3. Not 3 years later.

The "open world war" Battletech game spoken of here? If someone had a kickstarter for it, in earnest, I would put several hundred dollars down for it. MWO will never be that game, Russ will never relinquish his precious, and eternal, partly developed Solaris is what we have. Because lets be honest, the existing maps are almost useless for that type of game, and there are basically no coded assets to use for that type of game outside of mech models and map assets. The entire rest would have to be wrought from scratch. Russ will not do it, he doesn't think it will help him keep his precious. Not like espurts can. Minimal new investment, maximize profit potential, ride it out and live the good life while it lasts, then move on to Marine Sharpshooter 3, IN SPACE!

Sorry to rain on this parade. I hope to be proven wrong, a hundred times over. However years of observation here have convinced me it is better to accept the reality of it and go play PS4 games.

If you guys really want to see something good come of Mechwarrior, start feeding ideas to The actual founder... you know, over at that other Battletech game in the works. Maybe if his up and coming game takes off, he would be open to branching out. He has the experience and capability to pull it off.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

Specific maps for a specific reason, unlocked when map requirements are met. For example, a Capital city map. Gigantic buildings in a Government district under siege by enemy forces.

Supply hub under attack by enemy forces.

Secondary objectives that can make UAV and arty consumables locked out if destroyed. Mobile HQ transports etc?

Civilian casualties being a thing. Both sides lose rewards if civy buildings and assets are destroyed as collateral damage.

A raid mode. A combination of intel and mech parts the attacker is trying to loot from the defender. A generic supply cache box could be represented with this.

Edited by Mechwarrior1441491, 02 August 2016 - 07:19 PM.

[Kyrie]

While not directly related to CocoaJin's idea, what I really want to see is this implemented: http://mwomercs.com/.../page__hl__mpbt

It has everything I ever wanted in an online game. I especially like the part about units and lances moving in a hex-map to effect planet captures and defenses.

[Dino Might]

Mystere, on 02 August 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

No quite. See my response to you in the other thread. It's all in the type of map you place in each "node" of the campaign.There is nothing preventing us -- other than PGI's abilities -- from using one or more of the maps you described.

A single map, unless it's really HUGE, is not enough to represent a planet for a Tukayyid-type event.

Roger that. And I like the idea of being able to scale some of the maps and numbers of maps with planet sizes. I would want even the small ones to take more than a couple of hours to overrun, though. This is of course, assuming teams that aren't so one-sided as to guarantee victory. The help of AI to balance teams would act as a decent dampener if they had reasonable coding and abilities (not too strong, not too weak).