Jump to content

Ideas To Improve Immersion


78 replies to this topic

#1 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 December 2016 - 11:38 AM

With the information from earlier in December that a Round Table will be likely held early in the new year, I thought it would be worth collecting ideas in a single thread as to how we can improve immersion so it can be more easily passed on to the meeting.

Rules:
1. Present your idea concisely before getting into the details of how it should work.
2. Try to include the benefits and downsides of your idea after the explanation so that the consequences of the idea are clear.
3. Stay on topic!
4. Open discussion of presented ideas is encouraged, however, do not turn this into an argument.

Our goal here is to try to improve the chances of improving immersion alongside other improvements that will surely address Faction Play and balance.

Spoiler

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 25 January 2017 - 05:52 AM.


#2 Bombast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 11:44 AM

What kind of immersion are you talking about? Is that even one of the topics for the round table?

#3 xe N on

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29 December 2016 - 11:45 AM

Ideas To Improve Immersion?

Replace developer with someone who cares.

Edited by xe N on, 29 December 2016 - 11:45 AM.


#4 Kdogg788

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,314 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:06 PM

Gameplay modes that are more like Battletech scenarios.

I would love gameplay missions that play out like missions from Battletech scenario books. Escorting a VIP mech seems a little strange, as does conquest in a real life military objective standpoint.

Take these scenarios from the Sorenson's Sabres book:

1. The Red Forest: The defending team must make it across the map to a certain objective point. The attackers win if a certain amount of mechs are destroyed before this happening. To make this more difficult you could have the escaping team have to run through a series of checkpoints where every mech must go through.
2. Raid On Hell: Each team squares off with a series of buildings to be captured. At the end of the match (mechs destroyed or time out), each team gets one point for each mech destroyed and one point for each captured point. It would be possible for a team to be destroyed but still win because they had more capture points at the end.
3. Valley of Tears: Each team must destroy the other fast. Victory points are awarded by when a mech from the opposing team is destroyed making early kills much more valuable. A team could lose in overall kills but win the match by getting early kills.
4. Pawns of Crystal. The attacking team must escape AND capture intel. Points are awarded for the amount of mechs and intel carried away. If an intel carrying mech is destroyed, the attackers will lose those potential points.

There are many many more scenarios but those are just a start.

-k

#5 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,943 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:08 PM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 29 December 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Our goal here is to try to improve the chances of improving immersion alongside other improvements that will surely address Faction Play and balance.


Immersion eh?

Well, since in 4 iterations of CW they have yet to provide an immersive game play experience that they themselves once advertised (Planets were to have actual game play impact on the factions. Planets were to provide real in-game benefits to the conqueror (e.g. cheaper mechs of the type made by the local mech factory for example) and consequences to the loser (mechs of the type made at the local mech factory that you just lost are now more expensive)), I don't expect "immersion" is even on the radar anymore. Even if it was, suff that ought to be within the realm of PGI's capabilities are also seemingly beyond them. To wit: How about getting the planets all provided with written descriptions? That might be a little immersive. Some are there, yes. Many are not (this last Summer: Hesperus II one of the most lore drenched worlds in this IP: "Planetary information: unknown"). Yet, hereto after four iterations of CW this is still beyond them to finish.

Somehow I don't think a round table is going to make any headway in immersing us in the mode where we are to "rewrite the story of the inner sphere" (Remember that CW advertisement video? Every time I see that I think: story? what story?...the one about skilled teams complaining about crappy pugs, but where they stay only where they are guaranteed to fight crappy pugs...is that the story we are rewriting? Cuz, its the only "lore" in this game that I am aware of).

No, this game is an FPS with mechs inspired by the IP of Battletech and Mechwarrior...that is the extent of the immersion. There is nothing else beyond that, and I do not foresee a round table moving us to any more of an immersive experience than that provided by our lore drenched MC dots, buckets and tug of war that we presently all enjoy.

#6 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:16 PM

I know nothing has been released yet on the topics they will be addressing, but I figure it would be good to start collecting the ideas in one spot if it they will be open to it.

View PostBombast, on 29 December 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

What kind of immersion are you talking about?


By immersion I mean features that will somehow add depth to the game.
An example is an idea that I strongly advocate; With factions having lost their identity in 4.1 (not a bad thing in terms of helping get more games going), I think making choice of faction more meaningful by implementing drop deck limitations based on the chosen faction. The idea is to have players choose at least half of their drop deck based on their faction's typical mechs (lore based), while allowing them to choose the remaining 2 as they please, but at a cost if they are choosing mechs not typical for their faction. The clearest example I can think of is as follows: A clan wolf player is making a deck. He chooses a Timberwolf, linebacker, and an Ice Ferret, all typical Wolf mechs. For his 4th mech, he wants to choose a Kodiak, which is essentially a Ghost Bear mech. Because this mech is atypical for wolf, both a limit to atypical mechs, as well as a c-bill cost to reduce the incentive for non-faction or rare mechs would be applied.

The goal of this is to add depth to the different personalities of each of the houses and clans by showing their personalities through their preferred mech options. Leaving 1 or 2 spots to choose mechs from the same tech (clan vs IS) despite not being common to that faction will allow for "more competent" mechs to be used, but at an expense.

I strongly believe that by starting to define each of the houses to a certain degree that a greater sense of "faction" will be felt in the game and would even go so far as to potentially start developing faction specific tactics based on the mechs they can expect to see. An added benefit to it is the fact that newer players could come in with some sort of guidance toward fight styles as well as what mechs are doing well for the faction they step into.

This idea could be implemented as broadly as typical and atypical chassis or as deep as particular variants typical to each faction. Of course there are plenty of mechs that were common across many or all factions, but those would be just as readily available.

The idea definitely needs some fleshing out and discussion, but I think that this would be a huge step forward where limitations would actually create a greater feeling of being in a divided and competitive universe than generic IS vs Clan struggle.

#7 Dracol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Steadfast
  • The Steadfast
  • 2,539 posts
  • LocationSW Florida

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:21 PM

Mmm... to add immersion? MWO should adjust a players thermostat to reflect the current temp of a player's mech.




I'll see myself out...

#8 Vxheous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • CS 2019 Gold Champ
  • 3,826 posts
  • Location2 Time MWO World Champion

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:27 PM

Strap two hairdryers to the bottom of your monitor facing you. Turn on low when idling in mech, turn on high once engaged in combat. Oh yeah, don't forget to wear shorts and have a towel ready to soak the sweat. Tada!! Immersion

Edited by Vxheous Kerensky, 29 December 2016 - 12:27 PM.


#9 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:27 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 29 December 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

I don't expect "immersion" is even on the radar anymore.


I would agree with you if it were not for the huge progress they made with FP 4.1 They took that round table pretty seriously and really put something solid together in a few months time. With the FP population having been dead, there was no sense for them to touch immersion because there weren't enough people, let alone a solid game mode to apply it.

Now that FP is working well, is holding a steady population, and really just needs minor modifications to it improve it, this is the time that immersion and depth need to start getting layered into it.

Yes, I get the frustration with them originally presenting an amazing idea and not getting close to it, but I can still credit them for making forward steps along the way and really trying to work toward making this a lasting title. So, rather than salting this thread, lets try to offer constructive ideas and show that it is important to the community that they start addressing game depth and immersion now that there is something to build it on top of.

#10 kapusta11

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 3,854 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:32 PM

Remove dekkels?

#11 RestosIII

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,322 posts
  • LocationDelios

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:42 PM

Add Clan Diamond Shark. Proceed to add the RL stock market but with in-universe names. Allow me to game the system all day. There.

All jokes aside, finally give the planets in FW/CW/FP descriptions, give the Clans their Stars already, make the comm wheel, if not a separate voice for IS and Clan pilots, at least shorten Affirmative and Negative to Aff and Neg, respectively, make cockpit glass have damage effects, and make it so that if PPCs hit you, your HUD starts screwing up. I'm probably missing a few.

#12 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,943 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:42 PM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 29 December 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:


I would agree with you if it were not for the huge progress they made with FP 4.1 They took that round table pretty seriously and really put something solid together in a few months time. With the FP population having been dead, there was no sense for them to touch immersion because there weren't enough people, let alone a solid game mode to apply it.

Now that FP is working well, is holding a steady population, and really just needs minor modifications to it improve it, this is the time that immersion and depth need to start getting layered into it.

Yes, I get the frustration with them originally presenting an amazing idea and not getting close to it, but I can still credit them for making forward steps along the way and really trying to work toward making this a lasting title. So, rather than salting this thread, lets try to offer constructive ideas and show that it is important to the community that they start addressing game depth and immersion now that there is something to build it on top of.


Not frustrated, simply realistic.

As to the current state of CW, you really consider it to be "working well" when by PGI's own assertion they nedd to constantly monitor it and provide incentives in the form of tonnage disparity inorder to try and entice the better teams to leave the Clans and play the "just as good, across the board, no imbalance here" IS mechs...that mode there is "working well" with a "steady population"?

Sorry, but I think PGI has way bigger issues to deal with than to try and provide the immersion that many would certainly like but that PGI has never shown an actual interest in providing.

#13 MacClearly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Butcher
  • The Butcher
  • 908 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:52 PM

View PostKdogg788, on 29 December 2016 - 12:06 PM, said:

Gameplay modes that are more like Battletech scenarios.

I would love gameplay missions that play out like missions from Battletech scenario books. Escorting a VIP mech seems a little strange, as does conquest in a real life military objective standpoint.

Take these scenarios from the Sorenson's Sabres book:

1. The Red Forest: The defending team must make it across the map to a certain objective point. The attackers win if a certain amount of mechs are destroyed before this happening. To make this more difficult you could have the escaping team have to run through a series of checkpoints where every mech must go through.
2. Raid On Hell: Each team squares off with a series of buildings to be captured. At the end of the match (mechs destroyed or time out), each team gets one point for each mech destroyed and one point for each captured point. It would be possible for a team to be destroyed but still win because they had more capture points at the end.
3. Valley of Tears: Each team must destroy the other fast. Victory points are awarded by when a mech from the opposing team is destroyed making early kills much more valuable. A team could lose in overall kills but win the match by getting early kills.
4. Pawns of Crystal. The attacking team must escape AND capture intel. Points are awarded for the amount of mechs and intel carried away. If an intel carrying mech is destroyed, the attackers will lose those potential points.

There are many many more scenarios but those are just a start.

-k

Would these be for faction play?

#14 Bombast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,709 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 12:59 PM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 29 December 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Spoiler



That's... really complicated.

I know you asked for people to not argue, but... that's a lot of high level lore play, in a game where battlemechs don't have TRO/lore entries, in game or on the official MWO website. Without that most basic information, everything your suggesting is nonsensical to all but the older, more knowledgeable players.

Which I guess brings us to the bare minimum immersion suggestion - TRO/Sourcebook entries for weapons and battlemechs, on this website and in game.

Edited by Bombast, 29 December 2016 - 01:08 PM.


#15 KnightMarkus

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 35 posts

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:05 PM

View PostDracol, on 29 December 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

Mmm... to add immersion? MWO should adjust a players thermostat to reflect the current temp of a player's mech.




I'll see myself out...

Oh god, my heating bills....

#16 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:05 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 29 December 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:


Not frustrated, simply realistic.

As to the current state of CW, you really consider it to be "working well" when by PGI's own assertion they nedd to constantly monitor it and provide incentives in the form of tonnage disparity inorder to try and entice the better teams to leave the Clans and play the "just as good, across the board, no imbalance here" IS mechs...that mode there is "working well" with a "steady population"?

Sorry, but I think PGI has way bigger issues to deal with than to try and provide the immersion that many would certainly like but that PGI has never shown an actual interest in providing.


The tonnage incentives were implemented to pull mercs out of the over saturated clan pool, hardly a bad idea in a situation when there are no systems in place to prevent one side from having a greater population than the other. Having a greater number of experienced and more competitive players isn't a design flaw as you suggest, but rather an unfair stacking of the top talent. "Working well" means that it is a reasonably fun game mode which adds new play styles and tactics and is enjoyable when the teams are reasonably balanced. "Steady population" is demonstrated by being able to jump into an FW match in less than 10 minute (often less than 3 minutes of waiting) almost any time of the day.

I know that there are other issues that PGI needs to handle sooner than later, but starting to add some immersion, even if its only a little at a time, adds to the overall improvement of the game experience. These are not suggestions that should out compete other serious fixes, but these are things that should start getting attention alongside other game improvements rather than leaving them open to salt mining.

#17 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:06 PM

Alright, rapid fire immersion stuff that will never happen!
  • Before the match starts, the ability to know which side we're deploying on, where we are deploying and whether we are attacking or defending. Right now we don't know if we're attacking or defending until our boots hit the ground, which is extremely daft.
  • Improve command wheel, add more commands (e.g. "Uav spotted!", "Good kill!" and "Sector clear"), with an IS and Clan version. The Clan version should not sound like Angry Clan Man. Ideally, one version for every faction in the game. Make Liao sound different from Davion.
  • Add more things for Bitching Betty to say, such as "airstrike detected".
  • More collision damage, now that we have improved collision code.
  • Cracks and holes on the cockpit glass
  • The ability to change our mechwarrior pilot suit to match our faction.
  • Make the VIP talk in Escort mode, so he doesn't just stumble around like a mute, without saying where he's going.
  • The ability to make cockpit items invisible, because some of them really don't look like they belong in this game.
  • The ability to mute warhorns, same reason.
  • Adding lore information about each mech in the mechbay, instead of all those absolutely useless statistics.
  • Improve ammo explosion special effects. A shockwave would be nice.
  • Add more destructible objects. It's 2017 soon and we still can't destroy those cars?
  • Slow down the passing of time on most maps. The sun is flying across the sky like it's the apocalypse.
  • Running into deep water should slow down our mechs.
  • There should be more places where we can move underwater, at really slow speeds.
I'm out. Need to get to the store before it closes.

#18 RestosIII

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,322 posts
  • LocationDelios

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:10 PM

View PostDracol, on 29 December 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

Mmm... to add immersion? MWO should adjust a players thermostat to reflect the current temp of a player's mech.




I'll see myself out...


And then players start sueing because of all the cases of dehydration and heatstroke because of AlphaWarrior Online.

#19 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 910 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:11 PM

View PostBombast, on 29 December 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:


That's... really complicated.

I know you asked for people to no argue, but... that's a lot of high level lore play, in a game where battlemechs don't have TRO/lore entries, in game or on the official MWO website. Without that most basic information, everything your suggesting is nonsensical to all but the older, more knowledgeable players.

Which I guess brings us to the bare minimum immersion suggestion - TRO/Sourcebook entries for weapons and battlemechs, on this website and in game.


This is what I mean when I requested discussion as opposed to arguing. You laid out the shortcomings of the idea which makes it clear what needs to be addressed before something like that could be reasonably considered.

I think that the your bare minimum immersion suggestion would be a great way to set ground work for more complicated features to added in time and should be something addressed at the round table as a foundation stone for adding depth to this game.

p.s. I'm also a huge fan of your signature icon.

#20 xTrident

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 655 posts
  • LocationWork or Home

Posted 29 December 2016 - 01:18 PM

PGI is off the mark so far at this point I don't know if a thread like this even matters. My biggest problem or rather question playing MWO at this point is - What's the point? I enjoy the team work, when it works, involved. Especially with friends. If I was playing alone literally the only immersion I see is the grind to buy more mechs, that's it. That isn't much immersion at all. I don't even understand the concept of FW and that's probably because it's fallen so short if not non-existent of what it's supposed ot be. Only thing I've ever been told is you can net more money with it. But like others have said, lot of fun going up against well trained Units while I'm pugging - pointless.

The game modes are generally all the same while in solo queue. Escort could actually be something different but the escort goes to damn slow it's just a different iteration of skirmish most of the time. And that's what I always feel like I'm playing, skirmish, or skirmish with a twist. Whoopee! So much fun doing the exact same thing every time.

I'd say we need ideas to get any kind of immersion because there is none as it stands.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users