Jump to content

Restore Meaning!

BattleMechs Gameplay

45 replies to this topic

#21 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 03:50 PM

View PostMacClearly, on 25 January 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

The problem is not everyone playing cares or wants to follow lore. So this idea would only be beneficial to a few that are in the know and would just be an unnecessary restriction to most.

Then what about mercenaries?

I would personally like to see a combination of some other suggestions, such as getting big discounts for mechs from produced from your faction (cbills only) as well as lots of bonuses and items for loyalists while mercenaries get no benefits other than being free to run whatever they want and getting decent cbills. I think that would be more palatable for everyone.


If we consider other games with competing factions, (think star craft, Age of Empires) and other FPS shooters (over watch, Team fortress), a lot of the interesting elements are provided by the fact that there are different classes which excel at different tasks, even if they are in the same tech tree. Having to come up with different strategies on how to handle a variety of enemies, while having some general idea of what their strengths and weaknesses puts us back into a thinking game. Sure we have some strategy now, but those are very limited and change with every quirk pass and are as simple as figuring out how to handle the new flavors of the month. The new skill tree will provide some amount of differentiation and customization, but there is nothing to unite a group of players fighting under a certain banner and encourage them to use a similar play style based in the history of the universe.
People who don't care about lore could continue on as mercenaries, who wouldn't receive any of the quirks or choose a house loyalty which would provide them with quirks that suit their style. Those who don't care are not harmed in the process while those who are interested gain a more immersive and interesting experience.

#22 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:50 PM

no. pgi has more important things to fix and you cant give a faction a tonnage advantage like that would b impossible to balance

#23 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

View PostCadoazreal, on 25 January 2017 - 04:50 PM, said:

no. pgi has more important things to fix and you cant give a faction a tonnage advantage like that would b impossible to balance


What are the more important things that need to be fixed? And did you read about how the system would be balanced or did you just skim over it?

#24 MacClearly

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 05:49 PM

View Postnaterist, on 25 January 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

You can put in restrictions and other aspects that match lore without sacrificing fun, i think thats the 'depth' everyones been asking for. In addition, you can look on sarna and see many good mechs that are general to the whole IS, and those variants can be scattered on random planets. It doesnt limit negatively, it adds reason, and competition.


Ok. You feel that way. I absolutely don't want to be limited that way and would be incredibly pissed off considering how balance changes and how mechs fall in and out of favour. I am heavily involved in FW and it would induce rage in me. So you don't think that is negative, but I think anything that requires me to do homework and restricts my choices is very negative.

Not to mention that there really seems to be very few mechs that are completely exclusive to anyone so you more or less would be restricting variants and not actual mechs...now imagine how to balance that out considering how some of the variants are really the only ones you want. How would that get balanced out.

There are lots of ways to create depth and I would be all in if it is done through giving a player something to get that depth. As someone who has spent a bunch of money on this game, I will fight tooth and nail against any change that restricts or takes anything away. I am betting I am not alone.

#25 MacClearly

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:12 PM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 25 January 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:


If we consider other games with competing factions, (think star craft, Age of Empires) and other FPS shooters (over watch, Team fortress), a lot of the interesting elements are provided by the fact that there are different classes which excel at different tasks, even if they are in the same tech tree. Having to come up with different strategies on how to handle a variety of enemies, while having some general idea of what their strengths and weaknesses puts us back into a thinking game. Sure we have some strategy now, but those are very limited and change with every quirk pass and are as simple as figuring out how to handle the new flavors of the month. The new skill tree will provide some amount of differentiation and customization, but there is nothing to unite a group of players fighting under a certain banner and encourage them to use a similar play style based in the history of the universe.
People who don't care about lore could continue on as mercenaries, who wouldn't receive any of the quirks or choose a house loyalty which would provide them with quirks that suit their style. Those who don't care are not harmed in the process while those who are interested gain a more immersive and interesting experience.


I don't know where you are going with the different classes as we have classes within classes in this game with differences in tech and weight class. On top of that a very wide selection of weapons.

Now I have a problem with you offhandedly saying 'People who don't care about lore could continue on as mercenaries, who wouldn't receive any of the quirks'. It's like saying f 'em. This game has people from the table top world, but like myself many were drawn in by the video games. This happens to be another video game that is based on Battletech. Basically it is not just your game. How you got here is not more valid than the door I walked through. So any solution has to have a balance that doesn't include telling the other to p** off.

Like I said in another response, all solutions have to bring value for everyone involved. Has to be worth it for everyone with there being a good reason to go with that choice that would also be as relatively balanced as say colour choices for cars. I think it would be tough to come up with an idea that split people up into thirds but not impossible. Needs value and definitely nothing that is restrictive.

#26 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 06:58 PM

View PostMacClearly, on 25 January 2017 - 06:12 PM, said:


I don't know where you are going with the different classes as we have classes within classes in this game with differences in tech and weight class. On top of that a very wide selection of weapons.

Now I have a problem with you offhandedly saying 'People who don't care about lore could continue on as mercenaries, who wouldn't receive any of the quirks'. It's like saying f 'em. This game has people from the table top world, but like myself many were drawn in by the video games. This happens to be another video game that is based on Battletech. Basically it is not just your game. How you got here is not more valid than the door I walked through. So any solution has to have a balance that doesn't include telling the other to p** off.

Like I said in another response, all solutions have to bring value for everyone involved. Has to be worth it for everyone with there being a good reason to go with that choice that would also be as relatively balanced as say colour choices for cars. I think it would be tough to come up with an idea that split people up into thirds but not impossible. Needs value and definitely nothing that is restrictive.


To clarify the reference to other games, I mean that each of the factions (thinking of starcraft and age of empires here) has their own take on the same basic units and comes with certain strengths and weaknesses. Those games also have their version of "weight classes" and you are allowed to choose from to combat an enemy who has his respective strengths and weaknesses. In MWO there are two tech trees to choose from and that is as far as distinction goes. With this being a game based on Battletech, it would make sense to incorporate elements of that universe into the game, especially when it can add diversity to factions and the game play. Of course balancing the differences is key, which is why that each strength comes with an associated weakness. This provides VALUE by creating options for players to take advantage of. Can you give some logic based reasons as why it would be bad to differentiate the different cultures within those tech trees?

If I intended to let a group know that they could "f' off" I would say it directly, not offhandedly. There is a reason behind that logic. Not putting particular quirks on them would leave them as a sort of universal "faction" that already has the benefit of being able to set up contracts with any group they like (or would be permitted according to how things develop) and thus have access to both tech trees depending on who they want to work for. Their quirk neutral status would mean that they have no particular strengths or weaknesses to the baseline and would almost practically be balanced from the get go. If someone doesn't like that option, or they can choose one of 8 other options with slight buffs and nerfs that they do prefer. They wouldn't even have to read the lore behind why those differences exist, but it would be there for the large population who is curious and would like to know. On a microscopic scale, this provides VALUE by tailoring a small amount of quirks to an individuals preferred play style. On a macroscopic scale, this provides direction for new players and PUGs alike by allowing them to have some suggested principles to follow when they build their mechs and what they can start to expect other allies to drop in, further improving chances of cohesive team builds in non unit drops. The current system as so many intricacies and options to start with that it is overwhelming and takes hundreds of games before players can begin to get some grasp of how to improve their mech building and tactical approach to the game, not to mention perpetuates the giant mess and barrage of complaints new plays have when ti comes to learning about team work or how to build/use viable mechs, making it a LOW VALUE system.

Beyond TT and video games (both of which have huge contributions to lore), there is a lot of literature that addresses many aspects of the Battletech universe. I'm not looking to demean your connection to this game, but denying the addition of lore related features to other people because you want a more generic shooter is more insulting considering that you "think anything that requires me to do homework and restricts my choices is very negative". This basis shows a huge lack of consideration, especially when there would be options for you to be continue to use whichever mech load outs you prefer, allowing you to not be restricted. You have somehow managed to miss the large emphasis put on wanting the faction related quirks to be balanced, so I'd like to reiterate that the intent of this idea is to provide diversity through the use of tweaking positive and negative quirks to achieve a balance based on variety. The last thing anyone wants is for a unfair stomps to be standardized which is why the quirks would need to be considered in an in game and out of game context to figure out how to best BALANCE them.

Since the presented idea has not been fleshed out thoroughly, I can understand some hesitation or concern, but with a discussion to iron out the details, and even at this early stage presents a lot of VALUE by increasing depth, immersion, variety, and a great sense of community through faction. I am curious as to how you see the current, bland system maintains more VALUE over the proposed system. What would be the basis for your suggestion of splitting people in to thirds? What other ideas do you have to help improve the competitive MWO end game of Faction Play?

#27 Maker L106

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 250 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 07:48 PM

OP, as a guy who hasn't dipped his toe into FP I have to say that this sort of change would be odd, but I do like the idea of giving the individual groups some form of personality that right now the stickers don't have. I'm just not sure that's the route to go. (Even if the Steiner thing made me legit lol at it... so gross)

That said I am in favor of the groups having something unique to each of them. Then again that's a basic human thing to wish to differentiate one self from the others. The only real problem i see besides the meta is that the grind for mechs if you didn't just already have the ones you need for the faction you want / whatever. That grind would be aggravating. But that's assuming a lot.

#28 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 08:03 PM

View PostMaker L106, on 25 January 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

OP, as a guy who hasn't dipped his toe into FP I have to say that this sort of change would be odd, but I do like the idea of giving the individual groups some form of personality that right now the stickers don't have. I'm just not sure that's the route to go. (Even if the Steiner thing made me legit lol at it... so gross)

That said I am in favor of the groups having something unique to each of them. Then again that's a basic human thing to wish to differentiate one self from the others. The only real problem i see besides the meta is that the grind for mechs if you didn't just already have the ones you need for the faction you want / whatever. That grind would be aggravating. But that's assuming a lot.


As pointed out by you and a few other guys in this thread, incentives/rewards are received much better and are met with significantly less resistance than penalties. I changed the wording in the original post so that can be reflected for anyone who reads it.

I understand the issue with the grind as I've been dropping with someone who only has 5 or 6 mechs owned and it really clarifies that the system should be helping newer players get the tools they need for FP sooner than painfully grind for much later. Thanks for the insight.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 25 January 2017 - 08:05 PM.


#29 Karamanthos

    Member

  • Pip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 15 posts

Posted 25 January 2017 - 08:45 PM

this would potentially create dead factions due to some of them only having tier 4-5 mechs...thus not being competitive in FW if you wanted to get 'the bonus'

#30 naterist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • 1,724 posts
  • Location7th circle of hell

Posted 25 January 2017 - 08:50 PM

View PostMacClearly, on 25 January 2017 - 05:49 PM, said:


Ok. You feel that way. I absolutely don't want to be limited that way and would be incredibly pissed off considering how balance changes and how mechs fall in and out of favour. I am heavily involved in FW and it would induce rage in me. So you don't think that is negative, but I think anything that requires me to do homework and restricts my choices is very negative.

Not to mention that there really seems to be very few mechs that are completely exclusive to anyone so you more or less would be restricting variants and not actual mechs...now imagine how to balance that out considering how some of the variants are really the only ones you want. How would that get balanced out.

There are lots of ways to create depth and I would be all in if it is done through giving a player something to get that depth. As someone who has spent a bunch of money on this game, I will fight tooth and nail against any change that restricts or takes anything away. I am betting I am not alone.


ive dropped a lot of money and spent a lot of time in faction warfare. the end fact is that without restrictions, you have no fun. if everyone had godmode cheat itd be boring af, and so they restrict you with in game rules. currently, those in game rules (aka game mechanics) are less then satisfactory to many. as a person who likes to play faction warfare a lot, id hope youd want it to be more immersive than quickplay, which is what its supposed to be. otherwise, just go play qp if you dont want to get immersed.

and everyone klnockin the atli scout lance post, thats what called a joke. reeellllaaaaaaxxxxxxx. itll be OK.

#31 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:44 PM

View PostKaramanthos, on 25 January 2017 - 08:45 PM, said:

this would potentially create dead factions due to some of them only having tier 4-5 mechs...thus not being competitive in FW if you wanted to get 'the bonus'


I think we'd need to make a comprehensive list to see what each faction actually ends up with seeing which factions would suffer from what kind of shortages and then the correct steps could be taken to mitigate that disadvantage. If there truly ends up being a shortage, a worthwhile boost in c-bills could always be made to the faction specific mechs or there could be a "2nd tier" for that faction where they get a slightly smaller bonus on certain mechs that are less common but not atypical.

I'm confident that reasonable solutions could be found to any issues that come up and allow this diversification to expand FP.

#32 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 25 January 2017 - 09:56 PM

View PostTercieI, on 25 January 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Restore? When have factions ever had any meaning in CW?


In the beginning many of us felt Faction Pride. Then PGI let us down on the development cycle ... finally we went MERC and no S ... hits were given any longer.

#33 Dutchoper72

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Warrior
  • The Warrior
  • 43 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:48 PM

I would like to see a limit to only 1 chassis...in other words you can't bring all of the same mech. So no stocking thunderbolts or such only. Would help in my opinion.

#34 Vellron2005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 5,444 posts
  • LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.

Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:33 AM

If you ask me, there's not reason for the factions to be unified on the Inner Sphere map.. we can still have a unified front to get faster matches, but faction identity should matter..

Right now, choice of faction is completely irrelevant to anyone but a lore-buff.

It would be nice if certain lore-based things were rewarded, supported, and cherished..

#35 Natural Predator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 690 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 06:31 AM

White knight of the MWO forums,
Nobody gives a **** about factions anymore.


#36 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 07:22 AM

View PostRagnar Baron Leiningen, on 26 January 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

White knight of the MWO forums,
Nobody gives a **** about factions anymore.

Dear Ragnar, are you and your friends still dressing me up in your heads?

The whole point is to give a reason and incentive to care. Good to see you're up to you're usual positive, forward thinking.

#37 Zito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 248 posts
  • LocationHere

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:17 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 26 January 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

Dear Ragnar, are you and your friends still dressing me up in your heads?

The whole point is to give a reason and incentive to care. Good to see you're up to you're usual positive, forward thinking.


No, but we did discuss you for a few moments last night. We are very concerned about your forum style and offer our assistance. Its the least we can do as the winners of the forums.

Most concerning is your wall of texts. Its very hard to get to your point due to the sheer volume of words that combine to articulate zero information. Message me in game tonight and we can invite you to a few games while we discuss your writing style.

#TrollsThatCare

#38 Natural Predator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 690 posts

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:48 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 26 January 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

Dear Ragnar, are you and your friends still dressing me up in your heads?

The whole point is to give a reason and incentive to care. Good to see you're up to you're usual positive, forward thinking.

better put those clothes on your virtue signaling is showing.

#39 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:56 AM

View PostZito, on 26 January 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:


No, but we did discuss you for a few moments last night. We are very concerned about your forum style and offer our assistance. Its the least we can do as the winners of the forums.

Most concerning is your wall of texts. Its very hard to get to your point due to the sheer volume of words that combine to articulate zero information. Message me in game tonight and we can invite you to a few games while we discuss your writing style.

#TrollsThatCare


Not interested in the date offer but its nice that you asked
#TrollsThatDare

#40 Dex Spero

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hitman
  • The Hitman
  • 198 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 26 January 2017 - 11:02 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 25 January 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:


I think we'd need to make a comprehensive list to see what each faction actually ends up with seeing which factions would suffer from what kind of shortages and then the correct steps could be taken to mitigate that disadvantage.


SuperFunkTron, I really like your idea, so, in the interest of discuss it with you further I'm going to open myself up to the ocean of salty troll nastiness that I know my comments will incite because I'm going to suggest something that is just not possible (predictions: "everybody would quit gg", "I've been playing since 2012 and am not giving up my mechs you ******", "dumbest.idea.ever"). But hey, its a forum, where people are supposed to brainstorm and share ideas. I'm not looking at it through a lens of "what is realistic?" or "what would the community accept in its current state?". You've just got me thinking about what the game could have been in an alternate reality, and how much I would have loved to play that game.

So, here goes: I really like your idea but I think you didn't go far enough with it. I don't think the restriction should be "2 mechs from your faction/clan, 2 mechs from outside". Since I'm too stoopid and crazy to prioritize reality I think the restriction should be "4 mechs from your faction/clan's approved list". No other options allowed.

I know the players would shriek and rage and burn things if PGI ever did that, but honestly, it is far from unprecedented. Are there not MMORPG’s that require players to choose a faction or side at the beginning? Are there not single player games where you build a character, pick a profession/class, and are restricted forever by that choice? If, the first day I had logged in to MWO, PGI had said "this is a first person RPG" and then been given a brief but accurate description of all the factions and clans, and told I had to pick one, I would have picked one and happily played. The restriction to a certain set of skills or technologies would not, in any way, have turned me around and sent me looking for entertainment somewhere else. I think the only reason restrictions like this could never work now is because the players have already been given access to everything and will now react emotionally to restrictions because something is being taken away that they originally had the right to have.

How the heck do we balance it? As you said, comprehensive lists would have to be considered, but my suggestion if that each faction/clan to claim the best mech in a certain category/weight class. There would either have to be some major rework done on all the mechs or we would have to really deviate from canon in the Battletech Alternative Universe we call MWO and assign certain mechs to certain factions/clans despite it not being lore. For example, lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that the best clan mechs in the game, by weight category, are the Kodiak, the Timber Wolf, the Storm Crow and the Arctic Cheetah. If you are playing against Clan Ghost Bear, you know the Kodiak is going to be on the battlefield and so you’ll be meeting the toughest assault there is. Plan accordingly! But you also know the Timber Wolf won't be on the battlefield because you aren’t fighting Clan Wolf. I don’t pretend to know the lore but the Storm Crow and Arctic Cheetah would go to CJF and CSJ or vice versa. On the IS side it’s a bit more difficult because you have 4 weight categories but more then 4 factions. But you could increase the number of categories by having Liao have the best mech in the “ECM” category, etc etc.

I think this shares a lot of the same pros as your original post (developing tactics based on faction strengths/weaknesses, new players finding guidance for fighting styles and builds, etc.). And, of course, a greater sense of faction and depth to the houses. What I also like about it is that it somewhat destroys the meta and forces the use of all the mechs. It is very RPGish (where some characters have great strength and armor but no healing or magic, etc.; the game is balanced because no one person or even team has access to everything). I am fully aware that some mechs aren’t great, but I’m always a little disappointed when I look at all my mechs and see the ones collecting e-dust in the corner of the mech bay. But somewhat subpar mechs would now be a part of the game (Question for Dex: "you mean to tell me ******** that I'm gonna have to pilot something inferior and know that the enemy has something better?"; Answer: "yes"). For example, amongst their options, Liao is going to get stuck with the Vindicator (a mech I consider substandard). But that challenge is part of the fun. How do we use this craptacular mech effectively? Or do we not use it at all, and capitalize on the fact that we have the raven and better ECM then anyone else? Maybe we make an alliance with [insert name whoever] because they have the Griffin… we will bring the scouts and they will bring the medium SRM boats (in game terms, this would just be talking to another team and setting up joint drops).

The game I describe is impossible. It also sounds (to me… this is just MY OPINION and I do not claim it is gospel truth) like it would be so much more enjoyable then the current MWO. Not that I don’t love our game, but I would love this even more.

- Dex

PS. I'm not even a lorist, and have never played Battletech. I know nothing about canon and have only ever played MechCommander2 and MW4. But some days I fantasize about winning the lottery, giving PGI enough capital to stay afloat for a decade without needing to even consider player population, and in exchange requiring them to split MWO into 2 games called “MWO2: Battletech Online” and “Stompy Punchy Robot Competitive FPS Slamfest”… I honestly believe (ya ya ya i'm a naive white knight optimist) that within 2-3 years either 1 or both of those games would have a population base larger then the current MWO population. Why? Because we have lost tons of people who wanted it to be one or the other but instead we got this weird thing that tries to be both but really is neither, and we are salty and bitter and negative and it turns away new players but that wouldn't happen nearly as much if we were happy in either Battletech Online or RoboSlamFestNascarTrumpForPresidentLand.

PPS. Zito is correct. Your writing style is problematic. You aren’t writing nearly enough, the wall of text is only 1/3 of what it should be.

Edited by Dex Spero, 26 January 2017 - 11:07 AM.






11 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users