Jump to content

Restore Meaning!

BattleMechs Gameplay

45 replies to this topic

#41 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:27 PM

View PostDex Spero, on 26 January 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

...


What you described was the core idea I had and what I thought FP was originally intended to be. I suggest you get one of those new roughneck packs so you can harvest the salt coming your way for a profit, even if you are just openly putting an idea out for the sake of dicussion :). I had to apply reality to the model and even account or the amount of upset in order to get the original draft of 2 typical and 2 atypical mechs, but quite a few of the guys pointed out how much more effective incentive would be, especially when considering new players who need the cash flow to help them build their stable. The upside to that concession is that it lead to the idea of the faction quirking system and how that could be used to further incentivize players to embrace faction specific tactics and help reduce the overwhelming nature MWO. This definitely would be a case where more rules (some will cry "restriction) could have a very positive for new players finding a career path that helps develop their play as well as provide more tactical consideration for advanced players who are looking to break up the monotony. At this point, with the work they have going to improve FP moving in a good direction, it is the perfect time to expand on the diversity they have introduced. Some vets have voiced their opposition to this idea but the basis was more a resistance to change. Issues like certain factions potentially being underpowered (everyone is looking at Liao) or drop weight being raised in one faction (Steiner) are really just small balance details that could be fixed when the idea gets fleshed out.

You got me excited about the idea and now I'm ready to start putting together a list of all the mechs we have in game, which factions they were typically used in, and what the strengths,weaknesses, and preferred tactics for each faction are. Even if they don't use it right away, maybe it would get implemented in the future or a future Battletech title. If anyone already has any of this info, please send it my way so a reference can start coming together. There's no way it can only be Dex and I interested in something like this.

#42 TercieI

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationThe Far Country

Posted 26 January 2017 - 02:08 PM

View PostCrockdaddy, on 25 January 2017 - 09:56 PM, said:


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.


I get that some people felt it, but the game never really supported it. Units could bounce back and forth with impunity and didn't really own any part of any of it, so which faction was which didn't really mean anything. There was no real ownership.

#43 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 04:25 PM

I found an amazing link the "Ultimate Mech Discussion Thread". In the first post, Odanan provides references a link originally posted by Sennin. https://drive.google...zFrQ25KTjg/view

If everything is correct, then we've got a reliable list of not just which chassis, but also which variants were popular among each of the factions! With information that in depth a multi-tier reward system could be implemented (most common would provide higher earnings compared to one that is very uncommon, but would still provide some bonus over non-faction mechs/variants)

The next major step would be to try to get a feel of whether or not those mech groupings reasonably balance out in MWO so that the level of differentiation (chassis or variant) could be determined would provide a more fair playing field to start with before adding faction specific quirks.

Here's a section of Odanan's post:

View PostOdanan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:


Assignment tables:
Spoiler


Edited by SuperFunkTron, 26 January 2017 - 04:32 PM.


#44 Marius Evander

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 08:11 PM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 25 January 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:


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?


No i read the whole thing/twice.
Player ranking is more important to balance sides
"negative quirks can be added " is not outling a balance to a steiner tonnage/weight advantage ?

your idea is too large and hard to balance this is PGI not blizzard pre being bought out.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 26 January 2017 - 08:18 PM.


#45 SuperFunkTron

    Member

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

Posted 26 January 2017 - 10:30 PM

View PostCadoazreal, on 26 January 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:


No i read the whole thing/twice.
Player ranking is more important to balance sides
"negative quirks can be added " is not outling a balance to a steiner tonnage/weight advantage ?

your idea is too large and hard to balance this is PGI not blizzard pre being bought out.


I understand that improving the matchmaker is important to improve the quality of matches and reduce the number of PUG stomps in FP, but that requires a large enough population in order to avoid 30 minute wait times while hoping that it was enough to get more players to stay. I even agree that finding a way to improve match ups on a smaller scale are needed to help maintain the current population in order to get us to bigger changes.

I think you missed the post where Naterist pointed out that the huge weight for Steiner was a joke. In reality, coming up with incremental quirks to give a slight edge does require careful consideration and some testing to make sure that one group doesn't come out hugely over powered. Just because the idea seems big in the context of FP, it really is just a matter of looking at lore to figure out what each faction prioritized in their load outs and tactics, picking a few of those traits' strengths to positively quirk, and then balance it by providing a negative quirk that is a cost for that benefit. It doesn't have to start as a massive endeavor, but could be done with small percentages on 2 or 3 traits for each faction. If you combine this idea, or use this idea to follow up the incentivizing of faction specific mechs, I could almost guarantee a larger interest in FP as it just created more reason to take advantage of the game mode. Quick play would very quickly turn into a testing/training ground while the significantly more interesting FP is where everyone would want to go to.

If you want to read an idea that actually is a bit more ambitious for FP then you should take a look at the idea on creating planets or regions with different strategic values. That would a huge answer to the, "why am I fighting here" question so many people ask.

#46 Marius Evander

    Member

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

Posted 27 January 2017 - 04:32 PM

"but that requires a large enough population in order to avoid 30 minute wait times"


Its a loop / spiral no ranking means more people leave, having ranking means wait times will be longer till more people join it / it wont be able to stop disparity in rank matchup because of player numbers until player numbers increase, without we bleed people much faster.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users