This Game Should Be About Pilots Not Mechs
#1
Posted 15 February 2019 - 06:53 AM
I should start this with a whole lot of caveats as I can feel the outrage. But I can't be bothered.
The primary focus of MWO is the mechs. The mechs in essence are the characters in standard fantasy RPG. Your mech can be the sneaky thief, the glass cannon wizard or the tanky warrior.
And as the avatar in a game it is expected that the avatar will always be available to play as it is about the mood you are in at the time.
Therefore by this logic loosing a mech is like permanent death of a avatar in an MMORPG, it just doesn't happen, because advancement of that avatar is the hook for the game. The equivalent hook in MWO is skilling up the mech, but that is very shallow compared to RPGs and so we end up with 100's of Mechs.
At this point I should say that one of the aspects of MW I have always liked is that Mechs are supposed to be rare and expensive. That a merc company would spend a lot of time and money on maintaining just a few mechs. MWO has the feeling that Mechs are cheap and disposable.
Equally the avatar must be able to play in all of the game from PvP to PvE.
This translates into MWO as the mech cannot be damaged longer than a game because then I can't play it and any mech should be available to me whenever I want in FP.
Just as world of warcraft would not stop you from playing you warrior dwarf for a week because he died you cannot be stopped from using that timberwolf because it got destroyed.
I would submit if the avatar was changed to be that of a pilot and the world of the game revolve around the concept that you are playing as that pilot and that the mech is a tool of the pilot then new an interesting possibilities are open to the game.
So a pilot would have a skill tree, probably not as long or complex as an RPG as those skills would interact with the mech skills and properties, which would add additional depth.
So it would be the pilot that earns money and manages his inventory of mechs. Like an RPG character has to manage his armour, weapons and skills.
So how does this change how the (none shooty robot part) game works?
The idea is that FP is suppose to be the meat of the game. It is the world of the game and where the adventures undertake their quests. Of course MWO doesn't have that sort of thing, but hopefully you get the point.
Now in the context of a pilot in the mechwarrior universe it is ridiculous to think a single person would run a stable of 100's of mechs and own dropships. To have a variety of mechs you have to be part of something bigger like a merc company or a house.
This gives you an in to the start as a pilot would likely start as a house mechwarrior and would therefore have access to a standard set of mechs from the house (trial mechs).
Later you could join a merc company and make use of their mechs. A merc company would be a collection of the pilots who collectively own mechs and dropships within FP. Mechs and dropships would require constant maintenance and so a % of earnings in FP would go the company to maintain the dropships and mechs.
the company would start out with 1 dropship, meaning it could only field 4 people at a time, but could buy more (increasing the maintenance cost).
The company could select a home planet where it has a number of mechs stored that can be used in FP.
The point being that one person is unlikely to be able to play enough to keep a large selection going. Much like the requirements to get a guildhall or other stuff in RPGs.
BUT I hear you cry what about Quick play?
The standard pvp in MMORPGs can be done in separate environments and can have different rules applying to skills and weapons.
So I would see QP as a simulator, the mechwarrior universes version of e-sports where you can earn some cash (not as much as FP) and run a inventory of 100s of mechs with little cost as they are a simulation that the pilot plays to earn easy money and hone his skills.
This is probably not the best explanation but I think changing the focus from the mech to the pilot as the avatar would allow for additional options on game play.
Anyway that is my thoughts on switching up an aspect of the game.
#2
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:00 AM
No thank you.
Not really sure what problems this idea is supposed to fix. Seems to cause a few problems though.
#3
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:03 AM
How will the developer monetize that game?
In MWO they sell Mech Packs to continue development and provide servers and network connections. Even though they have provided this game for free they still have to make money to keep the lights on. Not everything in life is free. Freedom isn't even free, we pay with the lives of our loved ones and massive taxes.
#4
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:06 AM
That pilot is YOU.
Hope I didn't blow your mind too hard.
#5
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:13 AM
#6
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:18 AM
F2P hero collection games concentrate on the Heroes. In a proper "collection" game, you should be collecting famous Battletech hero characters, ex. Natasha Kerensky, Kai Allard Liao, Victor Steiner, etc,.
And then you also collect their gear and weapons, which means their mechs.
Let's make an example of Kai Allard Liao and his mech, Yen Lo Wang.
If you are able to collect Yen Lo Wang but not KAL, putting another pilot on top of YLW does not realize its special ability.
If you are able to collect KAL, but not YLW, but KAL on any other mech does not bring out the full best of KAL.
This motivates the collector that he must collect both YLW and KAL to have a matching pair, and putting KAL on YLW will enable special abilities or additional bonuses in performance.
World of Warships for example, has both a captain and a ship collection and development, so you might like to collect Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and install him as captain of your Yamato.
What the "hero" does is add unique bonuses to the mech/ship/weapon, but you will still be the ultimate pilot and player of the combination.
Edited by Anjian, 15 February 2019 - 07:20 AM.
#8
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:45 AM
However, I think how a game is structured in terms of whose story it is telling influences the game. The idea that I am the mechwarrior is not correct, very few games put you as a protagonist, they put you controlling the protagonist. Even straight FPS games have a certain level of character customization.
Eatit, on 15 February 2019 - 07:03 AM, said:
How will the developer monetize that game?
In MWO they sell Mech Packs to continue development and provide servers and network connections. Even though they have provided this game for free they still have to make money to keep the lights on. Not everything in life is free. Freedom isn't even free, we pay with the lives of our loved ones and massive taxes.
Mech packs would continue and in QP you'd not notice any difference. In FP those mechs would have to be stored by the company and they'd paid the cbill storage costs to have it available to the rest of the company (so all things in FP would be shared). I suppose each member of the company could have a free mechbay locked to their personal use.
You'd then sell QP mechbays and FP mechbays (FP mechbays would be avialable for Cbills and MC but have a continuing cost if bought for cbills)
Then of course pilot customization.
You could then buy additional pilots who would have access to the account wide QP inventory but might be members of different merc companies.
My major point is that the current lack of pilot focus in the game limits the scope of the game because the Mech becomes the character and limiting access to the character in a game is hard. However, limiting access to equipment to a particular character is workable.
The problem I have with people just responding NO is not the NO it is the lack of explanation as to what makes the current set up better?
#9
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:46 AM
#10
Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:49 AM
Greyhart, on 15 February 2019 - 07:45 AM, said:
That's just wordplay though. The end result is the same - restricted mech access. Introducing a 'mechwarrior' character just changes the justification for what the game does, so adding one doesn't actually solve anything. It just "justifies" the problems you want to create by adding one.
Quote
It's just... what else do you want? You proposed a shallow excuse for taking away people's mechs.
So no.
#12
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:06 AM
Greyhart, on 15 February 2019 - 06:53 AM, said:
The game you are describing here is BattleTech--the Table Top game (and some expansions or something, I'm no expert and hardly played it at all myself)
That is not what this game is. Not even close.
I mean, I might play such a game, but that is light-years away from what the scope and vision of MWO was from the very beginning. You're basically asking for Battletech RPG, not Mechwarrior. Sounds more like what I've heard of the concept for Star Citizen even.
The BattleTech game by HBS is more akin to some of what you're looking for.
Edited by TheCaptainJZ, 15 February 2019 - 08:07 AM.
#13
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:06 AM
Long and short they don't want peanut butter in their chocolate...
On the flip side, people like you and me buy into the role playing aspect of this premise. Hell, your proposal is actually closer to the premise PGI pitched to us with the whole "four pillars"...
Also, in MWO's present shallow creative pool it just caters to the mindless shooty-mc-shooty and the majority of our present player base wants that. Most of the Battletech purists bailed on MWO long time ago...
Edited by Lone Rook, 26 February 2019 - 08:37 PM.
#14
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:07 AM
Bombast, on 15 February 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:
That's just wordplay though. The end result is the same - restricted mech access. Introducing a 'mechwarrior' character just changes the justification for what the game does, so adding one doesn't actually solve anything. It just "justifies" the problems you want to create by adding one.
It's just... what else do you want? You proposed a shallow excuse for taking away people's mechs.
So no.
Well I would say that clearly such a system could not be introduced into the game now. The die has been cast in that respect. Like a free to play game going monthly subscription such actions are unacceptable.
The fact is, in order to add flavour to the game there has to be a restriction placed to make it a choice.
#15
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:13 AM
DaZur, on 15 February 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:
Or they understand storyline/gameplay segregation.
Quote
I'd describe it more like keeping the soy sauce out of the vanilla cupcakes. Both are great, but they shouldn't be mixed.
Quote
Also, in MWO's present shallow creative pool it just caters to the mindless shooty-Mc-shooty and the majority of our present player base wants that. Most of the Battltech purists bailed on MWO long time ago...
The very premise of MWO as a F2P pick up and play game is anathema to the kind of 'lore restrictions' being advocated here.
It probably would work fine in a pay to own game you can play with friends or in fan run leagues. But not here.
#16
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:16 AM
#17
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:17 AM
I love it. It's perfect. No other single suggestion could find a way to anger and frustrate literally every section of the playerbase. The damage this would wreak would be glorious.
Edited by Verilligo, 15 February 2019 - 08:18 AM.
#18
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:21 AM
Verilligo, on 15 February 2019 - 08:17 AM, said:
I love it. It's perfect. No other single suggestion could find a way to anger and frustrate literally every section of the playerbase. The damage this would wreak would be glorious.
but tell me how you really feel?
#19
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:27 AM
Greyhart, on 15 February 2019 - 08:21 AM, said:
but tell me how you really feel?
How I really feel is that it's actually not a horrible idea if you a built a game from the ground up based around it. What you're looking for, though, is a true MMO-styled MechWarrior game, like a cross between MechAssault and Xenoblade Chronicles X, but with actual story and good writing. That's just not what MWO is, though, and taking a hard break like this into left field is poorly judged.
#20
Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:40 AM
Bombast, on 15 February 2019 - 08:13 AM, said:
No disagreement.
Like I said, OPs proposal is closer to what PGI pitched to us Founders. Your assessment is likely the core reasoning why the four pillars premise was buried and we wound up with what we have now... Long and short, it was way beyond PGIs pay grade to make work.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users