84 replies to this topic

[Duke Pitt]

I can totally get behind no chatter while dead, spectator spotting for your team is weak sauce.

[Orzorn]

Petroff Northrup, on 28 December 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

Oh, something I forgot to mention before that could be cool would be that if we did not know who exactly we were fighting exactly then it could prove interesting if we are allowed unit on or even custom paint jobs making it so you would try to learn who you were fighting not from name popping over their head for some reason but because you suddenly see that an Atlas is tearing through your team painted in Kell Hound colors so is likely their leader.

Indeed. I would love to have to identify mechs by their colors, banners, and various other aspects. It really creates a game environment where skill and power are feared and respected. You get into a game and see the Kell Hounds are your opponents and just consider ejecting right there and running for the next drop ship off this rock.

[Duke Pitt]

Petroff Northrup, on 28 December 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

Oh, something I forgot to mention before that could be cool would be that if we did not know who exactly we were fighting exactly then it could prove interesting if we are allowed unit on or even custom paint jobs making it so you would try to learn who you were fighting not from name popping over their head for some reason but because you suddenly see that an Atlas is tearing through your team painted in Kell Hound colors so is likely their leader.

Though in some cases you would already know ahead of time what opposition you were dealing with atleast in terms of faction units, Mercs would be a bit different but I think if they had earned a big reputation their contractor wouldn't be exactly quiet about having badasses on their border. I see the color recognition being a big element for lone wolves, or high ranking members of factions.

[Petroff Northrup]

You will likely always know what faction you are fighting when it comes to their faction, but you would not know until too late you are fighting the Syrtis Fusiliers.

Edited by Petroff Northrup, 28 December 2011 - 11:18 PM.

[EmyLightsaber]

Personally, reading this topic, a lot of the posts have not considered a game that I play, Battleground: Europe. That particular game has no Friendly Fire, but to not go off topic, it also has no real "scoreboard" either, and even after you RTB or Return to Base, you only see what type of infantry, ship, tank, or aircraft you killed and how many. Nothing more, nothing less.

[That Guy]

Orzorn, on 28 December 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

It isn't just about those points OP, but also about the meta-game knowledge. If I know that several mechs are holed up in a certain area, and I see that one of them gets popped (maybe by artillery or by LRMs or whatever), then I will rush in to pick off the remainders. But, if we didn't get kill messages, I would still be apprehensive because I don't have a confirmation until someone tells me that they downed an enemy mech.

wonderful, that is the exact frame of mind that i would like to see in MWO unless some one dosnt see it and report it, it may as well not have happened in your mind. the Fog o' War!


regarding preop intel, we really wont know who we will be fighting. from what the devs have described, we will basically be playing random deathmatch, and capture and hold games with random people (at least initially). unless some freinds join up for form a lance, we are going to get stuck in with random faction players, lone wolves and if i understand correctly, house loyal mecrs. a random assortment of people in a random game.

in a game sense i think this is awesome. you dont know if you are going up against some rag tag PUG or some hard core highly organized house unit. it makes good pre mission planning essential (for the mission based game, when the arrive anyway)

[Gorith]

Duke Pitt, on 28 December 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

Ya know that makes sense, and something as simple as "view combat messages on/off" wouldn't be a stretch to include.

Taking your quote for an example here.

The problem with it being an "option" is that it's not actually optional in a competitive setting.
At the level of competitive play where people are playing to win any "option" that provides an advantage is no longer an option but mandatory. Advantage is anything that effects the gameplay in your favor. Knowing for a fact someone is dead or not most certainly is an advantage.

[Kaemon]

Gorith, on 29 December 2011 - 08:40 AM, said:

Taking your quote for an example here.

The problem with it being an "option" is that it's not actually optional in a competitive setting.
At the level of competitive play where people are playing to win any "option" that provides an advantage is no longer an option but mandatory. Advantage is anything that effects the gameplay in your favor. Knowing for a fact someone is dead or not most certainly is an advantage.

I'm having an issue when people are using this as an argument to combat competitive advantages.

Personal choice (i..e turning off an option) does not make it a competitive advantage to another player, you chose to turn it off, arguing you don't like the advantage it gives to someone at that point is a bit moot. Better to just argue to not have it at all.

FTR - Against in game scoreboards

Reasons

• Diminishes team play
  
• Encourages glory hunting/individual play at the cost of the team
  
• Diminishes tactical value of scouting
  
• Diminishes immersion

Also please implement flood control in chat and shush on dead status (tired of the rail birds yapping).

Edited by Kaemon, 29 December 2011 - 09:05 AM.

[MilitantMonk]

Keep the dead spectator cams to allies only and first person view. Letting the dead tell their team who killed them and where they are and where they are going on Vent or Team Speak is bad. Any way of limiting this behavior gets a thumbs up from me!

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Unfortunately it is unlikely that PGI will have any control over 3rd party coms. We are just going to have to accept that we have necromancers in the game.

[Gorith]

Kaemon, on 29 December 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

Personal choice (i..e turning off an option) does not make it a competitive advantage to another player, you chose to turn it off, arguing you don't like the advantage it gives to someone at that point is a bit moot. Better to just argue to not have it at all.

It makes it a disadvantage to you which is the same as an advantage to them. That's why it's not really an option if it's included only a fool would purposely give himself a disadvantage against an opponent in a competitive environment. It's a valid point whether you like or dislike it.

Also I am arguing for it to not be included. I have already given an example of why it's a bad thing

[Raeven]

verybad, on 27 December 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

If a score board is going to ruin your tactical plan...

You're proceding under the assumption that it's single life it seems. I think it will be multiple life games similiar to most other FTS games. While I'll be the first to agree that single life games can be a LOT of fun as there is more tension, they unfortunately don't seem to build up large playing groups either.

While I see your agreement, and agree with a lot of it, I just don't agree with this basis, that seeing the scoreboard is displaying the current strength of the enemy, which would rely on a single life type of game.

12v12 @ 10-20 minutes a drop? Doesn't sound like a respawn setup to me. Factor in instanced servers, instead of persistent servers...1 game = 1 life.

[Dlardrageth]

Considering each match will be run on its own (virtual) server by PGI, shouldn't be too hard to include the option to click two or three boxes to sign up for:

• Killcam
  
• Kill messages
  
• Scoreboard
  
• Unlimited ammo/invincibility/perma-respawn/LOLmode/whatever

Makes it easy enough for those who need it to find like-minded individuals to play with. And those who don't as well. And noone needs to be bothered by the others. Before someone now calls the Waaambulance and claims that would "split the community" or some other strawman, think about what it would be if you force people to play in a game mode they don't like. If the chance is there to opt out.

Yep, exactly, it's that bad, bad word tied to Godwin's law...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 29 December 2011 - 02:02 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Raeven, on 29 December 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

12v12 @ 10-20 minutes a drop? Doesn't sound like a respawn setup to me. Factor in instanced servers, instead of persistent servers...1 game = 1 life.

Not really.

8v8
25 kills
30 minutes

Was not an uncommon, and doable bid for MechWarrior4 league play. Those maps were often very tight though.

[Raeven]

Again, instanced servers. I'd be suprised if there was respawn. It doesn't fit the type of game they are making.

A typical game in MPBT:Solaris was 4v4 and games would last about 4-7 minutes. 2 minutes of approach and 2-5 minutes of contact. with 12v12 I figure a 3-5 minute approach and 5-15 minutes of contact.

[Dragorath]

I totally agree in not giving informations to everyone and definetely not who killed whom. Otherwise the tactics will be changed immediately and good pilots will be hunted as soon as the name is known. A differnt story is the recognition by specific Mechs and their "paint job".
But on the other hand at least the information that someone was lost should be given, when you try to contact this person or after a few minutes. Depends on an interrupted communication because of ECM or if there is open communication. After some time could also be a message lke XY didn't communicate since 3 minutes (open communication) or this could be setted.
Remember radiocommunication can be a disadvantage when you want to hide yourself ;-) So everyone could decide, if they want to have a regular contact.

[Rhinehart]

Phalanx, on 28 December 2011 - 08:57 PM, said:

CHEERS!

None of that FPS "FRAKURMOM killed ILUVPOPCORN" crap.

Thats what After Action reports are for!

LOL yep used to see messages like that all the time. Funniest one (And actually fairly politically astute) was in the fantasy MMORPG Everquest.

ElianGonzales has defeated JanetReno in a Duel to the Death!!!

If you followed the News at all at the time that was pretty funny.

[Kaemon]

If they want to add some more usefulness to the LP scheme, how about the only way to recognize your team is by the skins or emblems on the mechs, the more LP the more easily recognizable what faction/house you're in?

That would be a bit hilarious in battle...

*heavy fog*
New Pilot 1 -"Mech spotted, friend of foe?"
New Pilot 2 - "can't see...holy s*** he's turning this way...light him up!"
Commander - "*** are you shooting me?"

Good times.

[Gorith]

Kaemon, on 30 December 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

If they want to add some more usefulness to the LP scheme, how about the only way to recognize your team is by the skins or emblems on the mechs, the more LP the more easily recognizable what faction/house you're in?

That would be a bit hilarious in battle...

*heavy fog*
New Pilot 1 -"Mech spotted, friend of foe?"
New Pilot 2 - "can't see...holy s*** he's turning this way...light him up!"
Commander - "*** are you shooting me?"

Good times.

I would almost endorse the requirement for visual recognition of allies (if it made sense) just to see situations like this for the lols. However there is no sound reason mechs shouldn't have close range IFF transmitters

[Kaemon]

Gorith, on 30 December 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

I would almost endorse the requirement for visual recognition of allies (if it made sense) just to see situations like this for the lols. However there is no sound reason mechs shouldn't have close range IFF transmitters

describe 'close' range? especially in a mech with zoom capabilities?