10 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

So in general I am pleased with the demo. Whilst I acknowledge issues with joysticks controls (which need to be fixed) and AI I don't think those cause unassailable problems.

Shooting stuff feels good in stompy robots.

Now I shall ramble pointlessly about the place with thoughts.

Mechlab:

I am pleased that they have gone with sized hard points and fixing engines and armour seems reasonable. I remember the worries that there would be almost no modification from stock allowed. It is after all in the constraints that the game is found (if all the pieces on a chess board moved like the queen it wouldn't be as difficult a game).

The layout is not great and I don't understand why you wouldn't just port the MWO lab over, I didn't hear massive complaints about it. But again not terrible.

Mods:

What I would like to see modded in is a heat penalty model. I am very disappointed that they have again gone with the fill the bucket approach to heat management. I believe that this approach is what gives rise to a number of balance issues in PvP, that and the need for a cone of fire rather than pin point accuracy.

I would therefore like to see a heat penalty system modded in to prove me right (if it doesn't I will disavow all previous comments).


So where does MW5 leave MWO:


I've not played MWO for a while. However, it is clear that MWO can't last much longer and will have to be replaced/not developed on anymore. This I think will be a good thing long term.

MWO will likely be put into maintenance mode with no real development taking place. See Guildwars 1, which is still up and running.

MW5 will at some point get a simple PvP expansion. One off payment but very limited instant action stuff. Perhaps on a low infrastructure basis (minimal server vitrifaction) and not balanced. Like the stuff we had in previous mechwarrior games.

So MWO will still be running and MW5 won't really be the replacement for FP.

This set up would give a couple of years for the development of a interactive fraction play PvP game. That might or might not be bolted on to MW5 or be a separate title. This would make use of the AI bots in MW5 to fill in for any limitations on human player numbers.

As the new FP PvP wouldn't exactly cover MWO they would keep MWO in maintenance mode and have no moral obligation to port over old players as they are 2 separate games and you can still access all the MWO stuff.


Instant Action (the fundamental problem they must avoid in the future):

Playing the demo reinforces my view that instant action in Mechwarrior strips out a fundamental essence of Mechwarrior games (this is not to say it doesn't have its place).

Keeping the mech in working order and finishing a mission avoiding damage is part of the skill of the game (the management sim background is missing from MWO). Finishing as a one legged stick should be more of a loss than realizing you're out matched and bugging out.

Instant action where you drop with a fresh fully meta mech and finish the match with no consequences makes for dull repetitive game play, which devolves into death matches no matter what.

This means implementing a repair and maintenance requirement, which whilst easy in single player games is fiendishly difficult in multiplayer. Crack the nut of a Mechwarrior MMORPG and I will be happy.

[MeiSooHaityu]

When it comes to the Mechlab, I have heard Darren and Sean from NGNG talk about how PGI was trying to make it more approachable for newer players, that the MWO style can be overwhelming and off putting. That is the reason why there is a simple view and a detailed view.

I can see the logic in the idea, but the way it was executed (at least in the demo) is flawed. If a player doesn't realize the detailed view has more important things (like adding the right ammo for the weapon they switched out in basic view), it is just going to create more confusion. Not to mention that the player still NEEDS to use the detailed view anyway to assign armor and add said ammo, so why split them and hide stuff to begin with?

If a more simplified view for new players is the goal, I have a better idea...

Change the basic view to operate similar to MW4s Mechlab. Have the ammo tied in with the weapon (with its own ammo amt. adjustment), and have separate +/- buttons to increase and decrease cooling and armor off to the side. Its very simple, and the game will automatically assign ammo or heat sinks in crit locations on the back end out of view.

Then, keep the detailed view as is in the demo. Just have a message saying the detailed view is for more experienced players.

That makes more sense to me than what the demo has, and it would help new players and still allow veterans to fine tune.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 06 December 2019 - 07:01 AM.

[LordNothing]

i kind of feel the games should swap mechlabs. the do whatever the hell you want mechlab seems like it would be better in the game with the endless swarms of cannon fodder (so we're clear im talking mw5, not faction play), and the highly restrictive mechlab should have been done with mwo and would have improved the balance between variants and kept certain weapons from getting out of hand (though mw5 still has its mech delete builds). something to think about form mwo2.

Edited by LordNothing, 07 December 2019 - 05:59 PM.

[Nesutizale]

I agree that the MW4 Mechlab was the most accessible one.

As for the MW5 Mechlab for MWO...kinda mixed in the feelings.
I agree that it would make for an easier balance and most likely more interesting gameplay but then for many the complete freedowm of building ones mech is what makes MWO fun.

Question is what is the most importend part. More interesting and balanced battles or giveing people nearly complete freedom?
While I also enjoy fiddling around with builds I tend to return to the same 2-3 build types again and again. Makeing most mechs obsolete very quickly.
While with MW5s system there will also be a min maxing, I think if you deviate a little from the lore builds you could greate mechs that all have their pros and cons or have mechs more centered around specific roles like support, tanks, etc.
In the end that would make a more interesting PvP experiance I think.
Add modes and maps that are making use of well balanced teams like ones that have supports, tanks and scounts in it and you could have a mech PvP game that looks very different from what we have now.
What was the term that was thrown around a long time ago? The thinking man shooter?

[FRAGTAST1C]

I've said this in another topic. The mechlab in MW5 looks like it's been lifted straight from HBS's Battletech. Just look at the layout and you'll see the similarities. The UI needs some rework. The HUD needs a better layout. Right now, we need to scan all 4 corners of the screen to get the info we need. That isn't a good design at all, especially when the more important stuff like cooldown, heat and the mini-map isn't in a focused section of the player's screen.

[Horseman]

Greyhart, on 06 December 2019 - 03:27 AM, said:

Instant action where you drop with a fresh fully meta mech and finish the match with no consequences makes for dull repetitive game play, which devolves into death matches no matter what.

This means implementing a repair and maintenance requirement, which whilst easy in single player games is fiendishly difficult in multiplayer. Crack the nut of a Mechwarrior MMORPG and I will be happy.

We had that requirement during the beta. Make your own conclusions as to why it isn't here any longer.

[Greyhart]

Horseman, on 09 December 2019 - 03:05 AM, said:

We had that requirement during the beta. Make your own conclusions as to why it isn't here any longer.

When I talk about repair and maintenance I am not referring to a simple cost to the work but the mech being out of action for a period of time. As I said easy in a single player game (you just advance the timeline) but harder in a multiplayer game (everyone has a shared timeline).

There needs to be a feeling of persistence and weight to the damage and cost to destruction. Mechanically I think you might simulate this in various ways in an appropriate game mode.

[General Solo]

Perma death

[Greyhart]

OZHomerOZ, on 09 December 2019 - 04:40 AM, said:

Perma death

That would be a brave decision, but would be interesting.

have a pilot experience tree and if the pilot dies you have to start again, the new pilot inherits the Mechs etc.

How I would do it for multiplayer:

Have owned mechs and unlocked mechs.

For FP (which would be a mix of PvPvE some easy fodder and filler) you buy mechs that take time and money to repair and outfit. So the more you own the more you can play FP.

Once you've bought a mech or weapon in FP you've unlocked it for instant action (you can then sell the mech) where you can outfit it however you want at no cost. Because, instant action in theory is a simulator. As it is a simulator it has no repair disadvantages. You earn c-bills in instant action but at a much lower rate than in FP.

I expect people will be annoyed that in FP their meta mech will be out of action for an hour or something but you want to simulate an expensive difficult to replace machine I don't see how that is possible without some penalty for getting it all banged up.

Likely this is all a terrible idea for an MMO but there has to be some persistence.

[Horseman]

Greyhart, on 09 December 2019 - 08:35 AM, said:

Likely this is all a terrible idea for an MMO

This is an idea that leads to players quitting the game unless your game is designed to encourage retreating - in which case you end up with players refusing to engage.
And if my memory serves, we;ve been through THAT circus with R&R before. Your idea would make things even worse.

[Greyhart]

Horseman, on 09 December 2019 - 08:49 AM, said:

This is an idea that leads to players quitting the game unless your game is designed to encourage retreating - in which case you end up with players refusing to engage.
And if my memory serves, we;ve been through THAT circus with R&R before. Your idea would make things even worse.

it'd be immersive though