data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3ae9/b3ae9cf8cfed3e06df6984fcf2a08c460eab065d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67e3c/67e3c9117dfb72a2b20d8e66a4a59aa30935f0e1" alt=""
Possible Future Pvp Mechwarrior (A Mw Next Persay) In Discussions At The Moment
#41
Posted 12 February 2024 - 05:21 PM
MWO's players started drifting away when the newness of the game wore off and when faction play fell apart. To even dream about that EVE Online or WoW kind of longevity, missions, factions, and different game styles all have to work... that means functional scouting, scenarios OTHER than "Kill everything" or "Capture the flag", and a REASON to be on a team.
They worked out melee and PVE enemies like tanks and choppers in MW5, that's all great. START there, add PVP, and then focus on things for everyone to DO in the game other than shoot things. Without that it won't have staying power.
#42
Posted 12 February 2024 - 05:42 PM
#43
Posted 12 February 2024 - 05:43 PM
ScrapIron Prime, on 12 February 2024 - 05:21 PM, said:
MWO's players started drifting away when the newness of the game wore off and when faction play fell apart. To even dream about that EVE Online or WoW kind of longevity, missions, factions, and different game styles all have to work... that means functional scouting, scenarios OTHER than "Kill everything" or "Capture the flag", and a REASON to be on a team.
They worked out melee and PVE enemies like tanks and choppers in MW5, that's all great. START there, add PVP, and then focus on things for everyone to DO in the game other than shoot things. Without that it won't have staying power.
^^^
Ideas like this have been posted many time, I know they have, because I posted them several times over the years.
Shooter arena maps are not the only future of this game.
We need world PVP size maps.
YEs, World of Warcraft style Massive Multiplayer Online PVP.
And add some NPCs and AI MOBs, to fill in the maps.
Add in some real time drop ships to move between worlds.
Epic.
Stop Thinking Small.
#44
Posted 12 February 2024 - 06:00 PM
Then there's builds, maybe to open up build/weapon restrictions, ghost heat is removed in favor of ever scaling points cost the more you stack certain weapon types. You can bring that quad UAC10 KDK3 with no ghost heat, however a build like that will incure a huge points cost and will likely be all that you can bring into the match with no bonuses.
Then there's additives, bringing an Omnimech? spend some points to bring in a group of Elementals on your mech at match start. Running a light? Bring in your own Artillery that follows your commands (can be tracked down and killed by opfor) and they fire on your tagged/narc'd target, or actual recharging air strikes that requires the opfor to shoot down your air fighters to remove them. Brought more than 1 mech? Spend points to spawn your 2nd mech inside a building closer to the action to get the jump on the action. Or spend points on certain skill packages, want close range knife fighter light? Knife fighter perk gives cooldown and bonus armor perks, etc. Want better scouting/info, then scouting package gives a slow lock over time as long as you have their dorito selected (again speed increased by lowered distance and TAG/Narc) allowing your artillery to (eventually) fire without needing to hold TAG, with maybe further narc quirks that we see on Raven,etc. Stuff like that.
The points allowing you to bring 1 decked out build with proven firepower in MWO, or a handful of mechs or a mech specialized in various forms of combat. Obviously balancing the points system will be a huge undertaking, but allowing this much variety with what you can bring into a QP game would be an interesting take and might in turn make balancing from an individual mech basis much easier when an overall points system is considered.
ALSO, please allow mechs to raise their arms to fire over obstacles, some mechs would look weird doing it and maybe only allow a little bit of raised arm (looking at you Warhammer), but most mechs with humanoid type arms should be able to straighten their arms to shoot.
Edited by CanadianCyrus, 12 February 2024 - 06:02 PM.
#45
Posted 12 February 2024 - 07:33 PM
Quicksilver Aberration, on 12 February 2024 - 04:57 PM, said:
Now there might not be real world money on the line, but part of me actually doubts that a mechwarrior that went that route wouldn't eventually succumb to that sort of scheme just given the kind of people that EvE attracted anyway (I mean the promises of CW is what attracted Word of Lowtax back during Closed Beta for this game).
You're reading an unneccessary level of complexity into our hypothetical system. They could just make people sign up for a team and turn them loose; battles act as die rolls in matches, until a tug-of-war contest is won. There's a lot of stuff that we could envision that's not necessary: garrisons, drop decks, repair and rearm, the whole "kill/defend the generator" motif of Faction Warfare maps, deployment limitations and tonnage costs for more rewards... Some or all of it might be cool, but none of it is probably essential. Heck, you could either simulate the campaign with random target worlds, or let players decide in some way - the mechanical possibilities are endless, and while some of them are bad ideas, all of them are optional.
What we need out of the overgame is for it to be fun - even when you're losing - and to feel epic, like you said. Everything else is just framing. A board game design philosophy seems like a perfect fit for that.
#46
Posted 12 February 2024 - 08:30 PM
Void Angel, on 12 February 2024 - 07:33 PM, said:
That feels very shallow, I mean it's fun for events but it isn't something that you will continually care about. Honestly it reminds of Alliance Battles from Guild Wars which was exactly that, a tug of war. Without something at stake, I don't think anyone will honestly care just like they didn't in the latter half of CW/FW/FP/whatever you want to call it.
For events like an event queue for a weekend, sounds great (again, I think the event queue was one of their best ideas), but something seasonal? Naw.
I guess I wouldn't be against them at least exploring, I just think they will find that it is just a resource sink to thread the needle.
Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 12 February 2024 - 08:31 PM.
#47
Posted 13 February 2024 - 04:57 AM
Quicksilver Aberration, on 12 February 2024 - 10:55 AM, said:
Sure. It's based off a game mode from another game and was only meant as a very rough outline. But a future mw pvp game is going to need something more than just static arena skirmish/ctf combat even if that might also be an option in the new game. No reason not to have at least some maps be pure pvp and not objective based. I think that might work out quite well. Kinda like how we used to have incursion mode but hopefully way better thought out and implemented.
#48
Posted 13 February 2024 - 05:21 AM
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d785d/d785dbc9efb07ab589158523f83145489b51453e" alt=";)"
(I actually prefer to play more PvE, and a bit of PvP)
#49
Posted 13 February 2024 - 05:40 AM
#50
Posted 13 February 2024 - 05:53 AM
#51
Posted 13 February 2024 - 06:39 AM
You really have to find a way to migrate most or all of MWO players' content into MWO 2 if you want to keep player confidence in the game. When they announced the skin carryover for CS2 the skin prices and purchases shot up because of that, and you don't want people hesitant to spend money because they feel their investment might not last. Even if it's not 1-to-1, at least giving players equivalent content or currency to continue where they left off from MWO would be enough.
My ideal sequel for MWO would be in a modern engine like MW5 with most/all of the MWO mechs, skins, and other player content carried over. So we could get new things like mech melee, mechlab improvements like MWO has been doing recently (with sensors, shields, gyros), and hopefully a few QOL changes like ditching the skill tree in favor of more mechlab customization, keeping the 10 engine heatsinks in the lighter engines, and possibly reworking ghost heat and weapon hardpoint system. With the new engine you could maybe have larger scale faction play matches with combined arms and more players which would be a lot of fun.
#52
Posted 13 February 2024 - 06:51 AM
Then there's the monetization scheme of MWO which has been rough from the start but definitely shows it's age these days. The game just shouldn't have been F2P, going the route of Valve games would be smart, where you only go F2P once your player growth stagnates a year or so after all the initial sales dry up.
#53
Posted 13 February 2024 - 06:59 AM
#54
Posted 13 February 2024 - 08:03 AM
An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:
- Public release is a finished product that does not need (not even close) monthly patches, or perk and quirk adjustments (don't even think about it).
Most "full budget" PVP games have monthly patches like we do now.
An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:
- Public release is free from interference from any manner of interference by subgroups of players.
Said subgroup of players have balanced the game much better than PGI ever did.
An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:
- Any additional content or occasional patches that comes out are always compatible with existing product and never downgrades existing product (nerfs).
No. Game should always be adjusted if needed. If a mech is clearly OP, its getting nerfed. Doesnt mean its bad afterwards.
An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:
This game is not that hard and the learning curves to reach T1 aint steep. All it requires is to focus on improving and watching some guides. And QP aint competitive to begin with and game is balanced around QP. If you simplify the game you just drive away the dedicated playerbase that has kept the game alive so far.
An6ryMan69, on 12 February 2024 - 10:53 AM, said:
- Game modes that match up solo vs solo, group vs group, and also match up skill levels.
- Map design that works well for all kinds of play; player selectable maps.
- Gameplay taking precedent over lore.
Hey some things I can agree on! Lore should never drive PVP balance. Soup queue is just a symptom of a low playerbase because no one wants to wait for 10 mins each drop.
Edited by Samziel, 13 February 2024 - 08:07 AM.
#55
Posted 13 February 2024 - 08:05 AM
#56
Posted 13 February 2024 - 09:58 AM
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf97e/bf97eb53a2c0253d9b2dc29b63e8be4f98f084c2" alt="Posted Image"
Having some option to join or bring more mechs or some different way of choosing your mechs before match starts.
Something like drop deck and then you choose one mech to play with, or select 4 mechs, 1 from each category, and then it would pick one mech for you, maybe like now, when there is not enough mechs of specific type.
I would like to play more of my mechs, but since I can pick only one, it is easier and more fun for me to just take my most favourite mech and never play all those other ones.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a42c/3a42cc312d52522c3d3cf01369efd72908f95b3f" alt="Posted Image"
I hope it makes sense.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f4cc/8f4ccd3a90d6f76598941614b5f1aad076a7e87a" alt="Posted Image"
Edited by torsie, 13 February 2024 - 10:01 AM.
#57
Posted 13 February 2024 - 10:29 AM
Meep Meep, on 13 February 2024 - 04:57 AM, said:
Any "destroy target" objectives that aren't the enemy team are going to have the same issues both incursion and invasion had (either ignored or rushed). This is why objective game modes in other games are about holding points/zones or pushing an indestructible cart, not to mention respawns.
1453 R, on 13 February 2024 - 05:53 AM, said:
I don't know about that, the question is whether PGI figured out a vision for what they want Mechwarrior to be and whether they really learned their lesson with MWO. MW5 didn't give me hope for that, here's hoping Clans makes me feel better about them doing a new PvP game.
#58
Posted 13 February 2024 - 07:47 PM
w0qj, on 13 February 2024 - 05:21 AM, said:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d785d/d785dbc9efb07ab589158523f83145489b51453e" alt="Posted Image"
(I actually prefer to play more PvE, and a bit of PvP)
Imagine this: Faction play, but with only a lance of 4 actual humans, and 12 AI. Per side. Each player gets to command a lance of appropriate composition, such as "1 assault, 1 heavy, 1 medium, 1 light", "2 assault 2 light", "2 heavy, 2 medium" stuff. What would make sense for canon. Make it so that Clans have a command star with two players, in an "Assault, heavy, 1 medium, 2 light" kind of configuration, an attack star with "two assault, one medium, two light" style, and a "three heavy, one medium, one light" style or something. Makes it easier to get games, and if your main mech goes down, just hotswap into a different mech. But no hotswapping while you're alive. Plus, if you aren't that good at the game, you can focus on hunting down the AI teammates for the enemy.
#59
Posted 14 February 2024 - 04:28 AM
#60
Posted 14 February 2024 - 10:40 AM
I know the mechlab is half the game, but maybe they could have a casual mode and a hardcore mode and split the matchmaking that way? But that's really just two different games catering to different audiences.
In any case, I think the next PvP MechWarrior game has to be different enough to justify even producing it. Something that is new and different is what drives sales.
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if we get MW5: Clans Multiplayer as a DLC. It would make the most sense to build on what they already have.
18 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 18 guests, 0 anonymous users