84 replies to this topic

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Longsword, on 16 February 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Alot of players do stop playing, quit or re roll their characters- they can be assumed to have died.

let's take a look at this, by cases

case 1:
stop playing; account not deleted - character is not dead and can be picked up at any time

case 2:
stop playing; account deleted - yes character is dead, but so is everything else; the account is deleted

case 3:
re-roll - so far going off of what devs have said, the only method of re-rolling would be making a new account. see Case 2.

so yes, there is a form of character 'death' but for someone who doesn't want to quit playing, it's not a pleasant option. Dev's have also stated that it will be possible to play the game long enough to unlock everything - regardless of skill, survival, etc. What I was talking about in terms of character death was that while playing the game; player characters are assumed to survive every mission no matter what happens just like in any other video game, therefore any given player character never dies therefore clan canon cannot be applied here because there is no survival-of-the-fittest. Sure you can get dropped by your clan player group for poor performance, and the RP is up to everyone involved, but game mechanics tell a different story as to whether the player character is 'dead' or not. With the amount of time, energy, and effort most people pour into games like this, they wouldnt want characters to really be killable anyway it would make most feel like their time was wasted.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 17 February 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[FireNova]

Free choice to play as any faction and continue playing as said faction with no restrictions in a video game = good.
Government regulations Lore rules that kill small business player interest = bad.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Oddly enough the lore rules peak my interest not kill it & I am sure I will not be the only one. We will just have to wait & see what the devs come up with.

[IceSerpent]

FireNova, on 17 February 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Free choice to play as any faction and continue playing as said faction with no restrictions in a video game = good.
Government regulations Lore rules that kill small business player interest = bad.

If you dislike clan rules/regulations, you probably would not want to join a clan, therefore your lack of interest would be irrelevant, quiaff? Players that like clan lore (trials, etc.) will join one of the clans, the rest will join an IS unit...I fail to see a problem here.

[FireNova]

IceSerpent, on 17 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

If you dislike clan rules/regulations, you probably would not want to join a clan, therefore your lack of interest would be irrelevant, quiaff? Players that like clan lore (trials, etc.) will join one of the clans, the rest will join an IS unit...I fail to see a problem here.

Personally I dislike any rules/regulations that kill interest for potential new players, let alone people who want to play whatever faction they wish to play. So what, this means I have to "leave" ~SJ~ simply because I didn't conform to some standard set in the 80s-90s?

*timewarps*

Welcome to 2012. Enjoy your stay.

*cue unrelated Chuck Norris vid*

[Jaroth Corbett]

IceSerpent, on 17 February 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

If you dislike clan rules/regulations, you probably would not want to join a clan, therefore your lack of interest would be irrelevant, quiaff? Players that like clan lore (trials, etc.) will join one of the clans, the rest will join an IS unit...I fail to see a problem here.

Completely agree. If you do not like the Clan stuff then just stay IS.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Jaroth Winson, on 17 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. If you do not like the Clan stuff then just stay IS.

well that's a tautology. If a player is not interested, then yes they wouldnt play clan.

but! what if they were interested but were not skilled enough to pass your* little test?

*anyone putting forth the idea of an actual ToP baked into the game mechanics

[Xavier Truscott]

Honestly, i enjoyed the lore of the clans, from the perspective of the novels. They had some good storylines, and interesting characters involved in them. In TT, MW3 and MW4 (short stay in mw4 multiplayer because i didn't really like the changes to mechlab, piloting, and many other things in that itteration of the game) i played as a clan warrior from Star Adder. My reasons for disliking the clans in this instance of the game is alot more about the politics of the clans and the percieved superiority and delusions of grandeur enjoyed by many that seem to post in this clan section. You all seem to be stuck in permanent RP mode and unable to accept what would be good for the game as opposed to good for you personally. I enjoyed playing through the trials of position in the single player game for MW2. I also did my share of passing trials in MW3 multiplayer as well as giving the trials as one of the warriors opposing the initiate, and the moderator/witness for many. In those instances, they were held by the people that were in a player run clan, that was part of a 3rd party league generally. They have no place in a MMO with a persistant and constantly changing map, run by the game system or devs or GM's or whatever. The clans you are joining are not player run, they will be player populated. A difference you need to understand, considering that you want to exclude people who do not peform to your expectations from that group. If you run a merc unit, go ahead and test the applicants if you want. If you are just joining a faction or clan that is not under player rule, then you do not get to choose who else can play in that faction. It really is as simple as that.

[Jaroth Corbett]

we all have our wishlists of what we WOULD like. This is in the hands of the devs in an y event We will have to work with whatever they give us but that does not mean we cannot have expectations.

[IceSerpent]

FireNova, on 17 February 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Personally I dislike any rules/regulations that kill interest for potential new players, let alone people who want to play whatever faction they wish to play.

Here's a big question - why do you wish to play a faction that you don't like? Clans don't really have a place for lone wolves because of the clan lore and organization, so even if game mechanics allows you to just pick that faction with a single click, you might be unable to find a unit that would accept you without some sort of a trial.

[IceSerpent]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 17 February 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

well that's a tautology. If a player is not interested, then yes they wouldnt play clan.

but! what if they were interested but were not skilled enough to pass your* little test?

*anyone putting forth the idea of an actual ToP baked into the game mechanics

ToE is usually set up to be fairly easy. I.e. something along the lines of you taking a heavy mech and fighting a light, a medium, and a heavy in that order. In order to pass you only need to defeat one opponent and if you can't take out a light mech in a 1-on-1 fight while driving a heavy...well, you might want to practice a bit more, then try again.

[Jaroth Corbett]

edit your first post to avoid a double post.

[IceSerpent]

Jaroth Winson, on 18 February 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

edit your first post to avoid a double post.

Replying to two different posts by two different people doesn't constitute a double post in my book. If you disaagree, we can settle our differences in a trial.

[Jack Gallows]

Jaroth Winson, on 17 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Completely agree. If you do not like the Clan stuff then just stay IS.

Some of us like both, and just want to make sure that what they do put in is fun and fair, even if it's not in the Btech universe. I want to see the Clans get a lot of the things they'd like so the player really feels like a Clanner, and an IS player feels like an IS player, but the overall state of the game concerns me more then going that extra bit of detail that might unbalance or cause problems. I don't want lore tromping on gameplay or balance unless they can make it work for everyone, and I don't want there to be some sort of trial that might hold someone from enjoying or advancing just because some people want a real clan experience.

They've got some time before the Clans come out, and one of the best parts of this being Free 2 Play lets them continue to add content and things that we may not see at launch, etc, as they find the best ways to make them work in game.

[IceSerpent]

I really doubt that there will be some kind of "you have to fight AI when you pick clan affiliation" game mechanics, but I fully expect clan units (guilds) to ask you to fight a ToE when you join them.

[James McCraney]

Xavier Truscott, on 17 February 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Honestly, i enjoyed the lore of the clans, from the perspective of the novels. They had some good storylines, and interesting characters involved in them. In TT, MW3 and MW4 (short stay in mw4 multiplayer because i didn't really like the changes to mechlab, piloting, and many other things in that itteration of the game) i played as a clan warrior from Star Adder. My reasons for disliking the clans in this instance of the game is alot more about the politics of the clans and the percieved superiority and delusions of grandeur enjoyed by many that seem to post in this clan section. You all seem to be stuck in permanent RP mode and unable to accept what would be good for the game as opposed to good for you personally. I enjoyed playing through the trials of position in the single player game for MW2. I also did my share of passing trials in MW3 multiplayer as well as giving the trials as one of the warriors opposing the initiate, and the moderator/witness for many. In those instances, they were held by the people that were in a player run clan, that was part of a 3rd party league generally. They have no place in a MMO with a persistant and constantly changing map, run by the game system or devs or GM's or whatever. The clans you are joining are not player run, they will be player populated. A difference you need to understand, considering that you want to exclude people who do not peform to your expectations from that group. If you run a merc unit, go ahead and test the applicants if you want. If you are just joining a faction or clan that is not under player rule, then you do not get to choose who else can play in that faction. It really is as simple as that.

I appreciate your reasoned response instead of just "freedom = good, restrictions = bad". However I would have to disagree on the concept of a ToE. I will get to why in a minute.

After looking over the thread it looks like there are a number of interrelated questions being discussed:

• How to prevent players from flocking to the clans while keeping them accessible
  
• How to balance IS vs Clan battles
  
• How to implement Clan tradition from the canon (trials, bloodnames, etc.)
  
• How to treat canonically "elite" units

The Clans are a substantially different culture, and I believe should present an entirely different gameplay experience, trials and zellbrigen being the biggest parts. The trials are such an indepth part of all combat and advancement in the Clans that the devs could develop an entire game based on this system alone (i.e. no IS). However, given enough dev time, a working system of trials could easily be constructed to fit MWO so I won't go into further detail.

Zellbrigen, on the other hand, will require players to behave differently in game and will be harder to enforce. I assume that players will be awarded XP based on kills/assists/etc. a la COD or BF, so it makes sense to have a different clan scoring system to enforce zellbrigen. However the rules won't be obvious to new players who have no history w BT, so I think the Trial of Entry would be an ideal place to put a tutorial. That's not to say the ToE should be a cakewalk, but a doable trial that illustrates what it means to be a clanner before you get constrained to that system of play.

As for balance, I believe zellbrigen and bidding should take care of most of the balancing. Being constrained to duals and not being allowed to use certain information warfare options or airstrikes would go along towards balancing the two factions. However, if a player starts in the IS by default, there will be some mechanism for player migration. My vote is for after a certain level, players can be taken as bondsmen by a clanner, meaning they have the option to undergo the ToE or choose to remain with their faction. There would be some issue of how bondsmen are chosen, but I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion to iron that out.

Then moving onto blood names, I think this would be substantially harder to implement, but still doable. We know that IS players lose rank and position when not active, so why not lose bloodname? This would free up bloodnames for new players. Of course if you return to active duty, you should be able to easily regain your position, which would result in more than the canonical limit, but in my opinion, the limits will be more of guidelines for balancing house size anyway than a hard and fast rule.

As for forming elite units, I get the impression that the devs have something up their sleeves for the Is units so I'll wait to see that before commenting on the clans.

I do believe there is a way to implement Clan traditions, and I hope they take advantage of these in a way that balances and improves gameplay!

PS. On a side note that did not fit anywhere above, I hope there are fun things to do after we get shot up, since I have a feeling I will be dying a lot. One thought that works well with the clans (though not the IS) is to allow individual trials of possession for mechs or weapons or trials of position while you are waiting for the battle to end, or in the waiting screen while waiting on bidding. It keeps ADD players interested and facilitates the deeper elements to the game that take time.

[FireNova]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Here's a big question - Why not just be forced to leave ~SJ~ and be separated from your Clan friends because you won't submit to an outdated rule from a textbook?

Fixed/translated.

Im pretty sure other groups/clans would like to have their members be forced out of said groups/clans because of some rule. Pretty sure it will work out fine.

[IceSerpent]

Quote

Here's a big question - if your "friends" insist on rules you're so adamantly against, maybe they are not really your friends?

Re-fixed/ re-translated.

Quote

Im pretty sure other groups/clans would like to have their members be forced out of said groups/clans because of some rule. Pretty sure it will work out fine.

You bet it will - internal rules of each clan are decided by members of that particular clan. For all I care, other clans (as in: ones I am not affiliated with) can happily fill their ranks with pirates...as long as trials of annihilation are in game.

Edited by IceSerpent, 18 February 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Replying to two different posts by two different people doesn't constitute a double post in my book. If you disaagree, we can settle our differences in a trial.

There is nothing to agree or disagree with it. It is fact. You posted twice. You can reply to 2 or 10 people in the same post. However since you did make a challenge, I play MW4. If you have it we can have a trial.

Jack Gallows, on 18 February 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

Some of us like both, and just want to make sure that what they do put in is fun and fair, even if it's not in the Btech universe. I want to see the Clans get a lot of the things they'd like so the player really feels like a Clanner, and an IS player feels like an IS player, but the overall state of the game concerns me more then going that extra bit of detail that might unbalance or cause problems. I don't want lore tromping on gameplay or balance unless they can make it work for everyone, and I don't want there to be some sort of trial that might hold someone from enjoying or advancing just because some people want a real clan experience.

They've got some time before the Clans come out, and one of the best parts of this being Free 2 Play lets them continue to add content and things that we may not see at launch, etc, as they find the best ways to make them work in game.

While I can respect & appreciate what you say, this is not the TT. There are LOT more things we can do because we are not limited by a physical board with miniatures & have to rely on our imaginations to determine that a laser or a missile was fired & how it looked like, or how much our mech rocked when it got hit, or did that last shot by the enemy set off secondary explosions.

It is a video game where a lot more stuff will be implemented & I for one would rather have voiced my desires for the game early on & have the CHANCE that a dev see eveything, some of the things or even ONE of the things I want & implement it, than get the game & WONDER that had I said something, it would have been included, because I was worried what other people would think & if it unbalances the game. That is not my concern.

Everyone has their own ideas/wishes/visions for the game & it is up each individual to voice their own concern. We are not on PGI where we can sit down in a board room & say, "One group believes we should go this way & the other believes we should go that way. Let us compromise." We have NO say in the matter & can only HOPE we get stuff implemented that we want to see.

You cannot win a raffle if you do not buy a ticket. There is no guarantee you WILL win when you buy the ticket, but you have a better chance than the person who did not. So until the game comes out, (actually even after it does as there can always be patches/updates/fixes included after) I will continue to express what I would like to see.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 18 February 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

Jaroth Winson, on 18 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

While I can respect & appreciate what you say, this is not the TT. There are LOT more things we can do because we are not limited by a physical board with miniatures & have to rely on our imaginations to determine that a laser or a missile was fired & how it looked like, or how much our mech rocked when it got hit, or did that last shot by the enemy set off secondary explosions.

I never referenced the TT in my post, so I'm going to assume this isn't directed at me possibly, or you quite misunderstood my intentions. Regardless, I agree that we should not be limited by the TT, it can be a really strong reference, but much like the older games or any sourcebook, they don't have to be followed by the letter.

Jaroth Winson, on 18 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

It is a video game where a lot more stuff will be implemented & I for one would rather have voiced my desires for the game early on & have the CHANCE that a dev see eveything, some of the things or even ONE of the things I want & implement it, than get the game & WONDER that had I said something, it would have been included, because I was worried what other people would think & if it unbalances the game. That is not my concern.

And that wasn't the point of my post either, to deter anyone from posting what they would like or ideas of how to implement them into MW:O. Take your other thread for example, while I may not agree with every specific, it's a great post. It lays out what you want, how you'd envision it (with the preface that you said you'd take suggestions, which is equally great!) with leeway to have a good discussion. It helps you, the rest of us, and the developers with MW:O. Please don't think anything I post is meant to deter you from brainstorming and voicing opinion, because that is direly important.


I think you may have gotten the wrong impressions, or jumped the gun possibly, but it's of no consequence.

I have no desire to deter people from voicing their opinions or wishes for MW:O, that's the lifeblood of these forums and it's incredibly important at this stage. It will continue to be important for the entire span of MW:O's life. My specific point was to make sure people considered things outside of what they may normally, because while Clan rules are quite fun and add a lot of flavor/character to the Clans, there's a LOT to consider when trying to make it work feasibly in a video game that won't...not unbalance but possibly be unfair or easily skewed. My goal is to keep the discussion going so that we can avoid these issues, and generate a lot of ideas about how we'd like to see X facet included based off what we know currently.

I see Trials as being tricky due to how they might be included, simply for two reasons off the top of my head. One being that they'd probably be player versus player directly, and you'd have to have something designed so the person in the trial doesn't get snowballed out due to politics or getting the raw draw of basically being a green player versus a bunch of Natasha Kerenskys. Secondly, considering ToE, Clans should be open to anyone regardless, and if it's going to be in maybe keep ToE for the most prestigious or more famous canon units/etc, with maybe more then one way to go about it. As for a Trial of Position, I don't like the idea of blocking someone from advancing in a game meant to be enjoyed by everyone, just because they can't do well during their ToP. I see two kinds of ToP happening, one game sanctioned that has specific rewards, and the other most likely being player handled (like ToE.)

Bloodname trials should be in, it's a big part of being a Clanner. Limiting the number to how the actual lore does it may not be the best idea due to the possible size of MW:O, but nor should it be unlimited in a way. It should feel like you've accomplished something, but being locked out because you're either a more casual player (not in skill, but time and RL,) or not specifically the best ever (while against clan lore, obviously.)

Like my last post, these are pretty basic ideas I just tossed out as examples.

Basically, some things need to bend from how they work in lore, just as you can't draw a 100% link from TT, sourcebook, or whatever else and expect it to always translate 100% into game. Just something to keep in mind, because MW:O should last a good while...but some extremes need to be avoided. Being a Clanner should mean something, just like being an IS pilot should feel like it means something, we just have to be careful in our considerations. I've seen a lot of good suggestions, I'm just trying to play a little devil's advocate to keep people thinking about their ideas and the impact it has on everyone.

Trial of Entry is the only trial I have an issue with being included. The others are fine but probably need to be tweaked from how they work directly in lore for quality of life reasons, but are important aspects of being a Clan warrior. I plan on addressing these in Jaroth's thread, so I'll end up replying there in length about how I feel each should work, or add to his overall idea.

Edited by Jack Gallows, 18 February 2012 - 11:39 PM.