Jump to content

How great would massive persistent worlds be...


76 replies to this topic

#41 Neurotic Heretic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 35 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationBurlington, Iowa

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:49 AM

Think it would be a great idea and would be a great start to add some true MMO items like instances, questing and more pvp battle grounds. the mercenary world of battle tech lends itself greatly to a multi faction WOW in space. WOW only used since i couldn't come up with anything better that is well known.

Would be great to ride drop ship down and assault a planet from the get go, or give our vid cards a work out with a low orbital drop of the lances.

#42 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:56 PM

I agree that numbers dont have to balanced, the inherit balance through mech diversity is enough. After that, "balance" would come through tactics/strategies by the players.

Since its assumed the bigger, stronger clans would have the advanatge in aquriing territories, the conflict model would use standard restrictions for conquering land, ie; attack bids, more conventional "declarations" of war staged "fight offs". But the non-conventional raids by non-owners, pressumably comprised by mostly smaller player clans can be much less restricted in where they attack because they wont have the option to own/capture the territories they are attacking(non-bids).

So more viable, competitive, big player "States"(clans/guilds) are forced in to a more conventional, geo-diplomatic engagements of territory ownership, with all the perks of sustained production of c-bills and XP that ownership brings. Smaller or less capable player "groups"(clans/guilds) can be more roving bands of Mongols, Raiders, Viking, Barbaric Tribe like entities.

The small raider groups will be able to participate in the grand territory ownership drama, even though they wont be able to own anything through raids. The smaller groups will provide a natural balancing and check and balance against stagnant onwership of territories by the larger, more capable player clans. Small groups will have a away to profit from territories even if they dont pose a real threat to owning them.

The fact that smaller groups will have the option to choose the when and where they will engage territories held by stronger groups is in itself balancing. It forces larger clans to remain forever ready for attack, keeps them on their heels, it can and will punish them for being complacent and comfortable. It will cost larger clans dearly if they over-extend their territory acquisitions, spreading themselves too thin.

Edited by CocoaJin, 10 August 2012 - 02:00 PM.


#43 Edgaro Gilardeno

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Locationmaine, usa.

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:44 AM

AMEN COCOAJIN. you say it right.

#44 Xeen

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:04 PM

View PostCocoaJin, on 10 August 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

I agree that numbers dont have to balanced, the inherit balance through mech diversity is enough. After that, "balance" would come through tactics/strategies by the players.

Since its assumed the bigger, stronger clans would have the advanatge in aquriing territories, the conflict model would use standard restrictions for conquering land, ie; attack bids, more conventional "declarations" of war staged "fight offs". But the non-conventional raids by non-owners, pressumably comprised by mostly smaller player clans can be much less restricted in where they attack because they wont have the option to own/capture the territories they are attacking(non-bids).

So more viable, competitive, big player "States"(clans/guilds) are forced in to a more conventional, geo-diplomatic engagements of territory ownership, with all the perks of sustained production of c-bills and XP that ownership brings. Smaller or less capable player "groups"(clans/guilds) can be more roving bands of Mongols, Raiders, Viking, Barbaric Tribe like entities.

The small raider groups will be able to participate in the grand territory ownership drama, even though they wont be able to own anything through raids. The smaller groups will provide a natural balancing and check and balance against stagnant onwership of territories by the larger, more capable player clans. Small groups will have a away to profit from territories even if they dont pose a real threat to owning them.

The fact that smaller groups will have the option to choose the when and where they will engage territories held by stronger groups is in itself balancing. It forces larger clans to remain forever ready for attack, keeps them on their heels, it can and will punish them for being complacent and comfortable. It will cost larger clans dearly if they over-extend their territory acquisitions, spreading themselves too thin.


This!!

Sticky!!

#45 Faolan65

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • LocationPhoenix

Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:36 PM

CocoaJin, you're dead on on what will take this game and make it rock solid and give it the staying power. Well maybe I'm not 100% on board with your "how" that would work, but def agree with the overall concept of what you're getting at.

Here's a head in the clouds simpleton solution.... just petition for PGI to pair up with Planetside 2, and just have us drop into their huge worlds, piggyback on their raid and territory control systems. :D

Regarding the "Battle in a bottle" concept, during my table top days, we had a long running campaign where we simply combined the game of Risk and Battletech, and basically replaced the die rolls that determined territory battle outcomes with Btech matches, where the troops on the Risk map translated to BV, it took forever but turned out awesome. Now as much fun as that was we did it that way cuz it was easy to do with tabletop. From the snipets I read in the forums, its starting to sound like thats what PGI is implying with their Community Warfare concept. So I'm really hoping MWO doesnt go that route though. There is so much more immersion in a planetside 2 type of universe, and then combined with the rich lore of Battletech, it'd be a shame to limit MWO with a Risk map style of "Persistent World".

Like it was said earlier in this thread, so much of this discussion hinges on what we DONT know of what is coming down the pipeline from PGI, I just hope that whatever it is, the whole "battle in a bottle" deal isnt all we've got to look forward to. I've been in and around Battletech since I was 12, and now am 33, so needless to say MWO has been a long time coming and I hope they knock it out of the park, cuz I'll be here for a long time and will be willing to spend money here if they go big.

Edited by Faolan65, 12 August 2012 - 03:56 PM.


#46 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

How do you get a thread stickied?

#47 Xeen

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:31 AM

Hard to say... the Devs have to like the idea I would guess.

#48 Boss Awesome

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 233 posts
  • LocationBellingham WA

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:12 PM

I would like to see what the devs can come up with as far as community warfare. I've played a few games now that are basically just FPS matches but have a hugely interactive webpage that determines strategic holdings. (Mount and Blade Warband - strategus mod did it pretty well, World of Tanks as well) These games have been a lot better than your standard mmorpg for games of territory control. (aside from EVE since they really did it well in a persistant world) I like the idea of a persistant world but I do not want to see a bunch of NPC controlled mechs you have to kill. NPCs are invariably not challenging and pretty boring to fight. Next thing you will get will be "kill 10 urbanmech" quests or other horrific garbage.

#49 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:51 PM

View PostBoss Awesome, on 13 August 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I like the idea of a persistant world but I do not want to see a bunch of NPC controlled mechs you have to kill. NPCs are invariably not challenging and pretty boring to fight. Next thing you will get will be "kill 10 urbanmech" quests or other horrific garbage.


Oh no, this idea has no intentions of having those kind experiences. AI is there only to flesh out the living, breathing world. These arent designed to be pods of aimless, pointless bots to be farmed. The goal is emulate a living and bustling environment, where background tasks and functions essential to maintain a society and a war machine is busily buzzing away, totally independent of some guy accepting a mission.

Convoys will dynamically spawn and head for meaningful destinations based on ownership and functionality...so supply convoys between resource amd production facilities, production facilities, bases and logistic/trade hubs, etc, etc. There is no mission actiavte from a NPC, only bulletins announcing and/or maps and data streams showing locations of friendly convoys...provide direct protection or patrol of the route as you see fit. Just know that the successful completion of the convoy's route benefits you and your side on that planet to some degree, and perhaps the larger region to a smaller degree.

Interdiction, huntr-killer patrols would be up to the player, but there might be alert areas that coincide with recent or present enemy convoy or force movements.

The goal is to feel that the planet is alive with the workings of any advanced civilization occupying a planet/moon...the reason is either tactical/strategic advanatge and/or high value resources...either way, there needs to be activity going on outside of the player's role within the war/battles...but the AI activity must also feel intergral to supporting the means of the player's waging of that war/battle.

AI provides immersion and purpose on a planet/moon inbetween player clashes. It gives objective based interests to protect and defend against while securing your faction's or player clan's greater interest on that planet/moon. Some enemy player groups may find it more in their advantage to attack your infrastructure, logistics, facilities, etc, than attack you head on...and vice-versa. Your goal is to weaken your enemy's position on the planet, while strengthening your own. That can be raids, frontal assaults, interdiction, ambushes, intel/recon, etc, etc.

What this will never be...is a play date style, "battle in a bottle" while squaring off civil war style from across a field...I mean, unless you want to.

#50 AizenSousuke

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 30 posts

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:20 PM

View PostXeen, on 06 August 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Yeah, if they did this for mechwarrior... Id quit Eve immediatly and would guarantee a premium account active.


This. While I love the whole battle in a bottle thing, it doesn't really feel like a MMO. Maybe I'm spoiled with Eve Online, but if MWO grows into something resembling the OP, I'd be in love for life.

Well, to be honest, I'd be in love for life no matter what happens, seeing that my first computer game was MW2 when I was like 8 years old...

#51 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:06 PM

MechWarrior/Battletech is a universe fit to be lived in, the fan base has dreamt for 30 yrs about being a mechwarrior existing within that universe. This isnt Crysis3 where you exist within an isolated bubble, isolated scenerio, on an island(ok, that was first Crysis).

This IP has several Faction States, a whole gaggle of planets/moons, and its all within a larger(if not multiple) campaign(s) of war. There is a whole slew of supporting charcters, vessels, units, branches/offices that all support the MechWarrior(the player) in waging this war...so where is it, where is the experience, the immersion? Why would the feeling of a sterile universe outside of the battles, be deemed be-fitting of this IP and its fan base?

Flesh it out, because we want to live it out...its the only thing worthy of the 3 decades of fandom and a decade of waiting.

#52 Rasgueados

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

This is a great thread CocoaJin and yes everything you mentioned is 100% doable, I really hope this keeps getting more and more attention. This is what I was talking about when I posted (a couple of times) about storytelling in BT and MWO, that it is player driven and a lot of small/big conflicts, alliances, wars could arise, ALL of them, decisions made by the players/houses/clans/units/groups etc. These could be sparked by anything, even the smallest of mistakes/greed etc and could span a long time.

Houses/groups/units etc could call on mercs for example or make temporary alliances to take on a big threat (a certain group got to big and the opposition needs help to defeat them) or so.

A living-persistent world is exactly what would take this game might need after it is fully released.

#53 Rasgueados

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:13 AM

CocoaJin would you mind if I link to your thread in a thread of mine. I made a small topic about some ideas and would like to add a new point called Living-persistent world and have a link to this thread there.

#54 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:36 AM

View PostRasgueados, on 14 August 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

CocoaJin would you mind if I link to your thread in a thread of mine. I made a small topic about some ideas and would like to add a new point called Living-persistent world and have a link to this thread there.

Go for it. Devs need to know what the fan base is looking for. What we deem quality and fulfilling. The devs heere can take note, or some other group, but after all this discussion, there is no reason for future projects to miss the mark on what and how an immersive game should be constructed.

Edited by CocoaJin, 14 August 2012 - 09:38 AM.


#55 Xeen

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:15 AM

A real nice mix of Mechwarrior, Mechwarrior 2, and Eve Online will bring this game to the top. In the future they can add in Tanks, and Aerospace (even warships if it goes on long enough). Battletech has been around for almost 30 years. There is no reason this game couldnt last as long if done right... Yeah I know engine updates and etc over time. But why not, Eve has done 2 engine updates since I started playing it. Graphic improvements, playability improvements, complete remake of certain mechanics... Very possible.

#56 BagOfMeat

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 30 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:21 PM

+1


thats all I'd say :P

maybe faction/clan Living-persistent world

faction accessible to all, but a possibility of an unbalanced game. (a faction with a tone of players v other less populated factions = :ph34r:) but then you could go clan world but thats were you will have a limited players as its on an invite only sort of thing so some players will feel left out . . . kinda swings and roundabouts really but a persistent world would be EPIC !!

Who knows if its on a big scale drop ships could come in to play (just read a post for drop pod variations) but thats a tad far fetched as is still in closed beta. expect to have the basics up and running before anything like this happens as it will take forever to develop.

Edited by BagOfMeat, 14 August 2012 - 01:28 PM.


#57 DaOpa

    Member

  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationNorwalk, CT USA

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:27 PM

View PostAdridos, on 03 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Everything comes at a price... and the one for a big persistent world is far too big for someone like PGI and IGP.


When a handful of Dev's in a basement can create a 'Robot MMO' that I wont name fully (PO), surely they can do it too ...

#58 xBlaqkDeathx

    Rookie

  • 6 posts
  • LocationMidwest

Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:37 PM

+1 this would be amazing!

Even if it's like 3-4 years away I think this is something to work torwards to make this game last a LONG time like I know we all want it to.

#59 Xeen

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:54 AM

Sticky request again!!!

#60 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:09 AM

Sticky-iky-iky...Oooo-wee!





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users