How great would massive persistent worlds be...
#41
Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:49 AM
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
Posted 10 August 2012 - 01:56 PM
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
Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:44 AM
#44
Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:04 PM
CocoaJin, on 10 August 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:
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
Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:36 PM
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.
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
Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:18 AM
#47
Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:31 AM
#48
Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:12 PM
#49
Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:51 PM
Boss Awesome, on 13 August 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:
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
Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:20 PM
Xeen, on 06 August 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:
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
Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:06 PM
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
Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:07 AM
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
Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:13 AM
#54
Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:36 AM
Rasgueados, on 14 August 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:
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
Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:15 AM
#56
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:21 PM
thats all I'd say
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 = ) 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
Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:27 PM
Adridos, on 03 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:
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
Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:37 PM
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
Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:54 AM
#60
Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:09 AM
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users