64 replies to this topic

[Kaemon]

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Since I cannot come up with a solution I can only disagree with your opinion.

In one sentence, you managed to sum up just about everything that is wrong in the world today.

Brilliant.

and if we only have deathmatch at Go-Live, how does your scenario play out?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The Dev's have already said that all the benefits etc of being a Lone Wolf will not be in place at the start of the game. They have said that there will be no officially organised groups within Houses. Merc Corps consist of organised groups that will usually always play together.
It seems that House matches will consist of PUG's including small groups of friends playing together.
There would seem to be both "Planetary Conquest" and non ranked matches available, as well as perhaps Solaris.
Given the problems that people seem to have with the role of Lone Wolves, on both sides, the simplest solution might be for the Dev's, who have said they are producing the MVP, to not include Lone Wolves at all.

[Kaemon]

***Thanks mods for fixing the Thread Topic***

I would think that perhaps when the Clans come to the table, you might be more suited to that play style, since the grouping will most likely be reduced (due to their advanced weaponry) and their philosophy is more suited to an individual playstyle.

But whatever the underlying reason for your distaste in grouping, this is a group oriented, tactical game, with the possible exception of Solaris, that is not going to change (at best you'll probably get a tutorial PvE, but that's not going to be worth much after you've been playing for a bit).

And adding multiple scenarios for enagagements makes no sense until the current model has been well tuned, or you're introducting a serious risk of 'scope creep' which dilutes the current game model to the point of losing the core fundamentals, which would IMO, turn this into a mushy mess of meandering dev code and constant direction changes which destroy games.

Understand why we're saying this is a bad idea, you're not asking to tact on a simple optional tract for console style players who want no immersion or interaction with the universe.

Your asking to seriously Foxtrot the core aspects of the game, and that's why it's not going to work.

Edited by Kaemon, 08 February 2012 - 06:44 AM.

[ManDaisy]

I fixed the topic thread myself by the way.

Kaemon you made good point, perhaps this is a good way to implement the clans, something in which I never considered. I also agree that Scope creep is something to beware of as well.

All I ask now is that instead of shouting down this suggestion with cries of griefer and team killer, if you can come up with any kind of solution or new perspective then contribute to this thread. As I would like the Lone wolf population to be represented.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Kaemon]

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

wow thank you kaemon I've changed my opinion of you thats actually sound logic.

Now for fun, let's find a way for your idea to work (maybe with a few concessions).

Let's start with a list of things we want:

1. Variable battle objectives - So with a bit of compromise we can try to get some more complex (cause just deathmatch all the time is the suxor) battle objectives which will require individual actions that may include what you're looking for 'i.e 'covert' actions, or single player inclusions (such as advanced scouting) that while you're still part of a team, you are out there (for awhile at least) on your own. This would include Hot Drops (or variable timing drops, so scouts go in first, then meds, then heavies once you know the situation).

That might go a bit toward what you're looking for.

2. Pirating (salvage perhaps?) - So one thing I was thinking since we're on the track of role specialization is the Salvage role (probably only in Conquest mode and probably not an official mode, more player chosen) . So your Merc Corp (or Clan, or Lone Wolf pack) is slugging it out and there is massive casualties on both sides. But who's collecting the salvage? Your Pirate (Salvage) guy, dragging chassis back to your drop ship for added profit/repair parts. Protecting him is also an objective, so now we've got at least deathmatch and protection detail as objectives (which points back to point #1).

There's more, and I'll let others see if they can come with ideas that still fit within the context of the core aspects of the game (as we know them), but while I disagree with your initial argument, I think there's some room for discussion here (and maybe not at Go-Live but further down the road).

Edited by Kaemon, 08 February 2012 - 07:06 AM.

[Shar]

Sorry, didn't mean to stir up alot of hard feelings about the lonewolf role. I seems that the malority of the people who are going to play Mechwarrior Online don't like or want lonewolves except as filler/cannon fodder. Some of the post that I've read are outright hostile to lonewolves, this is sad. What some post's have said about people being jerks to each other online is to true and one of the reasons that I don't like forced team play. This is why I prefer the lonewolf style of play, I've seen some really imature acts by supposed adults online because the didn't get something they wanted or have no patience for new player to the game/team they join.

Since it will most likely be like Outlaw and others have said it is unlikely that I will play as this type of game is not very enjoyable when you have a bunch of people griefing you because they lost a loyatly point, a perk, or their reputation took a hit.

This is all very sad as I had high hopes for MWO, after reading many of the developer blogs and topic discussions. The one rule I've learned from MMO's is that the developers of these games don't give a damn about those players that like to play individully at all. They aren't making the game for the players at all, but to enforce a certain style of play that many of them prefer and of course to generate the most C-Bills.

[Kaemon]

Shar,
I think you're misunderstanding the 'Lone Wolf' role and it's importance to the game.

We aren't downplaying the role, nor the people who play it (that seems to be a common misconception in all of these posts), they fill a very important role, but it's still a static role (just like Merc, House Unit, or Clan Member).

Meaning that it's a way for an individual to play this game, but within the context of the group identity that MW:O (and BT for that matter) fundamentally ascribes subscribes to.

So yes, you're going to get added to a lance, you don't have to worry about LP, and you can pretty much define your gameplay as you want, but within the same parameters as the rest of us.

Does that make more sense? If you're looking for something more from single person play, AC5, Hawken (not sure yet as it's not open yet) or one of the horde of other mech FPS style games may be more suited to what you're looking for.

Just saying.

***edited for bad engrish!***

Edited by Kaemon, 08 February 2012 - 08:44 AM.

[Kaemon]

Let me put it this way.

If MW:O was Pinocle

House units are meld
Merc units are Ace, 10 in suit
Lone Wolves are the Aces once you run out of meld and are down to the last 2 tricks.

/like any of you youngsters know what I'm talking about!
//

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Pefer Canasta myself, young one

[Captain Hat]

Shar, I think you and ManDaisy may be misapprehending the way the game is to be set up- or at least failing to appreciate the wider context of existing games in this "MMO deathmatch" genre, which can loosely be said to consist of online, usually team-based games where you earn better equipment and experience rewards by playing individual games, whether those are deathmatch-style or whatever. In this net I would include such disparate entities as Battlefield 3, World of Tanks and to a lesser extent Team Fortress 2 and any other game with content unlockable solely through discrete multiplayer missions or games that are fought as standalone instances.

Put simply, there is no great disadvantage to your own personal advancement in having no alignment to a larger group or organisation other than the lack of integrated comms and coordinated play that generally comes with organised teams in any game you care to mention.

The "expected" gameplay model is that units or players with faction alignment will queue up to fight their faction's enemies, their enemies will do likewise and non-aligned players will also. When there are enough players to start a game all of the faction-aligned players will be allocated to a particular side based on their faction alignment, and all the non-aligned players will be allocated sides at random, with numbers managed so that the teams are even. So, for example, let's say a group of three members of a Steiner merc company and two un-attached players with Steiner affiliation sign on for a game, a Kurita mercenary lance and three un-attached Kurita-aligned players and four "lone wolf" players all sign up for a two-lance game at about the same sort of time. The Steiners all go on one side, the Kuritas all go on the other side, one "Lone Wolf" joins the Kuritas and the other three fight alongside the Steiners, allocated randomly.

Personally, I don't see a major problem with this. Griefing will happen however you set the game up, but this way at least everybody knows who is who, which makes it far easier to report and track, and far harder to get away with. As long as the matchmaker pairs up teams of roughly equal BV (or whatever metric they end up using) there shouldn't be much of a problem: Obviously the side with better coordination will have an advantage, but that sort of thing will happen regardless- and some of the Information and Role Warfare stuff in the Dev Blogs is very encouraging about the way the game will be set up to enable and encourage good comms even between players with no formal out-of-game setup like a traditional gaming clan't Teamspeak or Mumble server.

The problem is, any of the attempts to introduce a "single player" feel to the game that have so far been suggested will essentially break the balance thus achieved, and cause more problems than it solves.

[MaddMaxx]

Best to stick with the Quick Match gameplay type. Everyone is out for themselves and all you have to do is survive to reap the rewards.

At his point in the Dev cycle the OP makes almost ZERO sense.

[Shar]

I guess the only thing to do is wait for the game to go live amd see how it goes, hopefully everything will work out with a few bumps as possible.

[Kaemon]

Shar, on 08 February 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

I guess the only thing to do is wait for the game to go live amd see how it goes, hopefully everything will work out with a few bumps as possible.

There will be quite a few established teams that will probably be a bit prickly toward new players, but there will be just as many new ones that will be looking.

[BarHaid]

Wow, this has been a pretty intense thread. I think see where you're coming from with the OP; you're trying to meld a PVE system onto the existing match setup. I really like the idea of trying to scout through an existing firefight while not getting blown to bits. Unfortunately I (now) see the inherent griefing potential. I suppose true single player missions will have to wait.

[MilitantMonk]

So let's try some critical thinking about ManDaisy's idea of Lone Wolves vs. reality.

Example:

Kurita / Davion boarder skirmish starting! There are 30 Dracs lined up in the queue for a mission and only 8 Davions at this moment. The system nabs the first 12 Kurtians and those 8 Davions for the match. It also looks for and finds 4 lone wolves to fill in. Your match starts! Under the "ManDaisy Rules of Wolfery" the 4 loners decide to lance it up and leave the Davions to their fate. What was a fun and fairly balanced match up suddenly becomes a very strange 12 v 8 v 4. Worst case the loners decide to help the enemy and suddenly it's 2:1 odds against you from the start. If that experience is a new players first match I can pretty much assure you they'll either give up on this horrible system or become a lone wolf and cause grief.

[ManDaisy]

your not thinking critical monk. under my system 4 lone wolves would be "hired" at the start of the match and on team davion. 1 lone wolf could be introduced randomly into the match. Anyone attempting to match skip would burn all their LP away.

12 vs 12 (with 1 unaffiliated)

12 kuritan (team 1)
8 dav + 4 hire (team2)
1 random (no team)

now for the burn.
you tried and FAILED.

But no you raise a good point.

Perhaps only if this case where the scenario would randoms be allowed to be introduced.
12 kuritan vs 12 davion

Only when teams are even
+1 random (unaffiliated)

If your afraid of 4 hired lone wolves going off on their own... how is that related to my suggestion in any way?

Edited by ManDaisy, 09 February 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[MilitantMonk]

Yeah how you show the Lone Wolves hired on and part of the team is sort of how I gathered it would work from the Role Warfare posts. That seems like it will work well.

Just make sure that if you are the +1 in that 12v12 you don't have a bad drop and end up square in the middle of a firefight!

[Captain Hat]

Problem is, that isn't how it would go.

Let's say you got a big Steiner merc corp signing up for a game, they have seventeen players online and all looking to get into a game. Then you have nine Kuritans in another corp, a bunch of unafiliated players signing up for a Kuritan contract and three guys who want to do Lone Wolf missions. What are the Steiners gonna do? They're gonna form up their 12 "first line" players in a proper team and the other five are all gonna log on as Lone Wolves. Maybe they can't do it on their Steiner accounts, but it doesn't matter- in a F2P environment there's nothing to stop them having unafiliated alts specifically for this purpose.

So what happens? The nine Kuritans get their team filled out by unafiliated players who've signed on for Kuritan contracts, which they may have some discretion over based on listed contract completion statistics attached to the mercs' profiles or whatever, while the Steiners all arrive on the other team and there's a better-than-60% chance that the Lone Wolf slot will actually be a player on the Steiner team, regardless of what his ingame affiliations say.

The key problem is that the proposed mechanism specifically enables this sort of thing because it makes it a lot easier to get away with- it's going to be harder to remember the nick of a guy whose name wasn't on the OOB at the loading screen so that you can report him, and if he's a good scout you may well never see him at all during the game.

Plus, by implementing a "contract satisfaction" mechanic for players signing on for faction contracts (at the end of the game: These are this player's stats from this game: Do you feel he fulfilled his contract to fight for House Kurita? Click yes or no- and then all the statistics are collated and a "contract fulfilment" stat attached to the guy's profile) you can give faction-aligned people some degree of control over which mercs end up on their team (This is this player's "contract fulfilment" stat for your faction: Do you want him on your side? Click yes/no) whereas with the "Lone Wolf" scenario that kind of potential for risk minimisation is simply not there.

Edited by Captain Hat, 09 February 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[ManDaisy]

Thats a good detection. There is a problem with that path for lone wolfs on alts signing up at the innitial game. My suggestion deals with a lone wolf who will have to match up on luck consuming all his LP along the way. If anyone who's got a problem with this look at my "Blind" match setup. Much better solution then all of this stuff. If Blind match is adopted consider all this junk.

Edited by ManDaisy, 09 February 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[Konrad]

This is an online only game. While your idea has some really interesting thought to it. It's almost a game on it's own.