13 replies to this topic

[Roh]

I am making this post with the assumption MWO will use a match making system similar to many other F2P games coming out recently. Which is fine mostly. But there is something lost with these games. The forming of a community that happens on a persistent server. You may say that you would have the entire MWO communitty but... That is hopefully going to be huge. With thousands on thousands of players. If things go really well you may rarely get put in a match with the same person more then 2 or 3 times a week when things really get going.

Then there will probably be options to join your friends. But that only really lets you join people you already know. Lets you maintain an existing community but makes it a bit hard for it to grow much.

My suggestion is this. Let people who want to run rent persistent rooms. With a name, a short descriptiion, and the ability to kick/ban from that room. It shouldnt really take much more to host then randomly generated rooms that are probably already going into the works. And would give us another way to support MWO finacially. Though I admit I dont know how hard it would be to make these rooms persistent in the system and set up a browser for them.

[00dlez]

I think rather than a persistatn server, there should be options to allow you to favorite other players and be matched up with them (clans play together, friends can get matched into the same games, etc).

The problem i have with persistant servers is that a skilled player could be klicked by a serevr admin so that they can win, translating into advantages for their house/corp etc.

*match starts*
*admin kicks assault class mechs on opposite team*
Now its 12 v 9 with a serious weight advantage.

[Dlardrageth]

With different game modes (no respawn/limited respawn) we'll already have done a big step away from a unified community, as many will not care much for the "other" game mode. Segregating this further by putting random people in charge of rooms/servers/whatever would only lead to an even more fractionalized state. As sooner or later most peopel would stick only in their room/server and thus internal mobility of players in the game... I think you get the picture.

I still think if some people can't help it and totally need their own private server or whatever, they should just approach PGI after release and inquire about licensing agreeements. I reckon for a nice, tidy 6-digit sum a lot of things would be possible.

[Roh]

00dlez, on 18 March 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

I think rather than a persistatn server, there should be options to allow you to favorite other players and be matched up with them (clans play together, friends can get matched into the same games, etc).

The problem i have with persistant servers is that a skilled player could be klicked by a serevr admin so that they can win, translating into advantages for their house/corp etc.

*match starts*
*admin kicks assault class mechs on opposite team*
Now its 12 v 9 with a serious weight advantage.

Er... the named room would always be there. if someone behaved like that no one would join after a while. They would be wasting their money. So you get unjustly kicked? Never join that room again. So you point doesn't really make sense to me. I mean no one forces you to go into these rooms.

Dlardrageth, on 18 March 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

With different game modes (no respawn/limited respawn) we'll already have done a big step away from a unified community, as many will not care much for the "other" game mode. Segregating this further by putting random people in charge of rooms/servers/whatever would only lead to an even more fractionalized state. As sooner or later most peopel would stick only in their room/server and thus internal mobility of players in the game... I think you get the picture.

I still think if some people can't help it and totally need their own private server or whatever, they should just approach PGI after release and inquire about licensing agreeements. I reckon for a nice, tidy 6-digit sum a lot of things would be possible.

Actually what you are saying really doesnt make sense to me either. If a game mode is flawed enough that no one plays it I would think the mode will be adjusted or dropped. And if there are so few players that this... factionalized state you imagine is an issue... Then PGI will probably be shutting the game down soon anyways.


You both are very much entitled to your opinions. Im just having trouble finding them valid.

Edited by Roh, 18 March 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Roh, on 18 March 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

[...]Actually what you are saying really doesnt make sense to me either. If a game mode is flawed enough that no one plays it I would think the mode will be adjusted or dropped. And if there are so few players that this... factionalized state you imagine is an issue... Then PGI will probably be shutting the game down soon anyways.

You got me a bit wrong there. According to Russ Bullock's interview we will have (at least) 2 game modes in game right at start. A "no respwn" one and a so-called "3 drop" one. Discussion regarding this had been all over the forums already. And with somewhat entrenched positions there, I'd find it very hard to believe the whole community would play both modes equally. So it's not really about which mode is more popular in general or not, it's more about who picks which mode as a preference.

And I literally meant "fRactionalized", see here. It is not about "so few players" at all, it is more a... hm... call it a... "concern" about any MMO basically with having "shards" (often technical necessity somehow, I know) already going that way. Or different servers or whatever. It would make any kind of competitive/league/tournament setup rather complicated.

And who gets to pick who would be in charge of a "persistent game room" like you suggested anyway? I reckon you are volunteering? Or do we hold a public vote upon that? Or whoever pays PGI most to obtain the "uber-mighty-game-room-.powers"? The latter definitely sounds like on the way to "Pay2Win", because if I'd pay PGI, say, 5000$ to grant me those, I sure as hell would make use of my "powers" as I see fit.

[Roh]

You're joking right? Who would be in charge? Who ever paid for the room in question.These rooms are pretty much like a continuing string of games. Instead of queing up for another match.. You are automatically slotted into the next match of that room. Just like a server for any regular MP game. These rooms could still earn cash and cost for repairs. But they would likely need to be outside the galatic warfare deal. Not that I know enough of how that all is going to work it be sure.

Have you never played other MP games before? You know like the previous mechwarrior games. MWO isn't an MMO. Its a multiplayer game. The entire point of these rooms would be so people can build smaller close knit communities within the large MWO community. Also it would allow for custom battles that many NBT fans would LOVE to be able to hold. You could password the room and have practice matches with friends to teach advanced tactics that are likely to be developed in a game as complex as MWO.

It's nothing to do with pay2win. It's pay for a private, presistent space to play in.

[FinnMcKool]

well at least your thinking about these things ,

there are a lot of questions to how the matches

will work ,dont forget there is the big game map

and where battles take place also, I imagine that

rooms will be placed on planets that are some

how connected to your spear of control so you

can enter , but how will this really work?

and how will you and your team stay together?

ect.ect.ect.........

?

[00dlez]

@Roh
I agree with you in principal. As someone who has admined a server before, in a game that was pretty dead anyway, we took banning/kicking seriously as a loss to the community (Day of Defear circa 2007). That said, same time frame, d-bags who could careless about community longevity just want some advertising $ for 12 months and just need server and website hits to do it.

I would rather it be all dev run or all private, no mix.

@Finn
Some sort of friend or rating system where you get paired with other players you choose to play with allows you to stick with house/merc/clan mates on a regular basis

Edited by 00dlez, 18 March 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Siilk]

Rooms/channels/persistent grouping should definitely be in MWO. But it shouldn't be a "pay to use" feature, it's too basic to require any payment.

[StompyMcGee]

Not so sure about a persistent server/rooms. The community just needs the tools to organise itself(guilds, friends lists etc), and the ability to create gated rooms with custom rulesets would give all the required functionality, I think.

[Mechteric]

The way I see it such private games could only exist for practice, and would have no bearing on the galaxy map, no CBills earned and no XP points attained.

[Dlardrageth]

Roh, on 18 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

You're joking right? Who would be in charge? Who ever paid for the room in question.These rooms are pretty much like a continuing string of games. Instead of queing up for another match.. You are automatically slotted into the next match of that room. Just like a server for any regular MP game.

Just like "ANY regular MP game"? Right, say, you did not by any chance actually read about what the devs announced about MWO's setup, did you? Because that so totally not matches with what you describe. Mind me, I got no problem at all with people paying PGI a hefty sum for a license for their own server setup to have their own playground/sandbox. If they need it that desperately, chances are, the public servers might be better off without them. So more power to them, I say! I just don't see why they have in any way to tie into PGI's architecture for the public server bank. No benefit for the communiyt really, and for PGI prolly neither.

Quote

Have you never played other MP games before? You know like the previous mechwarrior games. MWO isn't an MMO. Its a multiplayer game.

You ARE NOT familiar with what "MMO" stands for, right? Otherwise you must be trolling... And I did NOT write "MMORPG", thank you. So far the info we have gotten from the devs does not indicate any way to play apart from the PGI-provided servers. Which is radically different formthe former MW games. And just for your info, as you seem not to know that either... the very first MW game, which I still have to happen right here, did not have any multiplayer option at all. So far for your "previous mechwarrior games"...

Quote

It's nothing to do with pay2win. It's pay for a private, presistent space to play in.

If it is completely detached from MWO in general, I see no issue with it. I just don't see why it would be worth bothering integrating that in any way into the public server setup. Let's face it, nobody cares about what some random person does on his personal network on probably another continent. So as lo9ng as PGI makes enough money off this to warrant extar development and resources for it, sure. Just to be clear, though, no XP, C-bills or any other rewards would be earned there. Neither would any chievement be unlocked. Because it is way too easy to "tweak" your server ina way that gives you loads of rewards for little effort. And that would be "Pay2Win", if you could just get your private server on which to level out a character to max. in a matter of a mere day.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 19 March 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

I don't think persistant game rooms are the answer, but I'm really curious as to how the matchmaking service will work.

Lets say my "Unit" wants to fight together, and there's 8 of us. Do we join as group? Does it have to be canon? What if we dont' want the other 4 "randoms"? What if someone in my own faction challeges us to a fight, just because we've talking junk on eachother or what not.

Can you have rivalries? All of these things existed in previous online Mechwarriors, I'm curious as to how a match making service works, while keeping the players and their units in the driver seat.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Garth said that numbers would be from 1v1 up and that it could be asymetric ie 5v3 etc.