265 replies to this topic

[Suskis]

I would have liked to be able to chose WHEN to play, too.
If asked, I'd only play in 3025. Much more balanced units and rules and no Gauss Rifles or Clan ERPPCs that can one-shot a mech's head off from embarrassing distances.
Much like private WoW servers let you select playing last or previous expansion (cause not everyone loves news, you know?)

[Silent]

mockingfox, on 01 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

So since we cant take planets because what if we take a planet that is suppose to be taken in the lore by mister hero, what are we suppose to do?

From the sounds of the developer blog we won't be able to do anything with it, which makes me wonder what will happen if a faction manages to capture all the other planets around a Core World. Will the developers give it to the faction that has it surrounded or are they just going to say, "Sorry you don't get this planet even though you have it surrounded and control everything else around it because haha lore, oh also the lore says this Core World goes to this other faction that isn't even in the area right now." If there aren't that many Core Worlds that probably won't be a problem, but it's still something to think about.

[HeIIequin]

Reading all these posts, I don't think many people adequately look at the development side of things. It's not really about whether established lore, or establishing our own lore is more fun, it's which one can Piranha adequately add to the game.

As I said earlier, the way Piranha is currently doing it is no doubt a lot easier than having a full conquest mode. Not as hard to develop, and not as much of a risk.

A serious question: How many mmo's which allow full player control, have resulted in 1 side completely conquering everything? How many games HAVE resulted in completely balanced factions even after years of play? That question may be the factor in determining just how free from lore MWO may ever be.

[edit] I swear I can proofread 8 times and still find a reason to edit later.

Edited by HeIIequin, 01 April 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Requital]

mockingfox, on 01 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

To all you lore-hounds out their stop and think. how will following the lore of MW/BT IN GAME make this a better game. you propose that players do not effect major events/battles/politics but only participate in smaller skirmishes and raids that happen around these events.

So since we cant take planets because what if we take a planet that is suppose to be taken in the lore by mister hero, what are we suppose to do?

are we just suppose to battle for... nothing? Since any victory/defeat we expierience MUST NOT effect the outcome of the lore in anyway for the lores sake what are we left with?

we are left with nothing, no control, no motivation. all we have is a little post and a small board change "hero took this planet back from the faction here" or "the clans took this planet.. to bad you couldnt be their to stop them"

the thought of this gimped MMO where players have no say/control on the world makes me want to puke. I want to fight for my faction and have them win because of me and my friends, I want to be the one to storm their capital and set fire to their homes, not some hero in a book.

so "Lore must come first" shouldnt be, "the Players should come first" should be. and *** **** it would be great if our actions are what mattered, not some storybook hero

Look, if we are a unit in a large house, or a member of a small merc unit, how much impact would we REALLY have? As a single cog in a greater machine, the emphasis should be on how we fight, not who we conquer or what we control. Being able to see our wins affect even 25% of the map will give you something worth fighting for, especially if you were the cog that helped pull off the win. You are saying partial control is not enough, a good portion of the map and resources are not worth fighting for because you want to write your own novel.

The point of this game is to be a mechWARRIOR. Not a mechHERO or mechEMPIRE. This game is designed to allow for simulation of a battlemech. How can lore NOT make the game better? By the "how can lore make a game better" argument, games would have no back story, they would simply have the best graphics and game balance, and you would be dropped on a giant white plain and told to slay your enemies and carve out a new story. No thanks...if I needed to "make my own universe" I would be posting on EVE forums.

Sorry if we(the people who voted against complete lore freedom) do not want to run a house, or to decide when and how the clans invade. Sorry if we do not need to know ourselves, our decisions, and skill are the best in the universe by conquering the entire map. Sorry if we can determine that by fighting over less than 25% of the map.

[FaustianQ]

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

I see nothing wrong with a good portion of space being up for grabs, but key worlds at key times being off limits. That is what will add depth to the game...a story.

What some of you are asking for is not a story. You want to go blow stuff up...to divide and conquer. You simply want a map you can control...and if it is only 25% of the map, that isn't enough...you want the whole thing. So tell me...what happens as you re-write history? form a crusade that conquers the galaxy? With each house that falls you get stronger, and the others get weaker? How much fun will it be when you have nothing left to fight over? You going to start an internal war?

This is called dynamic storyline, and it's much more difficult to work with because it requires work and creativity, where as simply having everything on rails made for you does not. The benefits of a dynamic storyline are much greater.

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yeah, lets just plan on a good portion of the map being off limits(capitols, some production facilities, planets tied to upcoming lore events...like Vega or Tukayyid), while say 10%-20% of each houses territory and production can be lost. Sorry if I don't see a possible 60% gain or a 20% loss of what we had at the start as being "Worth playing for".

I don't think anyone asked for complete faction destruction, at worst a faction would be shoved into the periphery where it can lick it's wounds, or pull a total war and allow defeated factions to rebel from the inside out. Preferentially, most player just want the battles to have meaning, where a factions prosperity is won or lost by the collective capability of it's playerbase. How am I part of the Davion faction if my overall input for it's well being means as much as a lone wolfs, or some random merc?

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Basically, the majority of the people asking to influence everything just want to "make everything better"...they want to improve on this world everything is set in. That is fine, but supposedly, we are mechWARRIORS. We fight small scale battles for our house, for our unit, or for money. We are not generals, precentors, galaxy commanders, kahns, chancellors, governors, coordinators, princes, monarchs, archons, or anything else. We are not here to determine how the IS will be shaped, we are to fight. If you belong to a house, you fight for that house. Do not take it personally if you cannot single-handedly stop a clan invasion force, it is not your job to be a superhero or a strategist.

See above - no one is asking for that, in fact I'd say most are asking that the FRR isn't curbstomped by the Clans, that Smoke Jaguar isn't subsumed by DC, that the FWL isn't always purple. Second, I'm almost positive that someone if not a lot of people, would absolutely love a role as "generals, precentors, galaxy commanders, kahns, chancellors, governors, coordinators, princes, monarchs, archons", that shouldn't be denied to them within a faction, because such roles will exist within merc corps.

[Ron Sillas]

I haven't read much about MWO, which Era will it run through, again?

IMO they should just move the game to feature the Dark Ages and make it tell the story of what happened there, during the CMG events (giving it move detail) and beyond. Maybe bring in some old writers and give them free reign, or to the player - for that matter.

[Volthorne]

FaustianQ, on 01 April 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Second, I'm almost positive that someone if not a lot of people, would absolutely love a role as "generals, precentors, galaxy commanders, kahns, chancellors, governors, coordinators, princes, monarchs, archons", that shouldn't be denied to them within a faction, because such roles will exist within merc corps.

Then they can go command a Lance if given that opportunity. If given a role as a general, commander, khan, Chancellor, Governor, monarch, archon, etc, we'd all be up s***-creek because the universe would be on fire. Litterally, they'd find a way to make it happen. Do YOU want a 12-year-old with a mic and bad temper (and NO understanding of socially acceptable behaviour, as is usually the case nowadays) at the helm of YOUR faction? No? Didn't think so. I'm sure as hell no one else does either.

Edited by Volthorne, 01 April 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Requital]

FaustianQ, on 01 April 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

This is called dynamic storyline, and it's much more difficult to work with because it requires work and creativity, where as simply having everything on rails made for you does not. The benefits of a dynamic storyline are much greater.


I don't think anyone asked for complete faction destruction, at worst a faction would be shoved into the periphery where it can lick it's wounds, or pull a total war and allow defeated factions to rebel from the inside out. Preferentially, most player just want the battles to have meaning, where a factions prosperity is won or lost by the collective capability of it's playerbase. How am I part of the Davion faction if my overall input for it's well being means as much as a lone wolfs, or some random merc?


See above - no one is asking for that, in fact I'd say most are asking that the FRR isn't curbstomped by the Clans, that Smoke Jaguar isn't subsumed by DC, that the FWL isn't always purple. Second, I'm almost positive that someone if not a lot of people, would absolutely love a role as "generals, precentors, galaxy commanders, kahns, chancellors, governors, coordinators, princes, monarchs, archons", that shouldn't be denied to them within a faction, because such roles will exist within merc corps.

The benifits of a dynamic storyline are great for games that do not have an established history and future...like eve. Having guidelines while keeping some of the universe open does not "put something on rails". Guidelines are what keep games fun. Go play a game...any game...with anyone. Tell them there are no rules except for the rules you make up as you go along. Then call the game Baseball...and then tell the baseball fans your game is replacing their sport...and that you expect their approval. I am having a hard time seeing how someone some where having the choice to call themselves superman and conquer the IS is going to improve my gaming experience.

Besides, I am not arguing against the ability to control some of the map, enough of the map to change prices and availability of some resources and mechs. I think the control of 25% or so of the map by way of border worlds is great, and I hope it is implemented. If Davion wants to keep their ammo prices low, they better not loose that border planet near CapCon or they can expect their AC rounds to cost twice as much. Sorry if that is not enough to make people feel like "they matter". If someone needs to be the savior of an online realm they need to take some prozac and have some self evaluation time.

Finally, I am saying that you, and a few others, are asking to make the universe better(in your own opinions). If FRR doesn't get stomped by the clans, that screws CGB over...you made it good for FRR, bad for others. People are asking to turn this into a world that suits their needs...and that's not what this game should be. I know there are plenty of people who want to make plans and be the grand king of their faction, and I really don't want them to be...and it doesn't look like a ton of people do either. There are many RTS games to choose from if you want to command your own empire...this is a FPS simulator for mechwarrior. If I wanted to "change the world" I would simply play a game that allows me to. So, if we can impact our factions +25% or -25%, as well as affect our prices on equipment, that is plenty of incentive for me to fight.

[Opus]

Lt Trevnor, on 01 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Um, I'm completely aware of the origins of Battletech and what TT game you were referring to, thank you. I was referring to your statement about the timeline, that was it and how it could be switched up some by the devs in relation to this game. Sorry for the confusion.

No Worries, seemed you addressed it as a Video Game only.. Ignore my last

we do get a ton of players who only know MW as a Video game

edit : freaking auto spell

Edited by Opus, 01 April 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Exilyth]

What people imagine 'no limits' would look like:
"Yay, were all players fighting for out factions and the whole universe can be conquered. Everything we do matters, yay! Oh, the clans are invading, let's try to hold them back. hey, this is easier than I thought. Let's conquer the kerensky cluster next."

What it would really look like:
"Oh noes, [faction] just took over half our territory while we where fighting the clans. Oh noes, now [yet another faction] rolled the other half of our territory." Server: "[your faction] is no more. Would you like to roll a new char now or start fighting for the revolutionaries?"


Also, I doubt many people would enjoy their [core world] being overtaken by [archenemy] just because that faction got more player online within a different time zone.

Then again, I always wanted to relocate the CC into the crucis march...


MW without lore is not MW. Sure, there are certain events players hate (e.g. the assasination of Melissa Steiner) and other events players wouldn't want to live without (e.g. The clan invasion), but even with all the lore, there's plenty of room for players to carve a place for themselves.

Edited by Exilyth, 01 April 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[RecklessFable]

Lore conservatives are not going to drive the success of this game. Having the game be fun and letting people feel like they affect the "world" will.

That being said Lord of the Rings Online lets players feel important to the world without changing the fact that someone else is going to kill Sauron.

Anyway, I feel like this entire discussion is being driven by people who haven't read the Developer posts. There will be worlds in this game that can't change possession because they are reserved for story elements. So the conversation is kinda moot. We will be able to take worlds but not affect the overall story arc on a macro level.

Edited by RecklessFable, 01 April 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

Look, if we are a unit in a large house, or a member of a small merc unit, how much impact would we REALLY have? As a single cog in a greater machine, the emphasis should be on how we fight, not who we conquer or what we control. Being able to see our wins affect even 25% of the map will give you something worth fighting for, especially if you were the cog that helped pull off the win. You are saying partial control is not enough, a good portion of the map and resources are not worth fighting for because you want to write your own novel.

lol whut!? let me get this straight, I play a game and expect my effort to be worth something, and this translates to wanting to control the lore and write my own fluffy novel? where exactly on this board was this evidenced by anyone? away with your Slippery Slope logical fallacy. The power of video games IS coalescing the efforts a player base and the interactions made! sounds to me, like you don't want to play a game, you'd rather just rehash the Clan Invasion over and over ad nauseum. I think video games offer the power of 'what if' and are able to ask many different 'what ifs' quickly and efficiently. Another thing I guess I have to keep drumming: MWO follows canon but is not canon itself. The existing canon is a framework to leap from. It's akin to saying: Here is the situation circa 3049, players know the invasion is imminent, now; what happens next? well that's up to what the players do. If that doesn't interest you, then don't play this game, because as a reader of the canon, you already know what happens next what would be the point of playing it?

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

The point of this game is to be a mechWARRIOR. Not a mechHERO or mechEMPIRE. This game is designed to allow for simulation of a battlemech. How can lore NOT make the game better? By the "how can lore make a game better" argument, games would have no back story, they would simply have the best graphics and game balance, and you would be dropped on a giant white plain and told to slay your enemies and carve out a new story. No thanks...if I needed to "make my own universe" I would be posting on EVE forums.

If I recall, most leaders of the Inner Sphere and Clan are prominent mechwarriors. Marthe Pryde was an accomplished pilot, Victor Steiner-Davion, Theodore Kurita, etc. Are they not 'mechHEROES' as you call them? Who is to say that a player playing as a 'mechWARRIOR' can't rise through the ranks to influence larger and larger campaigns? you? then I'm glad you don't design video games.

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

Sorry if we(the people who voted against complete lore freedom) do not want to run a house, or to decide when and how the clans invade. Sorry if we do not need to know ourselves, our decisions, and skill are the best in the universe by conquering the entire map. Sorry if we can determine that by fighting over less than 25% of the map.

again, you can go fight as a frontline soldier, just don't complain if I end up commanding you. Don't like it? rise up and challenge me! or does that not motivate you?

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Besides, I am not arguing against the ability to control some of the map, enough of the map to change prices and availability of some resources and mechs. I think the control of 25% or so of the map by way of border worlds is great, and I hope it is implemented. If Davion wants to keep their ammo prices low, they better not loose that border planet near CapCon or they can expect their AC rounds to cost twice as much. Sorry if that is not enough to make people feel like "they matter". If someone needs to be the savior of an online realm they need to take some prozac and have some self evaluation time.

your belittling tone does you no favors. I can't imagine any individual player rising up in such a manner, but you seem to need reason to justify your Slippery Slope argument, so whatever.

Requital, on 01 April 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Finally, I am saying that you, and a few others, are asking to make the universe better(in your own opinions). If FRR doesn't get stomped by the clans, that screws CGB over...you made it good for FRR, bad for others. People are asking to turn this into a world that suits their needs...and that's not what this game should be. I know there are plenty of people who want to make plans and be the grand king of their faction, and I really don't want them to be...and it doesn't look like a ton of people do either. There are many RTS games to choose from if you want to command your own empire...this is a FPS simulator for mechwarrior. If I wanted to "change the world" I would simply play a game that allows me to. So, if we can impact our factions +25% or -25%, as well as affect our prices on equipment, that is plenty of incentive for me to fight.

no, what I'm saying is that the FRR should be given the chance to fight for itself!You seem to not like the doubt that the situation might change. Again I point to; go read a book then, this is a video game predicated on player interaction. The big events should involve the player base, everyone would have fun. Even if it doesn't fully change a plot point, the game could at least acknowledge the player's effort. My personal quibble is the clan invasion, how can I prove the clans are inferior if the plot just <bleeping> hands them victories? If the clans are made up of players, well how come they are given a pass irrespective of their skill and tenacity?

here's a hypothetical: Clan players horrendously botch their invasion missions (per your silly restrictions, not places like Twycross, etc). So clan players are actually losing the invasion...and then, magically they get Twycross, then the FRR falls, and so on. You'll have so many IS players scratching their head saying: "but we were winning! that's not fair!"

likewise: the clan players are actually smashing through the IS, they are excellent players and the IS players are crumpling. then all of a sudden Wolcott is lost...then Luthien...you'd have clan players scratching their heads saying: "but we (the players) were winning!"

see how in each situation, letting the players determine the outcome not only rewards the players for their efforts but also ratchets up the tension? Imagine being that Kuritan mechwarrior on Luthien, knowing that Luthien, your capital to your nation might fall to barbaric invaders! I don't know about you, but man I would fight to the death!

having ambiguous outcomes actually enhances the player experience within the lore, it pulls them in and motivates them to fight.
Also imagine clan players being able to plan the invasion in some small manner, picking their own invasion corridors, maneuvers etc, again makes the game awesome because you're giving the player more agency, as a video game should.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 01 April 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[Volthorne]

RecklessFable, on 01 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Lore conservatives are not going to drive the success of this game. Having the game be fun and letting people feel like they affect the "world" will.

Go tell that to the League of Legends crowd, who constantly explode, maim, bludgeon, claw, shoot, slice, stab, and vaproize each other for no gain in the LoL universe. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views.

[Volthorne]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 01 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

*Too long to quote*

TL;DR The lore can go to hell and the BTU can burn when dumba**es like you gain control of the FedCom or CC. Because the Devs will totally let that happen.

Edited by Volthorne, 01 April 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

MWO is not the sum total of the Battletech Universe. Not even close. The Lore/Canon is someone elses sandbox. MWO simply wants to play in it. They do not want to take it over. Or change it, simply because a handful of people want to change it. It is not going to happen.

Someone gave the example of a Merc Corp deciding to push hard in one direction. Say Merc corp "Black Sheep" decides to conquer planet after planet, system after system, in a push to overthrouw House Kurita by taking over Luthien. Exactly who is going to authorize that contract? Answer NO ONE. Mercs can only take the contracts offered by *surprise* PGI. Who have no desire to overthrow lore/canon.

The long and short, if you are loooking for an universe to conquer all. This is not the game for you.
The fact that millions love the lore, and not even a hundred voted to throw lore out with the bathwater make this a moot topic.

[FaustianQ]

I find it awkward when someone so thoroughly knows what I am going to say and says it.

Volthorne, on 01 April 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Then they can go command a Lance if given that opportunity. If given a role as a general, commander, khan, Chancellor, Governor, monarch, archon, etc, we'd all be up s***-creek because the universe would be on fire. Litterally, they'd find a way to make it happen. Do YOU want a 12-year-old with a mic and bad temper (and NO understanding of socially acceptable behaviour, as is usually the case nowadays) at the helm of YOUR faction? No? Didn't think so. I'm sure as hell no one else does either.

Not sure if trolling or...no, but seriously, my +120 clan is not headed by a 12 year old for the same reason any large organization is. The point of the statement is that players will self-organize into those roles (look at some of the more competitive clans, like AoD), better for the system to accomdate them and make them feel like their role mans something. I highly doubt it'd be fair if they, as a singular person, controlled a faction, rather then say a the factions playerbase controls it.

*sees other comments* Now not sure if troll or just rager...

Edited by FaustianQ, 01 April 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

3Xtr3m3, on 01 April 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

MWO is not the sum total of the Battletech Universe. Not even close. The Lore/Canon is someone elses sandbox. MWO simply wants to play in it. They do not want to take it over. Or change it, simply because a handful of people want to change it. It is not going to happen.

Someone gave the example of a Merc Corp deciding to push hard in one direction. Say Merc corp "Black Sheep" decides to conquer planet after planet, system after system, in a push to overthrouw House Kurita by taking over Luthien. Exactly who is going to authorize that contract? Answer NO ONE. Mercs can only take the contracts offered by *surprise* PGI. Who have no desire to overthrow lore/canon.

The long and short, if you are loooking for an universe to conquer all. This is not the game for you.
The fact that millions love the lore, and not even a hundred voted to throw lore out with the bathwater make this a moot topic.

understandable, I'm not looking to conquer the IS either, but I think many here are just sliding down the Slippery Slope. A merc corp would have size restrictions for players cross that with how many would play for a given house plus the houses own mercenaries; the end result? it would very very difficult for a merc faction to dominate. You also bring up a point about the contracts: if a merc group is actually large enough to challenge a full house military well then it wouldnt be a merc corp anymore it would a sovereign state which empirically I just don't see a merc corp becoming.

[Volthorne]

@Faustian I was actually pointing out the extreme worst cases. By Murphy's Law they could possibly happen (I swear Murphy has a personal hatred for me) and might, if given the opportunity. I'm sure everyone knows that's what happened with the CoD and BF frachises. Gods be damned if the community allows it to happen in MW:O.

Edited by Volthorne, 01 April 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Vexgrave Lars]

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...developer-qa-1/

Is this game going to have lots of servers like a WoW or are you hoping for a single persistent server world like EVE Online?

"[MATT C] Each game spawns its own dedicated server, these are not persistent like WoW, as mentioned that would take us into MMO territory. There is persistent game world information, i.e. match results are communicated to affect the balance of power in the Inner Sphere, who owns what planet etc. but there is no true persistent world, more of a persistent meta-game."

Does this help?

We can impact the balance of power, however not have any influence in the greater universal course of events (canon timeline), THIS is a paradox. Thank the universe I'm just gonna be a simple recon driver and don't work in the Time-Space Metaphysics. So a player faction unit might take Hesperus II, but that doesn't mean they quit selling equipment from Hesperus II to Steiner dukes, the people still eat grilled cheese and goulash. But you can have bragging rights.. to what effect?, who knows?, personal growth and self respect?

I guess that's what Matt means, we have influence, and bragging rights to teabag a House-lord and take a photo for posterity but tomorrow, that same House-lord is up to his old antics and nothing really changed. Its like Boris and Natasha vs Rocky and Bullwinkle, fun and funny, but accomplishes and changes nothing of any significant value. You cannot cut the supply of Guass ammo off, you cannot reduce the number of ball-bearings being made to hurt the enemy state of any greater value your personal gain in XP and C-bills. Nice picture though!

This obfuscation of facts related to this topic, to maintain "product excitement and enthusiasm" is equitable to lavatorial deposit weight expectancy and wagering against the house on the final output. Its reaching the heights and discomfort of severe upper of bowel irritation. This disunity and strife among the players of what "should be" is NOT worth the perverse gift wrapping of shiny titanium foil conceived as informational containment, and a bow of " Just wait til JUNE, really you'll love it".

I surrender to what eventually will be. What the Dev's make, and do, is in their hands, and further masturbatory speculation is merely trolls feeding circle-jerk style on each other arms in a grand dis-organized "what if". My related rage is not at the posters of this forum. With little effort on the part of those in the know, this could be put to rest. And yet it goes on. I'm not certain, but it seems that they in their "on high, omnipotence" are laughing hysterically at the Olympic efforts we are taking to bash our topic related opins forward and up and above the other guys.

The other possibility is too frightening to consider, which is the quote is entirely, then in Dev Interview 1, and still now speculative and little or no mechanic actually exist, explaining the Dev's silence on the matter. Meaning, 60 days or so from launch and we wouldn't have definitive mechanics related to our impact on the timeline and function because its not developed and still only conceptual. I got a chill just then , I prefer omniscient hysterics frankly, and don't believe this to be the case, mere paranoid inflammatory musing.

In short Mechwarriors, let us be satisfied IF the Game has a mechanic that works, and is relevant, and is at least in a relationship with the canon material/timeline, but probably just a "Friend Zone" relationship and not totally married to it. Then lets get on with wagering when it will fail to encompass some unforeseeable event a year from now, where we can all flame and gripe.

Lets strive to be better than this...Gimme my mech and a target rich environment!

[Requital]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 01 April 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

lol whut!? let me get this straight, I play a game and expect my effort to be worth something, and this translates to wanting to control the lore and write my own fluffy novel? where exactly on this board was this evidenced by anyone? away with your Slippery Slope logical fallacy. The power of video games IS coalescing the efforts a player base and the interactions made! sounds to me, like you don't want to play a game, you'd rather just rehash the Clan Invasion over and over ad nauseum. I think video games offer the power of 'what if' and are able to ask many different 'what ifs' quickly and efficiently. Another thing I guess I have to keep drumming: MWO follows canon but is not canon itself. The existing canon is a framework to leap from. It's akin to saying: Here is the situation circa 3049, players know the invasion is imminent, now; what happens next? well that's up to what the players do. If that doesn't interest you, then don't play this game, because as a reader of the canon, you already know what happens next what would be the point of playing it?



If I recall, most leaders of the Inner Sphere and Clan are prominent mechwarriors. Marthe Pryde was an accomplished pilot, Victor Steiner-Davion, Theodore Kurita, etc. Are they not 'mechHEROES' as you call them? Who is to say that a player playing as a 'mechWARRIOR' can't rise through the ranks to influence larger and larger campaigns? you? then I'm glad you don't design video games.



again, you can go fight as a frontline soldier, just don't complain if I end up commanding you. Don't like it? rise up and challenge me! or does that not motivate you?



your belittling tone does you no favors. I can't imagine any individual player rising up in such a manner, but you seem to need reason to justify your Slippery Slope argument, so whatever.


no, what I'm saying is that the FRR should be given the chance to fight for itself!You seem to not like the doubt that the situation might change. Again I point to; go read a book then, this is a video game predicated on player interaction. The big events should involve the player base, everyone would have fun. Even if it doesn't fully change a plot point, the game could at least acknowledge the player's effort. My personal quibble is the clan invasion, how can I prove the clans are inferior if the plot just <bleeping> hands them victories? If the clans are made up of players, well how come they are given a pass irrespective of their skill and tenacity?

here's a hypothetical: Clan players horrendously botch their invasion missions (per your silly restrictions, not places like Twycross, etc). So clan players are actually losing the invasion...and then, magically they get Twycross, then the FRR falls, and so on. You'll have so many IS players scratching their head saying: "but we were winning! that's not fair!"

likewise: the clan players are actually smashing through the IS, they are excellent players and the IS players are crumpling. then all of a sudden Wolcott is lost...then Luthien...you'd have clan players scratching their heads saying: "but we (the players) were winning!"

see how in each situation, letting the players determine the outcome not only rewards the players for their efforts but also ratchets up the tension? Imagine being that Kuritan mechwarrior on Luthien, knowing that Luthien, your capital to your nation might fall to barbaric invaders! I don't know about you, but man I would fight to the death!

having ambiguous outcomes actually enhances the player experience within the lore, it pulls them in and motivates them to fight.
Also imagine clan players being able to plan the invasion in some small manner, picking their own invasion corridors, maneuvers etc, again makes the game awesome because you're giving the player more agency, as a video game should.

1. Uh, I am playing the game for what it is, a mech combat simulator. I don't need to change the entire world to be able to blow stuff up. The effort is blowing the mechs up, the reward is blowing the mechs up. The fluff would be a exchange of hands of border world territories. No, I do not want to replay the clan invasion over and over, that doesn't mean I want to play a game that isn't mech warrior either.

2. This is mechwarrior. Not American Idol. I do not want a popularity contest to decide who controls the great houses.

3. I am sorry if my tone sounds belittling, my point was simply that this game should be played for what it is, a simulator with some online perks, not a justification of who is the most popular or a Sins of a Solar Empire match with mechs. The whole "Slippery Slope" thing has me baffled, because I voted that the cannon should be loosely adhered to, and while I like the story, I think some worlds should be up for grabs. If I was a die hard cannon guy afraid of a "Slippery Slope" why would I advocate for 25% or so of the map being up for grabs?

4. So, it would be so wrong to only fight on a handful of worlds during the clan invasion, and to win...and be known as the unit or house that fought them off on those worlds? You could affect your "destiny"...but wait...you would still lose the war so it doesn't matter if you won the battle. That is what your argument boils down to. You want to know that everything you do is significant and do not want to play a game if that is not the case. Never mind that it is a FPS sim game, the few people that vote for no storyline adherence want to know that they can have a massive impact on their environment.

My point is this...in the real world, it is VERY difficult for one group to change the destiny of the planet, and even more difficult for one person. Just because it is hard to make everything go the way we want it to does not change if we want to live. Who cares if the timeline cannot be massively changed by us? Will it make the game better? I doubt it...it will just create all the houses conquering each other and a power vacuum with each house that falls. I do not want a 12 year old barking orders and deciding where an entire house will go. I do not want a game that has more in common with Risk than Mechwarrior. If I want a game based around mechs, tanks, fighters, infantry, ect. I will play BF2142. If I want a dynamic world that the players choose I will play Eve. If I want strategy I will play SoaSE. If I want Mechwarrior I will play this game.