42 replies to this topic

[Siilk]

Garth Erlam, on 08 May 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I do, in many ways agree. However: How does destroying an enemy base 'capture' it?

It would be more like "capturing the surrounding area" by destroying the defending garrison.

[Belisarius1]

I feel like the stuff near the beginning of the suggest a game mode thread is highly relevant to this, particularly Outlaw's post here (http://mwomercs.com/...166#entry159166), and the ensuing discussion.

Base capture is a really interesting addition that I fully support, but it's important to have multiple points per side to prevent camping.

Edited by Belisarius†, 08 May 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Victor Morson]

I think I might be the only person that enjoys camping/turtlling and also cracking camps/turtles?

Games always talk about their fast pace and I know, for example, it was stated that 20 minutes was the total goal mark for games of C&C Generals, but my best games ever lasted nearly 3 hours and they were glorious. Likewise I liked any game mode or map in MW4 where you had to defend a static area and your entire job was to turtle up in highly defensible terrain and obliterate them from there, including starport sieges.

Hell, I've seen people get honestly mad about Terrorists "turtling" in CS:S, despite defense being their very role. I think it gets a seriously unfair reputation.

PS: I'm also showing my age, but damn it, I hate how the term "Camping" got hijacked and applied to not moving. Back in my day we had two kinds of camping: Hanging near a respawning item and refusing to leave it (thus staying powered up) - that was camping - and setting up shop by an area where the other team respawns (spawn camping). Damn it, hanging out in your own spawn and refusing to move isn't camping. You kids get off my lawn!

Edited by Victor Morson, 08 May 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Woodstock]

I agree it is not camping its playing defensively ... the problem comes though when the max time for a match is limited.

Ala WoT - Each match is limited to 15 minutes so if one whole team 'shrubs up' then the game can become very tedious.

[Aegis Kleais]

woodstock, on 08 May 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

For me immersion breaking is about being asked to do things which are 100% a 'game mechanic action' and not a 'game world action'. The first being the win/lose mechanic ... the other being a story telling device that represents the win/lose mechanic.

But the thing that worries me most about your reply is the apathy I read in it. No offense intended ... We are in the F&F beta stage ... rapidly approaching beta and open beta ... this is when we should be setting our standards high. Letting the devs know what we dream of.

Sure ... I doubt any of us think we will get everything we want ... but if we give the devs excuses to 'fail' then we will end up with a game that is more World of Mechwarriors and not Mechwarrior: Online!

This is one of the best managed forums I have ever come across. The dev's are clearly listening. Back in Nov/Dec I started a thread all about customisation and variants. I was a proponent for 'Only Variants!' its the only Canon option! Rarrrr!!! I don't think i was in the majority, but enough people agreed with me to keep the convo alive for a pretty long time. And look what we have now - A mech lab that factors in Variants, but at the same time balances that rather extreme idea with free form customisation of MW4.

If we tell the dev's an immersion breaking mechanic like base capture is 'ENOUGH FOR US' (when the alternative (to me) doesn't feel such a complicated alternative) then we will put it on their ... 'meh ... well they don't care much about that' pile.

Well, I'm not sure if I'm coming off as apathetic, but personally I think it's that I'm sated with what I've seen. From what I read in your response, it seems like you are hoping for a close tie to roleplaying elements in order to maintain immersion into the game's universe.

I've tried to remain respectful of this, stating that "those who want RP elements are more than entitled to hope for them and get them" but in as much as I see that as a valid point, I'm also adamant in believing that "no element of RP should ever be forced on a player". It's because of this latter view, that I am placated with what I've seen so far from PGI (which of course is no reason for you to not keep setting goals higher for the devs in hopes that they can fulfill elements of RP you feel are beneficial to the game)

Another reason I have why I'm exuding a "fine with what we have" belief is because PGI has stated that the game is MVP (Minimal Viable Product) Meaning that they are fully aware that it isn't coming out as a FULL featured game, but instead have opted to develop the game to a release-worthy build and then to amend features in subsequent patches down the line. They could withhold the release and give us a more "complete" game, but this would mean more months and possibly years before the game's release. For what publishing support IGP has provided, I think they're looking for a release timeframe that's sooner than that (but that's just my own opinion)

[Long Draw]

I just pray for all our sake that there is going to eventually be more to this game than "capture-the-flag" gameplay. That junk gets really boring, really fast. A successful MW game requires supporting content, not just blow this mech up, repair your mech, blow this mech up....

[Woodstock]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 May 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Well, I'm not sure if I'm coming off as apathetic, but personally I think it's that I'm sated with what I've seen. From what I read in your response, it seems like you are hoping for a close tie to roleplaying elements in order to maintain immersion into the game's universe.

I've tried to remain respectful of this, stating that "those who want RP elements are more than entitled to hope for them and get them" but in as much as I see that as a valid point, I'm also adamant in believing that "no element of RP should ever be forced on a player". It's because of this latter view, that I am placated with what I've seen so far from PGI (which of course is no reason for you to not keep setting goals higher for the devs in hopes that they can fulfill elements of RP you feel are beneficial to the game)

Another reason I have why I'm exuding a "fine with what we have" belief is because PGI has stated that the game is MVP (Minimal Viable Product) Meaning that they are fully aware that it isn't coming out as a FULL featured game, but instead have opted to develop the game to a release-worthy build and then to amend features in subsequent patches down the line. They could withhold the release and give us a more "complete" game, but this would mean more months and possibly years before the game's release. For what publishing support IGP has provided, I think they're looking for a release timeframe that's sooner than that (but that's just my own opinion)

I don't really see it as RP elements ... When I told my mates that I had a back story for why my Character was called Woodstock, they nearly died laughing ... I'm not big on the RP side of things.

But I am big on story telling. (I was always the GM in our group... I'm even half way through a novel. No not a BT novel.) I think the richer the story the game tells then the better the atmosphere will be when playing it.

Also (just had this thought) ... the clans ... Personally I hate em ... they spoiled the books for me ... never wanna play a clan character but as far as the game goes the only thing that limits them canon-ly is their 'story' ... their culture etc. If we take that away then we will get situations where the dev's will HAVE TO use heavy handed methods to limit their effectiveness to maintain balance.

I mean look at the previous games. Yes they were single player, but they were missions not battles. No RP elements, but each had a story. Why we were there. Now I know we wont get a single player element, but accepting things like a 2D base capture mechanic is missing out on a wonderful opportunity to add to the story.

Yes I also know that we wont have crafted missions either ... well def not for launch. But why cant we have a reason for going to grid cord. 'X'? It does not force RP on anyone ...but it allows the RP people to have a reason for doing the things they do.

Edited by woodstock, 09 May 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

woodstock, on 09 May 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

I don't really see it as RP elements ... When I told my mates that I had a back story for why my Character was called Woodstock, they nearly died laughing ... I'm not big on the RP side of things.

But I am big on story telling. (I was always the GM in our group... I'm even half way through a novel. No not a BT novel.) I think the richer the story the game tells then the better the atmosphere will be when playing it.

Also (just had this thought) ... the clans ... Personally I hate em ... they spoiled the books for me ... never wanna play a clan character but as far as the game goes the only thing that limits them canon-ly is their 'story' ... their culture etc. If we take that away then we will get situations where the dev's will HAVE TO use heavy handed methods to limit their effectiveness to maintain balance.

I mean look at the previous games. Yes they were single player, but they were missions not battles. No RP elements, but each had a story. Why we were there. Now I know we wont get a single player element, but accepting things like a 2D base capture mechanic is missing out on a wonderful opportunity to add to the story.

Yes I also know that we wont have crafted missions either ... well def not for launch. But why cant we have a reason for going to grid cord. 'X'? It does not force RP on anyone ...but it allows the RP people to have a reason for doing the things they do.

Why do you say/assume that there will be NO story? What if every Contract you take, has a very good reason WHY they want you to go do whatever it is the Contract states?

The PUG side, with DropShip game mode, no story sure, other than drop and fight? But the Persistent side game mode could easily have very valid lead in stories attached (maybe on a planet basis, but then we may have to re-visit Planets and as such the story actually progresses with us.

[Godzilla Enthusiast]

In universe justification for base capture.

By standing close enough to the enemy base you are able to break through their signal jamming and EW enough to use your mechs comms and EW systems to download vital strategic and tactical information about their forces.

Once you know where all their supply depots and reinforcements are you can shell them with artillery or launch devastating raids. You might have lost the tactical battle but now you are in a position to win a strategic victory.

Information is ammunition.

[Woodstock]

MaddMaxx, on 10 May 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Why do you say/assume that there will be NO story? What if every Contract you take, has a very good reason WHY they want you to go do whatever it is the Contract states?

The PUG side, with DropShip game mode, no story sure, other than drop and fight? But the Persistent side game mode could easily have very valid lead in stories attached (maybe on a planet basis, but then we may have to re-visit Planets and as such the story actually progresses with us.

This gives me hope ... if they work that hard for the persistent story ... maybe they will make the simple matches more immersive.

[MaddMaxx]

woodstock, on 10 May 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

This gives me hope ...

Without hope good sir, what does one have left...?

Spoiler

MWOline!

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 May 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[JakeNzC]

could be interesting if you could fight across multiple locations on any given world, for instance capturing a supply depot in one region, then when you go onto the next battle you access to extra weapons and ammo, or maybe a mech repair facility, fighter base, artillery base etc

this would certainly add a new dynamic if weapon qtys, damage, loadouts etc was spread over a whole campaign, it would make tactical decisions have a meaningful effect on how the game feels and plays.

i can imagine struggling to take an ammo depot as the teams expendables are on the verge of running out, it make a for a desperate battle, mixing things up with laser armed mechs and keeping the missile and autocannon mechs held back for the final push.

maybe once you get past a certain point and the facility is about to be overrun it can turn into a timed battle, if you don't capture it quickly demo crews will blow it up and the resource will be lost for everyone.

[Aelos03]

i feel same about capturing base its too old we need something better

[Kaemon]

Aegis Kleais™, on 09 May 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Another reason I have why I'm exuding a "fine with what we have" belief is because PGI has stated that the game is MVP (Minimal Viable Product)

Aegis, don't you have a pinned post regarding gameplay modes?



The key word there is viable, they need enough to keep people interested, and give them the funds (time) to flush out the rest.

It's also subjective, and Russ or Bryan's (or even Paul's) definition of viable may not be the same as ours.

I think (for now) deathmatch and CTF (capture the flag) is fine, but we will need multi objective gameplay at some point (that's my opinion).

I would really be interested in the strategic roadmap for BETA and Go Live, seeing the list of features and the order they want to get them in (you know, before the Clans hit and everything goes crazy).

Cause that list is getting pretty long.

[Aegis Kleais]

Kaemon, on 11 May 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

Aegis, don't you have a pinned post regarding gameplay modes?



The key word there is viable, they need enough to keep people interested, and give them the funds (time) to flush out the rest.

It's also subjective, and Russ or Bryan's (or even Paul's) definition of viable may not be the same as ours.

I think (for now) deathmatch and CTF (capture the flag) is fine, but we will need multi objective gameplay at some point (that's my opinion).

I would really be interested in the strategic roadmap for BETA and Go Live, seeing the list of features and the order they want to get them in (you know, before the Clans hit and everything goes crazy).

Cause that list is getting pretty long.

I think you got me wrong though. I'm FINE with the game coming out as MVP. TF2 did this and the community is left ravenous for update news to see what new features and fixes the devs implement. It was like a repeated Christmas each time an update came out. I think MWO will have more than enough goods in it at release to keep us busy, and as PGI adds more to it, we'll be getting more bang for our buck (which, even in F2P, is something that can happen; ie we get more entertainment value out of the product)

In other words, I'm a happy camper right now. This game's looking shack!

[eZZip]

I don't really see what's wrong with a capture the base mode—people have played and continue to play gametypes like CTF, DM, a limited respawn mode, a limited respawn + bomb mode, instagib, etc. Simple goals can lead to complex methods of reaching them. The problem with fancy scenarios is that they are often one-sided (usually towards a defensive side) and they get predictable fast.

MaddMaxx, on 10 May 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Why do you say/assume that there will be NO story? What if every Contract you take, has a very good reason WHY they want you to go do whatever it is the Contract states?

Because there is no way that they would have enough compelling stories behind every contract (that is just a game against other players) that would last a long time. Many players wouldn't care, either: for the 80th time you play on Desert Canyon (made-up map, of course), are you going to believe that this time, your generals wanted you to do something different from last time even though your goals are the same with the same spawn as the previous time?

[Juiced]

Also remember that this game is built around the concept of being a simulation. not a traditional MMO/RPG.

Long Draw, on 09 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I just pray for all our sake that there is going to eventually be more to this game than "capture-the-flag" gameplay. That junk gets really boring, really fast. A successful MW game requires supporting content, not just blow this mech up, repair your mech, blow this mech up....

Well for this i would point you towards games such as CS/TF2...etc most FPSs. If they create a good balance between tonnages/weapon balance/roles/ and maps (very important) then there is no reason why this game cannot do fine. People have been playing basically the same type of matches for a very very long time and its still going strong.

I would like to see some RPG elements, but they are not nessesary. For example we know there is a metaplot. MWO is set in a specific part of the timeline and we know certian things happen during the timeline..because of this we could see the contracts evolve as time goes on...etc. I however do not think that heavy RPG elements or justifications needs to be introduced (why are we playing CTF? because its fun). As a mech battle simulator the fun of the game should be from playing different mechs, playing different roles, trying different weapon combos, and winning matches.

[Long Draw]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the developers need to restrict themselves to a singular game premise for MWO. They say that crafting has no place in MWO because it is a simulator game, but I say that they are missing the big picture. For those of you who played SimCity, an extremely popular city simulator, do you recall ever having a successful city that lacked industry? Industry in SimCity translates very easily to crafting items as a general concept in MWO.

[StandingCow]

I like the idea of having a base to destroy/capture.. without another objective besides kill all the enemies... light fast mechs lose one of their advantages.

Each time (much like WoT) is probably going to want to keep a mech or two (depending on the amount of players) on defense.

[Halfinax]

Base capture is significantly more interesting than Team Death Match, and capture the flag. At least with base capture you generally need team coordination to defend the capturer, and as the capturee you also need defenders to baby sit the capture sights.

That said I'd love to see base captures amount to something more than just holding a defined area. Something along the lines of automated turrets, radar relays, etc would make it much more interesting, but as a MVP at launch base capture is much more appealing than TDM. I'll take the former over the later any day. Eventually throw in attack + defense, and I'll generally be a happy camper (colloquially not literally). TDM is really lame, but honestly banging away at a dropship for 12 minutes doesn't sound fun at all, and escort is awful. Payload I can see, but escort is always terrible. It relies too much on AI, or a team member that can have no fun.