152 replies to this topic

[the_Grim_Squeaker]

I am a member or the Star Craft team ..and i watch alot of MLG IGN and others ..I was wondering if thare will be suport for E-sports as in Spectators Stats on the Mechs and things like that ... I would love to see this at IPL or MLG .

[Threat Doc]

I would like to see it, if e-Sports is going to be the eventual direction of MWO, to go in a non-standard direction. In fact, with my knowledge of contracting and how we've been told this game will be, or how the devs intend it to be, I would like to help develop that. That's all I'll say about this.

[Helmer]

Hello BjornGhiest and welcome to the forums.


The topic of MWO as an E Sport or supporting an official tournament has come up several times in the past, notably in this thread as well as a few smaller threads, here and here

It's a topic very near and dear to my heart that I believe could have an overall positive long term effect on Mechwarrior Online , its popularity, and revenue.

The topics of spectating modes, streaming options, commentary UI, match recording, balance, sanctioned tournaments ,and Solaris VII have all been discussed. PGI is working very hard to get the core gameplay and systems up and running and into the players hands. Once certain milestones are met, and development on post launch systems begin in earnest I am sure they will revisit these ideas. Let's hope that they choose to implement some of the tools necessary .



Cheers.

[SuomiWarder]

The fictional world of BattleTech includes several places where 'Mechs battle as public sport (Solaris being the most famous place).

With that in mind, I would expect that some day MWO will have a Solaris type section of game play for duels and team battles that have ranking like a sports league. How long until it comes....who knows.

Edited by SuomiWarder, 18 May 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Setting up Solaris VII to act as a metagame detached custom lobby where friends can fight friends and teams can practice, ranked battles can take place and spectator matches can happen I think is going to be one of the most important post-release expansions. It provides a unique place in the fiction to allow an anything goes atmosphere without needing to resort to traditional private servers.

I'm a huge supporter of making it one of the priority post-launch additions.

[Threat Doc]

Okay, why would we limit this to Solaris, or any other specific game world? Why does this have to be a one-on-one or Lance-size deal? Why couldn't the standard games be consented to as e-Sport competitions. They're the same thing, just on a larger scale, team sports. I'm not trying to be adversarial, but it sounds like most folks are trying to limit competitions to smaller venues, and that just sounds like a limitation to me -I know, redundant-. I ask myself, what would I be more interested in? One-on-one competitions, small arena competitions, or do I want to see the battlefield unfold naturally, betting on teams wherever it's legal, corporate sponsorship, on large fields of battle? I say have three buttons available for MechWarrior's when they go to launch into a game...

* [Lifetime Consent for e-Sport Participation] - this means what it says, making the other two buttons go away, and also making it so the consent CAN be withdrawn by going to another part of a MechWarrior's profile
* [Yes, Consent for e-Sport Participation for this Battle]
* [No, I Have No Interest in e-Sport]

Here's what I see for the yes folks: if enough presence is available on the battlefield for yes consents, then whomever is recording e-Sport events has the match opened up to them, prior to actual Launch, but they have like 30 seconds to respond, or the game launches without it. On Launch, each vendor/spectator, or whomever is recording the match, has the option of looking over the battlefield in general, with no possibility of communicating with either side, only spectating, or from the cockpit of whatever 'Mech(s) the pilots have consented to make available, the pilot's viewpoint more or less streamed to separate channels. It's not perfect, and it never would be, someone's always going to work at cheating and there is ZERO means of getting rid of it completely; so, yes, telephone's would still be viable, but how much of a bonus would it REALLY be for the other side?

Spectators would also see the ads for whomever was sponsoring the game at the time, though the pilots IN the game would not when live. Extra-game surfaces could be designated on 'Mechs to be able to get out an image extra-game, where the spectators would see it during a live game, and players during replays.

For the no folks, they cannot have their cockpit viewed through, and any dividends coming from active team-play would be halved, though they would still earn by playing.

From what I've read and seen of e-Sport, thus far, is it's a one-on-one or small-team thing, where there's a specific arena, live and/or post-processing announcers, etc., where winners get paid from a pot, like betting, and do not use it as a regular means of pay, whether they win or lose. That sounds ridiculous to me, and it should be opened to team sponsorships, like auto racing, horse racing, football (North American), soccer, baseball, etc. Players should be treated like team members for their team, and should be contracted and played as such; leave the trading out, however, hehe.

I guess what I don't understand is, aside from the fact this is video game competition, and thus is still a relatively small sector of competitive sports, why is e-Sport so small and bound? As humongous as the video game industry, and the humongous population of those who play in it, why is e-Sport still as small and unknown as it is? Get G4TV, Spike, SyFy, YouTube, Vimeo, and some of these on-line gamer magazines involved, get the sponsorships and team setups moving, keep it dynamic, and expand it to more than just arena gaming. Maybe not a reasonable approach at this point, but reasonable people never advance the world, it's got to be the unreasonable ones that move it forward.

[Aelos03]

Well for start let it first be perfectly balanced and if this is done gz we have one awesome game for competitive scene

[Threat Doc]

No, DON'T let it be perfectly balanced; there's no such thing as perfect balance. What is perfect balance to an individual is their ability to kick *** without consequences, and it's going to be absolutely different for every single player; so, it doesn't exist. Second, the idea is that this is a warfare simulator, and in war the only things that are fair are the things the individual can make fair; therefore, balance SHOULDN'T exist. All of the weapons are available to all people, all chassis and variants as well, and all modules, and if that's not the most level playing field one can ask for, then we're in the wrong business.

On the other hand, if an individual is an ***-hat and doesn't know how to effectively build a 'Mech variant, or is combat ineffective with using their weaponry, or doesn't understand the meaning of ammo conservation and heat management, then that is not the game's fault, and balance is a null issue at that point.

In short, the best balance you're going to find in ANY game, is that all things within the game, even at varying prices, are available to all people; then, it's up to the people to live and learn and, if they're incapable of learning, they're in the wrong place.

Indeed, I dare say that people calling for perfect balance are the ones who cause the most trouble in games because, when THEIR perfect balance is achieved, the game becomes severely unbalanced for many many others. I say this because of my experiences with World of Warcraft; so many perfect balance criers were screaming that, eventually, Blizzard gave in and began trying to achieve their balance. It hurt the Warlocks first, and then the Hunters, and eventually came back to Warlocks, being nerf'd so badly as to be useless. So, those who want perfect balance, and I'm not speaking to ANY one person, but to all folks who scream for balance, it is only achieved when every aspect of the game is available to everyone in game.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 19 May 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[Helmer]

Without balanced systems games become a route form of mockery. All players use the same weapons and tactics. There need to be checks and balances in competitive games, otherwise the games become stale and creativity is snuffed out.
If the Gauss rifle equipped Atlas is the way to go in every situation, then it's a sure bet you know what people are going to drop with.

Intels George Woo and others have done much to try and bring ESports more into the mainstream. It appears they are finally gaining more and more traction. It's to the point that Forbes' online magazine is now doing pieces on it. And author/developers like Jane McGonigal are preaching the psychological need for gaming in general.

When you start having companies run their own tournaments where the grand prize is in the millions of dollars (DOT2), you're bound to attract attention.

Part of the issue stems from socio/economic issues. In Korea and Japan PC Bangs (or cybercafes) sprang up in the '90s from gamers desire to play but inability to afford a luxury item like a PC. This has obviously changed somewhat, but the social aspects and Esport spectating mentality that a generation has grown up with has been integrated into the general culture of these countries.

The West is ever so slowly figuring out ways to make Esport viewing more palatable to your average viewer. The EVO fighting championships, MLG and other leagues are seeing higher and higher spectator numbers.

Let's hope PGI is able to implement the tools necessary to host an official tournament or an E-Sport venue.



Cheers.

[Threat Doc]

Helmer, on 19 May 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Without balanced systems games become a route form of mockery. All players use the same weapons and tactics. There need to be checks and balances in competitive games, otherwise the games become stale and creativity is snuffed out.
If the Gauss rifle equipped Atlas is the way to go in every situation, then it's a sure bet you know what people are going to drop with.

But that's what I'm telling you, there is no such thing, and you'll never convince me there is, as balance, except in making the tools and toys within the game available to everyone. In this, PGI has already excelled, as they are allowing all of the tools and toys to be made available to everyone. And, your second point, about the game stagnating, and creativity being snuffed out, is invalid, because where there is a game that has the same things in it all the time, or where you fight in the same sorts of games all the time, there will be stagnation. PGI has already expressed that, through their continual releases of 'Mechs, maps, information, toys, tools, upgrades, etc., they will combat this stagnation and lack of creativity; thus, any lack of creativity will be on the part of the players.

It's funny to me that so many people complain about balance, when they themselves will seek each and every advantage they can get to win, regardless. As long as the rules of the game allow it, and they're the ones who find the advantage, and fewer people, if any but them, use it, they're just fine with it. However, have a truly level playing field through the natural rules of the game, and people just complain about the game being unfair. Balance is in how each individual plays the game, and will not be found in the game itself, except in the proliferation and availability to all parties.

Quote

Intels George Woo and others have done much to try and bring ESports more into the mainstream...

See, this is all very cool, and I'm glad to see it making its way in, because this means I may actually have a future in it. I'm also glad to hear that people are working to expand the ways in which e-Sports are played, in which they're seen, how accepted they are in general. Thank you for presenting that additional information.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 19 May 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[Helmer]

I believe we are arguing some the same points, simply in different ways. I would like to clarify what I mean by "balanced systems" and I *think* I have a grasp on what you mean.

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

No, DON'T let it be perfectly balanced; there's no such thing as perfect balance. What is perfect balance to an individual is their ability to kick *** without consequences, and it's going to be absolutely different for every single player; so, it doesn't exist.

With a competitive game I submit that it MUST be balanced. There *is* such a thing as perfect balance in a symmetrical game (See Checkers and Chess), however, I do admit ( as I believe you are pointing out) that with a game as complex as this, it's extremely difficult. And an Asymmetrical game (See Starcraft) is even more difficult.
We can only hope PGI gets close. Having all weapons and 'mechs available to all players is, itself, part of a balanced system.
If the systems are unbalanced and lets say, for example, medium lasers and boating 'mechs are overpowered. Then there is no reason competitive gamers should take anything else. Med Laser builds become the norm, creativity is stifled because there is no competitive reason to take any other weapon, the game becomes stagnant.
No amount of additional maps or 'mech chassis is going to change that in a competitive environment.

Fortunately , for us, it sounds like PGI is determined to make all 'mechs and weapons viable. That no one weapon or 'mech is the "must have" build.

Give the players a game that's balanced (in terms of its systems) and allow player agency to determine the outcome of a match.

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

However, have a truly level playing field through the natural rules of the game, and people just complain about the game being unfair.

Replace the word natural with balanced, and I agree. If the natural rules of the game are not balanced, and certain weapons or 'mechs are overpowered, then you have a broken game mechanic that favors certain builds, and people , especially in a competitive environment, will gravitate towards those broken systems to help them win.

To go back to Chess and Checkers. They are both symmetrical games where all pieces are available to each player and player skill steps forth in games. If , in Chess, Queens where suddenly afforded the ability to take out any piece without moving from her starting position, then there is suddenly no reason to use any other piece in the game. Thus the need for Balanced systems in the game.



I think PGI will do an admirable job in developing a fun, competitive game. Given that they are a F2P model they should be able to react quickly to any issues that pop up post launch should something slip past beta and not be as effective or overly effective as intended.

The best we can do is get people interested in playing the game, spread the word, spend some money and hope PGI is financially successful. When (not if) they are they will be able to spend time developing other things they would like to include in the game . Hopefully things like Demo Recording, Spectate mode, Streaming video, Commentry UI, Tournament setups, etc etc make that list.




Cheers.

[Threat Doc]

We'll have to see how this is going to pan out; however, your comment about boats has me wondering. The devs have already explained that weapons of a type coming out of a location will have a certain number of hardpoints -what we in the BattleTech world call Critical Slots-, and the maximum number of weapons that can go in there are limited by the number of slots available. It's going to be difficult to make a true boat in this game, I think.

[eZZip]

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

And, your second point, about the game stagnating, and creativity being snuffed out, is invalid, because where there is a game that has the same things in it all the time, or where you fight in the same sorts of games all the time, there will be stagnation.

Quite incorrect. Many older games survived competitively without needing content added regularly. Pretty much all real life competitive sports never have any significant changes in the games' rules themselves, yet people continue to play and watch them. For video games, Starcraft is probably the longest living competitive game, and it only had patches for balance for most of its lifetime.

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

The devs have already explained that weapons of a type coming out of a location will have a certain number of hardpoints -what we in the BattleTech world call Critical Slots-, and the maximum number of weapons that can go in there are limited by the number of slots available. It's going to be difficult to make a true boat in this game, I think.

I think you've misunderstood their system. There is a video on the mech lab on IGN that clarifies it significantly, but for your interest here, it is the following:
-each variant comes with different sets of hardpoints, e.g., mech X has two ballistic hardpoints in its left arm and one energy hardpoint in its centre torso
-each hardpoint can take a weapon of any mass or # of crits as long as the weapon isn't too heavy for the entire mech and there are enough crits available in that location
-crits and mass work normally

Helmer, on 19 May 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

With a competitive game I submit that it MUST be balanced. There *is* such a thing as perfect balance in a symmetrical game (See Checkers and Chess), however, I do admit ( as I believe you are pointing out) that with a game as complex as this, it's extremely difficult.

Chess and Checkers are not perfectly balanced; one side must go first (an advantage in Chess, if I recall correctly).

Edited by eZZip, 19 May 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Belisarius1]

Balance is a relative term. Competetive scenes balance themselves more-or-less naturally. People want to win, and so gravitate to the things that allow them to win; variety is not a strong enough motivator. Even an extremely poorly balanced game can have a competitive scene. In fact, it's impossible to have an un-balanced competitive scene because players will simply continue to discard inferior content until they arrive at a viable consensus, or will quit the game if the style they love is unworkable.

However, the "worse" a game's balance is, the smaller the specialised and stripped down subset used by its competitive players becomes. In a worst-case scenario, there is one gun (looking at you, Black Ops), one character (hi, metaknight, how're you today?) or one race which is so broken that it is the only thing worth choosing. This is obviously a major failure on the developers' part, but it's important to realise that the competitive scene is balanced even here. Every player has a chance to win... provided they use what everyone else is using.

The goal then is not a game in which everyone has an equal chance to win given equivalent skill, because even the most horribly broken game will eventually reach an equilibrium where that is so. The challenge is to create a game in which the competitive scene uses the full breadth of the game's content. That's what esports wants. And it's freaking hard to do.

Edited by Belisarius†, 19 May 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Threat Doc]

eZZip, on 19 May 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Quite incorrect. Many older games survived competitively without needing content added regularly. Pretty much all real life competitive sports never have any significant changes in the games' rules themselves, yet people continue to play and watch them. For video games, Starcraft is probably the longest living competitive game, and it only had patches for balance for most of its lifetime.

Well, okay, then that's even better, and I was only attempting to counter what Helmer said, earlier.

Quote

I think you've misunderstood their system. There is a video on the mech lab on IGN that clarifies it significantly, but for your interest here, it is the following:
-each variant comes with different sets of hardpoints, e.g., mech X has two ballistic hardpoints in its left arm and one energy hardpoint in its centre torso
-each hardpoint can take a weapon of any mass or # of crits as long as the weapon isn't too heavy for the entire mech and there are enough crits available in that location
-crits and mass work normally

I think you had better check yourself, because you are incorrect. The video showed the correct number of criticals in various locations, per the board game. The difference is they also displayed a number of hardpoints by location, that allow you to mount only a certain number of a certain type of weaponry. So, while you may not be able to fill a location with the same type of weaponry, you can fill criticals until the hard points go away.

Quote

Chess and Checkers are not perfectly balanced; one side must go first (an advantage in Chess, if I recall correctly).

Very well put.

[Aelos03]

Belisarius†, on 19 May 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Balance is a relative term. Competetive scenes balance themselves more-or-less naturally. People want to win, and so gravitate to the things that allow them to win; variety is not a strong enough motivator. Even an extremely poorly balanced game can have a competitive scene. In fact, it's impossible to have an un-balanced competitive scene because players will simply continue to discard inferior content until they arrive at a viable consensus, or will quit the game if the style they love is unworkable.

However, the "worse" a game's balance is, the smaller the specialised and stripped down subset used by its competitive players becomes. In a worst-case scenario, there is one gun (looking at you, Black Ops), one character (hi, metaknight, how're you today?) or one race which is so broken that it is the only thing worth choosing. This is obviously a major failure on the developers' part, but it's important to realise that the competitive scene is balanced even here. Every player has a chance to win... provided they use what everyone else is using.

The goal then is not a game in which everyone has an equal chance to win given equivalent skill, because even the most horribly broken game will eventually reach an equilibrium where that is so. The challenge is to create a game in which the competitive scene uses the full breadth of the game's content. That's what esports wants. And it's freaking hard to do.

NIce said so bad example of balance i fear of in mwo is that assault class mechs are most used you enter match with medium mech just to find out you are going against 12 assault, but if every single mech is viable then there are many tactics that can be used. Lets use dota as
example there are 100 + heroes and every hero can be used(in competitive too) of course some are used more some less but best team
is not the one that have best players or took some hero before other team does, good team needs to be unpredictable and to have frightening team work, now all that goes in water if there is only one setup and tactic that works and if you don't use it you lose.

[eZZip]

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

I think you had better check yourself, because you are incorrect. The video showed the correct number of criticals in various locations, per the board game. The difference is they also displayed a number of hardpoints by location, that allow you to mount only a certain number of a certain type of weaponry. So, while you may not be able to fill a location with the same type of weaponry, you can fill criticals until the hard points go away.

That is what I said. Earlier though, you said that hardpoints are criticals:

Kay Wolf, on 19 May 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

The devs have already explained that weapons of a type coming out of a location will have a certain number of hardpoints -what we in the BattleTech world call Critical Slots-

Edited by eZZip, 19 May 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[Helmer]

eZZip, on 19 May 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Chess and Checkers are not perfectly balanced; one side must go first (an advantage in Chess, if I recall correctly).

Mea Culpa. I only had a brief time before work to post and I started to speak to the difference in symmetrical and asymmetrical as well as synchronous and asynchronous games and totally missed a large portion of my statement in regards to balanced games. I failed to mention the Chess variant called Synchronous Chess. (Which can be played here ) It is a perfectly balanced game. Neither side has an advantage and both players have the exact same pieces available to them. So, yes, perfect balance is possible. Not that it helps us any. We're not playing Chess, but something a tad bit more involved (not to say Chess isn't deep, it is . I just don't care to watch it)

Is it possible in the game like MWO.... no. I am sure PGI can make iterate to the point where any balance issues are not perceptible or a none issue. As someone mentioned before, Starcraft is a game with 3 widely varying factions, with different gameplay strategies , different units, and yet all Factions are viable. I have faith.



In regards to the Hardpoint system. It is my understanding that as everyone has stated, variants have differing hardpoints. Hardpoints indicating what type of weapon you may place there whether it be energy , missle or ballistic. So when swapping out weapons 3 factors must be considered. 1) do you have an appropriate hardpoint available?, 2) Do you have the tonnage available 3) do you have enough critical spaces available.

So in this screenshot it appears this Cat K2 variant has 2 ballistic hardpoints taken up by 2 machineguns, and 2 energy hardpoints , 1 taken up by a medium laser, and it appears another one is being mounted to take up the other hardpoint. Once the second Med Laser is mounted the remaining 5 hardpoints would only be able to be used by Heatsinks, Ammo, JumpJets, or Equipment.




Cheers.

[Threat Doc]

eZZip, on 19 May 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

That is what I said. Earlier though, you said that hardpoints are criticals:

Mainly I would repeat what Helmer has said, above. It's not just a matter of hardpoints, or criticals, but both and a matter of tonnage available. Basically, the hard point system is a limiting factor, but you have full criticals to play with in a location, as long as you don't exceed available tonnage, criticals, or hardpoints. So, in a way, eZZip, hardpoints are, indeed, criticals.

[Long Draw]

Okay, first off, both Kay and Helmer are stating the same point. It is how the statements are being perceived that is causing this tug-o-war situation of who is right. No matter what game you are creating, as a programmer (and I am one myself) we look at the mathematics of the input, processing and the output and compare the result. In a real-time game like MWO, typically damage over time is utilized in the equations to bring balance between differing weapon types and grades. No sane person expects a small laser to do more damage than a large laser. BUT, the small laser also will take up far less bulk, produce less thermal build up as well as cost far less than a laser that is say 5 times more powerful in damage. So lets assume that the Table Top statistics of these two weapons created the imbalance due to the TT version not being designed for a game environment like MWO. What do we do, well, damage over time. If the small laser can hit 3 times more often at 5 times less damage compared to the large laser, we now have two grades of weapons which are viable, but differ in the effective use according to player strategy. Or in other words, do we cause mech death by 1000 cuts or by 1 sword stab?