60 replies to this topic

[ArmandTulsen]

Mackman, on 16 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

And at the end of the day, do you really want to go talk to Mech Commander Gruffy McGruffin and have him tell you to hunt down ten pirate mechs and bring him their arm actuators as proof, and then he'll give you a "Battered Small Laser" and some boots?

**** yeah, sign me up for that ****.

[Thirdstar]

ArmandTulsen, on 16 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

**** yeah, sign me up for that ****.

But see only 1 in 10 of those pirate mechs will actually drop those actuators. So you end up farming up a 100 of them.

[Tempered]

Why spend money making a persistent game when they can make loads of cash selling you bobble heads, paint and mech bays.
Not much overhead for digital paint. Persistent worlds take up lots of server space.

[Khobai]

Quote

Persistent worlds take up lots of server space.

server space costs practically nothing these days though.

quite frankly persistent worlds are more suited towards mmorpgs and this isnt an mmorpg.

[Thirdstar]

Khobai, on 16 February 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

server space costs practically nothing these days though.

quite frankly persistent worlds are more suited towards mmorpgs and this isnt an mmorpg.

Persistent worlds DO have higher overheads than what we have now.

Edited by Thirdstar, 16 February 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[Volume]

Khobai, on 16 February 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

I was being facetious.

It actually sounded a lot like WoW pre-cata where some Kalimdor flight paths took over 10 minutes.
10 minutes of useless gliding on a preset flight on a non-controllable mount.
It was a good excuse to go get a drink I guess, but...lol. Stuff like that adds 0 to the game.

[Lyoto Machida]

TheMadTypist, on 16 February 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Like Thorqemada I suspect the eventual equivalent to a "persistent world" will be like the starmap from MW4-mercs, with certain maps being associated with certain planets, (an ice planet for snow maps, another for urban and forest maps, a third for desert work, that kind of thing) and we'll just drop in "missions" on those worlds like we do now for whatever the gameplay type winds up being.

Territory control will likely be little more then a progress bar on each world representing ownership, with the percentage of that faction's wins on that world's maps deciding who gets "control" and associated benefits. I'm going off of this quote from Dev Blog One:



It fits with the hardware they've gotten together so far without requiring additional supporting features pushing the release into 2014. After all, they've been putting so much work into the upcoming 12v12 format and matchmaking, could you imagine the work they'd have to put in if 'mechs were just arriving to and departing from the battlefield all the time?

This has been done before guys...twice at least, going back to 1994 at least:

[DirePhoenix]

Lyoto Machida, on 16 February 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

This has been done before guys...twice at least, going back to 1994 at least:

Oh man this brings back some memories! I never thought I'd see a screencap from the original MPBT (EGA) again!

[Felicitatem Parco]

Here is the original plan for the game's Persistent side: http://mwomercs.com/...munity-warfare/

So far we've just been testing the fighting mechanics, and the Meta Game is coming Soon™. Here is a snippit from the Ask the Devs 30 Answers:

Quote

Community Warfare is coming in stages over the course of 2013. The first phases will include the concepts of Factions – Player run Merc Corps, and non-player run Houses. The second phase will include the territory conquest aspects, including the ability to fight for and control border worlds within the InnerSphere. Details will be forthcoming through a variety announcements (press and forum) later in the year.

So, yes, it is going to happen. Yay!

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 February 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[xhrit]

Tarl Cabot, on 16 February 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Just thinking about a persistent world like EQ, WoW, PS2, etc. Here though if/when your mech is destroyed you have to purchase a mech loader truck and possibly a guard to go retrieve that atlas, hoping it has not been stripped yet You would not respawn with the mech you rode out in.

But truthfully, both Battletech and Mechwarrior (RP and PC games) do not have that type of, hmm, atmosphere to make it a MMRPOG (or whatever it is).

I disagree. In 3030 MUX pilots spent most of their time out of a mech. You could walk around your base, go to the simulator pods, walk around the mechbay and look at your mechs, hang out in the bar betting on matches. You could drop with your mech at any time onto the map, and run missions and battle for control points. If your mech was destroyed it was put on cooldown while salvage crews retrieved it.

MWO could have an auction house.

Just imagine river city, except the map is 10x as big, and instead of 2 bases, there are 20 bases, and some have walls around with gates that only open for the side that owns the base, and some bases have turrets that are powered by generators. And you can run patrol missions every hour for exp and c-bills...

Oh, and there are repair bays on the map.

[Mackman]

xhrit, on 17 February 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

I disagree. In 3030 MUX pilots spent most of their time out of a mech. You could walk around your base, go to the simulator pods, walk around the mechbay and look at your mechs, hang out in the bar betting on matches. You could drop with your mech at any time onto the map, and run missions and battle for control points. If your mech was destroyed it was put on cooldown while salvage crews retrieved it.

MWO could have an auction house.

Just imagine river city, except the map is 10x as big, and instead of 2 bases, there are 20 bases, and some have walls around with gates that only open for the side that owns the base, and some bases have turrets that are powered by generators. And you can run patrol missions every hour for exp and c-bills...

Oh, and there are repair bays on the map.

This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. PGI would have to put in a crapton of work just building the required models and stuff to enable you to walk around outside your mech... just for those things you mentioned? It just doesn't seem worth it at all...

As for your other idea, that'd be a cool concept for a different MW game. I really doubt that at this point PGI would even consider departing so far from what their game is right now.

[Khell DarkWolf]

what I'm worried about with community warfare is, when the time comes to fight over planets.

We currently only have 4 effective maps (7 if you count the night/snow variants) and we have alpine around the corner and desert down the pipe.

If it comes down to fighting over "supposed" planets with the same maps, over and over, and over and over again like we have currently in matchmaking.

Then me and probably other people might be wasting our time if we don't get a injection of more diverse maps to play to make it feel like were fighting over "said" planet.

This is going to make or break MWO

Edited by Khell DarkWolf, 17 February 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[Taizan]

I'd prefer procedural to persistent.

[Wizard LoPan]

With a bit of creativity, something close could be done with Community Warfare. Instead of these static bases we fight between that means nothing, when a group has bid to invade another group's world, they have a drop ship or grouped set of dropships which is their base. It has repair and mech retrieval functions, so a mech lost in a match after a bit of time becomes available again. The defender on the other hand has a base or bases to defend, which also has mech repair and retrieval functions. Both the dropship and the base are initially heavily armed as well, making them impossible to assault. Over time, say a matter of a week of "persistent warfare", as each side gets wins, the value of those wins are abstracted by cumulative damage to the defenses of that base or dropship, eventually to the point where an actual assault on one of them is possible which would be the "End Battle".

[Pihb]

Mackman, on 16 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

And at the end of the day, do you really want to go talk to Mech Commander Gruffy McGruffin and have him tell you to hunt down ten pirate mechs and bring him their arm actuators as proof, and then he'll give you a "Battered Small Laser" and some boots?

That brought back bad memories.

[Livewyr]

Game isn't setup for that- but it would be fantastic:

Start with just a pilot.. run several menial labor quests.. setting up targets for the firing range and transporting cargo..
War breaks out locally and your aspirations to be a pilot are taken into consideration.. so you're given a Commando and time to leave the base on scouting missions. (Investigate the signature in Sector Alpha 2.)

Gain experience and Cbills for quests..
Graduate to an eventual Atlas go on real "Raids" you know.. all that stuff

-------------------------------
(Yeh, Btech COULD be translated into a WoW style MMORPG.. Clans versus IS in about 3068... but just not well enough to be worth the venture.)

/daydream

[Kaspirikay]

World of Mechwarriorcraft.

[Zyllos]

You can have a persistent world without an open persistent battlefield.

But it will take a lot of work to pull off. You will need a great depth and variety of battlefields to simulate the various locations these battle could take place.

Then you will need many mission types and variants to those missions so you can create unique situations.

There was a really good post on this very subject back late in 2011 but I can no longer search back that far in the forum posts. A couple of us developed a very nice resource betting system which modified the battle based on previous matches, resources placed into the pre-battle phase, and other external factors.

But with mechanics that exist outside the actual battle which effects the battle itself (in either giving one side more tonnage to drop with or allowing your team to see the battlefield map or environment type before battle) will add persistence to the world and make it feel alive without the whole detail of how to maintain a 100% persistent battlefield.

Edited by Zyllos, 17 February 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Zyllos, on 17 February 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

You can have a persistent world without an open persistent battlefield.

But it will take a lot of work to pull off. You will need a great depth and variety of battlefields to simulate the various locations these battle could take place.

Then you will need many mission types and variants to those missions so you can create unique situations.

There was a really good post on this very subject back late in 2011 but I can no longer search back that far in the forum posts. A couple of us developed a very nice resource betting system which modified the battle based on previous matches, resources placed into the pre-battle phase, and other external factors.

But with mechanics that exist outside the actual battle which effects the battle itself (in either giving one side more tonnage to drop with or allowing your team to see the battlefield map or environment type before battle) will add persistence to the world and make it feel alive without the whole detail of how to maintain a 100% persistent battlefield.

That sounds quite interesting, at least theoretically. The post has vanished into the ether?

[Petrothian Tong]

in short:

we got Peter molyneux-ed.

there WERE talks about community warfare and persistent things.. but...


we got Peter molyneux-ed


go home ppl.