11 replies to this topic

[GrizzlyLocks]

It's been stated only 1v1 and 1vAI will be available at launch. No problem.

When it's time to expand into coop, what would you guys enjoy the most?

Personally, I would love too see some special coop games such as each player gets 1 pilot/mek and forms a lance therein. Yup, a 4v4 coop game. 4 meks vs 4 meks.

I look at it this way, if there's a player that digs the lightmek recon/sneaky role... sobeit, let that player specialize.
Partner him up with someone that enjoys the heavy ranged meks and another 2 midrange players.

It seems to be the easiest way to implement coop play from my understanding of coding. Simply sharing controls of what's already available between multiple people.

I don't know how many lances are limited yet, it's also viable this would work for 4 v 4 where each player has their own lance also. I'm still scouring the forums for information on just how big the maps are, or if they are all a standard size limited by Unity engine.

What are your thoughts on this folks?

[Teranika]

I think 4v4 with each player only piloting one 'Mech... takes some of the 'tactics' out. The double blind rules would give the advantage to whoever spent more time communicating/coordinating out of game. How would you work turns, given the asynchronous nature of the game?

4v4 with each player still controlling their own lance? Yeah, that'd be good.

[MacabreDerek]

I have one big issue when it comes down to anything beyond 1v1, and that comes down to time restraints. As a person who likes to play a game in about 1-3 hours, I seem to be in the minority with discussions on how games can go on for a full week or more. While I like the idea of time constraints for 1v1 where if someone goes over the alotted time they forfit, in a multiplayer game of that scale, you're either putting a group a mech/lance/player short, or you lost through no fault of your own, either one being entirely unacceptable.

If you were to do it 4v4 though, I feel each player should get a single mech. I dont feel it removes the 'tactics' part of the game, it simply forces players to work together (GASP!), which though is harder, especially in the age where Call of Duty enforces lone-wolf rambo-style 'tactics', is also more rewarding when it is executed.

Another reason I dont care for team games though is outside of the casual element, it just offers someone a chance to blame their loss on someone else, which shunts the chance for them to learn and personally improve. While this may seem minor to me, I've seen this trap suck in alot of potentially good players into maintaining scrubdom because they refuse to see the big picture and adapt to what is going on and work with it, rather than play assuming everyone is drinking the same coolaid.

[Badillard]

It's been stated only 1v1 and 1vAI will be available at launch. No problem.

When it's time to expand into coop, what would you guys enjoy the most?

Personally, I would love too see some special coop games such as each player gets 1 pilot/mek and forms a lance therein. Yup, a 4v4 coop game. 4 meks vs 4 meks.

I look at it this way, if there's a player that digs the lightmek recon/sneaky role... sobeit, let that player specialize.
Partner him up with someone that enjoys the heavy ranged meks and another 2 midrange players.

It seems to be the easiest way to implement coop play from my understanding of coding. Simply sharing controls of what's already available between multiple people.

I don't know how many lances are limited yet, it's also viable this would work for 4 v 4 where each player has their own lance also. I'm still scouring the forums for information on just how big the maps are, or if they are all a standard size limited by Unity engine.

What are your thoughts on this folks?

Excellent, community warfare.

We need it, and we shall have it.

I hope the devs are taking notes on threads like this.
Way to be Grizz!

[GreyWolfXR]

The Devs have said they have a goal of more than just 1v1 and 1vAI, but they have also said they have to limit the scope to be able to release the game in anything like a reasonable time.

Patience, we have a shortage of it, let them get us the 1v1 version first, huh?

Ok, now that I got that little rant out of my system.

Hmm... I'd like to see lance v lance level fights with players each running an indvidual 'mech.

I'd also like to see company level battles with players running lances. (that's 12 v 12)

Depending on how many 'Mechs we can field it could be fun to see Battalion level combats with players running companies or even individual lances, but I guarantee you those battles wouldn't run through in an hour or three (nod to Derek).

[Mater]

I have always wondered how you could use this as a RP site, if you and your buds want to fight in a RP setting form a lance and have each go into their own mech Vs. the same thing on the other side

Maybe spice it up a little you could have role warfare (like in MWO) you can only see what your mech dose, unless you have a light mech (scout) that can relay information to each other’s, and that way the lights (lower mids) don’t die out completely

[Badillard]

The Devs have said they have a goal of more than just 1v1 and 1vAI, but they have also said they have to limit the scope to be able to release the game in anything like a reasonable time.

Patience, we have a shortage of it, let them get us the 1v1 version first, huh?

Ok, now that I got that little rant out of my system.

Hmm... I'd like to see lance v lance level fights with players each running an indvidual 'mech.

I'd also like to see company level battles with players running lances. (that's 12 v 12)

Depending on how many 'Mechs we can field it could be fun to see Battalion level combats with players running companies or even individual lances, but I guarantee you those battles wouldn't run through in an hour or three (nod to Derek).

For me its not really a patience thing. Athough I'm not gettin' any younger!

We need this kind of creative brainstorming to help the devs out. We might give them ideas they may not have considered, or insights into this project
to help improve on the system they are already working on.

[beyond]

I think 4v4 with each player only piloting one 'Mech... takes some of the 'tactics' out. The double blind rules would give the advantage to whoever spent more time communicating/coordinating out of game. How would you work turns, given the asynchronous nature of the game?

4v4 with each player still controlling their own lance? Yeah, that'd be good.

Well, in a team game mode you'd think teamplay would be what counts.

I think this is a great idea in the same way that DOTA and other hero games provide excellent straightforward gameplay with a lot of teamplay without the same investment per game of the bigger formats, like proper 4v4 SC2 for instance.

A simple permanent chatbox IRC style in the browser could do the trick for everyone's communicating needs. A few ping options for highlighting targets or this and that would also make life very simple and straightforward without Skype or Ventrilo.

[GrizzlyLocks]

Thanks for the responses, good or bad, this thread was for discussion.

I have one big issue when it comes down to anything beyond 1v1, and that comes down to time restraints. As a person who likes to play a game in about 1-3 hours, I seem to be in the minority with discussions on how games can go on for a full week or more. While I like the idea of time constraints for 1v1 where if someone goes over the alotted time they forfit, in a multiplayer game of that scale, you're either putting a group a mech/lance/player short, or you lost through no fault of your own, either one being entirely unacceptable.

If you were to do it 4v4 though, I feel each player should get a single mech. I dont feel it removes the 'tactics' part of the game, it simply forces players to work together (GASP!), which though is harder, especially in the age where Call of Duty enforces lone-wolf rambo-style 'tactics', is also more rewarding when it is executed.

Another reason I dont care for team games though is outside of the casual element, it just offers someone a chance to blame their loss on someone else, which shunts the chance for them to learn and personally improve. While this may seem minor to me, I've seen this trap suck in alot of potentially good players into maintaining scrubdom because they refuse to see the big picture and adapt to what is going on and work with it, rather than play assuming everyone is drinking the same coolaid.

I concur with time restraints being a pain. Personally i'm hoping the DEV's put options into the game concerning time limits. Something like speed chess might not be perfect for everyone, but to be honest.... i don't want to wait 30 minutes or more in between rounds... more like 3 minutes per lance involved. Nonetheless i think multiple choices would be best for the masses, that way those of us with time constraints can play each other while those without can have the more casual crowd. Win win imho.

I don't want to get into the 'oh gawd my teammates suck' arguement about teamplay. That's just part of teamplay. That's the challenge of teamplay, you're only as good as your weakest link. That's life. How i envision a teamplay game would be me and 3 friends sitting on a ventrilo server plotting the destruction of our opponents, having fun. Nothing more, nothing less. This would allow players to grandfather in new recruits also. This game won't last without a community of active players, might as well make it a social event.

Again, thanks for your comments.

[Busukaba]

Grizz kind of beat me to this but here were my thoughts:

I'm kind of with Derek on this one. I think the idea is great but it's likely a feature I'd never be able to use. With work and a baby and doing housework, I don't find a lot of time to play. I'd be someone playing week long games normally because sometimes it's hard to string together more than an hour at a time to play. I would certainly love to participate in a 12x12 or even a 36x36 match, but my time constraints would likely make it impossible for me to play in them.

Note: I'm not saying this is a bad idea in the least. I suppose as long as you keep the same model with participants agreeing on how long you had to input your turn so you could have "hardcore" games and "casual" games it should be fine. Communication is actually the easiest hurdle to get over given that most people have some sort of access to clan forums, emails or vent servers. I'm just worried about ruining everyone else's game because I can't play all the time.

[GrizzlyLocks]

Again, thanks to everyone for their comments good or bad.

I think 4v4 with each player only piloting one 'Mech... takes some of the 'tactics' out. The double blind rules would give the advantage to whoever spent more time communicating/coordinating out of game. How would you work turns, given the asynchronous nature of the game?

4v4 with each player still controlling their own lance? Yeah, that'd be good.

In the Lore, commanders communicated with Lances. Then those pilots followed orders.
The asynchronous nature of the game, as you put it, is simple to implement for turn order. The commander decides.

The Lore says a commander gives the order and the pilots obey. In MWT you have to guess where you think the enemy will move too not where the Mek has actually moved too already, so the order in which a Mek moves isn't anywhere near as critical. I don't want to compare to other TBS games, so let's compare to actual Table Top Battletech. In our beloved classic game, once you know where an enemy has moved too.... you start looking to position for advantage. Whether you jump behind them for a back shot, or run to cover so retaliation is minimized, or send every Mek you have within melee range.... this is the biggest design change that I see away from classic Battletech. It's huge. (yes i read that melee won't exist at launch.. not complaining here just dicussing)

Now, having the lighter meks go first would just be an incorrect reflection of their mobility. Movement speed doesn't dictate initiative. You can simply have one player be nominated as commander and the DEV's can code in a command box for that player. That command box would simply allow that player to dictate which Mek goes before the others. Basically, the person that forms the team gets to choose order during each turn. From the demo gameplay i watched, i see the order in which a lance moves as being discretionary to the Lance commander. Simple.

Please take into account that i'm not in the beta. I've only watched the same youtube video everyone else has (albeit probably 100 times now), so my interpretation of how the turn order plays out is by far not 100% accurate.

[GrizzlyLocks]

Again, thanks for commenting to everyone.

I have always wondered how you could use this as a RP site, if you and your buds want to fight in a RP setting form a lance and have each go into their own mech Vs. the same thing on the other side

Maybe spice it up a little you could have role warfare (like in MWO) you can only see what your mech dose, unless you have a light mech (scout) that can relay information to each other’s, and that way the lights (lower mids) don’t die out completely

It's not only for the roleplay. It's for the gameplay options. Those that want to command their own stuff all the time wouldn't have to play coop. Those that would only want too as a commander could simply only play as the commander of a lance. Those that wanted to be the best possible scout could also do so, as well as those players that wanted to be the long range sniper. It's really about playing a role on a team.

My long term envisionment of what this could be is very grand, indeed. I imagine a campaign mode bigger than most. Not just 3 lances with 12 players and 12 meks on each team, but battallion sized with 3 companies, even regimental with multiple battalions. You have to really think about what could be done. If on one team's turn every player gets to declare movement or shooting at the same time, it would actually speed game turns up. Instead of one person deciding 36 mek's moves one at a time. 36 different people would decide 1 mek's moves at the same time. Of course each Lance Commander would have to assign initiative order and likewise so would the Company, Battalion, and Regimental commanders. Conflicts such as landing on the same square could be quickly overcome by the commanders assigning initiative values to their subordinates thus declaring a hex occupied to other players on the same team. You could have absolutely huge battles in very short amounts of time.

There are some startling realities to what this game could become over time with good development.

Clan warfare is a reality with this theme also. It may be a ways down the road, but i think it has alot of potential.

It's all speculative still, but I'm very hopeful a feature like this will at some point in time be developed and implemented.