Ok so like. There are some fundamental misunderstandings in how some of those games work and the systems by which they operate.
You cannot have an item bid system and maintain a set progression. You may not trade high tier items in games like Diablo and PoE and have those items be immediately usable. Items are level locked in PoE and Diablo and the game system is not build around acquiring a stable of items but advancing through the most difficult content and achieving the highest level the fastest in the new season.
So you cannot maintain progression in Mechwarrior by mixing a set progression system and a system where you get some of the rewards of the hosts mission. (And doing this all but requires you multiply the reward structure because with the current system this will lock all players out of acquiring certain types of equipment!). Unless you also add a level system and lock out mech and equipment use based on that.
Edit: show your work. Design the system. Tell us how it works.
First you'll have to explain why it's so bad that a player gets better rewards than they "deserve". Because I inherently disagree that this is a problem.
First you'll have to explain why it's so bad that a player gets better rewards than they "deserve". Because I inherently disagree that this is a problem.
It’s not about what they “deserve” unless you want to track contribution to each mission. It’s about maintaining the progression path in the game. You can see how games like PoE and Verminetide maintain the progression in the game. They have a fixed and enforced system. And do not allow mods. So you keep saying you can do this thing but showing neither examples in actual games nor actual systems to do it.
If you don’t care about playing with items you have not progressed to you can just get edit some items in or play instant action. Which implies that your coop system is already in the game. But if you do care about progression then you cannot break your progression system. Because this breaks the fundamental play cycle by advancing the progression system.
Edit: this has all been explained multiple times in the thread. Mechwarrior isn’t like DnD where progression doesn’t matter (even though it kind of totally does) because it’s fundamentally more about cooperative story telling. If you allow systems by which people can bypass the progression system they both will and will be worse off for it if the progression is the primary aspect of the game.
First you'll have to explain why it's so bad that a player gets better rewards than they "deserve". Because I inherently disagree that this is a problem.
It’s not about what they “deserve” unless you want to track contribution to each mission. It’s about maintaining the progression path in the game. You can see how games like PoE and Verminetide maintain the progression in the game. They have a fixed and enforced system. And do not allow mods. So you keep saying you can do this thing but showing neither examples in actual games nor actual systems to do it.
Those games were brought up in response to claim that no multiplayer games have separate individual progression. And yes, you are correct, those games are not MW5, therefore any other difference between them and MW5 you bring up is, in fact, different.
If you don’t care about playing with items you have not progressed to you can just get edit some items in or play instant action. Which implies that your coop system is already in the game. But if you do care about progression then you cannot break your progression system. Because this breaks the fundamental play cycle by advancing the progression system.
If I'm playing a multiplayer session with my friends I want to get rewards from that session. If I spent time and resources on higher tier missions and unlocked a higher tier mech from that I want to be able to use it when I return to single player in my own campaign. The game already has tonnage limits on missions, and destructible equipment parts, and shops with stock that's scaled to their tier in the galaxy, all of which prevent you from just having an I Win mech to stomp with for the rest of the campaign, even if you care about that that much. And I do not. Because it's my game and I want to play it how I find fun.
There was no claim that no multiplayer games have individual progression systems but that you cannot do that and still maintain the aspects that make Mechwarrior Mechwarrior. These are different claims.
Like. If you’re playing with your friends in vermintide and do a high difficulty mission you DO NOT get the high quality rewards that they get for completing that mission. Because rewards are based on your character only. And if you do acquire rewards for a low level class by doing a high level quest for another class you have that is high level you cannot use that high level reward until the low level class is also high level.
So the game that you do claim to exist; That gives you the high level rewards which you can immediately use does not actually exist. There is no game, and for good reason, that has a system where you can skip progression like that. (At least without cheating)
The progression system wouldn’t be broken though even if kept at its most basic.
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
Like. Have you ever cheated in a game and then found that the game you were playing was no longer as fun? The reason it is is because the progression from “weak to strong” is the thing that makes you feel good about the game. It’s like the good feeling you get from mastering an enemy or boss in dark souls except without the needed mastery. A built in “you’re better now” track.
This system, where you make the game less fun by skipping the progression system, is the system you’re proposing for Mechwarrior as the base state of the game. That is bad.
Edit: like it’s super easy to see this. Edit in some x/60 pilots to a base game start and see how much easier the game is with them.
The progression system wouldn’t be broken though even if kept at its most basic.
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
But this would break the progression system because you would be unable to salvage mechs in a coop environment. It also breaks the progression system by allowing players to acquire higher tier weaponry. There are other issues with regards to pilots, purchased mechs and equipment on the game map etc etc.
Oh. So this is an elaborate You Cheated Not Only The Game, But Yourself? Okay, carry on.
I mean, I think we got on this whole tangent because you latched onto the "cheating" thing and ignored the "timeline restrictions" part. It would bother me way more if someone dropped a Mauler into a 3020 game than the fact progression doesn't carry over. I just have a purely single player save, and my friend hosts the MP one when we're all around. I get to experience different parts of the game that way, too.
And besides, if you're really that butthurt about not feeding The Progression Dragon when you play with friends, there's a mod.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
The progression system wouldn’t be broken though even if kept at its most basic.
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
But this would break the progression system because you would be unable to salvage mechs in a coop environment. It also breaks the progression system by allowing players to acquire higher tier weaponry. There are other issues with regards to pilots, purchased mechs and equipment on the game map etc etc.
This is solved with level-appropriate pools, but requires a persistent identity.
It's a solvable problem, but not one PGI wanted to solve.
I haven't played the game, but the complaints are universal. That says the game design is a problem, not the players.
The progression system wouldn’t be broken though even if kept at its most basic.
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
But this would break the progression system because you would be unable to salvage mechs in a coop environment. It also breaks the progression system by allowing players to acquire higher tier weaponry. There are other issues with regards to pilots, purchased mechs and equipment on the game map etc etc.
This is solved with level-appropriate pools, but requires a persistent identity.
It's a solvable problem, but not one PGI wanted to solve.
I haven't played the game, but the complaints are universal. That says the game design is a problem, not the players.
But if you have level persistent pools then you do not have the progression that was requested. Because you cannot actually acquire or use* the items that “you get” in a coop game with such a system. This is what vermintide does, it has level persistent pools, and it has already been explained how different that is and not what people are requesting. They want that an X/60 pilot was available to hire so they want to hire them too. They want that an atlas-k dropped in the mission so they can get that atlas too. They do not want a system where they fought a bunch of assaults but then they get to pick their salvage and it’s a locust 1-v and a bunch of tier 1 medium lasers.
*that is you could either acquire the item but not use it or could not acquire the item.
Goumindong on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The progression system wouldn’t be broken though even if kept at its most basic.
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
But this would break the progression system because you would be unable to salvage mechs in a coop environment. It also breaks the progression system by allowing players to acquire higher tier weaponry. There are other issues with regards to pilots, purchased mechs and equipment on the game map etc etc.
This is solved with level-appropriate pools, but requires a persistent identity.
It's a solvable problem, but not one PGI wanted to solve.
I haven't played the game, but the complaints are universal. That says the game design is a problem, not the players.
If it was universal this argument wouldn't exist, and wouldnt have been triggered from Mechmantis posts.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Honestly this is the first time I can recall people *defending it* in this thread.
Like I said, I don't play the game, I just read about it here.
Oh. So this is an elaborate You Cheated Not Only The Game, But Yourself? Okay, carry on.
I mean, I think we got on this whole tangent because you latched onto the "cheating" thing and ignored the "timeline restrictions" part.
I mean, just have the game not allow mechs ahead of the timeline from being used in earlier missions, that seems comparatively trivial to implement.
This breaks campaign import. And also there are still issues with lostech. Because reintroduced tech is equivalent to actually old tech. Which it so say that, besides specific mech models you can indeed use all that equipment.
Oh no, cheating? Please, not cheating in a non-competitive environment, anything but that.
*quick saves and quick loads a game because it went bad*
I'm a good boy.
I find this kind of funny because there are actually no quick saves in Mechwarrior 5. It’s probably an intentional design decision to make it more likely that you will abide by the outcome of a mission.
Adding quick saves and loads can be detrimental to the play experience to the point where games that aren’t story based progression games tend to shy away from them now. (In story based progression/open world games the ability to quick save anywhere prevents you from having to repeat movement across the world, which is often a progression aspect and this is good.) But many games restrict them within combat or don’t have them at all because of the effect they would have on the gameplay.
Honestly this is the first time I can recall people *defending it* in this thread.
Like I said, I don't play the game, I just read about it here.
I can probably dig back in my post history and point out how much fun I've had with co-op MW5 and how their seamless universal cross-platform play is nothing short of wizardry in 2023, let alone when it was released in 2019.
MechMantis on
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Honestly this is the first time I can recall people *defending it* in this thread.
Like I said, I don't play the game, I just read about it here.
I can probably dig back in my post history and point out how much fun I've had with co-op MW5 and how their seamless universal cross-platform play is nothing short of wizardry in 2023, let alone when it was released in 2019.
Specifically the part where other players don't benefit from helping out the host?
Maybe it was just a few people complaining and most people don't care and didn't post (or didn't post loudly?). I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm finding what seems like a 180 degree turn a bit surprising.
Might also be the "eh, I guess it's okay" effect after an initial shock.
Honestly this is the first time I can recall people *defending it* in this thread.
Like I said, I don't play the game, I just read about it here.
I can probably dig back in my post history and point out how much fun I've had with co-op MW5 and how their seamless universal cross-platform play is nothing short of wizardry in 2023, let alone when it was released in 2019.
I mean I understand that cross-platform is really important to you, but as someone who cross-platform doesn't impact in any way it doesn't factor in to my evaluation of the co-op at all.
Not because I think cross-platform is worthless, it's definitely a plus when it matters, but rather because nothing about my experience involves any difficulty playing with the people I want to play the game with.
So while I think it's good that cross-platform is a feature it has nothing to do with the parts of PGI's co-op implementation that I find lacking.
I've started playing HBS Battletech and it's a lot of fun. I noticed that it's on sale for the next week. Should I pick up the DLC? They've all gotten mixed reviews.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I've started playing HBS Battletech and it's a lot of fun. I noticed that it's on sale for the next week. Should I pick up the DLC? They've all gotten mixed reviews.
All of it's worthwhile IMO if you like the base gameplay.
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
I’ve only played a few hours of co-op with the kid, and neither of us has died so I honestly didn’t know what it did in that event.
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Mechlab I knew about. Didn’t know about store. How much time do you spend in the mechlab between missions? Q, space bar—> gtg is the vast majority of what I do. Then it’s play on my phone while waiting for the next drop.
Generally turnaround for my groups on missions is fairly quick. We generally each see to our own mechs; or the two engineers see to the other non-engineer types fairly fast.
Host inquires as to what we're doing if they're not sure what's next, otherwise we're travelling to the next misson and are dropping within 3-4 minutes.
We also tend to be giggling and talking about whatever while we're playing in voice chat, joking about the last mission. I don't remember the last time I looked at my phone in a MW5 session unless it was a "Hey AFK guys, gotta take care of the kiddo" or "Bathroom break".
I do have some trepidation about the potential unintended consequences of this fix
"Friendly AI no longer walk through buildings and structures in Defense missions (friendly-fire may still occur with missed weapons fire)"
While that sounds great on the surface, there are a lot of situations due to base sprawl and geography that causing some minor damage by shortcutting through a section of the base to quickly intercept enemies is an acceptable tradeoff. If the AI now outright refuse to path through all those areas in all cases, the enemies will have more time to damage the base or you are more likely to be left fighting without support while your allies take the long way around.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Where is this magic button
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I've started playing HBS Battletech and it's a lot of fun. I noticed that it's on sale for the next week. Should I pick up the DLC? They've all gotten mixed reviews.
All of it's worthwhile IMO if you like the base gameplay.
Yeah, the DLC had varied reviews as individual packs, but there's no reason to not get them on sale bundled with the main game.
Only thing to watch out for is how powerful your PC is. The Urban Warfare pack has city maps that much more demanding on a PC than the other maps, though you can generally avoid those maps from the mission select screen if they're a problem for you.
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Where is this magic button
Invite person to game, once joined go back to the social menu and click permit by their name in the group. It should show "mechlab access permitted" under their name when enabled. Social menu is the 3 person icon in the top left of the screen.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
I do have some trepidation about the potential unintended consequences of this fix
"Friendly AI no longer walk through buildings and structures in Defense missions (friendly-fire may still occur with missed weapons fire)"
While that sounds great on the surface, there are a lot of situations due to base sprawl and geography that causing some minor damage by shortcutting through a section of the base to quickly intercept enemies is an acceptable tradeoff. If the AI now outright refuse to path through all those areas in all cases, the enemies will have more time to damage the base or you are more likely to be left fighting without support while your allies take the long way around.
Yea the current system is that they don’t do damage when this happens. (Bases usually have about 50% leeway in damage so this doesn’t effect the difficulty of the mission)
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Where is this magic button
Invite person to game, once joined go back to the social menu and click permit by their name in the group. It should show "mechlab access permitted" under their name when enabled. Social menu is the 3 person icon in the top left of the screen.
When I last played that let people access the mechlab but not the store - they couldn't buy anything?
I do have some trepidation about the potential unintended consequences of this fix
"Friendly AI no longer walk through buildings and structures in Defense missions (friendly-fire may still occur with missed weapons fire)"
While that sounds great on the surface, there are a lot of situations due to base sprawl and geography that causing some minor damage by shortcutting through a section of the base to quickly intercept enemies is an acceptable tradeoff. If the AI now outright refuse to path through all those areas in all cases, the enemies will have more time to damage the base or you are more likely to be left fighting without support while your allies take the long way around.
Yea the current system is that they don’t do damage when this happens. (Bases usually have about 50% leeway in damage so this doesn’t effect the difficulty of the mission)
Really? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the base health drop a few percent on those missions where you spawn inside the base, and I don’t think I was the one stepping on stuff.
Maybe I’ll try ordering them across the base to see if they do damage stomping around next time I have a chance to play.
I do have some trepidation about the potential unintended consequences of this fix
"Friendly AI no longer walk through buildings and structures in Defense missions (friendly-fire may still occur with missed weapons fire)"
While that sounds great on the surface, there are a lot of situations due to base sprawl and geography that causing some minor damage by shortcutting through a section of the base to quickly intercept enemies is an acceptable tradeoff. If the AI now outright refuse to path through all those areas in all cases, the enemies will have more time to damage the base or you are more likely to be left fighting without support while your allies take the long way around.
Yea the current system is that they don’t do damage when this happens. (Bases usually have about 50% leeway in damage so this doesn’t effect the difficulty of the mission)
Really? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the base health drop a few percent on those missions where you spawn inside the base, and I don’t think I was the one stepping on stuff.
Maybe I’ll try ordering them across the base to see if they do damage stomping around next time I have a chance to play.
I mean, if you get cored or headcapped while in co-op you get moved to a Spectator mode.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Where is this magic button
Invite person to game, once joined go back to the social menu and click permit by their name in the group. It should show "mechlab access permitted" under their name when enabled. Social menu is the 3 person icon in the top left of the screen.
When I last played that let people access the mechlab but not the store - they couldn't buy anything?
That's correct. Only the person running the company controls purchases. There's mods to allow it of course, but you'll want to discuss ground rules about it with your coop group to avoid inadvertently bankrupting yourselves because everybody decided to go on a spending spree at the same time.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Posts
You cannot have an item bid system and maintain a set progression. You may not trade high tier items in games like Diablo and PoE and have those items be immediately usable. Items are level locked in PoE and Diablo and the game system is not build around acquiring a stable of items but advancing through the most difficult content and achieving the highest level the fastest in the new season.
So you cannot maintain progression in Mechwarrior by mixing a set progression system and a system where you get some of the rewards of the hosts mission. (And doing this all but requires you multiply the reward structure because with the current system this will lock all players out of acquiring certain types of equipment!). Unless you also add a level system and lock out mech and equipment use based on that.
Edit: show your work. Design the system. Tell us how it works.
It’s not about what they “deserve” unless you want to track contribution to each mission. It’s about maintaining the progression path in the game. You can see how games like PoE and Verminetide maintain the progression in the game. They have a fixed and enforced system. And do not allow mods. So you keep saying you can do this thing but showing neither examples in actual games nor actual systems to do it.
If you don’t care about playing with items you have not progressed to you can just get edit some items in or play instant action. Which implies that your coop system is already in the game. But if you do care about progression then you cannot break your progression system. Because this breaks the fundamental play cycle by advancing the progression system.
Edit: this has all been explained multiple times in the thread. Mechwarrior isn’t like DnD where progression doesn’t matter (even though it kind of totally does) because it’s fundamentally more about cooperative story telling. If you allow systems by which people can bypass the progression system they both will and will be worse off for it if the progression is the primary aspect of the game.
If I'm playing a multiplayer session with my friends I want to get rewards from that session. If I spent time and resources on higher tier missions and unlocked a higher tier mech from that I want to be able to use it when I return to single player in my own campaign. The game already has tonnage limits on missions, and destructible equipment parts, and shops with stock that's scaled to their tier in the galaxy, all of which prevent you from just having an I Win mech to stomp with for the rest of the campaign, even if you care about that that much. And I do not. Because it's my game and I want to play it how I find fun.
Like. If you’re playing with your friends in vermintide and do a high difficulty mission you DO NOT get the high quality rewards that they get for completing that mission. Because rewards are based on your character only. And if you do acquire rewards for a low level class by doing a high level quest for another class you have that is high level you cannot use that high level reward until the low level class is also high level.
So the game that you do claim to exist; That gives you the high level rewards which you can immediately use does not actually exist. There is no game, and for good reason, that has a system where you can skip progression like that. (At least without cheating)
Each mission has 1-4 pilots, consisting of 1 player (host) and the remaining being bots or other players.
If mission rewards are distributed among pilots, then the host gets between 25%_100% depending on if they are in a full group or solo. And each coop player receives 25%
When the players are each bringing their own mechs, then the host and each player receives reward’s commensurate with the materials they brought to complete the mission.
This also locks progression at the same level as each player is only earning a quarter of the rewards for piloting a quarter of the mechs, while the group as a whole is earning the same rewards whether solo or grouped.
Host can see everyones mech overview and selects the contract, and players vote to accept.
These are mostly common solved problems among any type of coop game. The only unique part is MW5 acting like it is closer to a Civ5 while being unable to influence the star-map instead of being closer to an action looter where loot is post mission instead of mid mission.
MWO: Adamski
This system, where you make the game less fun by skipping the progression system, is the system you’re proposing for Mechwarrior as the base state of the game. That is bad.
Edit: like it’s super easy to see this. Edit in some x/60 pilots to a base game start and see how much easier the game is with them.
No. I am saying that building progression based games and then letting players skip the progression is bad design.
So yea you could make Mechwarrior bad if you wanted. But why would you want to make game bad on purpose?
If you want it then cheat it. You will know you “earned” it. You solve all your problems yourself without making the game bad for anyone else.
But this would break the progression system because you would be unable to salvage mechs in a coop environment. It also breaks the progression system by allowing players to acquire higher tier weaponry. There are other issues with regards to pilots, purchased mechs and equipment on the game map etc etc.
I mean, I think we got on this whole tangent because you latched onto the "cheating" thing and ignored the "timeline restrictions" part. It would bother me way more if someone dropped a Mauler into a 3020 game than the fact progression doesn't carry over. I just have a purely single player save, and my friend hosts the MP one when we're all around. I get to experience different parts of the game that way, too.
And besides, if you're really that butthurt about not feeding The Progression Dragon when you play with friends, there's a mod.
This is solved with level-appropriate pools, but requires a persistent identity.
It's a solvable problem, but not one PGI wanted to solve.
I haven't played the game, but the complaints are universal. That says the game design is a problem, not the players.
But if you have level persistent pools then you do not have the progression that was requested. Because you cannot actually acquire or use* the items that “you get” in a coop game with such a system. This is what vermintide does, it has level persistent pools, and it has already been explained how different that is and not what people are requesting. They want that an X/60 pilot was available to hire so they want to hire them too. They want that an atlas-k dropped in the mission so they can get that atlas too. They do not want a system where they fought a bunch of assaults but then they get to pick their salvage and it’s a locust 1-v and a bunch of tier 1 medium lasers.
*that is you could either acquire the item but not use it or could not acquire the item.
If it was universal this argument wouldn't exist, and wouldnt have been triggered from Mechmantis posts.
Like I said, I don't play the game, I just read about it here.
This breaks campaign import. And also there are still issues with lostech. Because reintroduced tech is equivalent to actually old tech. Which it so say that, besides specific mech models you can indeed use all that equipment.
I find this kind of funny because there are actually no quick saves in Mechwarrior 5. It’s probably an intentional design decision to make it more likely that you will abide by the outcome of a mission.
Adding quick saves and loads can be detrimental to the play experience to the point where games that aren’t story based progression games tend to shy away from them now. (In story based progression/open world games the ability to quick save anywhere prevents you from having to repeat movement across the world, which is often a progression aspect and this is good.) But many games restrict them within combat or don’t have them at all because of the effect they would have on the gameplay.
I can probably dig back in my post history and point out how much fun I've had with co-op MW5 and how their seamless universal cross-platform play is nothing short of wizardry in 2023, let alone when it was released in 2019.
Specifically the part where other players don't benefit from helping out the host?
Maybe it was just a few people complaining and most people don't care and didn't post (or didn't post loudly?). I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm finding what seems like a 180 degree turn a bit surprising.
Might also be the "eh, I guess it's okay" effect after an initial shock.
All I can say is this-- isn't exactly a new position for me.
I mean I understand that cross-platform is really important to you, but as someone who cross-platform doesn't impact in any way it doesn't factor in to my evaluation of the co-op at all.
Not because I think cross-platform is worthless, it's definitely a plus when it matters, but rather because nothing about my experience involves any difficulty playing with the people I want to play the game with.
So while I think it's good that cross-platform is a feature it has nothing to do with the parts of PGI's co-op implementation that I find lacking.
AI behavior:
Mech Hangar:
QOL updates:
All of it's worthwhile IMO if you like the base gameplay.
This sounds great! Looking forward to picking this up.
Also, this part I think speaks to what I find lacking in MW5 co-op:
You aren’t a player in a co-op game, you’re a bot with fleshy bits.
That is possibly the most unoffensive patch note I have ever seen.
Oh. I thought they were referring to the experience outside of a mission where you wait for the host to do everything and can’t even see what they are looking at or any other context.
I’ve only played a few hours of co-op with the kid, and neither of us has died so I honestly didn’t know what it did in that event.
They added in full mechlab and store access for people awhile ago! If the host hasn't enabled that for you, ask them to turn it on?
Mechlab I knew about. Didn’t know about store. How much time do you spend in the mechlab between missions? Q, space bar—> gtg is the vast majority of what I do. Then it’s play on my phone while waiting for the next drop.
Host inquires as to what we're doing if they're not sure what's next, otherwise we're travelling to the next misson and are dropping within 3-4 minutes.
We also tend to be giggling and talking about whatever while we're playing in voice chat, joking about the last mission. I don't remember the last time I looked at my phone in a MW5 session unless it was a "Hey AFK guys, gotta take care of the kiddo" or "Bathroom break".
"Friendly AI no longer walk through buildings and structures in Defense missions (friendly-fire may still occur with missed weapons fire)"
While that sounds great on the surface, there are a lot of situations due to base sprawl and geography that causing some minor damage by shortcutting through a section of the base to quickly intercept enemies is an acceptable tradeoff. If the AI now outright refuse to path through all those areas in all cases, the enemies will have more time to damage the base or you are more likely to be left fighting without support while your allies take the long way around.
Where is this magic button
Yeah, the DLC had varied reviews as individual packs, but there's no reason to not get them on sale bundled with the main game.
Only thing to watch out for is how powerful your PC is. The Urban Warfare pack has city maps that much more demanding on a PC than the other maps, though you can generally avoid those maps from the mission select screen if they're a problem for you.
Invite person to game, once joined go back to the social menu and click permit by their name in the group. It should show "mechlab access permitted" under their name when enabled. Social menu is the 3 person icon in the top left of the screen.
Yea the current system is that they don’t do damage when this happens. (Bases usually have about 50% leeway in damage so this doesn’t effect the difficulty of the mission)
When I last played that let people access the mechlab but not the store - they couldn't buy anything?
Really? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the base health drop a few percent on those missions where you spawn inside the base, and I don’t think I was the one stepping on stuff.
Maybe I’ll try ordering them across the base to see if they do damage stomping around next time I have a chance to play.
Only if you do it.
That's correct. Only the person running the company controls purchases. There's mods to allow it of course, but you'll want to discuss ground rules about it with your coop group to avoid inadvertently bankrupting yourselves because everybody decided to go on a spending spree at the same time.