286 replies to this topic

[Divine Retribution]

Incoming wall of text includes cash flow, losing mechs/equipment, and points to encourage a good mix of tech over the long haul. The explanation is needed, hence the wall 'o' text.

I've been thinking about how c-bills might pile up, as with many games. I think it would be a shame for all pilots to end up with so much cash it becomes irrelevant, and a full stable of mechs loaded with rare/clan tech. Basic equipment would be considered 2nd rate. So I have a few thoughts on keeping rare tech rare, is it should be.

1. Make mechs and equipment destroyable. Before pointing the AC/20s at my face, read the reasoning/explanation. Once a pilot has 3 or more mechs create a small chance that downed mechs will be unsalvageable, maybe 5%. Players with 1-2 mechs will never lose the chassis (1 mech plus founders mechs for founders pack buyers). All equipment destroyed in a battle has a 10% chance of being unsalvageable. Mech and each piece of equipment are decided independently, i.e. the mech might be a loss, but we did find a working PPC and LRM/10 in the wreckage.

Being able to lose mechs and equipment prevents the "Most expensive chassis stuffed with the rarest/most expensive equipment", which would otherwise always be repairable. Without the ability to lose equipment every pilot will eventually have ER/XL/Ferro/Ultra ACs/Clan everything, making basic equipment nearly pointless after a while.

Once a player loses mechs, and only has two left, the remaining mechs are always repairable. Weapons and equipment can still be lost to prevent a player from only using two mechs loaded with all the goodies.

2. Include the ability to lose money from a match. If you lose a match, can repair everything, and still turn a profit, C-bills become worthless. Instead of managing cash, it simply becomes a race to who can afford the best stuff first. If a losing team receives enough to break even with stock equipment (cheaper), but not enough to repair a rare-tech loaded mech, it can become costly to always use rare tech. Add to this the replacement costs of a lost mech and/or weapons, and a pilot can go broke.

Some sort of negative consequence is important. I'm not a fan of the "everyone's a winner and gets a participation trophy" mentality. A pilot losing a number of battles in a row might have to sell off some equipment to make repairs, or simply replace destroyed weapons with whatever they can afford. This adds to the use of stock and lower cost equipment/chassis, creating a very diverse group of mechs/loadouts.

3. Make bankruptcy an option. If a player is down to two mechs, loses a few battles, sells off one mech to equip the other, and continues in a downward spiral, they need an additional safety net. When a pilot cannot field a mech, let them go bankrupt. The player keeps skills and ranks but loses all mechlab inventory. Cash is reset to the starting amount and the ruined mech is replaced with a stock version of the same chassis. Then the player can rebuild.

4. Don't allow C-bills to be purchased in real money. If the above were implemented buying C-bills would be very pay to win.


A player that finally affords something special will want to take care of it, rather than slap it on and continue grinding confident that once you buy something you will never lose it in battle. The above should see most players using mainly basic equipment, with a piece of rare tech here and there.

Personally, I'd love a game where I can go broke, have to roll with the punches, and make do with what I have. I'm sure some would complain when they take a brand new mech into battle and lose it right off the bat. But without some method of a player going backwards, it all just becomes a grind, and eventually everyone would settle into a handful of designs (MW4 Novas with 6-7 ERLL is an example). Once everyone runs the same designs gameplay becomes dull. Dull gameplay leads to players abandoning games (as many online, free to play and subscription games have shown).

MW is my favorite gaming franchise and I don't want it to become a "one year later, who still plays?" game. If two game types were offered, I'd take the "you might go bankrupt, and it's going to take a while to build a large mech stable" over the "win, lose, or draw, you always profit, so keep grinding" and never look back. Given the opportunity, I'd also put my money(real) where my mouth(fingers on keyboard) is(are).

I know a game where a player can lose, repeatedly, is very far from the norm. So these ideas, even with the safety nets, probably won't be used. Anyone else feel the same, or do most want all Clan-ER-XL-Ultra-Endo-Ferro-Double-Everything-mechs?

[Kobold]

You can't make the economy too stringent, or people won't have fun. If someone pays 10 bucks to get an Awesome, then eventually loses it permanently, they are unlikely to keep plunking down money for more assault mechs.

[PANZERBUNNY]

No destroyable mechs.

Sorry.

Bankruptcy should not be an option.

Sorry.

Punishing game mechanics that don't fit into this game model.

[Alfred VonGunn]

I actually like most of that... I would say add in the Insurance like in Eve where you get some cash back for a complete loss but not all.

[Murphy7]

Interesting points. Along with Kobold's thought, maybe some insurance against losing a particular chassis is something nominally purchasable from the store, with limits as to how many you could insure in total?

[Supraluminal]

No thanks. I quit playing Eve for a reason. (OK, many reasons, but this was one of them.) Losing stuff I've invested time (and money; remember you can buy 'Mechs and equipment for M-Cred) in does not appeal to me at this point in my life. Maybe when I was 15 and hadn't a care in the world, but at this point I generally want my leisure time to feature a minimum of frustration.

Anyway, there's a far better approach for avoiding a proliferation of ER/XL/Ultra/Double prefix salad - smart game design and balancing. All that stuff does come with tradeoffs, e.g. the XL engine's protrusion into the side torsos, costing you space and durability. If they implement everything smartly, there will always be reasons to favor the vanilla versions.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Alfred VonGunn, on 07 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I actually like most of that... I would say add in the Insurance like in Eve where you get some cash back for a complete loss but not all.

This game isn't EVE. It will never be like EVE.

They obviously want this game to appeal to a broader range of gamers and not just those players who delight in seeing other people suffer.

I would be fine with item decaly on the more advanced gear and IS mechs using Clan technology.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 07 June 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Berserker]

Just want to throw my support behind destroyable mechs. I think you should be able to have a few fallback mechs so that you're never going to not have fun because you're in some crippled junk pile and can't dig your way out without paying. However, if you want an argument for why piloting the lesser c-bill/bv/tonnage mechs you need look no further than the fact that losing a mech in combat hits your virtual or real purse. Think about the risk/reward to piloting an Atlas that cost you $5. Now think of the glory and fun of a Jenner ($.50) and a Hunchback ($1) shooting someone out of their mech. That's *much* more like what the BT IS economy is like between tabletop games. We will see when they roll things out how well the gameplay itself balances these issues but I honestly think the economy being set up this way would be kinda fun in the long run, for just the same reason the OP states, you'd see better eb and flow of people's fortunes. It'd feel like a real galactic struggle, not a run up to an endgame. I'm not going to "prestige", I'll tell you that much.

[Roland]

Honestly, I like the ideas. I recognize that folks cringe at the idea of losing stuff they earned, but it's incorrect so say that it's unworkable, or can't be fun.

EvE basically has a totally no-holds barred approach in this regard... You can lose anything in that game. The first time someone took out a Titan, it was a pretty big freaking deal, because it translated into something crazy like thousands of real life dollars in resources put together by the corporation who owned it.

There is something to be said for the possibility of losing your stuff.. it tends to make you care about that stuff more. And yes, a huge number of people still play EvE despite the fact that anyone can come up to you at literally any time and blow you up.

At the same time, I recognize that this isn't for everyone... some folks don't want to play for high stakes. That's why I suggested a special game mode where you could lose your stuff, but also salvage the stuff you destroyed. Enables a lot of the benefits in the OP here, while not forcing it upon people who don't want to deal with it.

[CaptianViolence]

personnally i lve the slow steady careful build you suggest. in TT i love getting all equipment through salvage, that part of the thrill for me. that being said most people dont agree. people dont like "losing". but if you cant lose how can you win? just saying.

[WardenWolf]

What WoT implements works well, I think: the biggest, heaviest tanks often cost more to repair / reload that you will make in a round. In my Tier 9 heavy (one step from the top) I usually win the round but lose money. The cost of a partial repair + reloading is more than I make unless I have a *very* exceptional round.

If they do the same in MWO, then it gives folks a reason not to play with the baddest mech and tech all the time: they would eventually run themselves out of money. It encourages either a more balanced design all the time, or alternating between their 'top dog' and a more modest mech (which is what most folks in WoT seem to do).

The only thing I might be able to get behind from above would be the chance to lose weapons / equipment... but I think if repair costs are high enough then that wouldn't even be needed.

[grimzod]

A simple system like world of tanks:

Participation in battles increases xp and c-bills (more for wins). Use xp to unlock chassis. Purchase chassis with c-bills. Purchase upgrades to chassis with xp and c-bills. Dying in combat (mech down or pilot killed) simply means the chassis is unavailable until the entire battle is finished. No mechs change hands.

Allow no buying or selling of chassis and upgrades between players. Players must repair their mechs after battle with c-bills (and possibly salvage points), as well as pay for ammo reloads (making energy based weapons good in one way).

No salvage system is necessary. Assign salvage points (if you even want to go there) that will allow for cheaper repairs. Require higher repair costs for more special equipment (clantech and ecm suites). Simply leaving it at a repair cost at end of battle makes the learngin curve that much less steep for new players.

A note about WOT's system:

WOT implements a tiered chassis system that can be tweaked to encourage play in a certain 'range' of tiers. Repairs (as mentioned above) for heavier chassis are usually higher than those fo lower tiers. In this way playing lower tiers is encouraged to pay for the use of your higher tiers. And, you get a good group of folks playing lower tiers to be there for the new players.

Limiting the number of chassis you can own at a time is also deeply ingrained in WOTs system, requireing one to buy new slots (rarely slots are gifted with a new years tank or the like). This might be a good thing for mwo. Start with four slots, work your way up the mech lines and discard/sell those that you dont want to keep. Buy new slots (support the MWO game) and store more mechs.

It is plainly obvious the devs will be allowing purchase of c-bills (founder packages being an indicator - and i'll be getting at least one) so the OP will likely be disappointed. As long as the devs avoid allowing any game imbalancing purchases with $ this will no tbe a major issue. In wot $ can be used to convert elite xp and move up the tiers faster if you so choose but is not required to get to tier ten.

Edited by grimzod, 07 June 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Roland, on 07 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Honestly, I like the ideas. I recognize that folks cringe at the idea of losing stuff they earned, but it's incorrect so say that it's unworkable, or can't be fun.

EvE basically has a totally no-holds barred approach in this regard... You can lose anything in that game. The first time someone took out a Titan, it was a pretty big freaking deal, because it translated into something crazy like thousands of real life dollars in resources put together by the corporation who owned it.

There is something to be said for the possibility of losing your stuff.. it tends to make you care about that stuff more. And yes, a huge number of people still play EvE despite the fact that anyone can come up to you at literally any time and blow you up.

At the same time, I recognize that this isn't for everyone... some folks don't want to play for high stakes. That's why I suggested a special game mode where you could lose your stuff, but also salvage the stuff you destroyed. Enables a lot of the benefits in the OP here, while not forcing it upon people who don't want to deal with it.

This is a game of instant mech combat.

No mining. No other professions.

I've been playing EVE for 2 months now and haven't seen any PVP as I chose not to go into lowsec due to getting owned if I did.

MWO is combat and will only be combat. You can't compare a game like EVE to an arcade style simulator game like MWO.

If I could manufacture my own mechs, build an industry around supplying weapons and gear to people, I would say perma destroyable mechs should be in, but that's not what this game is.

Having people log out because they are broke and don't want to gimp their way to affording simple repairs instead of jumping into more action isn't what they seem to be aiming for here.

The truth about those hardcore PVP games where you can lose it all or have full loot in a fantasy setting is that they aren't exceptionally popular. A small group of niche players attempting to keep their game afloat because any loss to the player base hits the company hard.

Darkfall anyone?

I think we can all get past the sadistic want to take progress from other people, percieving "fun" game play as something only obtained if there was great risk involved.

We want people to be excited about playing MWO, not dreading a loss and getting upset or like EVE, think of it as a 2nd job.

[Hador]

In Eve you can farm NPCs for minimal to zero risk to earn the cash required for the items/ships that you will loose in PvP.

As there is no PvE in MWO, that would be a bit difficult.


Also the devs have already stated that you will not be loosing any of your Mechs, and I have to say I Prefer it that way.

[Namwons]

/agree 100%. That why I'm pro salvage as a gain/ loss mechanism. More complex and dynamic instead of dumbed down over simplified. People say "we don't need salvage, it more work" Well we also don't need molten metal from lasers or arty strikes or drone probes...so yeah

[Kedolan]

What if instead of losing a mech for good, it just got "heavily damaged" and would have some kind of a timer before you could use it again? Then you could tweak the timer based on how many pieces of rare/exotic equipment it had on it (say a 30m-1h timer for a stock mech, but like 2-3h for a really fancy one with all the bells and whistles?). You could even then allow someone to pay for a quick fix on it (either with C-bills, or with thier cash shop currency), with the cost being based on the amount of time it has left. That way if a stock mech with only basic gear was taken out of action it'd be a quick turn around to get it fixed, or a fairly small investment of cash, but if your crazy good mech goes down, you have to make the choice of spending a decent chunk of C-bills or using a more modest mech for a while.

[Divine Retribution]

To replies involving paying real money for mechs:

I can see your point. If equipment cannot be purchased with real money, and C-bills cannot be purchased with real money, then rare tech could still be lost, which is most of my point in preventing the ultra-expensive rare tech constant loadout. Protecting a chassis paid for with real money (never destroyable) would encourage players to pay cash for mechs while still having the ability for most rare equipment to be destructible.

[tunabreath]

*wow, lots of replies since I started typing this, might not be relevant or already mentioned, but here we go anyways:

What if you made the penalty more gradual? So that costs continue to accrue over time instead of a huge loss all at once?
Weapons and components can be destroyed outright by some small chance, but instead of treating mechs the same way, why don't we just apply the same system to its components?
This could also likely make players more connected to 'their' particular mech, the one with the iffy knee actuator and weird engine warble.
Just have mech-specific components that are destroyed cost more to repair/replace each time. This way, the cost of upkeep gradually increases as the player continues to take damage through the course of time, until it costs so much that they have to scrap the mech for a new one.

This also opens the door for a bunch of awesome TT inspired effects, like starting out a drop with a bad shoulder actuator that makes that arm track slower? Or jiggle/sway more than the other arm? What about poorer cockpit heat shielding having more of an effect on the pilot? A slightly off-kilter gyro that makes the mech lunge and dip a bit on each step, or during tight turns?

[PANZERBUNNY]

why are people so obsessed with their equipment being heavily damaged or destroyed for good?

No timers. For any reason. Terrible Idea.

[Arafinar]

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

This is a game of instant mech combat.

No mining. No other professions.

I've been playing EVE for 2 months now and haven't seen any PVP as I chose not to go into lowsec due to getting owned if I did.

MWO is combat and will only be combat. You can't compare a game like EVE to an arcade style simulator game like MWO.

If I could manufacture my own mechs, build an industry around supplying weapons and gear to people, I would say perma destroyable mechs should be in, but that's not what this game is.

Having people log out because they are broke and don't want to gimp their way to affording simple repairs instead of jumping into more action isn't what they seem to be aiming for here.

The truth about those hardcore PVP games where you can lose it all or have full loot in a fantasy setting is that they aren't exceptionally popular. A small group of niche players attempting to keep their game afloat because any loss to the player base hits the company hard.

Darkfall anyone?

I think we can all get past the sadistic want to take progress from other people, percieving "fun" game play as something only obtained if there was great risk involved.

We want people to be excited about playing MWO, not dreading a loss and getting upset or like EVE, think of it as a 2nd job.

No offense but if you never lived in 0.0 you only saw half the game and less than half of the isk you couldve made.
As to the Logoffski move, if someone in Eve cant scan down a ship in less than 15 minutes ....well enough on that.