282 replies to this topic

[Lipase]

I'd pay $10 for an awesome... it pales in comparison to the cost of a similar class of verhicle on WoT...

I'd have no issue with having to pay credits to fix destroyed modules... recharging lasers, etc AFTER a fight... I also have no issue with having a tech tree that I have to grind through, and pay to upgrades (say from single to dual heat sinks)...

as a clanner at heart, I am hoping that salvage rights are integrated... even if it's just from any mech that you engaged / destroyed

[Arafinar]

Roland, on 07 June 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

For the record, I honestly don't have any problem with eliminating the economics completely, but there needs to be some sort of BV limitation or something then.

The limitations imposed by resource constraints, limiting how how much tonnage and which mechs you could drop, was one of the aspects of the MW4 planetary leagues which gave them such longevity. The gameplay in that environment was much more varied than you saw in the environments where there was no constraints on what you could drop.

Are you saying something like the more planets you control the more you can drop? If so Im all for it.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Roland, on 07 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Well, I guess they could do that... although, that would make me wonder why they bought them to begin with?

I mean, the reason they'd be bringing the big pimped out mechs is because they would be better able to fight... The threat of losing them merely acts as a counterbalance to the battle effectiveness of the mech.

Happens in EVE all the time.

People save their expensive ships for organized events etc and fly around doing generic PVP in disposable ships.

Don't fly what you can't afford to replace is the first piece of advice people recieve.

In regards to the conquest map, what exactly are people expecting from these "bonuses"? Capture this factory, get a slight discount on certain weapons or mechs? Have a certain number of factories under your control and your House gets an XP bonus for matches while under your control?

What they've described so far isn't very dynamic, but we'll see what they can cook up after launch.

There isn't much they can do in regards to punishing losing factions. You think they'll include the option where if you lose certain factories, you lose access to a stock mech design? Won't happen.

The one thing I'll ask for are Rank specific Missions posted on planets. The higher the rank you are the more unique and interesting combat OPS you can drop on a planet to help it along with its capture.

I would even be partial to "faction wide rewards", ie when a certain planet type or mission is completed everyone in your faction/merc company online recieves a C-Bill reward. Obviously not something that can happen all the time. Perhaps restrict that mission to a high rank with a 24hr cooldown. Give people a reason to shoot for Field Marshal, General, Admiral, Royal consort.

[Roland]

Arafinar, on 07 June 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Are you saying something like the more planets you control the more you can drop? If so Im all for it.

Not really.

See, in the planetary leagues you had resources, bought mechs for your unit, etc.Then you'd stage various attacks on other units, assign drop ships and junk to get mechs on planet, then engage in a night's worth of battles with the opposing units... various rules applied, things happened in the league based on who won, etc. Taking over more planets did have the effect of giving you more resources, possibly the ability to manufacture certain chassis if a particular factory was on that planet, etc. But that's not really what I'm talking about here.

In a particular raid or planetary assault, your unit would only have certain chassis on world, based on what came in the drop ship. There were limitations to what could fit on a drop ship as well.... and, of course, all the mechs cost money, although for many units the other limitations were more important, because money wasn't really a limiting factor.

So, for a particular PA, for instance, we might only have two lokis on world... So, if I was piloting one, and I lost it, my CO would chew me the hell out.. because that was a highly prized chassis, and important to our tactics. If we lost them both, then we had to make due with other chassis.. we'd have to adjust our tactics because we simply didn't have any more lokis to drop.

That element of the game added something to it. It added depth to the overall gameplay somehow.

[Arafinar]

Roland, on 07 June 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Not really.

See, in the planetary leagues you had resources, bought mechs for your unit, etc.Then you'd stage various attacks on other units, assign drop ships and junk to get mechs on planet, then engage in a night's worth of battles with the opposing units... various rules applied, things happened in the league based on who won, etc. Taking over more planets did have the effect of giving you more resources, possibly the ability to manufacture certain chassis if a particular factory was on that planet, etc. But that's not really what I'm talking about here.

In a particular raid or planetary assault, your unit would only have certain chassis on world, based on what came in the drop ship. There were limitations to what could fit on a drop ship as well.... and, of course, all the mechs cost money, although for many units the other limitations were more important, because money wasn't really a limiting factor.

So, for a particular PA, for instance, we might only have two lokis on world... So, if I was piloting one, and I lost it, my CO would chew me the hell out.. because that was a highly prized chassis, and important to our tactics. If we lost them both, then we had to make due with other chassis.. we'd have to adjust our tactics because we simply didn't have any more lokis to drop.

That element of the game added something to it. It added depth to the overall gameplay somehow.

Yeah I get that (have participated in several of that type) War Online was the best example IMO, hey if they ran it like WO
it would be great. we will see.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Sort of like WW2 online.

Towns had certain supplies of men and equipment, but you could drive supplies from towns behind your lines, despawn, thereby building up your defences or build up your troops for an impending attack.

I think a generic Light Med Heavy Assault could work, each weight class sucking up a certain amount of supply points when they spawn to fight, but a system with supplies may be wishful thinking. There would have to be a way to transfer supply to planets or it would be a war of attrition.(Not that transporting supplies make it LESS of a war of attrition, it just makes it a tad more strategic. Emptying nearby planets of supply could be dangerous if done without forethought.)

Then the question arises....who gets to say where supplies go where?

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 07 June 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[Roland]

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 June 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Happens in EVE all the time.

People save their expensive ships for organized events etc and fly around doing generic PVP in disposable ships.

Don't fly what you can't afford to replace is the first piece of advice people recieve.

But they bring them out... they bring them out for organized events when it matters.

The advantage of imposing that kind of possible loss is that the best mechs tend to be a little more rare... This has one benefit of removing the requirement that all mechs and weapons must be perfectly balanced, while also adding in the factor of, "HOLY CRAP THEY BROUGHT AN ATLAS". To some extent, that's kind of cool, right?

However, I must admit that I'm somewhat torn in this regard, because you wouldn't want folks to just be able to sidestep this by paying real life money and buying as many of those "rare" mechs that cost a ton... So, that may be the most effective counter argument.

EDIT:
But the counter-counter argument would be that if some guy kept spending tons of real life money to buy mechs, I would immensely enjoy destroying them.

Edited by Roland, 07 June 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

you are all arguing about stuff we dont know anything about , we simply dont have the information it takes to form a thoughtful opinion.

It would be nice if a "ask the devs" post would give us real info.

[Arafinar]

FinnMcKool, on 07 June 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

you are all arguing about stuff we dont know anything about , we simply dont have the information it takes to form a thoughtful opinion.

It would be nice if a "ask the devs" post would give us real info.

lol from a guy whos been speculating from the word go. pot=kettle=black?

[grimzod]

Oppi, on 07 June 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Won't work in MWO. There are no "tiers" or anything, and there is (or should be) no arms race from 20 tons to 100 tons like in former MW titles. You can create an account and begin with an Atlas. So, if this Atlas is your only mech, and using it costs you more than you can earn unless you are amazingly good, how will you ever be able to earn any profit ?

But I also wonder how they'll keep people wanting to buy new stuff. I mean, in League of Legends they just throw in some new characters that play differently and give them some cool skins people can buy, but with alle the free customization (which just shouldn't be there. Hear me Piranha ? It shouldn't be there.) any two mechs of the same weight class will play just the same, so why bother buying new mechs ?

The Cost of Modules http://mwomercs.com/...e-warfare-cont/

A Module is unlocked by gaining efficiencies in a particular BattleMech’s Mech-XP Tree. When a single Tier for a given chassis is complete, the player earns 1 Player Point. Once a Module on the Pilot Skill Tree has been unlocked it produces modules. These modules are purchased as an item from the Store using C-Bills. If the player wishes to use the same module across multiple BattleMechs, they will have to purchase one for each.


Sounds a LOT like they have Tiers. Research a given tier of chassis then buy in with points to get 'modules' with your c-bills.

Edited by grimzod, 07 June 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

hey I wanted player control dropships, Ive come a long way.

oh by the way I just want some real info.

Edited by FinnMcKool, 07 June 2012 - 07:02 PM.

[arkanor]

grimzod, on 07 June 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

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.

In world of tanks you can't lose experience though. What you end up with is a bunch of premium account users who are bad bad bad bads in tier 10 tanks and cause their teams to lose once everyone peaks at the endgame.

Granted it had a pretty long run (or at least 8-12 months) before this happened but it's certainly established and there's no where to go from the top.

[grimzod]

arkanor, on 07 June 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

In world of tanks you can't lose experience though. What you end up with is a bunch of premium account users who are bad bad bad bads in tier 10 tanks and cause their teams to lose once everyone peaks at the endgame.

Granted it had a pretty long run (or at least 8-12 months) before this happened but it's certainly established and there's no where to go from the top.

WOT endgame is Clanwars. And WOT is earngin $ hand over fist. Their system works. And in WOT you 'can' lose money - enough to not be able to fix your top tier tanks (assuming their not locked out due to CW deaths for a week). The gold economy in WOT is a masterful creation and worthy of study. Using a mod called xvm you can plainly see who is good at it and who is not in a match and more often than not premium tank users (who get permiums to grind in game silver to repair upper tier tanks) are deadly. Don't generalize please.

[Witch]

I hate the idea of losing a mech for good especially if it is say, one you got from buying the founders pack but I understand the reasoning. I never did like End-game like in wow since everyone had the same gear. I think part of the problem would be addressed if the the devs keep the philosophy of "everything has a weakness". That way maybe even basic gear used properly could be effective against better gear. In addition, people would be encouraged to switch load outs since no one could be sure what will work best. As for the problem of amassing a stock pile of c-bills and nothing to do with them after you have bought every mech, I don't know... maybe in game gambling? haha

[latdheretic]

Some considerations:

If there was always a positive cash flow, then one could easily grind for the best gear, and there will be little call for selling cbills. Said cbills I see as one of the primary sources of income for the game, so there must be circumstances where you can loose cbills.

Mech destruction is out, and for good reason, we don't need to alienate any noobs picking up the game right at first, and having them get blown up out the gate and loose everything. Nor do we want people who spend real cash to afford a new mech turn around and loose it in the first match. Both are likely to cause rage quit, not something that the developers want.

The developers have stated that you will always be able to bring your mech to basic functionality after a match so you will not be able to be locked out of play.

This implies that there will be Cbill charges for repairing and rearming mechs. So Basic functionality will be free regardless of the chassis. From there it will cost cbills to bring you back up to full repair. The less you are damaged and the more expensive the mech, the more it is going to cost.

The developers have also stated that match balancing is going to take into account tonnage, and a modified battle value. I see the battle value part being that they factor pilot experience points in the particular chassis/role, and the loadout being factors in balancing the match.

Based on these assumptions the ideal solution is to make rare tech to be more expensive to purchase, and to repair. Part of this will be made up for by higher performance, but the rest is going to be cutting into the profits. This should also be a factor for larger mechs. A skilled player should break even with an assault mech fully loaded with lost tech, but they will run the risk of having a Cbill deficit, where light mech players should be able to break even easily.

Then so what if people do build up their mechs full of high tech parts, and equipment. In most games that's called high level/endgame. You want to take the sense of achievement form players? As far as match balancing takes all of that into account I don't see a problem. Same thing with clantech. Sure it gives a mech a higher BV, but if you add the BV up per side and it is close/same it should be a fair fight in theory.

[FinnMcKool]

all of these ideas are really interesting , I just wish I knew what it will be like , the Devs must have this part of the game about finished , so why so secret about the information ? Do you think they are reading some of these ideas and maybe implementing some of them?

[Slyck]

PANZERBUNNY, on 07 June 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Don't fly what you can't afford to replace is the first piece of advice people recieve.

This.

The community will adapt to restrictions, and perhaps (definitely in my case) enjoy the game for for them.

[PANZERBUNNY]

An interesting way to do it would be to make ceratin mechs "default" mechs for each Faction. These you don't lose. Other mechs outside the chosen mechs can be trashed completely.

I think a destroyable mech system causes way more headaches than leaving it out.

[arkanor]

grimzod, on 07 June 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

WOT endgame is Clanwars. And WOT is earngin $ hand over fist. Their system works. And in WOT you 'can' lose money - enough to not be able to fix your top tier tanks (assuming their not locked out due to CW deaths for a week). The gold economy in WOT is a masterful creation and worthy of study. Using a mod called xvm you can plainly see who is good at it and who is not in a match and more often than not premium tank users (who get permiums to grind in game silver to repair upper tier tanks) are deadly. Don't generalize please.

Believe it or not, I've played WoT. Clan wars exists but still the major mode is random battle and a lot of people have tier 9's and 10's by sheer virtue of the fact that they've played 10,000+ games, not that they're by any means good.

Also, WoT's gold economy does a few things right. Premium account (and with the possible exception of the Type 59) the prem tanks are fine, my knock against the premium account is it makes it so you *can* make money in high tiers. On a prem I never have to drive anything but my 9's and 10's and I won't go bankrupt. This is compounded by the premium tanks meaning no one really needs to run less than a T8 to stay afloat. It artificially pushes the average tank weight higher, and leaves the midgame severely lacking (since you get tossed in with all those big tanks).

I just hope MWO doesn't end up making the mistake of having gold guns or bullets or whatever has a direct impact on the battles themselves. I can deal with altering the metagame (XP conversions were a brilliant idea whoever came up with that), even though it might not always be for the best. Where WoT "fails" (and I use the term lightly, by F2P standards they've done very well) is not having some sort of moving goalpost. An online game with fixed maximums will have them reached fairly quickly in the life of the game. Sure there will be some people still playing, enough to be profitable, but probably not as much as there could be.

Edited by arkanor, 07 June 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I don't think I'd be able to stomach speciality ammo in the shops, but as they've said this game won't be P2Win, I doubt we'll see it.

Imagine if you could only get Inferno and Ap rounds in the online store. !BARF!

I think there are plenty of sustainable store options that they and the community can put forward. Forcing someone to buy certain store items to "compete" lacks integrity, and those aren't our devs. That strategy belongs to devs who think that silver and gold bullets are a great idea for "historically accurate tank combat."