373 replies to this topic

[zverofaust]

This is to discuss permanent ownership (once you buy a Mech it's yours forever, and if it's destroyed you simply "repair" it in some sort of Mech bay) versus permanent destruction (if your Mech is destroyed it's lost forever).

Permanent ownership is of course the status quo of the genre, and many people would be understandably uneasy about the prospect of losing their hard-earned Mech. But permanent ownership isn't without its faults, and I think there's a lot going for the latter approach.

The most detrimental aspect of permanent ownership in my opinion is the way it inevitably leads players towards only the largest, most powerful Mechs. Since players will always be earning C-Bills in battle, there's nothing else to do but constantly upgrade to bigger and better Mechs the first chance you get. That's the only end game and one that most players will wind up. And as the player population ages then the number of massive, powerful Mechs will skyrocket; whatever matchmaking system is used will be inundated being forced to match noobs and their ****** Mechs with older players and their ubermechs. This will be a nightmare for the developers to try and balance it all out to keep cheaper, lower-tier Mechs somehow pertinent and useful in games increasingly filled with high-tier Mechs. WoT-syndrome ensues.

The most detrimental aspect of permanent destruction on the other hand is the fact that you lose your Mechs. But this needn't be such a bad thing if the design is sound. The best way I can think to facilitate temporary ownership is thusly:

At the end of every game, every player is awarded a default minimum reward in C-Bills based on their rank. On top of this is, of course, additional bonus income earned by damaging enemies, achieving objectives and helping your team. A Noob Rank 1 may earn 1000 C-Bills+bonus per game, while a Rank 5 may earn 5000 C-Bills per game. This would need some balancing to get right, mainly to ensure there's a proper ratio of time invested and reward gained.

With this money, players can purchase Mechs. Or not. There should be a "pool" of free, "Noob" Mechs available to all -- or maybe just a single Mech, or one per faction. Whichever. Players can have an essentially unlimited amount of these (well, one at a time, but if it's destroyed they can "buy" a new one for free). Other Mechs, of course, come with increasing price tags; the most expensive Mechs should be more expensive than the highest Rank's default game payments.

These two factors combined will provide a unique gaming experience: First, all players regardless of rank have more or less equal access to any and all Mechs -- it's simply easier for higher-leveled players to make enough money (since they get so much each game). A high-rank player can for example play just a few games in a Noob Mech and have enough for an Atlas. A noob player will take longer, but it's still doable. And while he's trying he'll be gaining ranks anyway. At the end of the day, though, every Mech inevitably is destroyed, requiring that Atlas pilot to pilot something smaller for awhile until he can afford a new one -- unless he's been particularly successful and managed to save up enough to buy a brand new Atlas right away.

This also gives the developers the opportunity to straight-up sell C-Bills to players for real money. This is beneficial for everyone as far as I'm concerned -- it lets people with too much money get to bigger, better Mechs more easily, but everyone still has access to those same Mechs.

Some aspects should, of course, be "non-destroyable", such as special paint schemes, cockpit accessories and decorations, special "gold weapons" and the like.

What would this mean for the average player? First, it would help alleviate the monotony of the grind. In World of Tanks, almost nobody is "happy" with the tank they have -- they're just in it to grind up Research Points until they can unlock the next tier. Second, it adds variety to matches; even the best, most overpowered Mechs will eventually be killed off, usually forcing their pilot to downgrade for awhile until they can afford a new one. Third, it gives casual players like me -- who only have time to devote a couple of hours to any given game a week -- the chance to pilot the biggest, most bad-*** Mechs in a reasonable amount of time, even if I may lose it that very same game. With the "permanent ownership" model, the only way to stop a complete overwhelming number of the highest-tier Mechs will be to make attaining the highest-tier Mech so time-intensive that it'd take players like me literally years to get to that level, which is a crushing realization. On the contrary, while with a permanent destruction model it may take me weeks playing in a Noob Mech only a few hours a week to be able to afford something like an Atlas, it's still a lot better than the alternative.

There are of course some problems that would need addressing. As stated the developers would be hard pressed to balance ranked income with Mech costs. Too low an income compared to Mech costs means spending far too much time saving up for better Mechs; too high an income means 3/4 people will be in an Atlas. Second, this sticks a thorn in the side of "gold Mechs", unique Mechs only attainable by spending real money -- but I think the ability to buy C-Bills directly would more than make up for it.

So, that's my "thesis". I am totally for expendable, permanently destructible Mechs. I think it would be an interesting and enjoyable mechanic.

[Red Beard]

You know you have been through these threads too much when it all starts to sound the same.

Some good thought though bro.

Edited by Red Beard, 09 December 2011 - 07:34 PM.

[S3dition]

Maybe there should be 3 types:

Permanent: Starter mech. Also cheap/free to repair. Locked to char and cannot be sold.

Semi-permanent for anything you spend real money on (never destroyed, only heavily damage and expensive to repair) but you can sell it to other players for in-game cbills

Fully destructible - anything that isn't premium content. This can be destroyed for good. Can also be sold for in-game cbills.

[Omigir]

Perhaps an insurance system like they have in EvE online, which i think has a simular stystem as above mentioned, Just replace Space Ship with Battle Mech.

[Belial]

I agree with this overall, but there would really need to be a few lower-tiered 'Mechs available for free. Perhaps from the initial pool chosen from at start, which in turn could expand a little to include a few mediums when higher ranks are achieved. What if a newbie (not n00b) is trying to learn the game, makes a bad judgment call and gets his new Jenner trashed on his first go? Then he finds out he's out a 'Mech and no cash to get a new one.

EDIT: Oh wow, ninja'd.

Edited by Belial, 09 December 2011 - 07:39 PM.

[Mechteric]

zverofaust, on 09 December 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

The most detrimental aspect of permanent ownership in my opinion is the way it inevitably leads players towards only the largest, most powerful Mechs. Since players will always be earning C-Bills in battle, there's nothing else to do but constantly upgrade to bigger and better Mechs the first chance you get.

I think you may actually have this backwards. If every mech you had were capable of being destroyed permanently, then you would always want to bring the biggest mech possible because the chances of losing it would be lower since it has better ability to defend itself. (assuming of course that withdrawal is not an option as it might would be in an open environment like EVE).

Considering what we believe the format of the game to be, that is lobby based similar to WoT or to lesser extent Battlefield 3, I really don't think there would be any way to have such a system in play because the idea is that you jump in, play, win or lose, then play again. Its not EVE, not even close.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Some good points synthesising the overall feeling of other threads. I can't see that we'll be limited to having one mech given that we may be required to change things in the matchmaking process (you may not want to bring your Catapult to an all urban map).

[Omigir]

If I wanted to play COD and wade my way through lame guns get to the one I want, I would play COD, and i do. I would rather just buy the mech i want when i have the cash rather then wait till im a 'good enough' level. at that same respect, if im foolish and bite off more then i can chew, there has to be some sort of draw back other than 'oh no, i lost c-bills' If a noob gets ahold of at atlas and looses it, he deserves to loose it.

[GaussDragon]

I like your overall concern too. However, in regards to your concern with everyone going up to the biggest mechs possible, the devs are likely designing a game that tries to reward mech variety instead of assault bonanza. I get the impression that certain smaller mechs have unique roles that in a team (team warfare - which is something the devs said they have a priority on), will be indispensable.

zverofaust, on 09 December 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

The most detrimental aspect of permanent ownership in my opinion is the way it inevitably leads players towards only the largest, most powerful Mechs. Since players will always be earning C-Bills in battle, there's nothing else to do but constantly upgrade to bigger and better Mechs the first chance you get. That's the only end game and one that most players will wind up. And as the player population ages then the number of massive, powerful Mechs will skyrocket

Here's the quote on the website about role warfare. I think we're in good shape.


Role Warfare:
[color=#CCCCCC]
When it comes down to play style for any given player, we want to make sure that we have as many options as possible to cater to as many player types as possible. This is where things get really interesting. Everything from choosing a BattleMech to how a MechWarrior® is trained, will allow a player to truly customize their own personal game experience. What is a player’s preferred role when playing MechWarrior®? Scout? Attacker? Defender? Commander? Whatever it is, a player will be able to train their MechWarrior to specialize in their style of gameplay. Players are highly encouraged to participate in team based gameplay. The fast manoeuvrable scouts will be able to relay information back to the commander units who in turn relay that information to the attacker and defender units. As players advance their MechWarrior in a role, more skills and abilities related to their role will become available. Remember, a team who plays together will always win together.[/color]

[EDMW CSN]

*insert Steiner Assault Scout Lance joke here*

[Haeso]

All the role system will do without any form of loss is lead to instead of one tier of best, four tiers. One for each role. Assuming the roles don't overlap at all, I suspect they will to some extent. If they do, less.

The role system won't make a flea competitive with a raven. Nor will it make a zeus competitive with an atlas. Without losing more than you gain for using the inevitable best in class on average, people will always use it. It doesn't even need to be 'Mech loss intrinsically, if it costs more to repair a raven than you can earn when using a raven, you'll have to use multiple 'Mechs and only use the raven occasionally - it is one of the most expensive light 'Mechs, shouldn't be able to use it all day every day - just like if you want to play assaults you shouldn't be sitting in an atlas all day.


As far as mission reward being based on rank, I'm not a fan of that as it only rewards veterans more - they should earn more through virtue of being better and more experienced. By that I mean I'd like to see C-Bill bonuses for performance, not just win/lose, but if you do well you earn more than if you'd done average. Detaching the rewards from winning or losing and tying them directly into important objectives and other things required to win, you force people to participate, and reward their ability rather than their luck of having a good team.

'Mechs are not created equal, and unless we want to see next to no variety in what is fielded, it's important to make it not feasible to run the best in class, and there will be best at the role 'Mechs, nature of the beast, maybe it changes slightly based on map type ie city vs open, but that's not good enough imo. But if you balance what 'Mechs cost to field against what you earn, be it through salvage and/or mission rewards+performance rewards and you can lose them or the repairs are exceedingly expensive for a downed 'Mech, you'll see 'Mechs of every price point fielded and every role, not just a handful of the 'best' 'Mechs.

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 08:54 PM.

[Dr Hobo]

I like it. Say you can insure an Atlas but depending on market fluctuations,it may or may not be enough to be able to purchase a new one.

Modules,minus your RL money ones,or custom paint/decorations shouldnt be lost tho.

Im sure a pilot has grabbed their fuzzy dice on an eject.

[Haeso]

I don't know about others, but I'm all for aesthetic customization being a one time per 'Mech even if that 'Mech dies, say you purchase a different cockpit style, a custom camo scheme, Matt N Hula Doll for you dash - All for lets say an atlas. And then you lose that atlas, any atlas you buy will still have those items available if they're cash shop.

However I don't want to see any 'Mechs or 'Mech equipment available from the cash shop to begin with - I'd much rather a sort of system like EvE where you can buy a plex (Game time voucher) and trade that to a player for their in game currency. So say C-Bills then whatever the cash shop currency is, you could trade that cash shop currency to a player for C-Bills, that way if you wanted to skip the grind with cash you can and it doesn't ruin the overall economy by 'creating' C-Bills.

[Ozric]

i still think a simle tonage based system would balance the matches out better, with say the higher ranked players getting first pick of mechs. fairness trumps realism everytime, and there's really no need for a punative incentive to play better.

[Haeso]

Tonnage is a pretty terrible way to balance MechWarrior/TT for different reasons. In TT lights dominated per ton, hard. Especially since in TT you could have more than one 'Mech per player. In MW, you were crazy not to take a 100 tonner in organized fights barring special circumstances. Close quarters without room to utilize their agility in city streets is only going to favor the 100 Tonners more.

Did you ever play tabletop Ozric? It had a system called battle value that ranked things independently of C-Bills/Tonnage. For example a Puma with 2 ERPPC was considered equal to an atlas on the tabletop. And unlike MW, that was actually a decent matchup.

Here's something I wrote up for another thread in the suggestions forum it applies here:

There is of course one other option I've brought up a few times but never seemed to catch on. A more complex version of Battle Value. In the TT, your first Medium laser would cost the same as your tenth. What if the total tonnage/heat output of weaponry for each 'range' grouping made it more expensive on a curve, rather than the straight line of the past. Not just weapon based, as you'd still have the 3-4 ERPPC or 3-4 Gauss problem.

Using numbers from sarna:
LRM20: 181 BV
PPC: 176 BV
Gauss Rifle: 320 BV


Say you put an LRM20 onto an empty 'Mech, 181 more BV. Now say you add another LRM20, 362 BV. But if you went and added any other long range weapon, say a PPC or another LRM20, it would put you around 600~ BV rather than 540~. Then a fourth LRM20 would take you to 850~ BV rather than 720~ But if you went and added SRMs, Medium Lasers, High Caliber ACs, these would all cost normal as they're not in the same range bracket/weapon type.

To put it simply, beyond a certain point start curving the BV of equipment if they stack too heavily in one direction, and while some might call this arbitrary, I would call it logical. Battle Value isn't C-Bills, it's meant to balance the game - and in almost all situations specialization beats all purpose. So make BV reflect that, 'Mechs aren't inherently weak or vulnerable at short range even if they're all long range weaponry, especially if you take into account lance mates and focus fire etc. So let Battle Value make those boats cost what they should cost, not less than they should cost as they do now. Even in TT some 'Mechs are obviously better than others per BV and it's precisely because of the vacuum BV weights.

[VanillaG]

I wonder if a hybrid model of incremental disabling until it is finally destroyed could work. Over the course of the a number of matches your mech start to acquire fatigue. Once a certain amount of fatigue is accumulated you can no longer repair the mech and you have to buy a new mech. This could give players a chance to buy used mechs and it gives you a valuation system based on the fatigue value. A mech only taken out by grandma every Sunday would be priced close to the new price and the rust bucket on its last legs could be 15% of new mech price.

Depending on how detailed you wanted to be you tie the price for repairs on the fatigue value. The more fatigue that exists the higher the repair costs. This would gives players an incentive to get rid of older mechs and allows new players to use mechs they normally couldn't afford brand new.

[CaveMan]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 09 December 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

Some good points synthesising the overall feeling of other threads. I can't see that we'll be limited to having one mech given that we may be required to change things in the matchmaking process (you may not want to bring your Catapult to an all urban map).

I hope they do severely limit the number of 'Mechs you can own. Get stuck with an all long range 'Mech in a city? Well that's your fault for over-specializing on open maps. TFB.

[Haeso]

While on one hand I agree CaveMan, ultimately I'm going to have to disagree - the idea that you can just pure long range or short range and win 50% of your maps because you either get the one you dominate or not, is horrible. Sure if you get an all catapult/longbow lance in a city map you'll win... But if you're a mixed lance good luck on an open map. And one sided fights aren't fun at all, even if it's "Balanced" at 50/50.

[Ozric]

yeah i did play a lot of classic BT, and i really like the battle value system. the problem i saw with it here is that even points mean uneven teams. not a problem on paper, but quite a problem in online pvp. at least in standard matches where teams should have equal numbers of players.

i like tonnage given what we know of MWO because its a simple solution, but i can't say its really fair either. the best/oldest players would still pick heavier mechs and the newbies left with the dregs. and you're quite right no two mechs would be equal, even by tonnage.

but i think it is very important that we make sure nobody can really get an advantage over somebody else, except by being a better mechwarrior. if people can loose their mechs then other people can gain an advantage over them, which is unfair. without a pve element to fuel the economy everyone will be forced to advance just by killing other players, therefore the big players feed off the weak ones and the the weak feed off each other until a really big one comes along and om nom nom. down the line you're left with a crazy elitist core player base and increasingly alienated new players. and lest ye forget, it might start with good old school mechwarriors ruling the roost with honor. later it will be goonswarm.

skilled players should advance faster of course, and people should not be rewarded for foolishness, but loosing a mech is too far imo. i'm quite happy with earning mechs being hard, and refitting costing money, but i never want to not be able to use my favourite mech once i have it.

[Haeso]

It doesn't necessarily mean uneven teams, the 2 ERPPC puma vs an atlas comes to mind. Especially if you go with a team-based BV rather than individual.

It's not an open world game, it's matchmaking based, by it's very nature you can't pick on people beneath you unless the matchmaker for some bizarre reason puts vets against rookies. Furthermore it's team based, not single player. If your team wins you still win, dead or not. You'd share in the salvage of your enemies. (Expect a win rate no lower than 40%, if their match maker is solid, 48%. Unless you're literally one of the worst, in which case sure no 'loss' mechanic will work in your favor, but that's not really the game's fault at that point.)

As the entire economy is based on the PvP, you balance with that in mind. Say if you pilot an urbie (1.5 mil) every round, the c-bill bonuses from performance and wins/losses would easily outweigh a high death rate, but if you try and play a raven (5.7 mil) every round, be ready to be poor after a while. And with the role system there's no reason higher tonnage needs to be more expensive. Balance each weight class/role equally as far as C-Bills are concerned imo. Be that you 'earn' relatively more for using more expensive heavier 'mechs (The relation between cost and earned would be equal mind you. So if a light 'Mech average earning is 3 mil and average 'Mech cost is say 2.5 mil, a heavy might be 6 mil average earning and 5 mil average loss, etc.)