97 replies to this topic

[Siilk]

Britbaldie, on 07 April 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Even damaged Mechs have uses, if it deflects an opponent from shooting at a good mech or the damaged mech is used as bait, it has its uses.
Giving the option of bailing out off the battlefield by running off to a drop ship is a bit of a no no in my book.

Using damaged mech as a bait is not a very sound tactic. Sure, you can have an immediate effect(distracting an enemy for 10-20 seconds maybe) but in the bigger scheme of things is pretty much risking a still operational mech and a mech pilot's life to gain pretty much nothing. Sure, MWO would not let you die or loose your mech permanently but with kamikaze attacks like you suggested being a common tactic(and pretty much the only one available if there would be no way to actually retreat from combat) a lot tactical realism would be thrown out of the window. Effectively this is a wounded soldier, instead of falling back to seek medical treatment, just running around hopping the enemy will shoot him, instead of his healthy squad mates.

Not only every pilot is supposed to value his own life, a good commander would value lives of his pilots and integrity of lance's mechs as this is in most cases the only resources he will have at his disposal for the following battles; he can't be wasting them like that. I want MWO combat to have as much realism in it's tactics as possible while what you are speaking about will put a huge red "you cannot die or loose anything. don't be afraid to do stupid stuff" banner on the MWO gameplay. Retreat is not necessary the act of cowardice, charging the enemy no matter what is not necessary the act of bravery. Think about it.

[Britbaldie]

Outrider01, on 07 April 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

Who likes dying for some dude they don't know? Really, it does not benifit you to just go "Well, I am going to play the decoy...*runs left, 10 seconds later* YOU F*CK! WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOOT IT IN THE BACK!" because the other guy is probably looking out for themselves. The only way it would be a good idea to kill yourself off is if the reward justifies it...if it doesn't and you got a huge repair bill even for winning the match then yes its better to just retreat.

TL;DR - Make the reward SIGNFICANT TO WANT TO ACT THE DECOY or the REPAIRS SHOULD BE INSIGNIFICANT to offset the loss. Because if the individual pilot will always suffer, then yeah the individual pilot will always act the part of the individual and look out for themselves.

Siilk, on 07 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Using damaged mech as a bait is not a very sound tactic. Sure, you can have an immediate effect(distracting an enemy for 10-20 seconds maybe) but in the bigger scheme of things is pretty much risking a still operational mech and a mech pilot's life to gain pretty much nothing. Sure, MWO would not let you die or loose your mech permanently but with kamikaze attacks like you suggested being a common tactic(and pretty much the only one available if there would be no way to actually retreat from combat) a lot tactical realism would be thrown out of the window. Effectively this is a wounded soldier, instead of falling back to seek medical treatment, just running around hopping the enemy will shoot him, instead of his healthy squad mates.

Not only every pilot is supposed to value his own life, a good commander would value lives of his pilots and integrity of lance's mechs as this is in most cases the only resources he will have at his disposal for the following battles; he can't be wasting them like that. I want MWO combat to have as much realism in it's tactics as possible while what you are speaking about will put a huge red "you cannot die or loose anything. don't be afraid to do stupid stuff" banner on the MWO gameplay. Retreat is not necessary the act of cowardice, charging the enemy no matter what is not necessary the act of bravery. Think about it.

Welcome to teamwork.
Distraction gives you an advantage, no matter how large or small, you make use of any advantage, withdrawing a mech off the battlefield is no advantage at all, it may as well be destroyed to start with, just eject and see what your team mates say though ensure your team mates know what you are doing or it will be for nothing.
Also just to add, as long as your tactic is sound (running straight into the line of fire is stupid) then a decoy or distraction will be a good tactic to use, and thats coming from real battlefield experience

Edited by Britbaldie, 07 April 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Siilk]

Britbaldie, on 07 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Welcome to teamwork.
Distraction gives you an advantage, no matter how large or small, you make use of any advantage, withdrawing a mech off the battlefield is no advantage at all, it may as well be destroyed to start with, just eject and see what your team mates say though ensure your team mates know what you are doing or it will be for nothing.
Also just to add, as long as your tactic is sound (running straight into the line of fire is stupid) then a decoy or distraction will be a good tactic to use, and thats coming from real battlefield experience

This is the exact type of gameplay I want to avoid. You are speaking from a point of view that distracting an enemy for a couple of seconds at the cost of being destroyed in combat is worth it. In real life it is not. You not only have to think about current battle, but about the next one and the one after that. Even though combat-incapable mech can be of some use, it cannot offer as much as fully functional and rearmed one. So the choice here is either gaining a small advantage here and now and loosing a lance mate as a result or fighting on with out such advantage but having one more combat capable mech in the next battle. Yes, MWO doesn't let you die or loose your mech but the penalty for being destroyed could be appropriately harsh(and I really hope it would). Let's assume that you command a lance of players that play together on a regular basis(a common situation for a game clan). So, if in this lance you have a slightly damaged Catapult with no ammo left, what do you think would be the best option? Keeping it on the battlefield in hope that it could do at least something useful while taking a risk of being further damaged or even destroyed? Or order it to retreat so that in the next battle you will have this Catapult fully operational and ready to provide a fire support for the lance? Of course, the answer is "it depends on the circumstances". But without the option to retreat there would be no choice, every mech in any situation would have to fight till the end, regardless of how useless it is in combat and how useful it can be in the future if left kept alive.

[Belisarius1]

The problem with the argument from real life that keeps being thrown around is that in real life, nobody will run until they're ordered to. They will fight, or they will be court-marshalled. In an online game where people play for fun and trinkets, players will look out for themselves to the point of leaving their teammates to die. That's not a game I'm interested in.

I don't think you guys realize how massive a detrimental effect this will have on teamplay in pugs.

Edited by Belisarius†, 08 April 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[guardian wolf]

If this is implemented, I volunteer to stay behind to hold them off as long as possible, as me and Hell Fist (my new Atlas, this one's for you Blake) will hold the line as long as possible, God speed.

[wwiiogre]

Instead of retreating, pugs will disconnect, eject, pull the plug, etc. Not having a normal way to retreat just means players for whatever reason will do it anyway in many number of ways. With a game that by the Dev's own words will not reward you unless you play to the last, retreating has its own punishments already. But in a game where you have to fix your own mech and replenish your own ammo. Being able to pull out of a battle when you choose is pretty much up to the individual player. In Canon there is actual rules for when it is allowed to eject or pull out. They usually involve specific criticals, arm or torso destroyed or being down to a single weapon that does minimal damage. Note I can put up quotes and page number references if you would like. But the TableTop game deals with this because most players are working on a contract basis and the contract would have specifics for when or if the player is in breach of the contract. In other words, if you played and got an arm blown off, expended your ammo and then retreated, contractually you would have fulfilled your obligation. Note playing to the death is canon as well and some units are extremely fanatical, Draconis Combine, Death Commandos for Liao, some of the other elite units for Davion, Steiner or Marik, and even some of the units for periphery etc. Comstar are specifically known as fanatics and will usually die before giving up or even being taken prisoner.

But since we are not roleplaying, here but merely playing a game. The game mechanic will be a contract, if you fulfill your contract you get paid. If you don't complete your contract you may or may not get paid enough to fix your mech. Merc Corps will play however the team feels it needs to play. Good luck trying to force players to be suicidal. Some will do it cause its how they play, others will be more careful. Its the nature of people and pub games.

Chris

[Siilk]

Belisarius†, on 08 April 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

The problem with the argument from real life that keeps being thrown around is that in real life, nobody will run until they're ordered to. They will fight, or they will be court-marshalled. In an online game where people play for fun and trinkets, players will look out for themselves to the point of leaving their teammates to die. That's not a game I'm interested in.

Well, this is supposed to be a band mercenaries, with no connection between them whatsoever, gathered up for a single mission. No one expect exceptional loyalty here. But I assure you, you're too pessimistic. If you play with your game clan mates you would have enough real motivation to stay as long as you could be of any real help and depart only if you would feel that you're be a salvage for the enemy if you stay any longer. And even in a random pub game you will not be thinking only of your personal well being, you still have a game to win or your paycheck for this mission would hardly cover your repair and maintenance. And then again there's a persistent combat rating, which would gladly display all your retreats to all your potential employers.

But if you feel like imposing a hard game mechanics regulation, I can suggest that only a team leader can issue a retreat order for any given player. Lone wolves could be unaffected by this limitation BTW, as they have no real chain of command; they're just a one-time contractors. Additionally all this could be limited by, for example, by extraction dropship inbound time and the combat extraction costs(less that full mech repair but still substantial).

[Garth Erlam]

I love all of these ideas, they are great.

Just a 'food for thought' which of the announced 'Mechs could run into a situation where they managed to lose/run out of ammo for all weapons? (IE. a certain pilot here is Infamous for headshotting Atlas' with nothing left but his Hunchback's small laser.)

[Belial]

Garth Erlam, on 09 April 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

I love all of these ideas, they are great.

Just a 'food for thought' which of the announced 'Mechs could run into a situation where they managed to lose/run out of ammo for all weapons? (IE. a certain pilot here is Infamous for headshotting Atlas' with nothing left but his Hunchback's small laser.)

Hm, what if said energy weapons have been knocked out by critical hits or location destruction? But I do see your point. All the 'Mechs revealed so far have good energy weaponry to keep in the fight long after ammo gets consumed. I still love the idea of some sort of fighting retreat to a dropship, though. The opening cinema to MW2Mercs comes to mind. Run, Commando, run!!

[guardian wolf]

I would say an ammo drop could be requested, but it would have to be slow. And destructible.

Edited by guardian wolf, 09 April 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[eZZip]

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

And even in a random pub game you will not be thinking only of your personal well being, you still have a game to win or your paycheck for this mission would hardly cover your repair and maintenance.

It has been seen time and time again in so many games that players in pubs will look out for themselves, even when doing otherwise would be an easy victory (either they're too selfish or they just can't tell).

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

And then again there's a persistent combat rating, which would gladly display all your retreats to all your potential employers.

What makes you think that the game will have 'potential employers?' For all anybody knows, it could just be like World of Tanks. Besides, if losing a game but surviving lowers your rating, it would be annoying for your rating to go down because your teammate retreated.

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

But if you feel like imposing a hard game mechanics regulation, I can suggest that only a team leader can issue a retreat order for any given player.

Why would the 'team leader' (also bringing the problem of how to pick one) care enough to tell his teammates to retreat? It would be better for him to have them keep playing with him, since that would increase the likelihood of winning.

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Lone wolves could be unaffected by this limitation BTW, as they have no real chain of command; they're just a one-time contractors.

I don't understand why you would actually want to have players being 'long wolves'. Obviously it will happen, but why would you actively encourage that behaviour by giving them an actual, officially-defined role? It is poor for gameplay and bad fun.

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

This is the exact type of gameplay I want to avoid. You are speaking from a point of view that distracting an enemy for a couple of seconds at the cost of being destroyed in combat is worth it. In real life it is not.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, that it is not realistic to fight to the death or until the game is otherwise completed. I'll tell you something: games play worse when you give players too much encouragement to run away. It's fun to crush an enemy that's almost defeated. It's fun to try to take down a few more enemies before you die to an overwhelming force. It's fun to battle with an enemy who appears superior and win. It's even fun to try to do a fighting retreat to get to a superior position and regroup. It's not fun to run off-map and end the game; it's annoying to everybody else in the game. See the pattern? The things that are the most fun involve lots of action for everybody. Of course, you may disagree that these are fun/not fun, but years of games play like this, and they didn't decide that arbitrarily. Nobody cares that your Catapult died fully in the previous game, because it's not real life and it'll be ready to go in the next game.

[guardian wolf]

How about draw straws, and the guy that get's the shortest, gets to stay behind to fight to the death while his teammates GTFO.

[Belisarius1]

Siilk, on 09 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Well, this is supposed to be a band mercenaries, with no connection between them whatsoever, gathered up for a single mission. No one expect exceptional loyalty here. But I assure you, you're too pessimistic. If you play with your game clan mates you would have enough real motivation to stay as long as you could be of any real help and depart only if you would feel that you're be a salvage for the enemy if you stay any longer.

I assure you, I'm not. We've all seen this play out a thousand times. Even in respawn games, where new 'mechs are free, players are all too eager to leave a friendly to die in order to save their own skin. I am baffled that you think encouraging them to do so is a good idea. In addition, lone wolves should always be pushed towards supporting their teammates, not rewarded for playing selfishly and ignoring orders.

This is irrelevant to organised team games, because there players will fight until ordered off the field, or will be kicked out of their unit. In an organised setting designed for sequential, campaign-style battles where losses roll over, a retreat option would be acceptable. In a pub, it brings a host of problems for no comparable gain.

Edited by Belisarius†, 09 April 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[wwiiogre]

So who is gonna be the net nanny that watches pub games and forces lone wolf players to play exactly the way you want because you think it is fun? I would like cake and I can eat it too and still I want cake even tho I ate it, and yes everyone wants exactly the same kind of cake I have, no make them have it cause I say so, make them do what I want cause I think its fun, more fun than anyone else. Yep I know what everyone wants and I know what is fun for everyone.

Take a step back and actually read what you are writing.

In other words it is merely your opinion. Just like every one else has an opinion. The only opinions that matter are the Dev's. In TT there are rules specifically written that describe when you can legally surrender or run away. They like most rules are optional. Unless you are in the same room with the other player and can somehow forcibly make them play the way you want them to. I really don't know how you think you can make anyone do anything in a pub game where it will cost them more in game money to repair their mech or reload it if they stay and die.

Some people will live for this situation, others will not. It is the nature of people. Good luck with herding cats, I hear there is a job opening.

Read this with a grain of salt and laugh, its not meant as an attack on anyone or meant personally towards anyone.

Just saying you can't control how others play, you can merely have in game rewards or punishments for certain behavior. PGI has said if you don't finish a game you don't get all the rewards. That should be enough. But we really don't know cause we don't have the game to see for ourselves.

chris

[Belisarius1]

wwiiogre, on 09 April 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

In other words it is merely your opinion. Just like every one else has an opinion. The only opinions that matter are the Dev's. In TT there are rules specifically written that describe when you can legally surrender or run away. They like most rules are optional. Unless you are in the same room with the other player and can somehow forcibly make them play the way you want them to. I really don't know how you think you can make anyone do anything in a pub game where it will cost them more in game money to repair their mech or reload it if they stay and die.

Some people will live for this situation, others will not. It is the nature of people. Good luck with herding cats, I hear there is a job opening.

Ad hoc retreating teaches players to prioritise metagame rewards at the expense of their teammates and the situation at hand. That's not an opinion, it's an assessment. My opinion is that the in-game experience is paramount, and that every attempt should be made to reward team players and discourage selfishness because that makes for a better game.

I don't know what everyone enjoys, nor does everyone enjoy the same thing as me, but games have to make a choice as to what they encourage. I think it's clear that MWO is being designed with team-oriented play in mind, and so I see no reason to implement a mechanic that is detrimental to that.

And believe me, I've done more than my share of cat herding.

Edited by Belisarius†, 09 April 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[wwiiogre]

I agree with that Belisarius and that is why I have joined a large Merc group and I will be one of the players playing for my team and teammates. But I also have a realistic view of people and how they play and don't believe you can herd them even if you want to. The best you can do is reward certain behaviors and not reward others. If the person playing realizes they get a reward for certain behavior then they may start playing that way.

Skyrim is a good example. The Dev's of skyrim give you a small reward for sleeping more than x amount of hours per 24 hour cycle. It is small and it mainly rewards your leveling up ability in skills, but if you do sleep then you get a reward. I have seen some players never let their characters sleep and others that do it regularly. So the Dev's of Skyrim instead of saying you have to sleep, just gave a small reward to those that do and no penalty to those that don't. Eventually, characters will want that small carrot. Some may never want it.

In a game that will be free to play, any negative penalties dished out by the Dev's will be seen as a reason not to play. On the other hand, the Dev's can use a carrot and reward play that they feel nourishes the game and community. So reward players that stick it out and help their team and play their role. Ignore those that don't and do not give them the full point/cbill award for the match.


Chris

As a side note, at the end of a game a character should not only see the points and cbills they won for the match, but also the points and cbills they didn't win and the reason why they were not awarded those extras. This way at the end of the match you could see what other options you had to score points and cbills and possibly improve your play because you want moar!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by wwiiogre, 10 April 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[palebear]

I have just a couple thoughts since I think the topic has been covered pretty comprehensibly already.

If the option to retreat were only to be enabled after a certain amount of time has elapsed, it would eliminate insta-retreats. Also, if it were a command role ability, it would encourage more players to use that role.

It's my opinion that if a retreat were to be available, it should only be available, say, ten minutes after the scenario begins and would take another five minutes to actually allow for retreat, whether that is a drop ship, or a map exit or whatever.

In regard to pub games and early quitting: all things being equal, there should be similar numbers of quitters on both sides and should not unduly advantage one side or another, in theory.

[Belisarius1]

wwiiogre, on 10 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

In a game that will be free to play, any negative penalties dished out by the Dev's will be seen as a reason not to play. On the other hand, the Dev's can use a carrot and reward play that they feel nourishes the game and community. So reward players that stick it out and help their team and play their role. Ignore those that don't and do not give them the full point/cbill award for the match.

That's exactly the point, though. Think about this particular carrot; what does it do? What are you rewarding, by allowing players to leave with their skins intact? By association, what are you punishing?

You also seem to be working under the assumption that allowing players to retreat but then charging them for it makes the mechanic okay. The truth is that you can't have it both ways, because in the end it all comes down to money.

Players will either profit from retreating or not. If they retain enough money on retreat to repair a damaged-but-not-destroyed 'mech, they're ahead and you're still rewarding cowardly play. If the punishment is severe, there's no profit in retreating versus just losing the 'mech and using the full drop reward to pay the bill. You've then gone to a lot of effort to implement retreat and have nobody use it because it's too expensive.

Edited by Belisarius†, 10 April 2012 - 04:41 PM.

[flying1ace]

Siilk, on 31 March 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

From what we know about MWO gameplay, I have come to think that for a pilot, who lost most of his firepower due to wasted ammo or weapons destruction, there are practically no options other than ramming/DFA/etc, which in would not be a best possible choice all the time, as mech is valuable and repairing it would require a lot of cbills. Sometimes retreating from the battlefield would be a better choice if the mech is not combat-capable any more but still can move freely.

Additionally, in campaign mode, during planetary assault a situation could emerge when one of the teams have no chances of winning against the other. In that case, team leader will be better off issuing a retreat order to keep team mechs intact and later regroup with other players of his faction, rather than attacking the enemy, his team has no chance to beat.

Now in full-fledged MMO, such things are done by simply running away. But MWO is match-based so what I want to discuss here is the ways to implement retreat and evacuation from the battlefield in different game modes, specifically in team death match and planetary campaign.

It shouldn't be easy and too forgiving, score-wise but it has to be a viable option to save what's left from your mech. It could cost you some part of match income(but definitely less that the cost of repairing a completely ruined mech), it could also yield less experience per that match. Ideally, I'd like to see it as a mission of it's own, with someone on the team(maybe only commander role players?) calling a dropship to one of a possible landing locations on the outskirts of the map and retreating players rushing there to board the ship with their lancemates providing a covering fire(MW2:Mercs intro comes to mind). Maybe such extraction flights should be limited to 1-2 per match?

Anyway, I really interested to hear what you guys think about all this.

man that is such a good idea!!

[Michael Rosario]

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

Personally, I don't see what everyone's hate is for retreating. If I understand the way the game's going to work correctly, you gain exp (and maybe extra c-bills (I'm not quite sure on this part)) by completing assignments in battle. Thus by retreating, you're cutting off your own ability to advance in level. Isn't that a reason to stay on the field?

Then there's the fact that by retreating you're leaving your teammates to take the opposing force with less support. That being said, wouldn't that cause people to not want to play with you? Since we're going for a little bit of realism in this game (or at least all signs point that way) wouldn't that allow the metagame to catch up on you? You know as a runner? Fine, just hope you don't hop into a battle with a commander who tells you he'll cockpit you himself before you have the chance to run... and hope all your objectives aren't deep behind enemy lines.

If that wasn't enough, then maybe you'll want to stay because of the bonuses for... I dunno... winning a match? Let's just say, for the sake of believability, that you get paid more for winning a battle than losing one. Let's go a step further, and say that if you retreat, or disconnect for that matter, you don't get paid nearly as much, or at all. This in turn, gives you an extra incentive to stay on the field. Your mech's almost blown up? Do you run for it and significantly reduce your repair costs at the cost of all that nice bonus paycheck at the end, or do you stay to fight it out for that money, knowing you run the risk of losing a significant portion of it if your mech's blown sky high?

Personally, I believe retreat should be, not only an option, but an easily accessible one. If your scouts want to run after taking massive damage, let 'em. Why should they be forced to stay once you engage the enemy lines and take a chance of getting blown up, if they're not in it for the money and only want the exp anyway? Your assault mech in the "tank" role took enough damage to fell dropship? What good would it do for him to stay around, especially if he traded out his weapons and heat sinks for more armor and electronic warfare equipment?

And I believe it has already been mentioned that banning retreat won't stop anyone from leaving. They'll just disconnect/pull the plug on their internet connections, leaving you right back where you started. And speaking of banning retreat... shall we also ban ejects while we're at it? Because what is an eject, but a retreat without your mech? Are self-destructs going to be banned as well? (Wouldn't really mind if that were the case, myself, but some would.)

I just lost my train of thought, so I'll end it there and call it a night. (/morning? what do you call ~ 3 a.m.?)

Oh, and as for the question about what mech that has been confirmed can lose all their weapons/ammo? The one I'm planning on piloting. The Jenner standard variant has those nice little lasers in the arms of the mech. Blow off the arms, and it's a walking SRM rack.... For my planned variant which replaces the SRMs with NARC beacons? Yep... I'm busted. Probably wouldn't be so bad if I wasn't roleplaying the guy who was so annoying on the comms that his own teammates wanted to smack him.