51 replies to this topic

[stun]

Mal, on 06 November 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

The costs of war should be paid. I expect to have to pay for repairs at minimum.. upkeep costs would be ok too (generic 'ammo' purchases that automatically restock all your ammo, versus having to purchase X amount of LRM ammo, Y amount of SRM, Z amount of Autocannon, etc.) Or, include the ammo replenishment cost in the generic 'repair' cost.

Thats right, nothing should be for free in this game. In-game C bills should be able to take care of these types of routine costs, which should should be cheap compared to some of the other things you could do in this game. I wouldnt mind paying for things like increased mech customization so you can really leave your mark on your own configs, If i'm gonna be spending many hours playing this game I don't mind throwing in some cash to reap the benefits.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

empath, on 06 November 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

or for an entire House military to scale back operations due to a shortage of supplies, materials or even supply sources (q.v. Second Succession War).

Well, Operation Holy Shroud had quite a bit to do with that, as well as the utter disregard for the Ares Convention during the first two succession wars.
By the end of the 2nd SW, the only advanced tech left were ER Large Lasers and Pulse Lasers, everything else was *gone*. Not a single factory was left to produce ferro-fibrous. And a multitude of planets were nuked out of existence.

Quote

it's Internal structure that is really expensive

Not really, either. Standard internal structure costs only 400 C-Bills multiplied by the 'Mechs tonnage.
That's 40.000 C-Bills for the internal structure on an Atlas, whereas replacing the all the armour on the same Atlas would cost 190.000 C-Bills.
All the actuators combined would cost 116.000 C-Bills, the Myomers would cost 200.000 C-Bills.

In general the two things that cost the most on a 'Mech are the engine and the gyroscope.
Using said Atlas as an example again, we're looking at an engine cost of 2.000.000 C-Bills and a gyro of 900.000 C-Bills. That's almost 1/3rd of the entire 'Mech on just two components. Also note that the cost of an Atlas is multiplied by 2 due to its tonnage, effectively making the Engine+Gyro cost 66% of all the components.

[UncleKulikov]

Repairs should take time, which can be sped up by both in game and real currency.
This would work best if each player could have more than one Mech they could use, in a garage.

Ammunition should be free, because it's a disadvantage (in that it's limited, takes up space and tonnage, and [potentially] can explode).

fakey, on 06 November 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

To the people who are worried about recurring costs I'd say look at the WoT model. You can lose a match, have your tank completely blown up, and still get something out of it for having lost the match. Yes you have to pay for repairs and more ammo, but usually your costs are covered by what you got for losing the match.

Except at higher levels, where the ammunition costs require you to win, and do exceedingly well by yourself to break even.

Edited by UncleKulikov, 06 November 2011 - 01:27 PM.

[Korbyn McColl]

If you don't have to spend c-bills to repair your mech between battles it wouldn't be MechWarrior.

The only reason we didn't have to do that in the old days of NetMech '95 and MW3 was that we players actually formed the leagues and ran them. We just used the multi-player options from the game to be able to play and there was no ability to carry over mech/character data from one battle to the next.

If this game is going to succeed at all, it will need to add an RPG element to it. Otherwise they would have been better served to have stuck with "MW5" as was originally planned.

[UncleKulikov]

devil man, on 06 November 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

If you don't have to spend c-bills to repair your mech between battles it wouldn't be MechWarrior.

The reason I don't like that is from my experience with World of Tanks. The higher tier/more expensive a vehicle you got, the more of an issue repairs and ammunition were. It gets to the point where even if you win with an expensive tank that only uses HE ammo, you have to let it rest a few times to generate the cash to rearm it with other tanks you have.

If that won't happen, then I'm fine with game currency being used for repairs.

However, a good compromise would be that there is a base rate that your mech is repaired at ( a slow one), and you can speed it up by paying in game or real currency. That way, if you have one mech and it is totally trashed, then you just have to sit out for x amount of time if you don't have any currency, or pump cash/currency into it if you want to jump back in.

[Odin]

No pain, no gain?


They, never ever, go frustrate the player over this.
Keep this in mind.
I'm sure, what ever its gonna be, participating, actually playing the game, will be rewarded - no matter what.

So if we are gaining C-Bills, playing = fighting, it'll be in a way players not gonna be left behind, after they loose.
I am all for a more contritely? approach to this, but keeping a stock version of your beloved custom $ Mech,
sporting standard, cheap equipment is more likely, than to be forced to buy a brand new one, losing the
darn thing altogether, after you manage to get it shot out under your ... you know, goofing like a mad man

Perhaps your fancy paint job is gone, those whipping AC, not seen on this type of Mech ever before, is history,
you got to go, and spend ingame C-Bills again, to replace them.

Its like the death penalty, if its gonna be there, it don't gonna hurt - that much.
Heck, they want their game going, not bankrupt players

I hope we can purchase, must purchase* a lot in MWO, should all be fun and part of what I like to see as social periphery.


*C-Bill not real cash

Edited by Odin, 06 November 2011 - 03:17 PM.

[empath]

Aegis Kleais™, on 06 November 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

You're seeing the game from a myopic POV. If you don't take into account the player who might repeatedly fail and then get stuck into a perpetual loop of being unable to afford repairs or ammo, then you failed the player. This doesn't mean you have to sacrifice the game for the sake of those having a hard time, but it may mean that the method in which the game's repair/refit may need reworking.

You're not reading what I wrote. Let me give you a flowchart here:

Outcome A:

• Enter match, get 'Mech chewed up massively, but win match.
  
• Expend 5000Cb of ammo, and require 50,000Cb of repairs.
  
• Receive 90,000Cb in pay, 25,000Cb victory bonus from employer, 50,000Cb for salvage.

while

• Enter match, get 'Mech similarly near-destroyed, and lose match.
  
• Expend 4000Cb of ammo, and require 66,000Cb of repairs.
  
• Receive 90,000Cb in pay, with no bonus or any salvage.

HOW in either instance can someone go bankrupt again?


True that someone who fights a match and comes out of it unscathed will be 'more profitable' even if the match is lost, but it seems that YOUR 'vision' of what will happen is in more need of an optometrist than my suggestion to emulate a similar 'all carrot, no stick' model that exists and is working.

[Viking]

Spending C-Bills on repairs is a pretty big staple of Battletech, gambling your mech/lance in an important fight adds tension and tactical value. If there were no repair costs or risk of losing a mech, there'd be nothing to stop anyone from just playing as reckless and as stupid as possible, tactics would cease to mean diddly. Worrying about losing mechs in a fight, paying for ammunition and repairs is a core aspect of Battletech and MechWarrior, it doesn't make sense to ditch it just because you don't wanna deal with it. It's part of the franchise, learn to live with it or go play something else.

Insaniti, on 06 November 2011 - 08:30 AM, said:

A simulation means I can fight with whatever mech I think is tactically appropriate at any time. If that's not the case and I need to 'build up my character' to play in a simulation... it's not a simulation.

Also, uh, that's not the definition of a simulation at all.

Edited by Viking, 06 November 2011 - 03:07 PM.

[Insaniti]

empath, on 06 November 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

You're not reading what I wrote.  Let me give you a flowchart here:  Outcome A:

• Enter match, get 'Mech chewed up massively, but win match.
  
• Expend 5000Cb of ammo, and require 50,000Cb of repairs.
  
• Receive 90,000Cb in pay, 25,000Cb victory bonus from employer, 50,000Cb for salvage.

while

• Enter match, get 'Mech similarly near-destroyed, and lose match.
  
• Expend 4000Cb of ammo, and require 66,000Cb of repairs.
  
• Receive 90,000Cb in pay, with no bonus or any salvage.

HOW in either instance can someone go bankrupt again?</p>



True that someone who fights a match and comes out of it unscathed will be 'more profitable' even if the match is lost, but it seems that YOUR 'vision' of what will happen is in more need of an optometrist than my suggestion to emulate a similar 'all carrot, no stick' model that exists and is working.

Then why bother implementing the system in the first place?  Just let everyone play and enjoy themselves and ignore the annoying economics you just described...That's my point.  Either you make the system punitive to players who lose, or you make everyone futz with details that don't affect the game and keep me from killing more mechs...No one wants the punitive/stick model.Insanity

Edited by Insaniti, 06 November 2011 - 03:36 PM.

[Jarek Kalen]

If you are in a house army then paying very little for your damages and resupply is understandable because the miilitary pays for it, if you are a merc commander then it should be pay central, because they always get lots of precious C-bills for their work.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Yeah, I can't really agree with the OP on any issue. Repairs, ammunition, new equipment, and mechs themselves should all cost c-bills.

Whether or not we should actually collect XP and "unlock" equipment and chassis ala World of Tanks is something I'm not really sure about considering the XP grind in that game is on the level of pretty much any Korean grinder. I'd rather not have any of that and just make c-bills the ultimate upgrade gate.

Regarding WoT, though, I do like the concept of the higher tier tanks being far more expensive to rearm and repair. I think that notion should absolutely be incorporated into MWO. Particularly the medium range mechs being the best natural c-bill earners so that they're the mechs which we have to grind on for the cash to make new purchases and build up our bank account.

That's how WoT used to be. Hopefully MWO doesn't go the route WoT eventually did by adding high level "premium" mechs which print cash and skew the matchmaking so the bulk of players are in higher weight classes. That was WoT's biggest ****-up and it ultimately ruined the entire game as mid-level tanks are thrown into matches only to be slaughtered by the legions of tier 8 premium tanks.

[Name144795]

Aegis Kleais™, on 06 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

lol. Wow, you're flipping out here and biting at points that were never made.

I simply said that whatever model gets implemented, they need to be mindful that a player who may lose rounds repeatedly, for whatever reason, is not stuck with a destroyed Mech each round that is without ammo or repair because the system put in place did not accommodate people in his situation.

If Joe blow incurs 100,000Cb worth of losses and the game only rewards him enough to not offset that, even when losing, then adjustments need to be made.

The proper way to solve both problems would be to add 'missions' that are NPC driven. If your lone wolfing then repairing mech's, gathering ammo, and supplies will be far harder then if you were a part of a Merc Company. There could be hidden benefits of being a part of a full unit then playing lone wolf.

Example, in TDM, CTF, CBM (Combat Missions) type modes against other players, your supplies are given up by the company. In reality the Merc Commander/Owner will be the one figuring out exactly how much repair-refit will costs and hopefully hiring an in-home repair crew will mitigate the need to go to a 3rd party NPC shop to repair a mech.

Ammo will generally be cheap, 1 Ton of LRM 15 ammo (if you look at the BT boardgame book) would cost 30k C-Bills, thats 150 missiles per 30k spent (can be changed in game ie, between 150-240 missiles per ton). The thing is were talking not just salary C-Bills (the 30-90k) were talking Mission paid C-bills (in the Millions)

So lets say a Combat Mission PvP mode is initiated, the Total Pot for winning the Mission (depending on Strategic importance, resources, ect could be higher) is an average of 8million C-Bills + salvage. The Loser gets 4 million.

In a 12 v 12, the bulk of the C bills will go towards the Company and a Salary will be paid to the warrior. Right now that's high wild guessing but with incorporation of NPC missions that single pilots/single lance can participate netting good sums of funds (2-3 million + salvage if any) will help balance out any problems in the end.

Edited by wolverine, 06 November 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[rollermint]

There has to be recurring costs, all that millions of C-Bills need to go somewhere.
If you are that afraid of costs in a persistent universe MMO, then you might just stick with MWLL or Mektek.

The only question is the extent of that costs.

As with regards to WOT, there are 2 reasons. The higher tier tanks are **** expensive to play because, well, they want to you to pay for a premium account. Second, if high tier tanks are too easy to be played repeatedly, then no one will play the lower tier tanks anymore.

But I don't particularly favor having multiple mid-tiers just to finance a couple high tiers. Why force people to play tanks, or in this case, mechs that they don't particularly enjoy? You'll run the risk of burning out the players too fast and annoying them.

Now, I can see why this is necessary and how it actually really work. But in the case of World of Tanks, its too much. I've taken many breaks from WoT but kudos to its addictive gameplay, I always come back.

That said, I don't particularly hate the system but just wish there was an alternative method (which I myself have no clue of). If MWO mimic this system, I actually won't be bothered. Just get rid of gold ammo and kits. Those are stupid.

[bryt]

I would suggest having a basic monetary reward dished out per round as a basic participation reward, you get it no matter what assuming you actually stick around to the end of the match when rewards/metrics are calculated. By design this coin reward could vary in scale based on a variety of triggers (such as participation metrics), and would ideally pay for the cost of maintenance/re-supply between rounds.

The beauty of this concept is that the amount could scale up and down based on what you actually dish out or take during the match, thus you get rewarded a little for targeting other players, or being the target for your team. Even more beautiful is the idea that you have the choice, in the end, of whether you want to use that money for its design-intended purpose, or save it up for something else.

This way:
-Decoy/Tank players earn rewards that scale with the sacrifices they potentially make.
-Heavy hitters make enough basic bills to cover operational costs.
-Beginners don't get drowned in a financial hole that requires a fresh start to recover from.
-Scrupulous/tactical players can take the chance to invest their rewards in other ways, if desired.

This basic compensation would work best as a low-level supplement to other more driven in-game reward schemes. The aim here is to maintain advanced player choice, but do so with a n00b friendly design.

The balancing of this concept will be in defining the lines between basic maintenance costs, and actual loss thresholds. Players will need to feel risk when they expend ammo careless (perhaps only in the context of the in-round supply limit), but even more so I think players need to feel a real loss when they lose their Mech. This reward system should never cross the line of giving players a free replacement Mech just because "they took a lot of damage". At some point I feel like taking too much damage is simply careless and should be financially punishable. EVE has optional insurance policies for ships, and I think that MWO might want to take a cue from that.

Edited by bryt, 06 November 2011 - 04:50 PM.

[guardiandashi]

simple solution have "missions" have difficulty ranges

IE lets say I have started out with a marauder but my pilot is below average, and I kinda suck at gunnery

I walk up to the missions "board"

I can sign up for a difficulty A mission PVE pay is 1 million expected opposition is no more than 50 tons of enemy units and i might even get "lucky" and the system generates no actual opposition

difficulty B mission payout is 1.5-2 million expected opposition is up to 75 tons

difficulty C mission payout is 2-2.5 mil

etc etc

basically have options where you can go into easy to insane missions higher risk equals higher rewards
but there is still the carrot of having a mechanism to get back on your feet if you botch it, or have a really bad day.

[empath]

Aegis Kleais™, on 06 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

lol. Wow, you're flipping out here and biting at points that were never made.

I simply said that whatever model gets implemented, they need to be mindful that a player who may lose rounds repeatedly, for whatever reason, is not stuck with a destroyed Mech each round that is without ammo or repair because the system put in place did not accommodate people in his situation.

If Joe blow incurs 100,000Cb worth of losses and the game only rewards him enough to not offset that, even when losing, then adjustments need to be made.

Gee, if you think the *above* is 'flipping out', then you really don't wanna hang around the parts of the Internet that I do.



But now I am getting kinda concerned because your statements make it obvious that you're not paying any attention to the content of my posts

-You express a legitimate concern about the risk of discouraging a player with 'punishing' poor, or even unlucky play with a net loss of in-game funds.

-I suggest a model that, while it rewards success, still completely covers the MAXIMUM possible 'maintenance expenses even in the case of a loss.

-You post twenty minutes after me and either attack me or someone that agrees with my 'min reward should cover max costs' as being "myopic" and repeat your concern about 'bankrupting losing players' as if my suggestion didn't exist.

-I puzzle over this, guess that you simply ignored the two posts immediately preceding yours, quote your post, restate my position in a hopefully-clearer format, and turn some of your own barbs right back at you in jest.

-you accuse me of 'flipping out'...for using the same language you yourself posted...





"you're...biting at points that were never made."

Really?

Quote

If you don't take into account the player who might repeatedly fail and then get stuck into a perpetual loop of being unable to afford repairs or ammo, then you failed the player.

was NOT posted? And my suggestion of 'min pay > max cost' (posted twice) does NOT address it?



You ARE being rather...odd...in apparently not even bothering to read what I put forward.

[Dozer]

Personally I would like to see the objectives of the battles be meaningful. In this case battles over supply lines, ammo dumps etc to gain control over resources that affect the munitions and repair states of those playing in each house. And these, being persistent, become meaningful and tangible objectives to fight over.

Running out of ammo or spare parts (or at least having it restricted by other house actions) then go out there and get them back. Need a new LRM/PPC technology etc... go attack the factory and claim them. Another house wants your Atlas production/repair facility go defend it or find yourself slow to patch up and get back into the action. By doing so you help your entire House, either locally or globally, by getting more resources or restricting the enemies access to them. Classic warfare objectives with small to wide range impacts on the gaming world and allows players to feel the pains of war (or inflict them) without having to 'pay' for them.

In real life the soldiers don't pay for the weapons but they do fight over control of them and the things that go in to making them i.e. the raw resources, manufacturing centres etc.

Edited by Dozer, 07 November 2011 - 07:43 AM.

[Damien Matashy]

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

Personally I would like to see the objectives of the battles be meaningful. In this case battles over supply lines, ammo dumps etc to gain control over resources that affect the munitions and repair states of those playing in each house. And these, being persistent, become meaningful and tangible objectives to fight over.

Running out of ammo or spare parts (or at least having it restricted by other house actions) then go out there and get them back. Need a new LRM/PPC technology etc... go attack the factory and claim them. Another house wants your Atlas production/repair facility go defend it or find yourself slow to patch up and get back into the action. By doing so you help your entire House, either locally or globally, by getting more resources or restricting the enemies access to them. Classic warfare objectives with small to wide range impacts on the gaming world and allows players to feel the pains of war (or inflict them) without having to 'pay' for them.

In real life the soldiers don't pay for the weapons but they do fight over control of them and the things that go in to making them i.e. the raw resources, manufacturing centres etc.

^^^ This is true, I believe this to be right.

On the other hand, If you are just running standard random matches (such as with WOT..sorry for using that as an example) and not running in say the IS wars that will probality be done by guilds..mercenary..or houses. there should a normal, you died here you have to spend this much to fix your mech and replace the ammo and so forth.

[Dozer]

Damien Matashy, on 07 November 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

^^^ This is true, I believe this to be right.

On the other hand, If you are just running standard random matches (such as with WOT..sorry for using that as an example) and not running in say the IS wars that will probality be done by guilds..mercenary..or houses. there should a normal, you died here you have to spend this much to fix your mech and replace the ammo and so forth.

I guess one option might be that a normal random mission comes with a set 'repair' limit for free and a credit bonus for participating. After you exceed the set repair limit you have to pay from your repairs from the participation bonus, and then your own funds. If you go past that i.e. run out of credits you're sidelined (or removed from the battle entirely). No pay, no stay.

Perhaps to supplement that is a 'repair over time' facility (maybe a credit income), based on some 'reputation' mechanic. The higher your rep the more favours (credits) you can pull in to get back to full strength but it still takes some time to ensure people take care when they fight rather than Leeroy (though there is always a time for a good Leeroy). Or the ability to enter any battle (except the one you were sidelined or removed from) if the participation bonus is enough to cover your current state of disrepair.

Just spit balling ideas here... there might even be battles that you can do that speed up your repair rate i.e take over a mech factory and your lance/guild/merc group/house gets repair rate bonuses etc...?

Edited by Dozer, 07 November 2011 - 08:26 AM.

[Steadfast]

Insaniti, on 06 November 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

Then why bother implementing the system in the first place? Just let everyone play and enjoy themselves and ignore the annoying economics you just described...That's my point. Either you make the system punitive to players who lose, or you make everyone futz with details that don't affect the game and keep me from killing more mechs...No one wants the punitive/stick model.Insanity

If its meaningfull for you and it works out, fine, more power to you. I myself would not like your approach.
Its to simple, I have the game you like to play already on my harddrive. It's called MW4: Mercs and I can play it anytime I like.
I like the joy of a victory well won - not only because of the win or the number of kills I raked in, but because of the payment which advances my agenda with new mechs further, or say experience which let me hit things better and harder (for example, I don't habe any ideas what will be in the game and whatnot, just like you all) or which let me purchase Mechs higher up the "foodchain".
Whatever, my point is we most often value different things - but I do agree, playing to loose should not be an option. Allthough I am not quite that sure as you are, that everyone would think so.

On a sidenote, please, do not forget, the devs are of course making this game just so that we all have a nice Battletech Game out there - not to pay rent or whatnot, aye? So, before you make any suggestions about things that we all do not know a thing yet, keep in mind that after all they are out there to get our money - so that they can live and still do more great stuff further down the line. So I guess they won't make the game to unafordable nor do they make it to hardy for those that do not want to pay, as F2P allways seems to attract masses of players. And where I find it often very interesting to see how loud the non-paying customers demand stuff whereas the paying customers most often just play the game for what its worth. Or which they swing the good old I-pay-make-me-happy-stick. ^^
Annyhow, we'll see that development next year, right?
Take good care all, and keep an open mind, we are most often all very different =)
~S~
Daniel