63 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

I'm of the opinion that people will learn of a valuable tool, one they should learn to use.

It's called the ejection seat. If MWO makes sure we don't have pinpoint alpha baby's-first-sniper fighting, you shouldn't be going from "fully operational" to "heap of scrap" instantly. 'Mech looks like it's in trouble? Eject and repair it later. Dumb enough to stay in till the bitter end? Reap what you sow.

[Black Sunder]

wanderer, on 08 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

I'm of the opinion that people will learn of a valuable tool, one they should learn to use.

It's called the ejection seat. If MWO makes sure we don't have pinpoint alpha baby's-first-sniper fighting, you shouldn't be going from "fully operational" to "heap of scrap" instantly. 'Mech looks like it's in trouble? Eject and repair it later. Dumb enough to stay in till the bitter end? Reap what you sow.

Agreed.

[Perfect Tommy]

wanderer, on 08 November 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

If people don't have a price to pay for failing, then it's not Mechwarrior online. It's MW Instant Action, round 5.

I know a lot of people here are coming in from the "Mechwarrior" games vs. the "Battletech online MMO" games, and that's gonna be conflictive views...but losing should hurt. Resources matter in a persistent world. There should be costs for losing, and gains for winning. I did like 3025's rewards for success meaning a larger pool of 'Mechs to draw off of- a recruit had very few choices, while a high-ranking officer had access to many different tools for the job.

A variation on that might be to have your "rank" expand what your options are if you out of sufficient cash to repair or replace your Mech when it gets shot out from under you. It should still be only from "stock" models, but maybe the tonnage you have access to increases.

Some kind of penalty for losing your Mech needs to be in place to make the world feel persistent, though. I could see there being a balancing act at the start of your career with your initial allotment of C-bills. Do you buy a light or medium Mech and leave enough money left over to repair and maintain it, or do you bet the bank on your Marauder being able to kick enough tail to win you enough missions and salvage to give you a cushion in parts and money?

This could also be part of the benefit for joining/forming a Mercenary Corp. If you have a pooled supply of parts and salvage to dip into, it can potentially lessen the impact of an unlucky streak on one player's part. It might also encourage more teamwork. For instance, if one member is up in the thick of things while the rest lay down fire support, the toe-to-toe slugger's more extensive repair bill could come out of the company pocket for his contribution to the team.

This may be beyond the detail resolution for an MMO, but I personally think it would be fun to see Mechs develop certain quirks that are so often described in the descriptions of individual Mechs/Mechwarriors in the TT game books. ("I sure hope we get a big score soon--I've been fighting with a shot left leg actuator for the last three missions!")

Edited by Perfect Tommy, 08 November 2011 - 02:51 PM.

[gregsolidus]

Or you could just pay to repair it at the end of the match.

[steelwraith]

If MWO uses a mercenary model, then losing your mech will be disasterous. The average player will be killed every two out of three matches or more. Exactly how are they going to buy a new mech? Now if players are part of a house army, they can be given basic mechs, but the frustration will still be too much for most. End result, failed game.

Remember, one of the most basic rules for MMOs is this: at the end of a play session, even an average player must have a sense of advancement. Take that away, and frustration sets in, and only the hardcore will remain. Again, failed game.

[Corvus Antaka]

As much as Im in favour of norespawn, Respawn enabled gameplay also has its advantages - practice being one of them. I'd certainly like to see a practice deathmatch team mode of some type included that would be respawn enabled, but I assume that from a gameplay standpoint for the matches that count theyll have to be norespawn, and the game will be better for it.

[Obsidian]

I guess Im pampered to quick fix games these days, but the 'pain' of loss or death in a game or a lot of the hardcore features people are looking for don't neccesarily lend themselves to be something that seems overally enjoyable.

IE I doubt this game will be a persistant world in the way you hope it would be. That death mechanic and a lot of these cooldown, and timer stuff seems more for stuff that requires a open world of universe.

That said, I do like a little bite to my games, but time sinks aren't maybe what Im looking for.

[Black Sunder]

No one here is saying that you as a pilot die. The OP and others are referring to the mech itself.

[3Ravens]

No respawns during matches... unless in some types of missions we get the option of getting into a second mech if we have one in our stable. Introduce a time delay for that so it constitutes a tactical decision - get into the second mech and maybe pull a victory out of the jaws of defeat or maybe loose a second mech in one match.

An option like that should not be available universally though, only in specific situations. Not sure if it's doable from a balance viewpoint.

Mech's don't get totally scrapped if you get popped or t's gonna be one huge camp. Make mech repair costs dependant on the amout of damage taken and it influences how fast the mech gets repaired. If it's in critical condition you need to sit out a match for example. Medium damage you'd do better to sit it out or go into the next battle only partially repaired (reduced armor, speed something in this flavor).

Don't make getting trashed in a match sting too much, it's counterproductive. Make it felt but as a previous poster rightly said - reward victory and don't penalize defeat.

[Halfinax]

Yeah, because that makes all the difference right? Sure I can't play unless I have more money (no way to earn it either except to spend real money), but that's what I get for getting unlucky or being new to the game, or just inexperienced.

Gamers would walk away and bam no more MWO.

If it's a server(world) option that clearly labels it as such and is distinctive from other servers then that's fine, but if it is that way on all servers then the game would fail.

This simple point seems to be eluding most if not all of the "Perma MECH death" people:

No fun for average player = not enough income for devs and publisher = dead game and franchise (again).

[Obsidian]

Mech, Pilot, you lose something important.

It's hard to balance it just right for cost of a mech, cost of a loss(you will die a lot in a multiplayer game). If you literally have to replace your mech each game, it'd start to get repedative setting up a template to rebuy the same weapons again, taking time to restock it in the right places, set weapon groups, ect.

This all to play another round only to potentially lose that same mech again. You can see where the permanet destruction of a vehicle in what feels like it's going to be largely a PvP game will end up being more hassle than fun.

[Black Sunder]

halfinax, on 08 November 2011 - 03:34 PM, said:

Yeah, because that makes all the difference right? Sure I can't play unless I have more money (no way to earn it either except to spend real money), but that's what I get for getting unlucky or being new to the game, or just inexperienced.

Gamers would walk away and bam no more MWO.

If it's a server(world) option that clearly labels it as such and is distinctive from other servers then that's fine, but if it is that way on all servers then the game would fail.

This simple point seems to be eluding most if not all of the "Perma MECH death" people:

No fun for average player = not enough income for devs and publisher = dead game and franchise (again).

You seem to be assuming that this is gonna be like WoW and have a sharded server system. It looks like its going to be what alot of games are going toward and being a single server which will represent the IS as a whole.

[Halfinax]

Black Sunder, on 08 November 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

You seem to be assuming that this is gonna be like WoW and have a sharded server system. It looks like its going to be what alot of games are going toward and being a single server which will represent the IS as a whole.

No, I'm saying if it does have multi servers for different skill lvls then the "EVE style death" is fine as long as it's just on one server. I'm not assuming anything about the number of servers. Just a suggestion that if there are multiple servers perhaps the death pact crew could have one just for them.

But that really wasn't my argument as a whole either. The severe penalty mechanic this thread is suggesting would kill the game because not many people would play it.

[Mr T]

A few things.

Keep in mind the higher penalty for death, the slower you will inevitably make the game and reduce the amount of action going on. Granted, theres a balance to reach since MW isn't about run and gun, however some points:

The harsher the mech death penalty is, the more you will encourage some serious camping and sniping, just playing MW:LL yesterday, that game has only the small penalty of losing some C-Bills (if saved up amount is lower than your spawning amount) and a long walk back to the combat area in many cases. Camping becomes extremely ridiculous from time to time, but is bearable, usually dependent on map type, however even with urban combat and close ranges, you will see a **** ton of camping and primarily defensive players if you make death a major pain in the ***, and I for one don't want to get stuck in a sitation where its just two sides staring each other down until one makes a move.
*Yawn*

Ejecting to "Save Your Mech" is retarded, MW:LL goes to show that it will just make others shoot down your now stationary mech so they still get the points from it, unless you make them invulnerable w/o a pilot which is also going to come out dumb and cause problems with impenetrable physical barriers littered across the map. Even if there are no points fro killing a unpiloted mech, people are still going to blast it away to revel in some extra destruction. The point of Ejecting in MW:LL is to save your life, not your mech, and continue on foot. Since MWO isn't allowing out-of-mech walking around, this is moot. Ejecting in MW:LL is also a points based decision when it comes to victory in TSA which I feel should also be something considered.

Ejecting for benefit would be worthwhile if say, you could be picked up by recovery craft in order to return the same match with a mech, say make it a part of the challenge where players can try to secure areas where stranded pilots lay in order to bring back more reinforcements. This would be beneficial in two ways, first theres still a death penalty of waiting around for rescue, then you add a sort of secondary objective for each team and also an early beating can be compensated for by regrouping and rescuring these points in order to bring back the strentgh of a force. You can combine this with no bringing back a wrecked mech in the same round to still make there be an overall limit to the reinforcements that can be resecued.
In addition, enemy teams that gain an upper hand would find it necessary to hold more areas to prevent the enemy from re-bolstering their forces, thus making sweeping victories more challengeing to pull off, but more rewarding and still possible for a well coordinated strike force.

One reason why having no respawn option in a single match would be bad is that it works against the teamwork and intergration aspect of multiple players working together, since the first half of dead players will most likely drop from the game immediately, causing you to constantly be working with someone new while also causing there to be a slew of half-filled servers. If you give players reasons to stick around, it only serves to build upon the teamwork aspect. Besides, this isn't CS:S and as much as I love MW, I don't have enough free time in my day to spend 10+ minutes of downtime waiting to respawn, which is a low estimate for the times one will wait if they amongst the first to die/eject, and no matter the skill of everyone, there will always be a first person to die.

Finally even though what I've mentioned seeks some balance to the idea of respawning DM style and a Counter Strike round based style of match, there is always one more thing to remember, Lag. Occasionaly, when things stop working the way we envision them and apply themselves in the real world, occasionaly things will go wrong, and theres no worse feeling of being cheated then being lagged into death and a harsh penalty on top of that. Granted again, CS has no handicaps for lagging out, but at the same time, the rounds are short enough that its not that agravating either and if MWO lives up to the expectations of you guys and myself included, the matches would be significantly longer.

As much as I see the worth of no DM style combat spawns, we should keep in mind that long respawn times without some form of mediation or route around such will serve primarily to make the game more boring and more of a observing sport. Finally, the last thing you want to do to newbs is keep them from having the oppurtunity to hone their skill, and such a system only serves to allow the veterans to get better with more game time while those who suck never get to refine their strategies. It'd be nice for MW to really gain some serious playerbase this time around through some concern for accesbility.

Personally, overall I feel death should be more of an ancillary penalty, affecting secondary characteristics of gameplay rather than ceasing gameplay altogether. Again, since there will be several match types available, chances are everyone can still have their way, so we shall hope.

[jojobear]

If getting fragged means losing your mech, won't this just encourage people to disconnect before the final blow is struck?

I know I would.

[Damocles]

If we are playing a game that is MORE THAN JUST FRAGGING. Where we are battling over control of planets in a persistent universe. Then I want to see death as a real mechanic. I can't say exactly how, but there is more at stake in game than your K/D ratio.


/Damo

[Perfect Tommy]

Mr T, on 08 November 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Personally, overall I feel death should be more of an ancillary penalty, affecting secondary characteristics of gameplay rather than ceasing gameplay altogether.

Agreed. I do want death/fragging to have a penalty, but as I hope to be playing with as many real-world friends as I can muster into a merc group, I would hate for my only two options to be to find a new match with unknown people or watch my teammates play. It could be as simple as having a pool of credits to pay for some kind of respawn cost, but I would like it more if there were some kind of minor handicap that can't be fixed in the field (for instance, that damaged leg actuator or a blown heat sink.)

I also have to grudgingly admit that "no penalty for failure" might be a good idea. I could see permanent penalties for failed missions turning into a frustrating downward spiral for most players. As much as I like the idea of the "down-on-their-luck" merc crew, it probably makes for better fiction than gameplay.

[Halfinax]

I think gaining or losing planetary control is what the devs are having be at stake in the matches. I assume this would bring with them resources for the Mercs, or houses that control them.

[T3rran]

Perhaps a way to impliment both ideas is having a C-Bill counter for the team objective matches. You get C-Bills for completing objectives, assisting in kills, and actually killing. There is a set amount of bills to start with, and as the teams progress when a mech is lost, X amount of C bills are used from the team 'bank' to put that player back into the match. However, the pilot must have ejected from his mech. Without a pilot, you can have a thousand mechs.

Example:

Team A consists of 2 Lances, Team B of the same number. 8v8 match. The Both teams start with 8,000 C-Bills, if one team is attacking, they may have a bit more starting funds. It costs 1,000 C-Bills to bring a new mech into the field. The match I will be using is a territories game type.

A few minutes into the game, a mech pilot from Team A gets into an unlucky skirmish with 2 Team B heavies. Team A's pilot loses his mech, but ejects. Team A is now down to 7,000 C-Bills, and Team A's pilot is being put back at a Drop Zone of his choice.

Team B captures their first point on the map, and they took no casualties thus far. They go from 8,000 C-Bills to 9,000. Team A is not penalized for losing this point, but may want to get it back quickly.

Team B pilot runs into an ambush set by Team A. Team A turns that Team B pilot into scrap metal faster than he can pull the eject handle. Team B still loses the 1,000 C-Bills, and are now short a pilot.

The game ends when one of 3 conditions are met: All pilots on one team are dead, or the objective is met, or all mechs are destroyed and there are no C-bills left to bring "reinforcements" in.

[Dozer]

I think we're over-complicating it. It's a match making game, simply have different matches available that reflect different rules sets. Then you gather up a wider audience, people can try different rulesets to find the one that suits, and everyone is a happy camper. It provides something from noob to leet, casual to hard-core and everything in between. It's no different than having a military operation with different rules of engagement, different objectives, different supply lines etc..