271 replies to this topic

[TruePoindexter]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

This isn't the case in any facet, it isn't that the concept is to balance the game through this method ~ 'during the match' ~ and its objective isn't to really balance the actual gameplay at all but rather to balance the game's economy itself and in no way does that leave the biggest mechs to the wealthiest because it introduces a currency sink that affects them more than everyone else because they have the most saved up from Not having to repair and rearm for so long.

Why balance an economy where all you ever interact with is the magical vendor that sells you mechs and parts? There is no player driven economy here - it's purely just an arbitrary obstacle to slow down player advancement. Money sinks like repairs make sense in a game like WoW where without it players wealth would spawn unbridled inflation. In MWO though all it serves is to make certain mechs less viable than others when grinding

Quote

All anyone is really asking for is some logical sense to all of the fighting, can you really just buy one ton of ammo and shoot it over and over again without ever having to refill it? Is it the never ending bottle of wine of ammunition?

You're also piloting a giant walking robot that is somehow supposed to be superior to a basic tank. Realism arguments are a dangerous rabbit hole and I would avoid them.

Quote

Logistics matter and they will matter more so in the Clan Wars; it might discourage "CoD players" (as others say and in my opinion is always a good thing, accountants disagree) but it will attract the actual BT fans who enjoy the lore and want to be Mech Warriors, which should be IGP/PGI's objective to begin with.

I don't think it's a problem discouraging players due to the game's depth or complexity. MWO is not an easy game for many to grasp and that's fine. Why create yet another barrier to entry though? It would not improve the player experience in any way so what's the point?

Quote

Build it and they will come.

Only if they want corn.

[TruePoindexter]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

I'll counter that and say modern MMO's would not exist without the Mechwarrior series. Mechwarrior games were successful because they had economic depth. They were a stepping stone in the development of games thereafter.

Normally I'm more polite than this but that's just nonsense. Every MechWarrior game that has had currency has had the depth of economy as a damned Zelda game. You go out and play and earn money. You spend the money buying new shineys and restocking your bombs. That is it.

The big MMO's have a legitimate economy that has a lot of depth. Look at WoW or EVE and how players will dedicate themselves to the economy to the point where they are literally playing an entirely different game from the other players. That's not what we have here and while MWO will be many things in the future it will not have this.

[Khanublikhan]

Why balance an economy? Wy have an in-game C-Bill economy? Here is why.

I have approaching 40M C-Bills earned so far. Most of that earned with a Spider mech. If I have run-away game earnings, and only need to buy items with C-Bills, what incentive do I have to purchase MC?

I have stopped buying MC. I won't be buying any more until I see this game becoming "feature rich". One such feature, important to me, is economics / logistics.

[Vassago Rain]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

I'll counter that and say modern MMO's would not exist without the Mechwarrior series. Mechwarrior games were successful because they had economic depth. They were a stepping stone in the development of games thereafter.

They were successful because they had giant robots fighting, and not one has had any kind of economics in the multiplayer component.

[Khanublikhan]

No, the point I was teasingly making was that earlier Mechwarrior games satisfied the same crafter's itch. I enjoyed these earlier games because I could tinker in the mech-lab. I could buy a mech here, sell a mech there. I had to make choices in a pseudo-economical sense.

And it was fun.

I am the same breed of player as exists in a modern MMO. But we existed before WOW. I am representative of a demographic of player who enjoyed tinkering with C-Bills from the very first game.


...and now, in this modern day, in 2013, those economic interests are not being fully explored, in Mechwarrior Online...?

Edited by Khanublikhan, 18 May 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

Why balance an economy? Wy have an in-game C-Bill economy? Here is why.

I have approaching 40M C-Bills earned so far. Most of that earned with a Spider mech. If I have run-away game earnings, and only need to buy items with C-Bills, what incentive do I have to purchase MC?

I have stopped buying MC. I won't be buying any more until I see this game becoming "feature rich". One such feature, important to me, is economics / logistics.

Who cares if you have one billion CB? You still can't buy paint/camo/cockpit items/hero mechs with it. Massive stocks of CB do nothing.

In FFXI there was a huge inflation problem because the game had no money sinks and a player driven economy. Low level armor was inflated thousands of times over its real price. We don't have the possibility of that here though so what's the point?

Edited by TruePoindexter, 18 May 2013 - 09:49 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

No, the point I was teasingly making was that earlier Mechwarrior games satisfied the same crafter's itch. I enjoyed these earlier games because I could tinker in the mech-lab. I could buy a mech here, sell a mech there. I had to make choices in a pseudo-economical sense.

And it was fun.

I am the same breed of player as exists in a modern MMO. But we existed before WOW. I am representative of a demographic of player who enjoyed tinkering with C-Bills from the very first game.


...and now, in this modern day, in 2013, those economic interests are not being fully explored, in Mechwarrior Online...?

You're still talking about singleplayer games.

[Khanublikhan]

Once you have bought one Assault Mech. Or two. Or three. What is money good for? Absolutely nothing.

From a competitive gaming point of view, once you have bought the heaviest mech - say a Stalker - why buy anything else?
You can buy a non-hero mech for C-Bills. Why buy MC? Why support the game?

Players need to monetarily invest in the real world economics of Mechwarrior Online, for the benefit of the games existence.
Players need to emotionally invest in the game world economics / community warfare of Mechwarrior Online, for the benefit of the games existence.

In-game economics drives Eve Online. Fundamentally. From the get-go.

Why should Mechwarrior be lesser, weaker, smaller, staler, than CCP were, in their goals?

[Vassago Rain]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Once you have bought one Assault Mech. Or two. Or three. What is money good for? Absolutely nothing.

From a competitive gaming point of view, once you have bought the heaviest mech - say a Stalker - why buy anything else?
You can buy a non-hero mech for C-Bills. Why buy MC? Why support the game?

Players need to monetarily invest in the real world economics of Mechwarrior Online, for the benefit of the games existence.
Players need to emotionally invest in the game world economics / community warfare of Mechwarrior Online, for the benefit of the games existence.

In-game economics drives Eve Online. Fundamentally. From the get-go.

Why should Mechwarrior be lesser, weaker, smaller, staler, than CCP were, in their goals?

Just stop already. EVE has an economy. This doesn't. It never will.

[Khanublikhan]

Vassago Rain, on 18 May 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

You're still talking about singleplayer games.

No. I am talking about me. As a player. Whether a game is single player or multi player, it is me investing my time and energy and money.

It is why this R&R discussion keeps cropping up. Players like me are emotionally invested in the battletech franchise that has gone before. Other players might have a mental tick box. "I like crafting and economics". Does this game, satisfy my interests?

If not - that demographic is going to walk away.

Vassago Rain, on 18 May 2013 - 02:38 AM, said:

Just stop already. EVE has an economy. This doesn't. It never will.

Then in all likelihood I will be leaving Mechwarrior Online.

[Vassago Rain]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

No. I am talking about me. As a player. Whether a game is single player or multi player, it is me investing my time and energy and money.

It is why this R&R discussion keeps cropping up. Players like me are emotionally invested in the battletech franchise that has gone before. Other players might have a mental tick box. "I like crafting and economics". Does this game, satisfy my interests?

If not - that demographic is going to walk away.



Then in all likelihood I will be leaving Mechwarrior Online.

That's great. So what mechwarrior game out there has featured a punishing, realistic economics model for the multiplayer portion, or even a terrible tax on the amount of fun you're allowed to have?

[Khanublikhan]

I desire an additive and enjoyable logistics / economics model for Mechwarrior Online. Something fun. Rich. Engaging.

I have no desire to see any player punished or taxed terribly.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khanublikhan, on 18 May 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

I'll counter that and say modern MMO's would not exist without the Mechwarrior series. Mechwarrior games were successful because they had economic depth. They were a stepping stone in the development of games thereafter.

I am pretty sure MMOs would exist without Battletech or Mechwarrior. I am not sure they'd exist without D&D. But Mechwarrior games were always a completely different genre than MMOs.

There is no player trade in MW:O like in most MMOs. Unlike as in some games (like Eve or Startrek Online), you cannot trade in-game earned money vs real-world money bought game currency. MCs cannot be exchanged with C-Bills or vice versa.

C-Bills in MW:O are like a form of experience points in most MMOs. You earn XP to buy yourself new abilities. IN MW:O, thes eabilities are stuff like PPCs or Atlai.

R&R would probably be best compared to something like XP loss on death. Which I believe most MMOs have done away with.

None of the MEchwarrior single player titles had a real economy. You had salvage and needed to repair your mechs, yes, but the PvE component of the game usually ensured that you'd always make more money then you would lose. And of course, if that ever did not happen, you could just load an older save game.

[Khanublikhan]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 May 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

I am pretty sure MMOs would exist without Battletech or Mechwarrior. I am not sure they'd exist without D&D. But Mechwarrior games were always a completely different genre than MMOs.

There is no player trade in MW:O like in most MMOs. Unlike as in some games (like Eve or Startrek Online), you cannot trade in-game earned money vs real-world money bought game currency. MCs cannot be exchanged with C-Bills or vice versa.

C-Bills in MW:O are like a form of experience points in most MMOs. You earn XP to buy yourself new abilities. IN MW:O, thes eabilities are stuff like PPCs or Atlai.

R&R would probably be best compared to something like XP loss on death. Which I believe most MMOs have done away with.

None of the MEchwarrior single player titles had a real economy. You had salvage and needed to repair your mechs, yes, but the PvE component of the game usually ensured that you'd always make more money then you would lose. And of course, if that ever did not happen, you could just load an older save game.

Mechwarrior Online is not a single player game. So why does it not have a viable, fun and interesting economy? Why have C-Bills at all? If you work for a pseudo-military organisation, you'd pilot a mech based on proficiency / training alone.

If the PvE component of the previous games "usually ensured" you'd always make more money than you would lose, why is it a PvP game cannot exist and "usually ensure" you make more money than you lose?

[Kojin]

Mechwarrior is not an MMO (currently), that is why there's currently no in-game economy and why C-Bills are not anything more than a curb to infinite and immediate advancement. C-Bills are an additional line of 'experience' but not put into a tree you can see like the Pilot Lab.

If there weren't any C-Bills there would probably just be a linear mech advancement with little to no choice in what you do and the "high end" game would be nothing more than assaults verses assaults with minor variations on your choice of faction. This is generally a poor set up for any game in my opinion.

Where R'n'R comes into it and the economy for it, will probably be in CW. There it's reasonable to see a more community driven economy to some extent. Capturing resources and planets could bring in the trading and movement of in-game money the economy crowd want.

It has it's place, just not in the current game and the current match modes.

[Khanublikhan]

Kojin, on 18 May 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Mechwarrior is not an MMO (currently), that is why there's currently no in-game economy and why C-Bills are not anything more than a curb to infinite and immediate advancement. C-Bills are an additional line of 'experience' but not put into a tree you can see like the Pilot Lab.

If there weren't any C-Bills there would probably just be a linear mech advancement with little to no choice in what you do and the "high end" game would be nothing more than assaults verses assaults with minor variations on your choice of faction. This is generally a poor set up for any game in my opinion.

Where R'n'R comes into it and the economy for it, will probably be in CW. There it's reasonable to see a more community driven economy to some extent. Capturing resources and planets could bring in the trading and movement of in-game money the economy crowd want.

It has it's place, just not in the current game and the current match modes.

Thank you for the post, Kojin. Yes, absolutely! R&R and an economy have there place - when Community Warfare comes about. The current game and the current match modes are little more than a game engine test / metric gathering exercise.

Until Community Warfare comes about, I (and I hope others, who support the idea of an economy) will continue to beat the drum for its thoughtful and well-executed inclusion.

[Hotthedd]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 May 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Then I want to see some suggestions on how an improved version would look like. I mean, I can always say "just do the thing that sucked, but this time non-sucky", but this is hardly helpful or trust-building.

I haven't seen any real good takes on it yet. Work something out, and post it in the Suggestions Forums. I'll read it. But I want to see how you avoid all the shortfalls of the old R&R system and how you add something meaningful to the game that makes it more fun.

Challenge accepted. First, R&R should not penalize new players. Therefore I would propose that there would be no R&R during the "cadet phase". Second, R&R should never cause a player to lose C-bills. Therefore Rewards should be increased to the point where even a loss would cover repair of a totaled Stalker LRM boat with Artemis/FF/and an XL engine with 4 tons of ammo (PGI could work out the exact amount). If someone with an expensive build were to AFK farm, they would make very little if their mech were destroyed. Yes, people could AFK farm with crappy builds or trial mechs, but it would not be worth much if the team lost. If a salvage point system were involved, where participation in the battle necessitated earning salvage, this would cut down AFK farmers even more. With the increased rewards, R&R would end up averaging the same "net" amount as players earn currently, but with the risk that it COULD be less if that player did very little in the battle. (It could also be significantly more if the player did exceptionally well), and Elo is in place to average out wins and losses. (Before, you always faced the real possibility of a stomp, but this is SUPPOSED to be lessened). In theory, the net effect would be similar to the current model economically, the only difference being the immersion of having to see your repair bill. (This could even be added to your private stats). Sorry about the Wall of Text, but my 'Enter' key does not work on these forums.

[Keifomofutu]

Hotthedd, on 18 May 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Challenge accepted. First, R&R should not penalize new players. Therefore I would propose that there would be no R&R during the "cadet phase". Second, R&R should never cause a player to lose C-bills. Therefore Rewards should be increased to the point where even a loss would cover repair of a totaled Stalker LRM boat with Artemis/FF/and an XL engine with 4 tons of ammo (PGI could work out the exact amount). If someone with an expensive build were to AFK farm, they would make very little if their mech were destroyed. Yes, people could AFK farm with crappy builds or trial mechs, but it would not be worth much if the team lost. If a salvage point system were involved, where participation in the battle necessitated earning salvage, this would cut down AFK farmers even more. With the increased rewards, R&R would end up averaging the same "net" amount as players earn currently, but with the risk that it COULD be less if that player did very little in the battle. (It could also be significantly more if the player did exceptionally well), and Elo is in place to average out wins and losses. (Before, you always faced the real possibility of a stomp, but this is SUPPOSED to be lessened). In theory, the net effect would be similar to the current model economically, the only difference being the immersion of having to see your repair bill. (This could even be added to your private stats). Sorry about the Wall of Text, but my 'Enter' key does not work on these forums.

Button far to the left that looks like a switch if you hold your cursor over it it says "toggle editing mode". Won't be able to use smileys and stuff in the other mode but you can finally use enter again.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 18 May 2013 - 07:07 AM.

[merz]

i kind of like how vassago rain basically says this is world of tanks with a battletech skin over it. with authoritative declarations about what things were, are and, with utter and absolute certainty, will or will not be. spoken like a true goony goon, sir!

anyhow, what i'm hoping for is a mode of play where you lose equipment, have r&r, etc... the game's producer was just asked about this kind of a mode in the latest series of questions and responded with a 'maybe'.. I understand this style of play is not for everyone, but if i can have a couple hundred of quinquagenarians with unkempt facial hair spreadsheeting the fffffffFFff out of something like that, complete with BV and 12-man drop tonnage restrictions, i don't care if the rest of the game switches to third-person/no heat/unlimited ammo.

fragmentation is inevitable because casual bambi wants an arcade experience, but the kind of people who've supported the game financially to the point where it is right now desire the polar opposite. like i already said, vying for casual bambi head-on at expense of reliable core demographic is damn near suicide.

a lot of things have giant robots and use a model very similar to this. world of tanks offers a comparable experience, but you also have hawken. and the guys who did mektek expansions (and battletech firestorm update for VWE) are making the heavy gear game. With depth you retain and grow. With casual focus you increase playerbase in the short term but also increase churn..so i mean,

'hurr durr, giant robots. hurr durr, this will never have economy, deal with it'

you're clearly not stupid, vassago rain, so why are you saying really stupid things in counter-argument..

Edited by merz, 18 May 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Davers]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

The current poll on the subject has 63% in favor of some R&R system and 36% opposed............hmmmm

But what does that actually mean? Does that mean 63% of people don't like light mechs using XL engines? That they think gauss rifles should be very rare? That there are too many assault mechs? I doubt 63% of MWO wants the grind to be longer.

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

That is the optimal future for MWO.

Yes it is gritty, yes it is rough and no you are not guarantee'd to make it but that is the style of this genre and this series.

If it was such an atmosphere and I could feel like an actual mechwarrior fighting for something you BET I'd be dumping large amounts of cash into this production.

Right now, as others have stated and I will restate: it seems like the IP is just being used to make money, at least as of right now.

If you read the books or ever own any of the cards, they gave a lot of depth behind these ideas and these concepts: mechs falling on crumbling unstable cliffs, long toms, base defense, "intimidating paint job", sabotage, and of course logistics/support and the whole realm! The gritty-ness is what Made it.
It wasn't just bashing a bunch of metal and lasers together and hoping you come out at the end, it all had purpose and meaning when you think of a legendary pilot you don't just think of some guy you think of a Named Person with a Backstory and events that occur that make you remember them; Not: "Next battle more c-bills!!!1!1"

With all the complaints about how long battles on Alpine are, and how 8 man groups think they deserve extra rewards because the battles last longer it would seem "Next battle more c-bills!!!1!1" is a lot more common thought than you think.

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Remember, we are not talking about the "old" R&R, we are suggesting an improved version. The actual grind should be about the same as now. A little longer if you lose more, a little quicker if you win more. This would facilitate teamwork and/or generate $$ from premium time.

If the grind is the same, then what is the difference?