32 replies to this topic

[CompleteTanker]

I don't understand where the concerns that an Atlas costing 9million c-bills to buy will have the same repair costs as a 5million c-bill Hunchback (assuming total destruction) come from.

Edited by CompleteTanker, 11 June 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[Orion Pirate]

WardenWolf, on 11 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

I don't want money sinks for the sake of simply having them, or to slow people down, etc. What I think they are needed for is balance. It is hard to restrain from comparisons to other games, but I promised I would, so let me see how I can best do this...

The main reason for playing a specific size or type of mech will be playstyle. Some folks will want to play scouts, and will pick light or maybe medium mechs. Some will want to be fairly quick on their feet, but with punch, and will play medium or heavy. However, from what I have seen in other games - and somewhat on these forums, though most folks here are above this - I am worried that too many will simply want the biggest and baddest mech they see. If games end up being half or two-thirds Assault mechs then it would not be as fun, and it would not fit Battletech canon.

There are two ways to balance this out that I know of:

1) Tonnage limits per team. This will do the trick, but it could also mean long queue times for those who do want to play assault mechs, which might turn some players off.

2) Higher cost for upkeep on bigger mechs. This would naturally encourage people to play less expensive mechs, at least part of the time. It would also reward those who play big mechs really well, in that they might be able to make enough each round to afford to keep playing them without switching out to other mechs to make more money.

Also, no matter the size of the mechs if the best weapons - specifically, clan tech (when it comes out) and lostech - cost no more to repair then everyone will get them on all of their mechs (eventually), and that puts newer players at a severe disadvantage. Make those cost more and people will maybe have a couple per mech, or again alternate between more powerful and less powerful designs to make money.

If others have ideas about how to balance these issues without 'money sinks' (and remember, I am talking in-game currency not real cash) then please share!

I don't think you are fully realizing how different the mech will play in the game. The Assualts are not the biggest baddest mech to every person that will play one. For some people the mech will click and they will do great, for others, it will be too slow and they will die a quick death etc... You have to look at this game differently then to simply compare tonnage. The gameplay and real time mechanics in the video game will make mechs play significantly different that suddenly their tonnage is not as important as compared to their roles and playstyle and how you will want to play the game.

Sure early games will be severly unbalanced, because noone will know better, and they will be learning what works, but as you advance in level, and the matchmaking compares you to similar people, they diversity will grow and you won't have a problem with who plays what in 90% of the matches.

[Chacatumbi]

one last thing, I don't know the formula for repairs, but I really hope there is a cap to repair cost to not cost more than like 5% of the total cost of mech if everything was blown off.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

WardenWolf, on 11 June 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Again, I absolutely agree! I don't like the idea others have mentioned of having to wait between customizations of mechs: just make it cost enough to dissuade completely trivial changes, and encourage having multiple mechs for different playstyles instead of just changing one around constantly, and leave off anything that is a pure time-sink.

I wonmder what happens when you run out of money. This isnt EVE where you can buy a PLEX and get more.

(the reason I use EVE is its the only game I know where you can buy in game currency and NOT get banned)

Edited by 514yer, 11 June 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[Chacatumbi]

514yer, on 11 June 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I wonmder what happens when you run out of money. This isnt EVE where you can buy a PLEX and get more.

My guess is you can play the noob stock variant that everyone starts out with which you dont need to repair ever.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Chacatumbi, on 11 June 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

My guess is you can play the noob stock variant that everyone starts out with which you dont need to repair ever.

Didnt know they were giving that option
Havent seen anything on it

Awefully WoT solution though isnt it?

Edited by 514yer, 11 June 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[WardenWolf]

Chacatumbi, on 11 June 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

one last thing, I don't know the formula for repairs, but I really hope there is a cap to repair cost to not cost more than like 5% of the total cost of mech if everything was blown off.

Absolutely! Making repairs cost too much would be as bad as having you lose a mech - it would effectively be lost, if damaged so badly you couldn't afford to repair it to working condition.

At the same time, repair costs need to be high enough that if you absolutely get wasted in a game (if you play poorly, or just have horrible luck) you will lose money *on expensive / high end mechs and hardware*. If you are playing a light or medium mech, or a bigger one but with simple / started tech, then even a loss might mean enough c-bills to cover repairs / reloading. However, if you have a big / expensive mech and high-end weapons then maybe you would need to play a round on another of your mechs in order to cover the cost of repairs to your prize mech (or, of course, have some c-bills stashed away for a rainy day).

514yer, on 11 June 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I wonmder what happens when you run out of money. This isnt EVE where you can buy a PLEX and get more.

(the reason I use EVE is its the only game I know where you can buy in game currency and NOT get banned)

I really shouldn't have promised earlier in this thread to not mention a certain other game with which I am very familiar :/ Suffice it to say that some other free-to-play games will let you sell back unused weapons / vehicles if you get in a bad situation, and the lower-end stuff will *always* make you more money than repairs cost, even if you lose pathetically. I would expect a similar situation in MWO, but we'll have to see what the devs do

[Xperimentor]

WardenWolf, on 11 June 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I think the concern that a lot of people have is that if costs for all mechs are equal then a disproportionate amount of folks will go for assault mechs and the highest-end weapons. What I am arguing for is having those cost more to keep up, so that you either have to be a really good player to make it work or else move around between more and less expensive mechs to avoid going broke (in terms of in-game currency, not real money). That also fits very much with Battletech canon, and just makes sense: bigger and more complex things cost more to fix when they break.

Yes I agree that heavier mechs and better weapons should cost more, but I think that having a repair cost will be enough of an economic sink. Although the idea of having a cost/time requirement to switch out parts makes sense, I think it would be unnecessary for a few reasons;

1 If they want to equip multiples of the same weapon like 4 AC5s, they have to buy all 4 AC5s first.
2 The Devs. can just alter the payout on missions/combat. I know this has been stated before but I forget who said it.
3 As far as I know, there has never been a time requirement or extra cost for switching parts (granted I've only played 2 mech games and never knew of the board games till recently). So I see this as non-cannon add on, although it makes sense for balance, there's other options.
4 If there's too many economic sinks, nobody can get ahead. For example; if I use all my funds to alter my only mech and then get destroyed in a mission, i wouldn't have enough to (completely) change back to the original. Sure I may be able to sell all of it and buy a significantly cheaper mech, but if I was already in a cheap one to begin with then I'd be stuck (and possibly have to make another account to start over). Granted this would be a worst case scenario, but do you see that I'm trying to point out it would become easy to backpedal?

I do like your idea for viewing the planetary's variable conditions.

Edited by Xperimentor, 11 June 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[GHQCommander]

Games here folks, its being played. Whatever the situation, some know the facts and we're best to continue discussion in a nice manner when we have more facts.

A point made I do agree on is costs of upgrading. I hope the highest tier of technology is not easy to obtain in terms of cost or gameplay. I trust devs, I am a dev, they need to create playtime. I doubt everything will be offered on a plate.

[WardenWolf]

Xperimentor, on 11 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

3 As far as I know, there has never been a time requirement or extra cost for switching parts (granted I've only played 2 mech games and never knew of the board games till recently). So I see this as non-cannon add on, although it makes sense for balance, there's other options.

I may have to dig up my MW2 Mercenaries game disc, but I think that comes closest to MWO in terms of spirit - at least for mercenary players. MW4 Mercs maybe as well. In either case, I may go back and look to see if those games charged just for the ability to move around equipment. In terms of BT canon, though, it would be very expensive and time consuming to make changes to non-OmniMechs. I don't want to factor in the time (I hate wasted time in games), but I do think that some cost would be good myself.

Xperimentor, on 11 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

4 If there's too many economic sinks, nobody can get ahead. For example; if I use all my funds to alter my only mech and then get destroyed in a mission, i wouldn't have enough to (completely) change back to the original. Sure I may be able to sell all of it and buy a significantly cheaper mech, but if I was already in a cheap one to begin with then I'd be stuck (and possibly have to make another account to start over). Granted this would be a worst case scenario, but do you see that I'm trying to point out it would become easy to backpedal?

You do have a point there, and I'm not sure how they will handle the worst-case setups like that. I do have faith that these devs want the best for us, though, so I am excited to see their plans unfold!

Xperimentor, on 11 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I do like your idea for viewing the planetary's variable conditions.

Thank you

[Xperimentor]

WardenWolf, on 11 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

I may have to dig up my MW2 Mercenaries game disc, but I think that comes closest to MWO in terms of spirit - at least for mercenary players. MW4 Mercs maybe as well. In either case, I may go back and look to see if those games charged just for the ability to move around equipment. In terms of BT canon, though, it would be very expensive and time consuming to make changes to non-OmniMechs. I don't want to factor in the time (I hate wasted time in games), but I do think that some cost would be good myself.

You do have a point there, and I'm not sure how they will handle the worst-case setups like that. I do have faith that these devs want the best for us, though, so I am excited to see their plans unfold!

Thank you

Ya, I'm by no means an expert/professional, I'm just letting people know where I'm coming from in terms of concept ideas.
That I completely agree with, wasted time. It makes sense realistically, but I wouldn't play this if I wanted realism (or most video games for that matter).

That I hope for as well, I think they have been testing their work themselves besides the beta testers (but don't take my word for it). Either way I'm excited for it to come out. And your welcome, I hadn't thought of it or seen it mentioned elsewhere and wanted to point it out for others.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Orion Pirate, on 11 June 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

This really is a repeat of like three different threads.

My key thoughts are:

1. I want to log in.
2. I want to join a queue either solo or with a group of friends.
3. I want to wait a small amount of time or no time at all to join a match.
4. I want to pick my mech and lock it in.
5. I want to enjoy playing for 15 to 40 minutes.
6. While I am playing I want rewarding teamwork with role warfare making a difference.
7. When the game is over I want to review my mech in the mechlab and make changes if I want to.
8. I want to jump back into queue and wait for the next match.

Repeat...

I don't want:

1. Griefing.
2. Timers.
3. If I buy something it is mine, I don't want to lose it.

My only risk should be making a bad choice in combat, and my reward should be fun gameplay.

Simple to the point, I like it.

[phelancracken]

Orion Pirate, on 11 June 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

This really is a repeat of like three different threads.

My key thoughts are:

1. I want to log in.
2. I want to join a queue either solo or with a group of friends.
3. I want to wait a small amount of time or no time at all to join a match.
4. I want to pick my mech and lock it in.
5. I want to enjoy playing for 15 to 40 minutes.
6. While I am playing I want rewarding teamwork with role warfare making a difference.
7. When the game is over I want to review my mech in the mechlab and make changes if I want to.
8. I want to jump back into queue and wait for the next match.

Repeat...

I don't want:

1. Griefing.
2. Timers.
3. If I buy something it is mine, I don't want to lose it.

My only risk should be making a bad choice in combat, and my reward should be fun gameplay.

My thoughts exactly on this.