481 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

But we are not the House Armies Unless we have the LP to join one, we are Mercs who likely have family hand me downs and House cast offs.

It's good that you still roleplay, but no one was sending poorly equipped locust swarms and half-repaired hunchbacks to meet the clans.

It'd be like in the roleplaying game, if you wanted to pay light mech wage to a veteran assault mech driver. Why would he accept that? He wouldn't. It'd be a waste of time, and a rookie in a light mech would not even be offered important jobs such as taking strategic points in the path of the invasion.

[Tombstoner]

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Mattel didn't have crap to do with the M16. The troops called it a toy because it felt cheap and plastic.

Mattel made the hand grip and that started the legend. Thats hardly crap. Bot trying to nit pick but it is the source of the Mattel legend.

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

don't get me started on LP...

Seriously though, does anyone really want CW without a legitimate economy of some kind making resources and planetary control strategic and meaningful?

Nope, but its asking for too much i fear..... PGI is all about the minimally viable product. their words not mine.

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

It's good that you still roleplay, but no one was sending poorly equipped locust swarms and half-repaired hunchbacks to meet the clans.

It'd be like in the role playing game, if you wanted to pay light mech wage to a veteran assault mech driver. Why would he accept that? He wouldn't. It'd be a waste of time, and a rookie in a light mech would not even be offered important jobs such as taking strategic points in the path of the invasion.

Not to that level of extreme but kurita did do that in a sense during the battle of Luthien. They called up a reserve unit of elderly mechwarriors who still followed a code of Bushido armed with even older mechs.

Over all the point i think we are dancing around is what stops players from using the best equipment all the time. With unlimited resources you dont use thousands of Sherman tanks to attach IRAQ. but you also dont use a B-2 to bomb a Latrine.

What governs the composition and distribution of resources for CW and Pugs? How to build a deep meaningful meta game?

[Vassago Rain]

Tombstoner, on 31 July 2014 - 04:26 AM, said:

Mattel made the hand grip and that started the legend. Thats hardly crap. Bot trying to nit pick but it is the source of the Mattel legend.



Nope, but its asking for too much i fear..... PGI is all about the minimally viable product. their words not mine.



Not to that level of extreme but kurita did do that in a sense during the battle of Luthien. They called up a reserve unit of elderly mechwarriors who still followed a code of Bushido armed with even older mechs.

Over all the point i think we are dancing around is what stops players from using the best equipment all the time. With unlimited resources you dont use thousands of Sherman tanks to attach IRAQ. but you also dont use a B-2 to bomb a Latrine.

What governs the composition and distribution of resources for CW and Pugs? How to build a deep meaningful meta game?

Well, if you wanted to build a complex and deep game, you'd have to go back to 2012 and start over from scratch. There's no way they'll implement a system that takes players out of their preferred robots now.

Can you imagine if all the clan babbies with phoenix gundams and IS collections were told they can only be clan or IS? There'd be a riot. Same if they said that now you have to pay huge repair costs for your cash only hero victors.

[Tombstoner]

Vassago Rain, on 31 July 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

Well, if you wanted to build a complex and deep game, you'd have to go back to 2012 and start over from scratch. There's no way they'll implement a system that takes players out of their preferred robots now.

Can you imagine if all the clan babbies with phoenix gundams and IS collections were told they can only be clan or IS? There'd be a riot. Same if they said that now you have to pay huge repair costs for your cash only hero victors.

Yup its a difficult road ahead when your forced to gerrymander a development program. But i think a compromise can be had. PUGs by necessity must be unlimited for reasons i agree with. with CW its a new feature and only there could you introduce the idea of limited force availability.

The ascended version of CW is http://www.sarna.net...al:_Mercenaries crossed with EVE. This means R&R, tech fees and salvage. build that and you should expand the customer base and game play.

Using a factions pug win/loss ratio within 24 hours to determine victory in a simulated battle of Luthian would be very unsatisfying.

[wanderer]

Quote

but that's been established
5 or 6 times
beginning 20 pages ago lol

And yet,we keep seeing posts with people talking about having to spend their C-bills on fixing their own giant robots.

Quote

but no one was sending poorly equipped locust swarms and half-repaired hunchbacks to meet the clans.

Sure they were. As speed bumps. The trail to Tukkayid was marked with plenty of funeral pyres created in just such a manner.

Edited by wanderer, 31 July 2014 - 04:56 AM.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

DCUO runs the same system, it's all Sony. You get sony cash (can't remember what it's called) as part of your monthly "allowance" basically. It's essentially free premium currency for your sub money.

It has been over a year, so maybe I am just forgetful. Regardless, I like SWTOR's version of the system better, because there was no content you could not access. Subscription just allowed you to reach it quicker and with prettier outfits...

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 30 July 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

No, I don't think anyone prefers the idea of a Leaderboard CW. It's pretty safe to say everyone wants an awesome CW chock full of awesome features.

Wanting those things doesn't help us get them though.

*rains on people's parades some more*

you get things up for PGI's notice by threads exactly like this. I know this because I did the exact same thing with Narc.

We've got such an excellent discussion going on here with all kinds of ideas forming. That's why I really do like with when people provide flaws and counterpoints to my own ideas. It allows me to think of ways that can be fixed, refining the idea, closing loopholes, plugging up exploits, etc.

Trust me, this is a 22 page on topic thread with some really good feedback and ideas (even though I personally don't like them all ), that's how you get PGI to notice, look through the feedback, and get some stuff changed. It can be done, it just takes a little effort. I don want to thank everyone who's trying to help come up with ideas on this. That's the only way you're going to get an idea formed that gets enough support.

Rebas Kradd, on 31 July 2014 - 12:51 AM, said:

I considered this, too. But I agree with Sandpit for this reason: component destruction needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. If untouched components are the ones that are salvageable, then shooting the center torso alone will become more profitable and therefore more prevalent. Yeah, the logic is backwards. But I'll take it.

Yea, if component destruction means you can't salvage, then that means those big FLD PPD weapons can be detrimental at times. It's easier to get a salvaged piece of equipment when it's been singed by lasers raking it a few times as opposed to 2PPCs + ballistics slamming straight into it.

cranect, on 31 July 2014 - 01:02 AM, said:

If I had to pay for repairs then I guess all the groups I run with would need a new point man. As it is I don't mind leading the charge and taking the damage and all that so long as the group charges with me. The issue is with rearm and repair I would probably go negative in my earnings...

I doubt it, plus, this is ONLY for CW.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 31 July 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

It has been over a year, so maybe I am just forgetful. Regardless, I like SWTOR's version of the system better, because there was no content you could not access. Subscription just allowed you to reach it quicker and with prettier outfits...

yea I'm not advocating a DLC system like DCUO for here. It just wouldn't work since this entire game is based around PvP combat. Everyone needs to have access to the maps and mechs. But, part of the sub package could include a monthly allotment of premium time, MC, an extra hangar bay, etc.

The problem?
Would you, or the average gamer, spend $15/month on a game that's managed to produce
10 maps
2 game modes
and no campaign in 3 years?
I wouldn't and I don't think many others would either. They'd have to seriously ramp up production in order to make a sub package attractive but I'd love to see it here eventually.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

yea I'm not advocating a DLC system like DCUO for here. It just wouldn't work since this entire game is based around PvP combat. Everyone needs to have access to the maps and mechs. But, part of the sub package could include a monthly allotment of premium time, MC, an extra hangar bay, etc.

The problem?
Would you, or the average gamer, spend $15/month on a game that's managed to produce
10 maps
2 game modes
and no campaign in 3 years?
I wouldn't and I don't think many others would either. They'd have to seriously ramp up production in order to make a sub package attractive but I'd love to see it here eventually.

If the subscription involved getting a "mech of the month", I would... Shoot, even if it came with a free mechbay and one color and (chassis unlock) camo of my choice each month, I probably would...

[VanillaG]

Tombstoner, on 31 July 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

Using a factions pug win/loss ratio within 24 hours to determine victory in a simulated battle of Luthian would be very unsatisfying.

And having that same battle determined by two 12 man groups would be equally unsatisfying. You have to include the pugs in CW somehow or it is going to be a flop.

What I can see is a CW queue where it is a mix of groups and pugs and would be considered a "hardcore" mode of the game. As a pug you could go up against another group of pugs or a 12 man. As a group you might have pugs fill out some of the slots on your team. This would allow for pugs to participate and makes finding faction matches easier.

To make the R&R part a little more palatable, you would need to scale the R&R with the rewards. Here is how I can see it layering from smallest R&R to largest R&R:

Faction Pug
This is your typical recently enlisted recruit. They are issued a mech and shows up where he is told. The faction takes care of most of their repairs. Because of that they get the lowest c-bill rewards and R&R fees.

Lonewolf Pug
They are your typical soldier who is tired of making next to nothing compared to all of the contractors he sees. They save up c-bills and starts working as an independent contractor. They are able to negotiate higher c-bill rewards but since he is not a member of the military anymore he has to pay more for R&R.

Faction Unit Member
They are your typical soldier who instead of striking out on his own, decides to join one of the premier units in the faction's military. The unit is semi autonomous and to retain the unit members the pay is higher but the soldier has more responsibility for maintaining his equipment. The smart pilot is rewarded with higher payouts and the reckless pilot is punished with higher R&R fees.

Merc Unit Member
They are a soldier who longs for the glory of blazing their own path in the universe. The unit is able to command their price but must take care of all of their logistics. These types of units have greater ability to negotiate rewards and R&R costs so they can tailor their pay. The smart pilot is highly rewarded and the reckless pilot is punished with high R&R and risks being kicked out of the unit.

Having scaling R&R gives a player an incentive participate in CW and makes it easier for them to slip into the game. Having new players with the same downsides as veteran and unit players makes it harder to retain them if they don't already have friends that play the game.

Edited by VanillaG, 31 July 2014 - 08:03 AM.

[PANZERKAT]

Including supply depots to capture in certain game modes would help reduce your repair costs at the end of matches. Lots of things they can do that give meaning to the game and work alongside R&R features.

[Sandpit]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 31 July 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Including supply depots to capture in certain game modes would help reduce your repair costs at the end of matches. Lots of things they can do that give meaning to the game and work alongside R&R features.

exactly
stuff like that is what a lot are expecting and wanting out of CW.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Yea, if component destruction means you can't salvage, then that means those big FLD PPD weapons can be detrimental at times. It's easier to get a salvaged piece of equipment when it's been singed by lasers raking it a few times as opposed to 2PPCs + ballistics slamming straight into it.

This would strengthen the desire to leg people. Besides a head shot, legging should provide the best salvage. This also brings up the option for offers of surrender or trials of possession. instead of complete wipes, make an offer of surrender letting them leave with there mechs just to save yourself the R&R costs and the hassle of hunting down the ECM light.

Cimarb, on 31 July 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

If the subscription involved getting a "mech of the month", I would... Shoot, even if it came with a free mechbay and one color and (chassis unlock) camo of my choice each month, I probably would...

IGP should consider offering a subscription with x money per month with discounts on new mech/ skins. something along the lines of Green -15%, regular - 30%, veteran - 45% and elite membership - 60% off one mech each month.



Different topic - if CW was EVE'ish with mechs how to divide up the Pug que is a hard topic. how do you separate the players who jsut want to smash robots but could care less about a larger meta. letting units make offers for service with cash up from or % of the salvage and letting pugs que for those slots would separate them nicely.

Something that i feel must be present if pugs are going to be part of a larger game is a rating system. a simple 1- 5 stars assigned at the end of battle by the unit leader. did the pug listen, try to fight well as a unit. stay in formation, no profanity. no team kills and so on. this kind of performance driven feed back would go far in trying to find decent players. you get a pug with a 5 star ratting and 2500 drops... you know your getting a player who should be worth the time to play with. The players star to drop ratting. its basicly your reputation.

The pug on the other hand would also have the opportunity to provide feed back in the form of stars. if treated well a high score if tehre area issues then one star. it informs the pug player that unit is not all its cracked up to be.

Edited by Tombstoner, 31 July 2014 - 11:57 AM.

[Sandpit]

Tombstoner, on 31 July 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

This would strengthen the desire to leg people. Besides a head shot, legging should provide the best salvage. This also brings up the option for offers of surrender or trials of possession. instead of complete wipes, make an offer of surrender letting them leave with there mechs just to save yourself the R&R costs and the hassle of hunting down the ECM light.

IGP should consider offering a subscription with x money per month with discounts on new mech/ skins. something along the lines of Green -15%, regular - 30%, veteran - 45% and elite membership - 60% off one mech each month.



Different topic - if CW was EVE'ish with mechs how to divide up the Pug que is a hard topic. how do you separate the players who jsut want to smash robots but could care less about a larger meta. letting units make offers for service with cash up from or % of the salvage and letting pugs que for those slots would separate them nicely.

Something that i feel must be present if pugs are going to be part of a larger game is a rating system. a simple 1- 5 stars assigned at the end of battle by the unit leader. did the pug listen, try to fight well as a unit. stay in formation, no profanity. no team kills and so on. this kind of performance driven feed back would go far in trying to find decent players. you get a pug with a 5 star ratting and 2500 drops... you know your getting a player who should be worth the time to play with. The players star to drop ratting. its basicly your reputation.

The pug on the other hand would also have the opportunity to provide feed back in the form of stars. if treated well.

I really think PGI is backwards on this one. CW needs to be an "opt in" type mode. This allows those that want stompy die die die game play to get what they want while allowing those that want a deeper strategic game what they want as well. Unless they're planning on using free private matches for the stompy crowd. Won't know until they tell us though.

I can safely say I have NEVER been involved with a fully launched game that shrouds itself in secrecy on big sweeping game designs like this though

The only issue I have with a player "rating" system is that there are 2 years worth of grudges in this community. There are tons who wouldn't hesitate to give a player a bad rating just out of spite

[PANZERKAT]

I'm also an advocate of Solaris, actual Solaris being MC only. Where you must have a sub or can buy Solaris "tickets" as one shot consumables to be able to drop. Weapons and equipment that are destroyed are toast, though your mech can't totally be lost. It would truly be a showcase of those who have great talent and courage in the game.

Offer unique decals and incentives where the participants can showcase their achievements. I think the concept would get a lot of negative press though.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

I really think PGI is backwards on this one. CW needs to be an "opt in" type mode. This allows those that want stompy die die die game play to get what they want while allowing those that want a deeper strategic game what they want as well. Unless they're planning on using free private matches for the stompy crowd. Won't know until they tell us though.

I can safely say I have NEVER been involved with a fully launched game that shrouds itself in secrecy on big sweeping game designs like this though

The only issue I have with a player "rating" system is that there are 2 years worth of grudges in this community. There are tons who wouldn't hesitate to give a player a bad rating just out of spite

Yea, a rating system requires that all parties act maturely. But i would hope that over time it would average out to be something representing reputation. but that could also be turned into an egotistical elitists thing. only 5 stars allowed.

I think they keep things secret out of a desire to avoid negative press and have it concentrated into a few days, not have it dragged out over the dev cycle. However that does lead everyone off a clif when change happens. surprise ghost heat. or worst yet.... buy a clan pack.... whats in it.... cant tell you yet...but for $500 you can have a gold one.

[Sandpit]

Tombstoner, on 31 July 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Yea, a rating system requires that all parties act maturely. But i would hope that over time it would average out to be something representing reputation. but that could also be turned into an egotistical elitists thing. only 5 stars allowed.

I think they keep things secret out of a desire to avoid negative press and have it concentrated into a few days, not have it dragged out over the dev cycle. However that does lead everyone off a clif when change happens. surprise ghost heat. or worst yet.... buy a clan pack.... whats in it.... cant tell you yet...but for $500 you can have a gold one.

exactly

I can understand not having daily detailed updates but this is something that players have asked about, argued over, etc. for 2 years now and is one of the biggest foundations of the game as a whole. You'd think they would at least give some input or disperse some information regarding their idea for stuff like this. That's exactly what you're supposed to do. Float ideas, get input from your customers, because Paul's idea of "good" doesn't matter for squat if everyone in the community hates it. It doesn't matter how much he and the other devs like it, what matters is whether the customer likes it and that's one of the cornerstone problems with PGI it would seem

[Squally160]

This thread has been hurtin my face so much lately. I think there are a ton of great ideas in here for cw, and some not so great ones. Problem is, until pgi decides its time to tell us what cw will be and how they plan to do it were all just grasping at straws.

I hope the can learn fom other games that have persistant campaigns and economies based around them. I really do. Dust 514 is a great example. That tank you dropped in andgot blown up? Well its gone. So are all the modules. You better hope you can afforda replacement or someoneone can build one for you. Could easily represent that here as well with territories producing x number of units per tick. And those units being made available for use for x lp or a rank of blah or higher. You want to drop in an atlasevery cw match? Prove you can pilot that thing to its fullest.

[Sandpit]

Squally160, on 31 July 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

This thread has been hurtin my face so much lately. I think there are a ton of great ideas in here for cw, and some not so great ones. Problem is, until pgi decides its time to tell us what cw will be and how they plan to do it were all just grasping at straws.

I hope the can learn fom other games that have persistant campaigns and economies based around them. I really do. Dust 514 is a great example. That tank you dropped in andgot blown up? Well its gone. So are all the modules. You better hope you can afforda replacement or someoneone can build one for you. Could easily represent that here as well with territories producing x number of units per tick. And those units being made available for use for x lp or a rank of blah or higher. You want to drop in an atlasevery cw match? Prove you can pilot that thing to its fullest.

yes and no

At least by kicking around ideas like this we give PGI an idea of what its customers do and do not want for CW. Granted everything we're discussing is glorified theorycrafting but it also holds PGI somewhat accountable. There's absolutely no way for PGI to say "Oh, well we didn't realize THAT'S what you guys wanted" It gives us a thread to kick around and refine ideas and also gives PGI less "wiggle" room to design CW in a horribad direction in the name of "ignorance" when it comes to what their customers wanted

I think losing everything is just too harsh. If the economy were different and it wasn't nearly as expensive to buy that stuff again? Ok, go for total losses, but that's not the case here. It can take upwards of 10-15 pretty good matches to buy one chassis, then another 10-15 decent matches to get it all decked out. That's 20-30 matches just to replace ONE mech and components. Even if you drop the average per match to say 5 minutes that's still 100-150 matches. That's 2-3 hours just to replace one single unit, not accounting for any other losses while you're trying to grind out the money to replace that initial loss. That's just too harsh in my opinion. The equipment and units here aren't priced for that kind of constant replacement. I don't think you should lose anything out of your inventory, unless it's equipment lost to a degradation mechanic that you ignored and didnt' want to spend money on repairs for.

[Squally160]

Sandpit, on 31 July 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

yes and no

At least by kicking around ideas like this we give PGI an idea of what its customers do and do not want for CW. Granted everything we're discussing is glorified theorycrafting but it also holds PGI somewhat accountable. There's absolutely no way for PGI to say "Oh, well we didn't realize THAT'S what you guys wanted" It gives us a thread to kick around and refine ideas and also gives PGI less "wiggle" room to design CW in a horribad direction in the name of "ignorance" when it comes to what their customers wanted

I think losing everything is just too harsh. If the economy were different and it wasn't nearly as expensive to buy that stuff again? Ok, go for total losses, but that's not the case here. It can take upwards of 10-15 pretty good matches to buy one chassis, then another 10-15 decent matches to get it all decked out. That's 20-30 matches just to replace ONE mech and components. Even if you drop the average per match to say 5 minutes that's still 100-150 matches. That's 2-3 hours just to replace one single unit, not accounting for any other losses while you're trying to grind out the money to replace that initial loss. That's just too harsh in my opinion. The equipment and units here aren't priced for that kind of constant replacement. I don't think you should lose anything out of your inventory, unless it's equipment lost to a degradation mechanic that you ignored and didnt' want to spend money on repairs for.

Sorry, i do not mean total loss. You still need to rnr whats blowed up or used though. The main point of my post though, which understandably i did not convey well, is not that we should be using cbills to rnr for cw. We need another, new currency that is influenced by control points on the map. Ppcs will be costly if the factory keeps changing hands and cant produce at100%.