481 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Caviel, on 28 July 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

length

quite simply, you can NOT have any kind of meaningful CW without some sort of economy. To have an economy there HAS to be a cost associated of some kind with upkeep. There HAS to be cost of losing facilities, access to materials, etc. and that means there has to be consequences for having repairs and keep ammo supplies running. You simply cannot get around that.

If you do CW without said economy, the only thing you've created is a leaderboard based on which faction owns xx amount of planets. That's it. There's no real consequence to losing, running expensive mechs and builds non-stop, taking planetary resources, etc. That IS map then becomes nothing more than a leaderboard to show which faction is in "1st" place, there's no need for things like alliances, role warfare, etc. You have exactly what you have now except now you have a leaderboard...

That's NOT what I, and I sincerely doubt MANY others, want CW to be and envisioned based on PGI's information given to us. So again, you've got to have an economy for CW or you don't have CW.

[Squally160]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Eh, I think that actually hurts your argument

That means from day one every player, new and old alike, have equal footing. You can't face an opponent with "better" gear because you've got access to the same exact gear. So there's no discrepancies among the players. Now that means the primary concern of this is new players. Since this is a CW based suggestion, they shouldn't be part of the equation. If they want to participate in CW they'll have to take the training wheels off a little earlier unless they want to learn first. Either way, CW cannot and should not be catered to the limitations of new players. They need to have their own experience that doesn't throw them directly into a planetary war with other factions just so they can get yelled at for being the reason their team lost the planet. That's exactly what CW will be if new players are just chunked in there with everyone else and it will quickly become a VERY unfriendly game environment for new players.

So lets take new players out of the equation even though extending the cadet "protection" to 50 or 70 or even 100 matches would solve that.

Without a seperate que, no amount of cadet bonus will help you do better in cw as a new player, sorry.

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 28 July 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

The balancing would be complicated. Balancing is hard. And poor balance would be really bad in this case, for reasons that have been well argued throughout the thread.

Simple concepts are not necessarily simple to implement. And PGI doesn't exactly have a great track record with balance.

Holy ****, I'm more cynical than Sandpit is! Dear god. What has happened to me?

When you've got a map that gives you the direct path, all you gotta do is step forward lol
That's why I, and a few others I know, don't understand the delays with this. Sure it's complex, but players were doing this 20 years ago. That's not really here nor there but it does show why some are so perplexed and irritated.

[Henree]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

the only thing you've created is a leaderboard based on which faction owns xx amount of planets. That's it. There's no real consequence to losing, running expensive mechs and builds non-stop, taking planetary resources, etc. That IS map then becomes nothing more than a leaderboard to show which faction is in "1st" place, there's no need for things like alliances, role warfare, etc. You have exactly what you have now except now you have a leaderboard...

You mean nobody told you? That is what CW is, in powerpoint format.

[Maggiman]

Ideas like this would bring me back to actually playing this game (And thus spend money again), and i would really love something like a limited resource campaign where RnR really matters.. . And if done correctly it might lessen the cbill gap between veterans and poor shits like me.
I think however that doing it right entails a great effort at balancing and integrating it into a meaningfull cw. Otherwise it would be just some cbill sink (Which it apparently was a long time ago).

Which is precisely why i think pgi wont do it in any immersive, meaningfull way. There is just not an easy, just some variables, solution. I mean, even this simple thread already got pages of discussion... Maybe we see some phase 1 of it somewhere in the future, but that will be it.

One can dream though =)

[terrycloth]

Why not have the 'economy' or whatever you want to call it not have anything to do with the current currencies then? Use 'victory points' (or 'loyalty points' or whatever) that you use up when your mech gets destroyed. Don't get too complicated, just make it simple -- you died, you lose a point for your side. Or maybe a point per 5 tons or something. The more complicated and 'realistic' you try to make it the more stupid, unrealistic crap it'll encourage.

But you don't need an economy to have an interesting strategic-level game. You do need consequences for winning or losing but they could all be rewards. The main problem is how do you do it with most players already having a billion tricked out mechs? Other games have used things like Masteries that you earn by completing the new content.

Maybe special modules? Weapon modules that don't suck? "Your faction controls the medium laser factory so you can install this free, no-need-to-unlock weapon module that gives your medium lasers +20% range and -20% heat, as long as you hold control."

[Sandpit]

Squally160, on 28 July 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Without a seperate que, no amount of cadet bonus will help you do better in cw as a new player, sorry.

I never said it would, I was asking to take new players out of the equation for the R&R suggestion since it's specifically aimed at CW

[Wintersdark]

Henri Schoots, on 28 July 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

You mean nobody told you? That is what CW is, in powerpoint format.

Yup. This is what you're going to get. A very simple leaderboard, and little else.

Hell, all of Phase 1 for community warfare can be summed up under one word, as it exists in MMO's everywhere: "Guilds" (except with, if anything, less functionality)

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

quite simply, you can NOT have any kind of meaningful CW without some sort of economy. To have an economy there HAS to be a cost associated of some kind with upkeep. There HAS to be cost of losing facilities, access to materials, etc. and that means there has to be consequences for having repairs and keep ammo supplies running. You simply cannot get around that.

If you do CW without said economy, the only thing you've created is a leaderboard based on which faction owns xx amount of planets. That's it. There's no real consequence to losing, running expensive mechs and builds non-stop, taking planetary resources, etc. That IS map then becomes nothing more than a leaderboard to show which faction is in "1st" place, there's no need for things like alliances, role warfare, etc. You have exactly what you have now except now you have a leaderboard...

That's NOT what I, and I sincerely doubt MANY others, want CW to be and envisioned based on PGI's information given to us. So again, you've got to have an economy for CW or you don't have CW.

Ah, but there have been hints at an economic system for Mercenary Units participating in Community Warfare. PGI has hinted that Mercenary Dropships may be present and destructible inside of CW Matches. Losing your dropship would amount to a ~240,000,000 C-Bill "R&R" fee.

[Sandpit]

terrycloth, on 28 July 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Why not have the 'economy' or whatever you want to call it not have anything to do with the current currencies then? Use 'victory points' (or 'loyalty points' or whatever) that you use up when your mech gets destroyed. Don't get too complicated, just make it simple -- you died, you lose a point for your side. Or maybe a point per 5 tons or something. The more complicated and 'realistic' you try to make it the more stupid, unrealistic crap it'll encourage.

But you don't need an economy to have an interesting strategic-level game. You do need consequences for winning or losing but they could all be rewards. The main problem is how do you do it with most players already having a billion tricked out mechs? Other games have used things like Masteries that you earn by completing the new content.

Maybe special modules? Weapon modules that don't suck? "Your faction controls the medium laser factory so you can install this free, no-need-to-unlock weapon module that gives your medium lasers +20% range and -20% heat, as long as you hold control."

Well that problem is entirely different. You've got to determine what you want CW to be. If you want it to be just a glorified leaderboard, then you don't add anything in the way of an economy, supply lines, etc. you just use LP to offer discounts on certain faction's mechs, and see how won the most planets today.

Artgathan, on 28 July 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Ah, but there have been hints at an economic system for Mercenary Units participating in Community Warfare. PGI has hinted that Mercenary Dropships may be present and destructible inside of CW Matches. Losing your dropship would amount to a ~240,000,000 C-Bill "R&R" fee.

That's not the same, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. There are plenty who hate the idea of R&R anything that reduces their amount after matches. There's no way around that if you want CW in any kind of meaningful manner.

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Well that problem is entirely different. You've got to determine what you want CW to be. If you want it to be just a glorified leaderboard, then you don't add anything in the way of an economy, supply lines, etc. you just use LP to offer discounts on certain faction's mechs, and see how won the most planets today.

That's not the same, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. There are plenty who hate the idea of R&R anything that reduces their amount after matches. There's no way around that if you want CW in any kind of meaningful manner.

I understand where you're coming from as well (in terms of needing some sort of Economy System for CW to have an impact). The problem is that (based on my understanding of CW) nothing that CW offers will make a huge impact on any veteran player. Sure, the lines on the map will move around, but in terms of gameplay/economy, not much will change.

The problem is that by the time CW actually rolls around most players will already have the mechs they want. For example: one of my favorite mechs is the Wolverine-7K - which, I believe is a Kuritan made model. As a Davion, I can't imagine House Kurita would sell me one on the cheap, but the thing is that I already own one. So what if they jack up my running costs? I'm happy with what I've got.

Based on what we know of CW, I think the big "money sinks" for units will be Corp Assets (dropships, base defenses...). I don't think R&R on an individual basis will accomplish much. Having truly destructible assets is the only way that money can really be taken out of the system, otherwise the net value of all players in the game will always increase (though at faster/slower rates depending on things like R&R).

[Caviel]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

quite simply, you can NOT have any kind of meaningful CW without some sort of economy. To have an economy there HAS to be a cost associated of some kind with upkeep. There HAS to be cost of losing facilities, access to materials, etc. and that means there has to be consequences for having repairs and keep ammo supplies running. You simply cannot get around that.

Oh, I fully agree there should be an economy, just not with mech R&R money sinks. It becomes more a matter of base upkeeps for mercs and faction taxes for faction players, plus having pilot numbers and mechs on a given planet to defend/attack and the dropships to transport them, rather than paying money to R&R mechs. Then CW shifts to more the size of your faction/merc group, the contracts you take, strategic placement of resources, etc. rather than individual mech and match performance. This is not even counting the Clan vs. IS aspect of CW.

This way you get the best of both worlds. Large groups with good performance and deep pockets as a result will have a bigger impact on the universe.

Quote

If you do CW without said economy, the only thing you've created is a leaderboard based on which faction owns xx amount of planets. That's it. There's no real consequence to losing, running expensive mechs and builds non-stop, taking planetary resources, etc.

That IS map then becomes nothing more than a leaderboard to show which faction is in "1st" place, there's no need for things like alliances, role warfare, etc. You have exactly what you have now except now you have a leaderboard...

You are correct, I see CW being basically a faction grind and leaderboard at it's core, possibly at first implementation until more features get added over time. Adding more money sinks really isn't going to change that a whole lot, it just makes it harder to move around on the leaderboard, per say. Eventually the suspension of disbelief wears off and you see a game for what it truly is

Quote

That's NOT what I, and I sincerely doubt MANY others, want CW to be and envisioned based on PGI's information given to us. So again, you've got to have an economy for CW or you don't have CW.

I've heard several different visions for CW, so I stopped trying to guess

[Dazzer]

a terrible idea. it will cripple all the players in the middle and give a huge advantage to the players that have already made a huge pile of cash.

[Sandpit]

Caviel, on 28 July 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

just not with mech R&R money sinks. It becomes more a matter of base upkeeps for mercs and faction taxes for faction players, plus having pilot numbers and mechs on a given planet to defend/attack and the dropships to transport them, rather than paying money to R&R mechs.

there's absolutely no difference in your suggestion than mine other than calling it R&R....

Dazzer, on 28 July 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

a terrible idea. it will cripple all the players in the middle and give a huge advantage to the players that have already made a huge pile of cash.

did you even read the OP and/or posts after?

What's a bad idea?
Salvage?
R&R?
R&R for Community Warfare?
Techs?
Tech Fees?

you're going to have be a little more specific

[Sandslice]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

When you've got a map that gives you the direct path, all you gotta do is step forward lol
That's why I, and a few others I know, don't understand the delays with this. Sure it's complex, but players were doing this 20 years ago. That's not really here nor there but it does show why some are so perplexed and irritated.

Even 30 years ago - Battletech is really that old. However, I doubt that many, if any, games featured the ability to convert dollars to c-bills (the pay-to-win accusation) or forced individual pilots to fight to the death in every match.

Even so, what if R&R were voluntary? This is how I see it working.

-In MechLab, you choose whether to play with Repair and Salvage on or off. (Whether ammo should be part of this, or an inevitable cost similar to Consumable Modules is for a different debate.)
-If it's off, you are choosing to play safe; you'll get smaller rewards (including no chance of salvage c-bills and/or gear) but the rewards are guaranteed* to be non-negative. Insert anti-farming measures as required.
-If it's on, you're accepting the risks of R&R, along with the chance of greater rewards and salvage. You could get much more than the safe method, but a different twist of luck could have you in the red.

Advantages of a voluntary system:
-Friendly to new players, without having to choose a definition of "new."

-Lets people who *are* using R&R switch it off when the coffer runs dry, which allows them to continue using their preferred 'Mechs while they recover... instead of having to maintain profit engines, run trials, or buy cbills (though all of these options are still open to them.)

-Most other objections can be handwaved with "you accepted the risk."

[Sandpit]

Sandslice, on 28 July 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Even 30 years ago - Battletech is really that old. However, I doubt that many, if any, games featured the ability to convert dollars to c-bills (the pay-to-win accusation) or forced individual pilots to fight to the death in every match.

Even so, what if R&R were voluntary? This is how I see it working.

-In MechLab, you choose whether to play with Repair and Salvage on or off. (Whether ammo should be part of this, or an inevitable cost similar to Consumable Modules is for a different debate.)
-If it's off, you are choosing to play safe; you'll get smaller rewards (including no chance of salvage c-bills and/or gear) but the rewards are guaranteed* to be non-negative. Insert anti-farming measures as required.
-If it's on, you're accepting the risks of R&R, along with the chance of greater rewards and salvage. You could get much more than the safe method, but a different twist of luck could have you in the red.

Advantages of a voluntary system:
-Friendly to new players, without having to choose a definition of "new."

-Lets people who *are* using R&R switch it off when the coffer runs dry, which allows them to continue using their preferred 'Mechs while they recover... instead of having to maintain profit engines, run trials, or buy cbills (though all of these options are still open to them.)

-Most other objections can be handwaved with "you accepted the risk."

That's in direct contradiction to what we know the devs have stated about CW. Every match will count towards CW. That's how it has been billed.

[Caviel]

Quote

That's not the same, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. There are plenty who hate the idea of R&R anything that reduces their amount after matches. There's no way around that if you want CW in any kind of meaningful manner.

It's not the reduction of match funds for CW that's a bad idea, it's basing it all around match performance and build outs that causes the problems for new/non-experienced pilots and what I'm against.

Artgathan, on 28 July 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

The problem is that by the time CW actually rolls around most players will already have the mechs they want. For example: one of my favorite mechs is the Wolverine-7K - which, I believe is a Kuritan made model. As a Davion, I can't imagine House Kurita would sell me one on the cheap, but the thing is that I already own one. So what if they jack up my running costs? I'm happy with what I've got.

That's great if the fight is on Verthandi where the mech is housed, but what happens when the fight is on New Caledonia instead? You have to buy another one, pay to get one shipped, or buy your own dropship. Then faction bonuses kick in too by giving discounts for faction players.

This potential aspect of CW seems like a much easier development target to me, needs no real balancing/tuning, and gives an excellent money sink for players while adding depth without the need for R&R. Lose access to the planet? Lose access to that mech until the planet is recaptured or pay a price to get it smuggled out.

Again, more about what mechs you have and where you put them rather than how much it costs to run a specific mech.

[Artgathan]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

That's in direct contradiction to what we know the devs have stated about CW. Every match will count towards CW. That's how it has been billed.

That was their position at the time. More recent statements have suggested that we'll be seeing 2 or 3 queues: one for casuals (mixed IS/Clan matches) and at least one "pure" (IE: Clan only vs IS only teams) queue. Only the "pure" queues will contribute to CW.

Caviel, on 28 July 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

That's great if the fight is on Verthandi where the mech is housed, but what happens when the fight is on New Caledonia instead? You have to buy another one, pay to get one shipped, or buy your own dropship. Then faction bonuses kick in too by giving discounts for faction players.

This potential aspect of CW seems like a much easier development target to me, needs no real balancing/tuning, and gives an excellent money sink for players while adding depth without the need for R&R. Lose access to the planet? Lose access to that mech until the planet is recaptured or pay a price to get it smuggled out.

Again, more about what mechs you have and where you put them rather than how much it costs to run a specific mech.

I sincerely doubt that something like this would ever be implemented, to the point where it's barely even worth discussing. Forcing people to own multiple copies of a mech (if they wanted to use it continuously) would be even more punitive towards new / F2P players.

[Sandpit]

Caviel, on 28 July 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

It's not the reduction of match funds for CW that's a bad idea, it's basing it all around match performance and build outs that causes the problems for new/non-experienced pilots and what I'm against.



That's great if the fight is on Verthandi where the mech is housed, but what happens when the fight is on New Caledonia instead? You have to buy another one, pay to get one shipped, or buy your own dropship. Then faction bonuses kick in too by giving discounts for faction players.

This potential aspect of CW seems like a much easier development target to me, needs no real balancing/tuning, and gives an excellent money sink for players while adding depth without the need for R&R. Lose access to the planet? Lose access to that mech until the planet is recaptured or pay a price to get it smuggled out.

Again, more about what mechs you have and where you put them rather than how much it costs to run a specific mech.

anything that creates an impact regardling losses. I dont' mean loss of a match. I mean loss of a planet, loss of a mech, loss of a leg, loss of a head, there's got to be something to represent that. If you want to break it down and call it something else that's cool with me. Just as long as there's something to represent losses.

[Sandslice]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

That's in direct contradiction to what we know the devs have stated about CW. Every match will count towards CW. That's how it has been billed.

The suggestion was to let people choose between low and high risk/reward - either low reward with no (or minimal = ammo) risk of R&R, or high reward with full risk of R&R.

At no point in that post did I say anything remotely resembling the idea that people should be allowed to opt out of CW. Please identify, very clearly, where you thought otherwise.

Unless you're equating CW with R&R, which it just dawned on me might be possible and represents a communication fail between us here.

Edited by Sandslice, 28 July 2014 - 02:30 PM.