481 replies to this topic

[Davers]

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.

How is keeping players on equal footing bad? Matches should be won based on skill, not the fact that I can afford to run a better mech than you.

[AlmightyAeng]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

How is keeping players on equal footing bad? Matches should be won based on skill, not the fact that I can afford to run a better mech than you.

I'm pretty sure that everything would be fixed if we could just run multiple consumables and let the guy who can afford more airstrikes win. Right?

[FupDup]

Ghost Badger, on 29 July 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that everything would be fixed if we could just run multiple consumables and let the guy who can afford more airstrikes win. Right?

Queue today's patch notes...

[PANZERKAT]

Darth Bane001, on 29 July 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

So you want the game to slow to a crawl to the point I mine as well just read a book for half the match? Nah people hide enough as it is, you want everyone afraid to engage as one? Cuz you know team play is so amazing in this game.

Actually, in CB before anyone had all their mechs tricked out, some of the best games to be had happened because they were slower slug fests. For the the people who want fast games and no strings attached, you have it already. Why should CW be shoe horned into a lackluster generic arcade drop shooter?

There are plenty of games out there with EXTREME consequences, but I never felt I couldn't participate in a play style if I wanted. Not saying MWO should have extreme consequences for getting your mech entirely blown apart. What I'm saying is that there aren't enough rewards or counter measures in place to make it feasible. Some times you're up, sometimes you're down. Obviously going into a match with a damaged mech, though interesting, isn't feasible. That was actually on the books at the start as a possibility. Though bold, highly impractical. If we had a dropship mode, being able to return a damaged mech to the bays and switch it out, now that would make a lot of sense as you would want to save on repairs etc and adapt to the changing environment of mechs your opponents have just spawned in.


Having your own Engineer crew that levels up with your drop pod and you slot in certain specialists to reduce the cost of certain ammunition or repairs. Lots of options. Some people want Red vs Blue arcade action. I would like to think that their vision wants to veer away from that.

The game will be ruined if you try and cater to people who drop once or twice a day. They should still find it fun and viable, but lets be serious.

Although the current JJ change left me a bit sour, the quirk change gives me some hope. I always thought that certain mechs, if not all mechs should have their innate advantage over others of their kin.

Perhaps the Jenner has more fuel for JJ's? Perhaps the Spider has slightly less, but higher acceleration?

Lots to be discussed now.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 29 July 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Davers]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 29 July 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Actually, in CB before anyone had all their mechs tricked out, some of the best games to be had happened because they were slower slug fests. For the the people who want fast games and no strings attached, you have it already. Why should CW be shoe horned into a lackluster generic arcade drop shooter?

There are plenty of games out there with EXTREME consequences, but I never felt I couldn't participate in a play style if I wanted. Not saying MWO should have extreme consequences for getting your mech entirely blown apart. What I'm saying is that there aren't enough rewards or counter measures in place to make it feasible. Some times you're up, sometimes you're down. Obviously going into a match with a damaged mech, though interesting, isn't feasible. That was actually on the books at the start as a possibility. Though bold, highly impractical. If we had a dropship mode, being able to return a damaged mech to the bays and switch it out, now that would make a lot of sense as you would want to save on repairs etc and adapt to the changing environment of mechs your opponents have just spawned in.


Having your own Engineer crew that levels up with your drop pod and you slot in certain specialists to reduce the cost of certain ammunition or repairs. Lots of options. Some people want Red vs Blue arcade action. I would like to think that their vision wants to veer away from that.

The game will be ruined if you try and cater to people who drop once or twice a day. They should still find it fun and viable, but lets be serious.

Although the current JJ change left me a bit sour, the quirk change gives me some hope. I always thought that certain mechs, if not all mechs should have their innate advantage over others of their kin.

Perhaps the Jenner has more fuel for JJ's? Perhaps the Spider has slightly less, but higher acceleration?

Lots to be discussed now.

I understand people want more depth. I want more depth too. But I don't think repair bills are depth.

[CeeKay Boques]

I want all the depth. In CW. Don't waste time for it in the ladder mash up.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 29 July 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

Completely agree, and made a detailed post of this myself, though I am too lazy to look it up right now.


Interesting idea. I was initially against it, but it grew on me as I read your explanation. Still not fully on board, but it is a good start.


I completely support, except for one notable distinction: Component destruction should not give a bonus to salvage. Instead, the only items available for salvage should be items that are NOT destroyed. I know this would be a slightly more complicated system, but it would be VERY good for the game, as you would have a reason to target certain mechs in certain places.

On top of what you described, salvage provides a way to unlock technology in CW, which I believe is a crucial process to bridge the gap between lore purists and Pokemon gamers. By making the unlock system a part of salvage, you can unlock the ability to pilot mechs outside of your faction, such as a Kuritan piloting a Dire Wolf, or a Ghost Bear piloting a Victor. It should involve a good amount of time to unlock a full chassis, but is sorely needed to make CW successful long term.

I just used component destruction as an example more than anything else. Mainly because it shows that the system already tracks damage to individual components so it shouldn't take much to make some adjustments to that mechanic and include salvage into it.

The techs are more to add a little immersion, help create a few new sinks, and offer discounts to the R&R fees (which is yet another way players can help reduce and mitigate any costs associated with their fees)

Most of this is rough but that's what I'm hoping this thread will do. Refine the ideas a bit and get some ideas on how to improve the suggestions I made.

[PANZERKAT]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I understand people want more depth. I want more depth too. But I don't think repair bills are depth.

So you don't agree that your play style changes if you know you have to fit the bill?

Not the same genre of game, but in Darkfall, full loot PVP, you brought what you could afford to lose.

In MWO, you make rigs you are good at maintaining. Not everyone is good at all areas of play. If you aren't good with ammunition....stack more lasers. Right some we have arcade spam splosions with abandon.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

How is keeping players on equal footing bad? Matches should be won based on skill, not the fact that I can afford to run a better mech than you.

how is that any different than what you have now....?

How would you propose to start players who have been playing for 2 years on "equal footing" with new players for CW?

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I understand people want more depth. I want more depth too. But I don't think repair bills are depth.

how would you represent losses in CW though?

[AlmightyAeng]

Sandpit, on 29 July 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

how is that any different than what you have now....?

How would you propose to start players who have been playing for 2 years on "equal footing" with new players for CW?


how would you represent losses in CW though?

It would be interesting to have your repairs have cooldowns. The more damaged your mech, the longer it takes to repair (similar to WarThunder, but with less time, maximum 2 hours, perhaps). Techs, and their relative skill levels, could effect faster, cheaper repairs.

Trial 'mechs don't need repairs, and give you something to fall back on.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 29 July 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Sandpit]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 29 July 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

So you don't agree that your play style changes if you know you have to fit the bill?

Not the same genre of game, but in Darkfall, full loot PVP, you brought what you could afford to lose.

In MWO, you make rigs you are good at maintaining. Not everyone is good at all areas of play. If you aren't good with ammunition....stack more lasers. Right some we have arcade spam splosions with abandon.

well that's the other thing. A few have raised concerns about "slowing the game down"

Uhm... to me that's exactly what needs to happen to increase TTK, lengthen games, and alleviate some of the full rambo play styles you see. You have stuff like this BECAUSE there's no consequence. You don't want to pay for repairs and ammo and be concerned with things like that, hey that's cool, but don't expect or request that something like the dynamic CW campaign be "dumbed" down to "arcade" style twitch play. This is for CW, not for "jump in and play stompy robots". I'm sorry but I just don't agree with some of the "all players should enjoy CW"

That may sound harsh but CW isn't supposed to be, nor was it ever advertised as deathmatch solaris style matches. CW SHOULD be the "harder" part of the game. You want to stomp around and pew pew pew with impunity? That's what you consider fun? Hey, that's great, but don't expect something like CW to cater to that playstyle. That completely defeats the purpose of CW.

[Cimarb]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

I understand people want more depth. I want more depth too. But I don't think repair bills are depth.

The problem with the original implementation of Repair and Rearm was the lack of depth in it, not that people were opposed to it.

Originally, Repair and Rearm (from what I have read, at least, as it was before I started) was a single line item on the after action report. That is it: a big honking negative number, just like a team kill. That is horrible...

Instead, Repair and Rearm should be an interactive process, even if it is still basic. Have it in its own screen/tab in the mechlab, with a paper doll (or even better a fully rendered version) that you click on to get details of WHAT is being repaired and/or rearmed, and how much it costs. Do it in a granular fashion, where you can repair one thing, rearm everything without repairs, or "fix all", depending on your resources and needs.

Along this same vein, chassis that you have not unlocked yet could be "works in progress", with unlocked sections lit up and locked sections missing or greyed out. There is so much that PGI could do to add immersion to this process, and players would LOVE IT if they did it right, instead of the slapdash line item they originally tried, which came across as a cbill tax more than anything else...

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 29 July 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

The problem with the original implementation of Repair and Rearm was the lack of depth in it, not that people were opposed to it.

Originally, Repair and Rearm (from what I have read, at least, as it was before I started) was a single line item on the after action report. That is it: a big honking negative number, just like a team kill. That is horrible...

Instead, Repair and Rearm should be an interactive process, even if it is still basic. Have it in its own screen/tab in the mechlab, with a paper doll (or even better a fully rendered version) that you click on to get details of WHAT is being repaired and/or rearmed, and how much it costs. Do it in a granular fashion, where you can repair one thing, rearm everything without repairs, or "fix all", depending on your resources and needs.

Along this same vein, chassis that you have not unlocked yet could be "works in progress", with unlocked sections lit up and locked sections missing or greyed out. There is so much that PGI could do to add immersion to this process, and players would LOVE IT if they did it right, instead of the slapdash line item they originally tried, which came across as a cbill tax more than anything else...

that's the other thing. The original iteration of R&R is almost universally hated. So now, when you mention any kind of R&R, people assume you're talking about the exact same system PGI implemented originally. that simply is not the case here. (Which is also why I'm thoroughly convinced that many who replied didn't read anything, all they saw was R&R and immediately jumped into the thread to talk about how "bad" R&R is and ignored responses to their concerns and all of the other information contained in the OP)

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 29 July 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

well that's the other thing. A few have raised concerns about "slowing the game down"

Uhm... to me that's exactly what needs to happen to increase TTK, lengthen games, and alleviate some of the full rambo play styles you see. You have stuff like this BECAUSE there's no consequence. You don't want to pay for repairs and ammo and be concerned with things like that, hey that's cool, but don't expect or request that something like the dynamic CW campaign be "dumbed" down to "arcade" style twitch play. This is for CW, not for "jump in and play stompy robots". I'm sorry but I just don't agree with some of the "all players should enjoy CW"

That may sound harsh but CW isn't supposed to be, nor was it ever advertised as deathmatch solaris style matches. CW SHOULD be the "harder" part of the game. You want to stomp around and pew pew pew with impunity? That's what you consider fun? Hey, that's great, but don't expect something like CW to cater to that playstyle. That completely defeats the purpose of CW.

Exactly. Leave the arcade style for those that like that, but CW is for those that want MORE out of the game. I am not saying it needs to be like realistic War Thunder matches, where turning too fast will break a wing off, but we want something that we can contribute to and that MATTERS if we play or not.

[AlmightyAeng]

Cimarb, on 29 July 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Exactly. Leave the arcade style for those that like that, but CW is for those that want MORE out of the game. I am not saying it needs to be like realistic War Thunder matches, where turning too fast will break a wing off, but we want something that we can contribute to and that MATTERS if we play or not.

While not my favorite game, Planetside 2 is one of the games that got that feeling of "mattering" right, in my opinion. While the gameplay itself could be better (solo, as a group, it can be awesome) you definitely feel like you're making a difference.

Gimme a Planetside 2 feel of conquering planets and territory with the repair and re-arm similar to War Thunder.

Then tie in more than just C-Bill discounts for Faction affiliation, and a robust mercenary contract system with definitive territorial objectives.

I'll call THAT CW. Anything else I'll call a hollow dream...and yeah...I know...I'm prepared for the hollowness.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 29 July 2014 - 11:21 AM.

[PANZERKAT]

Ghost Badger, on 29 July 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

While not my favorite game, Planetside 2 is one of the games that got that feeling of "mattering" right, in my opinion. While the gameplay itself could be better (solo, as a group, it can be awesome) you definitely feel like you're making a difference.

Gimme a Planetside 2 feel of conquering planets and territory with the repair and re-arm similar to War Thunder.

Then tie in more than just C-Bill discounts for Faction affiliation, and a robust mercenary contract system with definitive territorial objectives.

I'll call THAT CW. Anything else I'll call a hollow dream...and yeah...I know...I'm prepared for the hollowness.

All of the above..
+
I really like how you unlock decals for your tanks in war thunder. PGI needs to figure out what images to give away, what people can earn, what people can buy and which ones people have to unlock before they can even buy it.

[Davers]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 29 July 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

So you don't agree that your play style changes if you know you have to fit the bill?

Not the same genre of game, but in Darkfall, full loot PVP, you brought what you could afford to lose.

In MWO, you make rigs you are good at maintaining. Not everyone is good at all areas of play. If you aren't good with ammunition....stack more lasers. Right some we have arcade spam splosions with abandon.

The play style changes that R&R caused were considered bad by most of the community.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

The play style changes that R&R caused were considered bad by most of the community.

which again is the "old" system and I don't think anyone is advocating for a replication of the original system that PGI implemented

[Davers]

Cimarb, on 29 July 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

The problem with the original implementation of Repair and Rearm was the lack of depth in it, not that people were opposed to it.

Originally, Repair and Rearm (from what I have read, at least, as it was before I started) was a single line item on the after action report. That is it: a big honking negative number, just like a team kill. That is horrible...

Instead, Repair and Rearm should be an interactive process, even if it is still basic. Have it in its own screen/tab in the mechlab, with a paper doll (or even better a fully rendered version) that you click on to get details of WHAT is being repaired and/or rearmed, and how much it costs. Do it in a granular fashion, where you can repair one thing, rearm everything without repairs, or "fix all", depending on your resources and needs.

Along this same vein, chassis that you have not unlocked yet could be "works in progress", with unlocked sections lit up and locked sections missing or greyed out. There is so much that PGI could do to add immersion to this process, and players would LOVE IT if they did it right, instead of the slapdash line item they originally tried, which came across as a cbill tax more than anything else...

R&R worked just like you described, and it didn't add depth.

[Joseph Mallan]

But Davers has a point. Even if we get a good functional R&R system, the play style WILL change. But would it be a bad thing? That is the big question.

When I finally had a computer that could handle running MW:O (Thanks yet again Murphy's Law) I was able to buy a Centurion, and grind it. Surprisingly I made more money per match due to lower R&R costs. So if I wanted to have more money I played my Cent, If I wanted more firepower, I dragged out my Atlas. The same thinking will likely begin to happen if we get R&R again.

Also it added depth, just not a lot of it in my opinion. It made me responsible for my actions. Something many don't want to do.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 29 July 2014 - 12:00 PM.