118 replies to this topic

[Iron Horse]

PGI probably realizes that there are two primary play styles (arcade, and sim), and PUB matches will probably feature some sort of respawn system, while House battles most likely will not.

Personally I would rather play last-man-standing style, as it lets me get into the universe more. That said, there will probably be multiple game styles (maybe some kind of CTF or Assault modes?). There will probably even be some version of Solaris Arena I would suspect.

I think there is a lesson from Halo here, in that you can quick-match players by general gametype, and even though everyone may not get their first preference of gametype and map choice, you get faster matches. Although MW3 on Zone was very fun, getting only 2-3 matches per hour is a bit too slow IMO.

[Necropolis]

Zureal, on 22 November 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:

Ever Play EvE online? Yea, i think it should be like that, u lose ur mech, well to bad, u have to haule ur *** back to base n get your spare.

Yeah this please...Full blown. You die, you're out..to the winner goes the spoils of war, meaning whatever remains of your mutilated mech goes to the enemy. You don't get to "magically" retrieve your mech and then repair it. Its gone, kaput, destroyed and hauled away..go buy a new one, or stick with the standard mech everyone starts with until you can afford a new one.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Kudzu, on 26 November 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

It's been awhile since I played, but IIRC you start with 3 tanks-- American, Russian, and German.

Yes, you are correct, it's been a while since I've played as well, and I was misremembering (like I said, I have a lot of fun in WoT, but stars do I hate that game...) Melissia's concern still stands, though, depending on how MWO handles that, especially when you only have one 'decent' mech, or one mech that isn't a crappy free starter mech or some such.

Melissia's concern about punishing new players is even more significant if MWO goes the route of having your mech lost permanently if it's destroyed. Because new players are far, far more likely to have their mechs destroyed, and there are few things in this world that would suck more than slogging through several rounds with a crappy free starter mech and finally getting a mech that is a bit above the base so that you can actually do something, only to have the misfortune of running into a heavy mech three minutes into your first match with it and getting blown away, and permanently losing your brand-new mech after having only played with it for five minutes.

Now, I do like the idea of that kind of persistent world, where you have to take care of your mech and keep it from getting blasted to pieces or you lose it, but care has to be taken to keep that system from brutally punishing new players, especially once the game has been around long enough to get some veteran players, because the whole POINT of any battle is to destroy the enemy's mechs, and even if most of them are only 'crippled' and still salvageable, a not-insignificant portion of mechs will still be out-right destroyed each round. Even if it's only one or two or three, out of a thirty-two-player round (and I would honestly love to see MWO have support for something in the range of 64-player matches - Battlefield 3 does it quite well, and Battlefield 2/2142 did it without any problems years ago), the newbie players are going to be far more likely to be caught in that bracket, especially since light mechs are much more likely to get hit with enough firepower to outright destroy them than larger mechs, because they have so much less ability to just soak up damage.

So some system that strikes a balance between maintaining a persistent world (which it seems to me most players would like, and Piranha seems to be aiming for), and sheltering newbies enough that they can get their feet wet without being raped by a school of megalodons the moment they dip their toe in. Either give new players some protections against the more devastating penalties so they have a chance to figure out the game and get their feet under them (such as, say, level five or ten and under cannot have their mechs destroyed, just crippled?), or create a server set-up where there is the persistent world server and player-hosted one-off servers for general, non-ranked, unpunished gameplay. The easiest to implement would be something along the lines of the former, since Piranha wouldn't have to create multiple server set-ups, etc. for the main company server and the player-hosted servers.

Kudzu, on 26 November 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

I still think the better option is to have multiple mechs available. Respawning really takes away a lot from the game in general.

Note that I said some option of respawn, whether it is an outright conventional respawn system, or an, "EJECT!EJECT!EJECT!Whew.Oh-crap-there's-an-atlas-chasing-me-gotta-get-back-to-base-****-****-****-RUN!!" system, something that lets you get back in the game, or stay in the game, without having to wait 10-20+ minutes for the round to end, or hop back out to the lobby and grab another mech and go find another server or match to play in, especially if you've only got the one non-crappy mech, or you're trying to play with a group of friends who are all in that first server.

If there is no player-hosted server option, where players can set up their own preferences for respawning, etc. (the ideal system for non-ranked matches), then some system to allow the player to get back into the game if they've been knocked out early should be implemented, especially if game times are going to be pushed up past an average of 20 minutes.

Edited by ilithi dragon, 27 November 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[Kudzu]

ilithi dragon, on 27 November 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

Yes, you are correct, it's been a while since I've played as well, and I was misremembering (like I said, I have a lot of fun in WoT, but stars do I hate that game...)

It had it's good points, but a whole mess of bad points as well.

Quote

Melissia's concern still stands, though, depending on how MWO handles that, especially when you only have one 'decent' mech, or one mech that isn't a crappy free starter mech or some such.

Well, that assumes both that the starter mechs are crappy and that whatever balancing system they end up using won't take that into account.

Quote

Melissia's concern about punishing new players is even more significant if MWO goes the route of having your mech lost permanently if it's destroyed. Because new players are far, far more likely to have their mechs destroyed, and there are few things in this world that would suck more than slogging through several rounds with a crappy free starter mech and finally getting a mech that is a bit above the base so that you can actually do something, only to have the misfortune of running into a heavy mech three minutes into your first match with it and getting blown away, and permanently losing your brand-new mech after having only played with it for five minutes.

Now, I do like the idea of that kind of persistent world, where you have to take care of your mech and keep it from getting blasted to pieces or you lose it, but care has to be taken to keep that system from brutally punishing new players, especially once the game has been around long enough to get some veteran players, because the whole POINT of any battle is to destroy the enemy's mechs, and even if most of them are only 'crippled' and still salvageable, a not-insignificant portion of mechs will still be out-right destroyed each round. Even if it's only one or two or three, out of a thirty-two-player round (and I would honestly love to see MWO have support for something in the range of 64-player matches - Battlefield 3 does it quite well, and Battlefield 2/2142 did it without any problems years ago), the newbie players are going to be far more likely to be caught in that bracket, especially since light mechs are much more likely to get hit with enough firepower to outright destroy them than larger mechs, because they have so much less ability to just soak up damage.

So some system that strikes a balance between maintaining a persistent world (which it seems to me most players would like, and Piranha seems to be aiming for), and sheltering newbies enough that they can get their feet wet without being raped by a school of megalodons the moment they dip their toe in. Either give new players some protections against the more devastating penalties so they have a chance to figure out the game and get their feet under them (such as, say, level five or ten and under cannot have their mechs destroyed, just crippled?), or create a server set-up where there is the persistent world server and player-hosted one-off servers for general, non-ranked, unpunished gameplay. The easiest to implement would be something along the lines of the former, since Piranha wouldn't have to create multiple server set-ups, etc. for the main company server and the player-hosted servers.

I agree with that completely, which is why I'd like to see a system that separates mech loss by game type. Random pub game? No mech loss, using c-bills only for repairs . League/ land exchange game? Up the stakes, mech loss, salvage, the whole nine yards. Best of both worlds.

Quote

Note that I said some option of respawn, whether it is an outright conventional respawn system, or an, "EJECT!EJECT!EJECT!Whew.Oh-crap-there's-an-atlas-chasing-me-gotta-get-back-to-base-****-****-****-RUN!!" system, something that lets you get back in the game, or stay in the game, without having to wait 10-20+ minutes for the round to end, or hop back out to the lobby and grab another mech and go find another server or match to play in, especially if you've only got the one non-crappy mech, or you're trying to play with a group of friends who are all in that first server.

If there is no player-hosted server option, where players can set up their own preferences for respawning, etc. (the ideal system for non-ranked matches), then some system to allow the player to get back into the game if they've been knocked out early should be implemented, especially if game times are going to be pushed up past an average of 20 minutes.

The problem with that is that respawns reduce tactics to "charge in, hope to get lucky, die, try again". The role system becomes fairly meaningless-- why bother with recon or command when pure firepower is all that matters. It doesn't take long to learn better tactics and at least attempt to use teamwork when the other option is "die painfully and wait".

[Uncl Munkeh]

UncleKulikov, on 22 November 2011 - 09:57 PM, said:

Both types of respawning should be included, but for different game modes.

Respawning should be limited to minimal profit, no salvage deathmatches and objective matches for fun.

No respawn games should be the core of the progression experience with salvage and profits to upgrade your gear.

Agree. There's a purpose for respawn. Make sure it can be fixed to the game type.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Kudzu, on 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

It had it's good points, but a whole mess of bad points as well.

To quote the Koolaid Man, "Oohhh, yeaahh...."

Kudzu, on 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

Well, that assumes both that the starter mechs are crappy and that whatever balancing system they end up using won't take that into account.

This is true, if the starter mechs are not crappy and/or the balancing systems allow them to still remain effective, this is less of a problem, but, WoT being a prime example, the free starter kit is often horrendously crap compared to even units just above it. If MWO doesn't go that route and also implements balance to make even starter mechs at least somewhat effective and useful, then there is not much of a problem here, but it is still a concern.

Kudzu, on 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

I agree with that completely, which is why I'd like to see a system that separates mech loss by game type. Random pub game? No mech loss, using c-bills only for repairs . League/ land exchange game? Up the stakes, mech loss, salvage, the whole nine yards. Best of both worlds.

Ideally this would be the way to go, but as the devs have said, while they will listen to the fanbase and try to implement things the fans want as best they can, practical considerations of developing a game come into play. I would absolutely love to see a 'company-hosted' or some-such ranked, persistent-world server setup alongside a player-hosted, unranked custom-game setup, but putting together two systems like that is going to mean more work for the devs, more work they may not be able to do, which is why I'm noting alternate ways of balancing the system if we can't get the ideal system we would like.

Kudzu, on 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

The problem with that is that respawns reduce tactics to "charge in, hope to get lucky, die, try again". The role system becomes fairly meaningless-- why bother with recon or command when pure firepower is all that matters. It doesn't take long to learn better tactics and at least attempt to use teamwork when the other option is "die painfully and wait".

Oh, I know what you mean. Personally, I like both forms of gameplay, and ideally we would have the option to choose with custom games (see above). However, if we DON'T have that option, especially if games end up running longer than 20 minutes, it's not fair to the players who die early (and there always are ones who do) to force them to wait until the round is over to be able to play again. It also discourages community cohesiveness, because, as they do in WoT which doesn't have respawns, players will tend to bail from the server after they die, instead of hanging around waiting for the match to end to play again, and you don't get much community-building in-game (which is where it really counts). Now, in WoT they magnify that because servers only last one round, so there isn't any point at all to stick around because you're going to be separating at the end of the round anyway, but MWO could go that same route, and even if they don't, the problem will still remain, just to a lessened degree.

Ideally, the ranked/persistent-world server(s) will be no-respawn while the non-ranked, player-hosted servers will have optional respawn. But if we cannot have that ideal situation (see above), then there should be some system in place to allow respawns.

Now, I'm not saying they should instantly respawn back at base a mere ten-second jog from the battle. Not at all. That's just silly and annoying and almost as stupid as the instant-vehicle-respawn option in Battlefield (I went through all the work of killing that gunship, damnit, I want a breather from air attacks for a little bit, not having that same ****** hop into it as soon as he's respawned and be back on me ten seconds after I've shot him down). There should be some restrictions on respawns to make it undesirable. One possibility is a heavy respawn delay that forces players to wait before respawning, so that they can't rejoin the battle again right away, with the spawn point(s) positioned on far back positions so that they have to hoof it a good while back to the action, with cumulative repair costs to discourage the kamikaze charges (what we called "noobing it" back when I played in the Sarmatian Knights clan in Mercs). Another possibility is the "Hah-I-bailed-out-oh-****-there's-an-atlas-RUN!" system I described in my previous post. Yet another system, which would help to encourage teamplay, would be to allow players to respawn (with a reasonable delay and reasonably far back from the action), but at the cost of 'respawn points' or 'reinforcement points' or some such, which the team accumulates over time through performance or control points or what-have-you, and make it sufficiently expensive that respawning costs the team. To further facilitate teamplay, maybe have it impact the final points score? That way, you can respawn (after a reasonable delay and sufficiently far back in the field), but it puts a dent in the final points that are split between your teammates at the end of the round, so that each respawn costs the team. If it means the difference between victory and defeat, having some players respawn would be worthwhile, but if not it would cut into the total end bonus you get at the end of the round. To prevent infinite respawning, once the team bonus points drop below the respawn requirement, players can no longer respawn (until the team point count goes up enough to be able to afford the cost of a respawn). Actually, I think that's my favorite system for balancing respawns (in combination with a long respawn delay and distant spawn point, and/or the "run-away-from-the-Atlas" system), because it facilitates and encourages teamplay. Depending on how that balances out for the number of deaths players have in a round, you could also have salvage/repair costs be cumulative, or just run it off the costs of your worst death.

[Kudzu]

ilithi dragon, on 27 November 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

This is true, if the starter mechs are not crappy and/or the balancing systems allow them to still remain effective, this is less of a problem, but, WoT being a prime example, the free starter kit is often horrendously crap compared to even units just above it. If MWO doesn't go that route and also implements balance to make even starter mechs at least somewhat effective and useful, then there is not much of a problem here, but it is still a concern.

Well, one of WoT's big problems is that bigger is always better, and it's something the devs have said they wanted to avoid.

Quote

Ideally this would be the way to go, but as the devs have said, while they will listen to the fanbase and try to implement things the fans want as best they can, practical considerations of developing a game come into play. I would absolutely love to see a 'company-hosted' or some-such ranked, persistent-world server setup alongside a player-hosted, unranked custom-game setup, but putting together two systems like that is going to mean more work for the devs, more work they may not be able to do, which is why I'm noting alternate ways of balancing the system if we can't get the ideal system we would like.

It's really not that difficult, it's a matter of coding the options then turning them off for one queue and keeping them on for the other.

Quote

Oh, I know what you mean. Personally, I like both forms of gameplay, and ideally we would have the option to choose with custom games (see above). However, if we DON'T have that option, especially if games end up running longer than 20 minutes, it's not fair to the players who die early (and there always are ones who do) to force them to wait until the round is over to be able to play again. It also discourages community cohesiveness, because, as they do in WoT which doesn't have respawns, players will tend to bail from the server after they die, instead of hanging around waiting for the match to end to play again, and you don't get much community-building in-game (which is where it really counts). Now, in WoT they magnify that because servers only last one round, so there isn't any point at all to stick around because you're going to be separating at the end of the round anyway, but MWO could go that same route, and even if they don't, the problem will still remain, just to a lessened degree.

One of the advantages I haven't seen mentioned with the "one death and done" system is that the queues are constantly being refilled with new players. This means you aren't constantly fighting the same people over and over because your games finish at the same time and that queue times become much shorter overall.

Quote

Ideally, the ranked/persistent-world server(s) will be no-respawn while the non-ranked, player-hosted servers will have optional respawn. But if we cannot have that ideal situation (see above), then there should be some system in place to allow respawns.

From the interviews and Q&A I don't think we'll see player-hosted servers.

Quote

Now, I'm not saying they should instantly respawn back at base a mere ten-second jog from the battle. Not at all. That's just silly and annoying and almost as stupid as the instant-vehicle-respawn option in Battlefield (I went through all the work of killing that gunship, damnit, I want a breather from air attacks for a little bit, not having that same ****** hop into it as soon as he's respawned and be back on me ten seconds after I've shot him down). There should be some restrictions on respawns to make it undesirable. One possibility is a heavy respawn delay that forces players to wait before respawning, so that they can't rejoin the battle again right away, with the spawn point(s) positioned on far back positions so that they have to hoof it a good while back to the action, with cumulative repair costs to discourage the kamikaze charges (what we called "noobing it" back when I played in the Sarmatian Knights clan in Mercs). Another possibility is the "Hah-I-bailed-out-oh-****-there's-an-atlas-RUN!" system I described in my previous post. Yet another system, which would help to encourage teamplay, would be to allow players to respawn (with a reasonable delay and reasonably far back from the action), but at the cost of 'respawn points' or 'reinforcement points' or some such, which the team accumulates over time through performance or control points or what-have-you, and make it sufficiently expensive that respawning costs the team. To further facilitate teamplay, maybe have it impact the final points score? That way, you can respawn (after a reasonable delay and sufficiently far back in the field), but it puts a dent in the final points that are split between your teammates at the end of the round, so that each respawn costs the team. If it means the difference between victory and defeat, having some players respawn would be worthwhile, but if not it would cut into the total end bonus you get at the end of the round. To prevent infinite respawning, once the team bonus points drop below the respawn requirement, players can no longer respawn (until the team point count goes up enough to be able to afford the cost of a respawn). Actually, I think that's my favorite system for balancing respawns (in combination with a long respawn delay and distant spawn point, and/or the "run-away-from-the-Atlas" system), because it facilitates and encourages teamplay. Depending on how that balances out for the number of deaths players have in a round, you could also have salvage/repair costs be cumulative, or just run it off the costs of your worst death.

It still feels too much like Battlefield and not enough like Battletech to me. /shrug

[mekabuser]

seriously, no respawn matches for progression? methinks many a man here overestimates their skill set. Maybe mw4 was drastically different than mwll, but mwll been out now damn near two years, and the majority of players still cant compete with the guys who know what they are doing.
I am sure its been suggested, but a limited number of respawns is a happy medium. If there is a command structure, perhaps it can be decided if you can earn more than the maximum respawns, or perhaps even less.

[FrAvatar]

Melissia, on 26 November 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:

No, I'm assuming that there will be situations where you will have only one 'mech.

If you can never run out of 'mechs, IE, all destroyed 'mechs are replaced, that's fine with me. But if there's even a remote possibility that you will have to wait twenty minutes between matches, or even five or ten minutes between matches, then the game has implemented a crap design choice that will push new players away, as they have their 'mechs taken from them and they're punished for being new even more than being new already hurts them in terms of skill.

Veteran players will always have an advantage over newbies, but you shouldn't punish newbies for it.

you're right about sticking around for the end of the match if you die should be optional. You should be able to just quit the match once dead like in World of Tanks http://worldoftanks....15779-FrAvatar/ . With your Mech not available until the end of the match, you can still jump in your second (or third or fourth,...) Mech and join another battle while you wait for the last one to finish. I'd be fine with that too ...

Edited by FrAvatar, 01 December 2011 - 06:44 PM.

[FrAvatar]

Kudzu, on 27 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

The problem with that is that respawns reduce tactics to "charge in, hope to get lucky, die, try again". The role system becomes fairly meaningless-- why bother with recon or command when pure firepower is all that matters. It doesn't take long to learn better tactics and at least attempt to use teamwork when the other option is "die painfully and wait".

or maybe later down the line when they could add other vehicles than mechs ... "Eject Eject Eject" few... ok do, I landed next to this jeep .. Yay, do to drive it back to my team base/dropship so I can grab another one of my Mechs" could be interesting. Give us anything else to do than just watch and wait for the match to end could be fun. Maybe there's a factory/hangar there with perfectly good Mechs just waiting for a pilot...

As they've stated with an ~20min for matches I wouldn't want to die at the 1 minute mark and have to wait 19 minutes before
I can play again. Factors that have to be taken into consideration is resilience endurance and average match length. if I die at the 5 minute mark and the match is over at 10 minute mark or less than that wouldn't be so bad. I wouldn't mind waiting until end of match with no respawn

Edited by FrAvatar, 01 December 2011 - 07:11 PM.

[Armageddon]

Simple: If you can eject in time before your Mech blows up, then respawns should work. Get back to a Hanger or Dropship & grab another Mech. If you go down (die) with your Mech then you should not be allowed to respawn.

Under no circumstances should this game adopt the EvE system of death. What a horrible gameplay mechanic that was in that game. The most brutal, unforgiving, ridiculous, & exploited death mechanic I've ever seen.

[BadAsh]

O man! Respawns are just too unrealistic. There are so many ways to scrue up this. I feel like it just has to be Persistent. Salvage and Information Warfare sounds so good. I think when you get disabled you have to get evac'd and your mech salvaged. Then you have to spend some time rebuilding repairing and rearming your mech. Perhaps you can earn creds by scouting for scrap in smaller unarmed vehicles for your house. Or better yet...

Combine Salvage and Information Warfare with Scouting, Retrieval and Sabotage as entry level respawn. You absolutely cannot just magically reappear in the station riding a new mech ... But you also don't want to feel out of the fight. Any effort must be for the house and not for money or fame or ego. The skill of finding parts, saving other pilots, rebuilding your disabled mech and getting back in the fight should be the driving mechanic of territorial gains. The territory itself should provide resources and information but not so much as to end the game when you capture a flag. There is nothing more glorious than capturing an enemies mech or salvage and making gains with it.

[Agasutin]

Against it, it's just not Mechwarrior in my opinion. The only place that I could see where it could possibly serve a purpose would be in some form of a Solaris VII game variant.

Edited by Agasutin, 02 December 2011 - 05:22 AM.

[Hitman xXx qp]

If you die you die. It will make you not want to rush and will make you be careful of whats around you. Also it will make people in big mech run when out gunned. I do pray they make in game Video's like in Call of Duty to soo show how you kill that person nice costly mech in such a bad way...

[Anval Gato]

Might be able to handle the respawns using an individual player ticket system which in turn may also provide the balancing required.
This also could tie in with the repair suggestion that was asked about in a different post.

See if you can follow my train of thought here.... and I've only just thought of this so please excuse if it's a tad rough.

At the start of any game each player has 100 points regardless of rank.
You select the mech you want to pilot from these points on a pure point : tonnage ratio.
Perhaps limit the maximum mech tonnage according to rank....
Anyway, excess points you get to spend on additional options
eg:
Mech retrieval. You and your mech are returned to friendly lines for repairs and reloading in the event that your mech is disabled or destroyed. At this point your cash and spare parts are checked to see how much you can repair and I would suggest this option is only possible once you have returned to base meaning that after you eject you have to hike it back on foot.
Request Reload. A supply truck makes it's way to your location to fill up those empty ammo bins.
Field repairs. If you can limp your mech back to base then you can spend some points to have the friendly techs patch up the mech as best as possible with what supplies you might have.

I'd like to also mention that the majority of mechwarriors in the game were dispossed so the whole concept of losing the mech, having to walk back to base, fight on foot or serve in another role to earn back the mech would be in keeping with the game cannon.

[clopin]

TF2 had a very intelligent respawn system, play an intelligent game of 6v6 and tell me death doesn't matter. Once one of your Soldiers goes down and they have a 20 second respawn time and then another 20 seconds to get back to the action you feel it. Can MWO whole heartedly take TF2's respawn system? No, that would be absurd. The respawn system in TF2 works because the game is at a pace where a 20 second (or more or less depending) hurts like a hit to the 'nads against an organized team, but it's still short enough you're not yelling at the game to hurry up, as most Counter Strike players have done once or twice.

MWO could easily have a solid spawn system to fit it's pace. Maybe not 20 seconds, but maybe 50-90 seconds depending on the pace and size of the maps. Then again, everything we know about the actual gameplay itself at this point is mostly conjecture.

Also I vote we have both. Sometimes I like no-spawn. It's a great system when well implemented, same with respawn.

[Xhaleon]

We might not know whether respawn is a standard feature, an optional one, or totally unused, but there sure probably is an optimal setup and restrictions for respawn games.

You know, if the overarching galaxy domination shtick has any sort of real impact on the gameplay, I'd say that respawns be totally out of normal battles, and reserved for some Solaris7 matches only. Blow up everyone from everywhere forever, for 15 minutes at a time.

Complimentary quote from Duncan anytime someone comes out of a match with over 50 respawns in one game. That's a whole lotta blown up mechs to pay for repairs...

[Midnight Wyvern]

I would say that if you're going to have a respawn mechanic, it should be similar to the implementation in the MechWarrior Living Legends mod, wherein you respawn at your base and have to buy another mech and make your way back onto the field.

[SaintofVirtue]

I think that respawns have their place in certain areas and more importantly certain types of gameplay.

Arena deathmatches? I say throw in the respawns. I've seen to much chaos happen in games like that to not appreciate respawning. Damage to your mech is determined by the number of times you died. Repair costs are taken out of winnings.

Don't want respawns? Have a No-respawn death match mode that you can join instead. Again repair costs are taken from winnings.

Clan wars? I would say that ejecting would allow you to return to your base. No eject? No return you be done until the med squad arrives. At your base you have the option of pulling out another mech and taking it in or calling it quits and cutting your losses. Calling it quits returns you to the base server screen where you can join a new game and so forth. But if you decide to escalate the battle, this means you are upping your risk. Imagine clan wars where everyone brings in all their spare mechs? It would be quite impressive. Obviously no buying mechs at the base and get a limit of 3 battle ready ones at any one time. As for damage... Get two different levels. Go with downed and Destroyed with the latter being worse. If your force wins that battle then all of your mechs are merely downed and will be repaired after x hours and Y money. If your force lost the battle then your mech got totally destroyed. It can still be brought up to the shape it was in before but it will cost lots of money, Say Y^2 and time X^2 to do so. This is to represent that after salvaging your mech for parts they inflicted even more damage to prevent you from recovering it. After all why take a husk home? They got what they need.

I think this system won't punish the rookie players too badly. They still maintain their mech and it will be repaired after time and money. Still they are punished for poor playing as well by having their mechs in the shop for an decent amount of time (I would say in some matches several weeks would be fitting). No one will want to suicide rush because that's going to cost them a mech (of which they have limited supply for this battle) and perhaps prevent them from returning (if they don't eject in time). I think that's a decent system. Nice balance of respawn and skill.