Salvage
#101
Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:01 AM
if your in a serious corp and spend your time safely in nullsec with them, then i'm sure EvE lives up to its potential (which i didn't make clear earlier, is that of the only true space sim on the market and one of the most beautiful games ever made). But if not, a player WILL find himself unable to play the game at his own speed and likely find that every now and again a large portion of game time will have been wasted because of silly mistakes that cost ships. without somebody else gifting you replacements i can assure you this spoils the party pretty quick.
if this system was picked up by MWO it would be 'don't drive what you cant afford to loose!', creating a pvp system where most people would be forced to drive lights or mediums in case they lost them (we are talking about a system where one team will always be wiped out right?), with only the rich players, not even necessarily the best payers, in heavies and assaults because they don't need to worry about it. and if there ends up being no pve to speak of, how are people going to get the cash for repairs anyway?
and i will amend my previous statement to 'salvage good. reversing personal progression, bad.'
#102
Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:47 AM
As for PvE, I hope there's no death penalty other than wasted time and resources put forth during the battles.
#103
Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:49 AM
#105
Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:50 AM
Ozric, on 29 November 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:
Quote
Eve has it's own issues, I don't think a direct comparison is fair: For example the skill system requiring up to several years to adequately perform in many roles, that and it has PvE.
With the adjustments for the lack of PvE I believe I've outlined the basics of a full salvage system with risk/reward and the potential for net-gain when risking low and still failing, though not risking high and failing.
Quote
and i will amend my previous statement to 'salvage good. reversing personal progression, bad.'
The majority of player's money in EVE comes from PvE, in fact almost all of it is. This is completely reversed in MWO where each mission can award money and with a decent matchmaker you're looking at no less than 40% win rate unless you are truly one of the worst players to ever play the game.
If each mission and every action within a mission amounts to a sizable sum, lets say half of an average mech for each role/weight class* and 1/3rd to 1/4th of the best, and maybe 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the starter, even the worst pilots will be able to break even. And it gives room for risk/reward. There's also the option of a free starter mech of each role/weight class that you cannot customize, cannot sell, cannot lose and cannot be salvaged, so no matter how hard the times you fall on, you can still play. The differences between the qualities of mechs shouldn't be all that large, but should be there.
*I assume each weight class/role whichever they use for separating the mechs, determines price, and it's capabilities within that weight class or role, rather than tonnage. Or at the very least in addition to tonnage. If tonnage is also a factor, performance based and mission based rewards should also increase in proportion to the mech used, if you're risking more then the House issuing the contract is obliged to pay more for your services.
Also I'm interested if there will be a BV factor or just however many C-Bills you put down.
#106
Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:12 AM
The biggest hurdle is implementation. How do you determine who gets what? In the previous incarnations, it was easy. I cored an Urbanmech's head, I get a headless Urbanmech in the salvage. Add a head and give it to a lancemate/hire a new pilot. But in a multiplayer setting, who gets it? Is it the guy who did the most damage? The guy who got a lucky headshot sniping/kill stealing? If I blow the head off a Vindicator, I want the Vindicator, if I have been dueling a Vindicator for five minutes, leg him, line up a headshot, and some other guy caps him from the next hilltop, I want the Vindicator.
I want mech destruction to matter. I also want to see rewards based on what you do in the battle. I don't want to see a gang of Hollanders stalking around the battlefield, fleeing from any real fighting and just picking off wounded mechs and kill stealing. So, really, I'm hoping they can come up with a better system than I can, cause I want it both ways >_<
#107
Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:16 AM
Biggs McIntosh, on 29 November 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:
The biggest hurdle is implementation. How do you determine who gets what? In the previous incarnations, it was easy. I cored an Urbanmech's head, I get a headless Urbanmech in the salvage. Add a head and give it to a lancemate/hire a new pilot. But in a multiplayer setting, who gets it? Is it the guy who did the most damage? The guy who got a lucky headshot sniping/kill stealing? If I blow the head off a Vindicator, I want the Vindicator, if I have been dueling a Vindicator for five minutes, leg him, line up a headshot, and some other guy caps him from the next hilltop, I want the Vindicator.
I want mech destruction to matter. I also want to see rewards based on what you do in the battle. I don't want to see a gang of Hollanders stalking around the battlefield, fleeing from any real fighting and just picking off wounded mechs and kill stealing. So, really, I'm hoping they can come up with a better system than I can, cause I want it both ways >_<
It's quite easy: Everyone gets an equal share of the mech based on it's value, the best players get first pick and it round robins, if you choose to purchase a mech, you buy out all the other's players shares. "Buying" a mech this way is substantially cheaper, say 25-50% than from the market/House.
I can elaborate if needed, I've given this and many other bits of this topic considerable thought and am considering creating a new thread that focuses on more than a simple 'do you want salvage or not'.
Edited by Haeso, 29 November 2011 - 09:16 AM.
#108
Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:07 PM
Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:
This logical fallacy of full salvage automatically means zero sum or even less than zero sum needs to stop. I see many people using it, not just you.
This is very true, and despite being pro-full salvage / "hardcore" I am certainly guilty of it to in a way. We'll have to see how they deal with it. But I like the fact you brought in mission rewards and such like that has a good reminder of how it doesn't have to be zero-sum. Even the losers can win a little.
~~~~~
Also for others' sake, let me quote myself for a moment:
"As others have mentioned, this can be mitigating by having a starter light, medium, heavy, and assault mech that cannot be edited or changed, that is slightly worse than what is otherwise available. "
I don't see why there is a persistent fear of "Assault mechs dominating everything" when the devs have said (I believe) mechs will have roles and be balanced, and people in this thread have already given suggestions to offset this.
cipher, on 29 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:
As for PvE, I hope there's no death penalty other than wasted time and resources put forth during the battles.
cipher, on 29 November 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:
Thanks for the update. If there is no PvE at all, then I'd have to vote against death penalties and losing your mech.
So what do you suggest in terms of salvage and making it work in a PvP based f2p model game? Or would you just prefer no salvage?
Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 09:16 AM, said:
I second this motion. Perhaps we need a thread that focuses on the technical aspects of it. Despite the massive amount of good suggestions, debate, and discussion in this thread, a lot of people just can't seem to get past certain assumptions, and are completely ignoring the actual discussion.
#109
Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:37 PM
Belrick, on 29 November 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:
I've started one, I'm on my last legs pretty tired at the moment, should I finish it today I'll send it to you first if PMs permit the size before posting it. If not, tomorrow hopefully.
One thing that's really important and I was going to touch on, the very first sentence of the thread I'm making
"For a more comprehensive discussion we'll need to make certain assumptions to fill in the gaps of unavailable information/provide a basis for the discussion"
You cannot have a discussion like this without accepted assumptions, and arguing about the assumptions leads nowhere. I'm happy, more than happy even, to explain when asked a question, but arguing about the assumptions is not helping anyone.
Edited by Haeso, 29 November 2011 - 12:38 PM.
#110
Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:49 PM
#111
Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:53 PM
I am very well aware of the limitations of the playerbase. WoW has shown that the lowest common denominator in terms of skill means a far larger player base. Eve has shown that the hardcore base of pvp players is still quite small and very touchy. Shadowbane has shown hat happens when a elitist group comes along and dominates a server ( and eventually the game ) to die off. Warhammer online is what happens when the dev tries to bite off more than it can chew and the ongoing issues has reduced the game to a unsustainable mess.
Belrick asked why should we have to cater to the uber leet sniper ragers? Well simply because they are the majority of the playerbase that plays mecha simulation games. Look at the tiny mw4 mektek community, they love their counter strike, style gameplay.
Let us assume that missle / laser etc boats will exist and that half the maps will cater to them and half of them will not. Being a f2p game they will play half and then eventually quit as they cannot dominate the other half,think of the hordes of console gaming Modern Warfare crowd. Sure there will be the hard core players who go meh ***** them, let them quit i do not care. My experience has shown me that the hard core is a tiny portion of players. And you need those casual players to develop a game like this. Simply put, if the game requires a significant time investment to learn and skill, then you need another hook to keep the players in. For every player who calls him/herself XXXX Kell or Wolf or Allard-Liao, there will be a dozen who call themselves 1111i111111i11 or Lolmechw899 or steelraper etc etc
face it, that is the majority of the online net crowd..
#112
Posted 29 November 2011 - 05:02 PM
The devs have already said they're aiming for a simulator, and this isn't going to be something silly like MechAssault. Just because WoW has more subscribers, doesn't mean EVE isn't successful, or DAoC isn't successful. I'd also contend that shadowbane's death had almost nothing to do with it's playerbase and PvP focus and everything to do with being a while fun, abysmally poorly made game. SB.exe anyone?
#113
Posted 29 November 2011 - 05:06 PM
#114
Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:43 PM
#115
Posted 29 November 2011 - 10:27 PM
Quote
One is an persistant open universe with monthly subscribtion, the other a F2P match based game whos only persistant components will be player progression and a conquest map of the universe.
In one game you CAN loose everything, in the other your WILL loose everything on a REGULAR basis if hardcore salvage is implemented. Someone above me threw the number of 40% win ratio out there. So out of 10 times i will win 4 matches... that means in the other 6 matches i each time lost a mech and have to somehow rework enough cash to buy a new one? Is that your idea of fun?
Stuff that works for EVE does not work for MWO and vice versa.
For example: In EVE when **** hits the hyperdrive you can call in your Corp mates to bail you out, or you can try to retreat... something you cant simply do in an arena type map like they are used for matches (you know the map has borders and invisible walls you simply cannot cross, hence the arena type).
In MWO one random player can mess up the entire match and doom your entire side to get horribly crushed by the oposition and theres absolutely ZERO you can do against it. This i once more base off of World of tanks where one or two bad players can mess up the game for you.
It is this system of having to fight along totaly random strangers that makes a salvage system with negative consequences for the loosers not realistic and makes for very poor gameplay.
You should also take into account that presumably ALL offered gametypes will count toward character progression.. not only the galaxy conquest mode... otherwise there would be zero progression for new players till they found some random merc corp to join... not how you get new players to play your game.
Thus logically all game types would also count towards salvage... and if they implement a death match type match then you can bet that the last man standing surely wouldnt walk away with all mechs of his oponentd that got destroyed.
This is not EVE, this is a f2p game who by nature are casual friendly as they can be to attract lots and lots of new customers because they have a high fluctuation of active players by nature.
Anything that could **** off new players has to be avoided like the plague. That doesnt meant the game has to be **** easy but it shouldnt break your knees and then demand that you thank it for it.
NO player in a f2p game should ever be allowed to TAKE AWAY content or progression from another player. All you will end up with is a player base thats so small that you will not be able to keep the game running because everyone else left the ship at the time where the "Elite" raised its ugly head and started to dominate the game.
Besides EVE there has not been a single successfull game implementing perma loss for the defeated, and the reason why is that EVE is the only high quality space simish mmo out there, so it didnt had much competition to begin with and because it is allready an established product that does not have to fight against a gigantic competition anymore.
Oh and did i mention that EVE wont get much of a player growth anymore and most likely allready reached its peak? It got hit really badly when that whole cash shop fiasco made people leave in hordes. EVE is much more unstable then you might believe... one mess up and you are in serious trouble dev wise
Edited by Riptor, 29 November 2011 - 10:32 PM.
#117
Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:33 PM
#118
Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:12 AM
Salvage should be to the corp or house, in return the pilot should get a bonus in C-bills to the amount of salvage the team obtained. The Team or Merc Corp leadership can then decide how best to use those resources. They always remain owned by the corp unless destroyed and therefore can be re-assigned if a player fails to show up for a designated match. But then this is all imho how it should be and my wish list only...
#119
Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:44 AM
#120
Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:44 AM
Riptor, on 29 November 2011 - 10:27 PM, said:
In one game you CAN loose everything, in the other your WILL loose everything on a REGULAR basis if hardcore salvage is implemented. Someone above me threw the number of 40% win ratio out there. So out of 10 times i will win 4 matches... that means in the other 6 matches i each time lost a mech and have to somehow rework enough cash to buy a new one? Is that your idea of fun?
Their persistence amounts to almost entirely the same thing except instead of player run factions it's the Houses, and instead of freely choosing fights it's match based.
Being free to play or pay to play wasn't what I was getting at, I thought that would be obvious, guess not. The point is that Eve and many other games turn a profit, this logical fallacy of needing to cater to the lowest common denominator is just that, a logical fallacy.
I don't believe you understand what I'm saying here. If you'd bothered to read my posts you would see there's both a way to gain money per match and a way to lose money per match based on what quality of mechs you choose.
Quote
Zero sum is a logical fallacy, less than zero sum is pure idiocy, I would not advocate something along those lines. An unsustainable economy is obviously not the proposed suggestion, calling it as such is a strawman and I'd ask if you want to discuss something, you discuss something intelligently not making stuff up.
Quote
Stuff that works for EVE does not work for MWO and vice versa.
For example: In EVE when **** hits the hyperdrive you can call in your Corp mates to bail you out, or you can try to retreat... something you cant simply do in an arena type map like they are used for matches (you know the map has borders and invisible walls you simply cannot cross, hence the arena type).
You falsely assume retreat is never an option and it's a simplistic arena deathmatch. The overwhelming majority want a focus on multiple objective style maps, multiple objectives means one can easily win or lose without coming close to dying. Throw in the ability to retreat, and you're all set.
Quote
Bad players are sometimes bad, oh noes. If you're playing with people you think will suck, pick a cheap ride or don't play with them. If you're not confident in your ability to consistently carry said bad players, only use expensive 'mechs when playing with friends or your merc corp or when you've got cash to spare.
Quote
Yet again the logical fallacy of less than zero sum. You only lose money if this system is balanced when you choose the most expensive mechs in a tier, you can also gain money, not just salvage for actions and mission end as I explained. This system only works when you've the forward thinking to make certain assumptions about the rest of the game working to fit with the theme. If you're unwilling to accept these very basic and reasonable assumptions that go hand in hand with a salvage system like I've proposed, there's no point in discussing anything with you.
Quote
Character progression, yes, not C-Bills/mech garage size. Two are not one in the same. My apologies for not clarifying such.
Quote
In a last man standing such as solaris everyone would get their own mech back unless it got cored, this is assumed naturally. Assuming it wasn't done in the simulator that I mentioned.
Quote
You cannot presume to know who their target customers are, you certainly can't presume to say they're going to cater to the lowest common denominator, the fact that they've said they're making a simulator should explain much here.
Quote
NO player in a f2p game should ever be allowed to TAKE AWAY content or progression from another player. All you will end up with is a player base thats so small that you will not be able to keep the game running because everyone else left the ship at the time where the "Elite" raised its ugly head and started to dominate the game.
This wouldn't, read what I've written.
Pilot skill is the progression, mechs are just a cycling economy. You need to stop assuming this is some standard fare MMO where gear is the primary method of progression beyond max level or something simplistic like that. You can afford just about any mech with 3~4 losses, and you can almost afford any cheap mech of each role with a single match. This combined with the free house mechs in exchange for your service equate to always having something available, and if you play in cheap mechs, a consistent net gain even with as low as, 20-25% win rate if the numbers I've used are held to.
Quote
Now you're just flat out wrong. L2, UO, I could go on if you like? Many games incorporate real loss. You also need to understand replacing a mech in my proposed system would be easier than you seem to think it would. The entire purpose of this system is to keep the mechs used changing, to prevent the arms race becoming instead of the best assaults, or the best for each role, every mech is viable for the same reason they're viable in TT: Cost. The game is supposed to have us playing Mercenaries as I understand it, no? And what drives the mercenary, Profit. So it's a risk/reward scenario every time you play the game, but through choices you make you can reduce this risk significantly to always make money in exchange for a small hit to performance, or vice versa, a risk to lose more money in exchange for a small boost in performance. And to make the small boost mechs unsustainable so it's not an arms race.
It was a general nod towards games that can make quite a bit of money without lowering itself to being popular for the drooling unwashed masses. Perhaps I should have been clearer regarding that.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users