Riptor, on 29 November 2011 - 10:27 PM, said:
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Character progression, yes, not C-Bills/mech garage size. Two are not one in the same. My apologies for not clarifying such.
Quote
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
