42 replies to this topic

[Strayed]

Raeven, on 28 November 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

Ok.. So if your pilot dies, who gets all his stuff?

Well the golf clubs go to the charity shop for a start........

How about each month you got one respawn? Or you get 12 chances to play hardcore mode a year? Ejecting will most likely become a big part of the game. Ransoming pilots will to.

[Tweaks]

Raeven, on 28 November 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

Ok.. So if your pilot dies, who gets all his stuff?

Nobody does, except for what you brought to the battlefield. OR your Mech Corp does. But hardcore is hardcore, that's the whole point. If you don't want to lose anything, don't play hardcore. It's simple.

[Tweaks]

itchies, on 28 November 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

No - if people don't want to risk their mech - they shouldn't even be playing a game that is explicitly designed just for just that fact. Salvage should be an inherent part of the game. Getting (and losing) parts is what makes the game great - and if you're good - you should be rewarded for good play and if you're bad - well - that's what that penalty is for. This is NOT a Politically Correct place. There WILL be Winners and there WILL be Losers. This isn't T-Ball where everyone "win's" and there aren't any "loser's". If you can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen.

I don't see why there can't be both to satisfy everybody. Most people won't want to lose their 'Mech and have to buy a new one before every round. It's utterly stupid to do that. In World of Tanks for example, you simply die, and your tank has to be repaired, even if it blew up in battle. Next round, you're fresh to go again. The only difference when you die, is that you get less XP, and even less if your team loses. The same principle could be implemented.

To quote many others, this is not EVE Online where you fight in a persistent world with safe zones and stations you can hide in if you feel threatened. You will be dropped in battle every time you join a match, and the goal of the match is to kill all enemy 'Mechs. With 50%+ odds of dying in battle and losing your 'Mech, it's too much. Especially since this is a F2P model. A lot will be paying real money for 'Mechs and equipment, and giving the unavoidable possibility of losing it all in under 20 minutes, nobody will want to do that, and the devs won't be making any money off of it: UNLESS there's a hardcore mode for that purpose where all players choosing to play it WANT the risk of dying and accept the terms.

It doesn't have to be all one side or the other, it can be both if they offer both.

Edited by Tweaks, 29 November 2011 - 05:54 AM.

[Korbyn McColl]

I don't think it's feasible to have multiple methods of playing (a hardcore permadeath/salvage option) in a game like this. The idea is we're going to have a persistant universe with fronts that change based on which units win and lose. As such, "hardcore mode" players would be at a substantial disadvantage. Unless you found some way to make up for that fact, such as giving hardcore players the ability to gain better skills (quicker lock times, better chaces to hit, etc..) the longer their character survives (and not give that option to non hardcore mode players), no one interested in participating in the struggle for the IS would play hardcore mode.

[Haeso]

Tweaks, on 29 November 2011 - 05:52 AM, said:

I don't see why there can't be both to satisfy everybody. Most people won't want to lose their 'Mech and have to buy a new one before every round. It's utterly stupid to do that. In World of Tanks for example, you simply die, and your tank has to be repaired, even if it blew up in battle. Next round, you're fresh to go again. The only difference when you die, is that you get less XP, and even less if your team loses. The same principle could be implemented.

And what makes risk/reward stupid, exactly? I'd say it's stupid to have zero risk and all reward. What are you, part of the "Everyone's a winner" generation that got trophies for losing?

With free stock mechs and a net gain when using efficient/cheaper mechs, you can gain money each match or choose to use -and risk- better but more expensive mechs. Hopefully with some sort of BV system in addition to C-Bills or making mechs that aren't efficient to use only slightly more effective.

Quote

To quote many others, this is not EVE Online where you fight in a persistent world with safe zones and stations you can hide in if you feel threatened. You will be dropped in battle every time you join a match, and the goal of the match is to kill all enemy 'Mechs. With 50%+ odds of dying in battle and losing your 'Mech, it's too much. Especially since this is a F2P model. A lot will be paying real money for 'Mechs and equipment, and giving the unavoidable possibility of losing it all in under 20 minutes, nobody will want to do that, and the devs won't be making any money off of it: UNLESS there's a hardcore mode for that purpose where all players choosing to play it WANT the risk of dying and accept the terms.

...
What's with this simpleton view of 50%+ odds of dying? Battletech isn't about throwing a few mechs at each other until one side is out of mechs, there's more to this universe. The odds of dying should be lower than 50% if done properly matches should be won or lost by objective before even 75% of a team has died, and there should be the option of retreating off the field as well.

This other assumption of paying for mechs is garbage. League of Legends seems to be doing better than oh... every other FTP game barring browser games like zynga trash. And most of it's income? Purely aesthetics and extra choices. They don't sell many champions for RP because you can earn them in game just by playing, but MWO needs to take this a step further if they're really going to deliver about this persistent world, without an economy, it's just another standard fair MechWarrior that might have a galaxy map of the innersphere. They might as well just give everyone access to all weapons and all mechs - and I'm not joking about that, if they're not going to put any effort into making an economy, forget the entire thing and give us everything so it's a level playing field. That's what LoL is effectively, it takes time to unlock everything, which is either a grind or cash. But LoL has zero elements of risk and reward, that's not what Battletech is. It's not a series of arena matches that serve as a proxy war between states, hell LoL is more like the clan Trials. But this isn't about the clan Trials, it's about the war in the Inner Sphere between the houses and the imminent clan invasion. Neither of which outside of Tukkiyad ever have anything resembling the trials.

[Red Beard]

This hardcore thing is interesting...I will be interested in seeing where some of these ideas go...

[Fiachdubh]

Mentioned this idea in another post somewhere on forums a while ago. Agree with the option of having a mortal pilot but think that should be the only real difference. Just tick the hardcore box during pilot creation as in 'Escape Velocity'.

Salvage and the risk of losing a mech should be there for all players anyway.

Death should not affect the users forum name/account, would make a huge mess and be major inconveniance for players.

Allow each player to have a regular and hardcore pilot at the same time (but not sharing resources, totaly seperate characters).
Maybe as an incentive if your HC pilots does really well before dying your regular pilot inherits something nice from a dead relative, its worth or coolness could be affected by how well the HC character did.

As a reward (as well as to encourage the creation of and compensate for their lose) it would be nice if there was a section on site where we could look up the names, achievments and combat records of dead pilots (that survived over a minimum number of missions/kills to avoid endless clutter of those killed on first couple missions).

Edited by Fiachdubh, 29 November 2011 - 09:38 AM.

[Alistair Marsden]

Now, this is an interesting suggestion, and with some modifications could be adjusted to allow playing without losing mechs in combat, and gaining salvage.
I've thus voted "Yes, BUT..."

But, the level of control over your virtual self should be abstracted beyond a point where death would end a players gameplay experience with one pilot-"account" altogether.

First of all, let me explain what I would imagine most people would like to experience:

Either they want to have quick and dirty action, crushing, killing, destroying, not caring for consequences. Let's call this skirmish mode. If your mech is gunned down, you are eliminated (and maybe be allowed to respawn or not). However, losing your Mech has little to no consequences, you don't have to take care of rearmament and such, however, you also don't gain salvage beyond the score/cbills you gained from playing that match.

The second option most of use who are registered at this time might want to play in normally, is salvage mode. When playing in salvage mode, you can basically hire a pilot, who will thus be your current avatar. By fighting and destroying mechs, you will gain salvage, but also have to bear the consequences. If your mech is destroyed or you eject your pilot, you may(or may not) lose your mech, but at least have to spend cbills to repair and rearm it. You have to keep weapons and ammunition in stock, or buy it anew, to be able to replace lost weapons.

Now, here is the clue: as described above, you can basically recruit multiple Mechwarrior, and train them, just as your avatar in any rpg would gain in experience. If the pilot is killed or heavily wounded, he will be out of commission for a period of time, or permanently. So one could keep on playing, training another pilot, maybe loosing a little be experience.

Of course, if your previous mechwarrior was an ace, you may not be able to hire someone equally capable, but you may recruit a pilot who is way more experienced than the green newbie you had to train for a month. Assuming your old pilots skill was maybe 30(random number inserted here), you would then not be able to directly hire a level 30 replacement, but maybe a level 25 fighter.

Edited by Alistair Marsden, 29 November 2011 - 02:03 PM.

[Tweaks]

Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

And what makes risk/reward stupid, exactly? I'd say it's stupid to have zero risk and all reward. What are you, part of the "Everyone's a winner" generation that got trophies for losing?

With free stock mechs and a net gain when using efficient/cheaper mechs, you can gain money each match or choose to use -and risk- better but more expensive mechs. Hopefully with some sort of BV system in addition to C-Bills or making mechs that aren't efficient to use only slightly more effective.

What do you mean by none of the risk and all the rewards? Clearly you haven't read my suggestion carefully. By account modes, I mean there would be dedicated servers for each mode. meaning players playing normal mode (i.e. pilot can't die and 'Mech is just repaired between battles, no salvage) would be confined to their own server, while players choosing hardcore mode (pilot can die, 'mechs can be lost, and you can get new stuff from salvage), would play on their server. The two classes of players would not be able to meet. This has to be, for otherwise, players would just grind safely in normal mode, and then switch to hardcore mode to fight seriously with a fully leveled up pilot.

Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

What's with this simpleton view of 50%+ odds of dying? Battletech isn't about throwing a few mechs at each other until one side is out of mechs, there's more to this universe. The odds of dying should be lower than 50% if done properly matches should be won or lost by objective before even 75% of a team has died, and there should be the option of retreating off the field as well.

Quite simple in fact. Let's say the goal of the game is to destroy all enemy 'Mechs (I'm not talking about other objective-based modes). That means one team will win, and one team will lose. The losing team will have killed all enemy 'Mechs to win, which count as 50% of the players in the match. Therefore, you have a minimum of 50% chances of dying in combat (or your 'mech being disabled or destroyed, whether you eject or not). It's simple math.

Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

This other assumption of paying for mechs is garbage. League of Legends seems to be doing better than oh... every other FTP game barring browser games like zynga trash. And most of it's income? Purely aesthetics and extra choices. They don't sell many champions for RP because you can earn them in game just by playing, but MWO needs to take this a step further if they're really going to deliver about this persistent world, without an economy, it's just another standard fair MechWarrior that might have a galaxy map of the innersphere. They might as well just give everyone access to all weapons and all mechs - and I'm not joking about that, if they're not going to put any effort into making an economy, forget the entire thing and give us everything so it's a level playing field. That's what LoL is effectively, it takes time to unlock everything, which is either a grind or cash. But LoL has zero elements of risk and reward, that's not what Battletech is. It's not a series of arena matches that serve as a proxy war between states, hell LoL is more like the clan Trials. But this isn't about the clan Trials, it's about the war in the Inner Sphere between the houses and the imminent clan invasion. Neither of which outside of Tukkiyad ever have anything resembling the trials.

If you're going to compare MWO with another F2P game, World of Tanks is much closer, and in that game, you can buy premium accounts that allow you to get more XP faster, and also allow you to buy premium tanks which you can't get any other way. I don't see why PG couldn't (not that they should, but they could) do the same thing with MWO. It is working pretty well with WoT. As for an economy, everybody seems to assume there will be some sort of player market, but nothing of the sort has been announced by any dev as of yet, unless I missed something? I think the F2P content is going to be more in the sort of premium equipment upgrades, cash for cbills, or xp boosters and such, but they could also add whle 'Mechs you could buy with cash too.

And by the way, no need for name calling, if you can't argue without calling people names, then go somewhere else.

Devil Man, on 29 November 2011 - 06:20 AM, said:

I don't think it's feasible to have multiple methods of playing (a hardcore permadeath/salvage option) in a game like this. The idea is we're going to have a persistant universe with fronts that change based on which units win and lose. As such, "hardcore mode" players would be at a substantial disadvantage. Unless you found some way to make up for that fact, such as giving hardcore players the ability to gain better skills (quicker lock times, better chaces to hit, etc..) the longer their character survives (and not give that option to non hardcore mode players), no one interested in participating in the struggle for the IS would play hardcore mode.

It's very doable to have dedicated world servers for each mode actually. I've said it before and I say it again: Diablo III is going to have just that! Other games have done it in the past too (PvP or PvE servers for World of Warcraft for example). Having two different "worlds" is not something that far fetched really, and there's going to be plenty of players to fill both I'm sure!

Alistair Marsden, on 29 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

Now, this is an interesting suggestion, and with some modifications could be adjusted to allow playing without losing mechs in combat, and gaining salvage.

I've thus voted "Yes, BUT..."

But, the level of control over your virtual self should be abstracted beyond a point where death would end a players gameplay experience with one pilot-"account" altogether.

First of all, let me explain what I would imagine most people would like to experience:

Either they want to have quick and dirty action, crushing, killing, destroying, not caring for consequences. Let's call this skirmish mode. If your mech is gunned down, you are eliminated (and maybe be allowed to respawn or not). However, losing your Mech has little to no consequences, you don't have to take care of rearmament and such, however, you also don't gain salvage beyond the score/cbills you gained from playing that match.

The second option most of use who are registered at this time might want to play in normally, is salvage mode. When playing in salvage mode, you can basically hire a pilot, who will thus be your current avatar. By fighting and destroying mechs, you will gain salvage, but also have to bear the consequences. If your mech is destroyed or you eject your pilot, you may(or may not) lose your mech, but at least have to spend cbills to repair and rearm it. You have to keep weapons and ammunition in stock, or buy it anew, to be able to replace lost weapons.

Now, here is the clue: as described above, you can basically recruit multiple Mechwarrior, and train them, just as your avatar in any rpg would gain in experience. If the pilot is killed or heavily wounded, he will be out of commission for a period of time, or permanently. So one could keep on playing, training another pilot, maybe loosing a little be experience.

Of course, if your previous mechwarrior was an ace, you may not be able to hire someone equally capable, but you may recruit a pilot who is way more experienced than the green newbie you had to train for a month. Assuming your old pilots skill was maybe 30(random number inserted here), you would then not be able to directly hire a level 30 replacement, but maybe a level 25 fighter.

This is another good alternative. Instead of dying, just be in a coma or something. I like that, but it's just another way of seeing things. Again, if several players will be willing to play hardcore mode and risk losing their character in Diablo III, I don't see why it would be different here. The whole thrill about hardcore mode is to keep your character alive for as long as possible. I don't say I'd only be playing that mode, but I would certainly give it a try anyway! If your thing is to grind and level up until you cap and have a hangar full of 'Mechs, then perhaps hardcore wouldn't be for you, but if you just want some pro-action and something closer to a simulation, you'd play hardcore all the way.

Edited by Tweaks, 29 November 2011 - 03:40 PM.

[Haeso]

Tweaks, on 29 November 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

What do you mean by none of the risk and all the rewards? Clearly you haven't read my suggestion carefully. By account modes, I mean there would be dedicated servers for each mode. meaning players playing normal mode (i.e. pilot can't die and 'Mech is just repaired between battles, no salvage) would be confined to their own server, while players choosing hardcore mode (pilot can die, 'mechs can be lost, and you can get new stuff from salvage), would play on their server. The two classes of players would not be able to meet. This has to be, for otherwise, players would just grind safely in normal mode, and then switch to hardcore mode to fight seriously with a fully leveled up pilot.

If you risk nothing or what equates to nothing (Virtually always a net gain), and gain something, there is no risk and reward.

Clearly my point wasn't understood by you, if anything. There shouldn't be a hardcore or normal server, there should be one server type with one system, splitting resources isn't exactly in their best interests. Not to mention pilot death many people won't want, but salvage many people will. What do you propose, a hundred different servers so everyone has what they want, but has nobody to play against? Or the people that want some parts of it, are saddled with something far too severe or forced to play without what they want?

The standard should involve proper salvage and repairs, and if people absolutely must have a no risk style of play, let it be an instant action simulation where there's no rewards either.

Quote

Quite simple in fact. Let's say the goal of the game is to destroy all enemy 'Mechs (I'm not talking about other objective-based modes). That means one team will win, and one team will lose. The losing team will have killed all enemy 'Mechs to win, which count as 50% of the players in the match. Therefore, you have a minimum of 50% chances of dying in combat (or your 'mech being disabled or destroyed, whether you eject or not). It's simple math.

The only thing simple here is this entire thought process. Even in a search and destroy mission neither side should lose everything, and in most missions there should be more depth than 'kill everyone else'. Do you want a simple(Shallow.) game along with your simple math? Nobody can retreat off the field?

If the death rate is 50% or above 50%, the game has failed on many levels. This needs to be more than deathmatch after deathmatch.

The overwhelming majority want objective based combat, not deathmatch.

Quote

If you're going to compare MWO with another F2P game, World of Tanks is much closer, and in that game, you can buy premium accounts that allow you to get more XP faster, and also allow you to buy premium tanks which you can't get any other way. I don't see why PG couldn't (not that they should, but they could) do the same thing with MWO. It is working pretty well with WoT. As for an economy, everybody seems to assume there will be some sort of player market, but nothing of the sort has been announced by any dev as of yet, unless I missed something? I think the F2P content is going to be more in the sort of premium equipment upgrades, cash for cbills, or xp boosters and such, but they could also add whle 'Mechs you could buy with cash too.

WoT is pay to win, they've said explicitly MWO would not be like that. If we're going to just assume the devs are lying what is the point of any of this exactly?

Quote

And by the way, no need for name calling, if you can't argue without calling people names, then go somewhere else.

I didn't call you a name anywhere in my post that I'm aware of, maybe I missed something. I said 'what's with the simpleton view', that was the closest thing to a name calling, and it wasn't. Maybe I'm missing whole words, possible since I'm tired, but I don't think so.

Quote

It's very doable to have dedicated world servers for each mode actually. I've said it before and I say it again: Diablo III is going to have just that! Other games have done it in the past too (PvP or PvE servers for World of Warcraft for example). Having two different "worlds" is not something that far fetched really, and there's going to be plenty of players to fill both I'm sure!

Again, this is so simple that it is borderline obtuse. You do realize Diablo 3 is almost entirely PvE focused, PvP is more or less tacked on, right? Hardcore mode has almost no PvP in D2, and for good reason. You have to spend a significant amount of time leveling and grinding in PvE to be remotely competitive. Without the PvE timesink everything changes drastically.

And comparing a game like WoW, where the games are completely identical beyond a simple flagging mechanic is disingenuous at best.

Quote

This is another good alternative. Instead of dying, just be in a coma or something. I like that, but it's just another way of seeing things. Again, if several players will be willing to play hardcore mode and risk losing their character in Diablo III, I don't see why it would be different here. The whole thrill about hardcore mode is to keep your character alive for as long as possible. I don't say I'd only be playing that mode, but I would certainly give it a try anyway! If your thing is to grind and level up until you cap and have a hangar full of 'Mechs, then perhaps hardcore wouldn't be for you, but if you just want some pro-action and something closer to a simulation, you'd play hardcore all the way.

I'm sure some people would, but many more wouldn't, and it precludes the possibility of something like salvage, which the majority want, to only a small few (Smaller than D2 by a wide margin.) it also wastes developer resources for not just a minority, but a tiny one if it includes permanent death unless they change the focus to 'buying' pilots, and having your skills and what not connected to account, rather than the pilots, or the pilots only have marginal effects on combat. Otherwise in a PvP only game, there will be no progression. That's shooting themselves in the foot.

Edited by Haeso, 29 November 2011 - 04:17 PM.

[Schnuffs]

I think we should just wait for the devs to tell us what there plan for actual gameplay is before we all start going crazy....but that's just me.

Edited by Schnuffs, 29 November 2011 - 10:07 PM.

[Stogie Hendrix]

Sorry guys, but I just now remembered this...if we want PvP in this game, it's easy...the arena. On Solaris VII. Granted this is a salvage post, but let's face it, most PvP areas are separate from the role-play ones anyways. And the arena (mw4) did have its own rules (and sports announcers...)

[Melissia]

I don't like the idea of an account only being able to play one match before no longer being able to be used.

[Tweaks]

Haeso, on 29 November 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

...very long quotes...

You say most people want salvage, but it's not entirely true. In fact, I know many that don't (don't forget that the forum community is FAR from representing the average player that will play MWO). It depends how it's done, and how penalizing to players it will be. If salvage means I can lose my 'Mech (which I've spent countless hours trying to upgrade and tweak) if I'm forced to eject in battle or that I am simply destroyed, then how is it different than hardcore mode?

I'm sorry, but I do NOT want to buy a new 'Mech and start over everytime I lose a fight, and I'm sure at 100% that the majority of players won't want that either. The idea you have that there should be a risk for everything you gain is narrow minded at best. This is a game, and a game is meant to be fun. It's not fun when you risk losing everything everytime you play. That's why some people like to gamble and most don't.

Some games such as EVE Online may be based on this concept, but they are very different in the sense that it's a persistent world and that you are usually not alone. You have safe zones and you have to choose to be at risk in order to be (i.e. traveling to low security zones). MWO will be battle everytime, it's the essence of the game, that means every single match, you will risk losing your 'Mech? That's nonsense!

I'm not saying I want all the reward but no risk, stop thinking that. The risk doesn't have to be so high however. Losing a battle would mean no (or much less) experience, and repair costs. That alone, is risk to me, and I'm fine with it.

As for that 50% risk thing, well you assume that you will be able to retreat, but technically, if the enemy seeks and kills every 'Mech in the opposing team, whether there were other goals or objectives is irrelevant. If the whole enemy team is dead, you'd win by default!

I was also not talking about having hundreds of servers, just 2 worlds (or clusters of servers), plain and simple. It is very doable, and you will still have plenty of players to play against in each one of those worlds.

The whole point of this thread I guess, is that I do not want anything to do with salvage if it means I can lose my 'Mech entirely, unless it's the way I want to play (I want the choice, not be imposed only one way).

In all the other MW games, were you losing your 'Mech to enemy salvage every time you lost a battle? No... and it was fun that way. I don't think it would have been as fun if you were risking your 'Mech everytime and had to buy a new one. Some people would run short of cbills very fast!

Edited by Tweaks, 30 November 2011 - 02:09 PM.

[Haeso]

Tweaks, on 30 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

You say most people want salvage, but it's not entirely true. In fact, I know many that don't (don't forget that the forum community is FAR from representing the average player that will play MWO). It depends how it's done, and how penalizing to players it will be. If salvage means I can lose my 'Mech (which I've spent countless hours trying to upgrade and tweak) if I'm forced to eject in battle or that I am simply destroyed, then how is it different than hardcore mode?

http://mwomercs.com/...-in-depth-look/

Also, the overwhelming 91% that want some sort of salvage, is not going to change. They may not want full salvage, but they definitely want some form of it, a hardcore mode that has many other things they don't want and precludes them from things they do want, will not be popular.

As for how it isn't hardcore, saving a custom variant and re-fitting a newly purchased 'Mech with it shouldn't be difficult or time consuming. The price of a cheap or standard mech chassis + loadout should also not be time consuming, with the system I'm proposing you're looking at making enough for almost a cheap 'Mech even with an abysmal performance. It might take a few contracts for something ritzy, but that's not so bad. Better than ALL ATLAS ALL THE TIME!

Quote

I'm sorry, but I do NOT want to buy a new 'Mech and start over everytime I lose a fight, and I'm sure at 100% that the majority of players won't want that either. The idea you have that there should be a risk for everything you gain is narrow minded at best. This is a game, and a game is meant to be fun. It's not fun when you risk losing everything everytime you play. That's why some people like to gamble and most don't.

And I'm 100% sure that you're 100% full of it. There's nothing "Start over" about the system I'm proposing. You would not be "Losing everything". This isn't about gambling, please go read the thread I created.

Quote

Some games such as EVE Online may be based on this concept, but they are very different in the sense that it's a persistent world and that you are usually not alone. You have safe zones and you have to choose to be at risk in order to be (i.e. traveling to low security zones). MWO will be battle everytime, it's the essence of the game, that means every single match, you will risk losing your 'Mech? That's nonsense!

You also earn most of your money in a PvE grind. Here you will be earning all of your money from this same PvP match. Imagine if every big battle in eve also earned you billions of isk just for participating.

Quote

I'm not saying I want all the reward but no risk, stop thinking that. The risk doesn't have to be so high however. Losing a battle would mean no (or much less) experience, and repair costs. That alone, is risk to me, and I'm fine with it.

The risk of repairs is nonexistent. There's no risk/reward when all it is, is a small penalty for doing it. That's a penalty, not risk/reward. And when again, you have every 'Mech and nothing can ever die, you end up with a stagnant all atlas all the time system. Not to mention the idea of 'Mechs being indestructable and magically teleporting to your hanger after defeats is so mind bendingly immersion breaking.

The risk isn't "So high" in my proposed suggestion.

Quote

As for that 50% risk thing, well you assume that you will be able to retreat, but technically, if the enemy seeks and kills every 'Mech in the opposing team, whether there were other goals or objectives is irrelevant. If the whole enemy team is dead, you'd win by default!

If the game devolves into that then the game is **** and this whole conversation is pointless. Lets not go making foolish assumptions, I've a fair bit of faith in the developers.

Quote

I was also not talking about having hundreds of servers, just 2 worlds (or clusters of servers), plain and simple. It is very doable, and you will still have plenty of players to play against in each one of those worlds.

You missed the point.

Quote

The whole point of this thread I guess, is that I do not want anything to do with salvage if it means I can lose my 'Mech entirely, unless it's the way I want to play (I want the choice, not be imposed only one way).

Need to stop thinking about the 'Mech as the progression system, that's not the right way to make this game. Your pilot and other things should be the progression system, the 'Mechs are there for gameplay and just gameplay.

Quote

In all the other MW games, were you losing your 'Mech to enemy salvage every time you lost a battle? No... and it was fun that way. I don't think it would have been as fun if you were risking your 'Mech everytime and had to buy a new one. Some people would run short of cbills very fast!

Uh, in the other MW games single player when you lost your 'Mech you lost. In multiplayer there was zero persistence. We might as well compare this to MechAssault.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think a Hardcore Account-holder would not be very happy to end a victorious match with zero salvage just because his opponents all had Casual Accounts. That's not very hardcore.

[Haeso]

Prosperity Park, on 30 November 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

I think a Hardcore Account-holder would not be very happy to end a victorious match with zero salvage just because his opponents all had Casual Accounts. That's not very hardcore.

I believe the Hardcore players would be totally separate by nature, otherwise yes it wouldn't work at all. That's how I understand it at least, I don't care for it to begin with though.

[Tweaks]

Prosperity Park, on 30 November 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

I think a Hardcore Account-holder would not be very happy to end a victorious match with zero salvage just because his opponents all had Casual Accounts. That's not very hardcore.

Which is precisely why I said the two modes can't possibly meet and have to be kept separate. hardcore players can't play with normal players.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...-in-depth-look
Also, the overwhelming 91% that want some sort of salvage, is not going to change. They may not want full salvage, but they definitely want some form of it, a hardcore mode that has many other things they don't want and precludes them from things they do want, will not be popular.

At the time I write this post, there are a total of 28,310 members in the forums, and only 208 cast their vote in your poll. 189 of which are in favor of salvage. So in total, only 0.73% of the members of this forum voted, and only 0.66% voted in favor. That is HARDLY a majority! Forum polls are NEVER a good indication of the overall community's point of view on something. Too few never vote, don't care about the suggestions forum, or just don't care in general about expressing their opinion.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

As for how it isn't hardcore, saving a custom variant and re-fitting a newly purchased 'Mech with it shouldn't be difficult or time consuming. The price of a cheap or standard mech chassis + loadout should also not be time consuming, with the system I'm proposing you're looking at making enough for almost a cheap 'Mech even with an abysmal performance. It might take a few contracts for something ritzy, but that's not so bad. Better than ALL ATLAS ALL THE TIME!

I started reading your wall of text post about salvage and almost fell asleep (because I'm tired)... I got as far as the better half of the detailed explanation of full salvage, and stopped there. So far, I don't agree at all with your ideas though. They just assume too much about how the game will work and what the game modes will be.

You talk about contracts, and shares you can buyout from others after a match and such, and a system like MW:LL for "in-mission rewards"... all this assumes the game will have a complex economy system, and that you will be able to pick your fights (as opposed to pure random matchmaking like most multiplayer action games). I don't want to burst your bubble, but I think you are expecting a game way more complex than what it will end up to be. You may have faith in the devs, and so do I, but I think it will have some depth, but mostly fast-paced action. They already said it won't be a MMO, but in some of the points in your post, you suggest it will be.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

And I'm 100% sure that you're 100% full of it. There's nothing "Start over" about the system I'm proposing. You would not be "Losing everything".

The system you're proposing is far from perfect you know. I don't have the energy to list them all now (maybe I'll formulate a proper response in your own thread later), but I found several of your ideas that would be either too deep or complex to implement in the fast paced F2P game which will be MWO (they laready said it's not a MMO, don't treat it as such), or plain open-doors to abuse and exploiting.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

This isn't about gambling, please go read the thread I created.

It's gambling if you can't pick your fights and don't know what odds you'll be against in advance. Your whole proposal assumes you will be getting "contracts" or that you'll be able to choose missions with specific objectives and forseeable enemy forces. You assume too much, and I think you're hoping too much. The way I see it coming, MWO will be more like a hybrid between MPBT:3025 and MW4 Mercenaries Multiplayer with a lot of F2P goodness and other goody goodies. I don't think there will be a complex mission and contracts system, or even sharing of salvage between teammates after the end of a match. This would make the end of matches extremely long, especially when playing with pub players... I just don't see it.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

You also earn most of your money in a PvE grind. Here you will be earning all of your money from this same PvP match. Imagine if every big battle in eve also earned you billions of isk just for participating.

You haven't played EVE Online for very long have you? I've played for 2 years straight (from open beta) and I was in a Pirate Corporation. We were living off salvage and PvP mostly (not the salvage as it is now but actually looting non-npc containers after blowing up their ship), and all of our ISK ($) came from extortion, randsom and loot from killed enemies, with the OCCASIONAL PvE (i.e. NPC pirates). Of course the manufacturing and mining was a part of our life, but wasn't to make money, but rather only to be able to manufacture weapons, modules, ships and ammo.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

The risk of repairs is nonexistent. There's no risk/reward when all it is, is a small penalty for doing it. That's a penalty, not risk/reward. And when again, you have every 'Mech and nothing can ever die, you end up with a stagnant all atlas all the time system. Not to mention the idea of 'Mechs being indestructable and magically teleporting to your hanger after defeats is so mind bendingly immersion breaking.

If it takes me several battles in a stock 'Mech in order to afford the repairs on my Atlas, then it's risk enough for me. If every battle earned you enough C-Bills to purchase a new stock 'Mech every time, it'd be a very bad economy! 'Mechs are not cheap, and a simple battle is far from rewarding enough to pay for one unless you salvage it entirely. 'Mechs are RARE in the BattleTech Universe, and nothing cheap. By the way, you keep referring about immersion, well... in the BattleTech Universe, most MechWarriors only have the ONE 'Mech, especially in 'Mech Corps. Just sayin...

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

The risk isn't "So high" in my proposed suggestion.

It's hard to say because you assume the game will be as you hope it will be. Truth is, nobody knows yet except the game designers. From the Q&A and the FAQ however, I can guess it's not going to be as deep or elaborated in terms of contracts, missions and salvage as you think it will.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

If the game devolves into that then the game is **** and this whole conversation is pointless. Lets not go making foolish assumptions, I've a fair bit of faith in the developers.

Good advice, but that goes for you too budy!

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

Need to stop thinking about the 'Mech as the progression system, that's not the right way to make this game. Your pilot and other things should be the progression system, the 'Mechs are there for gameplay and just gameplay.

I think you're wrong, but that's my opinion.

Edited by Tweaks, 30 November 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[Haeso]

Tweaks, on 30 November 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:

At the time I write this post, there are a total of 28,310 members in the forums, and only 208 cast their vote in your poll. 189 of which are in favor of salvage. So in total, only 0.73% of the members of this forum voted, and only 0.66% voted in favor. That is HARDLY a majority! Forum polls are NEVER a good indication of the overall community's point of view on something. Too few never vote, don't care about the suggestions forum, or just don't care in general about expressing their opinion.

You do not need a larger sample size to be statistically relevant. And given the overwhelming majority vote within the given percentage it's exceedingly unlikely that no matter how many more people vote the percentage will change significantly. Do you have a strong grasp of statistics? It sounds like you don't, that's not a knock on you most people don't.

Quote

I started reading your wall of text post about salvage and almost fell asleep (because I'm tired)... I got as far as the better half of the detailed explanation of full salvage, and stopped there. So far, I don't agree at all with your ideas though. They just assume too much about how the game will work and what the game modes will be.

The very first paragraph says it requires certain simple assumptions, if we don't make any assumptions then there is no possible way to reasonably discuss the game. All of my assumptions are relatively simple and easy to do.

Quote

You talk about contracts, and shares you can buyout from others after a match and such, and a system like MW:LL for "in-mission rewards"... all this assumes the game will have a complex economy system, and that you will be able to pick your fights (as opposed to pure random matchmaking like most multiplayer action games). I don't want to burst your bubble, but I think you are expecting a game way more complex than what it will end up to be. You may have faith in the devs, and so do I, but I think it will have some depth, but mostly fast-paced action. They already said it won't be a MMO, but in some of the points in your post, you suggest it will be.

It's actually quite simple which was the entire point. The way I laid it out, it would take less than a minute post-match to deal with salvage, less than that probably. And it would be very obvious as to how it works.

If the game doesn't have any sort of economy or persistence beyond colors changing on the map, the game is a failure in my eyes to begin with, so yes I'm going to make certain assumptions, and I ask that for the purpose of discussing a system that has certain other systems required to work a certain way, you go along with it and argue within the framework that those do work that way.

Quote

The system you're proposing is far from perfect you know. I don't have the energy to list them all now (maybe I'll formulate a proper response in your own thread later), but I found several of your ideas that would be either too deep or complex to implement in the fast paced F2P game which will be MWO (they laready said it's not a MMO, don't treat it as such), or plain open-doors to abuse and exploiting.

None of my ideas were more than marginally more complex than what happens in a game like League of Legends on the user-end. Perhaps the back end is, back to the user, it's pretty simple.

Quote

It's gambling if you can't pick your fights and don't know what odds you'll be against in advance. Your whole proposal assumes you will be getting "contracts" or that you'll be able to choose missions with specific objectives and forseeable enemy forces. You assume too much, and I think you're hoping too much. The way I see it coming, MWO will be more like a hybrid between MPBT:3025 and MW4 Mercenaries Multiplayer with a lot of F2P goodness and other goody goodies. I don't think there will be a complex mission and contracts system, or even sharing of salvage between teammates after the end of a match. This would make the end of matches extremely long, especially when playing with pub players... I just don't see it.

I don't assume forseeable enemy forces beyond knowing their Battle Value. Contracts are what I use to refer to individual missions. Just a name, nothing more complex. You look at a contract for mission X, it tells you what the objectives and BV of each side are, and what you stand to gain if you win or lose. Basically the way I see it is you're signing up for a mission type, then it uses a matchmaking system to determine who with and against. Almost all matchmaking games let you choose the mode of gameplay you're after, no different here.

I'm not trying to turn the game into an MMO, all I'm asking for is the persistence to be more than "map with changing colors".

Quote

You haven't played EVE Online for very long have you? I've played for 2 years straight (from open beta) and I was in a Pirate Corporation. We were living off salvage and PvP mostly (not the salvage as it is now but actually looting non-npc containers after blowing up their ship), and all of our ISK ($) came from extortion, randsom and loot from killed enemies, with the OCCASIONAL PvE (i.e. NPC pirates). Of course the manufacturing and mining was a part of our life, but wasn't to make money, but rather only to be able to manufacture weapons, modules, ships and ammo.

Pirates are not average players, I am aware of how it worked for pirates, it's very different from the standard game. As a pirate you maximize risk/reward in favor of reward with little risk. You cannot do nearly as much to minimize risk within the context of being a Mercenary, you're being paid to fight not steal, extort and ransom.

Quote

If it takes me several battles in a stock 'Mech in order to afford the repairs on my Atlas, then it's risk enough for me. If every battle earned you enough C-Bills to purchase a new stock 'Mech every time, it'd be a very bad economy! 'Mechs are not cheap, and a simple battle is far from rewarding enough to pay for one unless you salvage it entirely. 'Mechs are RARE in the BattleTech Universe, and nothing cheap. By the way, you keep referring about immersion, well... in the BattleTech Universe, most MechWarriors only have the ONE 'Mech, especially in 'Mech Corps. Just sayin...

Actually many 'Mechs are very cheap. Some are also very expensive, and some are about what you'd expect. If a simple battle wasn't rewarding enough, Mercenaries wouldn't exist. If a Mercenary company has to win every single fight they enter to stay above the red, they've been signing **** contracts, you can't win every fight.

And you say one 'Mech, except with your system they'd have... Every 'Mech.

Quote

It's hard to say because you assume the game will be as you hope it will be. Truth is, nobody knows yet except the game designers. From the Q&A and the FAQ however, I can guess it's not going to be as deep or elaborated in terms of contracts, missions and salvage as you think it will.

Missions are just contracts, same thing. Salvage takes maybe 30-60 seconds after the end of a 20~ minute (They've said matches are this long) match. And it would be very simple. Do you wish to 'buy' this 'Mech for cheap, or sell it directly for C-Bills? Done.

Quote

Good advice, but that goes for you too budy!

None of my assumptions are foolish, they are made with the knowledge that in order for certain things to work, other things need to be a certain way. Your assumptions are just made in a way that 'it won't work because the game won't allow' rather than something wrong with the system itself. I welcome your supposed problems with the salvage system if you can go about it in an intelligent manner. I'm more than willing to accept criticism and redesign my system if you can find flaws with it rather than assumptions made to support it regarding simple game design choices. Game design is both a job and a hobby to me, I enjoy it.

Quote

I think you're wrong, but that's my opinion.

Then, at the bottom of the original post in my thread, take a look at *1 for how 'Mech progression could work without absolutely killing any measure of persistence beyond "Color map changes!"

[Tweaks]

Haeso, on 01 December 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

You do not need a larger sample size to be statistically relevant. And given the overwhelming majority vote within the given percentage it's exceedingly unlikely that no matter how many more people vote the percentage will change significantly. Do you have a strong grasp of statistics? It sounds like you don't, that's not a knock on you most people don't.

In order for a sample to be representative, the sample has to contain representative variety of voters. The people that vote on forums are usually the most expressive, and the most hardcore players (i.e. the BT geeks and MW twitchers). When you publish a poll such as "Are you for or against salvage?" you will attract only people that do care about it or feel like expressing themselves because they have a strong opinion of it. Most people will skim the poll and just say "Meh...", move along without voting and not leave any reply.

Less than 1% of the total members of a forum is not representative at all, the sample is too small, especially considering you can't assess the quality of the voters. Your poll had over 2,846 views but only 208 votes (and the view counter only increments the first time a member views the post). Skimming through it, I noticed that most of the replies are long quoted debates between the same handful of players (with you on top of the list). This is hardly representative, sorry, but you're dead wrong.

The devs don't take the forums for granted. It's a good source for ideas and a source of what the hardcore vets really want or really don't want in general, but it's not a representation of what the average John Doe player will be when the game launches.

You're saying...

Quote

I'm not trying to turn the game into an MMO, all I'm asking for is the persistence to be more than "map with changing colors".

Sorry again to burst your bubble, but to quote Matt from the Q&A:

Quote

[MATT C] Each game spawns its own dedicated server, these are not persistent like WoW, as mentioned that would take us into MMO territory. There is persistent game world information, i.e. match results are communicated to affect the balance of power in the Inner Sphere, who owns what planet etc. but there is no true persistent world, more of a persistent meta-game.

That's right... no persistence beyond that. So it looks like it will be much more as I expect it to be than how you expect it to be...

Haeso, on 01 December 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

Missions are just contracts, same thing. Salvage takes maybe 30-60 seconds after the end of a 20~ minute (They've said matches are this long) match. And it would be very simple. Do you wish to 'buy' this 'Mech for cheap, or sell it directly for C-Bills? Done.

30-60 seconds after every match? Are you crazy? That is way too long, and in fact, it will probably be more than that! I also don't expect this to work very well with total strangers and 14 years old kids and grievers trying to get everything for themselves or cry because they can't. The only way this would work is if battles are much longer than 20 minutes (i.e. epic 1 hour battles) and that it's always with players you know (i.e. players in your own Merc Corp). What you're suggesting is very close to the sharing of loot after a raid in World of Warcraft, and it's nothing but quick and simple!

Thing is, many players will just want to play solo, and not be in a player-owned Merc Corp. The majority of players will prefer quick in-and-out types of random matches. That's the current tendency in the F2P world and successful multiplayer action games in general, for good reasons. Not many want a tedious social system with an economy and have to report to a "clan" or Merc Corp. I know I don't anyway, and I know I'm certainly not alone.

The average player will mostly want to spend a minute or more upgrading his 'Mech or selecting skills for his pilot, once every few matches (when he has something to upgrade), but otherwise grind as fast as possible in between. That's in the nature of most "normal" players. The expressive forum geek is the exception, not the majority.

Haeso, on 01 December 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

I welcome your supposed problems with the salvage system if you can go about it in an intelligent manner.

...

Then, at the bottom of the original post in my thread, take a look at *1 for how 'Mech progression could work without absolutely killing any measure of persistence beyond "Color map changes!"

That's it, I'm done arguing with you. Not only you qualify my replies as "non-intelligent", but all you can do is counter every single argument with the same bs and redirect to your own post as if you had the answer to everything. Your idea is just that, an idea, it's not the absolute truth or the perfect solution. Whether you work in game design or not is completely irrelevant. Just because 189 (less than 1%) of the forum members voted in favor, doesn't make it so either. In fact, I bet you anything that most of the voters didn't even read your whole suggestion and stopped at the poll question and available options, which by the way, are not at all representative of your idea as described in your long and detailed post. All it is is a "yes or no" poll with a general question. In order for it to be representative, the poll question would have had to be something more along the lines of "Are you in favor of my personal views on salvage as described below...".

Sure in general, many want salvage. Doesn't mean they all agree with the way you want it though. Again, you assume too much.

You haven't conceded any single point or bent any of your views so far no matter how many times people argue about it or disagree with your post, and this is getting quite irritating!

Stick to your wet dreams if you wish, but I know for a fact it's not going to be that way. That is not an assumption, it's pretty clear when you read between the lines of the FAQ and the Q&A #1. I'm not pretending to know precisely what it will be in the end, but I have a pretty good idea of what it will not be.

I'm done with this debate, this is going nowhere. And by the way, thanks for hijacking my thread with your own.

Edited by Tweaks, 01 December 2011 - 07:50 AM.