59 replies to this topic

[Haeso]

Ran Ito, on 30 November 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

I'm curious, just what kind of aesthetic/non-critical item would you be willing to purchase for real money and donate back to the community via salvage?

My point is the things you buy like this wouldn't necessarily be things you could lose, though some would. If you wanted to buy a combat advantage, you'd have to effectively buy non-combat items/currency and trade that to another player in exchange for C-Bills which preserves economy. The idea is to allow those that want to buy an advantage a way to do it while also giving the average player something to want, and whether he buys it by trading C-Bills to someone with real money currency or through the shop directly doesn't really matter as far as the game is concerned. As long as money/equipment isn't being magicked into the economy.

As far as what I and others in general would be willing to buy, many things assuming I have the expendable income at the time. Garage size, 'Mechs for the simulator, perhaps some extra skins for 'Mechs, and I don't mean cheap camo stuff, I mean like the Bushwacker whose elongated CT/Cockpit has teeth along the sides, that sort of deal. There's much more there depending on how the game works out. Have the simulator work like League of Legends where you unlock 'Mechs with something earned by playing in the simulator, or you can just purchase it with real money.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 01:40 PM.

[Ran Ito]

Ok. Please excuse my need to sum things up. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your model correctly.

- Everything in game should have to be purchased with in-game currency. The only things you can buy with real money is more in-game currency, skins and unlockables for use in a simulator.

- In the simulator you don't loose or win anything. But your pilot can gain experience.

- In conquest mode you can win/loose items and mechs.

[Epitaph]

Warning: wall of text, and math, oh my!

EDIT: Oh I forgot to mention this is assuming (and I'm hoping) that the only things you could purchase with real money from the store are AESTHETIC items only. Paint jobs, computer voices, logos, hula girls, et cetera... Which you would keep no matter what. And "for fun" matches: against friends, non-campaign/non-ranked fights, etc would be penalty free.

I agree that both sides should get salvage, though the amount depends on win/loss, objectives completed, and battle performance as well as some random factor due because as stated, salvage trucks/craft, mech with hands, etc can take some salvage off the battlefield even when they've been routed. Consider this:

--------------------------------------Scenario--------------------------------------
Setup: 2v1 ranked match (teams are considered to be of similar strength and skill)
Other info: Let's consider 1000 Battle Performance Points (or BPP) as "excellent" for this particular map (actual number should be based on approximate game time, objectives etc, but we'll ignore this for now)

Outcome:
-Team A1 completes 3/5 of their objectives as well as 600/1000 BPP. --- (Great performance)
-Team A2 completes 2/5 of their objectives as well as 800/1000 BPP. ---(Average performance)
-Team B1 completes 2/5 of their objectives as well as 300/1000 BPP. ---(Poor performance)
Team A is victorious, completing all 5 of their objectives.

Breakdown:
Team A completed 5/5 objectives and achieved 1400/2000 BPP, whereas team B completed 2/5 and 300/1000 BPP.

Salvage split between the teams would be based on the performance, also assuming 10% random factor (as mentioned previously):
Team A: 1.0 + 0.7 = 1.7 (Objectives ratio + cumulative BPP ratio = team total)
Team B: 0.4 + 0.3 = 0.7
Total: 2.40 x 1.10 = 2.64

400 Tons of salvage was recovered from the battle, (rounded values are removed from the random value):
Team A obtains 64.4% (1.7/2.64)
Team b obtains 26.5% (0.7/2.64)
100 - 64.4 + 26.5 = 9.1% remaining to distribute, awarded randomly somehow. Lets say it comes out to be:

Team A obtained 67.5% (+3.1%)
Team B obtained 32.5% (+6.0%)

Important Points (TL;DR):
-Team B still gets a sizable amount back even though they lost and did somewhat poorly. We should also consider exactly how many mechs were lost on each side.

-Team A would distribute their spoils between them, the subteams may decide to distribute evenly or according to performance (objectives and BPP)

-Due to the split, Team B might actually see a net increase in C-Bills and assets... since even though they lost, they went against greater numbers.

-Conversely, Team A gets relatively less since they outnumbered their opponent. This would prevent ganking and give appeal to taking greater risk. (Again, back to risk/reward)

-To tie in the last two points, A is outnumbered to B in an important battle, against all odds they manage to win a decisive victory, and therefore receive enormous rewards. B suffered a humiliating defeat and gets little.

-1000 BPP or whatever the "excellent" amount would be (based on map) could be exceeded, for example A1 gets 1200/1000 and A2 gets 300/1000, their cumulative BPP would be (1500/2000) so you would effectively be able to make up for your teammate's poor performance. This would probably cap at the total, which in this case would be 2000/2000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, penalties for losing SHOULD be harsh. It will make people think twice about ignoring their team and instead focus on co-operation.

Speaking of co-operation, as Haeso brings up the important idea of C-Bills be awarded for battle performance, it is the reasonable way to have the punch of losing but not make things game breaking.

Actually now that I think about this... Having BPP account twice (salvage AND C-Bills) might unbalance things... Perhaps salvage would only due to objectives/random factor, with BPP affecting ONLY C-Bill rewards.

We'll that's what these discussions are for right? What do you guys think?

Edited by Epitaph, 30 November 2011 - 02:18 PM.

[Haeso]

Ran Ito, on 30 November 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

Ok. Please excuse my need to sum things up. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your model correctly.

- Everything in game should have to be purchased with in-game currency. The only things you can buy with real money is more in-game currency, skins and unlockables for use in a simulator.

- In the simulator you don't loose or win anything. But your pilot can gain experience.

- In conquest mode you can win/loose items and mechs.

Anything that would be part of the economy/directly impacts gameplay would ideally not be available for real money directly. An addendum I could easily see being added to add a form of grind mechanic (Keeps people playing and paying, necessary evil to some extent.) Anyone who has played planetside, the Certifications. In order to use specific weapons and such iirc, you had to level up and buy these things. You could perhaps buy these for C-Bills and with real money. It wouldn't impact the economy at all, but a big time seller in F2P is circumventing the grind, it's not exactly unfair as long as the advantages for this grind aren't large. The Certs could be for which 'Mechs you can buy/pilot in the full game, not just simulator. It adds a grind, but not a tiered one. So you grind for variety, not for power. If you want to Cert for the 'Mech you want there's nothing stopping you from doing that.

The addendum is very important and I intend to add it to the OP, Otherwise you are correct.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[Haeso]

I'm still reading and debating a full response for your post Epitaph, but I worry it feels a little too, gamey perhaps? How does the losing side acquire salvage and such, I liked the earlier idea of paying in Battle Value to purchase a salvage vehicle that literally drags a destroyed 'Mech off the field, which could be used by winners or losers.

it's very well thought out though and thought provoking. I like the idea of choosing to go below whatever the maximum BV for an engagement is increasing potential reward in general, be it through salvage or through C-Bill bonuses.

One other thing I'd like to mention, how do you then Divy up between players who gets what? Do you automatically sell everything to split shares evenly? Part of why I kept my salvage method to a per-chassis basis was to keep things simple and obvious as to how it works. It's not the most complex of systems, but that's by design.

[Ran Ito]

Well then with your addendum it sounds like we're pretty much on the same page except you added the simulator mode and I added additional certs for items/modules/weapons.

Coolbeans.

[Epitaph]

Ah, I knew I had forgotten something. I was under the impression that the parties involved would be Merc Corps, which goes under the assumption that there is a corps inventory, and mechs and whatnot are distributed on a per judgement basis decided within the corps, but I guess two corps could bid on or simply divy up what they earn, as agreed upon by the parties involved.

I also think its too gamey, to be honest I came up with the idea quickly (minus the time it took to write)... Personally, I'm all for the hardcore aspect of losing a ton when you lose the mission, but there's gotta be a line drawn so that it doesn't become unfair or unfun. It's also gotta be accessible an appeal to many different kinds of people so some better system would probably be ideal.

Maybe higher corps rank increases how hardcore the distribution is? Higher rank = higher risk/reward?

[Haeso]

That's why I'm saying the salvage portion needs to be balanced by the performance rewards and mission rewards, to keep it from being hardcore. Salvage doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore, it doesn't need to be a net-loss when all things are considered, I think that's important to keeping the game accessible, but having some form of salvage even if it's not your primary income as that isn't practical, will still retain a lot of the feel of the universe that's important to preserve, and gives us a working economy with risk/reward gameplay.

[Thorqemada]

I like the idea of salvaging - but not in a simple "the winner takes it all" fashion.
If you feel you lose and you can retreat organized why not be able to take with you what you have, maybe even some won equipment that was salvaged from the field b4 the retreat?
It should be as much a goal to fight for salvage as to fight for a tactical or strategical win - raids for example to get prototype technology or whatever - you win if you manage to get the salvage and retreat with it.

I like the simulator idea where people can learn, test and practice the game and different scnearios without any penalty but also without much of a reward beside the experience and learning effect.

I would like very different scenarios, campaings where logistic is as urgent as the actuall fight and raids where it is only hit and run.

Players never should be so broke they have to stop fighting but maybe they must do specific dutys, be pilots for rent, whatever to get the money to build up their merc business again...so i guess there should be a pve part in the game where the slaughtered can recover and rebuild.

A PvP game needs people that lose, many of them, motivation for them, some wil ever be the elite and win 80 to 90% of the battles, these people do not pay the games bills, the losers do - keep them happy!

[Cyote13]

Many great points, and yes, salvage should be part of MWO as it was in CBT

But, full loss should only happen if there is a retreat mechanism. If I am leading a Company and my lead Lance gets schwacked I am likely to pull back and call for reinforcements, and or arty but if the battles are very arena like, unless its a 50km x 50km map with room to hide until time expires, they all are in reality death-matches, in which, after I loose that lance, my best hope is really only to take as many of the other guys with me.

and maybe the way is for most matches to be "simulator" matches unless they are conquest..in which case if you walk into an ambush and don't have the reinforcements to make up the loss, you shouldn't of invaded in the first place.

Edited by Cyote13, 30 November 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[Haeso]

Thorqemada, on 30 November 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

I like the idea of salvaging - but not in a simple "the winner takes it all" fashion.
If you feel you lose and you can retreat organized why not be able to take with you what you have, maybe even some won equipment that was salvaged from the field b4 the retreat?
It should be as much a goal to fight for salvage as to fight for a tactical or strategical win - raids for example to get prototype technology or whatever - you win if you manage to get the salvage and retreat with it.

I like the simulator idea where people can learn, test and practice the game and different scnearios without any penalty but also without much of a reward beside the experience and learning effect.

I would like very different scenarios, campaings where logistic is as urgent as the actuall fight and raids where it is only hit and run.

Players never should be so broke they have to stop fighting but maybe they must do specific dutys, be pilots for rent, whatever to get the money to build up their merc business again...so i guess there should be a pve part in the game where the slaughtered can recover and rebuild.

A PvP game needs people that lose, many of them, motivation for them, some wil ever be the elite and win 80 to 90% of the battles, these people do not pay the games bills, the losers do - keep them happy!

I'm all for some sort of salvage vehicle that you have to protect as it drags a 'Mech off field to take home with you.

As far as campaigns and true logistics, I would like that too, and perhaps for Merc V Merc voluntary wars that would work, but for the standard game I think that's asking too much. If that is feasible, I'd love to have it though.

My system would make sure you're never that poor, unless you count using House 'Mechs in exchange for salvage rights unable to play or something. The progression system would be in leveling up your pilot and unlocking Certs/Licenses for more 'Mechs, not the 'Mechs themselves, or it leads to an arms race they've said they're trying to avoid.

Cyote13, on 30 November 2011 - 03:34 PM, said:

Many great point, and yes salvage should be part of MWO as it was in CBT

But, full loss should only happen if there is a retreat mechanism. If I am leading a Company and my lead Lance gets schwacked I am likely to pull back and call for reinforcements, and or arty but if the battles are very arena like, unless its a 50km x 50km map with room to hide until time expires, they all are in reality death-matches, in which after I loose that lance my best hope is really only to take as many of the other guys with me.

and maybe the way is for most matches to be "simupator" matches unless they are conquest..in which case if you walk into an ambush you shouldn't of invaded in the first place.

I fully support retreat as an option, I don't think lethality should ever rise above 50-60% of total combatants unless it's a mission type like search and destroy which is specifically kill everyone, or a single objective attack/defend. Retreating off-map is simple: Unlike other games where you get bombed, minefield, invisible walled in - if you reach the edge and keep going, you simply disappear off-map.

[renegade mitchell]

I think salvage is a bad idea. How about winning side receives c-bills? Player on winning side with most kills receives the most, followed by second most kills, etc...

[Haeso]

Renegade Mitchell, on 30 November 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

I think salvage is a bad idea. How about winning side receives c-bills? Player on winning side with most kills receives the most, followed by second most kills, etc...

Er. Did you read the OP at least? Players on both sides always earn money, enough to almost buy the cheapest of 'Mechs regardless of performance, between that and free 'Mechs that cannot be salvaged in exchange for no salvage rights given to you by the House you fight for (I mean we're already going to have Starter 'Mechs unless we're supposed to start as infantry!).

[renegade mitchell]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

Er. Did you read the OP at least? Players on both sides always earn money, enough to almost buy the cheapest of 'Mechs regardless of performance, between that and free 'Mechs that cannot be salvaged in exchange for no salvage rights given to you by the House you fight for (I mean we're already going to have Starter 'Mechs unless we're supposed to start as infantry!).

I just do not want this to become some MMORPG. Where you hover over a dead mech and decide within a group need, greed, or pass over some salvage.

Edited by Renegade Mitchell, 30 November 2011 - 04:22 PM.

[Epitaph]

MW/BT without salvage is like sandwiches without bread.

[renegade mitchell]

Epitaph, on 30 November 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

MW/BT without salvage is like sandwiches without bread.

Really? From past Mechwarrior games are you speaking about single player or multiplayer? Since MWO is multiplayer I don't understand what you are saying, or maybe you did not understand my post.

[Haeso]

MechWarrior was always primarily Singleplayer. Salvage was part of many incarnations of single player. Tabletop was always intended to be multiplayer, and in non one-off battles, salvage was a huge part of the game. Salvage was also a tremendous part of the canon lore.

[renegade mitchell]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

MechWarrior was always primarily Singleplayer. Salvage was part of many incarnations of single player. Tabletop was always intended to be multiplayer, and in non one-off battles, salvage was a huge part of the game. Salvage was also a tremendous part of the canon lore.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

MechWarrior was always primarily Singleplayer. Salvage was part of many incarnations of single player. Tabletop was always intended to be multiplayer, and in non one-off battles, salvage was a huge part of the game. Salvage was also a tremendous part of the canon lore.

Sounds like to me you never played much online. Mechwarrior was alot more then single player. Leagues sprung from it, creating communities, friendships, and alot of great team combats. Something an AI against a human can never do.

Edited by Renegade Mitchell, 30 November 2011 - 04:57 PM.

[Epitaph]

Indeed, what Haeso said. Salvage is important.

But that's why we are here. To discuss how salvage should work in MWO.

[Haeso]

I'm not saying there wasn't playing online... I played quite a bit of it myself. However the games were developed almost entirely for singleplayer, this is very evident in their designs. Even MW4 was singleplayer first. Mw2 didn't even have native multiplayer. The MechWarrior franchise had multiplayer tacked on, it was never well supported or even a focus.

The vast majority of the multiplayer community for MechWarrior was fan-based, not in-game.