24 replies to this topic

[Mattiator]

I've read a lot of topics on 'Mech destruction as well as salvage, and a lot of them lean very heavily towards either 'Hardcore perma-death mode' or 'No consequences mode'. I did my best to find a harmonious balance between the two.

First off, 'Mech destruction would be handled as such:

- You can NEVER lose your 'Mech through destruction.
- Limbs that are blown off will not be auto-repaired
- 'Mechs destroyed in a game would need to be repaired.
- Intact limbs would be repaired to 50% at the end of a game.
- You can NEVER lose weapons through destruction.
- Unless a 'Mech is fully destroyed, it can be fielded again, of course it would keep whatever damage it accumulated.

So how would repairs work?

- Repairs would cost a certain amount of C-Bills depending on the kind of damage caused, with complete destruction being the most costly. (Also a potential use here for ejection, it would prevent complete destruction, hence lower repair costs). Bigger/more advanced 'Mechs would cost more to repair.
- Repairs would take a certain amount of time, again depending on the level of damage. I'd say around 15-30 minutes for a full destruction (definitely punishing, but not unbearable). Bigger/more advanced 'Mechs would take longer to repair.
- There would be an option to pay (ka-ching!) real money for a full repair instantly.
- A 'Mech must be repaired before it can be modified in the 'Mechlab.

And here's where salvage plays into it all:

- Destroyed enemy 'Mechs would drop, in essence, 'scrap metal'. There'd be a few kinds of scrap, and different 'Mechs would drop different kinds of scrap at different rates.
- You would only get scrap from defeated enemies, not allies.
- At the end of the game, the winning team would split all of their collected scrap as equally as possible.
- The losing team would also get their scrap, but would only get 50% of what they would have gotten had they won. (This is to make winning missions take priority over killing as many enemies as possible for scrap, ignoring objectives)
- Scrap could be sold at a 'market' of sorts to earn C-Bills. Different kinds of scrap would be worth different amounts of C-Bills, and these prices would fluctuate from day to day (Not sure if it should be based on who's buying/selling what scrap, random, or world events). There would be a bit of strategy in deciding when to sell your scrap.
- Each player would have a set amount of storage for their scrap, and would not collect any more when it became full. Players could (ka-ching!) purchase with real money more scrap storage space. This is to prevent hoarding of scrap until the maximum price for resale is hit.
- Players would be able to purchase scrap to resell (hopefully) at a higher price. Allows for a sort of 'investments' system.

Finally, this section is a little more iffy, as it's a bunch of potential uses for scrap that I haven't fully worked out quite yet:
- Using scrap to construct new weaponry, of course requiring decently large amounts of scrap to make even basic weapons.
- Using scrap to 'modify' weapon properties, again requiring large amounts of scrap, for example, adding a special lens to a Large Laser to increase it's damage at longer ranges, at the expense of reducing it's damage at shorter ranges.

Comments are as always appreciated.

[Haeso]

There's no real economy here to balance everything, and it seems this just terms scrap into a second currency rather than an actual item.

With this, unless I'm missing something, everyone eventually has everything and it just begins to inflate, no? Do correct me if I'm wrong. Also I dislike the idea of being able to pay to directly repair a 'Mech with cash, unless the intention is no real economy in which case it's not a big deal.

I will say that I do like ejecting having a purpose, which I'm a strong believer in. I just worry if there's no potential for negative in the economy, why bother ejecting? If the difference between ejecting/not ejecting is saving some C-Bills that you have more than you can spend, versus getting an extra hit in to help your team.. Why?

Edited by Haeso, 02 December 2011 - 01:55 AM.

[Mattiator]

Haeso, on 02 December 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

There's no real economy here to balance everything, and it seems this just terms scrap into a second currency rather than an actual item.

There is an economy, and it is run with C-Bills. The devs have already stated this under the 'Game' section of the site, if I remember correctly. Discussing that economy is out of the scope of this post.

Quote

With this, unless I'm missing something, everyone eventually has everything and it just begins to inflate, no? Do correct me if I'm wrong. Also I dislike the idea of being able to pay to directly repair a 'Mech with cash, unless the intention is no real economy in which case it's not a big deal.

No, I don't think you quite get how the 'scrap economy' works. Selling scrap would (in a system based on player buying and selling of scrap) would reduce the price of scrap, while buying it would increase the price. Since there's a bunch of scrap flooding the market via players blowing eachother up, the prices drop. This is why I offered the alternate of prices that are randomized each day. In terms of being able to directly repair a 'Mech with cash, it's for players who are impatient. Simple enough. If you don't want to pay, wait the 15 minutes or whatnot for your 'Mech to be fixed via paying with C-Bills. Of course, if your 'Mech wasn't fully destroyed, you could use it again and again until it fully goes kablooie.

Quote

I will say that I do like ejecting having a purpose, which I'm a strong believer in. I just worry if there's no potential for negative in the economy, why bother ejecting? If the difference between ejecting/not ejecting is saving some C-Bills that you have more than you can spend, versus getting an extra hit in to help your team.. Why?

Remember, ejecting versus 'sploding also increases the time it takes for you to fix that 'Mech, potentially increasing the the amount of time before you can jump back in to the action. And since repair costs are constant (since your intact limbs are not fully repaired for free between battles) it would take quite a while to hit the point where you have more C-bills than you know what to do with. And then that's where the Dev's plans for new content bi-weekly come in.

[Haeso]

Mattiator, on 02 December 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

There is an economy, and it is run with C-Bills. The devs have already stated this under the 'Game' section of the site, if I remember correctly. Discussing that economy is out of the scope of this post.

Let me rephrase - a working economy. Just because it has a currency doesn't mean the currency means anything was my point, apologies.

Quote

No, I don't think you quite get how the 'scrap economy' works. Selling scrap would (in a system based on player buying and selling of scrap) would reduce the price of scrap, while buying it would increase the price. Since there's a bunch of scrap flooding the market via players blowing eachother up, the prices drop. This is why I offered the alternate of prices that are randomized each day. In terms of being able to directly repair a 'Mech with cash, it's for players who are impatient. Simple enough. If you don't want to pay, wait the 15 minutes or whatnot for your 'Mech to be fixed via paying with C-Bills. Of course, if your 'Mech wasn't fully destroyed, you could use it again and again until it fully goes kablooie.

But the only loss at all isn't real loss, it's

"Repairs would cost a certain amount of C-Bills depending on the kind of damage caused, with complete destruction being the most costly. (Also a potential use here for ejection, it would prevent complete destruction, hence lower repair costs). Bigger/more advanced 'Mechs would cost more to repair."

Unless you're proposing repairs can cost more than the cost of a new 'Mech/what you earn in a match potentially, there's going to be massive inflation. Scrap is irrelevant, once you have everything scrap does nothing. Unlike C-Bills which continue to be potentially relevant depending on C-Bill gain/cost of repairs.

Quote

Remember, ejecting versus 'sploding also increases the time it takes for you to fix that 'Mech, potentially increasing the the amount of time before you can jump back in to the action. And since repair costs are constant (since your intact limbs are not fully repaired for free between battles) it would take quite a while to hit the point where you have more C-bills than you know what to do with. And then that's where the Dev's plans for new content bi-weekly come in.

Time is irrelevant, have 2-3 of the 'Mechs you wish to use and cycle between them. Unless the time amount was truly frightening, it's almost irrelevant. Or there's some equilibrium between garage size and repair times where repair time = Garage size x match round time average +X, so if you keep blowing up rather than ejecting you cannot keep playing.

I think there's a problem with assuming the cost of repairing will be higher then the amount you earn, I seriously doubt that. That leads to a net loss for people that play poorly. Do you have something in mind for those that cannot break even? And if it's not possible to go negative, again it leads to massive inflation.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas mind you, as long as there's risk/reward and a working economy I'm happy with any model of salvage, I'd prefer full 'Mech salvage but it's not strictly necessary. To have a proper risk/reward and working economy.

Edited by Haeso, 02 December 2011 - 02:17 AM.

[Schnuffs]

I like most, but I do have a few things too say ...errr type. Also your scrap is now salvage.

(Also a potential use here for ejection, it would prevent complete destruction, hence lower repair costs) I think instead of it not being completely destroyed it is. What I mean is instead of having lower repair cost from ejecting being the reason too eject, I think instead if you don't eject you have to wait even longer too be able to play. You said from 10 - 30 min (depending on size of mech) for a total repair, if you don't eject double it. Ejecting should be easy, just press the eject button before your mech goes boom preferably right before you know your completly screwed. If you eject your mech's status is saved, I mean when you eject and the game ends your mech repair is only needed for the amount of damage it took right before you ejected.

- At the end of the game, the winning team would split all of their collected salvage as equally as possible.
- The losing team would also get their salvage, but would only get 50% of what they would have gotten had they won. (This is to make winning missions take priority over killing as many enemies as possible for salvage, ignoring objectives)

I like and don't like, first the losing team should get nothing, since they are the losing team they should be happy they get too keep their mechs, second a point system should be made so that objectives and teamwork always beat the kill board so that keeps ppl from going rambo and stick to what they are too be doing. Even if it is a deathmatch coop with your team should always garner more points.

Haeso was right about the salvage system you have, as it sits it is only a secondary money system and will eventually inflate the market (if there is a market, currently unknown as what it will actually be), but I do like the using salvage for upgrades idea and it does kinda fit in as salvage.

I propose a new idea to the salvage, instead of it being a different source of income just keep it as an upgrade item, you can't sell it only give it away and when you make something with it it will also cost a certain amount of c-bills depending on the size of the item or upgrade you wish too make.

The salvage idea also works with an idea I have. But again from now on lets change the name of scrap too salvage (for the namesake >.>)
My idea is too have a mech degrading system implemented. This system is too reflect real time wear and tear of your mech when it is being stored. This system degrades your mechs overall quality over time whether your playing or not. The degrading of it means it will be as if it has taken damage without any of it actually showing on the mech itself (I mean in battle you can get scars and burn marks, but not from this system), there will be a basic health bar like this (100%), the time it takes to degrade 1 realtime hour your mech takes only (.01%) damage. Not much I know, but over time ...a long long time your mechs overall quality can degrade too a max of (75%). I know that's alot but it is needed for my idea.

Too repair your mech from the degrading system (not damage taken from battle) you need salvage, with the salvage you can repair your mechs degrade and depending on how degraded it is depends on how much salvage it takes to fix and also how many c-bills it will need with that.

The degrade system works on the same line as battle damage but at the same time is different. What I mean is you can't repair degrade damage with repair from battle, you can repair from battle with scrap to a max of 100%, but without scrap you can only repair up too what your degrade percent was before battle. If your degrade was at say 98% when you went to battle and came back at 67% you could only use c-bills with no salvage to repair your mech back up to 98%.

This whole system gives you a reason to watch and maintain your mechs, also a reason for trade with friends and clan members, gives more immersion to the game before and after battle, keeps you needing to battle and win and also its just seems right from a who wants a real Mechwarrior/Battletech experience (but that's my opinion).

This gives salvage a great reason too be ingame and also keeps it from becoming a hazard to market inflation.

[Mattiator]

It's clear to me you have a good grasp of what you're looking for in the game, and I don't claim to have the magic cure-all here. But I'm enjoying this quite a bit. It's good to find someone intelligent on the internet. And you do raise a few good points. I'm assuming that there will be an infinite amount of weapons and 'Mechs available, with a fixed price not based on demand, since I can't see any other method working in the slightest.

Quote

Unless you're proposing repairs can cost more than the cost of a new 'Mech/what you earn in a match potentially, there's going to be massive inflation. Scrap is irrelevant, once you have everything scrap does nothing. Unlike C-Bills which continue to be potentially relevant depending on C-Bill gain/cost of repairs.

Yes, you are correct that scrap would do basically nothing once you have everything, except give you more C-Bills. I don't think that players who are poor at the game should not be able to advance (Which is what would happen if repair costs > income), they should simply advance slower, which is why I think the biggest factor for repairs should not be C-Bills, but time. I also agree that the time should be more than the '15-30 minutes' I stated in the OP, since according to the devs matches last about that long. Essentially, I was aiming for the idea that if you have a few 'Mechs, but suck at the game, you're going to be forced to stop playing unless you decide to pay. Essentially, you're being forced to get better at the game if you want to keep playing more often.

Quote

I think there's a problem with assuming the cost of repairing will be higher then the amount you earn, I seriously doubt that. That leads to a net loss for people that play poorly. Do you have something in mind for those that cannot break even? And if it's not possible to go negative, again it leads to massive inflation.

I'll admit I didn't answer this. My original idea was that it would be very difficult to go into the negatives, since that would be a huge turn-off for rookie players. If going into the negatives is truly desired, I'd think selling off weapons and extra 'Mechs to remain playing would be an option. When one is down to nothing, I'd assume the game would treat them as if they were starting over, or something like that. I'm still not sure how anything results in 'Massive Inflation' as you have mentioned a few times. The more players playing the game, the more money there is in the system, theoretically reducing the value of said money, I'm assuming?

Also, one final point I'd like to make about the scrap as a threat to market prices: The way I'm seeing it, just like in the games, the majority of a player's income would be through the sale of salvage as opposed to money for completing objectives and whatnot, especially if we're mercenaries. This results in a cycle as follows:

'Mech used in combat, gain salvage as a result -> damaged 'Mech needs C-bills to repair -> salvage sold for C-Bills -> 'Mech repaired, player makes a little extra money when balancing repair cost vs. salvage sales-> Extra C-bills spent on new 'Mechs, weapons, etc. -> Return to step 1.

[Haeso]

Schnuffs, on 02 December 2011 - 02:33 AM, said:

Post

For brevity - When opening the thread thought scrap would be what is used to repair 'Mechs, a system using both C-Bills and scrap or salvage is what I was thinking. Keeps both relevant.

Mattiator, on 02 December 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:

It's clear to me you have a good grasp of what you're looking for in the game, and I don't claim to have the magic cure-all here. But I'm enjoying this quite a bit. It's good to find someone intelligent on the internet. And you do raise a few good points. I'm assuming that there will be an infinite amount of weapons and 'Mechs available, with a fixed price not based on demand, since I can't see any other method working in the slightest.

The way I'm hoping it works is simple enough: Depending on the quality of the 'Mech you're using, you would on average gain or lose money. Every weight class has expensive models and cheap models already in TT. A good example is the Urbanmech versus the Raven.

In one corner we've Ol' Reliable Urbie weighing in at 30 tons, 1.5 mil C-Bills and 504 BV. In the other Corner we've got the Electronics Warfare staple the Raven, at 35 tons the Raven will set you back 5.7 mil C-Bills and 710 BV. Almost four times more in the same weight class.

So if you play in an Urbanmech you would on average gain more than you lose each mission, but if you play in a raven, you'll probably lose some money. So you'd either play primarily in Standard 'Mechs which are about even with cost/gain, or switch between cheap/expensive. But I digress, hopefully it paints how it could work otherwise, back to how your idea here works.

Likewise by the way, good to have a proper debate and dialog. No idea is perfect, but it's definitely a start, something like this I could see working. Perhaps not my preferred method, but it would work with some reiterations of design. More than many suggestions on these forums.

Quote

Yes, you are correct that scrap would do basically nothing once you have everything, except give you more C-Bills. I don't think that players who are poor at the game should not be able to advance (Which is what would happen if repair costs > income), they should simply advance slower, which is why I think the biggest factor for repairs should not be C-Bills, but time. I also agree that the time should be more than the '15-30 minutes' I stated in the OP, since according to the devs matches last about that long. Essentially, I was aiming for the idea that if you have a few 'Mechs, but suck at the game, you're going to be forced to stop playing unless you decide to pay. Essentially, you're being forced to get better at the game if you want to keep playing more often.

Consider what the above poster suggested and I originally thought, Scrap being used for repairs in addition to C-Bills - perhaps in a two tiered repair system or just requires both for every repair.

Quote

I'll admit I didn't answer this. My original idea was that it would be very difficult to go into the negatives, since that would be a huge turn-off for rookie players. If going into the negatives is truly desired, I'd think selling off weapons and extra 'Mechs to remain playing would be an option. When one is down to nothing, I'd assume the game would treat them as if they were starting over, or something like that. I'm still not sure how anything results in 'Massive Inflation' as you have mentioned a few times. The more players playing the game, the more money there is in the system, theoretically reducing the value of said money, I'm assuming?

I'm hoping for how you choose to play dictating whether or not you gain or lose money, not just how well you play. If you play flawlessly you'll probably make money in an expensive 'Mech, but even if you play poorly and use a cheap 'Mech you should earn money.

Also, keep in mind the starter 'Mechs, in addition to what I was thinking for my thread, I also made the assumptions that the free starter 'Mechs would be infinite in supply, perhaps you take a penalty to your earnings for using them, but you've always got something to play in. Maybe you can't customize it, or any customization is lost when it's lost, etc. But it's better than nothing.

Quote

Also, one final point I'd like to make about the scrap as a threat to market prices: The way I'm seeing it, just like in the games, the majority of a player's income would be through the sale of salvage as opposed to money for completing objectives and whatnot, especially if we're mercenaries. This results in a cycle as follows:

'Mech used in combat, gain salvage as a result -> damaged 'Mech needs C-bills to repair -> salvage sold for C-Bills -> 'Mech repaired, player makes a little extra money when balancing repair cost vs. salvage sales-> Extra C-bills spent on new 'Mechs, weapons, etc. -> Return to step 1.

I really hope we can avoid an ultimately inflating economy since I don't think it'll work in Battletech, my primary problem with it is, I'm guessing you're comparing to a standard MMORPG or something market right? Where every X months/years the game goes through an expansion upheaval with new standards/earning rates and expenses.

Whereas in battletech, once people get to that point, there's nowhere to go from there, the game would effectively run out of things to work towards, does that make sense? Because unlike other games with economies that "Reset" if you will, there's only one ever new influx of 'Mechs, the clan invasion. After that progress is tiny and gradual, new 'Mechs are exceedingly rare. That's why I hope there's an economy, because unlike League of Legends without an economy where they keep making new champs, or an MMO whose economy resets - they can't keep adding on like that. They can add on in other areas, and those areas are where I think money should be flowing into so that they can continually add more, unlike 'Mechs which are very finite.

Edited by Haeso, 02 December 2011 - 04:01 AM.

[Red Beard]

I am going to venture a few thoughts here.

Salvage will only function "in-battle". If you run over, thereby "claiming" a pile of salvage, it automatically repairs your mech, RIGHT THERE. I know a lot of players might not like that idea, being a bit too arcadey for some, but I have heard the devs mention this. Russ Bullock made mention that they would like to implement a repair system that explains repairs taking place "in-battle". Canon or not, it makes more sense to me than anything else. Just my opinion.

I also disagree, rather strongly, with the idea of having ANY amount of down time in between matches. First and foremost, this is a video game, and the there is an inherent need to keep the action rolling. Repairs, if they are actually going to incorporate "repairs", should be made instantly before going to the next match. Any downtime, in my opinion, is just a detractor from playing the game, and serves to make a game of this scale too complicated. I do think that having to give up some c-bills to get your custom mech back to it's original glory is fair.

In essence, I don't see any real positives from having players retain salvage after a match. It should serve only to repair mechs on the spot. This is only my opinion, and I have been wrong before, but the whole idea of having salvage be this integrated is making things a tad more complex than I believe the devs want to make it. Matches need to have the ability to roll one to another if the players are able. Even if a player is the worst on his team, he should never be penalized with added repair costs, losing his mech, or any amount of downtime.

The real thing worth fighting for are c-bills, and ABOVE c-bills, experience points.

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

I am going to venture a few thoughts here.

Salvage will only function "in-battle". If you run over, thereby "claiming" a pile of salvage, it automatically repairs your mech, RIGHT THERE. I know a lot of players might not like that idea, being a bit too arcadey for some, but I have heard the devs mention this. Russ Bullock made mention that they would like to implement a repair system that explains repairs taking place "in-battle". Canon or not, it makes more sense to me than anything else. Just my opinion.

It doesn't make sense at all. If I had to compare how much it made sense, I would have to use a negative scale. Because it is the opposite of making sense. We get it, you like MechAssault. But no matter how much you like MechAssault, it doesn't change that this isn't going to be MechAssault for PCs. It's not going to be Battletech Online either, but lets be reasonable here.

Quote

I also disagree, rather strongly, with the idea of having ANY amount of down time in between matches. First and foremost, this is a video game, and the there is an inherent need to keep the action rolling. Repairs, if they are actually going to incorporate "repairs", should be made instantly before going to the next match. Any downtime, in my opinion, is just a detractor from playing the game, and serves to make a game of this scale too complicated. I do think that having to give up some c-bills to get your custom mech back to it's original glory is fair.

Not a single salvage thread is proposing you be unable to play barring extreme circumstances, I think most would let you use some sort of Loaner.

Quote

In essence, I don't see any real positives from having players retain salvage after a match. It should serve only to repair mechs on the spot. This is only my opinion, and I have been wrong before, but the whole idea of having salvage be this integrated is making things a tad more complex than I believe the devs want to make it. Matches need to have the ability to roll one to another if the players are able. Even if a player is the worst on his team, he should never be penalized with added repair costs, losing his mech, or any amount of downtime.

Don't look at it like a penalty, that's the wrong way to go about it. Look at like less rewarding. And there's little complex on the user end about this, I'm seeing less than 10 mouse clicks between rounds right now.

[Agasutin]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

I am going to venture a few thoughts here.

Salvage will only function "in-battle". If you run over, thereby "claiming" a pile of salvage, it automatically repairs your mech, RIGHT THERE.

Credit to Wanderer for the stock image.

[Red Beard]

Haeso, on 02 December 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

It doesn't make sense at all. If I had to compare how much it made sense, I would have to use a negative scale.

Well, then maybe you should tell Jordan Weisman and Russ Bullock how much their ideas don't make sense. If you have a look at the 2009 interview with IGN...

Jordan Weisman was quoted as saying this:

Quote

Something that we've discussed is maybe there's an opportunity to do something along the lines of the R2 moment within the Death Star trench run, where Luke says, "Patch up what you can, R2!" There's an opportunity to try to look for small automated repair techniques that we can employ

Also this:

Quote

we think there are opportunities to balance use of power, use of coolant, or removing yourself from the engagement for a moment that would allow you to do some measure of repair in-mission.

Did you catch the "in-mission" part, and the "balance of power" part?

If you dig a bit deeper, you find Russ Bullock's comments tend to beck up my post with his words:

Quote

Salvage will take on more of a real meaning in the game, right down to a rudimentary level of "keep getting enough parts to keep fighting" rather than "I have another six chassis in my inventory to just throw on the market."

To me, these comments lean more to the idea of using whatever salvage you can get during a battle to do some kind of repairs "in-game", and not to the idea of keeping or hording the salvage. While I suspect that repairs will not be instant, they will be done during the battle, in some fashion or another. Still think my words don't make sense?

Quote

We get it, you like MechAssault.

I LOVE MechAssault! And who is "we". Are you aware that MA has an incredibly HUGE fan base. The posture of your words suggests that you think I am the lone MA fan on this site.

Quote

Don't look at it like a penalty, that's the wrong way to go about it.

There is NO other way to view it. Any down time or c-bill cost is a penalty, bottom line. Players should not be penalized for not winning. Winners should, however, reap the rewards for a victory. This is just a video game, not real life.


For your reading pleasure, I have included a link to the entire 2009 interview. I think you will find it rather intriguing, and informative.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1002294p1.html

By all means, I am ready to see myself proven wrong, here, but I think MOST of the ideas that have come out of these "salvage" threads are just wishful thinking. Salvage will be a much more simplified aspect of this game.

[Red Beard]

Agasutin, on 02 December 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

Credit to Wanderer for the stock image.

Not bad, not bad at all. I hope I get to steal the hat when I pick up the glowing pile of scrap.

[Red Beard]

Are those crickets I hear chirping in the background.

[Agasutin]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

Are those crickets I hear chirping in the background.

No, it's the sound of a ticking post count...

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:

Well, then maybe you should tell Jordan Weisman and Russ Bullock how much their ideas don't make sense. If you have a look at the 2009 interview with IGN...

Ok.

"The BattleTech Line Developer, Herbert A. Beas II, has since explicitly refuted the existence of such a mystical ability, expressly stating in an official verdict^[1] on the CBT Forum that "Magic" is among "Other things not BattleTech". He elaborated by saying that while some strange events happened in established canon, "most of these can be played off as near-death experiences and hallucinations".

The original thread is 404'd or I'd link that.

Magic is not battletech. Walking over the remains of 'Mechs that have turned various colors is magic. Which is why MechAssault is considered one the same level of canonicity as say, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Critter-TEK or, a joke if you will.

Quote

Also this:


Did you catch the "in-mission" part, and the "balance of power" part?

Seeing as you've forgotten there's more than MechAssault in universe, let me go ahead and remind you of Repair Bays.

Quote

If you dig a bit deeper, you find Russ Bullock's comments tend to beck up my post with his words:


To me, these comments lean more to the idea of using whatever salvage you can get during a battle to do some kind of repairs "in-game", and not to the idea of keeping or hording the salvage. While I suspect that repairs will not be instant, they will be done during the battle, in some fashion or another. Still think my words don't make sense?

Your interpretation of a vague statement is different from what someone else sees. Most will see that as repairing between matches requiring more than just C-Bills.

Quote

I LOVE MechAssault! And who is "we". Are you aware that MA has an incredibly HUGE fan base. The posture of your words suggests that you think I am the lone MA fan on this site.

You're one of the very few. By fans of the universe other than MechAssault, it's largely panned. Not just battletech fans, even most MW4 players consider it an abomination. Some, even many, may consider it fun, but it's not battletech.

Quote

There is NO other way to view it. Any down time or c-bill cost is a penalty, bottom line. Players should not be penalized for not winning. Winners should, however, reap the rewards for a victory. This is just a video game, not real life.

Just like there's no other way to view those quotes? Almost everything in life is subjective, this is no different.

Quote

For your reading pleasure, I have included a link to the entire 2009 interview. I think you will find it rather intriguing, and informative.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1002294p1.html

Quote

I grew up playing the pen-and-paper game;

Give a clever person someone with enough written/recorded words and they'll find anything to support an argument for any side of a debate that's relevant to the person. I didn't even have to look on another page, because I'd already read the interview.

Quoting only the portions of what they say that appear to support your view, is kind of silly my friend.

[Red Beard]

Haeso, on 02 December 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

"The BattleTech Line Developer, Herbert A. Beas II, has since explicitly refuted the existence of such a mystical ability, expressly stating in an official verdict^[1] on the CBT Forum that "Magic" is among "Other things not BattleTech". He elaborated by saying that while some strange events happened in established canon, "most of these can be played off as near-death experiences and hallucinations".

Magic is not battletech. Walking over the remains of 'Mechs that have turned various colors is magic. Which is why MechAssault is considered one the same level of canonicity as say, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Critter-TEK or, a joke if you will.

So much of a joke that 3.5 million people bought it. Look, I don't care who considers MA a viable BT game or not, this is NOT about MA, but about the concept of salvage. My point was not to attempt to suggest a MA clone. That whole portion of this discussion appears to be an expression of your own paranoia. If you recall, you brought MA into this discussion.

Quote

Seeing as you've forgotten there's more than MechAssault in universe, let me go ahead and remind you of Repair Bays.

A convenient assumption on your part. I have played MW2 and 3. Meh. Not my cup of tea, but that's just me.

Quote

Most will see that as repairing between matches requiring more than just C-Bills.

You're the one being vague here. I found Russ and Jordan's words to be quite concise. Honestly, it is starting to seem like you are grasping at straws after realizing that your whole premise of salvage is mostly wrong. They mentioned that they do not want to create a market for salvage and that salvage can be used in-mission to repair your mech, in one fashion or anoher. I can't see how you find that vague, other than if you are angry at being wrong. Repair bays? Maybe, but I think that they would have mentioned that in the interview if they had that in mind. I see something new and different coming down the pipe.

Quote

You're one of the very few. By fans of the universe other than MechAssault, it's largely panned. Not just battletech fans, even most MW4 players consider it an abomination.

That's true, most BT purists don't like it at all. I would say that there is also a great deal of animosity toward it for simply being a console game that was handled by MS. Had it been on the PC and released by a lesser known publisher, it would have been received differently. That's just my opinion. You can have your opinion, but the truth is, we will never know. By the way, have you actually played MA? If not, you are speaking WAY out of turn.

Quote

Just like there's no other way to view those quotes? Almost everything in life is subjective, this is no different.

Basically, all I get from what you say here is that you are going to warp ANYONE'S comments into whatever you want, as opposed to taking their words at face value. That's dangerous ground, please believe me.

Quote

because I'd already read the interview.

You will have to pardon my skepticism.

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

So much of a joke that 3.5 million people bought it. Look, I don't care who considers MA a viable BT game or not, this is NOT about MA, but about the concept of salvage. My point was not to attempt to suggest a MA clone. That whole portion of this discussion appears to be an expression of your own paranoia. If you recall, you brought MA into this discussion.

Quote

If you run over, thereby "claiming" a pile of salvage, it automatically repairs your mech, RIGHT THERE

That's decidedly bringing up MechAssault to me.

Quote

A convenient assumption on your part. I have played MW2 and 3. Meh. Not my cup of tea, but that's just me.

I didn't assume you didn't play them, I pointed out you're deliberately using the non-existence of any other way to repair mid-battle to mean that his quote must have been something akin to MechAssault's mid battle repair.

Quote

I found

I'll just leave that here. Your interpretations are always going to be different from the majority because you see what you want to see, you want to see more MechAssault because as you said, you LOVE it.

Quote

That's true, most BT purists don't like it at all. I would say that there is also a great deal of animosity toward it for simply being a console game that was handled by MS. Had it been on the PC and released by a lesser known publisher, it would have been received differently. That's just my opinion. You can have your opinion, but the truth is, we will never know. By the way, have you actually played MA? If not, you are speaking WAY out of turn.

No, most MW players, almost all BT players, not just purists of either, largely pan the game. Farmville is popular too, should we be able to plant and grow crops inside our 'Mechs while repairing from green piles of scrap? Maybe use destroyed 'Mechs as fertilizer!

And yes, I played it quite a bit, I'm of a mind it was moderately entertaining for what it was, which is to say, not Mechwarrior and not Battletech. It has no place in this universe, it was a joke Weissman played on all of us fans while he lined his pockets with cash. It made Dark Age novels look like quality additions to the universe. It made Protomechs and LAMs look like good ideas.

Quote

Basically, all I get from what you say here is that you are going to warp ANYONE'S comments into whatever you want, as opposed to taking their words at face value. That's dangerous ground, please believe me.

No, what I'm saying is anyone, including you, could do it. Quoting only things that support your view, when they've said many things that do not support your view, is very easy. So easy a caveman could do it!

I'm going to go back to discussing the original suggestion, if you'd like to talk more about how you think this is the second coming of MechAssault with magic healing, I'll be happy to reply in tells rather than clutter the good man's thread.

Edited by Haeso, 02 December 2011 - 09:40 AM.

[Red Beard]

Since you missed this part, I will re-quote it.

Quote

for a moment that would allow you to do some measure of repair in-mission.

That would not indicate a subjective reference to your thoughts that...

Quote

Most will see that as repairing between matches requiring more than just C-Bills.

Again, as I have stated, I think your wishful thinking has run away with your good sense.

Between matches and in-mission are two totally different things. There is not much room for subjective thought or interpretation there.

[Agasutin]

Haeso, on 02 December 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

No, what I'm saying is anyone, including you, could do it. Quoting only things that support your view, when they've said many things that do not support your view, is very easy. So easy a caveman could do it!

What is that supposed to mean... that is really condescending... I'm offended...

[Haeso]

Red Beard, on 02 December 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

Since you missed this part, I will re-quote it.



That would not indicate a subjective reference to your thoughts that...



Again, as I have stated, I think your wishful thinking has run away with your good sense.

Between matches and in-mission are two totally different things. There is not much room for subjective thought or interpretation there.

Sigh, that was in reference to a different quote than repairing mid match, repairing mid match is easily explained by the ever present repair bays in.. Every Mechwarrior iteration.

Quote

we think there are opportunities to balance use of power, use of coolant, or removing yourself from the engagement for a moment that would allow you to do some measure of repair in-mission.

Repair in mission. No mention of salvage.

Quote

Salvage will take on more of a real meaning in the game, right down to a rudimentary level of "keep getting enough parts to keep fighting" rather than "I have another six chassis in my inventory to just throw on the market."

No mention of in-mission.

Don't try and mix and match my own words to make it seem as if I've said something else. And don't try to misrepresent them either. Your disingenuous posting has gone far enough in derailing Matt's thread, I won't reply further.