92 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

May this thread rest in peace.

[Haeso]

Captain Hat, on 09 December 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

Haeso, couple of points:

1- regarding players only having one 'mech.

Look at any other game with an economy. It is really, really not uncommon for a player in most of these games to sell all of their things to buy the next tier of thing: I know people who, if they thought they could afford it, would probably sell an entire MechBay full of mediums and heavies to buy one Assault 'mech. This does happen in other games: It will probably happen here. Hell, it happens in EVE even, that people will sell everything to buy something slightly better than their best current thing.

'Mechs shouldn't function in tiers, they've mentioned role warfare, why would assaults cost significantly more if they're only equally as useful as the other roles? That would be foolish. Almost as foolish as the old MW4: Assault or go home. And I'll tell you what, in the middle of a city where speed and agility are hamstrung by terrain, assaults are only going to get better at combat relatively speaking, a light can get close, but it can't dodge. Whereas with the open MW4, if you got close (which was very hard to be fair) you could at least dodge. Not so much with a city street and buildings on each side.

Not to mention it's just stupid to sell everything to buy one thing in a game with loss. Plus there's the fact there would be loaned 'Mechs for those that have nothing left.

Quote

2- Look at how many battles you are likely to be fighting.

I know people don't like it when World of Tanks is brought up, but 15-20 minute battle times are roughly what we're expecting in MWO as well so the analogy here is good: I have played over 80 games of WoT in one day before. Probably over 100, as most of them actually finish in less than 10 minutes and I didn't always survive to the end anyway. According to my average stats, I lost my tank something like 80% of the time (I tend to play light and medium tanks, and life for scouts in WoT is short and brutal) and lost the game just under 50% of the time, which means that according to your model, assuming I I realised 50% of the time that I was in an unwinnable situation and managed to surrender, I would have had to rely on the kindness of strangers, at a conservative estimate, at least 15 times during the course of the day, with 15 players in the opposing team each time. That's 225 strangers I would have had to negotiate with or just plain trust not to have the means and the will to take my tanks away from me.

You wouldn't have to rely on them at all, I don't even think ransoming is entirely important. it's altogether an extra feature I could do with or without. Not to mention there's as I've said numerous times no negotions or trust going on, you expect to lose your 'Mech when you die in it and lose the fight. If they happen to offer it for ransom, you got lucky, it shouldn't be considered the norm. I'm not advocating ransoming as a feature that allows you to keep your 'Mech if you want it. I've never suggested anything like that, you've just looks like assumed that.

If you're dying 80% of the time in a game where death actually matters, you've done something horribly wrong. People would play very differently if repairs weren't so cheap in WoT. Furthermore, with salvage every time you win, plus mission payouts even at 80% death-rate you could still very well be breaking even if not making money depending on how they balance the system.

Quote

Even if less than 1% of players were feeling dickish that day (and you and I both know the percentage is much higher than that) I would have lost 2 tanks that day, and odds are they would have been the more expensive ones. Except that I probably wouldn't, largely because I would have had to spend more time convincing people not to essentially steal my stuff and less time on the part that's actually fun- i.e. the game itself. If we consider a more realistic (but still low) proportion of about 10%, then I would have lost all fifteen tanks. In one day.

It's not being a dick, it's making a calculated decision. Again you're creating a strawman and arguing against something I've never said would happen, and trying to turn ransoming into something it was never intended to be. If you want to explain why what I've never argued for is a bad idea, you might as well have this discussion by yourself.

There's nothing even remotely similar to theft going on here, you risk your 'Mech when you enter the field in exchange for the ability to acquire their 'Mechs when you win in addition to the mission payouts. It wouldn't be much of a risk if you got to keep it every time.

Quote

You have to understand that you're not just trusting one guy not to be a **** each time, you're trusting (assuming combat is done according to the Lance system) anywhere from four to sixteen people (more if they have bigger games). A 16-player game would only require 6% of players to want your 'mech for it to be a virtual certainty that surrender would mean 'mech loss.

Again this strawman about trust and more useless information arguing against something I'm not even for. I don't understand your need to continually attack an argument that I never made.

Quote

As a game model, this doesn't work. Having a mechanism in place to reward players for forcing an enemy to surrender is fine- a good idea in fact, because it removes virtually at a stroke the stigma attached to ragequitting- but it should also encourage players to surrender, and reduce the loss incurred by doing so, not increase it.

Nobody said the loss would be increased by surrender. If you lose, you lose. If you lose and you've already died, you lose and you don't get your 'Mech back. The game would not care whether you surrendered or lost through all objectives, or whatever else.

It seems to me like you think surrendering automatically puts your 'Mech up for ransom, rather than retreating off the field, I've said several times to that effect but let me make it clear: By surrender I mean retreat, you keep your 'Mech if you're still in it when you surrender.

Quote

Yes, war is hell. But that's the point- this isn't war, this is a game about war. Hell is fundamentally not fun, and this at the end of the day should be a fun game to play, regardless of the lines it has to stomp on to do it. An automatic ransom is, relatively, an extremely small line to finagle, and avoids a whole host of other problems that any other system would introduce..

An automatic ransom removes the loss and turns it into "Repair with a different name". What exactly is the reason these people would always offer to ransom back your 'Mech? The kindness of their heart? More magic?

Even if there was no ransom feature, the game still isn't necessarily zero sum or less than zero sum. It doesn't matter how many 'Mechs you've lost if the economy is balanced. 50% win rate, 'Mech costs 5 mil. Mission payout is 3 mil, salvaged enemies 'Mechs sell for 3 mil. There you go, even with a 100% death rate you're now making money with a 50% win rate. Hopefully this illustrates the point that hasn't gotten across. Zero sum or less than zero sum is not necessary with 'Mech loss, 'Mech loss doesn't even need to be intrinsically punishing if you didn't want it to be (I lean towards it should be).

Throw in the ability to 'save' variants so that you can quickly replace and refit a 'Mech to your old one's specs assuming you have the money, and there you go. Positive economy. Throw in the different expenses, going back to the Urbie Vs Raven - 1.5 mil vs 5.7 mil. They're both light 'Mechs, one's almost four times more expensive. Make the prices and economy work out so that using say an Urbie, you pretty much always make money. But if you use a Raven, you're likely to lose money unless you maintain a low death rate. And then on top of that reward participation rather than just win/loss, make the majority of that mission end bonus performance based so they can't just hang out back in safety and still make money in that expensive 'Mech.

Plenty of ways to do it, and this irrational fear of it so many people seem to have is baffling.

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 04:33 PM.

[Brakkyn]

BattleTech canon is the foundation upon which all MechWarrior games should be built. Conversely, basis in canon and what can actually be done in the game do not translate 100%, and therefore, adaptations must be made.

[Red Beard]

Brakkyn, on 09 December 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

BattleTech canon is the foundation upon which all MechWarrior games should be built. Conversely, basis in canon and what can actually be done in the game do not translate 100%, and therefore, adaptations must be made.

No.

[Dlardrageth]

Red Beard, on 09 December 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

No.

I agree, let's build all MechWarrior games on the foundation of "My Little Pony" instead of BattleTech. Makes so much more sense, right? You happy now? Or would you like "Hello Kitty" as foundation rather?

And yes, let me support your point further by saying what a terrible, terrible idea it is that someone could even imagine MW games being based on BT. One could as well claim something equally ridiculous like cars requiring as a foundation a wheel. Silly idea...

*/irony*

[Red Beard]

I prefer Hello Kitty. My Little Pony makes me want to vomit, a little. MW:O should use sound VIDEO GAMING principles at it's base.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

With of course no reference to it's inconvenient origins because they don't fit in with your prefered method of play?

[Red Beard]

What ever that means.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It means that everytime anyone refers to Battletech you throw a wobbly and refer to the great g o d VIDEO GAME - whatever that means.

[Red Beard]

BT is the origin, yes. I don't think that it has to be the BASIS for the new game, or at least not the RULES of BT. Perhaps we are missing each other here simply because we define "basis" a bit differently. I would prefer this game to be a video game first, and a BT iteration second. If any portion of this game seems as though it is BT trying to be stuffed into a simulation, than I see that as a shortcoming. While I think I can see where you are coming from, please understand that I am a video gamer first, and a BT fan second. I fully realize that some here are not that.

PS-What's a "wobbly"?

Edited by Red Beard, 11 December 2011 - 11:56 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

And agree to differ.
"wobbly" is UK for hissy fit - apologies

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 11 December 2011 - 11:59 AM.

[Red Beard]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 December 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

And agree to differ.
"wobbly" is UK for hissy fit - apologies

Agreed.

"Hissy fit" doesn't get used enough. I like that one. I am going to have to put that into my rotation of "hateful insults" and "venomous retorts".

[Raeven]

Red Beard, on 11 December 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

BT is the origin, yes. I don't think that it has to be the BASIS for the new game, or at least not the RULES of BT. Perhaps we are missing each other here simply because we define "basis" a bit differently. I would prefer this game to be a video game first, and a BT iteration second. If any portion of this game seems as though it is BT trying to be stuffed into a simulation, than I see that as a shortcoming. While I think I can see where you are coming from, please understand that I am a video gamer first, and a BT fan second. I fully realize that some here are not that.

PS-What's a "wobbly"?

For all of you who want funky but "realistic" weapon physics, 'Mechs, fast paced combat, and don't care about the rules that make up the structure that is Mechwarrior, Hawken looks very exciting and more in line with your avenue of standards.

[Mchawkeye]

Raeven, on 11 December 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

For all of you who want funky but "realistic" weapon physics, 'Mechs, fast paced combat, and don't care about the rules that make up the structure that is Mechwarrior, Hawken looks very exciting and more in line with your avenue of standards.

I like the look of hawken, but I suspect it's a little to arcady.

There is no reason that the sim I want, face paced, realistic but 'funky' weapons with all the battle tech trappings within a bracket of decent game balance is still well within my standards and the likely hood of MWO, thank you very much.

[verybad]

Raeven, on 11 December 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

For all of you who want funky but "realistic" weapon physics, 'Mechs, fast paced combat, and don't care about the rules that make up the structure that is Mechwarrior, Hawken looks very exciting and more in line with your avenue of standards.

Battletech itself defines itself as a boardgame based on weaposn that have much longer ranges (in many cases to the horizon and beyond). Armor that performs in a way that is friendly to a boardgame, and an overall ssytem that is compromized in many ways in order to be a better boardgame.

All Redbeard is asking is that the game be designed with the limitations of videogames, not of dicebased boardgames being the defining structure.

After all, we all can agree that actual battletech weapons might not be limited to firing once per 10 seconds, or that actual battletech lasers might not fade out after say 270 meters right?

The boardgame is a simulation of battletech combat usinf pencil, paper, and dice. Videogames don't need to be limited in the same ways. I think the underlying fiction of the game needs to be preserved as it is what makes the game special. Not the base rules and statistics of the game. The rules are there for making it play using dice, not because that's how the weapons, units, and equipment necessarilly perform.

PS, who died and put people in charge who think they can tell others to go to a different game because they don't agree with their ideas? This is a suggestion board, and that's a rather democratic concept...

Edited by verybad, 11 December 2011 - 03:44 PM.

[Raeven]

Indeed.

You can't even mention the Table Top rules as a guideline, no matter how well thought out in regards to meshing those rules with a video game, without someone making the suggestion that we go play a different game, like MegaMek or the board game itself. Since certain people simply want 'Mech based combat and don't really care about the limitations and rules that make Mechwarrior different from any other FPS with 'Mechs, I simply thought I would make a suggestion that there is another 'Mech based shooter coming out soon that looks very promising. I plan on trying Hawken out myself, though I know it's not Mechwarrior.

Or, we could simply discuss ideas and how we think they would work or not without automatically disregarding anothers idea simply because they are or are not based on the board game rules.

[Raeven]

Mchawkeye, on 11 December 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

I like the look of hawken, but I suspect it's a little to arcady.

There is no reason that the sim I want, face paced, realistic but 'funky' weapons with all the battle tech trappings within a bracket of decent game balance is still well within my standards and the likely hood of MWO, thank you very much.

That's all I want too.

[Dlardrageth]

Raeven, on 11 December 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

[...]
Or, we could simply discuss ideas and how we think they would work or not without automatically disregarding anothers idea simply because they are or are not based on the board game rules.

Nah, can't have that. That would actually make sense. The trolls don't like "sense", apparently it tastes like **** to them. Just look at the reaction you got for nicely suggesting to take a look at another game. Came rather close to calling you a fascist (or something equally unsavoury) here, didn't it?

verybad, on 11 December 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

[...]
PS, who died and put people in charge who think they can tell others to go to a different game because they don't agree with their ideas? This is a suggestion board, and that's a rather democratic concept...

"Reason" just won't fly with the "instant gratification" bunch, I reckon. They probably want it all, and now and here, and only their way, or they start frothing at the mouth...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 December 2011 - 12:29 AM.

[Svaje]

Captain Hat, on 08 December 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

You can even play with the mechanics so that if your team wins, you pay no ransom, just the (relatively light) repair bill. This, especially, would make effective scouting a good way to make lots of credits: You can find the enemy positions at relatively low risk, and picking the right moment to surrender can mean that your team gets enough intel to win the game and you will then pay virtually nothing to patch up for your next game. It also encourages good teamplay, because if you can corner enemy 'mechs individually and force them to surrender one by one, your own team's rewards will be enormous- while if you allow your team to become fragmented, you may find that your lance's pilots will surrender rather that fight when they know they will lose.

Here is a part of what I tried to make the thread about. Increasing player choice and opportunity to use tactics instead of just brute size. If the game do not have a surrender mechanism everything will be a “Thunder rift”-moment where the players with less hardware will always loose. Just like the OLBT:3025 game, where the lance that was moving into range usually took the first fatality and therefore would lose in 98 % of the matches.

[Blastcaps]

there def needs to be a reconnect to match option in the event of DC, disconnections happen with any game and having no way of getting back in the suggestion about forfitting would then penalise innocent players whos only problem is having a DC, thats not to say rage quitters shouldn't take a hit, but in fairness there needs to be something in place in the event of genuine DCs like a reconnect to match.
If as people have been asking for quite a few of the maps should be huge with large scale engagements which are extremely unlikely to be finished within a few mins so maybe a 5 mins grace period to reconnect would be fair, with the system registering the fact a player has relogged back in (ie char selection screen) 1 to keep their place avail in the match and 2 to avoid unfairly penalising someone whos genuinely been DCd, if on the other hand they login and either dont pick the same char/press reconnect to match button within the 5 mins then they take the hit.