26 replies to this topic

[Cizjut]

From another thread:

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

If they ever add pilot eject animation it will ruin quite a few matches at first as the downside. But just like running out of bounds it wont be a serious problem especially if repair and rearm are added, along with some big credit items in game. Pilot eject would be used to skip the medic bill in repair and rearm..

I suppose a mech going critical from enemy fire would maximize the repair bill or what?

Cizjut, on 13 July 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

That's actually a good idea.

ACTUALLY, after playing Battlefleet Gothic Armada, it came to me how a system like the BFGA turns would perfectly mesh in this game and work as the Economic Warfare they wanted to implement.

In BFGA, for those who don't know, you pick your fleet ships, and if they get totaled you have to spend money to get them repaired ASAP for the next match OR wait 1 to 2 matches and goes smoothly. You can warp out (eject) and the cost is considerably lower or not at all, depending on the damage on the ship.

In MWO, it makes perfect sense, and incentivates switching to other mechs if you don't want to spend money. Besides, it's only 2 matches. On the flip side, makes money worth more, and contracts too. As it is right now, CBills are just Ego Points since there's nothing valuable besides mechs that you can spend them on. It's a little managing meta game about resources.

It's bee nsaid before, how CBills and contracts should impact an economic warfare in the game. After playing BFGA I've found that this kind of "penalization" is also a big reward of sorts. And it's not really painful, but makes exciting to keep your mech safe and balance the expenses with salvages from matches.

Also ITS HOW MW4MERCS WORKED ON CAMPAIGN. So it's nothing really new.

When more content arrives with decals, skins, paintjobs, customizations, drop crates and such, CBills are going to matter more, and Planetary Conquests will become more important to achieve this goal. There has to be a flow of money going on, to make contracts, to break them, but most of all, we're mercenaries, and we're in for the money.

Thoughts?

[Alistair Winter]

I would love both the ability to eject and cost for repairs and rearm. I'm all about the immersion and MWO is sorely lacking in immersion.

But it's too late. PGI will never do it, and the players who wanted this have almost all gone to more immersive games. The players who are still here are mostly interested in a well balanced arena shooter, with no mechanics like this that will possibly ruin certain PVP aspects.

Maybe we will get this for the PVE campaign Russ was talking about. One day.

[CycKath]

PGI should have stuck to its guns on R&R back in the day, now its far too late. Re-adding it would be akin to the mini-map changes, people too used to what is now to be able to tolerate its return.

Edited by CycKath, 13 July 2016 - 04:15 PM.

[Littlerift]

Could be implemented, although I don't know how I feel about advocating something that will eat into C-Bill earnings in a big way as it's quite possible PGI would implement it without actually altering the C-Bill earnings to accommodate it.

[Cizjut]

Alistair Winter, on 13 July 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

I would love both the ability to eject and cost for repairs and rearm. I'm all about the immersion and MWO is sorely lacking in immersion.

But it's too late. PGI will never do it, and the players who wanted this have almost all gone to more immersive games. The players who are still here are mostly interested in a well balanced arena shooter, with no mechanics like this that will possibly ruin certain PVP aspects.

Maybe we will get this for the PVE campaign Russ was talking about. One day.

I almost agree with you and know the feeling that Russ doesn't listen, but finally read we're getting inverse kinematics. PGI works painfully slow, this is true, but for implementation of this feature is so simple it doesn't take engineers to do. In fact, it's been one of the pillars which MWO was orignally being built upon.

We all love this game. Maybe a bit too much. But more than just pure love from MW fans, PGI, as any business, knows they have to step up their game against competition. PGI at least has a working game, and the only sensible thing to do is to keep developing it into shape.

Sometimes suggestions aren't just "HOW ABOUT A SUPER COOL MECH THAT DOES THING" but actual improvement suggestions to attract and ENGAGE new players.

[Cizjut]

CycKath, on 13 July 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

PGI should have stuck to its guns on R&R back in the day, now its far too late. Re-adding it would be akin to the mini-map changes, people too used to what is now to be able to tolerate its return.

The difference with the minimap is that the day 1 implementation SUCKED ***. It's not about the idea behind it. It's solid to have icons instead doritos and open up for more gameplay options in the so called "Information Warfare". The change is a sensible thing to do, albeit maybe too soon considering there's no new modules for Scouts to broadcast more info on the go.

But removing the directional arrow and torso twist? stupid move overall. I actually think it was an overlook and not intended... methinks. It was clunky and made no sense and made the basic navigation a nightmare and some people even got motion sickness reported (lol).

One thing is certain: They kept the icons, which is the good idea, and adressed a hotfix to remove the Pac Man view, which was the BAD IDEA. At least they're listening.

Changes NEED TO BE MADE. And some will and have to be bolder than others, no doubt. But change for the sake of change isn't what order and perfection strives for.

[Johnny Z]

Cizjut, on 13 July 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

I almost agree with you and know the feeling that Russ doesn't listen, but finally read we're getting inverse kinematics. PGI works painfully slow, this is true, but for implementation of this feature is so simple it doesn't take engineers to do. In fact, it's been one of the pillars which MWO was orignally being built upon.

We all love this game. Maybe a bit too much. But more than just pure love from MW fans, PGI, as any business, knows they have to step up their game against competition. PGI at least has a working game, and the only sensible thing to do is to keep developing it into shape.

Sometimes suggestions aren't just "HOW ABOUT A SUPER COOL MECH THAT DOES THING" but actual improvement suggestions to attract and ENGAGE new players.

Yep this doesn't effect long time players at all. UNLESS high credit items are added, then it makes this addition even better.

For new players a balance would have to be found. But the grind as it stands is the smallest grind in the industry easily and should remain so in my onion. Luckily there is lots of room to play there.

[Alistair Winter]

Cizjut, on 13 July 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

I almost agree with you and know the feeling that Russ doesn't listen, but finally read we're getting inverse kinematics. PGI works painfully slow, this is true, but for implementation of this feature is so simple it doesn't take engineers to do. In fact, it's been one of the pillars which MWO was orignally being built upon.
We all love this game. Maybe a bit too much. But more than just pure love from MW fans, PGI, as any business, knows they have to step up their game against competition. PGI at least has a working game, and the only sensible thing to do is to keep developing it into shape.
Sometimes suggestions aren't just "HOW ABOUT A SUPER COOL MECH THAT DOES THING" but actual improvement suggestions to attract and ENGAGE new players.

I think you and me will be happy if Russ stays true to his vision of a single player PVE experience similar to MW2:Mercs, like he explained it. It would be great if MWO was an PVP version of MW2:Mercs, but they went in a different direction to catch the esports crowd. And don't get me wrong, I like esports. But they tried to find a middle road and eventually made a very diluted product.

I want repair and rearm, I want ejection, I want salvage, I want players to lose mechs if they are totally annihilated, I want units to buy dropships, I want factions to be divided in QP instead of mixed Clan and IS teams, I want more immersion and I want less of this bland, tasteless arena arcade shooter. I want more of a combat simulator.

But it's still a pretty good game, and PVE will give me more of what I want, hopefully.

[Johnny Z]

Alistair Winter, on 13 July 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

I think you and me will be happy if Russ stays true to his vision of a single player PVE experience similar to MW2:Mercs, like he explained it. It would be great if MWO was an PVP version of MW2:Mercs, but they went in a different direction to catch the esports crowd. And don't get me wrong, I like esports. But they tried to find a middle road and eventually made a very diluted product.

I want repair and rearm, I want ejection, I want salvage, I want players to lose mechs if they are totally annihilated, I want units to buy dropships, I want factions to be divided in QP instead of mixed Clan and IS teams, I want more immersion and I want less of this bland, tasteless arena arcade shooter. I want more of a combat simulator.

But it's still a pretty good game, and PVE will give me more of what I want, hopefully.

Those things you mentioned are called resource management. Resource management is one of the defining popularity factors in games. Look at all the survival games out there cashing in on that alone and next to nothing else offered.

Anyway your requests are what most players actually want.

Using Fallout 4 as an example yet again. Their extremely popular Survival update is brutal. Just had a lvl 50+ character have to do a reload during a quest and even after that he couldn't run and barely made it to a proper bed in a hotel room that had to be paid for, for the night, vision fading, walking slowly the whole way after a quest was done.

In fact Fallout 4 survival mode is nearly impossible without mods. At least without heavy use of power armor that requires fuel.

SIM FTW.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 04:44 PM.

[Cizjut]

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

Yep this doesn't effect long time players at all. UNLESS high credit items are added, then it makes this addition even better.

For new players a balance would have to be found. But the grind as it stands is the smallest grind in the industry easily and should remain so in my onion. Luckily there is lots of room to play there.

Ah now that's the tricky part and that's where Russ and PGI have to read and listen to the fans.

What we're suggesting here could come to look like a mild annoyance to "you're just suggesting more grind" but that's the idea behind all of this. It needs to be balanced to be fair and interesting.

In BFGA, you wait 2 turns (play other 2 matches) and the ship gets unlocked again. In MW4 you spent the repair bill or wait out 2 weeks of repair. In reality it's not really a punishment, but a bit of economy play.

With an implementation of something like this, it's obvious the CBill earn has to get bigger somehow. Maybe not in quickmatch "destroy everyone", but how about a bigger bonus for capturing the Base on assault or winning by points in conquest? You know, actually doing the objective will benefit YOU and YOUR TEAM.

Also contracts get juicier. Maybe being the underdog doesn't sounds bad. Those mechs have to be kept polished and tuned.

[Cizjut]

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

Those things you mentioned are called resource management. Resource management is one of the defining popularity factors in games. Look at all the survival games out there cashing in on that alone and next to nothing else offered.

Anyway your requests are what most players actually want.

Using Fallout 4 as an example yet again. Their extremely popular Survival update is brutal. Just had a lvl 50+ character have to do a reload during a quest and even after that he couldn't run and barely made it to a proper bed vision fading, walking the whole way after a quest was done.

In fact Fallout 4 survival mode is nearly impossible without mods.

SIM FTW.

Also that's economy incentivation. Considering the game and business comes around selling MCs and CBill boosts, it's a really nice idea to incentivate rewards and penalizations around it. People with money gets incentivated to spend it on your product. People that plays casually doesn't get too harshly penalized BUT gets incentivated to buy backup mechs and spend money around. Maybe become a customer instead of just a visitor.

[Syanis]

The idea sounds interesting. However think of how it would actually play out and it becomes unfeasible and even problematic for griefing. Consider on a sh*t match you may be on a horrible team and/or simply dumped into the wrong map with the wrong loadout vs your teams. On these crap games you may at worst make 60k c-bills. Now how much would repairs and re-arms cost and what difference is it if you just lost with only a little armor damage and timing out vs losing both arms, a leg, and an engine? Is that worst case loss going to be under the crap 60k c-bills reward so you can continue playing and afford to repair your mech w/o feeling you have to use a trial mech for freebie repair free and be gimped?

This opens up the door for people to purposefully go around destroying as much as possible of your body before the kill just to cost you c-bills in repairs. What will happen to all the casuals who don't spend real money though who the spenders need to be there to keep games full and moving at a decent pace? Plus because you had a sh*t team or match setup should you be penalized for a bad draw?

As far as eject what would be the purpose? In faction play it could be the difference of making it to your next mech or not but what about QP or scouting missions with one mech? What is the reason for ejecting vs not ejecting?

In the end when a game has gone this far it doesn't make any sense to really redesign it especially in any way that penalizes casual or average players and non spenders.

However both would be great idea's for a MWO2 which I doubt we'd see for many years.

[Johnny Z]

Syanis, on 13 July 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

The idea sounds interesting. However think of how it would actually play out and it becomes unfeasible and even problematic for griefing. Consider on a sh*t match you may be on a horrible team and/or simply dumped into the wrong map with the wrong loadout vs your teams. On these crap games you may at worst make 60k c-bills. Now how much would repairs and re-arms cost and what difference is it if you just lost with only a little armor damage and timing out vs losing both arms, a leg, and an engine? Is that worst case loss going to be under the crap 60k c-bills reward so you can continue playing and afford to repair your mech w/o feeling you have to use a trial mech for freebie repair free and be gimped?

This opens up the door for people to purposefully go around destroying as much as possible of your body before the kill just to cost you c-bills in repairs. What will happen to all the casuals who don't spend real money though who the spenders need to be there to keep games full and moving at a decent pace? Plus because you had a sh*t team or match setup should you be penalized for a bad draw?

As far as eject what would be the purpose? In faction play it could be the difference of making it to your next mech or not but what about QP or scouting missions with one mech? What is the reason for ejecting vs not ejecting?

In the end when a game has gone this far it doesn't make any sense to really redesign it especially in any way that penalizes casual or average players and non spenders.

However both would be great idea's for a MWO2 which I doubt we'd see for many years.

What you describe is greifing and is a drawback to this. But what you also described is incentive to do well in matches, which is something this game lacks.

Lacking any incentive to do well in matches sucks the fun right out of any game.

So ya a balance would have to be found, but as it stands that balance is one sided to "I don't give a fk".

[Cizjut]

Syanis, on 13 July 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

The idea sounds interesting. However think of how it would actually play out and it becomes unfeasible and even problematic for griefing. Consider on a sh*t match you may be on a horrible team and/or simply dumped into the wrong map with the wrong loadout vs your teams. On these crap games you may at worst make 60k c-bills. Now how much would repairs and re-arms cost and what difference is it if you just lost with only a little armor damage and timing out vs losing both arms, a leg, and an engine? Is that worst case loss going to be under the crap 60k c-bills reward so you can continue playing and afford to repair your mech w/o feeling you have to use a trial mech for freebie repair free and be gimped?

This opens up the door for people to purposefully go around destroying as much as possible of your body before the kill just to cost you c-bills in repairs. What will happen to all the casuals who don't spend real money though who the spenders need to be there to keep games full and moving at a decent pace? Plus because you had a sh*t team or match setup should you be penalized for a bad draw?

As far as eject what would be the purpose? In faction play it could be the difference of making it to your next mech or not but what about QP or scouting missions with one mech? What is the reason for ejecting vs not ejecting?

In the end when a game has gone this far it doesn't make any sense to really redesign it especially in any way that penalizes casual or average players and non spenders.

However both would be great idea's for a MWO2 which I doubt we'd see for many years.

The benefit of it is taking the chances of "I could keep on playing this match and take my reward as long as possible or eject now and save me some money on the next match"

And the suggestion works very nicely on Battlefleet Gothic Armada, and you would be surprised how similar this meta management is with Mechwarrior.

Also having a **** match can get you in red numbers? yeah sure. I actually LOOK for it. Git gud. But also there has to be a balance around it: The repair cost could be around 50k initially in Quickmatches. Nothing too harsh, but also something that stacks up if the player keeps ******* up. Or, wait two matches to repair itself. Or, eject wisely and nothing happens... but you lose the Salvage Bonus if your team wins.

Also you can't eject unless your health is truly critical. Cored and red lights around you.

And you know people, griefers gonna grief, if ever. Report to your nearest local police department and such.

[Johnny Z]

Cizjut, on 13 July 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

The benefit of it is taking the chances of "I could keep on playing this match and take my reward as long as possible or eject now and save me some money on the next match"

And the suggestion works very nicely on Battlefleet Gothic Armada, and you would be surprised how similar this meta management is with Mechwarrior.

Also having a **** match can get you in red numbers? yeah sure. I actually LOOK for it. Git gud. But also there has to be a balance around it: The repair cost could be around 50k initially in Quickmatches. Nothing too harsh, but also something that stacks up if the player keeps ******* up. Or, wait two matches to repair itself. Or, eject wisely and nothing happens... but you lose the Salvage Bonus if your team wins.

Also you can't eject unless your health is truly critical. Cored and red lights around you.

And you know people, griefers gonna grief, if ever. Report to your nearest local police department and such.

Repair and rearm was in the game before.

Its not a question of if, but when and how it returns. Its like 100% chance they will bring it back.

The idea to limit repair costs by letting the mech sit for a given time or something like that is a good one. Havnt seen it on the forums before.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

You can't balance an arena game with economy
/thread

Edited by Troutmonkey, 13 July 2016 - 04:56 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

well first make Flanking Scouting Tag/Narc Just as rewarding as Damage,
then Increase all Rewards by 50%, so you can Easily Earn 500,000 in a single Match,
they bring back R&R, first at 20% mechs Cost, them Raise it till its Balanced,

[Johnny Z]

Just think. First person mechbay. After a match mech sits in the mechbay a smoldering ruin. Go to control panel, sound plays, leave control panel mech is pristine.

Guys saying in group chat "wait a sec have to repair my mech" and things like that. Maybe "Can I borrow enough creds to make repairs so I don't have to wait?" or other things.

Maybe make mech repair a minigame? Ok maybe that's going to far.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 05:16 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

R&R is just another grind barrier in QP if it was added.

FW, go for it. Give attackers/defenders a supply rating that depletes as units are destroyed in invasion-scouting-whatever that gets partially restored by salvage if a team wins, or by raiding (see below)

As supply drops below 50%, destroyed drop decks start having delays to re-enter the CW queue on a given planet. Give mediums-to-heavies a "raiding" 4v4 mode where instead of gathering intel, they try to steal supply from the other side. Lose and they're salvage for the winner instead.

[Davers]

R&R in QP is flat out a bad idea. If people are complaining about cowardly team mates now, wait til mechs have a repair cost.

Troutmonkey, on 13 July 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

You can't balance an arena game with economy
/thread

Yes.

Brain Cancer, on 13 July 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

R&R is just another grind barrier in QP if it was added.

Yes

Yes.

Brain Cancer, on 13 July 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

FW, go for it. Give attackers/defenders a supply rating that depletes as units are destroyed in invasion-scouting-whatever that gets partially restored by salvage if a team wins, or by raiding (see below)

As supply drops below 50%, destroyed drop decks start having delays to re-enter the CW queue on a given planet. Give mediums-to-heavies a "raiding" 4v4 mode where instead of gathering intel, they try to steal supply from the other side. Lose and they're salvage for the winner instead.

Some interesting ideas here. Hmm.