86 replies to this topic

[KBob]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 July 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

it's the Unreal tournament mentality. And if I remember right, the basic MW4 multiplayer didn't require you to purchase anything, because it was just another blind, respawn deathmatch game.

never played any MW PvP .. now I'm happy to learn that I didn't miss much

[l33tworks]

hopefully repleneshing ammo for a mostly ballistic setup is only. few percent of other restocking costs like damage etc.

eg full ammo for all your mechanical costs the same as repairing a em from green to red. even in rl ammo is pretty cheap relatively speaking

machine gun ammo should be cheaper than having your mechanical windscreen wiped

[peer]

Xathanael, on 22 July 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Seriously you are missing the point. This is Mechwarrior not Mechassault. It is not for casual gamers.

Really? Weird, 'cause I'm pretty sure the devs have stated they want to appeal both to guys like you and me, who can list every mech variant up to 3050, as well as to casual fans of the franchise and even players who know nothing about Battletech but think it looks fun to stomp around in a giant robot. You can't produce a successful F2P game by appealing solely to hardcore weirdos. A key word to succeed in mass appeal is accessibility. This means, among other things, to have a learning curve that's not too steep, to have streamlined and intuitive interfaces, and to not complicate things for the sake of it. I believe forcing players to rebuy ammo falls under the last one. It shouldn't be necessary, it gives the player no enjoyment, and I have yet to see a good argument in favour of it beyond armchair general-style "that's how it would be in a real war", which isn't very good at all.

Also, Bishop Steiner, if all you have to contribute are childish personal attacks and "heh go back to unreal tournament you scrub", you should probably shut up because it's clear you have no real arguments.

Edited by peer, 23 July 2012 - 03:19 AM.

[Dymitry]

darkenderlord, on 22 July 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

we buy the gun and in almost any other mmorpg amo is free why not here and i now world of tanks amo must be bought but thats way diferent = free = pay so post those smiliyes

What?

[Steel Talon]

Balancing weapon economy is VITAL!
I rather see free ammo restock than 2 groups of weapons, 1 for C-bill making & 1 for important battles or premium accs
Soon the normal battles will look like laser show cause its more economic for players
Do not follow WoT economy model, its bad example
Ammo weapons should make more C-Bills than energy even (- ammo cost) when u dont waste lots of ammo on trees

[Bishop Steiner]

peer, on 23 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Really? Weird, 'cause I'm pretty sure the devs have stated they want to appeal both to guys like you and me, who can list every mech variant up to 3050, as well as to casual fans of the franchise and even players who know nothing about Battletech but think it looks fun to stomp around in a giant robot. You can't produce a successful F2P game by appealing solely to hardcore weirdos. A key word to succeed in mass appeal is accessibility. This means, among other things, to have a learning curve that's not too steep, to have streamlined and intuitive interfaces, and to not complicate things for the sake of it. I believe forcing players to rebuy ammo falls under the last one. It shouldn't be necessary, it gives the player no enjoyment, and I have yet to see a good argument in favour of it beyond armchair general-style "that's how it would be in a real war", which isn't very good at all.

Also, Bishop Steiner, if all you have to contribute are childish personal attacks and "heh go back to unreal tournament you scrub", you should probably shut up because it's clear you have no real arguments.

Actually I was merely responding in kind to your patronizing, smarter than the rest of us posts. My arguments have been clearly made, yet for someone "who can list every variant up to 3050" seem to woefully not understand battletech or mechwarrior. The only time ammo has no cost money was on the pathetic unreal t0ournament like Multiplayer mode. But hey, keep spouting off it it makes you feel better. Your "argument" has been well and thoroughly flamed by many others beside myself, so I seriously could care less. And if anyone should n"shut up", I would think, it best that it be the crowd that keeps whining to dumb the game down.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 July 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[peer]

Your arguments have been "in a REAL WAR you'd have to pay for ammo and just imagine clans bearing down on you blah blah", which means absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay. You have yet to come up with a actual good reason to penalise ballistic weapon users by inconveniencing them with unnecessary details.

However, with you admitting you'd be in favour of permadeath for mechs and pilots, and some other guy claiming with a straight face that MWO is "not for casuals", it's pretty clear what sort of person frequents this forum and that it's useless to try to convince them "realistic" doesn't necessarily mean "good". It's a waste of time for everyone involved so let's wait and see whether MWO turns out as the hardcore sim some of you seem to be expecting, or the casual-friendly action game the rest of us are hoping for. Toodles

[William Boone]

Hmm you've never played EVE

Yep we guy guns and ammo, just like the real world .

If you don't want to buy ammo I suggest using the energy weapons here.

[Bishop Steiner]

"Ammo cost does not reward "Not using your weapon". It rewards the Mechwarrior who has the foresight to take it into consideration that maybe on this long mission with dicey logistics, it just might make more sense to mount a PPC and some heatsinks, vs an AC/20. Whereas the same warrior may consider the cost of ammo worth it if the mission is on a desert planet, and a PPC would over work his heat sinks.

There are offsetting benefits and drawbacks to all weapons. Otherwise all you would need to do is mount as many gauss rifles on an atlas as you can (3 is the realistic max), put the largest magazines possible, and go for it. And shortly pretty much eveyone will be riding the exact same mech and loadout......

what you do BEFORE you drop for a mission DOES directly impact what you can do DURING a mission."

....Deciding between an Awesome and an Atlas becomes more than who has the bigger gun, but am I willing to devote so much funds to keep the Atlas' 3 ballistic weapons loaded, or would I be better served by the Awesome's all energy arsenal. When you have to plan your choices, you tend to value them more. All the arguments I hear from your side is basically " I should only have to think and plan ahead AFTER I am on planet and fighting.".

Seems a little better spelled out than just "real war" to me.

But I do agree with you on two things
1) Yes, I would like it closer to a real sim. And that is because it hurts nobody, but benefits those who desire more than a glorified FPS. Since the Deathmatch option is already in play, and I don't see why they would discontinue it if they do turn toward campaign based play (which would be a real waste of potential if they don't), players who simply want to run and gun will have their little mech paradise too. Believe it or, the two are not mutually exclusive goals. Even for campaign minded players, the death match is a great thing to have because it allows you to get a feel for how to use a mech and such. I simply am against dumbing it down. I would love to see it built up, but you don't see me going nuts campaigning for it. If all people want is to have it Deathmatch style, than even paying for repairs make no real sense.

2) We are not gonna see eye to eye on this.

[Xathanael]

peer, on 23 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Really? Weird, 'cause I'm pretty sure the devs have stated they want to appeal both to guys like you and me, who can list every mech variant up to 3050, as well as to casual fans of the franchise and even players who know nothing about Battletech but think it looks fun to stomp around in a giant robot. You can't produce a successful F2P game by appealing solely to hardcore weirdos. A key word to succeed in mass appeal is accessibility. This means, among other things, to have a learning curve that's not too steep, to have streamlined and intuitive interfaces, and to not complicate things for the sake of it. I believe forcing players to rebuy ammo falls under the last one. It shouldn't be necessary, it gives the player no enjoyment, and I have yet to see a good argument in favour of it beyond armchair general-style "that's how it would be in a real war", which isn't very good at all.

Also, Bishop Steiner, if all you have to contribute are childish personal attacks and "heh go back to unreal tournament you scrub", you should probably shut up because it's clear you have no real arguments.

Trust me it will be plenty successful... have you seen the Legendary founders sales figures? The game will be fine

Steel Talon, on 23 July 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Balancing weapon economy is VITAL!
I rather see free ammo restock than 2 groups of weapons, 1 for C-bill making & 1 for important battles or premium accs
Soon the normal battles will look like laser show cause its more economic for players
Do not follow WoT economy model, its bad example
Ammo weapons should make more C-Bills than energy even (- ammo cost) when u dont waste lots of ammo on trees

Wrong, WoT has a great economy. I always earn credits after matches. Whereas my ragebot friend who shoots at everything and ragequits when he's below 50% looses cash all the time... if you want free ammo play CoD.. it's free all day

peer, on 23 July 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

Your arguments have been "in a REAL WAR you'd have to pay for ammo and just imagine clans bearing down on you blah blah", which means absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay. You have yet to come up with a actual good reason to penalise ballistic weapon users by inconveniencing them with unnecessary details.

However, with you admitting you'd be in favour of permadeath for mechs and pilots, and some other guy claiming with a straight face that MWO is "not for casuals", it's pretty clear what sort of person frequents this forum and that it's useless to try to convince them "realistic" doesn't necessarily mean "good". It's a waste of time for everyone involved so let's wait and see whether MWO turns out as the hardcore sim some of you seem to be expecting, or the casual-friendly action game the rest of us are hoping for. Toodles

Why even post? Seriously dude just rage quit before the game even starts.. this "sort of person" will be happy to see you flame away with the Bronies and Furries

[Phii Phy Pho Phum]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

You already have a factor that rewards taking good shots: ammunition. Waste ammo on stupid shots and you'll run out before the match is over. Here are two example situations:

* Joe Mechwarrior can see an enemy mech, but it's 400m away, half hidden behind some trees, and moving. Joe decides not to fire his AC/10 since he's only carrying 20 rounds and he's unlikely to hit. He fires his lasers instead.

* Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows he hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and fears he won't have enough to both repair and restock ammo. He fires his lasers instead.

I find it highly more likely that the second scenerio would go something more like this.

**Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and instead of firing at max range, correctly chooses to fire his lasers at the enemy mech allowing him to draw closer before firing his AC/10 to devestating effect. In doing so Joe knows he will score higher in this round, collecting more than enough C-Bills to cover both any repairs to his mech as well as any replacement ammo. Joe also rest easy in the fact that he was can simply jump into another mech he is far more competent with and in a single match be C-Bill positive once again thanks to the excellent design and forethought given to the balancing of the game by the developers.

Edited by Phii Phy Pho Phum, 23 July 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[Xathanael]

Phii Phy Pho Phum, on 23 July 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

I find it highly more likely that the second scenerio would go something more like this.

**Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and instead of firing at max range, correctly chooses to fire his lasers at the enemy mech allowing him to draw closer before firing his AC/10 to devestating effect. In doing so Joe knows he will score higher in this round, collecting more than enough C-Bills to cover both any repairs to his mech as well as any replacement ammo. Joe also rest easy in the fact that he was can simply jump into another mech he is far more competent with and in a single match be C-Bill positive once again thanks to the excellent design and forethought given to the balancing of the game by the developers.

THANK YOU!!! +1000 Cool Points

[Shammus]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

You already have a factor that rewards taking good shots: ammunition. Waste ammo on stupid shots and you'll run out before the match is over. Here are two example situations:

* Joe Mechwarrior can see an enemy mech, but it's 400m away, half hidden behind some trees, and moving. Joe decides not to fire his AC/10 since he's only carrying 20 rounds and he's unlikely to hit. He fires his lasers instead.

* Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows he hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and fears he won't have enough to both repair and restock ammo. He fires his lasers instead.

The top one is an example of good decision making, and part of what separates good players from bad ones. The bottom one, on the other hand, is not something a developer should aim for in their game.

Well said I enjoy reading your point of view and have reversed my own thoughts on this subject. I am glad you didn't let the forum bullies shut you up. "Hey listen to me I am a Legendary Founder and have over one thousand posts so I can't be wrong and you should just go play another game."

[CW Grayson]

Actually a good point, also the "go play another game" comments are unnessesary guys.

First, i don't see there will be longer campains. Even if there are, they are splitted in matches.
You take your mech, join a match. There is no respawn, oonce your dead or match is over, you can go back to mechlab and refit.
AFTER EVERY MATCH.
Now the tactical aspect with ballistic weapons come from how much ammo you build in your mech, so how much shots you have for a match, that's all the tactic we need.
Someone mentioned without ammo costs everyone would take a 3gauss Atlas, because ammo restock would take no cbills.
Tell you what, you can buy cbills with real money. So if ammo costs are high enough you cannot always restock, what will happen?
Yes, all people willing to pay real money will drive that uber-3gauss-Atlas all the time not worrying about cbills, pay2win here we come...

[Backblast]

Honestly, I don't want to micromanage every single missile that I have on my mech.
I think you shouldn't be forced to buy/stockpile ammo. It may be realistic, but it's not fun.
Well, it may be fun to some ppl who think Eve Online is fun too.

If a weapon has more than one ammo type, you should be able to switch the ammo type in the mechlab and that's it, you'll start a match with full ammunition.

Ammo cost would favor energy weapons too much. Laser boating because the AC20 ammo costs a fortune? No thanks.

[Circles End]

I take offense from your insinuation that people who like EVE are weird.
Also, no one said that ammo has to cost an arm and a leg, but I still think that it is a decent thing to have an AC/20 slug cost some C-bills. This will discourage people from taking the mech with most projectile hardpoints and then just spamming as many and as big autocannons they can stuff into it and just go alpha-strike romping. You will have to consider "Is this shot really worth it, even if I still have 200 AC shots left afterwards?"
This is a counterpoint to the energy approach of "Is this shot really worth the risk of shutdown from the heat?"
I hope it is clear what I'm getting at.

[peer]

Circles End, on 24 July 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

You will have to consider "Is this shot really worth it, even if I still have 200 AC shots left afterwards?"
This is a counterpoint to the energy approach of "Is this shot really worth the risk of shutdown from the heat?"

Don't you think ballistics already have a drawback in this context, even without having to pay for ammo? I mean, you'll be thinking "if I miss this shot, do I still have enough ammo for the rest of the fight?" In my mind, that's the counterpoint to "can I risk the heat". I don't think it's a good idea to bring money into the equation.

Something you touch on that I hadn't considered, though, is you might end up with people who load up an Atlas with, say, four SRM-6s and fifteen tons of ammo (or whatever). In cases like that, your limited ammunition is unlikely to be an issue and you're able to just fire wildly for a whole match. I'm not sure if free ammunition would be a good thing in such a case.

Shammus, on 23 July 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

CW Grayson, on 24 July 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

Backblast, on 24 July 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Thanks guys, arguing with realism-first grognards was getting pretty tiring!

Edited by peer, 24 July 2012 - 03:50 AM.

[Grayson Ward]

Circles End, on 24 July 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

I take offense from your insinuation that people who like EVE are weird.
Also, no one said that ammo has to cost an arm and a leg, but I still think that it is a decent thing to have an AC/20 slug cost some C-bills. This will discourage people from taking the mech with most projectile hardpoints and then just spamming as many and as big autocannons they can stuff into it and just go alpha-strike romping. You will have to consider "Is this shot really worth it, even if I still have 200 AC shots left afterwards?"
This is a counterpoint to the energy approach of "Is this shot really worth the risk of shutdown from the heat?"
I hope it is clear what I'm getting at.

It is clear what you are getting at. But see, your scenario would be overcome by any player who pays2win also. Also, the ballistic weps are just so big you cannot mount that much and you cannot carry that much ammo. An AC20 runs out of ammo FAST, no matter how much real money you spend. There is only so much place in a mech for ammo and don't forget the ammo explosions that happen when a part with ammo is destroyed.
With all these downparts i think ballistic weps need no more bashing than they already have.

[Noth]

Grayson Ward, on 24 July 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

It is clear what you are getting at. But see, your scenario would be overcome by any player who pays2win also. Also, the ballistic weps are just so big you cannot mount that much and you cannot carry that much ammo. An AC20 runs out of ammo FAST, no matter how much real money you spend. There is only so much place in a mech for ammo and don't forget the ammo explosions that happen when a part with ammo is destroyed.
With all these downparts i think ballistic weps need no more bashing than they already have.

It's not pay to win if you buy ammo with real money. If that ammo is special and only available with money that is pay to win and that does not exist here.

[Grayson Ward]

Noth, on 24 July 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

It's not pay to win if you buy ammo with real money. If that ammo is special and only available with money that is pay to win and that does not exist here.

Oh stop. If there is a variant of a mech that needs so much cbills for refit that only real money can hold it and it is superior in firepower,
that IS pay2win.

Edited by Grayson Ward, 24 July 2012 - 04:32 AM.