Jump to content

Battlemech Persistence


61 replies to this topic

#1 Wahlnutz

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:05 PM

Ok, so we have discussion going on the forums of salvage, Mechlab, torso destruction and consequences and the like, and I think one of the keys to all of these would be the persistence of your Battlemech in the game world.

Still a ways out and not a whole lot of information out there so soon after the announcement, it begs the question "What kind of persistence will your Battlemech actually have?" Will it be something like once you purchase your mech chassy it's yours forever ala BT:3025? After combat will you have to shell out the C-Bills to replace armor, weapons, components and limbs? Would ejecting before total mech destruction safe your precious and expensive machine to fight another day?

Personally I would love to see some sort of persistence with the mechs that might make it to where if you have retrofitted your Battlemech, you have more reason not to carelessly through yourself at the enemy. Time sinks into upgrading and things of that nature. What kind of persistence, if any, would everyone here like to see in this one?

Ideas, thoughts and opinions welcome :)

#2 DrHat

    Com Guard

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 260 posts
  • LocationDenmark, capital area

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:11 PM

My opinion: Your mech asplodez, your mech is gone..simple as that. Then depending on which side wins, they get to salvage the remains of the mech wreck, but you should never get the mech back.

#3 UncleKulikov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 752 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:53 PM

I want persistent battlemechs. It builds that attachment, and Battlemechs are expensive as ****. They shouldn't just be disposable tin cans you wear out on to the field; you should be able to name them and things like that.

To make a familiar mech more valuable, you could have 2 ratings for characters:
Overall experience, which makes them better at all mechs
and
Mech specific experience, which improves your abilities in a specific mech the more you use it.

Retrofitting would reduce that experience (slightly), since you need to learn the new configurations and the like, and each configuration would have it's own experience level. So if you swap out your PPC for a SRM, it would take a bit for you to get the hang of the new weapon. But if you traded it for a Large laser, the negative impact would be smaller for the reduced difference in weapons.

Damage should take time to repair, depending on the severity. Mechs would be repaired and rearmed for free, but take time. Paying can speed it up, but it still takes time to get a mech back into combat.

In terms of ejecting, it should be to prevent you from dying rather than saving your mech. If you eject, it really should be only if the mech is almost completely destroyed (in the tabletop, pilots could die when ejecting). It should have a benefit, but preserve the character's experience instead of the mech's integrity.

#4 gregsolidus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,352 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 02:58 PM

Anything that doesn't mirror EVE online. Their method of dealing with ship destruction basically forces you to join a group so you can pay for your inevitable loses and makes piloting the more interesting ships a waste of time in some respects.

#5 Venkman

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 23 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:12 PM

While I love the idea of persistence in theory, there definitely needs to be some reliable way to get a new 'mech after yours gets destroyed. Being Dispossessed doesn't exactly make for a fun gaming experience. I wouldn't want to see "sorry your Awesome got destroyed, have an Urbanmech now," either. It would make people hesitate to bring their best 'mech onto the field for fear of losing it.

That said, I don't want a total lack of persistence either. I don't want a scenario where the team that's winning feels they can just recklessly throw themselves at the remainder of the enemy because all their damage will be restored after the match ends anyway.

Maybe a good idea would be some sort of "loaner 'mechs" that you had to use if yours was destroyed that are slightly below the capabilities of the standard mechs. You'd have to pilot a loaner until you saved up enough C-Bills to repair/re-purchase your actual 'mech.

#6 gregsolidus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,352 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:14 PM

I think respawn tickets ala Battlefield would work pretty well.

#7 lichbane

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:33 PM

WoT handles persistent damage pretty well, though it doesn't handle salvage at all. Perhaps salvage could be used as a bonus to research specific tech upgrades? Overall, I'd love it to form a part of a bigger persistent campaign ...

#8 Tyra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 242 posts
  • LocationSin City

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:37 PM

View PostUncleKulikov, on 01 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

I want persistent battlemechs. It builds that attachment, and Battlemechs are expensive as ****. They shouldn't just be disposable tin cans you wear out on to the field; you should be able to name them and things like that.

To make a familiar mech more valuable, you could have 2 ratings for characters:
Overall experience, which makes them better at all mechs
and
Mech specific experience, which improves your abilities in a specific mech the more you use it.

Retrofitting would reduce that experience (slightly), since you need to learn the new configurations and the like, and each configuration would have it's own experience level. So if you swap out your PPC for a SRM, it would take a bit for you to get the hang of the new weapon. But if you traded it for a Large laser, the negative impact would be smaller for the reduced difference in weapons.

Damage should take time to repair, depending on the severity. Mechs would be repaired and rearmed for free, but take time. Paying can speed it up, but it still takes time to get a mech back into combat.

In terms of ejecting, it should be to prevent you from dying rather than saving your mech. If you eject, it really should be only if the mech is almost completely destroyed (in the tabletop, pilots could die when ejecting). It should have a benefit, but preserve the character's experience instead of the mech's integrity.


I like this. As long as a mech can't be completely destroyed.

#9 TheForce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • LocationVancouver

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:44 PM

View Postvenkman, on 01 November 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

While I love the idea of persistence in theory, there definitely needs to be some reliable way to get a new 'mech after yours gets destroyed. Being Dispossessed doesn't exactly make for a fun gaming experience. I wouldn't want to see "sorry your Awesome got destroyed, have an Urbanmech now," either. It would make people hesitate to bring their best 'mech onto the field for fear of losing it.


Ya...we're playing a game here people :)

I want some type of persistence but at the same time I want to jump in my mech and play the game whenever I want.

#10 RaginCajun

    Rookie

  • 3 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:54 PM

I think it would be good to have your "baseline" mech always available, but require time/money/some other resource to rebuild any customizations. This allows constant play while permitting some customization and making people still care about keeping their stuff in good condition

Blown to pieces? That's ok, you can still play with your friends. Lose your fancy arm cannon by waving it in the face of that atlas? That's gonna cost ya.

#11 Tyra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 242 posts
  • LocationSin City

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:57 PM

View PostRaginCajun, on 01 November 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

I think it would be good to have your "baseline" mech always available, but require time/money/some other resource to rebuild any customizations. This allows constant play while permitting some customization and making people still care about keeping their stuff in good condition

Blown to pieces? That's ok, you can still play with your friends. Lose your fancy arm cannon by waving it in the face of that atlas? That's gonna cost ya.


That would suit me fine.

#12 Omega59er

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 393 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:58 PM

When it comes to this. I would say World of Tanks does it well. You go to battle, you shoot at people, and eventually you get blown up. haha.

Then in the garage, you buy ammo to replace what you used, and you repair your burning slag of a tank for credits. If you don't want that tank anymore, you sell it and get some of the tank's worth in credits.

#13 ice trey

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts
  • LocationFukushima, Japan

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:00 PM

Not only 'mech persistence, but I think Mech Randomization would be pretty cool, too.

I mean, if you give EVERYONE the choice, they're more likely than not going to be going Atlas, Atlas, Atlas all the way.

If we end up following the classic battletech spread of 30% Light, 40% Medium, 20% Heavy, and 10% assault, there will be a much better balance in the game. Couple that with faction 'mech tables and things will get interesting.

Of course, given the off chance you can salvage a mech, you could exchange or sell the existing one, but what better way to appreciate all the 'mech classes and types by making it random?

Plop the old Assaults-are-king mentality guy in an Assassin or Spider to have him change up his game. Granted that MWO keeps true to it's word and "Bigger" isn't automatically "Better" as with MW2-through-4, it will be good.

#14 Phoenixfire

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts
  • LocationNew Yorl

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

I don't like the randomization idea. Even in MW2-4 bigger didn't always mean better. I've seen plenty of assaults felled by mediums and even lights. A better idea might be to have mission tonnage limits like in the MechCommander games so the team would have to choose between going with a couple of Assaults or with larger group of smaller mechs.

As for persistence, a stock mech of your choice should always be available because some people will not have the time to earn the credits needed to constantly buy back a destroyed mech.

#15 Helmer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • 3,272 posts
  • LocationColumbus, Ga

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:35 PM

It's a free to play game , so I am sure they are working on micro transactions.

Limiting the number of missions/contracts you can run in a 24hour period , the types of contracts , how quickly your mechs get repaired , wether or not you have the ability to configure your mech , etc etc ..

That being said I'd love to see a deep salvaging system as well as a robust mission/contract system.

Persistent damage would be nice . Losing most of your cash on a highly configed mech might relegate you to boring Patrol or Garrison missions for the military for awhile ....

#16 avatar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:52 PM

The idea isn't to bore anyone, but having a "press X to respawn" system wouldn't be Battletech, either. Likely could have some kind of a salvage system (including salvaging your own 'Mech's wreck) and possibly, "lemons" until your techs have time to fix all the damage you've managed to have inflicted on your machine. So your 'Mech was reduced to a wreck last battle and you hop on straight to the next one? Just watch the autocannon, it might jam from time to time. And so on. Of course, as we're still looking at a game, you could have the rare luxury of owning multiple 'Mechs eventually. (Not happening for very many private people on the canon, but quite common in games, assuming you don't sell all your salvage.)

#17 Vahz

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:55 PM

Yes Yes Yes, persistence is key to this being called an MMO. I want to build up a sense of attachment to a particualr mech. Maybe even have it behave differently due to the mileage/wear&tear on it.

Edited by vahz, 01 November 2011 - 04:55 PM.


#18 Omega59er

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 393 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:58 PM

I recommend more people to play World of Tanks and look at its system. Enough Said.

#19 Wahlnutz

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, CO

Posted 01 November 2011 - 05:04 PM

Ok, so what about this. Your Battlemech is destroyed on the field of combat, after mission you are able to salvage the majority of your mech less what was destroyed and what the victors salvaged before they got your wreck back, like a weapon or two, ammo armor and what have you. Next step is to get your mech back in tip top shape, this could be achieved by using past salvage, C-bills, or waiting an extended period of time...

#20 armitage

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • IS Exemplar
  • IS Exemplar
  • 395 posts
  • LocationCA

Posted 01 November 2011 - 05:05 PM

Having a persistent mech that becomes your baby would be great and I wouldnt mind losing it so long as you can get another mech either stock or maybe you earn experience and it unlocks higher and higher tier mechs that you can pull from. Or maybe to make it interesting having a pool, or marketplace, with randomly changing mechs up to varying size to choose from for free. However this would only work if the chance to lose the mech is fairly rare. Otherwise you'll end up with lances of tricked out mechs that just camp and wait for the other team because they're too scared to go out and risk damage.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users