61 replies to this topic

[kazrok]

Michael Fury, on 01 November 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Start out as a member of a house unit. When you earn enough money(And xp) you advance to buying your first mech, and putting yourself out there on the market for the mercs to hire.

Once in a Merc force, money goes to the Merc CEO. They pay out repairs to mechs. If too many of the Merc company loose mechs, then they don't have the money to buy new ones. If it gets bad enough, the disposessed head back to the house units to make their money.

To use an EVE analogy since I'm seeing SOO many references to it, The house units are the lvl 4 missions, and the Merc companies are the 0.0/lowsec/WH space corps/alliance's.

Folks may move between house units and Merc units throughout their career, just like people move too and from 0.0, from corp to corp.

This would allow some "PVE" in that you could see House units vs House units, where the penalties are lowered, in that if you loose your mech in HvH combat, your regiment replaces it for you. You just earn your "pay" which will allow you to earn enough to buy a new mech.

Hell, we could even see a Solaris option, where you go and fight in the games and win prize money towards new mechs.

+1 To this very good ideal.

[aglarang]

theforce, on 01 November 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:

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.

What he said. Ultimately, while I like the realism, it will suck to lose a mech in a fight and then have to wait to afford a comparable one or wait a certain amount of time to play again. Some level of repair costs or something may be ok.. but really, I want to go fight in my big stompy mech. What happens if I choose the faction that is getting pulverized and we cannot tech up/ repair/ salvage and ultimately are just beat down (if they go with that mechanic) How do I ever get on an even footing? That is the type of issue a realistic (for BTech) salvage/repair scenario would make the game unplayable for people in that situation.

[Zyllos]

For some reason, I think a better question to pose here is how is missions/combat handled.

If missions/combat is handled in the sense that if you die or you eject, then that mission/combat is over for you, I could see presistant mech damage easily be incorporated into the game.

If missions/combat is done like any Quake/CS style game, I am unsure how they could handle the presistence of an individual's mech unless for each death incurred, after the match, you receive random damages applied to your mech.

Once we find out on how matches and stuff are going to be handled, I think we can determine how far the presistence will be taken.

[Mchawkeye]

OK. So say you are right up in it, your mech you've been working on is battered but still upright, maybe combat ineffective.
What can you do then? ,
Fight to the bitter end and blow up, killing you and your mech?
Punch out, save yourself but loose the mech?
Or...strategic withdrawal? Save it all, loose some honour, pay a hefty repair bill?

[TheForce]

Zyllos, on 02 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

For some reason, I think a better question to pose here is how is missions/combat handled.

I was thinking something similar and was thinking mech persistence should be related to your "character" not if you die in battle. What exactly is "mech persistence" anyways? IMO its like in btech lore how mechs were handed down from generation to generation...once you have a mech, you're stuck with it. But that's boring for a vid game right? We want variety...so let us create multiple characters who are stuck with the mechs they start with.

I created this thread to discuss: http://mwomercs.com/...race-and-class/

[Threat Doc]

aglarang, on 02 November 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

What he said. Ultimately, while I like the realism, it will suck to lose a mech in a fight and then have to wait to afford a comparable one or wait a certain amount of time to play again.

That's why you fight with honor, carefully, tactically and, when you're getting to a point where your 'Mech is becoming combat ineffective, you ask your opponent to allow you to withdraw for repairs. If they're honorable they'll do the same.

Quote

Some level of repair costs or something may be ok.. but really, I want to go fight in my big stompy mech. What happens if I choose the faction that is getting pulverized and we cannot tech up/ repair/ salvage and ultimately are just beat down (if they go with that mechanic) How do I ever get on an even footing? That is the type of issue a realistic (for BTech) salvage/repair scenario would make the game unplayable for people in that situation.

Agreed. However, I think the idea these devs have is to make an entirely new MechWarrior experience, where resources, time, travel, command structure, and the ideals of the various commanders on the ground, changing the dynamics all-told. I like that idea, to tell the truth.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

OK. So say you are right up in it, your mech you've been working on is battered but still upright, maybe combat ineffective.
What can you do then? ,
Fight to the bitter end and blow up, killing you and your mech?
Punch out, save yourself but loose the mech?
Or...strategic withdrawal? Save it all, loose some honour, pay a hefty repair bill?

First, an opponent should let you off the field, if they're honorable and right-minded, simply because they understand that, if they were ever battered and tried to withdraw, they would hope to be let go, as well, at least for the sake of repairs, and then a return to the field to finish honorably. They could also take the chance to repair themselves. Second, why would it cost you honor to withdraw honorably; do you even understand what honor really is?

[Halflight]

Warfare is already governed by the rules established in the Ares Conventions. Why not include a few engagement conventions that handle the recovery of lost mechs?

In ancient warfare, ransoming high value prisoners was common. Perhaps allow pilots or Merc outfits the first option to ransom back their captured mechs? They pay the salvage price for it, plus a percentage (negotiated in their contract?), and they get it back in the condition it was captured. If they can't afford it or choose not to recover it, the victors keep it. That way, dispossessed pilots are a rarity, you can always get your "baby" back if you lose her (provided you have the C-bucks), and the winners get amply rewarded.

A corollary to that would be to allow the option of retreating from battle so that not every engagement results in a lance of burned out mechs. It should be a viable option to protect you assets by withdrawing from combat and one that Mercenary units would tend to employ frequently. The losers still lose and the winners still win, but capturing downed mechs would become a bit more rare, and salvage would be more meaningful.

'To the death' would only be something that fools or zealots would willingly seek out, not pragmatic mercenaries with one eye always on the bottom line.

As for the Clans, I don't know enough about them to guess how this might be incorporated. They're all just targets to me.

Edited by Halflight, 02 November 2011 - 03:22 PM.

[Boagsy007]

To the victor goes the spoils! ugh. in a F2P persistant world.THIS will fail. you will kill of the community faster than ratsak.not everyone has the same playtime avaliable to them. while we all have our own level of love for the game,it will become boring and lonely if you kill off the weak.OFcourse YOU have put effort and passion into the game that YOU love, but if there is nobody to play with,how much fun will you have? I played NBT for 6 years,and quite enjoyed the longevity of that. I'm hopig that this will provide that same longevity.but it means that you have to provide for the casual gamer as much as the hardcore player aswell.both have the same passion and it would be wrong to penalise one because they dont have the physical chance to put the same effort as a hardcore player can.as others say WoT does this well with XP,.you put in the effort you get the reward faster.persistant mechs will provide longevity,and bonus mods will provide the hardcore with the rewards of putting extra effort into their game, that they love.

[Nebfer]

Well how it brakes down is how the game turns out, are their AI bots for you to perform "missions" on, or is the game purely player vs player (team death match, with or with out objectives).

If the game is only players vs players then the penalty for dieing should be less (as your going to do that a lot). Something like how WoT dose it would be ok, modified to handle salvage and what nought.

Though if theirs AI targets and missions to perform the penalty for dieing can be much harsher, partly as your not going to die as often.

[Kotori]

Mm.

Well, in my mind's eyes, how I imagined it could go was mostly based on the design claim that they were going to allow people to play the mech classes they wanted from the start. Therefore, in my head the progression was more like this:

Starter Light Mech: 20 tons. Best Light Mech: 35 tons.
Starter Medium Mech: 40 tons. Best Light Mech: 55 tons.
Starter Heavy Mech: 60 tons. Best Heavy Mech: 75 tons.
Starter Assault Mech: 80 tons. Best Heavy Mech: 100 tons.

This way, players can get several tier of advancement inside a mech weight class. In example, for light mechs:
20 tons, 25 tons, 30 tons, 35 tons. 4 tiers of 'quality' as far as chassis go (assault mechs would get 5, I guess).

I expected that through lateral advancement, consideration for mech fluff/flavor and some balancing that a 35-ton Jenner could be considered potentially deadly to an Atlas pilot; that each could count just as much on the battlefield. Or that you could put a 20-tonner with a 40-tonner and that they'd be considered evenly matched, but for different reasons.

I'm not sure how they'd do it. But it sounded like the design goal they had.

Given how we seem to be have gameplay based on faction allegiance, I also thought that the aspect of distinctive House Units had its merit. I figured that much like League of Legends (never played, but heard of it) you could have as a F2Per a choice of basic 20/40/60/80 tonners at your disposal; maybe they'd even cycle at random too (I hear the 'boos', but it's a good incentive to try new mechs you've never touched too). Then either through in-game earnings or Micro-Transactions, a player could work to have one mech always unlocked for him, or go after an upgrade (A Davion merc could start with a Locust and then earn himself an upgrade to the 25-ton Commando through various means, I'd guess)

Regarding mech 'death', I'm pretty cool with handling it like the first ever PC Mechwarrior did. Your mech sustains damage and you have to fix it. If you can't fix it, then it stays. If your mech becomes incapacitated and that you can't pay to repair it, then its toast until you can fix it - but until then you can go back to the default house unit selection (money sinks are important in MMOs, after all). I am, however, against outright destruction of the mech; most especially if its a Micro-Transaction obtained unlock.

Edited by Kotori, 02 November 2011 - 06:24 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Halflight, on 02 November 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Warfare is already governed by the rules established in the Ares Conventions. Why not include a few engagement conventions that handle the recovery of lost mechs?

In ancient warfare, ransoming high value prisoners was common. Perhaps allow pilots or Merc outfits the first option to ransom back their captured mechs? They pay the salvage price for it, plus a percentage (negotiated in their contract?), and they get it back in the condition it was captured. If they can't afford it or choose not to recover it, the victors keep it. That way, dispossessed pilots are a rarity, you can always get your "baby" back if you lose her (provided you have the C-bucks), and the winners get amply rewarded.

A corollary to that would be to allow the option of retreating from battle so that not every engagement results in a lance of burned out mechs. It should be a viable option to protect you assets by withdrawing from combat and one that Mercenary units would tend to employ frequently. The losers still lose and the winners still win, but capturing downed mechs would become a bit more rare, and salvage would be more meaningful.

'To the death' would only be something that fools or zealots would willingly seek out, not pragmatic mercenaries with one eye always on the bottom line.

As for the Clans, I don't know enough about them to guess how this might be incorporated. They're all just targets to me.

You just made my entire last three days, MechWarrior. Welcome.

[Halflight]

kay wolf, on 02 November 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

You just made my entire last three days, MechWarrior. Welcome.

Thank you, Colonel.

[Woodstock]

Halflight, on 02 November 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Warfare is already governed by the rules established in the Ares Conventions. Why not include a few engagement conventions that handle the recovery of lost mechs?

In ancient warfare, ransoming high value prisoners was common. Perhaps allow pilots or Merc outfits the first option to ransom back their captured mechs? They pay the salvage price for it, plus a percentage (negotiated in their contract?), and they get it back in the condition it was captured. If they can't afford it or choose not to recover it, the victors keep it. That way, dispossessed pilots are a rarity, you can always get your "baby" back if you lose her (provided you have the C-bucks), and the winners get amply rewarded.

A corollary to that would be to allow the option of retreating from battle so that not every engagement results in a lance of burned out mechs. It should be a viable option to protect you assets by withdrawing from combat and one that Mercenary units would tend to employ frequently. The losers still lose and the winners still win, but capturing downed mechs would become a bit more rare, and salvage would be more meaningful.

'To the death' would only be something that fools or zealots would willingly seek out, not pragmatic mercenaries with one eye always on the bottom line.

As for the Clans, I don't know enough about them to guess how this might be incorporated. They're all just targets to me.

Love this idea mate! All of it ... from the 'Ransom' option (we should use that word!) through to the tactical withdrawl. There should be zones on the map that if you can reach you can withdraw from the fight.

I'd say though you would have to be in that zone for 15-30 seconds without taking damage to make it realistic.

[Threat Doc]

Halflight, on 03 November 2011 - 04:28 AM, said:

Thank you, Colonel.

<S>

[Halflight]

woodstock, on 03 November 2011 - 04:38 AM, said:

Love this idea mate! All of it ... from the 'Ransom' option (we should use that word!) through to the tactical withdrawl. There should be zones on the map that if you can reach you can withdraw from the fight.

I'd say though you would have to be in that zone for 15-30 seconds without taking damage to make it realistic.

That might be a bit tricky since all the opposition needs to do is send one mech to cut off your retreat by plinking at you with something like an AC/2, completely preventing your retreat. Perhaps each side would have a drop ship at either end of the battlefield that would act as their pull out zone (especially since dropships are strictly hands off). That way, you could still have your retreat cut off and you'll need to fight your way to safety, but those trying to prevent you will actually have to work for it a little. They won't be able to stop you just by chipping your paint. But once you make it into your dropship, you're home free.

The only thing is that the dropships couldn't be too close to the action, by no means making the decision to retreat an automatic escape. You still need to get there. What that will do, for good or bad, is set up situations where lighter mechs have a better chance of escaping than the heavies. Likewise, if you're trying to chase down a retreating foe, it will be your lighter assets that will be most involved in harassing a fleeing enemy.

This type of thing might tend to draw combat out longer and make players more tentative about committing. Again, I'm not sure if that would be good or bad.

[Havoc2]

theforce, on 01 November 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

How do you decide who gets to start with a heavy and who gets to start with a light? What if I want to pilot a medium and get stuck in an assault? What if I always wanted to be a scout, I get my light mech, but find out I really don't like it?

How about letting players create multiple characters and choosing the weight class of mech each character pilots? When it comes joining a lance to play games, put a tonnage cap on the lance, then decide which mech you're going to take into battle based on what other players are driving?

I think (hope) this thinking is NOT along the lines of what the devs are planning.

I'm hoping that I can create 1 MechWarrior and have them pilot any 'Mech I feel like taking, with their advancements being specific to targeting, electronics whatever I train them in not restricting me to only being able to use a specific class of 'Mech.

What I'm envisioning the devs are going to do (from reading their blogs and game updates) is that the PILOT will be training up points as you level, not the 'Mech.

So instead of hitting level 5 and boosting your Strength by 5, you add 5 to your targeting skill.
This would also be a great way to open up higher tier 'Mechs and weapons if you need to have a minimum skillset in something to use it.
Maybe physical attributes of the pilot as well like stamina. Allows your 'Mech to run hotter without the pilot passing out from heat exhaustion.

Edited by }{avoc, 03 November 2011 - 07:44 AM.

[McCaffrey]

woodstock, on 03 November 2011 - 04:38 AM, said:

Love this idea mate! All of it ... from the 'Ransom' option (we should use that word!) through to the tactical withdrawl. There should be zones on the map that if you can reach you can withdraw from the fight.

I'd say though you would have to be in that zone for 15-30 seconds without taking damage to make it realistic.

Great addition, Woodstock. It IS a game, so they have to keep some sort of system to allow you to continue playing in a true MMO experience. But a ransom and withdrawal system would be pretty **** cool.

Can you imagine coming around to the rear and blocking off a retreat? Would make the game a heck of a lot more interesting.

[Barantor]

Kotori, on 02 November 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Starter Light Mech: 20 tons. Best Light Mech: 35 tons.
Starter Medium Mech: 40 tons. Best Light Mech: 55 tons.
Starter Heavy Mech: 60 tons. Best Heavy Mech: 75 tons.
Starter Assault Mech: 80 tons. Best Heavy Mech: 100 tons.

This way, players can get several tier of advancement inside a mech weight class. In example, for light mechs:
20 tons, 25 tons, 30 tons, 35 tons. 4 tiers of 'quality' as far as chassis go (assault mechs would get 5, I guess).

The problem with this is that tonnage does not equal 'better'. The Locust is a great scout and is only 20 tons, so does that mean that a higher tonnage scout is somehow 'better'?

I am more for enhancement of the mech and pilot being the advancement rather than the tonnage of the mech. This way a newer player in an Atlas that thinks he is king dog for such a large mech can still be taken out by that guy in a hunchback who is a vet and knows where, when and how to hit an Atlas to make him go running back to his homeworld.

I am adamantly opposed to making the tonnage the advancement as it means you end up with Assault Brawler fights just like you do in clan wars in WoT.

[Threat Doc]

Halflight, on 03 November 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:

That might be a bit tricky since all the opposition needs to do is send one mech to cut off your retreat by plinking at you with something like an AC/2, completely preventing your retreat.

Not preventing, just giving you pause. You defeat the 'Mechs blocking your retreat which are, by the way, generally going to need to be faster than the retreating element as a whole, meaning also they're lighter on weapons and armor, and you continue your retreat.

Quote

Perhaps each side would have a drop ship at either end of the battlefield that would act as their pull out zone (especially since dropships are strictly hands off).

Are you going by the fluff and the Conventions here, Halflight, or by something I may not have read that has come from the Devs? If you look at the picture at the top of any web page -I really wish they would dog that down in the code, make it stop scrolling with the page- you'll see a crashed Union-class behind and to the right of the Atlas.

Quote

That way, you could still have your retreat cut off and you'll need to fight your way to safety, but those trying to prevent you will actually have to work for it a little. They won't be able to stop you just by chipping your paint. But once you make it into your dropship, you're home free.

I could agree that there would be a time limit to lock down 'Mech berths inside the DropShip and get the door(s) closed, but then you would be considered home free. That means beating a hasty retreat and, possibly, losing your slower 'Mechs to combat or trampling to get the rest of you.

Quote

The only thing is that the dropships couldn't be too close to the action, by no means making the decision to retreat an automatic escape. You still need to get there. What that will do, for good or bad, is set up situations where lighter mechs have a better chance of escaping than the heavies. Likewise, if you're trying to chase down a retreating foe, it will be your lighter assets that will be most involved in harassing a fleeing enemy.

That could open a whole new bag of strategy, and I like the idea, frankly. Using Lights to circle around, harass the pursuers and pull them off for a while, or the entire element needing to take a detour and try to get some distance, due to terrain difficulty or whatever, just to keep them out of your LZ. I really like that.

Quote

This type of thing might tend to draw combat out longer and make players more tentative about committing. Again, I'm not sure if that would be good or bad.

It actually sounds good to me, but what about this sort of solution: combat is not engaged until the first two enemy combatants come within range of LRM max range fire. Likewise, once combat has commenced, and once both elements are separated by that same distance for thirty seconds, combat is ended. Once outside twice that range, the retreating or maneuvering element is no longer considered to be under rout. That sound workable?

Barantor, on 03 November 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

I am adamantly opposed to making the tonnage the advancement as it means you end up with Assault Brawler fights just like you do in clan wars in WoT.

Is it okay for me to say AMEN! here?

[MaddMaxx]

Mech persistence is a tricky one over-all. Straight death and loss versus withdrawal zones versus punching out versus repair times for cost. What the Dev have to deal with at the core is how does a Player get back onto the field asap after losing a Mech to attrition? Here are some thoughts.

Option 1:

First off, I'll be arsed to sit at/in my Cockpit (keyboard/Stick setup) and wait while my ride gets repaired. I might not get so excited about simply going into the Mech bay and selecting a Stock unit (at whatever the penalty tonnage is set to) but then how do I get back to the fight? Run my new temp ride back, perhaps across 100's of miles of terrain. Not a first choice for sure.

Option 2:

Do I auto-magically appear in the doorway of a Dropship at the outer boundary of the current conflict area? Much better than Option 1 but sorta takes away from you having just lost your ride as a member of your battle Lance. Not bad but we can do better right?

Option 3:

Or each fight is simply Lance vs Lance and the last Mech standing win the field. Salvage is divided among the Teams based on percentage of tonnage fielded multiplied by the tonnage left moving on the winning team. That would provide decent length Battles so the first knocked out would get back to the next fight in a decent time and I would ask the Dev provide a way for those players to watch (no input allowed) the rest of the battle from some feed derived from a still active Teammates cockpit (switchable as well).

Option 4:

Provide differing Match types would allow for a set # of player re-spawns (actually re-dropped into the theater in a POD from a Dropship) Would make a great cut-scene and if you get bored of seeing it, just don't get killed so much LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 November 2011 - 01:09 PM.