62 replies to this topic

[Maharbal Reiner]

Hello everyone,

first of all im terribly sorry for my bad english. I'm from germany and, to be honest, the german forum here is not really worth the discussion This may also be the reason why this will be my first post here.

There are two major topics i want to discuss here.

First: The economic balancing for each Player

As already discussed in several other topics, there is the question about the amount of starting money going hand in hand with the scope of decisions that can be made at the beginning.
There will be 4 indicators for the developement of a player: Money, Mech-experience, Player-experience and the Loality-Points for each house.
→ The „scope of economic decisions“ ( primarily in form of acess to different types of weapons an mech-models ) could only be influenced by one of the above mentioned indicators.
Both mech- and player-experience don't seem to have any impact on the „economic decision-diversity“ ( in a universe like that it wouldnt be comprehensible).
In addition, house-loyality doesn't seem to work because of the mercenary-aspect of the game ( there was also a discussion about some minor influences like better prices for greater loyality and so on... thats not the point).
The last option left semms to be the amount of money you have. It's also the most natural border you could imagine.
But heres the problem with money as an indicator for developement:
Unlike Mech-/Player-Experience or mostly loyality, money does not seem to be a permanently rising factor in the game. You will have to repair your mech for some comprehensible amount of money and also C-Bills spent on new weapons/other equipment will be lost forever.

The huge problem that comes with this assumption:
A game that is completely built up on PVP can and will not work that way.
When everyone has to fight other real players all the time and all this battles have some kind of economic factor ( weapons can be destroyed, there will be, at least in comparison to other mmo-games, huge repair-costs), then there will be always players that are „downranked“ in their developement.
It's not like that every mmo based on the possibility to lose the things you have worked hard for is damned to fail. Positive examples would be „Darkfall“ or „EVE-Online“. But all these successfull games have PVE in their content which allows to compensate the risk of that kind of PVP.
Ok, the devs said that it would not be possible to lose your mech in a fight.
But thats not the solution to the problem. If your mech is heavily damaged after a fight and you dont have the C-Bills to repair it, then what?


---->Ok, i know that all the previous assumptions are based on a rather roleplaying-like concept. It is, for example, nowhere said, that money will be that great of a deal.
But it's also important to compare the developement of the game with the base of players that will be playing it in the near future.
Other than WoW or Darkfall/EVE-Online the MWO-World will have many rules and things that are CANON. And other than the previous examples most MWO-Players will have a strong relation to this rules and borders that make the Battletech-Universe so unique.
Its now important to see, that this rules and the expectations of most of the Fanbase ( there are many/countless discussions about the realistic transmission of elements into the game) often lead into a more roleplaying-heavy-concept of the game.
Some of the previous mentioned examples: Repairing your Mech will cost comparatively much ( There could be a border in some cases, where the expense does not justify the compensation), you will have to invest time and effort to get better equipment/Mechs, Loyality should grant ( easier) access to some special Mechs/Weapons, Assault-Mechs are in general ( most situations) better than light/medium mechs ( although there are some great workarounds to avoid the complete dominance of superheavy-mechs on the battlefield).

The other way round ( sacrifice most rpg-parts) would be some kind of „Battlefield“ as Mech-Simulation with some nice gimicks like the star-map of the inner spheres ( where you can jump in no time from one end to another → see second topic) where money has no real importance.
→ Thats no longer a MMO...

Regarding the Release-Date this summer the decision about such basic things should already been made by the developers...

What do you think? How will this all work out?



Second: Only a small question about the Star Map^^: Do you think they will built in some kind of travel-time or so? I think that this would be great in theory... but it won't be practically feasible .

Again i' sorry for my bad english. I did my best :/.

[SI The Joker]

Interesting discussion for sure. Oh, and you're english? Better than some native speakers that I know, no apologies needed.

I'll address the discussion in reverse.

Time travel? I sure hope not.

Money -- I get what you mean here. In other games, PvE creates the environment for people to "make money" and in this game we won't have that, so you're questioning how money will factor in.

I think that "repairing your mech" between missions is something that will just "happen". It may have a cost wrapped into your pay on whatever contract you work, but I don't expect this game to get down to that granular of a level.

As for weapons... my guess would be that they'd give us all some standard stuff to start with, and everything else would be for purchase in the online store for c-bills (or hard currency which is converted to c-bills and then purchased). Once you purchase the weapon/module, you can equip it on your mech, period. You wouldn't "lose" the weapon. If you have more than 1 mech, you'd need 1 for each mech you have.

Devs make mention of that concept here: http://mwomercs.com/...e-warfare-cont/

I don't know how purchasing mechs will be handled. But I'm thinking it's got to be along the same lines as weapons... either soft/hard currency to get access to new mechs or via experience... hard currency of course being the faster route.

I can't see them saying "Well, you just spent $X on that mech in our online store... you played it for 1 match, got blown up... so now you don't have that mech anymore... go spend $X again to buy another one.".

Maybe I'm wrong though?

[MaddMaxx]

No permanent Chassis Loss - confirmed!

[Halfinax]

It would seem that you are coming from the assumption that the cost of repairs could meet or exceed amount of C-bills a player will earn per match. I'm sure the devs have no intention of allowing that to happen. I would suspect that the C-bill earnings for each match would be fairly generous and at least always match the maximum cost of repairs for a ruined 'Mech.

The game is F2P so they definitely want a lot of sinks for the in-game currency. After all a moderately slow rate of C-bill acquisition is how they would encourage players to use real money to buy new 'Mechs, but still ensure that players that don't spend money can get those same 'Mechs.

If they do go with the method you are afraid they might go (you can lose C-bills from your current pool) then it would undoubtedly be a factor that would turn new players away, and ultimately be self defeating.

As others have pointed out OP you have a stronger grasp of the English language than many native speakers. Good topic, and worthy of serious discussion.

[Thorn Hallis]

I imagine a system like World of Tanks, where even a losing battle generates some credits (based on the individual performance), which is mostly enough to repair and rearm your tank in the lower tiers.

[Slyck]

I rather hope repairs DO act as a balancing factor for some of the heavier mechs. The Devs have already stated that it will be quite possible for you to have to take a damaged mech into combat, so it seems likely.

I think one way to balance this is to include discounts for faction specific mechs in the Loyalty points. This should encourage diversity in what mechs get played without actually limiting players options.

I also belive you should be able to spend RL cash on C-Bills so you can bypass these economic restriction if your willing to spend the cash.

[SI The Joker]

Slyck, on 29 February 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

I rather hope repairs DO act as a balancing factor for some of the heavier mechs. The Devs have already stated that it will be quite possible for you to have to take a damaged mech into combat, so it seems likely.

I think one way to balance this is to include discounts for faction specific mechs in the Loyalty points. This should encourage diversity in what mechs get played without actually limiting players options.

I also belive you should be able to spend RL cash on C-Bills so you can bypass these economic restriction if your willing to spend the cash.

Where was it said that you'd possibly take a damaged mech into combat? That does change things a bit if that's the case.

I would imagine your hard cash is turned into c-bills... much in the same way DDO uses "Turbine Points".

[MaddMaxx]

SI The Joker, on 29 February 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

Where was it said that you'd possibly take a damaged mech into combat? That does change things a bit if that's the case.

I would imagine your hard cash is turned into c-bills... much in the same way DDO uses "Turbine Points".

In the Role Warfare Q&A a Dev said you "could" take a damaged Mech out. We assumed it would be due to a lack of funding for a Full repair. He was obviously talking about the "Other Team"

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 February 2012 - 12:05 PM.

[Slyck]

SI The Joker, on 29 February 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

I would imagine your hard cash is turned into c-bills... much in the same way DDO uses "Turbine Points".

And this is actually an important point for me. If there is a premium currency that you buy with hard cash, lets say "Warrior Points", you will need to convert it into C-Bills before spending it on anything that affects gameplay. That way people playing for free aren't locked out of anything that you can call P2W.

[Ian MacLeary]

Armor and internals don't cost that much to begin with - even the advanced stuff. If you don't take any criticals or get any limbs blown off, repairs shouldn't be that expensive.

Once you start racking up the destroyed weapons, though, you're talking a decent-sized chunk of the original purchase price to repair it.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Slyck, on 29 February 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

And this is actually an important point for me. If there is a premium currency that you buy with hard cash, lets say "Warrior Points", you will need to convert it into C-Bills before spending it on anything that affects gameplay. That way people playing for free aren't locked out of anything that you can call P2W.

I hope its not a two stage thing. Make it like LoL you can buy champs with IP or RP. You're not forced to convert first. Unneeded extra steps are annoying.

[Slyck]

I only imagine a conversion because of the granularity of C-Bills. We can go from buying equipment worth a few thousand C-Bills to Mechs worth several million, and repair cast that range anywhere in between. So one unit of premium currency will probably be worth several C-Bills. Without a conversion step it will be hard to balance the effect of RL cash on gameplay.

[SI The Joker]

MaddMaxx, on 29 February 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

In the latest Q&A a Dev said you "could" take a damaged Mech out. We assumed it would be due to a lack of funding for a Full repair. He was obviously talking about the "Other Team"

Are we talking about Q&A 3?

http://mwomercs.com/...mation-warfare/

I'm not seeing it there.

[Slyck]

[GARTH] To be clear, you could take a damaged ‘Mech into combat, if you wanted to.

Role Warefare Q&A

[Halfinax]

Slyck, on 29 February 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I only imagine a conversion because of the granularity of C-Bills. We can go from buying equipment worth a few thousand C-Bills to Mechs worth several million, and repair cast that range anywhere in between. So one unit of premium currency will probably be worth several C-Bills. Without a conversion step it will be hard to balance the effect of RL cash on gameplay.

What? How does a conversion step change that at all? If 1 USD = 1,000,000,000 C-bills, or 1 USD = 200,000 "Warrior Bills" each of which converts into 5 C-Bills then it's exactly the same thing, but with an extra step thrown in for the hell of it.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the amount of C-Bills you can get for a "Warrior Bill" should vary from day to day, or something along those line?

Edit: For the record I don't think hard currency should buy C-bills, but rather should directly purchase products. Skip the funny money step altogether.

Edited by Halfinax, 29 February 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Maharbal Reiner]

Quote

SI The Joker said: As for weapons... my guess would be that they'd give us all some standard stuff to start with, and everything else would be for purchase in the online store for c-bills (or hard currency which is converted to c-bills and then purchased). Once you purchase the weapon/module, you can equip it on your mech, period. You wouldn't "lose" the weapon. If you have more than 1 mech, you'd need 1 for each mech you have.

Devs make mention of that concept here: http://mwomercs.com/...e-warfare-cont/

-> @SI The Joker: When "studying" the module-section, i did not think of weapons working the same as modules but it could be a possibility. However this would reduce the importance of money significantly. Its even a "clear break" with the common way of thinking... hmmm, sometimes their has to be the principle: "playability over realism". But perhaps theres a better way to sustain economic balance without just ti simplify possible aspects of the game.

Quote

SI The Joker said: I think that "repairing your mech" between missions is something that will just "happen". It may have a cost wrapped into your pay on whatever contract you work, but I don't expect this game to get down to that granular of a level.

Quote

Halfinax said: It would seem that you are coming from the assumption that the cost of repairs could meet or exceed amount of C-bills a player will earn per match. I'm sure the devs have no intention of allowing that to happen. I would suspect that the C-bill earnings for each match would be fairly generous and at least always match the maximum cost of repairs for a ruined 'Mech.

Quote

Thorn Hallis said: I imagine a system like World of Tanks, where even a losing battle generates some credits (based on the individual performance), which is mostly enough to repair and rearm your tank in the lower tiers.

Quote

Slyck said: I rather hope repairs DO act as a balancing factor for some of the heavier mechs. The Devs have already stated that it will be quite possible for you to have to take a damaged mech into combat, so it seems likely.

I think one way to balance this is to include discounts for faction specific mechs in the Loyalty points. This should encourage diversity in what mechs get played without actually limiting players options.

Quote

Ian MacLeary said: Armor and internals don't cost that much to begin with - even the advanced stuff. If you don't take any criticals or get any limbs blown off, repairs shouldn't be that expensive.

Once you start racking up the destroyed weapons, though, you're talking a decent-sized chunk of the original purchase price to repair it.

-> To begin, a short statement about the presumptions that you can convert real money into ingame-currency:
I think, for a F2P-Game you should always be aware of not destroying the playerbase by granting direct advantages to people that are willing to pay. In fact that destroys the whole foundation of a F2P-Game ( the devs have to see the player-base as an investion itself... theres a good video out there... somwhere in this forum ).
Now, if ingame-currency becomes the indicator for developement in the game ( as mentioned in my first post), the convertion of real money into C-Bills could crash the game-concept and its playerbase.
Because of that ( and to simplify the next steps ): First think of the situation excluding any possibility of Real-Money-Investion.

---> Most people tend to the case, that money wont be that great of a deal when it comes to repairing your mech after battle. If thats the case, then it would decrease the importance of C-Bills further. But if money is not that great of an issue, what does that mean in the long run? Everyone can afford anything in nearly no time ( excluding Mech/Player-skills)? As already mentioned in the first post: It does not seem that there will be any other boundary for your decisionmaking than money.
This would lead to the case where everyone can afford an assault mech... and most people would take an assault mech, because as good as the thoughts about different roles in a lance or company are, after 2-3 positions for Scouts and Commander(s) are manned the rest will rely on the best firepower/armor ( this may partly also be true for commanders?).
There are some posibilities for some kind of workaround. But all these will break up with the official "value-relations" in the Battletech-Universe ( as already mentioned -> Nearly no repair-costs, therefore a much more slower increase of C-Bills?), except the introducing of some PVE...

... Damn, wnated to step further into it... but its Soccer-Time: germany aganist France ... have to see it!

[Slyck]

Maharbal Reiner, on 29 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Now, if ingame-currency becomes the indicator for developement in the game ( as mentioned in my first post), the convertion of real money into C-Bills could crash the game-concept and its playerbase.

...

This would lead to the case where everyone can afford an assault mech... and most people would take an assault mech, because as good as the thoughts about different roles in a lance or company are, after 2-3 positions for Scouts and Commander(s) are manned the rest will rely on the best firepower/armor ( this may partly also be true for commanders?).

I don't actually view C-Bills as being an indicator of development, that will be up to XP, Pilot Points and Loyalty Points. They've already said they want people to be able to jump directly into whatever chassis they want right off the bat. So balancing the requirements/desire of playing other chassis will have come from other aspects of gameplay, such as xp or map size limiting the effectiveness of slow mechs.

C-Bill management therefore will simply be a mini-game within the game that people should be able to skip if they like.

[Halfinax]

Maharbal Reiner I don't think it would be terribly viable for this game to use C-Bills as the indicator for progression in the game. As you pointed out this is a F2P game and that means there will be the ability for players to buy certain goods with real currency, therefore; it is impossible to utilizes C-bills as the marker for success/progression in the game.

It will be a combination of the 'Mech and Pilot skills that will indicate how much a player has progressed in the game along with the actual players own increase in aptitude. This isn't an MMO, and is unlikely, at least at launch, to have a player driven economy, and to be honest the F2P model actually makes the concept of a player driven economy less viable.

[MaddMaxx]

Slyck, on 29 February 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

[GARTH] To be clear, you could take a damaged ‘Mech into combat, if you wanted to.

Role Warefare Q&A

Thanks Slyck. I edited my post to clarify and verify for the terrified.

[Maharbal Reiner]

Quote

They've already said they want people to be able to jump directly into whatever chassis they want right off the bat.

Good to know .

Most parts of my argumentation were built up on the case that money becomes the main-indicator for progress. Getting away from the "developement through equipment" point of view it will make some elements of the game pretty insignificant ( as already called: Mini-Game) but tthats not that bad. From the view of a F2P-Model it even might be exactly what the game needed to provide useful bonuses for player paying real money without affecting game balance ( as already mentioned by Slyck/Halfinax).

Now i'm a little bit relieved .