97 replies to this topic

[Siilk]

From what we know about MWO gameplay, I have come to think that for a pilot, who lost most of his firepower due to wasted ammo or weapons destruction, there are practically no options other than ramming/DFA/etc, which in would not be a best possible choice all the time, as mech is valuable and repairing it would require a lot of cbills. Sometimes retreating from the battlefield would be a better choice if the mech is not combat-capable any more but still can move freely.

Additionally, in campaign mode, during planetary assault a situation could emerge when one of the teams have no chances of winning against the other. In that case, team leader will be better off issuing a retreat order to keep team mechs intact and later regroup with other players of his faction, rather than attacking the enemy, his team has no chance to beat.

Now in full-fledged MMO, such things are done by simply running away. But MWO is match-based so what I want to discuss here is the ways to implement retreat and evacuation from the battlefield in different game modes, specifically in team death match and planetary campaign.

It shouldn't be easy and too forgiving, score-wise but it has to be a viable option to save what's left from your mech. It could cost you some part of match income(but definitely less that the cost of repairing a completely ruined mech), it could also yield less experience per that match. Ideally, I'd like to see it as a mission of it's own, with someone on the team(maybe only commander role players?) calling a dropship to one of a possible landing locations on the outskirts of the map and retreating players rushing there to board the ship with their lancemates providing a covering fire(MW2:Mercs intro comes to mind). Maybe such extraction flights should be limited to 1-2 per match?

Anyway, I really interested to hear what you guys think about all this.

Edited by Siilk, 31 March 2012 - 05:02 AM.

[Morashtak]

Info Warfare should provide some of the badly needed fog of war so many games were, and in some cases still are, needing.

Yielding the battlefield and retreating to the Dropship could be one of the logical outcomes to both Battlefield Coordinators (BC) looking over their own teammates conditions and then using outdated info of the enemy deciding whether to continue the fight or deciding the odds are stacked against them. Either or both could be wrong but not know it.

Individual and team yields would be an interesting idea if implemented correctly. Would save both sides c-bill in repair but always make one wonder if they couldn't have pulled off the last minute upset at the expense of a much higher repair bill.

[Nick Makiaveli]

It sounds good, and I would like to see a system covering this setup. However, a couple of things stick out. First each individual player is responsible for his/her mechs, not the unit. So you will have a mix of wealthy and poor pilots, as opposed to the unit being in a collective state of wealth or poverty. Also, if you have the cash, I assume in MWO you have the parts. Doesn't matter there is only 18 of those spare parts in the whole IS, if you have the C-bills, you can repair your mech. 42 times a day if you have the cash.

Point being, unlike the lore where there is a good reason to retreat, in MWO there is no real risk of losing your mech permanently, and no unified sense of losing the unit either.

[Siilk]

Nick Makiaveli, on 31 March 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

in MWO there is no real risk of losing your mech permanently, and no unified sense of losing the unit either.

That is true. What concerns me is the situation where a single mech, that becomes useless in battle would be better off leaving the field than handing out there. Let me elaborate: assume there's a mech, armed with large lasers and and SRMs. During the first couple of encounters, pilot used all the ammunition and the mech is now completely "dry". It also took some damage, and the enemy managed to destroy both lasers. The problem is, this mech is not only hardly combat-useful, helpless even, if faced with a fresh opponent but also would provide enemy team with XP and cbills, if brought down. Besides, if the player is of Attack or Defence role, he is forced to aimlessly wander the map for the rest of the match as he can't really do anything useful most of the time. Not really a good gameplay here.

My point main is, even if cost of repairing a completely destroyed mech would be negligible(which I seriously doubt), you still have the reason to retreat to prevent the enemy team from scoring cbills and XP by destroying your mech. And, of course, actively retreating is better than just hanging in the rear without the ability to do anything if you're not a scout or commander and your mech not combat-capable any more.

As a side note, we know that you can't permanently loose your mech, even if it's destroyed, but I think there should be some sort of negative effect of such situation, or no one would care about "dieing" at all. Higher repair cost for "destroyed" mech could be one of such penalties. Also, what about with mech being destroyed, it loses all the XP-related chassis bonuses, associated with that particular mech? It seems logical and it's not a total disaster(after all, those bonuses provide only a tiny advantage). Such things will make player think twice before rushing mindlessly onto enemy lines.

[Vodkavaiator]

It would be quite interesting to have an option for retreating.

Then morale would actually make a big difference and it would add another strategic element to the gameplay.

For example, a team may elect to retreat when they start taking too many causalities, etc.

Edited by Vodkavaiator, 31 March 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Siilk, on 31 March 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

That is true. What concerns me is the situation where a single mech, that becomes useless in battle would be better off leaving the field than handing out there. Let me elaborate: assume there's a mech, armed with large lasers and and SRMs. During the first couple of encounters, pilot used all the ammunition and the mech is now completely "dry". It also took some damage, and the enemy managed to destroy both lasers. The problem is, this mech is not only hardly combat-useful, helpless even, if faced with a fresh opponent but also would provide enemy team with XP and cbills, if brought down. Besides, if the player is of Attack or Defence role, he is forced to aimlessly wander the map for the rest of the match as he can't really do anything useful most of the time. Not really a good gameplay here.

Ok so here we are talking about a single player doing what is best for himself, not the team. This being a team based game, that's not a good thing. As to the mobile but weaponless mech, he could still be useful to the team. Scouting for example. Sure he probably doesn't have the modules or skills, but if he has Vent he can still say I got 2 mechs just south of me. He can also charge the enemy in front of his buddies and draw fire. Point being he isn't completely useless. Also, unless winning the mission involves dealing more damage than the enemy or actual kills, I don't see giving the other side more money/XP as that big of a deal. Even if I went House, I wouldn't care that much about the meta-game.

Siilk, on 31 March 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

My point main is, even if cost of repairing a completely destroyed mech would be negligible(which I seriously doubt), you still have the reason to retreat to prevent the enemy team from scoring cbills and XP by destroying your mech. And, of course, actively retreating is better than just hanging in the rear without the ability to do anything if you're not a scout or commander and your mech not combat-capable any more.

Covered this above. Also, retreating means you still get XP/C-bills right? So what's to stop someone from firing off all their missiles and retreating just to save on repair bills? What if they only have a single small laser? Should they be penalized for retreating or prevented from doing so since they still have a weapon?

Siilk, on 31 March 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

As a side note, we know that you can't permanently loose your mech, even if it's destroyed, but I think there should be some sort of negative effect of such situation, or no one would care about "dieing" at all. Higher repair cost for "destroyed" mech could be one of such penalties. Also, what about with mech being destroyed, it loses all the XP-related chassis bonuses, associated with that particular mech? It seems logical and it's not a total disaster(after all, those bonuses provide only a tiny advantage). Such things will make player think twice before rushing mindlessly onto enemy lines.

The chassis bonuses represent your knowledge and you keep them even if you sell the mech. So not happening and a bad idea to boot. I would assume that having your mech completely destroyed will generate a large repair bill, probably more than you earned even for a win.

Vodkavaiator, on 31 March 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

It would be quite interesting to have an option for retreating.

Then morale would actually make a big difference and it would add another strategic element to the gameplay.

For example, a team may elect to retreat when they start taking too many causalities, etc.

Would make for a perfect cheating tactic. Show up, take some damage, then retreat to let your buddies win.

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 31 March 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Seabear]

The idea of being able to withdraw a mech from combat has great potential. When a mech becomes unusable in battle, the option should be there to retreat, especially if the mech becomes a liability to the team.(ie. needing other mechs to provide cover). This option can set up some interesting scenarios. For instance, using a team as a diversionary tactic long enough for a strike in another area. This tactic is one used by all houses, but by some more than others. In a campaign, the need to preserve one's mechs take on an added importance as the need to keep a force in being can influence the outcome. This hs definite possibilities.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

A lot of the mechs shown so far are ammo dependant. If you have a Commando and have used your ammo, there probably isn't much scouting left to do as all remaining mechs are engaged. Whats wrong in retreating if the Catapults etc are also out of ammo. At least some of the other mechs might have worthwhile weaponry ie multiple MLs. I could see the team doing a tactical withdrawal if they aren't going to win to reduce their losses. Especially if the other team is fielding Atlas' and Awesomes at the end. ie you can run away 'cos their slow but you can't kill them.

[Siilk]

True. Besides, full team retreat is not as easy as it seems. It would involve breaking the contact with the enemy, moving to the edge of the map under heavy fire and possibly boarding the dropship. It would not be an instant fail-safe bailout, but rather a hard tactical decision, which at best would leave retreated players with no XP and cbills, with a badly planned retreat leading to team being scattered and hunted one by one being a possibility.

As for player acting selfish, I cannot really agree with that. Saving your life and your mech(especially your mech) so that you could be of use in the future instead of dieing on the battlefield should be one of the priority tasks for a mech pilots. Hanging on the battlefield with no practical ability to defend yourself, not to mention attack the enemy, will be counterintuitive in real combat situation. The problem is, even now, before the game is started, I already see the notion of treating mech damage and destruction as something negligible, not really worth worrying about. That's, of course, caused by mildness of the consequences of such events. I don't want to argue with the idea of keeping MWO from being too hardcore for average player by allowing full mech destruction, but I think some sort of substantial negative penalty for mech destruction is necessary to keep the more serious tone, especially considering how scarce and valuable mech are in battletech universe.

And finally regarding cheating: risk of players giving the match away to their fellows is a completely valid point but it's not tied to retreating. Consider this: teams A and B work together to earn XP. Team A meets team B in the battlefield and lets them disable all their mechs without shooting back. Team B tries to cause as little damage as practically possible, so that team A would not have to deal with huge repair bill. Team B wins. Team A gets a little cbills, team B gets a lot of cbills and XP. Teams change their roles. Rinse, repeat. As you can see, such scenario does not require retreating to work and should be discussed separately to find out the way to address it.

[Tryg]

One thing I've noticed hasn't been mentioned...the simple act of self-sacrifice takes on a much more meaningful role in a system where retreating is possible. Everyone focuses on that one 'selfish' pilot who's little more then a walking target fleeing the field.

But, if the option to retreat is there, and said pilot /chooses/ to stay and make that sacrifice for his comrades, it has far more meaning then if there simply wasn't any alternative so he did the only thing available to him. Lets leave some room for heroism in here.

And what about the rounds where one team is soundly pounded into near oblivion, they've got (for the sake of argument) one mech left on the field against we'll say (again for the sake of argument) eight enemy mechs. The battle is lost, short of the enemy suddenly going afk or experiencing an absence of skill they haven't thusfar displayed, so should he be required to stay in the fight, get killed, and be forced to take not just the loss but the repair bills to go with it. Or should he have the option to flee, take the loss, but save himself some C-bills?

The system would have to be worked out, but I think it would add more to the game then it would take away. And there should be reasons to not do it (helping the team, experience penalties, etc...) but the idea is that it's a choice for which is the greater good. Sacrifice the c-bills to gain just that extra bit of experience? Or sacrifice the experience to spare yourself just a bit more in repair costs?

[Nick Makiaveli]

Some of you obviously missed the part about even a weaponless mech being useful. I look forward to meeting some of you guys on the battlefield as long as you are the opfor.

As to cheating, if Team B doesn't fire a single shot, that would make it real easy to catch the cheaters, especially if they all lose their mechs due to just a head shot or being legged etc. Things like that can be detected by anti-cheating software.

Also, some review of the available info seems to be needed, as this isn't the TT version. Bigger isn't automatically better, and just because the enemy has Assault class mechs left on the field doesn't mean they win. If those mechs are damaged, then even if all you have are small lasers and MGs you could still eke out a win.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of encouraging people to act in a more realistic manner, and retreating to save mechs is very canon. However so is the almost certainly suicidal charge that wins the day!

[FinnMcKool]

What is this word "retreat" ?

Explain this concept of "no chance of winning" ?




I wish I could pilot a dropship so I could go and save my team .

Edited by FinnMcKool, 31 March 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Outrider01]

Nick Makiaveli, on 31 March 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Some of you obviously missed the part about even a weaponless mech being useful. I look forward to meeting some of you guys on the battlefield as long as you are the opfor.

Because its boring as hell doing nothing. Running around, scouting, when your "team" for lack of a better word (cluster of mindless cattle works) isn't really back up, that is justification to just leave the match when you belive its a loss. Yes, this is exactly why pub matches failed in WoT...you add in repair costs and egos to score better...you got guys in tier 10 tanks doing nothing and worthless little scout tanks dying while they try to do their job (no really, its that easy to counter scout: stay behind a rock, don't move, if he shows up pop his *** and move because its guaranteed the worthless artty on the scout's team didn't move his tank to be able to chuck rounds down range at a different angle to counter that rock). In a pub match, you don't have a team, you have every other guy generally moving in the same direction but you have lack of coordination (we don't all speak the same language, I don't know the plan you came up with but you lacked the ability to communicate so it is really my fault your Maus on the other side of the map died).

If I want to go, I want to go. In a public match, I didn't have a choice being dropped in random uncontrollable matches (in WoT's case) so why would you have the choice to force me to die for Joe Chump I never even met? There better be a worthwile reward to stick around, cause playing a virtual hero in a virtual game that will not land me a Purple Heart is a waste of my time.

[T0RC4ED]

Im thinking if the devs allowed people to retreat they would do something like Battlefield 2 or COD did. If you drop from a match you still got the XP/stats increased that you earned but didnt get the end match bonuses.

If you choose to retreat when you see me on the battlefield don't worry, you will be counted as one of the smart ones.

[HeIIequin]

The only reason I dislike the idea of retreating is when (we're not entirely sure how the pubs will work, but I imagine a party matchmaking system broken down into ranked/unranked style matches), say your team is completely pub, and you find yourself going up against a pre-made. These guys are good. Match JUST started and the Commander says "We're not going to win, lets just retreat so we can get a new match we CAN win." I am reminded of WoW bg's immediately.

That said, I DO like the idea of retreating, if people use it properly. It just needs to ensure that my scenario above CANNOT happen. It's one thing for a 'canon' company to retreat (they only get 1 life), and completely another in a video game with respawns.

On a side note, has Piranha said anything about a commander calling in supply drops, repair trucks or anything similar?

Edited by HeIIequin, 01 April 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Recently, a lot of threads have been talking about the mechanics involved in salvaging, repairing and so forth of a 'mech. If repair costs are going to be expensive and lost equipment needs to be repurchased and replaced (if it's even available!), this is really bringing up an interesting issue: The need for retreat.

In past games it was a fight to the death or until the clock ran down; individual units would have to survive until it expired in order to leave the battlefield. I'm basically proposing that each team be given a "retreat zone" that pilots, if they get their ride shot up too much, can make a break for to keep their gear intact.

The importance of this obviously ties into the yet-unknown penalties for being "destroyed." Is the repair cost a minor inconvenience, or a serious issue? Is lost gear repaired always, or does it need to be replaced? How expensive and available is higher tech gear? These really factor into retreating and if it is worthwhile.

Personally, I'd like the penalties to be high - the higher grade your equipment, obviously, they more problems you face - so favor a way to escape the battlefield if things go south. I think it'd definitely be an interesting mechanic we haven't seen outside of the TT game or MechWarrior 1.

[empath]

PGI has gone out and said that losing a match will NOT be resulting in a severe, game-hindering penalty, so I'm thinking repair costs will likely never exceed the 'mission pay', and also that salvage gains might not be that great.

...but leaving the battle was always a factor in the TT game, and as you said, it hasn't been implemented since the first MW game from Dynamix/Activision; I'd like to see it. (even maybe a mission mode of the attacker wins based on how many 'Mechs (s)he gets across the 'defender's map side' and similar)

[Belisarius1]

Strongly disagree with this. If money matters, you'll see pilots fighting for a little while to pick up points and then legging it to save their ride.

Even if the system is designed to limit such egregious abuse (eg. the zone only activates when a team has lost X tonnage), you'll still see winnable fights lost because players start to bail when things get hot. Alternately, guys that get roughed up early will default to camping and hoping enough other people die for the escape zone to light up.

I really can't see this option having anything more than a negative effect on pubs. All it does is encourage camping and letting your teammates take the fall for you.

Edited by Belisarius†, 06 April 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[warner2]

Absolutely disagree with this too. You just know what will start happening, given the average mentality of people who play on-line games. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, we all know what would start happening if these sorts of mechanics were available. I don't like levelling mechanics but this game has them, so because of that, players are on a perceived or otherwise treadmill and sometimes the goal of their time spent on-line will be not to play the game but to get further along the treadmill, so you have to be careful about what they can abuse to this end.

[Aegis Kleais]

My thought process is that let's say you take a Timber Wolf Prime:

2x CLRM20
2x LBL
2x MBL
1x MPL
1x SBL
2x MG

I feel C-Bills will be so prominent in being earned that at round end, you'll get individualized repair bills:

Armor

• 130/170 (201 max) — Repair Cost (500CB / Point) = 20,000CB

Weapons

• Destroyed - CLRM20 (50,000CB), MG (5,000CB), MG (5,000CB) = 60,000CB
  
• Damaged - LBL (11,200CB) = 11,200CB

Equipment

• No repairs needed

Ammo

• CLRM20 — 0/240 @ 1.000CB/120 = 2.000CB
  
• CLRM20 — 0/240 @ 1,000CB/120 = 2,000CB
  
• MG — 420/1000 @ 200CB/1000 = 116CB
  
• MG — 420/1000 @ 200CB/1000 = 116CB

[ X ] Refill Ammo = 4,232CB

[ X ] Repair Armor = 20,000CB
[ X ] Repair Weapons = 11,200CB
[ X ] Replace Weapons = 60,000CB
[ -- ] Repair Equipment = 0CB
[ -- ] Replace Equipment = 0CB

GRAND TOTAL = 95,432CB [ PAY NOW ]

Repairing damaged weapons is always cheaper than replacing them, and the game would default to everything turned on (you toggle off what you don't want fixed) and as long as you have the funds, she'll be in top shape (or however you leave her) on the next battle.

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 06 April 2012 - 05:11 AM.