108 replies to this topic

[Nick Makiaveli]

I think Drhat makes a good point. If you ALWAYS make a profit, then even the worst player can eventually save up a ton of cash and buy all the pretty toys. Also, that rewards people for just rushing in, getting killed, and then going off to watch TV while the match plays out. Can't say they did nothing at all, they did attack the enemy....so not like reporting them would do any good.

Remember, you always have to look at the exploit side of things as well as the good side. Even if your mech goes critical and turns into a baby nuke, you started the match with 2 C-bills, and earned 5 for the match, and your repair bill looks like the national debt, guess what? You can still take your barely functional mech into a new match. Rinse., repeat and hopefully you will learn, your pilot will get XP, you will earn some MXP, etc and eventually you are back in the fight. If you can't pull this off, then either you are still having fun anyway, or maybe this game isn't for you.

**Note** NOT saying GTFO newb!! I am just saying if you are not having fun, then why play? If you are having fun, then what's money got to do with it?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with you Nick, if I'm having fun then I'm prepared to subsidise my "habit". I think the main concern is for those new to the IP who don't know the intricacies of MW which can have quite a learning curve compared to many games out there. They may well give up before learning.
To be a success this game needs to not only attract but keep new blood.

[Vaylen]

But on the opposite side of that, what if I am a new player and much like the world of tanks, I don't have a formal group of people I play with whom I know are good. I played a lot of WoTs and when I first started it was brutal, most of my teams had no strategy and it didnt matter if I played it safe because most matches my little light or medium tanks would get toasted. I liked the system in there because I gained only a little exp and barely made enough money to repair my better tanks, but slowly I learned that even on a bad team of players if I knew the right tactics I could rake in a lot of points before dying to not only pay for repairs but get a lot of exp.

Another point we are missing is ammo, I am betting you have to pay to reload and resupply your ammo after each match so if the player isn't getting enough money to repair his mech he sure isn't getting enough to reload his weapons. Adapting the system from WoT's I think would be best for this game but change it up some...

Earn Exp and C-bills through role warfare for sure. Reward those that play smart, slightly punish those that don't by barely giving them enough to refit and resupply their mech. This will help because it will weed out those that truly are hardcore about playing the game and those that aren't, like with me I quit playing WoT's because even after learning the ropes I just could not get into it. Players who screw up too much will eventually find themselves piloting an Urbanmech which is very cheap to repair until they build up C-bills again to fix their better mechs and have learned not to Leroy Jenkins every match lol.

[EDMW CSN]

I take the EVE adage and implant it here. Do not pilot something that you cannot afford to lose.
So if you wish to pilot an Atlas, be sure you can afford the repair cost or have enough C-bills buy a brand new Atlas.

However light mechs are cheap to repair even by TT standards so the pilots can be more "wild" in their approach.

[DrHat]

Vaylen, on 26 March 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

But on the opposite side of that, what if I am a new player and much like the world of tanks, I don't have a formal group of people I play with whom I know are good. I played a lot of WoTs and when I first started it was brutal, most of my teams had no strategy and it didnt matter if I played it safe because most matches my little light or medium tanks would get toasted. I liked the system in there because I gained only a little exp and barely made enough money to repair my better tanks, but slowly I learned that even on a bad team of players if I knew the right tactics I could rake in a lot of points before dying to not only pay for repairs but get a lot of exp.

If you're a new player you should ideally be matched against other people who are also new players or at least something approximate to that. It is no good saying that because you will get toasted you have to win a little to be given a break to learn things. The problem with any such system is that it never tends to end and if it does then I promise you someone will feel like someone is receiving an unfair advantage, never mind that people will create accounts to exploit this system endlessly to harass those not under this system just to artificially hurt their wallet and so on.
It is always worth considering the merits of an even system that allows you to lose before anything else, with perhaps the only exception being things like "starter mechs" or something like it that essentially allows you to participate but without any real notable advantage that you would otherwise have with a "non-starter mech" ..or something like that as I keep saying.

An example solution to all this could be done via a thorough and engaging tutorial that takes the player through meaningful events that teaches them about the game without making them feel like they're isolated from the rest of the game. Perhaps even let the player repeat all kinds of training as much as they want without any ill effects being suffered ...or something similar.
My point is that there are lots of solutions if you really care to look instead of looking for ways to surrender or crying before you hurt and I genuinely believe that while your intentions are well meant, it will invariably lead to undesirable results.

Vaylen, on 26 March 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Another point we are missing is ammo, I am betting you have to pay to reload and resupply your ammo after each match so if the player isn't getting enough money to repair his mech he sure isn't getting enough to reload his weapons. Adapting the system from WoT's I think would be best for this game but change it up some...

Earn Exp and C-bills through role warfare for sure. Reward those that play smart, slightly punish those that don't by barely giving them enough to refit and resupply their mech. This will help because it will weed out those that truly are hardcore about playing the game and those that aren't, like with me I quit playing WoT's because even after learning the ropes I just could not get into it. Players who screw up too much will eventually find themselves piloting an Urbanmech which is very cheap to repair until they build up C-bills again to fix their better mechs and have learned not to Leroy Jenkins every match lol.

I'm really truly sorry to say this ..really I am..however what you're saying to me sounds like "Those of us who aren't as good as gaming as the rest of you, want to have the same stuff..perhaps at a slower rate, but nevertheless still want it and we should have it!" well that is just victimizing yourself and in the same breath blaming those who are willing or have the time to put a bit more effort into gamingand I don't think that is any kind of fair at all. It isn't my concern that you possibly aren't that good at the game..It should really mean that you could end up being unable to reload your AC20 or fully repair your Atlas or some a similar situation..Now you will have noted earlier that I said there should never be an occasion where you were unable to continue play without spending RL money and I still stand by that, so please remember that before you assume I'm saying anything opposite to that.

It will happen one day to me too that I will hit rock bottom and saying "Oh I have a life, I don't have time for this, give me a short-cut that doesn't involve me spending RL money!" is nonsense. I have a life too, I have a job (granted in the gaming industry, but still), a relationship, hobbies and so on and so forth..but that cannot nor should it be the concern of those who have more time to play than me and master the game more than me. It would be more than unreasonable and egotistical for me to demand to be given equal ground to them or even a break on my ability to lose just because it suits me.

I'm not arguing against gaining a bit of XP, because sure ..experience is experience even if you get pummelled, however I think there is something to be said about the experience gained is on you personally as a player about what you should and should not do as opposed to your ingame character having learned anything. What that actually is, I don't know but its not really the point I'm arguing about either.

If this game has any sort of goal to be true to the franchise, the lore and the setting (warfare) it cannot begin by cheapening out on what makes combat worth having, which is meaningful victories with tremendous gain and the knowledge of a thoroughly defeated opponent. If you skip that or dilute it you can't hope to create a lasting impression, it will be at best mediocre I think.

The "I think" is the main point though..this is my view and I'm willing to hear other sides of the story too, but I'm prone to not care about public opinion if I truly believe I have a good reason to believe what I believe

[MaddMaxx]

The whole "L2P Newb" philosophy will not fly. Not in a F2P game setting. As noted, the Dev understand the issue and will make the best possible decision. Whether everyone likes it or not is already a known entity.

That ain't gonna happen because there will be the "I am entitled" vs "Don't give the losers free stuff" argument. Somewhere the middle ground will be found and everyone will have to suck it up. (or wail on the Forums)

[00dlez]

I agree with the last half dozen posts or so to a point (and just started playing WoT this weekend, so I can make some comparisons.)

The problem I have with adopting the WoT model (not that I think it wouldn't work as a "least worst solution") is that WoT has no lore or objectives outside of the immediate battle (until you get into the company battle stuff and thats essentially a whole different game.).

MWO pilots will be fighting for planet control, faction pride, etc etc. If I have 3 players out of 12 in barely functioning light mechs that just set throttle to max into the enemy lines or go afk after the battle starts, just looking to grind out some c-bills and XP ("idlers" for lack of a better umbrella term). This puts the other 9 pilots at a serious disadvantage, likely to to lose the round and earn less $/XP, if you rinse and repeat now I'm being dragged down due to others lazy idling and suffering in-game consequences beyond the shame of defeat.

I can understand the desire to want to keep players in the game, regardless of skill level - but it should also be able to prevent players from watching TV while they idle a mech in matches to grind $/XP.

[guardian wolf]

mwhighlander, on 25 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

All I know if they'll need all the help they can get when I'm hired...

Yeah for a class 10 hell hole, I think the Hell Jumpers will be involved see you in the field.

[DrHat]

MaddMaxx, on 26 March 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

The whole "L2P Newb" philosophy will not fly. Not in a F2P game setting. As noted, the Dev understand the issue and will make the best possible decision. Whether everyone likes it or not is already a known entity.

That ain't gonna happen because there will be the "I am entitled" vs "Don't give the losers free stuff" argument. Somewhere the middle ground will be found and everyone will have to suck it up. (or wail on the Forums)

I'm kinda sad that "L2P Newb" is what you got out of my post..or at least I assume your contextual response is referring to what I said. That wasn't what I was going for at all..They've already said that the game will be skill-based. What I was talking about was actually a sense of perspective and building a system that makes sense because there is such a thing as "baby'ing the player" and you don't want that.
I hope I can make myself more clear in the future.

[Vaylen]

Very valid points DrHat and believe me I know what it means when it comes to a hardcore lore based experience, I play EVE Online and in there when you lose a ship, you lose it totally and have to buy and equip a whole new one and I just love that feeling of winning a PVP match there and knowing even though there is no exp gain or money gain unless the enemy wreckage has some good modules dropped.

I agree totally we need hardcore mechwarriors not little prissy 'easy mode' gamers. but at the same time something that will reward players who fight as a team and punish severely those who slack or go running to fight an Atlas with a Jenner solo. I was thinking something like this, a combination role warfare and class type:

Light Mechs: You gain EXP and C-bills based on: Enemy targets relayed to teammates, damage done to a mech of a larger class, ECM used against enemy mechs, etc etc...

Also during the matches there should be optional bonus things you can do to earn extra C-bills, such as scouting and relaying at least 5 targets to your team, or successfully jamming an enemy 6 times. After all if your fighting for money you should be able to earn bonuses for going above and beyond the call of duty.

As for repairs and reloads, naturally that will vary with how your mech is damaged:

If I lost an entire arm its gonna cost me 500 C-bills to fix, but if the Armor was only damaged slightly then only 50 C-bills. If I lost an entire LRM rack then not only do I have to pay for the lost rack but all the ammo, the armor damaged where it was. But if the rack was only damaged slighty then I pay just for that.

That way if you want to earn EXP and C-Bills you gotta get in there and do something, but at the same time it gives you a reason to work as a team and makes it fun for those who are deep into the lore like myself.

[MaddMaxx]

DrHat, on 26 March 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

I'm kinda sad that "L2P Newb" is what you got out of my post..or at least I assume your contextual response is referring to what I said. That wasn't what I was going for at all..They've already said that the game will be skill-based. What I was talking about was actually a sense of perspective and building a system that makes sense because there is such a thing as "baby'ing the player" and you don't want that.
I hope I can make myself more clear in the future.

Any penalty system put in place for play that is not up to others standards is L2P at its core and discriminates. Why would the Dev not wish to Baby some players? They obviously have demands to have there work cater to those who see themselves as superior players from the get go.

"I am good thus I want this for me and f them" is just the same thing but in reverse of not wanting the others to have their things as well in case it takes away from your thing. (speaking in general terms, not specific posters ofc)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 26 March 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[RecklessFable]

Since this game won't have tiers like WoT, there might be a contract types that allows folks to play with limited resources but limited gains. Like a "salvage run" or something.

It won't be attractive to 1337 d00ds because the payoff is less and wouldn't grant loyalty points, but it will allow folks to play with less downside. It would let folks crawl back from bankruptcy while still actually playing.

[Katalis]

I have loved MechWarrior for years. I first played the table top game in my early twentys. While I have played the computer games they have always fell short of my expectations. That is because they ultimately break with table top rules, usually in places where I couldn't explain a reason for it.

I currently have a wife, a son, I have returned to school, and am working full time. This doesn't leave me a lot of time for gaming. When MWO goes live I do intend to be one of the players. Unfortunately I am going to be a casual player. I am telling you this so that people understand what I am saying next.

I have played many MMOs. I usually quit because there is no real challenge to them. I understand that the developers need to build a game that makes money. I also understand that the best way to do that is to appeal to the largest demographic possible. Unfortunately that is a demographic that has been brought up beleiving that they should be rewarded no matter what happens.

My understanding is that everyone starts out in one of the houses. The mech you start with should be house owned, not player owned. This way a player can start in the mech of their choice. While the player is a member of the house they earn a performance based fee, plus potential salvage. The salvage can either be represented as c-bills or mech parts. Any damage that the mech receives is repaired by the house.

A rating system would need to be implimented. All pilots start out green. They advance based on their performance. Along with that advancement good performance would allow the player a chance to be given the house mech as a reward. Which they would then have to pay for the repairs of. Poor performance would see them downgraded to a lower mech class. Somebody who starts in an Atlas and gets it destroyed in every battle might be downgraded to a heavy mech. If they do extremely bad they might be downgraded to a locust. A person who starts out in a light mech and performs badly might be downgraded to one of the weaker light mechs first. Continued poor performance could require them to start paying for repairs if they wish to remain in a mech.

To me poor performance is doing things that do not support team play in any way. The game should have a means of determining if the person is an idler or a participator. Someone who just charges down the middle to get killed would fall into the idler category if it is past there second match. As well as someone who joins a match and doesn't do anything. Basically if a player fails to fill their established role during a match they get a negative rating. Once their rating drops below a certain point they can't earn XP or c-bills unless they actively participate and do well. Whether your doing good or bad you will move up in the ranks. A bad green player still becomes a regular at a certain point. That player is likely not going to be one that many people want on their team. Even veteran status could be acheived by a bad player. Elite status would only be acheivable through good play. So if you have made it to veteran status and never played good you would have a lot of work to do to make it to elite status. Along with that, Elite status should be a privelege. So you have to work to maintain it. If you start playing badly you could lose it.

Understand that I am talking about good play vs bad play, not winning or losing. If you play good and lose you shouldn't be penalized. But if you play crappy and lose then you should. So if you are on a losing team because there were bad players and you fullfilled your role, then you should get some experience and c-bills based on how well you did.

[Wyzak]

Katalis, on 26 March 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

My understanding is that everyone starts out in one of the houses. The mech you start with should be house owned, not player owned. This way a player can start in the mech of their choice. While the player is a member of the house they earn a performance based fee, plus potential salvage. The salvage can either be represented as c-bills or mech parts. Any damage that the mech receives is repaired by the house.

A rating system would need to be implimented. All pilots start out green. They advance based on their performance. Along with that advancement good performance would allow the player a chance to be given the house mech as a reward. Which they would then have to pay for the repairs of. Poor performance would see them downgraded to a lower mech class. Somebody who starts in an Atlas and gets it destroyed in every battle might be downgraded to a heavy mech. If they do extremely bad they might be downgraded to a locust. A person who starts out in a light mech and performs badly might be downgraded to one of the weaker light mechs first. Continued poor performance could require them to start paying for repairs if they wish to remain in a mech.

Sorry I didn't quote your whole post but I really like this section here. It also leads up to the ability to own your personal mech and go lone wolf or merc or Solaris pilot.

[Tryg]

Katalis, on 26 March 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

To me poor performance is doing things that do not support team play in any way. The game should have a means of determining if the person is an idler or a participator. Someone who just charges down the middle to get killed would fall into the idler category if it is past there second match. As well as someone who joins a match and doesn't do anything. Basically if a player fails to fill their established role during a match they get a negative rating. Once their rating drops below a certain point they can't earn XP or c-bills unless they actively participate and do well. Whether your doing good or bad you will move up in the ranks. A bad green player still becomes a regular at a certain point. That player is likely not going to be one that many people want on their team. Even veteran status could be acheived by a bad player. Elite status would only be acheivable through good play. So if you have made it to veteran status and never played good you would have a lot of work to do to make it to elite status. Along with that, Elite status should be a privelege. So you have to work to maintain it. If you start playing badly you could lose it.

The flaw in a setup like this, aside from the fact that it assumes someone will learn the ins and outs of piloting a mech in one or two matches, which, if you haven't played at least one of the previous titles, getting used to piloting a mech will take a little more then that, especially considering the use of a throttle as opposed to the more common movement from other games the newer sorts will be accustomed to. But the main flaw in it, is that how do you code a system to tell the difference between someone rushing the enemy lines, and a scout who's rushing into the field only to get picked off by a lucky shot or ambush?

As smart and powerful as computing is today...it is still relatively ignorant when it comes to discerning motive. Take two accounts, both of which for arguments sake have identical 'average' stats. One rushes in with the intent of getting killed, the other rushes in planning on designating some targets for his commander or a lance of fire support mechs. Both are taken down quick by the enemy side. To the computer, these players both just did the exact same thing, where in reality, one was just exceedingly unlucky and the other was trying to get himself killed.

Because of things like this, relying on coding to determine intent...is going to be quite difficult, because unless it's blatently obvious, the computer will be too dumb to understand the difference between bad play and bad luck.

[Togg Bott]

i have played a few MMO's. some were of the new age mind set that everyone is a winner. i quit those as i dont think their fun. i have also played BRUTAL MMO's where when you lost, you lost everything you went into the fight with, (Yes, EvE online) those i stayed with a longtime untill i burned out on them. should MWO decide to handhold everyone and have no real price to pay for bad/unlucky decisions then i'll play untill i get bored and then move on to something else. should it be as brutal as EvE? probably not, but it should be setup so you WANT to get better.

yes, i played EvE same name as here "Togg Bott", cant count the number of times i had to go back and mine/mission for enough cash to get back into my desired ship.

[Ezekial Karn]

I am wondering if all matches will be pvp or if there will be an NPC element to this or PVE element where you and your friends can go up against computer opponents doing contracts? As often fighting against the computer is not as challenging as playing against people, and as is some of us dont care to much for PVP.

My previous experiences with pvp matches in mechwarrior games were unplesant at best. I can recall several times I started a game with my team walked over a hill and was dead in less than 20 seconds in an assult mech with max armor. Wasnt happy bout that at all to be honest and my biggest concern is that this game is going to head down that same road.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Ezekial Karn, on 26 March 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I am wondering if all matches will be pvp or if there will be an NPC element to this or PVE element where you and your friends can go up against computer opponents doing contracts? As often fighting against the computer is not as challenging as playing against people, and as is some of us dont care to much for PVP.

My previous experiences with pvp matches in mechwarrior games were unplesant at best. I can recall several times I started a game with my team walked over a hill and was dead in less than 20 seconds in an assult mech with max armor. Wasnt happy bout that at all to be honest and my biggest concern is that this game is going to head down that same road.

So far the Game Developers have said there will be no AI Bot Opponents or significant single-player gameplay.

They are trying to gear this game to be enjoyable by the most people possible, which includes the crowd who doesn't always enjoy PvP Online games. An advantage that MW:O has over other PvP games is that, since MW:O is based on a Sim, you get fewer people who are in for just the rush or the joy of defeating others; MechWarriors play for the joy of playing.

[Max Grayson]

Bryan Ekman, on 23 March 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

This is a game after all, something we do for enjoyment.

Bless you sir, sincerely, bless you. For some reason other game manufacturers seem to forget that.

I am eagerly awaiting this game.

[warner2]

RecklessFable, on 26 March 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Since this game won't have tiers like WoT, there might be a contract types that allows folks to play with limited resources but limited gains. Like a "salvage run" or something.

It won't be attractive to 1337 d00ds because the payoff is less and wouldn't grant loyalty points, but it will allow folks to play with less downside. It would let folks crawl back from bankruptcy while still actually playing.

I like this idea. There could indeed be all kinds of game types; low risk/low reward, for smaller groups, less time consuming, and so on.