32 replies to this topic

[palebear]

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a PVP game- no PVE will exist.

If you salvage something, it's off another player's mech.
If your opponent can buy that component, so can you.

That being the case, what's the difference between keeping that particular component or getting enough C-bills to purchase it?
One difference is that it's easier to portion out the C-bills than it is to split one ER-PPC four ways rather than some lucky person being selected by random number generation gets the component and the others get nothing.

This obviously doesn't do much for component scarcity being taken into account or a myriad of other more realistic variables, but the devs have to find something both manageable and fair.

[Kaemon]

palebear, on 05 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a PVP game- no PVE will exist.

If you salvage something, it's off another player's mech.
If your opponent can buy that component, so can you.

That being the case, what's the difference between keeping that particular component or getting enough C-bills to purchase it?
One difference is that it's easier to portion out the C-bills than it is to split one ER-PPC four ways rather than some lucky person being selected by random number generation gets the component and the others get nothing.

This obviously doesn't do much for component scarcity being taken into account or a myriad of other more realistic variables, but the devs have to find something both manageable and fair.

But that's the beauty of using salvage as repairs, you can actually stretch it out over multiple mechs (depending on the % of damage on those mechs) if need be.

This also makes deathmatch a bit more interesting, as suddenly you're not trying to core everyone, you might be actively trying to avoid it, finishing off opponents as efficiently and with conscious effort to avoid salvageable components (ACs, heat sinks, etc...).

[Victor Morson]

Kaemon, on 05 April 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

This also makes deathmatch a bit more interesting, as suddenly you're not trying to core everyone, you might be actively trying to avoid it, finishing off opponents as efficiently and with conscious effort to avoid salvageable components (ACs, heat sinks, etc...).

This also makes the idea of keeping your ride alive very, very important. Suddenly you're actively trying everything you can to keep your 'mech in one piece, since if you lose parts, you've got to replace them. If you go down, you have to pay to get back on your feet. Hell, if it's possible, suddenly you have a reason to retreat off the field entirely when things go bad and not fight until the last man.

All in all, it could be really neat.

palebear, on 05 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a PVP game- no PVE will exist.

If you salvage something, it's off another player's mech.
If your opponent can buy that component, so can you.

You make some really good points, but I really hope the IS can't buy Clan Tech, only salvage it - barring, perhaps, some kind of real money "salvage pack" that might give you a % of random Clan tech or something. That'd make fighting the Clans and salvaging some gear really, really worthwhile - either to sell or mount.

[KuruptU4Fun]

StaIker, on 04 April 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Salvaging would be an abomination. It means the best, most active players will amass a huge cache of high quality tech while the more casual and lower skilled players never get enough to make it worth their while. A tech gap would open up and make it even harder for the casual players to compete. Equipment and weapons should be available to everyone on an equal basis or to no one.

I don't think it would be an abomination if treated like this: You scavenge parts on the field, the house you are contracted with buys those parts from you using C-Bills. Or a different path from that point would be to have each mech have weapon mounts placed differently on that particular weapon. So if you salvaged an AC-20 from a Hunchback, you have to spend C-bills to have the weapon mounts removed and redesigned to fit a different mech (if applicable).

I understand your concern about the differences behind hardcore and casual gamers. But this has always been an issue since multiplayer gaming has been introduced. There is no real way around it.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 05 April 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[StaIker]

Quote

There is no real way around it.

Sure there is, don't create a system where the best players have the greatest access to superior weapons.

[KuruptU4Fun]

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Sure there is, don't create a system where the best players have the greatest access to superior weapons.

It's been stated that you will not be able to "buy" superior weapons. All weapons (of the same type) will be equal, and therefore trading like weapons will be pointless.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

A good Mechwarrior is a fiscally responsible. Half a Mechwarriors income is selling salvage i.e. recovered mechs they don't plan on using.

I'm going to play devils advocate here.

I don't think anyone wants to deny PGI funds that could potentially be money in there pocket. But by doing this you're turning people away that would otherwise continue playing.

Keep in mind, that in order to "buy" a mech on the market place, they have to earn the credits to do so. It's not taking money away from PGI because someone played their game for 10 hours scrimping and saving to buy someones salvage through the in-game user market. That second hand Mech was already "Bought" or "Purchased" once already, either way it was paid for by a user through the in-game PGI store, or the in-game NPC store. By forcing people to use these methods of purchase PGI is denying an in-game economy and user interaction beyond the battlefield. If someone wants to "purchase" a mech, they're going to purchase it. I don't see how denying people the use of a market is really going to prevent PGI getting a "cut" of the profits.

You gotta look at like this... We pay PGI in two ways:

1) We can make "purchases" to ease our in-game growth and speed us along the tech line of our choosing.

2) We use our free accounts to populate PGI servers so the "premium" players have someone to fight against.

By eliminating the market place you're essentially telling all the free players that PGI doesn't want to support you unless you fork over the dosh. Free players are just as, if not more, important than the premium player base. Free players will keep this game alive, not the premium player base.

Edited by Agent CraZy DiP, 05 April 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[Victor Morson]

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

Sure there is, don't create a system where the best players have the greatest access to superior weapons.

If salvage is rolled evenly across the entire company, there won't be any such scenario. It is NOT PGI's responsibility if poor players lose salvaged equipment immediately. If that's your view, you might as well give them armor buffs too.

[John Talbert]

gonna throw in world of tanks here again.. there is no trade system and it works well.. as this is NOT an mmo there is no trading system.. I have heard nothing of drops, salvage etc mentioned. so other than to promote twinking or boosting of team mates why trade? suggest you have a gift shop and allow folks to buy other people ingame credits or limited items for real money which can be gifted.. perhaps having mechs with cosmetic differences that set them apart or limited mechs that are static.

WOT has premium tanks that are static. they are not the best in their field.. what they DO do is bring in revenue to the dev team. same with having garage slots.. if for instance i want more tank I buy more garage slots.. is that an advantage? some might say yes. for me it just allows me to have more rides in my garage.

i don't actually see a problem in WOT having things you pay for.. i see no problem gifting things either. I DO see a problem with being able to just trade items to other people.

[Namwons]

I agree with no trade. What's to stop me from creating 100 free accounts and transferring 100 atlases is my main account?

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Namwons, on 05 April 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

I agree with no trade. What's to stop me from creating 100 free accounts and transferring 100 atlases is my main account?

The 5000 hours of gameplay it would take you to get that many?

[Namwons]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 05 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

The 5000 hours of gameplay it would take you to get that many?

doesn't matter. If it can be done it will. An china has more than 5000 probably willing to do nothing but farm the system.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

So you're saying hurt the player base to stop the "gold" farmers. Gotcha.