64 replies to this topic

[Kaemon]

they just ask an open ended question, and hope a lot of people read the thread.

[Red October911]

Well see that's the thing. Wouldn't it be fun if, through hard work and perseverance, manage to become one of the good players? Instead of it always being the same thing over and over again (i.e.:Play, win, repair, play, win, repair, etc*also loss once in a while).

Wouldn't it be fun that even if you have less XP, injured Pilot or wtv type of handicap, you somehow manage with pure skill to reverse the tables on your foe and kill him? Rightfully earning your place as a top player.

Is it fair? no. Is it easy? no. Is it do able? Yes if you try your best and come up with the strategies to defeat your opponent. That's what I (and others on this thread) want. A good challenge instead of the mind numbing boredom that is modern gaming industry.

[MacCaileanMor]

One problem with all on-line gaming there is no real need to retreat. If the battle were real and you were getting pounded you would retreat. In on-line gaming everyone fights to the death.

[eZZip]

I strongly agree with Waladil and MacabreDerek. While skill generally correlates with time played, there is no reason why somebody who plays for years and still sucks (basically 70% of most gaming communities), they get an advantage in a game against other players in a game that isn't a pure MMORPG. Progress in your character is an ubiquitous characteristic to MMORPGs, but it isn't and shouldn't be in games touted as those of skill.

Insidious Johnson, on 13 May 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

In no way, shape or form am I willing to forgo any gains brought about by pain just because some belle of the ball shows up late. I've been a vet and I've been a n00b. It is what it is. If it is something I want to play or achieve, I do it. Otherwise, I do not. The idea cannot be reduced to a simpler form. If you don't have it in you to reach out and grab what you want, don't complain that you'll never get it, you've already decided that for yourself. In general I see too many people bemoaning the tribulations rather than staying focused on the goal.

Sure, let's spend time to get better, and 'better' meaning a near-arbitrary advantage against other players. That makes for such a balanced, non-frustrating game! People with no time on their hands better be penalized even further; who do they think they are?

Insidious Johnson, on 13 May 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

When I beat someone, I want it to be all me doing the work. I want all the credit I earn not all the credit I've earned in the past. Nor do I want free credit just because someone wants to give it to me to make themselves feel benevolent. However, the tactics I've learned over the years are always at my disposal.

You haven't done all the work in beating somebody if you won because of external advantages, rather than your skill.

MacCaileanMor, on 13 May 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

One problem with all on-line gaming there is no real need to retreat. If the battle were real and you were getting pounded you would retreat. In on-line gaming everyone fights to the death.

Precisely why you can't make people lose their mechs and/or pilots permanently when they die.

To the OP, I hope you play one game, die in it, and then wait a few weeks (or longer) to get another 'mech or a permaban, for that is the logical extreme of simulating real life; hell, why should you get to play the game anymore when you're dead in it?
Why kill off player pilots, destroy their mechs, and basically force them to restart their accounts everytime they lose? There are obvious concessions to be made in making a game, and realism is only good when it is good for gameplay.

Edited by eZZip, 13 May 2012 - 07:51 PM.

[Juiced]

Red_October911, on 13 May 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Well see that's the thing. Wouldn't it be fun if, through hard work and perseverance, manage to become one of the good players? Instead of it always being the same thing over and over again (i.e.:Play, win, repair, play, win, repair, etc*also loss once in a while).

Wouldn't it be fun that even if you have less XP, injured Pilot or wtv type of handicap, you somehow manage with pure skill to reverse the tables on your foe and kill him? Rightfully earning your place as a top player.

Is it fair? no. Is it easy? no. Is it do able? Yes if you try your best and come up with the strategies to defeat your opponent. That's what I (and others on this thread) want. A good challenge instead of the mind numbing boredom that is modern gaming industry.

So let me understand this...if you dont drive a broken mech, dont have less xp, dont have a handicap you cant become a good player? What does penalizing someone for no reason have to do with making you a good player? Do you think that every player is going to go play win repair? for every one of those there is someone doing a play loss repair.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to have a handicap then do it yourself. Dont repair your mech between matches, dont get full ammo, and dont assign xp or pilot points. There you go, there is your fun without ruining someone elses. We are probably going to have to agree to disagree, I just dont see how making someone worse improves your game experience.

Perhaps it would be better if they had some sort of game mode...for example you agree to engage in a "campaign" A campaign would be a series of battles say 4-8, or 1-2 hours worth of play at a time. During each of these battles there would be objectives. The main difference is this, that in between you only got limited repair and ammo, and how much you got would be determined by if you won the last match (and how much you won by). You would not be able to change out configurations or mechs during the campaign. Rewards for winning each battle would be the same as normal, unless you were the team that lost the last time in which time you would get a bonus (to motivate a lossing team to try their best and not just give up). The team that wins overall more battles gets a large bonus, extra LP and faction points towards the planet they are controlling or taking over. If its a tie each side gets a tiny bonus (to encourage people to try to win not just camp and get free rewards). These battles could be ranked independently of other battles so it basically has its own leader boards. The longer length of the games would mean people wouldnt join just to try to get free points, you play this you are playing to win. If you quit to many campaigns in a time period (for example after two lost battles you say screw this im leaving" you get a penalty, that way people who DC or have RL things come up dont have to worry since once or twice it wont matter.

Edited by Tehbob, 13 May 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[GaussDragon]

MacabreDerek, on 13 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I hope you arn't confusing Simple with a lack of depth. If you ever played Go you would understand simple mechanics can draw alot of depth. Complex games have the issue of being unable to hold newcomers, because it becomes overwhelming and off-putting. This removes the chance to bring in a new player base, which quickly leads to stagnation. Adding systems does not translate into depth, and frequently muddles the focus of a game and adds to development time and money, which does not make a better game, just a more convoluted game.

The idea of "It would be cool if they added X" rarely translates into a well-made game, but instead translates into another convoluted system that the player has to keep track of for no reason other than to add another way to waste the players time (I am thinking of Mass Effect 2's mining mini-game).

The most effective method of game creation is to take away, reduce it down to the component systems that are focused on delivering the core experience you want to bring, and find the most effective way to present it to the player. It's then developing systems that support the core experience, and unfortunately this is where so many games get muddled. At the end of the day, it's that simple core that is well thought out that makes for a strong game, not the bells and whistles trying to bury that experience.

Simplest example outside of 'Go' that I can think of is Street Fighter 2. Basic punches, kicks, a few special moves, but the moves are only the surface element. Behind the press of a button to kick is the concepts of Zoning, Priority, Control, Mind Games, etc. It's not because these things were built in as separate add-on systems, but as a part of SF2's core experience. You have the ability to engage the player with simple surface elements, and as they play they find the complexity and depth in among the simple core experiences.

For MWO, I hope they avoid things like Salvage and Loss of XP, because they add nothing to the core experience and in fact detract from it. For MWO to work, it's going to focus on the core experience, which is designing mechs, positioning, LOS, Cover, etc. Until these systems from basic movement and shooting are polished and brought to a level where there is nuances, anything else you add will simply water down and over-complicate it.

[eZZip]

Red_October911, on 13 May 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Y do some of you guys want a simple game, like mentioned b4 a free online game can have so much potential.

I wouldn't mind losing XP or anything (weapons, pilots, etc) if my mech gets destroyed in combat. It makes sense and would make it more of a simulator than a rather simple shoot em up.(i'm not saying that you lose your pilot every time you die, put a certain condition so that the pilot can survive or die depending on the scenario, like ejecting at the right moment).

If you think that penalizing players for losing makes a game more complex, then you surely have not played any game at a high level. Games gain complexity in their actual gameplay, and that is why WoT (your example) is a simple game: the gameplay is simple. WoT isn't simple because you can repair instantly, and it isn't complex because of its leveling system; it is simple because all you do in 90% of games is a) hide in a bush and snipe, b) rush and die as a scout, or c) run up to enemies in a heavy and pop-shot them. MWO can avoid this through good gameplay, and taking away pilot XP for losing does not do **** for a deeper game.

Edited by eZZip, 14 May 2012 - 07:23 PM.

[Red October911]

The point of penalizing those who don't fare well against the better players would be so that they(being the new guys/ppl who have no experiences with BT)can learn how to beat their foe, even with an extra burden. It would be an added layer of difficulty just so like that it feels like more of an achievement when you finally crush your opponent.

It doesn't mean that If you don't have those handicaps you can't become a great player, if you actually know a thing or two about how BT games are played then maybe you won't suffer as much. If you do end up suffering, then get ready to fight for your right to face stronger opponents on equal terms, that is by beating a superior enemy with your mind, not your weapons/bonuses.

Wtv....It all goes down to what the general public wants anyhow, so i doubt we'll see any of this being added.

Edited by Red_October911, 13 May 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Juiced]

Red_October911, on 13 May 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

The point of penalizing those who don't fare well against the better players would be so that they(being the new guys/ppl who have no experiences with BT)can learn how to beat their foe, even with an extra burden. It would be an added layer of difficulty just so like that it feels like more of an achievement when you finally crush your opponent.

It doesn't mean that If you don't have those handicaps you can't become a great player, if you actually know a thing or two about how BT games are played then maybe you won't suffer as much. If you do end up suffering, then get ready to fight for your right to face stronger opponents on equal terms, that is by beating a superior enemy with your mind, not your weapons/bonuses.

Wtv....It all goes down to what the general public wants anyhow, so i doubt we'll see any of this being added.

Or you know, people can just spend more time playing, reading the forums, and asking for help (basic strats, techniques, how-tos for playing their mech and role, and increasing their skill) rather than getting salt in the wound when they loss. There is no reason for an extra burden. If they do that then how would that good player feel? I mean she isnt winning because she is good, she is winning because the other player has lost so much that every time he tries to fire his weapon his mech blows up because the techs install the weapons pointing towards his own reactor core so he can learn skill and how to use his mind.

An extra burden does nothing to add to the gameplay, people's enjoyment, or game balance. The new guys are already at an disadvantage. They dont have the experience others do, they (unless they drop some serious cash), probably dont have the mechs, weapons, equipment others do and they dont have the xp and module advantage others do. Thats enough of a burden to overcome without someone coming in and kicking them while down.

[Red October911]

I guess to each his own then :3

BTW I meant complex as in difficulty level, not as in depth of game, I'm well aware that making things harder will not add depth to the game. Srry if I was unclear on this point.

Edited by Red_October911, 14 May 2012 - 07:03 AM.

[Rattlehead NZ]

Do you want losing a match and or fight cause a penalty to stop a rinse and repeat effect?

How about each day you get a small C-Bill income. Enough to repair a mech once a day giving a poor player or one thats down on his luck enough to repair and get back into the fight with a chance of making some cash back. Or 1 free repair per day. Not saying these are good idea's, but hey I gave it a go

Honestly though, Until we have more information I would save the speculation of how the game mechanics work till later. And kudos to the people that came up with alternative ideas to the issue rather than pointing out how something wont work. Developers read peoples comments and if they like what they see then they may well use it. Unfortunately this happened for BF3 for the worst lol

MacCaileanMor, on 13 May 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

One problem with all on-line gaming there is no real need to retreat. If the battle were real and you were getting pounded you would retreat. In on-line gaming everyone fights to the death.

I do agree. I think the 1 life mechanic per match fixes this problem. People will want to live as long as possible so they dont have to wait untill the end of the match.

Edited by Rattlehead NZ, 14 May 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Howlin Wolf]

Red_October911, on 13 May 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

The point of penalizing those who don't fare well against the better players would be so that they(being the new guys/ppl who have no experiences with BT)can learn how to beat their foe, even with an extra burden. It would be an added layer of difficulty just so like that it feels like more of an achievement when you finally crush your opponent.

It doesn't mean that If you don't have those handicaps you can't become a great player, if you actually know a thing or two about how BT games are played then maybe you won't suffer as much. If you do end up suffering, then get ready to fight for your right to face stronger opponents on equal terms, that is by beating a superior enemy with your mind, not your weapons/bonuses.

Wtv....It all goes down to what the general public wants anyhow, so i doubt we'll see any of this being added.

The point of penalizing those who don't fare well against the better players would be so that 'we better players can get easy kills for easy stat rigging, and afterall we need to call out the noobs at the start of a pub match". There I fixed it for you.

[Slyck]

This thread relates to a thought I've been kicking around for the last week. I think repair costs should act as a balancing agent for weight classes and technology levels.

Given that repairs will be proportional to the cost of a mech. Then our mean income should balanced at a level capable of fielding a medium mech continuously with some profit. This should make heavy, assault and mechs full of level 2 tech rarer as they will be harder to keep in the field.

Then the rewards from loyalty point will shift this balance with tagarted mechs and equipment. Faction players will earn more salary and recieve discounts on factioin specific mechs. Merc players will recieve access to more lucrative contracts.

[Theal Swena]

I like the idea of something happening if you die, but for people like me who aren't that skilled, this game is going to be more like 'fix up your mech' then a game. Having to pay some amount of currency would be cool, but having to pay almost half of what you paid for the mech/gun is not fun.

[Adridos]

Red_October911, on 13 May 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

The point of penalizing those who don't fare well against the better players would be so that they(being the new guys/ppl who have no experiences with BT)can learn how to beat their foe, even with an extra burden. It would be an added layer of difficulty just so like that it feels like more of an achievement when you finally crush your opponent.

It doesn't mean that If you don't have those handicaps you can't become a great player, if you actually know a thing or two about how BT games are played then maybe you won't suffer as much. If you do end up suffering, then get ready to fight for your right to face stronger opponents on equal terms, that is by beating a superior enemy with your mind, not your weapons/bonuses.

Wtv....It all goes down to what the general public wants anyhow, so i doubt we'll see any of this being added.

Red October, the time has changed. back then, PC's were pretty damn expensive and not so many people had them. People who had them had some degree of maturness, as it was probably their work that made having PC possible. Then, as they got used to computers, they started having hobbies of making games. They started competinjg as with everything in life from board games to proffesional competitions.

Then, gaming got to teens by consoles and they became their main audience. Games started to get more easier to find more customers and the people enjoying competing started having troubles. Today, people who enjoy competition have only a handful of video games (CS, SC, DotA, Quake and probably a few more I never heard of).

At least joining House Liao gives us a bit of challenge, because, well...

[windicator]

I Know That My Idea Might Be Not The Best But Here It Go's :

If Player Would Be Losing lots of matches Repair Fee Would Drop Lower And Might Get 20% (added from 10%) of EXP And C-Bills And When On Winning Streak Or On High Levels It Would Get Rising About 5-10-15-20%
And For Starters A.K.A. n00bs Until They Get Solid Grip Like Few Wins The Small Fee Could Come In Play.

Pleas Tell What You Think And If You Could Improve It

- Windicator Signing Off

Edited by windicator, 14 May 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[Sigma13]

PoWn3d0704, on 13 May 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

My expectations of being a simulator. In some ways. When I do something stupid and my mech gets blown up, I want to be genuinely angry with my faults and the dysfunction of my team. I want to storm around my room about how I have to put all the work into and raise the money to get my mech functional again.

It's a multi million dollar machine (and in reality, a multi billion dollar machine USD) and I don't think 'two cycles to repair it' should cut it. It doesn't force people to think.

I don't want this game to be 'Awe, the big bad Atlas blew up my mech! Oh well I'm going to just push this button and make things better.'

That's my thoughts anyways. MW4 was way too easy in my opinion, with it being so easy to become filthy rich.

Well it was never really meant to be a true simulator where you have currency and stuff, like world of tanks. Sure you had currency and weight in mechlab, but that was just for balance issues concerning light mechs carrying huge guns.

[hydrix]

Lets avoid WOT with MEch's.. although Some idea's and things from there would be usefull.

About lose streaks... , we play this in teams, you, as single player, dont have that much impact in random matches that you make your team lose 10 times in a row..

Crucial for repair costs etc will be that we want to avoid only defensive mechs and no one attacking. But, simularly, dont want everyone rush forward.. difficult to balance though.

Perhaps it would be nice for each side to have multiple objectives on the map, where players can earn some points/xp from as well, to promote some more strategy and options.. or different game modes..

Lucky for us, in our clan the house pays repair bills... they promised... didnt they?

[Volthorne]

hydrix, on 14 May 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Lucky for us, in our clan the house pays repair bills... they promised... didnt they?

I believe the phrase goes "You break it, you buy it".

Edited by Volthorne, 14 May 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[Magnificent Bastard]

MWO is a free game. My expectations are 0. Whatever PGI decides to give us... I will crap my pants with glee when it becomes available. Anyone who says differently isn't keeping things in proper perspective.