51 replies to this topic

[Insaniti]

There is a lot of discussion occurring about F2P and P2W issues. One issue that MUST be addressed by the developers is the role of costs with regard to recurring in-game events such as:

1) Repairing armor/mech/item damage

2) Ammunition

3) Item purchase

If any of these require in-game resources (time, c-bills, and/or real life money), then I may have to 'grind' or spend real-life money to be able to participate fully in my merc group's fights.

This is unacceptable.

If I have the skill to pilot a Catapult and wreck heads from afar... then I should be able to do that without having to take crappy fights for 3 weeks prior with my Warhammer to make enough money to buy the LRM ammunition needed if I don't want to spend real-life money.

A simulation means I can fight with whatever mech I think is tactically appropriate at any time. If that's not the case and I need to 'build up my character' to play in a simulation... it's not a simulation.

It's a grindy MMORPG.

Any dev care to comment on this issue?

Just my opinion,
Insanity

[flashdim]

You could probably also say it's not a simulation if your equipment doesn't keep the damage sustained in-between rounds.

It's an interesting problem - I imagine that the fear of being damaged and having to pay for it might ruin the game for some ("Why are you holding back? Get up here and help me!), but it could very well set the tone of the universe they're looking for.

The easiest way I can think of - give people enough C-bills when they lose a match to at least repair up the mech they're piloting. I would hope the "all carrot/no stick" mentality mentioned in the most recent dev blog would point to the fact that they don't want to punish people for playing.

Alternatively - skipping it entirely, like you suggest, isn't a bad idea. That might just be the easiest answer anyway development-wise, and it makes "picking from your stable" a much less complicated decision before the fight starts.

Edit: It also makes sense from an army/soldier point of view. If you're fighting for the forces of a House, you as a MechWarrior shouldn't have to worry about costs incurred. When the fight's over, you get patched up.

Edited by flashdim, 06 November 2011 - 08:42 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

How can you have a *simulation* without recurring costs?
[quote name='Wikipedia]Simulation is the imitation of some real thing available' date=' state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system.[/quote']
Armour, ammunition, etc. aren't free, so why should they be so in a similation?

[Silent]

The developers have never said it's going to be a simulation.

They've stated that as far as controlling a Mech they want to bring it back to its simulationist (is that even a word?) roots. Other than that, it's just fans reading too much into everything, as usual.

[Insaniti]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 06 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

How can you have a *simulation* without recurring costs?

Armour, ammunition, etc. aren't free, so why should they be so in a similation?

There are combat simulations and universe simulations.

In my mind, Mechwarrior (in the multiplayer environment) is the tactical simulation of mech-based combat.  Not a simulation of the entire BattleTech universe which would be a MMORPG.  

If I have to worry about ammo, damage, etc, I'm no longer simulating combat... I'm playing a MMPORG with grind...  with occasional combat.

I want to kick **** in a mech, not spend time at a mech flea market buying and selling bits of salvage to get myself back into combat.

Simulate combat, don't simulate the economics surrounding combat.

Insanity

Edited by Insaniti, 06 November 2011 - 08:55 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

To not pay for Ammo,repairs would be pretty odd, i think at worst you'll be paying for such things out of in game currency not "premium" currency.
Economics is part of any online "universe" be it WoW,GW,EVE,World of Tanks.

Your going to have to put some work in, to play the game.

[flashdim]

Insaniti, on 06 November 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

Simulate combat, don't simulate the economics surrounding combat.

I don't think you have much to worry about, it's probably the most likely option. I've had fun in the tabletop before when fielding broken 'mechs, but this isn't the same kind of game by a long shot. I bet they're gonna want matches to happen fast and often - that gets people into the game, earns them C-Bills and prestige, and keeps them coming back.

[armitage]

First off, if you can't make enough money to purchase LRM ammo you're doing it wrong in the first place. You want a MECH simulation where you can pick any mech and any time. This is going to be a Mech<b>Warrior</b> simulation. If you repeatedly fail and die in your catapult, then you need to rethink your strategy.

Nothing is going to be free, you need to earn it. However I would object to being forced to Buy (using real money) resources to consistantly repair higher class mechs. If one cannot afford to repair and rearm their Warhammer , even after winning a match, without a subscription or using real world money, that would be a shame.

[Insaniti]

armitage, on 06 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

First off, if you can't make enough money to purchase LRM ammo you're doing it wrong in the first place.  You want a MECH simulation where you can pick any mech and any time.  This is going to be a MechWarrior simulation.  If you repeatedly fail and die in your catapult, then you need to rethink your strategy.

If I can't afford to learn how to use a mech, then this isn't a skill-based game. You have to have the potential to continue playing after a loss to learn how to win in a new toy.

armitage, on 06 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

Nothing is going to be free, you need to earn it.  However I would object to being forced to Buy (using real money) resources to consistantly repair higher class mechs.  If one cannot afford to repair and rearm their Warhammer , even after winning a match, without a subscription or using real world money, that would be a shame.

I should have to earn access to a mech... sure. But I shouldn't be forced to win to continue playing. At the worst, you should be able to continue at your current level of gear... regardless of cost.

Otherwise you're using a stick on your players.

Insanity

[WerewolfX]

Ok just pointing a few things out here. In MW2: Mercs you had to keep track of all of that. Ammo wasn't super expensive ( buying ammo in 1 ton lots and such was easy and affordable LRM 15 and 20 ammo were somewhat expensive but, I never had a problem keeping my lance supplied.) As a Mercenary group/commander unless otherwise stated in a house contract you should have to pay for your repairs/ammo costs.

In MW4 mercs it worked that way at the end of a mission and if your mech was damaged you had to wait 2 weeks of game time (simply clicking a button) and viola fixed mech. Repairs and ammo costs keep players from amassing too much money and progressing too quickly though technically it didn't take too long to get heavies and meds.

I again step back and turn to World of Tanks. Costs are handled simply and expertly by checking a little box same with ammo and consumables. Mechwarrior has often nine times out of 10 been about risk vs. reward it is what makes it fun and it forces you as a player to think about that. Personally in pre clan invasion I see a catapult it's gonna die so I can focus on closer threats without fear of long range retaliation.

Edited by WerewolfX, 06 November 2011 - 09:50 AM.

[armitage]

If by the time you reach a heavy or assault you still dont know how to use it then you shouldnt be there. This isnt Flight Simulator X, this is mechwarrior. It won't be THAT hard to hit and kill your opponents. That being said, I wholely agree you shouldn't be forced to win every match to maintain gear. Winning 25%-30% of your matches should be enough to maintain. But I don't think they should reward that fool that runs into the enemies clutches by himself and gets shot to peices everytime.

[empath]

Strictly speaking, it would be TOTALLY 'in character' for this 25+ year old game milieu to have a mercenary company (you know, what they call the 'guilds' we're creating for this?) go bankrupt despite victory in battle because of operating costs, or for an entire House military to scale back operations due to a shortage of supplies, materials or even supply sources (q.v. Second Succession War).

But based on the 'all carrot/no stick' stance expressed by Bryan (thank'ee, sir), I'm guessing it's going to be much like what I see in WoT - fight and win and get 500% of my refit costs, fight and lose and only get 200% of my refit costs; i.e. it might be FASTER to grind up the assets to buy a new chassis you want if you keep winning, but you'll even make a little progress 'on a bad day'.

Edited by empath, 06 November 2011 - 09:55 AM.

[fakey]

I'm with empath on this one. I fully expect to have to at the very least pay to get my mech repaired and quite possibly for ammo and refits if my weapons are destroyed. Not only do I expect this to be the case but I want this to be the case because what is the point of the game without consequence? If I suck and my **** gets blown up I want that to be reflected in the consequences the game throws at me, much like if I rock and I can somehow get through a mission without getting the paint scratched I want that to be reflected as well.


I do agree though that having a WoW based thing where you have to grind "gold" to play the fun stuff (which I guess would be raids in WoW) would be a bad idea. Having an income which allows you to recover your losses in the case of failure is important to keep the game fun and ultimately keep the game around so as not to scare off players. However to make the game completely consequence free would ruin any feeling of reward for performing well and probably any feeling of progression in the game.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I would be pretty supprised if the game didnt adopt a model, that the lower end "tiers" or "unlocks" always make more money than it costs for repairs/ammo.

Heavier Mechs will be a money drain, thus you would still have to run lights mediums etc, to top up your cbills

[ArgentumLupus]

I think this is something Piranha will look to WoT for. Ammo and Armor aren't that pricy to replace, it's Internal structure that is really expensive. I could see letting someone go into a fight with armor missing but true to the "carrot" method, they shouldn't let internal structure stay damaged after a fight (unless they make a High-stakes/Hardcore game mode, I would enjoy that). In CBT its great fun to play a campaign where you have to worry about those expenses and be forced to use damaged equipment, but that kind of style in a online game is for ARMA players, not the casual player.

[Kargush]

If we have to pay to keep our gear up and running, I'd expect to see the people who grind and grind and have the skills to have good kit whilst the rest are running around in cheap mechs and the poorest players give up in disgust because they keep having to spend those c-bills kept aside to buy a medium just to keep their 20-tonner from going into battle with cardboard and harsh language.

And I do not want that. Especially seeing as I know I will not be among the top players rocking around in heavies and saving up c-bills for a rainy day.

[CaveMan]

Sounds like OP is trying to force his whims on the rest of us.

I want salvage, repairs, c-bills, and roleplaying. Players should have one 'Mech or maybe a small stable if you have a crapton of c-bills, because that's the way it is. Unless you're the FedCom prince you don't get to just pick whatever 'Mech you want. Just having a good 'Mech simulator isn't enough, there needs to be context. If people just want robot frag matches there should be a no-consequences arena mode or something.

[Thomas Hogarth]

In my mind, there NOT being recurring costs has been a failing of previous MechWarrior Mercenaries games. Seriously, in MW4 Mercs, the only recurring costs were repair and transit costs, and that was only in the singleplayer side. Not only were the costs not high enough to even impact a merc companies finances, but they were also completely omitted from the multiplayer side. Fail.

[fakey]

To the people who are worried about recurring costs I'd say look at the WoT model. You can lose a match, have your tank completely blown up, and still get something out of it for having lost the match. Yes you have to pay for repairs and more ammo, but usually your costs are covered by what you got for losing the match. This is good for two reasons.

1. It makes winning that much sweeter, both in terms of game rewards (money/experience) and personal gratification in winning a match

2. Encourages smarter, less suicidal play. I can't tell you how annoying it is to play many of the FPS style games where there is no consequence for being a gung-ho nutbar but it actually being a more effective style of play. Particularly if the game is supposed to be more simulation based. I want players to be worried about the mech they are in and how much damage they are taking, I want a smarter, more tactical game, and having consequences for running in guns blazing and getting blown to kingdom come makes that happen.

Both of these things can be accomplished without crippling players who lose more often than not. Sure they won't progress as fast as players that do win more often, but winning should have it's rewards. And this is also coming from a player who knows full well that he'll be ejecting from his shattered hulk of a warmachine more times than he'd like to think about.

[Mal]

The costs of war should be paid. I expect to have to pay for repairs at minimum.. upkeep costs would be ok too (generic 'ammo' purchases that automatically restock all your ammo, versus having to purchase X amount of LRM ammo, Y amount of SRM, Z amount of Autocannon, etc.) Or, include the ammo replenishment cost in the generic 'repair' cost.