605 replies to this topic

[Paladyne]

I have seen many things I like and do not like about ideas in these forums and I do not begrudge the row the devs have to hoe here. But simple fact of the matter is, if they give us a matchmaker pvp system there are downsides, if they end up giving us a full mmo there are downsides and the downsides in both are for us and them.

Not everyone will ever be pleased by a game, they have to make judgement calls on what will be enjoyable for players AND make them money. Let us face it, there will always be peoplke complaining of balance issues and alot of the time it is a balance of skill or gameplay that the players control and the devs have no control.

Something else to consider the community will eventually determine how fun this game is by we they play, how we treat each other, wehter or not we play to win at any cost or whether the casual gamer or someone just looking for a bit of fun will enjoy it will be as much about the players, as the devs.

The devs as far as I am concerned have been cool as hell allowing us to comment and get into suggesting stuff on these forums this early so they can actually benefit from our experiences and ideas. But once this game goes live, you cannot program out the people that will take advantage of every opprotunity to win, no matter what it does to other players.

Do I play to win? yes! do I too find joy in blowing stuff up? yes! Do I want to be playing some sort of Battletech game ten years from now? Depends on whether or not people enjoy games as games or take it to an extreme. It also depends on if the devs and distributor decide to gouge me on prices for something that if I do not have it I will get left out of some aspect of the game.

I want some sort of storyline gameplay, I want combat and out of mech/unit areas where we can just hang out, I want everything in one place that Battletech can offer. Will I ever see a single game that provides this..... I highly doubt it. But what I like about f2p that many people in the p2p is the only way crowd forget, if you lose your job tomorrow and cannot afford your subscription to you MMO of choice, what happens to all those toys you earned, what happens to that cache of elite weapons and equipment, what happens to those thousands of hours you spent getting to the point where you had the exact right level and equipment to be happy with your game....

Well I can tell you I got hurt at work several years back, and within 6 months all I could afford was the f2p games because my bills come first. And guess what, I can still use those things I was able to get from those games, I can still log into Navy Field and use my premium ships, I can still log into World of Tanks and enjoy the benefits of my premium tanks and hours of gameplay, and I still cannot afford to log back into my EVE account and use the 5 billion credits, or my capital ships.

One of my best friends was part of the p2p is the only way crowd until last month when he realised the years he ahd in WoW are gone because he went from 20 USD an hour job to 9 working at walmart.

[TalonDarksul]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

With regards to WOT, it doesn't ruin gameplay...for random matches.

It totally ruins gameplay for competitive clan matches. You are forced to buy gold ammo and kits if you want to even hope to have a chance to be competitive.

But yes to certain mechs, custom paintjob, or forming a full lance or even multiple lances, to form a mercenary company, extra mechbays etc etc.

Id rather pay an online fee and no one gets to spend cash extra on getting the better gear then another it ruins the game, every f2p game I have played I am not impressed with content or the people who have a grand to blow on a game. It takes out of the actual game itself. In one article the president of Piranah said f2p wont be where you can get the best of everything yet here its totally different. So a moderator or someone else post who knows what the real model will be first. I dont care for speculation nor do I want this speech on how f2p is so awesome etc. I dont need a salesmans load of bs specially when that person doesnt seem to understand what gaming truly is.

[Sirisian]

Paladyne, on 06 November 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

But what I like about f2p that many people in the p2p is the only way crowd forget, if you lose your job tomorrow and cannot afford your subscription to you MMO of choice, what happens to all those toys you earned, what happens to that cache of elite weapons and equipment, what happens to those thousands of hours you spent getting to the point where you had the exact right level and equipment to be happy with your game....

Priorities. If I just lost my job I'd be getting another and using my savings to live off of in the mean-time, not playing a video game. Seriously if you're living paycheck to paycheck your probably not spending money in their cash shop anyway and are outside of their target audience at that point.


Reading these last few pages the pros for F2P that seem to be the strongest are larger population than say a 10 USD subscription system since it attracts people who don't want to risk spending for a subscription or who don't like to be locked into such payment systems. (Then again free-trials help, but I digress). (That and the idea of higher profits mentioned a few times. Can't blame the devs for that really).

Then again this is a multiplayer game and not an MMO. If it was an MMO then the reasoning for a subscription would be higher. Adding a subscription to an instanced multiplayer game just to preserve a little bit of balance (as much as I'd prefer it) doesn't really make much sense. You'd have people comparing it to the numerous other multiplayer games without a subscription.

My gripe with F2P is the waitplay used to incentivize payment. I fall into the small group of people that can't get into grinding. Doing the same thing over and over repetitively such as League of Legends, WoW, or WoT to get something better isn't fun for me. On the other hand I played Planetside for more than I want to admit because it had no grind. After the first month of "training" to reach max level it was all skill based with tons of decisions. In that way the gameplay wasn't fueled grinding. It was just fun with groups of friends.

One thing I'm hoping for with the increased iteration is massive player choices. I hate to say to mitigate alpha-strikes, but basically just so players have to rely on skill. If you give someone 100 choices to make with a mech you feel a lot more responsibility when you die because you reflect on what you could have don. That's one thing I like about mechs rather than infantry. They open up a lot of choices intrinsically because they're bigger and can hold more. (Hint: smoke grenades).

[xAaronx]

please make it so that things that you buy are only for looks, i dont want to be a legit player and have some 12 year old buy a mech that kills everything in a single blow. i do how ever love to purchase things to make me special and stand out from the crowd. Games like Gears of War 3 have weapon skins that you can buy at i bought them all at the game start. Team fortress 2 also i love buying things that make my classes look cool but i also buy weapons, what i love about tf2 is that they make it fair and so if you buy a weapon its just something different rather than better. This makes it so no one rages in the game and every one is happy. If you guys can do this that be great.

In Other games (forgot the name but its by nexon) they have it to where you can level up and get wepons, or buy the over powered pieces of (insert stars here) in the store, so you have noobs with a tank while your stuck with a knife. it makes the game really unemployable.

[Nyx]

I play a f2p shooter/tank game that could in many ways (but other ways not of course) comparable to a Mech game. In this game there is little to no competition from the "wallet warriors". They get few perks sooner then any other player that does the grind and earn their own rewards. Skill is the key in this game. A player that never pays a single cent versus a player to pays a hundred dollars a month and it all comes down to skill and not a penny can replace that skill. Its quite balanced (not perfect but that has nothing to do with f2p vs p2p aspect) and I am highly pleased to play this game. I only hope that MWO takes a few tips from this other game.

[Bryan Ekman]

TalonDarksul, on 06 November 2011 - 08:15 PM, said:

Id rather pay an online fee and no one gets to spend cash extra on getting the better gear then another it ruins the game, every f2p game I have played I am not impressed with content or the people who have a grand to blow on a game. It takes out of the actual game itself. In one article the president of Piranah said f2p wont be where you can get the best of everything yet here its totally different. So a moderator or someone else post who knows what the real model will be first. I dont care for speculation nor do I want this speech on how f2p is so awesome etc. I dont need a salesmans load of bs specially when that person doesnt seem to understand what gaming truly is.

The article associate with this thread was written by myself. The interview was given by myself and Russ. My #1 challenge as this game's lead designer is to make sure the core experience is enjoyable and balanced.

I disagree that a subscription model equals a better or more level playing field. Anyone who drops a grand on a game will do so regardless. In a subscription based game, it usually takes the form of power leveling , buying in game cash, or ebayed items.

If you're willing to try MWO, I hope you'll be surprised. I think you'll happily invest your money, because it's going to be spent on things that make your playtime more fun/challenging/engaging.

And if you play it and find no enjoyment, MWO might just not be for you.. I'm cool with that.

[Firefly]

My main gripe with F2P models is the ability for trolls to continue trolling, and the ability for cheaters/hackers to continue cheating/hacking, by way of circumventing a ban by creating a new account. And G-d forbid the game have commodities that can be farmed and traded - that opens the door for gold-farmers, gold-sellers, and gold-spammers.

[rollermint]

Rebeldad, on 06 November 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

As you men have related this to World of Tanks some. I pray that this developer makes a better MatchMaker. The disparity in tank tiers is horrendous sometimes.

It may work in WOT but really, the idea of Tiers in MWO is a big turn off.

I don't want to see a big portion of Battlemechs becoming redundant and useless because they are only Tier 1-4 and people are just rushing/grinding through them simply to get to the mid-high tiers.

All Mechs should be usable in ALL levels of gameplay. I hope that MWO will not take the Tier system from WoT.

[Miles Tails Prower]

I don't like F2P because it is ultimately more expensive for serious players than retail.

I'd rather just pay Piranha Games my $59.99 + whatever DLC that comes out. F2P always has things dangled in front of you, they let you rent things briefly to tempt you into buying it. Like League of Legends, what started out to be free wound up costing more than a generic PC title.

The problem is buying what you want vs buying what you need. F2P preys on the player's lack of restraint, giving them a buffet of tantalizing options for them to purchase that ultimately drain more cash out of them than a standard retail sale would. Each sale is small, but they rapidly build up.

I can see why Piranha Games would want to use F2P though since the name of Battletech doesn't hold the power it once did with mainstream entertainment, making something F2P will be a way to compensate for not being as well known anymore.

Regardless. I still prefer standard retail.

[Big Red]

I am having trouble imagining a system that allows a 'casual' player who plays the game once or twice a week for a couple of hours at a time is not going to be constantly outgunned by a 'hardcore' player who plays every night for 3-4 hours then 8-12 hours over the weekend. F2P where the gear earned by the 'hardcore' player is available to a 'casual' player who pays $X does go someway to alleviate that.

A lot of 'hardcore' players want to stroke some epeen and I can imagine them bleating their hearts out about having mere 'casuals' getting their hard earned pixels but I'm hoping the Leader-boards will make them happy enough that the bleating won't persuade MWO to make their F2P model cosmetic only.

Waiting with much anticipation to hear how they are going to handle in-game 'death' or 'dispossession' - do we start with a 'trainer' Mech or do we get a slush fund to buy a Mech then save/horde/salvage stuff to upgrade/repair/replace what we have?

[Maverick Howell]

Bryan Ekman, on 06 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

The article associate with this thread was written by myself. The interview was given by myself and Russ. My #1 challenge as this game's lead designer is to make sure the core experience is enjoyable and balanced.

I disagree that a subscription model equals a better or more level playing field. Anyone who drops a grand on a game will do so regardless. In a subscription based game, it usually takes the form of power leveling , buying in game cash, or ebayed items.

If you're willing to try MWO, I hope you'll be surprised. I think you'll happily invest your money, because it's going to be spent on things that make your playtime more fun/challenging/engaging.

And if you play it and find no enjoyment, MWO might just not be for you.. I'm cool with that.

<3 Your my hero Bryan Ekman <3

[JC Daxion]

I like the idea as you can gear your content more for what the players want.. release some things and if they sell well, release more!

I for one really hope in the future there are RPG style missions/eppisodes. The future of what could be is really unlimited.

But i do like where you are starting.. a very solid, balanced combat system, on limited maps/mechs, and it would be just ripe for expansion. To many companies try to do too much, instead of taking a very solid core and expanding on it. to me this is the best way to start a game like this. Build on that, and all that other stuff can be added down the road.

Giant planets, persistant worlds, exploration, 50 v 50 battles over cities/bases, Player created content, PVE campaigns.. I maybe dreaming, but to me it seems like the sky is the limit.

I really wish you luck in the future.

[R3B0]

Frankly, I support the decision to go Free to Play.

Free to Play is a growing industry for good reason. Specifically it gives developers more leeway in making their game. You can take more risks on a Free to Play system because there is nothing stopping people from playing it. If you make a mediocre game and release it retail, then people have to make the decision of if they should buy a fifty dollar or more game. Does said game stack up against other games on the shelf? Will you buy a game that you know little about or has mixed reviews over that new Call of Duty? Probably not.

However when you can just download a game for free and try it out when you get bored with whatever it is your playing, then a developer gets its chance to shine. Once your feet are wet is when a Free to Play game starts to make its money. Now, according to almost all of you, there should be little incentive to buy things. I hear all this complaining about paying to "win" but it just looks to me like a sound business model. If you need to buy X item to be truly competitive at a high level, then you probably will.

If your only purchase choices were paint jobs and various garbage to put in your cockpit, only bored people with money to blow would ever purchase anything. A business can't make money and grow off such a poor market strategy. If it did do that, as some of you suggest, then they would be unable to continue supporting the game with patches, content, and upgrades. What does it say about you as a supposed supporter of the game when you are setting them up for failure because your cheap and want to play games for no money what-so-ever. Think about the bigger picture a little.

There is no better incentive to pay money than to gain an edge, be it great or small, over your competition in a game that is all about competition. If it turns you off that you have to pay a little money to be at the top of your game, then you don't matter. You don't matter because if you cannot be bothered to pay a little money for some small edge, then you would never have payed money for anything so mundane and useless as a paint job or fuzzy dice in your cockpit.

You should spend less time complaining about if they will include advantages you can pay for. Instead as a supporter of the game you should be spending your time coming up with balanced advantages you can pay for. If I can buy a better Machine Gun Array, should it be more damage? Range? Less tonnage? If so, how much more? How much would said Array cost? One time? Recurring? Well thought out suggestions like that lead to better games for everyone because if you do it well, someone like myself would buy it. But someone like you wouldn't need to if you didn't want to because while better, its not game breaking. Its within balance.

Mechwarrior Online is Free to Play. Accept it and start helping it be the best it can be.

[GraveWax]

I am so stoked that MW is finally coming back, just about everything you guys are doing I am excited for. The only exception is the F2P part, All I can say is all the games I have played that have gone f2p I have left, I hate shopping with real money so that I can be on equal footing with other players. As it is MW I will give this a chance. I just hope there is an option to get EQUAL equipment at all times without the need to shop, I would happily pay a subscription to ensure equality, just DON'T make me go shopping to remain equal.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Rebeldad, on 06 November 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

As you men have related this to World of Tanks some. I pray that this developer makes a better MatchMaker. The disparity in tank tiers is horrendous sometimes.

Actually it works quit well, its peoples impressions of the system that is off. There are resources out there to show you what Tanks can be placed into what type of tier battles.
Matchmaker tries to place Lights (scouts for artillery and also artillery destroyers) Mediums (Flank Wolf Packs) Heavies/TD's (front line) into the games.

Its about making things have niches and jobs to do, rather than simply putting 15 Tier 10 heavies into one battle.

I would urge you go go and look up the tank table so you can see exactly where your tanks can be placed.

[BoldarBlood]

Bryan Ekman, on 06 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

I disagree that a subscription model equals a better or more level playing field. Anyone who drops a grand on a game will do so regardless. In a subscription based game, it usually takes the form of power leveling , buying in game cash, or ebayed items.

0mg, you cant be serious... just a very small minority of the users (in the west) is powerleveling or buys items on ebay. the ARPPU from that is far below than what you are aiming for. also everyone in a subscription based model gets the whole content and doesn't have to buy together the pieces of it. so buying cash in a P2P MMOG is just an addition to the complete experience of the game and doesnt build the fundament of the gameplay experience, like in F2P games.

and last but not least you can't compare a multiplayer game like MWO with a subscriptionbased game, because it is not an MMOG. it's a multiplayer game. RPG aspects doesn't raise it to an MMOG. same like call of duty, which isn't also an MMOG and your user base will regognize that. even if they aren't able to discribe the diffrence. your conversion rate will have a hard time with your target audience, if you plan to align your monetisation to MMOG mechanics.

Edited by BoldarBlood, 07 November 2011 - 06:05 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

Bryan Ekman, on 06 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

The article associate with this thread was written by myself. The interview was given by myself and Russ. My #1 challenge as this game's lead designer is to make sure the core experience is enjoyable and balanced.

A lot of the backlash against F2P is that there are just so many ways to ****** it up and devs seem to consistantly find them. Other than LoL where Riot has done an amazing job.

Cash shop items can be too expensive: Hi Eve Online's infamous monocle. This just sours people on the game by seeming like a ripoff.

They can be a naked power upgrade: World of Tanks' gold ammo and consumables. Fun fact, I've played more WoT than LoL but spent more on LoL. The consumables are the sole reason for this.

Worst of all, cash shops can ransom all the cool: World of Tanks (again) reserves all of the tanks that happen to have a rocket launcher bolted on as cash shop items. I find these to be the best tanks, not because they are necessarily good, but because they are neat. They also charge a large price for some of them, its pretty hard to justify spending $30 on a single tank.

The MWO equivalent would be making all the sweet looking mechs expensive cash items. Lets face it, Mechwarrior is all about looking sweet, otherwise we'd stick to tanks since those are actually practical.

I'm not saying MWO will make those mistakes, but without seeing the actual cash shop people are going to speculate and complain. So far the articles have been marketing fluff and ideas, another month or so and we should have some real answers.

[Amarus Cameron]

lyonn, on 04 November 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Bryan

you've written a big post but didn't mention what you expect to sell. Lets have some examples of each type of thing

Though I do feel like this comment quite a bit, a feel that as a project Mechwarrior is is good hands. If they care enough to keep us informed at least 9 months out, and are trying to listen and fix things ahead of time I think the only result will be a well polished and fun game. Now the only thing we need to make sure they do is not push it out the door early, that has killed way too many games and I do not want to see Mechwarrior suffer the same fate.

[Dozer]

BoldarBlood, on 07 November 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

0mg, you cant be serious... just a very small minority of the users (in the west) is powerleveling or buys items on ebay. the ARPPU from that is far below than what you are aiming for. also everyone in a subscription based model gets the whole content and doesn't have to buy together the pieces of it. so buying cash in an MMOG is just an addition to the complete experience of the game and doesnt build the fundament of the gameplay experience.

and last but not least you can't compare a multiplayer game like MWO with a subscriptionbased game, because it is not an MMOG. it's a multiplayer game. RPG aspects doesn't raise it to an MMOG. same like call of duty, which isn't also an MMOG and your user base will regognize that. even if they aren't able to discribe the diffrence. your conversion rate will have a hard time with your target audience, if you plan to align your monetisation to MMOG mechanics.

I do love the factless generalisations here from a player to a game developer whose likely, as part of their business plan, researched the marketplace extensively, certain more so than the poster I can also counter argue here that most of my gaming friends have both power leveled and ebayed, and are all 'western'. I can also point directly to several subs games where full content promised was not delivered FoC on/after release. So you're 'facts' aren't really that conclusive.

As for comparing MMOG with MMORPG I believe that many so called MMORPG's these days have dropped the RPG. Indeed SWTOR for example has marketed their entire 'fourth pillar' (story telling) of their game design as their main differentiator based on this reality. As for conversion rate do you know what it is? If so how can you logically say whether it will or will not be successful?

I just can't understand the incessant need for people to speculate on the pricing model. See what the game offers first. That's the key to the value it will provide.

Edited by Dozer, 07 November 2011 - 04:40 AM.

[BoldarBlood]

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

I do love the factless generalisations here from a player to a game developer whose likely, as part of their business plan, researched the marketplace extensively, certain more so than the poster I can also counter argue here that most of my gaming friends have both power leveled and ebayed, and are all 'western'. I can also point directly to several subs games where full content promised was not delivered FoC on/after release. So you're 'facts' aren't really that conclusive.

"most of your gaming friends" is not representive and everything i wrote is based on statistics and experience.

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

As for comparing MMOG with MMORPG I believe that many so called MMORPG's these days have dropped the RPG. Indeed SWTOR for example has marketed their entire 'fourth pillar' (story telling) of their game design as their main differentiator based on this reality.

"rpg" is a genre-description for some kind of gamemechanics and does not discribe "roleplaying" itself. most people get that wrong.

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

As for conversion rate do you know what it is? If so how can you logically say whether it will or will not be successful?

probably better than you

"successfull" is btw a very strechable term. all i wrote was "your conversion rate will have a hard time with your target audience, if you plan to align your monetisation to MMOG mechanics" and thats true.

Dozer, on 07 November 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

I just can't understand the incessant need for people to speculate on the pricing model. See what the game offers first. That's the key to the value it will provide.

there wont be any suprises here. from what they wrote you can expect something between the soft monetisation of LoL and the hard monetisation of designs with asian roots.

Edited by BoldarBlood, 07 November 2011 - 05:19 AM.