605 replies to this topic

[Cyber Carns]

DeM0nFiRe, on 04 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

-Make mechwarrior fans like it. I think a majority of the mechwarrior fans who have been fans for a long time are going to tend to want the game to lean more towards mechwarrior 2, more of a sim. And by this, I mean things like component-based damage (ammo explosions, guns damaged independant of the limbs they occupy) sane death conditions (In MW2, if you lose a single leg, you will either stand on one leg or you will fall in the direction you were moving and will have to continue the battle on one leg. In MW3 and 4, if you lose one leg you blow up?) Melee damage! Even if it's just simple damage based on running into mechs, I think it's got to be there. In addition, you better include good ol' death from above

Have to totally agree with that.

[Cyber Carns]

Paladyne, on 04 November 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

something to consider guys where WoT failed EA suceeded with MPBT3025 and from what I have read these devs actually played BT before and very likely (though I doubt they would admit it) played 3025.

What I am talking about is if they do have the macro war like WoT EA had the solution to the WoT problems. In 3025 you were limited to weight class for a given piece of territory. I too was a massive WoT player until cloan wars became all about the biggest tanks with the most money, if you have planets where there is a limitation as to size of units, IE: small planet light mechs only, med planet med mechs only, etc... then you can have a use for the small fry and guarantee that someone will get to play with them.

If you use WoT as a model (which I agree was sooo close to a good one but failed in the end), then please use all available ideas and past experiences with f2p games with item shops. I will say this, the minute the game in WoT became all about ultra competitive I got a bigger wallet, they lost a significant portion of the casual players that paid ocassionally. I know of very competitive units that lost upwards of 75% of their players when they got consistently told "you do not have the biggest toy and do not spend enough on your toys so no participation in clan wars for you.

Also there is precedence for limiting the size of forces on a given map, if you controlled a certain percentage of a planet in many if not most CBT tournaments you were not allowed to drop anything without jump capacity, and nothing over a medium until you established a beachhead. Differing mission requirements also have differing weight limitations. You do not send a lance of Dire Wolves to scout an outpost. If the mission is capture x or locate y, you send in mediums.

This is Battletech/mechwarrior, with the vast array of planets and even larger array of directions you can take at any given moment, then it is not hard for the coders to meet the needs of several playerbase archtypes.

I can go on for a long time having been a long time online gamer in both f2p and p2p games. But basically it is your game to make or break and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I know it can be done right, the question is simply in the end for me, does his wallet ruin the fun for me in this game because I cannot participate in some aspect because his wallet is fatter and winning means more then enjoying the game.

It is as much players as coders that make or break a game and in my experience there are players that will do everything and anything to win including destroying the game itself. Coders can allecviate alot of this with preemptive actions, but in the end it is our responsibility too.

Good Luck, Good Hunting, and Have Fun all.

I have to agree with what you said above. An idea would be tonnage limits on how many tons you can have on taking a planet and let the Clan//Company/Unit decide on how to fill the allowed tonnage and how to fill the Lance/Star.

Edited by Cyber Carns, 05 November 2011 - 12:14 AM.

[Captain Nice HD]

At the risk of performing a faux pas here, I'm going to link to an Extra Credits video on microtransactions. Their advice on how to design a good F2P model is much better-reasoned and better-informed than anything I could come up with on my own:



Generally sound advice. So far, Piranha seems to be taking the MWO F2P model in a design direction consistent with those recommendations; here's hoping that things stay that way.

[Neozero]

Paladyne, on 04 November 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

something to consider guys where WoT failed EA suceeded with MPBT3025 and from what I have read these devs actually played BT before and very likely (though I doubt they would admit it) played 3025.

What I am talking about is if they do have the macro war like WoT EA had the solution to the WoT problems. In 3025 you were limited to weight class for a given piece of territory. I too was a massive WoT player until cloan wars became all about the biggest tanks with the most money, if you have planets where there is a limitation as to size of units, IE: small planet light mechs only, med planet med mechs only, etc... then you can have a use for the small fry and guarantee that someone will get to play with them.

If you use WoT as a model (which I agree was sooo close to a good one but failed in the end), then please use all available ideas and past experiences with f2p games with item shops. I will say this, the minute the game in WoT became all about ultra competitive I got a bigger wallet, they lost a significant portion of the casual players that paid ocassionally. I know of very competitive units that lost upwards of 75% of their players when they got consistently told "you do not have the biggest toy and do not spend enough on your toys so no participation in clan wars for you.

Also there is precedence for limiting the size of forces on a given map, if you controlled a certain percentage of a planet in many if not most CBT tournaments you were not allowed to drop anything without jump capacity, and nothing over a medium until you established a beachhead. Differing mission requirements also have differing weight limitations. You do not send a lance of Dire Wolves to scout an outpost. If the mission is capture x or locate y, you send in mediums.

This is Battletech/mechwarrior, with the vast array of planets and even larger array of directions you can take at any given moment, then it is not hard for the coders to meet the needs of several playerbase archtypes.

I can go on for a long time having been a long time online gamer in both f2p and p2p games. But basically it is your game to make or break and I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I know it can be done right, the question is simply in the end for me, does his wallet ruin the fun for me in this game because I cannot participate in some aspect because his wallet is fatter and winning means more then enjoying the game.

It is as much players as coders that make or break a game and in my experience there are players that will do everything and anything to win including destroying the game itself. Coders can allecviate alot of this with preemptive actions, but in the end it is our responsibility too.

Good Luck, Good Hunting, and Have Fun all.

I think you struck the hammer on the nail with this post. The potential for F2P MWO is vast and given everything that we seem to be in lined to receive with this game and the experiences of the community as a whole I think its safe to say the Devs have a good idea of what we want and have desired for several years now. Mechwarrior/Battletech is not always about biggest and baddest as much as tactical engagements to achieve a set goal. Battlemechs where designed to fill roles and as such having a clan conquest system that reflects this dynamic is very important.

I know myself and several other people that are eagerly awaiting this projects release. I am very please to see the amount of feedback and rapid news updates the developers are publishing for us to read while we all speculate on what we will be doing next year. It is so nice to finally see someone is tapping into this under utilized IP, and moving it forward with a new take for all of us to enjoy.

[el santo]

A sales pitch.

Which doesn't eliminate the potential of the game, F2P or not. But before the product itself lands, all words are empty rattle. The games industry is traditionally the most infamous when it comes to suppliers not standing behind their promises, politicians excluded.

[Jack Dandy]

You try to calm us down, but your news post is sadly a bit too vague.
If you want to convince us that your F2P game will be worth our time, please try and give some more FACTS about your system. Sum it up the best you can- What CAN you buy? And what CAN'T you buy?

Ultimately, I believe League of Legends has the best F2P model around. If you could try and reach it, it would be for the best.

[Onnekas]

Honestly, I can live with this. I'm not averse to F2P, I've seen it work outstandingly (Lord of the Rings Online has pulled off a very successful F2P model). I actually prefer being able to pay for the things I want, or nothing at all if I choose. If I like the game, and there's something I want, I can spend the money and support the developers. If not, I don't have to spend a dime. Sounds like a good scenario to me. I also appreciate the honesty Bryan is showing by admitting that buying "items" will be possible. I hope that the team will be able to deliver on making actual skill a deciding factor.

[Wahlnutz]

Captain Nice HD, on 05 November 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

At the risk of performing a faux pas here, I'm going to link to an Extra Credits video on microtransactions. Their advice on how to design a good F2P model is much better-reasoned and better-informed than anything I could come up with on my own:



Generally sound advice. So far, Piranha seems to be taking the MWO F2P model in a design direction consistent with those recommendations; here's hoping that things stay that way.

This... awesome find Mechwarrior

[Maelik Crowe]

In my opinion,as a fan of other great free-to-play games, World of Tanks being an example, I think that as a developer you are best served by offering MWO as the ideal model for distribution.

It is, as you say, classic carrot vs. stick.

There are some lessons to be learned, don't, please, tie it to social networks or rely on social rewards, a large population will despise it. Don't, please, cripple the game for people who dont pay-to-play or make the paid advantage too overwhelming.

I played other 'free-to-play' games for months before I was so engrossed that I gladly paid for slight advantage and better options. I have easily spent more than title release money on free-to-play games than I ever would have gad they been released as a top tier 60$ title.

You have the advantage of a rabid player-base, a great concept, and a great title.

I would be criminal to waste.

IMHO, the free-to-play model draws subscribers, great concept, art, and design keeps them, constant development is key and you will make buckets full of money and we will all be happy.

I am happy to see that my well beloved and often neglected Mechs will again strike fear in the hearts of the Worlds.

Cheers!

[minobu tetsuharu]

InnerSphereNews, on 04 November 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

<h3>Why you want MechWarrior® Online™ to be Free-To-Play!</h3>

<p>How many times have you bought a game for 60 bucks and felt disappointed? Or if you're like me, paid 60 bucks, played for 2 hours and never touched the game again because you get busy with life or work? Or loved a game so much, that you wished there was more, only to wait 2 years for a sequel! The Free-To-Play model solves this problem by allowing players to drive value and content.</p>

There's a fallacy in there. People who pay money regardless of model drive value and content.

What differentiates the difference business models is how the devs approach it.

When you sell a box there is more pressure on you to make make higher quality content because you don't know what players will individually like so you'll try to polish features giving them a level of detail to at least make it feel like the money spent wasn't a waste even if it isn't their cup of tea. You won't find this level of detail in games that sell through micro-transactions only.

Also this post suggests you aren't aware of or ignore the reality of microtransactions, where most devs sell in game advantages, which threaten the ability to have fun without funneling significantly more money than you would normally pay for a box.

If you end up being the few who avoid that temptation the game won't be so bad but it is still going to be an inferior product to a box. After all, since you want to encourage players to pay for certain things you'll have to make the free to play players uncomfortable at some level.


This focus on making free to play less desirable means you are less concerned about making a game that is fun for everyone than a team that charges a subscription or sells a box.

A suggestion I made else where is the following.

The devs could have an internal roundtable hashing out the various ideas they want to implement next. Once they settle on which projects they would like to work on they submit their ideas to potential customers and detail the basic time frame they would expect to work on each feature and how much they are initially thinking of asking of the community for it.
Players can choose which projects are more important to them by pledging their money to those projects. Pledging is a contract that allows the devs to automatically withdraw from the customer's account once the content has been released.

At least 10 days prior to release the devs can give those who are committed to pay immediately early access to this content. This gives them the privileged of enjoying and understanding this content first and it gives them the opportunity to review the quality of the work and retract their pledge if they find it unsatisfactory.


A set up like this would go a long way to improving the overall quality I find lacking in the development of free to play games.

There is better feedback, less risk and more guarantied rewards for both parties.

Edited by minobu tetsuharu, 05 November 2011 - 02:49 AM.

[metro]

ok Paladyne....you can stay!

Great post.

[Hety]

Just dont sell power. The video above summarises it all. You sell items that make one players stronger than other - i, personally, wont spend a cent. I'll go and by a monocle for 70 bucks.

[S3dition]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Buying mechs with cash will NOT equal buying an advantage. There are so many mechs in the game with such varied abilities that you would be buying something different. I'm willing to bet all the "best" mechs (Atlas, Daishi, Awesome, Timberwolf, Mad Dog, etc) will be bought strictly with C-bills. However, I imagine things like the Kraken, King Crab, Behemoth, Dragon, etc will be bought with cash. Would I be willing to drop greens on a Kraken or Behemoth? YES! Are they guaranteed to beat a Daishi anytime, anywhere? NO! This combined with the Pseudo /Light RPG elements, simply jumping into a Kraken won't be enough to be good at it. You'll still have to play the game before you become proficient.

From everything I've seen so far, I support Piranha Games 100%

[wargames]

Paladyne, on 04 November 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

What I am talking about is if they do have the macro war like WoT EA had the solution to the WoT problems. In 3025 you were limited to weight class for a given piece of territory. I too was a massive WoT player until cloan wars became all about the biggest tanks with the most money, if you have planets where there is a limitation as to size of units, IE: small planet light mechs only, med planet med mechs only, etc... then you can have a use for the small fry and guarantee that someone will get to play with them.

I personly like the current way clan wars works in WOT it means you have to put in time and effort to get something out of it. Its very much like EVE in that if you are good and have alot of good players with you can reap the reawrds.

Captain Nice HD, on 05 November 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

Like this video says having some sort of way to earn pay currency is a great way for people to feel like the game is balanced, and having some sort of meta game/galaxy conquest would be stupid ammount of fun.

[Stunner]

Tyra, on 04 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

My wife colors comics for a living, so customization is a big thing for us XD

I've got her sold on SWTOR (wasn't hard, we MET in WoW) but I'm having trouble selling her on Battletech

I got my wife to paint my mini's for me and she enjoys playing table top battletech. We are currently playing WoW together and I've had her try MW4 but the controls were too much for her. I hope there is a role she could play in MWO or would find interest in it.

Hopefully this game isn't only piloting mechs and then I could get her in.

[DeM0nFiRe]

I hate the comparisons to WoT so so much. If this game has anything more than the simple fact that it's vehicular combat in common with WoT, I will be hugely disappointed. WoT is a broken game made by a very bad company in terms of player respect.

Also, someone mentioned Combat Arms. I started playing Combat Arms when it was in beta, and I can tell you that for a long time it was very balanced between free and paid. What primarily ended up being a problem for CA was, one, they didn't do anything to try to prevent hackers, it got to the point where 4 out of 5 games had someone doing OPK. Then as far as balance was concerned, they made the .50 cal semi-auto sniper which was basically a semi auto AWP and they basically restricted that to payment (You could get it for free if you were a rank that very few people were) and then of course the silly specialist stuff.

[Threat Doc]

Okay, so here are the choices, as I see it, with the F2P micro-trans model:

1) If, for all of the hard work into maps, game/mission types, 'Mechs, and all of the other goodness which comes into developing this game, you then make the MTs so good the game becomes P2W, whether through design or accident, you will invariably leave the game to the disrespectful punk twitch element who have mad button-pushing skills and whose only tactics are to get behind mountains or buildings and head-shot you to death, the old-style BT tabletop and MW2/3 vets will leave, and your extraordinary efforts will leave you out of a game within a year of going P2W.

I do not believe your goal is P2W, but an excellent game experience for all, but you have to be careful not to cater to the balance issue crowd unless an absolutely legitimate imbalance exists. Once an imbalance corrects itself, don't just rush to continue development, evaluate the adjustments for a time, maybe even reducing or taking away the amount of correction that was needed before. In my opinion, with games like WoW, the players cry about something that's not there -this is why I stopped playing nearly three years ago, now- and the devs don't examine it, they just fix it, which imbalances something else, and they fix that when it's complained about, and it goes like dominoes until your game is just thoroughly one-hundred-eighty degrees away from what you first designed, and the power levels are astonishingly out of whack.

The other option is...

2) Design the game as close to the tabletop as possible and leave it there, adding rules originally left out should they become necessary, new 'Mechs, textures, camo patterns, maps, game types, etc. Let the veterans (especially old-school tabletop and MW2/3) take care of the community, get them straight, on target, on task, and informed. Even if you lose the twitch camp you will keep the veterans. You will also keep BattleTech going, people who stay will be proud to be associated with this game, this community, and you will keep going for a very long time to come.

This is the goal I believe you're reaching for, perhaps less purist than I, and many others are, but close enough for us to want to stay.

This is not an ultimatum, it is simply the truth. The MW2 series (MW2, Ghost Bear Legacy, and Mercs) were the first representation of the game, inaccurate, but people played it for seven or eight years strong after it's release, and it's still played weak all over the place today. MWIII and Pirate's Moon were played for five years, roughly, after release and there is still a thriving MWIII community; I loved that game over all of them. Unfortunately, because of the restrictions Zippers developers put into the game, which made it the closest to the board game, the MW2 twitch crowd that began proliferating during Pirate's Moon and chasing off the veterans, didn't like the game because they could no longer slide around on Jump Jets and see through hills to actually fire on their enemy. The MW4 series was just a ruddy disaster, and the twitch crowd fully embraced it and, in some places it's still being played, but it's nowhere near as strong as it used to be and, I would say, it only lasted about three or four years of full-time game-play before the twitch crowd started leaving it.

So, make your marketing campaign out to cover 1/3rd twitch gamers and 2/3rds veterans, you'll get the veterans back if you have the right stuff -I'm seeing a lot of good in what I've read thus far- and, maybe, if the game is as tabletop accurate as possible, the twitch crowd can be put back on their heels, will learn tactics, strategy, actual respect for one another, and my favorite word in the whole English lexicon, honor. It will be a community/individual thing, and the community will be stronger for it. However, the game-play has to lend to the necessity of having to fight as a team, a team whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts; if you have F2P that actually allows P2W, you will get money coming in hand over fist for a while, and then it will get boring for those who are paying, and they will leave too.

It's a fine line, and I believe you guys have the balancing stick in hand to help you not fall of the wire.

[Brakkyn]

If this game plays anything like MechWarrior 3 with an updated, modern game engine and gameplay tweaks, I am sold for life.

[Threat Doc]

Captain Nice HD, on 05 November 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

There was a part in this video where the guy explained that it was very difficult to making a first MT, but after that it became easier and easier to do. It was that way for me with LotRO -I quit that game a year ago for one big reason I'll elaborate on in a moment-; I absolutely refused to spend a dime on the game until an old/ex friend of mine gave me a $10 gift card. I got him hooked on the game, he got me hooked on the store, hehe. Once I saw what could be purchased -mind, many items in their store are wholly unreasonable price-wise- I was hooked. I only spent a grand total of about $30, plus that gift card, but I did spend money.

I quit LotRO because I got to level 47 each with my Loremaster and my Hunter. At level 43 with each I was able to take on level 46 and 47 baddie. When I hit level 47 with each, without making any changes, I could no longer take on level 42 baddies. I tried for two weeks to get back one quest each for my toons, but regardless of how I re-spec'd, regardless of research on play types/styles, and the implementation of said research, I could not get past where I was. So, I quit the game. I'm not going to work up that high in the game, spend so many hours on each toon, only to get ganked by creatures I was fighting several levels ago; that's seriously stupid.

Now, this is BattleTech on the computer, MechWarrior Online, and I have loved BattleTech since '85, so I will be spending some money on this game, period. However, devs, please don't make the mistake of putting up walls at various levels, where the fighting I was doing with little or no effort several levels/points-in-skills ago I can no longer do because of some artificial BS limitation? Thank you.

[metro]

I think the majority of ya are making mountains out of mole hills.

This baby, and concept we know of.....is 1 week old.

I think the best thing for everyone is to sit back, enjoy a smoke, watch for announcements and see what the devs tell us

so we have more of a clue where this massive baby is going!

I think everyone just needs to breatheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

For the simple fact, this is BT/MW

NOT, LOL, WOT, WOW or EVE..........

come on peeps.....I believe in ya!

Edited by metro, 05 November 2011 - 07:48 AM.