85 replies to this topic

[Daegog]

Btech players are first and foremost: MIN/MAXXERS


It's in our blood from the first time we are told a CV or weight limit for a game.


That said, and given what we know (which isnt much granted), how on EARTH do you keep people from buying 100s if not 1000s of dollars worth of stacs to get hyper optimized mechs and lances into the field?

CV is always a subjective thing, the devs will do their very best to keep it as close to what they feel it should be as possible, and then players will do every single thing in their power to abuse the living hell out of whatever little item they happened to overlook or perhaps didnt rate high enough.

I have talked about this with my gaming friends time and time again, and we do not see a realistic way around it. Short of setting arbitrary limit on how many stacs a person can buy (and this would NEVER be done as no company would tell its customers "NO, keep your money") how on earth can a person not willing to invest as heavy as the next guy hope to compete?

It's highly unlikely that your in-game earnable scrap rate will be able to compete with folks willing to plunk down large sums cash (100$+ dollars) on a routine basis. We have to remember this is a business, and part of their business will be about keeping the PAYING players happy. Sure they want everyone to be happy, but if the paying guys arent happy and stop paying, game over.

Skill and luck have their place (they are not selling headshots or Kai-Allard clone Pilots as i have seen), I simply do not see how you can consistenly hope to compete against hyper-optimized units without fielding your own units of a equal nature.

To me, the primary root cause of this pay to win issue is the RANDOMNESS of the STAC. If all items obtainable in a stac were also sold seperately in the shop, i personally feel that a person would have a much better chance to create his own hyper-optimized units.

Now some people will read this and think, well they still have to put together these mechs and use them properly. Well of course, but trial and error plus info available online will rapidly even the field in terms of knowledge. It's rarely a good idea to go into battle thinking you are better/smarter than your opponent.

Now i have played several pay to win games in my day, Allods online comes to mind where some people have paid close to 10,000$ real dollars to "rapeface". That game also uses the random/gambling method in its cash shop.

In the end (i love that btech video btw), I am hopeful that the devs will reconsider the gambling approach and offer some alternatives to gaining items currently slated to be sold in STACs.

(all this said, i still plan on buying about 300$ worth of stacs when the game starts, if ya cant beat them....)

[Bolfry]

I think they addressed that (helping you not be a victim of a pay-to-win player) by letting the match-making service compare the CV value of your units to the opponents. If this proves true, then you won't have to worry about facing such a player when you choose to not dump thousand of dollars into the game....matching (from what I have read) will be based upon three criteria 1) CV value of units 2) record of the players 3) configuration of the game (which you choose to join or not or you set the configuration of the match).

I could be wrong, but that seems to be the way it is at present. I welcome additional comments (including validation) and/or corrections to the information I have posted here.

[Teranika]

CV is a limiting factor. IF there is a range of CV that gets matched up (say 1000 to 2000 CV is a bracket) then it could become an issue if you've got what you consider a 'perfect' 2000CV lance..going against a 'normal' 1000 CV lance. A 2000CV lance versus a 2000CV lance won't be a huge difference.

Plus, there is no 'perfect' lance at any given CV rate. You may think that 1 Light, 2 Mediums, and 1 Heavy (or Assault), make up the 'perfect' lance.. Yet you may play someone who fields a 4 medium 'Mech lance, and does better...because it suits their playstyle.

This isn't WoW.. we (probably) won't have 'cookie cutter' builds, Flavor of the Month over powered units, etc..etc..

I'm also not overly concerned about it becoming P2W..because it's only lance vs lance, and will be matched on CV.. people who treat it as P2W and rush to get their 'perfect' lance..may find they've got no one but other P2W'ers in their CV bracket to fight against...

[Juodvarnis]

I agree with Teranika.

And also would like to add that not everyone's a min/max'er. I'm personally one of the OCD players. For example I rarely min/max, but more often than not I go for niche and sometimes aesthetic builds (and since all my stuff will be seen on the ingame mech models... oh my, ill have fun )

CV will play a big role in the balance in my opinion.

[YellowKingValley]

No perfect lance due to:
1) CV
2) Random maps and weather

By paying more you should have:
1) More optimized but still imperfect lance
2) More lances
3) More CV flexibility
4) Skip the farming stage and reach current endgame faster

[Savarok]

Bolfry, on 04 August 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I think they addressed that (helping you not be a victim of a pay-to-win player) by letting the match-making service compare the CV value of your units to the opponents. If this proves true, then you won't have to worry about facing such a player when you choose to not dump thousand of dollars into the game....matching (from what I have read) will be based upon three criteria 1) CV value of units 2) record of the players 3) configuration of the game (which you choose to join or not or you set the configuration of the match).

I could be wrong, but that seems to be the way it is at present. I welcome additional comments (including validation) and/or corrections to the information I have posted here.

In this I agree, but there will always be a time when the matchmaker throws you a curve ball and puts you in well over your head.

[Smarmet]

To a certain extent I would expect the devs to take matches between the best and worst lance compositions they can think of, and make sure that a good player can still trounce an inferior one with a bad lance. Humiliating poke builds are great fun, after all. Lance composition should be a very important element in matches between players of equal skill, (and I know I'll pour hours into it even if it didn't mater at all) but skill should dominate.

Some builds I'm sure will have to be nerfed, that's the nature of competitive play, but while one can always pay to get an advantage, the maximum size of that advantage can be controlled. Given that the devs can play with whatever cards they want, I'm sure they'll be able to playtest enough with the hot new builds to keep things moderately balanced. BT players may have a weakness for min/maxing, but they have an even bigger weakness for going on the forums and posting their awesome new builds.

[YellowKingValley]

I'm interested to know if with map and weather randomization, if it is still possible to conclude that {insert-type}-boat gives clear advantage over random builds, with enough games played.

[Bolfry]

Savarok, on 05 August 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

In this I agree, but there will always be a time when the matchmaker throws you a curve ball and puts you in well over your head.

Of course, but that's how life (and combat) typically run...the unexpected happens.

"When have we ever used Plan A?" - Col. Jack O'Niell

Or as "Murphy" put it - "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong."

I fully expect to occasionnally find myself overwhelmed against a superior enemy - but the converse is true as well!


edit: formatting, typo

[Skyeluna62]

Over all, the Dev's are doing their job if they can get people to go crazy and invest thousands of dollars into the game.

That makes them successful and encourages them to think of other gaming "genres" such as Gladiator type combat. I can think of a long list of ways to make this entertaining and competitive. Another game I would like to see is B-17 Queen of the Skies ( computer version - 50 Mission Crush. )

Anyway, back to the program - they will encourage people to find the "perfect" lance and hopefully they do their job and do not OP any particular mech and by extension lance.

The RNG will help. Nothing like being screwed over on back to back kill shots.

[Durin]

I have to agree with Daegog, every system has it pro´s and con´s.
With the bv or cv system there were mechs which were "cheap" for the things they could do, and the disadvantages they didn´t have.
And those mechs were always in higher regard and used more often than other designs.
I hope that this kind of system flaw will be as small as possible.

[fspicinin]

After a while most people will have optimum builds, just as in any other game, but that is not pay to win. PtW is "buy this new PPC that fires 2 shots and and generate no heat for just 800G" and that is not the way the devs explained the game will be.

[RonasAlabar]

I've pointed it out before, this view of pay-to-win already exists in real-world collectible games, where I can spend all the money I like putting together the most perfect MtG deck I possibly can, and nobody would blink. This is probably because somebody has actually paid to acquire that card out of a booster in the first place, whereupon they thought 'Hmmm, this card is in high demand, I could get a few bucks for this.' So there's a whole chain of people profiting from it, whereas in the example of just going into the virtual store and buying it, you're paying an arbitrary, known price for a card that comes out of nowhere. And that's where the joy of auction housing comes in. =) (Yes, yes, I know, it's not in at the start. Give it time.) If someone is going to pay to put together a 'hyper-optimized lance', not even taking into consideration balance checks like CV and random maps, other people will be benefiting.

I forgot the main thrust of this whole post, that it's unlikely there will be an individual item purchase section for the shop for precisely that reason. Which is funny, because I've also seen posts demanding a pick-and-choose mode because the poster didn't like the idea of randomness out of STACs. =)

It's impossible to get away from the fact that people will spend lots of money to acquire lots of stuff, whether it's STACs or AH goods or whatever. Worrying that they'll get more good stuff than you because they threw a metric asston of money at the game is silly. It's going to happen. But just because it does doesn't mean they're going to roflstomp everyone else, in any given match.

[capnyoaz]

There has to be some type of reward for those who buy immediately but an even better reward that grind it out(experience playing and knowing what is going on.) People that buy everything they can off the bat will have an advantage over someone that doesn't know how to use what they have themselves. In table top using normal lances(1L/1M/2H) the winner of a match isn't always the one with the biggest guns or the most heatsinks, it's tactical reasoning and a bit of luck that wins. Bring on your Min/Maxers.

[Daegog]

OK, talk about CV and pay to win. This one falls entirely into the optimization concept.

Example simply for discussion:

0$ player A has 4 hunchback (standard) models lance with a total CV of 6000. While is is not terribly happy with the lance, its all he has to use as this hunchback model is a common and this is the hand he was dealt (ie, cards he has received from the turning in of scrap)


50$ player B also has a 4 hunchback lance. He however has several different weapons he can apply to his hunchbacks because of STAC purchases. By making some weapon changes, he has managed to greatly increase the combat effectivness of his lance but his BV is now correspondingly higher. He is hoping that even tho he is now over 6000 CV, he can still compete against slightly heavier lances because of his choices.


1000$ player C has whatever mech lance he so chooses. By scouring the forums, he first checks to see which mechs people are claiming are under BV valued. He then checks to see which lances are highly popular (because of their commonness in stacs). He notes that players that do not spend cash on the game will typically use standardized (or close to it) mechs and thus can compute what a BV is for for most common groupings of these lances (ie 2 commando, 1 hunchback, 1 cicada could be something like 4800 BV). Knowing that if he can make a group around 4800 CV he will prolly get to face a group like this he can then tailor make lances with good weapons and armor to face his expected enemy. perhaps he drops his cicada down to a spider and ups the hunchback to a undervalued Catapult variant for example).


This is my concept of Pay to win as it applies to MWT, its not just I paid for a PPC that shoots twice every turn, its the ability to field CV CHEAP UNITS that are just as effective as normal units. In doing so you will typically get yourself a nice healthy weight advantage. It will often come down to something as simple as shaving a few CV off certain mechs to allow another mech to move up in tonnage. The shaving of CV off the one mech has to be done in such as way as to not cripple him, ideally you can shave of CV and make him even better than the standard model.

I have literally been down this road before with GMs and CV. There is a game called neveron whose combat is based exactly on table top battletech (even more so than MWT will be) and the consistent winners of these battles (arena style) were those who could field the most effective, CV cheap units available. The subjective nature of CV is its primary downfall.


As for Luck and RNG, these things just come in spurts, i find that doing everything else right (ie, getting the best units in the field) is all you can do to mitigate these random factors. It will not stop a pristine mech getting its head shot off, but that sort of thing balances itself out over time. This time you lose a unhurt mech to headshot, next time you are the guy killing mechs via headshot.


Given the relatively TINY amount of mechs available at launch (lets say there are 20 mechs which is highly unlikely), even FEWER of this mech pool will be commonly available in stacs. Simply knowing which of those 20 mechs are most common allows you to make easy guesses as to what you might have to face at any given bv range. There will be exceptions and oddball lances that come out of nowhere but you will not compose lances to fight these groups. Your lances will be made around the bestest-for-the-leastest concept. As the one poster said all plans go out the window at first shot. Well this is true, so any ideas of having missleboats stay in the back while your scouts harass the enemy will get thrown out because of some wrench the other guys throws at your plans. The only safe guard is optimization. The best lance possible to cover any situation.

Now some will say my example is extreme, but its just a reference point to show my concept for pay to win. Actual values arent known so its just for a simple discussion, but i do not think of it as a extreme example nor one without merit.

I totally think there will be cookie cutter lances because of CV, and these cookie cutter lances will be INCREDIBLY strong for their CV, because the nature of Btech players is to play the strongest units possible (cv wise). There is a reason we fear Awesomes and laugh at chargers (just talking standard variants). And before someone boress us with storys of how they beat awesomes with charger, lets just ask in a seperate poll. If you can have one of the two mechs, which would you choose? I am guessing 80%+ of the forums would rather have an awesome over a charger.

I guess that could be a simple way to look at the CV issue.. One guy will have awesomes.. one guy will have chargers. Guess which one is the guy that paid

[RonasAlabar]

While I appreciate that dissertation, Daegog, the pay-to-win player in your example still just paid to get shit faster, not get shit that can't be got the usual way. =) Your example player is capital-h hardcore, paying to get good shit faster -and- analysing lance construction trending, etc. In the case of Awesomes vs Chargers, I might have the Awesomes and didn't pay, I just ground my ass off for STACs, and still be a brilliant (albeit cheap ) tactician and forces-organizer.

I realise pay-to-win has different definitions for different people but the 'standard' one is P2W via things that are only acquirable through cash. I don't think you can fault a player who loves the game so much he's willing to fork out the money to get the same spread of stuff that CheapskatePlayer01 can, and puts that much effort into planning and lance construction.

Now, if there ends up being cash-only items, that's a different story.

[Ruinous]

Ronas Alabar, on 05 August 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

I realise pay-to-win has different definitions for different people but the 'standard' one is P2W via things that are only acquirable through cash. I don't think you can fault a player who loves the game so much he's willing to fork out the money to get the same spread of stuff that CheapskatePlayer01 can, and puts that much effort into planning and lance construction.

Now, if there ends up being cash-only items, that's a different story.

This is the crux. If everything in the game can be gained through gameplay itself, then it goes a hell of a long way towards making the game fair for everyone. Paying becomes a convenience, an advantage but one where investing enough time will put you on the same footing. Once a game goes with cash-only items or content, that is the slippery slope into p2w which no doubt would see a lot of potential players simply turn away.

[Oberon]

So there are actually a couple of limiting factors in MWT. CV is just one of them. Limiting games to 4 on 4 fights is another substantial limiting factor. It defines the size of your deck, or how many cards you need to collect.

People keep making an assupmtion that a min-maxed lance will by definition be a higher CV than a "normal" lance. I think this is inaccurate, more powerful lances will exist and be competitive at lower CVs. As a simple example, imagine we both have Awesomes (AWS-8Q). I have a larger collection and am able to better optimize by lance so I use a pilot that grants bonuses with PPCs. You have to use an equivalant pilot that grants a less useful bonus (say a bonus to SRM fire), because it's all you have. The better pilot doesn't drive my CV up more than yours, but because I am able to make optimal choices my mech will perform better.

But reallistically, players only need 1 very good lance to be competitive. Players with large collections may have more top tier lances, but they can only use one of them per battle. With consistent play, I expect a non-paying player will be able to build up enough STACs to put together one good lance within a month or two (depending on how lucky they get).

[Teranika]

@Daegog that $1000 player... didn't pay to win.. he has nothing that can't be obtained by spending in game currency. He paid to get it sooner, and that's it.. it's pay for convenience, not pay to win.

Personally, I really hope we have quite a few of the $1,000 player.. as that is good revenue for the game, and doesn't really give them an edge over someone who spends the time to earn scrap, and buy STACs (plus, random is random, $1,000 might not get him the 'Mech lineup he was hoping for, just do to randomness in STACs).

[RonasAlabar]

I know I always bring up WoT as an example but look at the cash-only premium units there. Many of them are ... not great. =) A friend of mine complained not half an hour ago that he just bought a Dicker Max and he considers it not only the worst prem he's ever bought, but one of the crappiest TDs he's ever driven period.

Now, the appeal of premium tanks in WoT is that they have mad credit-generating ability and they can be used to drop in crew from other tanks for training. That being said, you gotta win in the damn things first. They aren't (usually) wonder weapons. If MWT took some kind of approach like this within its area of ability (ie, credit/scrap generation only since we can't really train pilots), I wouldn't have a problem with them introducing premium chassis or pilots, since again it's just accelerating something you can already do for free (make money). That would even roleplay well into the pilots' hands, call it a contract renegotiation skill.