Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

The objective thingy is a quiet important point - and i hope when objectives are in place there will be a role for each mech class.

But as far as open pvp is concerned - the benefit is still too much on the side of lights. It doesnt take much to figure that. They're simply too versatile.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Presently:

Arkhe->yay! Light Bot->great! Assault->Mech, crap->Heavy Mech, why did I train this again?zzzz, why bother subscribing anymore and training skill for this crap bot which takes so much EP and is useless in 99% of situations->logs in less->quits game.
OR
Arkhe->yay! Light Bot->great! Assault, hey I heard Mechs are useless, EWAR lights are great->EWAR lights ha ha ha I gank all, so fun->EWAR lights, nothing better to train->EWAR light day and night, this *** is getting boringzzz->logs in less->quits game.

This is what no progression leads to.
No, you need to make Mechs and Heavy Mechs worth the progress or people get bored.
EWAR lights may be fun now for those using them.
But give it a few months and that will get boring and monotonous.
Mechs and Heavy Mechs need a coolness factor buff ASAP.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

Presently:

Arkhe->yay! Light Bot->great! Assault->Mech, crap->Heavy Mech, why did I train this again?zzzz, why bother subscribing anymore and training skill for this crap bot which takes so much EP and is useless in 99% of situations->logs in less->quits game.
OR
Arkhe->yay! Light Bot->great! Assault, hey I heard Mechs are useless, EWAR lights are great->EWAR lights ha ha ha I gank all, so fun->EWAR lights, nothing better to train->EWAR light day and night, this *** is getting boringzzz->logs in less->quits game.

This is what no progression leads to.
No, you need to make Mechs and Heavy Mechs worth the progress or people get bored.
EWAR lights may be fun now for those using them.
But give it a few months and that will get boring and monotonous.
Mechs and Heavy Mechs need a coolness factor buff ASAP.

You're soo 2000 and late. Ewar lights being good is sooooo last month.

Get with the times.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Well, I could agree with this guy that mechs and heavies should find a better use than just PvE and intrusions.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

Seems you are talking about use of heavy mech in intrusions.
Sure they may be useful in Intrusions.
However, if DEVs are using intrusions to balance bots, they are very very out of touch with the average player of Perpetuum.
Only a very tiny percentage of players in Perpetuum actually care about intrusions.

Therefore, intrusions performance = not an incentive.

As to the guy talking about this nice imaginary situation of Mechs being useful on roams.
Actually, no.
Mechs don't get brought on roams except out of boredom.
Heavy Mechs don't get brought on roams.
Only light bots, assaults and EWAR lights get brought on roams.

Roams = 99% of PVP in Perpetuum.
Useful classes for roams: light bots, assaults and EWAR lights.  minimal EP required.
Useless classes for roams: mechs, heavy mechs.  Massive EP required.
Ergo, training mechs/heavy mechs is useless for most PVP
Ergo, there is no path of progression of EP for PVP except just some modest improvement in how well you can train light bot skills.

This is why I say the lack of bot strength progression with EP will not keep players interest in upgrading to the next bot.
Because the next bot is worse than the basic ones.
You thereby remove the incentive of the average MMO player (not the trolls, not the gankers, the quiet citizens who play the GAME not the meta-game) to play.
To upgrade themself to a more powerful character/bot/class.

You don't see heavy mechs in roams not because they aren't effective and wouldnt turn the tide of most fights... you don't see them because they are the wrong platform for a quick, agile, offensive roam.

Each mech have it's use, for roaming speed is king. However, to fix this and make mechs viable for roaming you'd have to make them as fast as lights... if you do this why roll around in anything other then a mech? Why train basic robotics past 4?

You're trying to push this game towards a single class just because 'it takes more ep'... that's great... it's a better weapon platform, it does more damage, has more hp, but it's not a jack of all trades, answer to every pvp scenario bot.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Maybe this whole post is because you're upset that your alliance leader sissy'd out of the intrusion last night?

I can see why such hurt feelings.

32 (edited by Container 2011-02-11 16:19:52)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Well the whole point is:
If you want people to keep invested in the game in the long term, you have to have classes of bots that take a lot of time to train and are WORTH IT.

Right now you have classes of bots (everything that needs only basic robot control) that take little time to train and are worth it.
However, people will get bored of it and outgrow it simply because it takes so little time to train they run out of things to put EP in it.
Running out of new bots to train is death to continued interest in the game.

And you have classes of bots (everything advanced robot control and medium sized mods) that takes a lot of time to train and are not worth it.
People get disillusioned their time spent training it and huge expense involved results in bots that are seldom used at all in PVP.

Solution is make the classes of bots that takes a lot of time to train actually worth the training.
Then people subscribe long term to get good at those bots because it is worth it.
Player contentment is good, retention is good.
You have to make the long-train bots good or you will see people quit out of no compelling long-term combat EP goal.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

Well the whole point is:
If you want people to keep invested in the game in the long term, you have to have classes of bots that take a lot of time to train and are WORTH IT.

Right now you have classes of bots (everything that needs only basic robot control) that take little time to train and are worth it.
However, people will get bored of it and outgrow it simply because it takes so little time to train they run out of things to put EP in it.
Running out of new bots to train is death to continued interest in the game.

And you have classes of bots (everything advanced robot control and medium sized mods) that takes a lot of time to train and are not worth it.
People get disillusioned their time spent training it and huge expense involved results in bots that are seldom used at all in PVP.

Solution is make the classes of bots that takes a lot of time to train actually worth the training.
Then people subscribe long term to get good at those bots because it is worth it.
Player contentment is good, retention is good.
Don't make the long-train bots good and you will see people quit out of no compelling long-term combat EP goal.

Please define your definition of worth.

Mine is follows:

If something costs more and is better than something that costs less and is worse.... it is worth it.

34 (edited by Container 2011-02-11 16:39:35)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Mechs and Heavy Mechs cost more to buy, much more EP to train and are useful in much much less PVP situations than light bots, EWAR lights and assault bots.
Speed can't hack it in most roaming, med weapons cannot hit half the bots around effectively.
Ergo, not worth it.
Clear enough?

DEVs need to make Mechs and Heavy Mechs more useful in roaming PVP.
Increase their speed.
Reduce weapon size of medium weapons so they can hit small bots better.
Add mechanisms or features that overcome their huge speed handicap.
Like jump jets, or transform to transport mode (where they can't use their weapons but can go faster).
Or the ability to stomp on smaller bots.

I guarantee this will draw people to play.
Everyone came to drive a badass mountain of steel to crush small stuff.
Most people just want big honking guns on big honking mechs to crush stuff.
Why are you in a mech game?  Not to pilot WALL-E.  You want GUNDAM.  You want OPTIMUS PRIME.  Bigass mechs that smash things.
If DEVs don't get the appeal of big mechs and are all about small metal spiders, they are completely not harnessing the appeal of the genre to grow the game.

Don't worry about the newbie little bot players who get crushed.
After they QQed a little, they will all want to get huge honking bots and then they crush the next newbies in little bots, who will then want to get into huge bots etc.
The cycle of life driving progress.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

GLiMPSE wrote:

Maybe this whole post is because you're upset that your alliance leader sissy'd out of the intrusion last night?

I can see why such hurt feelings.

The decision not to engage was his actually, way to show your ignorance.

Also heavies are actually pretty funny with the changes to signal strength. A Seth fit for snipe with a masking module for instance will shoot anything that doesn't have a detection module at a range you won't even be seen at. Try doing gang fights vs a Seth group your not even able to see for most of the gang. Also try suprisesex mesmers killing miners without even seeing them.

There is a LOT of reason to use heavies now, just requires some out of the box thinking.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

I guarantee this will draw people to play.


I guarantee it will create a barrier to entry that will deter people from playing when they see that they have to stay logged off for 2 months to be remotely competitive...

I also guarantee you that my guarantee is a more accurate guarantee then your guarantee.


Guarantee's are fun.

37 (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 16:43:56)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Jita wrote:
GLiMPSE wrote:

Maybe this whole post is because you're upset that your alliance leader sissy'd out of the intrusion last night?

I can see why such hurt feelings.

The decision not to engage was his actually, way to show your ignorance.

Forgive me -- let me try again.

Maybe this whole post is because you're upset that you couldn't fight equal numbers (based on alliance intel channel size) and decided not to show up to defend your outpost..


So I heard RG is talking about splitting the sheets because AXE is whoring up all the epitron and money. Care to comment?

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I won't derail a decent thread further. You want to talk about it hit me up in game

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Jita wrote:

I won't derail a decent thread further. You want to talk about it hit me up in game

I see.

I wouldn't want the forums to know about that either. My bad.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

GLiMPSE wrote:
Jita wrote:

I won't derail a decent thread further. You want to talk about it hit me up in game

I see.

I wouldn't want the forums to know about that either. My bad.

I really wish you would of stayed banned instead of trolling 24/7, seriously stay on topic you little twit.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

TL: DR; atm the Hoop is bleeding a steady stream of bots to our daily incursions, where we use current game mechanics to inflict casualties on their pve farmers. Solution: Make the mech uber so that our fast roam stops steadily whittling them down and sapping their morale.

What happens when the DEVs change the game mechanics to suit this request? We adapt to the new mechanics, and continue to inflict a steady stream of losses to the Hoop, thereby continuing to sap their morale.

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

DEVs need to make Mechs and Heavy Mechs more useful in roaming PVP.
Increase their speed.
Reduce weapon size of medium weapons so they can hit small bots better.


No thx, no need for I win robots, all types must have their uses, lights assault and mechs. I agree that mechs' uses are somewhat limited and that needs to be changed but light robots should not go obsolete, diversity is good.

If they really wanted to have something train for just introduce the mk2 robots already. a bit more  hp,  +0.1 kmph speed etc, make them expensive in EP (mk2 lights and mk2 mechs would require a similar amount of EP, mechs still bit more..)
I really liked in EVE that all ship class was somewhat usefull in endgame, every ship was most efficient in its size range. 2-3 lightbots should be able to kill a mech, 1vs1 the mech will win as it should be.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Mechs should not be the I win robot, or the only robot, but they should be the central robot.
In the mech game genre, it is the mech that should be central.
Say Mech to anyone and that is the image they will have is a large, two legged anthromorphic robot with big guns.
That is the attraction that originally brought people in to play.
NOT metal spiders, not assault bots, those are the sideshows, the french fries.
Mechs are the main course and you must make them central or lose the appeal of the genre.
Lose the appeal of the genre and you are unable to punch through the crowded game marketplace to seize consumer attention.

Instead, in Perpetuum, it is upside down.
There is a huge disconnect between genre expectations and robot balance.
We are drawn in by trailers of mechs, manlike knights fighting.
But the reality is 99% of the time in PVP you are playing with fast metal spiders.
Mechs and heavy mechs kept docked, useless as the slowpokes in a fast world.
Perpetuum is a mech game where the mechs are not central.
Do you see why this misses the mark?

You have to restore the place of the central robot to the center, not have some skewed perspective where mechs are only brought out occasionally.
Otherwise, people will unconsciously feel the theme misses the mark and not realize why but lose interest.
Big manlike bots, big guns.  That is the anchor.
You can build other stuff on top like spider scout combat, but never lose sight that the core appeal is the mechs.
Stop sidelining mechs and throwing out the main course for the side dishes.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I find it odd that this topic is posted hours after Axe lost a seth to a small group while it was pve'ing.  Let me toss out the scenario and see if you think this is unreasonable:  I'm scouting around on my troiar and I blip into radar range of a seth solo farming pve.  He should be able to see me as well, so I leave as nothing a solo ewar can do to a seth.

I gather a small group and we come back THIRTY minutes later to same spot with a waspish, cammy, ictus, prometheus and he is still there with his sequer loot bot.  We engage and destroy him, he doesn't even lock anyone until he is at 20% health but instead runs around in circles while demobbed.

Is this the type of gameplay we need to buff?  The seth should just roll over us because omg 4 players are able to kill one?

45 (edited by Annihilator 2011-02-11 18:10:43)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

is the "container"-Seth still running round with firearms, the medium weapons that have the lowest chance to hit something smaller then mech?

or did it switch to lasers already, realizing that it can pwn everything with them at 600m+. I know, higher tier equipment is the key there for lasers, but everything is bettern then ACs vs. assault or smalls.

actually im waiting for the day that i see again roaming heavy mech groups with ~80kph. Does m2s not have the correct equipment for that, or just waiting for certain extensions to reach the correct lvl?

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

1. INCENTIVES TO PLAY: Perpetuum's more EP-intensive and expensive bots are not worth the effort and time.


I disagree here, I think that if you use them in the right way, at the right time, then indeed they are being used in a good way. Taking your example, why would you buy a capital ship and expect to use it to rat with in 0.0? It makes money easier, but you get to be the laughing stock of your enemies when they catch you tackle you and kill you.

Also log-off trap? It's a viable tactic and when your light bot turns into a nice mech with blazing guns of furry you really use it well then ( REFERENCE: See domlaharm  recent ganks ).

2. INCENTIVES TO FIGHT: Insufficient Incentive to win Intrusions.

Beyond territory control, this would be nice to do. Control points that are global across the globe would be nice, with good loot. So that smaller organizations could compete and grow into larger alliances which will shift the political paradigm.

Fine, so you create the Intrusion system to generate beta corp conflict.  Good idea.
Where it falls is there is simply no reason to own the stations.

Yup.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

It's not just today Tigg... it's the steady stream. This is a L2P issue, not a DEV / balancing one.

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Serpens wrote:
GLiMPSE wrote:
Jita wrote:

I won't derail a decent thread further. You want to talk about it hit me up in game

I see.

I wouldn't want the forums to know about that either. My bad.

I really wish you would of stayed banned instead of trolling 24/7, seriously stay on topic you little twit.

You sound upset?

My apologies good sir.

I will seriously stay on topic.

ITT: Norhoop complains because that's what the hoop does... complains... if it's not complaining about light ewars, it's complaining about mineral deposits, it's complaining about wanting heavy mechs to run 80kph so that the rest of the bot classes are only 'for the noobs' that don't have the EP to run in anything else.

So let me restate the topic -- Norhoop likes to complain.

Are you guys upset about something?

- We didn't want that outpost anyway

- Infestation blobbed us with even numbers

- Defenses are optional, especially if it's even odds.

Pick one.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

In the mech game genre, it is the mech that should be central.
Say Mech to anyone and that is the image they will have is a large, two legged anthromorphic robot with big guns.
That is the attraction that originally brought people in to play.
NOT metal spiders, not assault bots, those are the sideshows, the french fries.
Mechs are the main course and you must make them central or lose the appeal of the genre.

I feel you have this the wrong way round.

You're saying "99% of the pvp in this game are roams. Therefore roams should use mechs."

It ought to be "99% of the pvp in this game are roams. More different kinds of pvp should be introduced that favour mechs."

I also think a strong focus of pvp should be player owned structures, which heavies and mechs would be more suited for, namely attacking or defending your home. Right now we are treating outposts and intrusions as a substitute for POSes and territory control respectively.

Light/ewar bot roams are fine for small, fast, daily pvp.

The problem is not the balance of different bot types, but the lack of things to fight over in game. And the reason we're still subbed is because we believe all that is still to come.

"...playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."
Bernard Suits, 1978

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I like Campana.