Battletech: The Frontier Lands :: Forums :: The Frontier Forums :: Game Discussion
 
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
[poll] Reset Options
Moderators: Devlin Stone, Power Shaper, Garrett, Hagbard, Ronas Alabar, Captain QB, GeeOhDee, Evilo, Kelvin McCorvin, Jonathon Grimm, Mike Matusov, Shabui Shima, Michael Chang
Author Post
Kelvin McCorvin
Fri Dec 14 2007, 11:36PM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346

Which of the following do you like the sound of the best? Take the time to read through this and respond with some thought, you will not be able to change your vote.

Reset everything once, tweak a few things, but no major changes.

Reset everything once. Keep things pretty much how they are right now, but only make 3025 units permanently ownable, everything else is limited.

Reset everything once. The only permanently ownable units are the starters (there would need to be more than three, probably of several different unit types as well).

C-Bill/Mech resets happen every scenario. Everything is permanent ownership, the tech levels are expanded and may include custom/clan scenarios.

You do not have the permission to vote in this poll

Votes: 54
It appears as if the overwhelming majority want a reset. While I'm not sure if this is going to actually happen just yet, we will continue on with our discussion of where to go from here. If we can come up with something that really looks good, perhaps we'll go that way.

Now that we have determined that most seem to want a reset, I'll offer the reset options with some more detail and explanation included. I will attempt to weigh some of the major pros and cons for each, and leave it up to you to vote for what you like. So without further delay, we'll get started on our first choice.

Reset everything once, tweak a few things, but no major changes
This option is what it says, we reset everything once and let the site run for another few years like has. We may make some slight modifications, but everything would remain largely the same. This is great if you like the way things are, but less so if you'd like to see things shaken up a bit. My concern with this is that we'll end right back where we are right now in the not so distant future.

Reset everything once. Keep things pretty much how they are right now, but only make 3025 units permanently ownable, everything else is limited.
As the name states, this is the same as the first option, aside from 3025 units being the only ones that are permanently ownable. This would help to cut down on the accumulation of dominant 2750, 3050 units (and higher). This is very similar to the way things are now, minus 2750 and 3050 being permanent.

Reset everything once. The only permanently ownable units are the starters (there would need to be more than three, probably of several different unit types as well).
Of the options that have us continue on much the same path as we are now, I probably like this one the best. The only ownable units are the starters, which there would be more than the current 3 of. Limited units would be in pretty good supply, it'd be easy to always have something decent to go out in. This method would revive the art of the salvage op, meaning you'd need to win a fight and control the field of battle long enough to get the good stuff off the field, very similar to old RS sites. It'd also require an adjustment in tactics if you don't want to booze your precious FLS or ANH away. Worries about players not having decent rides to go out in are completely unfounded, new ways to earn units would likely be introduced and we might even see some ability to produce things as a faction.

C-Bill/Mech resets happen every scenario. Everything is permanent ownership, the tech levels are expanded and may include custom/clan scenarios.
And now we get to the more drastic stuff. Under this model, C-Bills and mechs are reset every scenario. More or less everything is permanently ownable (possibly up to 3067 or beyond depending on the scenario). Scenario length would be expanded a good bit, and more detailed/interesting maps would need to be made to allow for more longevity. This does a few things. You keep your rank/XP, outfits, win points, and everything else, but you're a clean slate for mechs/money each scenario.

We would be able to offer different mech availability for each scenario without worry of affecting long-term economic things. For example, a 3029 unit scenario (A throwback to an old BTMux that was custom units only), a clan scene, maybe a naval scene, oldtech or newtech scenes, etc. Win points would become a lot more important, and would be the carry-over from previous scenes that'd give you an edge over your fellow losers.

Things that are probably going to happen regardless of where we end up
There are a few things that will probably happen regardless of what we decide on:
  • Overly used units are going to see a lot more harsh penalties to recycle, spawn costs, and/or xp gains. This will help diversity under any of these models.
  • For any of the development paths listed above, appropriate modifications will be made to adapt the economy to the design. For example, if we go limited only (or almost), mechs will be easier to get, good mechs may be slightly less so (but still attainable for the average joe).
  • Donors will not get the shaft. We will find out a fair solution for them. If we choose one of the limited unit approaches, we'll figure out some way to let them buy their units in limited quantity over a certain amount of time. There are a lot of choices here, don't even worry about this just yet, it's too early to before we even have a direction set.


Other Important things
When making your decision, keep in mind that the changes outlined above for each direction would probably be accompanied by many others (aside from the reset but don't change anything major options). Some of our current game mechanics wouldn't make sense with some of the models above and would need adapting. So if you think of a strange situation where one of the choices would really suck, it's probably due to a chicken-before-the-egg jumping to conclusions on your part, these are all solid ways to go about things and they can all be made to work. I just need you all to choose the mode of play that sounds the most appealing to you without worrying too much about the details.

Once we have a good generalized direction picked out, we'll get into the muck and worry about things like diversity and depth of gameplay. These can all be addressed via different means, but I need everyone to just worry about how they'd like to play the game rather than what is wrong with each model.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply. Again, I'm really not wanting to get into arguments about design and possible downsides aside from anything pretty basic at this point.

[ Edited Fri Dec 14 2007, 11:36PM ]
Back to top
Website
Misfit
Sat Dec 15 2007, 11:23AM
Registered Member #1129
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 11:51AM
Posts: 11
KM,

A majority of the Frontiers players have yet to vote in your poll below. I suggest you wait until you get a true majority before you proclaim that the people have spoken. If it turns out that 50+ people want a reset it will be hard to argue. From below only 17 have voted for the reset.

mt
Back to top
RedMercury
Sat Dec 15 2007, 12:03PM
Registered Member #2668
Joined: Sat Apr 07 2007, 02:38PM
Posts: 7
You can make the poll compulsary. I.e. throw everyone in the mux in a room, they can leave and go play once they have voted.
Back to top
Kelvin McCorvin
Sat Dec 15 2007, 12:15PM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346
I'm not terribly interested in the people who can't open a browser to vote, they're not the ones I want to craft the site to. Some people ignored the front page news post, the email (for those that are on the list), the in-game announcements (there were lots of them), the MOTD.

Yes, this has been happening fast, but there really isn't any other option. My Christmas break isn't that long, I can't afford to wait to get things done before I get really busy again.

Additionally, as outlined in the first paragraph:
wrote ...
It appears as if the overwhelming majority want a reset. While I'm not sure if this is going to actually happen just yet, we will continue on with our discussion of where to go from here. If we can come up with something that really looks good, perhaps we'll go that way.

In other words, don't panic just yet, this is all conceptual and is an exercise in game design. We always have to be forward-looking and challenging the current way things are in hopes of potentially finding something better, even if we don't act on it. The alternative would be to just sit as we are now indefinitely and not worry about change, which sounds quite dull
Back to top
Website
Akito Tenkawa
Mon Dec 17 2007, 06:04AM

Registered Member #515
Joined: Fri Feb 10 2006, 05:30PM
Posts: 7
Is it just me, or does option 4 exactly sound like "3030 -Techwork -Econ +slightly different objectives"? Don't get me wrong, I think "more RS" is a Good Thing (tm), but please don't just jump on this option because it promises "clam-tek" right next to the button.
Scenarios with varying tech-levels should be easily doable with the pure-rental options 2 and 3 as well.
I think battles would be more intense with something at stake, and if its just a cheap rental you're going to loose.
(Try it for yourself, go a day pure-rental right now, and see how it feels)
With permanently owned mechs its more like "Meh, why bother, after 10minutes I get my mech back anyways"...

Personally, I'd love to see Option 7 (=3+4):
Reset CBills/XP every scene, and make all units rentals.
Back to top
Mike Matusov
Mon Dec 17 2007, 10:19AM
Registered Member #1992
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:27PM
Posts: 59
I pretty much concur with Akito. Changes so far have been fun and i have faith that whatever gets done with the site will end up in tears of joy.

Back to top
Dakkon Blackblade
Mon Dec 17 2007, 08:09PM
Registered Member #2329
Joined: Tue Mar 27 2007, 10:38PM
Posts: 2
Personaly I think evilos suggestion from the other posts was good. And please go back to XP for damage done/kills whatever. This XP for only claiming is dumb. Makes things into big claimtech wars and such with bkacclaiming so rampant.

I wouldnt mind seeing the concept of permenantly owned mechs for everything and then each mech you own beyond starters starts each scenario with a set number of charges.
Back to top
Kelvin McCorvin
Mon Dec 17 2007, 09:38PM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346
XP is earned by damage done, this has never changed.
Back to top
Website
Sable Tseng
Wed Dec 19 2007, 03:11AM
Registered Member #2294
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 09:41PM
Posts: 5
I am sorry to say that I'm still pretty much against a full reset. I've worked hard to get the mechs I have now and I would hate to see them gone.

I like the suggestion to have a "permanent character" of sorts where everything that person owns is sorta like it is now. With permanent mechs as well as rentals. This can be interespaced with "temporary characters" for specialty scenes. This way, if a player can lets say only play a couple of times a week, or only on weekends, he/she won't be faced with a situation where their character is basically stagnant and pretty much stuck with starter mechs all the time.

I've voted on both polls by the way. I mean if a reset is needed then by all means do it, but don't have it so semi-active players will pretty much never have anything to show for their activity.
Back to top
Sable Tseng
Wed Dec 19 2007, 03:22AM
Registered Member #2294
Joined: Tue Dec 11 2007, 09:41PM
Posts: 5
My mistake. I did not see the old polls as I was away for most of the weekend. I only voted for the first poll and this one at first. Then I just voted for the other 2 as well
Back to top
Kelvin McCorvin
Wed Dec 19 2007, 08:52AM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346
I'm not really interested in a temporary character setup for temporary scenes. That's a huge hassle to pull off correctly, and would require some kludging that I just really don't want to introduce. It's a reasonable idea but there are some things about it that really rub me the wrong way.
Back to top
Website
Coh
Wed Dec 19 2007, 10:42AM
Registered Member #738
Joined: Wed Apr 04 2007, 09:49PM
Posts: 15
Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...

I'm not really interested in a temporary character setup for temporary scenes. That's a huge hassle to pull off correctly, and would require some kludging that I just really don't want to introduce. It's a reasonable idea but there are some things about it that really rub me the wrong way.


I'm guessing it's the saving of the "permanent character" that creates the hassle? It sounds like the "Reset every scen" option is a temporary character for temporary scenes, only every scene is temporary!

-Coh
Back to top
Dakkon Blackblade
Wed Dec 19 2007, 04:02PM
Registered Member #2329
Joined: Tue Mar 27 2007, 10:38PM
Posts: 2
RE xp I meant money to buy mechs KM.
Back to top
WhiteKnight
Thu Dec 20 2007, 11:09PM

Registered Member #462
Joined: Wed Jan 24 2007, 11:01PM
Posts: 97
Actually, the largest single responce to the 'reset or no reset' poll indicated a 27 % for No reset. No other option came close, though I can see that many would argue that all the other reset options should be grouped together against the single 'no-reset' option, rather than accepting that the poll was, itself, weighted with 6 of the 7 options dealing with a reset in one form or another. The Poll should have been a straight 'Reset or No Reset' poll, instead of a shotgun approach that assured a greater responce for resets than non-reset simply due to the way the poll was structured.

That aside, it should be pointed out that no MUX site that has accepted a reset as the solution to it's inability to generate interest has survived. Only the sites featuring some form of permanent ownership have done so, and I believe reaching for the 'Destroy everything and start over' button is just a cop-out.

Instead, why not offer more diversity in combat environments and assets? If you will note, the decline and stagnation so often pointed to as reasons for a reset were the direct result of the narrowing of the battlefield to focus solely on Battlemechs, and on battlefields that pandered to the low-attention span pilots. Is it any wonder many people lost interest in what became the 'same old battles' and left?

If you want to rekindle interest in this site (which may be impossible at this stage due to the time lapsed), then don't do something that will only encourage people to view it as a place where nothing can be achieved without being it being taken away. Instead, offer more battlefield options and dynamics.

[ Edited Thu Dec 20 2007, 11:19PM ]
Back to top
Kelvin McCorvin
Fri Dec 21 2007, 10:13AM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346
WhiteKnight wrote ...

Actually, the largest single responce to the 'reset or no reset' poll indicated a 27 % for No reset. No other option came close, though I can see that many would argue that all the other reset options should be grouped together against the single 'no-reset' option, rather than accepting that the poll was, itself, weighted with 6 of the 7 options dealing with a reset in one form or another. The Poll should have been a straight 'Reset or No Reset' poll, instead of a shotgun approach that assured a greater responce for resets than non-reset simply due to the way the poll was structured.


It was 11 for reset, 22 for reset, as per http://frontiermux.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1819
And I disagree, we don't have all month to decide where to go, as mentioned. Now is the time to get things straigthened out and in place during the break. This "shotgun" approach only provided greater choice.

WhiteKnight wrote ...

That aside, it should be pointed out that no MUX site that has accepted a reset as the solution to it's inability to generate interest has survived. Only the sites featuring some form of permanent ownership have done so, and I believe reaching for the 'Destroy everything and start over' button is just a cop-out.


The only MUX that has "survived" is 3030, and you see what it got them. Ever BTMux dies, there have been many scenario (reset) based MUXs to do just fine. 3030 was great before the staff vacated.

WhiteKnight wrote ...

Instead, why not offer more diversity in combat environments and assets? If you will note, the decline and stagnation so often pointed to as reasons for a reset were the direct result of the narrowing of the battlefield to focus solely on Battlemechs, and on battlefields that pandered to the low-attention span pilots. Is it any wonder many people lost interest in what became the 'same old battles' and left?


:Insert generic Aeros can't be brought back anytime soon response:. Again, you need to see past things from playerland perspective. For one, we don't have the programming manpower to introduce this diversity (In your case, it almost certainly means Aero/Navals). The code is shot to pieces and needs all kinds of work. Furthermore, we'd need about a fourth of an increase in our playerbase to support entirely new playing fields (water, air). We'd be dilluting ground combat (which IS the focus of Battletech, NOT aeros, NOT navals) in favor of something that a lot of the players won't use much or at all.

WhiteKnight wrote ...

If you want to rekindle interest in this site (which may be impossible at this stage due to the time lapsed), then don't do something that will only encourage people to view it as a place where nothing can be achieved without being it being taken away. Instead, offer more battlefield options and dynamics.


This is where it gets interesting. You are of only one mindset of the many that can be found within the game. Some like permanence, others like something they can drop in periodically and immediately participate in without being dominated by the enthusiasts/no-lifers. Some like being able to booze incessantly, others like more strategic gameplay. It's great that you feel that way and you can express your opinion best by voting, but if your selection is outnumbered by a good margin, you become the minority and will thus have to make some adjustments as we do.

As far as the "too late to rekindle interest", that's really funny coming from someone who hasn't been around much the last month It's also not unexpected. You've been playing this site a long time, you've had a good long run with it, and you're probably approaching the end of your stay here. It happens to everyone with every game, you're burning out. Just because you are getting to that point doesn't mean your view should be so polluted and spread to the others who are still reasonably new and excited. Never mind the volume of new players we've been getting lately (even without advertising at all) and the fact that we have a campaign coming up that will surely draw lots in, we're all doom and gloom around here! As far as that's concerned, I couldn't disagree with you more. If you build it, they will come.

[ Edited Fri Dec 21 2007, 10:31AM ]
Back to top
Website
WhiteKnight
Fri Dec 21 2007, 06:53PM

Registered Member #462
Joined: Wed Jan 24 2007, 11:01PM
Posts: 97
Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...


It was 11 for reset, 22 for reset, as per http://frontiermux.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1819
And I disagree, we don't have all month to decide where to go, as mentioned. Now is the time to get things straigthened out and in place during the break. This "shotgun" approach only provided greater choice.


I thought this was 'not anything immediate' but just to get a feel for where to go. Why the rush to impliment?


Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...

The only MUX that has "survived" is 3030, and you see what it got them. Ever BTMux dies, there have been many scenario (reset) based MUXs to do just fine. 3030 was great before the staff vacated.


Um...actually, I was thinking of Frontiers itself. Don't you consider this site a survivor? And why did it survive when so many other, more detailed sites did not?

I saw the 3065 site die when they implimented a reset, and it never recovered. I don't want to see it happen here.


Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...

:Insert generic Aeros can't be brought back anytime soon response:. Again, you need to see past things from playerland perspective. For one, we don't have the programming manpower to introduce this diversity (In your case, it almost certainly means Aero/Navals). The code is shot to pieces and needs all kinds of work. Furthermore, we'd need about a fourth of an increase in our playerbase to support entirely new playing fields (water, air). We'd be dilluting ground combat (which IS the focus of Battletech, NOT aeros, NOT navals) in favor of something that a lot of the players won't use much or at all.


First off, I thought we went to the new code base -precisely- because it was not full of holes like the older code. It's been over a year, and I'd have thought work on fixing the holes that existed would have eliminated all the major hurdles.

Second off, while naval and aeros would, indeed, revolutionize the tactical and strategic situations, I purposely did not restrict my comments to those units alone. Battlearmor used to have a much wider role in this site, from claim-holding to wide combat use. The game was changed to make these all but useless, and -THAT- is what I was pointing to as much as introduction of the unit types that used to make the Frontier battlegrounds so challenging. Several proposals for Infantry have been shot down over the years for the same argument that it was the intent to keep them as barely auxiliary units. Generating missions for Infantry would not require major code issues, as they are already demonstratibly working units in the current codebase. Only the will to allow them a use is lacking, and the fear that allowing people more options will 'dilute' the ground battle, when it is that single-minded obsession with one aspect of battle that is choking the site.

Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...

This is where it gets interesting. You are of only one mindset of the many that can be found within the game. Some like permanence, others like something they can drop in periodically and immediately participate in without being dominated by the enthusiasts/no-lifers. Some like being able to booze incessantly, others like more strategic gameplay. It's great that you feel that way and you can express your opinion best by voting, but if your selection is outnumbered by a good margin, you become the minority and will thus have to make some adjustments as we do.

As far as the "too late to rekindle interest", that's really funny coming from someone who hasn't been around much the last month It's also not unexpected. You've been playing this site a long time, you've had a good long run with it, and you're probably approaching the end of your stay here. It happens to everyone with every game, you're burning out. Just because you are getting to that point doesn't mean your view should be so polluted and spread to the others who are still reasonably new and excited. Never mind the volume of new players we've been getting lately (even without advertising at all) and the fact that we have a campaign coming up that will surely draw lots in, we're all doom and gloom around here! As far as that's concerned, I couldn't disagree with you more. If you build it, they will come.


Let me just state for the record that I am -not- losing interest in this site. That I become extremely busy IRL with my real military duties is something that happens, and I'm certain you would not hold that against me, given your own situation, KM. I didn't become one of the top donors on the site because I don't care about it (would have donated more, but my PayPal info was stolen as soon as I re-openned my account with them, so I don't trust them anymore).

And, I wasn't the one claiming we need a Reset to save the site.

I am providing my viewpoint and experience in the hope the site doesn't make a mistake that I feel will be a fatal one. Ultimately, as in real life, people will have to live with what they ask for.

Just as they did before.

Take my opinion for what it's worth, but please don't make it personal.


Back to top
Kelvin McCorvin
Fri Dec 21 2007, 07:30PM
Head Admin


Registered Member #2
Joined: Sun Jan 21 2007, 12:35AM
Posts: 346
wrote ...

I thought this was 'not anything immediate' but just to get a feel for where to go. Why the rush to impliment?

No, there's a bigtime rush. I go back to school in early-mid January, I really need to get as much done to secure our future before then before I get very busy again.
wrote ...

Um...actually, I was thinking of Frontiers itself. Don't you consider this site a survivor? And why did it survive when so many other, more detailed sites did not?

I saw the 3065 site die when they implimented a reset, and it never recovered. I don't want to see it happen here.

The Frontier is still somewhat of a young site. We have survived to date mainly because we really have no viable competition. 3065 tried to come back and was a direct competitor (very similar ideas), but we were already entrenched and had the simmy market cornered. We came to be as a direct result of the crap that BTMux was four and a half years ago. 3029 was dying, 3065 was dying, 3030 was sputtering out, 2796 was dead, etc.

And as far as 3065, that died when TJI left. It was his baby, and I really don't think anyone but him could keep that place going like it did when he was around. Regardless of anyone's opinion on him as a person, he definitely had a great mind for game design and executed it with great results.
wrote ...

First off, I thought we went to the new code base -precisely- because it was not full of holes like the older code. It's been over a year, and I'd have thought work on fixing the holes that existed would have eliminated all the major hurdles.

That was one of many of the reasons, but the main one was uniting BTMux under one codebase. BTMux will never be "fixed", we will always be re-writing and cleaning up this big pile of spaghetti code. It will never be "right" and will merely be juggled. It's too big, too badly written, and adding on to it is merely finding ways to squeeze new things in without breaking the existing stuff.

Added to that, we're an unpaid staff who fits in a fix or a new feature here between work and our every day lives. It's hard to find the time for the major rewrites that things like aeros would need, those are extensive, extensive overhauls.
wrote ...

Second off, while naval and aeros would, indeed, revolutionize the tactical and strategic situations, I purposely did not restrict my comments to those units alone. Battlearmor used to have a much wider role in this site, from claim-holding to wide combat use. The game was changed to make these all but useless, and -THAT- is what I was pointing to as much as introduction of the unit types that used to make the Frontier battlegrounds so challenging. Several proposals for Infantry have been shot down over the years for the same argument that it was the intent to keep them as barely auxiliary units. Generating missions for Infantry would not require major code issues, as they are already demonstratibly working units in the current codebase. Only the will to allow them a use is lacking, and the fear that allowing people more options will 'dilute' the ground battle, when it is that single-minded obsession with one aspect of battle that is choking the site.

The thing is, a lot of people don't like (or even hate) battle armor. I personally don't like them very much, and if we were to implement some more of the rules, they'd be even less popular (eg. MG fire on BSuits). They really are just tinsel to the tree, they're not the main attraction. Letting them hold claims and do other things that other units can't would stick it to those who are interested in the main event. They have no place trying to be a primary force on the battlefield.

However that may be, BSuit usage is actually pretty good right now. There are several outfits making effective use of para-dropping suits in over mechs and coordinating actions with APCs. They fill their intended role quite well.
wrote ...

Let me just state for the record that I am -not- losing interest in this site. That I become extremely busy IRL with my real military duties is something that happens, and I'm certain you would not hold that against me, given your own situation, KM. I didn't become one of the top donors on the site because I don't care about it (would have donated more, but my PayPal info was stolen as soon as I re-openned my account with them, so I don't trust them anymore).

Yes, life can get busy and I was apparently wrong in thinking you went inactive from dis-interest. Your contributions have been much appreciated and they went a long way to getting us where we are today.
wrote ...

And, I wasn't the one claiming we need a Reset to save the site.

I am providing my viewpoint and experience in the hope the site doesn't make a mistake that I feel will be a fatal one. Ultimately, as in real life, people will have to live with what they ask for.

I don't think we need one to save the site, but apparently a lot of players would find things much more enjoyable given one of the choices above were implemented. I myself think that even just resetting mechs/c-bills from scene to scene would be awesome (even if XP and rank were preserved). It'd allow us to do some of the really far out there scenarios like a mostly Naval scenario or insert any other really strange mixture of era/unit choices and conditions.

One thing is apparent, though. There are a lot of people already maxed out in rank, getting a bit bored since there's not much else to progress for, and under the current economic model, I can't give them a whole lot else to advance for without putting our new-mid range players at a severe disadvantage.
wrote ...

Take my opinion for what it's worth, but please don't make it personal.

Sure, I'll listen to and take note of anyone's opinions when they are thought out and clearly written, and I hope my responses aren't taken as jabs or negative towards you. I'm very direct and not one for fluffing things, which may come off as me trying to be rude (which is not the case).
Back to top
Website
Vynd
Sat Dec 22 2007, 10:49PM
Registered Member #1958
Joined: Wed Dec 12 2007, 09:22PM
Posts: 3
Kelvin McCorvin wrote ...

Reset everything once. The only permanently ownable units are the starters (there would need to be more than three, probably of several different unit types as well).
Of the options that have us continue on much the same path as we are now, I probably like this one the best. The only ownable units are the starters, which there would be more than the current 3 of. Limited units would be in pretty good supply, it'd be easy to always have something decent to go out in. This method would revive the art of the salvage op, meaning you'd need to win a fight and control the field of battle long enough to get the good stuff off the field, very similar to old RS sites. It'd also require an adjustment in tactics if you don't want to booze your precious FLS or ANH away. Worries about players not having decent rides to go out in are completely unfounded, new ways to earn units would likely be introduced and we might even see some ability to produce things as a faction.


I really dislike this option. The only permanent units are starter units, and there are more of them? Seems to me that will encourage even less battlefile diversity, except among those who play lots and lots and will be willing to risk their good units on routine ops. And salvage ops suck, imho. They're boring and take time away from fighting.

Furthermore a system that relies heavily on rentals punishes the more casual players, such as myself. Most of the time I can only play for stretches of an hour or so. Sometimes less. So I mostly use permanent units, knowing I can fight right until I run out of time and not worry about losing a limited unit forever because I don't have time to salvage it, or even just run it back to base.
Back to top
stink123
Sun Dec 23 2007, 10:02PM
Registered Member #2981
Joined: Tue Jan 23 2007, 02:22AM
Posts: 24
I liked the fourth option the most, but the third seems like the most practical option since the fourth option seems like it would place a lot of pressure on map/scenario people. I like the idea of rentals since it (presumably) would lower the price of rentals and create a lot of diversity in the fights you have and mechs you pilot. Also with the fourth option, how would we be able to access all mechs? It would make sense to be able to pilot 2750/3025/3050 mechs in 3055 scens and such and I kind of like some of the older mechs.
And finally, would a reset clear out everything? would we get to keep anything at all besides just our name (if even that)?
Back to top
Phelan Ward Kell
Mon Dec 31 2007, 11:19PM
Registered Member #212
Joined: Sat Jan 27 2007, 05:57PM
Posts: 5
Honsestly i dont like any of the options presented. there should not be a reset. ive worked hard to get what i have and i do not want to lose it. Losing my mechs would make me lose intrest in this game. not to mention losing my skills i have purchased. i also do not like the idea of only 3025 being perms i like the way it is now.
The only complaints i have is that it always seems that one faction gets screwed. What needs to be fixed is the code that assigns you to a faction. because it always seems there is one idle faction one faction with all kinds of munch and active players and another faction that isnt as good as the main one but still munchy in compared to the third.
the main reason i think this is the case is because of outfits. what happens is the best players for their own outfits and join up. so they stay in the same faction. if you where to do anything i would say kill of the outfits. besides they dont have all that much use other then having players stick together.
another idea that might make the combat be more diverse is make it so there is a loss for dying. so that there is some penalty involved be it cbills or something. that would prevent the banzai death charges so prevalent in this site. maybe make it go off your damage deal/ damage received ratio. it would make for more sniping battles and such. people actually utilizing terrain and los to their advantage.
i loved 3030 when it was going strong and it sucks that there isnt a viable RS option anymore. but there isnt much we can do about that. if i could code i would try to start one myself but i admit. im a moron when it comes to code... ive tried...

so question is are we gonna get a reset no matter what? is there no choice in the matter? if that is the case then i will vote otherwise i will abstain as i dont like any of the options.
-Sub-
Back to top
skeletor
Mon Dec 31 2007, 11:47PM
Registered Member #1759
Joined: Tue Dec 25 2007, 05:29PM
Posts: 2
i voted for option four , but i am new to the mux and have only been playing for about one week if that .. i like how everything is atm , but some of the options mentioned on here seem to be interesting such as no 3.. not sure how it will all go as i am still picking up things about the game.
Back to top
shakie
Fri Jan 11 2008, 11:06AM

Registered Member #1681
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 12:22AM
Posts: 1
I'm a long term player of the board game and new to the MUX I would really prefer a mercenary style Economy, repairs cost ya, reloads cost ya, everything costs time and money you can't just explode yourself then rejoin the game. I also like the Idea of reset, but that's cuz I'm new.
Back to top
RedMercury
Sat Mar 01 2008, 03:42PM
Registered Member #2668
Joined: Sat Apr 07 2007, 02:38PM
Posts: 7
The old btech muxs were anal like that. They're not around anymore...
Back to top
nops
Fri May 23 2008, 07:12AM
Registered Member #2745
Joined: Sat Mar 15 2008, 07:37PM
Posts: 5
Its just as simple , if u reset u loose almost all players that spend lots of time in their charakters.
So u loose lots , maybe all , of your most active players .
Noone wants to spend weeks of playing (some look like they spend even years ), and than getting all just taken away .
Game unbalaced?
Maybe its u not the players .
How about setting up some nice maps whith three factions , maybe whith enough space for newbies to move around and do some missions .
At the moment the maps u setup are as braindead as de_dust in counterstrike .
The result is that newbies that r on the wrong faction , leave base and got killed by a mob of 3-4 pro players .
The result is they never come back again.:-(
I know pepole dont like long distant walking whith their mechs, so how about some well placed warpgates.
Another option would be to keep the charakters and the money , so longtime players got the option to sell their hightech units before they r converted to non permanets, or just convert all mechs to money .
Its really hard if u spend so much time in an game and they just reset .
@RedMercury
Economy is nice , but only if u dont have to wait for hours to get your mech repaired .
If u have additional costs it leaves more room for additional rewards , and rewards r always cool
Back to top
 

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System