271 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 15 May 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Not to burst your bubble (with evil intent).. but what would RnR do to stem the tide of PPCs?

Infinite Ammo.

If anything, it'd replace the usage of ballistic weapons with more PPCs.

Well, with the new Overheat Damage mechanics, (and others they SHOULD add) constantly having to fix your internals for every shutdown might add some discouragement. But RnR is not a solution to PPC boating. They are two totally different issues.

RnR did (for a short time, even with the egregious flaws in PGIs conception of it) make Top Tier Tech a gamble to use, as you either won big, or went home broke. That meant less heavies and assaults with XLs, and a 50/50 that Mediums would have them. The earning power of a Tier 1 tech Medium was great, because the repairs were negligible. Hence the reason there were so many mediums running about. (and hence the reason armies throughout history have "marched on their stomachs" or wallets, because sustainability and cost effectiveness is a serious consideration.)

Mind you, I think there should be a trial mode, where there is no such mechanic, so as not to scare off the newbies, with things like TDM, etc. For a properly run, and immersive CW? Absolutely essential. And not, contraty to the myth the twtich crowd likes to perpetuate, undoable.

I have been playing since CB. Am a pretty decent pilot. Run with a pretty good MErc corp, and do well pugging. When I am not blowing Cbills on silly stuff and boredom, I shortly accrue more C-Bills than a small Nation. And I can tell you right now, my XL Jagermech would be saved for a special day with RnR (and I personally LOVED the high XL cost when we had it. Put a bullet hole or two into a top tuned racing engine and see how much it costs to fix. Chances are you are better replacing it).

But with RnR in place I ran my Centurions and Atlas alot.... with no XL. And Never once came close to losing money. But before everyone realized the 75% fix exploit... Top Drawer tech WAS much more rare for several weeks... and the games were much longer, and generally more even. I never saw the "Haves" truly pulling ahead of the have nots. And having sat on nearly 1 Billion C-bills in between patches 3 seperate times, I would have to call myself one of the haves. And I had by not running XLs except in my Jenner (and eventually YLW) and NOT boating LRMS w/Artemis (which might have been a skosh over price, lol). Not the otherway around, where I magically was running top drawer tech and making more money.

All the QQing in CB about RnR was largely the "Pro_Gamers" and Twitch Shooters crying because their insistence on running the best tech all the time was costing them cbills.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 16 May 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

If your Elo score is mostly settled, you more than likely are playing other people at the same equipment level as yourself, and would only win 50% of your matches (since that's the point of having an Elo system).

Depending on how the R&R system was set up, there would still be the potential to operate at a loss if the loss in the 50% of the matches you'd lose (and any that you got destroyed in) was greater than the earnings you'd get from the ones you won and didn't get destroyed.

But wouldn't this lead to the Elo oscillating? I keep using the good gear that allows me to compete at this level, until I can't do it anymore, then my Elo drops as I start losing more and more often due to using inferior gear, then I win more often, can afford better gear, and can win even more often and my Elo rises.

I am not sure how useful Elo is under such circumstances anymore. You'd be constantantly experienced streaks of losses and wins due to the way equipment shifts.

And then the question would be - how does Premium and Hero/Founder bonuses interact with this?

I suppose it's a great way to ensure that people want to buy MC for expensive gear so they never have to face life without superior gear. Maybe it works out financially, unless too many players decide they don't want to pay 15 $ a month for this game, and only the same people that would buy a subscription for this game keep playing - which,if that was enough for this game to survive, would have made this game not F2P to begin with.

---

I would have probably done things differently.

1) Refitting your mech costs money and time. The less time you want it to be, the more C-Bills. If you want to spend no time at all, it's MC even. If you're willing to spend a lot of time, it might be free.
2) Repairing and rearming your mech costs money and time. THe less time you want it to take, the more C-Bills you need. If you want to spend no time at all, it's MC even. If you're willing to spend a lot of time, it might be free.

This would allow people with a stable of mechs to play from a selection of their preferred mechs at all time, but if they really want to play only one mech, they couldn't. (Or need to at least buy multiple copies.) that easily. I think that would be overall more fair and fun.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 16 May 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Khanublikhan]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

1) Refitting your mech costs money and time. The less time you want it to be, the more C-Bills. If you want to spend no time at all, it's MC even. If you're willing to spend a lot of time, it might be free.
2) Repairing and rearming your mech costs money and time. THe less time you want it to take, the more C-Bills you need. If you want to spend no time at all, it's MC even. If you're willing to spend a lot of time, it might be free.

This would allow people with a stable of mechs to play from a selection of their preferred mechs at all time, but if they really want to play only one mech, they couldn't. (Or need to at least buy multiple copies.) that easily. I think that would be overall more fair and fun.

This. R&R needs to be included in this way. C-Bill cost, not on a per item basis. Rather, on a per unit time / work-crew proficiency basis.

[Prezimonto]

This is the primary reason I think we see so many cheese builds. Many of them were available in tt, but were not run because they're not cost effective for the goals the mech's needed to achieve.

With out RnR there is, current, no penalty to upgraded tech. It's just better.

SO

What about instead of the "damage" model you go to a flat rate loss scaled slightly between the weight classes when running upgrades? Call them maintenance fees... it's expensive to keep that XL tuned and running without shutting down randomly. Set is so if you losses result in 0 cash... you get 0 cbills, not negative. Essentially, you trade cbills for XP then. If done well, you'd also be wagering on winning, a win might net you cash, a loss wouldn't.

This type of a system doesn't punish someone for taking damage... making fighting suck and tanking suck harder. This type of system sets a cap on losses... so you never lose money, but you might make none, so you CAN run every upgrade if you want... but when you want to go buy the next whatever... better shell out some real cash, or pilot a lower tier mech. These are both things that would be good for the game and developers.

I also love Mustrum's per time idea.... except that it still won't stop anyone from packing (more slowly) every upgrade they want on all their mechs.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 May 2013 - 09:04 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

This. R&R needs to be included in this way. C-Bill cost, not on a per item basis. Rather, on a per unit time / work-crew proficiency basis.

Well, Item should be a third factor. A Ferrari V8 costs more to attain, and maintain than a small black crate 350. And scarcity (especially in the war economy... prices skyrocket, availibility goes down). SO while I agee with Mustrums point, we can't overlook the actual item cost, either.

[Khanublikhan]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Well, Item should be a third factor. A Ferrari V8 costs more to attain, and maintain than a small black crate 350. And scarcity (especially in the war economy... prices skyrocket, availibility goes down). SO while I agee with Mustrums point, we can't overlook the actual item cost, either.

You can discount per item costs if you make the assumption: a competent mech tech-crew will do a Macgyver / Scotty and get the damaged item repaired / working again / replaced during the repair phase between match rounds. And: In a war environment, there is a substantial behind the scenes supply chain to make item replacements possible.

Then it solely becomes a per time repair cost.

Edit: That is, ordinary [white] equipment losses are automagically replaced by the supply chain / tech skill excellence / scrounging / [star trek replicator credits approach].

If named manufacturer weaponry and equipment (clan tech) was ever introduced, then you could argue their losses would have to be repaid in full (as one approach).

Edited by Khanublikhan, 16 May 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Another thought to my idea above:
repair of large weapons becomes less of an issue. Even on Heavies you have to pack on the upgrades to get to cheese builds, and on Assaults, you need them to get good efficiency. Without the upgrades you tend to take fewer really high heat weapons, and you tend to take fewer really high tonnage weapons.

something like this:



XL engine: - (engine rating x100) cbills per match (provides the largest single benefit in tonnage(range 10000 to 38500 cbills))
DHS: -(35k) cbills per match (is currently considered "required" for every build)

Endo: -(15k+mech tonnage x100) cbills per match (good tonnage benefit, necessary if not running XL(range 17000 to 25000 cbills))
FF: -(5k + mech tonnage x100) cbills per match (it's just worse than endo in every way (range 2000 to 10000 cbills))

Cap the cbill loss at 0 cbills... and here's an idea... FILL in the difference with repair time.... run a deficit .. increase the CD post match to run the mech again.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 May 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

You can discount per item costs if you make the assumption: a competent mech tech-crew will do a Macgyver / Scotty and get the damaged item repaired / working again / replaced during the repair phase between match rounds. And: In a war environment, there is a substantial behind the scenes supply chain to make item replacements possible.

Then it solely becomes a per time repair cost.

Edit: That is, ordinary [white] equipment losses are automagically replaced by the supply chain / tech skill excellence / scrounging / [star trek replicator credits approach].

If named manufacturer weaponry and equipment (clan tech) was ever introduced, then you could argue their losses would have to be repaid in full (as one approach).

Items still cost money though, especially if one is a Merc. They don't get free supplies like House Units do. I do think having the ability to jury rig (aka partial repair and therefore partial effectiveness) to weapons would be nice, but possibly too code and time intensive.

Hence I still can't agree to time only being the equation for cost. Cost and Availability do matter, which is why people in 3rd Wold warzones will often carry an AK-47 over a more precision AR variant, because it is durable, dependable, and being relatively simple tech, any shade tree gunsmith CAN fix it. In a perfect world, the AR (like an H&K 416) will smoke any AK-47/74 on the planet. Give it a decade of abuse and lack of access to genuine H&K parts, and the AK-47 will still be trucking, whereas the AR likely won't.

The Houses are hording and buying up virtually all the Premo Tech available So if you, as a Merc want to use it, fine, but availability and cost SHOULD be a factor to consider.


Also, one doesn't tend to band aid a fusion reactor. Things tend to go poorly when you MacGuyver Nuclear Material. Just sayin

[Khanublikhan]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Items still cost money though, especially if one is a Merc. They don't get free supplies like House Units do. I do think having the ability to jury rig (aka partial repair and therefore partial effectiveness) to weapons would be nice, but possibly too code and time intensive.

Hence I still can't agree to time only being the equation for cost. Cost and Availability do matter, which is why people in 3rd Wold warzones will often carry an AK-47 over a more precision AR variant, because it is durable, dependable, and being relatively simple tech, any shade tree gunsmith CAN fix it. In a perfect world, the AR (like an H&K 416) will smoke any AK-47/74 on the planet. Give it a decade of abuse and lack of access to genuine H&K parts, and the AK-47 will still be trucking, whereas the AR likely won't.

The Houses are hording and buying up virtually all the Premo Tech available So if you, as a Merc want to use it, fine, but availability and cost SHOULD be a factor to consider.


Also, one doesn't tend to band aid a fusion reactor. Things tend to go poorly when you MacGuyver Nuclear Material. Just sayin

You do make a good argument for item value, I must admit. Although, I think we can all agree the emphasis of item cost needs to be made smaller as a factor in any overall model for R&R.

The argument remains: The paradigm in which R&R exists strongly emphasises the unsung heroes -- Tech Crews - who can do the seemingly impossible in getting a war-torn mech back on its feet. The time between matches is not one tech mech minute per mouse click. It is man-hours of labour. You might have an experienced support crew of twenty or more staff supporting a mechwarrior / lance. Scale that up to a Company, Dropship or Regimental Level and Time-Efficiency / Supply chains are much more important than mere C-Bills.

[Ph30nix]

there are ALOT of sadists in here....


dont get me wrong i wouldnt mind a WORKING R&R scenerio, but when they build their grind around the accumulation of C-bills then making players pay it is just a punishment or a way to slow them down.

i have heard of people saying repair is free with time waited, but for instant reaction it costs C-bills. Only downside there is it screws over new players with only 1 mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khanublikhan, on 16 May 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

You do make a good argument for item value, I must admit. Although, I think we can all agree the emphasis of item cost needs to be made smaller as a factor in any overall model for R&R.

The argument remains: The paradigm in which R&R exists strongly emphasises the unsung heroes -- Tech Crews - who can do the seemingly impossible in getting a war-torn mech back on its feet. The time between matches is not one tech mech minute per mouse click. It is man-hours of labour. You might have an experienced support crew of twenty or more staff supporting a mechwarrior / lance. Scale that up to a Company, Dropship or Regimental Level and Time-Efficiency / Supply chains are much more important than mere C-Bills.

Definitely agree with a lot of that. Though one thing that should factor into things that way should be "Community" C-bills part stores...... I see what you are saying, it's just without any ype of community sharing (like once registered with a merc corp 10% of salvage and such go to communal pool) I think the mere cbill side is just a "simpler" expedient. I totally am all for "down-time" though.

Of course, you are talking to the guy who feels that Endo should not be an up-gradable down-gradable item, SINCE IT"S YOUR BLOODY SKELETON, so I might be a little too "fanatical" a TT guy.

Ph30nix, on 16 May 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

there are ALOT of sadists in here....


dont get me wrong i wouldnt mind a WORKING R&R scenerio, but when they build their grind around the accumulation of C-bills then making players pay it is just a punishment or a way to slow them down.

i have heard of people saying repair is free with time waited, but for instant reaction it costs C-bills. Only downside there is it screws over new players with only 1 mech.

Time for that player to invest in more mechs, then, eh?

Also, when we had RnR, we also had bigger purses to help balance it. Believe it or not, I actually had MORE money during RnR (and I was NOT one of the cheaters exploiting the 75% repair mechanic) than I have since. Largely because I made smart choices on what I ran most times (saved my uber-mech for specific 8v8 Drops) because of cost factors. You would be shocked how effective a tool the old HBK-4G was back in the day. Money maker.

[Adridos]

Narcisoldier, on 15 May 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

And the current role of lights and mediums as a handicap for their team is better?

In trusth, they were no better during the R&R, either...

[Donnie Silveray]

I think the removal of R&R is probably the best move PGI has done given how poorly it was implemented. Unless cash rewards scaled by tonnage, it's not cost effective nor rewarding. I could dominate in my Atlas and still come up negative because chances are I torso twisted to spread the damage, oh I lost 80% of my armor, all my ammo from the fighting, the equipment destroyed. It all adds up. It discourages the use of non-premium assaults and encourages the use of less expensive farm builds. I remember it vividly. I'd often go out into battle in my Yen Lo Wang for the c-bill bonus and the general 'inexpense' nature of it allowed me to farm. As much as I like my Wang, I don't like to constantly gunsling an AC20 for my entire lifetime. But that right there is the problem. I ended up farming in a mech I didn't want to play in all the time.

R&R as it was implemented was restricting, poorly done, punishing, and fundamentally broken. It isn't fun, it isn't immersive, and it isn't worthwhile. Justifying its insertion to nudge players to be more careful when playing is fundamentally flawed as the field of battle is heavily balanced. Eventually, one way or another, someone IS. GOING. TO. DIE. And there's a percentage chance that it is going to be your team going under no matter how carefully you pilot. Chances are they are better than you, and you're in their crosshairs with their PPC boats and snipers.

R&R may be worthwhile in CW style campaigns for merc companies but unless clients pay for tonnage, there isn't a point. When a client requests a merc and gets an atlas, they are expected to be paid more as it is more expensive. Unless R&R is implemented in such a way it doesn't end up as an unnecessary tax or a crippling money sink I highly doubt it will ever come back, nor should it for the greater good unless they know what they are doing.

Edited by Donnie Silveray, 16 May 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[PanzerMagier]

I am, on 15 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I agree OP, I miss them too. I wish they would go further. Bring back R&R, double mech costs in terms of C-Bills, make match C-Bill returns halved. make it rough to run without premium. They do want players to feel compelled to play with it right? I've never felt taht compulsion playing MWO, credits come in too fast to justify premium time.

While were at it lets make 4 mans 3 mans (or better yet 2 mans), and limit those who can bring more than the default amount to those with premium. WoT got away with it, and they have about 200,000 people playing, 27,000 ish on the U.S. Server alone.

Premium is supposed to be a reprive from the rough-ness of grinding, MWO grinding, has never been rough. You can get a DDC in a weekend without premium.

Note: I don't want R&R to dissuade certain loadouts, or try to shape player behavior. Other methods would/should be used to prevent exploitation, if it is occurring. I want the grind in MWO to be alot harder, because it is too dhamn easy. Plus, playing to replair a blown up mech adds to immersion imho.

So you want to turn a F2P game into a P2P. Scaring off the majority of your player base and only making it more inconvenient to the minority who pays and possibly beneficial to 1% of extremist ***** like you?
*laughs*
If it happens good luck playing alone.
Not everyone has time like you to sit on their *** and play 24/7
Go play wow if you want grind paradise.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 16 May 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Ransack]

Snuglninja, on 15 May 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sorry but its true. The closest thing pgi has ever had to balance and would stop a lot of this ppc assault fest. Doesn't have to be exactly what it was before and maybe only used for players in cw/merc units but what we got now is a **** poor console game with no sim feel or consequences for cheese builds or smart play.

How does R&R stop the PPC spam? If anything it encourages it more since you don't need ammo for PPC's. It was only punitive to those who used missiles and Ballistics. If R&R comes back, pretty every match will be full of energy boats.

[Khanublikhan]

Ransack, on 16 May 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

How does R&R stop the PPC spam? If anything it encourages it more since you don't need ammo for PPC's. It was only punitive to those who used missiles and Ballistics. If R&R comes back, pretty every match will be full of energy boats.

It is not the role of R&R to solve everything wrong with the game. More, R&R should be a mechanism to promote cash-survival instincts.

PPC's might not need ammo; but might have an additional R&R fitting cost, by way of example (they are big, require a lot of reactor juice per shot - which requires extra C-Bill effort to fit properly).

Ammunition weapons, being reactor independent to some degree, might not suffer those same costs.

[Vodrin Thales]

I am, on 15 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I agree OP, I miss them too. I wish they would go further. Bring back R&R, double mech costs in terms of C-Bills, make match C-Bill returns halved. make it rough to run without premium. They do want players to feel compelled to play with it right? I've never felt taht compulsion playing MWO, credits come in too fast to justify premium time.

While were at it lets make 4 mans 3 mans (or better yet 2 mans), and limit those who can bring more than the default amount to those with premium. WoT got away with it, and they have about 200,000 people playing, 27,000 ish on the U.S. Server alone.

Premium is supposed to be a reprive from the rough-ness of grinding, MWO grinding, has never been rough. You can get a DDC in a weekend without premium.

Note: I don't want R&R to dissuade certain loadouts, or try to shape player behavior. Other methods would/should be used to prevent exploitation, if it is occurring. I want the grind in MWO to be alot harder, because it is too dhamn easy. Plus, playing to replair a blown up mech adds to immersion imho.

Worst set of ideas I have read on these forums yet. Panzer covered most of the reasons above. I'd just add that no good effect can come of it.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 16 May 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[TruePoindexter]

PartyAlias, on 16 May 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Maybe by enforcing damaged internal equipment repair cost + overheat should damage your weapons and heatsinks. Boats will remove 6 ppcs, if one 170% overheat will burn away all your ppcs and double heatsinks Why do ammo mecks blow up for overheats and ppc/laser boats dont, btw?

That doesn't balance their performance though - they just punishes their use when you push things too far. If you're going to do that why allow it to be pushed to begin with?

I guess that's the larger issue with R&R as a balance mechanic. It doesn't actually address any issues with the weapons - it just punishes those that use them after the fact. Wealthy/skilled players can continue to use them as they have the financial base to soak any losses. Poor players will not be able to use them without hardship. This is in my view a worse situation than the present.

[MaddMaxx]

R&R would be considered a Hard Core game play item. MWO cannot have any Hard Core stuff as the Hard Core players are very limited in numbers.

They tried R&R and gathered the results. Result was that many many folks simply abused what little could bit that could be abused so best to just take it out, as opposed to making it even more hard core and money sink intensive and thus even more abusable.

CW may try another version, I hope they do as Logistics would be of benefit, but a general R&R is gone.

P.S. Energy based weapons, based solely on the required "electronics" required to run one, would be way more expensive to buy and lose or repair, than any simple breach firing ballistic weapons.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 May 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Caviel]

I'll just recycle the last post I made on R&R since it all applies:

Quote

Until there is an actual economy with money sinks, R&R is just a pointless tax:

-There is no fundamental difference between making 150,000 C-Bills after a win no R&R, and making 200,000 C-Bills after a win with a 50,000 C-Bill R&R bill.

-Lowering the match earnings as a result of R&R just introduces an artificial grind to earn C-Bills, an already big enough problem for new players that they implemented the new pilot rewards. Worst case it will punish new players with poor equipment by drastically reducing earned money from losing most of their first matches since they are learning the game.

-Unless match rewards start to get into the millions instead of tens or hundreds of thousands (Causing massive inflation), you have to prop up R&R by granting a percentage of free repairs. Otherwise you would have to play 10-20 matches in a trial mech just to earn enough to repair a Commando to play in a single match and potentially lose and be doomed to repeat the cycle.

-R&R encouraged players to suicide in non-repaired mechs as a way to net more money after matches. This is unfair to the team now down a player that is willfully choosing not to participate in the match.
-Unless you scale the amount earned based on the mech weight class, you will unfairly punish larger mech players. Any functionality that artificially restricts how players can choose to play the game is generally a bad one.