102 replies to this topic

[Lord0fHats]

Davers, on 18 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

R&R simply doesn't fit with MWO. This is not a single player campaign style game.

This. It really just doesn't fit. Even CW matches run too short for it to be useful.

[Hotthedd]

Lord0fHats, on 29 March 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

This. It really just doesn't fit. Even CW matches run too short for it to be useful.

What does length of engagement have to do with utility? Mechs still use ammo, and still take damage...

[Lord0fHats]

Because there isn't really time in a 30 minute match for a mech to run to the enemy, get beat up, run back to the Repair station, and then run back to the enemy. It's more useful to simply fight and die and respawn in a new mech. For attackers.

For defenders it provides an overpowering advantage. If this were a game for like Battlefield it might have a place, but it's not and it doesn't.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 29 March 2015 - 11:58 AM.

[Averen]

I don't think so. There is no actual economy in MWO, it's purely gating for grind. Repair and Rearm wouldn't really add anything to the game.


And I don't trust PGI to not make the game needlessly more grindy anyway, at every step. Our 'hard mode' CW should already pay out better then normal games, but it obviously doesn't.

[Nightmare1]

No thanks. R&R was too frustrating for F2P. I still remember my days as a wee noob, trying to learn the game but handicapped because I had to trudge into battle astride a crippled warhorse, er, damaged Mech.

Seriously though, with CW in its current state, I don't think that R&R would serve a purpose. I would like to see real time economics added first, along with planetary bonuses, more drop decks and such. That would make R&R more viable to CW play with Units having to complete R&R in between attack and defense phases. Otherwise, you're basically adding an in-game tax without adding any in-game benefits to counterbalance it.

I never want to see R&R return to Conquest, Assault, or Skirmish though. That was miserable back in the day, and would be no different now.

[Hotthedd]

Lord0fHats, on 29 March 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Because there isn't really time in a 30 minute match for a mech to run to the enemy, get beat up, run back to the Repair station, and then run back to the enemy. It's more useful to simply fight and die and respawn in a new mech. For attackers.

For defenders it provides an overpowering advantage. If this were a game for like Battlefield it might have a place, but it's not and it doesn't.

Oh, I see.

You read the title and not the actual TOPIC.

[Averen]

It would probably make sense if you could go for (user-)clan specific 'special operations' where you would have limited ressources for a number of more efficient drops, but not really inside the normal pug/premade queue. And ofc not with CBill, which is a basically unlimited currency.

Edited by Averen, 29 March 2015 - 02:57 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

R&R would simply disadvantage newer players if integrated into CW. You actually make more money on average (per minute played) in public queue than you likely do in CW and this would just widen the gaps between the space-rich and the mech-plebes.

[Hotthedd]

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 March 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

R&R would simply disadvantage newer players if integrated into CW. You actually make more money on average (per minute played) in public queue than you likely do in CW and this would just widen the gaps between the space-rich and the mech-plebes.

How is it a disadvantage? Are you saying newer players would use more ammo and take more damage?

If so, there needs to be a mechanism to discourage bad play.

If it is just a matter of C-bills, then it applies to everyone equally, although rewards should be adjusted for CW anyway.

[Averen]

Hotthedd, on 29 March 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

If so, there needs to be a mechanism to discourage bad play.

You mean you get less money for bad play than for good play? No clue where got that crazy idea from.

Aside from that, a player isn't playing bad because he wants to play bad. Punishing a new player additionally would be stupid. A good game encourages beginners to do the right thing (while actively hinting what exactly that 'right thing' is).

Bad play would be standing behind all the time and doing nothing but spamming lurms. Something the game actually signals to be a good thing, since you'll be relatively succesfull without any effort.

Edited by Averen, 29 March 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Averen, on 29 March 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

You mean you get less money for bad play than for good play? No clue where got that crazy idea from.

Aside from that, a player isn't playing bad because he wants to play bad. Punishing a new player additionally would be stupid. A good game encourages beginners to do the right thing (while actively hinting what exactly that 'right thing' is).

Bad play would be standing behind all the time and doing nothing but spamming lurms. Something the game actually signals to be a good thing, since you'll be relatively succesfull without any effort.

Not in CW, though. Unless you were part of a good team. New players don't usually have that advantage.
100% agreed that there needs to be better tools for the beginner, however.

(but honestly, the beginner does not need to be going solo into CW)

[Averen]

Hotthedd, on 29 March 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

Not in CW, though. Unless you were part of a good team. New players don't usually have that advantage.
100% agreed that there needs to be better tools for the beginner, however.

(but honestly, the beginner does not need to be going solo into CW)

LRMs aside, what i said also goes for CW. Not sure why anyone would just want to play bad, and there are already monetary games for succesfull play.

Edited by Averen, 30 March 2015 - 12:01 AM.

[B0oN]

Reintegrate R&R not only in Cee-Dub, but integrate it for all matches again, might make some people think more and will definitely piss of beginners that are struggling to get their heads wrapped around the concept of tank battles (as if BF didnt/hadn´t already give/given enough tankdriving to prepare people for mechs),
BUT(t) : overall playing might get more challenging but also at the time smarter and that is something worth aiming for .

MW:O lacks logistics, sadly .

[Hotthedd]

Averen, on 30 March 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

LRMs aside, what i said also goes for CW. Not sure why anyone would just want to play bad, and there are already monetary games for succesfull play.

The beauty of R&R for LRMs is the cost to resupply the ammo, especially with artemis.

So, sitting in the back spamming LRMs gets expensive, HOPEFULLY encouraging those players to improve their LRM skills, or even trying out weapons systems that they need to AIM and EXPOSE themselves to use.

[Twilight Fenrir]

I loved R&R back in the day, and I'd love to see it come back...

But, how about if we made it 'optional'. Let players choose between the two systems? It might be viewed as unequal rewards... But, the kicker of that argument is, you can always choose the other one Whatever makes you personally the most money, or whatever gives you most enjoyment regardless of what makes you the most money.

I'd do R&R, regardless.

Or, perhaps chain it to affiliation. The Houses, and Clans would naturally pay for all of their unit maintenance with their bloated military budgets, so R&R is somewhat ubrealistic. But Mercenaries, and Pirates (we really need a Pirates faction) would be subject to more stringent financial concerns...

Edited by Twilight Fenrir, 30 March 2015 - 09:23 AM.

[David Sumner]

Hotthedd, on 29 March 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

Having R&R does not mean the game cannot be fun.

New players should have no R&R for their cadet period, that is fine.

Bad players, however, SHOULD be "punished", as if bits of code could be considered punishment.

NOBODY would be "forced" to play a mech or build they don't want. If you can afford it, run it! If you can't afford it, save up some spacebucks. (Its the same reason I do not drive a Porche 911 in real life)

Except for instance, I HAVE to use LRMs to get any decent play due to my network performance (Don't F**G start about it OK)
Which means I would HAVE to pay ammo costs.

Having said that, R&R SHOULD be in CW, but CW should be "longer" in terms of planetary campaigning.

And R & R doesn't need to be (entirely) out of player pocket.

Steiner own the planet?
How much resupply are they guaranteeing to delivery as part of the contract?
E.G 200 tons of armour and 80 tons of ammo across the unit per battle, no weapon parts?

[David Sumner]

Hotthedd, on 30 March 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

The beauty of R&R for LRMs is the cost to resupply the ammo, especially with artemis.

So, sitting in the back spamming LRMs gets expensive, HOPEFULLY encouraging those players to improve their LRM skills, or even trying out weapons systems that they need to AIM and EXPOSE themselves to use.

Except of course for those of us for whom our network performance means that LRMs are basically the only consistently effective weapon available.

Been there, played that, coped, barely, but they paid more back then.

[Vellron2005]

Personally, I would like to see mech repair bays in comunity warfare, there should be at least two in the base, and they should be destructable and repair for counter attack.

Also, repairing your mech should be free but take a minimum of one full minute, so as to discourage repairing mid-attack while the invading team is camping your dropsite..

Edited by Vellron2005, 31 March 2015 - 02:47 AM.

[Sonny Black]

Vellron2005, on 31 March 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

Personally, I would like to see mech repair bays in comunity warfare, there should be at least two in the base, and they should be destructable and repair for counter attack.

Also, repairing your mech should be free but take a minimum of one full minute, so as to discourage repairing mid-attack while the invading team is camping your dropsite..

I Like it! Time spent should depend on what is being damaged. Also the player should have the parts required for the repair, or buy them for C-Bills, or get them from a Unit Cache.

I recall from The Lore units often had to go into battle with less than perfect mechs.

[m]

David Sumner, on 31 March 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

... CW should be "longer" in terms of planetary campaigning.

I agree, but only slightly longer with more in-game pre-planning involved.

David Sumner, on 31 March 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

And R & R doesn't need to be (entirely) out of player pocket.

I agree. Not entirely, especially if you are a cadet.

David Sumner, on 31 March 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Steiner own the planet?
How much resupply are they guaranteeing to delivery as part of the contract?
E.G 200 tons of armour and 80 tons of ammo across the unit per battle, no weapon parts?

Something to add to this would be to incorporate a market based economy whereas the actual companies involved in lore actually have a place in this game, in regard to Repair and Rearm (cheaper pricing if you join a Faction). Joining a Faction because they have the best Repair and Rearm prices in the game, at the time, would be an incentive for new comers. Also, stocking up on goods would be of benefit, especially if you can pick them up at a good price from certain companies, especially if you know that your Faction is about to have their last factory lost on a particular planet, that stocking up would allow you to continue defending.

Sonny Black, on 31 March 2015 - 05:03 AM, said:

I recall from The Lore units often had to go into battle with less than perfect mechs.

Excellent and justifiable point.





As for the comments in regard to repairing and rearming in-game on-site within a match, I just don't think I can get used to that idea, all the time, in a match. There needs to be consequence in playing a match, and repairing a mech in a match should not take no time at all..it should be off-site (not in a match). If there is absolutely no consequence to Repairing and Rearming then I can't say I will enjoy it. In time, by default, Repair and Rearm would add drive, focus, depth, and difficulty to everyone which would be great..that much I think we can all agree on.

Edited by m, 01 April 2015 - 10:58 AM.