33 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Simple spoken this system should use a 4th currency rather than C-BIlls, XP or MC to pay the repair and rearm bill.

CVP = Combat Value Point.

Instead of C-Bills this system uses a fixed income. So called CVP (CombatValuePoints) – this system was introduced with the Tactical Handbook (1994) now a (~6$ ebook).
Well the CV system was obsolete with BattleValue and the repair system become more abstract or did uses costs - but while not good for tabletop campaigns it seem to have some value for MWO.

Anyhow to use C-Bills for your repair bill has its own problem. C-Bills are linked to your rewards in MWO. C-Bills can be gained by MCs or selling Mechs that were bought with real money.

I think you may understand we don’t want a pay to run an imbalanced mech.

Well I said it is from the Tactical Handbook – but of course this system needs some tweaking. For example weapons and ammunition, seem to be off a little bit.
As an example the JM6-A vs his Champion

Items	CVPs
Internal structur 1point = 0.5CVP	108.5
Armor STD 1point = 0.25CVP	64
Engine rating = CVP	260
Heat Sinks SHS 10	10
2 LRM15 =2* 87 CVP	174
2 AC2 =2* 24 CVP	48
2 MLAS =2* 31 CVP	62
2 ton LRM =2* 30 CVP	60
1 ton AC2 =1* 1 CVP	1
Arms 2*2*65	260
Legs 2*4*65	520
Cockpit 4*65	260
CT Gryo 2*65	130
Total	1957.5

Now the Champion – XL x2 ES x2 DHS x3 more armor and 2 Gauss Rifles with 6t ammunition:

Items	CVPs
Internal structur 1 ESpoint = 1CVP	217
Armor STD 1point = 0.25CVP	100
XL Engine rating = 2xCVP	530
Heat Sinks DHS 10x3	30
2 Gauss =2* 228 CVP	456
6 ton =6* 20 CVP	120
Arms 2*2*65	260
Legs 2*4*65	520
Cockpit 4*65	260
CT Gryo 2*65	130
Total	2603

Of course in case of destruction you don’t have to pay all those points.
For example a clean head shot will reduce your repair cost and increase the salvage for the other team.

So say the JM6-A is destroyed after his CT was blown out – he did fight some time and used twisting to deflect some shots – his ammunition is gone, on MLAS is critical damaged

Items	CVPs
Internal structur dmg 42CT+5LT+3RT	25
Armor STD CT 50+LT34+RT34+LA5+RA10+LL10+RL3	36.5
Engine rating = CVP	260
Heat Sinks SHS 10	10
1 MLAS =1* 31 CVP	31
2 ton LRM =2* 30 CVP	60
1 ton AC2 =1* 1 CVP	1
CT Gryo 2*65	130
Total	553.5

Salvage value 1404CVPs – Repair 553.5 CVPs

Now about some toying with the JM6-A ©
Say it got a side destruction death.. It was able to spend 30shots
The engine got 3 critical hits – so its 3/12 = ¼ of the CV costs – as well as ¼ round up of his heatsinks. The arm is missing too, and everything mount in the arm (Gauss and 1.5t ammunition)

Items	CVPs
Internal structur dmg 30LT+20LA	50
Armor 60LT+40LA	25
Engine ¼*530	132.5
Heat Sinks DHS 10x3/4	7.5
1 Gauss =	228
4.5 ton =4.5* 20 CVP	90
Arms 1*2*65	130
Total	654

Salvage value 1949CVPs – Repair 654 CVPs

---

I think you got the idea behind, didn’t you?

How to gain those CVPs?

Well there are multiple options and combinations:

• Each player get a fixed value – say 1500 CVP per battle (6000 CVPs for CW)
  
• This value is modified by salvage CVPs / 12 gained when you are victorious
  
• Each Mech got its own CVP income (say 25% of its cost) per battle
  
• Each MechBay increases the CVP income – but with degression (+10 for the 5^th +0.1 for the 100^th )
  
• Each MechBay cost maintenance -0.1 CVP
  
• Remaining CVPs after all Mechs are repaired can be exchanged for CBills

Conclusion

This is currently a rough sketch. It will need time and spreadsheet warriors to calculate and balance all those values. To get a finished picture. Currently i think it can work but I'm scratching just the upper layer.
To admit I won’t waste any more time when the idea is absolute repulsive. (i know i should not have writen this sentence)

Anyhow I would gladly accept some more input – and if you want to calculate the CVP costs and don’t have a tactical handbook I may provide some data.
For example increase the cost for the AC2 and the ammunition in general. Balance costs for destroyed limbs and torso sections.

The good
With a 4^th value it is not linked to rewards and should not be able to be bought with MCs.
It adds some profundity in MWO.
CASE and XL make some sense
Serious hard to balance issues like can be managed in this level of MWO

The bad
It discourages defensive twisting because you spread damage and increasing your repair costs. That could result in the creation of “cheap” tanks like the Crab or Black Knight – and expensive glasscannons like the Hunch IIC or JaegerMech
It also may discourage valor.
Or encourage suicide rushes with cheap Mechs to get CVPs in case of a victory by salvage

Edited by Karl Streiger, 08 October 2015 - 10:12 PM.

[Hotthedd]

I really like the immersion this would add to the game.

A couple of minor suggestions:

-Allow CVP to be converted to C-bills (like you suggest), but not C-bills or MC to CVP.
-Be able to use CVP on a "Black Market". For example, only CVP could be used to purchase weapons, equipment, or 'Mechs that you could not normally access. Wheteher this would be a chassis produced on a Steiner planet, but you are aligned with Kurita; or (gasp) MixTech as the timeline progresses.
Ammo, equipment, and 'mechs that your faction has access to could be paid for in any currency.
(Of course we would need CW to mean something for that)
-Only the winning team receives "salvage" CVPs, therefore spreading damage to your 'mech becomes worthwhile if it increases your teams' chance to win.

[Spleenslitta]

I can see the hard work you put into this so i threw in a like as something extra. I don't have a head capable of anything beyond basic math so i won't make any suggestions.

[Sjorpha]

I'm sorry, I just simply don't want R&R in MWO. And I don't like the idea of a new currency.

For upcoming single player campaigns there should obviously be R&R, but for multiplayer I'd rather have the "magic" repairing we have now. Because even if it is unrealistic it allows players to be on equal terms each game and to launch the mech they want without worrying about extra micromanagement.

But on the other hand I would VERY much like to see game modes of linked missions where damage would carry over between them, especially for CW. For example a series of scouting missions where you have to manage the same dropdeck with damaged mechs to complete all of them, and same for the defenders. It wouldn't be exactly R&R but it would give the same kind of immersion within a set of missions in a specific game mode. I thing that could be fun.

I would also very much like to see logistics and global economy for CW. Again maybe not for R&R because I think it would get too elitist and punishing against bad players, but it would be for things like transporting mechs between planets, creating defences, setting up for sabotage missions and whatnot.

Repair time might be interesting, again as a CW feature. If your mech is damaged it stays in the hangar for repairs a certain time and you'll need to adjust your dropdeck until it's done.

My whole problem with the R&R concept is that I don't like the idea of punishing bad players for losing more and needing more repairs, it's already very harsh to be a new/bad player in this game. If there is to be any concept of R&R implemented I would vote for keeping that strictly in CW, since that is supposed to be hardcore realism mode (lol, I wish...) and hopefully will reach a state in the future where that is actually true.

[Night Thastus]

Sjorpha, on 10 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

"For upcoming single player campaigns..."

My sides! Someone call a doctor! I'm dying!

But no, seriously. "Upcoming" is a really, really bad word to use.

Let's just say 90 days.

90 days from now, it'll launch in 90 more days.

Etc, etc.

[Karl Streiger]

Sjorpha, on 10 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I just simply don't want R&R in MWO. And I don't like the idea of a new currency.

For upcoming single player campaigns there should obviously be R&R, but for multiplayer I'd rather have the "magic" repairing we have now. Because even if it is unrealistic it allows players to be on equal terms each game and to launch the mech they want without worrying about extra micromanagement.

...

My whole problem with the R&R concept is that I don't like the idea of punishing bad players for losing more and needing more repairs, it's already very harsh to be a new/bad player in this game. If there is to be any concept of R&R implemented I would vote for keeping that strictly in CW, since that is supposed to be hardcore realism mode (lol, I wish...) and hopefully will reach a state in the future where that is actually true.

Well i think i can understand your problem. I think the main challenge for a working RnR system is of course the player rating - when you need to run a LCT-1V just to get some extra CVPs you won't earn much in >T3 level.

While at the first glance a player skill rating seems to be logical - because it includes several factors one of them is the BattleMech - this system can not be synced with a RnR - you are absolutely right. You have to run the best tech available to stay at the top - run a cheap mech that has some flair -> you are going down in your level. (Even if your PSR is just a nice trolling attempt by PGI - because it doesn't collect representative or even valid information)

OK now about the second: no a bad player is not punished - as long as he uses the right Mech. Of course a TimberWolf would be expensive to repair - but say a Black Knight - its a though thing and even with SHS and no ES and FF upgrade you can run it decent (simple because of the heat system and the all energy weapons) - lets predict the
BL-7-KNT -stock 2448 CVPs*)
TBR-S current TierMech 1 (medium range ) - 3764 CVPs*)

*) I recognized that the costs for SHS and DHS were to low - i increased their value 10 for a SHS 30 for a DHS, FF considered as 0.375 CVP per point.

Say you earn 2000CVPs on a loose - its hard not to repair the BLKNT for the next battle - you really have to loose everything.
While you may need 2 Battles to complete repair the TBR-S. (if you loose)

I don't think that is a big problem. I did it similar in the last days of RnR - (was already OpenBeta) i had my 3 Mechs for "real" game - and some "farm" Mechs - one of those farm Mechs was a Commando 1B - even after it got complete destroyed in a loose i get 180k after the repair was done. While sometimes not even my AS7-D (F) was able to earn so much after repairs in a victory were i did not lost the Mech.

---

but as stated above - i think it could become a problem to run PSR and CVPs in the same game.
(Better to remove PSR and put Mechs in different tiers based on their "Tiers")

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 October 2015 - 01:00 AM.

[50 50]

I like the effort you have put into this post and can see value in your proposal.
I would suggest that repair and re-arm be a feature of community warfare and relate to your drop deck, not how many mech bays we might have.

If there was a form of continual fighting in the CW drops, where you needed to manage your drop deck, pick which mechs you sent in to battle, had an option to retreat.... then a detailed repair and rearm function would really add some additional depth to the mode.

For the standard matches, these are more casual and players don't want to be restricted to using certain mechs because their other ones are shot to bits.

[Vellron2005]

Rearm / repair mechanic were a part of MWO back in closed beta. Back then, it was tied to cbills, and the result was you never had enough cbills for anything.

If a fourth currency was added, maybe that would solve it, but there would always be those players who simply can't produce enough of this currency, and you would again have the same problem.. risking life and limb omnipods to fix a mech and coming up short becouse some noob on your team decided to teamkill you, or half your assault lance decided to chat instead of play and were AFK the whole match, and you got roflstomped as a result..

In a game where the success of a drop and a player's survival greatly depends on 11 other "live" players, rearm/repair mechanic is waaaay to dependent on those live players not beeing arseholes or noobs.

If the other 11 were AI controled teammates who could be expected to do their part, then it would be viable.

But "live" players are just to impredictable to count on them to actually show up for a match, and that greatly influances overall success, and by proxy, how much damage you take and need to repair.

This could ONLY be implemented as a quick in-game repair/rearm during CW matches. And then, it should work as a consumeable, costing no more than 50.000 cbills.

Edited by Vellron2005, 13 October 2015 - 12:17 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I did not had any problems with the RnR back in CB / first month OB. And i always did repair my Mechs for 100%
OK during the CB there were several tweakings of the income and repair costs with ~ 3mio C-Bills to repair my Dragon - with given income i had to play ~10 games to get it back into action. But i think it is ok to have to run 2-3 rounds in a "farm" mech when you did bite the bullet in your "best" chassis.

Yes of course other players have influence - but you can't loose all the time. And i don't see any real difference. Now your "reward" is also depended on other players. The only difference when you did loose your Assault with 20t of ammunition you simple can drop another time, and another and another..... without consequences.

Currently the balance of ammunition based chassis is of (my opinion) - when you have an Assault with 10tons of ammunition the "limitation aspect" of ammunition is a joke.
Heck i was even able to run SHS on one of my King Crabs using 4 AC5s (although it did overheat) - but damage dealt was high considering the short time i did need to waste 2t of ammunition - potential of 300dmg - and i did not even aim well... simple spray & pray - had enough ammunition didn't care.


The above figures of the Tactical Handbook - won't work well to prevent extensive ammunition use - so it need some tweaking, same for weapons. Maybe the costs per ton of ammunition should rise constantly.
For example 1t AC 5 ammunition may cost 5 CVPs, 2t 12 CVPs, 3tons 21 CVPs.

Of course such a system for weapons would be possible too, but really who did want to ride a Nova Prime?
I think Clan Omnis would be a different kind of challenge, because you can't swap engine and structure and other fixed stuff - so maybe they should be less expensive over a similar BattleMech.

---

Edit: a good idea, something we asked back in CB was a retreat button. When you know you can't win you should not stay in battle to get killed. Actually some of us are testing a kind of mini campaign, and in each mission there is a "retreat" area.
So this retreat area could be an alternative with RnR ingame - you only got money for Assists or Kills - but no reward for either loosing, winning or a tie. But you don't have to pay the full repair bill.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 13 October 2015 - 05:33 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Why not let the players choose?

Players aligned with a house or clan get lower C-bill payouts, but free repair and re-arm (like now). Affiliated players can only attack/defend planets for their house or clan.

Mercenary Players get higher C-bill payouts, plus salvage (CVPs), but must repair and re-arm out of pocket. Mercenaries can attack/defend any embattled planet.

Pirate Players get high salvage (CVPs), but very low C-bills, and must repair and re-arm out of pocket. Pirates can attack ANY planet other than Capitols.

That way everyone gets what they want.

[Lugh]

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2015 - 12:12 AM, said:

Rearm / repair mechanic were a part of MWO back in closed beta. Back then, it was tied to cbills, and the result was you never had enough cbills for anything.

If a fourth currency was added, maybe that would solve it, but there would always be those players who simply can't produce enough of this currency, and you would again have the same problem.. risking life and limb omnipods to fix a mech and coming up short becouse some noob on your team decided to teamkill you, or half your assault lance decided to chat instead of play and were AFK the whole match, and you got roflstomped as a result..

In a game where the success of a drop and a player's survival greatly depends on 11 other "live" players, rearm/repair mechanic is waaaay to dependent on those live players not beeing arseholes or noobs.

If the other 11 were AI controled teammates who could be expected to do their part, then it would be viable.

But "live" players are just to impredictable to count on them to actually show up for a match, and that greatly influances overall success, and by proxy, how much damage you take and need to repair.

This could ONLY be implemented as a quick in-game repair/rearm during CW matches. And then, it should work as a consumeable, costing no more than 50.000 cbills.

Weird. I don't remember ever struggling in CB with repair and rearm costs for anything except maybe that short period of time when you bought a new mech and needed to afford the upgrades for Awesomesauce that went along with it(endosteel, DHS etc)

Now it's totally trivial to get your mech set up however you want it in even shorter order than it was then.

[Makenzie71]

Honestly we're not looking at long term deployments, here. We're playing 15 minutes, tops, and most matches are well under 10 minutes. A player has no excuse to not be armed well enough to do this. It would also be manipulated. If I could rearm in game I could drop my dual gauss TBR to one ton of ammunition and ditch my ER Smalls for ER Small Pulses or ER Meds. I could effectively double my up close firepower and just rearm a few times in-game. As it is I'm making a serious close-range sacrifice...almost to the point of team liability...for the added ammo. And then repair? Dude I got a pair of gauss rifles...I'll just camp out by my repair/rearm point and if I take a hit...repair and rearm.

You might think that won't happen but there's no way PGI would implement a system like this without it having a pay-to-play option...and I have disposable income.

No the game, as is, has some semblance of balance. Repair/rearm would eliminate what little there is.

[Hotthedd]

Makenzie71, on 13 October 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

Honestly we're not looking at long term deployments, here. We're playing 15 minutes, tops, and most matches are well under 10 minutes. A player has no excuse to not be armed well enough to do this. It would also be manipulated. If I could rearm in game I could drop my dual gauss TBR to one ton of ammunition and ditch my ER Smalls for ER Small Pulses or ER Meds. I could effectively double my up close firepower and just rearm a few times in-game. As it is I'm making a serious close-range sacrifice...almost to the point of team liability...for the added ammo. And then repair? Dude I got a pair of gauss rifles...I'll just camp out by my repair/rearm point and if I take a hit...repair and rearm.

You might think that won't happen but there's no way PGI would implement a system like this without it having a pay-to-play option...and I have disposable income.

No the game, as is, has some semblance of balance. Repair/rearm would eliminate what little there is.

I think you are describing in-game repair and re-arm.

That is not what the OP was suggesting.

[Makenzie71]

Ah I believe I understand now...just needed to re-read from a slightly different perspective.

[Rattazustra]

Rearm and repair is pointless. All it would to is add a layer of junk. It would not make the game more complex or interesting, nor more challenging. It would not keep people from doing X or entice them to do Y. It would just punish everyone across the board for playing. On top of that, those who are good and usually winning will never even notice that the system exists, while those who are not very good will quickly be caught in a vicious circle from which they can hardly escape. Any such system is doomed to fail. Either the currency it is based on means nothing, rendering the whole system pointless, or the currency means something, breaking the back of half of the player base, but empowering the already empowered other half even further.

[Hotthedd]

Rattazustra, on 14 October 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

Rearm and repair is pointless. All it would to is add a layer of junk. It would not make the game more complex or interesting, nor more challenging. It would not keep people from doing X or entice them to do Y. It would just punish everyone across the board for playing. On top of that, those who are good and usually winning will never even notice that the system exists, while those who are not very good will quickly be caught in a vicious circle from which they can hardly escape. Any such system is doomed to fail. Either the currency it is based on means nothing, rendering the whole system pointless, or the currency means something, breaking the back of half of the player base, but empowering the already empowered other half even further.

So you would not like it personally. I agree there should be an option. What you feel is "junk", others feel as "immersion", to some it WOULD be more complex and interesting, but those like you who do not feel that way could play for a clan, and nothing would change for you. It WOULD be more challenging, if you chose to play as a mercenary or pirate, due to the higher risk/higher reward component. Again, it could be totally optional. I think that it COULD incentivize people playing as mercs or pirates from taking that expensive Artemis ammo, due to realistic cost concerns. Hell, make FF armor cheaper to repair than Std. armor, and you have a decent case for taking it in the long run. The fact is that economic incentives affect everything and everyone on a daily basis, it would in MW:O as well. But for those who do not like it, they can opt out. Nobody gets "punished". (By the way, do you feel punished when you re-buy consumables? Ammo should be a consumable.)

[rolly]

I love the idea of it and that you draw from canon source material.

I'm very pessimistic about the ability to have it implemented based on the way things are trending. Its a failed economy as it is and isn't even a free economy. If the basic mechanics - range, tech and sensors haven't been settled, this would just add to the mess. Please don't get me wrong. I like the progressive thinking, I just think this game is far from ready to even sustain a more robust economy for a forth currency. An example of a such would be Star Trek Online.

Anyhoo, great work!

[Rattazustra]

Hotthedd, on 14 October 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

So you would not like it personally.

No, I'm saying that it doesn't work.

Hotthedd, on 14 October 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

I think that it COULD incentivize people playing as mercs or pirates from taking that expensive Artemis ammo, due to realistic cost concerns.

You think that, but you are dead wrong. It is an easy assumption to make, but it only works out of paper. People simply don't think and act like that. People in general want to win and to that they use the best they can get. If that reduces their profits, it reduces their profits. Period. They simply don't care and instead they get angry about their reduced profits. This is only logical, because what you think would present itself as a choice is eventually none such. If I can choose to win with the expensive toys or lose with the cheap, I win with the expensive stuff and unfortunately that is what pretty much everyone does. I have seen it happen in game environments FAR more complex than MWO, where the loss of investment actually mattered to people a lot more and they still didn't think twice.

Hotthedd, on 14 October 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

The fact is that economic incentives affect everything and everyone on a daily basis, it would in MW:O as well.

Yes, that assumption is easy to make. It is nonetheless wrong. You assume that there is such a thing as an economy in MWO. That is the error in your concept. There is no such thing as an actual economy in MWO. Winning is everything. There is nothing you could possibly buy with money you saved, if all you have is losses.

Hotthedd, on 14 October 2015 - 07:14 AM, said:

(By the way, do you feel punished when you re-buy consumables? Ammo should be a consumable.)

Consumables are very different in a lot of ways. They do give an edge, but only if used right and only once per match. They rarely ever decide the outcome of a match. Ammunition however does. On top of that it would only punish people who use ammunition consuming weapons, which are not actually better than energy weapons. They are just different. It would just encourage people to use more energy weapons and be done with it. Not a good idea.

And yes, at Tier 1-2 and in CW consumable cost is effectively a punishment, because you need to use them when playing in a team. They are far from being optional. Everything that is not an option in a game should not cost the player.

Trust me, I do not mean any disrespect. I understand where your thoughts and concepts are coming from. Myself and thousands of others had the very same ideas at one point or another. Many still do. Yet this very issue is one of the biggest misconceptions of video game design. Like ever. Never believe in any kind of virtual economy that does not have sufficient volume and complexity to be worth it's salt. Some games have a complex economy, some have a simple economy and most games have no economy at all. MWO is such a game. Just because there are two virtual currencies doesn't mean they'd be worth jack and adding a third one changes little to nothing. The framework isn't there. It has nothing to do with immersion or make-belief. There is nothing you can build on. Nobody ever loses completely. As long as there are no ultimate losers in a game, there is no way anyone could ever win anything economically. Without attrition, there is no war of attrition. Without war of attrition, there can be no rearm and repair. The game would first have to become an entirely different game, before any of what you suggest could be made to work.

[Hotthedd]

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

No, I'm saying that it doesn't work.

We disagree. I have never been in the "this is impossible" camp.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

You think that, but you are dead wrong. It is an easy assumption to make, but it only works out of paper. People simply don't think and act like that. People in general want to win and to that they use the best they can get. If that reduces their profits, it reduces their profits. Period. They simply don't care and instead they get angry about their reduced profits. This is only logical, because what you think would present itself as a choice is eventually none such. If I can choose to win with the expensive toys or lose with the cheap, I win with the expensive stuff and unfortunately that is what pretty much everyone does. I have seen it happen in game environments FAR more complex than MWO, where the loss of investment actually mattered to people a lot more and they still didn't think twice.

Again, we disagree, and on a fundamental level. You see this game as another first-person shooter, period. From that point of view, your conclusions make sense. I believe that is a flawed point of view. MW:O is a niche game. BattleTech based games are niche games. The backbone of this game is not the leet gamer crowd, who behave and act just as you describe. The backbone of this game are the players who love the BattleTech universe. They were the first in, and will be the last out. They are the ones who will support this game financially in the long run. Does this mean that the gamer crowd needs to be left out? Of course not, and therefore the choice. And it IS a choice. And it fits perfectly within the canon of the BT universe. Playing for a house/clan would NOT limit any builds, and would allow the player to have everything in the game that they currently have. Playing as a merc merely ups the risk/reward, using a currency that can only be earned by PLAYING. Playing as a pirate would essentially be the ultimate hard core mode for those who CHOOSE to do it, due to the highest risk and potentially highest rewards. Nobody is forced to "win with the expensive stuff or lose with the cheap stuff", everybody would have access, but there could be a scenario where you would want to balance your potential losses against your potential gains.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

Yes, that assumption is easy to make. It is nonetheless wrong. You assume that there is such a thing as an economy in MWO. That is the error in your concept. There is no such thing as an actual economy in MWO. Winning is everything. There is nothing you could possibly buy with money you saved, if all you have is losses.

Well, there is no economy in MW:O RIGHT NOW, but the reason for that is partially BECAUSE there is nothing to fight for. PGI needs to create an economy (and having to pay for things is half of it). Imagine if you, as a merc, had to pay jumpship costs to attack a planet. Once you had enough C-bills, you could buy a dropship and even a jumpship, therefore cutting your future costs. Imagine that pirate units had to own their own dropship in order to attack a planet. Voila! we have endgame content and a reason for an economy. If all you have is losses, play for a house/clan. Making money is guaranteed.
Again, winning is everything for the leet gamer crowd. Immersion, and having more than just an arena shooter is everything to the BT universe crowd. At least this suggestion caters to both.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

Consumables are very different in a lot of ways. They do give an edge, but only if used right and only once per match. They rarely ever decide the outcome of a match. Ammunition however does. On top of that it would only punish people who use ammunition consuming weapons, which are not actually better than energy weapons. They are just different. It would just encourage people to use more energy weapons and be done with it. Not a good idea.

Consumables (which MW:O should not even have) give an edge, so does Artemis equipped ammo (in theory). The point being: once you use it, it is gone, and must be replaced somehow. The price could be tweaked (or if you play for a house/clan remain free). PERHAPS mercs and pirates would use more energy weapons, due to the cost of ammo, but again the balance of risk/reward comes into play.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

And yes, at Tier 1-2 and in CW consumable cost is effectively a punishment, because you need to use them when playing in a team. They are far from being optional. Everything that is not an option in a game should not cost the player.

There are no tiers in the CW queue. I have been there, done that, and done quite well. I am in a unit, and am aware of everything that comes along with organized team play.
You say that everything that is not an option should not cost the player. You say that consumables in CW are not an option. So you think consumables should be free in CW? It seems like you have no qualms paying to reload that UAV or arty strike smoke canister.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

Trust me, I do not mean any disrespect. I understand where your thoughts and concepts are coming from. Myself and thousands of others had the very same ideas at one point or another. Many still do. Yet this very issue is one of the biggest misconceptions of video game design. Like ever. Never believe in any kind of virtual economy that does not have sufficient volume and complexity to be worth it's salt. Some games have a complex economy, some have a simple economy and most games have no economy at all. MWO is such a game. Just because there are two virtual currencies doesn't mean they'd be worth jack and adding a third one changes little to nothing. The framework isn't there. It has nothing to do with immersion or make-belief. There is nothing you can build on. Nobody ever loses completely. As long as there are no ultimate losers in a game, there is no way anyone could ever win anything economically.

No disrespect inferred. Again, you state that MW:O needs an economy for this to work, but I counter that this GIVES us that economy. Not only that, but it gives us an economy that those who do not want to participate do not have to. And those not competing in the marketplace do not affect those that do. It has EVERYTHING to do with immersion, there is plenty to build on and strive to get, it IS possible to lose money, but there is always the option to work for a house/clan if you want the safety net.

Rattazustra, on 15 October 2015 - 05:33 AM, said:

Without attrition, there is no war of attrition. Without war of attrition, there can be no rearm and repair. The game would first have to become an entirely different game, before any of what you suggest could be made to work.

That is a circular argument.
Repair and Re-arm IS the attrition.
The game needs to become an entirely different game, economically at least, or it will die. All we have is a first (and third) person arena shooter with customization. That is not enough to compete with the big boys. The gamers will eventually flock to the next shiny FPS out there, and the BT fans will limp along waiting and hoping that the next developer to pick up the banner will aim higher than 'minimum viable product'. It may take another 10 years, but it WILL eventually happen, because the money is there for the studio that has the vision to see it through.

[Khobai]

earnings are too low as is

dont need a repair/rearm tax making it even lower