152 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

I would ask very politely that any comments about the economy being fine and/or being broken to be withheld and put into the proper threads, since it has no place here. This thread is about revampling the payment system to be rewarding and not punishing.

The following system applies only to owned mechs. Trial mechs will now be the worst earning mechs in the game. This system is based upon the current repair and rearms system currently in place.

Equipment Rating grants the following bonuses: Payment Multiplier and Salvage. The equipment rating goes from F (the worst level) up to A* (the best level). The higher the level, the more money you make. A mech will go to the next rating when they have achieved a certain percentage in upgrades. Upgrades in this context will consist of the equipment in the Upgrades Tab of Mech Lab and the customization of the mech’s load out. The Upgrades Table will start with the mech’s base Rating and go up.

Rating/Payment Multiplier/ Salvage/ Weight Class

A*-3.5/+.5%/-
A-3.0/0/.5%/-
B-2.7/0/Assault
C-2.4/0/Heavy
D-2.1/-.5%/Medium
F-1.5/-.5%/Light

Equipment Rating Shift/Upgrade Percentage

+4: 86-100%
+3: 66-85%
+2: 46-65%
+1: 16-45%
+0: 0-15%

Payment Multiplier multiplies the base amount of the contract that ranges from 1.5 to 3.5. Without mission types and employers the only thing that MW: O has is equipment rating. As you can see that a top of the line mech with all of the upgrades will make more money in a match than a non-upgraded mech. The mission has a base payout that is multiplied by the Payment Multiplier.

Salvage is how much you can recover and claim as your own. This is a percentage beginning at 0% all the way up to 100%. For MW:O I don’t have an idea on how to implement this without having ridicules amounts of cash being earned, so any help with this is appreciated.

Now this system also encompasses pilot skill levels etc... It means that bringing out the big bad Atlas or ammo dependent build makes enough to cover its costs through all of the multipliers.

For example, a stock Jenner will have an Equipment Rating of F, so its payment multiplier is 1.5 and doesn’t gain a bonus to salvage. However, if the Jenner has Endo-Steel, Double Heat Sinks, and Ferro-Fibrous Armor its Equipment Rating will shift it up by 4 which grants it a new base rating of B. This will give it a payment multiplier of 2.7 and no modifiers to Salvage. However, due to the upgrades the Jenner is now the equivalent of a stock Assault mech.

Mission Base Pay

A mission’s base pay will use a standard flat rate to start with, but is modified by the factors of the payment multiplier and salvage bonus. One of the changes with the new pay system is that playing the game is rewarded while afking through a match will earn practically nothing.

Winning a Match: 10,000
Losing a Match: 5,000
Spotting Assists: +10,000
Kills: +10,000
Kill Assists: +10,000
Capture Win: +10,000
Capture Assist: +10,000
Salvage:

For example, the stock Jenner from the previous example would earn the following on winning the match with 4 spotting assists, 1 kill, and 3 kill assists. (10,000+40,000+10,000+30,000)*1.5=135,000 C-Bills.

Now the modified Jenner would earn, using the same performance as the stock version, (10,000+40,000+10,000+30,000)*2.7=243,000 C-Bills.

This is gross profit, but when accounting for repair and rearms at an average rate of 25,000 for the stock Jenner and 75,000 for the modified Jenner their net profit would be 110,000 and 168,000 respectively.

The system now actually rewards free players for playing the game, while maintaining a forward progression within the game. Founders and premium players will still earn their current bonuses, so they will always be on top in regards to earning money in the game. That is how it should be.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 15 November 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Honestly, I'd rather people didn't bring all their super-expencive tech out all the time.
I'd rather they saved it for those important territory battles that will hopefully come out with Community Warfare.

I'd rather just see more bonuses based on your in-game contribution, rather than the majority of your money coming from simply being there.

I'd also rather the super expensive toys carried some risk to play, this would help encourage people to not run high level tech all the time, which would help keep the game from being stratified even more into the "haves" and the "have nots".

I know that if I made more money in a mech with an XL regardless of being cored I'd throw it straight in and beat up on the guys still working towards affording DHS or Endosteel on their mechs even more.

Edited by One Medic Army, 15 November 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Honestly, I'd rather people didn't bring all their super-expencive tech out all the time.
I'd rather they saved it for those important territory battles that will hopefully come out with Community Warfare.

I'd rather see more bonuses based on your in-game contribution, rather than the majority of your money coming from simply being there.

Your first comment has no place in this thread.

You didn't read the original post because the proposed system does reward in game contribution more than showing up. I suggest you read the first post then comment.

[Vassago Rain]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Honestly, I'd rather people didn't bring all their super-expencive tech out all the time.
I'd rather they saved it for those important territory battles that will hopefully come out with Community Warfare.

I'd rather see more bonuses based on your in-game contribution, rather than the majority of your money coming from simply being there.

I'd rather not put my faith into more vaporware features.

[One Medic Army]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

Your first comment has no place in this thread.

You didn't read the original post because the proposed system does reward in game contribution more than showing up. I suggest you read the first post then comment.

Here's the thing, your suggestion as a basis is that the more expensive your mech is, the higher multiplier is accorded your earnings.
I feel that that would be detrimental to gameplay for reasons outlined above.

I'm not against the other part of your plan, other than it accords significant bonuses to kills/assists, which might lead to kill-stealing on one side (and people caring about kill stealing) and Jenners running around the map hitting every mech with a tag and a small laser once to get a full 8 assists on the other.

Edited by One Medic Army, 15 November 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Here's the thing, your suggestion as a basis is that the more expensive your mech is, the higher multiplier is accorded your earnings.
I feel that that would be detrimental to gameplay for reasons outlined above.

I don't care about your feelings. If you disagree with the proposed system then use logic and facts to disagree with them not emotion.

[Arthamel]

As guy above said. As for now, if I make 3-5 kill and rest assist, doing 700+ damage, guy with 100 dmg in his atlas with 5 assists earns about 10-15k less than me. Game doesn't reward good performance, it rewards lazyness which makes people indifferent about gameplay after a while. Then they just start suicide farming.

[One Medic Army]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I don't care about your feelings. If you disagree with the proposed system then use logic and facts to disagree with them not emotion.

Simply put some things are a strict advantage in-game. They tend to cost more to repair and to have.
Putting some downside to having those items helps the people who don't have them stand a chance.

Is that simple enough?

And yeah, I'd actually like to see DHS and Endosteel cost a bit more to repair. Right now they're practically free from upkeep costs once bought.

Edited by One Medic Army, 15 November 2012 - 01:33 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Simply put some things are a strict advantage in-game. They tend to cost more to repair and to have.
Putting some downside to having those items helps the people who don't have them stand a chance.

Is that simple enough?

And yeah, I'd actually like to see DHS and Endosteel cost a bit more to repair. Right now they're practically free from upkeep costs once bought.

Still no lore based reasons and definitely no logic or facts that you have presented.

A rebuttal to your argument based upon lore. The more expensive the mech is the more they earn period and end of story. I used the information and modified it to fit MW: O from Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised). Now if you can show me in the lore/rules of TT that supports you I'd be open to hear it. Remember the title of the thread is Lore Based Earnings for Matches.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 15 November 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[One Medic Army]

Lore =/= logic.
logic =/= lore.

Lore is irrelevant when balance is considered, in Lore an Atlas is strictly better than a Jenner, so nobody should ever pilot a Jenner if they can afford an Atlas.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Lore =/= logic.
logic =/= lore.

Lore is irrelevant when balance is considered, in Lore an Atlas is strictly better than a Jenner, so nobody should ever pilot a Jenner if they can afford an Atlas.

So you have nothing to add that is relevant.

Oh, by the way, in TT this is balanced. Also, in lore an Atlas is not strictly better than a Jenner as the Jenner has the maneuverability to get behind the Atlas and stay there to win. Next!

[One Medic Army]

In TT the Atlas costs more points.
In Time of War the Atlas costs more money to buy and run.

If you are incapable of understanding any non lore arguments then think of it this way.
We're fighting for a cheapskate, he wants mechs on the field and he doesn't care which. He offers anyone who fights a flat amount, and if you want to take something big and expensive in for such paltry earnings that's your business not his.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

In TT the Atlas costs more points.
In Time of War the Atlas costs more money to buy and run.

If you are incapable of understanding any non lore arguments then think of it this way.
We're fighting for a cheapskate, he wants mechs on the field and he doesn't care which. He offers anyone who fights a flat amount, and if you want to take something big and expensive in for such paltry earnings that's your business not his.

In short, you have nothing to add. At every point you've brought up I showed you that you were wrong.

If that is your reasoning for keeping the current earnings than you will soon be alone and soon you will say, "I was a founder once." The game will not survive as there are other f2p games that actually reward players for playing.

[James The Fox Dixon]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

If you are incapable of understanding any non lore arguments then think of it this way.

I didn't notice this edit until now. Currently, PGI has implemented Lore repairs and rearms, but they didn't implement lore based earnings.

Oh, by the way, ignoring something does not mean I am incapable of understanding. That is an insult to my intelligence. You insulting me is the very reason why I'm ignoring non-lore arguments because if I didn't this thread would turn into another 30 page flamefest. If you can't make your argument without using the Lore and rules of BattleTech and have to resort to insulting another person's intelligence then you don't have anything to worthy to reply to.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 15 November 2012 - 02:41 AM.

[yashmack]

I like it simple
I did not read your entire post, way too much going on there...

[Stormwolf]

If you keep with the fiction lore then your earnings wouldn't be based on how much damage you did and how many mechs you personally killed.

You'd get a reward for any primary objectives you finished along with a bonus for secondary or tertiary objectives.


I'd personally like to see them do away with basecap and such and simply turn this into missions like; assault, defend, scout, etc. Your performance in the field would go straight into your XP pool.

The C-Bill reward should be based on what a group does since you are all essentially under the same contract. The reward would be split evenly. Some contracts should include that a employer would take care of ammo and repairs.

Edited by Stormwolf, 15 November 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Stormwolf, on 15 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

If you keep with the fiction lore then your earnings wouldn't be based on how much damage you did and how many mechs you personally killed.

You'd get a reward for any primary objectives you finished along with a bonus for secondary or tertiary objectives.


I'd personally like to see them do away with basecap and such and simply turn this into missions like; assault, defend, scout, etc. Your performance in the field would go straight into your XP pool.

The C-Bill reward should be based on what a group does since you are all essentially under the same contract. The reward would be split evenly. Some contracts should include that a employer would take care of ammo and repairs.

If the game had primary and more objectives it should work like you've said. However, with the current system implemented we're stuck with the limitations imposed for the assault mode. I did drop the earnings from damage done.

With the current system there is salvage that I have no idea on how to implement it without generating ridicules amounts of cash. Any suggestions for salvage?

[Taizan]

*trying to dance around the whole economics relatedness here*

What if it doesn't go only by weight / class but by role?

Lights get bonus for spotting targets
Mediums get bonus for assists
Heavies get bonus for destroying components
Assaults get bonus for doing massive focused damage

Also introducing a bonus to "Take command" and actually giving commands + victory

[James The Fox Dixon]

Taizan, on 15 November 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

*trying to dance around the whole economics relatedness here*

What if it doesn't go only by weight / class but by role?

Lights get bonus for spotting targets
Mediums get bonus for assists
Heavies get bonus for destroying components
Assaults get bonus for doing massive focused damage

Also introducing a bonus to "Take command" and actually giving commands + victory

I like the command bonuses and following orders. I'll try to incorporate that in and adjust the numbers to compensate.

The roles are there, but I would like to keep the weight class as the balancer.

[ForceUser]

No.

The richer you are, and the more pimped out mech you can build, the more money you get?

The rich earn more and the poor earn less as a base starting point regardless of how well you did? Then you combine that with higher rewards for things that are easily abusable?

The problem with using lore/TT as a model for payment is that lore isn't balanced all that well in the first place. Another thing is that more than half the things the payment method you are using is balanced around isn't even in the game yet or may never even be in the game.

Additionally the current rewards are balanced according to game play, and is NOT TT values like you stated. Also, this isn't TT. It's a good place to start, like they did, but they have changed and adapted it to fit the game play.

From a game play perspective, while we currently have some afk guys every few matches, your suggestion will increase that by having extremely expensive mechs afk or sabotaging the game by abusing the rewards system to get as much money as possible before dieing. Ultimately throwing matches to farm c-bils and making it even worse experience for new players.

So there you have lore (missing more than half the elements), TT(not TT values in the first place) and game play reasons why no, this will not be better than the current system and that the current system just needs a bit more refinement.

Lastly your immediate dismissal of any post you don't agree with (Including my own I predict) with 'nothing to add' 'no lore/TT based reasons' 'don't care about your opinions/feelings' and generally trying to dictate what is and is not allowed to be said in 'your' thread is amusing but ultimately transparent.

Have a nice day