36 replies to this topic

[ArmyOfWon]

V 1.0
Section 1: A Observation of Current Economic Problems and a quick analysis on what causes them.

Section 2: An in depth analysis of an economic system that seeks to fix the problems of the current one.

V 1.1
Addendum: An in depth analysis of the current economic system, and how it fosters the problems we currently see.

V 1.1.1
I realized that there are such "Zero Risks" Mechs already in the game. "Trial Mechs" I have edited how "Zero Risk" or "Trial Mechs" would alleviate some NPE problems people see

V 2.0 Section 3: The New Player Experience
How NPE should change (for the better)

This thread is intended to foster discussion on how risks, rewards, and repair costs should factor into each other within the scope of the current game. That is to say that the notion of Community Warfare should not be considered when making an argument. Yes, this is a Beta, and CW may or may not change how we look at the game's economy, but let's not use that argument in order to ignore the current state of things.

There are lots of words in this post. If you make a comment without reading the entire post while still critiquing my views, you will be called out on it. If you disagree with any of the following, please state exactly what you disagree with and why.

Edit: If you do get tired of reading, at least go to the "Putting it all together" spot. If you want more details on any one of those numbers, the explanations are in the post.

Section 1: Observations of the Problems of the Current Economic System and a Quick Analysis of what causes them.

The Problem

I'm sure you've seen them, those who farm CBills. Afkers, Suicide runs, unarmed and unrepaired pieces of junk sitting back at your base. 35 ton piles of scrap that give the other team another Jenner to harass your team.

The Cause

Simply put, the structure of the game's reward system. Here's a quick breakdown on how the game (effectively) rewards players:

70k for showing up.
10k~20k for Personal Performance (for those that play)
30k + Salvage (30k~40k) for being on the winning team (a farmer's dream)

Every player that walks into the battlefield is guaranteed 70k. Every. Single. One. Unless PGI has made sweeping general changes (afk detection, a general rule for "suiciders," as a note: How would you be able to detect suiciders? It could just be a genuinely bad scout that gets caught in a group of good cicadas. Would you punish someone for being bad instead of malicioius?) we will treat everyone as gaining this baseline 70k.

Similarly, everyone that actually plays the game will earn a similar personal performance reward. Damage, kill shots, team work, will all be put into one category of rewards, as you will get these (if you play the game) whether you win or lose.

Now, the only difference for anyone on the battlefield in potential earnings (farmers and players alike) is that of the Winning bonus and Salvage, which (within my experience) averages out to about 70k.

Now on to the repair costs. This value varies greatly between one build and another. My 4G only has about 30k R&R whereas my Cent-D can have upwards of 100k on a bad day (usually 90k average). Not only this, but I have seen repair bills on larger Mechs of 215k! Two-Hundred-Thousand! To be honest, I do not know the build, or its viability and contribution to the team, but (assuming that it is indeed a credit to the team) that repair bill is roughly 3 times the possible profit. If that build is balanced and viable on the battlefield, R&R would make the build extinct, depriving the battlefield of diversity.

Section 2: An in depth analysis of an economic model that seeks to correct the problems of the current economy.

The "Perfect" Economy:

This will just describe how I see the "Perfect" economy. A Magical place where everyone repairs and rearms, because it's in the best interest of the team and themselves. Where those that run "expensive" builds and "cheap" builds alike lose money on a loss, but make more than enough on a win to cover running costs. The economy that would reward the performers enough to cover repair costs (within, say, 10% of their repair cost) so that if you contribute to the team you are not penalized for losing with a team-based build.

But also an economy that encourages team-based builds and discourages nonviable builds. If you build your mech to maximize your personal rewards rather than the rewards of the team, you will die, and you will lose money. Unfortunately, this point is most lofty, and can never be achieved. But, if your team is good, then your "Personal Glory" build could inadvertently contribute to the team dynamic, therefore will be rewarded.

Those that go alone die. Those that contribute to the team are rewarded.

"But, ArmyOfWon," you ask. "How could we achieve this economy? It sounds too good to be true!"

The Proposed Solution:

Preface:
Now, this isn't an order in which to instate these changes. This economic model assumes that the changes happened far in the past, not influencing current matches. This also assumes that players don't have infinite money, or bank rolls "sufficiently large" compared with Repair and Rearm costs to be inconsequential, even with many losses in a row. We are to ignore these cases, because the are outliers in the economic model.

Now, we must first address the problem of farmers, afkers, and those unrepaired piles of scrap on the field that only serve to strengthen the other team. (Note: I am not saying that all unarmed, unrepaired Mechs do this. I have had multiple people tell me that they contribute to the team and maximize team potential.) In order to do this, we must make one extremely painful (with respect to the current system, keep your mind open for an entire new system) decision.

We must ABOLISH LOSS EARNINGS.

This sounds harsh, but only because right now we are dependent upon them. The system that I propose will not have any such dependence.

but now, we must balance everything else: Personal performance, Team performance, Repair & Rearm, as well as scale these numbers vs purchases of new Mechs, weapons, and other outside influences.

Now, for the next painful change:

All Repairs and Rearms shall be 100% player responsibility

Right now, with 75% free repair and 75% free rearm, farmers and afkers actually have battle potential. They would still be rewarded in my proposed system (within the next section) without having to repair or rearm. This is not acceptable.

Now, the player would be able to make the decision how much to repair, but it would (hopefully) be within your best interest to fully rearm and repair, but you would have the choice to accept less risk for less personal/team rewards.

Next, I will make the statement that if the rewards (winning, personal performance in relationship to the team) are not worth the risks (R&R cost), then people will continue to find ways to profit with minimal R&R costs. This will lead to my second tenant of the economy.

The Rewards must be great enough in relationship to the Risk for people to Willingly accept the Risk.

Risk:

Now, if we were to compare to current numbers (where winning is 70k and Personal Performance is "Guaranteed" 20k, assuming you actively contribute to the team), then I would say that the most any team-minded build should pay in R&R is 22k. Now, if you were to run more expensive builds you may be losing around 10k for a loss (30k R&R), EDIT: I will now say that Personal Builds should NEVER be profitable on a loss, given you are an incompetent pilot, no matter how "cheap" R&R may be.

So, in these cases, your risks are not the full repair bill, but is the difference between Personal Performance/Team Performance (they should ideally be one and the same) and the repair bill. If you were to only repair 75% of your mech, then you would have only a 75% potential battle capacity, and therefore only deal 75% of what you could have in damage, battle time, absorbing damage (even those scouts that distract the Assaults take damage. Those scouts are working for the team and allowing their damage dealers to deal more damage for longer. The more damage these squirrels can take, the more they can potentially distract the enemy, the more good they do for their team. The less they repair their Mech, the less damage they can possibly take, the less risk they take on the battlefield, the less good they do for their team). Therefore, there should be a direct correlation between Repairing Percentages and Personal Performance Rewards. The more you put forward in repairing your mech, the more you can get out of a match.

For those running "Cheap" builds, they have *edit* minimal risk. Just as the farmers of today have zero risk for dropping husks and going afk. They spend zero cash on repair (no difference between personal performance and repair) and get 70k rewards. For those running "Expensive builds," they carry some risk, at the prospect of helping the team more and giving more potential to the team, therefore the team would win more often.

For those that are not competent to effectively run different classes or roles, there do exist a class of "Zero Risk" Mechs. They are called "Trial Mechs." The current implementation of these rewards breathing over learning, leading to incompetent pilots that stumble their way into their first mech purchase. The Trial Mechs should exist to teach new players HOW TO PLAY. Currently, the do nothing more than reducing risk to zero and kneecapping returns without explaining, or even showing how your teamplay helps the team. How much damage did you do? How much money would have made for spotting for that LRM? Who the hell knows in their trial mech?

Before going on I must say, Always Positive Economies are not good. EDIT: There are "Always Positive Builds" and those are the trial mechs. If you are not competent enough to contribute to the team in any meaningful way (thus reducing the number of matches you win), you should go back to the trial mechs and learn to play better. A Tutorial would also help this situation leaps and bounds. If there was gain for every single build, no matter the win or loss, then there is no risk involved with taking more expensive builds. What we must avoid, though, is punishing new players for losing. Yes, punish them for running their Jenner into the front lines of the enemy's Atlases, but don't punish them for being on the losing team.

*EDIT* Also, it should be noted, that the Max Repair Risk should be calculated for being on the Losing Team, and you contribute to the team. If you are on the winning team, Performance Rewards will be more than those on losing teams based on the fact that, well, one team did better than the other.

Risks are the difference between "Guaranteed" Income and Repair Costs.

Rewards:

So the reward for winning should be such that the risks are somewhat inconsequential, or more specifically, should be such that the risks are worth taking every single match. The maximum risk (in my proposed example, numbers can be tweaked, but the intent should stay the same) is 10k or so. For the most expensive build. That's the 215k Atlas repair that I was referring to (again, assuming it has team worth and is not "OP"). Now, the usual PUGger (myself included) has a W/L ratio of about 1:1. Hopefully in the future C3 and other VOIP will be default in the game and will allow for more skilled and team-based PUGgers to increase their winnings, compared with the Lone Wolf Pugger out for glory (when I was a newbie, I was guilty of this as well). That said, if Winnings were also 1:1 with risk, then the average PUGger would not make any meaningful progress toward any shiny, new mechs. I propose that the Winning Bonus: Repair should be between 3:1 and 5:1. Where do I get these numbers? Psychological studies have shown that a bird in the hand was worth about 2 2/3rds of birds in the bush (roughly. Unfortunately I cannot find where exactly I read that article. This article here: http://news.wustl.ed.../Pages/570.aspx describes a study that finds a bird in the hand is worth more than 10 in the bush, but that may be too much reward).

Put it all together (executive ;tldr):
No "existing" payoff, no reason to afk (in fact, punishment for afk) (0 CB for loss)
Performance Earnings ~1:1 with repair costs. (Earned regardless of win or loss)
Winnings ~5:1 with Performance-Maximum Repair (Risk)

If we were to scale these numbers against existing equipment and mech prices (from 3mil ~ 12 mil), here's how I would price the system:

Personal Performance (losing team): 10k~20k
Winnings (including Salvage AND performance due to being on the winning team): 80k~100k
Most Expensive Repairs: ~30k (still a little wiggle-room. I would even say 40k is acceptable compared with winning gains).

Winning a match would net you about 70k, (which is what the current system rewards for winning), but there are no benefits for afk or farming. In fact, the best way to farm would be to ensure that your team wins.

Addendum:
As it seems there is still some confusion over my economic structure, I will apply the same analysis of my economic structure to the one we have currently.

Loss earnings: 70k
Personal Performance (with loss and repair): 10k-15k
Winning Bonus (including extra performance due to winning team and salvage): 70k

Risk: Guaranteed Income vs Repair Cost
Guaranteed Income right now (without repair) is 70k + 75% of Potential Performance. So without putting any money down, you can still earn 80k and still lose. Compare this to the huge disparity between Repair costs. For those light mechs whose repair and rearm bills are 20k or 30k, you're still always earning 50k every match, therefore the increased chance of winning for repairing and rearming is at no financial risk for you. Now, let's compare to my personal Cent-D bill, 90k (with repair and rearm both). Even with the loss bonus and my (average loss) performance bonus I would be losing money. And my build isn't the most expensive out there. Those running Atlas builds that run 215k in repair, rearm have a huge incentive to NOT repair or rearm. No matter the bonuses given for winning, it does not compare to the guaranteed 80k of not repairing and losing vs -160k for repairing.

Reward: The difference between Winning and Losing

Right now, the difference is 30k + salvage + doing a bit better performance-wise compared to losing, which amounts to around 70k. If your R&R isn't a fraction of that, you have little reason to repair.

Effect:
Suiciders, unrepaired mechs, and afkers abound. Earning 80k by doing nothing is much easier than maybe earning 70k more. If you do nothing, you should earn nothing.

Section 3: NPE
People have voiced concerns over the New Player Experience problems that this economic model seems to create. These problems exist in the current economic model as well, they are just covered up by (how I've come to call it) "Breathing Rewards."

The game rewards New Players for existing without teaching them how to actually contribute to the team.

That is a big statement, and if you don't agree with it, please, speak up. Following that tenant, here is how the NPE fits into my model.

Trial Mechs, the "Zero Risk" testing ground

There are exactly zero risks to piloting a Trial Mech. None. No repair, No rearm. Nothin. If the current "breathing reward" was to be replaced with "Pilot Skill Rewards" as we see on our personal mechs, the following would occur:

New players would learn what contributes to teamwork by directly earning money for their effort.

This is even without a proper tutorial too! For Basic Gameplay aspects, I think it would be quite obvious that "Shoot your gun at enemy mech earns more money than walk into wall" for even the most green newbie. Now, that doesn't mean that the unintuitive aspects to team work (spotting, for example. I didn't even know about "R" target for the longest time) will be laid out for them. A Proper In-Game tutorial (not a youtube video) would educate on the other more subtle aspects that we've come to know and love about MechWarrior games.

Combining a tutorial with Skill based rewards for "Trial Players" would foster learning and team work a thousandfold compared with the current system.

Now, this post was mainly to lay out a general template for the economy. As I have said (and will say again) Numbers can change, the relationship between numbers should not, and most importantly, we need to let go of the idea that "We need breathing money."

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[Taryys]

I did not read your whole post, but what I did read sounded good. We have similar ideas.

I cover some of this here:

How To Reduce The Grind And Create A Great New User Experience

[Mercules]

If you abolish Loss rewards you will simply increase the distance between the "Have"s and "Have Not"s. Why would we pay C-bills to change equipment in our mechs? Because it makes them more effective. If it makes them more effective than those who have C-bills to spend on those changes will likely be more effective. If you only gain C-bills by being effective or lucky then you will have an even harder grind before you, ESPECIALLY for new players once the rest of the player base is established and has their mechs tweaked.

Your performance reward would not be earned because some mechs just won't "perform" as well as others. What doe we use for a basis on the reward? Damage? Some mechs are not built to deal damage but contribute in other ways. Kiils? Some mechs don't tend to get a lot of kills? Base Captures, Kills, Damage, Spotting, and more? Believe it or not right now a speedy Centurion could do it all and possibly be a superior earning mech for such things. Could get kills and damage with an good weapon load out, be fast enough to touch the opponent base for the capture and can spot just as well as anyone else.

A light or assault would be good in either area but not both most of the time. Instead you would get a fest mech that runs around the outside, touches the enemy base, and then suicides or just plain AFKs at that point.

I guess I am saying no matter what you put forth you are going to get those that will find the loophole and exploit it.


The things I agree with in the post:
1. Rearm/repair needs to drop or go away. 25% seems fair in case someone really does run out of money.
2. The amount you get for just dropping should probably be reduced and rolled into other rewards, but NOT eliminated. I still have an issue with this because I could show up in a dedicated scout and contribute heavily to the game. This isn't as likely right now but eventually ECM and other systems will be going in that will make a mech that might never fire a shot contribute to team success in other ways. Some of those are going to be very hard to measure and thus reward.

[Shirefolk]

I would like to say that there are some interesting ideas there. I do dislike the issue of taking the super-expensive builds and bringing them so far down that you are guaranteed lots of money if you win. Even if you lost everything on your super-expensive build. The point of those builds is that they are for coordinated play when you are out to win at all costs. I do think that they are too expensive at the moment for serious consideration, especially given the current limitations.

What are your thoughts on a different system? This one is stolen from the game League of Legends. I am not sure it could be implemented properly here due to a different death mechanic. But it is just another idea to float around.

Instead of getting rewards based on contributions and having repair costs, eliminate both. Game play is rewarded via the enjoyment of the game. Losing teams enjoy battles that feel close. So, the longer the battle goes, the more reward they get. The shorter the battle, the more reward the winners get. Then have them scale between caps and adjusted.

Now you promote people playing the best build possible.You also have people playing the best strategies possible to maximize their rewards. You would need some AFK detection and reward them nothing. And I argue that, while different, DCing is the effective same as AFKing. But the system needs to be fixed before it is implemented so that people are not constantly DCing.

[Sandpit]

You had me at,

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

Where those that run "expensive" builds and "cheap" builds alike lose money on a loss, but make more than enough on a win to cover running costs.

I still don't feel that ammo costs need to be adjusted at this point as it helps diversify the battlefield a bit. My opinions on economy being a bad overall balance tool in general aside, it's what we have at the moment.

This is the first economy example I've seen that doesn't involve everyone making more money every game. I still don't think the economy needs to be fixed BUT I will state I think you have one of the best alternative ideas I've seen to the current economy if the Devs decided to change it.

[Vermaxx]

It seems like you contradict yourself, when you call for a 70k "show up" payment, but we get paid nothing for losing.

No one is going to support a game where a loss pays absolutely nothing and therefore even COSTS money after repairs. Trial mechs aren't even viable then because you can't make money at all unless you win.

You can't have an economy totally devoted to winning in a game that caters to free players. If this were a subscription game with a way to go grind currency in PVE, that's one thing. If you get paid absolutely nothing for PVP unless you win, people will quit.

Some people just won't win a lot. VOIP, teamwork, nothing will help. This model tells those people to find some other game to spend their money on. It won't work, because MWO needs terrible people who believe that if they buy ONE MORE MC MECH, they will be good.

I agree repairs should be mandatory, therefore the repair mechanic needs to be removed. Make it happen on the pay screen. Make it 100%, no compromises. This saves them the time of programming in 'faulty equipment' quirks for when your items are damaged down to 25% or whatever threshold they've picked. Boating ammo is your own problem, but there is a delicate balance needed to keep these weapons from just getting ignored.

Pay could stand to be lower on a loss, but frankly most people aren't making a ton after losing and repairs. If repairs are mandatory, they will stop rushing to their deaths (and use trial mechs). The ones making money hand over fist are the ones who realize 75% armor and ammo is 'good enuff' for most engagements.

EDIT: I forgot AFK. They NEED to get in and deal with this. They can't stop suicide, it's simply impossible to define some playstyles as ok and some as indicative of bad behavior. People will just find the next closest thing, and before you know it we can't die in the first 5 minutes without losing our pay.

Edited by Vermaxx, 15 November 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[ArmyOfWon]

Mercules, on 15 November 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

If you abolish Loss rewards you will simply increase the distance between the "Have"s and "Have Not"s.

How do you figure? Right now Everyone gets the loss reward. Right now, its an arbitrary constant that affects everything, therefore it only truly benefits those who do not contribute to the team, therefore (as I said, it sounds painful) it must go away completely. The distance between "Haves" and "Have nots" does not change whatsoever, because both right now have the same Loss reward.

Quote

Why would we pay C-bills to change equipment in our mechs? Because it makes them more effective. If it makes them more effective than those who have C-bills to spend on those changes will likely be more effective. If you only gain C-bills by being effective or lucky then you will have an even harder grind before you, ESPECIALLY for new players once the rest of the player base is established and has their mechs tweaked.

You are correct, you spend CBills on your mech in order to make more money for yourself (or, more ideally, your team). But as your Mech gets more effective, the more Risk you take into battle. But Shiny Expensive things need not necessarily be more powerful than less expensive items. If you were to balance the risks and rewards for fielding more expensive equipment (i.e. changing tonnage, crit size, heat values, recycle times, etc) you would be winning more often, but you would be earning less money per win, and losing more money per loss.

Quote

Your performance reward would not be earned because some mechs just won't "perform" as well as others. What doe we use for a basis on the reward? Damage? [..] Kiils? [...] Base Captures, Kills, Damage, Spotting, and more? Believe it or not right now a speedy Centurion could do it all and possibly be a superior earning mech for such things. Could get kills and damage with an good weapon load out, be fast enough to touch the opponent base for the capture and can spot just as well as anyone else.

A light or assault would be good in either area but not both most of the time. Instead you would get a fest mech that runs around the outside, touches the enemy base, and then suicides or just plain AFKs at that point.

I guess I am saying no matter what you put forth you are going to get those that will find the loophole and exploit it.

That doesn't mean we should strive to close the loopholes, and yes, I specifically left "Team Performance" details out because of the differences in role warfare. Different mechs do different things, some better than others, some can do a wide variety of roles, but not as well as a specialized mech (for instance Mediums can carry more fire power than Lights but go slower, as a general rule, So Mediums would do more damage, get more kills, than a light, but a light can be a more effective scout, distraction, or back-capture than a Medium. Some Mediums can fill roles that scouts do (I run a cent-D and I do find it very nice in terms of speed, survivability, and firepower, but lights can still be faster than me and work better as distractions to an enemy Atlas than I can).

We would have to find a balance within "Personal Performance" such that different activities are weighted differently and that a successful team player would earn about the amount of their repairs.

That light that runs to the enemy base and afks? He would get killed pretty quickly by any enemy around, no? If the reward for capture assist were scaled with how much of the base you captured as well as not weighted as high as Spotting, Damaging, Killing, or Assisting, capture then afk would not cover the cost of repair, therefore not be profitable for the afker.

Quote

The things I agree with in the post:
1. Rearm/repair needs to drop or go away. 25% seems fair in case someone really does run out of money.
2. The amount you get for just dropping should probably be reduced and rolled into other rewards, but NOT eliminated. I still have an issue with this because I could show up in a dedicated scout and contribute heavily to the game. This isn't as likely right now but eventually ECM and other systems will be going in that will make a mech that might never fire a shot contribute to team success in other ways. Some of those are going to be very hard to measure and thus reward.

Again, Personal Performance and Team Performance specifics are up for debate and balance, the weight of certain activities and how much one should be rewarded for each action, as far as this conversation goes, is not important. Rather a good balance between "Team Work Rewards" and "Repair Costs" should be the focus of discussion.

[Sevaradan]

TLDR can i get an executive summary pls?

[Vermaxx]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

How do you figure? Right now Everyone gets the loss reward. Right now, its an arbitrary constant that affects everything, therefore it only truly benefits those who do not contribute to the team, therefore (as I said, it sounds painful) it must go away completely. The distance between "Haves" and "Have nots" does not change whatsoever, because both right now have the same Loss reward.

That, exactly that. If you abolish the pay as it is now, YOU CREATE A DISPARITY between the two groups. Right now, even losers can eventually get shiny stuff. If they get paid absolutely zero for every loss, they will just quit rather than try hard. This is a video game, and a F2P one at that. There is no overhead motivating people to get their money's worth. If the game only caters to the people who manage to win, it will get very lonely very fast.

[Vermaxx]

The other thing I want to point out (again) is that MWO is currently a combat demo of a much larger game. There won't be as much derping around in CW because the losses directly hurt your faction.

PGI needs to spend less time "balancing" the combat beta matchmaking and player policing, and get CW done faster. THEN they can worry about how big of a problem farming is, and what is the best way to fix it.

Having a billion dollars now doesn't mean anything. It will mean something in CW when they add these half-explained money sinks and you suddenly have very relevant things to dump your extra currency on. It will also soak up a ton of the extra currency floating around on people's accounts.

[ArmyOfWon]

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

It seems like you contradict yourself, when you call for a 70k "show up" payment, but we get paid nothing for losing.

I believe you are confusing my description of the current economic landscape with my description of what it should be. Please read the post.

Quote

No one is going to support a game where a loss pays absolutely nothing and therefore even COSTS money after repairs. Trial mechs aren't even viable then because you can't make money at all unless you win.

But it doesn't have to be that way. This is a completely new system in which even trial mechs are given money for team work and are rewarded for good play. Yes, they would earn less than the owned mechs that must repair, but they are still getting money.

Quote

Some people just won't win a lot. VOIP, teamwork, nothing will help. This model tells those people to find some other game to spend their money on. It won't work, because MWO needs terrible people who believe that if they buy ONE MORE MC MECH, they will be good.

And if you're just that terrible and you don't contribute to the team at all, then you need to learn how to play better. Inclusion of a tutorial and a proper in-game community will help this.

Quote

EDIT: I forgot AFK. They NEED to get in and deal with this. They can't stop suicide, it's simply impossible to define some playstyles as ok and some as indicative of bad behavior. People will just find the next closest thing, and before you know it we can't die in the first 5 minutes without losing our pay.

They can't stop suicide or AFK, but they can make it such that if you actively suicide or AFK without doing anything towards the team you would not be rewarded. This is why the Loss Reward must be taken out completely, as suiciders and afkers are being rewarded for no input or benefit for the team.

[ArmyOfWon]

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

That, exactly that. If you abolish the pay as it is now, YOU CREATE A DISPARITY between the two groups. Right now, even losers can eventually get shiny stuff. If they get paid absolutely zero for every loss, they will just quit rather than try hard. This is a video game, and a F2P one at that. There is no overhead motivating people to get their money's worth. If the game only caters to the people who manage to win, it will get very lonely very fast.

THEY DON'T GET NOTHING. For those that contribute to the team, they will earn money. There should always exist a "cheap" build for any role such that a loss does not mean no profit. These "cheap" builds won't be earning CBills at the rate that "expensive" builds that contribute to winning teams make, but it will never be negative.

[Vermaxx]

Look, I really got lost in your brick.

How much, NET, do you want the average participating player to make on a loss?

That includes repairs, rearms, and no 'free money' payment.

Edited by Vermaxx, 15 November 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[Holem]

I do think there needs to be a "fix" to the current system. Especially when we were told that piloting a light and an assault will basically be the same in terms of repair and income.

We were also told that this is a horizontal tree and mech sizes contribute equally to the matches. As it stands, there is a "ladder" in that light mechs are cheaper to buy/maintain while Assaults are pricey and income is the same. There is no incentive for Assault mechs and that's a problem too.

Based on your current plan, it caters to one group: lances since they win the majority of the time. In the short term, its a great idea. In the long term when your lance mates/friends gets bored with the game and leave. You'll start to lose and also quit playing since mixed PUG loses to lances. (WoT was quoted saying that more than 3 in a Platoon/lance over influence 15 man matches. 20% of the team.) Think of what 4 of 8 do?

There is one thing a lot of people here forget and that it is new (good/usually bad) players non-paying players plays a HUGE part in making this game successful. The reason is that the more populated the games, the more even MM can be, the more targets for us paying/supporting players to shoot at and the more reason for the company to continue development. Haven't there been times where you quit playing a game and then get pulled in because another friend just found out about it?

My proposed solution to the problem is to adjust what you said but a lot less emphasis on not paying for losses. I know that I'd hate to run a pricey mechs and then grind trial mechs just to keep my favorite ride going. A little loss for a FF, DS, ESS, XL mech is fine but having a bill that can basically pay for an entire mech is a bit much.

[ArmyOfWon]

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

Look, I really got lost in your brick.

How much, NET, do you want the average participating player to make on a loss?

That includes repairs, rearms, and no 'free money' payment.

I don't think I can quite give a number based on those conditions, you must also consider how expensive the build is. For the cheapest builds (Say, all Laser Jenner scout) your repair bill would be 5k-10k, whereas if you were effective in your role you would be earning 15k-20k for a Loss due to your team contribution. Net for those players would be always positive, for running builds that carry less risk than more expensive builds, therefore carry less winning potential than a more expensive build within the same role.

If the Cheap Jenner were to win, I am just generally lumping in the difference in performance between loss performance and win performance into the "Winning bonus"

For the more expensive, risky builds, you would have larger winning potential (not OP or completely head-stompingly better) you would be running ~40k on the repair and rearm, but still only be earning ~20k for your team benefit. In fact, you may be earning more than that, 25k as just a number, so you are contributing to your team more, but you are still losing money on your loss.

[ArmyOfWon]

Holem, on 15 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

I do think there needs to be a "fix" to the current system. Especially when we were told that piloting a light and an assault will basically be the same in terms of repair and income.

We were also told that this is a horizontal tree and mech sizes contribute equally to the matches. As it stands, there is a "ladder" in that light mechs are cheaper to buy/maintain while Assaults are pricey and income is the same. There is no incentive for Assault mechs and that's a problem too.

Based on your current plan, it caters to one group: lances since they win the majority of the time. In the short term, its a great idea. In the long term when your lance mates/friends gets bored with the game and leave. You'll start to lose and also quit playing since mixed PUG loses to lances. (WoT was quoted saying that more than 3 in a Platoon/lance over influence 15 man matches. 20% of the team.) Think of what 4 of 8 do?

There is one thing a lot of people here forget and that it is new (good/usually bad) players non-paying players plays a HUGE part in making this game successful. The reason is that the more populated the games, the more even MM can be, the more targets for us paying/supporting players to shoot at and the more reason for the company to continue development. Haven't there been times where you quit playing a game and then get pulled in because another friend just found out about it?

My proposed solution to the problem is to adjust what you said but a lot less emphasis on not paying for losses. I know that I'd hate to run a pricey mechs and then grind trial mechs just to keep my favorite ride going. A little loss for a FF, DS, ESS, XL mech is fine but having a bill that can basically pay for an entire mech is a bit much.

A win doesn't anywhere near pay for an entire mech. I'm keeping the mech pricing the same, and it turns out that your winning bonus is about the same as it is now. Yes, Lances will have a larger W/L ratio than a Pugger group, but the average Pugger will have a 50/50 W/L ratio. If the W/L ratio is 50/50, this plan will have you earning money very regularly. In fact, if W/L ratio is 1/3 you would still be winning money, even with an expensive build where you lose money on a loss.

Edit: I leave some numbers ambiguous for a reason. In fact, I just say across the board "cheap" or "expensive" builds, not "Lights" or "Assaults." R&R vs Team Rewards would need to be re-worked such that a "cheap" assault that assists the team just as much as a "cheap" light.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Vermaxx]

Yes, you can easily spit out numbers because you've come up with them already.

If you haven't, you are just spouting off half a solution.

With premium, I average 150k per mission (according to my stats, sold one mech, some parts, but buy extra engines or MORE EXPENSIVE PARTS when I do). It's probably pretty accurate.

IF I WERE TO REPAIR, my costs are between 30-60k depending on the mech. I won't factor in Artemis because it seems worthless on SRM and I've just been too cheap to pay the 500k to remove it. If I had to pay Artemis ammo, I'd remove the system.

So, let's say I make 150k, subtracting 30-60k. I make 120-90k.

Without premium, I'd start out around 75k. SO, I'd BE MAKING 45-15k per mission.

Is that too high in your new model? Because if it isn't, all they have to do is make repairs mandatory.

[ArmyOfWon]

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Yes, you can easily spit out numbers because you've come up with them already.

If you haven't, you are just spouting off half a solution.

You've never really dealt with Math Proofs, have you?.... but anway

Edit: Besides, the numbers are not important. The Relationships between the numbers are. My proposed plan still has winnings on par of what winnings are right now, so right now the relationship between winning gains and weapons and equipment and mechs are the same, while cutting out as much afk, suicide cheese as possible.

Quote

With premium, I average 150k per mission (according to my stats, sold one mech, some parts, but buy extra engines or MORE EXPENSIVE PARTS when I do). It's probably pretty accurate.

IF I WERE TO REPAIR, my costs are between 30-60k depending on the mech. I won't factor in Artemis because it seems worthless on SRM and I've just been too cheap to pay the 500k to remove it. If I had to pay Artemis ammo, I'd remove the system.

So, let's say I make 150k, subtracting 30-60k. I make 120-90k.

Without premium, I'd start out around 75k. SO, I'd BE MAKING 45-15k per mission.

Is that too high in your new model? Because if it isn't, all they have to do is make repairs mandatory.

If all they do is make repairs mandatory, they will grab the smallest commando with the smallest engine and the cheapest weapons and no armor and afk still. The problem has not gone away, only evolved. Loss rewards MUST go away in order to fix this problem. The rest of the economic model is based of this fact.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Vermaxx]

So, the commando who goes AFK gets detected by the magical detection bot and suspended. Or the player ACTING LIKE A BOT gets reported (when they put in a _+@*&$_@&$ REPORTING OPTION). The detector is supposedly already in the works, and they already want you to report people for botting, they just don't make it easy.

With mandatory repairs, the average credit farmer is going to stop. Yeah, he could buy a light mech or put in the bare minimum of everything. Someone is going to figure that out when they target him and he is naked and armorless, and theoretically use the ticket system to report him.

You can't create a fix that someone doesn't find a way around. People who want to farm credits will find a way. Even on fully team supported pay, someone would just run around hiding and spotting people, sniping minor damage, etc. It wouldn't stop him from "farming," matches would just take longer. You are never going to force someone like that to participate.

This is the combat demo. Stop stressing the economy in the combat demo. They have plenty of ways to totally shart the real economy up if we ever make it to release.

The other point of view is that PGI doesn't care about the farmers as much as we do. They aren't playing the game for enjoyment. Either you are on a PUG, and you get some number of wanks; or you are in a premade and your four doods can carry the match. One side cares absolutely nothing about AFK players. The other does, but they were probably going to lose anyway. I've seen matches start lopsided, and then one guy insta-disconnects. I've never personally seen a team with more than 2 AFK of some sort. Sure, I believe it happens. Not often enough for them to make sweeping changes to the pay, just to the player input detection.

There is no ticket system in game, which means we have to either keep an email window open on one monitor (or in the background) and hastily compose one while playing or just after. Considering there has never been a ticket system in game, I have never really believed in their wholehearted interest in instant feedback.

[ArmyOfWon]

So far each and every single one of your suggestions attempts to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem.

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

So, the commando who goes AFK gets detected by the magical detection bot and suspended. Or the player ACTING LIKE A BOT gets reported (when they put in a _+@*&$_@&$ REPORTING OPTION). The detector is supposedly already in the works, and they already want you to report people for botting, they just don't make it easy.

I'm not exactly sure what the second half is supposed to mean, the player acting like a bot? What does that have to do with suiciders, farmers, and afkers? I suppose you're trying to make the argument that there are farmers out there that use bots, and that there are some people that aren't good enough to not look like a bot that's trying to emulate a player? If you could please clarify exactly how you use a botting player as an argument for the current system and not mine. I'm all ears.

Quote

With mandatory repairs, the average credit farmer is going to stop. Yeah, he could buy a light mech or put in the bare minimum of everything. Someone is going to figure that out when they target him and he is naked and armorless, and theoretically use the ticket system to report him.

Again, symptom treatment, not cause. Besides, with ticket systems, there is potential for abuse on the other side as well. Why are the farmers farming in the first place? Would it be perhaps to run the more expensive builds that benefit the team that aren't currently economically viable in this system? Or do they just want to hoard money? Either way, it shouldn't happen in the first place.

Quote

You can't create a fix that someone doesn't find a way around. People who want to farm credits will find a way. Even on fully team supported pay, someone would just run around hiding and spotting people, sniping minor damage, etc. It wouldn't stop him from "farming," matches would just take longer. You are never going to force someone like that to participate.

That doesn't mean that we can't strive to make it the best we can. If there is no reason for farmers to farm CBills, then they won't. In my system, the best way to "Farm" Cbills is to Win your matches. Would you call those working within a system to maximize profits for themselves and their team "Farmers"?

Quote

This is the combat demo. Stop stressing the economy in the combat demo. They have plenty of ways to totally shart the real economy up if we ever make it to release.

If this was purely a combat demo, then PGI would not have R&R, or prices on mechs or equipment at all. The economy is in because PGI wants to test how the economy works, and how to balance R&R vs rewards and risks.

If you work within the system, most people find that R&R is very balanced. But for a large minority (Read: Any LRM user, Artemis or not) have found that their Rearm bill is not worth the personal benefit to themselves. And it is far too easy to game the system to farm for CBills.

Quote

There is no ticket system in game, which means we have to either keep an email window open on one monitor (or in the background) and hastily compose one while playing or just after. Considering there has never been a ticket system in game, I have never really believed in their wholehearted interest in instant feedback.

Question: Do you or do you not want to make this game better? Do you, or do you not, agree that the current implementation of the economy is not acceptable? This is (as the developer insists) a Beta. Beta Testers are here to provide input on how they feel the game could be improved, no? If you don't think the dev doesn't want feedback, then why do you continue to argue with me? If the dev doesn't want feedback, then they wouldn't be reading the forums, therefore our argument is meaningless.

I hold a slightly less pessimistic view on the devs, and I do believe they listen to community concerns and suggestions.... most of the time. Hopefully they're listening now.