101 replies to this topic

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

I don't know why you don't read the thread and, consequently, post like an ID10T when I have clearly laid out my strategy, which is very active, and is evident by my scores.

PropagandaWar, on 28 November 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

I dont know why do energy/ ballistic users like myself have to really aim to hit rather than hide and hold down fire? You over P-I-M-P your mech you pay the price for it.

Edited by Killkie, 28 November 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Buzz Litebeer]

Wait, isnt this good? This brings economics to the game! I love reading about this stuff, makes me itch to get enough cbills to start purchasing mechs and there being actual clan matches.

This kind of economics in a game is great, it says that if you TRULY want to win, and are willing to sacrifice, you can buy up that uber min/max mech and play with it.

Sure, you aren't taking your fancy dancy uber mech in pub play, but in a clan match... You suck the cost up of your Cbills and roll with it!

One of the things I have been enjoying in this game is seeing the large variety of mechs, I myself use a trial one currently as I am trying to get better at the different weapons before I buy something. (IE I am using them for their intended purpose).

But every game has a wide variety of mechs because of the economics + different maps.

In a game like MWLL, everyone knew what map was coming, and would pick the min/max mech for that map (no customization in that game).

So, if you were in a hot map, you took an ammo mech, cold map, you take a laser OP mech, a mid range type of map, you take X mech etc....

Now you see people getting into games, lots of different ranges, variety, it is awesome.

In clan matches you will see people running around in the super awesome catapult of jesus doom SSRM and Gaus (or whatever) but in regular games you get the variety needed for fun as well, and you follow that guy around who has the custom atlas, he earned it or paid for it, but it is going to rock

/me has enthusiasm

[CMGrendel]

This thread is increasingly lol...

Cbills are only an issue if you need to progress. If you're playing for personal kills (i,e, taking a large hull and stuffing it full of top of the line gear) you can't start crying because you're not getting rewarded for having the best gear. Why should you get more than the Jenner pilot who gets 19 damage and two assists whilst dancing around the enemy non-stop for 10 minutes?

So, is this a discussion about progression? Or balance?

Because the two are totally different discussions, otherwise you'd have the boars from Elwyn Forest filling the internet with howls of outrage that they are unbalanced vs adventurers.

If you ARE talking about the fact it's harder to progress as you advance, well, welcome to MMOs! But seriously, whilst the system might need fine tuning, it's not bad.Running missile boats (catas), I break even on a loss and make a profit on a win. Then again, I'm running purely IS tech. Think of it as you choosing to convert your CBills to Mech XP and GXP.

If you are talking about balancing C-Bill income in a game that's ultimately about team Vs team warfare, if both teams are fielding their most **** gear, then, as long as the TEAM that wins is making a net profit, it's fine.

[stVillain]

Quote

[color=#959595]Sure. I ran a Mechwarrior RPG campaign for years. Believe me, I stuck my nose in the [/color]Mercenaries Handbook[color=#959595] plenty.[/color]

[color=#959595]Surprisingly enough, when we got to the point where people could use Artemis and did- they also had the brains to demand (and get) a bit more for their reload costs. Why? They were providing better equipment, they deserved better pay for it- the same way you put more into a merc contract when you hired a lance of assault 'Mechs vs. a lance of 20-ton [/color]Wasps[color=#959595]. MWO lacks that whole "If you're a unit that takes more money to keep on the field, you get paid better for doing your job"- we don't throw the same money in the defense budget at a squad of infantry vs. the guy flying an F-16 around and expect it's enough to maintain the fighter the same way it does the dozen or so footsloggers. If we did, we'd have a pack of useless aircraft in no time- and if you don't pay the merc what it's worth to him to even keep his equipment working, why the heck would he work for you in the first place?[/color]

The problem there is that you presume a commander would want to spend the money using a jet on a mission that infantry could do just as well.

that is also the OPs problem

in truth we as players know by now how much we get paid each mission win or loss.

by the time a player has earned enough credits to equip artemis missiles he DOES know how much he can expect to win each match.

This isn't a sellers market. we are the goods being sold

you're in a buyers market. the buyer being the randomly generated unlimited missions that are given out to us as the players, the sellers.

you're reasoning only works if you could play this game by rejecting missions. but guess what you can't reject missions.

maybe in the future you'll be able to reject contracts....

maybe MWO will take on a more EVE like sandbox. in which case if i was in a lance or a company who did field "stupid" arty missile boat spam squads. I'd definitely only except and negotiate for contracts that paid to cover the cost.

but guess what

not the way it is.

[Kylere]

Voidsinger, on 27 November 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

However, look at the US military. Not the biggest, but the most powerful without question. That power comes with a steep price, since the US spend nearly as much on defence spending as the rest of the world combined. Remember, the bling costs, and sometimes costs and costs.

The world spends 1,735 billion, the US spends 711 Bill of that, so less than one half the defense spending. 23 nations spend more per capita on defense than the US. Of course, if the US cut spending that would mean that Japan, Israel, etc would have to increase spending and the end result would be a wash.

The rest of your points were valid, but this one was Fox newsian.

[CMGrendel]

Kylere, on 28 November 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

The world spends 1,735 billion, the US spends 711 Bill of that, so less than one half the defense spending. 23 nations spend more per capita on defense than the US. Of course, if the US cut spending that would mean that Japan, Israel, etc would have to increase spending and the end result would be a wash.

The rest of your points were valid, but this one was Fox newsian.

1735/2 = 867.5 - Half world spending

711 US spending

711/867.5 * 100 = 82%

US defence funding equals 82% of half of the world's economic budget = US spend nearly as much on defence spending as the rest of the world combined

Maybe I'm being a bit Murdoch, but what's wrong with the maths?

As for the assertion that those other territories would spend more on defence - well yes, assuming they didn't make a deal with another nation. But let's assume they pay for their own defence. Are you telling me a Galil costs more than a US made, exported, congressionally approved M4?

[Voidsinger]

Kylere, on 28 November 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

The world spends 1,735 billion, the US spends 711 Bill of that, so less than one half the defense spending. 23 nations spend more per capita on defense than the US. Of course, if the US cut spending that would mean that Japan, Israel, etc would have to increase spending and the end result would be a wash.

The rest of your points were valid, but this one was Fox newsian.

You're missing the point I was trying to make. The US has a smaller military than some nations, but is filled with top tier equipment. That makes it very expensive to run for the size.

Think or it not as "You don't go to war with the army you want, you go with the army you have."

More, "You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you can AFFORD."

That's just it. There is far too much topheavy stuff in the game. I'd like to see the average tonnage of mech per drop, because I'm sure it would be about the 65-70 mark. This game is worse than all the House Steiner jokes. Lights are in because they are speed machines, but mediums which are meant to be the backbone are marginalised.

If you can't meet the running costs of your gold-plated monstrosity, maybe you should think about what you are putting on it.

[AlanEsh]

CMGrendel, on 28 November 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

This thread is increasingly lol...

Cbills are only an issue if you need to progress. If you're playing for personal kills (i,e, taking a large hull and stuffing it full of top of the line gear) you can't start crying because you're not getting rewarded for having the best gear. Why should you get more than the Jenner pilot who gets 19 damage and two assists whilst dancing around the enemy non-stop for 10 minutes?

So, is this a discussion about progression? Or balance?

Because the two are totally different discussions, otherwise you'd have the boars from Elwyn Forest filling the internet with howls of outrage that they are unbalanced vs adventurers.

If you ARE talking about the fact it's harder to progress as you advance, well, welcome to MMOs! But seriously, whilst the system might need fine tuning, it's not bad.Running missile boats (catas), I break even on a loss and make a profit on a win. Then again, I'm running purely IS tech. Think of it as you choosing to convert your CBills to Mech XP and GXP.

If you are talking about balancing C-Bill income in a game that's ultimately about team Vs team warfare, if both teams are fielding their most **** gear, then, as long as the TEAM that wins is making a net profit, it's fine.

Great argument. Except for the part that the Jenner already makes more money (on a loss, no less) than this cbill-losing missile boat does with a win.

I'm not sure how making Definitely NOT OP LRM+Artemis mechs marginally profitable is akin to treading upon Jenners. If the Artemis+LRM combo make those mechs superior to everything out there (Gauss Cats? UAC5'fracts?, Dual AC20 beasts?), then by all means, make them profitless. But, fact is, they're not dominating, they're not better than many many other builds, but they're totally hosed by rearm costs.

That's the key... LRM+Artemis is not more powerful than the numerous other builds out there that turn wonderful profits... because they're not paying exorbitant rearm fees.

Voidsinger, on 28 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

You're missing the point I was trying to make. The US has a smaller military than some nations, but is filled with top tier equipment. That makes it very expensive to run for the size.

THEN MAKE GAUSS ROUNDS COST $50,000 PER ROUND.

[Homeless Bill]

The issue shouldn't be about how valuable LRM boats are, how much damage is being done, or any of that. The issue is that ballistics and missiles are punished severely in a way energy weapons aren't. To an extent, they should be, and it's one of the advantages of lasers. But at the point where re-arm costs are equal to winnings, things are getting ridiculous.

I've never used LRMs, and ballistics only on occasion; I'm mostly a laser man. Even though this doesn't affect me, I feel like ammo-users are getting screwed.

They need to get rid of the 75% free re-arm and drop ammo costs by 80-90%.

[canned wolf]

How many tons of LRM ammo are we talking about anyway? I know guys that use 5 or 6 tons a match and still come out positive.

[Valder]

stVillain, on 27 November 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Artemis?

if your spamming Artemis you're supposed to be loosing money...


PS.
if your spamming ARTEMIS
get a few extra tons of ammo on chasis and don't rearm...

P.P.S
I have a friend who runs an Artemis atlas. he has something like 1550 rounds of the stuff. he uses almost all those missiles every game. yes he does reck face. but his rearm bill is 150k. I see absolutely no problem with that bill.

lol, with 75% rearm I get 1500 missiles for free. If I want my full 2000 missiles, they want 120k per match. No thanks. But, with 1500 free missiles it's the easiest mech to farm money in. Founder's bonus plus it only costs 20k to refit everything but full missiles back on every match.

Too bad I don't really like playing missile boats or I'd be rich...

[Rejarial Galatan]

Kobura, on 28 November 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Why do you have Ferro and not Endo instead? Better in EVERY. SINGLE. WAY.

Gauss are half a million each. Expensive. Shots for Gauss are 2k a "PSHEW". You're driving the biggest mech with the most structure to repair.

Unfortunately I think you had that coming.

because Ferro came available first, partly because of $$ and partly because that atlas needs more slots. I have run nearly the same bloody setup since I found it in early JULY <not counting ferro/DHS mind you> even with an XL engine and NEVER went in the red before, and that was when I would lose BOTH arms, fire off 12 TONS of ammo, lose my gauss and ALL armor. something is really messed up here. I think they implemented a bad monetary scheme for the repairs, somethings are costing 1/4 of the PURCHASE price for repairs when they should be no more than 10% of PURCHASE.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

The 75% exploit is bull. We shouldn't depend on an oversight to succeed.

I mean, look. Repairing a reactor is cheaper than buying a ton of ammo. What the hell?

Valder, on 28 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

lol, with 75% rearm I get 1500 missiles for free. If I want my full 2000 missiles, they want 120k per match. No thanks. But, with 1500 free missiles it's the easiest mech to farm money in. Founder's bonus plus it only costs 20k to refit everything but full missiles back on every match.

Too bad I don't really like playing missile boats or I'd be rich...

[Prandur Everdark]

As I noted in another topic (http://mwomercs.com/...-balance-issue/), there's a huge balance issue plaguing MWO's economy.

Basically, you can't have two roles have the same importance in the game and be equally viable, and then penalize one by higher repair/rearm costs.

Edited by Prandur Everdark, 29 November 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Zirand]

I guess people just like having the trial mechs be the best income in the game. I know I love to either just chain suicide run the trial mechs for quick c-bills, and I enjoy having teammates doing just that even more (sarcasm if you couldn't tell).

The current repair/rearm costs are way too out of balance, and to be honest the way PGI handled this last round kinda makes me wonder. Missiles were pretty dang over powered so they got nerfed, now, in my opinion, instead of trying to better balance missiles, they just made it unfeasible to use and still progress without a premium account.

Personally I think they are getting a little too close to a pay to win model rather than free to play. Right now I'd say they're at pay to enjoy the game.

As a side note telling people just to use the 75% free rearm, no upgrades, or trial mechs to lower repair/rearm costs and make c-bills is just plain stupid. The way it's currently set I would bet that MWO won't go very far at all.

[Ewigan]

they are not telling that to "people".
they are telling that to i-need-that-fatlas-uber-hyper-mech-people.

my commandos run EVERY SHINY FEATURE THAT IS, and even with being completely destroyed and a complete rearm (SSRMs) i still make money on a loss.

[Zirand]

So because you're in a light mech it makes it ok, but heaven forbid playing a heavy or an assault is more to your play style.

Now just hypothetically lets say that in your commando with every shiny feature that is, you're in the red 60k for a loss and maybe make 20-30k profit for a win, unless of course you get rid of all that shiny. How happy would you be then? Just use trial mechs to make up for it, right?

[Ewigan]

No, i guess i would activate some premium time.
Cause i am obviously not clever enough to play with cost efficient mechs. and i do like the game, so i would support pgi this way.

[ConnorSinclair]

The problem with ammo costs is that they're trying to punish boaters, primarly LRM boaters.

But ammo costs aren't going to fix that, except punish legit users.

If they just got rid of the MOTHER ******* INDIRECT FIRE.
we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place, its the fact one jenner can LOS an artillery strike from his entire team and focus it on a single person. Just get rid of indirect fire and force LRM users to actually spot and risk being shot.

[Sen]

1) You don't have to start your founders time to buy activated premium time. I know from experience.

2) The Dev's need to balance the game against the CURRENT CONTENT. As there is almost no content to speak of outside a few maps and a handful of mechs, economics is the only way to get around this that *I* can see [and I'm just this guy, ya know?]

3) 75% free reload practically SCREAMS "Yes, we know, here's a bone" from the Devs.

4) Energy weapons cannot kill people without being in range and direct LoS. Your QQ attack is ineffective.

5) Streak cats