61 replies to this topic

[Stringburka]

jay35, on 26 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

No, we don't want R&R back, so please stop asking. Every week or two someone asks. The opinions are the same: Most do not want it back and neither does PGI.

Next time, just search for the previous thread and you'll have your answer.

Please stop trying to ruin the game. Thanks

Uhm... the current vote is 14 "yes", 11 "no" and 4 others.

It's pretty evenly split between those wanting it back and those not. Just because your opinion is something doesn't mean most have the same opinion.

EDIT: and even if it was just 25% yes that'd still be enough of a demographic to explore why they want it back and how their wants could be satisfied.

Edited by Stringburka, 26 February 2013 - 04:41 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

No, I don't miss it.

If it comes back, I expect that my contractor offers me enough money to cover even severe losses, and/or that the game offers a method to concede teh battle to the enemy without needing to fight to death.
I also expect him to tell me beforehand what kind of opposition to expect (and pay me to bring an Atlas to deal with the enemy Assaults, or tell me that my Centurion is enough because the enemy won't have Assaults), and tell me where I am about to land, instead of having to guess whether I need my winter camo on my Jenner or my urban camo on my Hunchback. Everything else is bullsh*t. Don't try to give me pseudo-realistic economy if you don't create believable scenarios for me.

I really wonder how real world mercenaries operate? I mean, if they lose a chopper or a Humvee, who covers that loss? Would they even accept jobs where it's likely to lose such material? I doubt it.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 February 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[Adridos]

It has no sensible meaning and if anything from the lore doesn't have a place in the game, it is this.

Seriously, if you look at it from a game design perspective, it adds nothing and only makes the game unplayable for a certain groups of players.

[blinkin]

Stringburka, on 26 February 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

Uhm... the current vote is 14 "yes", 11 "no" and 4 others.

It's pretty evenly split between those wanting it back and those not. Just because your opinion is something doesn't mean most have the same opinion.

EDIT: and even if it was just 25% yes that'd still be enough of a demographic to explore why they want it back and how their wants could be satisfied.

also the other poles that have been made tend to indicate that the majority want RR back:
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Corvus Antaka]

yes, but with less cost variance. ie before we had 12K-120K repairs depending on XL engines, artemis, etc. I'd like to see it fall more like 12K - 50 K max.

[blinkin]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

yes, but with less cost variance. ie before we had 12K-120K repairs depending on XL engines, artemis, etc. I'd like to see it fall more like 12K - 50 K max.

i would like to have at least some risk associated with expensive mechs. i am frustrated that you never see anything in games anymore that is a double edged sword. you never see cursed equipment in any modern RPG, nothing ever has a penalty associated with use. that is why i liked RR, you could use a very powerful mech, but you had to decide if it was worth it.

i miss making decisions beyond which green up arrow is bigger.

[Dan Nashe]

No R & R .. I'd quit. Penalizing someone for dying penalizes certain roles .. A pilot who dies causing 4 enemies to chase him should be rewarded if it causes a win. Furthermore, artemis and assaults should not be exclusive to long time players with cbills to burn.

Losing is already enough of a penalty. But mostly I think in a team pvp game the player who dies isn't necessarily playing worse than the lrm boat or sniper. So it boils down to it creating perverse incentives to do things other than play to win.

I would not mind a bonus for taking an unpopular chassis. 10% more cbills for playing a medium if pgi finds there are too many assaults for example. Once you're in a game, playing to win still is your goal.


And trust me. The psychology of a bonus vs a penalty is huge.

The other problem is that it may not be practical to balance mech price. A 280 xl is not always better than a 280 standard. And who wants the teammate who refuses to run DHS because iy will cost them too much money?

The problem is that every qualifier you add to the matchmaker exponentially increases wait time. Elo matching? 10 seconds. Elo plus class matching? 100 secods. Elo plus class plus weight plus group size plus tech level? 20 minute queues.

Edited by DanNashe, 26 February 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[Markis Steiner]

I want R&R back.

Right now there is no downside to playing the most expensive mech in the game with the most expensive upgrades loaded out with nothing but ammunition based weapons. With a R&R bills you are forced to either rethink your build, rethink your play style, or keep a light or medium mech around to earn C-bills with.
I would suggest increasing the C-bill gain from damage done and assist bonuses, then add in armor/ammo salvage bonuses for the winning team. An option for the players to vote on a player getting extra C-bills for doing an outstanding job would be nice. This would help for those players that sacrificed themselves so the team can win. I myself sometimes tend to pull a....as I call it a "Dances with Wolves" moment, drawing the enemy's attention so my team can crest the hill.

When Clan mechs make it into the game, as it is, there is no way of stopping the game from going from Mechwarrior to Clanwarrior Online. What incentive is there to using IS mechs over clan mechs?
R&R should run at a higher rate for clan mech/tech to cut down on their use as clan tech is supposed to be rare. Make the salvage bonus slightly less for clan tech.

I would then toss in another suggestion. Make premium time cut repair bills by 25%-30% and add in a set weekend of each month to be R&R free weekends. These are just the thoughts I have had since they removed R&R. Take them with a big snow shovel of salt.

[Deathlike]

You have to fix the underlying problems first before wanting it back.

Questions you have to ask yourselves if you want it back:

Who is going to affect more and why? What is a fair penalty/cost and how do we deter those who game the system? Consideration of most/all possible cases might be analyzed.

Answer those questions first, before putting together a wishlist for a plan that must be thought through thoroughly.

Anything that requires premium time is simply a terrible answer (like the previous poster is trying to suggest).

[blinkin]

Deathlike, on 26 February 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

You have to fix the underlying problems first before wanting it back.

Questions you have to ask yourselves if you want it back:

Who is going to affect more and why? What is a fair penalty/cost and how do we deter those who game the system? Consideration of most/all possible cases might be analyzed.

Answer those questions first, before putting together a wishlist for a plan that must be thought through thoroughly.

Anything that requires premium time is simply a terrible answer (like the previous poster is trying to suggest).

all of your questions have been answered in the many different RR threads several times over.

you couldn't really game the system before (there was a bug that allowed players to bypass the system and avoid repairing mechs). cheaper mechs were less effected. poor/new players will likely be effected the least since it increases with mech value.

we don't really need to analyze anything because several iterations of the system were tested during closed beta. i used the RR system MYSELF before and i liked it.

his suggestion did not rely on premium time, that was a minor footnote suggestion that he added in.

the only thing i would really change about the last iteration of the RR system would be to increase the amount you pay for damaged energy weapons (probably needs a substantial increase).

here are my reasons for wanting RR back.

• reduces bots
  
• (eventually) balances clan tech
  
• limits number of high end expensive mechs that punish new players that do not have money or a good mech yet
  
• keeps the field mixed between expensive and cheap mechs so that you don't spend all of your time fighting one mech
  
• adds immersion to the game (makes you feel more like a real merc)
  
• brings back the challenge in the game for me

[Jack Lowe]

I went with I don't know simply because there were abuses in the original system. However as I believe has been mentioned for metagame purposes CW something along the same lines would probably be ok. Aside from the fact R&R needed a major overhaul one of the problems was the concept was introduced to soon. It belongs with CW and probably needs to be introduced in a more subtle fashion. Otherwise I have no problem with it it's a simple part of a living economy and immersive experience.

[blinkin]

Jack Lowe, on 26 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I went with I don't know simply because there were abuses in the original system. However as I believe has been mentioned for metagame purposes CW something along the same lines would probably be ok. Aside from the fact R&R needed a major overhaul one of the problems was the concept was introduced to soon. It belongs with CW and probably needs to be introduced in a more subtle fashion. Otherwise I have no problem with it it's a simple part of a living economy and immersive experience.

my problem with that sentiment is that it seems to imply that once clan warfare comes into play, then the casual matchmaker portion of the game will just be a dumping ground for all the parts in the game that we don't like.

i would like to keep random matches as a viable gameplay segment, not just a garbage pit where people reluctantly go to grind. i would like to keep a place where i can play some no consequence matches and still be able to have fun.

i do not support seperating out RR and only applying it to CW.

[FrostCollar]

I say no. Lights, mediums, heavies, and assaults all have different tactical roles to play on the battlefield. Why make assaults pay many times the R&R of smaller mechs? It might be canonical, but in this game it's not like they're many times as powerful as a smaller mech, just different.

Maybe bring it back in some sort of optional setting, but in general it encourages people to pick smaller mechs, and that doesn't help anyone.

[trebormills]

I wouldnt mind RnR back- BUT only as a % reduction of income. That way youd still earn something for playing

[Deathlike]

blinkin, on 26 February 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

all of your questions have been answered in the many different RR threads several times over.

For the most part, I haven't really read them... mainly because it didn't interest me much.

When I started, I didn't get to experience of much of it, in part of running really painfully slow (and I had to clean out the dust in the computer, especially the video card, which made my experience a living hell).

I voted "don't know" for that very reason.. I have no opinion of it.

TBH, I think if I were to implement it (which, I'd probably suck @ it), the system would actually favor "more guts, more payday" in that increasing the damage you take (particularly as a brawler) and give, that you would be more rewarded... assuming you stay alive for the most part. It would be rewritten to favor "more production, more money". It would be more of a bonus system than anything (you'll still be paying fees for damage, but losers won't be entirely screwed). Of course, it would have to be tweaked and adjusted... like missile boats would not get that much of a bonus (missile damage would be a smaller percentage of the bonus, since damage is always large, but spread). Taking little damage would not hurt you too much.. simply less payout for less damage received (snipers and missile boats fall into that category).

There would still be a reasonable base value for those that die early or create minimal contribution...

In any case, when even the comments from the devs effectively call it a "tax", clearly those core issues were not addressed.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 February 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[Stringburka]

blinkin, on 26 February 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

we don't really need to analyze anything because several iterations of the system were tested during closed beta. i used the RR system MYSELF before and i liked it.

Not all did though, and I have a feeling those against that system are more against it than those who are for it are for it, so to speak. I know if the old R&R system comes back, I might just quit playing - and I'm in favor of a R&R system and have pretty large tolerance for stuff I don't like in games (though I do whine about it some on the forums). But the old R&R system, no thanks. Do not want. I know a lot of people have said they'll quit if R&R is reintroduced, and I think PGI has to be very careful in how they bring it back so those people don't quit.

EDIT: Also, I don't really buy the "realism"/"believabiliy" argument as no other parts of the game has that economic realism, as others have said before. If I have to pay for R&R for the sake of realism, I want to be able to work out a mercenary contract that covers those, and I want to be able to sell stuff to other players for highest bidder, and I want to be able to get an insurance, and I want to get paid by my house if I'm part of one, covering the expenses.

Et cetera.

Edited by Stringburka, 27 February 2013 - 01:43 AM.

[Stringburka]

trebormills, on 26 February 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

I wouldnt mind RnR back- BUT only as a % reduction of income. That way youd still earn something for playing

Deathlike, on 26 February 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

TBH, I think if I were to implement it (which, I'd probably suck @ it), the system would actually favor "more guts, more payday" in that increasing the damage you take (particularly as a brawler) and give, that you would be more rewarded... assuming you stay alive for the most part.

You might want to take a look at this.

[blinkin]

Stringburka, on 27 February 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Not all did though, and I have a feeling those against that system are more against it than those who are for it are for it, so to speak. I know if the old R&R system comes back, I might just quit playing - and I'm in favor of a R&R system and have pretty large tolerance for stuff I don't like in games (though I do whine about it some on the forums). But the old R&R system, no thanks. Do not want. I know a lot of people have said they'll quit if R&R is reintroduced, and I think PGI has to be very careful in how they bring it back so those people don't quit.

i am fairly certain that the majority of people who claim they will quit (for any reason) are crying wolf. i have seen these claims all over the forums for plenty of other reasons, and have yet to see any sort of mass exodus.

as far as defining just how much any given person is for or against something is not a path i am willing to take. there are plenty of people who are very noisy and shout that they will quit the game every few days for some random reason, i doubt they ever will. i don't think any of us should make judgements related to how dedicated either side is.

[Stringburka]

blinkin, on 27 February 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

i am fairly certain that the majority of people who claim they will quit (for any reason) are crying wolf.

In many cases, I agree. However, in this case it has to do with what you can play at all. If the devs came up with the idea to for example restrict assault 'mechs to 10 matches per person per day unless you pay the same reaction would be heard, and probably be real and not crying wolf. R&R affects the game in a similar way (though not as drastically).

I know I'm not crying wolf. It's not that I'll quit out of spite for PGI bringing it back, it's that I'd just probably lose interest quicker since I'd more often feel frustrated with the game (and not in a good rogue-like way). I do think the previous R&R system would chase people away.

What was their reasoning for removing it in the first place? I didn't play at the time of removal (played a bit in close beta but got tired of the game and quit for a few months).

Quote

i have seen these claims all over the forums for plenty of other reasons, and have yet to see any sort of mass exodus.

How would you note if the game lost, say, five percent of it's player base over a month? You don't have those statistics, and knowing how much a game suffers when it's growing at the same time (as a new game, MWO is of course growing as more and more regardless for quite some time, the difference is in how much it grows).

Quote

as far as defining just how much any given person is for or against something is not a path i am willing to take.

Of course we can't know for sure, but that's the feeling I've gotten from it. But you're right - we should assume that either part is more dedicated. We shouldn't assume either, however, that each part is _equally_ dedicated - that is just as much speculation as the first assumtion. Due to this, polls are of dubious value to begin with.

[blinkin]

i have already mostly lost interest. anymore i only play a few matches after each patch to see what has changed. i still play with groups of friends sometimes when we get together. i used to play this game almost daily, now i am unlikely to play more than an hour or two per week.

as far as i am concerned the game seems hollow. there is nothing to consistently challenge me anymore. this is one of the primary reasons why i miss RR.

you say that you might lose interest. i already have. if repair and rearm had stayed i would be well past 1200 matches and more than likely closer to 3000. most of my matches came from the days of RR and the few weeks after it left when i hoped it would return.

also now i see endless complaints and insults directed at SRM catapult builds because hordes of ignorant morons build them, rush straight in, and proceed to face hump the enemy for a single kill. under RR the SRM cats would punish this ignorant abuse severely. the term splatcat would never be used because SRM cats would only be piloted by skilled pilots. anyone else would be quickly drained of all of their cbills.