11 replies to this topic

[Jarvis Lancaster]

I remember in earlier trials, after each game your mech would need to be repaired. The cost of those repairs was taken out of your winnings. XL engines used to be so costly to repair your net earnings for a game could be in negatives! your cost/benefit planning on whether to go XL was based on if you could survive with it to make a profit. made you think twice before thinking that the XL engine meant you didn't have to sacrifice speed to add more weapons/armour.

But lately I see that repairs seem to be free. So i guess the new cost/benefit analysis is whether the space and simple purchase cost of an XL engine is affordable.

Did anyone else find the cost of repairs made your loadouts and mech choice more crucial? I found that scouting with a light mech made some easy money (target spotting) and cost very little if they got destroyed. So there was a tactical reason behind choosing lights over heavies. especially when my heavies had XL engines, did lots of damage, and brought in significantly less because of their repairs.

[Hauser]

Yes. Cost mattered and I'd love to see it reflected in a strategical setting where you have to mind your logistics. But to make a long story short. It wasn't fun to play that way.

Edited by Hauser, 16 March 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[AnnoyingCat]

i liked R&R

[S3dition]

It was removed for balancing. The grind to larger mechs was intolerable for the majority of the community, so it was removed. It's certain to make a return before CW.

[Snib]

Nope, it was removed for imbalance because many, like myself, never paid for R&R, leaving those who actually did at a huge disadvantage. Game-play wise the only difference is that now I run with 100% instead of just 75% missiles if I do (which means I reduced missile loadout for more heatsinks/armor where applicable).

Edited by Snib, 18 March 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[S3dition]

Snib, on 18 March 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Nope, it was removed for imbalance because many, like myself, never paid for R&R, leaving those who actually did at a huge disadvantage. Game-play wise the only difference is that now I run with 100% instead of just 75% missiles if I do (which means I reduced missile loadout for more heatsinks/armor where applicable).

That's not why it was removed. They could have simply cut out the free reload instead of removing everything. PGI was trying to avoid the World of Tanks curve, where it becomes pointless to play above a certain class of tank unless you dump tons of money into the game.

[RagingOyster]

Repair and rearm is gone.

[Syllogy]

S3dition, on 17 March 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

It's certain to make a return before CW.

This is false. The Devs have said that they have no plans to re-introduce R&R.

[qki]

R&R was pointless.

As much as I like the macro game, and having to mind the finances, that only really applies in games like MW2: Mercenaries.

R&R is only a factor, if there is a very real chance of not making enough money to cover your repairs, forcing you to use cheaper to maintain loadouts. And while you don't need the fancy stuff - hell I can kill enemy battledroids with a stock commando, not being able to use your favourite 'mech for reasons like c-bills is a downside.

Also - once you amass enough creds, R&R stops being a factor altogether. And once the coss were adjusted so that you always made more money than repairs cost, it was pointless to keep R&R in the game - simple as that.

[Adridos]

Get free repairs and ammo, get that shiny new engine, drop against PuGs.

It was a bad mechanic and it better stay dead.

[Sayyid]

I loved the R&R costs, it kept the cheese down.

[Hayashi]

It's not just the space and purchase cost. Fitting XLs on Atlases, Awesomes and Stalkers is basically suicidal. Whereas fitting it on Catapults and Lights is a Very Good Idea.

The vulnerability is the intrinsic counterbalance to the weightsaving. If not for this, everyone would use XLs all the time. Cost isn't a very good balancing measure when in the long run everybody ends up quite rich.