354 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Josef Nader, on 08 April 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

R&R did no such thing. Heavies were one of the most expensive chassis to run, and lights were insanely expensive for what they were. Even medium mechs struggled to pay the bills, as a lot of them rely on XL engines and expensive tech like PPCs and Gauss rifles for their punch.

Meanwhile, my SRM/AC20 Atlas was pretty cheap to run (the most expensive thing being my two tons of SRM ammo) and incredibly destructive.

Soeak for yourself, the first R&R pass I had every mech in the game and 200 million to repair them with. By the last one I was grinding with centurions, but still had no issue busting out the bling when I was teamed up, I never had an issue with money, may have taken a little more time to grind a bigger XL, but that was the worst of it.

[Caviel]

Until there is an actual economy with money sinks, R&R is just a pointless tax:

-There is no fundamental difference between making 150,000 C-Bills after a win no R&R, and making 200,000 C-Bills after a win with a 50,000 C-Bill R&R bill.

-Lowering the match earnings as a result of R&R just introduces an artificial grind to earn C-Bills, an already big enough problem for new players that they implemented the new pilot rewards. Worst case it will punish new players with poor equipment by drastically reducing earned money from losing most of their first matches since they are learning the game.

-Unless match rewards start to get into the millions instead of tens or hundreds of thousands (Causing massive inflation), you have to prop up R&R by granting a percentage of free repairs. Otherwise you would have to play 10-20 matches in a trial mech just to earn enough to repair a Commando to play in a single match and potentially lose and be doomed to repeat the cycle.

-R&R encouraged players to suicide in non-repaired mechs as a way to net more money after matches. This is unfair to the team now down a player that is willfully choosing not to participate in the match.

-Unless you scale the amount earned based on the mech weight class, you will unfairly punish larger mech players. Any functionality that artificially restricts how players can choose to play the game is generally a bad one.

[Ganja Ninja]

I think we're overthinking things a bit here.

I think R&R does serve some purposes (primarily immersion, cash sink and balance in the sense that it should give an incentive to run with "cheaper to repair" builds, etc.), but it also runs the risk, as a few others have stated, of punishing the wrong types of players or driving others away from the game.

I think it should come back, but it should be extremely simple - use the K.I.S.S. model (Keep It Simple, Stupid):

When you finish the match (dead or otherwise) whatever percentage dmg your mech is at translates to a percentage hit on your closing C-Bill score in a linear fashion.

In other words:

End the game with 90%+ (5% decrease to end-of-round C-Bill amount)
80-90% (10% decrease)
... ...
<50% (50% decrease)

This would apply to whether you survived the match or not. Justification: A Mech can get incapped if you kill its gyro or cockpit; it doesn't always have to be an engine destruction (although it mostly is in this game, I'm just giving an example). Similarly, a mech may survive an encounter as a center torso with a cockpit and one remaining leg. This would cost much more to repair than a mech that got taken out due to a gyro or cockpit hit (or even a legged Mech).

TL:DR - You bring the mechanic back, but you give it a flat figure so that its easy to understand and applies similarly across the board to all mechs, regardless of weight class, load-out, etc.

Just my $0.02 as there are some other great ideas in this thread.

Edited by Ganja Ninja, 10 April 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[MasterGoa]

Being rewarded by killing 5 enemies and causing 900 DMG by a deficit is not something
I look forward to, no...

[Ricama]

Ganja Ninja, on 10 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think we're overthinking things a bit here.

I think R&R does serve some purposes (primarily immersion, cash sink and balance in the sense that it should give an incentive to run with "cheaper to repair" builds, etc.), but it also runs the risk, as a few others have stated, of punishing the wrong types of players or driving others away from the game.

Right here is one of the inherent problems with an R&R system in MWO, who gets to decide what's a cheap to repair build and what's more expensive? Some people will already enjoy playing a cheap to repair type of mech so there is no risk and all reward for playing what they already like. In the current game structure it's just an unfairly weighted tax depending on weather you like the cheap to run or not.

[KitK]

Ganja Ninja, on 10 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think we're overthinking things a bit here.

I think R&R does serve some purposes (primarily immersion, cash sink and balance in the sense that it should give an incentive to run with "cheaper to repair" builds, etc.), but it also runs the risk, as a few others have stated, of punishing the wrong types of players or driving others away from the game.

I think it should come back, but it should be extremely simple - use the K.I.S.S. model (Keep It Simple, Stupid):

When you finish the match (dead or otherwise) whatever percentage dmg your mech is at translates to a percentage hit on your closing C-Bill score in a linear fashion.

In other words:

End the game with 90%+ (5% decrease to end-of-round C-Bill amount)
80-90% (10% decrease)
... ...
<50% (50% decrease)

This would apply to whether you survived the match or not. Justification: A Mech can get incapped if you kill its gyro or cockpit; it doesn't always have to be an engine destruction (although it mostly is in this game, I'm just giving an example). Similarly, a mech may survive an encounter as a center torso with a cockpit and one remaining leg. This would cost much more to repair than a mech that got taken out due to a gyro or cockpit hit (or even a legged Mech).

TL:DR - You bring the mechanic back, but you give it a flat figure so that its easy to understand and applies similarly across the board to all mechs, regardless of weight class, load-out, etc.

Just my $0.02 as there are some other great ideas in this thread.

It seems like if 2 mechs took the same damage but pilot 1 did better than pilot 2, thus making pilot 1 more C-Bills, pilot 1 would take a harder hit to pocketbook for awesomeness than pilot 2 would for sucking.

[Caviel]

Ganja Ninja, on 10 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

TL:DR - You bring the mechanic back, but you give it a flat figure so that its easy to understand and applies similarly across the board to all mechs, regardless of weight class, load-out, etc.

This makes R&R a straight earning tax as I mentioned above, and why it won't work without some other mechanics/economy to go along with it. You are uniformly reducing the earned C-Bills regardless of weight class and load-out. It serves no purpose other than to reduce the amount of C-Bills you earn which is the same as no R&R and just reducing the C-Bills given for match completion.

If you, in any way, incorporate damage taken or given, you unfairly give rewards/punishment to certain players:

For damage taken, brawling mechs go away and you will see a HUGE spike in base capping fast mechs, LRM boats, and sniping builds. That's all people will carry to stay out of harms way and deal damage, or avoid combat all together by running off to hide and shut down. This basically punishes any "brawling" mechs. For damage given, this hurts lighter mechs as they tend to generate less combat damage than other mechs.

Same goes for kills, not all mechs are designed to do large amounts of damage, and this wouldn't translate well at all to Conquest. Assists and you've have the same net effect as the first tournament PGI put together. People would drop into a match, try to spray all 8 opposing mechs with enough damage to earn an assist, then go run and hide or base cap and hope for a win.

[Mackman]

Ganja Ninja, on 10 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think we're overthinking things a bit here.

I think R&R does serve some purposes (primarily immersion, cash sink and balance in the sense that it should give an incentive to run with "cheaper to repair" builds, etc.), but it also runs the risk, as a few others have stated, of punishing the wrong types of players or driving others away from the game.

I think it should come back, but it should be extremely simple - use the K.I.S.S. model (Keep It Simple, Stupid):

When you finish the match (dead or otherwise) whatever percentage dmg your mech is at translates to a percentage hit on your closing C-Bill score in a linear fashion.

In other words:

End the game with 90%+ (5% decrease to end-of-round C-Bill amount)
80-90% (10% decrease)
... ...
<50% (50% decrease)

This would apply to whether you survived the match or not. Justification: A Mech can get incapped if you kill its gyro or cockpit; it doesn't always have to be an engine destruction (although it mostly is in this game, I'm just giving an example). Similarly, a mech may survive an encounter as a center torso with a cockpit and one remaining leg. This would cost much more to repair than a mech that got taken out due to a gyro or cockpit hit (or even a legged Mech).

TL:DR - You bring the mechanic back, but you give it a flat figure so that its easy to understand and applies similarly across the board to all mechs, regardless of weight class, load-out, etc.

Just my $0.02 as there are some other great ideas in this thread.

So... the noob who stands still and gets cored instantly makes a ton more money than the veteran who torso-twists and spreads the damage out? Great mechanic.

[Davers]

Bounty Dogg, on 10 April 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

So they have INCENTIVE to learn to be better. Really that simple.

I really don't understand why we feel the need to actively punish bad players. There are plenty of people that buy and play games, yet don't beat them. All that matters is that they enjoy them. When Elo is tuned then hopefully they will get to play with people at their level. In a game where the Devs said it took an average of 100 matches before people actually started to 'get good' I see no reason why we should cripple them. This is a GAME. It needs to be FUN. Not just fun to select groups of people.

[TheSteelRhino]

Repair and reload was an opportunity for balance. Are xl engines expensive. Yes! Are assaults ezpensive to repair? Yes

What happens to your ecm with each ppc hit? What if it was destroyed?

It would have balance

[Davers]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 10 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Repair and reload was an opportunity for balance. Are xl engines expensive. Yes! Are assaults ezpensive to repair? Yes

What happens to your ecm with each ppc hit? What if it was destroyed?

It would have balance

Instead people who ran in teams or had premium accounts never worried about R&R. Only solo droppers were punished. It was a BAD mechanic that allowed a select group to do whatever they wanted, and everyone else had to play non XL engine mediums to make a buck.

[TheSteelRhino]

Davers, on 10 April 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

Instead people who ran in teams or had premium accounts never worried about R&amp;R. Only solo droppers were punished. It was a BAD mechanic that allowed a select group to do whatever they wanted, and everyone else had to play non XL engine mediums to make a buck.

Obviously you do not comprehend. I said MISSED OPPORTUNITY
I never said they had it perfect or correct yet. If everyone hadn't gone postal in the forums with the QQ threads maybe they would have gotten it right. Obviously u were having a bad time from your post, so sorry to hear.

Alsoevery mw title prior has had this. But most people (not all) on the forums cannot have a constructive discussion and would rather rant why the game stinks. So now we worry about balance, to much ecm, the game is really fast. Blah blah blah

[Teralitha]

RnR is ancient history and its for the best.

Edited by Teralitha, 10 April 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[Davers]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 10 April 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

Obviously you do not comprehend. I said MISSED OPPORTUNITY
I never said they had it perfect or correct yet. If everyone hadn't gone postal in the forums with the QQ threads maybe they would have gotten it right. Obviously u were having a bad time from your post, so sorry to hear.

Alsoevery mw title prior has had this. But most people (not all) on the forums cannot have a constructive discussion and would rather rant why the game stinks. So now we worry about balance, to much ecm, the game is really fast. Blah blah blah

Actually, no. I ran a nice cheesy build that I couldn't run as a PUG with XL engines and expensive ammo. I won 90% of my games and had a nice 8 KDR. I loved all the free premium time I got while waiting for PGI to implement the 'activate button'. I bought and mastered a good 9 mechs before R&R and all that free premium time was ended.

Meanwhile pug players couldn't make any Cbills if they lost a match.

The MW titles you mention didn't have R&R for multiplayer. Only for the campaign where the matches were skewed in favor of the player. R&R also became a non-issue in mid-late game because you were paid more per mission and your salvage was better. The game designers wanted just to slow you down at the start, but intended you to have the opportunity to try everything by the campaign's end. This is in no way comparable to MW:O. If you were forced to play through the campaign in a light mech because it was too expensive to run anything else you wouldn't look back at it so fondly.

[TheSteelRhino]

Davers, on 10 April 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Actually, no. I ran a nice cheesy build that I couldn't run as a PUG with XL engines and expensive ammo. I won 90% of my games and had a nice 8 KDR. I loved all the free premium time I got while waiting for PGI to implement the 'activate button'. I bought and mastered a good 9 mechs before R&amp;R and all that free premium time was ended.

Meanwhile pug players couldn't make any Cbills if they lost a match.

The MW titles you mention didn't have R&amp;R for multiplayer. Only for the campaign where the matches were skewed in favor of the player. R&amp;R also became a non-issue in mid-late game because you were paid more per mission and your salvage was better. The game designers wanted just to slow you down at the start, but intended you to have the opportunity to try everything by the campaign's end. This is in no way comparable to MW:O. If you were forced to play through the campaign in a light mech because it was too expensive to run anything else you wouldn't look back at it so fondly.

I think you are being a bit presumptious telling what I like and do not like. I run mostly mediums and am quite happy to do so

And obviously you would rather play an fps than a simulator. The reality is this. It could have been made to work. Just shows some people cannot handle beta access. Kind of interesting how u stand on your KDR to make you an authority figure.

[Davers]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 10 April 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I think you are being a bit presumptious telling what I like and do not like. I run mostly mediums and am quite happy to do so

And obviously you would rather play an fps than a simulator. The reality is this. It could have been made to work. Just shows some people cannot handle beta access. Kind of interesting how u stand on your KDR to make you an authority figure.

No, I mention the KDR because it was really unfair that I was able to play a tricked out mech when other people couldn't afford to and were much easier to kill.

Mechwarrior is not a simulator any more than Punch Out is a boxing simulator. A simulator would have a lot more emphasis on actually piloting a mech, not just waiting for your cool down bar to lower so you can shoot again.

Could it have been made to work? Not really in the system they have now. If they had started with something different maybe.

You share my presumptuousness in telling me how I cannot 'handle beta access'.

The simple fact that even proponents of R&R's return haven't come up with a system that wasn't punishing to new players and effective at all to veterans.

[TheSteelRhino]

Davers, on 10 April 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

No, I mention the KDR because it was really unfair that I was able to play a tricked out mech when other people couldn't afford to and were much easier to kill.

Mechwarrior is not a simulator any more than Punch Out is a boxing simulator. A simulator would have a lot more emphasis on actually piloting a mech, not just waiting for your cool down bar to lower so you can shoot again.

Could it have been made to work? Not really in the system they have now. If they had started with something different maybe.

You share my presumptuousness in telling me how I cannot 'handle beta access'.

The simple fact that even proponents of R&amp;R's return haven't come up with a system that wasn't punishing to new players and effective at all to veterans.

Ahh i see. You assume again that the "beta access" comment was directed at you. It was not. In any event i suspect u should ask yourself if you have the right to speak for everyone. I assure u that u do not speak for myself and others I know. Nor do i presume to believe my opinion is that of others.
Perhaps you are correct. But perhaps not. I never said that the way repair and rearm was correct, just that an opportunity to help achieve balance was missed there.

I stand by my belief. And i am done with you , as you appear incapable of putting aside your own beliefs to discuss rationally. Instead i find you quick to anger, and unable to admit that your way is not the only way.

[Davers]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 10 April 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Ahh i see. You assume again that the "beta access" comment was directed at you. It was not. In any event i suspect u should ask yourself if you have the right to speak for everyone. I assure u that u do not speak for myself and others I know. Nor do i presume to believe my opinion is that of others.
Perhaps you are correct. But perhaps not. I never said that the way repair and rearm was correct, just that an opportunity to help achieve balance was missed there.

I stand by my belief. And i am done with you , as you appear incapable of putting aside your own beliefs to discuss rationally. Instead i find you quick to anger, and unable to admit that your way is not the only way.

The 'beta access comment' was in a post that replied to me. We are the only ones posting in this thread.

You offer no discussion, just keep repeating that R&R would solve problems, as if economic solutions ever worked for game balance. My point was to show that it did nothing of the kind. It just gave vast advantages to a select few. The exact opposite of what you were saying. You have not disproved what I said, just disagreed with it. But the majority of the forum would agree that R&R was a complete failure.

If you are saying R&R should be optional, so you could have it and I would not, then I would agree with you. But given the choice of your way or mine, I think I will choose mine.

But you are correct in one thing. This discussion has past all usefulness to either of us.

[EgoSlayer]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 10 April 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I think you are being a bit presumptious telling what I like and do not like. I run mostly mediums and am quite happy to do so

And obviously you would rather play an fps than a simulator. The reality is this. It could have been made to work. Just shows some people cannot handle beta access. Kind of interesting how u stand on your KDR to make you an authority figure.

This isn't a FPS vs. simulation discussion, there is no way to implement R&R that it doesn't become a tax on players that don't have some sort of an advantage, e.g. premium time, group drops, etc. It encouraged horrible game play - suicide trials, disco trials, etc to farm for C-bills because it was a *better* way to earn money.

Can you propose a R&R mechanic that:
a) Is fair to all mech classes
b ) isn't dependent on things like premium time or pre-mades
c) isn't a tax on certain equipment e.g. ammo based weapons
d) doesn't encourage exploits/farming/quick caps
e) doesn't punish new players/PUGs

If you can provide a mechanic that meets all these requirements then I am sure everyone would be in agreement.

Fact is, that can't be done. R&R is dead and buried and it's not coming back because of the reasons above. It was in effect changed to a flat tax on everyone and the C-Bill rewards were reduced across the board.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 10 April 2013 - 06:48 PM.

[TheSteelRhino]

YES...Ready?

Standard Level 1 tech is free to repair. Its common easily found, and IS techs have been repairing it with bubble gum and bailing wire for centruries.

The repair costs you pay would be for REBUILDS of XL engines. Based off size of the engine. Max cost 33% of new engine.

You pay for any Level 2 tech repairs, Gauss, Ultra, ER weps, artemis, BAP, ECM etc....Max cost is...33% of new price.

You pay for rebuild of damaged Endo steel, max val 33% of cost.

For XL engine repairs, endo, armour first 25% of damage is repaired at no charge....


Something like that.