92 replies to this topic

[Darius Deadeye]

Lovely idea. Anything to make people think about their builds and not just throw on the best and most expensive weapons on their mechs.

[Jaxass]

This is a terrible idea considering the problem with 4 mans vs. pugs right now. I already get targetted by the 4 mans I continually run into because they know I usually carry my PUG team or at least try to. Giving them a straight up readout on who they need to focus first will make these matches even worse than they already are.

The ONLY way you will be able to implement this is if there is NO 4 or 3 mans vs. pugs... period.

Edited by Jaxass, 10 April 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[Jashue]

Voted YES - tbh I thought it was by default in the game. Seems I was wrong.

[Gladewolf]

For actual comparison's sake:
Stock Jenner F 2.89 Million C-bills

Vs my Jenner SRL +4.57 Million XL Engine
+0.08 Million Additional Weaponry
+0.04 Million Advanced Sensor Array
+0.35 Million Endo Steel
+1.50 Million Double Heat Sinks
+8.00 Million Total Module Costs
17.43 Million C-bill approximate cost

As it stands now, I'd have to kill 7 Stock Jenners(before mine dies) to make it worth it to take my SRL on the battlefield, from an economic standpoint. I think this suggestion provides a method for doing that. (may want to take module cost into partial account...they are powerfull, but not worth the C-Bills when laid out next to the rest of the machine)
I believe that should be expressed in the game somehow

[blinkin]

Gladewolf, on 10 April 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

For actual comparison's sake:
Stock Jenner F 2.89 Million C-bills

Vs my Jenner SRL +4.57 Million XL Engine
+0.08 Million Additional Weaponry
+0.04 Million Advanced Sensor Array
+0.35 Million Endo Steel
+1.50 Million Double Heat Sinks
+8.00 Million Total Module Costs
17.43 Million C-bill approximate cost

As it stands now, I'd have to kill 7 Stock Jenners(before mine dies) to make it worth it to take my SRL on the battlefield, from an economic standpoint. I think this suggestion provides a method for doing that. (may want to take module cost into partial account...they are powerfull, but not worth the C-Bills when laid out next to the rest of the machine)
I believe that should be expressed in the game somehow

i hadn't actually considered modules, but it is a very good point. they do change a mechs effectiveness.

[HlynkaCG]

While I might quibble on about the details I voted yes for the same reason as Darius.

I also agree with Gladewolf that in the absence of Repain & Rearm something should be done to encourage "economical" builds. I used to run my HBK-4G essentially stock because it was cheap and I knew that regardless of how the match went I'd always make my money back.

Cifrer, on 07 April 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

I like the idea, but I do see one possible problem. Light mechs are cheap and fairly powerful. Yeah, dropping the XL engine into it makes it a bit more expensive, but still cheaper than your average heavy with the same XL in it.

I worry that such an idea would lead to an over-abundance of light mechs in the field.

I'm not so sure that this would be a problem. As noted above, a tricked-out light costs more than a stock assault.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 10 April 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[blinkin]

Jaxass, on 10 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

This is a terrible idea considering the problem with 4 mans vs. pugs right now. I already get targetted by the 4 mans I continually run into because they know I usually carry my PUG team or at least try to. Giving them a straight up readout on who they need to focus first will make these matches even worse than they already are.

The ONLY way you will be able to implement this is if there is NO 4 or 3 mans vs. pugs... period.

they will also earn less because they are in a group (because of the group modifier) and like you said groups already focus fire. this should lead to PUGs focus firing more as well. i also PUG primarily.

this will help groups some, it will help PUGs more. because now the PUG players will naturally combine fire on the highest value targets.

[Fooooo]

wtf, clicked post and it logged me out ??? and post did not appear... meh.

Anyway......


I like the idea.

More reward for taking out a better mech + better player.

Less reward for taking out a lesser mech + lesser player.

Seems fair to me.

Edited by Fooooo, 11 April 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[blinkin]

bump

[blinkin]

bump

[Neolisk]

Jaxass, on 10 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Giving them a straight up readout on who they need to focus first will make these matches even worse than they already are.

The thing is that now all PUGs will focus on one super cool pilot, who spent lots of C-Bills on upgrades. By destroying him, they already just earned so much that even after they are eliminated (with ending score being 8/1), is enough to buy some useful gear. On the other hand, if a pro/group team is against someone with low BV total, they need to have perfect strategy, i.e. not lose any mech, otherwise they may get penalized (for dying so easily).

With this, I believe PUGs have much higher chance for the match to be useful, at least for C-Bills grinding purposes. More satisfaction from the game - higher chance to keep playing.

[blinkin]

if this system were implemented properly we might even be able to get rid of the new pilot bonuses for the first 20 matches, because new pilots would naturally earn more this way.

[LeShadow]

That... actually sounds very nice. Would solve a lot of issues. Was sceptical at first, but after considering it for a minute, i now totally dig this.

[blinkin]

LeShadow, on 22 April 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

That... actually sounds very nice. Would solve a lot of issues. Was sceptical at first, but after considering it for a minute, i now totally dig this.

so far it has been maintaining over 80% yes votes so i am calling this idea a major success.

[Cordel Ordo]

This is in my opinion one of the greatest ideas I have ever seen. Because imho this gives adequate rewards to pretty much everyone. With those saying groups will be at a disadvantage, I think this system will still try and match bv so groups will still be making cash because they will be facing other groups with roughly the same bv so it will average out to around the same as a normal lone wolf player who is rather garbage but can at least put decent damage downrange.

[DubBucket]

The value of a mech need to be taken in to consideration somehow. Bounties, matchmaking, something. I'd really like to have a reason to run cheaper loadouts.

[Denno]

R&R was supposed to do that Dub, didnt quite work out obviously and unfortunately.

[blinkin]

Denno, on 24 April 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

R&R was supposed to do that Dub, didnt quite work out obviously and unfortunately.

i still don't like abandoning RR, but this seems to be the next best thing.

[Victor Morson]

blinkin, on 08 April 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

as stated in the OP "bounties" was merely the closest single word to what i wanted. having someone kill you will not help you in the long term unless they kill you enough to hurt your ELO significantly.

it is much more like a ranking system that effects your rewards and the rewards of those who target you, but the word bounties is sexier and attracts more attention.

From my understanding, the idea was that high ELO players would be worth more money to kill. My concern is that you would attempt to sync drop with said high ELO players for the express purpose of killing them for high cash farming, to the point you'd probably have people multi-boxing just to have two ELO accounts or more take turns murdering each other for cash farming.

Though, I will admit, this is not nearly as bad as EVE where you could have player-set bounties. I should have clarified, because that was infinitely more exploitable (If someone put a 10 billion ISK bounty on your head, you could have your buddy ice you in a shuttle and split the reward money. Seriously broken.)

[kitazari]

Oh man, can you imagine if you could set a bounty on someone in MC?
X ammount over the next X kills.
It'd.
1. Create a flow of MC for free-only players without creating MC.
2. Offer additional incentive over any CB/xp reward.
Is it possible that this could be abused at all? (Other than one person putting 2000 MC over the next 200 games on someone. )