354 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

It gave people a reason to judge if they really wanted to fully upgrade a mech with endo, XL engines and the like, because with these upgrades R&R went through the roof and you could lose 2/3 of your earnings even with a win.

This gave a new purpose to cheap but viable mechs like my CN9-A who had ordinary equipment but with whom I had a pretty decent win%, he was my moneymaker.

Also, R&R prevented people from boating expensive things like Gauss and rearming LRMs cost craploads of C-Bills, which meant less LRM boats, less heavy weapon sniping.

Yeah, it wasn't perfectly implemented, but it was a nice balancing tool. A bit like cRPG mod for Mount And Blade. You could use cheap gear to gain some money and once you had enough, you could use your best gear and be able to afford repairs.

All in all, it made for a more balanced game...

Edited by Sybreed, 06 April 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[Tennex]

now that they have damage textures in the game.

it would be nice if those damage textures persisted from the battle. until you repair your mech

[MN03]

You balance the game by tweaking the items/weapons.

[Roadbeer]

I completely agree. R&R didn't just mean Repair & Rearm, but also Risk and Reward.

But I do get that it made an aspect of the New Player Experience horrendous.

I hope to see it again some day, then you get to juggle the R&R and consumable cost when dropping.

"Well, lets see, that cost me 205,000 CBills, and I made 174,000... maybe I shouldn't spam LRMs in the hope of a hit."

Edited by Roadbeer, 06 April 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[FerretGR]

No. It was a meaningless c-bill sink. It didn't balance anything if you were willing to pay it or game the system. It encouraged bad gameplay. It encouraged c-bill farming via AFKing and suiciding with unrepaired mechs. It was bad for the game and it's removal made zero negative impact aside from the nonsensical immersion argument (money sink /= immersion). In fact, its removal had a dramatic positive impact on build variety in-game. Keep it gone.

[GODzillaGSPB]

I think it should make a return, minus the possibility to come out with a loss. Less earnings - like you suggested - are fine. And I agree with it's effect as a balance to builds that were simply upgraded to the best possible.

But then again there are arguments that stand against that. For instance the Jagermech...I don't think that it is any good without an xl-engine. Same goes for the Dragon. Again --> imho. So these need a good xl-engine in my opinion. R&R would be a factor of big greavance for players.

[MN03]

I really don't get it why people think Fero/Endo/XL-engines are the holy grail. Xl engines suck in heavies and assaults (easy kill) and fero/endo take up 14 critical slots each. Everything has a trade-off in this game (well, except ECM, but that's a different story).

[DaZur]

A big resounding "YES"...

I've been a huge proponent of R&R because from my perspective it was the only thing keeping MW:O from essentially leaning into the FPS feel.

R&R provided cause & effect and leveraged repercussions for playing without a care or a conscious...

Sadly PGI (with no small amount of crying from the community) conceded that R&R was a unnecessary "tax" for playing and it encouraged farming and other nefarious forms of play.

Sigh... I do miss it.

[Vermaxx]

Repair/Rearm punished brawlassault players (the GOOD assault builds, screw sniping or LRM in a ONE HUNDRED TON MECH) and those who ran 'good' tech in an effort to mix up builds. In other words, the most common group punshed were the people TRYING to help their teams, and not ON a set team (even some ON teams, if they were tanking).

It did NOT punish people who suicided, played badly, used stock mechs, and generally hampered their team. It made no sense in a beta, makes no sense in a game without a fully developed economy, and makes no sense for players who sign up for a House.

It was also MONSTROUSLY EASY TO ABUSE, and I do not feel bad calling people names for admitting they used it studiously. It was not uncommon for me to run with zero repairs, or at most spending the couple hundred needed to repair internal damage.

[DaZur]

FerretGR, on 06 April 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

No. It was a meaningless c-bill sink. It didn't balance anything if you were willing to pay it or game the system. It encouraged bad gameplay. It encouraged c-bill farming via AFKing and suiciding with unrepaired mechs. It was bad for the game and it's removal made zero negative impact aside from the nonsensical immersion argument (money sink /= immersion). In fact, its removal had a dramatic positive impact on build variety in-game. Keep it gone.

While I agree that in it's original iteration it did foster bad game play. I argue that for players who gave a rats arse, it added immersion into game play and actually fostered more diversity in Mech builds...

Right now IMHO with no R&R, literally every Mech is kitted with top tier gear because there is no down-side for doing so. Previously, yes... top tier gear gave advantage but it also carried a hefty repair and reload price tag if you did not also have the skills to use it properly.

[Bishop Steiner]

GODzillaGSPB, on 06 April 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I think it should make a return, minus the possibility to come out with a loss. Less earnings - like you suggested - are fine. And I agree with it's effect as a balance to builds that were simply upgraded to the best possible.

But then again there are arguments that stand against that. For instance the Jagermech...I don't think that it is any good without an xl-engine. Same goes for the Dragon. Again --> imho. So these need a good xl-engine in my opinion. R&R would be a factor of big greavance for players.

The reason that the Jager is useless without one is because pretty much every other mech has one already, too. It's Power Creep.

If every mech you faced wasn't minmaxxed to the point of unrecognizabilty from the stock version, the "less powerful" models would be OK>

[Tennex]

they can easily adjust numbers so that the risk/reward ratio is smaller. and R&R will have less impact on actual earning. And more of a cannon immersion

nerf the repair cost of XL engines. wow that was ridiculous

Edited by Tennex, 06 April 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[kitazari]

I feel like it should make a return, but not for faction players. (Who have their repairs paid for by a faction.)

Mercs, maybe. This would up the risk and reward for mercs, whilst making factions a safer options for players who don't want to lose money because they're experimental in their builds or are new to the game.

[Roadbeer]

I wonder how many people who QQed about R&R are the same people who QQ about 'Boating"?


Cause ------> Effect.

[Dudeman3k]

we NEED R&R back is the thing.... Take War Thunder for instance. You can either repair out right for (c-bills) or wait 20 - 30 minutes for it to auto repair for free. gives meaning to Multiple garage space AND you wouldn't be gimping your team driving a broken mech in battle to begin with, as it wont let you drop with it.

[Nutlink]

Absolutely, but they should do it a bit differently. Don't cover costs up to a certain point and make the player pay the rest, pay a percentage of the cost and make the player pay the rest. That way you HAVE to repair and/or rearm in order to use that mech again in any capacity. If the player has less than, say, 100k CBills, then pay give them the 75% for free, otherwise it was just way too easy to abuse.

[Iblissa]

R&R is part of the balancing act.

[DaZur]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 April 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

If every mech you faced wasn't minmaxxed to the point of unrecognizable from the stock version, the "less powerful" models would be OK>

AND trial Mechs would not be so useless and over-matched...

[GODzillaGSPB]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 April 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

The reason that the Jager is useless without one is because pretty much every other mech has one already, too. It's Power Creep.

If every mech you faced wasn't minmaxxed to the point of unrecognizabilty from the stock version, the "less powerful" models would be OK>

Well...my mediums all run with standard engines. Assaults usually do, too. Especially the Atlas. Yes, it seems to be the heavy class that's a bit too dependant on xl-engines it seems. And you're right, it comes from the assumption "well I have a heavy, I have to have MUCH MUCH more damage potential than a medium". And in reality it's just a 15 to 25 ton difference, while in order to reach the true assaults, you'd have to jump another 20 to 30 tons.

My dragons usually work with a alpha damage of around 30. And they work well. It's the same alpha damage most of my mediums do. But the Dragon - for instance - is faster and better armored or just better armored when I run it with a standard 300 (which is possible).

It'll balance itself out sooner or later I guess. When people die over and over in their xl-engine mechs, hardly doing any damage with their insane weapon setup, they will realize that a balanced build might actually run better.

[Vermaxx]

Tennex, on 06 April 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

they can easily adjust numbers so that the risk/reward ratio is smaller. and R&R will have less impact on actual earning. And more of a cannon immersion

nerf the repair cost of XL engines. wow that was ridiculous

So if we're going to pick and choose which 'expensive' tech is ACTUALLY expensive to repair, what is the point of repair?

Aside from an XL or getting equipment REALLY shot up, armor was often the most expensive thing. That isn't fair to an assault, who takes more armor to BE A FOCAL POINT. Maybe armor is too expensive? Well, ammo is really insane if you shoot a lot off. Ammo might need some repair discounts too.

An engine is literally the heart of a mech, and cannot be easily fixed. Three crits (dead engine) is a dead mech, because you need an entirely new engine and it is often easier (while only marginally more expensive) to just get a whole mech. They threw us a BONE on repair costs for engines - a dead engine has every right to require a full replacement fee.

Weapons didn't do anything when damaged - they didn't shoot hotter, shoot on random angles, suffer from reduced damage, or failures, or backfires, or suddenly explode. Engines at 25% didn't bleed one heat per second and invalidate ten heatsinks.

Repair and rearm was halfarsed, and it didn't belong in the game. If they get it fully arsed next time, then it can come back. The system we had punished some people and rewarded others. It did NOT often force people to choose which tech to run and which not to, because the minmax players never repaired items period. Some honest people paid for armor (I usually didn't and it wasn't game breaking), but most minmax players never repaired items or paid for ammo.

That isn't immersion, it is a cash sink. It is also a poorly designed cash sink that punishes the most suseptible crowd - new people who are likely to quit anyway.