271 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Adridos, on 16 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

In trusth, they were no better during the R&R, either...

fully disagree Though part of that was because it seemed almost half of any team was running mediums. Mostly HBK-4p and SPs, since people still labored under the Illusion the Centurion was inferior (I fondly recall being one of the first to lead the charge to disprove that... and funnily enough, until the Poptart Meta took over, the Cent was considered THE premiere Competition Medium). But if both teams are running them (yeah for weigh matching) then they are hardly a detriment.

Conversely, yes, now, dropping with 4 Mediums spells death since the Other team is probably 6 Phracts/Stalkers/Atlases and Highlanders supplemented by 2 fast ECM mechs.

[TOGSolid]

Oh boy another R&R thread that's repeating the same fallacies that pop up in every R&R thread!

1.) R&R ONLY punishes bad players. Good players will run whatever they want and have an even bigger advantage since everyone else won't be able to field top end mechs as effectively.

2.) R&R ONLY punishes new players. Veterans with tons of mechs won't give a damn about having to wait to repair anything. Likewise, a veteran with a ton of c-bills as well won't care about the "grind" because they've already got the bankroll necessary to do whatever they want.

3.) R&R does not balance anything for the reasons listed above. The established, good players will use whatever the hell they want without any regard for what it costs. While R&R was active it was still an assault cluster ****, it was still a FOTM hell, and the only real difference was that there were people running broken down suicide mechs to grind for cash.

There is no sort of R&R system that won't cause these problems. I challenge all of you to come up with one that doesn't. No one has managed to do it yet.

[jakucha]

R&R won't work in this game or the community warfare unless they use it in a separate "hardcore" mode, in my opinion.

[Prezimonto]

So skip the repair and rearm "damage" model.

Essentially RnR was a way to preserve balance of Upgrades and heavy/large weapons(IMO mostly upgrades) against stock builds. If you make upgrades result in little to no cash made in a game the heavy weapons will balance out as most mechs won't have the space/CD to run them all the time.

Go to a flat rate loss scaled slightly between the weight classes when running upgrades. Call them maintenance fees... it's expensive to keep that XL tuned and running without shutting down randomly. Set it so large/most of the upgrades result in 0 cash... you get 0 cbills, not negative. Essentially, you trade cbills for XP then. If done well, you'd also be wagering on winning, a win might net you a little cash, a loss wouldn't. Whereas with only one upgrade you'll still make decent money.

This type of a system doesn't punish someone for taking damage or really any type of in game behavior. RnR makies fighting suck and tanking suck harder. This type of system sets a cap on losses... so you never lose money, but you might make none or very little, so you CAN run every upgrade if you want... but when you want to go buy the next whatever... better shell out some real cash, or pilot a lower tier mech. These are both things that would be good for the game and developers.

I also love Mustrum's per time idea.... except that it still won't stop anyone from packing (more slowly) every upgrade they want on all their mechs.

XL engine: - (engine rating x100) cbills per match (provides the largest single benefit in tonnage(range 10000 to 38500 cbills))
DHS: -(35k) cbills per match (is currently considered "required" for every build)

Endo: -(15k+mech tonnage x100) cbills per match (good tonnage benefit, necessary if not running XL(range 17000 to 25000 cbills))
FF: -(5k + mech tonnage x100) cbills per match (it's just worse than endo in every way (range 2000 to 10000 cbills))

Cap the cbill loss at 0 cbills... and here's an idea... fill in the difference with repair time.... run a deficit .. increase the cooldown post match to run the mech again. Most players I play with don't have a special upgraded engine in every mech, they buy one and swap it around. So now you have further incentive to swap to a entirely new type of mech for at least a round.

Other than people who would be incensed at the thought of running something other than a tricked out mech 100% of the time (and you can, but it would cost you actual money), I don't see a down side to this set up.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 May 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Mypa333]

Snuglninja, on 15 May 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sorry but its true. The closest thing pgi has ever had to balance and would stop a lot of this ppc assault fest. Doesn't have to be exactly what it was before and maybe only used for players in cw/merc units but what we got now is a **** poor console game with no sim feel or consequences for cheese builds or smart play.

Do you use PPCs or Lasers mostly ? In my opinion, bringing this back would totally and definitely terminate any autocanons present in the game.

[MadcatX]

I hope R&R remains where it belongs: In some of the previous mechwarrior game's single player campaigns.

[Keifomofutu]

One of the most commonly seen mechs is a standard engine stalker with 4 PPCs. It would not cost an overwhelming amount to repair. In fact you'd probably see stalkers even more because of the misery.

R&R screws over ammo based mechs and fragile XL mechs for no logical reason other than a few neckbeards UMMERSION.

It's also a soft form of pay to win as a premium player will have less restrictions on what he can afford to run. Hope you like mediums freemium scum you're going to be in them for a LONG time.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 16 May 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[Caviel]

Prezimonto, on 16 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

This type of a system doesn't punish someone for taking damage or really any type of in game behavior. RnR makies fighting suck and tanking suck harder. This type of system sets a cap on losses... so you never lose money, but you might make none or very little, so you CAN run every upgrade if you want... but when you want to go buy the next whatever... better shell out some real cash, or pilot a lower tier mech.

If in match performance has no bearing on how much money in "maintenance fees" there are, what is the point in having them at all? Why not just reduce the amount of net C-Bills per match right now and skip the whole R&R/maintenance mode? It will do the exact same thing with no development work needed.

Quote

These are both things that would be good for the game and developers.

I completely disagree, it will just scare away new players that do not want to pay cash via an awful C-Bill grind.

Quote

Cap the cbill loss at 0 cbills... and here's an idea... fill in the difference with repair time.... run a deficit .. increase the cooldown post match to run the mech again. Most players I play with don't have a special upgraded engine in every mech, they buy one and swap it around. So now you have further incentive to swap to a entirely new type of mech for at least a round.

No, just incentive to own more than one of the same thing. What's to stop me from setting up 5 or 15 identical AS7-D-DC mechs that I like to pilot and just rotate through them all to work around the delay?

Quote

Other than people who would be incensed at the thought of running something other than a tricked out mech 100% of the time (and you can, but it would cost you actual money), I don't see a down side to this set up.

It only is an inconvenience for new players that have not banked enough money/mechs to work around this artificial constraint.

[Prezimonto]

The difference is in the design. Currently, there is no trade off to using upgrades, you buy it once and it works forever with no negative. This would still have the upfront cost and a regular use cost as well.

1) It would force the majority of players to make harder choices about less upgrades and/or a varied stable of mechs over time to balance earning cbills against highly upgraded mechs. You could run any one upgrade and still make okay money but 2 or more and your income is seriously hurt. Meaning for the large majority of players you have to make choices. I'm not talking the hardcore elite, I accept that they will have an advantage of time/skill/money, ect... pretending that they won't doesn't make it go away. You're essentially saying, "I like my current advantage over the plebians, don't take it away."

2) Unlike the Repair and Rearm system it's not based on in game choices. You don't get penalized for taking certain weapon classes or for tanking damage. This is a good thing. It means it doesn't affect basic game play decisions in a match. What is does do is affect the spread of loadouts in the game, thereby allowing new players and stock mechs a much more viable role as they're much less likely to face totally upgraded mechs.

3) It provides a balancing factor for the different upgrades, because anyone sane can note that DHS>ENDO>=XL(with certain exceptions where XL is perhaps the best)>FF. DHS are essentially a 1.5 million tax to new players that is not obvious and buried in the nuts and bolts of the game. Making it very expensive to run will put a limit on the number of mechs running it.

4)Reduced total cbills does not address the issue that there is ZERO downside to running upgrades... invalidating stock variants.

5) The new play cbill bonus is more than enough to keep a new play interested, and by making cheaper load outs more viable you actually encourage them to do less honestly painful grinding as they learn the ropes.

6)There is nothing to stop you from owning 6 of the same mech... have fun with that. Again the large majority players I know own a wide variety of mechs and don't play enough to have 100k+ banked. These changes are about quality of life for the majority of players, and again, I just accept that honestly dedicated players won't be seriously affected by this... and that can be dedicated in time or money, again, I don't care since is the basic pay model of the game already.

7) Everything in a game that provides a rule is an artificial constraint. NOT having actual Repair and Rearm is an artificial constraint to stock load outs.

Edited by Prezimonto, 16 May 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Prezimonto, on 16 May 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

snip

TOGSolid, on 16 May 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Oh boy another R&R thread that's repeating the same fallacies that pop up in every R&R thread!

1.) R&R ONLY punishes bad players. Good players will run whatever they want and have an even bigger advantage since everyone else won't be able to field top end mechs as effectively.

2.) R&R ONLY punishes new players. Veterans with tons of mechs won't give a damn about having to wait to repair anything. Likewise, a veteran with a ton of c-bills as well won't care about the "grind" because they've already got the bankroll necessary to do whatever they want.

3.) R&R does not balance anything for the reasons listed above. The established, good players will use whatever the hell they want without any regard for what it costs. While R&R was active it was still an assault cluster ****, it was still a FOTM hell, and the only real difference was that there were people running broken down suicide mechs to grind for cash.

There is no sort of R&R system that won't cause these problems. I challenge all of you to come up with one that doesn't. No one has managed to do it yet.

By your own words you said that this only affects a majority meaning the minority players, the good veterans, will laugh their *** off and have a field day which is the exact reason R&R is bad.

If a balancing system doesn't actually affect everyone then it is flawed and should be dumped.

[Prezimonto]

nothing we do will actually affect higher end players. It's a basic fact of dealing with an online game, there will always be a certain percentage of people with more time and/or more money that they're willing to spend than most.

So instead use probability to drive down the occurrence of totally overpowered mechs in matches. They WILL happen. Upgrades exist. This is a way to dilute the population of totally upgraded mechs in every match.

It's basic statistics.

[Kojin]

The problem in implementing any R&R system in the context of an online game is that it has no real effect after a few games. It could theoretically be tossed out the window simply by buying spares of equipment. Ammo is the only thing non-renewable and expended and this cost would only be a slight dent in income.

How does having a spare negate cost you ask?

Time is what is missing from the instant drop games we have. Time is what costs money not necessarily materials. When you have unlimited stock of materials rotating out bits so as to repair while you fight becomes the best cost effective way of maintaining anything. Time is also what effects your decisions in other areas as to what you equip or not and why Omni was/is a great thing to have.

Instant drop games as is is fine. Earn C-Bills so you can have fun and play in more mechs as your mood changes or whims take you. Play around with all sorts of builds, fiddle with all the fun bits and generally have fun.

Later in campaigns/Community Warfare, R&R makes a lot more sense and rewards for participating, I hope, will also balance with high risks. For that to work, however, I think there will also need to be a roster implemented and separate earning circle from regular (current) drop games.

In summary, R&R works only in campaigns and not in instant fun gaming.

[HighlandCoo]

Um sorry RnR is still not FUN. No one is selling this to me as a fun mechanic. It's tedious and unnessasary.

[jay35]

Davers, on 15 May 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

I don't miss it.

1. It hurt new players much more than veterans.
2. it rewarded afk farming and other exploits.
3. It punished good players who spread damage by torso twisting and allowed players to grief each other by picking a damaged mech apart.
4. It hurt solo players much more than pre-made groups.
5. Balancing by economy is a bad idea. It creates the idea that 'It is ok for x weapon to be OP, it costs more.' Isn't actually balancing the weapons a better idea?
6.Forcing people to play mechs they don't like in order to afford the repairs on the ones they do is bad. It leads to the idea that 'Play lights or mediums to make money' instead of lights and mediums actually having a viable role in the game.

Smart play IS rewarded. It's just that we lack the tools to share our brilliant insight and strategies during a match with complete strangers.

All of this. Please save this and just paste it into every future R&R thread, since it's the same stupid whine every time by someone who doesn't understand how to properly balance things in a game.

[Prezimonto]

All of you arguing about "it's not fun"... the same argument applied to new players being face rolled by roving gangs totally upgraded mechs. There is no reason to not upgrade, so everyone does. It doesn't reflect the setting, it's a mechanic that heavily favors heavy alpha builds, which in turn heavily favors larger mechs.

At every step of the way, the lack of penalties for taking mech upgrades is hurting the viability of most builds and the balance of the different tiers of mechs.

I don't care if you don't like my particular idea, even though I think it has a LOT of strengths over the old RnR system. Instead of bitching about how bad RnR is why not actually try to come up with a different solution to the essential issue: how to make upgrades a trade-off of choices rather than a necessary set of components you must grind out.

[Snuglninja]

People saying it will hurt the new players or it's hardcore have not read my follow up post or I have not been clear on my thoughts.
What I'm suggesting wouldn't hurt no one. If you played this game for 100 years and you don't want to do R&R you would never have to. Play the game just like it is. In CW this would represent battles between the houses.
I feel if people want more than they should offer up something like a contract system. With different pay. 5 million for this match, 20 million for that match. Bonus for capping this match bonus for destroying all enemy that match. I think by varying cbill payouts and victory condition bonuses it would add more variety to the matches.
If me and my buddies want we can pick a contract we want to play. We know before playing we are going to get x amount + salvage +x bonus for either capping or winning. This will be divided among all the people on my team. Should be a lobby pre drop to see what the rest of the team brings and weigh options of how much I am going to make what I might lose and pick the best mech for me. At the end I need to repair and rearm , however it is implemented make the reward worth the risk. Maybe have more impact on cw.
I can decide whether or not I like that,if not I go right back to playing random drops without r&r.
What would your thoughts be on something like that?

[Prezimonto]

It could work. The match should allow you to split raw gross profit, or choose to split net profit after RnR.

One of the biggest problems with RnR, IMO, is that it heavily penalized people who do "dangerous" things for important tactical reasons like tanking damage for a team.

[karoushi]

@ Above post ~ Good Point ~ Something I often do for my teammates when my ammo inevitably gets blown to smithereens.

The only way to legitimately introduce R&R as a feature is to implement it as a, what? An Enjoyable Feature.

Don't some of you out there ever feel like you have Too Many C-bills? Is XXXmillions+ not enough? Well if they would increase the basic funds received from battle then R&R could be implemented without really affecting anyone but introducing a long term CB sink so that people don't get completely out of hand with their "savings"; Which also has a detrimental effect on the games meta-economy: Wealthy Long-time players having hundreds and hundreds of millions and getting to billions of c-bills with almost endless amounts of GXP and all the other extras that will last them well into the future of the game, force the developers to increase the costs exponentially until new players cannot afford to play at all. Just an example.

Long story short: If you introduce enough income and sinks it doesn't feel bloated in any facet and can be enjoyable for all levels of play. Free Players shouldn't have to Slog through the Trenches just to 'try' to enjoy the game, the game should just be enjoyable and that will naturally encourage them to "support the game with their wallet". You should not allow bean counter accountants to tell you that you can Force people to Pay, because just like the Vietnam Draft & War: Volunteers are more willing than people who are Forced and they tend to succeed where those who are forced tend to sabotage and be detrimental due to low morale.

Sorry I made the shortened version just as long, I have a knack at doing that.

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 07:17 AM.

[Snuglninja]

Agreed and it would probably have to be like you said profits split after r&r. Also for matches like that there should be aditional perks what I don't know.

[jay35]

Prezimonto, on 17 May 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

All of you arguing about "it's not fun"... the same argument applied to new players being face rolled by roving gangs totally upgraded mechs.

That can be fixed by matchmaking new players separately, rather than ruining the diversity across the board by trying to force everyone to take inferior builds, thus killing the freedom to pilot whatever players have paid or ground to unlock in the game. Screwing with people's in-game finances and winnings as a way to try to prevent them from fielding whatever they happen to want to take at any given match, is a stupid mechanic and that's why PGI ditched it. People aren't here for punishment, they're here for fun. There's already enough of a grind to unlock mechs and equipment. To then prevent players from actually being able to use what they've unlocked is just masochistic nonsense.

Quote

There is no reason to not upgrade, so everyone does.
[...]
At every step of the way, the lack of penalties for taking mech upgrades is hurting the viability of most builds and the balance of the different tiers of mechs.

It's called an upgrade for a reason. There should never be a reason NOT to upgrade your mech, IF something is actually an upgrade, rather than a sidegrade. In actuality, most of what you're calling upgrades are not, they're sidegrades. They're choices that provide diversity in builds and multiple loadouts for each mech where each excel in different uses and with different playstyles. What you're proposing with R&R is to LIMIT the diversity of builds people can afford to field. That's precisely the opposite effect of what you think it would do. R&R is not the solution you're looking for.

Edited by jay35, 17 May 2013 - 07:27 AM.