271 replies to this topic

[karoushi]

jay35, on 17 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

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.


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.

Nobody is saying you HAVE to design it ONE WAY, that is the problem with your post, but I do agree with the first part. Should go back and read my post on the last page, you can introduce R&R and still make it fun for everyone but have it be a positive thing that stops people from storing huge amounts of in-game currency which becomes unfair to others in the end.

TS teams vs TS teams, new players vs new players, Random pub vs Random Pub. That is what we need.
Maybe there could be three different 'matchmaking servers' which can be selected in-game by the user to control where they go. The TS teams can decide to play solo and go random anytime by selecting a different matchmaking server and vice versa, the new players could be locked into playing with only other new players for their cadet bonus time span and then free to choose the other matchmakers.

The one issue with this is free accounts need to be limited (not on the account side, but on the server side) so that people from the same IP (use anti-proxy) can only make the intended number of accounts and not any more. This will stop the people trying to abuse the cadet bonus or new players.

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 07:35 AM.

[Pinselborste]

RnR was bad, didnt add anything to the game except for giving premium players a huge advantage and making ammo based weapons useless.

and people who say it adds immersion, how do 2 numbers instead of 1 changing after the match add immersion?

it would add immersion if you would have to play a mechanic and waste some days to repair your mech with counltess of things like weld something together, but i dont think we need that in MWO.

[Hotthedd]

Pinselborste, on 17 May 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

RnR was bad, didnt add anything to the game except for giving premium players a huge advantage and making ammo based weapons useless.

and people who say it adds immersion, how do 2 numbers instead of 1 changing after the match add immersion?

it would add immersion if you would have to play a mechanic and waste some days to repair your mech with counltess of things like weld something together, but i dont think we need that in MWO.

The PREVIOUS version of R&R was flawed. It can be improved and added back into the game. People wanting R&R back are not necessarily advocating a return to the exact same R&R as before. Arguing that they want the old R&R back, when they really want R&R back in an improved form is a Red Herring.

[Pinselborste]

RnR no matter how would still make put new players and people who use ammo based weapons at a disadvantage, premium players would dominate cause they earn way more than non premium players.

RnR means Repair and Rearm, the name itself says that it punishes people who use ammo based weapons.

[trollocaustic]

If you want to return RnR, make sure assault mechs take less to repair by 75%, heavys by 50% mediums by 25% and lights by 0% (Assaults are easier to repair due to roomier insides)

[Prezimonto]

jay35, on 17 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

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.

The problem is that they shouldn't be upgrades in every sense of the word. They MIGHT be better for purely fighting, but they shouldn't be common, or ubiquitous which they are right now. That's not fun either... for the exact reasons I put down, it wrecks game balance because this underling principles of THIS game are based on the table top version... which has repair and rearm.

Having a drawback to a supremely useful piece of equipment isn't punishment, it's balance.

Artemis is a good example... I didn't list it in the upgrades that would cost, because it comes with a reasonable trade-off for it's utility. Every equipped unit weighs an additional ton.... but they become somewhat more effective. It's a good trade off, but one that isn't viable for every build/playstyle.

As opposed to endosteel: it's just better. The critical slots affect no build I've seen.
As opposed to Fero-fibrous is which is just the donkey's choice of upgrades. In the current scheme FF is an honest choice... 14 vs. 28 crit slots is lot... and the benefit is minimal compared to endosteel.

I'm at a loss for a trade-off purely for endosteel.

If I was going to balance FF, I'd lose the weight mechanic entirely. I'd keep the crit slots, but give you the difference in tonnage instead as a difference in damage taken... ie it's just better armor, but it costs crit slots... vs. giving you more weight. This has an added benefit... this game has no real purely defensive mechanics other that max armor(which again is required because of huge alpha builds, but not stock on most mechs) and this would give a defensive trade off again endosteel (weight essentially being an offensive consideration, and FF and endo both being hard to find on most mechs). It would encourage players to choose... FF or endo, defense or offense since most builds would only be able to fit 1. At least that's a choice.

If you keep the weight mechanic on both and HAD to take FF before Endo (get the small tonnage benefit before the large one) then the trade off would be more meaningful, but you don't have to.... making the the upgrades feel inconsistent and leaving Endosteel as essentially a required tax on a new player to enter the "fun" part of the game.

There is zero reason to take single instead of double heat sinks. I've looked for a build where you don't benefit and failed to find one. Again a pure tax on new player, and a massive penalty to their ability to actually have fun. If DHS increased dissipate, but not overhead...and singles did both... they'red be a good trade off... do you want several large alpha's a long cooldown, or lower limit maybe one alpha, but short total cooldown... that would be a real trade off.

XL engines... essentially they're race car engines for mechs. They have some downsides, and they're expensive, but if you have a mech with RT/LT to take advantage of one, you're usually better off with it. I have no idea how you would include a stiffer trade off that's meaningful. more crit slots either will be meaningless or too rough. Perhaps if they included engine crits and allowed XL engines to have fewer HP's than a standard... like the gauss rifle.

@pinselborst... go read the last 2 pages... I"m not even advocating calling my idea RnR...
@all Keep in mind the actual goal.. .which boils down to providing a reason to stock load outs (which should be a massive percentage of the mechs fielded) to exists and be reasonable (if not the best) to play. Right now very few stock loadouts are competitive or fun. I still say it's because without the RnR you need a different set of balances for upgrades to make them choices, but not requirements for play.

Edited by Prezimonto, 17 May 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Pinselborste, on 17 May 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

RnR no matter how would still make put new players and people who use ammo based weapons at a disadvantage, premium players would dominate cause they earn way more than non premium players.

RnR means Repair and Rearm, the name itself says that it punishes people who use ammo based weapons.

Oh Noes! You mean that Gauss sniper has to have a DRAWBACK!?! The horrors!

[merz]

I think r&r added some depth to the gameplay, the persistence offered a separate set of objectives and encouraged a wide variety of equipment on the battlefield for reasons separate from efficiency minmaxing.

Even though mechwarrior online acknowledges battletech enthusiasts as its core audience that has taken the game this far in financially supporting its development, the market PGI is presently attempting to court are the lowest-common-denominator casuals. The kind of risk-averse player with a fleeting attention span, whose definition of fun is either pure, visceral twitch or SA/4chan lel. Any degree of persistence or consequence to a player's action is viewed as a potential liability to be exploited by some, something that could only lead to QQ and discourage others from playing.

the era of 'serious gaming' is, for the most part, over. its hopes mainly resting with stuff like eve online and dayZ. welcome to World of Mechs.

jay35, on 17 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

It's called an upgrade for a reason. There should never be a reason NOT to upgrade your mech,

and you, my friend, are possibly the dimmest bit of chaff to have somehow fumbled up into this place. for the good of us all, kindly end yourself.

Edited by merz, 17 May 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Pinselborste]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Oh Noes! You mean that Gauss sniper has to have a DRAWBACK!?! The horrors!

it would be everyone who doesnt use energy boats being at a disadvantage.

[Khanublikhan]

World of Mechs: Pilot an Assault. Equip all required upgrades to gain maximum possible firepower. Suffer no consequences.

[Vassago Rain]

A tax on your playtime is a poor way to balance anything.
Add to that how powerful it makes prem-time, permanent income bonuses (heroes, foundermechs...) the increase in grind, and you should understand why people were calling this a korean grind simulator.

I hope it never comes back.

[Pinselborste]

Cost is a wrong way to try to balance something.

PGI should have balanced the items instead of sticking to values made for a TT game, than we would have viable medium mechs and viable weapons.

Edited by Pinselborste, 17 May 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[merz]

Khanublikhan, on 17 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

World of Mechs: Pilot an Assault. Equip all required upgrades to gain maximum possible firepower. Suffer no consequences.

played an 8man lately? now, picture that with the WOT-borrowed community warfare model (bid mc to win mc..) and you get that glimpse into the glorious future that awaits us

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

A tax on your playtime is a poor way to balance anything.
Add to that how powerful it makes prem-time, permanent income bonuses (heroes, foundermechs...) the increase in grind, and you should understand why people were calling this a korean grind simulator.

I hope it never comes back.

and yet..grind is the design model the developers have clearly chosen. I mean, they've even said things to that effect before in answering the players' questions..So, having established that the game binds itself hand and foot to that whole joyous 'unlock' mentality, where the 'convenience' part of the MT comes ..pretty much from designing the gameplay itself to be tedious enough for people to want to spend real money to bypass it as much as possible, i don't see he logic as to what is particularly wrong with the r&r even within that admittedly-broken, ill-conceived system. its a tax on he poor through making making them suffer like the scrubs they are? well, the game's designed like that already. thats the gist of gameplay, other than (glhf, upper city or lower, guise?)*∞

Edited by merz, 17 May 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[karoushi]

Here is a crazy idea for lasers: What if they used single-match-use cartridges that acted as the energy source (or even the core of the weapon itself) for the lasers; It could insert into the lasers like the heatsink slots in engines.

Probably not canon but it sounds like a good idea to me, at least that would introduce a way to affect all weapon users.

[Keifomofutu]

Pinselborste, on 17 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Cost is a wrong way to try to balance something.

PGI should have balanced the items instead of sticking to values made for a TT game, than we would have viable medium mechs and viable weapons.

Yup. If the choices for any task were converging to a global "bring more assaults" then PGI needed to do something to incentivise role warfare. Now we've got people wondering why mediums are even a thing with no really good answer for them.

[Khanublikhan]

Weapons can be balanced against weapons, sure. The game is making progress in this regard. This is tactical balance.

R&R (properly implimented) would be a strategic consideration. Do I deploy this lighter mech? Or do I deploy a heavier mech, with a degree of risk attached, for deploying a heavier weapon's platform.

[Pinselborste]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Here is a crazy idea for lasers: What if they used single-match-use cartridges that acted as the energy source (or even the core of the weapon itself) for the lasers; It could insert into the lasers like the heatsink slots in engines.

Probably not canon but it sounds like a good idea to me, at least that would introduce a way to affect all weapon users.

we could also just remove Rearm and only have repairs, that way you can use the weapons you prefer.

[karoushi]

Pinselborste, on 17 May 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

we could also just remove Rearm and only have repairs, that way you can use the weapons you prefer.

Yeah that is another good idea but in the long run I think actually using the ammo and not just having infinite amounts from one purchase, makes more sense and is good for the health of the economics of the game.

The only fits that would really be paying more are those that boat a lot of the same weapons which would require a lot of the same ammo. One to four ammo purchases for different weapons isn't that much in the long run and doesn't really have an affect while still adding depth to the game and strength to the long term economics of it as well. If done correctly it could be a mostly positive thing, only being negative to things that are intended to be discouraged anyway. I know I wouldn't boat multiple of the same autocannons if I had to pay for each and every ton of ammo I took with me every match and that honestly isn't a bad thing because if you ever look at standard fits they all have about one or two each of different weapons and not x6 of the same one or x4 of the same one unless they are a very unique, specific variant with a specific purpose (Fire support, etc).

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

We're not going back to this, ever. They've already said it's not coming back, for any reason.

[Hotthedd]

Pinselborste, on 17 May 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

it would be everyone who doesnt use energy boats being at a disadvantage.

Energy boats need heat scale penalties to be their drawback.

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

We're not going back to this, ever. They've already said it's not coming back, for any reason.

Nobody is asking to go back to that. Just an improved form of it. Btw, the devs have said LOTS of things (coolant flush, anyone?)