271 replies to this topic

[karoushi]

Stevefin, on 17 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

R&R is not balance, It was a money sink. Thinking that it is balance is navie and arragent. It would not fix anything as a balance mechanic, it did not before. why would it now?

Currency sinks are a form of balancing, economically.

People who don't have a clue shouldn't post, but I can't stop them I suppose.

[Keifomofutu]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Currency sinks are a form of balancing, economically.

People who don't have a clue shouldn't post, but I can't stop them I suppose.

The fact that you are posting that R&R should come back tells me you should follow your own advice. I mean if we are going to go all ad hominem on this.

[Hotthedd]

TOGSolid, on 17 May 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

But we already have a grind.

Why do we need more of a grind?

Remember, we are not talking about the "old" R&R, we are suggesting an improved version. The actual grind should be about the same as now. A little longer if you lose more, a little quicker if you win more. This would facilitate teamwork and/or generate $$ from premium time.

[TOGSolid]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Remember, we are not talking about the "old" R&R, we are suggesting an improved version. The actual grind should be about the same as now. A little longer if you lose more, a little quicker if you win more. This would facilitate teamwork and/or generate $$ from premium time.

So then what gameplay objective would your mysterious new R&R system accomplish because it sounds like the real purpose here is to make the hardcore TT guys/RPers happy.

[Hotthedd]

TOGSolid, on 17 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

So then what gameplay objective would your mysterious new R&R system accomplish because it sounds like the real purpose here is to make the hardcore TT guys/RPers happy.

Besides that (and that would be a GOOD thing, btw) It would make running mediums more profitable than running heavies and assaults. (Without making Heavies and Assaults into money losers). For example, if you wanted to grind extra C-bills, the Hunchback becomes more attractive than the Highlander. More variety on the battlefield = more variety in the game overall, and therefore more fun and less boredom.

[Snuglninja]

TOGSolid, on 17 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

So then what gameplay objective would your mysterious new R&R system accomplish because it sounds like the real purpose here is to make the hardcore TT guys/RPers happy.

I disagree. Read my post. You say if I want to involve myself in an aspect of Cw that has an element of risk/rewards weather its Rearm repair or bv or jumpship cost that doesn't effect you or anyone else if you chose not to play, I can't because you are mad? Or you think, with no real evidence that it splits a community?
I mean why can there be no mode in cw for people who want to play a more substantial game then this **** console game that goes on now? Is it because you can't run what ever the fotm and pug stomp? If you would stop a second from telling us how you all are right and read my follow up post you would realize I am not asking you to play my way or no one else if you choose not to, I am asking how people feel about and disuse how a part of cw could be made to give players a feel of the bt universe, balance and add variety, more then the crap we got now. So stop your bitchin about a system that is gone and no one wants to come back.
or plz tell me how you would balance the game to make matches have more variety, make a medium worth while to play,because nerfing and buffing haven't got the job done since ob. You can say what you want but the arguments are the same.The weapons or chassis are different, but same argument. First doom gausapaults then lrm then ecm then srm so obviously your cry baby style doesn't work. The only way to make balance and a variety of mechs is to force it on players weather tonnage limits or r&r. The only way to keep players is to make that system fun. If this is bad then why do leauges like proxis and RHOD do well? Why did a crap game like MW4 live so long through player leagues that forced variety on it's players?

[TruePoindexter]

There's a lot of running around of semantics. First off it doesn't matter whether it's labeled a repair, or tax, or fee, or maintenance it's money taken out of your profit in a game. The only way for this to be fair to everyone is if it's a flat fee which then begs the question - why not reduce earnings by the same amount? If it is not the same for everyone it will by nature be unfair to some players.

As for the concept that repairs balance things - repairs come after a game not during. The idea seems to be that by being expensive it will discourage players from using those items. The truth is though that if a player has the money they will use the item regardless of the expenses. All that is truly achieved is that these expensive pieces of gear become exclusive to the wealthy players.

[karoushi]

TruePoindexter, on 17 May 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

There's a lot of running around of semantics. First off it doesn't matter whether it's labeled a repair, or tax, or fee, or maintenance it's money taken out of your profit in a game. The only way for this to be fair to everyone is if it's a flat fee which then begs the question - why not reduce earnings by the same amount? If it is not the same for everyone it will by nature be unfair to some players.

As for the concept that repairs balance things - repairs come after a game not during. The idea seems to be that by being expensive it will discourage players from using those items. The truth is though that if a player has the money they will use the item regardless of the expenses. All that is truly achieved is that these expensive pieces of gear become exclusive to the wealthy players.

This isn't the case in any facet, it isn't that the concept is to balance the game through this method ~ 'during the match' ~ and its objective isn't to really balance the actual gameplay at all but rather to balance the game's economy itself and in no way does that leave the biggest mechs to the wealthiest because it introduces a currency sink that affects them more than everyone else because they have the most saved up from Not having to repair and rearm for so long.

All anyone is really asking for is some logical sense to all of the fighting, can you really just buy one ton of ammo and shoot it over and over again without ever having to refill it? Is it the never ending bottle of wine of ammunition?

Logistics matter and they will matter more so in the Clan Wars; it might discourage "CoD players" (as others say and in my opinion is always a good thing, accountants disagree) but it will attract the actual BT fans who enjoy the lore and want to be Mech Warriors, which should be IGP/PGI's objective to begin with.

Build it and they will come.

[Keifomofutu]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

This isn't the case in any facet, it isn't that the concept is to balance the game through this method ~ 'during the match' ~ and its objective isn't to really balance the actual gameplay at all but rather to balance the game's economy itself and in no way does that leave the biggest mechs to the wealthiest because it introduces a currency sink that affects them more than everyone else because they have the most saved up from Not having to repair and rearm for so long.

All anyone is really asking for is some logical sense to all of the fighting, can you really just buy one ton of ammo and shoot it over and over again without ever having to refill it? Is it the never ending bottle of wine of ammunition?

Logistics matter and they will matter more so in the Clan Wars; it might discourage "CoD players" (as others say and in my opinion is always a good thing, accountants disagree) but it will attract the actual BT fans who enjoy the lore and want to be Mech Warriors, which should be IGP/PGI's objective to begin with.

Build it and they will come.

It's battles in the bottle. A new tax to hitting launch won't bring any more sense to random matches than before. It will however **** off new players who don't want even more grind.

It will furthermore **** of some veteran players because the "tax" is higher on their favorite mech than others. No amount of explanation will make them happier about this. Nor should it. It's an unnecessary tax on some items more than others.

It got dropped for a reason. If you can't live without it quit playing the game until community warfare comes in.

[Hotthedd]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

It's battles in the bottle. A new tax to hitting launch won't bring any more sense to random matches than before. It will however **** off new players who don't want even more grind.

It will furthermore **** of some veteran players because the "tax" is higher on their favorite mech than others. No amount of explanation will make them happier about this. Nor should it. It's an unnecessary tax on some items more than others.

It got dropped for a reason. If you can't live without it quit playing the game until community warfare comes in.

It got dropped because people whined about it. Sure it wasn't perfect, but neither is NO R&R. BTW, when you call it a "tax", you sound like you are confused about definitions. Sure, "tax" has got a lot of powerful negative emotional connotations, but maintenance fees are NOT taxes.

[Keifomofutu]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

It got dropped because people whined about it. Sure it wasn't perfect, but neither is NO R&R. BTW, when you call it a "tax", you sound like you are confused about definitions. Sure, "tax" has got a lot of powerful negative emotional connotations, but maintenance fees are NOT taxes.

A tax, another c-bill money sink. The fact that you want to call it "maintenance fees" means the only real reason you want it is MUH UMMERSION. Not a viable reason chief you better come up with a better one. Things need to be balanced or unbalanced "ingame" not because some tax is higher or lower on them. That just leads to the richer players getting even stronger and the poorer players getting even weaker.

[Hotthedd]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

A tax, another c-bill money sink. The fact that you want to call it "maintenance fees" means the only real reason you want it is MUH UMMERSION. Not a viable reason chief you better come up with a better one. Things need to be balanced or unbalanced "ingame" not because some tax is higher or lower on them. That just leads to the richer players getting even stronger and the poorer players getting even weaker.

Believe it or not, Immersion is a fundamental part of the Battletech universe. You use the word "tax" incorrectly for its emotional appeal. Sorry Sparky, you need a better reason than "I want rewards without risks" for not bringing back R&R.

[EGG]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

It got dropped because people whined about it. Sure it wasn't perfect, but neither is NO R&R. BTW, when you call it a "tax", you sound like you are confused about definitions. Sure, "tax" has got a lot of powerful negative emotional connotations, but maintenance fees are NOT taxes.

It was dropped because it stunk the gameplay up in a dozen different ways and would have taken more effort to fix than it was worth.

Probably the lowest element of gameplay it introduced was people shooting their team-mates after launch so they could get team-killed in order to cbilll grind without having to run to the enemy base.

So far people have described a system that will:
a] add extra consequences for losing (because newbies and bad players really need this)
b] bring mediums back in (they've been out for a total of 1 month now, a shorter period than collisions)

No-one is saying how the system will handle:
a] DC grinding, kamikaze grinding & TK grinding
b] effects on Elo of swapping between walmart and ferrari mechs
c] imposition on new players, most of whom ARE going to be losing their matches as their Elo sinks
d] costs for ammo-dependent weapons vs laser/ppc
e] negative implications for spreading damage
f] mechs hiding at the end of the match and getting ratted out by their team

[Vassago Rain]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

It got dropped because people whined about it. Sure it wasn't perfect, but neither is NO R&R. BTW, when you call it a "tax", you sound like you are confused about definitions. Sure, "tax" has got a lot of powerful negative emotional connotations, but maintenance fees are NOT taxes.

But it was a straight up tax, and it hit the poor people harder than the rich.

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

Believe it or not, Immersion is a fundamental part of the Battletech universe. You use the word "tax" incorrectly for its emotional appeal. Sorry Sparky, you need a better reason than "I want rewards without risks" for not bringing back R&R.

Where's the immersion in poptarting and ridging stalkers?

[Thomas Covenant]

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

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?

Totally agree and disagree with you. Weapons should not be balanced by cost but a dynamic market would be great and **** what bad idea people get.

[MadcatX]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

Believe it or not, Immersion is a fundamental part of the Battletech universe. You use the word "tax" incorrectly for its emotional appeal. Sorry Sparky, you need a better reason than "I want rewards without risks" for not bringing back R&R.

R&R does not make me feel immersed, plain and simple. It was a time-sink, an added element to force my non-founder friends to play MORE if they wanted to play their "tweaked out" 'mechs. If you're so concerned about the importance of immersion, I suggest you put R&R on the back-burner and spend more time advocating:

-- knockdown
-- somewhat destructible terrain (simple things like making the trees fall down when you walk over them)
-- More cockpit graphics such as your window getting cracked or sparks coming out of your console. Or at the very least, have some of the green lights in the consoles start to turn red when you start taking more and more damage).

I don't like making comparisons, but Hawken currently has more in-game immersion then MW:o, and it's not even a mech sim! At least in Hawken there's destructible items in the environment. Damage has a visual effect from the cockpits PoV. I'm not saying it's great, just pointing out that they have more in-game. And in my opinion, I'd want PGI to concentrate on in-game immersion and then maybe look into meta-game immersion.

Snuglninja, on 17 May 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

I disagree. Read my post. You say if I want to involve myself in an aspect of Cw that has an element of risk/rewards weather its Rearm repair or bv or jumpship cost that doesn't effect you or anyone else if you chose not to play, I can't because you are mad?

You should have chosen a better title for this thread, such as "Discussing R&R and it's implementation in CW" instead of "I miss R&R".


or plz tell me how you would balance the game to make matches have more variety, make a medium worth while to play,because nerfing and buffing haven't got the job done since ob. You can say what you want but the arguments are the same.The weapons or chassis are different, but same argument. First doom gausapaults then lrm then ecm then srm so obviously your cry baby style doesn't work.

Just pointing out that if you look for the similarities in all these, it's boating weapons. Any form of R&R is not going to fix boating. It's a band-aid perhaps, but does not fix the core problem. Forcing people to play mediums is not going to fix the current issue. In my opinion, forcing LESS customization or adding a mechanic to dissuade boating as well as abuse of OP ECM (I have high hopes for the upcoming patch. The solution isn't the best, but at least it's something)

Edited by MadcatX, 18 May 2013 - 01:21 AM.

[Thorqemada]

I would like to have a gamemode with an economical gameplay element - it was allways a part of the "Mechwarrior Mercenary" computergames.

Though granted the Initial implementation in MWO was no satisfying and it would need to be more fleshed out - maybe in a Future far far away...

[Vassago Rain]

Thorqemada, on 18 May 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

I would like to have a gamemode with an economical gameplay element - it was allways a part of the "Mechwarrior Mercenary" computergames.

Though granted the Initial implementation in MWO was no satisfying and it would need to be more fleshed out - maybe in a Future far far away...

Those are singleplayer games.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

Remember, we are not talking about the "old" R&R, we are suggesting an improved version. The actual grind should be about the same as now. A little longer if you lose more, a little quicker if you win more. This would facilitate teamwork and/or generate $$ from premium time.

Then I want to see some suggestions on how an improved version would look like. I mean, I can always say "just do the thing that sucked, but this time non-sucky", but this is hardly helpful or trust-building.

I haven't seen any real good takes on it yet. Work something out, and post it in the Suggestions Forums. I'll read it. But I want to see how you avoid all the shortfalls of the old R&R system and how you add something meaningful to the game that makes it more fun.

[Khanublikhan]

Vassago Rain, on 18 May 2013 - 01:44 AM, said:

Those are singleplayer games.

I'll counter that and say modern MMO's would not exist without the Mechwarrior series. Mechwarrior games were successful because they had economic depth. They were a stepping stone in the development of games thereafter.