37 replies to this topic

[WolvesX]

... as an option.

Yes...

You can turn R&R on in the option menu, if its helps YOUR immersion, good, I let you have it.

- You now must pay for rockets, ammo and even for refilling heatsinks.

- You now must repair your mech after the game.

- If weapons are destroyed, they are destroyed.

- You don't get more money.


BUT if you turn it off in the option menu, there is no R&R for you.

NOW that sounds fair to me, everyone got what he likes.

Edited by WolvesX, 17 May 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Deathlike]

YOU STOLE MY IDEA!

*cries*

[karoushi]

This isn't designing at all because it isn't a function of the game that can be an option it either is or isn't.

The obvious flaw is the fact that anyone who doesn't "immerse" themselves via your method is at an unfair advantage.

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Ricama]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

This isn't designing at all because it isn't a function of the game that can't be an option it either is or isn't.

The obvious flaw is the fact that anyone who doesn't "immerse" themselves via your method is at an unfair advantage.

Um it's an option, if you can't hack R&R don't use it. This post is pointing out the flaw in the "immersion" argument in favour of R&R: proponents actually want to use it to punish others, the immersion they want is to be able to cost their opponents more money by tearing their mech to pieces instead of just killing it. If you truly wish R&R for immersion and no other reason, you should have no problem with other people being able to turn it off.

In short, you don't get to have it both ways, if you are willing to operate at a disadvantage in the name of RP (or immersion in this case) you don't get to turn around and complain you're at a disadvantage. No one is forcing you to turn the option on.

[WolvesX]

Deathlike, on 17 May 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

YOU STOLE MY IDEA!

*cries*

Oh sry, I actually didn't know it was your idea. Sry for that.

[skullman86]

Ricama, on 17 May 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Um it's an option, if you can't hack R&R don't use it. This post is pointing out the flaw in the "immersion" argument in favour of R&R: proponents actually want to use it to punish others, the immersion they want is to be able to cost their opponents more money by tearing their mech to pieces instead of just killing it. If you truly wish R&R for immersion and no other reason, you should have no problem with other people being able to turn it off.

In short, you don't get to have it both ways, if you are willing to operate at a disadvantage in the name of RP (or immersion in this case) you don't get to turn around and complain you're at a disadvantage. No one is forcing you to turn the option on.

Who the hell wants R&R solely for "immersion"?

R&R should be used primarily for balance, not flavor.

[Stormyblade]

I must be missing something...

Some people in this game would willingly pay after each round for repairs and re-arming, thereby taking c-bills away?

Why?

Are there so many people here that are so overloaded with money (c-bills) that they don't know what to do with all the excess so they will try to immerse themselves into the game?

You realize, of course, that all the fragile builds out there, and the ones with high-alpha builds (along with that extra risk) would never do this because after getting torn apart several matches in a row they would find themselves broke and have to (gasp!) potentially take a more balanced build that doesn't decimate their enemy in 2 shots.

I was around when we did have to pay R&R after every match and by doing so you definitely had to think about your builds and loadouts. However, there was lots and lots of screams to PGI about how people were going broke so they (PGI) stopped.

Why would you want to bring this back??

[Dedzone]

No, it is not an option. And yes, it needs to be brought back. It is a STAPLE of every single Mech warrior and Battle-tech game there has ever been.

Why in the hell should you reap a reward for LOSING a 12mil mech with 10mil in upgrades when you fracking DIE? It makes no sense at all! Risk and reward! If you CHOOSE to take such an expensive mech into a battle than you do so WILLINGLY. If you win, then you reap your reward. If you lose...well.....maybe you need to exercise better judgement before you play with such expensive toys.

[Ricama]

skullman86, on 17 May 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Who the hell wants R&R solely for "immersion"?

R&R should be used primarily for balance, not flavor.

There are plenty of people saying getting rid of R&R 'broke immersion and that's why it should be brought back." Also balancing through R&R instead of balancing weapons is a P2W strategy that punishes new non-premium players and allows vets and premium players to run the acknowledged op gear because they can afford to. R&R does not work with weapon balance and ELO in random drop format. It's just a stupid, unevenly applied tax. Now setup company on company fights over territory it absolutely belongs in and will help with balance and immersion and basically rewards people for not ignoring the random drops after CW comes out.

[karoushi]

Ricama, on 17 May 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Um it's an option, if you can't hack R&R don't use it. This post is pointing out the flaw in the "immersion" argument in favour of R&R: proponents actually want to use it to punish others, the immersion they want is to be able to cost their opponents more money by tearing their mech to pieces instead of just killing it. If you truly wish R&R for immersion and no other reason, you should have no problem with other people being able to turn it off.

In short, you don't get to have it both ways, if you are willing to operate at a disadvantage in the name of RP (or immersion in this case) you don't get to turn around and complain you're at a disadvantage. No one is forcing you to turn the option on.

Your post is incoherent and unrelated to my post, we are on the same side I want R&R and am not arguing the opposite.

What I was merely pointing out is that it Cannot be an option that you can turn on and off because that doesn't make any gaming sense, why even turn it on if it automatically disadvantages you vs others? It can't be a toggle-able option and that is all I was getting at.

Anyway, I like to think that I am good at design when I actually focus on a problem and not just throw ideas out there and I am certain that I could setup a R&R system that would suit everyone without being too tyrannical to anyone.

The idea is to serve a purpose and not just have it to have it, when you balance it around the other aspects of the game it can seem like it isn't even there, an after thought. Who would really be concerned with repairing their mech and rearming it if the amount of money they received from the match covered it or a majority of it? I don't think anyone would be and that is proper balancing.

When something is done right it seems like it isn't even done (or there) at all (IE: because it just fits and feels 'right').

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[Soy]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Your post is incoherent and unrelated to my post, we are on the same side I want R&R and am not arguing the opposite.

What I was merely pointing out is that it Cannot be an option that you can turn on and off because that doesn't make any gaming sense, why even turn it on if it automatically disadvantages you vs others? It can't be a toggle-able option and that is all I was getting at.

Anyway, I like to think that I am good at design when I actually focus on a problem and not just throw ideas out there and I am certain that I could setup a R&R system that would suit everyone without being too tyrannical to anyone.

The idea is to serve a purpose and not just have it to have it, when you balance it around the other aspects of the game it can seem like it isn't even there, an after thought. Who would really be concerned with repairing their mech and rearming it if the amount of money they received from the match covered it or a majority of it? I don't think anyone would be and that is proper balancing.

When something is done right it seems like it isn't even done (or there) at all (IE: because it just fits and feels 'right').

Plenty of games have the ability to flag for non-consensual combat because the risk vs reward is a carrot stick to people who enjoy that sort of thing.

R&R functions on an immersion level as simple fluff, and on a balance level with regards to mech sizes and their relation to scoreboard. I see no reason why R&R isn't viable on a risk vs reward level, either, it wouldn't harm anyone else.

Sometimes people want to give others an unfair advantage. It turns them on or something. No harm done there. Ever see people running around in stupid mechs? People who play a game on 'hard' difficulty?

Edited by Soy, 17 May 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[karoushi]

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

Plenty of games have the ability to flag for non-consensual combat because the risk vs reward is a carrot stick to people who enjoy that sort of thing.

R&R functions on an immersion level as simple fluff, and on a balance level with regards to mech sizes and their relation to scoreboard. I see no reason why R&R isn't viable on a risk vs reward level, either, it wouldn't harm anyone else.

Sometimes people want to give others an unfair advantage. It turns them on or something. No harm done there. Ever see people running around in stupid mechs? People who play a game on 'hard' difficulty?

All of that is just speculation though ~ Like others have pointed out and like I fully explained in my posts several pages ago: There are Legitimate reasons and there are ways to Reintroduce a Functioning System without the stigma tied to the old "R&R" system. It doesn't need to be noticeable and when balanced correctly it doesn't bother anyone but it prevents people, especially the older players you all think have such a great advantage, from hoarding resources so that they can always afford any new mech or any module they want in the future unless the devs arbitrarily increase the costs which will only negatively affect new players and those with less.

All of this speculation about "people want to punish others" blah blah is just nonsense and isn't adding anything constructive to this discussion.

[Ricama]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Your post is incoherent and unrelated to my post, we are on the same side I want R&R and am not arguing the opposite.

What I was merely pointing out is that it Cannot be an option that you can turn on and off because that doesn't make any gaming sense, why even turn it on if it automatically disadvantages you vs others? It can't be a toggle-able option and that is all I was getting at.

Anyway, I like to think that I am good at design when I actually focus on a problem and not just throw ideas out there and I am certain that I could setup a R&R system that would suit everyone without being too tyrannical to anyone.

The idea is to serve a purpose and not just have it to have it, when you balance it around the other aspects of the game it can seem like it isn't even there, an after thought. Who would really be concerned with repairing their mech and rearming it if the amount of money they received from the match covered it or a majority of it? I don't think anyone would be and that is proper balancing.

When something is done right it seems like it isn't even done (or there) at all (IE: because it just fits and feels 'right').

Actually I am fully and completely against R&R, we are not on the same side at all. I also fancy myself good at design and have realized that there are only 2 options for R&R with the current game setup, both of them bad:

Option 1: R&R is applied unevenly between builds. This creates the same problems as the initial implementation, namely some people already played the builds R&R is gentle on and thus get more enjoyment from the game than people who do not. This causes the people of the second group to grind/suicide/afk until they have enough c-bills to actually have the same level of enjoyment from the game as the first group.

Option 2: R&R is applied evenly between all builds. As ELO is actively attempting to bring your win/loss record to 50% this is effectively just an overall reduction in c-bill earning, but it's now vulnerable to spikes.

I get the impression that the OP is simply proposal is only semi-serious and part of the 'incoherency' of my initial post is actually an attempt to point out your taking it far too seriously.

[karoushi]

Ricama, on 17 May 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Actually I am fully and completely against R&R, we are not on the same side at all. I also fancy myself good at design and have realized that there are only 2 options for R&R with the current game setup, both of them bad:

Option 1: R&R is applied unevenly between builds. This creates the same problems as the initial implementation, namely some people already played the builds R&R is gentle on and thus get more enjoyment from the game than people who do not. This causes the people of the second group to grind/suicide/afk until they have enough c-bills to actually have the same level of enjoyment from the game as the first group.

Option 2: R&R is applied evenly between all builds. As ELO is actively attempting to bring your win/loss record to 50% this is effectively just an overall reduction in c-bill earning, but it's now vulnerable to spikes.

I get the impression that the OP is simply proposal is only semi-serious and part of the 'incoherency' of my initial post is actually an attempt to point out your taking it far too seriously.

Well you obviously aren't very good at design because 1: You are limiting yourself and 2: You disregard the fact that we DO NOT WANT THE OLD R&R SYSTEM THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE.

Why can't people understand this? The Reintroduced system doesn't have to be like the broken one that was removed, okay? How is that not clear enough?


It honestly doesn't even have to be 'Repair & Rearm' because obviously there is a stigma related to that so you could just call it 'Logistics'!

Edited by karoushi, 17 May 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Soy]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

All of that is just speculation though ~ Like others have pointed out and like I fully explained in my posts several pages ago: There are Legitimate reasons and there are ways to Reintroduce a Functioning System without the stigma tied to the old "R&R" system. It doesn't need to be noticeable and when balanced correctly it doesn't bother anyone but it prevents people, especially the older players you all think have such a great advantage, from hoarding resources so that they can always afford any new mech or any module they want in the future unless the devs arbitrarily increase the costs which will only negatively affect new players and those with less.

All of this speculation about "people want to punish others" blah blah is just nonsense and isn't adding anything constructive to this discussion.

I don't think......... you understood what I was saying.......... ahh **** it, fight the battles that mean something to you I guess, carry on man....

[Deathlike]

WolvesX, on 17 May 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Oh sry, I actually didn't know it was your idea. Sry for that.

It's OK.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2358483

The jist of it is that if you really want it back, PGI would have to revamp the entire system in the background.. provided with feedback to address the needs and concerns of R&R. Once it is tweaked well enough, it can be reintegrated if approved for the most part. At the very minimum, this would have to be an optional opt-in system...

[Ricama]

karoushi, on 17 May 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Well you obviously aren't very good at design because 1: You are limiting yourself and 2: You disregard the fact that we DO NOT WANT THE OLD R&R SYSTEM THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE.

Why can't people understand this? The Reintroduced system doesn't have to be like the broken one that was removed, okay? How is that not clear enough?


It honestly doesn't even have to be 'Repair & Rearm' because obviously there is a stigma related to that so you could just call it 'Logistics'!

Now who's being incoherent and posting something completely unrelated. None of what I posted assumed we were going back to the old broken system. If you're so good at design why haven't I seen any design suggestions from you? So far all you've posted is the same tired wishful thinking of 'well it could work if it's done correctly'. Do tell, how could you possibly implement an unevenly weighted R&R system that didn't also cause an uneven level of enjoyment across the player base?

If you feel 'logistics' is an important aspect of the game and others clearly disagree with you why are you opposed to making it an option? Why do you have to force it down other player's throats before you can enjoy it?

[WolvesX]

I don't understand what speaks against an option. I don't like R&R for various reasons. I don't want it. I don't "enjoy" it. No, its not a balance tool.

If you want it so bad... why you are against the option system I proposed. You don't force your wish on other people, but you can have it.

If couse, no player I know personaly would trun on the option, but if you like R&R for YOU, you should have it.

[ConstantA]

Stormyblade, on 17 May 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

I must be missing something...

Some people in this game would willingly pay after each round for repairs and re-arming, thereby taking c-bills away?

I guess, you are missing something.
...In a land far-far away some people willingly pay cash for playable mech models in mechwarrior-themed game. Hard earned real cash for a bunch of 1-0. Why? Because they are having FUN with them. They LIKE them. And so, they pay for them.

Now for OP proposition - good one, but not thought through.
People who have R&R enabled should also get salvage from each match. And I mean not C-bills, but actual weapons, equipment and *badum-tsss* mechs.

But those people should also pay for repairs, rearming, replacing weapons, operating expense (modified by number of mechs in mechbay, their tonnage and installed equipment)

[pencilboom]

I dont mind having it as an option. Might as well make both sides happy right?
I approve this idea so people can stop whining and shut up