68 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

There is no R&R, but maybe there will be again in the future. It is a good way to get players to purchase Premium Time if they will gain CB to purchase mechs a lot faster. It doesn't seem like a huge benefit right now because you aren't spending 40% of your match earnings on ammo and repairs, but let me tell you what I learned by playing World of Tanks this week.

In WoT the repairs and ammunition cost money. I only have tier-5 and below tanks, but I can tell you, if I didn't have Premium Time, I could not afford to play my artillery tank all the time and still make any money so I can buy more stuff. I might even lose money on losing rounds after paying for repairs and ammo.

I'm guessing the players who don't buy premium probably do not bang away in an artillery all day because the ammo costs a lot. Maybe this is true of other kinds of tanks that I don't own yet. Either way, it is definitely a way to accomplish two things:

• encourage more class diversity
  
• give players more reason to get premium time or Hero mechs

I didn't think this was a big deal until actually playing WoT and paying for R&R. Now I see that it really could affect game-balance, if only slightly. It's quite interesting.

I'm not advocating that PGI re-activate R&R. I don't think they have said that they will (or won't.) I just thought I'd mention this as a discussion topic that may affect what weapons and mechs people choose to field.

[FupDup]

The thing about RnR is that it doesn't actually encourage diversity unless you're seriously low on funds. Would somebody with lots of spacebucks in storage ever rationally choose to not drive their most upgraded mech? Probably not. All RnR does is make it so only those with the most pre-stored resources get to use the most powerful builds. People with less dinero would have to drive SHS mediums while veterans got to obliterate them in min-maxed poptart teams.

[Victor Morson]

NO.

Never ever ever ever ever ever try to balance the game by cbills. This only creates a scenario in which the best players will dominate the field with the best gear, where the worst players will be restricted to the absolute worst gear in order to even afford their drops, where they won't beat the guys with the good gear and the cycle continues.

Do not try to balance the battlefield with the metagame. It just does not work.

[Hammertrial]

R&R does not to the first, but yes to the second.

Basically all it does is delay the time until you can play the mech you want for however long you want.

Essentially, like you said if you only earn 60% of earning overall, you've only increased the time until fun by 40%.


To reimplement R&R, they would need a complete overhaul of the rewards system.

Not to mention a rehaul of the rewards system would encourage more mech diversity than R&R

[Petroshka]

first step to a diverse battlefield is for a smarter match creator in which tonnage / model limits are imposed when teams are formed.

not adding money sinks.

[Cheatos]

I really wish R&R was back in the game but for different reasons.

It would mean people have to play smarter AND it would end the easy mode for grinding money which affects other people's game play.

I cant tell you how many countless times i watch some pug run off into a fight chin first only to die 20 secs later. The assumption for me is one of two things and in many cases in all reality its probably both. There is NO consequence to dying in a match, popping out then suiciding in another match, then rinse and repeat. Unfortunately its currently a very viable way to make money in rapid fashion. But for those of us who actually want to play the game we are left with a wasted slot and now a handicap. If there was economic repercusions to your actions in matches then you will be forced to play more intelligently which in turn will make for better matches. And at the same time eliminate the suicide grinder in one very easy stroke. To sum up, I'm all for eliminating MWO economics on easy mode.

[Pater Mors]

This game does not need R&R.

• It's a frustrating mechanic in a game that needs to constantly reward players to retain them (F2P) and encourage them to spend real $$ to keep the game development moving.
  
• It doesn't bring anything valuable to this genre. It would be much better implemented in a game like MechWarrior: Tactics.
  
• It promotes a 'rich get richer/poor get poorer' economy which is entirely bad for the game.
  
• It's a horrible idea to force players to play weight classes that they don't want to play.

And many more examples I can't be bothered listing. If they were going to bring it back, they only way they could do it fairly, is to wipe everyone's accounts so everyone starts on a level playing field again and even then, that only stops the economic divide for the first few months.


No matter how you change it or rehash it, it is a bad idea and should not be implemented in any form. Punishing players for losing in a Free-To-Play game is the worst way to retain new players.

Edit: and no matter how much people want it to be, MWO is never going to be a Table Top game of Battletech where RP and story telling is the primary consideration of play. The First Person genre is simply not conducive to that type of game on a mainstream level.

Edited by Pater Mors, 29 May 2013 - 02:05 PM.

[Cheatos]

Pater Mors, on 29 May 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

This game does not need R&R.

• It's a frustrating mechanic in a game that needs to constantly reward players to retain them (F2P) and encourage them to spend real $$ to keep the game development moving.
  
• It doesn't bring anything valuable to this genre. It would be much better implemented in a game like MechWarrior: Tactics.
  
• It promotes a 'rich get richer/poor get poorer' economy which is entirely bad for the game.
  
• It's a horrible idea to force players to play weight classes that they don't want to play.

And many more examples I can't be bothered listing. If they were going to bring it back, they only way they could do it fairly, is to wipe everyone's accounts so everyone starts on a level playing field again and even then, that only stops the economic divide for the first few months.



No matter how you change it or rehash it, it is a bad idea and should not be implemented in any form. Punishing players for losing in a Free-To-Play game is the worst way to retain new players.

Edit: and no matter how much people want it to be, MWO is never going to be a Table Top game of Battletech where RP and story telling is the primary consideration of play. The First Person genre is simply not conducive to that type of game on a mainstream level.

So is your assertion that the game should reward people who play poorly and give them nothing in terms of encouraging them to play better?

[Pater Mors]

Cheatos, on 29 May 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

So is your assertion that the game should reward people who play poorly and give them nothing in terms of encouraging them to play better?

Yeah because that's exactly what I wrote.

Can you point out above where I said people should be rewarded for bad play? Also R&R does exactly nothing to encourage good play. All it encourages is builds and tactics which minimize financial output and maximize input. Please show me how that encourages good play? You think Sniper builds are bad now? Wait until showing your face for 10 seconds results in a huge repair bill and see how bad it becomes then.

Edited by Pater Mors, 29 May 2013 - 02:15 PM.

[Cheatos]

Pater Mors, on 29 May 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

• It promotes a 'rich get richer/poor get poorer' economy which is entirely bad for the game.
  

If they were going to bring it back, they only way they could do it fairly, is to wipe everyone's accounts so everyone starts on a level playing field again and even then, that only stops the economic divide for the first few months.



No matter how you change it or rehash it, it is a bad idea and should not be implemented in any form. Punishing players for losing in a Free-To-Play game is the worst way to retain new players.

Your first point: So poorer players couldn't get rich by becoming better players?

As to points 2 and 3: Fairness is a myth. There should be rewards for winning more, doing more damage while in return taking less. And in all things there is a divide between people making more or less money. The point is to have consequences to your game play. How healthy of a game do you envision this to be without it?

I see there being other good side effects to R&R, such as people grouping up more and joining clans. Currently there is no incentive to really do this aside from a social aspect but add economics to it then things change

[FupDup]

Cheatos, on 29 May 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Your first point: So poorer players couldn't get rich by becoming better players?

As to points 2 and 3: Fairness is a myth. There should be rewards for winning more, doing more damage while in return taking less. And in all things there is a divide between people making more or less money. The point is to have consequences to your game play. How healthy of a game do you envision this to be without it?

I see there being other good side effects to R&R, such as people grouping up more and joining clans. Currently there is no incentive to really do this aside from a social aspect but add economics to it then things change

There already are rewards for winning more and doing more damage. There might not be rewards based on damage you receive, but dying means that you are less likely to win and thus more likely to lose...which nets fewer spacebucks than winning. The consequences of your game play are that you win or you lose.

You seem to be operating under the belief that people don't want to win if they don't have to pay repair bills after the match...this is false. Human nature, primarily, dictates that humans enjoy winning over others and thus they will naturally try to do what they can to ensure that victory. You also get very little payment for defeats, meaning that if you want to progress in the game it is in your best interests to win.

Edited by FupDup, 29 May 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Cheatos, on 29 May 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

So is your assertion that the game should reward people who play poorly and give them nothing in terms of encouraging them to play better?

More like the inverse in fact.

R and R would work if the game rewarded good game play. The majority of my score is obtained via damage.
high damage is not equivalent to good game play.

lets say im on point and i have the OPFOR around a corner.. in not going to fight them... i'm going to just stand there and never come out. i'll fake it but im never going to take a shot.... that how you get cored in under 10 seconds... in the neam time
i hope.. my team has flanked the OPFOR and is about to destroy there rear armor. then and only then and the opfor has turned away will i move to attack.

my damage is lower as a result but its good game play.... i may still die with low a score and my money will reflect that.
with R and R i get screwed if i die for what ... trying to play well.

[Pater Mors]

Cheatos, on 29 May 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Your first point: So poorer players couldn't get rich by becoming better players?

As to points 2 and 3: Fairness is a myth. There should be rewards for winning more, doing more damage while in return taking less. And in all things there is a divide between people making more or less money. The point is to have consequences to your game play. How healthy of a game do you envision this to be without it?

I see there being other good side effects to R&R, such as people grouping up more and joining clans. Currently there is no incentive to really do this aside from a social aspect but add economics to it then things change

Your first sentence is hilarious. You should have cured all the worlds economic problems with an attitude like that.

There ARE already rewards for doing better which encourage people to play better. When you lose, you get substantially less than when you win, making the grind 10x as long. The consequences for bad play are extremely long grind times. Imagine trying to grind out 3 Atlai to Master if you lost every single match?? Do I think the rewards for good play are good enough? No, I don't but I think that the 'punishments' for bad play are fine as they are.

The problem with your last sentence is it almost forces people to join a clan or a guild so they can have some semblance of a chance of getting ahead with their finances. Not everyone wants to play in a group/clan/house. Lone Wolf exists for a reason, but they will go extinct if R&R is reimplemented.

Edited by Pater Mors, 29 May 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[Hammertrial]

Cheatos, on 29 May 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

So is your assertion that the game should reward people who play poorly and give them nothing in terms of encouraging them to play better?

The entire rewards system currently rewards people who play well and punishes people who play poorly by giving them minimal rewards.

[jeffsw6]

Hammertrial, on 29 May 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

The entire rewards system currently rewards people who play well and punishes people who play poorly by giving them minimal rewards.

I don't entirely agree. It does not provide rewards for defending a base/resource unless an opponent actually attacks you, and you kill them. Even then, your reward is almost never greater than just going to find an enemy and killing him, and not defending a particular point on the map. Yes, it can increase your chances of victory; but the players who get rewarded the most are the ones trading shots.

I've had several rounds where I did over 1200 damage, but a lot of it was wasted damage. Just me doing a bad job of killing a mech or two, by tearing off all their parts and crap before I managed to freaking aim and finish them off. But I've got over 300k from those rounds.

I don't ever remember getting a great CB reward for defending a base, and I've won against vastly superior numbers when defending a base before, just because of being a little lucky with my shots, or opponents being a little stupid / over-confident.

[Pater Mors]

jeffsw6, on 29 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I don't entirely agree. It does not provide rewards for defending a base/resource unless an opponent actually attacks you, and you kill them. Even then, your reward is almost never greater than just going to find an enemy and killing him, and not defending a particular point on the map. Yes, it can increase your chances of victory; but the players who get rewarded the most are the ones trading shots.

I've had several rounds where I did over 1200 damage, but a lot of it was wasted damage. Just me doing a bad job of killing a mech or two, by tearing off all their parts and crap before I managed to freaking aim and finish them off. But I've got over 300k from those rounds.

I don't ever remember getting a great CB reward for defending a base, and I've won against vastly superior numbers when defending a base before, just because of being a little lucky with my shots, or opponents being a little stupid / over-confident.

I totally agree with you on this point. There needs to be heaps of rewards that encourage better play. I posted in the Suggestions forum with a bunch of ideas for c-bill/xp rewards to encourage scouting but I think there needs to be a lot to encourage all sorts of different types of play.

That being said, I think a rewards system like that is a much better idea for MWO than reintroducing R&R which I don't think encourages any sort of good or risky tactics. It's actually more of a punishment for someone scouting or taking a risk to try and gain a tactical advantage for the whole team. If you die, even if your team wins, you still lose because you have to spend all your winnings fixing yourself up.

[Alftraum]

When i see how poorly some people behave in battle they can be happy they get anything.
No, serious the game punishes the team which looses not the player, if you got a high score you get more money no mater if you lose or win. You just get more bonus if you win. Don´t think the economy is unfair.

For a game which uses different tech levels R&R is quite a good option for balancing some issues not all.
But that might be something for a hardcore gamemode, they might build in.(think the devs stated this might be an option in one of the ask the devs)

I would like to see R&R in the game again, anyway

jeffsw6, on 29 May 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I don't ever remember getting a great CB reward for defending a base, and I've won against vastly superior numbers when defending a base before, just because of being a little lucky with my shots, or opponents being a little stupid / over-confident.

But you get a lot additional CB/XP for helping your teammates

[Petroshka]

the first question should be "Why should R&R exist". I suspect if you ask the marketing and sales at PGI it will be "it's an entry point to a revenue model". It;s probably one of the most blatant entry points to one, as a matter of fact, and whenever a game mechanic becomes intimately connected with a company's revenue stream, it usually starts sucking, a lot.

if the answer is "to diversify the battlefield" then that requires a completely different framework for the economy to run in order not to make a terrible game.

Approaching R&R trying to both provide a revenue stream and diversify the battlefield can only end in oceans of tears.

[Tekadept]

R&R will affect the game balance greatly, however the QQ Balance on the forum be affected as well, as this thread will demonstrate.

[Sporklift]

The problems with Repair and Rearm were:

-game is unfinished, doesn't allow you to get back into the fight right after a crash or DC, leaving you with a repair bill (often expensive)
-there was no form of skill/experience based matching system (or whatever we have now) meaning people often would get stomped repeatedly and the farmers stayed in games with the people who actually played rather than being banished to ELO hell.
-lack of a comprehensive reward system, CW based bonuses, and CW based R&R discounts.
-lack of sufficient cap on R&R price.
-a BS system that refilled 75% of ammo before rearm, which was abused constantly.
-it punished people who used certain machines in their intended role (IE CPLT-A1 or C4 with LRMS) rather than just using a heavily-discounted ammo bin refill (similar to a convenience store cup refill).
-XL engines became a bigger liability than they already are, surviving with a red torso section usually meant a loss in c-bills (that was with 250k+ rewards).
-a loud part of the gaming community isn't really mature enough to accept R&R as part of the game. To them it would just be some annoying mechanic meant to drive them into a P2W scenario (indeed R&R is where the P2W thing started, then we got consumables).

While R&R alone doesn't balance everything it might have encouraged people to play something lighter weight because its cheaper to repair. This gives heavier chassis more value on the battlefield because there are fewer other heavy chassis to fight against and allows the mediums a chance to fight something that isn't going to roflstomp them instantly.