72 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

I'm gonna ask this one and simple question:

Why does repair and rearm works in WoT, but not here?

If you find the answer, you'll find how to implement R&R in this game.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Maybe I should explain what I mean by "downside". What I mean is that there must be a trade-off for taking better equipment. Initial cost is a "downside", more expensive repairs would be another. Yes, the equipment is better, but there is a risk associated with the reward.

If there is a trade-off for taking better equipment, then the equipment isn't better anymore by definition. "Better" means that there can't be any little downsides at all in order to live up to that word.


Regardless, monetary costs are only temporary. Once somebody accumulates a "critical mass" of spacebucks, then they can afford to steamroll SHS mediums/lights in their Steiner Scout Lances. It doesn't actually solve the problem of min-max, it just delays it until the player gets rich (and makes it so only those with the most time invested get to min-max).

Edited by FupDup, 26 May 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 26 May 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

If there is a trade-off for taking better equipment, then the equipment isn't better anymore by definition. "Better" means that there can't be any little downsides at all in order to live up to that word.


Regardless, monetary costs are only temporary. Once somebody accumulates a "critical mass" of spacebucks, then they can afford to steamroll SHS mediums/lights in their Steiner Scout Lances. It doesn't actually solve the problem of min-max, it just delays it until the player gets rich (and makes it so only those with the most time invested get to min-max).

Really?

Is a Ferrari "better" than a Hyundai? Because there is a severe disadvantage to a Ferrari. The insurance is nuts. (Ignoring the initial financial outlay because it is temporary)

I would argue the Ferrari is better, but it has a downside.

If I am understanding your argument, then either they are equal, because since there is a downside the Ferrari cannot be considered an upgrade; or the downside (insurance costs, repair costs, maintenance costs) does not apply.

[Livewyr]

Sybreed, on 26 May 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

I'm gonna ask this one and simple question:

Why does repair and rearm works in WoT, but not here?

If you find the answer, you'll find how to implement R&R in this game.

Honest answer: People aren't screaming P2W over at WoT.. and the few that do, get ignored by the Devs.

If people here would quit screaming Pay2Win every time there is a difference in experience between a player willing and able pay, and a player playing for free.. one might actually be able to do something. (And when I mean experience, I mean the experience that comes with premium time..)

It's a bunch of [insert political party members] that want the game to function on cosmetic differences between people willing to pay, and the people getting a free ride.

(I'm not advocating gold ammo and consumables type crap, those are things that are plain out of reach, but I am advocating a s-t-f-u when the paying player can get to something faster than the free player, or play something more often than the free player...)

Vast difference between Pay2Win and Pay2PlayFaster/Pay4Convenience.. but few seem to recognize that.

----------------------------
EDIT: This where I get labeled gold flavored epithets by the holier-than-thou crowd armed with the success of LoL who completely ignore the success of WoT (which incidentally, I just saw a commercial for on T.V.)

Edited by Livewyr, 26 May 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Really?

Is a Ferrari "better" than a Hyundai? Because there is a severe disadvantage to a Ferrari. The insurance is nuts. (Ignoring the initial financial outlay because it is temporary)

I would argue the Ferrari is better, but it has a downside.

If I am understanding your argument, then either they are equal, because since there is a downside the Ferrari cannot be considered an upgrade; or the downside (insurance costs, repair costs, maintenance costs) does not apply.

The Ferrari example isn't completely congruent because of how real life grinding works versus MWO. Getting the dinero to drive a Ferrari is something most people simply will never be able to accomplish. In MWO, you just have to play more matches and you'll be able to buy anything after a while. If people were able to grind USD like they can C-Bills and/or buy IRL Premium Time, then the Hyundai would be only used by the real-life equivalent of "noobs."


Another issue with that comparison is that Hyundais and Ferraris aren't put in a PvP battle area with the goal of achieving victory. The performance advantages of a Ferrari aren't quite so noticeable when just driving to work or the grocery store--they don't have to fight to the death.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 26 May 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

The Ferrari example isn't completely congruent because of how real life grinding works versus MWO. Getting the dinero to drive a Ferrari is something most people simply will never be able to accomplish. In MWO, you just have to play more matches and you'll be able to buy anything after a while. If people were able to grind USD like they can C-Bills and/or buy IRL Premium Time, then the Hyundai would be only used by the real-life equivalent of "noobs."


Another issue with that comparison is that Hyundais and Ferraris aren't put in a PvP battle area with the goal of achieving victory. The performance advantages of a Ferrari aren't quite so noticeable when just driving to work or the grocery store--they don't have to fight to the death.

You are missing the point. One thing can be considered an upgrade over the other, but still have "downsides". That is the point you were arguing.

But let's put the whole thing in MechWarrior terms:
Player A has a RVN-2X, std armor, std Internal structure.
Player B has a RVN-3L, with Ferro and endo steel.

If both take the same damage, wouldn't it make sense that the 3L be more expensive to repair?

Who is more likely to be disadvantaged in this R&R scenario, the "noob" in the 2X or the L33t 3L pilot?

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

You are missing the point. One thing can be considered an upgrade over the other, but still have "downsides". That is the point you were arguing.

But let's put the whole thing in MechWarrior terms:
Player A has a RVN-2X, std armor, std Internal structure.
Player B has a RVN-3L, with Ferro and endo steel.

If both take the same damage, wouldn't it make sense that the 3L be more expensive to repair?

Who is more likely to be disadvantaged in this R&R scenario, the "noob" in the 2X or the L33t 3L pilot?

That l33t Craven, though, will be less likely to take damage than the 2X due to his speed (not to mention ECM stealth effect...). The Craven's superior armaments will also allow it to make more money, helping to alleviate that higher repair bill. If that 2X is running SHS, he will overheat too often to make money and will probably die due to constant overheating (and/or slow speed). A destroyed stock 2X would probably take more to repair than a scratched min-max Craven.


This also doesn't do much to console the 2X pilot. If he gets pwned in a 1 on 1 by the Craven (extremely likely), then he more likely than not won't be thinking "It's completely fair that I died to his superior mech because I get to pay slightly lower spacebucks than he does!"

Balancing has to be done within the match for it to matter at all. Otherwise, it leaves a situation of people winning only because of the equipment they used rather than how they used it. An SHS trial mech simply cannot skill it's way past a min-maxed custom rapemachine.

Edited by FupDup, 26 May 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 26 May 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

That l33t Craven, though, will be less likely to take damage than the 2X due to his speed (not to mention ECM stealth effect...). The Craven's superior armaments will also allow it to make more money, helping to alleviate that higher repair bill. If that 2X is running SHS, he will overheat too often to make money and will probably die due to constant overheating (and/or slow speed). A destroyed stock 2X would probably take more to repair than a scratched min-max Craven.


This also doesn't do much to console the 2X pilot. If he gets pwned in a 1 on 1 by the Craven (extremely likely), then he more likely than not won't be thinking "It's completely fair that I died to his superior mech because I get to pay slightly lower spacebucks than he does!"

Balancing has to be done within the match for it to matter at all. Otherwise, it leaves a situation of people winning only because of the equipment they used rather than how they used it.

You are ignoring the "if both take the same damage" part of the question.

I agree completely that balancing must ALSO be a priority within the match. (So the 2X pilot does not fight the 3L pilot unless he is part of a team).

[Kaspirikay]

R n R has no place in the game right now.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

You are ignoring the "if both take the same damage" part of the question.

I agree completely that balancing must ALSO be a priority within the match. (So the 2X pilot does not fight the 3L pilot unless he is part of a team).

The Craven will earn greater post-match rewards due to superior performance, so depending on the cost formula used he might have an easier time paying his bills because the 2X won't earn much more than pennies (unless he has cadet bonus) with which to pay the bills.

Edited by FupDup, 26 May 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 26 May 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

The Craven will earn greater post-match rewards due to superior performance, so depending on the cost formula used he might have an easier time paying his bills because the 2X won't earn much more than pennies (unless he has cadet bonus) with which to pay the bills.

That is an assumption. Sometimes 3Ls get hit from across the map by 6 PPC Stalkers.

Guys in Ferraris also get more chicks than guys in Hyundais, amirite?

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

That is an assumption. Sometimes 3Ls get hit from across the map by 6 PPC Stalkers.

Guys in Ferraris also get more chicks than guys in Hyundais, amirite?

Rare matches like that are the exception, note the rule.

I think from this we can conclude that Ferraris are OP and must be nerfed immediately.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 26 May 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Rare matches like that are the exception, note the rule.

I think from this we can conclude that Ferraris are OP and must be nerfed immediately.

I think we should kill their pilots and institute "salvage".

[tuokaerf]

As for the "overabundance" of heavies and assaults, does anyone have hard stats on what the percentage is, or tracked personally a few hundred games? If not, it's all opinion.

R&R encouraged poor behavior from players and discouraged creative builds. They reworked the economy to get rid of it.

[FupDup]

tuokaerf, on 26 May 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

As for the "overabundance" of heavies and assaults, does anyone have hard stats on what the percentage is, or tracked personally a few hundred games? If not, it's all opinion.

R&R encouraged poor behavior from players and discouraged creative builds. They reworked the economy to get rid of it.

During the 3050 weekend event (near Heavy Metal release time), somebody found that approx. 33% of all mechs were assaults, 33% heavies, 22% mediums, and 11% lights.

http://mwomercs.com/...19#entry2220919

I'd imagine that ballistic HSR and non-premium Highlanders would have influenced the trend further in favor of heavies and assaults, although I haven't seen any stats on recent mech distributions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that I completely agree with you and the others that RnR is a bad idea, but saying that assaults and heavies aren't highly common could not possibly be farther from the truth. Start up MWO and see.

[tuokaerf]

I'm not arguing, I just like facts. 33% Assault and 33% Heavies (while still a large number), is no where near the kind of attitude expressed around here ("EVERY DROP IS 6 ASSAULTS!!!", and other nonsense like that).

[Eldan Sontim]

I think R&R would actually help the ELO system currently in place.
People that tried to P2W would end up tipping money down the drain trying to pad their lack of skill with MC to keep them in their ELO bracket, while those that couldn't afford expensive upgrades would feed off those trying to maintain their place with MC purchases.
And if you really lacked both skill and money you could remain with others of your level in an ELO bracket that was equal.

I would have beginners start at the bottom ELO level so that if they have a modicum of skill the will earn plenty of money as they raise through the ranks so they have the option to buy and maintain the more expensive equipment if they choose.

My 2 cents.

[Keifomofutu]

tuokaerf, on 26 May 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

I'm not arguing, I just like facts. 33% Assault and 33% Heavies (while still a large number), is no where near the kind of attitude expressed around here ("EVERY DROP IS 6 ASSAULTS!!!", and other nonsense like that).

2/3 heavier classes is a severe imbalance. Generally speaking in other class based games if the heavy classes were even a few percent more common I'm sure it would attract dev attention to the issue. PGI can't be unaware of this.

This is role warfare failing in front of our eyes. A tax letting rich players continue to exploit the imbalance won't fix this.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 26 May 2013 - 09:43 PM.

[Volthorne]

All during R&R I kept thinking to myself "If this is a team-based game, then why do we get rewarded for INDIVIDUAL actions rather than from the combined actions of the TEAM?"

Think about that for a second.

Edited by Volthorne, 26 May 2013 - 10:53 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Livewyr, on 26 May 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

A: (Mustrum, my point is that we won't be able to have immersion (or accurate immersion) in all aspects of the game. That went out with random drops and no story mode- but that doesn't mean we can't try and include it in places.. otherwise, why the hell bother with B-Betty?)

B: You two (Mustrum & Fup) bring up great points, and I'd like us to think of ways around it. (Thus this being a discussion thread, not a courtroom.)

Remove C-Bill bonuses from Premium and Hero mechs from the game. If you don't do that, then you will always have a P2W component. The guy that gets bonuses on his C-Bills always can recover from repair cost faster and will be able to bring the "OP" mechs then those without Premium. He'll win more often, and make even more money.

Last R&R System:
Player F2P makes 50,000 C-Bills in a match, and must repair for 40,000. 10,000 in winnings.
Player P2P makes 50,000 C-Bills in a match, adding 25,000 for Premium, must repair for 40,000 C-Bills. 35,000 in winnings.
By getting a 50 % bonus on winnings ,he actually makes 250 % more winnings.

Player F2P makes 30,000 C-Bills in a match, and must repair for 40,000. 10,000 loss.
Player P2P makes 30,000 C-Bills in a match, adding 15,000 for Premium, must repair for 40,000 C-Bills. 5,000 in winnings.
By getting a 50 % bonus on winnings ,he actually doesn't even make a loss.

=> Broken.

Fictional R&R System where players must subtract repair fees from winnings and then apply bonuses:
Player F2P makes 50,000 C-Bills in a match, and must repair for 40,000. 10,000 in winnings.
Player P2P makes 50,000 C-Bills in a match, and must repair for 40,000. 10,000 in winnings, plus 50 % bonus equals 15.000 in winnings.

Player F2P makes 30,000 C-Bills in a match, and must repair for 40,000. 10,000 loss.
Player P2P makes 30,000 C-Bills in a match, must repair for 40,000 C-Bills. 10,000 loss (assuming we don't punish Premiums ,but don't reward them either. We could, for example, slash the loss by the 50 % bonus, so it's only 5,000 C-Bills.).

Still problematic. And where is the immersion, you can't even interact with that repairs, they just happen magically in a single line on your end-of-game rewards.

---

The only alternative would be to map repairs to a completely new currency. But what would you buy from that, and does it in the end replace C-Bills, making Premium and Hero mech bonuses worthless? And doesn't that also break immersion, why can't I pay off repairs with C-Bills, I bought the mech for it?

Hotthedd, on 26 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

IIRC, disconnected mechs did not incur damage before R&R was removed. If you were to disco farm NOW, you would still be likely to get a repair bill.

Just fix enough of the mech that you can take it into the next match, utterly damaged, lost limbs and what not. Or take a trial mech. As long as you can choose not to pay the bill, you're good. And if you always have to pay the bill (even in trials), what do you when someone is broke? Lock the account and have him start a new one?

Quote

The idea; why I brought up the thread, is that RnR could be used as a motivator to not run the most overpowered build at all time, and in fact use others to make money.

The question you have to ask yourself is: Why do you not want people to try to be at their best?

We don't ask for mechanics to reward non-teamp play, because in canon, there were also poor mech warriors that didn't work well with others.
Where is the fun in a competition if you know the competititon is holding back?

And the other question is
do we need upgrades at all? Why not have all items have drawbacks with their perks?

Artemis is simply balanced - it costs +1 ton, +1 crit per launcher.
XL Engine makes your mech more vulnerable.

Double Heat Sinks vs Single Heat Sinks? Buff Single Heat Sinks. Say, Half heat capacity in total, double dissipation of all sinks, and make SHS add +2 to heat cap, while DHS only add +1.

Endo-Steel? Costs a bunch of Crits, but maybe in addition, have mechs with Endo-Steel take double damage from critical hits.
Ferro Fibrous? Costs abunch of Crits. Probably needs a buff before it needs a drawback. But let's say its buff it allows you to go over the normal armour limitations (by 12 %), and it's drawback is that it makes your mech twist 10 % slower or whatever.


Or maybe we decide we need upgrades. They are just part of leveling in MW:O, like you start with your Crude Rusty Shortsword in an MMORPG and end up with a +10 Vorpal Sword

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 May 2013 - 10:37 PM.