72 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Volthorne, on 26 May 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

All during R&R I ket 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.

Excellent question. I thought about this a few times already, and I still think we should have some team-based rewards.

We should probably also keep individual rewards, but mix them with more team-based rewards.
I say "more" because there is one team-based reward - salvage. Only the winner gets it, and it's only for killing mechs, not all the other stuff a good team might do.

ONe idea I had was to give everyone a bonus reward based on the average individual rewards in a match. Say, 25 % of the average. Maybe cross out the fixed reward items (25,000 for winning or losing). But if the average is 50,000 C-Bills, everyone gets 12,500 C-Bills.

So even if a particular tactic (say, capping) isn't rewarded much, if your team did well (maybe because you capping the point split the enemy team up, making it easy pickings), you'll do better for it, too.

[Sephlock]

Lets not and say we did.

[tuokaerf]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 May 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

We should probably also keep individual rewards, but mix them with more team-based rewards.
I say "more" because there is one team-based reward - salvage. Only the winner gets it, and it's only for killing mechs, not all the other stuff a good team might do.

I like that. It could also be based on component destruction/damage. If you efficiently kill opponents, you get a higher reward. If the team blows off each part, you get less.

[stjobe]

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).

33% of 8 is 2.64, so 33% assaults and 33% heavies is 5/8ths of the team, leaving only three spots for mediums (two of them) and a single light on each side.

Which is kind of backwards from BTU lore, where lights and mediums were about 70% of the 'mechs in existence, heavies were about 20%, and assaults only made up roughly 10%.

Or, put another way, heavies and assaults are more than twice as common as they should be - and no surprise in that; there's not a single downside to running a heavy or assault, and more than a little upside in the form of larger match rewards. I'd go so far as to say MWO currently actively encourages players to get into the heaviest 'mech they can, and actively discourages players from running anything below 50 tons.

Now I don't know that R&R would solve this; it's a complex issue. It has to do with as diverse things as a non-existent CW system, a bad implementation of the heat system, and an arguably bad choice in when to position the game in the BTU timeline.

I think the first step in resolving the issue is actually to fix the current heat system. If the heat cap was lowered and dissipation increased, it would go a long way towards making stock 'mechs more attractive, and thereby also closing the gap between tier 1 and tier 2 tech.

Step two would be to get some real weapon balancing done with the new heat system in place. This would also likely make stock 'mechs more attractive and further close the gap between stock and custom 'mechs.

Finally, when that's all done, they could have a look at economical incentives from matches. Currently it really only pays to do damage - and not surprisingly, the heavies and assaults are the best at that. If there were something mediums and lights could do that made them earn as much as the heavies and assaults, you'd be sure to see a lot more of them on the field.

But as long as we have the current heat system, the current weapon balance, and the current match rewards, heavies and assaults are simply better than mediums and lights, and there's nothing a R&R system could do that would alleviate that.

[Snuglninja]

My suggestion for R&R :

Make it opt in.
When CW let people who don't want R&R go on with their life without ever seeing or using R&R.
Then like these tournaments, have an opt in side for R&R.
Example: I wake up log on to mwo and see that Kurita and Davion are having some problems on planet blah blah.
I opt in ,maybe spend c-bills for jumpship transport.
Now for a day or 2 they have contracts that I can sign up for with varying payment some contracts for 5 million some for 20 million whatever.
I pick a contract - conquest for 15 million so at the end of the match me and 7 others split the contract after R&R with bonus for winning and completing objectives..... and so on so forth.
After a day I log on and through ISN find out that Planet blah blah was taking by Davion thanks to mercs from these units. Give people who participated a little achievement badge on their profile page for the battle of Blah Blah.
Everyone gets what they want.

[oldradagast]

Why does this topic keep coming back?

During the days of Repair and Rearm, it was very easy to play matches where you end up with a net loss in money, which sinks you into debt and makes it harder to repair your mechs, thus making it easier to lose more money, and so on - a downward spiral. Any game mechanic that DISCOURAGES game play by literally creating situations where the player would be better off not playing in a given match or series of matches is a bad mechanic. PGI needs people to play the game, develop a greater interest, and then spend real money on it. That will happen far less often if hordes of players, especially the newer or casual player, are stuck with 3 or 4 trashed mechs in their mech bay and a negative Cbill total. At that point, they shake their head in disgust and quit vs. running out and buying a hero mech (that'll also end up trashed) or more mech bays (to store more trashed mechs.) From this viewpoint alone, Repair and Rearm is a dismal failure - it drives players away and can actually force people to stop before pressing that Launch button and ask themselves, "is it really worth it?"

People can argue "realism" all the want, although last time I checked real wars were never fought with random 8 on 8 drops on arena-like locations on random planets... nor did individuals have to fund their own repairs. That would be like sending the tank drivers in the Army a repair bill for when their tank is damaged, which is completely unrealistic. There's also the question as to why I should have to pay a huge repair and rearm bill just because I dropped on a horrible team or got rolled by a an 8-man premade while I was in a PUG. As long as match-making is almost totally random (questionable ELO aside), slapping losers with a penalty is even more grossly unfair. And don't even start on sending people a bill when they get disconnected in the middle of the match - that's a great way to force people to leave the game!

So, no, let's not even consider a return to Repair and Rearm, which was nothing more than a tax on playing the game.

Edited by oldradagast, 27 May 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[Hotthedd]

oldradagast, on 27 May 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Why does this topic keep coming back?

During the days of Repair and Rearm, it was very easy to play matches where you end up with a net loss in money, which sinks you into debt and makes it harder to repair your mechs, thus making it easier to lose more money, and so on - a downward spiral. Any game mechanic that DISCOURAGES game play by literally creating situations where the player would be better off not playing in a given match or series of matches is a bad mechanic. PGI needs people to play the game, develop a greater interest, and then spend real money on it. That will happen far less often if hordes of players, especially the newer or casual player, are stuck with 3 or 4 trashed mechs in their mech bay and a negative Cbill total. At that point, they shake their head in disgust and quit vs. running out and buying a hero mech (that'll also end up trashed) or more mech bays (to store more trashed mechs.) From this viewpoint alone, Repair and Rearm is a dismal failure - it drives players away and can actually force people to stop before pressing that Launch button and ask themselves, "is it really worth it?"

People can argue "realism" all the want, although last time I checked real wars were never fought with random 8 on 8 drops on arena-like locations on random planets... nor did individuals have to fund their own repairs. That would be like sending the tank drivers in the Army a repair bill for when their tank is damaged, which is completely unrealistic. There's also the question as to why I should have to pay a huge repair and rearm bill just because I dropped on a horrible team or got rolled by a an 8-man premade while I was in a PUG. As long as match-making is almost totally random (questionable ELO aside), slapping losers with a penalty is even more grossly unfair.

I'm also particularly discouraged by a constant sense of elitism in posts that want Repair and Rearm to return. Just because you were there since day 1 of the game and have 1 of every mech doesn't mean all new players should "learn the hard way" and be forced to play nothing but cheap to repair and rearm light mechs for months on end until they "earn" the right to play something they enjoy. They have just as much of a right to enjoy the game as you do, and, quite frankly, if you make their gaming experience frustrating and pointless, they will leave before spending any money. Maybe some of the "old guard" would be happy to get rid of the "noobs" who don't appreciate the economic beauty of repairing an Atlas by clicking the repair button, but PGI needs new players to become paying players to keep the game going. Scare them all off and your wonderful Founder's Atlas will cease to exist along with the game.

So, no, let's not even consider a return to Repair and Rearm, which was nothing more than a tax on playing the game.

Once again someone misses the point.

Nobody is arguing a return to the old R&R, which your post clearly points out as flawed.

People asking for R&R want a BETTER system, that avoids the pitfalls you so eloquently illustrated.

[Pater Mors]

Hotthedd, on 27 May 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Once again someone misses the point.

Nobody is arguing a return to the old R&R, which your post clearly points out as flawed.

People asking for R&R want a BETTER system, that avoids the pitfalls you so eloquently illustrated.

I think the best system is to leave any form of R&R out of the game altogether, regardless of whether it's better than the previous version or not.

[Hotthedd]

Pater Mors, on 27 May 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

I think the best system is to leave any form of R&R out of the game altogether, regardless of whether it's better than the previous version or not.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But many people would like to have it for immersion, and if it does not cause the problems that people mention with the old R&R system, what reason would there be NOT to have it? The only thing it would discourage is sloppy twitchy play.

[Keifomofutu]

Hotthedd, on 28 May 2013 - 04:27 AM, said:

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But many people would like to have it for immersion, and if it does not cause the problems that people mention with the old R&R system, what reason would there be NOT to have it? The only thing it would discourage is sloppy twitchy play.

Source? Oh wait you never back up anything you say. You just keep bringing up this blessed from on high variety of R&R that exists only in your own head. Either it becomes a soft form of pay to win or it is reeled back enough that you'll never take a loss. But in turn if R&R doesn't ever make you take a loss of money then it does nothing to force the use of lighter classes anyway.

[Hotthedd]

Keifomofutu, on 28 May 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Source? Oh wait you never back up anything you say. You just keep bringing up this blessed from on high variety of R&R that exists only in your own head. Either it becomes a soft form of pay to win or it is reeled back enough that you'll never take a loss. But in turn if R&R doesn't ever make you take a loss of money then it does nothing to force the use of lighter classes anyway.

Source? Pot, meet Kettle.
If you care to read back through the thread, there have been many suggestions on how a newer, fairer R&R could be implemented.
Personally, I do not want to "force" people to use lighter classes through in-game economy. (I would prefer tonnage limits on drops) I think that, for newer players especially, actually SEEING a total deducted from your match paycheck would encourage smarter play.
Since nobody would ever lose money to R&R, it REALLY becomes a BONUS to pilots who play well.

[stjobe]

Hotthedd, on 28 May 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

Personally, I do not want to "force" people to use lighter classes through in-game economy.

If the game had equal rewards for light and heavy gameplay, you wouldn't have to "force people to use lighter classes".

Currently, the game overwhelmingly rewards damage and kills, and guess what? Heavier 'mechs do that better than lighter, on average.

As for R&R, I'd love to see it return in some form; but most assuredly NOT in the form we had it. It should be in a form that adds to the game, not detracts from it.

[Hotthedd]

stjobe, on 28 May 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

If the game had equal rewards for light and heavy gameplay, you wouldn't have to "force people to use lighter classes".

Currently, the game overwhelmingly rewards damage and kills, and guess what? Heavier 'mechs do that better than lighter, on average.

As for R&R, I'd love to see it return in some form; but most assuredly NOT in the form we had it. It should be in a form that adds to the game, not detracts from it.

100% agreed.

IF a "new and improved" R&R were introduced, match rewards would have to be increased significantly to cover the cost.

A light or medium pilot would have the potential to earn lots of C-bills by playing their roles (i.e. scout, skirmish, and support) and winning the match WITHOUT feeling as if they have to be the top damage dealers on the team.