20 replies to this topic

[PanzerMagier]

Reintroduce C-bill Rearm&Repair.

Increase/Decrease the prices of repairing mechs and weapons based on the total amount of those weapons/mechs being used ingame.

underused weapons and mechs will be given discounts (due to lack of demand). Discounts for weapons when purchased or repaired, only repair for mechs.

If too many players want to play gauss and ppc stalkers, Prices will inflate due to high demand and if too many people are abusing XYZ mech/weapon, they will become unprofitable. (R&R costs > c-bills gained from a match)

Simple eh? Sounds practical and easy to implement considering PGI uses ingame telemetry to create statistics for mechs/weapons. Why not put those statistics to good use.

If possible, I would appreciate an official response from the developers involved and responsible for gameplay balance. I'd like to know your thoughts on this idea and how it can be smoothly integrated into CW. Factions gaining certain discounts etc...

All feedback welcome, please discuss.

[PEEFsmash]

This will do nothing to those who already have hundreds of millions banked up, and you could still make bank with assaults when repair and rearm was in effect.

Balance the game by making mechs equally important to securing a win assuming equal skill, not through economy/grind time.

[Hammerfinn]

I don't usually agree with Peef, but when I do, it's because he's right.

[PanzerMagier]

Balance is important but new players stop playing when too many players play "cheese builds". I doubt many would enjoy continue playing them if you're making a loss even when winning. It won't balance the game. But it will vastly limit the amount of players running broken builds. It will also encourage underplayed mechs like lights and mediums.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 29 June 2013 - 10:02 PM.

[Profiteer]

I'd love some sort of economy though. And an auction house "black-market" would be very sexy

[Tezcatli]

You'd have to make mediums and lights dirt cheap to repair. But as someone said there are plenty of players with millions of c-bills just sitting on their accounts. Who are glad to cheese build. it creates a bigger disparity between new players and established players. And there's already enough of that with new players piloting trials against the custom mechs of established players.

[PanzerMagier]

PEEFsmash, on 29 June 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

This will do nothing to those who already have hundreds of millions banked up, and you could still make bank with assaults when repair and rearm was in effect.

Balance the game by making mechs equally important to securing a win assuming equal skill, not through economy/grind time.

There are a lot pugs play these cheese builds, running off new players and making a lot of people upset. They're doing this because the broken build wins more games. And that win reflects in C-bills. I doubt many people will continue playing quad ppc stalkers if they cost more than they're worth and they only make loss every game. I agree that the game must be balanced.

But at the very least this system will reduce the amount of players exploiting broken mechanics meta and there will be less need to pay attention to gameplay balance.

[Blackadder]

The old repair and rearm system was horribly flawed. Basically it boiled down to players who had premium being able to run anything they wanted, while those who did not got roflstomped due to substandard builds. Reintroducing it would just drive players away more, because founders would run founders mechs, and those who spent money would be running firebrands and IM's. Given the current Matchmaking system, it would drive players away faster then anything else could, as new guy starts losing money every match after he gets through his trial bonus cbill income.

As others have stated, i have a measly 60 million cbills at the moment, with mabye 200+ million in mechs and equipment, and i really do not even play all that much. My founders Premium expires in 6 days, and i probably only played mabye 30 of the 90. I am sure there are people with a billion cbills, not even including mechs and equipment.

Additionally, it would only reinforce the peek a boom gameplay, with even more players going to tower defense setups, because they cant risk losing income. while i want MWO to have an economic aspect, it has to be done right, and i do not see it in the cards to be honest anytime soon, as the developers have far to many other pressing issues.

[PanzerMagier]

Tezcatli, on 29 June 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

You'd have to make mediums and lights dirt cheap to repair. But as someone said there are plenty of players with millions of c-bills just sitting on their accounts. Who are glad to cheese build. it creates a bigger disparity between new players and established players. And there's already enough of that with new players piloting trials against the custom mechs of established players.

Yes there are players with over 100 million in C-bills. But this is not a valid excuse or reason not to try this solution. It's a step in the right way at least. These players with lots of c-bills is a MINORITY.

It is the MAJORITY responsible for broken mechanics being abused and thus this solution will be prudent in solving the problem.

Blackadder, on 29 June 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

The old repair and rearm system was horribly flawed. Basically it boiled down to players who had premium being able to run anything they wanted, while those who did not got roflstomped due to substandard builds. Reintroducing it would just drive players away more, because founders would run founders mechs, and those who spent money would be running firebrands and IM's. Given the current Matchmaking system, it would drive players away faster then anything else could, as new guy starts losing money every match after he gets through his trial bonus cbill income.

As others have stated, i have a measly 60 million cbills at the moment, with mabye 200+ million in mechs and equipment, and i really do not even play all that much. My founders Premium expires in 6 days, and i probably only played mabye 30 of the 90. I am sure there are people with a billion cbills, not even including mechs and equipment.

Additionally, it would only reinforce the peek a boom gameplay, with even more players going to tower defense setups, because they cant risk losing income. while i want MWO to have an economic aspect, it has to be done right, and i do not see it in the cards to be honest anytime soon, as the developers have far to many other pressing issues.

Did you even read my original post?
I have played since Closed beta. Almost 3000 hours under my belt. I have spent 500000000 C-bills since they began recording. That's 5 hundred million C-bills. I doubt I am the majority of players.

This solution is designed to affect the average pug. Which is a reasonably new player that hasn't even gained a hundred million c-bills.

This solution will reduce the amount of cheese builds running in the game and thus gameplay balance will no longer become such a critical issue that you'll see EX: 3 ppc boats every match for the entire evening.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 29 June 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Blackadder]

PanzerMagier, on 29 June 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Yes there are players with over 100 million in C-bills. But this is not a valid excuse or reason not to try this solution. It's a step in the right way at least. These players with lots of c-bills is a MINORITY.

It is the MAJORITY responsible for broken mechanics being abused and thus this solution will be prudent in solving the problem.



Did you even read my original post?
I have played since Closed beta. Almost 3000 hours under my belt. I have spent 500000000 C-bills since they began recording. That's 5 hundred million C-bills. I doubt I am the majority of players.

This solution is designed to affect the average pug. Which is a reasonably new player that hasn't even gained a hundred million c-bills.

This solution will reduce the amount of cheese builds running in the game and thus gameplay balance will no longer become such a critical issue that you'll see EX: 3 ppc boats every match for the entire evening.

yes, it does not solve anything, nor does it fix any problems, because while you address weapons, you do not address how c-bills are earned, which is by doing damage, and getting assists, as well as other lesser forms of income.

Since you make running PPC's more expensive, but do not address how cbills are earned, i will do everything in my power to do the following: Use the mech with the highest income generation i can find (hero & founders), use premium, use mechs that can put out the most damage while avoiding as much damage as i can.

Your proposed system is far worse then the old system, it would frankly split the player base far far more effectively then the old R&R system did. All it will do is drive away new players who already struggle to learn this game as is, even faster.

its a poorly thought out plan, that will accomplish the exact opposite if what your intending. Sit down and think about how game currency is earned, and what the impacts of a war of economic attrition will have on the playerbase. It will essentially turn the game into a Pay to Compete system, where everyone is is just cannon fodder because they cant run viable weapons systems and absorb the income penalty.

[PanzerMagier]

Blackadder, on 29 June 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

yes, it does not solve anything, nor does it fix any problems, because while you address weapons, you do not address how c-bills are earned, which is by doing damage, and getting assists, as well as other lesser forms of income.

Since you make running PPC's more expensive, but do not address how cbills are earned, i will do everything in my power to do the following: Use the mech with the highest income generation i can find (hero & founders), use premium, use mechs that can put out the most damage while avoiding as much damage as i can.

Your proposed system is far worse then the old system, it would frankly split the player base far far more effectively then the old R&R system did. All it will do is drive away new players who already struggle to learn this game as is, even faster.

its a poorly thought out plan, that will accomplish the exact opposite if what your intending. Sit down and think about how game currency is earned, and what the impacts of a war of economic attrition will have on the playerbase. It will essentially turn the game into a Pay to Compete system, where everyone is is just cannon fodder because they cant run viable weapons systems and absorb the income penalty.

Jesus boy, don't you get it? People flock to ppc boats because they win more matches. Winning matches = more C-bills. This solution is designed to discourage that. If a lot more people are playing ppc boats than what there should be, they will cost more to repair than what you are actually profiting from games.

Do you think players will continue playing ppc boats once they net a loss even after winning a match? Based on your logic, no, they will not.

[Blackadder]

PanzerMagier, on 29 June 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Jesus boy, don't you get it? People flock to ppc boats because they win more matches. Winning matches = more C-bills. This solution is designed to discourage that. If a lot more people are playing ppc boats than what there should be, they will cost more to repair than what you are actually profiting from games.

Do you think players will continue playing ppc boats once they net a loss even after winning a match? Based on your logic, no, they will not.

sigh, its pointless to talk to you. you refuse to see whats in front of you.

if you attempt to put restrictions on specific weapons via economic costs you propose, players who can absorb those costs by spending Real Money, will gain a significant advantage over those who refuse to or cant afford to. Congratulations your proposed plan has created a pay to win system for the first time in MWO's history.

[Lyoto Machida]

Why not use the bounty system someone else suggested in another thread? The most used chassis would have have a higher kill bonus and the least used ones would have a negative modifier.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Imho, some weapons should operate at a financial loss. Under those circumstances, even mechromneys will switch to cheaper weapons/chassis every so often to grind up c-bills. On a personal note, I found it fun having to drop in a cheap "workhorse" mech every so often.

[Two Beans]

PGI, please release a peripheral that connects to a PC via USB port that allows the input of quarters as a prerequisite to signing into one's account with the game client.

Also, come out with a similar peripheral for posting on the forums, but this one would take paper dollars.

[Appogee]

It's quite a clever 'free economics' idea.

However, the stockpiles of CBills in existence all over the place would artificially skew the economy.

Also, because the the more powerful weapons do more damage, there's the potential for a snowball effect, with only the rich able to afford the more powerful weapons to become richer.

(In other words: modern day America )

Edited by Appogee, 30 June 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[Fate 6]

Not a new solution. Is bad in general. Need weight limits

[InRev]

No matter what you do with the economy, there are still hero mechs. R&R only means more time in an Ilya instead of a 3D, which means those without heroes are punished disproportionately.

While economy balance may work in a game like EVE, where building an empire with a functional economy is almost the point, MWO is not built around the same premises. The game needs to be balanced within the matches themselves.

[p00k]

PEEFsmash, on 29 June 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

This will do nothing to those who already have hundreds of millions banked up, and you could still make bank with assaults when repair and rearm was in effect.

Tezcatli, on 29 June 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

it creates a bigger disparity between new players and established players. And there's already enough of that with new players piloting trials against the custom mechs of established players.

Blackadder, on 29 June 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

if you attempt to put restrictions on specific weapons via economic costs you propose, players who can absorb those costs by spending Real Money, will gain a significant advantage over those who refuse to or cant afford to.

Appogee, on 30 June 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Also, because the the more powerful weapons do more damage, there's the potential for a snowball effect, with only the rich able to afford the more powerful weapons to become richer.

InRev, on 30 June 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

No matter what you do with the economy, there are still hero mechs. R&R only means more time in an Ilya instead of a 3D, which means those without heroes are punished disproportionately.

as multiple people have said, it just means those who are already good at the game, and have tons of money stocked up, get to run these expensive weapon systems more frequently.

panzer, here's the point you're missing. your system does the following to different wealth groups

for the rich (i've got over 300m banked, i know some people over 500m), even at a net loss we can absorb the R&R costs. not to mention, R&R scales to your damage. if i get a few of my super rich buddies to also boat top tier weapons and pugstomp, if we don't die and don't take very much damage, we'll still make some net profit. so not only do we retain our wealth, but we get the pleasure of winning. and people like winning.

for the middle class, people who have money banked but still are saving to buy stuff, these people can afford to run top tier weapons occasionally. they may want to drop to mid-tier weapons though, and make a bit more money if they're able to achieve comparable win rates to using top tier weapons. it becomes a balancing act for them--when they take middling tier weapons, they lose more, so earn less despite a lower R&R penalty. they also will die more, and take more damage, which then means a higher R&R penalty that may entirely nullify the bonus of using middle tier weapons. they're basically stuck in the middle class, and their wealth accumulation gets severely hampered

then there's the poor. they can't afford to use the nice weapons because of the R&R penalty. they can't afford to use middle tier weapons because they can't absorb the higher loss rates (and therefore lower income and higher repair costs) that come from not using nice weapons. so they're stuck using crap weapons. and they lose even more. and earn even less. and spend even more on R&R. until they're bankrupt and stuck playing trial mechs to be murdered 3 minutes into each round.

losing cbills doesn't drive people away. losing matches, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again does.

edit: even if you remove the cbill disparity between winning and losing, and make it so performance has no bearing on R&R costs (i.e. taking more damage doesn't mean a higher R&R cost), the incentive of winning is still a central motivator. people who feel cornholed into using bad builds just get more frustrated and jealous when they're beaten by someone using a better one.

Edited by p00k, 30 June 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[Villz]

panzer is mad cause he keeps getting

____.____
-c|DV8|;=--/
dv8coptered.com
(coming soon)