Jump to content

Honestly, It Sounds Like This Game Would Benefit From The Original Repair And Rearm Costs.


158 replies to this topic

#101 Purlana

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,647 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostNubsternator, on 08 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:


No, force EVERYONE to play those mechs.

Nope, just new people. As long as you drop in a 4 man and dominate the other team you should make plenty of credits. (Shouldn't be hard if the other team only has light mechs?)

Edited by Purlana, 08 July 2013 - 09:44 AM.


#102 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostFoxfire, on 07 July 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

It would bring much more parody to the weight classes and make it less likely people will fiend expensive equipment if they had to pay a significant chunk of money each time they lost it.

Cost is what made the medium the workhorse of armies in the Battletech universe.. and the lack of costs is what makes this game armor heavy.

Lets face it.. the PPC and gauss need to be useful for people to use it.. but it isn't punishing enough for people who use them which is why you see people stocking up on PPC's and guass. These things(like XL engines) are supposed to be prohibitively expensive to use which is why they were reserved for elite groups.

Make them so again.

The PPC and guass should be powerful... just make it a real tradeoff to use them.



I hear you only I think the play base would collaspe in a month, as players slowly went broke and couldn't field their prefered mech, or had to use a trial.

#103 Caviel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:46 AM

View PostNubsternator, on 08 July 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

It does when it makes people NOT play assault mechs every match. We b!tch because we don't see medium mechs at all anymore,


That's because there is nothing a medium mech can do that a fast and better armed/armored heavy can do better in this meta. Weight restrictions will be the point when medium mechs regain viability.

Quote

but no one complains about rolling in c-bills with nothing to spend it on.


Unless I am looking to max out a mech for fun, I don't have anything to spend C-Bills on anymore. I have all the mechs I am interested in, and more than enough equipment/modules to swap between my mechs as needed. If I really need money that badly and didn't feel like grinding for it (Or if a R&R artificially restricts it), I can sell parts, or buy an AS7-K for MC and sell it for C-Bills.

Quote

Assaults were expensive to play for good reason. Maybe if people learned to deal with having to have a cost to pay for running their most expensive build there wouldn't be big issues here.


No, it just makes it a P2W situation. People will just throw real life money at it to make the problem go away.

#104 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:49 AM

View PostPurlana, on 08 July 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:


That depends on the prices. But with premium time and hero mech bonuses the prices would have to be very high indeed...

And basically make not running having Premium or Hero mech bonuses make it impossible to afford powerful builds.

#105 Inkarnus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,074 posts
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:54 AM

Powerful builds != FUN
but it seems for some ppl winning = FUN

#106 Purlana

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,647 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:58 AM

View PostInkarnus, on 08 July 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Powerful builds != FUN
but it seems for some ppl winning = FUN

Balance the builds, don't balance the game around the economy.

#107 Warge

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • LocationKiyiv

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:06 AM

View PostPurlana, on 08 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:


Force new players to use mechs that they may hate or suck at. Yay?

It's the matter of balance and rewards for all and advertising for new players. I forced to play heavy or some mediums (although I prefer a light Mechs) cause right now there is no place for my favorite Commandos or Ravens (exeption 2D and 3L). I like my Hunchy's collection but a little tired already.

#108 Warge

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • LocationKiyiv

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:11 AM

View PostCaviel, on 08 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

No, it just makes it a P2W situation. People will just throw real life money at it to make the problem go away.

If prices for RnR make accuratly there should be no problem at all. Depends on game balance: zerglings vs protoss for example. ;)

Edited by Warge, 08 July 2013 - 10:21 AM.


#109 Inkarnus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,074 posts
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:24 AM

zerglings imba zealots imba with micro dang
2views here biting each other instead of talking about
fixes to fix the game

Edited by Inkarnus, 08 July 2013 - 10:25 AM.


#110 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:26 AM

View PostWarge, on 08 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

If prices for RnR make accuratly there should be no problem at all. Depends on game balance: zerglings vs protoss for example. :)

That's not a very good example. In Starcraft, minerals don't persist between matches (you start at 50 every game) and you can outnumber the enemy's Zealots with your Zerglings. In MWO, you've got a static number of 8 player slots.

#111 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostWarge, on 08 July 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

I forced to play heavy or some mediums (although I prefer a light Mechs) cause right now there is no place for my favorite Commandos or Ravens (exeption 2D and 3L).

Exactly. I love playing light 'mechs (preferably Commandos), but the current game really doesn't reward that in the slightest. In fact, it discourages it heavily (no pun intended).

Not only do the heavier 'mechs have the capability to one-shot me, they can also do the things I'm supposed to be good at, like capping, scouting, spotting, etc, just as well as I can in my 25-tonner. I take to the field in a 'mech that's low on armour, low on firepower, that doesn't get rewarded for the roles it's supposed to play, and what do I get for it?

Nothing, or possibly abuse from team-mates that think I let them down even though I'm often the only one even trying to ensure we don't lose on points.

I can work my camouflaged metal behind off to ensure we don't lose on points, but if I fail even by a single point I get zero rewards. Usually that's because my heavier team-mates apparently have no idea that you can win on points in Conquest, and didn't bother to cap a single point.

So people say it's anathema for them to ever play a 'mech that isn't to their liking. How do you think I feel, when the 'mechs I like to play simply aren't viable - even though they're dressed to the nines?

I'm not saying R&R would help lights become viable, in fact I don't think it would, but please stop with this "R&R is bad because it forces people to play 'mechs they don't want to play" bovine manure; you have no idea of how entitled that makes you sound when I compare it to my own situation as a light 'mech pilot.

#112 Warge

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • LocationKiyiv

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:28 AM

View PostFupDup, on 08 July 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

That's not a very good example. In Starcraft, minerals don't persist between matches (you start at 50 every game) and you can outnumber the enemy's Zealots with your Zerglings. In MWO, you've got a static number of 8 player slots.

There is cap =200. :) So it's the same (sort of): u bring in combat expensive Mech with RnR consequences or u take light/medium and get profit.

#113 OneEyed Jack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:41 AM

View PostFoxfire, on 07 July 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

It would bring much more parody to the weight classes and make it less likely people will fiend expensive equipment if they had to pay a significant chunk of money each time they lost it.

I tend to agree. Despite all the contradictory claims, RnR is proven to create a better spread of weight classes by the simple, observable fact that, when it was in, it did. It also reduced the usage of the more expensive weapons and upgrades. I understand the reasons it was removed, but I don't entirely agree that complete removal of RnR was the best decision, nor that it has had a positive effect on the game.

That said, the word is parity. Parody means something entirely different, but at least it casts your entire post in an amusing light. :)

#114 Caviel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 637 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

View PostOneEyed Jack, on 08 July 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

I tend to agree. Despite all the contradictory claims, RnR is proven to create a better spread of weight classes by the simple, observable fact that, when it was in, it did. It also reduced the usage of the more expensive weapons and upgrades. I understand the reasons it was removed, but I don't entirely agree that complete removal of RnR was the best decision, nor that it has had a positive effect on the game.


Totally unrelated to why you saw medium mechs back then. When R&R was in the game, we didn't have Elo matching, it was strict weight class matching. This meant you could take a medium mech and be sure you have a medium mech on the other side. Now, not so much.

You can't compare the meta of that time period to now based on the game engine and mech option changes being so drastic. You're rapidly heading to number of pirates vs global warming territory.

#115 aniviron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,752 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:10 PM

I've spent too much time making duplicate posts about why R&R was bad, and why it needs to stay gone, so I am just going to quote myself from an identical thread posted two weeks ago here:

View Postaniviron, on 19 June 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

From a purely thematic standpoint, I love repair and rearm.

From a gameplay standpoint, it's a terrible idea.

As Fup says above, it encourages behaviour that makes games less fun. How do I know this? Because I was unlucky enough to be a new player when r&r was still around. I can't tell you the number of times I realized I was going to die, so I just centered my mech and looked straight at my opponent, no longer firing. The other guy was always obliging enough to finish my cored mech instantly. I also remember almost every game ending in a cap win because someone with no weapons and no hope was shut down in an impossible to find spot. This is not the kind of thing we want to encourage our new players to do. It also further incentivises the mentality that the best thing to do is to hang back, and let the noobs on your team take the fire while you sit back and rack up damage and kills at the expense of people who don't know not to get hurt.

But those are just tangential reasons against r&r. Here's the real problem.
The only group of players that gets punished by r&r is new players. I've played a fair amount, and as of this moment I have 181,272,493 cbills. Most other players at my level have similar bankrolls. We can run dhs, endo, and gauss rifles and not care one whit about how much it costs. Hell, if it weren't rude and morally wrong, I could teamkill every match, and I wouldn't even notice the cbill/xp penalty. Again, I distinctly remember being new and letting my hbk-4sp degrade to worse and worse condition, just dropping over and over with the 75% armor and ammo, and 25% internals you got for free. Why? I was poor! I wanted double heatsinks, I wanted endo steel, I wanted more mechs, I wanted bigger engines. So I dropped over and over in a barely functioning mech at my team's expense, because I was tired of losing all my money every match to repair my mech. This wasn't fun for me, and I had teammates who said they reported me to support@mwomercs because they were tired of losing matches to teammates in broken mechs, so I assume it wasn't fun for them either.

The problem with repair and rearm is that it is what as known as a regressive tax; it costs the people who have less money a larger percentage of their income a larger percent than it costs players who have more money. What you end up with is a game where the wealthy players have great gear and keep winning not only because of experience but because they just have better gear and mechs than new players; but really, the playing field should be level for gear, with skill being the primary determinant of who wins a match.

Edited by aniviron, 08 July 2013 - 03:11 PM.


#116 Warge

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,027 posts
  • LocationKiyiv

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:51 PM

View Postaniviron, on 08 July 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

I've spent too much time making duplicate posts about why R&R was bad,

Not the whole RnR system was bad, just numbers.

#117 James Warren

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:03 PM

View PostWired, on 08 July 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Plenty of people enjoyed rnr. it brought a dynamic to the game outside of kill mech, collect paycheck.

Like what? Kill mech, collect paycheck, click repair? At very best it was only a layer of tedium between matches.

Quote

The only people who didnt like rnr, where the ones who really wanted this meta where you could field something like a 6 ppc stalker and get away with it.

PPCs weren't overpowered when we had R&R. Not because they were too expensive to use, it was quite the contrary, they simply generated too much heat and were temperamental to aim.

Energy weapons were the cheapest to field during R&R.
Using ballistic and missile weapons, which were already balanced with heat, limited ammunition, ammunition explosions, damage, range, etc also inferred a c-bill penalty. How does that help gameplay balance?

People already complain about getting worthless team-mates without having half the team in 'bargain basement' mech builds just so that they can grind enough c-bills to run their Atlas (which they spent ages modifying and mastering). If the general playerbase enjoyed playing a sub-optimal builds, there wouldn't be a problem with PPC Stalkers right now.

You need to use positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement. Perhaps PGI could trial providing a c-bill bonus to medium mechs and see if it actually changes the weight balance at all. I'm thinking it wouldn't make much of a difference at all.

I would love to see a suggestion as to how R&R could actually work, but all these threads just asking to bring it back while viewing the game's past through rose-tinted neurohelmets aren't doing anyone any favours.

#118 Trauglodyte

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,373 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 05:30 PM

R&R doesn't need to come back. End game rewards, including XP, needs to be weighted based on what you're driving, how advanced it is, and what you accomplished versus JUST what you accomplished. If I drive a Locust and I do 1000 damage with 5 kills and 5 assists (not plausible but go with me), why am I getting the same rewards as the Atlas driver that does 1000 damage with 5 kills and 5 assists? On the flip side of that, if both my Locust and the Atlas get a luck of the Irish beginning game head shot and only end up with 10 damage and 1 assist, why are we both getting the same rewards. For that matter, why am I getting the same rewards running a tier 1 trial mech if I do just as well (or badly) as someone in the same exact mech but using full tier 2 tech? And, finally, if your team is 100 tons heavier, has a higher ELO total/average, and is sporting more technical upgrades, why is the end game rewards not adjusted for winning a game in which you had every advantage (or scaled down if you lost while having the edge)?

#119 Mycrus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 5,160 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationFilipino @ Singapore

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:07 PM

Bring it back! (With tweaks)

So next time I slowly disembowel an enemy mech piece by piece it will feel more satisfying for me knowing that you will be running trials all night to recoup your loss...

#120 Skydrive

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 286 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:22 PM

For the record, I am certain that PGI will definately have RnR back in, but after CW is in. Steiner will pay slightly more then other factions. Davions will give you a discount on missle weapons and Kuritans will give you a discount on energy weapons, and etc. Ofcourse there are likely to be discounts on faction mechs depending on who you are fighting for at the moment, whether you be a merc or a loyalist. Not sure how Lone Wolf will work in on that.

Heck, maybe there will only be RnR in territory wars, where there will be no third person view, allowing players to play without needing to worry about RnR in the other game mode where 3rd person is allowed.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users