81 replies to this topic

[MadcatX]

No, let R&R stay in previous mechwarrior title's single-player mode.

[Modo44]

No.

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Bringing back repair and rearm has several advantages:

1. Players play smarter

Noobies get burned terribly

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

2. You will see less assault mechs and more medium mechs

Everybody runs the cheap, sucky builds.

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

3. Players have to decide if they'll risk putting on advanced equipment/upgrades

Assaults camp even more.

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

4. There's incentive to conquer planets for resources

And if you lose more than win, like about half the player base, you're boned forever.

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

5. role warfare

Uh, trololol?

[Appogee]

Please dear God no.

At the moment when I PUG, about three in every four games I drop with a half a team of complete noobs. Apparently, the matchmaker stupidly thinks that an average of my ''better'' Elo will offset the noobs' ''{Scrap}'' Elos, and that an even match with a fair chance of winning will occur.

However, that rarely happens. Usually, I and the noob cannon fodder drop against premades, who absolutely decimate the noobs on my team within the first couple of minutes. That leaves me and a couple of other unfortunate experienced players facing now-impossible odds. We go down in a hail of concentrated gunfire that even the most skilled player could never overcome.

Rieinstating R&R would further ''punish'' me for being forced to drop with noobs. In fact, if it were reinstated, I'd just walk away, as my wins would never counterbalance the drain in CBills caused by being dropping with noobs teams who have no chance of winning.

[dario03]

No, a million times no. I want my team and enemies to play to win, not play to maximize profits or worse yet to minimize loses. R&R encourages people to run away and not support their team when things start looking bad. And for some people things start looking bad way to early. Plus I don't want games decided by who brought the least amount of cheap to run but bad mechs. Economy balancing makes sense for some games but has no place in a game like this.

Edited by dario03, 07 September 2013 - 01:28 AM.

[GZeorymer]

Yes, I do think it needs to be added for a few reasons.

1) As of right now, any player (competitive or not), will often just go for the biggest mech and slap on the biggest guns. Seeing an enemy team that has 6 assaults, half of which are either ONLY PPCs/ER PPCs, or the meta of 2 PPC+gauss, or nothing but U-AC5s, is annoying. PGI has wanted to get mediums back into the game with the better engine rating, torso twist, etc. However, this still hasn't enticed many players; we still sadly see more lights, heavies, and assaults. What's the point of having mediums at all if no one will even pilot one?

2) Going back to the use of weapons. I am so, SO SICK, of seeing stalkers or mechs that are 2x PPC + 2x ER PPC....seriously? And seeing mechs with only 2 PPCs and a gauss for that pinpoint damage is downright annoying, and degrading. This takes the fun out of the game, because there is NO variety in mech builds.

3) Almost anyone will always go for XL engines, just for the sake of either speed, or weight capacity, which again, results in the meta builds or packing as many of the heaviest guns as possible, which destroys in my opinion, variety in mechs, weapons, and gameplay balance.

4) The idea behind the modules was to give different players advantages in the field that can help them. HOWEVER, this has partially backfired because 95% of the community will ONLY pick a couple of selective modules. Adv Seismic sensor, possibly enhanced radar range, and advanced zoom (if they don't mind the blurry box of doom). As a result, alot of other modules collect dust.

If Repair & Re-arm was put back in, it shouldn't be in its original format. Obviously it was too punishing in it's original format, but if redone to a format that fits the way the game is now, it would benefit the game I think. Re-arming may seem unusual, perhaps if the 're-arm' part was removed, adding only a repair cost, it would help out finally with those who don't have alot of C-bills.

1) Yes, if you lose a mech with an XL engine, it will cost you. HOWEVER, the previous incarnation of this was too punishing. Lower the cost of C-bills, that way a player will go "Okay, I screwed up, but I can at least pay for this". We don't want to scare players away from XL, but we want to make them aware that XLs come at a price.

2) Same thing with weapons, the bigger the guns, the more expensive. However, that doesn't mean it should cost an arm and a leg. Add in a C-bill cost, but in a way that's affordable, and ANYONE can afford. This can also factor in the cost of some modules. The more advanced the module, and the type, affects its cost. HOWEVER, once again, it shouldn't break a player's back for repair cost.

3) In relation to the comment of Role Warfare, I went back into my tabletop box of Battletech 4th Edition to look up some mechs. The Jagermech ALREADY has advanced targeting computers built into the mech, which makes it good at sniping and anti-aircraft. The Raven is an electronics warefare mech with advanced sensors, ECM, even ECCM. A mech not in game, the Hermes II, has advanced communication equipment, even the Cyclops, which has advanced command equipment. Perhaps certain mechs should have certain modules or abilities built INTO the mechs, without needing certain modules to gain those benefits. This would encourage more mech variety in game rather than everyone running the biggest mechs, and the biggest guns.

This is just my 2 cents though, adding to this idea.

[Mackman]

"Hey, guys, you should join me over in Mechwarrior Online! You'll earn your own mech in just 25 matches. Then you can tweak and upgrade your mech all you want! Of course, if you upgrade it too much you'll actually start losing money, but... wait, where are you going? Come back! It's a lot of fun...[whispering] when you actually get to pilot the mechs you like to pilot, instead of your crappy "money-making" mechs... [/whispering]"

[Hexenhammer]

Mackman, on 07 September 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

"Hey, guys, you should join me over in Mechwarrior Online! You'll earn your own mech in just 25 matches. Then you can tweak and upgrade your mech all you want! Of course, if you upgrade it too much you'll actually start losing money, but... wait, where are you going? Come back! It's a lot of fun...[whispering] when you actually get to pilot the mechs you like to pilot, instead of your crappy "money-making" mechs... [/whispering]"

Thats it exactly.
I was in a match today and a player asked why he was suddenly making less money than before and we told him he was no longer earining a cadet bonus. Now imagine his surprise at getting slapped with an RnR fee at the end of the game. Not only are you making ten times less money, but you also have a repair tax! And if the person bought something with an XL engine or an assault they are screwed and don't even know it.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 07 September 2013 - 10:58 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Reasons for R&R
1) Immersion

Reasons against R&R
1) Premium and Hero/Founder bonuses become P2W
2) AFK Farmers
3) Suicide Trial Mech Farmers
4) People rather powering down in a corner than trying to turn the tide of the battle
5) Smart Play like torso twisting is punished with a high repair bill
6) The rich get richer, the poor stay poor

[Khobai]

Quote

Reasons for R&R
1) Immersion

I have to disagree with this. For R&R to provide immersion, there has to be a reason to not repair/rearm. If there's never a reason not to do it, then its basically just a glorified tax.

Lets look at another game that has repair/rearm. Take mechcommander for example: At the end of each mission you would salvage destroyed mechs, which you could then choose to sell for scrap or you could repair them and use them. Thats an example of R&R providing immersion.

But in MWO, when it was compulsory to repair/rearm, that wasnt immersive, that was just a tax on player income. Taxes are not immersion, they are income reduction, and thats not fun for anyone.

Although if MWO randomly distributed salvage at the end of each match, and players could choose to either sell their salvage for cbills, or spend say 67% of the salvaged items cost to repair it (still cheaper than buying a brand new one)... that would be immersion.

That said, Im not against R&R if it adds immersion and player choice to the game, but if its just going to be a compulsory tax on your income then it needs to stay out of the game.

Edited by Khobai, 08 September 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

With the current grind I'd vote "HELL NO" to repair and rearm. If they tripled the Cbill gains per match I might consider it.

[Riptor]

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Bringing back repair and rearm has several advantages:

1. Players play smarter
2. You will see less assault mechs and more medium mechs
3. Players have to decide if they'll risk putting on advanced equipment/upgrades
4. There's incentive to conquer planets for resources
5. role warfare

1. No they wont.. they didnt wen RnR was still part of the game so why should they suddenly "play smarter" also this point is completly nonsensical because AT THE END OF A MATCH ONE SIDE IS COMPLETLY DESTROYED

2. Dont force your preferences on people that dare to like playing assault mechs more then ****** good for nothing medium mechs. Medium mechs are {Scrap} and only where used because they are cheap to produce and maintain.. on the battlefield they get anihilated by the dozens as soon as they face mechs of higher tonnage. Allways has been that way especialy with IS medium mechs. Unless you have pulse pixies, non clan medium mechs where never worth it.

3. They have? Why? Because you say so? Again.. your preferences... your opinion..

4. ????

5. Role warfare wont happen just because of RnR,,, we had RnR and there was NO role warfare.. for actuall role warfare to exist there would actually have to exist a infrastructure in terms of pilot skills and efficiencies specialising on different roles. But that doesnt exist. Also there would actually have to be game modes supporting role warfare.. right now we only have deathmatch... there is no reason to scout anymore either since everyone can look over hills and around corners now. Role warfare will never evolve above fast quick striker, lrm boat, long range alpha sniper and close in brawler... and depending on the current patches these roles have varying degrees of usefulness.

RnR has absolutely nothing to do with role warfare and would actually make it more punitive because to even have a resemblance of role warfare you need expensive equipment wich would cost more to repair and thus punish the people that actually play a role instead of sticking the cheapest to repair guns on their mechs.

Edited by Riptor, 08 September 2013 - 03:44 AM.

[New Day]

Repair only, with less of a cost difference for XLs.

[SweetJackal]

GZeorymer, on 07 September 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yes, I do think it needs to be added for a few reasons.

1) As of right now, any player (competitive or not), will often just go for the biggest mech and slap on the biggest guns. Seeing an enemy team that has 6 assaults, half of which are either ONLY PPCs/ER PPCs, or the meta of 2 PPC+gauss, or nothing but U-AC5s, is annoying. PGI has wanted to get mediums back into the game with the better engine rating, torso twist, etc. However, this still hasn't enticed many players; we still sadly see more lights, heavies, and assaults. What's the point of having mediums at all if no one will even pilot one?

The way to get pilots into mediums is to give mediums impact on the match. Lights have a slim profile and speed to defend them while Heavies tend to be very generous in their hardpoints so they can be flexible in builds and Assaults just have more tonnage to play around with. An idea that recently struck me is compounding the current reasons why Mediums are fielded at all.

Currently the two most promoted Medium Mechs by the community are the Centurion and the Hunchback, both for their ability to Zombie while maintaining firepower. Well instead of this being a quirk involving the Hardpoints and the Hitboxes for those two mechs, what if that was a general design for Mediums?

What if the hitboxes were reworked on all mediums to have very narrow and strict CTs and more generous RT/LT and Arms? If Medium Mechs were designed to Zombie?

[Firewuff]

Biggest issue is it penalises new players and benefits the high skill or high alpha players. new players die more, take more damage and do less so R&R hurts a lot. Good players or players in groups suffer less damage and do more so benifit heaps. also it divides the players even further because those in {Scrap} mechs or trial mechs can't get ahead enough to upgrade and therefor never get ahead.

[Typhoon Storm 2142]

Sneaky B, on 06 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Bringing back repair and rearm has several advantages:

1. Players play smarter
2. You will see less assault mechs and more medium mechs
3. Players have to decide if they'll risk putting on advanced equipment/upgrades
4. There's incentive to conquer planets for resources
5. role warfare

You forgot one thing. The reason why the devs took out R&R in the first place. The one big disadvantage that makes all your points useless: People will not use R&R and join the next match with a broken, empty 'Mech.

While your arguments are pretty lame to be honest, one thing really made me laugh. If you seriously think that your number one reason (players will play smarter) is true, you need help from a psychatrist.

[Karl Streiger]

The only reason: Immersion - was said:

Only idea I have - is that you bind repair and rearm directly at another figure -
You should not be able to avoid that RnR with C-Bills or MC - or at least it really has to cost you a lot of money.

That could be the time in battle. Or the numbers of battle. You have a storrage locker:
for example for a 80t mech 40tons:

• 16 tons spare parts for structure, reactor, heatsinks
  
• 2 tons of LRM ammunition
  
• 1 ton of SSRM ammunition
  
• 1 ton of AMS ammo
  
• 10tons of armor
  
• 10t weapon & electronics repair kits

Your Mech is a Awesome 8V:
AWS-8V

You get shot during a mission:
Killed by center Torso destruction:
- repair pool 1:
Structure is damaged by: 20% of 8t ~ 1.5t
Reactor damge is 50% of 9.5t ~ 4.75
Gyroscop ~ 3t
2 heat sinks ~ 2t

some ammunition spend (not more as 2ton LRM)
multiple armor hits - at least 200dmg = 6,5tons

beagle active probe is lost - filled by 6.

Every nominal.

---

Next: you spare the CASE for more armor?
Got a hit in the ammunition bin - explosion destroying your LT and CT.
structur 44% of 8t = 3,5t
reactor 75% of 9.5t = 7.25t
gyro 3t
2 heat sinks 4t

- you are short of 1.75 tons. so 2 heat sinks are not replaced

Ammunition is short of 1t. -> LRM has now only 2tons of ammunition
Laser - 7tons can be replaced.
Armor could be replaced

---

That means in some circumstances you have to run a battle with a damaged Mech. With less armor an already damaged gyro, hardly enough ammunition and reduced weapon.

You can alternative make the restock rate dependend on the performance in battle:
for example 110% of the average loan - grand you 10% more spare parts. A Disco will cost you dearly.

However its just a compromiss for RnR without the bane of P2W - that will automatically make it in the game - when not balanced builds can be funded by spending real money.


Maybe it could work, maybe not.... I have stoped to think about the ability and nature of human minds

[MrBlonde42]

I want repair and rearm for Community Warfare matches only.

[Ryvucz]

Too many whiners and exploiters to enjoy such a feature.

But I liked it. (Would have been better without free ammo though).

[Mawai]

Repair and rearm adds some flavour at the expense of significantly increased complexity, difficulty to balance, and dissatisfied/unhappy players.

Thus, despite the coolness factor, I don't think it is worth it.

MWO does not have an economy. What I earn is independent of everyone else (except for win/loss) and depends on my performance in a match. The average amount can be balanced relatively easily to match the cbill income goals set by PGI.

If you want to encourage use of lighter energy weapon based mechs that cost less to operate on average than ammo using assaults then overall rewards could be adjusted by a mech operation cost factor that would reduce the income for expensive to operate mechs compared to inexpensive ones. However, in all cases the mech would still make cbills for the match win or lose. The game does not need a random "repair and rearm" cost factor that could leave folks losing cbills on some matches. The point of repair and rearm (other than flavour) is to make some mechs more expensive to operate ... if that is the goal then it should be implemented explicitly so it can be balanced properly.

The flip side is that the folks who love running expensive assaults will be so irritated that they would likely ragequit.

Since that is not a goal of the developers, I suspect we will not see any variation of repair and rearm anytime soon.

As for encouraging the use of lighter mechs, PGI appears to be betting on match tonnage limits to get folks into medium mechs. However, this will not work. If many folks enter the queue in assaults then either they will have to wait a long time (perhaps failing to find multiple matches) or the match maker will give up and form matches outside of the tonnage limitations. Either way the mechanism to encourage folks into lighter mechs wont work.

The best way to get folks into lighter mechs is probably to give the lighter mech classes a cbill earning boost compared to heavy and assault so that folks are economically encouraged to use them.

[Syllogy]

No.