481 replies to this topic

[Sandslice]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

lol Those are not valid, they're all based on the premise that R&R would "hurt" the earnings. I've already given several examples of how it wouldn't so the whole "game play would get worse because people wouldn't earn as much" doesn't hold water. I've already explained and given several different reasons and examples of how that could be avoided. Your arguments all stem from "earnings bad".

Are you sure you want discussion, or just affirmation? Rephrasing a couple of my points that are not grounded in "hurt the earnings."

1a. People are afraid to take damage. R&R encourages that fear, by attaching a penalty to taking damage. It doesn't matter what form or extent this penalty has; the fact that there is one is enough to justify and promote that fear.

5. BillyBlueray (note: to my knowledge, a made-up name that I made up, and not an actual player) "accidentally" alphas your right torso off through the back because of a "slip of the finger." Assuming you don't have an XLE, the R&R is still imposed on you. That's not "hurt the earnings," but punishing the victims of outright Foul Play.

The possible solution to this, imposing friendly fire R&R, would swing the other way: now Billy, about to drop a component, "accidentally" crosses your fire line, causing you to accidentally break his component --- which puts you on the hook for some of *his* R&R on top of your own.

You might dismiss this part as "hurt the earnings," but it is something that will occur, and it will end up punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

Now, if you limit R&R to CW as is frequently suggested? Well, if you have Billy in your CW unit, then blame yourself or the gods for what Billy does to troll you. But not in solo, where you simply can't avoid Billy eventually.

Edited by Sandslice, 27 July 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

I've suggested one step further

The entire mech economy would be dynamic. Mech cost would fluctuate in a scaling fashion based on the popularity of the mech. Less popular = cheaper and vice versa. I know a lot of this isn't popular but if all of these were combined and done right it would make for a much more diverse game. It entices players to take less popular mechs.

D Variants, Cheapest for Davion Loyalists Slightly more expensive for Lyrans. Very expensive for Cappies
S Variants Cheapest for Steiner Loyalists Slightly more expensive for FedSons.More expensive for Marik
K Variants, Cheapest for Kurita Loyalists, WAY more expensive for FedSons
M Variants cheapest for Marik Loyalists Cheapest for Marik Loyalists, full price for everyone else.
L Variants Cheapest for Liao Loyalists, slight discount for Marik, Crazy expensive for FedSons.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 July 2014 - 11:59 AM.

[Sandslice]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 July 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

D Variants, Cheapest for Davion Loyalists Slightly more expensive for Lyrans. Very expensive for Cappies
S Variants Cheapest for Steiner Loyalists Slightly more expensive for FedSons.More expensive for Marik
K Variants, Cheapest for Kurita Loyalists, WAY more expensive for FedSons
M Variants cheapest for Marik Loyalists Cheapest for Marik Loyalists, full price for everyone else.
L Variants Cheapest for Liao Loyalists, slight discount for Marik, Crazy expensive for FedSons.

You'd need to be careful: not every 'Mech that ends in those letters is a variant from that House. Some are traps:

Not Davion:
JR7-D (Kurita like all Jenners,) AS7-D (stock,) COM-1D and -2D (Steiner; -2D is stock.)

Not Steiner:
TDR-5S (though -5SS is, and -9SE is Eridani Light Horse, who at this point are heavily Davion-aligned)

Not Kurita:
ON1-K (stock; Protector is based on Aleksandr Kerensky's personal mod of this variant)

Also, all Ravens are Liao, while all Blackjacks and non-Ilya Cataphracts are Davion. Most Banshees and Commandos are likewise Steiner.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandslice, on 27 July 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

You'd need to be careful: not every 'Mech that ends in those letters is a variant from that House. Some are traps:

Not Davion:
JR7-D (Kurita like all Jenners,) AS7-D (stock,) COM-1D and -2D (Steiner; -2D is stock.)

Not Steiner:
TDR-5S (though -5SS is, and -9SE is Eridani Light Horse, who at this point are heavily Davion-aligned)

Not Kurita:
ON1-K (stock; Protector is based on Aleksandr Kerensky's personal mod of this variant)

Also, all Ravens are Liao, while all Blackjacks and non-Ilya Cataphracts are Davion. Most Banshees and Commandos are likewise Steiner.

Thank you for the info. My OP was a bit shallow. However it holds enough water to be true enough.

[wanderer]

R&R doesn't belong in regular play. It -does- belong in CW. And here's how.

Very simply, a given planet has X amount of R&R capacity that increases as more players (forces) are there. You leave a planet? No going back for a half hour (three matches worth of time, roughly). Go fight somewhere else for a while, or get into a non-CW match while you wait.

Damage to 'Mechs is repaired for zero C-bill cost to people fighting on the planet, but draws off the planetary repair pool. You run out, 'Mechs stop being fixed on that world. The repair pool regenerates at a rate that increases or decreases relative to the number of players of that faction on-world. Wins add salvage, which acts as an immediate boost to the repair pool. Missions can be run to directly attack repair pool- Assaults (base conquest = repair pool penalty for side defeated), or replenish pool in general - Conquest (winning gives you repair pool based on your points earned at victory).

Planetary control shifts based on successful missions (ie, matches) and are generated in random order with a map rotation based on the world in question. A hot world isn't going to have Frozen City matches and bias towards Terra Therma/Desert/Caustic, for example. Go do missions, win, control shifts your way. Lose, and you lose control. One side gains too much, the other side is -ejected- from the planet and any benefits of controlling it go to the winner, with a 24-hour cooldown to contest it again.

But as part of non-CW matches, it's just a stab in the chest to F2P gamers.

Reduce the effect of reloading ammo on the repair pool though. 'Mechs in MWO are forced to carry a greater amount of ammo than TT by large margins- in some cases, twice as much as a similar TT 'Mech just to have modest ammo reserves.

[Sandslice]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 July 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Thank you for the info. My OP was a bit shallow. However it holds enough water to be true enough.

For inter-House relationships, generally true - especially with how Marik (not as affected by the Invasion) is able to profit from producing and exporting tech.

[Kjudoon]

Sandpit, on 26 July 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

So, in the course of another thread this idea was kicked around. I don't take full credit for it as many others have suggested similar over the years and I've just kind of combined them all and refined it a bit.

Let's start with R&R:

Put R&R fees back into the game. I know I know, but sand, we already don't earn much! Well I disagree with that but I understand some feel that way so, in order to counter that, you boost earnings slightly and reduce the R&R fees a bit.
You MUST R&R your mech. I've always thought it was a bit silly that you stomp around, fire of 5 tons of ammo, and don't have to reload that ammo or buy new ammo. Now, stock mechs in stock loadouts wouldn't have to pay for reloads and cadets wouldn't pay for reload and repair. That would prevent new players from getting "hurt" by something digging into their rewards so they can still have all their cash when they "graduate".
Stock mechs don't pay for R&R (if you want fluff for this then explain it as your faction absorbs the cost of that because it's a standard military issue unit, once you start customizing you're paying for it out of pocket, this also helps new players and players trying to save money for new mechs as well as helps justify seeing stock mechs on the field.) Now I realize at the higher Elo brackets that this becomes pretty much a non-factor because they've generally got a stockpile of cash and mechs anyhow, but those players aren't going to be playing against new(er) players still trying to build a hangar.

But why R&R?

Well I'm glad you asked. R&R is essential for adding in an economy that has both rewards and consequences. It has a far reaching implications across other aspects of the game as well. Want to run the LRM boat and spam missiles for 15 minutes burning through 10 tons of ammo? Go for it, but your'e going to have to pay for that ammo.
Want to run that poptart? Hey, that's great too! You're going to have to pay for all that ammo you're shooting downrange though. It doesn't limit what you can take but it does make you think before you just needlessly click that fire button every time you get a 2 second lock or a quick glimpse at a poptart target.
It also adds in something that's sorely needed here. An actual economy. Right now the only thing to spend cbills on are mechs and modules and skills. That means players who have a "set" mech and/or loadout they play almost exclusively, they are not actually spending those cbills which means they're stockpiling.
Now I understand that many are going to say "Stockpiling isn't bad" and I agree to an extent BUT this is where you run into long-term issues. Those players with stockpiles of tens and hundreds of millions of cbills have the ability already (before it's even implemented) to create major imbalances in the economy.

Techs:

Here's another cost associated with R&R as well as refitting a custom design. Techs would be two-fold. They create another sink but also provide bonuses to R&R and Salvage (which I'll cover here momentarily) bonuses after the initial investment is made. No players would be required to have techs but investing the cash up front for techs would pay out dividends in their bonuses.
Techs would be similar to modules. Except you don't "buy" them, you "hire" them for xx matches. Different levels of techs would offer different levels of bonuses.
Green = 10% bonus to salvage, -10% to R&R fees
Regular = 15% bonus
Advanced = 20% bonus
Elite = 25% bonus
Now all of these numbers are purely for example purposes and I'm sure would need to be adjusted. To further diversify have techs broke down into classes. A "light" tech would be able to keep your hangar running but you wouldn't get the R&R bonuses, although you would still get the salvage bonus.
The initial cost for techs would be cbills & xp although you can offer the option to buy them for MC as well (similar to the way arty and such have an MC version).


Salvage:
Here's where things really get interesting. Instead of the current salvage system we have, we need it to be shifted to an actual salvage system. Instead of receiving cbills for salvage, players have a % chance to actually salvage equipment. Component destruction = more chances to salvage and the techs also add a % to salvage as well. Players could then choose to keep the salvaged item or sell it back for the regular "used" item price.

Everyone would have a salvage chance but the techs, component destruction, and such would increase the chances of getting it.

These 3 things would add a lot of depth and immersion to the game and introduce the start of an actual economy for the game.

Got a like before I got finished with the article, just because I know what's coming on most of it (cause I proposed some of the same things and am a total egomaniac. )

100% agree. R&R must return. It also must be part of a dynamic economy that reacts to supply and demand and factor in availability. Much of this should SHOULD SHOULD be included in CW because otherwise it pretty much makes CW no impact meaningless battles.

The one thing PGI needs to remember is people fight in wars as mercenaries in a large reason to turn a profit if they can. Lots of 'get rich quick' junkies out there who want money money money... and if you're good, you should get rich rich rich, while if you suck, back to the factions as cannon fodder or welcome to becoming dispossessed.

A way to mitigate a lot of R&R hits while still being fair is possible in a unit. If contracts are paid to the individual and shares are divvied up based on performance, then the unit can take care of the R&R fees and deduct it accordingly to individual pilots performance. Yes, they get back in battle at full strength and armament, but they get a smaller share. Sort of the professional driver working with a fleet vehicle. On the other hand, an Owner/Operator could get a higher percentage, but they have to pay all R&R costs (like was previously the case) and can go into battle under armed and under armored or in disrepair. Both worlds can be in existence in this case according to the player/unit's wishes.

As Sand pointed out quite well, this will control ammo based weapons dramatically and the game will start looking more like a TT campaign again. I don't agree about stock mechs being immune from R&R, but I would go with Trial mechs receiving less R&R as they are company vehicles and so you'd get a 'co-pay' style deduction like you would going to the mechanic for an accident. 5,000 Cbill deductable, and all the rest is covered? Works good there for you. Not crippling, but will teach you to play smarter.

Regarding statements on actual economy? :::drools and hearts uncontrollably:::

Regarding Techs: SQUEEEE!!!!! Love it!

Regarding Salvage: MOAR SQUEEE!!!! Although this could be included in the actual R&R portion as a bonus to payouts... I like this methodology too.


So I'm all in on this kinda stuff.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 July 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

D Variants, Cheapest for Davion Loyalists Slightly more expensive for Lyrans. Very expensive for Cappies
S Variants Cheapest for Steiner Loyalists Slightly more expensive for FedSons.More expensive for Marik
K Variants, Cheapest for Kurita Loyalists, WAY more expensive for FedSons
M Variants cheapest for Marik Loyalists Cheapest for Marik Loyalists, full price for everyone else.
L Variants Cheapest for Liao Loyalists, slight discount for Marik, Crazy expensive for FedSons.

I think that's already being built into the whole LP system

[Sandpit]

Sandslice, on 27 July 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

for length

yes I'm certain I want discussion. When you present a point and I show how to make that point either irrelevant or negate it completely then repeating that point or points BASED on the original point (this case being the economic ramifications due to reduced earnings because every one of your points hinged on a player chaging theur play styles because they would earn at a reduced rate, I showed how to prevent and/or mitigate that)
I also find it odd that I never suggested this outside of CW. This goes hand in hand with CW. I'm also basing this one statements from Russ, Paul, and others about CW in that "Everyone will participate in CW. Cw will be affected by every match" their words, not mine. Based on that you can assume that the "public" queue (as some have taken to calling it) is going to be the CW queue. They have never said anything to the contrary that I've ever seen.

[Bront]

R&R = New Player and some build tax. It's particularly difficult on the clan mechs where you have no choice but to use an XL engines, Endo, and/or FF (let alone being more expensive in general anyway).

Salvage = Interesting, but becomes an inventory management time sink.

[Sandpit]

Bront, on 27 July 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

R&R = New Player and some build tax. It's particularly difficult on the clan mechs where you have no choice but to use an XL engines, Endo, and/or FF (let alone being more expensive in general anyway).
.

already showed how to counter that

[Fleeb the Mad]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

I've suggested one step further

The entire mech economy would be dynamic. Mech cost would fluctuate in a scaling fashion based on the popularity of the mech. Less popular = cheaper and vice versa. I know a lot of this isn't popular but if all of these were combined and done right it would make for a much more diverse game. It entices players to take less popular mechs.

Concerning the purchase price of various mechs that's something they could be and I think should be doing right now. As far as I can tell that sort of thing would benefit the game.

I think R&R could also have its place, just not the way it was first implemented. Another idea to make R&R more palatable is to put bounds on it. A minimum R&R for basic maintenance regardless of damage or ammunition (i.e. basic operating costs), and a maximum out of pocket to prevent crippling losses.

Salvage compensation seems to be a good idea, though I think I'd tie shares to how much damage was received as opposed to delivered. Compensate people for taking more risks, spreading damage and taking hits for the team while also offsetting some R&R cost. I don't think the system should exclusively reward people who do their best to minimize their exposure.

Edited by Fleeb the Mad, 27 July 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Bront, on 27 July 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

R&R = New Player and some build tax. It's particularly difficult on the clan mechs where you have no choice but to use an XL engines, Endo, and/or FF (let alone being more expensive in general anyway).

Salvage = Interesting, but becomes an inventory management time sink.

You could always add in 'tech automation' to sell off equipment for you that's salvaged getting the current C-bill equivalent if you don't want to deal with it. Might lose out on some sweet tech though. Imagine the ability to get new mech chassis through salvage at the fraction of the price of a new one, requiring only some Cbills to refurbish them.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 July 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[Sandpit]

Fleeb the Mad, on 27 July 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Concerning the purchase price of various mechs that's something they could be and I think should be doing right now. As far as I can tell that sort of thing would benefit the game.

I think R&R could also have its place, just not the way it was first implemented. Another idea to make R&R more palatable is to put bounds on it. A minimum R&R for basic maintenance regardless of damage or ammunition (i.e. basic operating costs), and a maximum out of pocket to prevent crippling losses.

Salvage compensation seems to be a good idea, though I think I'd tie shares to how much damage was received as opposed to delivered. Compensate people for taking more risks, spreading damage and taking hits for the team while also offsetting some R&R cost. I don't think the system should exclusively reward people who do their best to minimize their exposure.

I never implied that it should follow the economics of the original model. I actually said the exact opposite. That the numbers can and should be adjusted to find a "sweet" spot

[Karyu]

First off, I'm totally in favor of R&R, but I understand why they took it out. They should re-implement it for CW type matches, it helps with the immersion of having to manage a campaign with limited resources, including choosing to go into battle without full repairs and armor. But instant-action non CW shouldn't have it. You never want to completely back players into a corner with money drains. (Though because of the potential for that to be abused there is some argument for "locking" a handful of mechs into CW campaign that cant be used outside of CW, with either a timer lockout for swapping mechs, or depending on how they do the logistics of CW, only when your dropships are parked at a planet.)

Techs are interesting, but I feel like they could be used like a Unit-wide buff. Your particular Merc company hires different techs with different areas of expertise, one guy might be good at salvage and grants a global 5-10% increase in salvage, another could know some advanced techniques that allow all of your units mechs to run 3-5% cooler. Stuff like that, no need to add another layer of individual customization.

Salvage...my favorite aspect of BTech games. Without it, they lose alot of appeal to me. I do think you're a little backwards in your logic here. I think that they should use a system along the lines of, only the winning team can collect equipment salvage (maybe still keep cbill salvage though), using a model along the lines of global 20% chance to salvage equipment, modified by damage to that component area. Automatic max of 5% chance to salvage equipment from destroyed components, and a 5-10% increase in salvage on mechs that were killed with headshots.

All in all, I want CW to play like the books read. I want every match and trigger pull to matter, I want to feel good that my ability to headshot a Masakari, and salvage some good tech may have some significant impact on the next stretch of our campaign. What I DON'T want is for CW to be a string of unrelated deathmatches on random maps with no deciding factors besides win%.

[Sandpit]

Karyu, on 27 July 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

First off, I'm totally in favor of R&R, but I understand why they took it out. They should re-implement it for CW type matches, it helps with the immersion of having to manage a campaign with limited resources, including choosing to go into battle without full repairs and armor. But instant-action non CW shouldn't have it. You never want to completely back players into a corner with money drains. (Though because of the potential for that to be abused there is some argument for "locking" a handful of mechs into CW campaign that cant be used outside of CW, with either a timer lockout for swapping mechs, or depending on how they do the logistics of CW, only when your dropships are parked at a planet.)

Techs are interesting, but I feel like they could be used like a Unit-wide buff. Your particular Merc company hires different techs with different areas of expertise, one guy might be good at salvage and grants a global 5-10% increase in salvage, another could know some advanced techniques that allow all of your units mechs to run 3-5% cooler. Stuff like that, no need to add another layer of individual customization.

Salvage...my favorite aspect of BTech games. Without it, they lose alot of appeal to me. I do think you're a little backwards in your logic here. I think that they should use a system along the lines of, only the winning team can collect equipment salvage (maybe still keep cbill salvage though), using a model along the lines of global 20% chance to salvage equipment, modified by damage to that component area. Automatic max of 5% chance to salvage equipment from destroyed components, and a 5-10% increase in salvage on mechs that were killed with headshots.

All in all, I want CW to play like the books read. I want every match and trigger pull to matter, I want to feel good that my ability to headshot a Masakari, and salvage some good tech may have some significant impact on the next stretch of our campaign. What I DON'T want is for CW to be a string of unrelated deathmatches on random maps with no deciding factors besides win%.

As I said earlier, this suggestion IS for CW, but I've also pointed out that according to Paul and Russ, CW matches are going to be the norm. We've never heard anything about having "public" matches outside of CW other than private matches. I really think anyone expecting otherwise is going to be somewhat disappointed. This is just my interpretation on what has been said by the devs concerning CW thus far.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bront, on 27 July 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

R&R = New Player and some build tax. It's particularly difficult on the clan mechs where you have no choice but to use an XL engines, Endo, and/or FF (let alone being more expensive in general anyway).

Salvage = Interesting, but becomes an inventory management time sink.

Ok for 25 matches suspend R&R, or slowly increase the amount over those 25 matches. SO the player knows what is coming.

[Kjudoon]

Just as a bit of 'flavor text' to salvage. If you use salvaged parts, I'd say you'd be allowed to keep the camo pattern and color locked on giving it almost a Mad Max appeal if you wanted to. But once repainted... you're stuck with it.

[Javin]

I think without CW R&R is punishing those casual players that drop just for a fun game.

Once (if) CW ever arrives I think a limited version of R&R would be good. House, clan, and merc units could absorb a certain % of overall repair costs encouraging players to join factions. Perhaps factions could give each member a small c-bill bonus depending on faction success. As you earn loyalty points with each faction you could reduce the R&R even more as you go up rank. Say have the faction pay 5% of R&R costs each rank besides the blanket faction % R&R reduction.

Salvage could be a good way to reduce R&R. You could get armor, weapons, ammo from destroyed mechs and possibly reduce R&R even more. Salvaging weapons and parts could be sold to help cover costs and maybe even get a small profit.

Contracts/missions could include the offer to cover the cost of R&R making contracts/missions more appealing.

This option may be damaging to lone wolves and single mercs but I do not mind. The game was designed around the great houses, clans, and merc units.

Edited by Javin, 27 July 2014 - 03:18 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Last I heard, casual players and lone wolves will become 'militia' to fill in for units fulfilling contracts. To them, the CW will be only the cassus bellai for the fight they take part in. As my example pointed out they will also be like "Owner/Operators" if PGI follows logically along this direction and should be paid more because they'd be responsible for their own R&R costs, and not mitigated by a unit or faction.

Of course, this is if PGI follows lore and TT concepts well laid out.