481 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Quote

And you still haven't answered the question: What are we actually trying to limit with R&R?

Bad "Mech Smash!!!" brawltardery
Ammo based spam
Meta cheese builds and mechs

Just to name 3 things

[Khobai]

R&R adds absolutely nothing beneficial to the game. It still doesnt make people want to play lights and mediums, it just penalizes players for playing heavies and assaults The stick approach doesnt work. Instead we need to try the carrot approach and make lights and mediums worth using without penalizing everything else.

techs and salvage also add nothing beneficial to the game. Paying for techs is just another name for a repair tax. And getting salvage instead of hard cbills is a penalty, since cash can already buy anything you want. theres quite frankly better ways to add immersion to the game.

Edited by Khobai, 27 July 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Khobai, on 27 July 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

R&R adds absolutely nothing beneficial to the game. In fact it does the opposite by penalizing earnings.

Also it still doesnt make people want to play lights and mediums, it just penalizes more for playing heavies and assaults

If priced right, it forces you to play smart or go broke. You gain a whole new game that deals with prices, availability and preservation of assets instead of just "RAWWWWWKILLLLLL!!!!" brawltardery.

Something this game desperately needs to even look a little like the past iterations, and I know it's a near impossible level of skill for those who don't want to think but just click through the load screens to their next fight. On the other hand.... some of us LOVE that sort of game.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 July 2014 - 07:42 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

If priced right, it forces you to play smart or go broke.

theres nothing fun about that.

all that results in is less brawling, and defensive style play like poptarting to minimize damage.

that is detrimental to the game not beneficial.

[Fiona Marshe]

Less combat is only a problem if you're playing Skirmish mode.

For Assault and Conquest... DO THE MISSION. No damage = win!

There are still a lot of players whining about cap wins in Assault... yet they chose to drop into the match!

[Squally160]

Fiona Marshe, on 27 July 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

Less combat is only a problem if you're playing Skirmish mode.

For Assault and Conquest... DO THE MISSION. No damage = win!

There are still a lot of players whining about cap wins in Assault... yet they chose to drop into the match!

I dont think thats an issue that will be solved by R&R though. Why punish players for fighting? Instead, buff the xp/bills for objectives.

[Kjudoon]

Khobai, on 27 July 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

theres nothing fun about that.

all that results in is less brawling, and defensive style play like poptarting to minimize damage.

that is detrimental to the game not beneficial.

I disagree. Then again, I like games that require you to think before you move like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, Master of Orion. Things that take thought or you reap a disaster. I'd love to see this added to MWO. Would really make it different, and much more like the TT game or Mech Commander as this game is in desperate need of some smarts based gameplay instead of just pavlovian twitch.

[Kjudoon]

Squally160, on 27 July 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

I dont think thats an issue that will be solved by R&R though. Why punish players for fighting? Instead, buff the xp/bills for objectives.

It's not punishment, it's the consequences of fighting.

A while back the military did a study about what would happen in simulators if civilians were given control over armies. They discovered that the civilians were more ruthless, bloodthirsty and careless with their armies than military people who are trying to bring home their soldiers with the fewest losses possible. The civilians constantly fought for hopless causes and won pyrrhic victories that ultimately cost them the war and many more lives than they could have lost. In a way, the soldiers had a greater respect for life and were more humanitarian and kind than those who had no idea what it was like to fight.

When nothing is on the line, and you have no idea what you're really doing on a spiritual and mental level you act carelessly because there are no consequences. I want consequences for bad play or worse, stupid play. Bad play is cured over time. Stupid play dies out.

Also, one of the most mind shattering games of recent days has been 7 Days to Die about being in a Zombie apocalypse. If you die there, you have to start over completely. No extra lives, no health packs and magic potions. Dead is dead. they found it was traumatizing people who played the game with the realization that if they died they lost everything.

Again, this is too much reality for some people... me included, but a taste of this, like a little wasabi... is a good thing.

Edited by Kjudoon, 27 July 2014 - 08:51 PM.

[Squally160]

Kjudoon, on 27 July 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

It's not punishment, it's the consequences of fighting.

A while back the military did a study about what would happen in simulators if civilians were given control over armies. They discovered that the civilians were more ruthless, bloodthirsty and careless with their armies than military people who are trying to bring home their soldiers with the fewest losses possible. The civilians constantly fought for hopless causes and won pyrrhic victories that ultimately cost them the war and many more lives than they could have lost. In a way, the soldiers had a greater respect for life and were more humanitarian and kind than those who had no idea what it was like to fight.

When nothing is on the line, and you have no idea what you're really doing on a spiritual and mental level you act carelessly because there are no consequences. I want consequences for bad play or worse, stupid play. Bad play is cured over time. Stupid play dies out.

Also, one of the most mind shattering games of recent days has been 7 Days to Die about being in a Zombie apocalypse. If you die there, you have to start over completely. No extra lives, no health packs and magic potions. Dead is dead. they found it was traumatizing people who played the game with the realization that if they died they lost everything.

Again, this is too much reality for some people... me included, but a taste of this, like a little wasabi... is a good thing.

I agree with there being a reason to play tactically. I would prefer that as well.

However, I do not thing the way to do that is to slap people so hard when they are new to the game. 100 matches is not a lot. and 25 is for damn sure too few. Teaching players to play better should be about rewarding good tactics and actions with good rewards, not heavy handed punishments.

Lets say, new player wants to run assaults, he uses his cadet bonus to only play assaults, buys himself a shiny assault on the chassis he likes. Now all of a sudden, he is paying hand over fist for EVERY mistake he makes, and getting pennies for his accomplishments. So instead, he has to go pilot other things that cost less to repair while he learns, lets say he picks mediums. How is he supposed to learn to be a better assault pilot playing mediums all the time?

[Sandpit]

Squally160, on 27 July 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

I agree with there being a reason to play tactically. I would prefer that as well.

However, I do not thing the way to do that is to slap people so hard when they are new to the game. 100 matches is not a lot. and 25 is for damn sure too few. Teaching players to play better should be about rewarding good tactics and actions with good rewards, not heavy handed punishments.

Lets say, new player wants to run assaults, he uses his cadet bonus to only play assaults, buys himself a shiny assault on the chassis he likes. Now all of a sudden, he is paying hand over fist for EVERY mistake he makes, and getting pennies for his accomplishments. So instead, he has to go pilot other things that cost less to repair while he learns, lets say he picks mediums. How is he supposed to learn to be a better assault pilot playing mediums all the time?

which is negated if you extend the cadet bonus and slowly scale up their R&R until they've got a decent buildup AND a good understanding of the R&R system. There HAS to be some kind of consequences otherwise planetary control is pointless. It's just a faction leaderboard with a discount on mechs maybe.

[Squally160]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

which is negated if you extend the cadet bonus and slowly scale up their R&R until they've got a decent buildup AND a good understanding of the R&R system. There HAS to be some kind of consequences otherwise planetary control is pointless. It's just a faction leaderboard with a discount on mechs maybe.

So what, we force players to grind up tiers of mechs to learn how R&R works? just giv them a little counter that says "In X many games you pay full price?"

Yes, there needs to be real, tangible rewards in CW, but without it here, its just shooting from the hip as to what those rewards/consequences will be. I still feel a "punishment" taht makes it harder to keep playing is bad. Rewards that people strive for are better.

You control a planet with manufacturing? sweet. You can go and get them to tweak your weapons some. Maybe add range, reduce damage, increase heat. W/E floats your boat. there are already cannon examples of different kinds of AC and such, so why not give us those options?

[Vassago Rain]

No.

[Khobai]

oh! how about ghost repair? the more you repair a mech the more it costs in the future. until it costs so much the mech cant be repaired anymore.

[Sandpit]

Squally160, on 27 July 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

So what, we force players to grind up tiers of mechs to learn how R&R works? just giv them a little counter that says "In X many games you pay full price?"

Yes, there needs to be real, tangible rewards in CW, but without it here, its just shooting from the hip as to what those rewards/consequences will be. I still feel a "punishment" taht makes it harder to keep playing is bad. Rewards that people strive for are better.

You control a planet with manufacturing? sweet. You can go and get them to tweak your weapons some. Maybe add range, reduce damage, increase heat. W/E floats your boat. there are already cannon examples of different kinds of AC and such, so why not give us those options?

uhm ok, show me anywhere the devs have mentioned anything like that?

every one of my suggestions is based on what devs have talked about as far as economy, cw, lp, etc. so that we can ger a discussion going on things like this so that PGI can actually have some feedback on what the community wants.

Whether I agree with it or not I appreciate points and counter-points to my suggestions, it helps them get fleshed out more and refined. That doesn't mean the same "it hurts" or "it changes game play" all based on economic concerns when it's already been shown how to counter that.
it's also not continuing to make a distinction between CW or not, that was already explained as well.
It's also not the same "it hurts new players" as that's been answered as well.

If you don't like it, hey that's cool, but if the reason you didn't like it was answered with some ideas that would prevent everyone's worst fears then it's not much of a valid point to keep reciting.

[PhoenixFire55]

Yes R&R - different mechs - good game.
No R&R - meta mechs and missile spam - bad game.

Nuff said.

[Lefty Lucy]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 July 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Yes R&R - different mechs - good game.
No R&R - meta mechs and missile spam - bad game.

Nuff said.

Except even when we had R&R this wasn't the case.

[PANZERKAT]

It actually was. People cared if they died or not and the play style was different. Not the arcade death match we currently have.

If repair and rearm exists again it won't be for the random drop game we currently have. It would be for CW. If you despise repair and rearm it won't impact the game you've been playing for the last few years.

If they want to engage people with CW they need some more meat to the meal instead of porting people over to a shiny star map with the exact same mechanics.

[Davers]

No one has answered what R&R was supposed to limit, just that it is a good thing.

Kjudoon, on 27 July 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

I disagree. Then again, I like games that require you to think before you move like Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Sim City, Master of Orion. Things that take thought or you reap a disaster. I'd love to see this added to MWO. Would really make it different, and much more like the TT game or Mech Commander as this game is in desperate need of some smarts based gameplay instead of just pavlovian twitch.

All those games are 'expansion' games where the economy only matters in the beginning. It is not a constant concern throughout the game. Even MechCommander has increased rewards and salvage as the game progressed, until you had huge stables of mechs, pilots, and equipment. Are we proposing a game where only new players are hurt by R&R, but vets aren't?

R&R encouraged all kinds of bad behaviors. Torso twisting to spread damage is punished more than standing and being cored. Cbill farming. More mechs hiding. If players aren't aggressive now, wait until they see the repair bill.

R&R is just an artificial speed bump to slow down player advancement to extend the game and keep the high end equipment out of their hands just a little longer. Name a single MW game where R&R kept players from accumulating stables of mechs.

[Kjudoon]

Khobai, on 27 July 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

oh! how about ghost repair? the more you repair a mech the more it costs in the future. until it costs so much the mech cant be repaired anymore.

That'd be called realistic metal fatigue much like you see in all military equipment that is used a lot and sees combat. Even I am not interested in seeing that level of realism.

And yes I know you meant that to be snarky and unhelpful, but just pointing out where it's a realistic POV.

[Mawai]

Hi,

Personally, I think all the ideas presented either sound cool by themselves or are a great starting point for discussion. They would make the game feel more immersive which might increase the fun factor for some folks.

However ... here are the problems ...

1. MWO will never have an inter-player economy. This is due in part to the impact that folks who have stockpiled massive amounts of cbills would have and in part due to the fact that players selling stuff to other players would undercut PGIs sales and thus income.

2. If there is no economic interaction between players then all of the individual player economy interactions and adjustments mentioned above boil down to the same statistic as is used currently ... average cbill income/player/match ... and the variance of this value. PGI has a target cbill income in mind that makes the game a grind and encourages folks to buy premium time, hero and community mechs with cbill and XP bonuses. This is the foundation of the f2p economy.

If all of the suggestions were implemented ... salvage, r&r, techs ... the cumulative result would have to be the SAME net average income/player/match as before all of these additions. That is the only significant parameter from the PGI point of view.

So what does that mean?

- can PGI afford to allow people to increase their net average income by choosing to run energy intensive builds? For example, an 8 medium laser Battlemaster will cost almost nothing to operate since the weapons are cheap and use no ammo there will be no R&R costs. SO ... does PGI balance income so that the maximum income builds yield the same as their targets now ...and every other build earns less? Alternatively, will they include R&R as an insignificant fraction of match income (5 to 10%?) so that it is just fluff that looks cool and has no impact.

- on salvage ... a PPC is worth 400k ... Gauss, ERPPC 600k (?) ... XL engines are worth millions of cbills even if sold back at 50%. It would be very cool to salvage something like that. BUT ...what is the impact on average earning/match? Currently salvage is on the order of 20 to 40k income/match. Awarding a 500k cbill value item could ONLY happen once every 12 to 25 matches and they could receive NO OTHER salvage in that time window ... in order to maintain the same required average cbill income/player/match. If you hand out an XL engine that can be sold for 2 million cbills then ... this can happen maybe one time in 100 matches and the income in EVERY other match has to be less to compensate for this one windfall match.


So much as I would love to see fluff like this ... I don't ever see it happening from a practical perspective.


Finally, the R&R suggestion is essentially a request to tax ammo builds or others that use expensive weaponry. This will tend to affect assaults more than lights ... so it is essentially a system to motivate players to use certain build choices from an economic perspective. The only fair way to do this would be to assign a upkeep tax (percentage or value) to every piece of equipment in the game (engines/weapons/equipment) and to every mech chassis and upgrade. So more expensive mechs would cost more to maintain. This maintenance fee ... percentage or fixed penalty (percentage is easier to balance) ... would be calculated for each build, stated up front and applied as an overall modifier to match income. This would be a much more transparent way to use the player economy to drive build choice ... as an example ... a direwolf with dual gauss and dual erppc might end up with a -20% to net earnings while a jenner with 4 medium lasers and an XL engine might end up at -2% ... the numbers would need tuning.

I don't think this would go over well with much of the player base ... but the R&R model described is essentially a tax on using expensive weapons and those requiring ammo and IF someone wants such a system then it might as well be upfront and transparent.