481 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

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



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.

All games follow that behavior in a certain degree because just like real life, success allows you to buffer your business. In this success at piloting well would buffer you from the pain of R&R. If you refuse to adopt good and profitable habits of play, you will always struggle. Let's put this another way because this is more lore based as well as uses my favorite analogy of being a truck driver.

With truck driving, you're either a company driver or a Owner Operator. O/Os get paid a LOT more per mile and bonuses that a Company or fleet driver. Why? Because they have to take care of all the maintenance on their truck for they own it. Good O/Os know that fuel economy is a big deal and have to be very very careful on what jobs to take or they won't turn a profit. Also, being careless with their job can make any job unprofitable. You have the freedom of choosing your own work and schedule and living your life the way you want... IF you do well in meeting the needs of the clients you do get through freight brokers or your own salesmanship. Fleet drivers do not get paid nearly as well, but they have a fraction of the responsibilities and freedoms. They work when the company says, and how they are told to do it. They don't have to worry about the operational costs or are reimbursed by the company. If the truck breaks and it's not their fault, the company assigns them a new one. If it is their fault or they do their job poorly, they get fired and have to find a new employer. They can't go bankrupt like an O/O but they can be jobless for sucking at their work.

How does this relate to MWO? Simple. Those who join in with Houses/Clans/Mercs are like fleet drivers while the lone wolves are Owner Operators. You can mitigate R&R costs by pawning them off onto your boss and pay them less. Sure their mech is always repaired before the next game, but their employer may finally decide their bad fighting skills are not worth having in the company doing contracts because it costs the unit too much. (Factions would be the most forgiving but worst paying and probably lousiest assignments unless you prove your skill, Mercs the least) If in a computer controlled faction you die constantly or cost so much over a period of time, maybe they stop allowing you to drop them or fire you because you're untrustworthy as a quality mechwarrior after a certain point (the cadet bonus). Who knows. The point is this system is already in place for lore with dispossessed mechwarriors and other lore examples out there.

We should see it here too or we just have arena mechwarrior game time, which is all some people want, but most don't. Most want the battles to have impact and reason and cost. Its time to implement that and let those who don't have their own, "Out of the real game" sandbox so the rest of us can play in 'peace'.

[TamCoan]

Yeah, no thanks. There's so many ways to abuse R&R that it would make it insane. Plus now it adds fear of getting shot into a group that is already so afraid to get shot that they cluster into a tight ball and hide behind a hill and hope no one sees them. Lets not talk about the effects of team damage into this equation. And since the game is basically just team deathmatch at this point...

If I had the ability to drive the success of my team as you can in a single-player game, sure. I'm more than happy to pay the price for my own failures and success. However when I'm in a match with 11 random people and they are running around like Leroy Jenkins, I'm not so willing to foot the bill.

[Kjudoon]

TamCoan, on 28 July 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

Yeah, no thanks. There's so many ways to abuse R&R that it would make it insane. Plus now it adds fear of getting shot into a group that is already so afraid to get shot that they cluster into a tight ball and hide behind a hill and hope no one sees them. Lets not talk about the effects of team damage into this equation. And since the game is basically just team deathmatch at this point...

If I had the ability to drive the success of my team as you can in a single-player game, sure. I'm more than happy to pay the price for my own failures and success. However when I'm in a match with 11 random people and they are running around like Leroy Jenkins, I'm not so willing to foot the bill.

Those players shouldn't be playing MWO then if you want a brutal opinion. I play smart, which some define as being a coward, but I get in there and take my shots. People want to play Leroy Jenkins all day long, go ahead. won't be long before you're having to pilot a trial locust because no faction would have you and you can't afford your repairs and it's all you can get on the field.

As I advise my new garrison players, "Play like you are actually sitting in the mech and can die if your mech is destroyed. It will keep you from making stupid choices."

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 July 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Sandslice]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

yes I'm certain I want discussion.

As long as the discussion is limited to how, rather than whether. I think you've proven that here, by insisting on reducing everything to economy and dismissing it on the grounds that R&R is inherently about a limiting economy.

You still haven't addressed the psychological issues related to R&R.

Suppose we have this R&R system instead of the more obvious one:
-After a match, R&R is calculated for your 'Mech. This is translated into an amount of time (say 1 second per 200 cbills of repair: a 120k repair job = 600 seconds = 10 minutes. A placeholder number.)
-The 'Mech is locked "in shop" for that amount of time, with a "complete repair" button that turns the balance back into cbills and deducts them. This is optional, and you can just wait it out.

No penalty to earnings, unless you choose there to be. People would still perceive that a penalty exists for taking damage, thus reinforcing their already existing fear.

And either way, friendly fire needs to be addressed, while considering the possibility that the chosen system could be trolled...

Quote

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.

...especially if (/since?) the trolls still can't be avoided.

[Davers]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

All games follow that behavior in a certain degree because just like real life, success allows you to buffer your business. In this success at piloting well would buffer you from the pain of R&R. If you refuse to adopt good and profitable habits of play, you will always struggle. Let's put this another way because this is more lore based as well as uses my favorite analogy of being a truck driver.

With truck driving, you're either a company driver or a Owner Operator. O/Os get paid a LOT more per mile and bonuses that a Company or fleet driver. Why? Because they have to take care of all the maintenance on their truck for they own it. Good O/Os know that fuel economy is a big deal and have to be very very careful on what jobs to take or they won't turn a profit. Also, being careless with their job can make any job unprofitable. You have the freedom of choosing your own work and schedule and living your life the way you want... IF you do well in meeting the needs of the clients you do get through freight brokers or your own salesmanship. Fleet drivers do not get paid nearly as well, but they have a fraction of the responsibilities and freedoms. They work when the company says, and how they are told to do it. They don't have to worry about the operational costs or are reimbursed by the company. If the truck breaks and it's not their fault, the company assigns them a new one. If it is their fault or they do their job poorly, they get fired and have to find a new employer. They can't go bankrupt like an O/O but they can be jobless for sucking at their work.

How does this relate to MWO? Simple. Those who join in with Houses/Clans/Mercs are like fleet drivers while the lone wolves are Owner Operators. You can mitigate R&R costs by pawning them off onto your boss and pay them less. Sure their mech is always repaired before the next game, but their employer may finally decide their bad fighting skills are not worth having in the company doing contracts because it costs the unit too much. (Factions would be the most forgiving but worst paying and probably lousiest assignments unless you prove your skill, Mercs the least) If in a computer controlled faction you die constantly or cost so much over a period of time, maybe they stop allowing you to drop them or fire you because you're untrustworthy as a quality mechwarrior after a certain point (the cadet bonus). Who knows. The point is this system is already in place for lore with dispossessed mechwarriors and other lore examples out there.

We should see it here too or we just have arena mechwarrior game time, which is all some people want, but most don't. Most want the battles to have impact and reason and cost. Its time to implement that and let those who don't have their own, "Out of the real game" sandbox so the rest of us can play in 'peace'.

So everyone is fine but Lone Wolf Mercs?

Why do people want to punish bad players who like the game?

No has said what they want R&R to eliminate or reduce. But it sounds like it will really hurt lights and mediums who use expensive equipment the most. No one has said how R&R will work for Clans, who don't have cheaper equipment to use. No one has said how R&R will work with 3/3/3/3.

By the way, PGI sells Cbills. So R&R would totally be P2W.

[Sandslice]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

All games follow that behavior in a certain degree because just like real life, success allows you to buffer your business. In this success at piloting well would buffer you from the pain of R&R. If you refuse to adopt good and profitable habits of play, you will always struggle. Let's put this another way because this is more lore based as well as uses my favorite analogy of being a truck driver.

With truck driving, you're either a company driver or a Owner Operator. O/Os get paid a LOT more per mile and bonuses that a Company or fleet driver. Why? Because they have to take care of all the maintenance on their truck for they own it. Good O/Os know that fuel economy is a big deal and have to be very very careful on what jobs to take or they won't turn a profit. Also, being careless with their job can make any job unprofitable. You have the freedom of choosing your own work and schedule and living your life the way you want... IF you do well in meeting the needs of the clients you do get through freight brokers or your own salesmanship. Fleet drivers do not get paid nearly as well, but they have a fraction of the responsibilities and freedoms. They work when the company says, and how they are told to do it. They don't have to worry about the operational costs or are reimbursed by the company. If the truck breaks and it's not their fault, the company assigns them a new one. If it is their fault or they do their job poorly, they get fired and have to find a new employer. They can't go bankrupt like an O/O but they can be jobless for sucking at their work.

How does this relate to MWO? Simple. Those who join in with Houses/Clans/Mercs are like fleet drivers while the lone wolves are Owner Operators. You can mitigate R&R costs by pawning them off onto your boss and pay them less. Sure their mech is always repaired before the next game, but their employer may finally decide their bad fighting skills are not worth having in the company doing contracts because it costs the unit too much. (Factions would be the most forgiving but worst paying and probably lousiest assignments unless you prove your skill, Mercs the least) If in a computer controlled faction you die constantly or cost so much over a period of time, maybe they stop allowing you to drop them or fire you because you're untrustworthy as a quality mechwarrior after a certain point (the cadet bonus). Who knows. The point is this system is already in place for lore with dispossessed mechwarriors and other lore examples out there.

We should see it here too or we just have arena mechwarrior game time, which is all some people want, but most don't. Most want the battles to have impact and reason and cost. Its time to implement that and let those who don't have their own, "Out of the real game" sandbox so the rest of us can play in 'peace'.

So you're hinting at a system where someone who gets into a string of bad luck (eg, despite his own best efforts gets into a bunch of bad random drops) becomes literally unable to play the game at all?

[Davers]

Sandslice, on 28 July 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Suppose we have this R&R system instead of the more obvious one:
-After a match, R&R is calculated for your 'Mech. This is translated into an amount of time (say 1 second per 200 cbills of repair: a 120k repair job = 600 seconds = 10 minutes. A placeholder number.)
-The 'Mech is locked "in shop" for that amount of time, with a "complete repair" button that turns the balance back into cbills and deducts them. This is optional, and you can just wait it out.

Another suggestion that hurts new players more than any other.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I would like to see a R&R re-implemented and Salvage system implemented in some way, but It is a real tricky system to implement and seem fair in a F2P enviroment.

Since PGI wants to control and limit the economy so tightly (to promote hero mechs and premium time), they make adding these systems either too advantagous (reducing the effectivness of their MC offerings), or so restrictive that the grind frustrates players and they just stop playing when they see no reasonable progression.

The risk reward thing sounds good, but how do you reward or punish a PUG for the performance of the other random 11 people on his team. I may be a descent player, but I would hate to go negative for one round when my team gets steamrolled.

Again, I would like to see these things implemented, but I honestly don't know a way that it would seem fair to everyone.

[Sandslice]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

Another suggestion that hurts new players more than any other.

Which is basically impossible to avoid; and I mainly put it out there as an example of a system that carries no economic penalties (since it has become necessary to do so, thanks to the "hurt my earnings" dialogue-wall.)

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

So everyone is fine but Lone Wolf Mercs?

Why do people want to punish bad players who like the game?

No has said what they want R&R to eliminate or reduce. But it sounds like it will really hurt lights and mediums who use expensive equipment the most. No one has said how R&R will work for Clans, who don't have cheaper equipment to use. No one has said how R&R will work with 3/3/3/3.

By the way, PGI sells Cbills. So R&R would totally be P2W.

Look at lore. Yes, everyone is better off than lone wolves. Sorry, but that's the basis of the game ever since this game was more than just put your cardboard cutouts on the cheap paper hex map they gave you in the box of Battledroids. There may be a few famous lone wolves but pretty much every mech out there, just like there are no lone wolf tank pilots or fighter pilots out there, require a faction/clan/merc behind them.

I have said 3 times now what I want R&R to fix.
Bad play by "Cbilling" carelessness,
Giving battles reason to exist and consequences for and against groups for starters,
provide an out of mech strategy gameplay component that requires thinking not twitching.

I fully expect to deal with higher R&R costs because I run an LRMboat, and will be happy to take that as the AC meta will also take a huge hit that it won't be as easy to recoup cash from as the LRM.

And no, it's not P2W. Your MC purchase of Cbills does not give you a better mech with 'gold shot' that has bonuses on the battlefield.

Quote

So you're hinting at a system where someone who gets into a string of bad luck (eg, despite his own best efforts gets into a bunch of bad random drops) becomes literally unable to play the game at all?

Not that I want to see that, but let's face it, videogames have been doing this since Space Invaders hit the arcade in 1978. String of bad luck? Try again and put in another quarter. That said, It's also part of why I'd join a group and learn to play smarter. Human controlled units will keep you around a lot longer.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 July 2014 - 08:02 AM.

[Kyrie]

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.

It strikes me as a bit odd that each of the game examples you listed are turn based games. :-) While I agree with the general sentiment of your posts in this thread, I remain completely unconvinced as to how the suggested R&R implementation will avoid the perils of min-max play.

A min-max player will game the system as far as possible, looking for the most expedient way to grind c-bills under our glorious F2P model; or worse, simply buy their way out of it with real money cash.

Examples:

"Oh, we are down 2-3 mechs already, let me get myself cored as efficiently as possible to move on to the next match..."
"Why brawl when pop-tarting allows me to deal more damage while avoiding most damage?"
"My idiotic play has put me at 0 c-bills, what to do... oh, I know. I have this shiny but of plastic I can use to get more..."
"Lets see... missiles, expensive. Ballistics, still have a cost... energy weapons, free. Oh, look... the clan mechs have very long range energy weapons, that seems like a solid choice..."

Nothing in this thread appears to address these issues. And this is why I suggested previously that any R&R mechanic has to be linked exclusively to CW, and that it should not be part of the per-match earnings; de-coupling the incentive for stupid play. Instead, it should be part of the unit's overall income; and stupid play be handled as part of the management of the unit.

[Davers]

Sandslice, on 28 July 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Which is basically impossible to avoid; and I mainly put it out there as an example of a system that carries no economic penalties (since it has become necessary to do so, thanks to the "hurt my earnings" dialogue-wall.)

That is my point. Everyone has these great ideas that make the game worse for new players while having little effect on veteran players. Every suggestion gives huge advantages to people with Hero mechs, Premium time, or money to spend directly on Cbills. It's like everyone secretly wants this game to be P2W.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

It strikes me as a bit odd that each of the game examples you listed are turn based games. :-) While I agree with the general sentiment of your posts in this thread, I remain completely unconvinced as to how the suggested R&R implementation will avoid the perils of min-max play.

Only Civ and MOO are turn based.

R&R will assist in the REAL control on min/maxing: dynamic economics. If the number of 'new parts' is finite as the MWO universe has built into it through the automated factories, then demand and supply will increase prices dramatically for the high demand weapons. If you only make say 10,000 ERLLs a week, and the demand is for 20,000 at the price they start at, the prices will rise till the demand for them equals supply. You have then found the market price based on demand as set by a finite supply. This gets more complex when you factor in factional restrictions/bonuses, combined with distance from supplier, et all. THAT controls min/max meta. That nifty little ECM Raven 3L outside of Liao? Ohhhhh let's look at tripling the price. there's your control, and you can't have it till you institute R&R as well because otherwise, there is no reason to increase or decrease prices because things are just magically fixed as Fix-It Felix comes by every mechlab and makes it perfect again with his magic hammer.

This is economics 101 here. It deals in all situation where scarcity and demand happen. Even videogames.

Quote

A min-max player will game the system as far as possible, looking for the most expedient way to grind c-bills under our glorious F2P model; or worse, simply buy their way out of it with real money cash.

Nothing you can do stops munchkins from gaming the system. It's a player behavior. Of course, without storylines, actual consequences for actions... min/max rules the game unstopped and forces everyone to dance to their little meta tune. Hmm... sounds like what we have.

Quote

Examples:

"Oh, we are down 2-3 mechs already, let me get myself cored as efficiently as possible to move on to the next match..."
"Why brawl when pop-tarting allows me to deal more damage while avoiding most damage?"
"My idiotic play has put me at 0 c-bills, what to do... oh, I know. I have this shiny but of plastic I can use to get more..."
"Lets see... missiles, expensive. Ballistics, still have a cost... energy weapons, free. Oh, look... the clan mechs have very long range energy weapons, that seems like a solid choice..."

Sounds like we now see the reason lore looks like it does. At least from my POV it does.

Quote

Nothing in this thread appears to address these issues.

Sure it has. Multiple times. The fact that the answers are not what many want is the real cause of cognitive dissonance among the detractors of R&R.

Quote

Instead, it should be part of the unit's overall income; and stupid play be handled as part of the management of the unit.

And we're back to my Owner Operator vs. Fleet Driver example. Lonewolves do not get this benefit. Sorry. It's why lore is not replete with lone wolves either because they just can't fight a war on their own, and Rambo can't exist in MWO... thank the Lord!

Quote

That is my point. Everyone has these great ideas that make the game worse for new players while having little effect on veteran players.

This is not a good enough reason to not fix the community with all the things Sandpit put forth. New players will have to deal with it just like veterans. Of course, PGI could just arbitrarily zero out everyone's C-Bill accounts and make everyone grind together, force them to buy C-Bills with XP or sell off excess mechs. The community would riot and probably sue. But since this is not going to happen, these changes are desperately needed, this argument is not valid. Sorry man.

Oh, and don't pick on me too hard tonight at MMM.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 July 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[Prezimonto]

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.

I've been thinking a long time about how I'd improve this aspect of the game, and you're ideas aren't wildly off mine.

I wanted to link mechs to a faction, whether merc company or great house or clan doesn't matter. You're running a mech for someone and own them some loyalty. You're mech comes stock, but over time you earn indentured servants or pay to hire technicians of all sorts.

Electronics, myomer, skeletal, armor, weapons, logistics, salvage, pilots. Each one costs you something, but provides benefits.

The base game has RnR, but as you suggest stock mechs are covered by your boss, everything else COSTS serious cash. EVERYTHING can be destroyed, including your mech, which will slowly degrade(don't worry you get a new one from your boss, but it start's stock).

Your techs all help cheapen the deal: better salvage, expertise in modifying weapons, customizing mechs (changing out AC 5 for an AC2), upgrades (FF/Endo/ect), tuning XL engines (which should have a much higher base maintenance cost as well). ect. ect. ect.

Each tech get's a skill tree and you can earn XP for them, and specialize them as you go. They can work Faster, Cheaper, or do higher Quality work: pick 2 by the time they're full skill.

Mechs that are damaged take time for repairs (you can always go take out one of your bosses "stock" mechs) and the more customizations the longer the down time. The customizations all can be repaired or fixed poorly (leaving those components with fewer internal HP, making them easier to critically hit and start the cycle over). Finally, each customization costs cold hard cash out of your pocket, and some techs are just better at doing things more cheaply.

Add logistics officers are better at salvage, and that factions might allow you to win or purchase permits to offset some customizations or upgrades if you have enough rank and properly trained technicians to maintain the gear.

I LOVE the idea of a full salvage system. Want an AC20, but can't afford it? Start aiming for AC20 components on mechs.

I wanted the idea that mechs get beaten up. Mechs themselves will take in XP and have a skill trees that do things like help keep them from being destroyed, allow module slots (each added to various components... stable gyros is upgrade to the main gyro, hill climb is a leg upgrade, advanced sensors on main sensor, ect...) In addition they'd have a survivability tree, that slows down the deterioration of the mech. They'd also have a "Fame" tree that provides the mech with bonuses to a final rating on death.

I wanted to make mechs and pilot deaths happen, but not be totally sad face for players. Their mech dies... it's XP (which caps) gets spread to all your other mechs (small boost to all, or if you're new big boost to a few). You get a new stock mech. Your techs allow you to customize it again as you wish. You mech, upon death, also gets a rating for it's lifetime of service. If it's high enough your mech gets listed as a "legendary" mech on the website. So you have a way to earn fame here. That "fame" tree would be third tree for a mech. Boosts to the legend score of the mech at it's death. Much like techs would have 3 trees of skills (Quality/Speed/Cost) Mechs have 3 trees (Module slots/Survivability (again only before death not in a match)/ and Fame) pick 2.

Pilots work in the same way: Survivability (keeps them alive longer) / Fame (score boosts) / Fighting skills (probably broken down several paths). Pick 2 Like mechs Pilots die, XP gets spread to other pilots, or perhaps to techs and pilots, and the dead pilot's score goes to a leader board. If a mech and a pilot invest in Fame and only work together, their scores will add partially to the one that goes, or fully if they go together.

This would provide an economy, a leader board that's not based purely on KDR and is very much in line with a "casual" game, serious depth of play in the mech lab with consequences in matches, and a much greater sense of setting.

All told I love your ideas, I'm happy someone else has been thinking about things like this. I do want to note, that these ideas are part of my "What would I like to play" fantasy time, and I don't it would ever be taken seriously.

Edited by Prezimonto, 28 July 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[TamCoan]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

Those players shouldn't be playing MWO then if you want a brutal opinion. I play smart, which some define as being a coward, but I get in there and take my shots. People want to play Leroy Jenkins all day long, go ahead. won't be long before you're having to pilot a trial locust because no faction would have you and you can't afford your repairs and it's all you can get on the field.

As I advise my new garrison players, "Play like you are actually sitting in the mech and can die if your mech is destroyed. It will keep you from making stupid choices."

Yeah... that's a successful business model... This isn't a reality simulator. There is currently no real objectives other than shooting people and blowing up mechs. It's not a single player game where you can save and restart your campaign if you don't like where it's going. If you are going to start punishing your player base for logging into your game than you're going to have to come up with reaaaaaaaaally good reasons for them to put up with the abuse.

I'm sure you're looking at it from your POV though and I can't fault that. My win/loss ratio is pretty heavily weighted towards the win side. I do a decent amount of damage and more often then not I end the match with most of my mech intact. Personally I feel that I could go into a system with R&R and make a decent profit. However a large percentage of the player population just can't do that. Many players here love battletech but don't have the time to devote to the game to "get good". Others aren't to the point where they know the maps, tactics and teamworks. And yet more just outright refuse to work together and do more harm to their team than good. To outright punish the people who play your game is just asking for your game to fail.

Keep in mind that I have a metric buttload of cbills saved up so R&R would have no affect to me for quite awhile while hurting people who don't have the cash, one of the reasons I'm against it.

Edited by TamCoan, 28 July 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 26 July 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

hence why I said ADJUST the numbers


That's why I suggested new playres under cadet bonus do not pay them as well as adding in stock mechs that don't pay for it either.

I would add that EACH customization you make costs something. Not that you go from paying zero to paying for all. This way players can make changes and ease into a level of customization they can sustain/want to play.

[Squally160]

Sandpit, on 27 July 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

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.

On my phone so pardon any glaring spelling issues.

You are asking me to find a dev post about an idea I am putting forward, yet you yourself put forward ideas in your OP? Please show me where devs have talked about adding techs or salvaged item drops.

You cant just hand wave off other ideas because you dont like them. This is a discussion here. You have one view, and I have another. Im enjoying this discussion because for the most part its all pretty civil. I see reasons for rnr but I also see a lot more reasons against it. The main reason for it seems, at least from these posts, is to increase tactical play and reduce meta boating. Both things I want to see done as well. But why should it be a punishmemt based system? Why not bring things in line with each other. Dont get me wrong, this will never be TT and we have to approach problems differently here because of the way this game is played. Rnr was perfect in the singleplayer games because you relied on yourself and the ai. Here, its you + 11 randoms.

And you can say its only for cw! And ive already said yes to it in cw but no to it in the bulk of the game (pugs).

[Davers]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

I have said 3 times now what I want R&R to fix.
Bad play by "Cbilling" carelessness,
Giving battles reason to exist and consequences for and against groups for starters,
provide an out of mech strategy gameplay component that requires thinking not twitching.

I fully expect to deal with higher R&R costs because I run an LRMboat, and will be happy to take that as the AC meta will also take a huge hit that it won't be as easy to recoup cash from as the LRM.

And no, it's not P2W. Your MC purchase of Cbills does not give you a better mech with 'gold shot' that has bonuses on the battlefield.

There was plenty of "bad play" when we had R&R.

How is R&R working at all if people can afford to run LRM boats? If R&R can't stop people from running the very builds that it is supposed to be targeting then what is the point? IT'S JUST A TAX ON FUN. It's not stopping you from running what you want. It won't stop the much cheaper AC mechs from running what they want. Who is it stopping? New players. Why is it necessary for bad players to be punished? Don't we want them to stay around and become good players?

If I can spend real money (through Hero mechs, Premium time, or purchasing Cbills) and run my best mech while another player has to use a weaker mech because they can't afford to run their best mech then it is P2W.

PGI please keep R&R out of the public queue. Thank you.

[Kyrie]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

Only Civ and MOO are turn based.

R&R will assist in the REAL control on min/maxing: dynamic economics. If the number of 'new parts' is finite as the MWO universe has built into it through the automated factories, then demand and supply will increase prices dramatically for the high demand weapons. If you only make say 10,000 ERLLs a week, and the demand is for 20,000 at the price they start at, the prices will rise till the demand for them equals supply. You have then found the market price based on demand as set by a finite supply. This gets more complex when you factor in factional restrictions/bonuses, combined with distance from supplier, et all. THAT controls min/max meta. That nifty little ECM Raven 3L outside of Liao? Ohhhhh let's look at tripling the price. there's your control, and you can't have it till you institute R&R as well because otherwise, there is no reason to increase or decrease prices because things are just magically fixed as Fix-It Felix comes by every mechlab and makes it perfect again with his magic hammer.

This is economics 101 here. It deals in all situation where scarcity and demand happen. Even videogames.




Nothing you can do stops munchkins from gaming the system. It's a player behavior. Of course, without storylines, actual consequences for actions... min/max rules the game unstopped and forces everyone to dance to their little meta tune. Hmm... sounds like what we have.




Sounds like we now see the reason lore looks like it does. At least from my POV it does.




Sure it has. Multiple times. The fact that the answers are not what many want is the real cause of cognitive dissonance among the detractors of R&R.




And we're back to my Owner Operator vs. Fleet Driver example. Lonewolves do not get this benefit. Sorry. It's why lore is not replete with lone wolves either because they just can't fight a war on their own, and Rambo can't exist in MWO... thank the Lord!



This is not a good enough reason to not fix the community with all the things Sandpit put forth. New players will have to deal with it just like veterans. Of course, PGI could just arbitrarily zero out everyone's C-Bill accounts and make everyone grind together, force them to buy C-Bills with XP or sell off excess mechs. The community would riot and probably sue. But since this is not going to happen, these changes are desperately needed, this argument is not valid. Sorry man.

Oh, and don't pick on me too hard tonight at MMM.

I'm still not grasping a few key points:

1) How do you control against the inherent P2W advantages illustrated previously?
2) Missiles at present have only a borderline usefulness, and probably no serious use in competitive play (not that I am playing in that scene, but judging by what has been posted...). Under R&R the usefulness goes from marginal to fully useless, taking with it NARC and TAG. Do you propose to buff missiles? :-) And allowing perhaps a P2W lurm-a-geddon?
3) Do you acknowledge that the proposed R&R rewards stupid play? I am aware that a small subset of the players will do whatever they want, my point is that if you provide an incentive for it, that subset becomes... larger. Much larger.

Addressing your question on lonewolves in CW under my proposal, that can be handled quite easily by having them be able to sign contracts just like a merc outfit and accounting for R&R's at the end of the contract cycle.

My main concern with R&R is that it, absent a context for battles that is supposed to be provided by CW, it adds nothing to the game. It is a hidden tax. Even within CW, I want to make sure that we never create incentives for stupid play. And this is why I proposed de-coupling R&R away from a per-match basis even within CW.

[PhoenixFire55]

Lefty Lucy, on 28 July 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

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

R&R and PGI's view of R&R are two different things.