481 replies to this topic

[WildeKarde]

I don't think R&R is an option we could go back to currently. Since we have cbills available to buy it would be the easy way for those who can afford it to have the income to backup losses, you'll potentially lose players who with each loss are less able to complete (and free stock mechs doesn't mean they can compete).

Also with clan mechs there is the issue of fixed components, if you lose a jump jet for example why bother to replace it, that ton might be better as some ammo or a heat sink.

You encourage the last mechs on teams to just run /hide. To save repair costs why put yourself at risk?

I do agree it should be part of CW. Maybe your minimum payment is a repair (usually part of a contract), you could end up fighting for no actually money if you take too much damage. They could assign mechs to factions and if you are using one not part of the faction you're fighting for then it potentially costs you for repairs (not ammo though)

[xhrit]

R&R should be totally optional. I've put forth the idea before, but there should be "contract types", selected on a per-mission basis. Each drop the player should be able to select a different contract, each with different requirements, c-bill payouts, etc.

Standard contract would be exactly as it is now, and then there would be different contracts offering salvage and R&R in different amounts.

So if you wanted full salvage, you would have to take full r&r...

Edited by xhrit, 28 July 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[Caviel]

Going to re-recycle (with some updates) my last comment from the last long thread arguing R&R should be brought back:

Quote

Until there is an actual world/Community Warfare economy with more worthwhile money sinks, R&R is just a pointless tax:

-There is no fundamental difference between making 150,000 C-Bills after a win no R&R, and making 200,000 C-Bills after a win with a 50,000 C-Bill R&R bill.

-Lowering the match earnings as a result of R&R just introduces an artificial grind to earn C-Bills, an already big enough problem for new players that they implemented the new pilot rewards. Worst case it will punish new players with poor equipment by drastically reducing earned money from losing most of their first matches since they are learning the game.

-It is absolutely meaningless to established veteran players as they have more than enough funds available after a long period of play. I could net zero c-bills after refreshing consumables and R&R fees post match and I would not care. Again, just punishes new or occasional players unfairly.

-Unless match rewards start to get into the millions instead of tens or hundreds of thousands (Causing massive inflation), you have to prop up R&R by granting a percentage of free repairs. Otherwise you would have to play 10-20 matches in a trial mech just to earn enough to repair a Commando to play in a single match and potentially lose and be doomed to repeat the cycle. This encourages players to drop in mechs that are not fully repaired to maximize earnings as a detriment to other team members.

-R&R encouraged players to suicide in non-repaired mechs as a way to net more money after matches. This is unfair to the team now down a player that is willfully choosing not to participate in the match.

-R&R just pushes users to use energy weapons as they carry no ammunition costs, not something needed in this already PPC heavy meta.

-Unless you scale the amount earned based on the mech weight class, you will unfairly punish larger mech players. Any functionality that artificially restricts how players can choose to play the game is generally a bad one for the game.

[Sandpit]

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

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...

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

Not sure what you mean here?

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.

Dude, come on, this is not "punishing" anyone, nor any one portion in particular. Again, there's tons of game that do this and they do just fine. Sure there's potential for abuse.
just like there's potential for abuse with
farming
suicide farming
disconnecting
Elo gaming
Customizable builds
Friendly Fire
Sync dropping

I can find ways this game can be exploited all day long. if we're going to use "this could be exploited" or "it could promote "bad" behavior" as a reason for not implementing something the we'll be sitting here playing Pong. (which I could probably find exploits for lol)
Point being, of course it COULD be abused, or exploited, etc., that's why you set up ways to mitigate that. It's no different that players talking about poptarting here. You adjust, balance, and otherwise tweak to mitigate things like that.

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

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.

how does adding this to CW "hurt" new players?

[Prezimonto]

I still think the best way to implement RnR in this game at this time is to take the RnR out of the mechlab and put it into the game play.

Have players commit a mech to a series of matches... say 4. They don't have to play them all at once, but the mech is "on campaign" and can not be modified, only repaired and rearmed. Except, the further from stock your mech is and the more ammo dependent it is, the more likely you're going to start the next match with around a 15% deficit in some areas either destroyed or expended last match. You can offset this penalty by taking and holding supply depots which are SIDE OBJECTIVES on maps.

All of a sudden we have a reason for role warfare AND RnR AND it all ties together inside a match.

This affects all players roughly equally (old and new). Allow people to pay MC to get out of the series... hire a drop ship to take them home. Now it's also monetized.

Edited by Prezimonto, 28 July 2014 - 08:37 AM.

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 28 July 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean here?


Dude, come on, this is not "punishing" anyone, nor any one portion in particular. Again, there's tons of game that do this and they do just fine. Sure there's potential for abuse.
just like there's potential for abuse with
farming
suicide farming
disconnecting
Elo gaming
Customizable builds
Friendly Fire
Sync dropping

I can find ways this game can be exploited all day long. if we're going to use "this could be exploited" or "it could promote "bad" behavior" as a reason for not implementing something the we'll be sitting here playing Pong. (which I could probably find exploits for lol)
Point being, of course it COULD be abused, or exploited, etc., that's why you set up ways to mitigate that. It's no different that players talking about poptarting here. You adjust, balance, and otherwise tweak to mitigate things like that.


how does adding this to CW "hurt" new players?

R&R encourages every single one of those abuses.

If R&R is purely for CW and does not effect the Public Queue, then maybe I would be alright with it. Even though the current in game pricing make absolutely zero sense (LB-10X is hurt more than Gauss or any AC for example).

[Kjudoon]

TamCoan, on 28 July 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

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.

Are you now demanding rules that prevent logical outcomes? Is this where we're going?

Teamwork works so it's OP, let's nerf it?
Range works, it's OP, let's nerf it?


You're right, this is not a "reality simulator", but it is based on the principles of our physical universe. That means just like the physics engine, you want it to be believable. I want the economics system to be believable because it controls horsecrap like what we are seeing right now.

I'm seeing a lot of people crying "You're punishing your new players" but these same people are usually the first in line to say this game must be twitch based and screw the new players who can't L2P. Now a strategic element that might penalize their personal ability to profit from careless play comes about and "it's the ECONPOCALYSE! DO NOT WANT! IT R HURT NOO PLAYURZ! NO MAKE ME THINK OF CONSUQUENZES!"

Yes, that was hyperbole, but the sentiment was on target. You can't say on one hand, LRMs should be nerfed because they're not twitch based and that is the basis for what should be made good in MWO while turning around and saying that you're for preventing the new player from learning the game easier. It just seems... well, hypocritical. If you want this a game of 'skill', by gum! Let's make it a REAL game of skill and that includes out of cockpit stuff too.

Take the NFL. Right now so many people are focusing so hard on the rules on the field, they do not want to think of what goes on at the sideline or the owners box, or the offseason or even at the team level. Heck! it used to be common for football teams to go bankrupt and fall out of the league because of bad business choices coupled with bad play.

This is something that is the core around what happens in MW. Only the Factions have been immune to that to a certain degree because of their monolithic size, but Merc Companies are often one bad battle away from extinction. Without consequence, CW has no meaning. Without CW, MWO has no reason to exist except as an amusing little diversion. If that's all you want, then this discussion does not concern you. Ignore CW when it comes out and play in 'sandbox mode' and just do stompy stompy mechs a la private matches or something where you can pretend to be Mechbo the Solaris VII champion. But just as those sports heroes are not real heroes, do not expect those of us who want an immersive roleplay and strategic experience to bow to you on this. Be a gladiator in the arena. Many of us want more.

And you're right, there is no 1p game here. There SHOULD be, but there isn't. I also know companies who have been practicing for the start of CW and contracts and other stuff to become featured units and movers and shakers in the game. Some have gone to some crazy lengths outside of the game to try and insure that. They have conquest on their mind, and small minded arena play is not going to satisfy them.

As for anyone's POV, we're all trapped by it, and it has little to do with my W/L ratio the same it has little to do with my KDR which does nothing but allow ego to be hung upon it. I've yet to see a good argument against Sandpit's OP suggestions by anyone yet. Crying like Mrs. Lovejoy "won't someone please think about the newbies" over and over again, is not valid. It's rank emotionalism from people who wouldn't give two farts to helping them on the battlefield with improving weapon systems that aren't twitch based or breaking the current meta. An underlying cause of all this receives a proposal that would help them in the long run comes out... que the freakout.

Oh, and the solutions Sandpit proposes will cause real money to flow into PGI's coffers... and let me tell you, they'll listen to that the loudest.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 July 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[Kaspirikay]

r&r is pretty useless

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

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.

You will have to split the queues... again to CW and Arena. Arena can have a token payment, probably 25% of what you get now, while the real money and risk's in CW. that'd be fair.

Quote

You cant just hand wave off other ideas because you dont like them.

No offense, but that goes both ways.

Kaspirikay, on 28 July 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

r&r is pretty useless

I'd love to hear your reasons as to why you say that. Run out the logic of your beliefs and consider the causality of them.

[Davers]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

You will have to split the queues... again to CW and Arena. Arena can have a token payment, probably 25% of what you get now, while the real money and risk's in CW. that'd be fair.

I would say it should be the opposite. Casual players who just want stompy mechs shouldn't be effected.

[Kyrie]

One minor incidental point: A strong R&R mechanic in the present game ends up being a huge buff for the Clans. :-)

IS ballistics and missiles are arguably quite a bit more useful than the Clan counterparts. And if these are subject to a tax... called "rearm costs"... hohum. ;-)

[Davers]

Kyrie, on 28 July 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

One minor incidental point: A strong R&R mechanic in the present game ends up being a huge buff for the Clans. :-)

IS ballistics and missiles are arguably quite a bit more useful than the Clan counterparts. And if these are subject to a tax... called "rearm costs"... hohum. ;-)

No one has stated how R&R would work for the Clans. It's one of the big loopholes in the R&R argument.

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

I would say it should be the opposite. Casual players who just want stompy mechs shouldn't be effected.

Agreed. If you make an 'arena/gladiator/sandbox' set of queues, they won't be. they just should either get a fraction of the payouts and can play as we always have here, or no pay at all just like private matches to prevent farming abuse for CW. For instance, Monday Marik Madness should not be in CW, but an arena solo queue. Same with our Seraphim Scrambles.

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

No one has stated how R&R would work for the Clans. It's one of the big loopholes in the R&R argument.

Economics be economics. They are still subject to the same laws as all the rest of reality (in and out of game). They just have much longer supply lines and costs.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 July 2014 - 08:55 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

I still think the best way to implement RnR in this game at this time is to take the RnR out of the mechlab and put it into the game play.

Have players commit a mech to a series of matches... say 4. They don't have to play them all at once, but the mech is "on campaign" and can not be modified, only repaired and rearmed. Except, the further from stock your mech is and the more ammo dependent it is, the more likely you're going to start the next match with around a 15% deficit in some areas either destroyed or expended last match. You can offset this penalty by taking and holding supply depots which are SIDE OBJECTIVES on maps.

All of a sudden we have a reason for role warfare AND RnR AND it all ties together inside a match.

This affects all players roughly equally (old and new). Allow people to pay MC to get out of the series... hire a drop ship to take them home. Now it's also monetized.

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

No one has stated how R&R would work for the Clans. It's one of the big loopholes in the R&R argument.

If we're rolling with the idea I presented above, I'd suggest that clans CAN NOT receive ammo resupply from on map supply depots. Anything stiffer would probably be too harsh.

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

I would say it should be the opposite. Casual players who just want stompy mechs shouldn't be effected.

They won't. But don't expect 100k payouts for victory so you can't game the system by saying "I'm done playing in the arena and made soooooo much money. I'm now going to go break CW.

[Squally160]

@kjudoon since I cant quote properly.

I know, and I am not hand waving off ideas I disagree with. I am providing feedback and counter arguments to the ideas presented I disagree with. You cant come in and say sorry devs havnt talked about that idea when you yourswlf present ideas that devs havnt spoken about. That is hand waving things off.

This is not an attack against you by any means either. Im not trying to bash your views or others here. Just addd my own into the discussion and provide alternatives to what has been presented thus far.

[Davers]

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Agreed. If you make an 'arena/gladiator/sandbox' set of queues, they won't be. they just should either get a fraction of the payouts and can play as we always have here, or no pay at all just like private matches to prevent farming abuse for CW. For instance, Monday Marik Madness should not be in CW, but an arena solo queue. Same with our Seraphim Scrambles.

I am not sure what you are saying.

PGI has said there will be the Faction Warfare Queue, Public Queue (which is what we have now), and Private Matches. I think Pub queue should be left as is. People who just want to play a mech game shouldn't be punished with even slower advancement than we have now.

Kjudoon, on 28 July 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

They won't. But don't expect 100k payouts for victory so you can't game the system by saying "I'm done playing in the arena and made soooooo much money. I'm now going to go break CW.

When we had R&R payouts were substantially higher than 100k. I don't see this as game breaking.

Besides, we already have players with several hundred million Cbills. CW is already broken.

Edited by Davers, 28 July 2014 - 09:03 AM.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

If R&R is purely for CW and does not effect the Public Queue, then maybe I would be alright with it. Even though the current in game pricing make absolutely zero sense (LB-10X is hurt more than Gauss or any AC for example).

we've already established this is the case though

[Kjudoon]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

I am not sure what you are saying.

PGI has said there will be the Faction Warfare Queue, Public Queue (which is what we have now), and Private Matches. I think Pub queue should be left as is. People who just want to play a mech game shouldn't be punished with even slower advancement than we have now.


When we had R&R payouts were substantially higher than 100k. I don't see this as game breaking.

Okay, then you have the solution you wanted right there. Faction (CW) queues, Public (Non CW) and Private. My point is that just like Private Matches get no advancement, Public (non CW) queues should advance slower than CW queues. Risk gets reward.

That said, when they bring back the traditional 1-4 player group queue like we used to have in addition to the Solo only and 4+ queue, I'll be ecstatic about the divisions.

[Prezimonto]

Davers, on 28 July 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

I am not sure what you are saying.

PGI has said there will be the Faction Warfare Queue, Public Queue (which is what we have now), and Private Matches. I think Pub queue should be left as is. People who just want to play a mech game shouldn't be punished with even slower advancement than we have now.


When we had R&R payouts were substantially higher than 100k. I don't see this as game breaking.

They've also mentioned that the "public queue" will be essentially faction warfare (house vs. house with mecs to fill) and that CW will be merc life and the taking and holding of fringe planets.

At this point in time I've entirely unsure which direction they're planning on going (since I'm pretty sure they've stated both what you're quoting and what I'm quoting).