481 replies to this topic

[Mycrus]

Give me back r&r....

run a meta mech and the community blasts every single component you have back to the stone age.... it was very satisfying to know that you will lose money after I'm done stripping your mech clean....

[Draxist]

Wintersdark, on 29 July 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Flavour, yes. But you'll find a huge majority of players would rather their teammates be fully repaired than be useless zombie cents facing tuned Stormcrows.

I get where you're coming from, but PGI has to cater to that huge, obnoxious majority.

Wintersdark, you are exemplify perfectly many nay-sayers for R&R (and this is in no way meant to be a bash against those who oppose the idea or you personally, you are just the perfect example this far into the discussion). I and many others have started threads like Sandpit (I didn't quite put up this much of a fight though) wanting to find a way to re-institute R&R with a few new mechanics trying to encourage new styles of play.

I find it rather disturbing, however, that most of the opposing thoughts jump immediately to "it will be just like in C.B." or "it will be bad because of so many C-millionares" or other reasons.

using your example of Elo-sliders trying to game the system, we have no confirmation that most if many at all of all players would use this strategy all the time. Will somebody do it? yes, but not all. and for those who have stock-piles of C-bills, eventually that will run out, especially if they are participating in CW and units. if not, then they the will just continue to be filthy rich. everyone seems to believe that Closed beta vets have more C-bills than Scrooge McDuck! I played in Closed beta, and I currently only have 20 mill C-bills to my name.

what I am trying to get at is everyone seems to think that R&R would only truly effect new players and scare them away, being much more of a sore problem then a "challenge adding" mechanic. Ideally, we wouldn't be taxing them at all, especially since they would be using champion mechs which they wouldn't own and have to pay the R&R for. What we need to consider when looking at R&R is the longer-term effects on the game and community. saying "it only costs 13-mill for a meta mech", well, for some of us, even vets, that's an investment. it would be more of a long term goal instead of a buy-it-now ebay deal.

R&R would should be a long-term game changer, and a mechanic that can be tuned to affect specific individuals, such as those playing CW with units, rather than pug matches where you would most likely find a lot of newbies. I sincerely believe that it can have more positives then negatives.

just like anything in this game, it needs to be "properly implemented"

[meteorol]

Cimarb, on 29 July 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

I am not speaking for anyone else, but for ME, Repair and Rearm is what allows us to start having an actual economy.

An economy in which everyone who opens his wallet can completely bypass the r&r mechanic by just buying champion cicadas and selling them for cbills. Cool. Way to get this game deep into the P2W dicussion.

It's funny how everyone who wants r&r back seems to ignore the fact that PGI is selling cbills (the balance tool) for $.

Edited by meteorol, 29 July 2014 - 09:27 PM.

[Sandpit]

meteorol, on 29 July 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

An economy in which everyone who opens his wallet can completely bypass the r&r mechanic by just buying champion cicadas and selling them for cbills. Cool. Way to get this game deep into the P2W dicussion.

It's funny how everyone who wants r&r back seems to ignore the fact that PGI is selling cbills (the balance tool) for $.

you can do that with premium time. that's always been the case. premium time = more money. period. I don't understand how this is some sort of "villainous" plot of some kind?? Lets not make this into any kind P2W discussion please. If you want to argue P2W there's plenty of threads to have that discussion. Keep it on topic please.

Draxist, on 29 July 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

I and many others have started threads like Sandpit (I didn't quite put up this much of a fight though) wanting to find a way to re-institute R&R with a few new mechanics trying to encourage new styles of play.

I'm a stubborn ass marine persistent

[Davers]

Draxist, on 29 July 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

What we need to consider when looking at R&R is the longer-term effects on the game and community. saying "it only costs 13-mill for a meta mech", well, for some of us, even vets, that's an investment. it would be more of a long term goal instead of a buy-it-now ebay deal.

My point wasn't that it costs 13 million for a meta mech. It was that it costs 13 million for every category of meta mech. Assaults are not really more expensive than mediums. So, there is no real reason to play a medium.

Not one person who supports R&R will come forward and say what builds, exactly, we are trying to limit. What is R&R supposed to actually DO from an actual design perspective.

[Clownwarlord]

OK after reading that big first post I got this, I like it ... but ...

OK so you have this r & r which you pay out the butt for repair and re load which cuts the boaters down to well ... depending on the cost they could still be around. Only thing is it will force players to do one of two things. Play better so that they actually care to earn C-Bills to cover this new R & r which only hurts you ... OR just stop playing the game because you suck and never earn enough to cover the C-Bills you need to be able to play the mechs that you might have paid real cash for.

Next is the salvage, have components you say that you can sell or use on your mechs ... thats a nice idea I guess until you get to clan vs is until they introduce using clan stuff on is stuff and vice verse. Other wise you will just stack up a bunch of $#!+ until you decide to sell it off. Which basically is putting another step in the game ... where this game already has multiple steps for things that it could of just had one or fewer.

As for techs I just shake my head ... why not instead having different shops for each faction and if you happen to be in that faction and have accumulated faction points in there you can get discounts on things associated with that faction. Even if not apart of that faction you still get to buy things from the other faction shops but you just don't get discounts. (Oh wait they said they where doing that already, but that they haven't put it in.)

As for the people who stock C-Bills well they basically do it because eventually some one is going to need to buy a jump ship and or drop ship.

[Wintersdark]

Mycrus, on 29 July 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

Give me back r&r....

run a meta mech and the community blasts every single component you have back to the stone age.... it was very satisfying to know that you will lose money after I'm done stripping your mech clean....

... Except that there's not really any reason a meta mech would be more expensive than a random silly build. Take a couple LB-X AC's, some LRM's, and oh, looky... It costs you more to lose your mech than the AC5/PPC Shadowhawk that just tore you apart.

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

My point wasn't that it costs 13 million for a meta mech. It was that it costs 13 million for every category of meta mech. Assaults are not really more expensive than mediums. So, there is no real reason to play a medium.

Not one person who supports R&R will come forward and say what builds, exactly, we are trying to limit. What is R&R supposed to actually DO from an actual design perspective.

That's because those who want R&R, other than a couple people who aren't thinking anything through at all, don't want it to limit meta mechs. The very concept is absurd: R&R may limit the current meta builds (depending on pricing and implementation details) but it's irrelevant because a new set of meta mechs will arise as a result. It's totally inevitable.


There ARE valid, fluffy reasons to go for R&R in CW. I still don't think PGI would go even remotely close to R&R, or anything even remotely approaching what folks here expect in CW, but yeah... meta builds has no bearing on R&R at all.

Hell, if anything, PPFLD builds are ideal for R&R: You can kill faster, and cleaner (preserve salvage, yay!); you're ton for ton more dangerous (there's a reason they are the meta build, after all) and it's not using outrageously expensive equipment.

Dynamic pricing would help that, in theory... except this is where Roland's otherwise incredibly awesome idea of dynamic BV based on usage falls down too: There are exponentially more random players playing random mechs with no clue how to put a good build togther than there are people actually using meta builds. The "Underhive", if you will, is truly vast. As such, dynamic pricing is essentially random pricing, because no... The best builds don't "trickle down" - totally different builds are used in low, mid and high Elo. Dynamic pricing would make meta builds cheap, and LRM mechs absurdly expensive.


So, anyways, yeah. That's really the issue with this. R&R isn't really accomplishing anything from a design perspective, other than adding (a significant amount, to be fair) of immersion. When coupled with a dynamic economy in CW, it certainly could offer design advantages... But that has a whole lot of dependencies that are pretty unlikely to be met.

[Mycrus]

Wintersdark, on 29 July 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

... Except that there's not really any reason a meta mech would be more expensive than a random silly build. Take a couple LB-X AC's, some LRM's, and oh, looky... It costs you more to lose your mech than the AC5/PPC Shadowhawk that just tore you apart.


That's because those who want R&R, other than a couple people who aren't thinking anything through at all, don't want it to limit meta mechs. The very concept is absurd: R&R may limit the current meta builds (depending on pricing and implementation details) but it's irrelevant because a new set of meta mechs will arise as a result. It's totally inevitable.


There ARE valid, fluffy reasons to go for R&R in CW. I still don't think PGI would go even remotely close to R&R, or anything even remotely approaching what folks here expect in CW, but yeah... meta builds has no bearing on R&R at all.

Hell, if anything, PPFLD builds are ideal for R&R: You can kill faster, and cleaner (preserve salvage, yay!); you're ton for ton more dangerous (there's a reason they are the meta build, after all) and it's not using outrageously expensive equipment.

Dynamic pricing would help that, in theory... except this is where Roland's otherwise incredibly awesome idea of dynamic BV based on usage falls down too: There are exponentially more random players playing random mechs with no clue how to put a good build togther than there are people actually using meta builds. The "Underhive", if you will, is truly vast. As such, dynamic pricing is essentially random pricing, because no... The best builds don't "trickle down" - totally different builds are used in low, mid and high Elo. Dynamic pricing would make meta builds cheap, and LRM mechs absurdly expensive.


So, anyways, yeah. That's really the issue with this. R&R isn't really accomplishing anything from a design perspective, other than adding (a significant amount, to be fair) of immersion. When coupled with a dynamic economy in CW, it certainly could offer design advantages... But that has a whole lot of dependencies that are pretty unlikely to be met.

You probably forgot how much ammo or goose waffles cost to repair back in the day...

R&r promoted variety back then with the hunchie being the go to mech to make bank...

[Wintersdark]

Mycrus, on 29 July 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

You probably forgot how much ammo or goose waffles cost to repair back in the day...

R&r promoted variety back then with the hunchie being the go to mech to make bank...

I really remember how things where back in the day. AC5 ammo was NOT particularly expensive, and PPC's don't use ammo. That's it.

But there's so many rose coloured glasses being passed around here. You've got to remember, even then, most of the players where still founders, an easy majority even into the early open beta days. Lots and lots of people who were dedicated fans and really into all that stuff. That's not the case anymore.

It promoted lots of variety... in as much as we could have with just a tiny handful of mechs. But a lot of that variety was terrible and problematic as well as interesting.

If implemented today, you'd see the same sort of meta grow as does now. There'd be no more variety, just new "best mechs/builds" to run that everyone would run. It's inevitable. The game from Closed beta/Early Open Beta can never happen again, because the players are different now. It's *ALWAYS* like that after beta ends for massively multiplayer games. Beta communities are just better, because they're predominantly dedicated fans. After the games launch, they need to please the masses.

I realize that sandpit isn't suggesting a return to the old R&R, though.

Edited by Wintersdark, 29 July 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

My point wasn't that it costs 13 million for a meta mech. It was that it costs 13 million for every category of meta mech. Assaults are not really more expensive than mediums. So, there is no real reason to play a medium.

Not one person who supports R&R will come forward and say what builds, exactly, we are trying to limit. What is R&R supposed to actually DO from an actual design perspective.

there's no particular build anyone is wanting "hurt". It's not about that

[Davers]

Mycrus, on 29 July 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

You probably forgot how much ammo or goose waffles cost to repair back in the day...

R&r promoted variety back then with the hunchie being the go to mech to make bank...

Yeah, 4,500 Cbills for AC/5 ammo. 30k for LRM ammo. It makes so much sense....

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 29 July 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

there's no particular build anyone is wanting "hurt". It's not about that

So if we are not trying to hurt, or limit, any mechs, what is the point of R&R? Just to lower income?

[Clownwarlord]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

So if we are not trying to hurt, or limit, any mechs, what is the point of R&R? Just to lower income?

exactly! oh wait who the hell wants to take my C-Bills **********!!!

it was bug ger off

[Wintersdark]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

So if we are not trying to hurt, or limit, any mechs, what is the point of R&R? Just to lower income?

No, because he wants to raise base income first.

So, R&R is to add immersion, basically. Increase Risk vs. Reward in CW (but again, this requires a lot of wishful thinking for what we'll actually get in CW)

[Squally160]

Wintersdark, on 29 July 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

No, because he wants to raise base income first.

So, R&R is to add immersion, basically. Increase Risk vs. Reward in CW (but again, this requires a lot of wishful thinking for what we'll actually get in CW)

I still dont see how a line item at the end of each bttle report is immersion, but ok.

CW is entirely different. If it gets its own que, it needs RNR. Like, the entire point of CW (to me) Is a war of attrition. If nobody actually loses anything, dafrack is the point of it? e-peen stroking? we have that now with after match damage reports. I want REAL tangible REWARDS and RISKS for CW. But, I dont want it at the expense of the playerbase if the only que we get is CW.

[Wintersdark]

Squally160, on 29 July 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

I still dont see how a line item at the end of each bttle report is immersion, but ok.

CW is entirely different. If it gets its own que, it needs RNR. Like, the entire point of CW (to me) Is a war of attrition. If nobody actually loses anything, dafrack is the point of it? e-peen stroking? we have that now with after match damage reports. I want REAL tangible REWARDS and RISKS for CW. But, I dont want it at the expense of the playerbase if the only que we get is CW.

CW will be just a leaderboard for a good long time.

Better be prepared for that.

Hey, maybe I'm totally wrong, but I'd rather avoid crushing disappointment. I'll *happily* eat my words if I'm wrong.

But I really, really doubt it.

[Vassago Rain]

Mycrus, on 29 July 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

You probably forgot how much ammo or goose waffles cost to repair back in the day...

R&r promoted variety back then with the hunchie being the go to mech to make bank...

lol no.

I waged a 3 month forumwar to kill the system.

Only the lowest of the lowest of tech 1 robots had any chance of making money, but since the system was so broken in every way, we could farm all day long in founder atlases with LRM20000 and ER larges.

[Deathlike]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 July 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

But Davers has a point. Even if we get a good functional R&R system, the play style WILL change. But would it be a bad thing? That is the big question.

When I finally had a computer that could handle running MW:O (Thanks yet again Murphy's Law) I was able to buy a Centurion, and grind it. Surprisingly I made more money per match due to lower R&R costs. So if I wanted to have more money I played my Cent, If I wanted more firepower, I dragged out my Atlas. The same thinking will likely begin to happen if we get R&R again.

Also it added depth, just not a lot of it in my opinion. It made me responsible for my actions. Something many don't want to do.

Great, but that won't change the queue dramatically, outside those that need to truly grind for C-bills... which is what many new players have to do.

What I really need to see is how this benefits lights, especially with the queue in a consistent freefall mode with less than 15% in the queues. Just putting together a Light, despite its "initial buying cost" being "affordable", its overall costs are still in the stratosphere... with the XL engine being part of it. I'm not sure what kind of "penalties" or "repair costs" existed for Endo and FF, but stuff like that adds up in a weight class that doesn't get played so often.

Role warfare notwithstanding, it is something that needs serious thought to in the process.

I still believe Mediums should be most affordable (they still are) and ultimately profitable, but those are serious considerations that are necessary in this discussion.

[Penance]

I've always wished there was a salvage system that had a chance if awarding a weapon or equipment as salvage. It would always be busted up and require some cbills to fix it.

[VanillaG]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

So if we are not trying to hurt, or limit, any mechs, what is the point of R&R? Just to lower income?

The purpose of R&R is provide an economic cost and incentive in CW. The devs have stated that they want CW to affect the price of mechs and components for the factions. Affecting the price is a one time hit to player and does not affect any existing players who already own their mechs and components.

R&R is an attempt to force players to use the resources that are available in their faction. If a faction owns several mech factories for specific variants, running those variants gets you cheaper R&R. If a faction owns several factories for specific types of ammo and components, R&R is cheaper for those types of items. The whole concept is to provide incentives to take or hold planets because those planets directly affect how much you earn at the end of a match.

There are several ways to implement the economic incentives. One way is similar to old CB R&R where you are presented a bill at the end of the match based on what was damaged. The value for the repairs can fluctuate based on what is available for your faction. Another way is to provide a bonus if your mech loadout has a large amount of faction resources. You would never be on the hook for additional damages but would get a bonus if you ran a faction appropriate mech.

You could have both systems in place. For regular faction loyalists you could implement the bonus system. For Mercs you could implement the more detailed R&R system. It doesn't need to be one size fits all when it comes to CW because there are going to be casual and more hardcore players.