481 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

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?

It is all about giving a MEANING to CW.

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)

While I agree that there is a lot of "ifs" involved here, a successful CW depends on those "ifs". I detailed this earlier: CW must have meaning, and to have meaning, you must have an economy based upon repair, rearm and salvage/unlocks of some sort.

Penance, on 30 July 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

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.

That is our goal, yes.

VanillaG, on 30 July 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

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.

Yes. I do not want a single line item version, anywhere, but otherwise spot on.

[Sandpit]

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 point of R&R is to add a representation for losses. If you want a campaign, then you have to have something to represent losses. There's no way around it if you want an actual campaign that equates to more than a glorified leaderboard based on which faction owns the most planets.

[Prezimonto]

This is why I want mini-campaigns with in-game objectives on maps, where a mech and load out get locked for a match series. After than they're opened again to being played with all you want.

A mech shouldn't exist in a bubble. The highest tech, best, most used, equipment should come with a downside. The simplest down side is the realistic one of logistics.

[PANZERKAT]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

the point of R&R is to add a representation for losses. If you want a campaign, then you have to have something to represent losses. There's no way around it if you want an actual campaign that equates to more than a glorified leaderboard based on which faction owns the most planets.

I'd also like their servers to keep track of mechs destroyed and tonnage lost alongside the normal CW features.

[PANZERKAT]

Davers, on 29 July 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

The play style changes that R&R caused were considered bad by most of the community.

There weren't enough bonuses in place to counter R&R or lessen it. People simply hate parting with their space bucks. That's fine. You'll play the game we currently have. People attempting to force their preferred play style on ALL aspects and game modes is extremely selfish. We all know that R&R, plus other detailed features suit CW and a happy medium can be reached.

It also opens the door to other consumables that are MC only. Stacks of free repairs? Yup. Activate it and your repairs are free for a certain amount of hours. Most certainly not needed, but it helps with the burden. Slottable Engineers on your drop ship profile? Slot in your ballistics Engineer and missile Technician. The higher the level the more he saves you on rearm and perhaps even missile weapon purchases. LOTS to think of.

People would actually accept surrenders when R&R was in, were more careful with Tking and friendly fire. Stupid idiotic rushes for no reason were also less. So people may not have LIKED the way it was currently implemented, but there was a positive impact on the game as a whole. I want that replicated again....somehow.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 30 July 2014 - 09:52 AM.

[Sandpit]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 30 July 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

There weren't enough bonuses in place to counter R&R or lessen it. People simply hate parting with their space bucks. That's fine. You'll play the game we currently have. People attempting to force their preferred play style on ALL aspects and game modes is extremely selfish. We all know that R&R, plus other detailed features suit CW and a happy medium can be reached.

It also opens the door to other consumables that are MC only. Stacks of free repairs? Yup. Activate it and your repairs are free for a certain amount of hours. Most certainly not needed, but it helps with the burden. Slottable Engineers on your drop ship profile? Slot in your ballistics Engineer and missile Technician. The higher the level the more he saves you on rearm and perhaps even missile weapon purchases. LOTS to think of.

People would actually accept surrenders when R&R was in, were more careful with Tking and friendly fire. Stupid idiotic rushes for no reason were also less. So people may not have LIKED the way it was currently implemented, but there was a positive impact on the game as a whole. I want that replicated again....somehow.

i take back half the mean things I've ever said about Canadians

[Tombstoner]

Prezimonto, on 30 July 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

This is why I want mini-campaigns with in-game objectives on maps, where a mech and load out get locked for a match series. After than they're opened again to being played with all you want.

A mech shouldn't exist in a bubble. The highest tech, best, most used, equipment should come with a downside. The simplest down side is the realistic one of logistics.

Yes i agree and why it would only be appropriate for CW. Once you add a cost function to using meta mechs its will change the game. The best players will field the most efficient combination of mechs. just to be able to soak damage. that money shouldn't come from my wallet,but a fixed planetary source paid out over time. making every loss hurt.

For example if you filed the best of the best against the best of the best you have very little to put up against teams that can field on paper a weaker unit but with team work, strategy and lots of LRM's can beet a full meta team.

Basket ball used to be you play your best players all on one squad. That is until Red hourback moved to an 80-20 strategy. he put his 5 best against your 6 best saving one player for the second squad. That one player was head and solders better then your entire second squad.

So in a funds limited game that i envision CW to be or hope to be, not using meta on meta gives you an advantage when you can trash there best hardware with sub par gear or at least be = knowing that round two and three you will have a decisive advantage in terms of funds for better hardware.

Battle of luthan you pull out everything.... hunting periphery rats... not so much.

[Kjudoon]

BTW, if you want to screw over trolls that like to shoot off components, halve the value of destroyed components in salvage or they can't get operating equipment off of it. Best kill is a headshot with no damage then. Oooooo... skill based salvage premiums.

[terrycloth]

If you give extra penalties for CW it'll die. Not because no one wants to play it, but because everyone'll be forced to spend most of their time on other stuff to afford it, and that'll seem like a grind.

Detailed R+R is a really bad way to represent attrition for your side. It only even makes sense in the context of a merc company and even for them, it only makes sense if they get to curb-stomp PUG groups (who presumably are in a faction and not paying for their own repairs). While that does represent the lore pretty well, it isn't especially fun for the PUGgers even if you aren't also penalizing them mechanically.

[Jiyu Mononoke]

Greetings,

Well, I been reading through a lot of this thread, and had some thoughts and ideas, I’m sure some will like it, and some wont. I don’t post often, usually only in topics that I think are worth supporting, and would enhance the game’s emersion. To bring the game out of it’s simple “first person shooter” role, and give it an element of chess like strategy (battling for planets and outposts etc.), a real player driven economy (auction house etc.), and a sense of importance where contributing to your faction, house, clan or group is concerned would be my goal. So…..

First, I have always been in favor of R&R/Salvage etc. If properly balanced with a consequence/reward system, R&R and salvage could be a very exhilarating dynamic to the game.

For R&R, I liked the previously mentioned idea of having R&R discounts for using faction correct mechs, and other discounts for items and configurations that are consistent with stock builds. The more you mod your mech, or bring it farther from a faction issued configuration, the more expensive it gets. This way, you have avenues to recover funds if you find yourself in a bind, yet rewards you if you if your get really good with a given non-faction custom mech. On the other side, I think you should be equally rewarded for playing a non-faction mech successfully, and contributing to your team/faction/clan/groups success. Last, non-faction mercs/groups need to have a fair balance that splits the difference. The idea isn’t to crush balls, it’s to encourage reasonably realistic builds in a player driven economy, with a few safety catches as well.

An idea for salvage mechanics on the battle field could be to have the freshly downed mech have a timer-marker, where the killing unit has x-seconds to reach and run over to the mech to claim salvage, then contributing team mates, for the next x-x-seconds, and finally anyone (either team) can run over and claim the savage (or lock the mech to protect owners goods?) after a pre-determined amount of time. If no one catches the mech by the end of the match, then the owner keeps the items if no team-lock mechanic is in place. This would encourage “smart” careful playing to avoid being killed, and encourage teams to protect downed mechs for their team mates, and add another layer of impromptu strategy to prevent the enemy from gaining goods. This would also be a good mechanic for releasing clan tech in to the population via my next idea. The mechanic could either be via “who killed it” or “who destroyed what component” – or some combo thereof. Maybe killers get chassis, and you claim what components you destroyed. – and yes, there should be repair costs on salvage since they would be “Damaged goods”.

In order to completely define a player driven economy, there should be an auction house where players can buy and sell unused/salvaged mechs and equipment. Most standard items could be bought and sold for C-Bills, and there should be safety catches, where new items bought straight from the game’s mechlab cannot be sold on the auction house until they were used x-amount of times, or acquired through salvage. Some of those items (sellable Hero mechs etc.) should be PGI controlled, and only sold for MC, where the buyer would spend MC to buy the item, and the seller would be paid in C-Bills. This would encourage players to buy MC, and provide PGI with a supplementary real income, while allowing buyers to acquire specialty items at reduced MC prices. A stripped Boar’s Head, or a custom build would go for whatever price the seller deemed reasonable, maybe some price caps? Maybe not. Last, maybe have a quick exchange window after each round, where players can hang out and trade/swap or hand over salvaged items to team mates after each match. If a team successfully protected a downed mech, or salvaged the team mates items to protect them, then they can hand them back here.

Well, true, this creates a condition where one potentially losses expensive items, and could find themselves in a financial hole, so how then to prevent or mitigate this effect and keep the game fun and enjoyable? We don’t want to discourage new players from joining MWO, and we don’t want seasoned players crashing out, getting pissed and leaving the game. So, I suggest that items/chassis lost via salve are available at greatly reduced prices during the R&R phase, and that certain bonuses be put in place to recoup some/most/all of the losses to at least break even. If you lost your items during battle, then you should be able to afford to replace it battle to battle, but you would likely get little to no earnings if you lost allot. Maybe have the item retained by the losing player, and the salvager gets a repairable piece, or has to get the same item X-times before his/her item is complete (so we dont actually lose the item - just repair it).

Some final thoughts.

Maybe have Chassis buyable/sellable in the Auction House, but not be able to salvage whole chassis on the battle field – thus the losing player only has to recoup item losses and never lose a chassis. I know I’d be pissed to lose my favorite chassis to some schmuck.

Maybe have salvage via some incremental system, where you have to claim the same item X- times before you have the “parts” to put a whole one together – thus the losing player keeps his weapon, and only has to repair, a similar mechanic could be applied to chassis. (added to above as well - since i like this idea better than my first idea).

Maybe have an “insurance option” instead, where you pay a fee each battle, and this prevents the loss of items and/or chassis. This would have to be a voluntary C-Bill fee each round levied against your earnings or bank.

Maybe have a section of the auction house where members of the same faction/clan/group can buy sell trade or give away items/chassis in order to self mitigate losses across those lines.

Have some sort of trade/sell/give window available between two players of same faction.

Have a better chat room/social lobby environment where people can hang out, create private or public rooms, go in to each other’s rooms and present challenges, propose battles, or discuss their battle plans, alliances etc. (Who remember MW2 and Mplayer [m-pig] from the late 1990’s ? – I was Freebrth there too BTW). This way even PUGgers could gather a group up, make a game plan, and drop as a team with a semblence of order, thus making the pug option(s) even more fun and dynamic.


So, anyways, I just wanted to give my two cents here. I actually like most of what I read in support of the R&R idea etc. and I’d love to see MWO really flourish in to a dynamic CW environment with “FUN” consequence and rewards that can be earned and acquired by something other than grinding three similar chassis to death. I understand PGI is here to make money, and thus, something in this whole dynamic should make it encouraging, yet worth it to spend a little money here and there, giving the players satisfaction, and supporting PGI’s ability to give us a great game. We also have to consider that the economics of the game not be too discouraging, so as not to lose players, and to entice new players to join. It's all about balance - real balance, not ""Balance"" as is sometimes the case.

Peace,
(through superior firepower of course)

Freebrth.

Edited by Freebrth, 30 July 2014 - 11:45 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Tombstoner, on 30 July 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Yes i agree and why it would only be appropriate for CW. Once you add a cost function to using meta mechs its will change the game. The best players will field the most efficient combination of mechs. just to be able to soak damage. that money shouldn't come from my wallet,but a fixed planetary source paid out over time. making every loss hurt.

For example if you filed the best of the best against the best of the best you have very little to put up against teams that can field on paper a weaker unit but with team work, strategy and lots of LRM's can beet a full meta team.

Basket ball used to be you play your best players all on one squad. That is until Red hourback moved to an 80-20 strategy. he put his 5 best against your 6 best saving one player for the second squad. That one player was head and solders better then your entire second squad.

So in a funds limited game that i envision CW to be or hope to be, not using meta on meta gives you an advantage when you can trash there best hardware with sub par gear or at least be = knowing that round two and three you will have a decisive advantage in terms of funds for better hardware.

Battle of luthan you pull out everything.... hunting periphery rats... not so much.

Yes, when america invaded iraq, they employed a vast number of world war 2 shermans to defeat Saddam's forces.

Oh wait, they didn't.

[Sandpit]

Vassago Rain, on 30 July 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yes, when america invaded iraq, they employed a vast number of world war 2 shermans to defeat Saddam's forces.

Oh wait, they didn't.

I didn't see them sending in the newest and most expensive equipment either. That's completely irrelevant. I didn't see them using nukes even though that would have been the cheapest way to go. That's why The Marine corps STILL uses ch-46E helicopters from the 1960 vietnam era. It's because that's what is cost affordable that gets the job done. If they have a "special" mission, they break out the nicer toys. The grunts and flyboys on the frontlines of a "traditional" fight are trudging around in gear that is decades old. Your analogy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Take it from someone who trudged around that decades old equipment.

[Sandpit]

terrycloth, on 30 July 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

If you give extra penalties for CW it'll die. Not because no one wants to play it, but because everyone'll be forced to spend most of their time on other stuff to afford it, and that'll seem like a grind.

Detailed R+R is a really bad way to represent attrition for your side. It only even makes sense in the context of a merc company and even for them, it only makes sense if they get to curb-stomp PUG groups (who presumably are in a faction and not paying for their own repairs). While that does represent the lore pretty well, it isn't especially fun for the PUGgers even if you aren't also penalizing them mechanically.

no, they can play outside of CW. CW is SUPPOSED to be "harder" and an actual campaign. Not pokemech gotta grind em all so every dollar I earn shouldn't be put into affecting an economy in stand-alone matches where the ONLY goal is to earn as much money as possible to buy the next mech.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I didn't see them sending in the newest and most expensive equipment either. That's completely irrelevant. I didn't see them using nukes even though that would have been the cheapest way to go. That's why The Marine corps STILL uses ch-46E helicopters from the 1960 vietnam era. It's because that's what is cost affordable that gets the job done. If they have a "special" mission, they break out the nicer toys. The grunts and flyboys on the frontlines of a "traditional" fight are trudging around in gear that is decades old. Your analogy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. Take it from someone who trudged around that decades old equipment.

He also forgot / didn't know that the US unloaded huge stock piles of munitions(bombs) left over from WWII into vietnam and then IRAQ. For the first gulf war they where up dated with laser targeting systems but most of the munitions in the US arsenal are very very old. Yes the B-2 was used and it was cutting edge. I get what he's trying to point out but the gulf war was the inner sphere equivalent of a planetary invasion lead by a major house.

Trying to reach all the way back referencing the Sherman tank rather then something like the M60 Patton Is using the analogy wrong, BTW in my opinion with sabo rounds the M60 would have worked well against the Republican guard. particularly given the range of engagement at 73 easting.

I also think the Sherman was out classed the day it came off the line. The best thing about it was the vast numbers of tanks manufactured, they overwhelmed the tiger and panther II with shear numbers.

The use of a price tag in MW is rather arbitrary since mech production is very limited and bombed out in places many mech plants are lucky to make what 4-5 mechs a year. so i think the price tag is way of.

Also the B-2 Bomber has become too expensive to use, particularly in war. Lets not get into the F-35 development project 400B yes billion for a crappy air craft... o and the F-22 cant fly in the rain or it damages its stealth radar coating.... so yea the US will only use the best of the best when it has too ..... otherwise its going old school. F-18, F-15, B-52 yes still flying.

Edited by Tombstoner, 30 July 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 30 July 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yes, when america invaded iraq, they employed a vast number of world war 2 shermans to defeat Saddam's forces.

Oh wait, they didn't.

You're right, we sent HumVees without proper armor into a guerrilla war zone! And Infantrymen without proper body armor. They got it ...eventually.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

no, they can play outside of CW. CW is SUPPOSED to be "harder" and an actual campaign. Not pokemech gotta grind em all so every dollar I earn shouldn't be put into affecting an economy in stand-alone matches where the ONLY goal is to earn as much money as possible to buy the next mech.

If however you have to pay for each mech lost every match it should change game play drastically. That's the truest incarnation of R&R. It also illustrates what i mean by not fielding meta mechs every single match. it would be too expensive to loose the MWO clan tech equivalent of 10 x B-2 bombers at 2 billion a pop. not to mention the pilots happen to be major rank or above with 20+ years of flying. Pilots are irreplaceable. i would love to pod some of the people i see in game...

[Joseph Mallan]

PGI cannot Dispossess players... Unless we want to have a Dark Souls feel to the game. However leaving me with a repair bill bigger than my income would leave me making choices like a Merc. Do I fully repair X, or rig Y and Z and hope its enough till I get the money to get back to New.

[Prezimonto]

Tombstoner, on 30 July 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Yes i agree and why it would only be appropriate for CW. Once you add a cost function to using meta mechs its will change the game. The best players will field the most efficient combination of mechs. just to be able to soak damage. that money shouldn't come from my wallet,but a fixed planetary source paid out over time. making every loss hurt.

For example if you filed the best of the best against the best of the best you have very little to put up against teams that can field on paper a weaker unit but with team work, strategy and lots of LRM's can beet a full meta team.

Basket ball used to be you play your best players all on one squad. That is until Red hourback moved to an 80-20 strategy. he put his 5 best against your 6 best saving one player for the second squad. That one player was head and solders better then your entire second squad.

So in a funds limited game that i envision CW to be or hope to be, not using meta on meta gives you an advantage when you can trash there best hardware with sub par gear or at least be = knowing that round two and three you will have a decisive advantage in terms of funds for better hardware.

Battle of luthan you pull out everything.... hunting periphery rats... not so much.

I don't think it even needs to be CW. If anytime you launch a mech, it's committed to play 4 matches before you can edit or purchase full repairs, and the best way to recieve full repairs is to run STOCK mechs OR take and control side objective points in the actual game play during the 4 matches.

I'll I'm really suggesting is that Repair and Rearm be tied to the setting and gameplay. That you commit a mech, not for 1 match but for 4.

If your mech is stock, totally stock, your supplies cover FULL RnR every game. If you've got upgrades, or additional munitions, or any kind of change, there's a chance, if you used those munitions or received damage, that the next match in your series you'll start out a bit beaten up, down a little ammo, slight slower engine performance, a bit lower armor values (about 15% down per item). Over 4 matches that's a total of 45% decrease to non-stock components.

BUT WAIT! You can get out of this, all you have to do is commit some mechs to side objectives on the maps. What's that you say? A reason for Light and Medium mechs to shine?

It's totally doable for ALL game modes. It doesn't penalize new players more than old players because it's not tied to earnings. It creates a need for smaller faster mechs, particularly on larger maps. It helps foster tactics other than make a Deathball, win.

It's win, win, win, win in gameplay because it also provides economy to the game, and rewards players who don't take the best loadouts possible.

[Sandpit]

Tombstoner, on 30 July 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

He also forgot / didn't know that the US unloaded huge stock piles of munitions(bombs) left over from WWII into vietnam and then IRAQ. For the first gulf war they where up dated with laser targeting systems but most of the munitions in the US arsenal are very very old. Yes the B-2 was used and it was cutting edge. I get what he's trying to point out but the gulf war was the inner sphere equivalent of a planetary invasion lead by a major house.

Trying to reach all the way back referencing the Sherman tank rather then something like the M60 Patton Is using the analogy wrong, BTW in my opinion with sabo rounds the M60 would have worked well against the Republican guard. particularly given the range of engagement at 73 easting.

I also think the Sherman was out classed the day it came off the line. The best thing about it was the vast numbers of tanks manufactured, they overwhelmed the tiger and panther II with shear numbers.

The use of a price tag in MW is rather arbitrary since mech production is very limited and bombed out in places many mech plants are lucky to make what 4-5 mechs a year. so i think the price tag is way of.

Also the B-2 Bomber has become too expensive to use, particularly in war. Lets not get into the F-35 development project 400B yes billion for a crappy air craft... o and the F-22 cant fly in the rain or it damages its stealth radar coating.... so yea the US will only use the best of the best when it has too ..... otherwise its going old school. F-18, F-15, B-52 yes still flying.

I don't want a "price tag", I just want something that's going to represent losses and losses of supply lines, equipment, etc. to have a deeper economy. R&R just seems to be the simplest way to do that in my opinion

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

PGI cannot Dispossess players... Unless we want to have a Dark Souls feel to the game. However leaving me with a repair bill bigger than my income would leave me making choices like a Merc. Do I fully repair X, or rig Y and Z and hope its enough till I get the money to get back to New.

exactly

I don't want R&R (which is only ONE of the things I discussed in the OP mind you) to segregate or alienate any players but the truth of the matter is no matter what PGI does, there's ALWAYS going to be some unhappy with it. Same thing here. No matter HOW you do it, there's always going to be some unhappy with it.

R&R means representing losses, not "hurting" players. There's a difference in the mentality. The end result is the same but the purpose behind it is vastly different

Analogy:

You see a person just beating the dogshit out of someone. You find out that he's a bully and instigated the fight.
compared to
You see a person just beating the dogshit out of someone. you find out that he was being bullied and retaliated.

Those two examples are good for what I'm wanting to illustrate (I hope). Both are the exact same situation with the exact same end results. The only difference in the two are the motives. The idea behind R&R here is not to "hurt" anyone, it's to add a little depth to CW. Sure some are going be "unhappy" about it because it might mean less money earned in some cases. That's no different than "If PGI made everything free then they'd have more customers". Sure they would, but they also wouldn't make any revenue.

It's the same principle here. Sure you'd have more "happy" players if there was no representation for losses in CW but that doesn't mean it would be "good" for CW either. The popular ideas aren't always the "best" and vice versa, the unpopular ideas aren't always "bad". Sometimes you have to accept that there are necessary "evils" that must be put in place in order to add something beneficial