481 replies to this topic

[GreyGriffin]

The idea of punishing players with an economic penalty is going to be about as effective as economic sanctions usually are... disproportionately affecting people who are not the target of the penalty.

[Tombstoner]

Prezimonto, on 30 July 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

OK i can live with a commitment of 4 matches per mech with a choice to R&R or suffer some degradation in performance that over time would improve with victory. with stock mech getting a pass or -1L of damage. starting a match after a melt down and having 10% damage vs.20%.

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

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

But a price tag is all R&R is. How much and where it comes from must matter. control over a location tone a CW map that provides unit funds must be a limiting factor to obtain the IS wars meta. without cash it becomes very hard to transfer that strategic value.

loose an important hex in CW and your supply lines are cut off leading to 1/2 normal R&R funds leading to meaning full choices between armor or ammo for the LRM boat. just to save money for the units front line meta mechs.

[Sandpit]

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

The idea of punishing players with an economic penalty is going to be about as effective as economic sanctions usually are... disproportionately affecting people who are not the target of the penalty.

who would be the "target"? Anyone who plays CW?

[Sandpit]

Tombstoner, on 30 July 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

OK i can live with a commitment of 4 matches per mech with a choice to R&R or suffer some degradation in performance that over time would improve with victory. with stock mech getting a pass or -1L of damage. starting a match after a melt down and having 10% damage vs.20%.




But a price tag is all R&R is. How much and where it comes from must matter. control over a location tone a CW map that provides unit funds must be a limiting factor to obtain the IS wars meta. without cash it becomes very hard to transfer that strategic value.

loose an important hex in CW and your supply lines are cut off leading to 1/2 normal R&R funds leading to meaning full choices between armor or ammo for the LRM boat. just to save money for the units front line meta mechs.

that's kind of the point of war and what gives meaning to controlling strategic assets and planets. Without that you're just playing stompy deathmatch like you are now with zero consequences or rewards for waging an intergalactic war. CW will not be ANY kind of campaign without an economy. That's a simple fact. it can't be because there's zero accountability for losing 1 planet or 100 planets other than maybe earning LP faster and getting a discount on mechs (which still does nothign except generate even MORE reward)

If you don't account for losses then holding 75% of the inner sphere planets under your faction's flag means....
well it means you own 75% of the IS. That's it. It doesn't mean other factions are struggling, it doesn't mean other factions are plotting ot ally together and take down the big dog, it doesn't mean that now you're fighting on two fronts, against IS AND clans, it simply means you have extra color on the map leaderboard

[Vassago Rain]

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.

Using F-18s isn't comparable to pretending a mercenary command would drop into a warzone against clans aboard locusts 'because it's cheap, brah!' It's suicide.

Your 30 year mechwarrior veteran dying and completely ruining a 2 million dollar robot is much worse than taking heavy damage in a properly fit atlas.

What you're saying with the F-35 is like if house steiner decided they should field MUSE project red pendragons to replace their huge stockpiles of banshees and atlases.

And if they did that, and could actually field all of those, they'd stomp the opposition. So uhh, I don't know what the example here is, other than that all of you arguing that we need RnR and muh immersion aren't thinking straight. I would rather not play than be forced to play in my phoenix locust.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 30 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Using F-18s isn't comparable to pretending a mercenary command would drop into a warzone against clans aboard locusts 'because it's cheap, brah!' It's suicide.

Your 30 year mechwarrior veteran dying and completely ruining a 2 million dollar robot is much worse than taking heavy damage in a properly fit atlas.

What you're saying with the F-35 is like if house steiner decided they should field MUSE project red pendragons to replace their huge stockpiles of banshees and atlases.

And if they did that, and could actually field all of those, they'd stomp the opposition. So uhh, I don't know what the example here is, other than that all of you arguing that we need RnR and muh immersion aren't thinking straight. I would rather not play than be forced to play in my phoenix locust.

Why? Are you so bad out of all your experience that you could not make money in anything else? I made money, not all the time but enough to have all the weapons I needed to play the game in my (F)Atlas. Then finally settled on my D-DC.

I also had more money banked during R&R than I have now.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 July 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[GreyGriffin]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

who would be the "target"? Anyone who plays CW?

Who's the target of your R&R changes at all? You are trying to limit the behavior of people who play out-of-stock configurations, right? The people who suffer most are the ones who make modest modifications, or who play 'mechs that require extensive changes to be viable (read: IS Lights), while those who have premium time in hero 'mechs that are dressed to the nines can just walk all over any sort of imposed economic penalty. The Dire Wolf Prime will have, indeed, been pay to win.

While I support the idea of abstract R&R affecting CW, I strongly oppose charging players more C-Bills for losing bravely than for shutting down in a corner after their team suffers 2 deaths and they give it up as a loss.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 30 July 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[Puresin]

here's an idea make like a whole world or "system" that is at war and allow players to go there and beat up "npc's" like a campaign that is always on and available.

think like the big mmorpgs, a world where you can get in your mech at some mechbay and walk around and come across firendlies or enemies.....

then start the economy stuff. just an idea.

[Sandpit]

Vassago Rain, on 30 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Using F-18s isn't comparable to pretending a mercenary command would drop into a warzone against clans aboard locusts 'because it's cheap, brah!' It's suicide.

Your 30 year mechwarrior veteran dying and completely ruining a 2 million dollar robot is much worse than taking heavy damage in a properly fit atlas.

What you're saying with the F-35 is like if house steiner decided they should field MUSE project red pendragons to replace their huge stockpiles of banshees and atlases.

And if they did that, and could actually field all of those, they'd stomp the opposition. So uhh, I don't know what the example here is, other than that all of you arguing that we need RnR and muh immersion aren't thinking straight. I would rather not play than be forced to play in my phoenix locust.

so the only way you could make money is by playing in a locust? No offense but anyone saying anything even remotely like that isn't reading, understanding, or listening to anything that's being said. There's not a single idea or suggestion made in this thread that implies what you're implying. Not one. Not even remotely. There's a HUGE difference in

Vassago Rain, on 30 July 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

all of you arguing that we need RnR and muh immersion aren't thinking straight. I would rather not play than be forced to play in my phoenix locust.

and having to play a medium you enjoy once in while to help offset 5-6 straight REALLY bad losses in a row. Lets leave the hyperbole out of it.

[Sandpit]

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

Who's the target of your R&R changes at all? You are trying to limit the behavior of people who play out-of-stock configurations, right?

uhm no, no I'm not. I'm showing that an economy must have a way to represent loss of equipment. Where the heck does that have anything to do with "punishing" anyone? So no, I'm not. This has nothing to do with stock or modified. If you're referring to some examples I gave about stock mechs that was in direct response to people arguing that it would hurt new players so the stock option was tossed out to show how it could be adjusted to NOT do that. Other than that I have no idea where you would come to that conclusion.

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

those who have premium time in hero 'mechs that are dressed to the nines can just walk all over any sort of imposed economic penalty. .

uhm ok? Again, that's the case now. I earn more with premium time and hero mechs. That's the entire point of them. To use them as any kind of argument against something like this simply isn't relevant in my opinion. That's like saying "Premium time and hero mechs are unfair because not everyone has them and it hurts other players who can't earn as much money and trick out their mechs as fast" Same principle.

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

While I support the idea of abstract R&R affecting CW, I strongly oppose charging players more C-Bills for losing bravely than for shutting down in a corner after their team suffers 2 deaths and they give it up as a loss.

Who said anything about punishing players who fought bravely? If you'd bothered reading (although I do understand this has turned into a rather long thread) so I can understand not having caught everything but I specifically suggested giving bonus rewards for performing well even if you "lose". So yea, you got both arms blown off, you're missing a leg, your engine cored, and 90% of your components are destroyed but you did 500 damage, smoked 2 enemy mechs, destroyed 7 components of your own, and got 7 assists. Your employer/faction slips a bonus into your bank account for performing so admirably.

A blanket "R&R sucks" statement is silly. There's tons of ways the system can be adjusted and changed to prevent things like what you're talking about. The problem is people are seeing R&R and closing their ears and simply doing the "It's bad because I didn't like it the first time" no matter how many examples you give them on how it could be adjusted to make it better and prevent everyone's worst fears.

Puresin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

here's an idea make like a whole world or "system" that is at war and allow players to go there and beat up "npc's" like a campaign that is always on and available.

think like the big mmorpgs, a world where you can get in your mech at some mechbay and walk around and come across firendlies or enemies.....

then start the economy stuff. just an idea.

I'm neither here nor there anymore on the whole co-op and single player debate. What you're suggesting would take a looooooooooot more time, energy, and resources, than I think PGI has available.

[Prezimonto]

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:

Who's the target of your R&R changes at all? You are trying to limit the behavior of people who play out-of-stock configurations, right? The people who suffer most are the ones who make modest modifications, or who play 'mechs that require extensive changes to be viable (read: IS Lights), while those who have premium time in hero 'mechs that are dressed to the nines can just walk all over any sort of imposed economic penalty. The Dire Wolf Prime will have, indeed, been pay to win.

While I support the idea of abstract R&R affecting CW, I strongly oppose charging players more C-Bills for losing bravely than for shutting down in a corner after their team suffers 2 deaths and they give it up as a loss.

This is why I suggest a compromise. Taking the cbills out of RnR. Put all the affects of RnR into your choices of mech loadout. Stock comes with zero possible penalties (or very, very minimal at most) over a series of 4 games. When you launch a mech it's "locked" until it completes the series (or you spend MC to back out of the series). During the match the are the normal objectives, but also added side objectives that are supply depots, taking and controlling side depots earns your team extra resupply, and mitigates RnR affects. If you run stock then your faction/company pick up the costs for RnR. If you've got upgrades or changes from stock then have a chance that your faction/company won't have the supplies handy to fully repair all your gear. You'll start with about 15% less ammo/ton, or velocity, or armor, or internals, or cooling from damaged heat sinks, ect... Each match every non-stock component might earn that 15% penalty... so by your 4th match, if you haven't gotten enough supply depots, even if you've won, you might be down up to 45% effectiveness in a few spots.

At the end of the 4 matches you earn all your cbills and xp you normally would, your mech is fully repaired for you, ect...

Promotes frugal builds, but doesn't destroy high end builds entirely, just makes them riskier, rightly so.

[Sandpit]

Prezimonto, on 30 July 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

This is why I suggest a compromise. Taking the cbills out of RnR. Put all the affects of RnR into your choices of mech loadout. Stock comes with zero possible penalties (or very, very minimal at most) over a series of 4 games. When you launch a mech it's "locked" until it completes the series (or you spend MC to back out of the series). During the match the are the normal objectives, but also added side objectives that are supply depots, taking and controlling side depots earns your team extra resupply, and mitigates RnR affects. If you run stock then your faction/company pick up the costs for RnR. If you've got upgrades or changes from stock then have a chance that your faction/company won't have the supplies handy to fully repair all your gear. You'll start with about 15% less ammo/ton, or velocity, or armor, or internals, or cooling from damaged heat sinks, ect... Each match every non-stock component might earn that 15% penalty... so by your 4th match, if you haven't gotten enough supply depots, even if you've won, you might be down up to 45% effectiveness in a few spots.

At the end of the 4 matches you earn all your cbills and xp you normally would, your mech is fully repaired for you, ect...

Promotes frugal builds, but doesn't destroy high end builds entirely, just makes them riskier, rightly so.

the only problem with that is the ability to actually code and implement missions similar to a single player game. Given their track record I wouldn't hold my breath for something like this. I like the idea but I'd rather not wait another 3-4 years for CW...

Long-term I'd LOVE to see individual component degradation where weapons and even engines have to be replaced eventually. Similar to what a lot of RPGs do. Your weapons eventually begin to deteriorate and you need ot keep them repaired or replace them eventually. That's where I think something like the tech suggestion could really shine and add a lot of depth. The whole mentality of "stomp, shoot, make money, repeat is boring at best after 2 years. There's nothing more to the game than that. I can't think of a single game like this with a persistent campaign that doesn't represent losses in some form or fashion. Rewards mean nothing if you've got nothing to lose.
Here's a $100!
Great! What can I do with it?
Well..... you can save it and add it to the next $100 you're going to earn next match.
Ok... but THEN what can I do with it?
Well..... you can buy another mech!
Uhm.... I already own 50 mechs
Well..... you can save it and add it to the NEXT $100!
But uhm... THEN what can I do with it?
Well uhm.....
....
You can....
Ok, I've "beaten" your game because I've bought every mech there is, played the same 3 game modes for 2 years, and have accomplished everything there is to do in your game, I'm moving on to the next game.
But... but.... we have NEW mechs!
Uhm.... what's different about them?
Well.... they have a different style of weapon!
Ok.... uhm no thanks

Do you see what an "economy" with no representation of losses eventually leads to?

[terrycloth]

So if what you really want is to punish everyone by making it impossible to have long-term gains, why are you blowing all the smoke relating to Community Warfare? They're completely unrelated.

And what you actually want is awful. It's the same old complaint about a lack of endgame content that shows up in every game, and 'making it impossible to progress' is not the solution.

The solution is usually 'add something else to work towards' but every time people point that out you pull out the same silly 'that makes it just a glorified leaderboard!' line that doesn't make any more sense the twentieth time you say it than it did the first.

[Cimarb]

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.

Detailed R&R is the BEST way to represent attrition, actually. What do you think is a better way?...

terrycloth, on 30 July 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

So if what you really want is to punish everyone by making it impossible to have long-term gains, why are you blowing all the smoke relating to Community Warfare? They're completely unrelated.

And what you actually want is awful. It's the same old complaint about a lack of endgame content that shows up in every game, and 'making it impossible to progress' is not the solution.

The solution is usually 'add something else to work towards' but every time people point that out you pull out the same silly 'that makes it just a glorified leaderboard!' line that doesn't make any more sense the twentieth time you say it than it did the first.

You have poor reading skills, quiaff?

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

the only problem with that is the ability to actually code and implement missions similar to a single player game. Given their track record I wouldn't hold my breath for something like this. I like the idea but I'd rather not wait another 3-4 years for CW...

Long-term I'd LOVE to see individual component degradation where weapons and even engines have to be replaced eventually. Similar to what a lot of RPGs do. Your weapons eventually begin to deteriorate and you need ot keep them repaired or replace them eventually. That's where I think something like the tech suggestion could really shine and add a lot of depth. The whole mentality of "stomp, shoot, make money, repeat is boring at best after 2 years. There's nothing more to the game than that. I can't think of a single game like this with a persistent campaign that doesn't represent losses in some form or fashion. Rewards mean nothing if you've got nothing to lose.
Here's a $100!
Great! What can I do with it?
Well..... you can save it and add it to the next $100 you're going to earn next match.
Ok... but THEN what can I do with it?
Well..... you can buy another mech!
Uhm.... I already own 50 mechs
Well..... you can save it and add it to the NEXT $100!
But uhm... THEN what can I do with it?
Well uhm.....
....
You can....
Ok, I've "beaten" your game because I've bought every mech there is, played the same 3 game modes for 2 years, and have accomplished everything there is to do in your game, I'm moving on to the next game.
But... but.... we have NEW mechs!
Uhm.... what's different about them?
Well.... they have a different style of weapon!
Ok.... uhm no thanks

Do you see what an "economy" with no representation of losses eventually leads to?

Well, I could direct you to a game like Counter Strike, but they've had similar problems and in the last year have gone to campaign based premium content... new maps, modes, and shinys available to those who dish out an extra 15$ every 6 months or so.

As for them implementing any of this: unlikely. But I don't think we need missions like the single player game for my general idea to work: all we need is a set of side control points added to each map. They can be WAY off in corners in a lot of cases, making it difficult to grab them. They can change hands and put out no supply if they're contested, making fighting for them a good thing. Think extra points similar to Conquest, but with a warehouse as the center point, or a bunker, or a convoy of trunks that are stopped, or a stopped train, ect.... nothing fancy, just add some extra, out of the way control points.

I love the idea of component degradation. I think mech degradation is perhaps too harsh (psychologically problematic), which is why back a whole pile of threads I described an idea where you're mechs will die... you'll get a new one... stock. Your tech will let you bring it back up to spec, mostly... but a fame counter resets. It provides a setting based leader board to strive for(which isn't a bad thing), combined with pilots and pilot skills, techs with skills, ect... I think it would work.

terrycloth, on 30 July 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

So if what you really want is to punish everyone by making it impossible to have long-term gains, why are you blowing all the smoke relating to Community Warfare? They're completely unrelated.

And what you actually want is awful. It's the same old complaint about a lack of endgame content that shows up in every game, and 'making it impossible to progress' is not the solution.

The solution is usually 'add something else to work towards' but every time people point that out you pull out the same silly 'that makes it just a glorified leaderboard!' line that doesn't make any more sense the twentieth time you say it than it did the first.

Seriously, there's TONS of ideas here that go far beyond what you're talking about, with very solid reasoning behind them.

Edited by Prezimonto, 30 July 2014 - 04:22 PM.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 30 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Detailed R&R is the BEST way to represent attrition, actually. What do you think is a better way?...


You have poor reading skills, quiaff?

I've gotten to where I don't bother acknowledging or responding to "your idea sucks" type posts. They offer nothing constructive, they don't help refine ideas, all they do is detract from the discussion.

Davers and I disagree on this thing. We're still pretty good buddies. When he disagrees, he points out WHY he disagrees, gives some examples, and puts some thought into his posts.

terrycloth, on 30 July 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

And what you actually want is awful. It's the same old complaint about a lack of endgame content that shows up in every game, and 'making it impossible to progress' is not the solution. first.

does not

If you want to participate in the discussion do what the rest of us are doing and talk about how the idea can be refined to improve the game instead of "this suxxorz" thinking you helped "prove" anything other than your own personal opinion on something in this thread "sucked", especially considering that several ideas on different aspects of the game have been discussed in the thread. But hey, whatever floats his boat I guess.

[terrycloth]

Anything that (a) bears any relation to the theater of war itself, as opposed to the individual players who have for meta-campaign reasons a varing amount of c-bills, and ( is hard to game by doing stupid, unrealistic things.

The more detailed and realistic you make a system, the easier it is to game. This sounds counterintuitive but it's really just 'complex things are harder'.

And sandpit, all your replies have been no better then 'your idea sucks'.

Edited by terrycloth, 30 July 2014 - 04:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

Prezimonto, on 30 July 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Well, I could direct you to a game like Counter Strike, but they've had similar problems and in the last year have gone to campaign based premium content... new maps, modes, and shinys available to those who dish out an extra 15$ every 6 months or so.

As for them implementing any of this: unlikely.

I love the idea of component degradation. I think mech degradation is perhaps too harsh (psychologically problematic), which is why back a whole pile of threads I described an idea where you're mechs will die... you'll get a new one... stock. Your tech will let you bring it back up to spec, mostly... but a fame counter resets. It provides a setting based leader board to strive for(which isn't a bad thing), combined with pilots and pilot skills, techs with skills, ect... I think it would work.


Seriously, there's TONS of ideas here that go far beyond what you're talking about, with very solid reasoning behind them.

I wouldn't go as extreme as reverting to a stock mech but using techs to absorb maintenance would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion.

DCUO is similar in what you described. You can pay a sub fee and get all expansions, dlc, etc. for free as long as you have the membership. If you drop the membership you lose all of the perks (extra character slots, bigger inventory, more access to your money, dlc, etc.) except if you created a character that uses a power featured in a DLC, you still get to keep it.
Or
You can buy DLC individually if there's just a certain power set or map or mission set you want. Many have asked for a similar system here.
Sub fee = premium time included, maybe a little allotment of MC, an extra hangar bay or two, maybe a free camo, etc. Stuff like that. Of course you'd get flooded with "P2W" threads but that's no different than any time a mech pack or hero mech is released so no difference there.

I just want to see CW be a lot more complex. I firmly believe that if PGI flops with CW, this game will never be as successful as it could be because there are a LOT of players that are simply hanging around to see what PGI does with CW. Most of those players want something a lit more complex than a IS map color coded leaderboard

[Marvyn Dodgers]

Please try to keep it constructive and avoid the insults folks.

[Prezimonto]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

I wouldn't go as extreme as reverting to a stock mech but using techs to absorb maintenance would be a good step in the right direction in my opinion.

DCUO is similar in what you described. You can pay a sub fee and get all expansions, dlc, etc. for free as long as you have the membership. If you drop the membership you lose all of the perks (extra character slots, bigger inventory, more access to your money, dlc, etc.) except if you created a character that uses a power featured in a DLC, you still get to keep it.
Or
You can buy DLC individually if there's just a certain power set or map or mission set you want. Many have asked for a similar system here.
Sub fee = premium time included, maybe a little allotment of MC, an extra hangar bay or two, maybe a free camo, etc. Stuff like that. Of course you'd get flooded with "P2W" threads but that's no different than any time a mech pack or hero mech is released so no difference there.

I just want to see CW be a lot more complex. I firmly believe that if PGI flops with CW, this game will never be as successful as it could be because there are a LOT of players that are simply hanging around to see what PGI does with CW. Most of those players want something a lit more complex than a IS map color coded leaderboard

I totally agree. I invested in this game, not just because it was mechwarrior, but based on the grand CW and planetary assault design they proposed. For instance, while I've play mechwarrior Tactics, I'd never drop money on the game, because it's not that interesting to me.

I want the depth of play they originally envisioned, if not the original proposal in detail.