481 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

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 actually prefer the system that SWOTR used (at least used to use a year or so ago... I have heard bad things about it since I stopped). Essentially, you have access to all content, but the subscription gave you "fluff" such as additional action bars, more character slots, quicker this, easier that. It was all convenience things, though, unlike DCUO, which requires you to purchase expansions to even access certain content.

Something that was also great about the Sony/SWTOR subscription was the monthly stipend that you earned. It was usable in any game, but I only played SWTOR at the time, so it was 500 points to use on whatever I wanted. It was nothing P2W, but it sure was a great perk of subscribing.

MWO could do the same system, such as giving an extra mechbay each month you subscribe, a free camo pattern and/or color each month or two, "get out of repairs" card, etc.

[wanderer]

I'll say it again: R&R should not be focused on specific players, because that basically turns the game into true P2W.

R&R should only be a function of factional warfare, and related to the capacity to maintain a force on a given world- and have zero effect on non-factional gameplay. If they want to allow C-bill R&R on a player-personal basis to represent paying for your own repairs vs. relying on the local tech crews, sure...but having the bad-play-rewarding style of the past or anything close to it is a waste. And the dominant method of repairs should be a repair pool that good play increases on your side, and decreases from bad play- but allows a player whose stuck to simply retreat offworld and get fixed up someplace else.

[Joseph Mallan]

I completely support that Wanderer. In the PUG game R&R does not make good sense at all.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 30 July 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

I actually prefer the system that SWOTR used (at least used to use a year or so ago... I have heard bad things about it since I stopped). Essentially, you have access to all content, but the subscription gave you "fluff" such as additional action bars, more character slots, quicker this, easier that. It was all convenience things, though, unlike DCUO, which requires you to purchase expansions to even access certain content.

Something that was also great about the Sony/SWTOR subscription was the monthly stipend that you earned. It was usable in any game, but I only played SWTOR at the time, so it was 500 points to use on whatever I wanted. It was nothing P2W, but it sure was a great perk of subscribing.

MWO could do the same system, such as giving an extra mechbay each month you subscribe, a free camo pattern and/or color each month or two, "get out of repairs" card, etc.

DCUO runs the same system, it's all Sony. You get sony cash (can't remember what it's called) as part of your monthly "allowance" basically. It's essentially free premium currency for your sub money.

wanderer, on 30 July 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

I'll say it again: R&R should not be focused on specific players, because that basically turns the game into true P2W.

R&R should only be a function of factional warfare, and related to the capacity to maintain a force on a given world- and have zero effect on non-factional gameplay. If they want to allow C-bill R&R on a player-personal basis to represent paying for your own repairs vs. relying on the local tech crews, sure...but having the bad-play-rewarding style of the past or anything close to it is a waste. And the dominant method of repairs should be a repair pool that good play increases on your side, and decreases from bad play- but allows a player whose stuck to simply retreat offworld and get fixed up someplace else.

the R&R (and all the other suggestions and ideas) are relating to CW only.

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

I completely support that Wanderer. In the PUG game R&R does not make good sense at all.

but that's been established
5 or 6 times
beginning 20 pages ago lol

Edited by Sandpit, 30 July 2014 - 05:28 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

After 20 pages you want me to remember everything we say? Are you... Oh look gold fish!

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

After 20 pages you want me to remember everything we say? Are you... Oh look gold fish!

I'm about to just make a macro for that statement for the rest of this thread lol

The OP suggestions are purely for CW. I could care less what they do with the rest of the queues/game lol

[Kali Rinpoche]

Repost of earlier post of mine:
Having missed the closed beta days of repair costs, I've wanted to see some aspect of repairs re-added to the MWO experience. I've read numerous accounts on these forums about what the game was like with repairs, the 75% rule, and mass amounts of money being made off the repair dynamic. Even with the large CBill amounts being made per round, the system seemed flawed.

What I would like to propose is returning some aspect of repair/rearm back into the MWO experience, especially with CW getting ever nearer.

I envision a multi-tier approach to this process.

A. Level 1 - Repair immediately for C-Bills: the cost of any damage done to a mech, capped at a repair cost of 5% of the damaged equipment's value. (mech is instantly ready for next match.)

B. Level 2 - The Astech: We are able to purchase mulitple npc repair technicians that work on a monthly salary paid monthly from our C-bill accounts. Everyone starts with 1 free Astech npc. An Astech can repair all damage done to a mech for 0 C-bills but the repair makes the damaged mech unavailable for 15 minutes. (max time of one full match) You can have a maximum of 2 techs assigned to repairs per mech. 2 Astechs would reduce repair time to 10 minutes. The player would have to pay to reload ammo from the previous match at drastically reduced prices.

C. Level 3 - Full tech - Basically a chief mechanic. Can repair a fully damaged mech in 8 minutes by themselves. If you add in a support Astech, the repair time is 5 minutes. Ammo replaced at drastically reduced cost. Has a monthly C-bill cost for their services.


With these 3 methods, we could add some complexity to community warfare and planet conquest. Thus not allowing the use of the same mech every battle for a contested planet and cutting down on the amount of boated ammo in mechs. Trial mechs would be excluded from repair costs, but would be unavailable for 10 minutes after a round.

(with 12 trial mechs being made available, this would provide many options for new folks).

Curious to hear any thoughts or non-troll comments on this idea.

TL:DR

[Sandpit]

Kali Rinpoche, on 30 July 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Repost of earlier post of mine:
Having missed the closed beta days of repair costs, I've wanted to see some aspect of repairs re-added to the MWO experience. I've read numerous accounts on these forums about what the game was like with repairs, the 75% rule, and mass amounts of money being made off the repair dynamic. Even with the large CBill amounts being made per round, the system seemed flawed.

What I would like to propose is returning some aspect of repair/rearm back into the MWO experience, especially with CW getting ever nearer.

I envision a multi-tier approach to this process.

A. Level 1 - Repair immediately for C-Bills: the cost of any damage done to a mech, capped at a repair cost of 5% of the damaged equipment's value. (mech is instantly ready for next match.)

B. Level 2 - The Astech: We are able to purchase mulitple npc repair technicians that work on a monthly salary paid monthly from our C-bill accounts. Everyone starts with 1 free Astech npc. An Astech can repair all damage done to a mech for 0 C-bills but the repair makes the damaged mech unavailable for 15 minutes. (max time of one full match) You can have a maximum of 2 techs assigned to repairs per mech. 2 Astechs would reduce repair time to 10 minutes. The player would have to pay to reload ammo from the previous match at drastically reduced prices.

C. Level 3 - Full tech - Basically a chief mechanic. Can repair a fully damaged mech in 8 minutes by themselves. If you add in a support Astech, the repair time is 5 minutes. Ammo replaced at drastically reduced cost. Has a monthly C-bill cost for their services.


With these 3 methods, we could add some complexity to community warfare and planet conquest. Thus not allowing the use of the same mech every battle for a contested planet and cutting down on the amount of boated ammo in mechs. Trial mechs would be excluded from repair costs, but would be unavailable for 10 minutes after a round.

(with 12 trial mechs being made available, this would provide many options for new folks).

Curious to hear any thoughts or non-troll comments on this idea.

TL:DR

the ONLY thing I disagree with regarding R&R mechanics is adding in a time sink that can be bypassed with cash. Trial mechs really aren't viable in a highly competitive scenario most times. I get what your'e saying, I just don't think in this particular game, they would work well and it would become borderline not P2W but P2P.

Warthunder has something similar but you can pay all repair bills with free currency OR you can wait and I've never actually lost money but I have had games where I didn't make much. I also get 20 free units and hangars as well though. So even if I wanted to wait and let them repair for free over time, I'd still have 15 other planes to fly around in. With only 4 bays, severely limited amounts of units to start with, I think a time sink like this would hurt new(er) players.

Other than that though I like the premise of your ideas.

[Davers]

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.

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.

Vassago is right here.

If we were playing the Fall of Comstar and the Succession Wars then yes, the game would be about dwindling technology and being forced to use older and weaker tech. But the Clan Invasion is all about new tech and massive upgrading programs. The Houses weren't forced to use older tech to combat the Clans. They did the opposite and put out mechs with improved tech.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 30 July 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Vassago is right here.

If we were playing the Fall of Comstar and the Succession Wars then yes, the game would be about dwindling technology and being forced to use older and weaker tech. But the Clan Invasion is all about new tech and massive upgrading programs. The Houses weren't forced to use older tech to combat the Clans. They did the opposite and put out mechs with improved tech.

Still have to disagree

You don't send out your brand new 100 ton death machine for a recon mission deep behind enemy lines
You don't sit that crusty old reliable hunchback in the rear on garrison duty

It doesn't matter how wealthy your military or country is, you still go the cheapest way possible. You do realize that party for the M16-A2 rifle are designed by Mattel
and the cheapest bidders right?

It's the same principle. You don't risk your high end expensive units on every single mission every single time. A player saying "the game sucks because I can't run this one mech and one build every single time in every single match" is the same exact principle. Some are acting like MAYBE having to play a different build 2-3 times out of 10-15 once in a while IF you ahve a string of really bad games is "ruining" or "hurting" the game.

as far as timeline

well...
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/3050

3050 was hardly a "prosperous" time for the inner sphere and advancement in technology. Now if we were talking 2-3 years further down the road after they've started banding together and reverse engineering clan tech and such? Maybe, but even still as I said earlier, you simply do not run out a company of Atlases every time you engage the enemy

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Still have to disagree

You don't send out your brand new 100 ton death machine for a recon mission deep behind enemy lines
You don't sit that crusty old reliable hunchback in the rear on garrison duty

It doesn't matter how wealthy your military or country is, you still go the cheapest way possible. You do realize that party for the M16-A2 rifle are designed by Mattel
and the cheapest bidders right?

It's the same principle. You don't risk your high end expensive units on every single mission every single time. A player saying "the game sucks because I can't run this one mech and one build every single time in every single match" is the same exact principle. Some are acting like MAYBE having to play a different build 2-3 times out of 10-15 once in a while IF you ahve a string of really bad games is "ruining" or "hurting" the game.

Honestly, as I have said, having an R&R system that "light" would make it more of an annoying inconvenience than "immersion".

As long as R&R is kept to it's own CW queue, and there is still a Public queue for casual gamers who don't want to bother with it, then it can be as hardcore as you want.

BTW, I do intend to participate in CW!

[GreyGriffin]

Mattel didn't have crap to do with the M16. The troops called it a toy because it felt cheap and plastic.

[Sandpit]

one other thing to point out, it wasn't the IS units that stopped the clans, it was the advanced tech used by comstar

GreyGriffin, on 30 July 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Mattel didn't have crap to do with the M16. The troops called it a toy because it felt cheap and plastic.

reagrdless, it was a PoS and made by the cheapest bidder, as is most military equipment.

Davers, on 30 July 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Honestly, as I have said, having an R&R system that "light" would make it more of an annoying inconvenience than "immersion".

As long as R&R is kept to it's own CW queue, and there is still a Public queue for casual gamers who don't want to bother with it, then it can be as hardcore as you want.

BTW, I do intend to participate in CW!

I know you do, and I honestly don't want new players tossed into a "hardcore" mode like this by default. I'd rather they have their own section to learn the game, get hooked, stick around, and help us beat the dog dookie out of the clans. We both know that there's a pretty sizable section of players who want "more" and in order to do that things like this are going to have to be implemented.

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 30 July 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Vassago is right here.

If we were playing the Fall of Comstar and the Succession Wars then yes, the game would be about dwindling technology and being forced to use older and weaker tech. But the Clan Invasion is all about new tech and massive upgrading programs. The Houses weren't forced to use older tech to combat the Clans. They did the opposite and put out mechs with improved tech.

But we are not the House Armies Unless we have the LP to join one, we are Mercs who likely have family hand me downs and House cast offs.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 July 2014 - 08:52 PM.

[Davers]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

But we are not the House Armies Unless we have the LP to join one, we are Mercs who likely have family hand me downs and House cast offs.

Maybe you are a Merc, but I am a Marik.

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 30 July 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

Maybe you are a Merc, but I am a Marik.

Oh? Did PGI Offer you that? Are you Marik Militia, Free World Guards? Cause if you didn't spend LPs to buy your seat you are not Marik, you are a Merc working for Marik.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 July 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

Oh? Did PGI Offer you that? Are you Marik Militia, Free World Guards? Cause if you didn't spend LPs to buy your seat you are not Marik, you are a Merc working for Marik.

don't get me started on LP...

seriously though, does anyone really want CW without a legitimate economy of some kind making resources and planetary control strategic and meaningful?

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 30 July 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

don't get me started on LP...

seriously though, does anyone really want CW without a legitimate economy of some kind making resources and planetary control strategic and meaningful?

No, I don't think anyone prefers the idea of a Leaderboard CW. It's pretty safe to say everyone wants an awesome CW chock full of awesome features.

Wanting those things doesn't help us get them though.

*rains on people's parades some more*

[Rebas Kradd]

Wintersdark, on 26 July 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

But wait, component destruction = more chances for salvage? Don't you think you have that backwards?

Wouldn't you WANT to run poptarts and just CT core/headshot/leg people to not destroy the components you want to salvage?

I considered this, too. But I agree with Sandpit for this reason: component destruction needs to be encouraged, not discouraged. If untouched components are the ones that are salvageable, then shooting the center torso alone will become more profitable and therefore more prevalent. Yeah, the logic is backwards. But I'll take it.

[cranect]

If I had to pay for repairs then I guess all the groups I run with would need a new point man. As it is I don't mind leading the charge and taking the damage and all that so long as the group charges with me. The issue is with rearm and repair I would probably go negative in my earnings...