219 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Xarian, on 22 October 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Meanwhile, a LRM Stormcrow with 100 damage per match is getting 200-300k every match, even on losses. How does this make you feel?

Still ain't going to drive not stinking missile boat ShortCrow, that's for sure.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 22 October 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

stuff

Isnt assault role TO DO pure damage?!

Could be seen as a combo, Tank and Dole out.

Xarian, on 22 October 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

And what if his role is doing damage?

Once you get above Medium, everyone's Role is damage based, that be what kill the enemy. But tanking is also a valid Role for the large/slow Assault based Mechs.

[Bront]

151st Light Horse Regiment, on 21 October 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

If there's a way of screenshotting or providing links to previous matches then I would happily oblige.

Alas, this game has limited (aka zero) functionality in this respect so I cant post anything.

In theory, Russ can pull up your history.

[Macksheen]

Not just theory; he's asked for people's approval to do so - though I still wonder why he bothered, I'm pretty sure PGI "owns" that stuff somewhere in the fine print of the EULA.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mack he may be asking for permission to post said data for all to see.

[Macksheen]

I'm fine with that too. Pre-patch I ran primarily SCR-Prime and ADR-Prime; post patch I have been running MDD-Prime and ADR-Prime. I've not wavered too much on builds and my SCR-Prime is very similar to my MDD Prime ... I just ran the SCR before the patch when the medium queue was low, and MDD now that the heavy queue is low.

My behavior has only changed a little bit post, but my placement, flanking, how I work in and around team-mates, how I spot, how I target, when I use a UAV or Arti is all fairly consistent. I may be using TAG more, but only a bit differently.

Edited by Macksheen, 23 October 2014 - 10:49 AM.

[Mothykins]

... Acceptable.



Very acceptable.



... Less acceptable.



Satisfied. Lost half my 'Mech and was still useful. Not bad.

[Christof Romulus]

Lily from animove, on 23 October 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

I think the relation is not ok, compare your screesn, your damage assista nd kills, soemtimes your performance is quite different, but yet the "reward" seems to be nearly the same. Then you have hardly better looking ones having much more "reward". This si what somehow feels "wrong" I hardly fel that my reward is truly related to my feeling of how well I did. I did carppy matches and yet rewards very juicy. Then it was the entire way around.

That's just it: We are no longer being rewarded for purely damage, kills, and assists. We are being rewarded for "teamwork" based on our "Role".

When I did well and was actually performing the role of an assault - fighting not only near my lance, but near my team, I got significantly higher results than when I broke off from that role - regardless of my performance.

[MischiefSC]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 October 2014 - 04:05 AM, said:

THIS, I stayed with my PUG lance(or at least close to a team mate) and stalked and maneuvered and alphed. I am a knock out punching player, and I don't apologize for it. 2 Kills 4 assists, and a slew of other bonuses for being a good team player.

I'm not using Premium time, but I will take advantage of my Hero's bonus.

Sorry Trout... I didn't mean to sound insulting... It's early and I'm still cranky from lack of Caffeine.

I was running that exact same build last night. She's nothing but love at 270m. I traded a ml for a tag; so many lrms around, you paint some poor ******* as you're starting your run and often he'll break and run from lrm warning and I don't even have to take his return fire when I match over the top of him.

At first I tried to play lead like I do in my DDC but without ecm it doesn't have the magic that keeps your team with you. I started following my lance and helping when they take fire and if some poor ******* tries to rush he gets the boom. You step into fire to protect a damaged lance mate and run off flankers a few times and the money rolls in win or lose.

Also, try a ll in the ct and no mls. Cooler, you have a long range punch, your arms are pure shield and it zombies like a maniac. I liked both. I'm finding it to be an amazing face stomper.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Macksheen, on 23 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

Well, I think the floor needs to be increased on rewards. I've had big ones, and I've had a few die-early stinkers.

I think this is the solution. You should get 50-75k just for dropping. Then another 50k or so for a win. Then add all the role bonuses on top.

I mean, even if the 'floor' was 100k (or your average earnings was 100k), that's still 36 matches to buy a bare-bones Hunchback chassis. One hundred and seventy (!!!) matches to afford a Dire Wolf chassis. Before any modifications or upgrades.

When I finish a match and get 30-40k, I just feel like that was 15 minutes wasted. You really should be gauranteed 100k per match if you do pretty much anything but immediately suicide - and then if you actually are good and have a great match then 300-400k is reasonable.

[Troutmonkey]

I think the floor for a loss should be 50k, and the floor for a win at 90-100k.
This is assuming 2-3 assist, ~100dmg and no premium time/hero bonus. Better performance obviously yields higher payouts, but unlucky games shouldn't be a complete waste of my time.

I've yet tot try the new rewards today so I'll reserve some judgement until after I've tried it out.

[King Arthur IV]

if the match doesnt end in 11-12 and is more like 4-12 then all the mechs on losing side are going to have crappy money. not saying it is right or wrong but that is how i perceive it.

[EgoSlayer]

I think a lot of people need to examine what their real average is, not what they assume it is.
Got to your stats page, under game mode stats and calulate the average C-Bills per match by game type. Then compare.

With the patch adjustment yesterday I was seeing many losses that are exceeding my established average C-Bills per match, worst of which 110K per match.

[Xarian]

EgoSlayer, on 24 October 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

I think a lot of people need to examine what their real average is, not what they assume it is.
Got to your stats page, under game mode stats and calulate the average C-Bills per match by game type. Then compare.

With the patch adjustment yesterday I was seeing many losses that are exceeding my established average C-Bills per match, worst of which 110K per match.

Depending on your role you will definitely see more C-Bills on a loss than before. If you get killed really early by a dual Gauss sniper, you're going to be making the bare minimum. In group queue, you can't just go jump in another mech so you're sitting there for 15 minutes and earning yourself 20-30k C-Bills, maybe double that on a win.

I'm assuming that you're a pretty decent player who doesn't get killed super early a match very often, so you're going to make a fair bit more - and what about players in group queue who are playing against strong, aggressive teams or new players in solo queue? They're going to be making 25k-40k every match and hating every second of it.

This in turn annoys the two core groups that account for PGI's revenue - hardcore group players and new players. In fact, the only people who really benefit from this change are the moderate-to-high skill players who are playing in solo queue in order to farm a new mech or two - the people least likely to pay for anything.

Edited by Xarian, 24 October 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

Xarian, on 24 October 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Depending on your role you will definitely see more C-Bills on a loss than before. If you get killed really early by a dual Gauss sniper, you're going to be making the bare minimum. In group queue, you can't just go jump in another mech so you're sitting there for 15 minutes and earning yourself 20-30k C-Bills, maybe double that on a win.

I'm assuming that you're a pretty decent player who doesn't get killed super early a match very often, so you're going to make a fair bit more - and what about players in group queue who are playing against strong, aggressive teams or new players in solo queue? They're going to be making 25k-40k every match and hating every second of it.

This in turn annoys the two core groups that account for PGI's revenue - hardcore group players and new players. In fact, the only people who really benefit from this change are the moderate-to-high skill players who are playing in solo queue in order to farm a new mech or two - the people least likely to pay for anything.

Oh, don't get me wrong - my comment was more aimed at the people who are claiming their 160-200K matches as pitiful.

I think as a gross average what you are describing is happening - the people who are average and above can be making significantly more on wins, and marginally less or equal on losses. But the people who average and below are making significantly less on both. As an average C-Bills paid out per match it works out about the same, but the lower end of the scale gets doubly screwed.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer as the saying goes. PGI needs to do a detailed analysis of the earnings by elo and by chassis and see what the changes to the distribution are, and I am all for lights and mediums making more to provide incentive to play them.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 24 October 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[SpeedingBus]

Another problem with this new reward system is a quick win or lose will likely earn you far less due to not triggering the rewards from being stomped or stomping the enemy team.

[Xarian]

Almond Brown, on 23 October 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

Once you get above Medium, everyone's Role is damage based, that be what kill the enemy. But tanking is also a valid Role for the large/slow Assault based Mechs.

Absolutely - and tanking is not being rewarded. Swift, aggressive play is not being rewarded either - the game rewards you for drawing the matches out so that you can continue racking up Flanking, Hit-and-Run, and TAG/NARC bonuses (which are actually the worst - they encourage you to TAG someone for 0.5 seconds immediately before they die). See here.

EgoSlayer, on 24 October 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer as the saying goes. PGI needs to do a detailed analysis of the earnings by elo and by chassis and see what the changes to the distribution are, and I am all for lights and mediums making more to provide incentive to play them.

It's worse than that, however - because the 'rich vs poor' thing is all relative to your opponents.

I'm a pretty decent player and I can earn a decent amount of C-Bills if I stay alive, but good organized teams will not let you stay alive. They will focus and burn you down and keep the matches as short as possible, leading to extraordinarily punishing losses. This makes me, a pretty decent player who plays a lot of group queue, basically a bad newbie. In solo queue, new players will jump in, get crushed, and think "man, I did poorly. I should try harder" and get basically no C-Bill rewards. They'll try again a few more times, find out that their improved gameplay is not getting them any more C-Bills or XP, and they'll quit or they'll read through the patch notes and start being selfish TAG/NARC-vulture douchebags.

[Xarian]

SpeedingBus, on 24 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Another problem with this new reward system is a quick win or lose will likely earn you far less due to not triggering the rewards from being stomped or stomping the enemy team.

Exactly - the game rewards you for drawing out a match and inflicting multiple small hits over a long period of time. Decisive, aggressive wins actually earn you less C-Bills than a loss. I've run around the map derping with LRM/TAG builds and ultimately lost 12-3, doing 200 damage and having no kills, and made 230k C-Bills; my team has also utterly crushed my opponents 12-2 in the first 5 minutes, getting 4 kills 700 damage in a Nova thanks to amazing team play both by me and my allies, and made 80k C-Bills.

If I'm going to play like an idiot and not help my team, I should get punished. Drawing the game out should not be rewarded.

[That Dawg]

Russ Bullock, on 21 October 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

Im sorry but I need a legit screen shot for that one.

Seems utterly impossible - Please get me a screen shot.

No one...... EXPECTS THE MECHWARRIOR INQUISITION!!

OP bet ya didn't think they read this, didja?

[Scratx]

That Dawg, on 24 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

No one...... EXPECTS THE MECHWARRIOR INQUISITION!!

OP bet ya didn't think they read this, didja?

And Russ got his screenshots. Many, in fact.

As for you, I get the feeling you're among those this post of mine refers to.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3846998

I invite you to read it.

[Kirkland Langue]

Logan Hawke, on 22 October 2014 - 08:02 AM, said:

While that would be cool immersion wise, I kind of doubt that it would work in a balance perspective. What would the losers get paid? Anything? Would only the surviving winners get paid? Get headshot and you forfeit your rewards since you're 'dead'? What about less... scrupulous employers that do in fact pay for mayhem and destruction as the primary goal? Would you have to pay your dropship/jumpship fees or would that be waived? How about bidding for salvage? Would only mercs get that stuff and house/clan members just get a flat rate for their government paycheck?

Sorry I didn't get back to reply:

In my version it'd look something like

[(base for dropping) + (base for winning) + (bonuses for specific actions: headshots, killing turrets, etc)] *2 - Weight Class Usage %.

So say the numbers were 25k to play, 50k to win, 25k worth of bonus actions, and use a mech which is at 60% on the mech usage - you'd get 100*1.4 = 140,000 C-bills for the win. Same game, but a loss would be 50 * 1.4 = 70,000 C-bills.

The system would reward:
Winning
Playing an underplayed mech weight class
Achieving specific noteworthy goals.

Simple system and because of the multiplier for choosing an underplayed mech weight it would lead to faster queue times for everyone and players grinding out credits with multiple mechs to try and match with the weight class that's underplayed.


EDIT - but I should note that I'm not really pressing for PGI to change the system. Gameplay rewards are far down the list of things which really need to be changed and PGI already wasted enough time developing this 2.0 system. Maybe revisit the issue again a year from now after more important things are worked on.

Edited by Kirkland Langue, 24 October 2014 - 02:30 PM.