724 replies to this topic

[The Boz]

One can not play well solo? I was not aware of this...
I've been doing it all wrong for all these years...

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

It is almost as if it is a merit based economy.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this back up, because there is no 'economy' in this game, merit-based or otherwise. Assiah did a good job of demolishing that red herring directly above your post.

[Mystere]

Alexander MacTaggart, on 25 October 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you're bringing this back up, because there is no 'economy' in this game, merit-based or otherwise. Assiah did a good job of demolishing that red herring directly above your post.

You are missing the "almost as if" part and are just concentrating on the word "economy". That is the problem when people read things too literally (like the Bible, Torah, or Koran ) . So let me put it in hopefully plainer terms ...

The rewards are now based more on merit and less on mere participation.

Edited by Mystere, 25 October 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Mr Beefy]

Assiah, on 25 October 2014 - 06:53 PM, said:

I would also like to touch on an argument livewyr made and a few others agreed. that argument being that this is a merit based economy and that that is a good thing. I feel this argument gets tossed around a lot whenever someone talks about increasing the c-bills earned per match. I remember people fielding this argument back in December 2012 and here it is popping up again. The problem with this argument is that, we are not using a proper economy at all. All economic theories are based on dividing up finite resources, in the case of the merit base economy, these resources go to ones who have "earned" them. How they earn these resources varies from system to system. But in MWO we don't have that problem, we are each working on our own progression, if I buy a Summoner with cbills, it does not have any effect on the market, the same is true if I decide not to buy it. There is no limited number of this mech or that mech, no limitation on how many heatsinks I can buy.

So honestly we are not using an economy at all, instead we are all on our own set progression speed, and the argument many of us are fielding, is that that speed is too slow. What the opponents of this argument are saying is, we already have what we want so screw the rest of you. Now while that is fine and dandy for them, I'm sure they could care less about player retention and new player progression. But these are just players, they are elitist players, but players none the less. PGI on the other hand should care deeply about player retention and progression, because at the end of the day, it effects their bottom line.

so here is my suggestion, lets stop trying to convince players who seem to think everything is fine with the current earnings and instead email support, calmly and politely tell them your concerns, maybe tell them of friends you referred to the game in the past that left due to this issue. I'm fairly certain PGI is quite interested in your opinion as a player, they would be a foolish company if they weren't.

I gave my suggestions and concerns in the main topic area they told us to put it in. I have not seen any real response yet that addressed this concern. I haven't checked that thread out in a day or so, but when I was looking at it is when they updated and announced that the numbers did in fact come back low, and they was gonna adjust it to increase earnings.

It would seem as if they have made their choice and are showing us where they think earnings should roughly be. I am hoping that they would give this serious consideration, and make the changes suggested. Most of us that are bringing this up are not acting like babies or crying about it.

We are not changing our style of play to exploit the system in place if it gets us more C-bills by doing so. If I gave in that one game, and would of stuck with the death ball to earn more, I just don't think I would want to lower my goal to play like a team player in the given match mode I drop in. It just really kills the fun of there even being Primary objectives in the match, and not trying to win by them. It would get very dull, and stale, and given that I won't do that, or others will not, here we are.

I am mean seriously.... this is a core problem now, if it is not changed by the time CW drops, it will be even more obvious than it already is. Given many players thirst for C-bills because earnings are so low, here's how that will go.

Commander... "take those generators out, we need to get the gate open to push our assaults onto the enemies base, our scouts are getting wrecked in there"....

lance..... ........

Commander:....... "we need to take out those generators, charlie lance get in there...."

lance...... " Sir, two of my lance mates left me behind to attack the generators.... I couldn't type(respond) because I was receiving incoming fire from turrets sir."

Commander:...... Charlie lance xlist exploiter non team player name here, where are you? Why have you failed to take the generators out, we need that gate open to move our assaults in to push this attack on the enemies base like yesterday.

"X list exploiters non team player name here" ........ Sir, taking out the generators don't pay out enough C-bills and XP, so we decided to go wait by the assaults so we could get the protect heavy/assault bonus, by staying in a big death ball.... Plus we found a spot we can fire narc and tag at a noob player on the enemies team and we are raking in the c-bills right now...."

Commander: ....... "Charlie lance, get your head out of you're a$$es and support your team, complete the objective given....that is a order...."

"X list exploiters non team player name here"..... We got stuff to buy sir, we need C-bills, screw your orders and the objectives, they don't pay as much..... Didn't you get the memo sir, go look at the pay list and study it really hard sir, L2P sir, you're not doing it right scrub....LOL...."


Does This sound about right given the way things are right now in about 80% of matches other then the one it should be a death ball in????

Edited by Mr Beefy, 25 October 2014 - 08:18 PM.

[FupDup]

The Paulconomy™ is quite a rough environment.

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 25 October 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

The Paulconomy™ is quite a rough environment.

Only if you're under-performing.

[Assiah]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

You are missing the "almost as if" part and are just concentrating on the word "economy". That is the problem when people read things too literally (like the Bible, Torah, or Koran ) . So let me put it in hopefully plainer terms ...

The rewards are now based more on merit and less on mere participation.

And again, rather than field a proper argument, you choose to insult, speak down to people, and avoid the main point all together. My argument (and the argument on many other veteran players, both in this thread and in my own unit) is that the current progression is too slow. I'm a fine with the concept that players that play well are rewarded with a faster progression, but currently it seems that players are punished for not performing at their peak and not running premium time or a hero mech.

I mean lets take your average Joe gamer, he has used up his new player extra cash, and now wants to pick up some new mechs, lets say these mechs cost 8,000,000 each, he wants 3 because he wants to master them out. Joe is not an elite player, but he is fairly average, he wins some games and loses others, sometimes he does really well, sometimes he does poorly. All in all he averages about 80,000 c-bills a match, that means he will need to spend 300 games to pick up those 3 mechs, and likely another 100-200 to put the upgrades he wants onto them. If we assume each match is about 10 mins, that means for a full 500 games he needs to log 80+ hours into the game, just to purchase 3 mechs and upgrade them. I personally think that is ridiculous, your opinion may vary.

[Mr Beefy]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Only if you're under-performing.

Some men you just can't reach....so you get what we have here today, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it...

[Mr Beefy]

Assiah, on 25 October 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

And again, rather than field a proper argument, you choose to insult, speak down to people, and avoid the main point all together. My argument (and the argument on many other veteran players, both in this thread and in my own unit) is that the current progression is too slow. I'm a fine with the concept that players that play well are rewarded with a faster progression, but currently it seems that players are punished for not performing at their peak and not running premium time or a hero mech.

I mean lets take your average Joe gamer, he has used up his new player extra cash, and now wants to pick up some new mechs, lets say these mechs cost 8,000,000 each, he wants 3 because he wants to master them out. Joe is not an elite player, but he is fairly average, he wins some games and loses others, sometimes he does really well, sometimes he does poorly. All in all he averages about 80,000 c-bills a match, that means he will need to spend 300 games to pick up those 3 mechs, and likely another 100-200 to put the upgrades he wants onto them. If we assume each match is about 10 mins, that means for a full 500 games he needs to log 80+ hours into the game, just to purchase 3 mechs and upgrade them. I personally think that is ridiculous, your opinion may vary.

This is a very valid concern for Veteran players that pull their own weight and should be a even bigger concern to PGI regarding new players coming into the game, as well as to the ones that have stayed and help support this game, with time, and our money. Only good things will come if they take this serious and make the changes. Nothing bad can or will come from this change.

[SpeedingBus]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Only if you're under-performing.

Tell me whats under-performing in this match? I would love to hear you thoughts about it. Also this wasn't even me thankfully.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Assiah, on 25 October 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

I mean lets take your average Joe gamer, he has used up his new player extra cash, and now wants to pick up some new mechs, lets say these mechs cost 8,000,000 each, he wants 3 because he wants to master them out. Joe is not an elite player, but he is fairly average, he wins some games and loses others, sometimes he does really well, sometimes he does poorly. All in all he averages about 80,000 c-bills a match, that means he will need to spend 300 games to pick up those 3 mechs, and likely another 100-200 to put the upgrades he wants onto them. If we assume each match is about 10 mins, that means for a full 500 games he needs to log 80+ hours into the game, just to purchase 3 mechs and upgrade them. I personally think that is ridiculous, your opinion may vary.

I'm just going to start quoting this to people when they make inane "everything is fine guys, really!" posts.

Nobody is saying that you should get 300k per match "just for participating" but having to play 100+ matches for a single chassis/variant is ridiculous.

The game needs people actually playing it to provide 'content' for the whales who spend money on it, and that means giving players (yes, even 'free' players) progression speed that will keep them playing instead of scare them off.

[Mcgral18]

SpeedingBus, on 25 October 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

Tell me whats under-performing in this match? I would love to hear you thoughts about it. Also this wasn't even me thankfully.

I don't see a single team based award in that menu...so you didn't stick with the team, costing you a couple dozen thousand.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

How quickly people forget.

People complained incessantly and loudly about players base rushing and avoiding fights to cap. They were told by other players to defend their bases if they did not want to be capped. But these people would have none of that. They would rather all go to the center of the map in their murder ball and expected the other team to also go to the center of the map in their murder ball. So they still complained incessantly and loudly about players base rushing and avoiding fights to cap. They demanded that cap times be significantly increased so that their heavily-armed but slow-as-molasses mobile turrets of doom have enough time to go from one corner of the map to the opposite corner. In the end, PGI complied with their loud and incessant demands, just to stop them from complaining loudly and incessantly about players base rushing and avoiding fights to cap.

So, given past history, do you really think "No, I don't think it will cause even one problem" if rewards for capping were significantly increased.

The major complaint was not the lack of fight but the lack of reward for capping. That was the #1 complaint. They capped and we got diddly. Fixing it so that we get as much as going out on a kill fest would stop all of that. So putting the reward for cap at the same for fighting until everybody is dead would fix it. But no, guess that is too easy a fix..

[Mystere]

Bartholomew bartholomew, on 25 October 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

The major complaint was not the lack of fight but the lack of reward for capping. That was the #1 complaint. They capped and we got diddly. Fixing it so that we get as much as going out on a kill fest would stop all of that. So putting the reward for cap at the same for fighting until everybody is dead would fix it. But no, guess that is too easy a fix..

That is not what I am remembering. And that definitely was not the reason why the cap duration was significantly increased.

[dario03]

Remember kids, you are only a team player if you stand near allies and throw tag on enemies right before they die.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

You are missing the "almost as if" part and are just concentrating on the word "economy". That is the problem when people read things too literally (like the Bible, Torah, or Koran ) . So let me put it in hopefully plainer terms ...

The rewards are now based more on merit and less on mere participation.

No, they are based on doing certain action whether or not doing those action will win the match or not. No missiles, tag is bonus. Stay together even if flanking wide would be better, staying together is bonus. Sit next to a different class mech even if the loadout is not complimentary, bonus.

All you need to do to make money is show up, run tag, and sit close to people. Damage is optional as long as you get the kill shot.

[Mr Beefy]

Mystere, on 25 October 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

You are missing the "almost as if" part and are just concentrating on the word "economy". That is the problem when people read things too literally (like the Bible, Torah, or Koran ) . So let me put it in hopefully plainer terms ...

The rewards are now based more on merit and less on mere participation.

Ot oh...here we go, claims of libel by some before you, and now maybe even we are a threat to national security/economy will ensue....

Edited by Mr Beefy, 25 October 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

I think most of the people who do not want a buff for the new guys to get up to par are just those afraid that will leave them with nobody to have an edge on..

[Ghogiel]

dario03, on 25 October 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Remember kids, you are only a team player if you stand near allies and throw tag on enemies right before they die.

The kids are telling me the new system "rewards playing well". I lol'd.

I think they have a limited definition of what playing well actually is.

[Assiah]

Bartholomew bartholomew, on 25 October 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

I think most of the people who do not want a buff for the new guys to get up to par are just those afraid that will leave them with nobody to have an edge on..

Well first lets be clear, its not just for the new guys, progression for everybody in this game is slow, its especially slow for free players and even worse for new free players. But I don't disagree with your point, many of the opponents of this have always taken the elitist side of "Well I'm doing fine, you just need to step it up." And that is the position they had when the earnings got nerfed in beta, and its the position they have now.

I'll say it again, convincing these players is pointless, they do not dictate the development of this game, they just play it. If you want to convince someone, try any avenue you have to contact the devs and explain your concerns, and do so politely.