506 replies to this topic

[Fut]

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

The way I would handle R&R is simple...

at the end of each match you get rewarded a bonus for how undamaged your mech is.

it accomplishes the same thing as repair costs, except its a bonus, rather than a penalty. so instead of cutting into your earnings its adding on top of your earnings.


So basically...

SURVIVOR BONUS (upto 10,000 extra cbills)

(% remaining on mech * tonnage factor) * 10,000 cbills

the tonnage factor is to account for the fact light mechs have less armor than assault mechs. so its much easier to get a light mech to 25% than an assault mech.


And to prevent abuse, the survivor bonus would only be activated for players who actually damaged enemy mechs. So no afking or hiding for extra cbills.

Great...

[Mystere]

Josef Nader, on 17 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Maximizing income. It's how people made money using the old R&R system. Hide behind the folks who paid for complete mechs, score a few assists, and explode. Rinse and repeat.

Why not just do the same in the regular queues?

And I did exclude douchery from my question.

[Mystere]

Nephera, on 17 November 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

one of those two things or maximizing income. I've seen all three.

Josef Nader, on 17 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Maximizing income. It's how people made money using the old R&R system. Hide behind the folks who paid for complete mechs, score a few assists, and explode. Rinse and repeat.

I would assume that a system of financial and performance audits in CW would easily take care that. A bad audit means the player/merc unit will either get reduced earnings and/or even be fired.

[Mystere]

pyrocomp, on 17 November 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

Why everyone assume that pricing for R&R will be like it is now?

Because there are those who have already decided against RnR and any "arguments" the present are just cover?

[Star Witch Esperanza]

Mystere, on 17 November 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

I would assume that a system of financial and performance audits in CW would easily take care that. A bad audit means the player/merc unit will either get reduced earnings and/or even be fired.

That sounds like a system that would punish your pointman for being the first in the fray all the time just by virtue of him being the first one hit all the time.

[Mystere]

Deltron Zero, on 17 November 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Well stated!

it's the core mechanic of this here video game

Anything that disrupts this is no good. R&R is at odds with the core idea of mechs fighting at its most basic level. It's implementation, no matter how simple or nuanced, will not change that. Leave strategic mechanics for strategy games.

Some people here want to have something a lot more than just thinly-veiled eSports.

[Rufus Ingram]

xengk, on 16 November 2014 - 01:40 AM, said:

Want to run that Gauss Rifle or AC/20? Be ready to spend the next 3 or 4 match saving up for a replacement, or install a cheap lower caliber ballistic.
Energy build will become more attractive to run due to lower maintenance cost.
More energy build in the game, longer TTK.

Forgive me because I mean no disrespect: are you insane? You want to penalize my Yen-Lo because I carry two weapons and everyone knows to shoot my right arm first? And energy builds mean longer TTK? Have you faced a Thunderbolt lately? Am I being trolled?

[Mystere]

Josef Nader, on 17 November 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Leave the rest of us out of it. If this was single player and I could carefully manage my team each drop, sure.

Are you telling me you are not planning to bring a team when dropping in CW? I hope your cat-herding skills are excellent.

[Jacob Side]

I want more then epeen stroking and what we have is nothing but. Get this game some depth, fighting over planets is a start, but we want a lot more depth then that. Having to make the tuff choice of which jacked up to hell and back mechs I want to take into battle is a choice I want to have to make.

If that's not your thing don't play the CW that a lot of us want.

Edited by Jacob Side, 17 November 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Khobai]

earnings are absurdly low as is. you have to play 150-200 games just to buy one heavy/assault mech. and THREE are required to skill them up. Thats anywhere from 450-600 games just to buy three mechs to master them.

anyone who wants to tax peoples earnings more with R&R nonsense is completely nuts. we need higher earnings not lower earnings.

[Mystere]

Nephera, on 17 November 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

That sounds like a system that would punish your pointman for being the first in the fray all the time just by virtue of him being the first one hit all the time.

That is what unit coffers are for, right?

[ollo]

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

to prevent abuse, like light mechs running and hiding, only the winning team would be eligible for the survivor bonus, and it would only be activated if you actually do damage to enemy mechs (so no afking or hiding).

There should also be a mechanic that promotes taking risks, something like factoring in match score, rewards, or how much damage was dealt by you or others to your spot targets.

[Gallowglas]

Fut, on 17 November 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Actually, with R&R in place people will be forced to actually learn from their mistakes as they would now carry a consequence. People might actually have to try to improve their performance. ****, imagine that...

Except they won't. They'll just quit.

[Brody319]

So instead of a R&R cost, why not just a drop cost. The more expensive/heavy weapons and mechs the higher the cost to drop. You wanna bring an atlas with gauss and PPCs? fine but you gotta pay more than the guy who brings an Atlas with medium lasers and LRMs. could even be explained as how sensitive the weapons are and needing to drop the mech carefully to not damage it, thus you pay more for the extra fuel and labor costs needed to get it to the ground. Similar system, and is fair because people know what it is before hand. No risk of going into debt or losing large amounts of money. Risk and Reward system that is fair, without being a drain on the players. Then when your team gets stomped you don't have to pay to fix your mech, which would encourage people to run broken down mechs.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

earnings are absurdly low as is. you have to play 150-200 games just to buy one heavy/assault mech. and THREE are required to skill them up. Thats anywhere from 450-600 games just to buy three mechs to master them.

anyone who wants to tax peoples earnings more with R&R nonsense is completely nuts. we need higher earnings not lower earnings.

Why do people keep on insisting that the payouts will be exactly the same when/if RnR is implemented?

Or have you folks already decided against RnR and are thus just presenting "reasons"?

[Khobai]

Quote

Why do people keep on insisting that the payouts will be exactly the same when/if RnR is implemented?

Or have you folks already decided against RnR and are thus just presenting "reasons"?

It doesnt matter what the payout is. If R&R reduces your earnings its only ever a bad thing. It adds nothing positive to the game whatsoever.

Why do you want to impose a repair tax so badly? What do you feel you gain out of that? Its like you get some sick demented pleasure out of being taxed and you want to share your warped masochistic joy with everyone else.

Ask yourself this? Why did other mechwarrior games have R&R? simple... because they had salvage. You would salvage the mechs and equipment you destroyed and then you had to decide if you would repair it and use it yourself or simply sell it off.

Without a proper salvage system like that in place, R&R serves no real purpose. Its not adding progression to the game. Or immersion. Its just adding taxation and reduction of earnings... why would anyone in their right mind want that?

Quote

There should also be a mechanic that promotes taking risks, something like factoring in match score, rewards, or how much damage was dealt by you or others to your spot targets.

if you included the ratio of damage done to damage taken that would probably suffice.

Edited by Khobai, 17 November 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[terrycloth]

Drop cost is better than R+R because it doesn't penalize newbies, but it still creates the sort of problem you get with consumables. Half the players think that people who use consumables are jerks who are willing to spend extra cash to unfairly secure victory, and half the players think that people who don't use consumables are jerks who don't care if their team loses as long as they can make a few extra bucks.

You'd get the same with optimized vs cheap mechs.

[Gallowglas]

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Why do you want to impose a repair tax so badly? What do you feel you gain out of that? Its like you get some sick demented pleasure out of being taxed.

My guess is one of three things:

1) They think it will add "depth" to gameplay. The problem is that it ends up becoming a mechanic that everyone except beginners or poor players can effectively ignore.

2) They think it will encourage players to improve at some increased rate. However, what happens when a player can't drop in his favorite mechs because he's new or loses repeatedly? Do you think he'll bootstrap himself up or do you think he'll quit? Sure, some will fall into the former category, but I don't think we need to have mechanisms which actively dissuade someone from playing the mech they want to play and already bought, sometimes will real world money.

3) They think it will influence loadouts for the better. However, I see the complete opposite. I definitely would trend toward more "meta" builds even if they were more expensive because more wins = more money overall.

Edited by Gallowglas, 17 November 2014 - 11:48 AM.

[Brody319]

terrycloth, on 17 November 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Drop cost is better than R+R because it doesn't penalize newbies, but it still creates the sort of problem you get with consumables. Half the players think that people who use consumables are jerks who are willing to spend extra cash to unfairly secure victory, and half the players think that people who don't use consumables are jerks who don't care if their team loses as long as they can make a few extra bucks.

You'd get the same with optimized vs cheap mechs.

That is a problem in pugs as well that requires an entirely different method of balance. Maybe give everyone a free UAV that won't reward them, but functions the same. So you can buy a UAV and get some extra XP and C-bills, or you can run the free one and just help out your team.

Air strikes and Artillery is something I don't know how to fix

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Why do you want to impose a repair tax so badly? What do you feel you gain out of that? Its like you get some sick demented pleasure out of being taxed and you want to share your warped masochistic joy with everyone else.

Gallowglas, on 17 November 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

My guess is one of three things:

<stuff>

Ahem! I am here to see ideas on how it can be done. But so far, almost all I have seen from many of the naysayers is just "No, <reasons>." as if you have already made up your mind.

Khobai, on 17 November 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Ask yourself this? Why did other mechwarrior games have R&R? simple... because they had salvage. You would salvage the mechs and equipment you destroyed and then you had to decide if you would repair it and use it yourself or simply sell it off.

Without a proper salvage system like that in place, R&R serves no real purpose. Its not adding progression to the game. Or immersion. Its just adding taxation and reduction of earnings... why would anyone in their right mind want that?

See, you can have some ideas too. So why not rephrase it as a suggestion on how RnR can be made to work?