506 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Why is MWO different? Why would an R&R system kill this game specifically when it's a proven fact that R&R systems do NOT kill other games?

R&R implemented the same way it was previously would in fact kill the game.

however R&R implemented properly, i.e. not a tax, would probably work fine.

[dario03]

I think the simplest way to do R&R is how it is done now...as in not have it.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 16 November 2014 - 03:02 AM, said:

R&R implemented the same way it was previously would in fact kill the game.

however R&R implemented properly, i.e. not a tax, would probably work fine.

Never have I ever seen anyone suggest that R&R should be implemented in the same way as it was before. People need to stop using that as a reason. There's plenty of ways R&R can be implemented that wouldn't be like it was before.

[Satan n stuff]

Sandpit, on 16 November 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

Never have I ever seen anyone suggest that R&R should be implemented in the same way as it was before. People need to stop using that as a reason. There's plenty of ways R&R can be implemented that wouldn't be like it was before.

So give us an example, how would you do it?

[Vassago Rain]

HlynkaCG, on 16 November 2014 - 02:50 AM, said:

You have a founders tag. You should know better.

[/size]

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter

I would actually go so far as to say that anything that the mech comes with from the factory gets repaired/replaced for free.

I knew so much better than the rest of the playerbase and PGI that I led the campaign to kill RnR.

ggclose

[Vassago Rain]

Sandpit, on 16 November 2014 - 02:56 AM, said:

"R&R would destroy this game"

I think
War Thunder
World of Tanks
World of Planes
DDO
SWTOR (both of these games require you to repair equipment and some on this list can even cause loss of money in the higher tiers)

didn't get that memo.

SO I'm just curious, why is it that an R&R system would kill THIS game, but those others are doing just fine? (I could probably find you more examples if you really want them but I figured WT and WoT are good since they're very successful games and do quite well with R&R systems)

Why is MWO different? Why would an R&R system kill this game specifically when it's a proven fact that R&R systems do NOT kill other games?


maybe you can answer my question then?

Sure.
We've played without RnR since november 2012. Adding it now isn't gonna work, as it'll dramatically overhaul everything, and the game isn't fit for upkeep to begin with. You have to pay upkeep to...buy more ammo? Oh, man, that's just great. What a deep, complex mechanic! No, just keep it out, unless it's gonna reinvent the game.

Also, PGI have proven themselves incapable of handling complex mechanics like economics and upkeep. Not even bias on my part - just the reality of things. If they come out tomorrow and say that they hired a bunch of guys who have experience working on MMOs, and an economist, then I'd reconsider.

But that's not gonna happen, and if PGI tries to tamper with the game in the way everybody in here is suggesting, it's simply gonna kill it, because all it'll amount to is the same old fun tax.

It's obvious that there needs to be something to do in CW, but adding RnR when there still isn't anything to do...won't give you something to do. You'll just be taxed to do the same old drops, and the last handful of players from both our guilds would quit in a week if CW turns out to be limited strictly to fun taxes and gates.

By the way, it's perfectly possible to run a battlemap without RnR. Things such as buying/upgrading your bases - should we ever get such things - outfitting dropships, purchasing mechs to keep in the guild bank for newer players, paying for faster jumpship services... RnR? Who cares about RnR? That's such a low, unimaginitive goal when you could have so much more.

More 'if you have resources, you can expand the gameplay experience.'
Less 'if you don't have resources, we're gonna take away basic gameplay features.'

But I'll be perfectly honest, since you sparked me to post like it's 2012.

I forsee boring, fun tax RnR, all the features that I suggested will likely be in there, but MC only, and a new currency used to purchase clan stuff for IS, and IS stuff for clans. They'll look at the initial player response and get dollar signs in their eyes, then the game will choke under the excessive monetization. If they go for static, endless CW, rather than ladders (aka, seasons), it'll essentially be EVE online with robots, on a much smaller scale. Steel jags and LORDS will own the west and the east respectively, and you either join the blue donut, or the yellow invaders.

ggclose

[Marmon Rzohr]

SuomiWarder, on 15 November 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

I read the dev post about looking at it over and over to make sure players do not get a negative C- Bill return from a game.

So generalize it a bit. Maybe you select either repair all or repair except weapons. Then at the end of a match the various things damaged have a "cost" that is a % of the payout. It can be a line in the total - repair and refit costs.

Lights might only add up to 35% of the pay out even in a worst case, all arms and legs blown off scenario. A lost worse case assault maybe upwards of 60%. Gives an incentive to drive cheaper mechs - less is at risk. Also ammo from LRM spamming mechs will reduce your payday over a set of handy lasers.

Beginners might be exempt for 20 matches. Faction loyalty awards could be covering some of your R&R costs so your pay outs go up.

I honestly never understood this. What's the point of repair and rearm ? As far as I can see it, there is none. It adds nothing to the game, especially not fun.

There are only 2 possible outcomes:

1) Earnings are increased to compensate for R&R costs. In this case there is no change except that people will play more passively to avoid getting damaged/destroyed.

2) Earnings are not increased enough to nullify R&R costs. In this case you get even more camping and it becomes an annoying tax on players which will especially frustrate new players. Mind you, when I say new players I'm saying players with under 1000 games. Making players immune to R&R costs for the first 25/50/100 games will do nothing.

No matter how you look at it, R&R costs aren't a reward mechanic, as they don't encourage good play. They are a plain tax. The only reason mechanics like this exist is to force players into buying premium time, and with earnings in MWO being as low as they are, it's not really necessary.

Furthermore, the "immersion" argument makes no sense. You aren't going to be buying mechs yourself nor are you going to be paying to repair them out of your own pocket unless you are the Bruce Wayne billionaire-turned-warrior of the BattleTech universe.

Economy for units in CW I do understand and that could add some fun "let's play Mech Tycoon" elements and pushes units to win I suppose, but as a general element to be added to the player rewards system for all players, it doesn't really have and merits.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 16 November 2014 - 04:18 AM.

[DrSlamastika]

PLEASE NO!

[ice trey]

I would LOVE an R&R system to be brought back in. In fact, I was really disappointed when they took it out.

As for the losing money if you lose a match... I disagree with it being a bad thing at all times. As new tech has been introduced, the game has gone from being about tough and durable mechs, slowly duking it out to being about 40+ point pinpoint alphas and slinking back to everything that made MW4 multiplayer so terrible. There was a time when the Atlas in a force was the damage-soaking wall the team moved with. Now an Atlas dies simply from breaking cover for a couple of seconds.

I think that there needs to be an initiative to bring players back to wanting to use more basetech. As it is, there is rarely a reason to ever want to use single heat sinks, nor a reason to want to use Ferro Fibrous before taking Endo Steel, if at all.

Of course, the way things sit, yes, new players would flip their **** if they bought a super-expensive mech and a lost match would dig into their coffers, but if the game is clear about which technology and variants are "Lostech" and therefore more expensive to use, I don't see a problem.

The important thing would be to have it that taking the really high tech stuff is risky and, while powerful, isn't really for day to day grinding, but the thing to dust off for special occasions. The real C-bill earners should be cheap, run-of-the-mill 3025-tech that - in the event the match is lost - don't actually cost so much to repair that you're ever forced into the red. It should also scale with engine size, hopefully so that we can have the game stop being so Heavy-Assault centric, and encourage players to do the same jobs with medium chassis like Trebuchets and Hunchbacks. It would also help to dial back the speed on lights, so that designs are maxing out at maybe 120-140kph.

I would also want there to be modifiers based on how similar a 'mech is to it's stock configuration, because let's face it, Mechs are lumbering war machines, not a stack of lego bricks. Maintaining a 'mech is hard enough as it is, much less chopping it up and making PPC boat Quickdraws or Gauss-toting Catapults. The less a mech uses stock parts, the harder it should be to keep it in working order.

Long story short, I want to see R&R instated as a tool to help to reduce the arms race in MWO. To make it possible to just buy a new mech and have reason to use it as is, rather than immediately race to get Endo Steel, DHS, Ultra Autocannons and a new engine, spending the cost of the mech once over again. There will be those that want to ignore it and play with the high tech stuff all the time, and that's fine, but anyone worth their salt knows that the real deciding factor is not whether or not one side has gauss rifles and DHS, but whether or not they're using teamwork properly. Tactics and teamwork is always the first and foremost deciding factor in whether or not a match is won, and are players willing to trust who they get dropped with can play like a team? Will their high tech be enough to carry the match?

Edited by ice trey, 16 November 2014 - 04:49 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

Vassago Rain, on 16 November 2014 - 03:34 AM, said:

I knew so much better than the rest of the playerbase and PGI that I led the campaign to kill RnR.

ggclose

• How can you claim to have killed something that never existed?
  
• We are still here having this conversation so obviously this issue isn't the 12/0 stomp you seem to think it is

Seriously Vass, do you even read your own posts?

Marmon Rzohr, on 16 November 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

I honestly never understood this. What's the point of repair and rearm ? As far as I can see it, there is none. It adds nothing to the game, especially not fun.

...

Economy for units in CW I do understand and that could add some fun "let's play Mech Tycoon" elements and pushes units to win I suppose, but as a general element to be added to the player rewards system for all players, it doesn't really have and merits.

You already hit the big reason right there. I wasted many hours in MW2, 3 and 4 playing Mech Tycoon. If you don't want to pay R&R join a house.

The other reason was to reward people for piloting stock or near stock builds by giving them substantially higher cbill earnings compared to customized mechs.

Edited by HlynkaCG, 16 November 2014 - 04:44 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

ice trey, on 16 November 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

I would LOVE an R&R system to be brought back in. In fact, I was really disappointed when they took it out.

As for the losing money if you lose a match... I disagree with it being a bad thing at all times. As new tech has been introduced, the game has gone from being about tough and durable mechs, slowly duking it out to being about 40+ point alphas and atlases being felled in a matter of seconds.

I think that there needs to be an initiative to bring players back to wanting to use more basetech. As it is, there is rarely a reason to ever want to use single heat sinks, nor a reason to want to use Ferro Fibrous before taking Endo Steel, if at all.

Of course, the way things sit, yes, new players would flip their **** if they bought a super-expensive mech and a lost match would dig into their coffers, but if the game is clear about which technology and variants are "Lostech" and therefore more expensive to use, I don't see a problem.

The important thing would be to have it that taking the really high tech stuff is risky and, while powerful, isn't really for day to day grinding, but the thing to dust off for special occasions. The real C-bill earners should be cheap, run-of-the-mill 3025-tech that - in the event the match is lost - don't actually cost so much to repair that you're ever forced into the red. It should also scale with engine size, hopefully so that we can have the game stop being so Heavy-Assault centric, and encourage players to do the same jobs with medium chassis like Trebuchets and Hunchbacks. It would also help to dial back the speed on lights, so that designs are maxing out at maybe 120-140kph.

I would also want there to be modifiers based on how similar a 'mech is to it's stock configuration, because let's face it, Mechs are lumbering war machines, not a stack of lego bricks. Maintaining a 'mech is hard enough as it is, much less chopping it up and making PPC boat Quickdraws or Gauss-toting Catapults. The less a mech uses stock parts, the harder it should be to keep it in working order.

Long story short, I want to see R&R instated as a tool to help to reduce the arms race in MWO. To make it possible to just buy a new mech and have reason to use it as is, rather than immediately race to get Endo Steel, DHS, Ultra Autocannons and a new engine, spending the cost of the mech once over again. There will be those that want to ignore it and play with the high tech stuff all the time, and that's fine, but anyone worth their salt knows that the real deciding factor is not whether or not one side has gauss rifles and DHS, but whether or not they're using teamwork properly. Tactics and teamwork is always the first and foremost deciding factor in whether or not a match is won, and are players willing to trust who they get dropped with can play like a team? Will their high tech be enough to carry the match?

Balancing items by cost doesn't work. It's been proven to not work already.

What happens is, people like me, who have everything, will keep running all the expensive stuff anyway, because we can afford it no problem, while poor people can't, and then they lose.

They lose a lot, and because they keep losing, they never get to a point where they can buy the good stuff. Then we have the can of worms that is for real P2W through premtime and cash bonus robots.

If you don't want an arms race, then RnR is the last thing you want to see.

HlynkaCG, on 16 November 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

• How can you claim to have killed something that never existed?
  
• We are still here having this conversation so obviously this issue isn't the 12/0 stomp you seem to think it is

Seriously Vass, do you even read your own posts?







You already hit the big reason right there. Mech Tycoon, don't want to pay R&R? join a house.



The other reason was to reward people for piloting stock or near stock builds by giving them substantially higher cbill earnings compared to customized mechs.

lol, are you new?
We had RnR. It got removed in november 2012 because it was horrible.

[HlynkaCG]

Vassago Rain, on 16 November 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

lol, are you new?
We had RnR. It got removed in november 2012 because it was horrible.

I remember RnR, I was there I've been playing MWO since PC Gamer put it on their cover. The thing is that you said "There's never been RnR in a mechwarrior game" which is odd seeing as there most certainly has.

You also keep knocking down the same strawman, while ignoring the key argument in favor of R&R. Encouraging players to run "low tech" builds by through substantially higher earnings.


That poor noob in an customized heap should be making 10 times the cbills per match that you make in your meta-mech specifically so he can catch up and purchas a meta-mech of his own. Otherwise everybody earns at the same rate and it all comes down to who's been playing longer. The cadet bonus was a nice start but is prone to being wasted.A properly implemented RnR + Salvage mechanic would actually reduce the grind factor rather than increase it.

[Alistair Winter]

Y'all are being real irrational right now. You do realize that, right? You do realize that PGI is giving you the choice between earning 200,000 C-bills with a 100,000 C-bill tax, or just earning 100,000 C-bill, right? And you're acting like one choice is vastly superior to the other.

Here's what we have now:

• You get C-bills depending on your performance
  
• If you play well, get kills, do damage and win the match, you earn a lot of money and XP
  
• If you play poorly and die, you get very little money and XP

Here's what R&R would do:

• You get C-bills depending on our performance
  
• If you play well, get kills, do damage and win the match, you get a big paycheck and fewer repairs, earning a lot of money and XP
  
• If you play poorly and die, you get very little money and XP

Can anyone see the similarities? Anyone? Please? Yes, it's unfair. Yes, skilled players will have bigger rewards. Yes, poor players will have a lower income than good players. Yes, it's exactly what we have now. There's just one single difference:


In addition to rewarding good players for kills and damage, it rewards players for not risking suicide just to get maximum kills and damage. So the good players are still going to earn more money than bad players, but they will want to play a bit more cautiously if they want money. E.g. no more facehugging rock'em sock'em robots. No more people sending their light mech directly at the enemy to launch a UAV and then dying 1 minute into the match, pretending like they did the team a favour.

At the end of the day, our incomes will likely be buffed to make up for the costs of R&R. Good players are still going to earn more, bad players are still going to earn less.

meteorol, on 15 November 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

And guys will just get premium and a hero mech for a nice 80% cbills bonus, or just flat out buy cbills, having a huge dump on the whole r&r system, running nothing but assaults and heavies with all upgrades, while free players gimp around in trash mechs to grind money.
Bringing back r&r sounds like an awesome idea. not.

So... exactly what we have now? Gotcha. Guys are just spending real money on C-bill boosters, XP -> GXP conversions, mech packs and premium time. They reduce their grind to a small fraction of what F2P players are going through, as they can basically just buy their way to lots of mastered mechs with modules, if they want to spend enough cash on the game.

And free players are earning 40,000 C-bills and 250 XP per 0-12 roflstomp.

The status quo called. It said "I ain't going nowhere."

Sug, on 16 November 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

The R&R ship has long since sailed on this game.
Adding it now would be a direct nerf to the only point to playing the game: earning cbills.
There needs to be some incentive to wanting to pay R&R or else it's just another cbill nerf.

They're obviously going to increase our incomes. And they'll try to keep the C-bill per hour of gameplay more or less constant, like they did with Rewards 2.0.

There's no incentive to pay R&R, just like there's no incentive to use the new Reward system. But there will be incentive not to suicide or sacrifice their health just to steal kills, like people are doing now.

Vassago Rain, on 16 November 2014 - 02:26 AM, said:

A fun tax to punish people who lose drops isn't a sim mechanic. It's merely that; a fun tax to punish people who lose drops.
I don't understand how people can't wrap their heads around this simple fact.
Last time they tried their worthless RnR, it resulted in a classic tragedy of the commons scenario.

I'm equally puzzled by your inability to understand two simple things:

• People who lose drops are already being punished. The game has always rewarded the best players and forced bad players to grind harder. That's not changing.
  
• The last time they tried R&R it sucked. But that was one of an infinite ways to implement R&R. Literally infinite.

Sandpit, on 16 November 2014 - 02:56 AM, said:

"R&R would destroy this game"
I think
War Thunder
World of Tanks
World of Planes
DDO
SWTOR (both of these games require you to repair equipment and some on this list can even cause loss of money in the higher tiers)
didn't get that memo.

Oh snap. <applause.gif>

Edited by Alistair Winter, 16 November 2014 - 06:02 AM.

[Anarcho]

I think R&R for CW is fine, since the point of the thing is make things more "real" give rewards on CW a boost to compensate for it, and unlucky players in a bad loss streak will have to suck it up, such is life.

[HlynkaCG]

A lot of the arguments against R&R can be addressed through a simple boolean check at the end of the match. Minimum net income = 0.0. Nobody ever looses money on a drop the worst they can do is break-even.

Combine that with a cbill "salvage" reward for running a light or cheap mech and you have something. Imagine if your awards for kills and assists was scaled based on the tonnage or cbill value of your opponent. Drop a 25 million cbill Whale in your 5 million cbill clunker and earn 5 times the "normal" payout.

[FupDup]

SuomiWarder, on 16 November 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

I am seriously surprised that a bunch of people are so dead set against having the inner game of balancing cost vs risk. Maybe in community warfare only. As an old hand I would welcome having actual logistical costs involved in running our Merc unit. It was part of the fun - not a drag "that was going to kill the game."

Costs are not a "risk." Paying a lot of money for a high-end supermech is not a "risk" that can lose you a battle. Maybe it might be inconvenient or take a while to get the spacebucks, but there is nothing "risky" about it. That superunit will still steamroll people just as it would without repairs or rearms. The outcome of the match would not be affected in any way, shape, or form. The most cheese would still win. The only difference is that the ubermechs would get a slap on the wrist after they already steamrolled you.

Edited by FupDup, 16 November 2014 - 06:45 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

HlynkaCG, on 16 November 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

I remember RnR, I was there I've been playing MWO since PC Gamer put it on their cover. The thing is that you said "There's never been RnR in a mechwarrior game" which is odd seeing as there most certainly has.

You also keep knocking down the same strawman, while ignoring the key argument in favor of R&R. Encouraging players to run "low tech" builds by through substantially higher earnings.


That poor noob in an customized heap should be making 10 times the cbills per match that you make in your meta-mech specifically so he can catch up and purchas a meta-mech of his own. Otherwise everybody earns at the same rate and it all comes down to who's been playing longer. The cadet bonus was a nice start but is prone to being wasted.A properly implemented RnR + Salvage mechanic would actually reduce the grind factor rather than increase it.

No one's gonna run bad stuff in a strictly PVP game. We're already seeing that with all the clan robots running around.

Your dreams of some poor shmuch willingly going to battle with meta clan mechs aboard his tech 1 hunchback are simply that - dreams.

To all the people who say 'they'll do better this time.' No, they won't, and paying for ammo and armor doesn't add anything to the game. It's just a tax, and I already threw out other things they could add, rather than simply force you to subtract space dollars from your space savings accounts if you want to drop in your cool mech that you've been playing for two years.

[Vassago Rain]

Anarcho, on 16 November 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

I think R&R for CW is fine, since the point of the thing is make things more "real" give rewards on CW a boost to compensate for it, and unlucky players in a bad loss streak will have to suck it up, such is life.

As I said, you don't punish people simply for losing.

>okay, bro, you lost that match. For the next round, you have to fight in a broken hunchback, with 12 AC20 bullets and a single medium laser.
>no, the madcats that farmed you last time haven't left.
>wait, where are you going?

It'd be like if in street fighter, if he loses the first round, Ryu only gets back half his life, and also has to fight round 2 with no super bar, while his opponent gets a full heal as usual, and carries the first round's super bar over as you'd expect.

Good luck with that. No, citing war thunder and tanks doesn't strenghten your position, but it's a very good way to make you all look foolish. The tanks and plane games are built completely different to MWO, despite MWO aping them heavily. Different design decisions led to MWO having no tiers, and what's essentially a grab bag of various robots, with various gear, various guns, various modules, tech, and so on, while in tanks, you don't get to customize every aspect of your ride.

No, don't bring up EVE, either.

Edit: no, PGI isn't gonna do better 'this time.' It's the same people who made the first one. If they can't implement inverse kinematics, why do you feel they'd do a swell job of adding some kind of upkeep system to the game? Failure to 'improve' or 'add' fundamental alterations to an already launched game, that's played by the same rules for at least a year and a half, won't go over well. In fact, it'd be catastrophic, you know it would be, and in the end, you'd simply get stuck with fun taxes, MC costs for dropships, and all that other fun stuff people keep joking about.

Please kindly stop fooling yourselves.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 16 November 2014 - 06:59 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

Vassago Rain, on 16 November 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

...

You say "just a tax" like it's an argument. The 15.2 million cbills you pay for that shiny new Mad Cat is just a tax, ditto the 600,000 you pay for a Gauss Rifle, and the 40,000 you pay for a strike. They add about as much to the game as R&R would yet I don't see you leading a crusade to eliminate cbill costs from the game, why is that?

[Catra Lanis]

Couldn't it be implemented in conquest? While you capture you get a small repair and restock of ammo, not completely, say 20%. Would maybe give a small incentive to capture while not having an huge impact.

Edited by Catra Lanis, 16 November 2014 - 07:02 AM.