506 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

I play my Commandos because they're fun and they provide a challenge. Nobody should -have- to play a standard engine light mech with no armor. It's not competitive, it's not fun, and it's certainly not "Hardcore" for the premium player in the tricked out mech that deletes your sad, slow overheated light mech in a single alpha.

Hardcore would be rolling that fully tricked out 25 ton Commando into your drop deck, allowing you to push that 75 ton Orion to an 85 ton Stalker. As long as you're reasonably good in the Commando, you could take those 10 tons and push yourself to an even heavier chassis elsewhere.

Nobody benefits from forcing some players to use stock mechs without Endo/Ferro/DHS/XLs. It means that kills are stupid easy for players who can afford real gear, and everyone else is relegated to being the bug splatters on the windscreen of "real" mechs.

Also, I want you to try to imagine fighting a Clan mech in a 3025 stock mech. Just try to imagine trying to take out a Timber Wolf with a stock Orion. Shoot, even a stock Atlas. Fun, right?

Edited by Josef Nader, 21 November 2014 - 07:23 AM.

[Hoax415]

I'm not sure if I totally agree with your post Karl or what. Trust me that pilots would love the free wins even if they get 0cbills in CW from people trying to fight them in SHS commandos or whatever nonsense you force people into because they can't afford to use superior setups.

Afterall they can just hop over to public queue anytime to grind some cbills. Or they can just buy whatever they need for MC. And they already have more cbills from god from years of playing.

CW can't have its own economy.

Not while public queue exists and pays you the same money as CW.

Not while people have hundreds of millions stashed from when the payouts weren't so anemic in the pre-12v12 and pre-last month income nerfs.

Not while Premium time and Bonus earnings mechs exist and would create two classes of player: one that can ignore whatever R&R penalty you've set up (because his earnings are massively inflated through bonuses) and one that is affected fully by it.

Edited by Hoax415, 21 November 2014 - 08:04 AM.

[EGG]

These threads probably need to be raised/discussed from the point of "do you/we want an economy in CW", rather than "do you/we want RnR back" or the equally bad "do we want RnR 2.0".

RnR is a damaged brand and very few people are going to buy into the idea based on it's last time around. People can understand the concept of some form of economy for CW. Buy some things. Sell some things. Maybe your dropship can only carry so much ammo to a fight. Who knows. But a CW-based economy sounds better in a "hasn't yet been defined" kind of way than RnR.

What exactly it would entail is another matter.

[3rdworld]

EGG, on 21 November 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

RnR is a damaged brand and very few people are going to buy into the idea based on it's last time around. People can understand the concept of some form of economy for CW. Buy some things. Sell some things. Maybe your dropship can only carry so much ammo to a fight. Who knows. But a CW-based economy sounds better in a "hasn't yet been defined" kind of way than RnR.

Economy balanced CW is a bad idea, anyone that took part in proxis league knows why.

[oldradagast]

EGG, on 21 November 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

These threads probably need to be raised/discussed from the point of "do you/we want an economy in CW", rather than "do you/we want RnR back" or the equally bad "do we want RnR 2.0".

RnR is a damaged brand and very few people are going to buy into the idea based on it's last time around. People can understand the concept of some form of economy for CW. Buy some things. Sell some things. Maybe your dropship can only carry so much ammo to a fight. Who knows. But a CW-based economy sounds better in a "hasn't yet been defined" kind of way than RnR.

What exactly it would entail is another matter.

The problem with any economy in a game such as this is that there are rather few ways to really make it work.

1) Economics is realistic, but it's not fun. Look at various wars throughout history. Economics played a big part in winning many of them. WW2 comes to mind, for example. So, there is a "realistic" basis for all this, but is it fun? I think those on the losing side economically would say "no" to that. Slowly being ground down, match by match, until you can't afford to play the game effectively? Nah... pass...

2) The rest of the game is not realistic. Now, sure, it's a game - and one with big, stompy robots - so realism, on some level, is out the door already, but that's not what I'm getting at. In "real" wars, you don't end up with 1 disconnect, and 1 guy piloting an assault mech who deals only 80 damage and dies... and now that you were on the team missing 2 players, you die and end up paying through the nose to repair your mech thanks to a "realistic" economic model. Cute, but "reality" also would have prohibited the disconnect and the total amateur from piloting the assault mech. To point out realistic examples, navies don't hand over aircraft carriers to guys who can barely pilot a motor boat, but that's exactly the type of thing that happens all the time in this game.

Another example is the match itself. No real wars are fought between balanced teams in death-match mode. Real wars have unbalanced forces (in most cases) and the ability to advance and retreat. But, like most such on-line games, you can't retreat if your team is losing. No, you must stick around and be destroyed, which is rather unrealistic... and now we're going to punish you "realistically" for dying without a real choice?

Long-story short, it seems goofy to demand punishment for: bold play, mistakes, bad teams, bad luck, etc. based on "economic realism" when such realism is not fun and is missing from the rest of the game... because it's a game, not war simulation.

Edited by oldradagast, 21 November 2014 - 09:03 AM.

[Almond Brown]

HlynkaCG, on 20 November 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

[/size]

True, but those cases where the cheaper mech scores a kill or survives the match would be giving a substantially higher GXP and CBill payouts than they are now. As I said, back at the beginning of this thread...

[/size]

Sadly, unless "those cases" happen with enough regularity, there is no way to "balance" the sheet, so to speak. 10 deaths to 3 wins and Profit?

What or how would a ratio of payout/cost of R&R be determined when it is out of the hands of the "pay office"...

Perhaps they could just make a "Stock" chassis Mode. Payouts are better in there than in Custom/Meta Mode land, due to the cheaper chassis being use by "everyone".

[Almond Brown]

terrycloth, on 20 November 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

You need to not have a sizeable reward for 'under bidding' since that means you're encouraging people to screw their teammates. 'Under bidding' should be heavily discouraged.

It already happens to some extent because you have to play the extra chassis you don't want in order to elite the one you do, and aside from clan mechs those extra chassis are probably going to be using a sucky cheap build.

Well at least they will be all "Elited" in that case. Many will have to bring non-elited chassis and as such could be considered under-bidding by others on a Team anyways.

[CyclonerM]

Too little reality in this game is just another reason to add more, quiaff?

Besides, i like Sandpits' proposal. However, i would change it a bit (i have already said most of these things..)

R&R should be free for all the 'Mechs produced by your faction, not just stock 'Mechs.
R&R can be expensive if it is paid from an unit's coffer instead of each player's personal finances, it makes more sense from a realistic sense but many units may already have stockpiled literalu billions of c-bills so R&r fees would not impact so much the big units.

About salvage: a destroyed component, is, well, destroyed, so it cannot be salvaged. What has not been destroyed can be salvaged. For example, if you destroy a 'Mech by destroyng its legs thus keeping its reactor intact, you have a chance of salvaging the engine, and maybe, a very small % to salvage the whole 'Mech. Cockpit destructions are the best for salvage though. You should get like a chance of 50% of salvaging the whole 'Mech if you do. You will want to rejoin ASAP if you disconnect, otherwise you may give a free 'Mech to a player..

Yes, yes, i realize in a F2P game it cannot happen so easily to get a whole free 'Mech. However, headshots are so rare and % chances of salvage of a 'Mech with destroyed legs would be so low that it should not matter so much. Would be cool, fun and true to the lore. It would add a new factor when you think about where to shoot your enemy.

[terrycloth]

Whatever you do with R+R, it absolutely *cannot* charge for ammo. Ammo-based weapons are balanced against energy weapons with no ammo costs. It would throw everything out of whack to suddenly make them more expensive to run.

Actually, you just force everyone to run lasers and PPCs, since they're about as effective. Yay variety?

If it's there as a realism thing, then you're comparing the 100k for ammo to the 10 million for the mech -- it's trivial. Realistically, it should be trivial compared to repair costs. So I guess if you charge the same 0.5% or whatever you're charging for repairs to make them not be completely insane, you could do that for ammo without breaking the world? But at that point, why?

(Alternatively, you could charge the same cost for 'laser ammo' -- refit on various components that need to be frequently replaced to keep your high-powered beam weapons in good repair. Like brake pads.) (and the Gauss could have both)

[Sandpit]

terrycloth, on 21 November 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Actually, you just force everyone to run lasers and PPCs, since they're about as effective. Yay variety?

uhm...
except they didn't do that even when the crappy R&R system was in place so that's completely unfounded

[Spawnsalot]

Because they got a 75% ammo refill free remember?

[Andi Nagasia]

i think a good balance could be found between cost to play and match pay out,
i would like to see R&R with CW, and i think it would add another dimension to game play,

that said the system needs to be tried tested refined retested, offered for public consumption,
then retested and rebalanced and reworked and stabilized to be considered truly balanced,

the problem is even if they said they are running a R&R Test in the test build,
people would still kick and scream foul, even before they have a change to balance it,

[Sandpit]

Andi Nagasia, on 22 November 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

i think a good balance could be found between cost to play and match pay out,
i would like to see R&R with CW, and i think it would add another dimension to game play,

that said the system needs to be tried tested refined retested, offered for public consumption,
then retested and rebalanced and reworked and stabilized to be considered truly balanced,

the problem is even if they said they are running a R&R Test in the test build,
people would still kick and scream foul, even before they have a change to balance it,

people on here kick and scream anytime ANYTHING is changed. Every patch it happens.

[Andi Nagasia]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

people on here kick and scream anytime ANYTHING is changed. Every patch it happens.

i wish it wasn't this way but it is, there is though allot of understanding on the forums,
but you have to wade through the whining and ranting and screaming to find it,
now we all do may whine and rant and scream sometimes, but we get over it,
some dont, and its at these times its hard to find solutions,

[Sandpit]

Andi Nagasia, on 22 November 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

i wish it wasn't this way but it is, there is though allot of understanding on the forums,
but you have to wade through the whining and ranting and screaming to find it,
now we all do may whine and rant and scream sometimes, but we get over it,
some dont, and its at these times its hard to find solutions,

This current event is a prime example. They can't just rambo in now and they're QQing all over the forums about it. It's funny. It's the same mentality in regards to things like R&R "You mean there's consequences to running in all rambo style? Pshaw you say! I should be able to make money no matter HOW badly I play, disregard my team, refuse to use strategy and teamwork, etc."

[Andi Nagasia]

sadly im one of those people, sighs,....

ive played 70+ matches still no points,
ill keep trying but its looking bleak right now
not ranting any more about it, off topic,

but ya it has to happen some people will like some people will hate,
the problem is most people that hate it will come here and complain,
i think in game voting is a good way that all players can have opinions,
but it has to be Vote(like/balance/dislike) not Vote(keep/disreguard)

[Sandpit]

Andi Nagasia, on 22 November 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

sadly im one of those people, sighs,....

ive played 70+ matches still no points,
ill keep trying but its looking bleak right now
not ranting any more about it, off topic,

but ya it has to happen some people will like some people will hate,
the problem is most people that hate it will come here and complain,
i think in game voting is a good way that all players can have opinions,
but it has to be Vote(like/balance/dislike) not Vote(keep/disreguard)

Most people who like, praise on twitter.
Trust me, the 10 or so duplicate threads with the same 10 or so people complaining about the event don't amount to much.

[Lasertron3000]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

Most people who like, praise on twitter.
Trust me, the 10 or so duplicate threads with the same 10 or so people complaining about the event don't amount to much.

It probably means more than the one huge brown nose that is defending pgi in every thread. Really dude you are in almost every thread on the front page. Seems a little overboard on the white knight stuff.

[Sandpit]

Lasertron3000, on 22 November 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

It probably means more than the one huge brown nose that is defending pgi in every thread. Really dude you are in almost every thread on the front page. Seems a little overboard on the white knight stuff.

really dude, if there weren't 10 duplicate threads on the exact same topic I wouldn't be now would I?

roflmao

Can I screenshot your post? You just called ME a white knight.


The ignorance on these forums sometimes....

[ollo]

Sandpit, on 22 November 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

This current event is a prime example. They can't just rambo in now and they're QQing all over the forums about it. It's funny. It's the same mentality in regards to things like R&R "You mean there's consequences to running in all rambo style? Pshaw you say! I should be able to make money no matter HOW badly I play, disregard my team, refuse to use strategy and teamwork, etc."

I'm ok with not rewarding players that contributed nothing to the game, but the opposite idea of punishing players that are still learning or just had bad luck is nothing i see adding to the gameplay. Every suggestion i saw here either leads to widening the scissor between the haves and havenots or encourages undesirable playstyles or both. Beside it being more 'hardcore', there's not much to gain as of now, but perhaps there will be a sensible proposal that is feasable and fun, i'll keep waiting. Perhaps they should just make 'hardcore' an option in the settings, so everyone who does like the idea of being punished for whatever and doesn't like to field the favorite mechs can just activate it.

As we're in a team game one reoccurring flaw is seeing R&R as an individual matter where in reality the MM has a much greater influence on the outcome (or in case of CW, the lack of MM). "You mean there's consequences to your team running in all rambo style? Pshaw you say! I should be able to make money no matter HOW badly they play, i'm disregarded by my team, my team refuses to use strategy and teamwork, etc."

Edited by ollo, 23 November 2014 - 04:40 AM.