54 replies to this topic

[Hydrocarbon]

I like the delivery but not the message. However, I'm sure PGI may jump on this if they love money, as that will be the required solution for the majority of MWO'er. Sorry, due to your "decent" organization you can only drop in your 4 crappiest mechs. But have no fear! You can quick buy some MC to get a mech that will bolster your deck & dynamically fit your BV. And dont' forget to buy enough MC to exchange for GXP to pump into efficiencies! BTW the optimal dropdeck will be different the moment one of your friends leaves, so don't forget to have additional MC ready...

The only people that [continue to] win are the truly organized: the people that can arrange to have a set-number of players on and maximize the BV system & drill with those mechs 60hrs a week. The partially-organized are penalized even more, while the pug's still suck as they bring 4 direstars because TheB33f's 11xERPPC video was uber.

Edited by Hydrocarbon, 19 May 2015 - 07:53 AM.

[dezgra]

The best option to improve CW...in my opinion...is to increase the player base. Maybe improve the maps, add "nub fun" like respawn and solaris. You do not build a house from the top down!

[masCh]

I really like it.

This "market forces" has saved many multiplayer games before in terms of longetivity of play. When ma TRket forces are present there would be no morevissues of balance, no more nerfs, no more quirks, the market wi? balance itself.

To those complaining sti?, know that you can still use your favourite mechs, you just will have to make more sacrifices to use them.

i'd venture a slightly different proposal: Rearm & Refit

If you lose your weapons, it'd be more expensive to refit them if its a popular weapon. For example.

Omly for CW though, doesnt a0ly for normal skirmishes.

It is Beta nyway, why not give these ideas around market forces, a try?

But i like the original idea. Can make it around weapons too to simulate logistics and such.

[Kh0rn]

MWLL has no meta cause there is no mechlab each of the 8 variants of each chassis have different roles and weapons too perform. But since in MWO we said **** it too a restrictive mech lab and let any one do any thing too any mech when ever they feel like it with no draw backs they threw balance right out the window and opened up for Meta.

[Banditman]

Tywren, on 17 May 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

I still like the idea of repair time between CW drops myself.

Every point of armor damage taken = 30 seconds repair.
Every point of internal damamge taken = 1 min of repair.
Every weapon would have it's own time base (possably with modifiers if it's non-stock equipment for the mech in question), and things like ECM, and TCs would have a 30 min repair time.

Sure there are those who will just buy more of the meta mechs, and rotate them out between drops, but those people have to consider that they'll be doubling down on the current meta, and may be left behind once that meta shifts. For everyone else, it becomes a question of "do i wait for my good mech to come out of repairs, or do i go digging through the mechbays and find something else to drop with in the mean time".

In a fast paced environment, this might be a fun idea. However, with the current state of CW being so slow, I think this would be a terrible idea. You don't want to slow down what is already a slow process. People don't like to wait. Witness the current state of the CW queues.

The other problem, once again, is that this caters to and empowers those with huge stables of mechs, while simultaneously raising the barrier of entry to new players by double or more.

[VorpalAnvil]

What the hell is this crusade to make the game " fun again " and " less boring " by making people play mechs that they don't wanna play? It's like that damn anti bullying campaign all over again where Cheryl Sandberg decided she was gong to eliminate bullying by bullying people into not bullying anymore. Christ, some of the people who play this game are so damn stupid I swear they must eat paint chips and hit themselves in the head with a ball peen hammer as a hobby while waiting to drop in CW.

[warner2]

Freebrewer Bmore, on 16 May 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

"I like it," Paul said, stroking his chin thoughtfully. "We can actually implement this pretty easily."

I enjoyed the humour but have stopped reading for now at this part.

Do you really think PGI can implement anything pretty easily?

Edited by warner2, 20 May 2015 - 11:59 AM.

[Tywren]

Banditman, on 20 May 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

In a fast paced environment, this might be a fun idea. However, with the current state of CW being so slow, I think this would be a terrible idea. You don't want to slow down what is already a slow process. People don't like to wait. Witness the current state of the CW queues.

The other problem, once again, is that this caters to and empowers those with huge stables of mechs, while simultaneously raising the barrier of entry to new players by double or more.

No more so than CoD/Battlefield cater to older players by having unlockable weapons. New players can earn mechbays through LP, and fill them as they make C-Bills, and in combination with the challanges with free mechs attached, new players shouldn't have too hard of a time filling out their own respectable mech roster.

[Widowmaker1981]

Pay for early access becomes pay to win CW? nice plan, stan.

Lo, for i have purchased clan wave 3, and i will drop with 3 Cauldron Borns and an Executioner. And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as due to being behind a paywall they will be less frequently dropped in, and thus very undervalued.

Tonnage limits are fine, balance should take tonnage into account (a 75 ton mech SHOULD be better than a 60 ton mech, and an 85 ton mech should be better than a 75 tonner), and solo/group queue matchmaker should attempt to balance tonnage as far as possible. Ok, that does lead to edge cases where large teams in group queue will always tend to run the higher tonnage mechs in the weight class, but tbh skill makes difference FAR more often anyway.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 May 2015 - 01:19 AM.

[Freebrewer Bmore]

VorpalAnvil, on 20 May 2015 - 08:15 AM, said:

What the hell is this crusade to make the game " fun again " and " less boring " by making people play mechs that they don't wanna play?

A sincere question for you: What makes you not want to play the mechs you don't want to play?

Does it have anything to do with them being not very good for winning? If so, an approach like this fixes that by making them just fine for winning, because they'll only cost you what they're actually worth and other players will be bringing equal value. The point is making more mechs desirable and worth playing, not making people play undesirable mechs.

Hydrocarbon, on 19 May 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

However, I'm sure PGI may jump on this if they love money, as that will be the required solution for the majority of MWO'er ...The only people that [continue to] win are the truly organized: the people that can arrange to have a set-number of players on and maximize the BV system & drill with those mechs 60hrs a week. The partially-organized are penalized even more, while the pug's still suck as they bring 4 direstars because TheB33f's 11xERPPC video was uber.

This idea is aimed at creating balance and diversity in mech selection, not at enabling bad teams to win. Please see my earlier comments in this thread concerning n00bz and buy-in costs for explanations of why the dynamic system should be better, or at least no worse, than the current one where affordability and skill dynamics are concerned. Is there something you think is lacking in my explanations there?

warner2, on 20 May 2015 - 11:59 AM, said:

Do you really think PGI can implement anything pretty easily?

My confidence in PGI is indeed shaky, but the idea is really quite fundamentally simple, all the necessary data is already being collected, and "PGI will just screw it up" isn't really a reason not to keep pushing for an improved game. I mean, it's not like anyone else is going to fix the game.

Edited by Freebrewer Bmore, 21 May 2015 - 01:50 PM.

[Freebrewer Bmore]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 May 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:

Pay for early access becomes pay to win CW? nice plan, stan. Lo, for i have purchased clan wave 3, and i will drop with 3 Cauldron Borns and an Executioner. And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth as due to being behind a paywall they will be less frequently dropped in, and thus very undervalued.

Could I suggest that you (and others) please not immediately assume these things haven't already been anticipated and accounted for? Trying to find fault with an idea is fine, but one needs to also be open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it actually has merit.

Just as with heroes and trials, it's quite easy to treat newly-introduced mechs as a special case and deal with them in any number of simple ways that leaves the overall dynamic system intact (e.g. peg their price for a probational introductory period and gradually phase in their usage-derived cost). Perhaps asking everyone to read through Roland's whole thread is a bit much, but I keep doing it because most concerns raised in this thread (including this one) have already been handled by him there, and often in better detail.

Edited by Freebrewer Bmore, 21 May 2015 - 01:10 PM.

[Tywren]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 May 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:

Tonnage limits are fine, balance should take tonnage into account (a 75 ton mech SHOULD be better than a 60 ton mech, and an 85 ton mech should be better than a 75 tonner)

Thing is, thanks to god quirks, this isn't the case. Instead you have 60 ton mechs that move as fast as a clan light mech, and pushes better DPS than a clan UAC20; and 85 ton mechs that boat large lasers, because their quirks compleatly negate ghost heat, while boosting range.

[50 50]

@Freebrewer Bmore
Haha!
That was good. Enjoyed that read on a wet and miserable day here.


Did no one read the bit at the end?


Look for future installments in Stackpoll's epic space opera parody series, hailed by critics as "The best thing since tabletop"...
Chapter II: Mapping the Path Forward
Chapter III: The Rise of Logistics
Chapter IV: Cue Queue Unification

Edited by 50 50, 21 May 2015 - 03:13 PM.

[zeves]

probably one of the bether ideas ive read so faar,
sadly like most of thoose ideas it has one thing in common,
it would require work and skill to implement. so unlikely to happen,