104 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Pjwned, on 31 March 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

It did not and would not even accomplish anything for the players who simply paid enough real money.

Wtf sure it would accomplish immersion in a actual underlaying ecomonmey see CW, which likely or not should be the endgame.

[Death Proof]

It was a good concept, but poorly executed...mostly because at the time, I think they were still trying to figure out if they wanted a realistic combat sim or a more accessible first-person shooter...so those two styles often were at odds with each other.

[Bullseye69]

In the old system if you fully reupped ammo it was expensive especially lrm boats.
If you lost weapons they had to replaced or repaired not as bad torepair in cost to a new one but was expensive. Special like Endo and ferro drove up the repair cost and if you had xl enigne usually at least close to have the cost of a new xl engine. I remeber having a 3 million plus reapir build due to xl engine ammo and ferro and endo steel. Once i removed xl engine the cost was around million to million and half on a bad drop. Yes they raised the rewards when it was added to make actually loosing your mech to loose money column as bad. But many game i was 100 of thousands in debt to a lost. What a lot of people remeber is there payout of cbills million was common for a really good winning game if you new what you were doing. R and R is a bad idea for a free to play game unless you were doing in tournament only mode even with cw would you llike to rack up a 4 mech lost with xl cbill debt. On the inner sphere side say all 4 mech were cored all had xl engine at least your repair build would be 4 million cbills and up even it only cost 1 million per xl eninge per mech. That would be a low estimate and clan mech or easily double the costto repair if not more per chassis.

Now having a reammo base in cw might be cool you could be charged with x amount and it would take you power downing and would e say have your alot ammo but that probley be to hard to add.

Right now more maps more modes and added a cave and cavern style map all under ground would be cool or as a measure to get from a to b without being seen some of the best fights i had were in the cave loss some won some but was always fun even when you were in jenner and ran in and there was multiple assualt in the cave along with the rest of the team was fun.

[Johnny Z]

cdlord, on 31 March 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

Removing R&R dumbed down the game and removed just one more link to Mechwarrior. We're almost to Generic Battle Bots GO! levels....

As this shows not everyone wanted it gone. At the time I had no internet so I played rarely. I played while visiting family. I logged on one day it was gone. I didn't even notice anything on the forums but I wasn't on much here either. There wasn't any problem I was aware of. Just playing nd having fun as a new player in closed beta. Was very impressed with this game and even back then was hoping for more features and depth and something beyond blue vrs red TDM.

R and R wasn't a large feature and as an extremely casual player I didn't notice a problem. It wasn't missed much because it offered little in the way of depth or immersion. So maybe it wasn't a bad idea to remove, at the time.

Can it be added again and in a way that create rescource management in an interesting way? Realism and depth? Improve game play intensity and promote good gameplay habits that improves everyone experience? That would be awesome.

Medic bill for not ejecting before mech destruction would be a good addition that improves game play intensity for sure. There a few c-bills riding on not ejecting in time.

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 March 2016 - 06:12 PM.

[dario03]

In short...it didn't. It didn't really add anything and was basically a hindrance to newer players, a annoyance to somewhat established players, and nothing to the space rich. It also encouraged hiding so you would see people run off to hide a lot more, as in its 0-2 time to go hide.

[Johnny Z]

dario03, on 31 March 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

In short...it didn't. It didn't really add anything and was basically a hindrance to newer players, a annoyance to somewhat established players, and nothing to the space rich. It also encouraged hiding so you would see people run off to hide a lot more, as in its 0-2 time to go hide.

I guess the trick is how to translate TT rules/single player rts to multi player real time sim.

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 March 2016 - 06:15 PM.

[Pjwned]

Kuritaclan, on 31 March 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

Wtf sure it would accomplish immersion in a actual underlaying ecomonmey see CW, which likely or not should be the endgame.

You're missing the point...entirely. It wouldn't affect the already space-rich players, it wouldn't affect players who simply paid enough real money to buy mechs and c-bills and premium time etc, so all it would accomplish is to be a burden for everybody else and create a scenario of haves & have nots, MORE SO than is already the case. If you want such a system to exist then it needs to affect all players equally (hint: it never will ever due to how this game operates) or else it's complete trash.

R&R is not going to return ever because it's a bad idea for multiple reasons, players would quit en masse because it's a horrible **** system that adds nothing worthwhile, and PGI knows this which is why it was removed and has not been indicated in any way of coming back ever.

It wouldn't even establish any kind of underlying economy either, it would simply be "you have nothing and these other players have everything have fun."

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 31 March 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

I guess the trick is how to translate TT rules/single player rts to multi player real time sim.

The reason repair & rearm costs worked in Tabletop was that players more or less started on equal ground and your resources did not carry over from different campaigns.

...Which is the complete opposite of how it works in MWO, where players do not start on equal ground and your resources do carry over from different (matches) campaigns.

MWO would need to be fundamentally changed from the ground up and essentially be made into an entirely new game if those repair & rearm rules were to work, and obviously that's not going to happen so your best shot at that sort of thing is to go play HBS Battletech instead.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 31 March 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:

The reason repair & rearm costs worked in Tabletop was that players more or less started on equal ground and your resources did not carry over from different campaigns.

...Which is the complete opposite of how it works in MWO, where players do not start on equal ground and your resources do carry over from different (matches) campaigns.

MWO would need to be fundamentally changed from the ground up and essentially be made into an entirely new game if those repair & rearm rules were to work, and obviously that's not going to happen so your best shot at that sort of thing is to go play HBS Battletech instead.

How is this even an argument? You realize this makes no sense at all right? Saying r and r being added would only effect new players isn't true for starters. Its just not.

Also this argument could be used for any new game play mechanic which is one of the reasons it doesn't make sense.

Anyway if its done well I dont know how anyone could say everyone would quit. I was watching FF XV announcement and they have the player and party cooking food at camp sites as part of game play.... This is the kind of resource management players love if done in a cool way. Not related directly but trying to make a point.

SIM FTW

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 March 2016 - 07:17 PM.

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 31 March 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

How is this even an argument? You realize this makes no sense at all right? Saying r and r being added would only effect new players isn't true for starters. Its just not.

Begging the question is a fallacy, not an argument.

Quote

Also this argument could be used for any new game play mechanic which is one of the reasons it doesn't make sense.

Then you didn't actually read the whole post or you chose to ignore the relevant parts as to why that's wrong.

Quote

Anyway if its done well I dont know how anyone could say everyone would quit. I was watching FF XV announcement and they have the player and party cooking food at camp sites as part of game play.... This is the kind of resource management players love if done in a cool way. Not related directly but trying to make a point.

SIM FTW

There isn't a way of doing it well without fundamentally changing the game to be something completely different.

[Tarl Cabot]

invernomuto, on 31 March 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

Reading a discussion here on the forum I discovered that MWO had (years ago) a "Repair and Rearm" system. Just for curiosity's sake, how did it worked and what were the reasons why it was abandoned? It did not work?
Was a R&R system also in TT game (somewhere I have an old copy of the FASA's Battletech rules but I do not remember it)?
Thanks,
D.

Basically, it was poorly implemented, and R&R only really belong in a fully functional Faction/Succession Warfare. Or to put it another way, the current solo/group queue should not really exist in its current form, CW/FW would have been the focal point of the game and that would be where the C-Bills should be earned. This is of course based on a game that started off with that, but due to how the game was being funded to get it and keep it off the game.

Rough draft - several talking points, based on how some of it had previously worked and was going to be implemented in the prior Multiplayer Battletech games (MPBT).

• CW focal point
  
  • Single drop Major Faction vs Major Faction (Clan vs IS)
    
  • Single drop vs neighboring faction where borders touch (Davion/Kurita)
    
    • PGI would setup "alliances" that would last a set time period, example Davion/Steiner/FRR vs Marik/Liao/Kurita or CF/CSJ vs CW/CGB
  • or 4-mech drop deck/specific planet - Merc or Loyalist members only.
• Non-canon units - Choice of either actual merc or loyalist house units
  
  • Units created when 4 pilots band together and have a set amount of C-bills to seed unit coffer
    
  • Payroll - pilots earn a weekly paycheck based on amount of time spent in CW combat with max limit.
    
  • Unit CO - ability to set pay scale and ability to review pilot's performance/stats.
    
  • Breakings contracts - severe penalties with bleak future contracts til rating with that specific House/Clan improved, even bleaker for House units, and an ally would have no contracts available. Flipping back/forth between Clan and IS in general would come with initial sub-par contracts.
• Mech/equipment
  
• Player has choice of using Unit mechs and R&R are funded by Unit Coffers. No modules. Skills apply only if player has a personal mech with said skills completed.
  
• Player's other choice would be to use personal mechs, and R&R would be funded from pilot's personal bank account.
  
• The current solo/group queue would be Solaris-queue. Be PGI decision but no C-Bills would be generated, or if so it would be less than CW. PGI could make it as one way GXP/MXP could be earned.

But again, with the current game setup, I do not personally see R&R returning unless Faction Warfare has a huge facelift that adds more elements to it, from actual maps based on planet type, modes of play, objectives and tons of other items, while at the same time changing how the current non-FW queue works. Again, I do not see that in PGI budget/road map.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 31 March 2016 - 07:31 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 31 March 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

Begging the question is a fallacy, not an argument.



Then you didn't actually read the whole post or you chose to ignore the relevant parts as to why that's wrong.



There isn't a way of doing it well without fundamentally changing the game to be something completely different.

All I see here is someone set against this game having any economy in any form at all. Maybe one of the guys that's saying basing the entire galactic war on medium laser and mech prices is a good idea? Get real.

[Cabusha]

The prices to reload LRMs and XL engines was out of whack. Otherwise I always made money back during R&R.

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 31 March 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

All I see here is someone set against this game having any economy in any form at all. Maybe one of the guys that's saying basing the entire galactic war on medium laser and mech prices is a good idea? Get real.

As usual you say something incredibly stupid and don't actually address the argument and then cop out when somebody tells you why something you said is stupid.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 31 March 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

As usual you say something incredibly stupid and don't actually address the argument and then cop out when somebody tells you why something you said is stupid.

Well now your being funny. Fact is your saying you think its a bad idea in any form. All I'm saying is that if its done right in a good way, its a good idea.

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 March 2016 - 07:38 PM.

[GreyNovember]

... Are we really arguing that we want to be taxed?

Because some feel like if they're not being taxed, their immersion is terrible?

Really?

[Johnny Z]

GreyNovember, on 31 March 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

... Are we really arguing that we want to be taxed?

Because some feel like if they're not being taxed, their immersion is terrible?

Really?

In what alternate reality are you in that resource management in a video game translates to taxes?

[RoboPatton]

invernomuto, on 31 March 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

Reading a discussion here on the forum I discovered that MWO had (years ago) a "Repair and Rearm" system. Just for curiosity's sake, how did it worked and what were the reasons why it was abandoned? It did not work?
Was a R&R system also in TT game (somewhere I have an old copy of the FASA's Battletech rules but I do not remember it)?
Thanks,
D.

It was this system where, if you were in a light and you ran into a heavy/assault you would get knocked down which would make you be really cautious piloting light mechs...

...no that was the other thing, never mind.

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 31 March 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Well now your being funny. Fact is your saying you think its a bad idea in any form.

I actually didn't say that having some form of economy would always be bad, which is what you seem to think I said despite me not saying that. For example, if PGI ever got around to making captured planets affect the prices of equipment (or whatever it was that they proposed a while ago) and it was somehow not executed piss poorly by PGI (yeah right...) then I could see myself liking that at least partially.

I did say though that repair & rearm would always be bad, because it would be bad and I explained why.

Quote

All I'm saying is that if its done right in a good way, its a good idea.

And I explained why R&R doesn't work on a fundamental level in this game and you ignored it because it apparently wasn't an argument or some stupid crap.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 31 March 2016 - 07:56 PM, said:

I actually didn't say that having some form of economy would always be bad, which is what you seem to think I said despite me not saying that. For example, if PGI ever got around to making captured planets affect the prices of equipment (or whatever it was that they proposed a while ago) and it was somehow not executed piss poorly by PGI (yeah right...) then I could see myself liking that at least partially.

I did say though that repair & rearm would always be bad, because it would be bad and I explained why.



And I explained why R&R doesn't work on a fundamental level in this game and you ignored it because it apparently wasn't an argument or some stupid crap.

Ok I get that but your saying that resources carrying over from one match to the next is a bad thing. That players who have played more matches carrying those resources from one match or campaign to the next have an advantage over players that have never played a single match and it shouldn't be added for those fundamental reasons. I say that doesn't make any sense at all.