108 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

I'm going to demonstrate why that doesn't work in a game like MWO.

Game: "Do you want to pilot a piece of crap that's far worse than what everybody else is playing with?"

Player: "No." (I'm not going to pretend anybody would answer yes because only a delusional ****** thinks otherwise)

Response #1: "Oh okay, you can play something better and this piece of crap will just stay in the junk heap forever."

Response #2: "Too bad, have fun with your death trap, git gud and/or maybe buy a mech pack like a good goy."

I also find it funny that OP suggests the game simply be "balanced" around this idea without any actual ideas as to how to do that; just wave the magic balance wand around or something I guess.

I understand that things were balanced by their cost in TT, but it wouldn't work in MWO without completely reworking how the game plays and somehow managing to not make >90% of the player population leave forever in the process.

[mogs01gt]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

I'm going to demonstrate why that doesn't work in a game like MWO.
Game: "Do you want to pilot a piece of crap that's far worse than what everybody else is playing with?"
Player: "No." (I'm not going to pretend anybody would answer yes because only a delusional ****** thinks otherwise)
Response #1: "Oh okay, you can play something better and this piece of crap will just stay in the junk heap forever."
Response #2: "Too bad, have fun with your death trap, git gud and/or maybe buy a mech pack like a good goy."
I also find it funny that OP suggests the game simply be "balanced" around this idea without any actual ideas as to how to do that; just wave the magic balance wand around or something I guess.
I understand that things were balanced by their cost in TT, but it wouldn't work in MWO without completely reworking how the game plays and somehow managing to not make >90% of the player population leave forever in the process.

Dont we already play junk mechs when we have to level multiple variants..

[Pjwned]

mogs01gt, on 26 July 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

Dont we already play junk mechs when we have to level multiple variants..

Well yeah, and I hate that **** with a passion, but at least you can grind the other crap variants with a remotely decent build and then discard it when you're done.

It's not like that mech would forever be an inferior piece of crap if mechs were balanced by cost, so it's a different issue.

[Jables McBarty]

So Pjwned covered pretty much all the problems here, but despite it being appealing in an abstract sense, it would only be effective in two ways:

-Premade groups of 12 that all know each other and are willing to put together teams based on BV.

-Remake the MM to group players based on skill, then have them draft 'mechs based on BV to reach a goal. Major problem with this is that it would be pretty time consuming to draft, and there would always be a rush to get the highest BV 'mechs, because nobody wants to play sh*tty little ineffectual 'mechs.

Counterargument to these points is that we keep the same system intact. Ok, but then you just end up with 12 v 12 of high BV 'mechs, because again, nobody wants to play sh*tty little ineffectual 'mechs. What's that, force the matchmaker to create balanced groups based on BV to incentivize SLEMs? Queue times will skyrocket, because everyone would rather wait then be useless AF; after a certain point forum QQ results in PGI pulling the MM plugs and we end up with 12 v 12 of high BV 'mechs, because again, nobody wants to play SLEMs....

NeoCodex, on 26 July 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:

Well.. maybe it wouldn't have to be as harsh as that.. We could try to find a right balance, make it playable. The cheaper options should be more appealing to newer players, there's plenty of us with millions of cbills with nothing to spend it on, by this point I would exclusively mostly run expensive stuff because I can afford it and it's cool.

Always losing is never appealing to anyone.

NeoCodex, on 26 July 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

Just some examples:

Locust - 500 BV stock. With an XL engine and a "meta" setup it's BV would be let's say 1.000 (these are all approximate values for the sake of conversation). Slap on some Clan tech and a Light Fusion Engine on it and you can pop it to 2.000 BV.

Arctic Cheetah - 2.500 BV stock. With some modifications we could do like 3.000 BV (comparing to 2.000 Locust with full Clan equipment and LFE).

Another problem--how would you calculate BV in a game that has so many different configurations? It'd have to be constantly shifting as the meta changes.

[MeiSooHaityu]

The primary source of game balance should not be tied to real money AT ALL. Any form of R&R does exactly that, and that creates a definitive P2W model.

As long as a player can buy C-Bills, any restrictions set by cost becomes arbitrary at best. It creates a large divide between whales and free players. All desired effects become null for rich/established players and suffocating for new/free players.

I'm sorry, but any form of balance that can be circumvented with a credit card is a terrible idea and is the definition of P2W.

R&R just isn't feasible for this title.

[Snowbluff]

I t would suck, just like your too long OP.

[Bullseye69]

In betabit didn,t work. We had people using the 80 ammo nug were if you re ammo to a certain amount you basically got free ammo been a long while. We had people getting a little damage and then refusing to fight because of the cost of repair. We had people that would run completwe out of bounds to save thee mwchs because the repair cost was in the millions to get the mech up to snuff. Thee payout were good but on a ammo based mech with xl engine you usually lost money unless you very good. The repair and rearm just didn't work.

[Davers]

BV limits are worse than tonnage limits since low BV by definition means a weaker mech. A system that relies on people playing inferior mechs or using inferior equipment so some random stranger can run something better (and reap the greater rewards) is not a realistic system.

[Kangarad]

Yes, take the battle value. your 1.840 BV+ arctic cheatah will finaly be obsolete all hail Bv 1,509 King Crabs.
no srsly, Battle value is not that good to balance around especialy when tis used to balance something with entirely other stats and mechanics.

BV is not made to be used outside those set rules where pilot skill changes everything.

[C E Dwyer]

Alistair Winter, on 26 July 2016 - 06:11 AM, said:

This again? Ok, let me try to quickly rehash the old arguments.

• Saying that we had R&R before and that it doesn't work is like saying we had InfoTech before and it doesn't work. It's all about how you balance it.
  
• The key to having a working economy for a game like this is to make the costs for maintenance exponentially bigger as players grow wealthier. For example, if a player has 50 million C-bills and 100 fresh battlemechs in his hangar, then he needs to have a lot higher costs than a player with 1 million C-bills and 3 damaged battlemechs in his hangar. As you gather more and more resources, it should be increasingly difficult to keep them.
  
• In order to balance a game around economy, the economy needs to be self-regulating. E.g. if gauss rifles are too popular, then the demand for both gauss rifles and gauss rifle repair crews goes up. So both purchase and repairs become increasingly expensive for the most expensive weapons. (In real life, the guy who repairs a tank's engine isn't generally the same guy who repairs the cannon or the targeting system or the radio).
  
• You could balance weapons and mechs and equipment in addition to letting the market economy sort things out, of course. But you wouldn't need to worry so much about whether the LCT-3M is as good as the LCT-1V all the time.

Second paragraph if adopted, would penalise people who support the game with hard cash, and buy mechs, which is what keeps this thing running.

[Tarogato]

As far as I'm concerned, this will never work. Good players can mitigate the costs by consistently doing well. And if you introduce a self balancing cost where good players get penalised more the better they do, then all it is going to do is drive those players away because they will feel like the system is working against them (probably... because it actually is.)

[DaFrog]

Well the thing is, in Btech you had to work with salvage: a large laser was realllllly expensive. So sometimes you had to field half assed mechs working on a prayer because you had to drop.

here in this game, you can not have that because the economy is too rich: everyone walks around with millions of c-bills to spare so everyone's got a laser vomit. If they had to operate off of salvage, repairing that said laser when broke would do you in, as opposed to fixing an autocannon or an lrm launcher which is a lot simpler.

Now imagine fixing a gyro or cockpit sensors ...

Edited by DaFrog, 26 July 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[Davers]

DaFrog, on 26 July 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

Well the thing is, in Btech you had to work with salvage: a large laser was realllllly expensive. So sometimes you had to field half assed mechs working on a prayer because you had to drop.

here in this game, you can not have that because the economy is too rich: everyone walks around with millions of c-bills to spare so everyone's got a laser vomit. If they had to operate off of salvage, repairing that said laser when broke would do you in, as opposed to fixing an autocannon or an lrm launcher which is a lot simpler.

Now imagine fixing a gyro or cockpit sensors ...

Battletech's simplified campaign system (as found in Dragon and Sword, and available as a free download in A Time of Chaos (I think that's the name)) are no where near as punishing as people make it out to be.

[Airwind]

Maybe repair/ rearm can be translated to repair time. once a component/ weapon gets destroyed, they will incur repair time. This will be based on tonnage. with higher tonnage weapon incurring more time to repair.

for mech, more structure damaged/ armor destroyed - more time to fix. Maybe Assault will be 60 minutes/ Assault 40 / Medium 20 / Lights 10. This would encourage rotation of mechs and more careful use of mechs.

This of course would require new players to have at least 2-3 starter light mechs to prevent waiting if they only have 1 mech.

[Mystere]

Airwind, on 26 July 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

Maybe repair/ rearm can be translated to repair time. once a component/ weapon gets destroyed, they will incur repair time. This will be based on tonnage. with higher tonnage weapon incurring more time to repair.

for mech, more structure damaged/ armor destroyed - more time to fix. Maybe Assault will be 60 minutes/ Assault 40 / Medium 20 / Lights 10. This would encourage rotation of mechs and more careful use of mechs.

This of course would require new players to have at least 2-3 starter light mechs to prevent waiting if they only have 1 mech.

That's what trial Mechs are for. They can be treated as no-cost "loaners" supplied by the faction.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2016 - 07:55 PM.

[TheArisen]

What would be the real difference between BV & the tier system? They'd be almost exactly the same from what I can see.

[Airwind]

Can even implement the Salvage which helps with speeding up repair. Means if you do well (in terms of damage) and die, it wont be as bad.

[Rebas Kradd]

I always liked the idea of R&R, but it's true that it creates a wage gap. Using C-Bills in QP would certainly be a non-starter, as it would only favor the people who have already stockpiled enormous wealth. I also agree with MeSooHighWhatever (sorry) that as long as C-Bills are purchasable, R&R would generate P2W effects.

However...

What if R&R were implemented not on individual players, but on groups or factions? Repair needs for a mech could be billed not to a player but to his/her faction or group, letting them dodge the harshest effect of R&R by leaving the cost to the unit coffers. Groups could impose their own "surrender" rule setting that would either punish a player who self-destructs

R&R could also help keep large groups in check by being expanded to drop costs. One would naturally expect a larger group to need more resources to move their forces than a smaller group, which could move faster and cheaper (both time and speed could be a resource). I'm not worried about "punishing the larger groups". In my opinion, NOT punishing them is a form of P2W, because right now the larger groups rule. NOT punishing them is one of the very reasons FP sucks right now. Drop costs aren't punishment; they're an organic consequence of being big and unwieldy.

I personally like a lot of the byproducts R&R created. People piloting ****** mechs? They're called SECOND-LINE MECHS and they were a part of lore. Use them in 4v4 scouting missions (which could be made cheaper to drop into and thus better suited for them). Players switching to lasers to avoid drop costs? Sounds great. You'd expect that on a real battlefield. This is called depth and decision-making (although lasers still need to be hotter in order to bring them in better balance anyway) and one of the reasons early supporters of this game are so disappointed is because this stuff wasn't in there. Carefully modulated, it still could be. Wasn't FP supposed to be the hardcore mode anyway?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 26 July 2016 - 09:21 PM.

[Deathlike]

The only way R&R would work is if it was a reward system. This means, the work you do with your mech.. whether it be tanking or effectively/efficiently use your ammo would produced increased rewards. Any other way would just imply "haves vs have nots".... it doesn't work.

[NeoCodex]

Rebas Kradd, on 26 July 2016 - 09:18 PM, said:

I personally like a lot of the byproducts R&R created. People piloting ****** mechs? They're called SECOND-LINE MECHS and they were a part of lore. Use them in 4v4 scouting missions (which could be made cheaper to drop into and thus better suited for them). Players switching to lasers to avoid drop costs? Sounds great. You'd expect that on a real battlefield. This is called depth and decision-making (although lasers still need to be hotter in order to bring them in better balance anyway) and one of the reasons early supporters of this game are so disappointed is because this stuff wasn't in there. Carefully modulated, it still could be. Wasn't FP supposed to be the hardcore mode anyway?

This.. nobody understands this.. It's not about just R&R, but a combination of much less severe R&R and a balanced battle value system would create depth, choice and opportunities.

But everybody's just burried in their own holes "this wouldn't work", they want the game to remain in the **** state that it is, fine I'm done discussing with you, apparently you don't want a better game.

Look at the game now. Another new mech pack: oh wow, the Linebacker looks really cool. But wait what is this, 390XL with low slung hardpoints? LOL what a piece of junk, I have absolutely no reason to ever consider piloting this not even worth a c-bill, let alone a dollar. But in battle value system? Imagine having it significantly lower cost than a Timber Wolf (but still higher than a stock IS), it would give you a reason to pilot this cool looking mech. Great popular mechs like the TW should be a bit more rare (even tough in lore the Timbies were a large part of the Clan force) instead of "the only choice".

But then you ask wait why would I bother piloting IS trash if their BV is so low? I was talking about stock IS mechs, pretty sure a fully decked out IS mech with some new tech like LFE (why are these not in game yet?) can match or exceed BV of a second line Clan mech. And even if you play a very high BV mech you better pull it's weight. Can go to planetary conquest with just two high value mechs or five second line mechs. Why would we not want this choice?

Give me a reason to use the Huntsman and the Linebacker. Night Gyr only looks interesting on paper because of it's high hardpoints and that's it. I'm so ******* done with decision making based on mech pod space and hardpoint layout. Battle value would completely change this and yes, I would buy more mech packs if battle value was a thing.As of right now, there is absolutely no reason to bother piloting anything else but TW and SCR in their weight classes if you want to do good. With battle value (with or without a form of R&R) you could use any second line mech with some purpose.

Imagine a scenario in FW where a group of mercenary players would bring optimised decks of second line mechs and a few better ones here and there, but there you have just this one guy standing in the back with just a single mech for the match; a Fafnir with freaking double heavy gauss. "Wow, we better protect this guy! Losing him is like losing 3 other mechs." This would create dynamic situations where you would have to make use of all of your resources as a team. It won't be just another assault fatty on your team. It would be a pretty big deal.

Edited by NeoCodex, 27 July 2016 - 12:22 AM.