108 replies to this topic

[meteorol]

Removing R&R ranks amongst the top three best decisions PGI ever made.

[NeoCodex]

meteorol, on 27 July 2016 - 12:06 AM, said:

Removing R&R ranks amongst the top three best decisions PGI ever made.

Didn't even read the thread and what it would do combined with BV.

Nobody said old R&R was good and we want it back.

Just... get out.

Edited by NeoCodex, 27 July 2016 - 12:25 AM.

[meteorol]

NeoCodex, on 27 July 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Just... get out.

And what if I don't?

Truth to be told, i don't even need to read your OP. You are ~ Person Nr. 1 gazillion that comes up with the idea of balancing by some sort of "cost" value. This forum is full with ideas similar to this getting torn apart, rightfully so. The horse has been beaten to death, the corpse has been brutally violated, revived , beaten to death again. I don't think it is even possible to beat a dead horse with those "lets use BV and costs to Balance" Threads anymore because, there is no horse left. It has been blown to dust from all the punches it has received.

I'm simply too lazy to bring up all the reasons why balancing by cost is a terrible idea for this game. It has been chewed through over and over and over and over again. R&R is just one aspect that makes it even more terrible.

[MeiSooHaityu]

NeoCodex, on 27 July 2016 - 12:24 AM, said:

Didn't even read the thread and what it would do combined with BV.

Still no. Having a mech with a higher BV costing more to deploy is still not a good idea.

You can't "balance" a game that is F2P with making things cost more. It essentially means you can buy yourself out of the balancing mechanic all together. So essentially if you pay money (MC, Premium Time, and/or C-Bill boosted mechs), you can circumvent game balance but it you play for free (and likely C-bill poor), you need to be restricted in what you can deploy with and when.

Balance can not be tied to a wallet.

[Johnny Z]

I read the title as "I want pay to win."

[Satan n stuff]

Reality check for the OP, this is a game where everyone brings the exact same number of mechs to the field. There is no way to balance mechs by value that doesn't involve routinely screwing over half the players.

[Pjwned]

Satan n stuff, on 27 July 2016 - 03:25 AM, said:

Reality check for the OP, this is a game where everyone brings the exact same number of mechs to the field. There is no way to balance mechs by value that doesn't involve routinely screwing over half the players.

I understand that OP wants to change this and let players choose what mechs to pilot with only BV as a restriction, but...

For one thing, it's just not going to happen. This is the sort of thing that if it was going to happen at all, it needed to happen since pretty much the beginning, but it's been the way it is now for years.

For another thing, there are still other major glaring problems with this system, most notably making the game atrociously pay2win and also dealing with the absolutely nightmarish task of properly balancing everything with BV values that make sense, which just makes the whole thing not worth it.

I can see how the ideal is appealing in a way, but it's just not going to work in this game ever.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Varvar86, on 26 July 2016 - 04:16 AM, said:

Repare & Rearm will make players:
1) grind more to keep CBL's coming to keep their mechs go. No one likes grind, you talking about MW player base, this is not new universe and majority of players here are old enough to have things to do in real life. Player base will go down.
2) keep their valuable mechs in mechbays because it's cheaper to run simpler mechs in order not to risk your income vs expenses. So it’s gonna be like 10 vatches on boring something to gring money and play 3 matches on favorite cool mech. Your idea will actually limit variability of mechs on battlefield and make it more P2W.

This is classic "more grind for the Grind God" f2p games. Do 100500 drops just because you need money to repare your "pink" mech. Nothing great I see here

1. Half the playerbase is old enough that Get off my LAN isn't a joke making fun of older people

2. You're dead on. Basically when we had R&R last time people ran STD engines (no clans yet so speed wasn't as important) and energy loadouts. Lights... well we got screwed hard due to repair costs as we didn't really have a STD engine option in the Jenner or Raven.

Pjwned, on 27 July 2016 - 03:43 AM, said:

For another thing, there are still other major glaring problems with this system, most notably making the game atrociously pay2win and also dealing with the absolutely nightmarish task of properly balancing everything with BV values that make sense, which just makes the whole thing not worth it.

I could probably get something that's close to balanced up and running with a couple 40 hour weeks of work. Then I'd use the statistical data and tweak it each month to move everything closer to being perfectly dynamically balanced.

Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 27 July 2016 - 03:58 AM.

[Pjwned]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 27 July 2016 - 03:55 AM, said:

I could probably get something that's close to balanced up and running with a couple 40 hour weeks of work. Then I'd use the statistical data and tweak it each month to move everything closer to being perfectly dynamically balanced.

Let's just say I took your word for it and believed you could come up with proper BV values for everything, which I don't take your word for because I have no reason to believe you have the credibility to come up with that, but for the sake of argument...

After you did come up with those numbers, how would the flagrantly pay2win nature of the system be addressed?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Pjwned, on 27 July 2016 - 04:22 AM, said:

Let's just say I took your word for it and believed you could come up with proper BV values for everything, which I don't take your word for because I have no reason to believe you have the credibility to come up with that, but for the sake of argument...

After you did come up with those numbers, how would the flagrantly pay2win nature of the system be addressed?

See I'm not actually concerned about the P2W aspect because I oppose repair and rearm in MWO unless it's part of the tactical end of a massive FW overhaul.

But for balance, I'm good enough at stats that I could use the TT BV system and adapt it to mwo reasonably easily by adjusting the BV of certain components and accounting for MWO's quirks etc. But since that wouldn't be perfect the fairly rapid tweaking should allow me to approach perfection within 6 months or so.

[Satan n stuff]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 27 July 2016 - 04:41 AM, said:

See I'm not actually concerned about the P2W aspect because I oppose repair and rearm in MWO unless it's part of the tactical end of a massive FW overhaul.

But for balance, I'm good enough at stats that I could use the TT BV system and adapt it to mwo reasonably easily by adjusting the BV of certain components and accounting for MWO's quirks etc. But since that wouldn't be perfect the fairly rapid tweaking should allow me to approach perfection within 6 months or so.

The BV system isn't even remotely balanced and yours wouldn't be either.

[mogs01gt]

Im not sure why people are focusing soo much on BV balancing mech vs mech. That isnt how BV is designed. BV is design to balance or equate the deficiencies with lance vs lance combat. BV would assists in balancing matches, attempting to prevent those matches were one team has four 100ts vs a team with for 80t mechs.

This is why lance vs lance combat needs to be pushed harder.

Edited by mogs01gt, 27 July 2016 - 04:58 AM.

[Albino Boo]

If you put a tier 1 player in trail ACH and tier 5 player in an optimised TBR, the tier 1 player is still going to win. BV does not account for the skill and knowledge that experience brings. All the battle value in the world isn't going to help if you stand still while something alphas you in the back CT. The idea that losing in a 6 mg direwolf should net you more rewards that than winning in optimised HBR is quite frankly silly. If you reward people for running bad builds dont be surprised when you get more bad builds. The game is a contest of skill and part of that is having the skill to optimise your mechs and adopting appropriate tactics for your build. If you keep losing because you run because you run a bad build, then the system shouldn't reward you. When you have choice, then you have to have consequences to that choice.

[Lehmund]

Baulven, on 26 July 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

The only time repair and rearm would make sense is if faction play was a persistent map and you had repair depots to keep your mech in the game. Then I wouldn't make it cost chills but match score to fix your mech (objectives would need to be worth points.) That is the only time rearm and repair costs would be appropriate.

I think this could work and would work well along with a TT-like point system for each Mech chassis + loadout. Tonnage is of course relevant but different same ton mech chassis have different value just because of hit box locations. Then add, engine + Value, weapons (+ Value) and you get your Mech full value.

A 60 ton Mech could have less in-game Value than a 40 ton mech depending on loadout and speed / equipment.

So you could make FW drop decks a function of max Value instead of tonnage and have your fun with that.

As far as R&R, I would only go with Repair in this case to keep it simple and usable in FW only.

Basically, your hangar could have Mechs that are being Repaired for a while depending on how long ago you have played him (either in minutes or in # of drops), forcing you to choose other mechs to play for the next drop, or wait a little before you do so again. If your faction has access to Repair depots planets or planets that produce specific Mechs, you can get them repaired faster or get a lower Value for certain Mechs or even instant replacement Mechs of certain types etc... This gives such things strategic importance on the map, making it valuable to extend territory in a certain direction or towards a certain faction (or defend more fiercely).

For PGI, that mechanic would also help drive more Mech chassis sales and variations.

It wouldn't be very difficult to implement and balancing using Values for chassis should be much simpler than doing it by quirking to even out mechs of similar tonnage etc....

My 2 cents.

[Davers]

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?

So a Clan player looking for a low BV (a weak) medium should pony up 36 million Cbills for an Ice Ferret, instead of 36 million Cbills for a top tier Nova? Sounds legit.

(BV based on the last event)

[mogs01gt]

Albino Boo, on 27 July 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:

If you put a tier 1 player in trail ACH and tier 5 player in an optimised TBR, the tier 1 player is still going to win. .

I'll call BS on that.

If you are assuming the tier1 player doesnt have the ACH basic'd, it will overheat and be easy pickings for an fully mastered and properly loaded TBR. Plus no tier5 player has a fully mastered TBR with proper modules.

[Rebas Kradd]

Davers, on 27 July 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

So a Clan player looking for a low BV (a weak) medium should pony up 36 million Cbills for an Ice Ferret, instead of 36 million Cbills for a top tier Nova? Sounds legit.

(BV based on the last event)

I am not supporting the BV aspect of OP's suggestion.

I'm just trying to brainstorm on some kind of real economy and logistics for FW.

[Hotthedd]

Economy as a balancing factor has worked in countless games, and it works IRL.

Where it would not be fair is in QP, but that mode is only a placeholder anyway.

[Agent1190]

I started playing just after open beta when repair/rearm was still a thing. It had some pros - you didn't boat too many ammo weapons because you had to pay for the ammo (ridiculous LRM boats with 1800+ rounds weren't the thing back then), and you only ran XL engines if you were REALLY confident because they were expensive to repair. This was 8 vs. 8 as well, so only 2/3 the number of targets on the field.

But the GRIND. You could launch in trial mechs back then to avoid repair/rearm - and get a quarter of your earnings removed because you weren't using an owned mech. Or, you launched in your own mech and understood that if you died, you were going to lose 20-40% of your income just fixing the damn thing. It took FOREVER to grind out the CBills to purchase a new mech. You complain about the grind now....

Repair and Rearm doesn't work in Quick play, which is just an arena "instant action" type of game. It could work in FW with the right conidtions, but right now, any mechanic that drives players away just can't be introduced.

[Baulven]

They would need to remove the option to flat out buy cbills if they reintroduced rearma and repair. It would also damage diversity, cause massive issues for new players, and be a wall for entry especially in drop deck mode.

Not saying it can't work but unless it addresses all of that it would just be detrimental.