129 replies to this topic

[50 50]

QueenBlade, on 07 February 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Something you guys aren't thinking about either.

Clan tech COSTS more. A lot more, especially after a player had made modifications. One balancing factor in the Mechwarrior / Battletech universe that isn't being used by today's balance mechanics.

PGI nerf's a weapon, equipment, mech's quirks, or buffs it. But the price never changes.

It is quite possible to see a slow down in the Clan advance simple due to the fact that Clan tech costs much more than IS tech.

And the timer could be something that reflects off of the cost.

Idea there being that light mechs would repair faster than assault mechs.

Exactly.

At the moment we have the additional option to balance by tonnage in Faction Play.
If we added in a logistics cost to get to the battle and a repair cost for inbetween, we suddenly have two additional options that could be used to help with the balance in a way that does not directly affect mechs and feel like a nerf.

If we keep it really simple, we could do something like this:

Logistics
Number of mechs in drop deck * Total Tonnage * c-bill cost = Jumpship Logistics cost.
This is a simple upfront cost that gives us a clear and visible economic risk for deploying our mechs into battle.
We can then build on that with Clan/IS and specific faction differences, personal and unit based modifiers and so on.
For example:
Number of mechs in drop deck * Total Tonnage * c-bill cost * 1.2 Clan Modifier = Jumpship Logistics cost.
Or
Number of mechs in drop deck * Total Tonnage * (c-bill cost - 10% Davion Logistics modifier) = Jumpship Logistics cost.
Or
Number of mechs in drop deck * (Total Tonnage - 10% Steiner 'We like Assault Mechs' Bonus) * c-bill cost = Jumpship Logistics cost
Or
(Number of mechs in drop deck -1 for personal Dropship) * Total Tonnage * c-bill cost = Jumpship Logistics cost.

We could do the same thing for Repairs/Rearm and also keep it really simple.

Repairs/Rearm
(100%-Mech% health)*Tonnage = Total Resource Point cost
This makes mechs that are more heavily damaged and mechs that are bigger more expensive to repair.
A flat re-arm cost could be used as it might be messy to work out different costs based on different ammo loads in a mech.
But we can then do the same individual modifications based on Faction or personal/unit modifiers.
For example:
(100%-Mech% health)*Tonnage + 25 rearm cost = Total Resource Point cost
Or
(100%-Mech% health)*Tonnage + (25 rearm cost - Marik Supply Bonus) = Total Resource Point cost
Or
(100%-Mech% health)*(Tonnage-10% NPC Technicians) + 25 rearm cost = Total Resource Point cost

If we stick with the stages then we don't need a timer for repairs. Simply use the match duration and a yes/no flag.
In an open warfare system, a timer would need to be used and then there is a third option we can use for balance, faction depth and personal/unit modifiers.

If we keep it really simple, this should be entirely possible even under the given structure we currently have.

My personal preference is to move Faction Play into an open warfare system where we can join battles, reinforce other players, drop out again and fight back and forth over the territory and objectives for as long as it takes. There are so many more benefits to that style of battle than the current 'stage by stage matches' we have now.

[Cato Phoenix]

GoatHILL, on 06 February 2017 - 08:03 PM, said:

The only people this would effect are players that can not pull 1K dmg per game. Those players need to improve before they start playing CW.

This is like, the majority of FW players though

[Willard Phule]

AnimeFreak40K, on 07 February 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

No it doesn't, not really. Clan mechs have a higher up-front cost because they often have equipment such as XL Engines, Endo Steel and/or Ferro-Fibrous...and all have Double Heat Sinks right out the gate. Engiens cost the same (Clan XL engines cost the same as IS XL), several (but not all) weapons cost the same, as does most other equipment.

The difference is that Battlemechs can swap out engines, Omnimechs can't. That's a HUGE difference, right there that the whole "repair/rearm" should play into. Swapping an engine in a Battlemech takes time and money, perhaps FW should reflect that.

AnimeFreak40K, on 07 February 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

In short, IS mechs that are equipped the same (or close to) Clan mechs cost about the same. The big difference is that the Clanners pay those costs up front, IS have the option of paying those costs over time.

Keep in mind that according to lore, DHS and XL engines weren't available until right before the Clan Invasion. The inner sphere had been trying to blow itself back into the Stone Age for centuries, most of that was all considered "losttech," as well as ERPPCs and Gauss Rifles.

AnimeFreak40K, on 07 February 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

Okay, there are a LOT of things that were used as balancing factors in the tabletop game and the setting, and they have not been applied as balancing factors in this game.

Everyone seems to think that PGI tries to balance the technologies....their "balancing" has more to do with forcing the experienced, skilled players to one faction or another when one side is stomping the other one.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Willard Phule, on 08 February 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

The difference is that Battlemechs can swap out engines, Omnimechs can't. That's a HUGE difference, right there that the whole "repair/rearm" should play into. Swapping an engine in a Battlemech takes time and money, perhaps FW should reflect that.

No, it shouldn't. You institute any sort of repair/rearm mechanic into this game and you will drastically alter the dynamic in how this game is played...and none of it for the better.

I don't know how long you have been playing MWO, but Repair/Rearm used to be a thing...and I use the past-tense because it happened back in Beta...not sure whether it was Open or Closed Beta, but I know it was a past-thing before I started playing in 2013. It failed then. Badly from my understanding.

While I don't know for certain how people will react, I do have a pretty good idea, given that Armored Core has a very similar system, and I know what I did to game that system to minimize the effect of having to repair my bot was.

Willard Phule, on 08 February 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Keep in mind that according to lore, DHS and XL engines weren't available until right before the Clan Invasion. The inner sphere had been trying to blow itself back into the Stone Age for centuries, most of that was all considered "losttech," as well as ERPPCs and Gauss Rifles.

I don't give to s**ts about lore. Lore can be drug out into the street, doused in gasoline and thrown into a car before being set on fire.

To be clear, lore for this setting (and any setting for that matter) is important, but the moment lore starts interfering with gameplay and balance, the lore needs to go away. Period.

Willard Phule, on 08 February 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Everyone seems to think that PGI tries to balance the technologies....their "balancing" has more to do with forcing the experienced, skilled players to one faction or another when one side is stomping the other one.

I don't know how long you've been playing this game, but quite a lot has been done to bring mre and better balance between the IS and Clans. They aren't there yet, but they are closer this year than they were last year, and they are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were when Clans were first released.

Is there a tech imbalance? Yes. Does it favor Clans? Yes. But neither of which is as wide as folks like to think they are, and certainly nowhere near as wide as it used to be.

[TwoUps]

R&R is only part of the solution.. there may be other CW features that can make it work. For example:

1) Introduction of R&R choice. When R&R was introduced during beta, I believed there wasn't a choice.. with CW a choice can be introduce... for example, as a loyalist, R&R doesn't apply as your fraction will cover the R&R cost (but you earn less $$$)... but if you are a mercenaries, then you get more potential rewards and R&R applies.

2) Unit R&R. Apply CW rewards and cost (R&R) to the unit rather that as individual. So in addition to individual MW earning their cbills and XP, their unit will gain/lost based on R&R.. Rewards can be in terms of fame, prestige, loyalty point, cbills, planets/bases/dropshops, etc... This will increase motivation for each team to grow and coordinate its member (better the social side of MWO). Currently there is not much point to CW and unit..

3) Start small. Start with a small R&R, maybe 10%.. let people gets a chance to get used to the idea and add any other features to complement the R&R.

Edited by TwoUps, 08 February 2017 - 11:38 PM.

[Jesusguy]

****** idea win a match have to pay 50% of winnings to use mech again. No one will use anything but trial mechs or small laser builds.

Want FW/CW to be better? enforce tier 3+ only. Sure it will kill the numbers of people playing, but no one wants to play with tier 4/5 people in a competitive mode anyway.

[Willard Phule]

AnimeFreak40K, on 08 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

No, it shouldn't. You institute any sort of repair/rearm mechanic into this game and you will drastically alter the dynamic in how this game is played...and none of it for the better.

At which point, there is no benefit at all for having an Omnimech as opposed to a Battlemech. The true difference between them is shown during repair/refit. But, hey, I'm with you. Gotta think of the lowest common denominators. This is Potato Warrior Online, after all.

AnimeFreak40K, on 08 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I don't know how long you have been playing MWO, but Repair/Rearm used to be a thing...and I use the past-tense because it happened back in Beta...not sure whether it was Open or Closed Beta, but I know it was a past-thing before I started playing in 2013. It failed then. Badly from my understanding.

Since MW2, actually. And Repair/Refit was a part of the game back then as well. It came out of your earnings. Thing is, we can't charge for repair/refit because we're catering to people that struggle to break 500 damage with 4 mechs. They don't even earn what they'd pay for a drop fee.

AnimeFreak40K, on 08 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

While I don't know for certain how people will react, I do have a pretty good idea, given that Armored Core has a very similar system, and I know what I did to game that system to minimize the effect of having to repair my bot was.

No clue what Armored Core is. I'm an old guy.

AnimeFreak40K, on 08 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I don't give to s**ts about lore. Lore can be drug out into the street, doused in gasoline and thrown into a car before being set on fire.

If the lore of the Battletech universe doesn't matter, then let's get rid of it altogether. That also means giving up the lisence to the title "Battletech" and "Mechwarrior." Rename the game to something else and let it continue. But don't try to advertise it as a "Battletech" based game if you're not going to make it part of the Battletech title. Simple as that.

We could call it "Stompy Robots Online" or "Potato Warrior Online" and it'd be the same game.

Granted, you'd have to rename and redo all the mechs because they're under liscense, but who cares about that, right?

To be clear, lore for this setting (and any setting for that matter) is important, but the moment lore starts interfering with gameplay and balance, the lore needs to go away. Period.

AnimeFreak40K, on 08 February 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I don't know how long you've been playing this game, but quite a lot has been done to bring mre and better balance between the IS and Clans. They aren't there yet, but they are closer this year than they were last year, and they are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were when Clans were first released.

Is there a tech imbalance? Yes. Does it favor Clans? Yes. But neither of which is as wide as folks like to think they are, and certainly nowhere near as wide as it used to be.

Funny. The tech does NOT favor the clans. PGI has beaten everything we have with the nerf bat while quirking the hell out of everything the IS potatoes favor to use that it's become a joke. The ONLY thing that is imbalanced between Clan and IS is the skill of the individual players. And, unfortunately for us, PGI doesn't have a clue how to balance that.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Willard Phule, on 09 February 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

At which point, there is no benefit at all for having an Omnimech as opposed to a Battlemech. The true difference between them is shown during repair/refit. But, hey, I'm with you. Gotta think of the lowest common denominators. This is Potato Warrior Online, after all.

There are several benefits for having omnimechs; first and foremost the ability to configure hardpoints and weapon locations how *you* want (within what is available from other omnipods, of course)

As far as catering to the lowest common denominator, in a game like this, with a limited population? Yes. You do. If you want people to play with that is. In a game with a niche audience for a niche genre, you can either have quality matches or you can get matches quickly. There is no middle ground.

Willard Phule, on 09 February 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

Since MW2, actually. And Repair/Refit was a part of the game back then as well. It came out of your earnings. Thing is, we can't charge for repair/refit because we're catering to people that struggle to break 500 damage with 4 mechs. They don't even earn what they'd pay for a drop fee.

MechWarrior 2 is not MechWarrior online. Totally different games.

And no, repair/refit was a thing that was tested during Closed Beta (and possibly even Open Beta...but was removed before I got into the game). The whole thing flew like a lead balloon.

You institute repair/rearm you will have little to nothing but laser/energy vomit, because nobody is going to want to pay for ammunition and people are going to focus on sniping and doing everything they can to avoid taking damage.

Willard Phule, on 09 February 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

No clue what Armored Core is. I'm an old guy.

And Armored Core is an old game; came out in the mid-90's on the Play Station. It was a giant stompy robot game where you played a merc taking different missions for megacorps. Your bot was customizable (with, arguably, a lot more options than *any* MechWarrior game).
For all missions except Arena Combat, there was a repair/rearm mechanic. Every bullet, every missile, mine, mortar or point of damage you were charged for. It was painfully easy to end up losing far more money than you earned by completing the job...even with accomplishing all bonuses, because of those costs. Only by running a bot with nothing but energy weapons could you hope to come out ahead.

Willard Phule, on 09 February 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

If the lore of the Battletech universe doesn't matter, then let's get rid of it altogether. That also means giving up the lisence to the title "Battletech" and "Mechwarrior." Rename the game to something else and let it continue. But don't try to advertise it as a "Battletech" based game if you're not going to make it part of the Battletech title. Simple as that.

We could call it "Stompy Robots Online" or "Potato Warrior Online" and it'd be the same game.

Granted, you'd have to rename and redo all the mechs because they're under liscense, but who cares about that, right?

Sure, why not?

As I said before, Lore should and must take a back seat when thrown against playability. If things don't match up, then change the playability until it's playable. If that breaks the lore, then rewrite the lore.

Willard Phule, on 09 February 2017 - 05:03 AM, said:

Funny. The tech does NOT favor the clans. PGI has beaten everything we have with the nerf bat while quirking the hell out of everything the IS potatoes favor to use that it's become a joke. The ONLY thing that is imbalanced between Clan and IS is the skill of the individual players. And, unfortunately for us, PGI doesn't have a clue how to balance that.

Yeah, sorry, there's folks that are a lot smarter than you or I who have looked at the issue and made it quite clear that there is, in fact, a tech imbalance. Like I said, it's not as much of one, but it is noticeable and exploitable in the right hands.

Individual skill is a factor, make no mistake. However, the best way to balance that out is with a matchmaker and, believe it or not, PGI does have a fairly good one in place. Unfortunately, it has one major lynchpin, which causes the whole thing to collapse: player population.
If this game had 10 times the number of active players than it has now, much of the complaints about the whole thing would be all but gone. There could be a skill-based queue for Faction Warfare, there could be a split between solos and groups/units as well! But with the present population? Not so much. No.

[Monkey Lover]

Jesusguy, on 09 February 2017 - 02:56 AM, said:

****** idea win a match have to pay 50% of winnings to use mech again. No one will use anything but trial mechs or small laser builds.

Want FW/CW to be better? enforce tier 3+ only. Sure it will kill the numbers of people playing, but no one wants to play with tier 4/5 people in a competitive mode anyway.

#1 trial mechs need removed from cw.
#2 you really don't give anything away as you would be given extra cbills. Now it can cost you if you don't play to a minimum standard but this is the point of the system.

[meteorol]

TWIAFU, on 06 February 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

Proposed this many times. Without XP gains for mechs, nobody will be leveling mechs in CW and following along with the design of CW to be end game and need highly customized drop decks. Drop decks are not customized if your leveling them!

Won't be grinding xp for speed tweak in CW...

Remove mech XP, change it to LP/GXP.

How would that help CW?

It would simply take away a reason to play CW, and for some players, the sole reason to even touch it. CW is bad. Invasion maps are objectively bad. The fact that it lacks immersion, r&r and whatever else is not the reason why it doesn't have players. Quickplay has non of that aswell, still it has 90+% of this games playerbase. CWs atrocious Invasion maps, stale gameplay, lack of matchmaking killed this mode long time ago. People didn't leave because CW isn't the "endgame mode" they imagined... they can live without anything in that regard in QP pretty well. They left because CWs core game- and especially mapdesign for Invasion is trash.

Taking away XP will just lead to even fewer people having a reason to play it, which is certainly not the thing CWs needs.

That aside, how would people not leveling mechs in CW help to improve the match quality? The core issue of CW matches is the huge skill difference between and within teams, which doesn't depend on whether people are leveling mechs or not.

I'm leveling mechs in CW since this mode has been released, and i'm scoring higher than like 21 of 23 or even all players on a pretty consistent basis even when leveling mechs. As long as i'm consistently curbstomping guys in pure PUG vs PUG matches with unbasiced mechs, the (nonexistent) CW matchmaking has issues far bigger than people leveling their mechs.

[Monkey Lover]

meteorol, on 12 February 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

How would that help CW?

It would simply take away a reason to play CW, and for some players, the sole reason to even touch it. CW is bad. Invasion maps are objectively bad. The fact that it lacks immersion, r&r and whatever else is not the reason why it doesn't have players. Quickplay has non of that aswell, still it has 90+% of this games playerbase. CWs atrocious Invasion maps, stale gameplay, lack of matchmaking killed this mode long time ago. People didn't leave because CW isn't the "endgame mode" they imagined... they can live without anything in that regard in QP pretty well. They left because CWs core game- and especially mapdesign for Invasion is trash.

Taking away XP will just lead to even fewer people having a reason to play it, which is certainly not the thing CWs needs.

That aside, how would people not leveling mechs in CW help to improve the match quality? The core issue of CW matches is the huge skill difference between and within teams, which doesn't depend on whether people are leveling mechs or not.

I'm leveling mechs in CW since this mode has been released, and i'm scoring higher than like 21 of 23 or even all players on a pretty consistent basis even when leveling mechs. As long as i'm consistently curbstomping guys in pure PUG vs PUG matches with unbasiced mechs, the (nonexistent) CW matchmaking has issues far bigger than people leveling their mechs.

I support the idea of removing xp in cw. I would hope they would increase Cbills to make up for the xp. As for what would this do? I would say it would make closer better games. This would in return get more people to play cw. If the sole reason to play cw is for xp than i would be happy to never play with these people.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 19 February 2017 - 12:11 PM.

[GoatHILL]

Cato Phoenix, on 07 February 2017 - 11:51 PM, said:

This is like, the majority of FW players though

That's the main problem with CW get the new players out and the terribads as long as the gameplay is horrible it can not get better.

[Willard Phule]

Monkey Lover, on 12 February 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

I support the idea of removing xp in cw. I would hope they would increase Cbills to make up for the xp. As for what would this do? I would say it would make closer better games. This would in return get more people to play cw. If the sole reason to play cw is for xp than i would be happy to never play with this people.

Now, THAT is a great idea. Stops the potatoes from grinding XP on their trial mechs in FW and places them exactly where they should be.

[GoatHILL]

Make CW a potato free zone.

[QueenBlade]

As long as Skill Tree and Incursion game mode development is still in front of the next CW update (4.2), the rest of us will just have to continue to enjoy our potato only diet.

[BLOOD WOLF]

GoatHILL, on 06 February 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Only in CW.

1000 damage guaranties X amount of Cbills.

Maximum repair bill = X minus 20%. With good play you would not max out your repairs.

Ammo costs are on the player. Maybe give loyalist and long term contract players a discount.

CW should not be comp play but it should be hard mode not where players go to level their mechs.

and this thread still wins

[50 50]

Put up a post in the Feature Suggestions.
https://mwomercs.com...rrearm-or-loot/

[Mochyn Pupur]

Hmmm, NO

[GoatHILL]

PeppaPig, on 26 March 2017 - 12:35 AM, said:

Hmmm, NO

A 250 dmg a match guy.

[50 50]

GoatHILL, on 22 March 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

Make CW a potato free zone.

Can't do that. You'll just be left with salty fish.

QueenBlade, on 23 March 2017 - 09:46 AM, said:

As long as Skill Tree and Incursion game mode development is still in front of the next CW update (4.2), the rest of us will just have to continue to enjoy our potato only diet.

Given there was very little discussed in the last round table and it seemed like those present were a bit lost for direction I don't expect much to be coming along.

MWO doesn't have the massive population online all the time to provide a consistent level of participation that would make the 12 v 12 faction play work.
This is participation is further split up by having three additional areas for players to be directed to.
Solo quick play
Group quick play
Scouting
To put a complete stop to players from joining Faction Play would further increase the problem and I'm pretty sure none of us log on and go to the faction tab to sit there for an hour just to get a ghost drop. I'd have more fun playing Plant Tycoon and watching plants grow.

I can understand the veteran players who want those high level challenging matches where it really is do or die.
But we also need to to allow players that are not ready for tier -1 game play to be able to get some experience in the mode and enjoy it.

At this stage I feel we need a shift in what we perceive Faction Play and need a solution that allows not only instant access to a game, but at a level they can contribute and a level of challenge for their numbers.
I want to raise these points with the next round table:
https://mwomercs.com...an-open-system/

With regards to R&R, with the current system we have that uses stages it is not a practical feature.
A match lasts 25min at most, more likely a lot less and we get all our mechs back at the end.
There is no point.
But if the system was more on going and dynamic, then being able to keep our mechs in the fight longer will let us extend that game time and battle it out against each other that bit longer.
There are other pieces that need to go along with it, which is why I submitted the two links as something to consider.