46 replies to this topic

[WolvesX]

I'm for it!

Let it be optional in the setting menu.

Those who want to pay R&R can do it, those who don't don't do it.

Everyone gets what he wants!

[Roadbuster]

Clownwarlord, on 06 February 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Repair and re-arm costs? For it to work there would need to be an increase in cbill earning, but would the player base like this feature in the game?

R&R was in the game for some time before they got rid of it.
It hurts new players and it encourages bad playstyle.
There are enough pilots already who are scared of taking damage. They sit back the whole game and let their teammates die, before getting destroyed without contributing much.

If anything, we need something to encourage players to help their team and teammates, instead of hiding till it's too late to accomplish anything.

[Novakaine]

Well R&R would increase mech build diversity.
But the cost to new players would be prohibitive.
So nope.

[Morggo]

I'd be open to having it back, but definitely NOT in QP. To me, QP is the chillout, go shoot big stompy robots with your mates land. Like a sandbox environment where you can experiment with new builds and generally not worry if you go on a losing streak, leveling a new mech, etc.

Now, if there was a R&R mode I'd be down with that. Where would it fit? Dunno. In theory since CW seems to attract the comp/pro/unit players it could be a component there... IF you integrated planet rewards, factory world discounts, etc etc. BUT it would also be a barrier to newer or casual players trying out FW. Though, I doubt the units would complain much (see post above referring to people as "lurmtards"....) and may welcome FW being an elitist playground. *shrugs*

IF there was enough population, a third R&R mode would be great. Keep QP, keep FW as-is.

Regardless, given it was in once and scraped highly doubt it would ever return... just wait for MW5 if you want R&R and your all set.

[a gaijin]

Maybe R&R would be viable for FW but it has no place in team deathmatch a.k.a. Quick Play because QP is nothing more than a "Mech Training Sim Room" where IS and Clan mechs fight side by side( Wuuuuuuut?! ) for the sake of nothing more than a high score, some C-Bills(yea, ok, XP too ), and practice.

And though R&R would make sense for FW, I don't think FW needs any more "penalizing factors" that might scare away prospective players.
As it stands, and IMHO, C-Bill rewards for FW ought to be doubled and the C-Bill rewards for QP ought to be halved after a players first 200 matches.
Why? To encourage more people to play FW of course!


TLDR: R&R, ok for FW, NOT for QP

[xTrident]

Clownwarlord, on 06 February 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Repair and re-arm costs? For it to work there would need to be an increase in cbill earning, but would the player base like this feature in the game?

Here are some pros and cons I thought of:
Pros:
Chance to earn more CBills.
Adds realistic aspect (realism) to the game.

Cons:
Chance for your mechs to always need to be repaired.
Chance for more of a grind.
An issue that may run into is damaged mechs in the game before match started.

Another thought about the system is it could allow for addition to game modes as for repair and re-arm stations in the game modes that cost you CBills earned during that match.

Whats the communities thoughts?

I actually don't mind the idea but I know PGI wouldn't compensate correctly in cbill earnings. Also... We already have players that are scared to take a hit. Something like this would make it even worse.

[RAM]

Tristan Winter, on 07 February 2017 - 12:06 AM, said:

The consensus has been "no" for a long time.

There is certainly not a consensus, but rehashing the discussion is getting old.

Jingseng, on 07 February 2017 - 12:07 AM, said:

hey, do you hate when people drop afk? or pretend until halfway through a match to either join a stomp or hide? Do you enjoy people hiding in the very back and never pushing, only the occasional snipe? Or that one guy who can't win, but goes and hides in the corner of the map anyway and adds an extra 7 minutes of no one doing anything?

Because you get every single one of those things in every single match.

Yes that does happen and it clearly has nothing to do with R&R

Repair and Rearm is what separates a game from a simulation. It can (and indeed did) provide benefits to game-play, immersion and verisimilitude. Sadly people wanted to scrub rather than get better.


RAM
ELH

[MechaBattler]

It would be too punishing for new players. Only vet players and players who pay real money for things would have access to most of the best equipment.

[Kael Posavatz]

As part of an immersive experience where the map mattered, prices fluctuated, and factions had actual identities beyond a pretty token next to your name, this sort-of, kind-of, maybe made sense.

As the game has none of these, it does not.

[ingramli]

RAM, on 07 February 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

Yes that does happen and it clearly has nothing to do with R&R

No it has. Think about it in a simple way. I am a potato. I tried to engage with R&R system, and i found that the repair bill cost way more than the CBs i made by damaging/killing the foes because my skill is sub-par. When i can earn more if i hide somewhere in the map, or stay at the back of the team, just snipe when the chance comes, why should i engage? For the team? I dont even know who they are, i feel comfortable to let them die if they want to engage actively.

And if the 75% free repair and rearm applies, i will engage actively, but never pay for R&R, because i know the cost for paying for full R&R outweigh the benefit i have by able to do more. Yes i admit that i am self-interested, but who arent? If you want to team with me, i am welcome.

Edited by ingramli, 07 February 2017 - 06:27 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

OK just trying to continue the conversation.

What if R and R was just in Faction Warfare to help deter new players from participating in it before they have a complete understanding of the game mode?

[Escef]

I would not be averse to R&R being a deduction from a victory score from FW battles, such that it is possible to win all your battles but still not able to take control of a planet due to horrific battlefield losses. E.g., a consistently underweight clan force defends a world from a max tonnage Inner Sphere force. The Inner Sphere ends up winning all or most of the engagements, but at the end of the cycle has lost so much war material that they cannot hold the planet, and control remains with the clans.

I do NOT want to see R&R affect c-bill earnings, especially not in the QP queues.

[Chados]

No, please. It'll be a major fun sucker.

[Bilbo]

Clownwarlord, on 07 February 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

OK just trying to continue the conversation.

What if R and R was just in Faction Warfare to help deter new players from participating in it before they have a complete understanding of the game mode?

The new and established players will just bring the least penalizing options to the matches. Unless it is prohibitively expensive to lose a match it's not even a consideration. If it's prohibitively expensive to lose a match, people simply won't play FW. R&R was attempted. It failed. It will most likely never be seen again.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

R&R is clearly a matter of balance. I mean,weather it works or not. I'd say with the team PGI has, it's not really worth trying to implement and balance.

People say it's not good for new players, but really they refer just to one particular implementation with the variables as it were.

The basic concept would be okay, that more advanced and better tech, improves performance but it more expensive to run.Thus new players could run with more nominal tech gaining more C-Bills, while advanced players could use more expensive tech for better performance. It's all about how it's balanced and considering how different builds the mechs can have, I think it's too big task for PGI to do well.

Edited by Teer Kerensky, 07 February 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[FupDup]

TELEFORCE, on 07 February 2017 - 02:49 AM, said:

I didn't like R&R when it was around, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here to add to the discussion: Why does World of Tanks keep R&R if it's so bad?

World of Tanks isn't a real game, it's a cynical business model with a game draped around it.

[Navy Sixes]

I'm against R&R in general.

It's just another mechanism that sticks it to ballistic and missile builds, which already get punished plenty for their ammo dependence in long FW bouts, not to mention straight in game nerfs. Yet another reason to vomit lasers.

If they did include R&R, it should only apply to mercs. Loyalists' tabs would be picked up by their faction.

[Lykaon]

Clownwarlord, on 06 February 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Repair and re-arm costs? For it to work there would need to be an increase in cbill earning, but would the player base like this feature in the game?

Here are some pros and cons I thought of:
Pros:
Chance to earn more CBills.
Adds realistic aspect (realism) to the game.

Cons:
Chance for your mechs to always need to be repaired.
Chance for more of a grind.
An issue that may run into is damaged mechs in the game before match started.

Another thought about the system is it could allow for addition to game modes as for repair and re-arm stations in the game modes that cost you CBills earned during that match.

Whats the communities thoughts?

Reasons I am against this.

One: Encourages players to avoid combat and let someone else take the brunt of the damage.

Two: Players who are viewed as "kill stealing" and only engaging a target after someone else has sustained damage from engaging will be seen as not only kill stealing but robbing from their fellow team members. As long as the kill is awarded C-bill payouts this will be an issue. An issue that will cause conflict within a team.

Three: The rich and established players can easily shrug off a bad day of high repair bills. The new guy with their non optimized mechs with no XP to buy unlocks will not only have less money to spend on repairs but a lower overall performance due to low XP and unlocks and real in game experience. This means the new players will likely have lower earning potential and a higher chance of acruing higher repair costs.

Four: All the crying about all the LRM boats. If repairing damage cost money then why poke out of cover and get hit...right? There will be a significant increase in noobtubers playing LRM mechs poorly. All of the LRMs either killing other low experience players or performing badly because of being played by low skill LRMers will creat a cryfest like none we have seen before (almost) and this will only make ligit LRM users the undeserved targets of scorn.

Five: Players incapable or absent minded enough to not repair fully before a match will be a handicap for their team mates. This will result in more in fighting and arguing within a team.

[Tristan Winter]

RAM, on 07 February 2017 - 05:41 PM, said:

There is certainly not a consensus, but rehashing the discussion is getting old.
Repair and Rearm is what separates a game from a simulation. It can (and indeed did) provide benefits to game-play, immersion and verisimilitude. Sadly people wanted to scrub rather than get better.
RAM
ELH

Hey, I'd love to have R&R, but the overwhelming majority of player is against it and it's too late anyway. PGI tried a bad version of R&R, so most players concluded it would never ever work. Ah well.

[ice trey]

I liked the idea of Repair/Rearm costs, but mainly for a different reason.

First thing, I HATE the idea of doing Mechwarrior 3/4 style MFBs. They took repairs, which take hours or even days with multiple teams of fully supplied crews, and changed it so that players are able to do the whole thing in about as much time as it takes an indycar team to do a basic pitstop. It's ridiculous, and if there were any suspension of disbelief in this game left to have, it would be just one more nail in the coffin.

Second, my idea behind the repair/rearm costs was more to encourage players to not want to immediately refit their mechs with endo steel and double heat sinks. Having some sort of means to encourage players to stick to lower tech, lower cost options over the top-of-the-line gear sounds far better to me. Maybe less about the tech level, more about how far their customization strays from the stock version, so as not to be punitive to the players who opted to go clan.

Edited by ice trey, 08 February 2017 - 03:05 AM.