33 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

Rewards Based Upon Weight Class

The rewards for dropping into a match have not scaled with the new rearming costs. This makes all ammo based mech builds unvialble for long term play, due to the high cost of ammo. This proposal utilizes a pilot's mech weight class as the base reward instead of the current flat rate. The bigger the mech the more money they should recieve to cover their costs.

The first number is for a win and the second number is for a loss.

Light Mechs: 100,000/50,000
Medium Mechs: 150,000/75,000
Heavy Mechs: 200,000/100,000
Assault Mechs: 250,000/125,000

For example, a Jenner F pilot will earn 100,000 for a win and 50,000 for a loss. The other bonuses will further increase the payout for for performing their role. They will be able to progress within the game.

When the repair and rearm costs are accounted a player should be able to break even on a loss and make a minimum of 100,000 for a win. The goal is for players to advance within the game without them feeling that they aren't progressing or even worse their progression goes backwards. Without a steady progression a player will leave the game frustrated and will impact possible earnings of PGI.

Bonus Rewards

The following will replace the current end of match bonuses values and make earnings truly based upon a player's skill. Bonuses will be figured by using Kill Assists Ratio, K/D ratio, and W/L ratio. A pilot may progress in quality level when they maintain their stats in two of the three areas used for performance. They will advance upon reaching the threshold for the next level for two of the three stats.

Kill Assists ratio would be the number of assists divided by the total number of matches played or it can be figured like K/D is. Since Kill Assists are considered the same as Kill shots it should be figured in the manner above.

Green pilots would be classified according to these stats to determine their match bonuses. Match bonuses would be as they are now.

Kill Assists ratio: up to 1.0
K/D ratio: up to 1.0
W/L ratio: up to 1.0

Average pilots would be classified according to these stats to determine their match bonuses. Match bonuses would be double.

Kill Assists ratio: 1.1-2.0
K/D ratio: 1.1-2.0
W/L ratio: 1.1-2.0

Veteran pilots would be classified according to these stats to determine their match bonuses. Match bonuses would be triple.

Kill Assists ratio: 2.1-3.5
K/D ratio: 2.1-3.5
W/L ratio: 2.1-3.5

Elite pilots would be classified according to these stats to determine their match bonuses. Match bonuses would be quadruple.

Kill Assists ratio: 3.6+
K/D ratio: 3.6+
W/L ratio: 3.6+

Using myself as an example, my current stats, that I can see, are a K/D ratio of 4.57 and a W/L ratio of 5.6. This puts me in the elite pilot category and I should be earning quadruple match bonuses. By piloting a Catapult I should be earning at least 150k net earnings for a win and breaking even on a loss.

Repair and Rearm Costs

I went through and put together a list of the weapon and ammo cost currently in the game. Ammo for missiles are used to deter using them due to high cost. However, the replacement cost for other weapons is far, far higher than what missiles cost. Ballistics are the hardest hit with the ammo cost and the high replacement cost for a destroyed weapon. Energy weapons are the better alternative to the two others. The first number is the purchase price and the second number is the replacement cost for destroyed weapons. The repair cost is 1.75%.


Energy Weapons
Small Laser: 22,500/393.75
Medium Laser: 80,000/1,400
Large Laser: 200,000/3,500
ER Large Laser: 400,000/7,000
Small Pulse Laser: 32,000/560
Medium Pulse Laser: 120,000/2,100
Large Pulse Laser: 350,000/6,125
PPC: 400,000/7,000
ER PPC: 600,000/10,500

Ballistic Weapons
MG: 10,000/175
AC/2: 150,000/2,625
AC/5: 250,000/4,375
UAC/5: 400,000/7,000
AC/10: 400,000/7,000
AC/20: 600,000/10,500
Gauss Rifle: 600,000/10,500
LB 10-X: 800,000/14,000

Missile Weapons
LRM5: 60,000/1,050
LRM10: 200,000/3,500
LRM15: 350,000/6,125
LRM20: 500,000/8,750
SRM2: 20,000/350
SRM4: 120,000/2,100
SRM6: 180,000/3,150
SSRM2: 30,000/525

Ammo

AMS: 2,000
MG: 2,000
AC/2: 975
AC/5: 4,500
AC/10: 6,000
AC/20: 10,003
Gauss Rifle: 20,000
LB 10-X: 19,995
LRM: 30,000
LRM+Artemis: 60,120
SRM: 27,000
SRM+Artemis: 54,000
SSRM: 54,000

Armor
Standard: 10,016 per ton
Ferro-Fibrous: 19,999 per ton

The best weapon in terms of replacement cost for each category are SRM2 for missiles, MG for ballistics, and Small Lasers for energy weapons. SRMs have the best cost ratio of 270 C-Bills per round. MGs have 1 C-Bill per round. If you are a free player with an average payout of 150k for a winning match and you lose the bigger weapons you are looking at a huge loss of C-Bills. This is just for replacing them. If you lose a match this is even worse.

If a f2p player earns 150k for a nearly perfect match, but suffers 2 tons of standard armor damage, loses a Gauss Rifle, and uses 6 tons of ammo; minus any repair costs to internal structure and other expenses like engines and heat sinks. His/her repair cost is going to be 20,032+10,500+120,000=150,532. They will incur a net loss of 532 C-Bills for winning the match and not dying. Taking the same damage and losing the match, earning 75k, they will incur a net loss of 75,532 C-Bills. Is it worth it to even fight in a match? Is it worth is to even play the game?

**EDIT**The above system will only apply for people dropping into a match with an owned mech. Trial mechs are not part of this system and will use the current earnings in place.

EDIT 2: I reworked the bonus system and added it to this post.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 08 November 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[0d1n]

Not the way I would fix the economy of the game, but it does need to be fixed.

Only big issue I can see with this is that it'll push some players into the "I want to make money so I'll run an Assault laser-boat" mentality, leaving light and medium players (like myself) with meager gains, if any. If it were me I'd globally nerf the repair and re-arm costs of ALL weapons, engines, armor, etc. Stuff in this game is already outrageously expensive compard to how much profit you get, shouldn't need to grind 10+ games to get a Gauss rifle, then grind another 3 to afford the ammo after one round. My only saving grace is my founder mechs and premium, can't imagine how hard this game is for new players.

[Hexenhammer]

An interesting idea but wouldn't this defeat the notion that assault mechs are expensive to run?

[James The Fox Dixon]

0d1n, on 29 October 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Not the way I would fix the economy of the game, but it does need to be fixed.

Only big issue I can see with this is that it'll push some players into the "I want to make money so I'll run an Assault laser-boat" mentality, leaving light and medium players (like myself) with meager gains, if any. If it were me I'd globally nerf the repair and re-arm costs of ALL weapons, engines, armor, etc. Stuff in this game is already outrageously expensive compard to how much profit you get, shouldn't need to grind 10+ games to get a Gauss rifle, then grind another 3 to afford the ammo after one round. My only saving grace is my founder mechs and premium, can't imagine how hard this game is for new players.

When prices are too high salaries must be increased to meet it. If you don't then you'll get either a very long grind or people actually making backwards progress. Either of these options means people will leave the game and it's one less sale per person leaving.

Hexenhammer, on 29 October 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

An interesting idea but wouldn't this defeat the notion that assault mechs are expensive to run?

According to Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) contracts take into account mech weight, pilot skill, tech level of the mech, and other modifiers. The bigger the mech the bigger the base pay because heavier mechs cost more to run. The goal is for the player to keep progressing without regressing even on a win and breaking even on a loss.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 29 October 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[0d1n]

James The Fox Dixon, on 29 October 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

When prices are too high salaries must be increased to meet it. If you don't then you'll get either a very long grind or people actually making backwards progress. Either of these options means people will leave the game and it's one less sale per person leaving.

Again, would rather push prices down so people get more profitable games than push people into a particular category. I'm all for less grind and more progression, just don't think raising base profits based on weight is the right way to do so, creates less mech diversity. A jenner running medium lasers pays the same amount to fix them as an atlas, but the atlas makes more money. Who wants to be a jenner in that situation?

Quote

According to Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) contracts take into account mech weight, pilot skill, tech level of the mech, and other modifiers. The bigger the mech the bigger the base pay because heavier mechs cost more to run. The goal is for the player to keep progressing without regressing even on a win and breaking even on a loss.

While I understand the lore behind this, again for gameplay reasons I don't support it. It reduces mech diversity by pushing the idea that assaults = money. In the lore pilots of assaults were payed more because they were far less common. Most pilots had to work for years to get anything bigger than a medium, assuming they survived that long. It makes sense that something that is a better asset to victory would be worth more money. PGI wants to avoid the "arms race" mentality that the lore had where assaults are the be-all and end-all of mechs. In this game, a skilled light can take down an assault any day, and that's much better than "assaults kill everything" that was MW3 and 4.

Just playing devil's advocate.

[James The Fox Dixon]

0d1n, on 29 October 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Again, would rather push prices down so people get more profitable games than push people into a particular category. I'm all for less grind and more progression, just don't think raising base profits based on weight is the right way to do so, creates less mech diversity. A jenner running medium lasers pays the same amount to fix them as an atlas, but the atlas makes more money. Who wants to be a jenner in that situation?



While I understand the lore behind this, again for gameplay reasons I don't support it. It reduces mech diversity by pushing the idea that assaults = money. In the lore pilots of assaults were payed more because they were far less common. Most pilots had to work for years to get anything bigger than a medium, assuming they survived that long. It makes sense that something that is a better asset to victory would be worth more money. PGI wants to avoid the "arms race" mentality that the lore had where assaults are the be-all and end-all of mechs. In this game, a skilled light can take down an assault any day, and that's much better than "assaults kill everything" that was MW3 and 4.

Just playing devil's advocate.

You aren't accounting for the fact that heavier mechs incur higher expenses that the current system punishes heavier mechs leading to the thing you are worried about most; lack of diversity on the battlefield. It will also lead to another side effect of splitting the community between f2p players and founders. The weight based pay system makes all classes equal when you account for their expenses on repairs and rearming.

[Devils Advocate]

Have you seen the battlefield? There is no lack of assaults loaded to the brim with LRMs as it is. People who pay for premium time can afford to take hits of 120k+ repair and rearm fees after every battle and still net a profit. The idea behind making them more expensive is to discourage their use and make them prized end-game possessions. You don't own an Atlas so you can drop it into a box canyon to get shot at from all sides, you own an Atlas so you can roll it out when the time comes to take over a new territory for your faction or tackle some clan match. Right now I don't think their repair costs are quite high enough.

[KhanCipher]

Devils Advocate, on 29 October 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Have you seen the battlefield? There is no lack of assaults loaded to the brim with LRMs as it is. People who pay for premium time can afford to take hits of 120k+ repair and rearm fees after every battle and still net a profit. The idea behind making them more expensive is to discourage their use and make them prized end-game possessions. You don't own an Atlas so you can drop it into a box canyon to get shot at from all sides, you own an Atlas so you can roll it out when the time comes to take over a new territory for your faction or tackle some clan match. Right now I don't think their repair costs are quite high enough.

that already exists, it's called World of Tanks, and honestly it shouldn't be the same here too

[James The Fox Dixon]

Devils Advocate, on 29 October 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Have you seen the battlefield? There is no lack of assaults loaded to the brim with LRMs as it is. People who pay for premium time can afford to take hits of 120k+ repair and rearm fees after every battle and still net a profit. The idea behind making them more expensive is to discourage their use and make them prized end-game possessions. You don't own an Atlas so you can drop it into a box canyon to get shot at from all sides, you own an Atlas so you can roll it out when the time comes to take over a new territory for your faction or tackle some clan match. Right now I don't think their repair costs are quite high enough.

Founders and people using premium will still make more c-bills and xp over f2p players. Are you saying that f2p players shouldn't be able to participate in the bigger mechs? If that is what you want then this game will not succeed and you have split the community.

[Nasail]

Um, heavy and assaults offset their higher costs by doing more damage and by getting more kills. If you cannot afford to refit your heavy or assult, then go learn to aim in a smaller mech.

[Brien]

I always make a profit and run ammo heavy loadouts, on it being weight dependant no the lights who run with us do just as an important job as a med, hvy, or assault. If your team communicates and know thier roles then everyone contributes and deserve just as much an award as any other pilot.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Brien, on 29 October 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I always make a profit and run ammo heavy loadouts, on it being weight dependant no the lights who run with us do just as an important job as a med, hvy, or assault. If your team communicates and know thier roles then everyone contributes and deserve just as much an award as any other pilot.

The current system actually makes it hard for f2p players to progress in the game due to either very small rewards or going negative in every single match with their owned mech. You're a founder and have premium time right now, so you do not see what the average f2p player sees.

[Brien]

James The Fox Dixon, on 29 October 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

The current system actually makes it hard for f2p players to progress in the game due to either very small rewards or going negative in every single match with their owned mech. You're a founder and have premium time right now, so you do not see what the average f2p player sees.

I do forget this sometimes you are correct, sorry if this was taken as unconcern for the new folks and non founders premium players.

[EtherDragon]

The game has a built in learning-curve ladder - the costs of each weight class.

As you gain proficiency you find that your ability to put out damage increases - thus your reward (win or lose) increases.

Heavier mechs tend to get more kills, and put out more damage than lighter ones - so the money the heavier mechs bring is in higher than not. The Devs are still working on more "performance" based rewards - with an eye on rewarding Assault mechs for doing their job (going in head first and taking fire!)... so keep posted for changes.

[Hexenhammer]

James The Fox Dixon, on 29 October 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

According to Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) contracts take into account mech weight, pilot skill, tech level of the mech, and other modifiers. The bigger the mech the bigger the base pay because heavier mechs cost more to run. The goal is for the player to keep progressing without regressing even on a win and breaking even on a loss.

Sounds like something that might be happening in the meta-game.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 30 October 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Brien, on 30 October 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I do forget this sometimes you are correct, sorry if this was taken as unconcern for the new folks and non founders premium players.

No worries. A lot of founders do not bother to take the time to realize that f2p players are locked out of anything heavier than a medium mech due to the low payout of rewards. On my average match, I bring in between 0k-30k due to the high cost of repairs and rearming. At this current rate it will take me forever to get my second Catapult variant.

Hexenhammer, on 30 October 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Sounds like something that might be happening in the meta-game.

Yes, but it doesn't help players now.

[Dezereus]

I disagree with the rewards based on weight. A lot. If in my raven, I do my scouting, manage most damage and half the kills....why should I be shafted for playing a light. Sorry, but no. I agree that the rewards, especially for winning need to be increased, but why should an atlas that fails at its role be guaranteed more than what I would get with bonuses for doing some serious carrying with my raven? I just don't see it working. I can understand your point on repair costs, but I still have an issue with this. A scout that runs up and pulls off some nice fights, disrupts the back field, stops their fire support, and gets a bunch of kills, still won't get to the win reward for an atlas that sat in the back using direct fire and missing. Despite the fact that the scout is likely to take serious damage and the atlas might take very little while sitting back. If they did this and seriously boosted the performance rewards then maybe, but as you outline it for just weight classes, I have to say no.

As a side note, if they implement that system(which they shouldn't), trial mechs would need to be changed as well. Otherwise everyone would just run assault trial mechs and reap in some serious cash regardless of performance.

Beyond that a heavily modified light can still cost 100k to repair, but that's the exception, not the rule.(this is meant to be informational not confrontational nor comparative to other mechs repair costs)

Thanks for your time

Dez

Edited by Dezereus, 31 October 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Dezereus, on 31 October 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I disagree with the rewards based on weight. A lot. If in my raven, I do my scouting, manage most damage and half the kills....why should I be shafted for playing a light. Sorry, but no. I agree that the rewards, especially for winning need to be increased, but why should an atlas that fails at its role be guaranteed more than what I would get with bonuses for doing some serious carrying with my raven? I just don't see it working. I can understand your point on repair costs, but I still have an issue with this. A scout that runs up and pulls off some nice fights, disrupts the back field, stops their fire support, and gets a bunch of kills, still won't get to the win reward for an atlas that sat in the back using direct fire and missing. Despite the fact that the scout is likely to take serious damage and the atlas might take very little while sitting back. If they did this and seriously boosted the performance rewards then maybe, but as you outline it for just weight classes, I have to say no.

As a side note, if they implement that system(which they shouldn't), trial mechs would need to be changed as well. Otherwise everyone would just run assault trial mechs and reap in some serious cash regardless of performance.

Beyond that a heavily modified light can still cost 100k to repair, but that's the exception, not the rule.(this is meant to be informational not confrontational nor comparative to other mechs repair costs)

Thanks for your time

Dez

You aren't being shafted for playing a light. You have a base pay because of the mech you pilot. Everything you described is incorporated into this system as additional rewards. You get kills and kill assists as per normal. You get scouting bonuses etc... With the doubling of rewards a good light pilot can boost themselves up to being equal in comparison to heavier mechs. The goal is for a pilot to earn a minimum of 100k for winning guaranteed and breaking even for a loss. As in the example in the original post, f2p players in a heavier mech will rarely earn more 30k profit (depending upon build). The current system favors an all energy build which leads to less diversity on the battlefield in regards to weapon load outs and chassis taken. It also removes role warfare, which is one of the pillars of the game.

The current system punishes players of the heavier mechs because the rewards are not there. I am a f2p player, minus the MC I bought, in a Catapult. I earn on average 0-30k from winning and a negative when I lose. Why are you for punishing players of heavier mechs?

Trial mechs are exempt from the system as it only applies to owned mechs.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 31 October 2012 - 06:31 AM.

[Dezereus]

Redacted rambling at 9 am with no sleep

I should clarify, my problem with your idea is that it ignores any consideration into the performance side of things which are already insignificant and should be addressed. At the same time you weigh mech weight class as the most important thing. I understand from the repair standpoint, but like you said, this is fine for a base to work with. I would agree, but maybe not exactly the values you listed, but overall fine. However if you are going to do it that way then I feel majority of the potential income should come from performance. For doing well and using teamwork etc, players should be rewarded.

Pps to be honest the more I consider this topic the more I agree with you, except I still feel that players should be more heavily rewarded for performance, but I see your point for a base to handle this with.

Edited by Dezereus, 31 October 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Dezereus, on 31 October 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Its not that I am for punishing heavies or boosting lights. The problem is when you try to stick lights to the prices you listed, which won't cover my average loss repair bill either. I fight my light into the ground and people having a hard time hitting me can leave me with almost complete armour loss. (Aka I get hit everywhere leaving me with silly expensive repairs. Its not always that bad, but lights can still easily exceed the 50k you list for a loss(on avg).) As I clarified, if the system were to be changed as you desire then I feel the best thing would be to weight performance in the match more heavily. I did not say your idea could not work, just that if they implemented it, it would require other changes. As an atlas that survives but does very little could easily exceed the profit margin of a light that led the team.

Its a hard line to walk. If players with less success cannot play what they want without paying, then it is not free to play. But in the same regard, if the performance of the pilots and their team work isn't properly weighted then people will continue the trend of exploiting the fact that performance isn't weighted heavily enough. Aka afks and similar. The system you suggest could easily identify assaults as the new way to exploit. A really cheaply built assault mech that afks, people aren't going to bombard it; they'll shoot it in the back ct, restricting damage taken. Admittedly it assumes an initial investment, but I'm just using it as an example.

Edit PS, again my problem with your idea is that it ignores any consideration into the performance side of things which are already insignificant and should be addressed. At the same time you weigh mech weight class as the most important thing. I understand from the repair standpoint, but like I said, if this happens its fine for a base to work with, maybe not exactly the values you listed, but generally speaking. However if you are going to do it that way then I feel majority of the potential income should come from performance. For doing well and using teamwork etc, players should be rewarded.

I didn't ignore your idea. I had it already there in the first post.

A recommendation would be to double the other rewards so that a win will result in a bigger gain and a loss will allow a pilot to break even.

By doubling the rewards, a pilot will be able to use his/her performance in the game to boost their income and it represents their quality level. I could also see KA, K/D ratio, and W/L ratio factoring heavily by having a green pilot have double rewards while an elite pilot could have up to four times the rewards for their performance. It will also curb farming to an extent, since the system would reinforce good behavior.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 31 October 2012 - 07:54 AM.