15 replies to this topic

[Kotrin]

From the lowliest Commando to the most expensive Atlas, there's a price factor of about ten. Is it really adequate?

I'm not complaining for Assault 'Mech. They have plenty going for them. Question is about 'Mech prices, and the "steep linearity" linking 'Mech types and their price, which does not translate into ruthless in-game efficiency.

Sure, heavier units feature more gear, but even a Large Laser is merely 200'000 C-Bills, not that much. Weapon and ammo hold for little in a 'Mech price. Technology base is another matter - XL engine, endo-seel IS are very, very expensive.

But even if you strip them of everything (never bothered figuring the exact numbers, will do if I find the time) the cost for an naked 'Mech chassis is big, and related to its tonnage class.

I know these prices come more or less from TT values but these values mean very different things on tabletop and in MWO. In TT, tonnage means almost everything. Fast movement brings little in terms of survivability. More tonnage means more firepower, armor, ammo, heat sinks, everything.

But in MWO things are different. "Power" comes from many things, from movement to actual player skill, and being heavy is no guarantee of any kind. Drop the aforementioned 100-tons Atlas against 4 25-tons Commandos, who will you bet on? Even against a single Jenner, Atlas pilots sweat.

In TT, this would be a very different story.

So, for once, I wonder if MWO should not diverge more from TT Battletech, so the price between light 'Mechs and assault 'Mechs with the same technology base would follow a more gentle curve. Maybe an Atlas should cost the price of 3 Commando or something, instead of 8?

Honestly, since we moved to Open Beta I wonder how many free players afforded an Heavy or Assault 'Mech. I have more the impression most of them grind for Cicadas, Ravens and Commandos. Experience makes it worse too, as trying to unlock "Elite" experience requires more variants to be owned.

This would improve the choice of players accordingly to their game play style, instead of pushing every new player into grinding with a light 'Mech as it often stands now.

So, what do you think of this issue? Let the Flame Begin!

[Mu]

It's the equipment. XL engines are very, very pricey and the mechs that come with them have their prices inflated as a result. Look at the difference between Awesome variant prices. Things like gauss rifles and ER PPCs aren't cheap either.

I just wish we could buy base mechs with nothing equipped. I put a 385XL in my AWS-9M so its super-expensive 320XL ended up just getting sold.

[Furniture]

On tabletop, fast movement is EVERYTHING when it comes to preventing yourself from being hit and surviving. If anything, speed means less in MWO - you have a crosshair and can aim the weapons yourself, instead of relying on a dice roll. The only thing that speed does for you in MWO is give you a lag shield, but you'd have to be moving really fast for that. Light mechs take constant chipping damage everywhere they go when the enemy sees them, but on TT, they'd most likely not be taking any hits at all. The to-hit modifiers for movement that fast are brutal. And, unlike MWO, where weight class means everything (teams are matched by weight class, not tonnage, role, or capability), in TT weight class and tonnage mean nothing unless the players decide for themselves to use those to balance their match. TT uses a system called BV, or Battle Value, that calculates the value of a mech based on the types of equipment that it is carrying, its speed, armor, pilot skill and gunnery skill, etc, and then matches the two teams based on that. Such a team balance system would probably be possible for MWO, but would require a lot of work, and so it probably won't get done. In TT using BV to balance, you won't have your lightly armed 60 ton stock DRG-1N Dragon being matched against a 60 ton Vulture.

Also, the prices aren't really based off of the tabletop C-bills either. Niether are the MC credits required for purchase. If remember the purchase prices in the closed beta, you'd have noticed that the C-bill prices for the different mech chassis have been fluctuating a little between patches. They are more expensive now than they were a few months ago.

[Gaan Cathal]

I've been playing a week, with a few mates joining around the same time or shortly after. Most of us are employed, and all of us play other games. This is obviously our experience, and YMMV, but I have a RVN-2X and a RVN-3L, both purchased with CB. One of my mates purchased a DRG-1N with MC, and has purchased a DRG-5N since with CB. One has been playing a matter of a couple of days and is well in sight of the Catapult he wants to purchase, and one playing as long as me (more or less) is struggling to decide if he wants to spend his stack of CB on a Heavy, or keep saving for his Fatlas dreamboat (I think the Fatlas trial mech has settled the issue there).

So yeah, we appear to be doing fine on the income as it stands. Those of use who've purchased mechs have thrownCB at fitting thme out to boot. Again - YMMV, but that's our experience.

[Kovathos]

basically what these people said, assaults are of course more expensive than lights. They carry heavier more expensive weapons, armor, equipment, internal structure, etc...

If you took an atlas, and stripped most of its weapons and armor to that of a commando, you would find an atlas to be a hell of alot cheaper then in total c-bils of equipment and such on the mech.

Not only that, Assault mechs are complicated to make, arent massed produced.

Think of it this way, the american M4 Sherman and Russian T-34, VS the German Tiger tank. The tiger far outclassed the other two, but is a hell of alot more expensive and complicated to make. Hence why during the war, they didnt have alot of them compared to the amount of Shermans and T-34s.

[Kotrin]

Furniture, on 09 November 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

On tabletop, fast movement is EVERYTHING when it comes to preventing yourself from being hit and surviving (...) The to-hit modifiers for movement that fast are brutal.

No, just no. In most case they add as much penalty for the shooter than for the target. Moreover, in a turn-based game, if you can shoot me I can shoot you. No way one can get close, shoot, then leave while opponent reacts - something happening everytime in MWO.

But your point regarding battle value holds some water. Perhaps MWO should be more inclined to decide 'Mech and component prices based on their BV instead of loosely following C-Bill costs in Construction Rules. It would make more sense.

Gaan Cathal, on 09 November 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

I've been playing a week, with a few mates joining around the same time or shortly after. Most of us are employed, and all of us play other games. This is obviously our experience, and YMMV, but I have a RVN-2X and a RVN-3L, both purchased with CB. One of my mates purchased a DRG-1N with MC, and has purchased a DRG-5N since with CB. One has been playing a matter of a couple of days and is well in sight of the Catapult he wants to purchase, and one playing as long as me (more or less) is struggling to decide if he wants to spend his stack of CB on a Heavy, or keep saving for his Fatlas dreamboat (I think the Fatlas trial mech has settled the issue there).

So yeah, we appear to be doing fine on the income as it stands. Those of use who've purchased mechs have thrownCB at fitting thme out to boot. Again - YMMV, but that's our experience.

Your experience match my own perception, but in fact you've just confirmed my point. You already own two Ravens (and probably are on your way of purchasing a third), a friend of you has two Dragons only because he paid one with MC, as for others they're still struggling to purchase their first heavy / assault 'Mech.

When you try out to unlock the second tier of 'Mech skills the problem might become a lot more obvious to you and people in your group of players.

A stripped Commando should cost something like 250'000 C-Bills, a stripped Atlas 1'000'000 C-Bills (10K per ton), then you add the rest - obviously, since the latter features much more equipment and armour than the former, the fully equipped price could change a lot, but not to a x6, x8 factor like now.

The idea of purchasing stripped 'Mech structures is also excellent.

[Gaan Cathal]

Kotrin, on 09 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Your experience match my own perception, but in fact you've just confirmed my point. You already own two Ravens (and probably are on your way of purchasing a third), a friend of you has two Dragons only because he paid one with MC, as for others they're still struggling to purchase their first heavy / assault 'Mech.

....

The idea of purchasing stripped 'Mech structures is also excellent.

Not that you're entierly wrong, but to clarify - there is one Heavy that costs more than the RVN-3L, and only by a few grand, and the player gunning for the Atlas could afford an Awesome if he wanted it (I believe). The player wanting a Heavy has only been playing three days or so. We've also been doing ok, mostly hitting the top half of the team in terms of points, which obviously has a significant impact. The power of the VOIP and all.

That said, I definately agree with you about the stripped chassis purchasing.

[Congzilla]

The pricing is fine, it is actually lower than TT.

[Djarid]

Congzilla, on 09 November 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

The pricing is fine, it is actually lower than TT.

I have to agree, if anything it is still a little low. Something gained with little effort has little value.

A friend I convinced to come and play MWO was concerned that there was insufficient potential for progression to maintain interest in the game. He is currently playing WoT and the ongoing skill progression is giving him the sense of progress. If you get all the Mechs too easily then people with nothing left to strive for may stop playing.

[Random Numbers]

Hey they have to keep balance ... I mean it's not like light mechs can kill heavy and assault mechs with ease ...
oh wait...

Edited by Random Numbers, 09 November 2012 - 07:08 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Random Numbers, on 09 November 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Hey they have to keep balance ... I mean it's not like light mechs can kill heavy and assault mechs with ease ...
oh wait...

Only if their team lets us.

[Buzzkill85]

The prices are reasonable--if you spend the majority of your game time playing MWO. I have a full Steam list, and a bunch I still haven't played yet, so I still haven't purchased a mech with c-bills. (I can afford a Commando at this point, been playing since open beta launch.) Let's say this was a retail game: you'd be able to customize all the mechs immediately in MP, eventually in SP, but if you used MC to achieve that function here, you'd be in the poor house.
Don't get me wrong, the game is fun, but I'm ready to jump in and customize--more than one mech, please.

[soarra]

Mu, on 09 November 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

It's the equipment. XL engines are very, very pricey and the mechs that come with them have their prices inflated as a result. Look at the difference between Awesome variant prices. Things like gauss rifles and ER PPCs aren't cheap either.

I just wish we could buy base mechs with nothing equipped. I put a 385XL in my AWS-9M so its super-expensive 320XL ended up just getting sold.

was just talking about this to with my merc group. Buying an empty mech would be great since i always have a ton of stuff in my inventory. First thing i do when i buy a mech is strip it anyway.

[The Herrick]

Congzilla, on 09 November 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

The pricing is fine, it is actually lower than TT.

Djarid, on 09 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

I have to agree, if anything it is still a little low. Something gained with little effort has little value.

A friend I convinced to come and play MWO was concerned that there was insufficient potential for progression to maintain interest in the game. He is currently playing WoT and the ongoing skill progression is giving him the sense of progress. If you get all the Mechs too easily then people with nothing left to strive for may stop playing.

Remember, you golds can get up to 125% more income than us plebeian free players. Amassing the funds to get an atlas is no mean feat regardless of if they have their own mech already or just trials.

Besides, if the game combat is good enough it should not matter if it is easy or hard to get mechs, you play for the combat, not for saving up so you can get something enjoyable to pilot. It is safe to say MWO's combat is more involved than WoT plus it'll still take forever for efficiencies and such. The value thing is a petty argument as well, just because you arbitrarily stick several hours grind onto something doesn't make it more worth while.

[Kotrin]

Congzilla, on 09 November 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

The pricing is fine, it is actually lower than TT.

First, price has no effect whastoever in a TT game. Eventually people use Battle Value system.

Second, price means little as PGI controls NC prices and C-Bills earnings. Perhaps we should count that as "average number of games needed", a more realistic measure, but since CB incomes are more or less stabilized after a number of patch, for convenience we use them in our statements.

Third, game balance is vastly different than it is in TT game (thanks for the variety) so the already loose relationship price / efficiency we had is even worse in MWO.

[Elizander]

The Herrick, on 09 November 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Remember, you golds can get up to 125% more income than us plebeian free players. Amassing the funds to get an atlas is no mean feat regardless of if they have their own mech already or just trials.

Where is this 125% more income? Premium only gives 50% and the Founders Mech or YLW gives 25% or 30%.