576 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

I put together a thread in the suggestion forum that looks at the economics of the game and shows how the current economy punishes non-founders and non-premium time players. The current system has been discussed to death in closed beta and now into open beta. Part of it was a complete revamp of the system that rewards a player based upon what they bring into a match and their performance during the match. This thread has been ignored by the developers and they have not made any comments about how they intend to fix the current economic problems.

This is from my example in that thread.

http://mwomercs.com/...n-weight-class/

Quote

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.

Looking at the numbers, you can see that no matter what the player does in winning the match they will always end up in the red as a free player. The only alternative they have is for free players to pilot something like a Commando or a Jenner without any of the upgrades in order to make money. However, mech ownership is the least attractive option over running nothing but trial mechs. For trial mechs, this is pure profit for the player and leads to no incentive to buy a mech nor pay MC for additional mech slots in the garage.

This is further compounded by the skill system that requires a player to buy three mech variants of the same chassis in order to gain the bonuses. With ammo based builds they will never be able to afford a second or third chassis in a reasonable amount of time. A reasonable amount of time in this discussion is about 3 hours worth of matches regardless of winning or losing. Given that newer variants cost a lot more due to level 2 equipment on them it will take them about 8 or more hours to be able to afford a second variant while using their current variant. Mech customization is off the table since that will only cause higher repair and rearm costs that further diminishes their earnings.

For example, a player is running an A1 Catapult with 6xLRM5's and 10 tons of ammo, it will take them an average of 180 matches @ a rate of 30k earnings for a win to afford a second Catapult variant. They will end up losing money to the tune of 10k or more on a loss. The average time to get the money together, at a 100% win rate, is 1080 minutes (average match time of 6 minutes) or 18 hours. This isn't a really attractive option since no one can achieve a 100% win/loss ratio, so let's look at 50% win/loss with 30k for a win and 10k for a loss. To buy the subsequent variant will require 293 matches for an average time of 1,758 minutes or 29.3 hours for the free player.

Let's clarify the hours in regards to a casual player that plays about 2 hours a night. For the 18 hours spread into 2 hour increments they would earn enough c-bills to buy a second variant in 9 days. For the 29.3 hours, it will be 15 days to buy the second variant.

As it is shown that the current economic is unsustainable for free players since they will leave out of frustration due to the lack of progress. They are not being rewarded for the chosen role/playstyle they were promised. Yes, PGI did promise all players that they would be rewarded for playing a role. This is what the Developer's Blog 3 states in the beginning,"Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay." It adds this at the end, "Players are now truly allowed to customize their gameplay experience to suit their play style which in itself is fairly new to on-line FPS/RPG titles." However, this isn't true according the economic system that PGI has put into place. Players are not rewarded for playing how they want to play, but are punished for choosing a role due to how the economic system is currently implemented. One key thing to note in both of PGI's statements that they refer to players not free to play players or founders or premium time players. This means they are referring to all players regardless of the other factors.

PGI could fix it by implementing a comprehensive reward system that accounts for mech weight and in game performance. This will bring in new players and keep them here while the current system will drive them away. By implementing a reward system that fulfills their promises for all players, PGI will earn more money from MC sales for increased garage slots as well as for other items. I would welcome a developer to come in to discuss the economic model.

EDIT: Since the link above is broken this is what I said in the other thread.

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


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?

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.

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

[Zervziel]

You really don't take hints well, mate. This is what? The third thread?

[Sandpit]

Yes but it'll probably result in a ban this time

Try posting this in an EXISTING THREAD!!!! that's exactly why your duplicate threads are getting locked. Try following the rules and CoC for the forums

[Axxer]

"Never give up" is your motto right?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Actually, I followed Helmer's advice and help to make the thread be in compliance. It helps to actually talk with a moderator when there is a problem and find out how to make the thread to be in compliance. Thanks Helmer for your help.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Zervziel, on 06 November 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

You really don't take hints well, mate. This is what? The third thread?

Actually, he did. This one is without the "offensive material"(From lock 1) and without linking to the first thread(From lock 2). Sooner or later they will run out of lock excuses... that's the idea anyway.

Sandpit, on 06 November 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Yes but it'll probably result in a ban this time

Try posting this in an EXISTING THREAD!!!! that's exactly why your duplicate threads are getting locked. Try following the rules and CoC for the forums

They locked the "existing threads".

Now, can we actually discuss the topic at hand, and not forum moderation? There's already a thread for that elsewhere.(Which, ironically, hasn't been locked yet itself)

Edited by Bluten, 06 November 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Sandpit]

Bluten, on 06 November 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Actually, he did. This one is without the "offensive material"(From lock 1) and without linking to the first thread(From lock 2). Sooner or later they will run out of lock excuses... that's the idea anyway.



They locked the "existing threads".

I promise you they didn't lock every existing thread about the economy

[Velmeran]

I'm almost to 6 mil in trials, playing about 1-2 hours a day, mostly just base capping/being an annoyance. not much else I could do in the previous trials. New cat if a bit fun, but this patch made it so lights are cored instantly so I just take the com/cicada for free money at this point since they die sooooooo fast.

[anonymous175]

A thread with a topic that'll let stay open, that's progress my friends.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Zeno Scarborough, on 06 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

A thread with a topic that'll let stay open, that's progress my friends.

Yes, it is. Great progress if you ask me. I hope the people that posted up in the first thread will come in to post in this thread.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

As I said before; rewards need to SCALE with equipment like repairs do. If you bring a bigger Mech, you should get paid more in order to make up for the fact that you're losing more to repairs. Currently there is little incentive to pilot a bigger Mech because you'll make less money... you may as well stick to a Light or run around in a Hunchback.

[multiplesanta34]

I hope someone actually reads what James the Fox Dixon says instead of just giving him grief over how he says it. It makes no sense that using a trial mech is much more profitable than an owned mech. You want people to try the trials and then buy their own and have a reason to spend money on the game, but as it is, if you're not a founder and don't have premium the trials simply generate more C-Bills regardless of whether you win or lose because of repair and re-arming costs. Why would I be inclined to buy a new mech, mechbay, weapon, or doodad, when my progression has been cut in half or more by stepping out of the trial? What already was a tough grind then just becomes a pointless slog. People want to put down money for this game, even if it's just through microtransactions, but you're not giving them any reason to.

[James The Fox Dixon]

multiplesanta34, on 06 November 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

I hope someone actually reads what James the Fox Dixon says instead of just giving him grief over how he says it. It makes no sense that using a trial mech is much more profitable than an owned mech. You want people to try the trials and then buy their own and have a reason to spend money on the game, but as it is, if you're not a founder and don't have premium the trials simply generate more C-Bills regardless of whether you win or lose because of repair and re-arming costs. Why would I be inclined to buy a new mech, mechbay, weapon, or doodad, when my progression has been cut in half or more by stepping out of the trial? What already was a tough grind then just becomes a pointless slog. People want to put down money for this game, even if it's just through microtransactions, but you're not giving them any reason to.

Thank you, I appreciate your defense.

You are correct that buying a mech as a free player is not a worthwhile endeavor due to the economic costs for repairs and rearms. If PGI is banking on free players to spend money to buy a mech, mech bays, etc... under the current economic model it's not working. If I had my choice I would not have bought a mech nor bought extra mech bays with my closed beta MC purchase. I never would have bought MC either. It is not worth it. The economy in closed beta was good and everyone was able to make money at a steady rate of about 1-1.2m bills an hour. Now I'm lucky to make that much in two days of playing.

Another f2p title, gives people ships up to tier four with 8 ship slots. You can buy more ships and slots if you wanted to, but the economics of the game actually encourages this behavior since you are earning the money needed to purchase new ships outside of the free ones.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 06 November 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[yashmack]

I can agree with the OP
Before I joined a teamspeak server and started hopping in on premades I was running all PUGs, with these PUG groups I couldnt make cash on my owned mech. I finally bought my new mech and pimped it out with weapons the way I wanted. I ran probably 10 matches and went from having a 200k surplus to just over 5k... I didnt buy anything new or make any changes after purchasing the new mech and had to go back to running a trial mech just to make any CB
The issue as I see it though is a lack of community interaction within the game client
If it were easier to chat and add friends before starting a match... well, make that POSSIBLE, and it would alleviate many of the PUG issues I see

[Leetskeet]

Forgive me for not reading this as I just don't feel like it right now

But in reply to the topic, it's about 5 times for profitable to play 10 matches in a trial mech than it is to play an owned mech. I'm not going to go into some long response, but it's just broken. It's bad and they should feel bad.

20-40k profit for a hard fought win, 90-100k for a mostly unscathed stomp win(As in, once every 15 games do I make money), and negative 30-40k for a loss.

Edited by Leetskeet, 06 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[FunkyFritter]

Bluten, on 06 November 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

As I said before; rewards need to SCALE with equipment like repairs do. If you bring a bigger Mech, you should get paid more in order to make up for the fact that you're losing more to repairs. Currently there is little incentive to pilot a bigger Mech because you'll make less money... you may as well stick to a Light or run around in a Hunchback.

Wouldn't it make more sense to equalize the costs instead of scaling the rewards? It would have the same results except that new players wouldn't be punished for preferring bigger mechs.

Frankly I don't see the reasoning behind varying costs so much in the first place. In theory lights are just as good as assaults and small lasers are just as useful as gauss rifles, so it's not really an effective progression system. In the long term the price disparitiy will just make cheap setups more popular, which is less fun than using what you like and risks creating a stagnant metagame.

Edited by FunkyFritter, 06 November 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[Sandpit]

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

I put together a thread in the suggestion forum that looks at the economics of the game and shows how the current economy punishes non-founders and non-premium time players. The current system has been discussed to death in closed beta and now into open beta. Part of it was a complete revamp of the system that rewards a player based upon what they bring into a match and their performance during the match. This thread has been ignored by the developers and they have not made any comments about how they intend to fix the current economic problems.

This is from my example in that thread.

http://mwomercs.com/...n-weight-class/



Looking at the numbers, you can see that no matter what the player does in winning the match they will always end up in the red as a free player. The only alternative they have is for free players to pilot something like a Commando or a Jenner without any of the upgrades in order to make money. However, mech ownership is the least attractive option over running nothing but trial mechs. For trial mechs, this is pure profit for the player and leads to no incentive to buy a mech nor pay MC for additional mech slots in the garage.

This is further compounded by the skill system that requires a player to buy three mech variants of the same chassis in order to gain the bonuses. With ammo based builds they will never be able to afford a second or third chassis in a reasonable amount of time. A reasonable amount of time in this discussion is about 3 hours worth of matches regardless of winning or losing. Given that newer variants cost a lot more due to level 2 equipment on them it will take them about 8 or more hours to be able to afford a second variant while using their current variant. Mech customization is off the table since that will only cause higher repair and rearm costs that further diminishes their earnings.

For example, a player is running an A1 Catapult with 6xLRM5's and 10 tons of ammo, it will take them an average of 180 matches @ a rate of 30k earnings for a win to afford a second Catapult variant. They will end up losing money to the tune of 10k or more on a loss. The average time to get the money together, at a 100% win rate, is 1080 minutes (average match time of 6 minutes) or 18 hours. This isn't a really attractive option since no one can achieve a 100% win/loss ratio, so let's look at 50% win/loss with 30k for a win and 10k for a loss. To buy the subsequent variant will require 293 matches for an average time of 1,758 minutes or 29.3 hours for the free player.

As it is shown that the current economic is unsustainable for free players since they will leave out of frustration due to the lack of progress. They are not being rewarded for the chosen role/playstyle they were promised. Yes, PGI did promise all players that they would be rewarded for playing a role. This is what the Developer's Blog 3 states in the beginning,"Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay." It adds this at the end, "Players are now truly allowed to customize their gameplay experience to suit their play style which in itself is fairly new to on-line FPS/RPG titles." However, this isn't true according the economic system that PGI has put into place. Players are not rewarded for playing how they want to play, but are punished for choosing a role due to how the economic system is currently implemented. One key thing to note in both of PGI's statements that they refer to players not free to play players or founders or premium time players. This means they are referring to all players regardless of the other factors.

PGI could fix it by implementing a comprehensive reward system that accounts for mech weight and in game performance. This will bring in new players and keep them here while the current system will drive them away. By implementing a reward system that fulfills their promises for all players, PGI will earn more money from MC sales for increased garage slots as well as for other items. I would welcome a developer to come in to discuss the economic model.

I don't see where scaling it would actually help. Are you talking about scaling the rewards to weight class or scaling them for specific roles?
IE
Scouts get bigger bonuses for spotting rewards
Assaults would get bigger bonuses for damage done

The other thing I've seen with the economy is simply that the mechs that generally lose money even in a win are due to piling on the most expensive options possible for a mech in every form. DHS, ES, FF, lots of ammo, etc. which results in the higher repair bills. If a player is decking a mech out with every expensive option there is to "buff" it out I can't see adjusting the economy for those specific reasons.

This is simply because it should help alleviate seeing nothing but ES, DHS, etc. in every mech on the field. There are other ways to run mechs like that and keep them viable. You should have at least one mech (or use trials) that's your money maker. That's how you survive as a free player in the economy. I don't think adjusting the economy is going to help the free players grinding out as much as it will hurt it by having the more experienced players stockpiling cash easier.

Instead of having free players earning a little more to help them scrap by you'll see more of higher end players getting to the point where the economy is negligible because it is so easy for them to stockpile cash. I don't think a mech decked out with every goody possible SHOULD be viable on a consistent basis. I don't entirely agree with using the economy to help balance things like that but that's where we're currently at.

I honestly think that you have to look at the other end of the spectrum as far as this suggestion goes because raising the money earned isn't going to affect just the free players and help them eek by. Another aspect of this is that we don't know (at least at this point) what all will be incorporated once CW gets implemented and how this would affect that. There may be tons of economic options that this would wreak havoc with. This is all jsut speculation at this point obviously but I don't think money earned is the answer.

It might be better to have a different progression system that acts as a failsafe for new players. Preventing them from jumping into an expensive mech they can't yet sustain. One of the biggest issues is new players not familiar with BT have little to no idea on what FF, DHS, ES, modules, etc. actually do and spend money on these things only to find out it's not something they even want.

[Quxudica]

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Thank you, I appreciate your defense.

You are correct that buying a mech as a free player is not a worthwhile endeavor due to the economic costs for repairs and rearms. If PGI is banking on free players to spend money to buy a mech, mech bays, etc... under the current economic model it's not working. If I had my choice I would not have bought a mech nor bought extra mech bays with my closed beta MC purchase. I never would have bought MC either. It is not worth it. The economy in closed beta was good and everyone was able to make money at a steady rate of about 1-1.2m bills an hour. Now I'm lucky to make that much in two days of playing.

Another f2p title, gives people ships up to tier four with 8 ship slots. You can buy more ships and slots if you wanted to, but the economics of the game actually encourages this behavior since you are earning the money needed to purchase new ships outside of the free ones.

You've pretty much hit the problem really. Free Playing simply isn't an enjoyable experience if you invest in any kind of customization for a large mech. All an economic model like this is going to do is encourage suicide farming. They tried to remedy that by adding in locks to trial mechs, which won't accomplish anything since four mechs is more then enough to cycle between. They should be focusing on reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the ability to go into the red from repairs and ammo, that will in turn reduce the desire people have to "skip the grind" via suicides, botting or afks. Those shortcuts are fundamentally boring and tedious in their own right, the only reason people use them is because it's less so then the current "correct" play style. Right now the game is little more then a money treadmill, people hop into trial mechs or lights that they don't bother repairing to grind out money to play with the mechs they actually want to use. MWO is not in a good state.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

FunkyFritter, on 06 November 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to equalize the costs instead of scaling the rewards? It would have the same results except that new players wouldn't be punished for preferring bigger mechs.

Frankly I don't see the reasoning behind varying costs so much in the first place. In theory lights are just as good as assaults and small lasers are just as useful as gauss rifles. In the long term the price disparitiy will just make cheap setups more popular, which is less fun than using what you like and risks creating a stagnant metagame.

If they changed it to be flat repair bills that didn't scale with Mechs/equipment then yes, it'd accomplish the same thing as buffing rewards. But I believe Piranha wants scaling numbers hence why the repairs scale. The issue is that they didn't scale rewards to balance the scale out.

[LogicSol]

Hey, so there are literally dozens of mech builds that cost in the 30-70k range to repair.
If you run those as your main mech, you will never lose money, and can save up a buffer to run the more expensive assaults and missile-boats.

If you want worry free running of all mech builds, then go premium. Seriously, it's there so you have an option that doesn't involve investing grind time just to keep up your favorite build.