576 replies to this topic

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

Look at who is twisting what people have said. Try again. Invalid move.

Please show me where the devs said you can run any mech build without losing money.
You can not use quote that say role, they must say mech or battlemech, as roles defined by PGI are not mechs.

Your move.

[Erasus Magnus]

so ist okay for a high ammo build , that doesnt outperform (in a balanced world) a not high ammo (energy) build to be ridiculously more costly, just because? what?

as far as i can recall even in tt lore rearming wasnt that expensive. to penalize people just because they use weapons they like is an odd move for me.

in a more realistic sense, energy weapons should be almost as costly to maintain as ballistics and missile racks, because of higher tech capacitors, special shaped lenses costly metal or plastics that can sustain the high heat loads of energy weapons and all that, amirite?

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Please show me where the devs said you can run any mech build without losing money.
You can not use quote that say role, they must say mech or battlemech, as roles defined by PGI are not mechs.

Your move.

Show me where the devs have said that you can run any mech that loses money every time.

I have asked for this thread to be lock since you and Sandpit have derailed the thread from the first page. Congrats you have won by trolling for 29 pages and have silenced all honest discussion regarding the economy. It's no wonder why the bulk of the players do not post on here.

[LogicSol]

Erasus Magnus, on 08 November 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

so ist okay for a high ammo build , that doesnt outperform (in a balanced world) a not high ammo (energy) build to be ridiculously more costly, just because? what?

as far as i can recall even in tt lore rearming wasnt that expensive. to penalize people just because they use weapons they like is an odd move for me.

in a more realistic sense, energy weapons should be almost as costly to maintain as ballistics and missile racks, because of higher tech capacitors, special shaped lenses costly metal or plastics that can sustain the high heat loads of energy weapons and all that, amirite?

I agree on Energy weapons costs, they should be more expensive to repair and by extension equip.
However I must point out that an LRM build can top 1500 damage, something very difficult to even come close to in a energy build.

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Show me where the devs have said that you can run any mech that loses money every time.

For this I point to the game.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

I have asked for this thread to be lock since you and Sandpit have derailed the thread from the first page. Congrats you have won by trolling for 29 pages and have silenced all honest discussion regarding the economy. It's no wonder why the bulk of the players do not post on here.

Interestingly enough, both sandpit and I have floated around 4 or 5 different economy improvement suggestions between us over this thread.
You have ignored everyone of them, and spent half the time name calling.
You have also ignored the free players that think the economy is okay.

We haven't ruined your thread, or the chance to speak openly about the economy. That would be you, with your inability to acknowledged anyone ele's viewpoint.

Edit: half not having, wasing the want of spelling the word.

Edited by LogicSol, 08 November 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[socialSavant]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Show me where the devs have said that you can run any mech that loses money every time.

I have asked for this thread to be lock since you and Sandpit have derailed the thread from the first page. Congrats you have won by trolling for 29 pages and have silenced all honest discussion regarding the economy. It's no wonder why the bulk of the players do not post on here.

That my friend is called "laying the blame." Some would say you're trying to "roll them under the bus." Ultimately, you couldn't stand up and say that you may have been wrong, so you instead name-called, refused to add to the discussion, and finally asked that the Dev's/Mod's sweep away the evidence now that you have nothing else to do.

[Sandpit]

Erasus Magnus, on 08 November 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

so ist okay for a high ammo build , that doesnt outperform (in a balanced world) a not high ammo (energy) build to be ridiculously more costly, just because? what?

as far as i can recall even in tt lore rearming wasnt that expensive. to penalize people just because they use weapons they like is an odd move for me.

in a more realistic sense, energy weapons should be almost as costly to maintain as ballistics and missile racks, because of higher tech capacitors, special shaped lenses costly metal or plastics that can sustain the high heat loads of energy weapons and all that, amirite?

I'd also like to chime in. The weapons systems themselves aren't what are attributing to the higher cost after matches. You pay on the front end for more expensive lasers. The higher fees are associated with ammo.
That's why you pay more on the backside for ammo
Also, you replace ammo at the end of every round (unless you rearm 75% of your ammo for free in which case you pay for nothing) You don't always have to replace a weapon system at the end of every round

[Erasus Magnus]

i am with you on that one, at least before the hotfix nerf missiles were quite op, BUT that isn the players fault by default.

balance missiles in terms of damage, double their ammo per ton, leave ammo costs per ton unchanged, BAM, you have the same amount of ammo per 1ß sec cycle as in tt and reduced the threat that missiles pose and eliminated the econimical crisis lrm boaters face regularily.

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'd also like to chime in. The weapons systems themselves aren't what are attributing to the higher cost after matches. You pay on the front end for more expensive lasers. The higher fees are associated with ammo.
That's why you pay more on the backside for ammo
Also, you replace ammo at the end of every round (unless you rearm 75% of your ammo for free in which case you pay for nothing) You don't always have to replace a weapon system at the end of every round

that is just wrong. first, the biggest energy gun (er ppc costs 600k while the biggest lrm rack costs 500k, so the price tag for energy weapons isnt that hefty compared to lrms.

second, energy weapons have to be repaired and maintained. if they are higher in tech they should be more costly to replace, repair or simply maintain. over the course of a battle, a capacitor can burn out without being damaged by enemy fire , or a laser focussing lense just bends out of shape due to high heat load and so on. so, no, there is no excuse for energy weapons being more cost eficient than any other weapon system.

and i am absolutely against this free rearm and repair thing. we already have a bankruptcy failsave called trial mechs. this free rearm and repair is screaming for exploit

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 08 November 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Sandpit]

Erasus Magnus, on 08 November 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

i am with you on that one, at least before the hotfix nerf missiles were quite op, BUT that isn the players fault by default.

balance missiles in terms of damage, double their ammo per ton, leave ammo costs per ton unchanged, BAM, you have the same amount of ammo per 1ß sec cycle as in tt and reduced the threat that missiles pose and eliminated the econimical crisis lrm boaters face regularily.

http://mwomercs.com/...ire-suggestion/
I actually float an idea there on balancing LRMs. I'd love to hear opinions on it. It has more to do with direct and indirect LoS than the actually weapon itself but I think it reaches a balance that would help even out when and how LRMs are used.

It's kinda off-topic in this thread so I thought I might head you over there if you've got ideas on LRMs

[LogicSol]

Erasus Magnus, on 08 November 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

i am with you on that one, at least before the hotfix nerf missiles were quite op, BUT that isn the players fault by default.

balance missiles in terms of damage, double their ammo per ton, leave ammo costs per ton unchanged, BAM, you have the same amount of ammo per 1ß sec cycle as in tt and reduced the threat that missiles pose and eliminated the econimical crisis lrm boaters face regularily.

Personally I'm for them reducing ammo costs by 2/3 or 3/4 and reducing free rearm to 25%. I don't like that I pay the same weather I use 30%, 60% or 90% of my ammo.

Actually it would be cool if they did bulk ammo. Something like 2 tons 2 slots, 150% ammo increase over stand, same price.

Or 125% price over standard.
Basicially it give higher ammo counts with lower costs, but take up more space.

[Sarevos]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'd also like to chime in. The weapons systems themselves aren't what are attributing to the higher cost after matches. You pay on the front end for more expensive lasers. The higher fees are associated with ammo.
That's why you pay more on the backside for ammo
Also, you replace ammo at the end of every round (unless you rearm 75% of your ammo for free in which case you pay for nothing) You don't always have to replace a weapon system at the end of every round

Its definitely something you should do if youre complaining about costs. I run an A1 endo xl artemis dhs with 4srm6s and 2 streaks and i only tried premium last week for 3 days currently back on free status i pug often and really dont lose money that much its not impossible to do the free route but you need to make use of trials or a cheaper mech if you want to make alot of money fast thats just the name of the game. if you dont like the grind shell out some cash but theres nothing you cant do for free, therefore not p2w we even get 75% rearm carry 25% more than you need and voila free ammo for life at the expense of 2 heat sinks

edit actually thats 33% more >.>

Edited by Sarevos, 08 November 2012 - 05:51 PM.

[socialSavant]

I would like to restate my feelings on the economy as it stands. My view has changed somewhat during this long thread and believe that we can put this train back on track.

First, I am a "free player." At least for the moment. I have yet to send any money to PGI or whomever for this game.

Second, I enjoy myself in this game quite thoroughly. So much so that despite my very early acceptance into PlanetSide 2 Beta, which is ongoing, and my love of World of Tanks, which I have invested a large amount of time in to date, I still spend far more time playing MW:O.

Third, I do not pilot anything at the moment other than Commandos. It is true that this is in part due to the costs associated with piloting or even just buying heavier 'Mechs.

Fourth, I have found that having a goal to work towards is a great way to motivate me to do better in-game. Earning enough C-bills to buy and maintain my favorite 'Mech is just such a goal.

Finally, I just don't see how we can expect the system to be perfect and do believe that even though there is some drudgery necessary while novice player there is also enough payout and reward, both monetarily and for sake of entertainment, to encourage players to stick around and even possibly send some money to PGI at some point. But I say this knowing full well that we are still in Beta testing. Part of the deal as a Beta tester is to accept that sometimes stuff doesn't go well and it is our jobs to help fix it by forwarding data and constructive criticism to the company. For our efforts, we get to play a game well ahead of the general public and in many cases do so for free even when the game is not "Free to Play."

Thank you PGI for your hard work, I hope that this very long thread has at least a few nuggets of helpful data and ideas for y'all to chew on. I kinda liked the idea of a training arena which has in-game tutorials and spits out graduated cadets with a little cash in their pockets and hope in their eyes while staring into their futures.

[Erasus Magnus]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Personally I'm for them reducing ammo costs by 2/3 or 3/4 and reducing free rearm to 25%. I don't like that I pay the same weather I use 30%, 60% or 90% of my ammo.

Actually it would be cool if they did bulk ammo. Something like 2 tons 2 slots, 150% ammo increase over stand, same price.

Or 125% price over standard.
Basicially it give higher ammo counts with lower costs, but take up more space.

there is no need for more space, as the lrm boaters will take less tons of ammo with doubled ammo, instead they will build in something else that makes sense, another weapon system, which furtherdiminishes the importance of the missile launcher on that particular build.

Sarevos, on 08 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Its definitely something you should do if youre complaining about costs. I run an A1 endo xl artemis dhs with 4srm6s and 2 streaks and i only tried premium last week for 3 days currently back on free status i pug often and really dont lose money that much its not impossible to do the free route but you need to make use of trials or a cheaper mech if you want to make alot of money fast thats just the name of the game. if you dont like the grind shell out some cash but theres nothing you cant do for free, therefore not p2w we even get 75% rearm carry 25% more than you need and voila free ammo for life at the expense of 2 heat sinks

edit actually thats 33% more >.>

doesnt that feel incredibly cheesy?

and i am a founder with premium bonus, and even if imy team wins, i come out with a really slight gain in cbills. if i contribute alot, up to all my ammo and perhaps the rest of my mech too and win, its a lot of times a c bill loss for me.

at the same time an energy boater that stresses out his engine, his heat sinks and his energy weapons alike is coming out of a game with a hefty profit.

doesnt sound right, im sorry

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 08 November 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[LogicSol]

Erasus Magnus, on 08 November 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

there is no need for more space, as the lrm boaters will take less tons of ammo with doubled ammo, instead they will build in something else that makes sense, another weapon system, which furtherdiminishes the importance of the missile launcher on that particular build.

I just don't see them doubling ammo.

1.5 tons, 2 crit 1.5x ammo, 1.25x cost as a refinement.
The increased crit space is to make them less stack-able with ES/FF/DHS.

[James The Fox Dixon]

socialSavant, on 08 November 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Third, I do not pilot anything at the moment other than Commandos. It is true that this is in part due to the costs associated with piloting or even just buying heavier 'Mechs.

This is the most important part of your post that invalidates everything you've said regarding heavier mechs that are ammo dependent. You have just admitted that there is something wrong with the costs of running a heavier mech under the current economic system.

[Konrad]

I think the economy is fine. I have never had an issue with it other then the time I had about 163,000,000 cbils.

[RAM]

At this point the discussion as it were has run its course. Closing.


RAM
ELH
MOD