293 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

And sorry but your big bad Atlas needs to be very expensive to repair. This ties directly lore of the game, the differences between major houses and mercenary units.

If the devs intend for this game in its final form to encapsulate interstellar war between multiple major houses (and eventually the clans) spread over an entire galaxy, repair and rearm cost of your Assault mech is a large part of it.

If they aspire to a simple arena style brawler and nothing else then by all means lets make all the mechs equally costly to repair.

And according to the lore and rules of BattleTech that big, bad Atlas earns more than a Jenner or a light weight class mech. I recommend you read the rules for running Merc units in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) since it states exactly that. You can't take one half and ignore the other half. It's like trying to bake a cake and only use the dry ingredients. The cake will not turn out well.

[Valore]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 November 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

And according to the lore and rules of BattleTech that big, bad Atlas earns more than a Jenner or a light weight class mech. I recommend you read the rules for running Merc units in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) since it states exactly that. You can't take one half and ignore the other half. It's like trying to bake a cake and only use the dry ingredients. The cake will not turn out well.

That wouldn't be a bad idea to implement at all, since it would be realistic as well.

PGI did already add things like spotting bonuses to make being a scout and team player more lucrative. The above suggestion would just take it a logical step further.


The issue would then however be shouldn't losing in an expensive mech cost you more as well?

Edited by Valore, 14 November 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

And sorry but your big bad Atlas needs to be very expensive to repair. This ties directly lore of the game, the differences between major houses and mercenary units.

If the devs intend for this game in its final form to encapsulate interstellar war between multiple major houses (and eventually the clans) spread over an entire galaxy, repair and rearm cost of your Assault mech is a large part of it.

If they aspire to a simple arena style brawler and nothing else then by all means lets make all the mechs equally costly to repair.

when R&R was first turned on way back when, Id spend half a mil sometimes to fix my atlas, the out cry from shenanigans like that made them turn the cost down a bit.

[Tarman]

Valore, on 14 November 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

That wouldn't be a bad idea to implement at all, since it would be realistic as well.

PGI did already add things like spotting bonuses to make being a scout and team player more lucrative. The above suggestion would just take it a logical step further.

I think this approach may be overall more positive. Finding more ways to reward good gaming instead of looking for ways to knock poor play. Then the permacrap pilots can still get by without being sent to C-Bill Hell, and trainable pilots can advance faster according to how well they can improve at different roles and tasks.

I'm also curious as to the effect of proper matching for low-quality pilots, whether this will even out their class of gaming to something they can enjoy as they fight each other, instead of being put up against guys who've been driving these things since Crescent Hawk or the crossover esporters from the CoD era.

[FrostPaw]

Disagree, anybody willing to pay money to sustain the game deserves to profit enough to run whatever they want. Because the game won't run on a-holes and unicorns.

Edited by FrostPaw, 14 November 2012 - 01:44 AM.

[Valore]

FrostPaw, on 14 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Disagree, anybody willing to pay money to sustain the game deserves to profit enough to run whatever they want. Because the game won't run on ******** and unicorns.

But my original post doesn't disagree with that.

[Duckwalk]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 November 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

And according to the lore and rules of BattleTech that big, bad Atlas earns more than a Jenner or a light weight class mech. I recommend you read the rules for running Merc units in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) since it states exactly that. You can't take one half and ignore the other half. It's like trying to bake a cake and only use the dry ingredients. The cake will not turn out well.

I have never played the Table Top games and never intent to. I was merely referencing lore from some of the Mechwarrior books I read years ago.

Regardless, PGI has clearly departed from the exact rules sets you referenced.

However, I would agree that PGI needs to find ways to reward medium/heavy/assault players for their beneficial efforts. I would guess that with more game modes promised, we would see a larger need to heavy/assault to take/hold fortified positions.

Right now assault mode favors lights a bit too much as there is no need for longevity and by fighting in the field they can easily disengage/use cover to avoid damage.

However, you wouldn't see a team of lights charging down a defended cooridor without maneuverability.

[Parnage Winters]

I'am genuinely glad that the Dev's are smart enough to not listen to most of the playerbase half the time. I generally agree with the op, you shouldn't have money taken from you for playing the game no matter how expensive it encourages players to not optimize and not play what they may enjoy playing, rather you gain any should be up to the mechs you run that's understandable.

However, most of you guys have this idea that any mech with ammunition should be horridly expensive to run, any mech with any upgrades should be horridly expensive to run, any time you don't win you should have a huge penalty.What the hell is wrong with you people?

You guys are insane if you think that's good mechanics or even fun to play(note the word used is play) in that kind of environment. If people have to actively drop money to play the mechs they want that's crossing a line for many people, a line that leads to less players, cries of p2w by heavy handed mechanics and not as much fun for you or the other guy.

Do you want to fight the guy who really knows how to pilot that Atlas he tricked out, or do you want to fight him in his hunchback he hates but he -has- to run because his Atlas is a c-bill sink unless he wins in a steamroll fashion?

[Sarevos]

FrostPaw, on 14 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Disagree, anybody willing to pay money to sustain the game deserves to profit enough to run whatever they want. Because the game won't run on a-holes and unicorns.

True but you should not be able to run rampant lol the game should reward effective play all around but provide significant time saving and aesthetic bonuses to those who pay therefore not being Pay 2 win but simply be "pay not 2 grind" and "pay 2 bling" (btw i paid for mech bays some prem time and 2 mechs so im a paid player just not a founder)

[James The Fox Dixon]

Valore, on 14 November 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

That wouldn't be a bad idea to implement at all, since it would be realistic as well.

PGI did already add things like spotting bonuses to make being a scout and team player more lucrative. The above suggestion would just take it a logical step further.


The issue would then however be shouldn't losing in an expensive mech cost you more as well?

Depends upon the following contract stipulations for economics that pertain to MW:O as it currently stands: Payment Multiplier, Overhead, Salvage, and Support.

Equipment Rating grants the following bonuses: Payment Multiplier, Overhead, Salvage, and Support. The equipment rating goes from F (the worst level) up to A* (the best level). The higher the level, the more money you make.

Rating/Payment Multiplier/Overhead/Salvage/Support
A*-3.5/+5%/+5%/+5%
A-3.0/5%/0/5%/0
B-2.7/0/0/0
C-2.4/0/0/0
D-2.1/-5%/0/0
F-1.5/-5%/0/0

Payment Multiplier multiplies the base amount of the contract that ranges from 0.8 to above 5.0. Without mission types and employers the only thing in MW:O is equipment rating. As you can see that a top of the line mech with all of the upgrades will make more money in a match than a non-upgraded mech. The mission has a base payout that is multiplied by the Payment Multiplier.

Overhead is how much it costs to maintain your Mech in between matches. It covers expenses that aren't compensated by the contract i.e. upgrades.

Salvage is how much you can recover and claim as your own. This is a percentage beginning at 0% all the way up to 100%.

Support is split into two categories of straight support and battle loss compensation. Straight support is for the payment of salaries of your entire staff while battle loss compensation is the amount that is paid to you for damages incurred in combat. In MW:O, only battle loss compensation is important.

Now this system also encompasses pilot skill levels etc... It means that bringing out the big bad Atlas or ammo dependent build makes enough to cover its costs through all of the multipliers. This system makes MW:O's system look like a feel good welfare program for free players that actually punches them in the face for playing the game in an owned mech.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 November 2012 - 02:02 AM.

[Duckwalk]

Where does this notion that Atlas's win every fight come from? I almost exclusively pilot a jenner these days and I can't tell you the last time i've lost to one in a 1v1 fight.

Hopefully Assaults will find their place in the upcoming game modes that cater more to their strengths.

Also, as of this moment we have no idea how House affiliation will tie into repair and rearm costs or other perks.

Finally, stop being a cheapskate and spend the $15 to buy premium for a month. It easily costs more than that to go do the movies for 2 hours of entertainment.

The economy should be balanced around paying customers. Experiencing the complete game for free is enough of a reward.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

I have never played the Table Top games and never intent to. I was merely referencing lore from some of the Mechwarrior books I read years ago.

Regardless, PGI has clearly departed from the exact rules sets you referenced.

However, I would agree that PGI needs to find ways to reward medium/heavy/assault players for their beneficial efforts. I would guess that with more game modes promised, we would see a larger need to heavy/assault to take/hold fortified positions.

Right now assault mode favors lights a bit too much as there is no need for longevity and by fighting in the field they can easily disengage/use cover to avoid damage.

However, you wouldn't see a team of lights charging down a defended cooridor without maneuverability.

Then you're not in the best position to determine what fits lore and BT mechanics now are you? Like I said if you include one half of the mix and ignore the other half it will not turn out well. There are more and more people leaving the game that are not founders because they are being punched in the face for playing the game as they want to play it.

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

Where does this notion that Atlas's win every fight come from? I almost exclusively pilot a jenner these days and I can't tell you the last time i've lost to one in a 1v1 fight.

Hopefully Assaults will find their place in the upcoming game modes that cater more to their strengths.

Also, as of this moment we have no idea how House affiliation will tie into repair and rearm costs or other perks.

Finally, stop being a cheapskate and spend the $15 to buy premium for a month. It easily costs more than that to go do the movies for 2 hours of entertainment.

The economy should be balanced around paying customers. Experiencing the complete game for free is enough of a reward.

You do not know economics at all for f2p games. In f2p games, you balance your economy around free players in order to turn them into paying customers. If you balance it against paying customers then you won't have new customers come in, since they are brutalized by the system designed from ground up to be only for paying players.

[Sarevos]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 November 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

You do not know economics at all for f2p games. In f2p games, you balance your economy around free players in order to turn them into paying customers. If you balance it against paying customers then you won't have new customers come in, since they are brutalized by the system designed from ground up to be only for paying players.

This is a rather good point...

It just means that paid players get instant gratification and all the bells and whistles but free players can still play the game effectively on a the same level

Edited by Sarevos, 14 November 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sarevos, on 14 November 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

This is a rather good point...

It just means that paid players get instant gratification and all the bells and whistles but free players can still play the game effectively on a the same level

Exactly and the current system does the opposite of what PGI wants to do. PGI needs people to buy mechs and run out of mech bay slots in order to get them to spend money to buy more mech bay slots. Currently, the economic system makes owning a mech a huge con when it should be a pro. The only pro under the current model is to run trial mechs only since owning a mech makes less money per match (win or loss) in comparison to trial mechs. In turn, this means that buying a mech and future mech bay slots are not that attractive in comparison which loses PGI money from possible lost sales of MC from free players.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 November 2012 - 02:14 AM.

[Duckwalk]

Whether you balance the game around free players barely breaking even or you balance it around paying players comfortably making progress the result is the same,

This entire post is about making it easier for free players to experience the entirety of the game. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

[o0Marduk0o]

SummerAmberWolf, on 13 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

If this game is only for the hard-core fans of the game, I doubt it will successful. How fun is it that I'm trying to learn the game in an obviously gimped mech, losing game after game, in team where half your team doesn't even know there is friendly fire and the other half is afk.

There's no training maps or practice modes, even to use the trial mechs which is just incredibly silly.

You expect new players to go into tens of games with the trial mechs just to be able to buy and customize a light mech then play tens of games more with trial mechs just to play 1 or 2 games in that custom mech. Or you force them to pay for premium. This game isn't free to play, it's a pay to play if you want to do more than jump in a free mech and get crushed for 15 minutes.

If the mechs would be totally gimped, premades with trialmechs wouldn't win. You won't learn anything in a cheese build.
The tutorials explain quite good what you need to know as a new players, they just have to watch/read them. I thought it is pretty standard to read that when starting a new game.
Better loadouts are good but most players don't lose because they run a trial mech, they simply play bad and don't seem to care about it.
No, I expect them to buy a custom light mech with decent loadout (this needs some time, like 10kk cbills for a Jenner) to make lots of money even as free player while having a potent ride. Especially as a free player you need a money maker, this is working as intended and reasonable. You can run any mech you want but for the most expansive mechs you have to play a few games (in good mechs!) to have a buffer to compensate possible loss.
Players who suicide farm or don't care if they lose will never improve their skill. A trial mech is a handicap but it is something which will raise your skill if you try to do get better with it.

Vassago Rain, on 13 November 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

There's a difference between doing two economy rounds to buy a lockdown weapon, and grinding suicide trialmechs for hours and hours to buy the worst mech in the game.

I see no effort in playing 5 games with each trial mech to get a slight understanding about the different mech types.
The problem are players who want everything mediately, players who don't care for a win - no pvp players.
I wonder what your "worst" mech is, the Commando?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

Whether you balance the game around free players barely breaking even or you balance it around paying players comfortably making progress the result is the same,

This entire post is about making it easier for free players to experience the entirety of the game. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

Funny, but Star Trek Online, as an example, is based around the free player and is making MORE money with the way they it set up in a single month than PGI ever did with the founders program. That is something to think about.

The current system forces free players away from buying mechs since they make less for playing an owned mech over a trial. That is economic fact. If they do not buy mechs then they have no need to spend money for MC to buy more mech bays. Owning a mech is a punishment instead of a reward as it should be. Also, with the trial mechs and free players they get to play all of the chassis and variants without spending a single c-bill saving them even more money and further removes the incentive to spend MC.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 November 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[Elizander]

Just tossing this in here. Here's how I lower my repair costs for my Atlas LRM boat to around 20-25k per match - http://mwomercs.com/...e-as-of-nov-14/

Probably not ideal but players without premium and Founders/YLW can still farm with their assaults and earn at the same time. They won't be too much of a sitting duck because it does involve some repairs, but not full. I mostly do it this way too.

[Duckwalk]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 November 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

Exactly and the current system does the opposite of what PGI wants to do. PGI needs people to buy mechs and run out of mech bay slots in order to get them to spend money to buy more mech bay slots. Currently, the economic system makes owning a mech a huge con when it should be a pro. The only pro under the current model is to run trial mechs only since owning a mech makes less money per match (win or loss) in comparison to trial mechs. In turn, this means that buying a mech and future mech bay slots are not that attractive in comparison which loses PGI money from possible lost sales of MC from free players.

I love the though of PGI basing their entire earning potential on people buying more mech slots which cost......somewhere around $2 at the most inefficient purchase price.

This is such a silly discussion. as a premium player (running a non-founder Jenner-F) I earned between 8-12 million credits playing on a off over the course of the day.

I was on teamspeak. I was in a 3-4 man group. I lost maybe 2 games.

Free players need to save up their allowance and support the game they have been enjoying.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Duckwalk, on 14 November 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

I love the though of PGI basing their entire earning potential on people buying more mech slots which cost......somewhere around $2 at the most inefficient purchase price.

This is such a silly discussion. as a premium player (running a non-founder Jenner-F) I earned between 8-12 million credits playing on a off over the course of the day.

I was on teamspeak. I was in a 3-4 man group. I lost maybe 2 games.

Free players need to save up their allowance and support the game they have been enjoying.

And we go from discussing the objective economic facts to your biased subjective experience with the game. You moved the goal posts.