293 replies to this topic

[Valore]

Repair costs for mechs using high tech gear, such as DHS, XL engines, Artemis, Ferro/Endo, are fairly high. Same goes for mechs running weapons which chew through large amounts of expensive ammo, i.e. Streaks and Artemis missiles.

As such, some argue that because of this, MWO is P2W, because only those who fork out for the premium boost, or pay for a premium money mech like the YLW, will be able to run these builds on a consistent basis.

My opinion is that if you run a high maintenence mech, you should be able to afford to run it without premium, and even turn a slight profit, as long as you win without completely wrecking your mech.

However, if you're running a mech with high level gear, and you lose, or come back with your mech having the crap shot out of it, you should lose money, or just about break even.

As for how much, not an excessive amount, but enough to tell you that you're not doing it right.

I'd say losing up to 100k cbills in which you played absolutely terribly and lost the match would be about right, seeing as to how the highest repair bills you can rack up is probably around 200k - 250k cbills.

Feedback from players looking to play without ever buying premium is most welcome. Is this too harsh?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Why are you suddenly concerned about the economy of this game for free players? Last time I attempted to have a dialogue about the earnings and repairs you were trolling the thread. Why the change of heart?

[damonvile]

I don't think you should make money at all if you fail misrably in a match and lose..in any mech. The fact that is can so easily be AFK'd is going to hurt it in the long run.

But...I agree the top end equipment should be harder to earn money in when you fail with it. If you can still earn money even in bad matches with it the game will eventually have everyone in them all the time.

[Riffleman]

Yes lets find more reasons to make people lose interest in continuing to play. That way when the game gets shut down, you can hug the screenshot of your name in the founders list whenever you get nostalgic.

[Rejarial Galatan]

all players need access to the SAME EXACT stuff, no matter what. That is what they claimed was going to happen. Now? Not so much so with YLW entering into the mix. Can I buy it with my MC? Yes, will I? NO. Why? Aside from the fact, I do not like centurions, the idea that only those willing to pony up MC, which, is only attainable by REAL MONEY, that some may not have the fluidity to spend, then, its not accessible to even those players who only play for free, and cannot make the micro transaction to buy the MC for the YLW. Yes they exist, and this cuts them off from a mech they may in fact want. This is the start of P2W, but, for the most part, the game is STILL NOT P2W. But, scary enough, that ball is now in the court.

Ranting aside here, all players, regardless of skill must have access to the same gear, same mechs, no matter what.

[Noth]

damonvile, on 13 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

I don't think you should make money at all if you fail misrably in a match and lose..in any mech. The fact that is can so easily be AFK'd is going to hurt it in the long run.

But...I agree the top end equipment should be harder to earn money in when you fail with it. If you can still earn money even in bad matches with it the game will eventually have everyone in them all the time.

It's kinda required in competitive games that everyone good or bad can run in the good stuff. If you don'tm you get the good get better and the bad get stuck, which is horrible from a business perspective. Heck, I think this game is far from p2w, but making so that free players can't reliably run high end stuff, thus requiring premium, is indeed getting close to the p2w.

You need to look at decisions such as this from a business standpoint simply because gaming is a business this day and age.

Edited by Noth, 13 November 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

sell off visual perks like special paint jobs, in cockpit toys like the nvidia bobble head for example, never, ever under estimate the power of fluff!

[Valore]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 November 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Why are you suddenly concerned about the economy of this game for free players? Last time I attempted to have a dialogue about the earnings and repairs you were trolling the thread. Why the change of heart?

James, this may come as fairly difficult to take, but I have nothing against free players. I just don't particularly like you.

I will further clarify I specifically dislike you because you make your arguments in a way that is completely lacking in logic. Furthermore I'm not a fan of the way you make up nonsense when it suits you, then ignore points when people call you out for tripping under your own false statements and fallacies.

Don't talk to me about trolling, when you were the one who decided you didn't feel like arguing like a mature person anymore in your own thread, and got it closed with your own childish behaviour.

I hope that answers your question. Cheers

damonvile, on 13 November 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

I don't think you should make money at all if you fail misrably in a match and lose..in any mech. The fact that is can so easily be AFK'd is going to hurt it in the long run.

But...I agree the top end equipment should be harder to earn money in when you fail with it. If you can still earn money even in bad matches with it the game will eventually have everyone in them all the time.

The issue with that is you need to give newbies a way to make some progress, even if they play terribly. I think its important there are loadouts that newbies can play and improve in while slowly making money.

Riffleman, on 13 November 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Yes lets find more reasons to make people lose interest in continuing to play. That way when the game gets shut down, you can hug the screenshot of your name in the founders list whenever you get nostalgic.

You should probably read the OP again. You evidently read the topic title, then missed the part where I clearly mentioned:

Valore, on 13 November 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

My opinion is that if you run a high maintenence mech, you should be able to afford to run it without premium, and even turn a slight profit, as long as you win without completely wrecking your mech.

[Tarman]

Rejarial Galatan, on 13 November 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

all players need access to the SAME EXACT stuff, no matter what. That is what they claimed was going to happen. Now? Not so much so with YLW entering into the mix. Can I buy it with my MC? Yes, will I? NO. Why? Aside from the fact, I do not like centurions, the idea that only those willing to pony up MC, which, is only attainable by REAL MONEY, that some may not have the fluidity to spend, then, its not accessible to even those players who only play for free, and cannot make the micro transaction to buy the MC for the YLW. Yes they exist, and this cuts them off from a mech they may in fact want. This is the start of P2W, but, for the most part, the game is STILL NOT P2W. But, scary enough, that ball is now in the court.

Ranting aside here, all players, regardless of skill must have access to the same gear, same mechs, no matter what.

Not really the same topic. Access to kit issue =/= viability of combat maintenance cost issue, though there are some related sub-issues. Not choosing sides either, just pointing out that this is a separate dealio. OP is talking about tweaking match-end rewards so that you can't fail your way to financial victory.

[The Cheese]

I'm also curious as to why you're concerned about what the less skilled players should be able to do. What do you have to gain from the game being less forgiving to the masses?

[barnmaddo]

Forcing bad players to use worse gear than the good players, will just cause them to do even worse.

The only merit I see in this, is there should be some mechanic that encourages people to pilot a large variety of mechs on the battlefield, instead of just the big ones. But then player preference and to some extent just the initial cost of the large mechs already does this. (After trolling around in an Atlas, a Jenner is so wonderfully fast)

[James The Fox Dixon]

Good to know that you hate the messenger but not the message. I presented a valid argument repeatedly only to be trolled by you and others because you do not like the content of the message. You claim that you have nothing against free players, but your post history regarding the economy say differently. As for not liking me, bud you don't even know me to know if you like or dislike me. You take the internet too seriously because I sure don't.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 13 November 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[Martini Henrie]

What a wonderfully short sighted thread! How do you judge these players? Are they new, do they lack practice due to time constraints?

Not everyone has hours to throw at games, real life has a habit of getting in the way. Besides, I have no problem with the model that we have, pay for convenience and for vanity items is fine. How else do you keep the lights on at PGI?

[Vassago Rain]

Already in the game.

[Noth]

Tarman, on 13 November 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Not really the same topic. Access to kit issue =/= viability of combat maintenance cost issue, though there are some related sub-issues. Not choosing sides either, just pointing out that this is a separate dealio. OP is talking about tweaking match-end rewards so that you can't fail your way to financial victory.

Which in turn would drive away more players than it would gain. Heck, LoL you can fail your way to financial victory and look at how big that game is. Being able to fail your way to financial victory is common in F2P games and pretty much standard. There are of course some exceptions. WoT you can fail your way to financial victory all the way up through tier 6. So as long as you run tier 6 you continue to make money.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Tarman, on 13 November 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Not really the same topic. Access to kit issue =/= viability of combat maintenance cost issue, though there are some related sub-issues. Not choosing sides either, just pointing out that this is a separate dealio. OP is talking about tweaking match-end rewards so that you can't fail your way to financial victory.

it actually is the same thing, just, further down the branch than his. I am a decent enough player, not the worst, not the best, fair share of being cored out. I run the end all be all of large mechs, the Atlas, even in death AND loss, I still make enough to fix her to 100% and rearm 8 TONS of Gauss ammo, so, theres that.

[DrSecretStache]

I disagree. For one, define "bad." In detail. It's kind of hard to significantly quantify.

Second, if lights can counter heavier mechs, I don't see why "bad" players can't play in them. It's not like they make or break the game, in that regard, when considering that they're bait for the little hyenas.

[Sean von Steinike]

So, PUGs shouldn't use expensive gear? After all, you are about 50% likely to loose as win.

[Joat]

Trial mechs......
the FREE to run mechs that ern you a bit.

personaly I feel if your TEAM fails NO ONE should get a dime....just a repair bill and 25% of the exp you would have gotten if your team won..Then maby the people that play in pugs (such as myself mostly) may just have a reason to give a crap about the mech warriors on his/her team.That being said the matchmakers needs to be reworked so teams cant pop pugs to pad stats and wallets.....

[Ardney]

barnmaddo, on 13 November 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

Forcing bad players to use worse gear than the good players, will just cause them to do even worse.

That's not really what OP was talking about though, when you think about it. 2 words: Trial Mechs. Assuming someone consistently performs horribly and never reaches competency (an unlikely scenario) they can still save up money to do several rounds in top tier equipment simply by using trial mechs at other times. The stakes for performance then aren't access to gear but duration of consecutive use for that gear.

barnmaddo, on 13 November 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

The only merit I see in this, is there should be some mechanic that encourages people to pilot a large variety of mechs on the battlefield, instead of just the big ones.

For this purpose alone I think it's a reasonable thing to consider. Again, we're not talking about preventing anyone from ever using the biggest mech and highest tech. We're talking about potentially limiting them from using it exclusively.