152 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Nope, I disregarded it because it ignores what is currently in MW:O. That makes it not pertinent.



Define who us is.

MechWarriors.

Quote

The system was broken in TT, why bring over another broken thing from TT?

Cause it is the subject of the thread?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 November 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Ok, perhaps I need to communicate slooowly.

When *I* ask you something then I wonder if YOU have a solution. Ergo, I wondered if you had already taken these problems into account.

Your reading comprehension seems to be severely limited.

I did in the original post. Maybe it's you that has the reading comprehension problems. Present your solution.

Joseph Mallan, on 15 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

MechWarriors.

That's a pretty vague statement and a dodge. So define us in precise terms.

Terick, on 15 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

I know system can easily be crunched. I just don't support this system, and I thought the pay system when it was implemented was terrible in TT also.

The system was broken in TT, why bring over another broken thing from TT?

Where is your solution then? I don't see a new thread with your solution.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

I did in the original post. Maybe it's you that has the reading comprehension problems. Present your solution.

no, questions I raised was not put into the original post. hence the question to you. This part of the "debate" could have been ignored if you had simply answered "I don't know, do you have a good idea".

Second. You clearly want 'lore' based arguments but at the same time:
A: Ignore proper lore presented when it clashes with your idea and is not within MWO
B: Ignore problems with that MWO gets with your proposal when it clashes with the lore.

You cannot cherry pick - you are either A or B - not both.

[Terick]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Nope, I disregarded it because it isn't lore based.

Actually... the system isn't lore based it is RULE based. Based on the rules in the back of Merc Field manual if I remember right, let me check. Yep, rule based NOT LORE based... so. Broken system in TT and... bad system if brought over whole sale to MWO.

This should be tossed like the min ranges of Gauss and small bore ACs. impractical, in the shredder it goes.

Solution, minor tweaks to the system to help free users enjoy having minor advanced tech and beign able to pilot Hv/salts when it is important. Like taking and hold land for mercs on the border worlds.

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

I did in the original post. Maybe it's you that has the reading comprehension problems. Present your solution.



That's a pretty vague statement and a dodge. So define us in precise terms.

So i am in fact answering your question in a similar manner as you are sir. We are the Mech Warriors and thus I am referring to all the players of this game. We are grossly overpaid by whoever our paymasters are. Now show me the numbers you crunched to back up your sourcebook lore, Subtract the cost lore has provided from the negotiated payment and then we can discuss this better.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I don't have a solution.

Still no solution Teddy, but we're all waiting for your solution to improve the earnings to match the costs of repairs and rearms? The repair and rearms are taken directly from the TT rule books.

[SmoothCriminal]

Having read through this (somewhat) hilarious thread, I think OP (and his repliers) should note a few pertinent points:

1. Surely this will all be irrelevant once the meta game kicks in, and we have missions/game types/factions/goals/etc;

2. The more expensive mech you get, the more cbills you receive? That just sounds like elitism, and despite raising the costs of repair, it denies the risk/reward of fielding some advanced tech mech against trials/basic tech;

3. Pretty tired of the whole TT/MWO argument. The "lore" is great, but I'm not rolling dice every ten seconds; and



4.

Don't betray the lore, seems to be a worn and shallow argument.


On a positive note I think a salvage based upon actual damage done. So if I kill a mech with FF/ES/DHS then the salvage gained (even on a loss) should reflect my achievement.

[Terror Teddy]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 November 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

James's suggestion will work once the Metagame is in place. I have an Excel spread sheet that can calculate all this and there is a Merc Contract generator that can spit out contracts in seconds. The resources are there to get the pay system whipped into shape really quick.

Then it is irrelevant. Since the metagame does not exist in the game right now then it should not be talked about. See earlier examples raised in regards to house earnings vs mercenaries where james simply said it's not in MWO at the moment and then should not be used.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 November 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

So i am in fact answering your question in a similar manner as you are sir. We are the Mech Warriors and thus I am referring to all the players of this game. We are grossly overpaid by whoever our paymasters are. Now show me the numbers you crunched to back up your sourcebook lore, Subtract the cost lore has provided from the negotiated payment and then we can discuss this better.

I already answered that question. You used the section from creating a merc unit not contract generation. My original post is based upon the contract generation system.

[Terick]

Your opening post fails to define a problem that needs to be resolved. Therefore this is a proposal and not a solution thread.

You might argue that you want a rewarding game for free to play users. I'm a free to play user at the moment and I'm enjoying the game, there are bugs. The pay is not a place I have issue with the game.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terick, on 15 November 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

Your opening post fails to define a problem that needs to be resolved. Therefore this is a proposal and not a solution thread.

You might argue that you want a rewarding game for free to play users. I'm a free to play user at the moment and I'm enjoying the game, there are bugs. The pay is not a place I have issue with the game.

I believe that I have defined it rather well in prior posts and threads about the problems with the lore based repair and rearm costs. No solution I see to it.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Still no solution Teddy, but we're all waiting for your solution to improve the earnings to match the costs of repairs and rearms? The repair and rearms are taken directly from the TT rule books.

Im sorry, Where did I ever raise a question on those points? I raised questions in regards to several other glaring flaws in your idea which you completely ignored.

So you want solution to exactly what you posted and no criticism whatsoever or any questions raised to the problems of your idea - not the problems YOU have trouble solving but problems WE see with the very basis of your idea.

Why am i even debating a troll like this?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Im sorry, Where did I ever raise a question on those points? I raised questions in regards to several other glaring flaws in your idea which you completely ignored.

So you want solution to exactly what you posted and no criticism whatsoever or any questions raised to the problems of your idea - not the problems YOU have trouble solving but problems WE see with the very basis of your idea.

Why am i even debating a troll like this?

So you still have no solution. Why are you even in this thread if you have nothing constructive to add?

[Terick]

SmoothCriminal, on 15 November 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Having read through this (somewhat) hilarious thread, I think OP (and his repliers) should note a few pertinent points:

1. Surely this will all be irrelevant once the meta game kicks in, and we have missions/game types/factions/goals/etc;

2. The more expensive mech you get, the more cbills you receive? That just sounds like elitism, and despite raising the costs of repair, it denies the risk/reward of fielding some advanced tech mech against trials/basic tech;

3. Pretty tired of the whole TT/MWO argument. The "lore" is great, but I'm not rolling dice every ten seconds; and



4. Don't betray the lore, seems to be a worn and shallow argument.

I completely agree.

SmoothCriminal, on 15 November 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

On a positive note I think a salvage based upon actual damage done. So if I kill a mech with FF/ES/DHS then the salvage gained (even on a loss) should reflect my achievement.

I don't' agree with this... if you destroyed the armor and internal... how are you salvaging it? It is shards or molten lumps all over the place. Endo is supposed to be some special process in manufacturing, so not able to salvage even the material as endo steel.

Salvage should be the undestroyed parts of mech. More salvage if you blow the head off then if you core it. Since the engine is one of the most expensive parts of a mech, especially if an XL engine...

Edited by Terick, 15 November 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[Terick]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

I believe that I have defined it rather well in prior posts and threads about the problems with the lore based repair and rearm costs. No solution I see to it.

If you want lore based repair costs your... well I don't use those words. As I stated in my first post. Only took one unlucky loss to put a merc unit so far in the hole they could never climb out. I played enough with the rules to know this. It took us four months to get a merc group that didn't spiral after the first major battle (happens when the 'bad guys' kept TACing engines, tearing heads off... curse his luck).

If you use the TT rules that way, a lone wolf can go from having a nice new mech to owing the cost of a new mech in repair/rearm.

HOW is this good for the game? It isn't.

TT rules for pay, to the shredder, keep system in use and minor tweaks to help encourage team play.

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

I already answered that question. You used the section from creating a merc unit not contract generation. My original post is based upon the contract generation system.

Which is/was a terrible system and should be burned.

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

I already answered that question. You used the section from creating a merc unit not contract generation. My original post is based upon the contract generation system.

Ok Lore;
FedSun Contract
Pirate Hunting
2 Months
390,000.00C-bills
Transport:65%
Battle Loss Compensation:20%
DS/JS Comp:27%(If you have your own transport)
Commercial Comp:30%
Salvage:No Rights
Command rights:Liason Officer
Start Date:01 Jan 3050
End Date:31 Dec 3050
Location: Hoff

Ok here's your Contract for two months work. Using a random A grade model. Not per battle, for two months fighting Pirates.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 November 2012 - 06:58 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

So you still have no solution. Why are you even in this thread if you have nothing constructive to add?

How is it NOT constructive to expose the FLAWS of your idea so that you can IMPROVE upon it? Or do you see your idea as already flawless?

Also, you did not specify a particular list of problems you wanted a solution on - you merely wrote up what you wanted to see and asked us to assist.

In the MIDDLE of your main post is a question crammed into it all:

Quote

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%. For MW:O I don’t have an idea on how to implement this without having ridicules amounts of cash being earned, so any help with this is appreciated.

You did not state:
-That it was ONLY that you wanted help with
-Nor was it posed as a clear question but put into the middle of your post.
-Nowhere do you write that we should not QUESTION your idea
-Nowhere do you write that we should CRITICIZE your idea
-You seem to completely ignore that your idea have many flaws and refuse to accept that

[Terick]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Ok Lore;
FedSun Contract
Pirate Hunting
2 Months
390,000.00C-bills
Transport:65%
Battle Loss Compensation:20%
DS/JS Comp:27%(If you have your own transport)
Commercial Comp:30%
Salvage:No Rights
Command rights:Liason Officer
Start Date:01 Jan 3050
End Date:31 Dec 3050
Location: Hoff

Ok here's your Contract for two months work. Using a random A grade model. Not per battle, for two months fighting Pirates.

390k for two months work... anybody else see why this is such a bad system to use?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Ok Lore;
FedSun Contract
Pirate Hunting
2 Months
390,000.00C-bills
Transport:65%
Battle Loss Compensation:20%
DS/JS Comp:27%(If you have your own transport)
Commercial Comp:30%
Salvage:No Rights
Command rights:Liason Officer
Start Date:01 Jan 3050
End Date:31 Dec 3050
Location: Hoff

Ok here's your Contract for two months work. Using a random A grade model. Not per battle, for two months fighting Pirates.

Is there anything like this implemented in MW: O? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

Is there anything like this implemented in MW: O? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Neither is community warfare where apparently your system should work according to one poster so we could ignore your argument as well then.