152 replies to this topic

[Weiland]

My personal theory was to give individual mechwarriors a standard reward maximum based on their dragoon rating and the cost of their mech, then start players at 0% of it during a match. The system would give increments of 5% based on various factors of participation. Average players would get 35-50%, even on a loss. Good players would earn 60 or 70%. The really great ones would approach 100%, but even spectacular wins never earn more than 100% of the base maximum that was assigned before drop - or contract signing, whatever.

So, in theory, a Jenner with a limited build and a low Dragoon rating might only rank about 125-150K or so maximum, then would get incremented for scouting, spotting, assists, overall damage, etc. An Atlas with a premium component loadout, on the other hand, and that had a high-end Dragoon rating would have around a 350K+ maximum, and would gain increments for the same activity.

Obviously, to combat AFKs, there would be no real earned benefits since there is no effort in any category. PUGs and other worthless incompetent inexperienced players would probably make their decent little chunk even at 30-50%, and the people running boats and assault mechs could actually, phenomenally, afford to run their damn mechs.

Feel free to play with the numbers at will.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i´d do it the other way round, dear OP...i wouldn´t let people earn more with better mechs, i would make the salvage higher if you kill, assist and destroy mechs and components with a higher value...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 15 November 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

Now I can start breaking out the calculator and really work out how badly I can abuse this thing. Lets mount the jenner with a large laser. Now I can run around and poke every enemy mech on the map. If I'm lucky my team kills more than just 3 before we all lose. I can also try and milk spot assists as hard as possible, bot actually engaging at all, switching targets, making life hell for my team's lrm cats etc.

Now, lets say the team won and killed all 8 enemy mechs and I managed to poke 7 of them (common enough) and had 6 spot assists. (10,000+60,000+80,000)*3= 450,000 C-Bills. Heck I'd go so far as to say, poke as many as you can, get a couple kill assists in 3 min as you can then go afk or go stand still in front of a gausscat. I wont be flagged as AFK cos I ran VERY far, hit a LOT of enemies etc.

There's so many holes in this proposal that PGI has already solved with MONTHS of balancing.

Any system can be abused and that is a fact of life. This you haven't considered at all. The current system is abused and it has lead to undesirable results of afking and zombie rushes. However, the current system punishes the participating player and that is what needs to be changed. If the system actually rewarded playing then you would not have as many afkers/suiciders. Just because the proposed system is something you do not agree with does not make it a bad system. Also, PGI hasn't balanced jack in the way of the economy from the majority of the population which are free players.

Stick to the lore and give us reasons based upon the lore why the system won't work.

Adrienne Vorton, on 15 November 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

i´d do it the other way round, dear OP...i wouldn´t let people earn more with better mechs, i would make the salvage higher if you kill, assist and destroy mechs and components with a higher value...

Funny, but I didn't put in salvage into the system. I asked for help with it.

[ForceUser]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

For example 1, If you take in the repair and rearms and subtract it from the win you will see that they would make 92k which is slightly more than what you would have made in a trial mech.

For a B rated mech it would need to be either it's a stock assault or a heavily modified medium or a slightly modified heavy. The repair and rearm bills would go up dramatically so let's just say 90k for the assault, 100k for the medium, and 120k for the heavy. They're net earnings would be 135k for the assault, 125k for the medium, and 110k for the heavy. Still reasonable on earnings.

Once you account for these factors, the earnings are reasonable for a loss. Losing would actually incur a loss of C-Bills, but not as harsh as they are now. Balance is maintained.

0.o

NO NO NO.

You did not read my post. I said repair and rearm is 20k becuase
a) I did not use the ammo NO RELOADS
because I went and stood still infront of the enemy team I did not get my ammo/armor/weapons shot off
c) the enemy team went straight for my CT, that only has an engine in it.

The 200k in 3 min is conservative as well. Thats for a bad case scenario where the team loses and only kills 3 enemies. with a 50% win rate every other game you'd get a 300k-400k match.

IS 400k in 3min of play right?

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

TEXT

So, in short. The more expensive the mech, the more possible earnings I receive?

So to put a story on your jenner example to put things into perspective.

Mercenary Goldchain McMechpimping is ona patrol duty with Poorman Stockmecher on a patrol and escort duty. They do the job and get a reward of 378 000 credits.

McMechpimping demands more money that his colleague for the exact same job because he needs the more expensive turtle wax to polish his more luxurious mech.

Someone who is RICH should get PAID more just BECAUSE?

So basically you want to remove the Risk VS Reward when bringing something expensive unto the field?

EDIT: Ok, I saw you upped repairs but you have forgotten another factor.

Underdog markup.

A cheaper mech taking down or assisting taking down a more expensive one should gain a bigger bonus compared to the expensive ones.

After all, a pimped mech is more efficient and EASIER to use.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 15 November 2012 - 05:28 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

0.o

NO NO NO.

You did not read my post. I said repair and rearm is 20k becuase
a) I did not use the ammo NO RELOADS
because I went and stood still infront of the enemy team I did not get my ammo/armor/weapons shot off
c) the enemy team went straight for my CT, that only has an engine in it.

The 200k in 3 min is conservative as well. Thats for a bad case scenario where the team loses and only kills 3 enemies. with a 50% win rate every other game you'd get a 300k-400k match.

IS 400k in 3min of play right?

No No No because the repairs are NOT the same for all the mechs. Thus your argument fails. Try again and with lore next time.

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

So, in short. The more expensive the mech, the more possible earnings I receive?

So to put a story on your jenner example to put things into perspective.

Mercenary Goldchain McMechpimping is ona patrol duty with Poorman Stockmecher on a patrol and escort duty. They do the job and get a reward of 378 000 credits.

McMechpimping demands more money that his colleague for the exact same job because he needs the more expensive turtle wax to polish his more luxurious mech.

Does that even sound LOGICAL to you?

Someone who is RICH should get PAID more just BECAUSE?

So basically you want to remove the Risk VS Reward when bringing something expensive unto the field?

Troll post not worthy of reply. You copied Force User's earlier posts. Plagiarism anyone?

Weiland, on 15 November 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

My personal theory was to give individual mechwarriors a standard reward maximum based on their dragoon rating and the cost of their mech, then start players at 0% of it during a match. The system would give increments of 5% based on various factors of participation. Average players would get 35-50%, even on a loss. Good players would earn 60 or 70%. The really great ones would approach 100%, but even spectacular wins never earn more than 100% of the base maximum that was assigned before drop - or contract signing, whatever.

So, in theory, a Jenner with a limited build and a low Dragoon rating might only rank about 125-150K or so maximum, then would get incremented for scouting, spotting, assists, overall damage, etc. An Atlas with a premium component loadout, on the other hand, and that had a high-end Dragoon rating would have around a 350K+ maximum, and would gain increments for the same activity.

Obviously, to combat AFKs, there would be no real earned benefits since there is no effort in any category. PUGs and other worthless incompetent inexperienced players would probably make their decent little chunk even at 30-50%, and the people running boats and assault mechs could actually, phenomenally, afford to run their damn mechs.

Feel free to play with the numbers at will.

We could incorporate this by having it based upon time actively playing the match starting at 5% increments until you reach 100%.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 15 November 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

No No No because the repairs are NOT the same for all the mechs. Thus your argument fails. Try again and with lore next time.



Troll post not worthy of reply. You copied Force User's earlier posts. Plagiarism anyone?

We could incorporate this by having it based upon time actively playing the match starting at 5% increments until you reach 100%.

No, because I only read YOUR post in this.

And you seriously have not explained to me what you mean. If you and I do the SAME work in equal time and I get paid 60% more because I wear an Armani Suit and you wear cheap coveralls how is that making sense.

Yes, i use real world examples because I want your actual opinion.

[ForceUser]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Any system can be abused and that is a fact of life. This you haven't considered at all. The current system is abused and it has lead to undesirable results of afking and zombie rushes. However, the current system punishes the participating player and that is what needs to be changed. If the system actually rewarded playing then you would not have as many afkers/suiciders. Just because the proposed system is something you do not agree with does not make it a bad system. Also, PGI hasn't balanced jack in the way of the economy from the majority of the population which are free players.

Stick to the lore and give us reasons based upon the lore why the system won't work.



Funny, but I didn't put in salvage into the system. I asked for help with it.

You mate are priceless.
The current system has some minor abusing, maybe one or two people a match, because it's somewhat balanced. Your system will be so easy to abuse that it's comical.

Also I see you are already falling back on your 'lore reasons' escuse you consistently use when someone makes a point you don't like. You are happy enough to argue game play NUMBERS in your very first post but as soon as someone else shows you how easily it is to abuse, out comes the 'lore reasons'

The plain and simple fact is your proposed system is missing half of the lore related reasons for even existing ina ddition to it being based on a player by player basis instead of merc/unit basis that the 'lore' is based on.

Lore wise it's fundamentally flawed. Game play wise it's abusable and full of holes.

[James The Fox Dixon]

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

Snip

No, the person that is priceless for the laughs would be you. You're back to trolling and not constructively contributing to argue for the sake of arguing.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 15 November 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

EDIT: Ok, I saw you upped repairs but you have forgotten another factor.

Underdog markup.

A cheaper mech taking down or assisting taking down a more expensive one should gain a bigger bonus compared to the expensive ones.

After all, a pimped mech is more efficient and EASIER to use.

And regardless if you THINK something is a troll post at least do me a favor and ANSWER the questions I put out because I really DO want your opinion and feedback.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 15 November 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

No, because I only read YOUR post in this.

And you seriously have not explained to me what you mean. If you and I do the SAME work in equal time and I get paid 60% more because I wear an Armani Suit and you wear cheap coveralls how is that making sense.

Yes, i use real world examples because I want your actual opinion.

You failed to use lore and are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

EDIT: Ok, I saw you upped repairs but you have forgotten another factor.

Underdog markup.

A cheaper mech taking down or assisting taking down a more expensive one should gain a bigger bonus compared to the expensive ones.

After all, a pimped mech is more efficient and EASIER to use.

And regardless if you THINK something is a troll post at least do me a favor and ANSWER the questions I put out because I really DO want your opinion and feedback.

Your post doesn't have any bearing on the original post and you certainly didn't use lore. Thus, I am ignoring it.

[ForceUser]

Is editing a quote grounds for reporting a post?

I mean that's just unethical

[Terror Teddy]

You also have to factor in that not everyone get paid to even cover the costs for repairs.

Any mercenary unit that gets paid 0,5-1,5 million credits will have to see if they want to run the risk of taking a few mechs or an expensive mech.

Should I truly be paid more if I get 500K Cbills for a mission and manage to get a repair bill at 600K because I decided to go with an Atlas with XL engine and Endo Steel?

And no, not a troll - I just want your opinion on the above example.

[James The Fox Dixon]

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

Is editing a quote grounds for reporting a post?

I mean that's just unethical

So is arguing for the sake of arguing with something that has no merit nor within the context of the thread.

[ForceUser]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

So is arguing for the sake of arguing with something that has no merit nor within the context of the thread.

But I gave lore reasons

Wait, so disagreeing with you is unethical?

[Weiland]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

EDIT: Ok, I saw you upped repairs but you have forgotten another factor.

Underdog markup.

A cheaper mech taking down or assisting taking down a more expensive one should gain a bigger bonus compared to the expensive ones.

After all, a pimped mech is more efficient and EASIER to use.

And regardless if you THINK something is a troll post at least do me a favor and ANSWER the questions I put out because I really DO want your opinion and feedback.

It would have helped if you didn't actually copy and paste someone else.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

You also have to factor in that not everyone get paid to even cover the costs for repairs.

Any mercenary unit that gets paid 0,5-1,5 million credits will have to see if they want to run the risk of taking a few mechs or an expensive mech.

Should I truly be paid more if I get 500K Cbills for a mission and manage to get a repair bill at 600K because I decided to go with an Atlas with XL engine and Endo Steel?

And no, not a troll - I just want your opinion on the above example.

The original post is based upon what is lore and the rules of TT. I pulled them from Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised) and I used them in the context of MW: O. If the Mercenary Review and Bonding Commission says that a merc earns more due to having better tech and/or mech weight then that is lore. I didn't write the rules, but Fasa did and it is their universe.

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

But I gave lore reasons

Wait, so disagreeing with you is unethical?

I checked your posts and there isn't any lore there. Sorry, but try using the actual TT game to refute what I wrote.

[ForceUser]

I used your very own formulas and values!

Does this mean YOU didn't use lore to make your own points?

I based the numbers I gave you off of your first post, and supposedly those are based on the lore, thus I did give you lore/TT based argument.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

You failed to use lore and are arguing for the sake of arguing. Your post doesn't have any bearing on the original post and you certainly didn't use lore. Thus, I am ignoring it.

Ok, lets go back to the lore you praise so highly and ultimately dodges with to avoid giving answers.

-Contracts for a job is usually negotiated BEFORE a mission for mercenaries. Including what, how, when and salvage can be aquired.

A mercenary company is also run as a loose military organization and have a chain of command - salvage is given to the COMPANY and not to individual mechwarrior so that they can continue to run the organization.

-House affiliated mechwarriors are SOLDIERS and gets a basic salary - they are career soldiers and essentially earn no money, or salvage for that matter.

-Lone wolves are in the same boat as mercenaries but in a worse negotiating position.

I'll skip the clans for now as they are unimportant.

You are not arguing LORE, you are arguing TT game mechanics and not how organizations within the lore functions.

[James The Fox Dixon]

ForceUser, on 15 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

I used your very own formulas and values!

Does this mean YOU didn't use lore to make your own points?

I based the numbers I gave you off of your first post, and supposedly those are based on the lore, thus I did give you lore/TT based argument.

While using fantasy to make an argument that isn't even possible with the current repair and rearms cost since you said that all mech weights have the exact same repair cost.