152 replies to this topic

[Taizan]

Btw I don't "get" the whole punishing thing the OP always brings forwards (and is most probably related to rearming), but I would also like to see a more constructive discussion of rewarding active participation in combat.

The current problem imho is that you can get more C-bills out of the match if you just run through enemy lines and suicide or be AFK and let everyone else get their hands dirty, especially with trial mechs. That is not ok and I think everyone can agree on that.

[Broceratops]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

I never said I was quitting. Is there a post that you can link that to? Oh you can't since I never said it. I did say I wanted a refund for my closed beta MC purchase. I also said that I would never recommend this game for two reasons: the economy and the community.

I'm sure instantly and rudely dismissing any idea that does not agree with your own, which to date is pretty much everything anyone else has suggested in this thread will help with the community.

PGI is probably trembling at the horde of friends you must have.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

Nothing at all in your original reply was constructive. It was pure criticism without anything valid or pertinent or even offering a counter solution. Nope, it was all just a flame and emotional knee jerk reaction. It also wasn't very well thought out.

A counter solution to what? The very point I made in the example that LITERALLY rewards people with pimped out mechs more money by simply HAVING them.

Two people doing the exact same job but the better dressed one gets a bigger take from the cut regardless if he actually did more work. IT WAS LITERALLY WHAT YOU PRESENTED IN YOUR JENNER EXAMPLE.

My question was if you saw anything WRONG with that. Yes, that was criticism because I truly believed at the time that you wanted to discus the pros and cons of your idea. At the time I cannot see how that in any way would be fair.

You also ignored my actual positive contribution that an "Underdog" bonus would be given to those taking down higher grade mechs or assisting in taking them down to level the field.

Criticism in itself IS adding solutions because I give you something you might have overlooked.

But apparently you cannot read.

Taizan, on 15 November 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Btw I don't "get" the whole punishing thing the OP always brings forwards (and is most probably related to rearming), but I would also like to see a more constructive discussion of rewarding active participation in combat.

The current problem imho is that you can get more C-bills out of the match if you just run through enemy lines and suicide or be AFK and let everyone else get their hands dirty, especially with trial mechs. That is not ok and I think everyone can agree on that.

Of course - but the OP's main argument in his own Jenner example is that someone with a more expensive mech should earn more if two people do the same job.

I asked WHY and he refuse to answer. Would ANY of you do the exact same job and accept that the guy next to you gets +30% paycheck because he pays more for his clothes than you?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Terror Teddy, on 15 November 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

A counter solution to what? The very point I made in the example that LITERALLY rewards people with pimped out mechs more money by simply HAVING them.

Two people doing the exact same job but the better dressed one gets a bigger take from the cut regardless if he actually did more work. IT WAS LITERALLY WHAT YOU PRESENTED IN YOUR JENNER EXAMPLE.

My question was if you saw anything WRONG with that. Yes, that was criticism because I truly believed at the time that you wanted to discus the pros and cons of your idea. At the time I cannot see how that in any way would be fair.

You also ignored my actual positive contribution that an "Underdog" bonus would be given to those taking down higher grade mechs or assisting in taking them down to level the field.

Criticism in itself IS adding solutions because I give you something you might have overlooked.

But apparently you cannot read.

I like the Underdog bonus and think that it is a good idea. Care to flesh it out more with numbers?

Yes, a mech that has better tech gets paid better. It's just like an alley doctor makes peanuts for having the lack of equipment while a doctor in an office as all the equipment he needs. The office doctor makes more money for the same job. Why?

[Arumi Ornaught]

In short I have nothing to add because I think OP's idea promotes farming and gives you more c-bills than is needed.

[KhanCipher]

i think we all agree that if owned mechs were guaranteed to make more than trial mechs (after repairs) on wins and loses it would atleast fix the problem for now (till CW gets in), then we can start to focus on actually making a better experience for new players.

[buckX]

Terick, on 15 November 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

There shouldn't be a modifier to using more advanced tech. I see this as balance, we don't have to pay the bills to maintain our advanced tech, we don't get the extra pay of having/using it. Because in the TT system using advanced tech easily upped the regular bills for upkeep.
...
Which brings up the point, if this is to help people that own their mechs, this in the long run won't help the game at all. Since we need to make it easy for people to get in to and make people want to stay. Not help those that have ground through it now have an easy button. No challenge means most people move on.

Some very valid points. Depending on implementation, I may entirely agree on not having additional multiplier for advanced tech. Mostly I want to stop having people get punished for bringing it. The lack of performance rewards means that paying for higher performance is economically a poor decision. If performance is rewarded properly, then the increased rewards based on your contribution may resolve themselves naturally.

I would note that lights vs. assaults are a still a bit of an issue. PGI clearly intends for all mech sizes to be approximately balanced with each other. This means an Atlas and a Flea piloted equally would be equal payouts for their performance, they just handle different roles. I would either like to see modest multiplier differences based on tonnage (just to counteract the heightened repairs, and potentially the increased ammo expenditure), though you could handle this through the performance system by putting additional reward weight on things large mechs are good at, like raw damage.

[SpiralRazor]

The fact of the matter is I can make about 80-90k farming on a trial mech, which means launching in, inflicted some damage, maybe, and then getting blown up...and taking a different mech until that one becomes unlocked.

I can make just about the same +/- 10-15k on win on my owned customized mechs.

So yeah, theres clearly an issue. I dont take trials simply because i dont want to horribly gimp my Marik compatriots.

[Rofl]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

... I also said that I would never recommend this game for two reasons: the economy and the community.

Man, YOU are the part of the community that I don't recommend when talking about this game. Look in a damn mirror. Plenty of people are pointing out gaping holes in your proposed system but you shoot them down as trolls because they don't offer a solution? Why should they fix your messed up balancing act? You admitted people would be able to abuse your system.

It looks to me you are replacing a broken system with a different broken system tailored to fit your style of play. If you're upset about people pointing out loopholes and not offering suggestions, why don't YOU offer counter-points to their (what I can only fathom you take as) personal attacks against your fantastic system. No, you instead call them trolls and leave it at that.

You are the troll here, James, and I don't think you even realize it.

[Terror Teddy]

James The Fox Dixon, on 15 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I like the Underdog bonus and think that it is a good idea. Care to flesh it out more with numbers?

Yes, a mech that has better tech gets paid better. It's just like an alley doctor makes peanuts for having the lack of equipment while a doctor in an office as all the equipment he needs. The office doctor makes more money for the same job. Why?

Allright.

Basically the difference in tech level would act as a bonus in XP for kills and assists.

After all, you're pushing yourself to take down dwn something more difficult. Ok, so the big guy in the expensive mech got more money but you got perhaps +25% more Xp since you took down something far more dangerous. This would depend on the difference of the following:
-Tonnage
-Net Worth

10 million vs 5 million would net an underdog +50% on Kills and Assist XP for example.

This would also punish the guy in the expensive mech because he gets it easier with his flashed out mech, earns more cash but would LOOSE 50% on kills and assits against mech worth half his own.

Now, the doctor example.
Equipment does not make a better doctor. You could be a complete quack of a doctor with lots of money and equipment but then you usually get sued for malpractice. The doctor with the equipment has more options and is better prepared for different problems but he is not BETTER - and that is what I'd pay for.

My main grip is that the basis of it all is that there is a risk (a very clear one) that people in expensive mechs gain more money by just having them - and that is wrong.

The expensive mech already has a greater performance boost and then it is up to the PILOT to earn his keep.

I dont get paid more than my colleague at work because I have a more expensive suit. I can get paid more because I do my JOB better. The suit dont make me better at my work.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 15 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

buckX, on 15 November 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Keep in mind that we should be getting the mother of all hazard pay bonuses. MWO is based around having career ending mech destruction about every 20 minutes of play. If Ceteris Paribus saw mech destruction with the regularity we do, you can bet their "maintenance" number would increase by a factor of 1,000 or more.

Ture but the Command would see the benefits more than the soldier. Even with my Hazardous duty pay and overseas deployment bonuses I didn't make crap as a Infantryman And I got even more money cause I was married and lived off base. The warrior is always under payed and deeply under appreciated.

Quote

Yes, a mech that has better tech gets paid better. It's just like an alley doctor makes peanuts for having the lack of equipment while a doctor in an office as all the equipment he needs. The office doctor makes more money for the same job. Why?

Cause he's a legally licensed practitioner ​and the back alley quack isn't?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 November 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[Terick]

buckX, on 15 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Some very valid points. Depending on implementation, I may entirely agree on not having additional multiplier for advanced tech. Mostly I want to stop having people get punished for bringing it. The lack of performance rewards means that paying for higher performance is economically a poor decision. If performance is rewarded properly, then the increased rewards based on your contribution may resolve themselves naturally.

I would note that lights vs. assaults are a still a bit of an issue. PGI clearly intends for all mech sizes to be approximately balanced with each other. This means an Atlas and a Flea piloted equally would be equal payouts for their performance, they just handle different roles. I would either like to see modest multiplier differences based on tonnage (just to counteract the heightened repairs, and potentially the increased ammo expenditure), though you could handle this through the performance system by putting additional reward weight on things large mechs are good at, like raw damage.

I rather see the following changes then what the OP set forth:

- Achieving the objective is worth 10x more then killing the other team off.
- Mission pay is determined for the mission as a whole and not for each person
- Each person continues to receive bonuses for team helping, spotting, TAG, NARC, etc.
- No modifier for advanced tech.
- Each person receives part of the mission pay based on their performance.

Mission pay split:
80% of the mission pay is split evenly between the people that dropped. Disconnects have to be dead when the disconnected and/or have been active for 50% of the match to get their share. This percentage can be adjusted. The idea is that every one gets some pay. There also need to be a way to detect AFKers and remove them from gettign pay.

20% of the split is divided according to performance. This is a combination of damage, spotting, TAG, capturing if that is the objective, etc. The game determines how many points each person earned. Adds the points from each person together and then divides the 20% by the number of points. Each person then receives their performance pay based on how much each point was worth. Getting the kill shot should not be any more then an assist for points.

Example: Jacob got two assists and some spotting points that totaled 350 points for him. The team earned a total of 1500 points. The 20% of the mission pay was 1500 c-bills. The 20% divided by 1500 points means each point is worth 1 c-bill. Jacob receives 350 c-bills for his performance.

Again no mod for advanced equipment.

Rearming was one of the negotiation points in contracts. I say to leave it as it is, otherwise it will definitely drive people to energy weapons, 75% of rearming is free.

When merc units come in the merc unit would receive most of the mission pay and then the rest of the pay is then divided among the mech pilots.

Stats, not directly part of this thread. K/D should count assists as kills.

[Hellcat420]

One Medic Army, on 15 November 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Lore =/= logic.
logic =/= lore.

Lore is irrelevant when balance is considered, in Lore an Atlas is strictly better than a Jenner, so nobody should ever pilot a Jenner if they can afford an Atlas.

that is not true at all, unless you are trying to say that an atlas is a better scout than a jenner, which in lore is not true at all. all mechs have their role, which mech is better completely depends on how that mech is used.