36 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

So far each and every single one of your suggestions attempts to treat the symptoms, not the cause of the problem.

The cause of the problem is people. You will never change that.

[ArmyOfWon]

Mercules, on 15 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

The cause of the problem is people. You will never change that.

Doesn't mean we can't work towards a system that rewards team players and makes "people" lives much harder.

(oh, by "people" we mean "people who live to further themselves over all else, to the detriment of others", right?)

[Vermaxx]

I think the current system is fine. I think there are an overinflated number of farmers running, which somehow "ruins" the game for a lot of other people. I think that there are two distinct groups: people who premade and rarely lose, so they have zero reason to complain about money, and people who don't premade and like to find things to blame losses on. If two people afk out on me, we are probably going to lose. Or at least that's a good explanation for why we were going to lose anyway.

The reference to botters was pretty clear, I thought. PGI is doing the work on detecting afk players through a game input sensor. People can trick that with a bot, PGI has admitted it. They've said the idea is to make the inputs a player needs to provide through the bot so obvious they will "look" like botters and we can report them.

Suicide, running with no armor or weapons, these are problems that exist because there are only two goals: amass currency, or crush people with premades. Neither one has any more or less value, they simply appeal to different people. I'm not terribly concerned about suiciders or people running stripped mechs because repairs are already optional and make for a more effective "gimped" mech. I don't think we need to spend oodles of time making this game version better because it isn't going to last. If this is all PGI ever gets out, the question of cancellation is a WHEN question, not IF. As such, no, I don't care how much they improve this game mode. I want them to finish the game mode I got hooked on imagining.

No, I don't think the current economy needs a massive overhaul. I like knowing I can still eventually buy and run something even though most of my matches will be a depressing loss. Sure, I'm "abusing" the repair system that THEY made optional. I'm also running a mech with most of the expensive toys. I would still break even every match, I simply choose not to pay things I don't have to pay for. Make repairs mandatory and maybe things will change somewhat.

No, I do not want to "have" to win as the singular goal. Winning is great but currently there is no bonus for it other than higher pay and XP. I don't want to find a team in a 3rd party voip client that requires an additional install, and listen to internet farkwads talk on their mics. If the single goal is "win all the time" instead of "shoot robots with friends," I can just go play MW3, which is a better designed shooter, and I do better at it.

Edited by Vermaxx, 15 November 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Mercules]

ArmyOfWon,

There are those out there that will always take the simplest and easiest way to do anything. This seems to be especially true in MMOs to the point of exploiting things like vectors in a wall that don't match up so you can move your character inside a wall and shoot out without being shot. When you fix one loophole, they fish for the next.

The economy is not a huge issue. Those people dropping with me will go away once the Community Warfare piece is put into the game and frankly until that exists winning and losing is really masturbatory in nature, it means nothing but feels good when you win or even if you lose well.

The people farming this way are NOT getting any experience actually playing, they are not really even having fun. The POINT of a game is to have fun, the goal is to win. The people AFK farming are not getting it and really only shorting themselves in the end. Eventually I won't even be playing with these people as I will be running missions to advance control of the planet with my faction and word will get around within the faction of people who do not contribute, they simply won't get groups or at least in my groups.

This issue is really minor and mostly annoying.

[Vermaxx]

Mercules, on 15 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

masturbatory in nature

I just felt like quoting that cuz it made me giggle.

[ArmyOfWon]

Mercules, on 15 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

ArmyOfWon,

There are those out there that will always take the simplest and easiest way to do anything. This seems to be especially true in MMOs to the point of exploiting things like vectors in a wall that don't match up so you can move your character inside a wall and shoot out without being shot. When you fix one loophole, they fish for the next.

Doesn't mean not striving.... blah blah... excellence..... yadda yadda.... best we can make it....
I'm getting really depressed and tired hearing this argument. Maybe if I were to start doing this and at the same time start friendly fire at the beginning of my match to make my team lose quicker (quicker losses = faster money for farmers) I might start getting my point across.

Quote

The economy is not a huge issue. Those people dropping with me will go away once the Community Warfare piece is put into the game and frankly until that exists winning and losing is really masturbatory in nature, it means nothing but feels good when you win or even if you lose well.

I want to say that we're discussing the economy as it is and not how it "might be" with CW? Didn't I say that in my post? I'll check, justa sec........................Yep, very first paragraph. Pretty clear. If you think this is a non-issue, please just say so and move on. Point noted, next please.

Again, I'll say that if the devs didn't want any economy, they wouldn't put one in. I've tried looking for the "Russ Bullock on the economy" post, but it seems it got lost in the Beta "Archives"

Quote

The people farming this way are NOT getting any experience actually playing, they are not really even having fun. The POINT of a game is to have fun, the goal is to win. The people AFK farming are not getting it and really only shorting themselves in the end. Eventually I won't even be playing with these people as I will be running missions to advance control of the planet with my faction and word will get around within the faction of people who do not contribute, they simply won't get groups or at least in my groups.

This issue is really minor and mostly annoying.

Noted, Murcules.

Vermaxx, on 15 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think the current system is fine. I think there are an overinflated number of farmers running, which somehow "ruins" the game for a lot of other people. I think that there are two distinct groups: people who premade and rarely lose, so they have zero reason to complain about money, and people who don't premade and like to find things to blame losses on. If two people afk out on me, we are probably going to lose. Or at least that's a good explanation for why we were going to lose anyway.

Well, if I'm one of those two types of people, then I must be the second. I don't premade, so I must have to blame losses on something? Oh, I suppose the second type of person is actually "find something other than personal failings to blame losses on" huh? I believe personal failings would still be penalized in my suggested economy, correct? Why type of person are you, Vermaxx?

Quote

The reference to botters was pretty clear, I thought. PGI is doing the work on detecting afk players through a game input sensor. People can trick that with a bot, PGI has admitted it. They've said the idea is to make the inputs a player needs to provide through the bot so obvious they will "look" like botters and we can report them.

I see what you're saying now. You didn't mean to say the "Player acting like a bot that gets reported," (which would imply someone at their keyboard failing miserably at turing tests), you meant to say "the Bot acting like a bot, because it is a bot, and gets reported as such"

Still you don't answer my question: How does my system penalize/reward botters compared to the current system? I'll tell you right now that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the two. A botter in the current system wouldn't gain or lose anything by the switch. Botters would still be a problem, yes, but you've already given the solution to that, by reporting them. As far as I can figure, there aren't any economic incentives or penalties that could both discourage botting and encourage team work, for if you have a bot that's doing its job (acting like a player should) then you actually have a bot accidentally contributing to the team.

Quote

Suicide, running with no armor or weapons, these are problems that exist because there are only two goals: amass currency, or crush people with premades. Neither one has any more or less value, they simply appeal to different people. I'm not terribly concerned about suiciders or people running stripped mechs because repairs are already optional and make for a more effective "gimped" mech. I don't think we need to spend oodles of time making this game version better because it isn't going to last. If this is all PGI ever gets out, the question of cancellation is a WHEN question, not IF. As such, no, I don't care how much they improve this game mode. I want them to finish the game mode I got hooked on imagining.

PGI has been so tight lipped on CW that any argument anyone other than PGI makes is both pure speculation and truly "Masturbatory in nature." I wish so badly that I had access to the beta "archives" so I could post the link to the devs explaining why they added the economy. If they didn't want an economy, or if they planned to change it drastically in CW, they would not have implemented an economy in the first place. Yes or no.

Quote

No, I don't think the current economy needs a massive overhaul. I like knowing I can still eventually buy and run something even though most of my matches will be a depressing loss. Sure, I'm "abusing" the repair system that THEY made optional. I'm also running a mech with most of the expensive toys. I would still break even every match, I simply choose not to pay things I don't have to pay for. Make repairs mandatory and maybe things will change somewhat.

No, I do not want to "have" to win as the singular goal. Winning is great but currently there is no bonus for it other than higher pay and XP. I don't want to find a team in a 3rd party voip client that requires an additional install, and listen to internet farkwads talk on their mics. If the single goal is "win all the time" instead of "shoot robots with friends," I can just go play MW3, which is a better designed shooter, and I do better at it.

If you believe (as I do) that you are "abusing the system" and continue to do it, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed. If you change one thing without an overhaul (e.g. mandatory repairs) you don't solve any problems, you only change them.

[Stormur Herra]

Quote

[color=#959595]We must [/color]ABOLISH LOSS EARNINGS.

[color="#959595"]This is very much at odds with your other goals. If you can't earn money by losing people will keep refusing to pay R&R, AFKing in Trial mechs they don't really want to play, etc. Unless you have a dedicated team to play with, you are likely to lose over half your games until the match-making pairs pugs with only pugs (assuming it will).[/color]

Abolishing Loss Earnings punches new players in the face.

Quote

The Rewards must be great enough in relationship to the Risk for people to Willingly accept the Risk.

This is a problem given that some players are just bad or just starting out. A system where there's a significant risk of going negative is going to deterr those people from playing the mech they want to play or bringing it in at its full potential. It will drive those people off from the game. If I found myself in a situation where I would only play this game when enough of my friends are online and not whenever I feel like it, I won't last long enough to actually give them money. Other people who don't have friends that were at some point obsessed with MW to keep them going would quit sooner.

If you want a better solution to the AFKer problem stop giving the participation bonus to anyone that disconnects before they do any damage to the enemy. Once you've hit that point, you might as well play on anyway.


You cannot expect any level of skill from people coming into the game fresh. They will be terrible! If you punch them in the face repeatedly, they won't stick around long enough to become decent and get into the game and spend money.

[ArmyOfWon]

Stormur Herra, on 15 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

[/b]

[color=#959595]This is very much at odds with your other goals. If you can't earn money by losing people will keep refusing to pay R&R, AFKing in Trial mechs they don't really want to play, etc. Unless you have a dedicated team to play with, you are likely to lose over half your games until the match-making pairs pugs with only pugs (assuming it will).[/color]

Abolishing Loss Earnings punches new players in the face.

I suppose I wasn't clear on what "Loss Earnings" are. I will be more clear now.

"Loss Earnings" is not specifically what you get if you lose. "Loss Earnings" are the baseline amount of cash thrown at you for being there. When I talk about "Win Earnings" I am referring to the difference in "Baseline Winning" and "Baseline Losing." Right now everyone gets 70k for breathing. If you happen to be on a good team/good pilot you have the potential to win about 70k in "Win earnings" in addition to the "Breathing Earnings"

Put in a system that teaches new players how to play and how to contribute to the team, reward players for contributing to the team, no matter wining or losing, and then reward the team. IN THAT ORDER.

Quote

This is a problem given that some players are just bad or just starting out. A system where there's a significant risk of going negative is going to deterr those people from playing the mech they want to play or bringing it in at its full potential.

You only have "significant" risk of losing money if you put significant money into your mech. I explicitly stated that there should be builds that carry low risk (even zero risk) to the player, especially new players, but do not add very much potential to the team. If you're a good pilot in a "zero risk" mech, then you might in fact lead your team to victory. If you're a bad pilot in a "zero risk" mech, then you are at ZERO RISK of losing money. If you're not good, then get into these basic mechs to figure out how they should be piloted before putting money down and betting on your skill. Wait, why does this sound like a "trial mech" argument?.... (Hint: Get better using the trial mechs, Get more money using purchased mechs)

If you're at least competent in your personal mech, if it isn't using significant level 2 tech, you should be breaking even (or so) with the money from your "Team based performance"

Quote

If you want a better solution to the AFKer problem stop giving the participation bonus to anyone that disconnects before they do any damage to the enemy. Once you've hit that point, you might as well play on anyway.


You cannot expect any level of skill from people coming into the game fresh. They will be terrible! If you punch them in the face repeatedly, they won't stick around long enough to become decent and get into the game and spend money.

You need to think like a farmer if you want to salt the earth and burn their crops. If people want to farm, they will run in with unrepaired commandos, shoot a small laser at the enemy, disconnect, and jump into their other command and repeat for large, quick gains.

And that's why the trial mechs are in the game. I suppose those "econ" builds I was referring to, the "zero risk" builds do exist! They're called "Trial Mechs" and people have been using them to Supplement their income. If you're a competent pilot I believe there shouldn't be any reason for you to use a "Trial" mech.

[Stormur Herra]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Doesn't mean we can't work towards a system that rewards team players and makes "people" lives much harder.

(oh, by "people" we mean "people who live to further themselves over all else, to the detriment of others", right?)

Such a system solves all the game's problems by catering to a tiny niche that eventually sees it just fold.

Honestly though, I don't see the AFK/bot problem as being that major. It's 0-2 people a game. It will go down over time as bans are handed out and as those people get the mech they were saving up for. Overhauling your entire reward system around a small problem is a bad idea.

The problem with your system is that you get a new guy, who totally sucks at the game (as I did on day 1). You've stripped out loss earnings and only hand out performance earnings. I believe on that day I was doing something like 50 damage a game (the first set of trial mechs were also terribad, the new ones... well, if not for exp concerns I'd play the trial Atlas over any of my owned ones even though it's non-ideal). So in this situation, I'd be making 5k-10k under the current performance structure. Assume 6 games an hour. At the end of a 3-4 hour play session, I'd have about 200K-400K to my name. A heavy mech would take a week and a half of constant heavy playing to earn at that point and another week and a half to customize. That would never work even with friends encouraging me to play.

I wish the stats system would be better at breaking down your games because I can't separate my PUG vs. pre-made W/L ratio or my owned mech vs. trial mech earnings so I could throw some real numbers out there. I will say though, my SRM commando with Artemis costs just over 100k in R&R (guess how often I hit the re-arm button that guy).

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

You need to think like a farmer if you want to salt the earth and burn their crops. If people want to farm, they will run in with unrepaired commandos, shoot a small laser at the enemy, disconnect, and jump into their other command and repeat for large, quick gains.

And you know what? I'm not ready to advocate ruining the game for other people just because a small proportion of the population abuses the system.

If you drive out enough of the noobs with your changes, everyone else's W/L ratio will go down too and pretty soon the old slightly above average players feel like the noobs who are getting punched in the face and need to find something better to do with their time.

[Mercules]

Look... I played Magic the Gathering back in the age of Antes. Basically there was a system where when we played a random card from our deck would be pulled out and placed faced down. Winner got to keep both cards. I eventually made a deck out of Common Cards that I had at least 50+ of and was able to beat even decks filled with uncommon and rares regularly. People stopped playing me because it because obvious that there was no gain to winning and losing meant they were behind.

The system you are proposing is similar. If they win they will make a lot. If they lose though, they will barely be able to repair and be unlikely to get better equipment so they CAN win on a more regular basis. People simply won't do that and the truth of the matter is that in closing the holes in the manner you want to you will likely be encouraging more people to look for other holes because it will become even HARDER for new people to gain money.

[ArmyOfWon]

Stormur Herra, on 15 November 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Such a system solves all the game's problems by catering to a tiny niche that eventually sees it just fold.

Honestly though, I don't see the AFK/bot problem as being that major. It's 0-2 people a game. It will go down over time as bans are handed out and as those people get the mech they were saving up for. Overhauling your entire reward system around a small problem is a bad idea.

The problem with your system is that you get a new guy, who totally sucks at the game (as I did on day 1). You've stripped out loss earnings and only hand out performance earnings. I believe on that day I was doing something like 50 damage a game (the first set of trial mechs were also terribad, the new ones... well, if not for exp concerns I'd play the trial Atlas over any of my owned ones even though it's non-ideal). So in this situation, I'd be making 5k-10k under the current performance structure. Assume 6 games an hour. At the end of a 3-4 hour play session, I'd have about 200K-400K to my name. A heavy mech would take a week and a half of constant heavy playing to earn at that point and another week and a half to customize. That would never work even with friends encouraging me to play.

I wish the stats system would be better at breaking down your games because I can't separate my PUG vs. pre-made W/L ratio or my owned mech vs. trial mech earnings so I could throw some real numbers out there. I will say though, my SRM commando with Artemis costs just over 100k in R&R (guess how often I hit the re-arm button that guy).

And in my system the new guy is taught how to best earn money and work towards teamwork. Right now, damage isn't valued in performance bonuses, but just looking at a guy that no one else sees is currently worth 2k (after one person fires an LRM. 2k more for the second person, 2k more for the next....)

Tell me how that is worse than the "Throw money at new players for breathing," please.

And that's 200k-400k in performance based income. You would be winning at least some of those matches, no matter how bad you are. In fact, I would put forth that you would be winning at least 1/3 of your matches, if not half. Using that 6 games per hour, and 2 games won during that time, you'd be raking in 200k per hour (assuming the minimum 10k performance, 70k winning). How does that compare to a normal Trial Mech user today? Well, 60k for losing, how much is for winning? It's gotta be less than 100k, but how much?... Well, let's give them the full, non-trial 100k win. 2 wins, 4 losses, does come out to 440k per hour. Much more, yes, but how much of that is breathing money (360k, at least. 80k comes from winning, he may have learned something)? How much did the newbie learn without any indication of how well he was doing with respect to his team?

So yes, with the exact numbers I've put forward Trial Mech users would get the short end of the stick. But didn't I also say that "Exact Numbers aren't important, Relationships are." So let's make Trial Mech users get about the same for one hour of play in my system as they do now, but we do need to keep Mech prices somewhat similar as well. So let's do this:

Competent Performance Rewards (losing): minimum 20k
Winning Bonus (including Salvage and Performance rewards for winning): 120k.

Brings one hour (6 games of newbie pug play) to 360k, not that bad compared to now, and you're learning how to play!

Now let's take a look at the rest of the economy, and how it would scale:
Peformance Rewards (average loss): 20k~40k (scales)

R&R cost: 20k for cheap mechs ~ 60k for expensive mechs (if you're good and running an expensive mech, but lose, you're putting in about 20k risk. Those running cheap mechs poorly would actually be losing money. They would need to run trial mechs in order to learn the game better).

Winning Rewards: 120k ~ 150k.

How do those quick numbers look? Even if you run your own, expensive mech and do well (contribute to the team and contribute to an increase in winning percentage), you would lose about 20k on a loss (even if you were to do well), but you would be winning more often. 1 win would cover at least 6 losses, so the risk vs reward on those more effective, more expensive mechs to field is more than manageable. A Good player would bring in ~180k for a win (before R&R) and a competent player would bring in ~160K for a win (before R&R)

ah, just one more note what "Niche" does this system cater to? If I were to say it caters anything, it would cater away from those we don't want to support, no?

Mercules, on 15 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Look... I played Magic the Gathering back in the age of Antes. Basically there was a system where when we played a random card from our deck would be pulled out and placed faced down. Winner got to keep both cards. I eventually made a deck out of Common Cards that I had at least 50+ of and was able to beat even decks filled with uncommon and rares regularly. People stopped playing me because it because obvious that there was no gain to winning and losing meant they were behind.

The system you are proposing is similar. If they win they will make a lot. If they lose though, they will barely be able to repair and be unlikely to get better equipment so they CAN win on a more regular basis. People simply won't do that and the truth of the matter is that in closing the holes in the manner you want to you will likely be encouraging more people to look for other holes because it will become even HARDER for new people to gain money.

They would only be able to "barely" repair if they were running blinged out expensive mechs, then sucked at piloting them. If they are competent pilots, they will win more than enough to cover their losses. If they do not win enough, they need to get better via Trial Mechs, not think of them as "Money supplements"

And your "deck of commons" shouldn't be contributing to the team as much as a deck of "uncommons." The uncommon would be more effective for the team, therefore make more money because he was a credit to the team, therefore the team would be winning more overall.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 02:26 PM.

[ArmyOfWon]

Erm.... is the silence to mean that I addressed all of your concerns and explained myself, or that everyone just got mad and left?....

[Stormur Herra]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Erm.... is the silence to mean that I addressed all of your concerns and explained myself, or that everyone just got mad and left?....

Work... it's a thing I like to do from time to time. You know, real world C-Bill farming.

So the thing you're not getting is that some people will suck. A lot. No matter how easy your game gets, in a PvP setting, if someone's winning 90% of the time, other people are going to fail to get their 1:1 W/L ratio. (Either one person is losing 90% of the time or a bunch of people are losing some of the time.) Either way, if losing is penalized too heavily, people won't last long enough to get better/buy a mech and fit it in a way that makes it fun.

I barely win half my pug matches now with my personal mech. When I was starting I was losing close to 90% of matches. Heck, my first match I spent walking into a wall. My second one I managed to navigate but not really score any hits. Getting kills was few and far between. The problem with entirely losing the bonus for being there is that the beginning is going to be super frustrating. I can certainly see arguments for cutting the being there down to 25k, trippling performance rewards, and lowering repairs on heavier/fancier mechs enough that they're viable.

I know I'm not terribly good, but there's also people out there who are way worse, and they would have a terrible time of any system that didn't just give them something. Maybe replace the being there bonus with some sort of team performance share? Yes, I know that's still abusable, but somewhat more forgiving. (Also, I've had matches where all I did was run around larger mechs in a commando and distract them while my team flanked them. This is either highly profitable (lots of assists for a single shot into each of them, spot bonuses, etc.) or not if I spend most of that time running or I create the distraction by stepping into the base rather than by shooting at them.

[ArmyOfWon]

Stormur Herra, on 15 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Work... it's a thing I like to do from time to time. You know, real world C-Bill farming.

So the thing you're not getting is that some people will suck. A lot. No matter how easy your game gets, in a PvP setting, if someone's winning 90% of the time, other people are going to fail to get their 1:1 W/L ratio. (Either one person is losing 90% of the time or a bunch of people are losing some of the time.) Either way, if losing is penalized too heavily, people won't last long enough to get better/buy a mech and fit it in a way that makes it fun.

For those people who suck and/or do not understand what it takes to contribute to a team, either because they are new or they just suck, there are already mechs for them. They're called "Trial Mechs." In my system, the trial mech earnings are only limited by the effectiveness of the pilot and his contribution to the team. (I suppose there could be a cap on Performance Rewards, but winning produces just as much extra for a trial mech as a personal mech. Numbers can be tweaked. The relationships I set forth should not be).

Tutorials would go very far in teaching these newbies how to become productive members of the team as well, but as it stands newbies get money thrown at them for breathing instead of learning. I don't think I've had anyone disagree with that statement so far.

Quote

I barely win half my pug matches now with my personal mech. When I was starting I was losing close to 90% of matches. Heck, my first match I spent walking into a wall. My second one I managed to navigate but not really score any hits. Getting kills was few and far between. The problem with entirely losing the bonus for being there is that the beginning is going to be super frustrating. I can certainly see arguments for cutting the being there down to 25k, trippling performance rewards, and lowering repairs on heavier/fancier mechs enough that they're viable.

In your first few matches, were you in a trial mech, or a personal mech? If it was a trial mech, and all you did was walk around then die, without firing a single shot at an enemy you would not be penalized at all. Zero risk. If you owned a personal mech, then it should be assumed that you already have a grasp on basic concepts within the game, and that you have been playing the trial mechs for a bit and understand what you should be doing in the games. (Agree/disagree?)

Quote

I know I'm not terribly good, but there's also people out there who are way worse, and they would have a terrible time of any system that didn't just give them something. Maybe replace the being there bonus with some sort of team performance share? Yes, I know that's still abusable, but somewhat more forgiving. (Also, I've had matches where all I did was run around larger mechs in a commando and distract them while my team flanked them. This is either highly profitable (lots of assists for a single shot into each of them, spot bonuses, etc.) or not if I spend most of that time running or I create the distraction by stepping into the base rather than by shooting at them.

Those "Way worse" people would benefit most from the trial mechs and tutorials, and they would learn how to play the game with the suggestions I set forth.

As for effectiveness for your team, you are right, there are many different ways you can be effective for your team, and it is somewhat hard to quantify rewards. That is why I left "Teamwork Performance" specifics out my description. The devil's in the details, but we couldn't get to the details if we can agree on what canvas to use. Right now the argument is not HOW you are contributing to the team, but HOW MUCH you contribute to team success.

*Edit: Especially if the devs want to hold to the game design tenant that any role is important to the team as any other role.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[Malrock]

ArmyOfWon, on 15 November 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

For those people who suck and/or do not understand what it takes to contribute to a team, either because they are new or they just suck, there are already mechs for them. They're called "Trial Mechs." In my system, the trial mech earnings are only limited by the effectiveness of the pilot and his contribution to the team. (I suppose there could be a cap on Performance Rewards, but winning produces just as much extra for a trial mech as a personal mech. Numbers can be tweaked. The relationships I set forth should not be).

Tutorials would go very far in teaching these newbies how to become productive members of the team as well, but as it stands newbies get money thrown at them for breathing instead of learning. I don't think I've had anyone disagree with that statement so far.



In your first few matches, were you in a trial mech, or a personal mech? If it was a trial mech, and all you did was walk around then die, without firing a single shot at an enemy you would not be penalized at all. Zero risk. If you owned a personal mech, then it should be assumed that you already have a grasp on basic concepts within the game, and that you have been playing the trial mechs for a bit and understand what you should be doing in the games. (Agree/disagree?)




Those "Way worse" people would benefit most from the trial mechs and tutorials, and they would learn how to play the game with the suggestions I set forth.

As for effectiveness for your team, you are right, there are many different ways you can be effective for your team, and it is somewhat hard to quantify rewards. That is why I left "Teamwork Performance" specifics out my description. The devil's in the details, but we couldn't get to the details if we can agree on what canvas to use. Right now the argument is not HOW you are contributing to the team, but HOW MUCH you contribute to team success.

You sir have no clue what you are talking about. The instant that you give people 5k to 20k for a loss is the day this game dies. You are trying to solve a leaver problem with a totally unrelated system. What you need is a leave buster system that hands out short term bans to people who consistently go afk in a game. (imo it shouldn't be if you go afk after death but only if you go afk during the actual match up.) Thus you are tackling the problem form a completely wrong direction. I don't think suicide punishment is viable in any form b/c some people are just bad at this game and new players get stomped easily by veterans.

As a current player I think cbills are too hard to come by in relation to the cost of things. When i am capable of loosing money on a win then we have a problem (this is currently possible). I have 3 mechs at the moment, and would definitely like to have more but i also still can't afford to customize the ones I have because the customization's are so expensive.

Example: My first mech was a jenner. I love running it but to fully **** it out i need a xl300... i need more than the actual cost of my mech in order to get an xl300. I would like to unlock more bonuses for my jenner.. in order to do that i need another jenner... in order to enjoy using another jenner i would need to customize it... in order to customize it i need more c bills... and probably double the price of the base model just to customize basic stuff... then i would need 4million more cbills for my engine. Total cost of purchase is now 10million c bills or more. The economy is borked! I feel stuck in no mans land atm as i have maxed my basic mech level xp on all 3 mechs i own but haven't been able to afford a single engine or another mech because of the super slow grind involved. I can tell you if loss money were to drop to the levels you indicate i wold quit tomorrow and never look back.

New players would never even begin to play this game regardless at those levels they would never reach mech customization status, and no amount of tutorial will EVER be able to put them on equal footing with some one who has logged hundreds of hours in this game and has a mech so finely tuned to their play style that they are 20x more effective than any new player who has no customization options at all. I can safely say that I lost almost 100% of my matches on my way to buying my first mech. Yup almost a guranteed 100% loss rate because of founders and them having better mechs and WAY more experience. When i saw i could still earn decent money and eventually get a mech of my own while trying to improve I stuck through the awfulness of trial mechs and was able to finally buy my own mech.... this made the game far more enjoyable. Never would have made it that far under your system. Never. would have quit after a few matches.

You are wrong about having a basic reward for free to play games not working. Not sure if you know but there is another F2P game called league of legends perhaps you have heard of it? Yeah they give both winners and losers rewards. In fact the rewards you get go up for the losing team the longer the game goes thus an incentive to stick it out even if you are loosing. (as system that positively rewards players for actually playing is something mwo could use) Next what they don't do is reward people who afk. They punish leavers with bans. This is what you should be advocating for not this crazy economy system that will drive new players away and cause current players to quit.

[ArmyOfWon]

Malrock, on 15 November 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

You sir have no clue what you are talking about. The instant that you give people 5k to 20k for a loss is the day this game dies.

So giving people 70k for a loss is just fine?

Edit: Ah, I see. You're saying that if you don't reward people for sitting around, then people will give up and leave? Please. What the current economy does is only offset some of the repair bill when you lose. That's what that 70k is supposed to do. Not Reward the player. This is changed into performance based rewards in my model.

Quote

You are trying to solve a leaver problem with a totally unrelated system. What you need is a leave buster system that hands out short term bans to people who consistently go afk in a game. (imo it shouldn't be if you go afk after death but only if you go afk during the actual match up.) Thus you are tackling the problem form a completely wrong direction. I don't think suicide punishment is viable in any form b/c some people are just bad at this game and new players get stomped easily by veterans.

Ok, now I know you just didn't read the entire thing. Take a read of the Section 3: NPE and try again. Again, the intent is to not punish those who are "bad," it is only those that maliciously hurt the team.

Quote

As a current player I think cbills are too hard to come by in relation to the cost of things. When i am capable of loosing money on a win then we have a problem (this is currently possible). I have 3 mechs at the moment, and would definitely like to have more but i also still can't afford to customize the ones I have because the customization's are so expensive.

Ok, You didn't read at all. Repair bills (as discussed in the OP) will be brought down across the board, the maximum repairs being around 40k. This is DIFFERENT THAN THE REPAIR BILLS WE HAVE NOW. Please stop inserting the same repair numbers as they are now into your argument why my model is wrong, because the repair costs are completely different from my model.

Quote

New players would never even begin to play this game regardless at those levels they would never reach mech customization status, and no amount of tutorial will EVER be able to put them on equal footing with some one who has logged hundreds of hours in this game and has a mech so finely tuned to their play style that they are 20x more effective than any new player who has no customization options at all.

1) Equal footing and competitive are two separate things. If you fail at educating newbies sufficiently, you will have players leave regardless.

2)If a veteran is truely 20x more effective at his job, then that is what I would consider "OP" and must be balanced on the battlefield.

Quote

I can safely say that I lost almost 100% of my matches on my way to buying my first mech. Yup almost a guranteed 100% loss rate because of founders and them having better mechs and WAY more experience. When i saw i could still earn decent money and eventually get a mech of my own while trying to improve I stuck through the awfulness of trial mechs and was able to finally buy my own mech.... this made the game far more enjoyable. Never would have made it that far under your system. Never. would have quit after a few matches.

And how did you learn? Before the end of your trial mech period did you....

1) Learn about the lock on bonuses?
2) Learn about Kill Assists?
3) Figure out the more nuanced controls of your mech?
4) Learn what way your legs were pointing?

If you did, congrats! You are apparently more skilled at this game than the people Russ talks about when he says he wants to add 3rd person for!

If you lost every single match, did you ever have any idea of what you were doing, or by the end of your stumbling period, did you learn how to effectively interact with your team?

Quote

You are wrong about having a basic reward for free to play games not working. Not sure if you know but there is another F2P game called league of legends perhaps you have heard of it? Yeah they give both winners and losers rewards. In fact the rewards you get go up for the losing team the longer the game goes thus an incentive to stick it out even if you are loosing. (as system that positively rewards players for actually playing is something mwo could use) Next what they don't do is reward people who afk. They punish leavers with bans. This is what you should be advocating for not this crazy economy system that will drive new players away and cause current players to quit.

Hey, guess what, the longer you stay in my economic model, the more performance bonuses you will inevitably get in order to cover your inevitable R&R cost! I would argue that the LoL model that gives losers proportionate amount of funds is closer to my economic model than "Breathing money" that you get now.

Did I miss anything or do I just not have any clue about what I'm talking about?

Edit: Also, I don't play LoL personally. Could someone drop into a match and sit there and do nothing the entire time and tell me how much money they would get for losing?

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Bump, because they closed your other thread while I was typing. Bad form, PGI. Vermy needs his soapbox.

Your proposal is simple:

AFK needs to be dealt with (they're doing this)
Zero participation deserves zero reward (no free money for losses)
Increase participation rewards to compensate (higher damage pay, spotting, kill assist, anything I'm missing).

You want an overhaul, to a static economy only there to keep things running until Mystical Community Warfare (I'm going to call it that from now on) is ready. They are not going to do this. The simple stopgap is to make repairs mandatory to use mechs. No free armor/equipment/ammo. This solves the problem of people grinding their way to valuables.

It will also flat dismiss a large portion of the player base, because whether you agree or even accept it - some of us would rather quit or back burner this game than install voip and use it every session just to make the game playable.