34 replies to this topic

[Voidsinger]

Get rid of all subsidies and have true pricing representing the sustainability of playing the mech in the game.

Universal subsidies represent a pricing breakdown. If one cannot sustain a mech without subsidies, then the mech is nonviable on the battlefield.

Things like repairs and such are more priced differently to Battletech, in part to reflect the "Last Man Standing" style of gaming. That much is easily understandable.

However, all the missile subsidies are really doing is offering a benefit tone set of users (predominantly those who use vast quantities of missiles), over those who use energy weapons (which pay a constant price due to heat management needed).

In teamplay, this effect isn't so noticeable. In individual play, the effect has become ridiculous.

A brawler may spend minutes wearing down an opponent. I've spectated, and I know many LRM users will wait until a target is vulnerable, then claim the kill from 800 metres away. In terms of match payment, they get more C-bills and more XP than the poor brawler, whose mech has been hammered, only to have the stat, payment and XP taken by someone looking for easy kills.

Having 8 tons of missiles on board helps. (10-11 to exploit the 75% re-arm free and have as many missiles as you care to carry).

Unlike other weapons, LRMs receive massively more damage per ton now. 360 damage, versus 250 for SRMs, and 150 for Ballistics. 180 missiles, versus 120 for TT whereas SRM users received no such boost.

Artemis has made things much worse.

Mechs in TT carried only a few tons of ammo per launcher. Part of the reason is missile boats cost to run.

Stop disadvantaging those who use direct fire. Financially, XP-wise, and stat-wise.

[BigJim]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 22 November 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

And if i load up 11 ton of artemis LRM amoo then i have to pay 60k*11=660k vs 180k from win match...never gonna happen bcuz players will never do any progress

2 Points;


1) Artemis isn't a "take it every match", run of the mill, line-mech system, it's advanced stuff, best used for must-win matches in tournaments or in the planned meta-game.
The high cost helps keep it from being in every single match, on every single boat (ammo exploit notwithstanding).
Not as a balancing mechanism in the match itself, but more of a meta-game balancer, to keep it from turning up in every single little scrappy fight when more than one mech roll up their sleeves to fight over a mech-girl outside a mech bar.


2) Some builds are just more expensive than others; All your other mechs allow you to make a profit, this one is for when your team really needs an extra-effective LRM boat.
We all knew from the start of Closed Beta that this dynamic would be in place, it's not new.



I also have a very expensive to run build, several in fact, and I know that they're not my everyday go-to mechs, they're for specific purposes.
Right now we only have this one gametype, and that's skewing your perception because no match matters more than the last, they're all just one-off Deathmatches.

When you see a more campaign-based game emerge, and teams need to make hard decisions about what they bring and what they leave in the dropship, it'll all seem more realistic.

Edited by BigJim, 23 November 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[Roadbuster]

unwary, on 22 November 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

You failed to read. I meant you need to pay the current scaled cost of 25% per ammo ton. For Artemis LRMs, that would be 15,000 per ton (25% of 60,000). So that 660k is actually 15,000*11=165,000 cbills. You still pay the high initial cost of installing the ammo but the rearming costs is still the same. It sticks with the current economy system has.

I like the idea, but the cost of rearming the more expensive ammunition like LBX, SSRM and especially LRMs with Artemis should be lowered.
The effect of Artemis isn't that great after all.

[Thirdrail]

First off, understand that we're only really talking about LRMs here. Nothing else has ammo costs that make or break a mech's ability to earn money.

I run a love cat with 2xLRM20, and 900 total ammo. That's quite low compared to most of the other missile boaters I run into. If I turn on auto-rearm, that final 25% of my missile ammo costs 75k. That's ridiculously high compared to both the effectiveness of LRMs, and the cost of repairing and rearming everything else. Before anything gets done to auto-rearm, you'd need cut the ammo prices way, way, down.

If you're going to charge extra for "cutting edge tech", then the repair costs for ER weapons, UACs, gauss cannons, DHS, and all kinds of stuff should also skyrocket, so they match the artemis costs. Understand, too, that artemis is not optional under the current system. LRMs were nerfed so hard to compensate for heavy boater mechs like mine that now they're pretty well balanced in their highest state, but pretty seriously gimped in all their lesser incarnations. Artemis is no more cutting edge tech at this moment in MWO than stocks are for hunting rifles. It's just a necessary component now.

I think there's a lot of malice left over towards LRMs from the days when they were seriously overpowered. The arguments you guys make against auto-rearm would make a lot more sense if they were still a weapon that ruled the battlefield, but they're just a support weapon now. Which is why you see so few of us in love cats these days. Gauss cats, streak cats, and flack cats all outnumber us now, because LRMs aren't terribly effective unless you play a position perfect game.

Also, you should remember that the only workaround for mechs dropping off the mech ready list is to turn off auto-rearm. So you're not even in a discussion that's solely about ammo and pricing. It's also a discussion about the raw functionality of the game, and one of its most persistent and ubiquitous bugs.

Of all the things to complain about, I have to say, all the outrage over rearming seems extremely petty. Numerous game crashing bugs in both the launcher and game itself, optimization issues galore, lack of tutorials to help new players, voice chat that's a decade behind SOCOM from the playstation 2, lack of chat filters and mute functions for parents and decent folk, suicide farmers unbalancing Cthulhu knows how many teams each day... and you're forming an internet posse to call out the c-biscuit police? Because you're worried some stranger will, what, buy an Atlas seven hours before you do? No offense, but I'd posit that what would really help this game mature and improve is fewer full-time busy bodies cluttering up the beta process with petty nonsense.

[MaddMaxx]

Just reverse the process. Instead of telling the Crew Chief to fill her to 75% @ no charge to you. How about set it so you have to pay the Chief the first full 25% of your load out (per total tons wanted) with cash up front. He then winks at you as you leave and always fills her up to 100% (a 75% discount)

[Skyfaller]

Here's a simple cause-effect to 'removing' the 75% free re-arm:

Players will zombie/afk/suicide farm two or three of their expendable mechs to get cash to pay for the ammo on their main mech.

So, do you prefer to run into games where you will see constant farmers eating up player slots or do you prefer to have the free 75% re-arm cost?

Or would you rather increase the price of launchers a lot and cheapen the ammo significantly?

(im talking 5k ammo cost per ton for LRM and the LRM 5 costing like 1 million, the LRM20 costing 4 million).

[Voidsinger]

Okay, let's look at just how broken some of the controls are.

There are five basic controls to weapon power:-

Tonnage - This has remained neutral. To change that would be to break far too many designs.

Heat - This is broken more due to increased rates of fire. Smaller weapons are overall up (smaller lasers more so). DHS has been knackered because a full 2.0 is considered "OP"

Damage - This one hurts after armour doubling. Energy weapons are at about 50% +/-10% of their tabletop values for penetrating armour. Ballistics are at 50% (with RoF adjustments increasing that for some weapons). SRMs are at 62.5%. LRMs are at 100%, the only weapon to remain so (I don't count MGs due to burst streaming needed).

Ammunition - Energy weapons not applicable. Ballistics are at 150% shots (except AC/20, and MG). SRMs are at 100%. LRMs are at 150% (and retain 100% of damage capability, more after armour is penetrated).

Economics - The most expensive weapon to buy in the game is the LB-10X. Ammunition though is rather cheaper than missiles in spite of being the most expensive ballistic. SRMs (semi-guided, 100 shots, 250 damage potential) 27 000 per ton, Streaks 54 000 (guided SRMs), LRMs (long range, guided, 360 damage potential per ton) 30 060.

Artemis rounds double cost.

See something wrong here?

The only thing stopping total boating of LRMs is economics.

If a design generates too much heat, it will shut down in combat. Death to anything but an indirect fire vehicle.

If a design is too heavy, it won't even launch.

If a design doesn't do damage, it loses in an attrition fight.

If a design doesn't have enough ammunition, it can run dry in the middle of a close fight.

If a design is too expensive to run, don't worry, you get free reloads.

LRMs sole real control is cost of reloads, and this control hasn't been enforced in any meaningful way. It's as if PGI doesn't want to face the wrath of missile warriors who want it all, and want it now.

[_Rorschach_]

Voidsinger, on 23 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

...

Again, using the economic meta game to balance stuff is a terribad idea cause it will not lead to balance but to frustration, farming, bots and pay2win (richer players can field their best mechs more often).
Consider how it's done in the tabletop. If you play a game and expand ammo, do you have to pay for that ammo by getting less BV in your next game? No, you don't. Because that would be both ridiculous and stupid. Ammo in TT is a one time cost. As it should be.
If LRM is still OP (which I btw believe it's not - and I don't have a single LRM launcher on any of my mechs) fix it by adjusting heat, tonnage, rof and damage. Everything else is just a bad idea.

[Voidsinger]

pack wolf, on 23 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Again, using the economic meta game to balance stuff is a terribad idea cause it will not lead to balance but to frustration, farming, bots and pay2win (richer players can field their best mechs more often).
Consider how it's done in the tabletop. If you play a game and expand ammo, do you have to pay for that ammo by getting less BV in your next game? No, you don't. Because that would be both ridiculous and stupid. Ammo in TT is a one time cost. As it should be.
If LRM is still OP (which I btw believe it's not - and I don't have a single LRM launcher on any of my mechs) fix it by adjusting heat, tonnage, rof and damage. Everything else is just a bad idea.

In many ways, this is exactly what I'm getting at. The 150% number of shots may have been brought in when LRM damage was 1.0. Now it is up to 1.8.

There are a number of controls out there, and right now, the only one that really hurts LRMs is the economic one. This has an easy workaround.

Maybe it is time to reduce the number of missiles per ton back to 120 which would bring it into line with SRMs.

Your point may be correct, in that a single volley of LRMs is not OP.

Let's face it, the reral issues of LRMs are the expectation they be an execution weapon from long range, the fact there is a great deal of missile "dumping" (deliberate breaking of lock before missiles impact), spamming (using expensive missiles as a suppression weapon).

So the question is though, is it fair to users of other weapons?

[Xyberviri]

How about they add a whole new mechanic and let me form a company that captures territory and then get resouces from that terrority to which i ship off to my factories to build my mechs and repair them....


oh wait i forgot this isn't a MMO......

They should just lower the cost of ammo period... otherwise people will just start using energy weapons and complaining about how ammo costs too much.

Then you will just start seeing more afk trial farming.....

[FAX MACHINE]

I like the 75% system.

It allows a chance to recover funds, and in doing so, gives the enemy an advantage everytime you play a match. I don't want to have to play a trial Mech just to earn money because of some nasty losses, I paid to be a Founder so I could avoid that prodigious waste of my precious time.

With an XL engine, couple of enhancements and modules, plus a huge payload of missles, I can lose money on a loss.

Stagnation is not my idea of fun.

[Donald Paper]

Hopefully this hasn't been suggested before. I think all players should receive a set amount of C-Bills each day as an ammo subsidy. This amount would effectively allow players to rearm for free until they have used up all the money allocated to them daily, at which point they must use their own money to rearm. There would be no 'free' ammo, as the subsidy would cover this. I don't know what it would be set at (I have only been able to buy two mechs that both use lasers). As an extra players could potentially use Mechwarrior Credits to buy greater daily subsides.

[Voidsinger]

Donald Paper, on 07 December 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Hopefully this hasn't been suggested before. I think all players should receive a set amount of C-Bills each day as an ammo subsidy. This amount would effectively allow players to rearm for free until they have used up all the money allocated to them daily, at which point they must use their own money to rearm. There would be no 'free' ammo, as the subsidy would cover this. I don't know what it would be set at (I have only been able to buy two mechs that both use lasers). As an extra players could potentially use Mechwarrior Credits to buy greater daily subsides.

To my knowledge, this hasn't been suggested before.

I would suggest however that it be made a per mission subsidy, due to different playing rates among players. Making it daily rewards more occasional users, and punishes players the more missions they do. This allows it to be applied directly each mission.

It also makes a great deal more sense in the metagame context. Houses and mercenary units are not likely to enjoy wasteful users of expensive munitions. It might require a touch of tweaking of rewards for those who actually make more efficient use of large quantities of missiles.

Excellent suggestion though.

[ElLocoMarko]

75% rearm, 25% price... don't care.

I get a lot of fun out of playing with different loadouts. Just don't make it so expensive to use one class of weapons that I feel dissuaded from mounting them.

[focuspark]

IMO all ammo should be free. SRM, LRM, and ballistics are not so good compared to energy weapons that ammo should cost anything. LRM aren't that great - in fact they pretty much suck now that ECM is in. SRMs without Artemis are garbage and with Artemis are too expensive to field without free ammo.

If you really want World of Lasers then drop the free ammo.