101 replies to this topic

[Rushin Roulette]

Well. My post wasnt directed at you stVillan as you are aware of the risk vs. reward of taking expensive equipment into a fight and are OK with that.

My post was directed at everyone who takes a mech with expensive weapons, FF; Endo DHS and Artemis into a fight and then are surprized that they get a hefty repair bill if anything goes wrong with it.

Its like buying a Ferrari with a custom paintjob and then being surprized that a scratch on your door costs $2000 to repair or the engine swap cost more than a normal medium sized car would cost if you bought one instead.

Edited by Rushin Roulette, 28 November 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Shiney]

It 'IS' a good point about LRMs [and ammo in general actually]. I think perhaps a maintenance fee ought to be added for Lasers.

[RadioKies]

rlly...
"Why do I have to be punished for being good and using ammunition?"
"when we do the work?"

Let me get this straight:
Spamming LRM without having to aim from a (safe) distance when you get a lock on that is most of the time provided by teammates makes you good? *caugh*gauss*caugh* Doing random splash damage all over mechs instead coring the CT or the Head with skilled shots that require aiming so there is more to salvage or acquireing lock for your LRM support while risking your mech to direct and support fire is doing al the work?

Artemis is more expensive because you get to use less ammo for more/the same amount of damage you normally would.

QQ more or slap some lasers on there and really help out by weakening the enemy first and then get into the battle. If you are using an A1 make use of the free reload and slap some (s)srm2/4/6 on it.

[Deadoon]

RadioKies, on 28 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

rlly...
"Why do I have to be punished for being good and using ammunition?"
"when we do the work?"

Let me get this straight:
Spamming LRM without having to aim from a (safe) distance when you get a lock on that is most of the time provided by teammates makes you good? *caugh*gauss*caugh* Doing random splash damage all over mechs instead coring the CT or the Head with skilled shots that require aiming so there is more to salvage or acquireing lock for your LRM support while risking your mech to direct and support fire is doing al the work?

Artemis is more expensive because you get to use less ammo for more/the same amount of damage you normally would.

QQ more or slap some lasers on there and really help out by weakening the enemy first and then get into the battle. If you are using an A1 make use of the free reload and slap some (s)srm2/4/6 on it.

So someone helping out the team more is punished more for going out of his way to make his mech more viable as a los support?

[RadioKies]

In closed beta my first mech was a Raven, after that I bought 2 catapults. First the C1 and then the A1. With the C1 I had a lot of fun, first weakening the enemy with LRM long range and then going in for the kill using 2LLas+2MLas or 4Mlas. With all the streakcats that where walking around I wanted to see what that would be like. After a few rounds of streaking I quickly changed to all LRM and that sucked after a few round, because I didn't feel like I was helping as much as I was in my C1 setup. So after all LRM I changed to 2x srm6 and 2x10+2x15 (or something like that). That gave me more of a support feel but not as much as I felt when using my raven. With the Raven I could help core and it had a SRM4 and sometimes a SRM6 on it that I used to core with from <50m.

So I can't agree with you because I don't think LRM boats are helping out. I find that someone with an AC helps me a lot more by shaking enemy cockpits then a friendly LRM boat does.

But to be fair, I never liked LRM's in any game. Especially in the MechCommanders where you'll be guaranteed to not salvage mechs when using LRM. I'd rather have a lancemate with lasers and ballistics than having 2 LRM boats supporting me. It gives a higher chance to salvage credits and gives a better playing experience because of intense combat created by shooting enemy mechs while avoiding your lancemate.

Edited by RadioKies, 28 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

How about if a laser or ballistic or missile mount gets destroyed, it has to be replaced in the same way ammo does - by replacing it with new. Are repairs to weapons figured into the non-ammo repair cost?

[Dr Killinger]

Just to weigh in, I run an Atlas (non-founders) with 3 tons Gauss ammo, 2 tons SSRM ammo, 1 ton AMS ammo, and I break even on a loss with death. I think your ammo usage is a bit out of control!

[sycocys]

Why should every other member of your team be forced to eat up all the other teams damage while you putz around with missles -relying on them to target lock - and you not pay for their repairs?

I regularly do 4-500 damage in what would probably be considered a poorly equipped dragon - 2 L Pulses and 2 SRM6s, holding locks, scouting, and 50% of the time getting shredded when my "back up" is busy throwing missiles 10 lengths behind a jenner he can't keep a lock on.

At the end of the day its about finding a build that can compete both economically while producing threat and efficient damage. Doesn't matter if your a founder, on premium or straight free - it works the same for everyone.

[RadioKies]

Gremlich Johns, on 28 November 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

How about if a laser or ballistic or missile mount gets destroyed, it has to be replaced in the same way ammo does - by replacing it with new. Are repairs to weapons figured into the non-ammo repair cost?

Yes they are, Item costs. But even without the 75% free repair it isn't the full 100%. Maybe because you can salvage parts from destroyed weapons whereas ammo is non salvageable repair versus replacing. Making you pay 100% for weapons isn't a good idea, mayb paying more then what you have to now is. But with the pricing scale you have at the moment it is unbalanced. 600.000cbills for a gauss cannon (and lets not forget allready paying 20.000cbills for 10 ammo) or 400.000cbills for a LLas where a Mlas is only 80.000cbills or something like that everyone would start using only small laser boats. The (ER)PPC is allready not worth it, if you implement that no one will ever use the PPC and the same might be for the LRM 20. Why would you use LRM 20 when 15 is more heatfriendly and cheaper?

The 75% repair system isn't a good thing, the prices are kinda high and the reward system isn't based on player worth. It should really be looked at again. But then again, the high costs are supposed to be part of the downside to using ammo based weapons and how realistic is it to get ~2000 free missiles after each match?

[Max Liao]

If this was an issue with people piloting 'Mechs without upgraded/new-tech gear I'd care. Since we're talking Artimis, Gauss, Endo, DHS, etc. I think it's all good as is. (But I'll let a few more days of playing sell me one way or the other.)

Maybe now we can see more stock 'Mechs and/or 'Mechs using lower tech equipment - or at least a better balance of equipment not just jamming in all of the latest/greatest. If that's the case, then the economy is spot on. As a founder NOT using a founder 'Mech or premium time, I have no problems with the economy. But, as i said above, I'll let a few more days of testing change/solidify my stance.

[RFMarine]

I totally abuse the 75% free repair but I usually rearm fully my autocannons - a catapult K2

camo paint and XL engines are expensive

Edited by RFMarine, 28 November 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Vechs]

I've said since closed beta that the money earned from dealing damage should at least cover the cost of ammunition.

This would mean they can greatly increase money earned from damage, while at the same time lower the money earned just from showing up. Would reward people trying hard, and punish AFKers.

Also toss in the Spotting Bonus for money earned, to reward scouts that don't deal lots of damage.

Balancing something by the maintenance cost is just outright stupid, because you can't balance it that way. Money in this game is simply how fast we unlock content.

If you are economical, you unlock content faster. If you had a special Guass rifle that deals 30 damage instead of 15, but the slugs cost 25,000 each, that's not balanced by cost. When you're getting shot with that weapon, you're not going to care that the guy using it has to go play a match with a trial mech later to earn cover the rearm cost.

[Gavin McStine]

They do need to reballance the cost of things, for instance, gauss ammo is just a chunk of metal, basic and ferro-fibrous are a little too close (if i rember correctly ferro armor is made in space wile normal armor can be made on the ground. Any heat sink should be more then the basic armor, since its made of tubes and require delicate work. But ammo should be expensive. Since your paying for everything on your mech your a merc, not part of some army. Your costs are probelly lowered because of a contract, but not every planet, the ones that are unprotected by some army, can afford to pay top dollar for protection.

[Child3k]

I think so too.
All active bonuses need to be increases considerably, bonuses for: Kills, Assists, Spotting, Damage ... the passive bonuses for win/loss should be decreased.

This would take care of suicide-farming almost completely. And that's a big issue right now having those on top of players who disconnect because of CTD or black screen or whatever bugs there're out there. 6vs8 games are just not fun at all.

[Skyfaller]

OP is correct.

I'm not a founder nor have premium account. I run a Catapult that is 100% LRM support. 7 tons of LRM ammo run me 110k to re-arm. I fire almost all missiles every map and most of them hit (I'm very judicious shot taker). I get very few 'kills' but tons of assists and damage dealt... I am literally the reason why we win most maps. I blast the bulk of the armor off targets and my brawlers deliver the finishing blows.

But I come to the win and see i'm earning at best 136k'ish for a 5 assist ~or 2 kills usually and 4 assists ~ ... and see a 110k re-arm bill plus a ~30k repair bill and realize that I simply cannot afford to re-arm.

Ammo needs to cost 1/3rd of what it does now and launchers should cost a lot, lot more than what they cost now. LRM20 should cost 5 million... its an extremely potent weapon and its cost should match the performance.

[Aegis Kleais]

Killkie, on 27 November 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

I just lost money...on a victory...where I killed the most for my team...and survived...with a founder's Catapult...

This is fundamentally ******!

Ammo is too expensive. I am being punished for providing a strong support role for my team mates. I'm doing 800 points damage a match. Why do I have to be punished for being good and using ammunition?

When I win - even when I win - I lose money, now that I'm not a "premium" account.

I paid for the game. I helped this game get started. You're still in beta partially because I paid for this game, and everyone else who is a "founder". So when I say, and when others say, as it is often repeated on the forum, that the economy is brutal...when it can't even REWARD VICTORY...you need to listen.

"Play a trial mech" Screw the trial mechs! Trial mechs shouldn't even be in the game. No one wants to play a trial mech and I earned and paid for REAL mechs.

So should I just bin my cat and make some energy weapon hulk? I guess everyone should.

Don't put value into kills. Though they are given a menial reward, they simply mean you did the finishing damage to the Mech. Many people improperly get the idea that it means they were responsible for 100% of the damage in taking that Mech down.

I roll with a couple guys known for getting the last shots in on Mechs, but you see in the after-battle report that their damage doesn't reflect higher simply because they have more kills.

Your dismissal of the Trial Mech mechanic just shows that you want something without putting the work required in.

[wanderer]

stVillain, on 27 November 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

lol, we all play for free... this being a f2p game.

Just so you are aware, by your response i'm assuming you do spam Arty missiles, the whole point of Artemis is that you sacrifice a ton of weight and have more expensive ammo so that your missiles hit more accurately. that's the trade off. Artemis is supposed to be used by Mechs that aren't boating LRMs but using LRMs or SRMs as a supplement to existing weaponry.

Are you out of your mind?

You do realize Artemis is, quite simply, designed to make missile carriers better at their job. Right?

The literal poster child for LRM boats, the Archer- the first upgrade for it in TT was very straightforward- so much so, you could do it in MWO if we had the chassis.

They added endosteel. Made the HS into DHS. Added Artemis and CASE to it's LRM 20's (oh, and the .5 tons it took to max it's armor from the near-maximum it already had).

So you're saying the original "LRM boat" in Battletech shouldn't for some weird reason have hadArtemis, despite it being precisely what it needed to do it's upgraded job? Perhaps we should only have DHS for special occasions when we want our laser to work extra well, or maybe only install UAC/5's when we want a little extra kick over an AC/5- but not all the time, because money you know.

Making a weapon economically unviable only turns it into a P2W option, and that's why having 60k/ton Artemis LRM ammo is facepalmingly bad at this point, with only the unholy armor-repair costs of ferro-fibrous being dumber. And that only because FF is the worst upgrade available in the game and it's virtually impossible not to take armor damage and the hideous expenses to go with it.

After all, you pay a significant sum just to be able to mount Artemis- and on top of that, you pay 54-60K/ton for it's reloads, depending on whether it's SRM or LRM. People already are depending on 75% freebie reloads to function on most LRM boats, because in TT, you didn't HAVE to mount 8 tons of ammo to keep an LRM carrier functional for an entire match. 16 shots for an LRM 15 launcher- that is, two tons - was considered normal, and 3 tons generous. Maybe if you mounted an LRM 20. 4 tons per launcher? Crazy. Who fired that many shots in a battle?

Now we're in MWO, where ammo loads are double the tonnage they are in TT (and that's AFTER increasing shots per ton, to boot!)- and hence, the cost-per-engagement as well. Artemis is just salt in that economical wound, and it's a Bad Thing at he moment.

[focuspark]

Artemis ammo prices are too high. Simply put ammo prices are not well balanced against energy weapons.

[wanderer]

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Your dismissal of the Trial Mech mechanic just shows that you want something without putting the work required in.

The Trial 'Mech mechanic is a mechanic by which new F2P players are stuck in inferior machines with a matchmaker that pits them against experienced opponents in superior customized designs, who then play kick the can with their shiny metal butts until they grind their way up to something they can actually rebuild themselves. Which nowadays, you see people rapidly not-playing to get to the point of having their own customs, because any fool can figure out in a hurry that the guy in the custom is playing at a clearly different level than they are in a Trial.

The entire experience would be entirely superior in player retention if they'd just have smiled, given new players a Commando (later, the Flea as another option) and let them build their own ride from the ground up. Like they originally planned. And hey, they'd have more people already ready to paint their own ride and slap a hula girl in it.

Cause y'know, that sorta microtransaction is useless to people in Trials. Oopsie.

Edited by wanderer, 28 November 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Decep-Qi-Kons]

Dude, that's what we're arguing for. We couldn't even see this fact until we started getting paid less. We're on the same team.

Rushin Roulette, on 28 November 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

OMFG... I love this thread... its so full of founders complaining about too high repair/rearm costs....

It would be even better if you guys were the ones preaching to non-founders that they would have to equip lowtech onto their mechs to be able to play economically...

Now that you guys are no longer getting the founders bonus (unless you opt to start the clock ticking) you are getting a dose of your own medicine.... just hilarious.

P. S. I havent started my founders time yet and have not lost CBills ingame yet, even tough Im mostly running an LRM boat ... I just dont spam like mad any more and stay well away from FF and Artemis (Although I do confess that I installed 1,4 HS and Endosteel which I might be removing soon as I have too much Ammo for my needs). Im not too happy with the CBill gain ca. 20K at a bad loss, but It is pretty balanced considering that im in a Heavy Mech with Ammunition rearming needs.

When I triple the damage of my next best teammate, It's kinda obvious who carried the match. 800 points is not an exaggeration.

Aegis Kleais, on 28 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Don't put value into kills. Though they are given a menial reward, they simply mean you did the finishing damage to the Mech. Many people improperly get the idea that it means they were responsible for 100% of the damage in taking that Mech down.

I roll with a couple guys known for getting the last shots in on Mechs, but you see in the after-battle report that their damage doesn't reflect higher simply because they have more kills.

Your dismissal of the Trial Mech mechanic just shows that you want something without putting the work required in.