Do You Want People To Not Play Your Game?
#1
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:03 AM
Right now, we can simply rely on welfare ammo and partially regenerating armor, but when that goes, how will you convince people to play capture the red square with this economy?
I hope more founders have paid attention to what it actually costs to run their machines now, too.
#2
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:13 AM
#3
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:13 AM
I really like this game. I really like the game play I love the team fighting and I love the strategy. I just can't help but feel as though this game won't work out as is. I have had seven friends try this game, and seven of them turned it away when they realized that they would be utterly gimped for 20+ hours of play unless they dropped cash into the initial pot. This game will fail if PGI is unwilling to make it friendly to new players. There's no arguing that.
#4
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:19 AM
If you aren't riding a Premium or boost, it takes too long to get anywhere. Their logic is, "Well, buy our hero variants then". No. You see... the economy should be good by default then improved by boosts... not trash by default then bumped to normal by boosts. They built this game around having a boost of some kind when they should have built it around "not" having one. Now they're putting boosts on MC only variants, which comes off as a cheap gimmick to new players. MC-only variants shouldn't even exist. Just sell the boost and let players drop it on a variant THEY want. You're tying everyone's hands with everything, and that is only going to sink your ship as soon as the "Open Beta" tag drops.(Let's not forget the horrible Trial grind either)
There's also still the issue with AFKs/suicides because Piranha still refuses to stop paying people that do nothing in a match. So you screw over everyone that wants to play then encourage them to AFK because they'll get paid for doing nothing anyway. Why hasn't this been fixed yet? These should have been priority # 1 issues fixed on the very next Tuesday after you saw people doing it. It shouldn't be complicated for you to make the game give zero rewards to player that did ZERO DAMAGE in a match or NEVER MOVED or KILLED HIMSELF in the first minute. If you took away the rewards; most would stop doing it!
Hey, you don't have to listen to me, but I came from League of Legends, a game that did F2P so good knowing it inside and out should be required for employees at other companies. Sadly by the looks of things, this game will never even come close to reaching the success it had; and I would bet it's because you're refusing to mirror many things they've done right.
Edited by Bluten, 29 November 2012 - 01:25 AM.
#5
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:19 AM
Taizan, on 29 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:
I can easily go drop and produce whatever result I want, with any mech. My fatlas wants me to pay that number, but I can skimp on ammo refills, items, and if I didn't take that heavy damage, armor repairs.
If I couldn't? This game would lose 99% of its fun appeal instantly. There was a guy in an uberblinged awesome, who got a 'solid' win - some 160k money, but for taking so heavy damage, he was billed all of his earnings and then some in repairs. He can also skimp on the repairs and rearms, but when we can't, or they simply set welfare ammo to 25%? Missiles, advanced gear, heavy mechs, and many ballistics will simply become premimum items, because you can't afford to maintain them otherwise.
#6
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:21 AM
Are you just an XL engine with Ferro Fib that dropped all your guns for Artemis LRMs?
My Atlas never costs more than 85k on repairs (less if not destroyed) and that includes two LRM 15s that I always reload to full ammo.
Edited by DrAwkward, 29 November 2012 - 01:22 AM.
#8
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:27 AM
Death Knell, on 29 November 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:
Do you AFK or hide if your team is losing?
Oh man, I also forgot to bring up anecdotal evidence n' ****. Point is, just because you aren't **** on by the game's economy doesn't mean other people aren't. I run an Awesome 9m With a 375 XL, Endosteel and lasers/streaks, and my R&R is almost always over 200k. The only way I can even run the ****** is by running my Fatlas without anything.
But again, getting away from the point. You shouldn't lose money by winning. There's no incentive to get the big shiny **** if it just lowers your profit margines. The game shouldn't be a chore in which you work through un-fun **** to have fun once in a while on your big shiny mech.
It's beyond ******* idiotic to have a game in which you have to work through boring times to have fun. Especially for a F2P that has to rely on new customers.
#9
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:28 AM
Death Knell, on 29 November 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:
Do you AFK or hide if your team is losing?
No. Also, neither of those would actually aid in keeping repair costs low. Did you think before you hit Post?
I just don't run expensive toys like Streaks or Artemis since I plan on brawling. Medium Lasers and Heat Sinks are basically free. AC/20 is only a little bit more than those.
#10
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:28 AM
DrAwkward, on 29 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:
Are you just an XL engine with Ferro Fib that dropped all your guns for Artemis LRMs?
My Atlas never costs more than 85k on repairs (less if not destroyed) and that includes two LRM 15s that I always reload to full ammo.
If my Catapult blows all 7 tons of Artemis LRM ammo THEN dies I'm easily looking at a repair bill around 150k. I don't think I've ever hit 160, but I still get ridiculously high numbers that can eat my entire reward if we don't win the game. Some games I've profited as little as 10k or less because the repair was so high and ate most of it! I don't even use an XL Engine and I shudder at the thought of doing so. My tactic now is to not pay the Rearm fee. It's half the repair cost and only adds 25% more ammo. *** that.
#11
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:30 AM
Vassago Rain, on 29 November 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:
I don't know about the Atlas, for my AWS I get a R&R bill of around 60k. I guess if you want an expensive build & loadout, you have to live with the increased upkeep. Maybe share the specifics of the mech you have such high R&R with.
Anyway 160k isn't really that much c-bills and you still are in the plus, its no surprise that an assault mech isn't really a cash cow imo. Also there are much more ridiculous things to loose money on. Try accidentally "switching" between SHS->DHS-> SHS. 3 Million gone.
#12
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:31 AM
DrAwkward, on 29 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:
Are you just an XL engine with Ferro Fib that dropped all your guns for Artemis LRMs?
My Atlas never costs more than 85k on repairs (less if not destroyed) and that includes two LRM 15s that I always reload to full ammo.
Want me to put up a whole bunch of screenshots of silly repair costs?
Artemis cat, that did NOT get totaled, but had heavy armor damages. This is a heavy mech. It doesn't have 20 tons of armor, or even any of the more expensive energy weapons.
#13
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:35 AM
I've also have mechs I use specifically for grinding cash, standard engines, no advanced tech, little or no ammo..fully destroyed think my repair bill on my CN9-AL is about 25k.
Bottom line is, run expensive toys, expect to have expensive repair bills.
#14
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:39 AM
But eventually they will nerf the welfare bullets down to 25 or 0 and then guess what, the farming just went down the toilet. So skipping the fee is only a temporary solution. We need the economy itself fixed before our exploit is fixed by itself.
Vassago Rain, on 29 November 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:
Want me to put up a whole bunch of screenshots of silly repair costs?
Artemis cat, that did NOT get totaled, but had heavy armor damages. This is a heavy mech. It doesn't have 20 tons of armor, or even any of the more expensive energy weapons.
Yup. I can put up rows of those myself. It's outrageous! Notice how the bill is much smaller if you uncheck the Ammo box. Refilling that last 25% of your ammo isn't worth it! Bottom line is that if I pay for missiles, it's 100-150 every match. If I don't, it's anywhere been 0 and 75.(Depending on damage taken) It usually averages out to half the cost.(Depending on missiles fired vs damage taken before death)
Edited by Bluten, 29 November 2012 - 01:42 AM.
#15
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:42 AM
Relic1701, on 29 November 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:
I've also have mechs I use specifically for grinding cash, standard engines, no advanced tech, little or no ammo..fully destroyed think my repair bill on my CN9-AL is about 25k.
Bottom line is, run expensive toys, expect to have expensive repair bills.
Cool goldvision, Bro.
Everyone else who is adding to the conversation seems to have a different experience with the game
#16
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:47 AM
Repairs are 'soft.' You can see the build to the right. Some would say that almost 50% of your earnings for such a game isn't quite soft...
After subtracting the useless stuff, Big Al needs this amount to fix himself, and I'm doing the armor repair simply because I did so well in this game, there's little reason to drop into the next without full.
#17
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:47 AM
My cataphract 4X without an XL costs 40-50k.
Oh, and i've also got an atlas-k here! it costs around 120k to R&R when downed.
Just tell me how you manage to achieve those numbers??
Do you pilot streakapults or something? or artemis fitted srm boats?
Seems like all those prices come from expansive missiles...
if so - just forget the missiles and go brutal-force with ballistics!
#18
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:50 AM
If you **** out your 'Mech you're going to pay for it. If this is how the devs feel they need to design the game to allow custom 'Mechs while limiting their practical use in-game, they have my 100% support.
Ammo costs may be a bit too steep, [though my CAT has no issues (even when I PUG and lose)], and I do feel that a win (with no death) should always net a profit; however, if you get killed in your Gauss, Streak, Artemis, XL, Endo, Ferro, DHS 'Mech and don't take a loss then the game is not doing justice to the canon and will simply continue on as a Gauss, Streak, UAC fest that it is now.
The game shouldn't devolve into 'he who has the most expensive gun wins', nor should it have to be a grind to get that point just to feel viable - which in many regards the game has devolved into. Now the people (including myself) who have tricked out 'Mechs will need to consider the consequences of using those 'Mechs. This has the two-fold bonus of:
- 'Mechs with upgraded tech are still better (pound for pound) on the battlefield.
- 'Mechs with upgraded tech will net a player a loss of money with a loss.
Anything that creates a risk/reward and promotes consequences for one's design decisions has my full support.
#19
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:51 AM
Death Knell, on 29 November 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:
But again, getting away from the point. You shouldn't lose money by winning. There's no incentive to get the big shiny **** if it just lowers your profit margines. The game shouldn't be a chore in which you work through un-fun **** to have fun once in a while on your big shiny mech.
It's beyond ******* idiotic to have a game in which you have to work through boring times to have fun. Especially for a F2P that has to rely on new customers.
You're assuming that it's your right to run all that shiny stuff together at no additional cost. PGI has been pretty upfront that this isn't like the traditional single-player experiences where you just upgrade to the scary assault 'mech and all your problems go away.
If you think that 9M build is actually combat viable, then you should be getting enough kills to justify it's cost on a win. Your penalty if you don't is that you have to pay for the shiny investments that you squandered.
It's not a matter of being punished for winning, it's a matter that you are expected to justify why you piled all that expensive tech in one place. If you aren't getting returns with it, spread the shiny stuff amongst several builds at once. (Kind of like running an actual military operation.) No, it's not as satisfying as being Iron Man, but if you don't like the repair bills then you only have yourself to blame. You got to choose your loadout.
Bluten, on 29 November 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:
If my Catapult blows all 7 tons of Artemis LRM ammo THEN dies I'm easily looking at a repair bill around 150k. I don't think I've ever hit 160, but I still get ridiculously high numbers that can eat my entire reward if we don't win the game. Some games I've profited as little as 10k or less because the repair was so high and ate most of it! I don't even use an XL Engine and I shudder at the thought of doing so. My tactic now is to not pay the Rearm fee. It's half the repair cost and only adds 25% more ammo. *** that.
So, are you actually dealing anywhere close to the 2268 damage that those 7 tons of ammo should be dishing? If so, how are enemy 'mechs still alive? Assuming you hit with half of that, you should be killing two assault 'mechs (Atlas=608 standard).
If you aren't, maybe you should try mounting less and being more frugal with pulling the trigger. Also, consider using a TAG if you can mount it. I use only 4 tons of Artemis for my LRM15s on my C1 and I still average around 800-1000 damage for one or two kills a match.
#20
Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:52 AM
Relic1701, on 29 November 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:
I second this. Artemis is elite weaponry and you should reserve it for skill matches.
Right now you should be grinding out a stable of mechs to Elite status. Have you cheap favorite as your farming mech.
But yes, you should be earning more c-bills. On top of this the system is backwards. The big money should come from skill in-game - instead it comes from your team winning.
edit Kills should pay out 40k each. Not 2k. Assists should pay out 25k.
Edited by Chaldon, 29 November 2012 - 01:55 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users