146 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

there are not enough deep progression systems in place besides the monetary one to keep players interested. If money progression stands still, players would simply quit because there's no carrot to the horse.

[Havyek]

IMO the repair/rearm costs should be lowered a bit, but should not cover as much. I.E the only thing that you get a "free" repair of is structure and the rest of the armour/weapons you pay full price on.

If you're 'Mech is destroyed completely with a standard engine, you can break even on a loss. Any higher tiered weapons increase costs from there.

[Khobai]

Repair/Rearm costs need to be 1/3rd of what they are now. Its ridiculous that you even have to turn off auto-rearm to make any money.

[Max Liao]

Deadoon, on 29 November 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Also calling pugs periphery trash is one of many reasons this game may not succeed with this form of elitist playerbase.

You're like Plastic Man the way you reached out to find a way to be insulted when an insult wasn't present. If you want to compare PUGs to Periphery trash, that's on you. I was making a BattleTech canon reference.

It should be cost prohibitive to use an Atlas to fend of random bandits on a water raid. On the other hand, to conquer a manufacturing world the risk/reward of using a tricked out Atlas would be justifiable.

And yes, the Bandit Kingdoms are trash. If that's elitist, that because I'm an obviously superior Capellan Citizen.

multiplesanta34, on 29 November 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Man, what are you talking about, all the battles are the same. You have a deathmatch, and that's it. No one drop is any more important than the other. Nothing is pre-planned and you don't even know which of the 4 maps you'll be fighting on. When/If PGI ever gets around to adding community warfare then what you say might make sense, but for now you're just roleplaying non-existant features.

This is a suggestion forum. Suggestions are allowed to be made based on the future expectations/implementation of the game. (For my comment above) THIS is where Periphery trash would come in - via community warfare.

Khobai, on 29 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

Repair/Rearm costs need to be 1/3rd of what they are now. Its ridiculous that you even have to turn off auto-rearm to make any money.

If you're using a highly modified Assault 'Mech - or any highly modified 'Mech, really - then yes you should have a very high expense for that. Risk/Reward ...

[Joseph Mallan]

Brilig, on 29 November 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

At the games current stage I don't think making mechs more expensive to run would be a good idea. Game is still in testing, and a large portion of the game has not been implemented. Better to let people earn enough cash to run varied builds so more data can be gathered.

You made a valid argument. +1 Sir.

[Taryys]

At the end of the day it will have to balance out to approximately like it is now, but the numbers will be bigger.

[Lefty Lucy]

A lot of players are going to be in for a big surprise when they start playing 8 v 8s and start to lose regularly. They're going to see, finally, what the economy is *really* like, premium or no premium.

I suspect a lot of them will stop playing 8 v 8s, and will simply go back to farming PUGs in 4-mans.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you're using a highly modified Assault 'Mech - or any highly modified 'Mech, really - then yes you should have a very high expense for that. Risk/Reward ...

umm no. running an assault mech shouldnt cost more than running a jenner because jenners are harder to kill than any atlas thanks to lag shielding.

[Joseph Mallan]

Your/my Atlas uses more materials to make repairs with(armor, IS, Myomar etc), Our Atlas carry bigger, more expensive weapons. Our Atlas should cost more to repair by volume alone.

[Max Liao]

Khobai, on 29 November 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

umm no. running an assault mech shouldnt cost more than running a jenner because jenners are harder to kill than any atlas thanks to lag shielding.

100% irrelevant.

Joseph Mallan, on 29 November 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Your/my Atlas uses more materials to make repairs with(armor, IS, Myomar etc), Our Atlas carry bigger, more expensive weapons. Our Atlas should cost more to repair by volume alone.

100% correct.

[OneManWar]

So some of you are saying that I should have to pay $600,000 to replace my AC/20 2 out of 3 games? Because that's about the rate it gets knocked out. So if I play 10 games in one night just for ONE weapon I'm running a loss of 3 million or so c-bills. Completely ridiculous idea.

[Mercules]

Khobai, on 29 November 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

Repair/Rearm costs need to be 1/3rd of what they are now. Its ridiculous that you even have to turn off auto-rearm to make any money.

I've never not repaired/rearmed a mech; I make money. Assuming you can not make money without using the no repair/rearm crutch is false.

[Joseph Mallan]

Or you need to get a more cost effective weapon until you can afford to run an AC20. Just saying man. Run what you can afford to lose and repair. Don't you live within a budget in real life?

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The first place for PGI to tweak the economy is not in costs, but in rewards. The costs can follow.

What I mean by this is that there should be an moderate up-front fee that you earn by dropping (when CW comes out, it should scale by mission type/rating). There should then be performance bounties (significant ones, for things like spotting, damage done, assists, kills, completing objectives, etc.). Overall success or failure would be included in objective bounties. Finally, salvage should be the bulk of the potential income, and very likely the main thing differentiating a well-played loss from a win.

Once those are in place, PGI can ramp up (perhaps to something approximating "true") repair/rearm costs.

[Gif]

I'm not sure I understand this thread.

Now that my Premium time has been frozen, I've really felt the pain of the non-founder players. My suggestions in some future iteration of the game is to have a ranked/non-ranked game modes.

Ranked Games can be for Glory, and Honour, and C-Bills! Games that would be just pre-mades vs. pre-mades, rewards would be lavish, getting destroyed would be devastating. Costs would be more along the line, of what people might be suggesting here. But it might be the ONLY way to get certain weapons, like Clan Tech for example.

Non-Ranked Games, would be what it is now, but actually reduced repair bills or at least reduced re-arm costs. It's crazy to think I can no longer make money running an LRM Cat win or lose with out Founders/Premium time on. (Not counting the re-arm cheat/tactic).

This would split the player base a little, but I mean you also wouldn't have to run Ranked Games all night, I would love to run one or two ranked/serious games a night, while non-ranked games is where you practise your piloting skills, get your grind on for c-bills, etc.

Also on the note of in game Economy, and listen up you BattleTech Junkies, NO OTHER FREE TO PLAY MODEL (I've played) penalizes players like MWO does right now with regards to re-arming/repairing just for losing a match. This is an Online Game game for (sorry if this is news to you) a broader audience then just those who played TT. So it has to cater to the majority.

The only downside to losing in other F2P Games is you get 50-75% of the rewards that winning teams get. Any time I invest into the game should reward me, period. Winnning or Losing, or running a more high tech build should have risk/rewards, but I should NEVER lose money when the whole f'n game revolves around grinding matches to make money.

[PoPuP]

ShadowDarter, on 29 November 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

the ecconomy of war in MWO, should be a large part of the game, a lot of discussions are on how bad it is. My opinion is that it should be a major part of how everyone takes to battle, another layer of complexity to the game.

In all seriousness, there are to many games out there that offer a free ride or at least a cheap way out. Running a Mech is a very expensive affair and that was commented upon in just about all of the books.

Open for discussion, folks no flaming or trolling lets look at the other side of the discussion.

I believe you can disable the auto repair and reload. have fun, personnally i like to see other features of the game get finished, 1v1 , free for all arena, 4v4. i also believe if you run out of c-bills you can not take the mech into battle if you got no engine lol. i see this a minor thing right now lets get the big stuff done!

[Heeden]

At the moment we are all playing Lone Wolves, and it just isn't feasible for a solo-mercenary in the BT universe to consistently run a larger, more expensive mech. However as it is only beta the realism has been waived to encourage people to try the larger builds.

When we get more features I expect mercenary groups will have some form of cash-sharing, so the higher cost of running an assault will be outweighed by the more profitable lighter mechs.

[Mu]

Premium should be something you turn on when you want to make a ton of money and don't have a lot of free time.

It should not be required to run your mech with a profit. EVER.

[Ngamok]

House Davion helps pay for my repairs.

[Justin Xang Allard]

ShadowDarter, on 29 November 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

the ecconomy of war in MWO, should be a large part of the game, a lot of discussions are on how bad it is. My opinion is that it should be a major part of how everyone takes to battle, another layer of complexity to the game.

In all seriousness, there are to many games out there that offer a free ride or at least a cheap way out. Running a Mech is a very expensive affair and that was commented upon in just about all of the books.

Open for discussion, folks no flaming or trolling lets look at the other side of the discussion.

I really like this idea, but I don't think it would be too popular.

That being said.........
TT had repair and salvage roles in play, also cost for repairs and such. This would need to be added in. I would look up the rules but I'm at work............