146 replies to this topic

[Super Mono]

The repair/rearm system is completely overblown for such a simple game of capture the square. It adds a lot of extra risks to a match but the only rewards are "Will I have fun?" and "Will I get cbills?"

All this does is punish players for using mechs they've sunk a lot of money into customizing. The repair/rearm system should be replaced with a flat maint. fee.

Bring back repair/rearm when community warfare is in and there's more to playing a match than trying to have some fun.

[Bluescuba]

I have alway been of the opinion that just because you own an assault you should be able to run it every match (unless you are so lucky the leprecauns come to see you in the hopes some of your luck will rub off on to them)... assault mechs should be down awaiting repairs maybe 3 out of 4 drops (ie 3 drops to repair and rearm an assualt) however to balance this assaults should be what according to canon they were lords of the battlefield.

I have never understood why people think that all mechs should be roughly equal. The speed of the jenner should not balance out the firepower of an atlas. No it should be the skill of the pilot in the jenner to utilise the speed or the skill of the atlas pilot to hit a fast moving jenner. Now with having realistic repair costs would mean that a light mech should be able to drop 4 out 4 drops, a medium 3 out 4, a heavy 2 out of 4 and an assualt 1 out of 4 drops. This would create a rarity in assaults much more in keeping with canon.

[Mu]

Joseph Mallan, on 29 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Dude! you want to be able to afford and fight in a Multi million credit war machine on your own ability, from word one? I understand this. But do you get THE BFG and Ultima armor in the first few hours of playing other games, or do you have to grind to get em? I know in all the games I played in the last 32+ years, I never got to buy the biggest, fastest, toughest weapons & armor in the game til i earned them... or I had cheat codes.

in what way is an assault mech the 'BFG' or 'ultima armor'? That's like saying you shouldn't be allowed to play the Heavy in TF2 because his gun costs $400,000 to fire for 12 seconds. Assault mechs are an integral part of team balance, not something you can only afford to run if you have premium.

I don't know how many times I need to say it, repairs should balance out damage potential IF THERE ARE PERFORMANCE BASED REWARDS (assuming performance = damage and kills) and nothing more. This is a video game, it needs to be balanced like a video game.

[SteelPaladin]

Bluescuba, on 29 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

I have never understood why people think that all mechs should be roughly equal.

Because PGI has said it is one of their design pillars from the beginning. They have constantly said that a Jenner should be just as viable as an Atlas, not more, not less. They get there in different ways (speed and positioning vs. armor and firepower) but both are supposed to end up in roughly the same place.

It's not the players' fault they expect the game to shake out the way they devs have said they are making it.

[QuantumButler]

No, in fact give us 90% free rearm for ammo instead of 75%.

[Super Mono]

Bluescuba, on 29 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

keeping with canon.

That went out the window a long time ago. The current arena shooter set up doesn't warrant this level of complexity and will only drive away players.

[Bluescuba]

SteelPaladin, on 29 November 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Because PGI has said it is one of their design pillars from the beginning. They have constantly said that a Jenner should be just as viable as an Atlas, not more, not less. They get there in different ways (speed and positioning vs. armor and firepower) but both are supposed to end up in roughly the same place.

It's not the players' fault they expect the game to shake out the way they devs have said they are making it.

Viability does not equal equality (pardon the pun). Seriously, why have different classes of mechs if in the end they are all the same?

Edited by Bluescuba, 29 November 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[OneManWar]

Lets play a game Joseph Mallen, list out the buildouts of your mechs, and I'll show you the operating cost with equipment replacements, and we'll see how long it'll take you to go into the red. My guess is a day or two.

[SteelPaladin]

QuantumButler, on 29 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

No, in fact give us 90% free rearm for ammo instead of 75%.

Or give us 25% free rearm (so that somebody can always shoot a little, even if they're totally broke) but adjust the cost so that it shakes out about the same as the current 75%. Paying more than I already do for ammo would be ridiculous, but it also sucks that I pay the same for reloads as Joe Schmo even if I only burn 25 out of 50 rounds and Joe burns 'em all.

Bluescuba, on 29 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Viability does not equal equality (pardon the pun). Seriously, why have different classes of mechs if in the end they are all the same?

Because they're all all the same? Or did you miss the sentence about getting there in different ways? A Hunchback and a Dragon sure as hell don't play the same (forget about an Atlas and a Raven), but they should be equally viable choices for someone who can play to their strengths. Being able to only run one 25% of the time while you can run the other 100% of the time instantly shatters any notion of equal viability.

Edited by SteelPaladin, 29 November 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[Bluescuba]

SteelPaladin, on 29 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Or give us 25% free rearm (so that somebody can always shoot a little, even if they're totally broke) but adjust the cost so that it shakes out about the same as the current 75%. Paying more than I already do for ammo would be ridiculous, but it also sucks that I pay the same for reloads as Joe Schmo even if I only burn 25 out of 50 rounds and Joe burns 'em all.

Or better still, use a trial mech for a drop or two and buy your own ********* ammo.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mu, on 29 November 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

in what way is an assault mech the 'BFG' or 'ultima armor'? That's like saying you shouldn't be allowed to play the Heavy in TF2 because his gun costs $400,000 to fire for 12 seconds. Assault mechs are an integral part of team balance, not something you can only afford to run if you have premium.

I don't know how many times I need to say it, repairs should balance out damage potential IF THERE ARE PERFORMANCE BASED REWARDS (assuming performance = damage and kills) and nothing more. This is a video game, it needs to be balanced like a video game.

Lets see. The Atlas can carry just shy of 20 tons of armor (5 tons less than a fully functioning Commando) and it can average around 40-45 tons of weapons (the weight of a Cicada IIRC). Those two stats alone kinda put it in the Atlas into the Ultima range for THIS game. Until you can afford to maintain an atlas you should not buy one. I bought a Founders package, It allowed me to have the Atlas I have. See what I'm saying in real life as well as in games you play what you can afford. Nothing is free, pay or grind.

I don't play TF2 but if it costs that much to fire for 12 seconds I hope I have enough money to fire it for a day cause that's one expensive weapon to use.

[QuantumButler]

Bluescuba, on 29 November 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Or better still, use a trial mech for a drop or two and buy your own ********* ammo.

Yes go play an unfun beercan joke of a mech for several hours, pure genius.

[Mu]

QuantumButler, on 29 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

No, in fact give us 90% free rearm for ammo instead of 75%.

I don't like welfare missiles as a solution for ammo costs at all. I don't think making ammo free would be game-breaking either, even simply reducing ammo costs by 90% and removing free rearm so they are a constant token cost would be fine. Ammo limits, explosions and tonnage requirements are more than enough to balance ballistic weapons and missiles. Restricting LRM boating by cost is dumb, it just means people with money to burn now have an option that the space poors don't.

[Bluescuba]

QuantumButler, on 29 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Yes go play an unfun beercan joke of a mech for several hours, pure genius.

I may not like them... but I can use them and why would it take hours to earn enough to rearm a mech? All you crybabies make me sick. Games should have risk and reward... You people want no risk and reward. Where is the excitement in that, oh well i died dont matter i'll just repair and rearm and drop in my big expensive assault mech again. Where is the risk in that??? Why even have repairing and rearming in the game??? What next you want respawns?

[SteelPaladin]

QuantumButler, on 29 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Yes go play an unfun beercan joke of a mech for several hours, pure genius.

This logic boggles me. A game is an entertainment, an escape. If the game is not fun 100% of the time you are playing, the designers have failed a little (or a lot, depending). The idea that you should "pay your dues" not having fun to "earn" the fun is the antithesis of a game. If at any point a game is not enjoyable, the rational choice is to spend your time elsewhere, not to keep trying in hopes of getting to fun later.

If I want to "pay my dues" to earn some fun later, I'll go work some OT not log into a game.

Edited by SteelPaladin, 29 November 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[KhanCipher]

Ghosth, on 29 November 2012 - 04:40 AM, said:

Its all about choices having consequences.
Right now I bet 90% of all those running streak cats or LRM boats are not paying for their ammunition.

when lights Jenners/Commandos lose their near invincibility, i might agree with you to some extent, but right now... NO!

One Medic Army, on 29 November 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

It's one thing to encourage/discourage different types of builds through costs.

and what happens when we balance stuff by making it expensive to run in a game where skill and build quality decide battles (in a 8v8 team vs. team setting), everyone still uses the most effective build that usually has the highest price-tag. That may not be so bad at first, but what happens when said team does nothing but organized play against other organized teams?

Now I know there are builds that are very effective without much lvl2 tech, my HBK-4P is a good example, 9 SLs, 20 DHS, 255 standard engine, and BAP (the bap was only cause i was 1.5 tons underweight, and i didn't want to put the 260 in or up the leg armor to 47 from 39, which would've left me with .5 tons left to do nothing with). And the DHS or the BAP haven't ran my repairs through the roof, and i'd rather keep it that way because DHS was the most common upgrade any person/house did first on their mechs in the battletech universe (ok, being upgraded through a new production variant counts imo).

[LordBraxton]

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 agree in the sense that the 75% free ammo etc is not a good way to offset ridiculously high repair costs.

However, if we are going to be making these meta game balance decisions based on the fiction, I demand MUCH higher pay.

If I'm a merc I should be making millions per contract, If I'm part of a house unit, the house should be paying my repair bills.

[Max Liao]

SteelPaladin, on 29 November 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

This logic boggles me. A game is an entertainment, an escape. If the game is not fun 100% of the time you are playing, the designers have failed a little (or a lot, depending). The idea that you should "pay your dues" not having fun to "earn" the fun is the antithesis of a game. If at any point a game is not enjoyable, the rational choice is to spend your time elsewhere, not to keep trying in hopes of getting to fun later.

If I want to "pay my dues" to earn some fun later, I'll go work some OT not log into a game.

If you can't wait to 'earn' your keep, to grow and improve your station (e.g. 'Mech) over time, then that says a lot about you - and not in a good way.

Yes, games are supposed to be fun, but a lot of the fun in games is the journey. Unfortunately most games nowadays take the journey away ... most games nowadays suck.

[Scratx]

The only way to "take off the training wheels" is to eliminate the free repairs and rearm ... at the same time you drastically cut the base costs so you can actually afford to run the mechs.

[Firemage]

Didn't read the rest of the posts since this idea stuck into my head..

Assume that the bulk of our "pay" for these missions is taking by the contracting agency, which also pays for some of our mech's repairs. but since they only cover so much we need to cover the rest.