128 replies to this topic

[Elkarlo]

AP514
Please stop Yelling, there are around 30 Economie Fix threads in this Forum.
All with more Positiv Critism then yours.
And before you say anything, without the 75% NOBODY would be able to Field a Mech,
I drive a lowtech Mech ( standard Weapons only DHs advanced) for C-bill farming when it blows there are
30-60k Repair costs.
Depending how severe the Damage was, the harded i fought the higher would be my Repaircost.
My Hightech Mech costs around 70k-100k (Missles boats around 150k without Artemis)

Without the 75% it would cost 120k-180k to repair a Lowtech Mech and 210-400k to repair a Hightech Mech.
A Hightech Missleboat with 8 Tons Ammo without Artemis 650k.

So let this Number pass into your Brain, then think how crappy the Trial Mechs are, and now think what happen if everyopne would be forced to drive every secound time a Trial Mech. Because THAT would be happen for 70% of the players.

They would simply left MWO, but then Again the next 70% would be forced to drive every secound time a Crap Mech... and so on, MWO would Die in one Month.

So Next Time before you Yell something idiotic, do Numbercrunching look around in the Forum because there are 10 Threads in the last 3 Days how to FIX such problems and 20 about complaining. And now please before you Answer read it and think.

[Wizard Steve]

This thread is so one month ago.

[Pugastrius]

It's worth pointing out that there is a lot of wasted tonnage/space by playing this way. Perhaps it should be a 50% free-remarm making it cost precisely double the tonnage/space to avoid costs.

Either way, it's not a cheat, and I see it as a "reaonsable" way of increasing tonnage/space requirements for those that are light on C-Bills.

[Vechs]

Pugastrius, on 03 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Either way, it's not a cheat, and I see it as a "reaonsable" way of increasing tonnage/space requirements for those that are light on C-Bills.

Please explain to me how driving a gimped mech in order to unlock content faster is a good design decision.

[Taryys]

Yup, so true, which is why, when combined with stat based match making this will not be a prob.

See sig link.

Mancu, on 03 December 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

A fair point Taryys. However, giving them Heavies and Assaults as trial mechs seriously gimps their team currently. How many times have you dropped and watched your team's trial Assaults stride out into the open and get chewed in the first 2 seconds of the game because they thought 100 tons makes them invulnerable?

[Ransack]

lasers and PPC's cost nothing to reload. Is that a cheat too?

[Pugastrius]

Quote

Please explain to me how driving a gimped mech in order to unlock content faster is a good design decision.

I'm having a really hard time following your comment because...

Isn't that normally what you do throughout the entire life of the game? Especially with the existance of mech specific EXP.

- You buy a mech
- End up broke with a completely useless mech and no pilot experience
- Slowly purchase the equipment necessary to outfit the mech the way you want to play it...
- Slowly gain experience to improve mech efficiency
- rinse and repeat.

In both cases you can have a "more powerful mech" right away if you spend the C-Bills.

[Vechs]

Pugastrius, on 03 December 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I'm having a really hard time following your comment because...

Isn't that normally what you do throughout the entire life of the game? Especially with the existance of mech specific EXP.

- You buy a mech
- End up broke with a completely useless mech and no pilot experience
- Slowly purchase the equipment necessary to outfit the mech the way you want to play it...
- Slowly gain experience to improve mech efficiency
- rinse and repeat.

In both cases you can have a "more powerful mech" right away if you spend the C-Bills.

You advocated that it's a reasonable idea to gimp yourself by wasting half your tonnage on empty ammo bins, and that that is a fair way for players to play if they want to make more money unlock content faster.

Instead, I would suggest that they just get rid of repair bills, have the game be balanced by things like rate of fire, heat, weight, shots per tons, etc. and have everyone happily use their chosen builds at 100% effectiveness all the time.

Doesn't that sound more fun? Why can't everyone just play what builds and roles they want to play, and unlock mechs and items at a (mostly) constant rate. (Not counting bonus rewards for in-battle accomplishments, like kills, scouting, and damage dealt, capturing, and victory bonuses). And if you get impatient, you can always spend MC to unlock content instantly. (Or premium time to unlock content faster for a given period of time.)

And if a weapon is overpowered, making it more expensive to maintain does not balance it. Instead, they should tweak the heat, recycle time, durability of the gun, ammo per ton, etc, until it's balanced for it's weight and range.

Edited by Vechs, 03 December 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[TungstenWall]

well...

one may see it as 25% of their Ammo tuns wasted (10 tuns ammo, 2.5 tuns wasted)
That is an AMS, or 2 ML.

[Captain Quirk]

When i go shooting with my guns IRL and i run out of ammo some magic ammo fairy doesnt magicaly refill my mags. i have to go to the gun shop and buy my own ******** ammo at cost. the same should be true for this game. if you cannot afford ammo run something that doesnt use as much. right now the system just acts to fuel teams full of lrm boats.

[Sug]

Pretty sure repair cost have already been adjusted as I have had both torsos destroyed, CT stripped, was legged, and then killed by a cockpit shot. And I only had to pay about 80k to fix my 90% destroyed 5 million cbill mech.

[Kaspirikay]

Balancing a weapon by cost is a horrible game mechanic.

[Vechs]

John T Quirk, on 03 December 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

When i go shooting with my guns IRL and i run out of ammo some magic ammo fairy doesnt magicaly refill my mags. i have to go to the gun shop and buy my own ******** ammo at cost. the same should be true for this game. if you cannot afford ammo run something that doesnt use as much. right now the system just acts to fuel teams full of lrm boats.

Why? This game is not real life.

What purpose does ammo cost serve?

Explain to me in detail what it adds to the gameplay.

[Enigmos]

Captain Midnight, on 03 December 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

It's the worst game design I've seen since I played an SOE game, though it's not a cheat.

How do you know what the game design is when you haven't seem more than a third of it?

[wanderer]

Taryys, on 03 December 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

This is quite correct, and because they are balanced for a different game and do not work quite so well in MWO is why they will make great learning vehicles, especially when there are some changes made to the trial system as I mention my thread-which-shall-not-be-named.

Dropping your new players into 'Mechs that have piles of things done wrong is not how one gets your new players trained up properly.

They are overgunned and underammoed and pack far too few heat sinks to maintain the rate of fire they are regularly exposed to by enemies.

As training 'Mechs, they fail. Utterly. You'd be better making MWO Trainers the same way PGI has decided to make Hero 'Mechs- variants constructed from whole cloth off of existing chassis. They don't have to be super-mechs. In fact, they shouldn't be. But they shouldn't be overheating, underammoed, overgunned 'Mechs that take a different style of gameplay to function- and I use the word "function" charitably.

Go ahead. Give people 4 training configs that are similar to but not quite stock- without upgrades, even- no DHS, no endosteel, no FFA, no Artemis. Maybe you put them in a Raven to show them how ECM works (and SRMs, perhaps TAG), a Centurion that's modded with a lighter autocannon and a pair of LRM 5's instead of the 10 to make room for a few more heat sinks. A Catapult-C4 with LRM 10's, more ammo, two medium pulse lasers and more heat balance so it can actually fire support for more than a minute before running dry.. An Awesome with a pair of large lasers +1 PPC instead of 3 PPC's to let them play with both kinds of common "big energy" weapons. Same C-bill gain rate as Trials do now, and they can't be customized either. They're not superior designs by any means, but they're functional and not critically flawed.

We don't have to stick newbies in superMechs, and we shouldn't. But we should put them in 'Mechs that function the way an MWO design should, and leave Trials as ways to "try out" stock designs to give us ideas when we get our own to customize, or as last-ditch options if we suddenly turn into space poors.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vechs, on 03 December 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Why? This game is not real life.

What purpose does ammo cost serve?

Explain to me in detail what it adds to the gameplay.

Immersion. It adds the fact that as a "soldier of fortune" the cost of making and SUSTAINING war is nothing to be ignored. You are playing as a Merc (Lone Wolf) Now if you wanna be Billy BadAsh on the battlefield you better be prepared to pay the price that being a paid killer costs.

[TheMightyWashburn]

Sevaradan, on 03 December 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

I did. When I ran a LRM cat I always paid my R/R. The free 75% R/R is stupid.

My rearm is 120k. I pay it sometimes, but not too often.

If it were full cost it would be 500,000 Cbills to rearm. LRMs just arent THAT much better than other mechs to need that. With ECM coming they will be even less effective.

[Joseph Mallan]

TheMightyWashburn, on 03 December 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

My rearm is 120k. I pay it sometimes, but not too often.

If it were full cost it would be 500,000 Cbills to rearm. LRMs just arent THAT much better than other mechs to need that. With ECM coming they will be even less effective.

Then you need to carry less ammo! Its why the stock chassis carry so little ammo after all! It costs a lot of money to make war.

[Vechs]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 December 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Immersion. It adds the fact that as a "soldier of fortune" the cost of making and SUSTAINING war is nothing to be ignored. You are playing as a Merc (Lone Wolf) Now if you wanna be Billy BadAsh on the battlefield you better be prepared to pay the price that being a paid killer costs.

You know what, I agree with that.

But not for the random battles we have now. Why? Because they are not persistent.

Imagine this scenario:

Two Merc Outfits fight for a planet, on a persistent campaign that lasts for 5 missions, with 8 players per mission.

Each team is given 200,000,000 C-Bills for their War Chest, and from that amount, they must outfit fresh lances of mechs for each mission. That's enough to give everyone assault mechs... for the first two missions, and then they'd be out of money.

Suddenly, all the prices in the game suddenly mean something.

Especially because of this last rule I'm about to lay on you--

At the end of the campaign, the winning team keeps whatever money they haven't spent yet, and it's divided up between the eight players.

So, hypothetically, if Team A used up their 200,000,000 and lost to Team B, who, with skill and cunning, won using only 150,000,000, that's 50,000,000 paid out to the winning team, just over 6 million C-Bills in reward money for each winning player.

I think that would be awesome, and that would be an appropriate area where repair costs would make the gameplay very engaging and fun.

Edit: And for this game mode, I would suggest PGI implement a design Save/Load feature, so players could quickly build their loudouts for each campaign, and not have to spend so much time in the mechlab between missions.

Edited by Vechs, 03 December 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[Kilgore]

Taryys, on 03 December 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

True. People are abusing the system.
It needs to be changed so that they only get the 75% when you pay for the repairs.
They also need to get the % dmg on items added into the game too .

It's actually working as designed. In my missile boat, 25% of the ammo cost is 150k. If I had to pay the whole thing, it would be a 600k rearm fee each drop. Doesn't that seem excessive to you? Doesn't the idea of paying full price for ammo sound wrong? Shouldn't the rearm cost be equal or less than the repair costs under even the most lopsided of circumstances?