223 replies to this topic

[Nahuris]

Imperial X, on 10 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

I agree, to a point...

We have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. Now people have no care for Alt-F4ing out of battle or just afk grinding mechs. They make money regardless.

Before, we had cowards too concerned with staying alive and not helping team mates. They would hide behind a rock and do absolutely nothing while their team got massacred because they didn't want to spend the money on repair/rearm.

Hopefully we find a happy mid point along the way.

Imperial X, on 10 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

I agree, to a point...

We have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. Now people have no care for Alt-F4ing out of battle or just afk grinding mechs. They make money regardless.

Before, we had cowards too concerned with staying alive and not helping team mates. They would hide behind a rock and do absolutely nothing while their team got massacred because they didn't want to spend the money on repair/rearm.

Hopefully we find a happy mid point along the way.

Actually, we had the AFK Warriors all along - already mentioned my roommate - he would log in 3 trial mechs, and disconnect from each battle... that way, he would get the payout for losing times 3.... letting him run his pimped out mech in another game.
He even spent money to buy an extra slot, so that he could attempt to log in a 4th trial, and go for more cash. He made enough from LOSING GAMES HE WAS LOGGED OUT OF, that he could run the XL, etc.
Considering that the "standard" method of play was to turn off auto reload and repair.... and just keep running a gimped mech with your team..... this is a bit of a welcome change. I have already had several other players I know complain about the new system, as they used to make more money just coming in with unrepaired mechs. You see, an unrepaired mech takes little damage to kill, and nothing to repair, as the game would always give you the engine, at least.

So, you don't bother repairing, and if you do bother playing, you just keep trying to cap..... if you get killed, it didn't matter, as the mech was already damaged, and you weren't paying repairs, and in the odd event that your side won the battle in spite of you..... that's a bonus.

Having played a bit each day since they removed RnR.... I've seen better games, more participation, and less AFK farmers.
I also have seen few XL engines, due to fragility... and you can tell, because a mech going down, taking damage from the side, and the only thing you see go black is an arm, but it's down.... XL engine.

RnR is a mechanic designed to increase the need for grinding. One thing that this game should never devolve to is the endless grind to make cash.... that is the arms race, as the point shifts from team play to individuals earning cash for a better ride.....

In addition, this stops people like me from being richer than thou...... I like light mechs. I have been a TT player since the 1980's.... and even then, I favored lights. I still do. At one point, before they were stolen, I had a collection of over 700 mech figurines, with about 40% of them being lights... my current collection is about 112 figurines, and 43 of them are lights.....
I almost never use an XL.... too little armor to protect it, and I don't need double heat sinks.... as my weapon packages are light. I do, however, tend to be quite sneaky... I've capped my share of bases, and I am good with picking one of my teammates and giving him support. I love Commandos with Large Lasers, as I can snipe and support --- I also love my Raven with an LRM15, and 2 medium lasers..... same reason.

This does allow the players that like the big boys to come out and play. They will learn that things like the XL are too fragile, and items like Endo-steel take too much space. We don't need to tack on RnR on top of those limits, especially since these games are more or less the equivelent of tabletop pick up games. You don't worry about RnR, or even mech cost then... why now, when these pug games are the same thing.

Nahuris

[Lyrik]

Removing RnR was a good move. No more useless Zombiemechs, far lesser AFK leechers etc.

When PGI will finally fix the netcode, lagshield for fastrunning lights etc I hope you will get bonux CB when killing a mech with more weigth.
Or even better give mechs who run lower Tier equipment/a mech with less tonnage an CB bonus. Because at the moment I see a lot Steinerlances in the game

So you get a bonus when running medium mechs instead of heavys or assaults.

[Sol Fin]

ManDaisy, on 17 December 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

I am kinda worried that the devs have scrapped repairs all together. Repair cost are what kept stupid people from running in and dying. Now that its gone I anticipate a lot of dumber players and suicide tactics.

I think that it was done because old version of R&R was straight bad. So instead of fixing it with patches, maybe it's a better idea to remove it for the time being? Design a better one, get feedback from players and only then introduce it into the game.

Also I totally agree that loses in any sort of community warfare should have consequences AKA loss of CB or smth else. But we don't have that "any sort of community warfare" atm

Edited by Sol Fin, 11 January 2013 - 04:35 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

It's a good thing during open beta to have this removed for now. It allows for experimentation during beta without the cost as an issue. Since this took place, I find it easier to make c-bills. It's almost like a mini-founders pack.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Closed Beta was about experimentation.

Open Beta is about them making money and launching the game.

Hopefully it's back in for Community warfare.

They've mentioned people having salaries for Houses and Merc corps, so this can offset R&R, sometimes extensive R&R depending on the scenario.

Hopefully the game goes this way.

People who just want stompy robots without any maintenance or higher elements of play can stick with matchmaker and those who want more from their campaigns can get all those little features we want while changing territory to our pretty colour.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 11 January 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah... I know, The Inner Sphere would look awesome entirely Blue!

[Landeraxe]

DirePhoenix, on 10 January 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

To contrast this with a Mercenary's income, an individual in the regular army will ALWAYS get far less than an individual performing the same actions in a Merc unit. However, a Merc has a LOT more they have to take care of on their own (Weapons, Ammo, Armor, Maintenance, Medical Bills, etc.). The government provides a regular army unit with what they need (NOTE: this is based on what the Government deems that the unit needs, not what the unit may say that they need). A Merc unit has a lot more freedom in getting whatever they want, but it comes out of their own pocket. So while being in a regular army unit may be more financially "secure" (it doesn't have the extremes in wealth and poverty of Merc life), there is also very little freedom of choice in the equipment you get issued (sure, you've got a roof over your head and food in your belly, but you're flying in a loud, outdated F-4 because your government doesn't think you need to upgrade to an F-22).

Great post, and I thank you for sharing with us the realities of the timetine. You certainly know more about the current setting than most of us, and as an immersionist, I am happy to see this setting shared.

I believe, at some point just previous to or just after launch, when the whole argument over whether or not we got to claim canon units/companies/persona, that PGI said that we're all mercenaries; either working for a house or working for a merc corp, and to create our persona thusly. That I haven't been able to find this and quote it does considerably weaken my argument.

But, I believe that your post actually strengthens it. No matter who you work for, House or Mercenary, you get paid like a mercenary, and NOT supplied gear by whomever we work for. Thus, we are individual businesses, and should have to account for costs. This isn't grinding (as I hear so many voices raised in protest), it's a part of gameplay, and good for both immersion and balance.

I truly hope R&R makes it back in, for gameplay, for immersion, and for balance.

[CypherHalo]

My experience is that repair/rearm didn't really effect how people play anyway. All it did was annoy you and make running an Assault into a money-losing proposition.

The consequences of you being a doofus are 1) your team loses 2) you get less rewards and 3) I would hope on a personal level you would realize you were being a doofus and want to improve. That's how I feel at least.

Landeraxe, on 11 January 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Great post, and I thank you for sharing with us the realities of the timetine. You certainly know more about the current setting than most of us, and as an immersionist, I am happy to see this setting shared.

I believe, at some point just previous to or just after launch, when the whole argument over whether or not we got to claim canon units/companies/persona, that PGI said that we're all mercenaries; either working for a house or working for a merc corp, and to create our persona thusly. That I haven't been able to find this and quote it does considerably weaken my argument.

But, I believe that your post actually strengthens it. No matter who you work for, House or Mercenary, you get paid like a mercenary, and NOT supplied gear by whomever we work for. Thus, we are individual businesses, and should have to account for costs. This isn't grinding (as I hear so many voices raised in protest), it's a part of gameplay, and good for both immersion and balance.

I truly hope R&R makes it back in, for gameplay, for immersion, and for balance.

IMO, I think R&R could come back in if it was divorced from c-bills. It was frustrating to constantly see your c-bill haul reduced, especially by such high costs, especially high if you were running an Assault.

I think if they created another resource for repairs, call it "scrap" or whatever you like, then you could bring it back in. That way your c-bill gain is always on the up and up while you have to manage your "scrap" to maintain your mechs. That would work well, IMO.

PANZERBUNNY, on 11 January 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

Closed Beta was about experimentation.

Open Beta is about them making money and launching the game.

Hopefully it's back in for Community warfare.

They've mentioned people having salaries for Houses and Merc corps, so this can offset R&R, sometimes extensive R&R depending on the scenario.

Hopefully the game goes this way.

People who just want stompy robots without any maintenance or higher elements of play can stick with matchmaker and those who want more from their campaigns can get all those little features we want while changing territory to our pretty colour.

See, that's exacty why they should add respawns. Let everyone have some fun in their own way.

Edited by CypherHalo, 11 January 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[RacerX]

I'll offer my two cents. I found the RnR a bit annoying in its last incarnation. They used RnR to balance the game in ways that felt more like punishment. What I found was the longer you protracted a battle by maximizing your mechs survability, ie damage spread, the more financial punishment you sustained post battle. This also included any ordinance you expended. Guass Ammo was stupid expensive for essentially a hunk of metal. SRM ammo was the same. I understand that in "real" life ordinance is expensive. But in a video game economy where economic pressures actually promotes war then the RnR was way out of line.

If you want to attract a large player base then you must reward them for the thier efforts and not make them feel like playing is a punishment.

[Landeraxe]

CypherHalo, on 11 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

My experience is that repair/rearm didn't really effect how people play anyway. All it did was annoy you and make running an Assault into a money-losing proposition.

The point is that you run what you can afford to run. The better your team does, the more $ you make, and the better mech you can afford to run.

CypherHalo, on 11 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

IMO, I think R&R could come back in if it was divorced from c-bills. It was frustrating to constantly see your c-bill haul reduced, especially by such high costs, especially high if you were running an Assault.

Their is no point whatsoever in devorcing R&R from CBills. The last thing the game needs is another currency.

CypherHalo, on 11 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

See, that's exacty why they should add respawns. Let everyone have some fun in their own way.

Respawn? That is so un-mechwarrior.

[Landeraxe]

RacerX, on 11 January 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

I'll offer my two cents. I found the RnR a bit annoying in its last incarnation. They used RnR to balance the game in ways that felt more like punishment. What I found was the longer you protracted a battle by maximizing your mechs survability, ie damage spread, the more financial punishment you sustained post battle. This also included any ordinance you expended. Guass Ammo was stupid expensive for essentially a hunk of metal. SRM ammo was the same. I understand that in "real" life ordinance is expensive. But in a video game economy where economic pressures actually promotes war then the RnR was way out of line.

The more successful you were, the more $ you made. The better team made more $, and survivability increased your paycheck; it didn't decrease it. Neither myself or any of my friends had an issues losing money after matches; although we did seem to break even on matches we lost. Still, breaking even isn't bad for a loss...

RacerX, on 11 January 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

If you want to attract a large player base then you must reward them for the thier efforts and not make them feel like playing is a punishment.

How is playing a punishment; the gameplay is its own reward. This isn't 'He who makes the most money wins'; it's 'He who had a good time playing the game wins'. Why does everyone cry that they weren't getting rich? Run a trail-mehc if you can't afford to run your own.

[Shumabot]

The argument that R&R ensures balance seems ludicrous without systems to ensure that matchmaking take mech costs into consideration. R&R just means that winning players win more and losing players are artifically kept down. It's a bad/nonsensical/pointless economy and it's brutally punishing to new players while inviting exploitation. Any system that involves R&R would have to be geniusly designed to even be neutral, as it is the vast majority of implementations suggested would simply make the game less enjoyable to the majority of the population.

This game isn't a campaign setting, people aren't actual mercenaries and they aren't in drop ships and trying survive. If a mechanic makes the game less fun, less consistently rewarding, and hurts variety, than it's a bad mechanic.

Edited by Shumabot, 14 January 2013 - 09:05 PM.

[Targor Avelany]

There are many ways to look at this topic, so let's break it up:
Just one point though, that strikes me a bit odd to hear from people who demand "realistic approach": repair and rearm cost. Well, technically, only mercs/pirates lived off the salvage. The regular forces lived based on their supply from the government that they were in service to. In no books that I have read any regular military were ever sitting and thinking if they have enough c-bills to fix their mech. I, of course, haven't read all the books, so maybe I'm mistaken.

Now to the actual break up of cons and pros:
The game is in beta testing at the moment and lots of players at this point have taken breaks at least once as some of the things got repetitive or unplayable in their opinion (doesn't matter really why in this context). There is, however, a severe need for the servers to be full, for new blood, for new players.
For the casual players, like myself, who has maybe 1 hour, sometimes a bit more a day to play, I'm not really looking for the grind. Can't stand it. Always hated it in Eve-Online (ratting, even in 0.0??? OMG KILL ME FASTER PLZ!), or PotBS or any other MMO I've played. I'm looking to get into the game, test out builds, skills and try to get as good as I can and have fun. Whether I lose or play (my k/d ration, which I think is the stupidest thing in this game ever is somewhere around 0.3). At this stage of the game, having more people playing, pushing, loading servers, blowing up is a good thing - this is what testing is about, this allows to fix the crap like yellow screen bug or 4fps bug, or atari screen awesomeness, or Netcode, which ALL of you will agree, needs to get better. For that you need players, for that you need various mechs, for that you need everything - not just trial mechs to fiddle around with. And this is where removal of RnR is a good thing - it allows everyone to just run and have fun without being always concerned with the financial consequences of them loosing.

Not on the other hand - there are no consequences. Bad players are not getting better (arguable, but there are always those who have the "looser mentality" - not going to explain this, most of you know what I mean). There is no hurting the wallet on the expensive fitted mech destruction. It hinders the economy of the game in the long run, as the players with 20-30mil c-bils and who pretty much have all the mechs already are just getting more in their pockets - but really don't care much about it. Inflation of the c-bills will eventually cause the stalemate in the sense that there will be NO variety of mechs, people won’t have to think tactically of can or cannot they use their expensive toy or they need to cut down on their expenses. People will jump from mech to mech, as was said - flavor of the month thingy - without trying to really think how to counter or how to make better, or how to use what they have cause they cant copy: loss of creativity.

There are many more you can add to both sides. But, getting to my personal opinion, the reality of the problem lies in one sentence: it is good that there are no consequences for #n amount of reasons and it is bad that there are no consequences for #n amount of reasons. That is all it is boiling down to.
In my opinion, however, at THIS PARTICULAR STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT - removal of RnR is a good thing. In the future, however, I believe that some solution and penalties MUST be implemented. I don't particularly have an idea HOW I would prefer it implemented (considering my comment at the start of this wall of text), but I believe that penalties are good for players - it provides incentive and doesn't devalue the in-game money (look at Eve-Online, nuff said).

Edited by Targor Avelany, 14 January 2013 - 10:03 PM.

[CypherHalo]

Landeraxe, on 14 January 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

The point is that you run what you can afford to run. The better your team does, the more $ you make, and the better mech you can afford to run.

Their is no point whatsoever in devorcing R&R from CBills. The last thing the game needs is another currency.

I can see some value in that because it would keep everyone from running assaults all the time. However, that is exactly why I propose another currency. Tying it c-bills was clearly frustrating people. I don't want to lose money (or only gain a pittance) when I run my assault, that is just terrible! It made driving heavies and assaults a chore instead of a joy.

A second currency would solve that issue entirely. You can keep getting c-bills at a steady pace to buy new mechs, buy parts, etc, but there will now be a cost to running Assaults.

Landeraxe, on 14 January 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Respawn? That is so un-mechwarrior.

Apparently the Grand Poobah of All That is Mechwarrior never gave me that memo. Huh. Can you get in touch with him and tell him to give me the official signed and sealed copy?

Forgive the snark but I'm a bit tired of gateway fanboyism. I don't sit around saying, "Wait, you don't like respawns? Well, you're not a real Mechwarrior fan like me!" That's just a terrible attitude to have. I've always been a big Iron Man fan, when he became popular after the first movie came out, I didn't go around saying other people weren't real Iron Man fans because they hadn't liked him since the '90s like me, I was just happy more people liked Iron Man (he is the best superhero ever y'know ). So, how about we all be Mechwarrior fans and we just disagree on respawns, eh?

If you don't like Iron Man though, just keep that to yourself, there's no negotiating there

Edited by CypherHalo, 15 January 2013 - 05:04 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

CypherHalo, on 15 January 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

I can see some value in that because it would keep everyone from running assaults all the time. However, that is exactly why I propose another currency. Tying it c-bills was clearly frustrating people. I don't want to lose money (or only gain a pittance) when I run my assault, that is just terrible! It made driving heavies and assaults a chore instead of a joy.

A second currency would solve that issue entirely. You can keep getting c-bills at a steady pace to buy new mechs, buy parts, etc, but there will now be a cost to running Assaults.



Apparently the Grand Poobah of All That is Mechwarrior never gave me that memo. Huh. Can you get in touch with him and tell him to give me the official signed and sealed copy?

Forgive the snark but I'm a bit tired of gateway fanboyism. I don't sit around saying, "Wait, you don't like respawns? Well, you're not a real Mechwarrior fan like me!" That's just a terrible attitude to have. I've always been a big Iron Man fan, when he became popular after the first movie came out, I didn't go around saying other people weren't real Iron Man fans because they hadn't liked him since the '90s like me, I was just happy more people liked Iron Man (he is the best superhero ever y'know ). So, how about we all be Mechwarrior fans and we just disagree on respawns, eh?

If you don't like Iron Man though, just keep that to yourself, there's no negotiating there

You're not a real Iron Man fan. I was a fan back in the 70s!

[CypherHalo]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 January 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

You're not a real Iron Man fan. I was a fan back in the 70s!

I admit defeat. I will now respawn and try again.

[Agent of Change]

CypherHalo, on 15 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

I admit defeat. I will now respawn and try again.

But I wouldn't try that in a battlemech they don't respawn.

The truth is respawns really don't fit within BT/MW it's never been part of the mythos or games. I don't particularly think respawns make sense in the best of situations I really can't see them fitting in a game like MWO. Not to mention the lack of respawns changes the game in interesting ways.

But the bottom line is anyone who suggests respawns as a a solution to issues in MWO is goign to have to make one hell of a compelling argument to win over any kind of agreement. Most games have respawns, this is true, but also NOT a compelling argument as to why MWO should have them primarily because MWO wants to be different.

The drop mutator... groovy. Straight respawn TDM... nothing about that seems interesting in the least, but that's my 2 c-bills.

On Topic Postscript
While I believe the R&R is important to setting and game I have come to peace that it probably has no place until CW as with out that external frame work it's a consequence without meaning and a penalty without any kind of teeth.

[Joseph Mallan]

CypherHalo, on 15 January 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

I admit defeat. I will now respawn and try again.

Sorry sir there is No ReSpawn in this Queue! You only get one Spawn!

[Vassago Rain]

Agent of Change, on 15 January 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

But I wouldn't try that in a battlemech they don't respawn.

The truth is respawns really don't fit within BT/MW it's never been part of the mythos or games. I don't particularly think respawns make sense in the best of situations I really can't see them fitting in a game like MWO. Not to mention the lack of respawns changes the game in interesting ways.

But the bottom line is anyone who suggests respawns as a a solution to issues in MWO is goign to have to make one hell of a compelling argument to win over any kind of agreement. Most games have respawns, this is true, but also NOT a compelling argument as to why MWO should have them primarily because MWO wants to be different.

The drop mutator... groovy. Straight respawn TDM... nothing about that seems interesting in the least, but that's my 2 c-bills.

On Topic Postscript
While I believe the R&R is important to setting and game I have come to peace that it probably has no place until CW as with out that external frame work it's a consequence without meaning and a penalty without any kind of teeth.

Yeah, they do.

Endless war, and men and women being worth less than a pulse laser. You know, how it's supposed to be in this era of the game.

[RacerX]

Landeraxe, on 14 January 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

How is playing a punishment; the gameplay is its own reward. This isn't 'He who makes the most money wins'; it's 'He who had a good time playing the game wins'. Why does everyone cry that they weren't getting rich? Run a trail-mehc if you can't afford to run your own.

The point that was obviously missed here is negative reinforcement has a sense of punishment. It is simple psychology. If a player does not feel rewarded for thier efforts then they will loose interest and leave. If, however, they feel some sense of positive reinforcement then they will be engaged.

Simply redirecting a player to a less desirable path, ie trial mechs for an indeterminant amount of time to achieve a level of gratification, is not a solution. Stating that a player is whining about not getting rich is also a redirect of the subject at hand and does not, in any way, prove or disprove anyones position.

Players don't need to get rich. They need positive reinforcement that keeps them vested in the game. In this instance PGI chose C-Bills and XP as the vehicle that delivers this gratification. The Grind, as we have it now, is setup to make it more desirable to pay real currency to shortcut the time investment that the "Grind" represents. PGI did make some concensions by adding extra rewards to new players and adding XP to trial mechs. This allows them both the sense of accomplishment and the ability to purchase/build something competitive within a shorter period of time.

Finally, I will disagree with your statement, "He who makes the most money..." If the playing field is level then I agree with you. However, we do not currently have balance for most matches. Also, I find that folks who throw more Real Currency at this game have a real edge on the battlefield until those who are the F2P crowd can catch up. Remember, this is a F2P game and not a Pay2Win game as PGI keeps re-asserting. So asking someone to put up or shut up with thier money also is not a valid argument.

Now, as far as Respawns go. I've been thinking about this for Conquest mode. 8 vs 8 team deathmatch simply seems too shallow of an experience for this game type. It may not seem very realistic but it would make the game more interesting and perhaps worth playing.