78 replies to this topic

[Penance]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Unless you are playing in a Trial Mech. This is a good thing, if not over generous. But will we see more 9Ms blowing up in matches now?

And read it closely! Cause if the Client is giving you a freebee it ultimately costs you dearly!

I realized the err of my ways, I know it's a good thing, just sad to see RNR go.

[Sprouticus]

RG Notch, on 17 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

That's the direction of society in general, no consequences. Apparently consequences aren't fun and thinking or making decisions are also not fun. Getting stuff now and not worrying about it, not that's fun fun fun!

Thank you philosopher-man. Without your wisdom I would not have seen the insidious nature of this change.


or......

1) It means people will be morelikely to use ammo based weapons
2) There is no ZERO reason not to fight to the finish (well KDR, but that is for egotistical fools)
3) It removes a non-linear part of the economic equation will simplifies the reward system and makes economic balance better for everyone involved
4) As for the consequence for dying....YOUR DEAD. Like you can help your team any longer. And you wont get as much money in rewards if you die early in the fight. Sure if you die at the end you might only miss out of a few credits, but on the other hand even if your crit you will fight to the death (see #2).
5) CW may introduce further consequences. If for instance they base how much progress you make in a planetary assault on the win ratio (8-0 does is twice as good as 8-4) then not dying is important again.


TlDR version: lighten up francsis

[FrostCollar]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

And read it closely! Cause if the Client is giving you a freebee it ultimately costs you dearly!

So that's why we don't have ejection seats.

[Vassago Rain]

It would take an infinite amount of gold vision to be mad that they're finally fixing the game.

Just saying.

[Karyudo ds]

8RoundsRapid, on 17 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

As we haven't played the game yet with the new system, I don't think any of us can make informed statements about the effect the removal of R&R will have on the game.

Actually those of us in the beta before RNR was added sure can I believe. The reward system was rebalanced with it then as well. Otherwise I agree, tech 2 will have far less in terms of barriers beyond affording it to actually buy in the first place. That might be "enough" I guess.

RNR to me balanced out builds though logically level 2 tech shouldn't be scarce. Though I mentioned the other day that without any real meta game there's literally no big reward for pulling out your tricked out tech 2 Atlas to put the hammer down. It simply has a small effect on outcome rewards. Though the rewards could be better balanced with the risk I think, it doesn't seem like it would be as big a deal with a meta game to focus on.

[Purlana]

Good!

Game balance should have nothing to do with repair or rearm costs.


The first good change they made in a while...

[Kaemon]

There are times not seeing the big picture really sucks, this is one of those times.

At face value I am against removing it entirely, but maybe we're simply moving it into the Conquest Mode and leaving the Public matches as more arcade-like 'blow em up' and make oodles of cash you never spend (which would seem to blow the financial model out of the water, still don't see how that's going to work).

This is basically just giving the starting players a free mech, so why not just give them a free mech? Keep the trial (aka House mechs) in place for Cbill generation/grind, and allow them to slowly **** their one mech until they get something they like.

Without this, Mech DeJour builds will be rampant, and I would think the Atlas Online moniker would come back in a hurry.

Or maybe we're moving toward a perma-death model *wishes*....wouldn't that be great?

As it stands now, I'm a bit puzzled on what seems like a radical change in direction for Open BETA (what's the first rule of Open BETA?).

/confused.

[Vassago Rain]

Kraven Kor, on 17 December 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I do have one question now though... ammo costs?

I mean, technically, you aren't even buying individual missiles right now - the initial purchase is the only money you spend, so there is no longer a cost associated with using stupid amounts of ammo...

*shrug*

You never paid ammo costs, anyway. If you weren't smart enough to have the welfare ammo mechanic figured out, you couldn't afford ammo to begin with.

[BatWing]

Twisted feelings here...

On one side.. Game is in BETA therefore it should be a bit more "forgiving" about mistake and voluntary bad approaches. I cannot be drained alive if I am trying to test stuff and I of course cannot achive high results for "Science Sake".

Also is BETA, many things are NOT working correctly, therefore a new easier approch for new BETA tester is probably welcome.

HOWEVER, it is my understand that MWO should be dedicated to HardCore Mechwarrior gamers. I do HOPE that if this game ever will get to Release Stage, will go back to an economy that makes decision tough and require the player to "think" about choices, at least a little bit.

I am willing to accept any change on the BETA name, also changes i do not immediately appreciate. But if i will see that this game is changing his profile, going from a Dedicated Mechwarrior Hardcore game to a "Simplified, come in and shoot everything is moving - no brain choices - mediocre piece of crap" ... then probably my experience will be done.

But I wanna stay positive, I for sure want to have new blood in the game and for sure I hope one day it will get out of the BETA stage.

[Agent of Change]

Vassago Rain, on 17 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

It would take an infinite amount of gold vision to be mad that they're finally fixing the game.

Just saying.

"Fixing" or "Breaking"?

I don't know the answer to it but currently I don't see the upside or removing something that's both an functional mechanic of balancing gear and an integral concept to the MW universe.

[Sprouticus]

8RoundsRapid, on 17 December 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

As we haven't played the game yet with the new system, I don't think any of us can make informed statements about the effect the removal of R&R will have on the game. My initial gut instinct was that I didn't like it, as now the tech2 gear will be clearly advantageous, whereas before there was a good reason to run an ac5 instead of an uac5, or regular large lasers as opposed to er large lasers, and so on.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I guess I'll have to redesign my mechs to take advantage of this.

Lets look at the L2 tech

Armor- FF armor was really expensive to repair, so even if you have the slots for it it was not worth it except is extreme cases

DHS and endo: the additional cost for RnR of these was tiny, so there was no real loss by upgrading to them.

ER weapons: There are plenty of reasons not to use the ERLL or ERPPC

UAC5: Jamming is nasty but yea pretty much this is a straight upgrade

Artemis: This is a huge help with Artemis, but since Artemis already HAS large costs associated with them (cost to convert, extra crit slot), Im ok with that.


So looking at L2 tech, only the UAC5 is a straight upgrade IMO. Ferro becomes more affordable and more ikely to be used. Aretmis is useful now, but that just means it is off the shelf.

[RG Notch]

Sprouticus, on 17 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Thank you philosopher-man. Without your wisdom I would not have seen the insidious nature of this change.


or......

1) It means people will be morelikely to use ammo based weapons
2) There is no ZERO reason not to fight to the finish (well KDR, but that is for egotistical fools)
3) It removes a non-linear part of the economic equation will simplifies the reward system and makes economic balance better for everyone involved
4) As for the consequence for dying....YOUR DEAD. Like you can help your team any longer. And you wont get as much money in rewards if you die early in the fight. Sure if you die at the end you might only miss out of a few credits, but on the other hand even if your crit you will fight to the death (see #2).
5) CW may introduce further consequences. If for instance they base how much progress you make in a planetary assault on the win ratio (8-0 does is twice as good as 8-4) then not dying is important again.


TlDR version: lighten up francsis

What's wrong with instant gratification? The people who take this as some kind of insult should wonder why it's seen as a bad thing. Am I wrong in what I said? Do people in general like easy mode? What's wrong with giving the people what they want? Why should I have to think in a game about giant robots right? Why worry about repair costs or anything? How is any of that thinking fun? I'm agreeing that removing consequences and thinking are good for the game.
There's a whole load of people who can't be bothered to think, decide or plan and they have lots of money. We should be aiming at them. I mean they will probably buy camo at the prices PGI is charging. Of course they won't likely need to buy anything else with MC, but that's what the P2W additions that are the second part of the economy change are for. I mean without RNR, unless they massively cut income (which then we will see if people are all for it) who would need to spend MC on mechs or premium time. So seems like wither cut to income or P2W as there aren't any C bill money sinks I see.
Anyways like all big changes we will need to see the long term impact, which PGI doesn't seem to be the best at discerning.

[Purlana]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

"Fixing" or "Breaking"?

I don't know the answer to it but currently I don't see the upside or removing something that's both an functional mechanic of balancing gear and an integral concept to the MW universe.

No one paid re-arm costs anyway. So what's the difference between now and 1 week ago?

Oh no, people can run FF without losing their shirt! Oh wait, no one uses FF anyway...

Edited by Purlana, 17 December 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[8RoundsRapid]

Sprouticus, on 17 December 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Lets look at the L2 tech

Armor- FF armor was really expensive to repair, so even if you have the slots for it it was not worth it except is extreme cases

DHS and endo: the additional cost for RnR of these was tiny, so there was no real loss by upgrading to them.

ER weapons: There are plenty of reasons not to use the ERLL or ERPPC

UAC5: Jamming is nasty but yea pretty much this is a straight upgrade

Artemis: This is a huge help with Artemis, but since Artemis already HAS large costs associated with them (cost to convert, extra crit slot), Im ok with that.


So looking at L2 tech, only the UAC5 is a straight upgrade IMO. Ferro becomes more affordable and more ikely to be used. Aretmis is useful now, but that just means it is off the shelf.

First off, I would like to thank you for responding to my post without any insults/disrespectful/derogatory words.

My feelings at this point are just gut feelings, I have no stats/proof to go on. I see ER as superior upgrades to normal energy weapons. ERPPC>PPC in almost every case that I can think of.

But other than that, your post looks legit to me.

[Agent of Change]

Vassago Rain, on 17 December 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

You never paid ammo costs, anyway. If you weren't smart enough to have the welfare ammo mechanic figured out, you couldn't afford ammo to begin with.

Yeah you never paid them if you were so cheap you gamed the system.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Problem is that the repair/rearm thing was messed up beyond belief. Here, I'll make you a nice little list.

1) It scaled up too much on upgrades and especially Artemis missiles+XL Engines, not justifying their cost.
2) Rewards didn't properly scale to reflect these increases, meaning that losing a game with these things is much harsher than losing it without them. Simply put, the rewards didn't scale up enough for them to even be worth the investment. You did get more in a win with upgrades, but that's not reliable. Ultimately you made less money with the upgrades than without them, thanks to the botched RnR.
3) Heavier Mechs cost more to fix but don't earn more in a win. This(along with the ECM and falldowns) just encourages everyone to roll around in Light Mechs. Most people wouldn't bother with Heavier rides due to the fact that it took too long to fund them, and too much to fix them, while earning less per match while using them.
4) Rearm fee only charged you for the last 25% of ammo, not everything, and it was also too high on top of that. That's a 2 in 1 problem. It should have charged for "all" of it, and not have been as much as the 25% was. This means you'd only pay that much if you spent "all" your ammo, not just 25% of it. It was very illogical the way they did it. You shouldn't get welfare bullets to 75% every match.
5) Also, due to the problems above, Trials brought in more money than regular Mechs, creating another whole issue. They SHOULD NOT do this. Equal money reward is fine, since you still aren't getting experience on a variant nor able to use any traits, but more money per match SHOULD NOT be the case.

Simply removing RnR is a simple quick solution to all of the above. It isn't the ideal solution... but the best one they can do ATM to actually encourage players to keep playing rather than quit. When RnR comes back, hopefully it'll be in a MUCH better form. With this and the Cadet Bonus, farming will be a lot less painfully long for all of us, and that ultimately makes a game better. Premium won't be as much of a required crunch as it was before. It should be an optional boost, not required just to feel like you're getting anywhere. Making <50k per match thanks to broken RnR=fail. I feel we should bring home a 75-100k minimum for fighting, with more if you did really well or fought and won. But that often wasn't the case. You could get <100k in a lose then drop lose 30-45 in repairs, more if you paid for the Rearm cost. Smart people just skipped the fee and rided with welfare bullets(Which shouldn't be how the game is played), but even then, you still lost too much profit to repairs.

Edited by Bluten, 17 December 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Purlana, on 17 December 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

No one paid re-arm costs anyway. So what's the difference between now and 1 week ago?

Oh no, people can run FF without losing their shirt! Oh wait, no one uses FF anyway...

By no one you mean many people actually working within the bounds of the mechanic and not trying to cheap out a game the system because they could afford their mechs and their repairs with out needing to ever turn off auto repair, right?

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 17 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

It would take an infinite amount of gold vision to be mad that they're finally fixing the game.

Just saying.

Only if you thik this a fix Vass, I am not sure this is the right way to fix the game. I might change my tune but right now some of the Fixes to a long time DM/GM just feel Stupid.

Quote

No one paid re-arm costs anyway.

I have never NOT paid full R&R costs.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 December 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

By no one you mean many people actually working within the bounds of the mechanic and not trying to cheap out a game the system because they could afford their mechs and their repairs with out needing to ever turn off auto repair, right?

You didn't pay the re-arm. Show me screenshots of doing this.
I dare you to show me screenshots, or any kind of proof that anyone who knows anything has ever paid to refill their ammo. It could be up to 120k to load 25% missiles.

[MadcatX]

Good. I don't think there should have been a penalty on using T2 tech in a game.

Also I never liked the concept of having to use an extra ton of weight just to get around the re-arm cost anyways.