345 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

Vassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

When you directly punish new players by taking away 4 of every 5 dollars, yes. Then it's a terrible thing, and your game earns a bad rep.

Which we got rid off when they dumped RnR. It's never coming back.

and thank the mech gods for that

[FerretGR]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Please google "straw man logical fallacy". thx.

I always love when the debate goes there. Now it's the time when we argue about the logical fallacies... fun.

So tell me how your argument extends beyond my "strawman." No need to be short with me, explain your accusation.

I'll attempt to respond despite your lack of clarity. Earlier in the thread, you said this:

DeaconW said:

Questions like: "Should i get an XL to mount more weapons or avoid the risk?" "Should I boat SRM's and count on my skills to win the day or maybe a more balanced build to mitigate the risk?". These don't exist in the current dumbed down model necessitated to appeal to the masses.

Your argument is based on that single premise, that R&R is necessary to force players to make a choice between, say, Std and XL. This simply isn't the case: as I point out in the post you flippantly dismiss, in the current R&R-free world, I make a risk-and-reward based choice on whether I should bring a, XL or a Std depending on what i want to do with the chassis. That risk DOES exist despite your claims to the opposite, and it's the reason why I have an XL in my CTF-3D and a Std in my CTF-4X.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying in the above quote that in the current model of the game, ie. one without R&R, the risk doesn't exist? My "strawman" argument is against that; that the risks are very real and must be balanced with the reward of the improved speed or firepower or what have you. It's only a strawman if it's not the position you are arguing, so perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you're saying above?

Now if it is a strawman, then you're saying that you accept that the risk vs. reward that I describe does indeed exist for XL vs. Std engine use. Why, then, do we need an additional level of risk? And let's say that we do in fact need to drive XL usage down for some reason; that for some reason you think there are, despite the risks, more XLs in the field than there should be: why does the risk have to be a monetary one, ie. one that hits a particular class of player harder than another? Can't we come up with a risk inherent to all users of the item instead of just to the ones who are new and lose a lot, or don't have premium, or what have you?

Edited by FerretGR, 20 May 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Vassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

When you directly punish new players by taking away 4 of every 5 dollars, yes. Then it's a terrible thing, and your game earns a bad rep.

Which we got rid off when they dumped RnR. It's never coming back.

Again, YOU are talking about the OLD R&R, I suggest bringing it back, but with enough rewards that players do not lose money.
The only way you were having to pay 80% of your rewards in repairs and re-arming was if you spammed tons of Artemis LRMs (which the newbies didn't have the money to equip in the first place)

[DeaconW]

FerretGR, on 20 May 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

I always love when the debate goes there. Now it's the time when we argue about the logical fallacies... fun.

So tell me how your argument extends beyond my "strawman." No need to be short with me, explain your accusation.

It isn't an accusation. It is a statement of fact.

Quote

Your argument is based on that single premise,

No, it is not. This is your strawman. I said it was *one* thing to consider...you are the one who tried to turn it into *everything*.

Quote

That risk DOES exist despite your claims to the opposite, and it's the reason why I have an XL in my CTF-3D and a Std in my CTF-4X.

And all I was saying is that there was another element of risk/reward in that decision with R&R and with it gone, that aspect is gone.

Quote

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying in the above quote that in the current model of the game, ie. one without R&R, the risk doesn't exist?

No, your poor reading comprehension is what is making you think that. You're wrong, correction above (you asked for it...).

[Sephlock]

All the fun-hating proposals are going to do is reward those people who are nerve-dead and can play an unfun game continuously, and thus have accumulated absurd amounts of money.

[Vassago Rain]

Sephlock, on 20 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

All the fun-hating proposals are going to do is reward those people who are nerve-dead and can play an unfun game continuously, and thus have accumulated absurd amounts of money.

That's kinda what they want, you know.

[DeaconW]

Sephlock, on 20 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

All the fun-hating proposals...

Another straw man...no one is against fun, but some of us want a game that is more like a real meal, not just pablum. Congrats, tho'...your side has succeeded in eliminating R&R according to PGI....but the joke is actually on you....it's not really eliminated, it was just AVERAGED into how reward C-bills worked. So like a good communist system, it essentially assumes a certain average R&R value to subtract from your winnings. So it rewards bad players who make bad decisions by shielding them from the true cost of their mistakes. At the same time, it punishes excellent, thoughtful players by not allowing them to earn as much as they should have. Great system your "please make the game less detailed, less thought provoking, and less challenging" whining got you didn't it? If you are a good player now you are only punishing yourself...ironic, isn't it?

[LordBraxton]

PGI PLEASE TAX MY EARNINGS, IT WILL INCREASE MY IMMERSION

ALSO BUFF PPCs

AND NERF SRMS ONE TIME A CENTURION HIT ME WITH SRMS AND I TOOK DAMAGE

[DeaconW]

Vassago Rain, on 20 May 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

That's kinda what they want, you know.

No, I and others simply appreciate a game that has depth. You are apparently not afflicted with that particular desire. I find the challenge of keeping a mech stable operating stimulating. According to the lore, these are machines no one can actually build anymore...you have to repair and piece them together. Salvage is a huge part of it because sometimes you have to use salvage to repair and rearm your mech. There is risk and there is reward in choosing what to outfit your mech with depending on the mission. But I digress...the game I am describing is not MWO...hopefully when community warfare gets here it will get closer.

[LordBraxton]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Another straw man...no one is against fun, but some of us want a game that is more like a real meal, not just pablum. Congrats, tho'...your side has succeeded in eliminating R&R according to PGI....but the joke is actually on you....it's not really eliminated, it was just AVERAGED into how reward C-bills worked. So like a good communist system, it essentially assumes a certain average R&R value to subtract from your winnings. So it rewards bad players who make bad decisions by shielding them from the true cost of their mistakes. At the same time, it punishes excellent, thoughtful players by not allowing them to earn as much as they should have. Great system your "please make the game less detailed, less thought provoking, and less challenging" whining got you didn't it? If you are a good player now you are only punishing yourself...ironic, isn't it?

Rewards are now based on your performance alone.

R&R was punishment if your team was bad.

If my team is scoring under 100 damage and we lose, and my I pay a huge repair bill on my upgraded mech, I am being punished for the mistakes of my allies.

That is more of a 'communist' system than we have now.

Right now you are awarded based on your performance, and not punished for losing.

I can still make good money on a loss if I score 500+ damage and bag a kill or 2

[DeaconW]

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

PGI PLEASE TAX MY EARNINGS, IT WILL INCREASE MY IMMERSION

Your earnings are already taxed...see my other post. Sarcasm meet Irony.

[LordBraxton]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

No, I and others simply appreciate a game that has depth. You are apparently not afflicted with that particular desire. I find the challenge of keeping a mech stable operating stimulating. According to the lore, these are machines no one can actually build anymore...you have to repair and piece them together. Salvage is a huge part of it because sometimes you have to use salvage to repair and rearm your mech. There is risk and there is reward in choosing what to outfit your mech with depending on the mission. But I digress...the game I am describing is not MWO...hopefully when community warfare gets here it will get closer.

Go play war thunder, get to high tier, lose money on the planes you grinded for days to get.

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

Your earnings are already taxed...see my other post. Sarcasm meet Irony.

No, there is no tax. So there is no penalty for bringing out an upgraded mech.

Also I make way more money now than I did when repair and rearm were around so, they obviously didn't screw us over

(I dont recall ever making 300k+ before patches that occurred after R&R were removed)

Go play war thunder, it has everything you want trust me

Edited by LordBraxton, 20 May 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[DeaconW]

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

I can still make good money on a loss if I score 500+ damage and bag a kill or 2

You have no idea what "good money" is because that potential outcome was never offered to you because we dumbed down the payment system by removing R&R. The "system" was never adjusted in a thoughtful way to make it work...it was simply chunked because enough people whined.

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

No, they are averaged. So there is no penalty for bringing out an upgraded mech.

You really don't get that you are losing the difference between what you could have earned and the average every successful match you have? Funny.

Quote

Go play war thunder, it has everything you want trust me

I've played War Thunder...PGI could make this game a lot better by simply copying the way they do a lot of things.

[LordBraxton]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

You have no idea what "good money" is because that potential outcome was never offered to you because we dumbed down the payment system by removing R&R. The "system" was never adjusted in a thoughtful way to make it work...it was simply chunked because enough people whined.



You really don't get that you are losing the difference between what you could have earned and the average every successful match you have? Funny.



I've played War Thunder...PGI could make this game a lot better by simply copying the way they do a lot of things.

Even when I took no damage and slaughtered the enemy during the R&R days.

I made less than I do now.

YOU MAKE MORE MONEY NOW. Except when you AFK farm. They fixed that BS.

Is your argument is based on the hypothetical idea that they would have greatly increased the rewards EVENTUALLY, if the R&R system stayed in place? I doubt they would have.

You cannot balance a game using the out of combat economy.

War thunder has almost as many balance issues as this game with a much more punishing economy. No thanks.

Edited by LordBraxton, 20 May 2013 - 06:15 PM.

[DeaconW]

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Is your argument is based on the hypothetical idea that they would have greatly increased the rewards EVENTUALLY, if the R&R system stayed in place?

I don't know if I would say "greatly", but essentially your statement is correct...we will never know, will we? And BTW, there have been hugely varying earning rates from CB onward until they got to the current system after they threw R&R out.

To be fair, I certainly believe the game is playable in it's current form(I didn't stop playing b/c R&R got canked)...I just wish it had been given a chance to be something more, that's all.

[LordBraxton]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

I don't know if I would say "greatly", but essentially your statement is correct...we will never know, will we? And BTW, there have been hugely varying earning rates from CB onward until they got to the current system after they threw R&R out.

To be fair, I certainly believe the game is playable in it's current form(I didn't stop playing b/c R&R got canked)...I just wish it had been given a chance to be something more, that's all.

I could agree with you, if the rewards for damage etc were hugely inflated. (Say I could make close to a mil if I wreck a team and cause 900 damage)

However R&R killed my immersion for fluff reasons as well.

If I am a soldier in a house military, or part of a mercenary unit.

The house\unit are always going to cover my repairs\ammo.

The only people who pay for their own repairs are Solaris pilots

Even they are usually part of a 'stable' who covers such expenses.

Edited by LordBraxton, 20 May 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[DeaconW]

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

I could agree with you, if the rewards for damage etc were hugely inflated. (Say I could make close to a mil if I wreck a team and cause 900 damage)

However R&R killed my immersion for fluff reasons as well.

If I am a soldier in a house military, or part of a mercenary unit.

The house\unit are always going to cover my repairs\ammo.

The only people who pay for their own repairs are Solaris pilots

Even they are usually part of a 'stable' who covers such expenses.

That's a fair point of view...moot at this point, but fair. Part of the problem is that we have no Meta construct to operate in...were are stuck in team death match on random maps ad infinitum. I could even have accepted PGI saying "Hey, we are going to suspend R&R until CW" because of this...but they just chucked it...which was unfortunate IMO.

[blinkin]

LordBraxton, on 20 May 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

However R&R killed my immersion for fluff reasons as well.

If I am a soldier in a house military, or part of a mercenary unit.

The house\unit are always going to cover my repairs\ammo.

The only people who pay for their own repairs are Solaris pilots

Even they are usually part of a 'stable' who covers such expenses.

so pilots just get to destroy these ancient machines they pilot without repercussions? i wish i could have found the exact word, but a while back i found a specific term within mechwarrior lore that was used for pilots who had destroyed or in some other way lost a mech and survived in shame. most spent their whole lives working to build enough money to buy a new mech (even a crappy light mech).

even the clans aren't going to just allow a pilot to continuously dump their money down the drain.

[MustrumRidcully]

DeaconW, on 20 May 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

The point is that no one cares about carrying a Gauss or XL engine because of cost...it isn't even part of the discussion. Basically that post brought out "Don't use case, it would only save you R&R, which doesn't exist, so forget that mechanic entirely".

Case would not even help with R&R - the engine is getting destroyed, that's the major cost factor here. Whether you need to repair 20 extra points of damage on your internal structure is irrelevant.

blinkin, on 20 May 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

so pilots just get to destroy these ancient machines they pilot without repercussions? i wish i could have found the exact word, but a while back i found a specific term within mechwarrior lore that was used for pilots who had destroyed or in some other way lost a mech and survived in shame. most spent their whole lives working to build enough money to buy a new mech (even a crappy light mech).

even the clans aren't going to just allow a pilot to continuously dump their money down the drain.

Well, if our military leaders don't want us to lose our mechs all the time, maybe they shouldn't put us into meat grinders where the opposition is usually about equally strong.

Computer Game PvP is inherently different from real war. In real war, you want to avoid combat and only fight when and where you are strong. That's something computer game stuff like match-making and game balance intentionally try to avoid.

The fluff behind Battletech often conflicts with this - fact is, mechs are easily and often cored both in Battletech and in MW:O games.

[Vassago Rain]

blinkin, on 20 May 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

so pilots just get to destroy these ancient machines they pilot without repercussions? i wish i could have found the exact word, but a while back i found a specific term within mechwarrior lore that was used for pilots who had destroyed or in some other way lost a mech and survived in shame. most spent their whole lives working to build enough money to buy a new mech (even a crappy light mech).

even the clans aren't going to just allow a pilot to continuously dump their money down the drain.

You do realize that battlemechs, especially the assault mechs from the star league era, are pretty much indestructible, and will survive being forgotten inside a barn for 300 years no problem, yes?

They're like AK-47s.

The whole setting is built around this.