345 replies to this topic

[SuomiWarder]

I felt ammo costs were too high. Perhaps ammo should stay free. But I would like to see mechs with less high tech equipment making more by having a lower R&R or higher base payout. Some sort of incentive to not always kite the most endosteel, XL engine, double heat sink goodness you can stuff in a mech.

Although the extra engine slots of the XL do make it not an "obvious" go to.

[ltwally]

Vallyn, on 28 December 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Major complaint with the change to R&R is that its allowed everyone and their lancemates to field Assaults. Before the R&R kept high cost mech's in check. . now there is no reason not to feild an assault (or light for lag shield, pick one). Dropping a lot more often in groups that are 4-6 Assault mechs these days.

Ah, another one that thinks that more expensive equipment should cost more to repair/rearm, but should not increase the bill to the client (eg. your winnings) ??

For those that think this method is "real world," allow me to elucidate: the person who has the best tools gets to charge the most. In the end, that guy has the highest profit margins, but finds it more difficult to find jobs. That is "real world." It is most definitely not "real world" for the guy with the expensive tools to charge the same as the guy with the cheap tools.

What this does in-game is punish players for doing well and upgrading their equipment. They played the game, scratched out enough C-Bills to upgrade their mech some, and suddenly they earn fewer C-Bills than they did with a stock mech. How exactly is that fun? Does this really seem to be in the MW spirit, where upgrading/customising your mech is a heavy part of the game? Of course not.

There's really only one reason why PGI would want this. They're trying to steer you into purchasing premium time.

No one would complain that all the little bobble-heads and paint jobs and such cost real $$ to get. But to tell you that the only way to keep your profit margins up after building a better mech is to purchase premium time? I believe that meets the definition of extortion.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Even now there's Cadet bonus that gives you a good mech with alot of room to customize and upgrade. In total of 25 matches. At maximum this means 6 hours and 15 minutes of active play time. Maybe I'm traumatized by the trial mech grinding (and the reset after closed beta) but that is generous. R&R needs tweaking for sure, but it has to return. If you do well, you shouldn't get punished, but it doesn't mean that if you DID well and now suck that you should be rewarded for your failure in a match. I fail alot and I'm willing to take the responsibility for it.

I would accept no R&R in a quick match game mode that would also provide less income.

[Mad Elf]

Dayuhan, on 28 December 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It was fixed several updates ago.
...
* SSRMs will now hit 100% unless something in the way or latency issues.

Not sure if the very common issue of a bunch of missiles chasing a light or fast medium, only to run into the hillside behind it, counts as a "latency issue" or "dodging", but it happens often enough to be very clearly not 100% accurate.

[ltwally]

Mad Elf, on 30 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Not sure if the very common issue of a bunch of missiles chasing a light or fast medium, only to run into the hillside behind it, counts as a "latency issue" or "dodging", but it happens often enough to be very clearly not 100% accurate.

Whatever the cause, I'd guestimate that S-SRM hits 90% of the time when targeting slow-moving/stationary targets out in the open. Every few shots, there's a missile that goes senile and just veers off on its own.

And that's fine with me. It feels like a good place.

When the target is moving at ludicrous speed, S-SRM hits less often. Sometimes they do this insane circle around a mech before giving up or running out of gas.

And that is also fine with me.

Personally, I think low tube counts (2 - 6) of S-SRM are at a good place. It's only when there are more than 6 tubes that it really becomes over-powered. For that, I would encourage PGI to investigate diminishing returns on more than 6 tubes.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Whatever the cause, I'd guestimate that S-SRM hits 90% of the time when targeting slow-moving/stationary targets out in the open. Every few shots, there's a missile that goes senile and just veers off on its own.

And that's fine with me. It feels like a good place.

When the target is moving at ludicrous speed, S-SRM hits less often. Sometimes they do this insane circle around a mech before giving up or running out of gas.

And that is also fine with me.

Personally, I think low tube counts (2 - 6) of S-SRM are at a good place. It's only when there are more than 6 tubes that it really becomes over-powered. For that, I would encourage PGI to investigate diminishing returns on more than 6 tubes.

Personally, I think you should spam Hawken forums.

[ltwally]

IV Amen, on 30 December 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Personally, I think you should spam Hawken forums.

If you disagree, post your disagreements. If they're reasonable and rational, we can have a discussion / debate.

But saying "kiss off" doesn't do any one any good. And it's childish.

Edited by ltwally, 31 December 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[LtPoncho]

You might want to check out said game before chirping negatively about it - we're not exactly the greatest thing on the F2P block either. Consider your position, eh?

Lack of Repair/Rearm is one of the main reasons why you see so many more LRM/SRM's out there lately - once it is re-established I suspect the LRM boats will go back into the garage due to the costs.

[Volume]

Barsov, on 18 December 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Please return Repear/Rearm. This is an important gameplay part of the all Mechwarrior games. Dont listen the crowd.

This did not exist in MW2.
This did not exist in MW3 or MW3: Pirate's Moon. Salvage was part of MW3 but not repair.
This did not exist in MW4 or MW4: Black Knight.

That said, it did exist in MW2: Mercs and MW4: Mercs - and this is MWOMERCS.com, right? So it would make sense to have to deal with it as a mercenary (solo or in a corp) or a lone wolf. House warriors and clan warriors ought to get stock or slightly modifiable loadouts with no repair cost specific to them.

[Inveramsay]

My thoughts have always been that you should pay for all your repairs and rearms but the price should be cut by 75% from what it was. It should probably be mandatory repairs as well

Earnings would need to be boosted a little to counter for the repairs. Having a bit of a repair and rearm cost did lead to less use of some things like the SRM+artemis boats that are roaming the game now.

[Dormax]

Interesting poll numbers. At the time of this post, 175 say NO (33.7%) and 344 say YES in one form or another (66.3%).
Guess there's no doubt of what the community wants.

[Ken Fury]

Dormax, on 01 January 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

Interesting poll numbers. At the time of this post, 175 say NO (33.7%) and 344 say YES in one form or another (66.3%).
Guess there's no doubt of what the community wants.

Actually the majority of the playerbase doesn't visit the Forums. Only ingame polls can achieve anyhing close to a true result. On the forums we got a lot of "punishment crowd" players whose thoughts do not go out to those who play less or without a group.

Repair and Rearm was one of those mechanics holding down new players who didn't buy Founders/MCs and thus creating an even bigger cliff to entering the game.

If you say YES to Repair and Rearm this means you want MWO to not have a solid player base.


Remember that Repair and Rearm in old titles was only in SINGLE PLAYER, that's a part where punishment for failure is needed to create a more interesting game experience.


Also CANON rules for mercenaries allow for contracts with 100% Repair and Rearm to be paid by the employeer.

[Xendojo]

Bring R&R back please. It adds immersion, and complexity to loadout and chassis choice. Without R&R there is no reason to hold back, put the most expensive toys on all your mechs. There needs to be a limiting factor for loadouts, or there is no reason to field workhorse mechs or c-bill generators.

No risk Vs. reward is a bad thing IMO.

EDIT: Not to mention the lack of R&R devalues founders/hero mechs and premium time.

Edited by Xendojo, 01 January 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[fallonsky]

duno about some of it but it jest cut my income by 40-60% when we did have it. really it kinda put me off for a while because it became kinda a grindfest to try and get a new mech. 20-40k per round and you need at least 1 mill and some to even get a light. it doesn't help also that my light gets really dammaged or distroyed most of the time as its a sniper support.

[Mad Elf]

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Whatever the cause, I'd guestimate that S-SRM hits 90% of the time when targeting slow-moving/stationary targets out in the open. Every few shots, there's a missile that goes senile and just veers off on its own.

And that's fine with me. It feels like a good place.

Me too; I just get really narked off with all the people qq'ing "dur, SSRMs ar OP cuz they hit alla time".

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

When the target is moving at ludicrous speed, S-SRM hits less often. Sometimes they do this insane circle around a mech before giving up or running out of gas.

And that is also fine with me.

Again, me too, as long as it's actually the target mech's speed that's causing it, and not some problem with their ping rate.

ltwally, on 30 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Personally, I think low tube counts (2 - 6) of S-SRM are at a good place. It's only when there are more than 6 tubes that it really becomes over-powered. For that, I would encourage PGI to investigate diminishing returns on more than 6 tubes.

Totally disagree. Having more weapons isn't "over-powered", it's "bigger".

For that to be a fair / viable standpoint, you'd have to say "diminishing returns if more than 4 medium lasers", or > 2 Large, or > 3 AC2s, or whatever: all of those are "over-powered" by the same reasoning.

[Dormax]

Tank Boy Ken, on 01 January 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Actually the majority of the playerbase doesn't visit the Forums. Only ingame polls can achieve anyhing close to a true result. On the forums we got a lot of "punishment crowd" players whose thoughts do not go out to those who play less or without a group.

Repair and Rearm was one of those mechanics holding down new players who didn't buy Founders/MCs and thus creating an even bigger cliff to entering the game.

If you say YES to Repair and Rearm this means you want MWO to not have a solid player base.


Remember that Repair and Rearm in old titles was only in SINGLE PLAYER, that's a part where punishment for failure is needed to create a more interesting game experience.


Also CANON rules for mercenaries allow for contracts with 100% Repair and Rearm to be paid by the employeer.

True enough. I remember many a game of MechWarrior where I had to fight during negotiations to get repair costs paid by the employer.

I do see it from the other side, though - one more related to PGI and the financial stability of MWO in general. If it is as you suggest, then removing R&R means less money for PGI, doesn't it? I'm sure their business model allows for the change or they wouldn't do it, of course. But a F2P game with no income is doomed -- as would any business venture be where income is limited.

I'm certainly not against the new players. This game's learning curve isn't that steep, but PUGGing can be expensive when most of the team lacks experience/skill. For the more seasoned players, though, I still believe an increase in difficulty via R&R would make the game more interesting Or as you suggest, perhaps find a way to make it so that RR& isn't always paid by the employer. *shrug* Varied opinions, I suppose.

[ltwally]

Mad Elf, on 01 January 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

Totally disagree. Having more weapons isn't "over-powered", it's "bigger".

For that to be a fair / viable standpoint, you'd have to say "diminishing returns if more than 4 medium lasers", or > 2 Large, or > 3 AC2s, or whatever: all of those are "over-powered" by the same reasoning.

Let's focus on one thing at a time.

Streak Short Range Missiles.

How balanced is a single S-SRM-2? Seems to be that it does enough damage to justify it taking a missile hardpoint So let's call a single S-SRM-2 "good".

What about a pair of them? Still seems to be pretty fair.

What about three of them? Hmm... starting to push it.

What about four or more? Ok. We definitely have a problem here. This thing is dishing out a lot of very focused damage that rarely misses.

How about a StreakCat, that has six? Wow. Something is broke, here.


So, what do we do? Well, we could invent some seriously over-powered ECM, but let's try to focus on a fix just for S-SRM.

How do we not make one or two S-SRM-2's suck completely, but keep a dozen S-SRM tubes from being the best thing since sliced bread?

We could just make S-SRM weaker across the board, but that doesn't seem fair to mechs with only one, two or three S-SRM-2's.

That's where I get the idea for diminishing returns.

My idea is not about real-world logic or rational. It's purely for game balance. Judged by that stick, and solely by that stick, maybe diminishing returns for S-SRM isn't such a bad idea.

[Atheus]

Xendojo, on 01 January 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

...There needs to be a limiting factor for loadouts, or there is no reason to field workhorse mechs or c-bill generators.

I don't really see any evidence to support your idea here. Why must there be a limiting factor on loadouts beyond what fits in the mech? How does that contribute to a better gaming experience?

Xendojo, on 01 January 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

EDIT: Not to mention the lack of R&R devalues founders/hero mechs and premium time.

In my opinion premium time was far too strong a buff on profit, especially combined with a founders/hero mech. The rate of earning with just premium in a mech that averaged 60k+ R&R like anything with Artemis or SSRM's, the premium bonus increased profit by easily 100%, and often far more, or turned what would be a net loss into profit. Never just +50%. It was too big a difference. It would be more reasonable if the bonus were applied to the net after mandatory R&R fees rather than the gross, but with R&R gone the question becomes moot, since net and gross are equal.

ltwally, on 01 January 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Let's focus on one thing at a time.

Streak Short Range Missiles.

How balanced is a single S-SRM-2? Seems to be that it does enough damage to justify it taking a missile hardpoint So let's call a single S-SRM-2 "good".

What about a pair of them? Still seems to be pretty fair.

What about three of them? Hmm... starting to push it.

What about four or more? Ok. We definitely have a problem here. This thing is dishing out a lot of very focused damage that rarely misses.

How about a StreakCat, that has six? Wow. Something is broke, here.


So, what do we do? Well, we could invent some seriously over-powered ECM, but let's try to focus on a fix just for S-SRM.

How do we not make one or two S-SRM-2's suck completely, but keep a dozen S-SRM tubes from being the best thing since sliced bread?

We could just make S-SRM weaker across the board, but that doesn't seem fair to mechs with only one, two or three S-SRM-2's.

That's where I get the idea for diminishing returns.

My idea is not about real-world logic or rational. It's purely for game balance. Judged by that stick, and solely by that stick, maybe diminishing returns for S-SRM isn't such a bad idea.

You're really not convincing me. The bottom line is that any mech that can fire a lot of weapons and hit with all of them is pretty darned dangerous. SSRM's seem amazing to people who have a really hard time hitting with other weapons. To me, a streak cat is just a mech to be dealt with by a mech of equal or greater weight, but that doesn't change the fact that many engagements take place at 300+m where they are totally ineffective. That said, SSRM's are certainly a high damage weapon and not something to be ignored. I wouldn't mind instead of a blanket countermeasure like ECM to have a more reflex-oriented countermeasure like flares in a flight simulator.

Edited by Atheus, 01 January 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Trollinger]

Repair costs simply force you to play a mech you don't want to play to earn the credits to support your main mech. That is why i quit playing world of tanks.

I think a free to play game should earn money with selling alternative, not overpowered mechs, offering great modifications (much more paint options than now, more cockpit alterations - e.g. let the player move the monitors or whatever) that don't offer you ingame advantages and a premium account which lets you earn ingame money and experience faster but is not necessary to fully support any mech you want to play by using repair costs to force people to pay for the game.

I love this patch and finally got myself to pay for a premium account. Please do not give in to the realism nazis in this forum.

[Xendojo]

If people couldn't deal with R&R and still drive the mechs they wanted to, then they were doing it wrong.

Out of the 8 mechs i own i had 2 that could potentially run a c-bill loss, and did so if i died before doing enough damage. But now, half my mechs would run a consistent c-bill loss because i have all the expensive toys on them. With R&R gone it would seem idiotic to not have all the upgrades possible on each chassis. And this to me seems like a bad thing.

The big equalizer!! The cost of your loadout no longer matters!! How amazingly awesome for people!

SYKE! Now it no longer matters how you build. It no longer matters what equipment/upgrades you put on your mech, so if you got the slots and the tonnage SLAP IT ON!!! And i just do not like that mentality. I really miss the risk vs. reward aspect. Now...there is no risk, and this dulls the reward IMO. And i think that people are feeling this even if they are not aware of it. I mean really, whats the point if there is no sense of accomplishment after a good win? And nothing made me feel better about a win more than when my skill as a mechwarrior is what carried me to the win, not the chassis/gear i was using to do it. Now, well there is no reason to play in an under-powered mech to save on cost, which i did all the time. And it felt really good to trash mechs with 2x or 3x the R&R cost of what i was driving. On the flip-side i also really enjoyed taking out the cherry expensive mechs and doing well enough with them to make c-bills. That was even more rewarding specifically because it was not a sure thing.

R&R needs to come back in some form or another! You should pay and pay big for that tricked out mech that has every upgrade and the most expensive weapons on it.

TL:DR Less risk = meaningless rewards.

Edited by Xendojo, 02 January 2013 - 06:51 AM.