345 replies to this topic

[PPO Kuro]

WVAnonymous, on 21 December 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

No, it really is dumbing it down. I pulled XL's out of a number of builds when I decided the earnings after matches were too low. I put them all back in, and used my "Cadet bonus" to buy a 385XL for my Awesome. If I had to pay to repair that monster, I would likely not use it, even though I think it will be a real advantage in Conquest mode once I figure out how to pilot it effectively.

If you have no consequences after the build, it is removing an element of thoughtfulness. Even low R&R costs would at least make you think about your build.

Right that's what's ruining this game for me, the feeling it really doesn't matter what I put on my mech, heck it gets repaired for free anyways. You see this in the game play now, it one big stompy slug fest. Just turn off your brain and charge like a bloody ***** (not so smart person). Not like it matters when they blow up your mech with that XL engine.

I understand that the 'casual' players like this, but I totally F#(k1ng hate this! Your actions in the game now have no consequence what so ever (well ok if you loss you get less C-bills). And sure I also want to blow stuff up, but the way it's going isn't fun for me. But oh well...not much you can do about it...just hope Star Citizen will be more fun than this ><

Edited by PPO Kuro, 02 January 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[AlanEsh]

Why did this poll never get "Yes bring back repair, but leave out Rearm"?

This is the best possible answer, since rearm costs are essentially an ammo tax where there is no up side for ammo mechs.

[Darwins Dog]

The issue with R&R the way it was is that people who were paying for the game were able to run better builds than people who weren't paying. That's a problem.

I am all for the idea of cbills being a balancing factor in a loadout, but not if people can use real money to make more cbills. Not everyone is good enough to get lots of wins and kills (half of the people in the game have to lose), so "doing it wrong" might just be "not doing it well". This system at least gives everyone the opportunity to play the same mech with the same loadout, whether they are doing it right or wrong.

Xendojo, on 02 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

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.

...snip...

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.

[Bobzilla]

I find removing helps newer players and makes the game more attractive to newer players. I've had a few friends that wouldn't play because they felt they would never get anywhere. Skill does make you earn cbills with RnR, but it has to seem like your going somewhere to keep you playing to gain that skill.
I now make about the same amount without it, less on a win/more on a loss. I used semi-expensive loadouts tho.

[Xendojo]

Darwins Dog, on 02 January 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

The issue with R&R the way it was is that people who were paying for the game were able to run better builds than people who weren't paying. That's a problem.

I am all for the idea of cbills being a balancing factor in a loadout, but not if people can use real money to make more cbills. Not everyone is good enough to get lots of wins and kills (half of the people in the game have to lose), so "doing it wrong" might just be "not doing it well". This system at least gives everyone the opportunity to play the same mech with the same loadout, whether they are doing it right or wrong.

Funny how you cut out the pertinent paragraph.

Maybe when R&R returns it will be with a different game mode? Who knows! But i'm pretty sure it will return somewhere.

[Tolkien]

I play a light these days so even though I am in effect subsidizing an assault, I still prefer it for a few reasons.

One is that before there was a difference of motivations between the individual and the team. The team obviously benefits if you bring your best killing machine (probably with expensive to repair endosteel etc.), while you earn more Cbills if you ran a cheap commando.

By removing R&R it makes sure that there is zero motivation to run a cheap mech rather than an effective mech. This means that weapon balance can't be done via Cbills, but it also fixes that nascent pay to win problem where very expensive mechs could actually cost more to field than you would earn at 50/50 win loss unless you paid for premium time...

[Xendojo]

Tolkien, on 02 January 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I play a light these days so even though I am in effect subsidizing an assault, I still prefer it for a few reasons.

One is that before there was a difference of motivations between the individual and the team. The team obviously benefits if you bring your best killing machine (probably with expensive to repair endosteel etc.), while you earn more Cbills if you ran a cheap commando.

By removing R&R it makes sure that there is zero motivation to run a cheap mech rather than an effective mech. This means that weapon balance can't be done via Cbills, but it also fixes that nascent pay to win problem where very expensive mechs could actually cost more to field than you would earn at 50/50 win loss unless you paid for premium time...

Running red INCLUDING premium! It could easily be done. Running cheap AND effective mechs was also very possible. I still have all my premium time so iv'e been playing without it since open beta, so iv'e seen both sides now. So the only advantage i have had is my founders HBK (not having to grind that first mech:Priceless!) but i knew what i was buying with founders.

Stopping griefers/farmers means leaving them nothing to exploit, so yes you're right it is a question of motivation. I assume the new R&R with have less loopholes for griefers as this was the stated intention for removing it.

Edited by Xendojo, 02 January 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Darwins Dog]

The thing about using cbills for balance is that players all have to have equal access to cbills. If one player can pay for more money, then they will have access to more (and possibly better) weapons and equipment. Making it expensive to repair and rearm a certain build doesn't change how it functions on the field, it only changes who can run it.

Of course the equipment isn't the only factor, but restricting certain builds to paying customers is edging closer to a P2W game.

[Nebuzar]

I think repair/re-arm should come back but not till they get some other issues worked out that are more important, like the fps bug/memory leak problem. After some of the more major issues are fixed then they can work on finding the right balance for costs on repair/re-arm.

Until then what does it really matter if you don't have to pay for it, just enjoy the game and help the dev's find the issues and ways to solve them so they can make the game better for everyone.

[Doc Holliday]

You left the only good option out of your poll.

"Yes, but in a balanced fashion."

Any player putting forth a legitimate effort should never have repair/rearm costs more than his earnings. You should never lose money on a match (aside from being intentionally bad like suiciding on purpose).

[Ram71]

it all comes down to the fact that people aren't playing like they used to. if you were going to get a repair bill of 120 000 then you played it a lot safer then if you get no bill at all.

[Wraithfox]

Undead Bane, on 18 December 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

I would like to propose the following: make no R&R for faction mechs. Make mercs pay for R&R though (that I say being a merc myself). But this should only go up when CW is up.
Untill then - no R&R is good. I make 190+K each match in a RS. And I like it. But I really would like it to change with CW there - being a merc should be challenging, after all.

I actually like this idea, though there needs to be some fine benefits between being a mercenary or being part of a faction (Faction is obviously covered mech operation costs, a downside could be Faction Fee's which would give reason to be a mercenary). Other than this idea of it only being for Merc's, I do not want R&R to return to faction players. As for the OP saying you made more the old way? You obviously are not pulling your own weight in your games. I make WAAAAY more than I did back when we had R&R. Now it actually means something to work hard on your team because it shows it in how much money you make.

Locking people out of their mechs because its too damaged and they cant afford to fix it is NOT the way to go. Remember that people do not like being told no.


Oh and lets not forget that game breaking glitches like the black/yellow screen. I do not like having to pay for something I had ZERO control over (had to quit a match the other night because the black screen glitch).

[Mad Elf]

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

Let's focus on one thing at a time.

I'm going to repeat your entire post, but with a simple search/replace:

Medium Lasers

How balanced is a single ML? Seems to be that it does enough damage to justify it taking an energy hardpoint So let's call a single ML "good". (Heat on the other hand...)

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 only requires you to wave your crosshairs over the target - no skill involved at all.

How about a Hunchback 4P, that has nine? Wow. Something is broke, here.

So, what do we do? Well, we could invent reflective armour, but let's try to focus on a fix just for MLs.

How do we not make one or two ML's suck completely, but keep nine MLs from being the best thing since sliced bread?

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

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.

...yeah, but that's completely sucky reasoning unless you have a real-world logical explanation to back it up. And the ONLY way you could justify it would be if you applied the nonsense "diminishing returns" rule to every other weapon in the game: >3 SRM, >3 LRM, >6 SL, >4 ML, >3 LL, >2 PPC, >3 AC2, >2 AC5, >1 AC10...

If the CAT-A1, HBK-4P, and other boatlike chassis had never been invented, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But they were. And for some reason, some people have this massive hate on for SSRMs which I can't explain other than "I can't think of a tactic to avoid them, so they must be removed from the game qq qq qq".

[Mad Elf]

Back on topic...


I get the idea that I, representing my merc unit, will do my utmost to get a contract that includes all rearm bills. I'll do my best to get one that covers repair ones too.
However...

I haven't read a whole lot of the background material, but I seem to remember the whole point about mech tech is that all the good stuff is rare. There just aren't that many Atlas chassis, XL engines, Artemis systems, and so on out there. There is a much larger demand than there is supply. (Case in point: IIRC one of the Wolf's Dragoons books had them strip the fusion engine out of their headquarters vehicle because they needed to put it in a mech.)

So I take my fancy Cicada out onto the battlefield complete with this expensive XL engine... and it gets blown out completely. Not just a case of patching on some armour, or repairing a few pipes or cables: I got cored, and that engine is toast. All it can be used for now is a 6-ton radioactive doorstopper.

Do my employers just happen to have a matching engine lying around doing nothing? Are they likely to just give it to me? If I was lucky to get a contract from them that says they have to, what happens at renewal time when they look over the books and realise that because I pilot like a llama on acid, I've gone through more than a dozen XL engines in the last fifteen drops?

Seriously. There has to be some sort of penalty for getting your mech shot to little pieces under you. Since there isn't at the moment, people are really playing like it's a video game: walk up to a weaker opponent and fire away at point-blank range until they're dead; then repeat with the next target. As long as you kill the first one, your KDR will always look good, so who cares how unrealistic your behaviour is?

[Dr B00t]

well im a founder's...and i am totally wasting my premium time right now...
so that's one customer that was pretty much an easy guarantee to spend more money on the game....staring at a timer that is basically meaningless...im not saying the economy was even remotely good before...but when i clicked that "start premium time button" i felt i was misled

doesn't make good business sense to patch it out w/ no real warning other than "we are going to do some small tweaks"

this is the same company that cant even release decent patch notes though...

[Henree]

destroyed weapons should really be destroyed and not repaireable - buy new after a match
weapons should be more expensive
weapons should not allways be obtaineable

make people think and manage that side of things

sure they will complain in the beginning but it is part of the mech experience and more challenging, interesting, rewarding. So what you can not spawn continuously!?!?

Edited by Henri Schoots, 03 January 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[MaxllmuS]

Henri Schoots, on 03 January 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

destroyed weapons should really be destroyed and not repaireable - buy new after a match
weapons should be more expensive
weapons should not allways be obtaineable

make people think and manage that side of things

sure they will complain in the beginning but it is part of the mech experience and more challenging, interesting, rewarding. So what you can not spawn continuously!?!?

BDSM MECHWARIOR?

[Nebuzar]

Henri Schoots, on 03 January 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

destroyed weapons should really be destroyed and not repaireable - buy new after a match
weapons should be more expensive
weapons should not allways be obtaineable

make people think and manage that side of things

sure they will complain in the beginning but it is part of the mech experience and more challenging, interesting, rewarding. So what you can not spawn continuously!?!?

I take it you're brain damaged because upping the replacement cost of weapons and making it where you had to buy new each time one was destroyed would only mean that no one would run light mechs, which have their limbs shot off in one hit. You would start to see lots of people using cheap weapons, like machine guns and light lasers, on assault mechs which would totally kill the game.

Honestly there is no way anyone would pay 400-800k each time a limb got blown off to replace a weapon, especially if they're only making 200k a match and that's with premium and hero bonus while getting 2-3 kills. Now if they're team lost they may be lucky to make 100k at most without any bonuses. So it's a VERY bad idea.

I'll give you that it would be more challenging... Especially for PGI to stay in business when everyone quit playing. So next time please take your head out of you *** before posting something as stupid as that.

I will say if you want to play a game that does that get into the DUST 514 closed beta on PS3 because it's like that but everything is very cheap to replace and the earnings from completing one merc contract pays for at least 10 full clone fits. Where as on here one match (when R&R was on) barely covered expenses to get the mech into the next match, and on assaults you normally lost money.

[ohtochooseaname]

The problem with full R&R costs is that it increases the required C-Bill rewards: you have to make more money than you lose, so rewards have to be insanely higher (or risk that a player would be unable to continue playing and have to start over with a new pilot/trial mechs). If that is the case, people, who were lucky and didn't take much damage for a few games, would be able to immediately buy an assault Mech with their winnings. By having the reduced R&R costs, it allowed them to implement a more stable rewards system. Now, with no R&R costs, the model becomes very predictable, stable, and tweakable. Since this is a game, which requires a stable progression system for them to make any money, this really seems like the way to go in a business sense.

From a gameplay sense, I actually liked it better when trying to survive a match/conserve ammo was worth something, and you didn't just rush headlong into a head-to-head battle to get your rewards ASAP.

[DeaconW]

MaxllmuS, on 03 January 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

BDSM MECHWARIOR?

As opposed to MECHQUAKE? Yes.