130 replies to this topic

[Remedialhappyman]

Not to mention with the way the game is balanced a light/medium can easily deal comparable damage to an assault while being able to survive just as long if not longer through maneuverability.

If you want every role to be meaningful and competitive then they should be equally affordable as well. Granted I am fine with the way you want it as long as I can cut through dozens of mechs with saved up c-bills on my atlas.

Edited by Remedialhappyman, 15 January 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[Splinters]

I can understand the frustrations specified but there are a few issues that seem to be confusing the overall topic.

#1) a true economy would have winners and losers. No wants to be a loser nor does PGI want to lose users just because they suck. (they want them to pay so they are ok pilots) So in all honesty the requests for any true economy would be unachievable.

#2) RnR are reasonable requests, but beyond that any other economy would be probably wasted until the weapons and accessories (ECM, BAP, etc) are finally balanced.

#3) salvage and cbill rewards are other great methods for reward, but currently the flat scale between light to assaults is probably not right, but will continue the tradition of "moneymechs" and "dropmechs" once any decent economic effects take hold in the game

#4) the difference between the have/have-nots is huge in terms of skills and mech loadouts. The ~8m over 25 matches cadet bonus isn't bad, but I would prefer more money over more matches, something like 16m over 75 matches to really get new players into the game with enough money to do what they want. (they also need to make the cadet bonus more obvious so new players don't feel shafted after 25 matches)

#4b) The amount of bonus' a mech gets from skills is very significant that trial mechs vs fully mastered mechs is too big for any new player to want to participate beyond the first 25 matches in my opinion.

I hope matchmaking with pilot skills and something like battlemech values can hopefully balance this out in the future, but we'll have to see.

-S

[DaZur]

FerretGR, on 15 January 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Calling MWO a "repercussion-less FPS", or insinuating that it's even moving in that direction, just because repair and rearm are not included, is "unreasonably taking it to the nth degree" in the other direction. It did little to nothing to improve immersion or to move MWO away from any other "objectionable" game. It was simply an additional cost (that most people ignored by autoRRing, I might add).

Speaking of "nth degree"...

My sarcasm smiley was missing for that last commentary...

In the simplest terms R&R (Or any form of governance if R&R is viewed as objectionable) is needed to provide a means of repercussion and affirmation.

As it stands right now the great unwashed (not everyone) who play MW:O in it's current iteration enter each match with no fear of repercussion and as a result, play with reckless abandon, give no quarter, waste ammo and die unnecessarily because there is no down side... yes they make less than if they survive and win, but they still benefit regardless.

Where's the challenge? Where's the remittance for playing well? Where is the motivation to not play this like a mechanized version of Quake where the end result is just to survive more than the next guy?

[Wispsy]

I am really past caring what they do with R&R but I think people are acting as if they were higher then they were.... I mean sure I do not like the fact that missiles were balanced by money but I could still run an LRM Atlas with FF(because it cost more to repair then endo) in pugs subject to all the random whims of the matchmaker and still make loads of money....
There was no pay to win, if you had to spend real money to get and maintain a mech that the average person can get and maintain with only CBills you clearly are not winning and just making bad choices.....
Rarely were people forced into running cashgrinder mechs, a number of people simply chose to do this to make CBills more effectively, it is like running an LRM DDC right now, you do not have to use it but you will 95% of the time make loads more with it then with other mechs. Most of the people that were "forced" out of their mechs, were people who were using XL engines all wrong, being very little use and dying very quickly with no thought to situational awareness or torso twisting or anything, then they either had to change their playstyle to fit with using an XL or they swapped to standard engines with different loadouts and their performance on the battlefield improved drastically almost every time.
There were more suicide farmers but this was before they brought in their anti suicide farmer patches....I hardly think that the removal of R&R was the cause of them stopping it, more likely the fact that is was made ineffective....The reason there were less of them before this, was oh yes, we were given a million a win...
This game does need some sort of money sink imo, as it stands there is literally no way to lose money other then repeatedly buying and then selling mechs....but well it seems quite the number of people stand firm by their belief that no matter how poorly you do you should get similar rewards to everybody else and never ever lose anything you have gained no matter how small. Even WoW has repairs and that is one of the most casual friendly games out there now.

[FerretGR]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Where's the challenge? Where's the remittance for playing well? Where is the motivation to not play this like a mechanized version of Quake where the end result is just to survive more than the next guy?

The remittance for playing well is the c-bill reward for doing so. Players are paid for damage done, kills, assists, spotting, capping, etc. If you don't play well, you don't make money, you don't get to buy new stuff. That's definitely motivation enough for most folks.

I don't know how you play, but personally, there are a million mechs I want to buy; I've been playing pretty much daily since OB, and I don't own half of them. I don't want to take forever to grind so I go out there and try to kick ***, and if my team loses, I try to at least make sure I've got a couple of kills. If I do okay, I'm rewarded for that. I think it's where it should be right now.

Realistically, that's all the devs were asking of R&R, from what I can gather: that it be reward for how you perform in a match, inferring it to a certain extent from the condition of the mech and the ammo used after the match. If you got jacked up in a game and your team lost, you didn't make as much money as you would if you did well in the match, got a couple of kills and did some damage, and your team won. The problem with R&R was that players were essentially punished for doing/running certain things: SRMs with Artemis, XL engines (the large ones at least), Ferro-fibrous Armor, and so on; these things had more of an impact on c-bill earning than all other factors combined. Additionally, it encouraged some bad behaviors (suiciding, afking, etc). By removing R&R we get rid of some of this, but we still have the differential in money made between performing and not perfoming: we reward it directly instead of inferring performance from the state of the pilot's mech at the end of the match. It just makes sense to me. But as I said, this is all old ground at this point.

Simply put, the repercussion and affirmation should be about in-game performance, not choice of mech. Working as intended IMHO.

If the "great unwashed" want to pilot a cool mech this century, they'll want to both win and play well, and that ain't playing with reckless abandon IMHO.

Edited by FerretGR, 15 January 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[Protection]

Steal a page from Valve.

Have a real economy (on top of the progression economy), that revolves almost entirely around cosmetics.

Have things like (single use) paints, laser colourings, decals, autocannon sounds, missile smokes, and other (100%) cosmetic items randomly drop from time to time at the end of a round for a couple of players, who are then free to barter and trade with other players for the items that they want. Have some ultra rare items and some much more common items.

It keeps people playing and engaged, adds a layer to the game, and because it is only dealing in cosmetics, it has no negative impact on gameplay.

[Autofire55555]

As I see it, you should never lose money on a mech. However, not participating shouldn't get you any net gain. No moneymaker mechs should be needed, but at the same time having a fully loaded mech should provide some downside. Although, then again, if ECM and streaks get a balance, they should both have some negative thing to them.

I've only read the first page and then some posts between and then some at the end. I'm just giving my opinion.

[Greyfyl]

There's an in-game economy? Hmmmm.

[slide]

Somebody asked where I got the idea that the devs were going to use the economy to balance mech use:

These comments by Bryan Ekman

[color="#b27204"]Question about MWO c-Bill making and Founder mechs[/color]

[color="#b27204"][/color] Posted by [color="#b27204"]Bryan Ekman[/color] on 22 June 2012 - 12:41 AM in [color="#b27204"]General Discussion[/color]

[color="#b27204"][/color]StriplingWarrior, on 22 June 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:


Is there going to be a "set" amount of funds recieved for accomplishing mission objectives(based on contract type whatevers)with modifiers based on damage, spotting, capture, kills, what have you so that it is possible to lose money in a light mech and an assault but not as likely in the light because of the lower maintainance/upkeep cost?

again I am sorry if I could have phrased this better. I mean no offense.

respectfully
Jon

This is essential correct, except you will have proportionall risk vs reward. Cost are less for lights, but you make less money. Costs are high for assault, so you make more money. The net yield after repairs is going to be similar.

Non one class will make NET CB faster.






#424660[color="#b27204"]Question about MWO c-Bill making and Founder mechs[/color]


[color="#b27204"][/color] Posted by [color="#b27204"]Bryan Ekman[/color] on 21 June 2012 - 11:55 PM in [color="#b27204"]General Discussion[/color]
All Founder's Mechs have the same bonus. Upkeep varies by weight class. The heavier a Mech the more upkeep (repair/rearm). The balance out the risk, we balance out the rewards as well. Players will find that no matter which Mech the field, they will earn proportional rewards.

found here

http://mwomercs.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=3&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=6d8caa486046d415e8e38c49d9afa28f&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&search_app_filters[forums][sortDir]=&st=150

It may not be exactly as I said but I feel in conveys the message. It certrainly wasn't my idea to start with I just ran with it

But this was along time ago.

Sorry about the format had to cut and paste.

Edited by slide, 15 January 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

My eyes!

[GalaxyBluestar]

excellent op. we've pretty much tested all the weapons combination's the data's through pgi know what needs fixing they just have to actually do it. so no repair bills are not necessary now. this is an excellent plan to negate rediculous builds, it's the similler deal most of us said should happen for clan mechs. RnR is ready to come back!

what am i saying these ideas follow logic and a direction for the game to go in... it won't happen.