130 replies to this topic

[slide]

TL;DR if you can't read it all, go read something else.

Disclaimer- some, all or none of what I am about to say could be included in Community Warfare. I just hope it is.

Just so you know I have been a member of this forum since November 2011 and been playing since Mid June 2012 in both closed and open Beta. In fact I have been playing since before the Founders Pack went on sale and was a very early adopter of the founders pack because I saw potential in the game. I am well aware that there are at least 3 sides to any argument on these forums.

In that time I have seen no economy, the get rich quick economy where you got a million cbills just for playing and the economy where you can go broke quick if you ran xl engines.

At the moment with the current rewards sysytem anyone, given enough time, can get all the mechs they want and have Cbills to burn. There is absolutely no reason to not run the best equipment you can afford to buy. This widens the gap between the players that have played the most and the new player thus scaring them off even more. It is the single biggest reason why we see so many Raven 3L and Atlas DDC's as there is no penalty for running ECM or high tech expensive equipment. We need a money sink that will cost players money if they run High End fully custom mechs. PGI said we would have this but as with a lot of things it seems to have disappeared, at least from view, to appease the FPS twitch crowd.

As I see it at the moment we have 2 major issues with the game balance (netcode, hitbox, other game mechanic issues aside).

1. Proliferation of high tech equipment leading to cheese build of the month depending weapon balances.

2. AFK/suicide/bot farmers ruining the game play experience for everyone, especially pugs.

I believe we can use the economy to limit both of theses problems.

The rewards system needs to be revamped a little and we retain the cadet system. We need to keep the current rewards system for damage etc, but change the win/loss rewards. If you are killed or damaged you need to be awarded an amount on a per chassis and amount damaged basis that will restore your mech to 100% health and ammo in it's STOCK configuration + 10%-15% to allow for minor mods like extra ammo and armour (this also needs a restore default/save loadout button in mechlab). So much like a trial mech you cannot lose money if you are killed or damaged in a stock or near stock mech. You can also make a little on top, as now, for participating, even if you lose. If you run an Assault with 2700 LRM's and Artemis with an XL engine it is going to cost you money.

Bring back Repair and Rearm in full. None of this nanny welfare state 75% repair rubbish that encourages people to not repair and rearm because it's cheaper to drop with only 75% ammo. Also you must be lock out mechs that are not at 100% from dropping into game.

"Bullfrog" you say "I'll go broke with those rules". No you won't because at a bare minimum you will have enough to repair and rearm to stock, what you won't be able to do is infinitely run cheese build of the week with all the expensive goodies, without going broke. It will force people to find more cost effective builds, rather than the best build. Which should lead to more variety on the battlefield.

"How does this stop AFKer's etc?" If the above happens and you do nothing in game, your profit from the game will be very low to non existant. What we now have to do is introduce a per drop maintenance fee based on weight class. Any tiny profit the AFKer has made will be eaten up by the fee thus making it a waste of time to not participate. (ie light fee 10k, medium 20k, heavy 30k, assault 40k) It will also make assaults, and heavys more expensive to run thus tilting the field to lights and the work horse medium builds which is as it should be, not all heavy and assaults all the time.

"Oh, I'll just run laser boats as they will make more money" The rearm fee needs to have a cost for "laser/energy weapon maintenance" to balance the cost with ammo dependant weapons.

Also ECM,BAP,TAG etc need to have costs (maintenace) associated with them to make it more costly to run with this equipment, thus reducing their use.

"Wow, that's a lot of stick wheres the carrot?" Simple make the reward for winning something worth fighting for. For example if the average profit from a match after normal expences was 100k (less maintenance fees), make the reward for winning something like 500k. It's more incentive to fight and try to win, rather than just grind for minimum wage and save. Even the worst players should be able to luck out a win occasionally thus giving them access to better equipment which they can then afford to run for a while.

Obviously the numbers would need tuning but it should work.

The other thing it would do is give more immersion to the game, something it is currently lacking. Battle tech has always been about surviving in a hostile and expensive universe, something like the above would bring back that role play element that it is lacking ATM. I want something more than giant stompy robots online, PGI have paid a small fortune for the IP to an established franchise, which has a distinct feel. It would be a waste to throw the best part of that away and end up with a generic shooter with robots and the Mechwarrior name.

I also think they need to limit weapon/mech availability (somehow, need to wait for CW most likely) and bring back proper salvage rights, but that is just me I want the whole experience not just parts of it). But that is a whole other argument.

If you got this far, thanks for reading.

Donning Asbestos suit now.

Flame On!

[Sidekick]

I agree.
I am playing since August, and this Null-ecomomy is just annoyingly boring.

[M4rtyr]

uhhh, got news for you... its not an economy, its just a progression.

If you hadn't noticed the XP progression (pilotlab) is laughable and meaningless. But thats ok because the meat of battletech is the mechs, thats the progression. The money is just xp for customizing your character build.

Yes its just a bunch of people jumping from one FotM to the next but the exact same thing happens with any MMO, they respect after every patch.

What is far more important is just having more mech chasis' available for a larger variety of builds... well that and a -good- weapon balance.

Edited by M4rtyr, 12 January 2013 - 04:08 AM.

[XSive Death]

We're eating a sunday roast over the course of months, one item at a time. It's certainly bland, but that's the effect of a rolling game like an MMO in its early stages.

I'd certainly like a more detailed setup when deciding matches (such as MC using both a tonnage -and- C-bill limit to force people to select more carefully), but again, those would require a bigger meta-game in which to implement them.

All in time (probably).

[slide]

Thank you to those that did reply. .

I am stunned that more people do not care one way or the other about this. Has the fire dept put all the flamers out. LOL

[Taizan]

I used to be a person who actually was against lowering repair costs and often told people who cried out about high repair costs to built a more economical efficient mech. Because of the whole way it was in BT - high upkeep mechs usually were very rare.

With the new economy in place, I must say that I've changed my mind (a bit) - using economical restraints to limit players in fitting their mech to their personal preference or maximum combat efficiency is simply stupid.

YET - I concur that at the moment the "everyone gets something" (and that something can be a good chunk even if you are defeated) is not ideal, I am hoping that with CW merc contracts or such will come in to play that will have an impact on the current system.

[HighlandCoo]

Having to constantly click to repair and rearm my mechs wasn't "immersion". It was boring. I don't miss it.

Oh and right now, if you are pugging at least, you are VERY likely to lose your mech. Even if you get a win from it. So your idea doesn't really work.

Fun is the name of the game buddy. Get on board.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Taizan, on 15 January 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

With the new economy in place, I must say that I've changed my mind (a bit) - using economical restraints to limit players in fitting their mech to their personal preference or maximum combat efficiency is simply stupid.

Why? The in game result is that people run a cheap workhorse mech for cash and a seriousbusiness mech for competitive drops. Even a Mech Romney is going to drop in his workhorse mech if his serious business mech is eating 70-80% of his earnings every round.

[HighlandCoo]

Narcisoldier, on 15 January 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

a seriousbusiness mech for competitive drops.

This is the problem right here. Not many folk look at it this way. All of my mechs are fun mechs. Not "serious competitive" mechs.

[TyGeR STD]

I think I misunderstood the title of this post, after re-reading it I think the word "Economy" should be removed

[Armorpiercer M82]

removing R+R was realy stupid idea, and its more and more "casual". let this to hawken...

[CypherHalo]

Well, I would say the game already has a distinct feel from other shooters, so I think everyone worrying about the game losing that is a bit silly.

All that said, my proposed solution for RnR costs is, I think, a bit simpler. Basically, have a second currency, call it "scrap" or whatever you like. This way there is a cost for running assaults or other high-end equipment, but your c-bill rewards will never be affected.

As for dealing with AFKers, personally, that seems like a problem PGI should deal with by punishing, all the way up to banning, players, rather then screwing over the rewards system for the majority of players who are actually, well, playing.

Armorpiercer M82, on 15 January 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

removing R+R was realy stupid idea, and its more and more "casual". let this to hawken...

Yeah, this game is never going to be Hawken. Just saying.

[Djarid]

Slide, you nailed it!

I have stopped playing since the last patch. There is just no incentive to log into a pale imitation of what MWO was.

I find it that as the technical aspects improve the gameplay goes in the opposite direction.
Things I miss:
* Collision Damage
* The knockdown mechanic
* A reason to play (econom: no point winning a match now)

[Vassago Rain]

Djarid, on 15 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Slide, you nailed it!

I have stopped playing since the last patch. There is just no incentive to log into a pale imitation of what MWO was.

I find it that as the technical aspects improve the gameplay goes in the opposite direction.
Things I miss:
* Collision Damage
* The knockdown mechanic
* A reason to play (econom: no point winning a match now)

So you're saying you miss the days where your gold nature let you ruin everybody with LRMboating, and you had the advantage over people who didn't know to turn off the auto-repairs and rearms?

You're also saying you'd like a return to the days where you sent a dragon in and knocked everybody over, so the rest of your team could kill them in mere moments?

[hammerreborn]

Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

So you're saying you miss the days where your gold nature let you ruin everybody with LRMboating, and you had the advantage over people who didn't know to turn off the auto-repairs and rearms?

You're also saying you'd like a return to the days where you sent a dragon in and knocked everybody over, so the rest of your team could kill them in mere moments?

Don't forget now he's just an afk/suicide botter, so he doesn't even like playing the game (he says theres no point to winning)

[Ivanzypher]

I agree with the OP 100%. Without RnR theres no reason not to drop in my founders Atlas every match. Or **** out all my mechs with every upgrade under the sun. I'm just hoping it's only removed until CW is implemented, so they can do it properly(salvage rights and all that) rather than it being another victim of "dumb it down for the casuals".

I say this as someone who plays most of his matches as a PUG, or with one friend. Occasionally a full group, but even then, our comms is used more for bad jokes and immature remarks rather than tactics. I never had a problem making money under the old system, even my Atlas would break even at worst. If I needed cash I could just use a Centurion/Commando or something cheap for a bit.

Also, I never once went into battle without full ammo/repairs. Guess I'm just not a douche.

[MaddMaxx]

Thanks for the heads up. I read something else.

[Vassago Rain]

Ivanzypher, on 15 January 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

I agree with the OP 100%. Without RnR theres no reason not to drop in my founders Atlas every match. Or **** out all my mechs with every upgrade under the sun. I'm just hoping it's only removed until CW is implemented, so they can do it properly(salvage rights and all that) rather than it being another victim of "dumb it down for the casuals".

I say this as someone who plays most of his matches as a PUG, or with one friend. Occasionally a full group, but even then, our comms is used more for bad jokes and immature remarks rather than tactics. I never had a problem making money under the old system, even my Atlas would break even at worst. If I needed cash I could just use a Centurion/Commando or something cheap for a bit.

Also, I never once went into battle without full ammo/repairs. Guess I'm just not a douche.

There should never be a reason for you to not drop in a mech you like.

That was one of the earliest things they settled on. Every mech should be viable, and if you like something, you shouldn't have to be in something else before you could be in your favorite.

Now I can get people to play the game with me. I've gotten 6 new players into the game already. Meanwhile, what have you done? Moaned on the forum?

[Sprouticus]

Shockingly, I agree with Vassago.


There are a LOT of reasons why RnR was removed. I have covered them literally half a dozen times, but here is the super short verison why your economic model wont work:

If you have a large disparity between min and max rewards, users at the edge of the Bell curve (very high and very low) will break the economic model. For instance if the reward is 100k for a loss and 500k for a win, people who have a super high win % will be able to afford to drop with any mech they like. And people with a very low win % will be forced into effectively stock mechs. This will give those players a serious advantage/disadvantage. We actually had this system in September and early october and the system WAS broken. I was making 300k per match winning 90% of the time and non founder/premium players were making 50k winning 50% of the time or less.

Additionally, taking off RnR after bonuses was making the Founders, Premium and Hero bonuses roughly 1.5x to 2x the shown percentage. This was due to the bonus being applied before RnR.



If you had a great matchmaking system, and you changed RnR to be linear, you might be able to address these issues. But we don't and we won't for a long time. Unles syou think phase 3 will work perfectly right out of the box. Even then, I dont see where it brings value to the game.


In short, balancing the game on economics is just plain stupid. It adds no value. I do agree that there needs to be some limitaitons for certain equipment, but that should be internal to the game. ECM needs balance. But as you remember, engine sizing needed balance too, and they have addressed that fairly well. With the current engine system engine size is a balancing factor (compare the Cat-1X to 4X) for making mechs unique. Along with other attributes.


RnR on a meta scale as part of CW might add value, It would make CW drops means something (on top of winning planets, resources, etc). But for straight up pug drops it is a terrible idea.

[Taizan]

Narcisoldier, on 15 January 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

Why? The in game result is that people run a cheap workhorse mech for cash and a seriousbusiness mech for competitive drops. Even a Mech Romney is going to drop in his workhorse mech if his serious business mech is eating 70-80% of his earnings every round.

Because imo forcing players to have to play with a weaker "Moneymaker" mechs that they may not prefer is counterproductive in the long run. There could be other mechanics in place ofc, but limiting it through with R&R was in fact not the right approach and only creates an unnecessary disparity between players.

I see the current economic system as an interim solution to get rid of R & R and allow more freedom for the devs and players alike.