130 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Is this a thread a discussion in regards to the viable aspect of R&R or some social commentary pitting the "have" against the "have not"?

The premise that an economy makes the game "less fun" is a straw man argument... "fun" is not the mechanic but the by-product.

I don't care if the balancing agent is monetary or Gummy Bears but their needs to be "something" in place to incentify a player into making logical choices.

If you tactically are a good enough player to field a premium Mech with premium equipment and through your proficiency in game-play can support the operating costs associated with fielding this Mech, this is how it should be.

If you are a scrub who can't manage to eek out enough post-match winnings to support this Mech, you either need to pilot it better or you need to field a more cost-effective build or step down to a less costly Mech.

Let's dispense with this socialistic entitlement bull-pucky...

[Tarman]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Yup... Assault Mechs filled to the brim with premium equipment that for all intent and purpose should be handled with white gloves due to the rarity and prohibitive cost to operate. Premium Mechs that are piloted like Yugos in a demolition derby because... "Meh... I don't care if it gets demolished because I feel no repercussion for piloting it like a moron".

One doesn't wear an Armani 3-piece suit to work on a car unless you can afford to do so... Unless it's MW:O in it's current iteration.

You're not going to work on a car in an Armani, you're armouring your eternal avatar to do battle in a meaningless arena that has no other value except the combat itself.

There is no metagame, none. It does not exist outside the minds of players. There is no in-game universe for an economy to spring from. In this context RNR is a pointless millstone to hang onto any player when there is no purpose but for it to be a millstone. There is precious little game in this game; to ensure its unenjoyability is to wish death for the entire game.

Let there be purpose, let me take planets in the name of blood and money, and I will wear the millstone of RNR and gladly. It will make me feel extra cool as I grind sector patrol misssions in a run-down Hunchie so I don't waste the Atlas until I need it. In Robot Valhalla where battle is all we have, it is a hindrance to fun. With no CW, the game at least needs to be fun or it will not live long enough to develop any CW.

[Vassago Rain]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Is this a thread a discussion in regards to the viable aspect of R&R or some social commentary pitting the "have" against the "have not"?

The premise that an economy makes the game "less fun" is a straw man argument... "fun" is not the mechanic but the by-product.

I don't care if the balancing agent is monetary or Gummy Bears but their needs to be "something" in place to incentify a player into making logical choices.

If you tactically are a good enough player to field a premium Mech with premium equipment and through your proficiency in game-play can support the operating costs associated with fielding this Mech, this is how it should be.

If you are a scrub who can't manage to eek out enough post-match winnings to support this Mech, you either need to pilot it better or you need to field a more cost-effective build or step down to a less costly Mech.

Let's dispense with this socialistic entitlement bull-pucky...

People can buy the best mechs with real money, even if they have no idea how to drive them.

Do you support P2W in games? I know I do, but what about you? The game was very slanted towards this under the mythical economy, that wasn't really an economy.

I had 255857257959258925 millions, all the mechs in the world, and each game, I kept getting richer and richer, but at the expense of worse players, who didn't have all the mechs, and weren't rich enough to run all the fancy stuff. They usually didn't know you could avoid about 75% of all repair costs by not refilling ammo.

[MustrumRidcully]

XWorldEaterX, on 15 January 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

I am surprised that with all the Elite(not sure if thats the correct word) players on these forums that most of you wouldnt just rather have R&R for when you survive and only get scrap when you are destroyed forcing you to buy your mech again. Thats how it would work in the real battletech universe right?(being serious, never played TT)

That sounds like it would be a decent idea for community warfare since more is suppose to be at stake. But how many would be willing to go out on to the battlefield if death meant grinding out all those cbill again.



Also to the person who replied to me about people only bringing assault. I have been playing a lot and this is just not true. The only thing I see that is like this is the lights, I do see non ecm versions sometimes but they don't last long and I see way more ecm ravens and com then other lights.

He may have been talking about 8v8 Premades. There, Atlas DDC and Raven 3L are the two primary choices for most, simply because ECM is so important, and there is no team balancing for 8v8 - if one team comes with 8 stock Commandos and the other comes with 8 ECM Atlai, then that's how it's gonna be, even if it's completely unbalanced. Premades that want to avoid such emberassing situations stay on the safe side.

But that is just a sign of how important match-making is. Back in Closed Beta, we could see similar things - people typically preferred heavier mechs since it meant the team composition would be more in their favor. Once the match-maker started balancing by weight class, things loosened up - if you knew your Jenner would only be matched against another Jenner or Commando, it was okay to pick one.

And only after all that we got R&R (and it brought us trial-suicide farmers and AFK farmers in droves we had never seen before - not that they didn't exist, but not that many).

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 January 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Sayyid]

Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

Yeah, all those games are bad. Terrible games.

That's why their players number in the millions, while we have maybe half a million total signed up for ours, right?

There is an old saying.

Quantity has a quality on its own.

Honestly all of those games are bad, but it doesnt mean that MWO has to follow suite to get play numbers. You produce crap you will attract crap, it is simple as that.

[XWorldEaterX]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 January 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

He may have been talking about 8v8 Premades. There, Atlas DDC and Raven 3L are the two primary choices for most, simply because ECM is so important, and there is no team balancing for 8v8 - if one team comes with 8 stock Commandos and the other comes with 8 ECM Atlai, then that's how it's gonna be, even if it's completely unbalanced. Premades that want to avoid such emberassing situations stay on the safe side.

But that is just a sign of how important match-making is. Back in Closed Beta, we could see similar things - people typically preferred heavier mechs since it meant the team composition would be more in their favor. Once the match-maker started balancing by weight class, things loosened up - if you knew your Jenner would only be matched against another Jenner or Commando, it was okay to pick one.

And only after all that we got R&R (and it brought us trial-suicide farmers and AFK farmers in droves we had never seen before - not that they didn't exist, but not that many).

Thats what I figured but he made it sound like everyone drive assault because there is no R&R. I should have quoted it but I was already half way through my post when I thought about it.

[FrostBear]

Agree Sir,

good post, and it falls into the same sight of me, to keep a mech running you allways were on the hard road of earn enough cbills to keep all costs, thats why mercs try to get risky and hard contracts, thats why they try to fokus fire and take as less dmg as possible. Cause even the closest ending of a fight, can ruin them. Big mechs cost lot of money.
Hope really, we will se someday, Mechwarrior as it should be as a challenge and a fun game, they can make a two mode game. With the Economy cost for the mercs and player which love the lore and merc life for CWs and without for the wanna shoot and dont care player.

See you all on the Field

Tai-i FrostBear hails Kurita!

[Aym]

Ivanzypher, on 15 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

I don't see how enjoying the RnR mechanic means someone doesn't enjoy the game. It just means they enjoy consequences for playing like a derp and losing your arms every match. I have around 10 mechs. I also use them all. They are all levelled as much as they can be(pesky 3 variant requirement) I also played all of them(well, the ones I had) with RnR. I never felt like I couldn't use my Atlas, just that if I didn't play well in it, I wouldn't turn a profit. I just didn't have a problem with that.

As for your second paragraph, how else can they balance the hightech gear? ECM is powerful. Endosteel is flat out superior to regular. There is currently no reason to ever not use these things. The only way to balance flat upgrades is with an economy.

If you play "well" in your Atlas you would lose arms and go "Derp at least I'm still taking fire and putting out damage like it's my job." If you didn't play well you wouldn't lose an arm EVER because you'd get a nice cheap coring to your CT. Your argument for "playing better because of RnR" is invalid. The longer you survive taking damage the higher your repair bill, and the more shots you survive to take the higher your re-arm. Where you get your ideas for RnR making people play better is beyond me, maybe in your pen-and-paper role playing group it would, but not here in this video game.
They can balance high tech gear they way they ARE balancing high tech gear, pro's and cons. XL's are lighter but take more crit slots and make you much easier to kill (depending on chassis sometims). Endo is better than regular, IF you have the crit slots (Pro-tip no assaults have the space, some heavies don't!) DHS is really the only case I can see made for something that is ALWAYS better than not having it, but there I'd like to see all trial mechs get the 2 heat efficiencies at least, maybe all the basic efficiencies and the heat ones doubled to make life easier on new recruits still learning the gameplay.

[John Norad]

Sprouticus, on 15 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

There are a LOT of reasons why RnR was removed.

I don't know. The one big reason I see is that is was badly thought out. Of course it is easier to remove it instead of fixing it, but still I would've preferred a fix.
Maybe they'll re-do the economy once the game is more or less feature-complete. That would make sense, since something like economy tends to be rather complex, if it's supposed to work well.

[FrostPaw]

It strikes me that the R&R is not a reason people didn't like playing, I conclude this because WoT has exactly this and it gathered over 10million players last time I bothered checking.

I think the issue is PGI don't know what audience they want.

[XWorldEaterX]

Aym, on 15 January 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

If you play "well" in your Atlas you would lose arms and go "Derp at least I'm still taking fire and putting out damage like it's my job." If you didn't play well you wouldn't lose an arm EVER because you'd get a nice cheap coring to your CT. Your argument for "playing better because of RnR" is invalid. The longer you survive taking damage the higher your repair bill, and the more shots you survive to take the higher your re-arm. Where you get your ideas for RnR making people play better is beyond me, maybe in your pen-and-paper role playing group it would, but not here in this video game.
They can balance high tech gear they way they ARE balancing high tech gear, pro's and cons. XL's are lighter but take more crit slots and make you much easier to kill (depending on chassis sometims). Endo is better than regular, IF you have the crit slots (Pro-tip no assaults have the space, some heavies don't!) DHS is really the only case I can see made for something that is ALWAYS better than not having it, but there I'd like to see all trial mechs get the 2 heat efficiencies at least, maybe all the basic efficiencies and the heat ones doubled to make life easier on new recruits still learning the gameplay.

I agree with this for the most part but in what situation would you not have the room for endo? I think the only build I had this happen was a stalker ppc build. (I still don't fully understand how ferro armor works so maybe there is times you take it over endo)

Also xl engines prevent you from mounting AC/20s in shoulders. I don't know all the other weapons in TT but there might be other weapons like this that will make it an advantage to bring a standard engine.

[Yokaiko]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Is this a thread a discussion in regards to the viable aspect of R&R or some social commentary pitting the "have" against the "have not"?

The premise that an economy makes the game "less fun" is a straw man argument... "fun" is not the mechanic but the by-product.

I don't care if the balancing agent is monetary or Gummy Bears but their needs to be "something" in place to incentify a player into making logical choices.

If you tactically are a good enough player to field a premium Mech with premium equipment and through your proficiency in game-play can support the operating costs associated with fielding this Mech, this is how it should be.

If you are a scrub who can't manage to eek out enough post-match winnings to support this Mech, you either need to pilot it better or you need to field a more cost-effective build or step down to a less costly Mech.

Let's dispense with this socialistic entitlement bull-pucky...

So can they call you a gold too?

[Sprouticus]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Is this a thread a discussion in regards to the viable aspect of R&R or some social commentary pitting the "have" against the "have not"?

The premise that an economy makes the game "less fun" is a straw man argument... "fun" is not the mechanic but the by-product.

I don't care if the balancing agent is monetary or Gummy Bears but their needs to be "something" in place to incentify a player into making logical choices.

If you tactically are a good enough player to field a premium Mech with premium equipment and through your proficiency in game-play can support the operating costs associated with fielding this Mech, this is how it should be.

If you are a scrub who can't manage to eek out enough post-match winnings to support this Mech, you either need to pilot it better or you need to field a more cost-effective build or step down to a less costly Mech.

Let's dispense with this socialistic entitlement bull-pucky...

Wow dude, you are reading WAY more into this than anyone is saying. The only person making socioeconomic judgements here is you.

First, this is not the real world. No game has ever been successful in the US being as hard as the real world. Unlike the real world, player have the choice to leave this one. There is a reason grind Asian MMO's have never caught on in the US. We dont see value in it.

I'm not saying it should be easy, you should have to strive for goals. But all you do by making the game you just described is kill it with lack of population. People who play better should advance faster, have more mechs, and thus more options on what to drop. People who advance slower pay the price for that by having fewer options in game,

[XWorldEaterX]

FrostPaw, on 15 January 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

It strikes me that the R&R is not a reason people didn't like playing, I conclude this because WoT has exactly this and it gathered over 10million players last time I bothered checking.

I think the issue is PGI don't know what audience they want.

I looked at world of tanks recently and it just feel more... massive. I mean the tanks were able to move around in the town and the building were way larger then them and the maps seems way bigger. The environment was destructible and the one video I saw had him flanking the enemy.

When you flank in MWO you get swarmed by 8 guys in about 5 seconds.

[Yokaiko]

XWorldEaterX, on 15 January 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

I agree with this for the most part but in what situation would you not have the room for endo? I think the only build I had this happen was a stalker ppc build. (I still don't fully understand how ferro armor works so maybe there is times you take it over endo)

Also xl engines prevent you from mounting AC/20s in shoulders. I don't know all the other weapons in TT but there might be other weapons like this that will make it an advantage to bring a standard engine.

You never, ever take FF over endo, you put endo on if you just happen to have enough crit slots left and you aren't max armor.....that is really the only reason. I have FF on two mechs, and one came with it. Endo steel is often left off of assaults, simply because you need the room for heatsinks assaults tend to have heavy loadouts or simply high heat loadouts.

I think out of the 7 assaults I own only one has endosteel, and that was mainly due to the monster engine I have in it (also standard)

[vonWeber]

Point is, RnR does nothing of the things you are saying it does. "Wallet warriors" will still drive the "best" equipment, regardless of their skill. hi @ pay2win. Equipment needs too be balanced vs. equipment. not against maintenance cost.
also LoL and co. are far from bad games. but it makes people feel elitist to call them bad. same thing for the "twitch player" phrase which is also complete bull.
Without meta-game there is no need for RnR, simple as that.

[Yokaiko]

FrostPaw, on 15 January 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

It strikes me that the R&R is not a reason people didn't like playing, I conclude this because WoT has exactly this and it gathered over 10million players last time I bothered checking.

I think the issue is PGI don't know what audience they want.

Pretty much, they have been promising one thing and doing another since CB.

.....now they pretty much just stopped. Do we really know what CW is going to incorporate? No, they aren't saying anything about it.

[DaZur]

Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

People can buy the best mechs with real money, even if they have no idea how to drive them.

Do you support P2W in games? I know I do, but what about you? The game was very slanted towards this under the mythical economy, that wasn't really an economy.

I had 255857257959258925 millions, all the mechs in the world, and each game, I kept getting richer and richer, but at the expense of worse players, who didn't have all the mechs, and weren't rich enough to run all the fancy stuff. They usually didn't know you could avoid about 75% of all repair costs by not refilling ammo.

Yes... anyone can buy premium Mechs... question is are they good enough to support their operational costs? Right now... it doesn't matter. Proficient or not, anyone can run premium stuff with no fear of consequence.

It's not pay to win... cheese builds and premium Mechs do not guarantee proficiency and performance. R&R however will incentify those who do play well as well as encourage use of mid-tier Mechs as a logical and viable option.

255857257959258925 millions, all the mechs in the world - Clearly... you were a very good pilot?

Yokaiko, on 15 January 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

So can they call you a gold too?

I'm called a lot of things... Most not too flattering.

[Yokaiko]

vonWeber, on 15 January 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Point is, RnR does nothing of the things you are saying it does. "Wallet warriors" will still drive the "best" equipment, regardless of their skill. hi @ pay2win. Equipment needs too be balanced vs. equipment. not against maintenance cost.
also LoL and co. are far from bad games. but it makes people feel elitist to call them bad. same thing for the "twitch player" phrase which is also complete bull.

No really, I thought they were both crap. Planetside 2 has some potential, but they need to tighten up the bases so you don't have all three factions zerging around each other and just base trading.

Also sorely lacking in the meta-game department, but its at least a complete product.

Sprouticus, on 15 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Without meta-game there is no need for RnR, simple as that.

That I can certainly agree with. I'd rather get used to it now though.

[vonWeber]

DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Yes... anyone can buy premium Mechs... question is are they good enough to support their operational costs? Right now... it doesn't matter. Proficient or not, anyone can run premium stuff with no fear of consequence.

It's not pay to win... cheese builds and premium Mechs do not guarantee proficiency and performance. R&R however will incentify those who do play well as well as encourage use of mid-tier Mechs as a logical and viable option.

255857257959258925 millions, all the mechs in the world - Clearly... you were a very good pilot?


I'm called a lot of things... Most not too flattering.

so tell me, how do you balance premium vs non premium /founder vs. non founder? in your world its ok, that a premium player doesnt need to be as good as a non premium player to bring the same equipment to battle. and its ok, that equipment isnt balanced vs alternative equipment but vs some artifical cost, payable with real money. the hole argument to use RnR as balancing factor is just bull...
and wot NEEDS repair costs because it has TIERS. think about it, maybe u will understand the fundamental differences between the 2 games, maybe u wont.