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?
Vassago, that was just perfect. I mean, just perfect, you are awesome.
I still think RnR could make a comeback if it was tied to a different currency, but except for that, it should stay gone IMO.
And yeah, I've heard they want to bring collision back, I hope when they do it has undergone some major revisions because it was a broken, frustrating, and "un-fun" mechanic back when they had it. I was glad to see it go.
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?
The most important, and probably the only important thing, highlighted there. It doesn't matter. Not in the least. This is fighting for the sake of fighting. It has no other purpose than to tide us over until the real war comes. Until that time, we may as well be fighting with wooden swords for all the meaning it has outside of practice and fun. Removing cost doesn't remove the ability to learn to pilot, it removes a boring and occasionally painful task in the current gamestate. Yes, it was survivable/manageable. No, it was not that fun. For this stage of the game, no-RNR is more fun.
Wait until the real war. There will be RNR aplenty. But this is not the real war. This is almost part of a game that will be in the game that has the real war.
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.
That I can certainly agree with. I'd rather get used to it now though.
and yes, PS2 is by far a superior product right now, but for me mwo is by far more fun. different tastes and stuff. LoL for me is the definition of a fair f2p model and for that alone this game has earned my respect. and if ur into moba-style games its great.
Not really I was simply using F2Ps that I had dabbled in.
I play planetside occasionally, but the TTK is so short that its like whack-a-mole half of the times, and there are rarely big epic brawls because there are only two or three bases that you can really mount a defense at.
I quit wow when it went full casual friendly...because it was boring...really boring. and I still play Eve semi-regularly, I no longer have the time (or playtime in the right TZ) to be really active there anymore. Which doesn't stop me from keeping my four accounts active.
Ok, I'm sure everyone will skip this because it contains a little bit of tired cliche' and an absolute wealth of common sense but:
We've all heard the comment "It's a BETA". In most cases in recent history, this is taken to mean "preview of finished product" or "marketing campaign to increase hype". In the case of MwO it's. . a BETA. let me expand on this a little bit.
1) Before you can develop content, you need basic client stability.
this is where we're at now. Things like netcode, memory leaks, basic equipment functionality. . they're all being hammered out to make sure the center core of the game [the combat] is as balanced as they can possibly make it. Note: This does not mean "balance" in terms of what the PLAYER considers balanced, but by what the DEVELOPER considers balanced. If a dev tried to balance a game based solely on user input. . . SHEESH, "broken" wouldn't be the word for it [and ultimately you know I'm right]
2) adding user obtainable equipment.
This is the bread and butter of the game for a lot of people "Mech a' mon" as it were. Outside of technical issues, I feel this is the largest contributing factor to comments like "atlas online" "ECM online" etc. Variants aside, there are really only a few design choices to make at the moment, and as such there's not really a TON of variety to be had when it comes to lance formation/specific lance roles in combat, etc. MY PERSONAL opinion is that this will evolve itself out over time as more and more mechs are added into the game. It's a lot easier to get tactical variety when the player base has 600% more mechs to choose from, and introduction of player's "favorite" mech will help to shape that. Yes, there will always be "boaters", but I'd like to THINK that'd even out over time as we have more of a mix of mechs to choose from, and hence a much broader seeding of lights and mediums into the field.
3) CONTENT:
Last into the mix is content, which PGI hasn't even BEGUN to get into the game yet. I don't know how many people actually READ the PC Gamer article that came with the free skin, but the intention is to have a fully flowing IS with worlds changing hands, etc. . . all the houses and merc companies. . and from the sounds of news net, darker things on the horizon This is the HUGE thing to consider relevant to the actual topic at hand, [refresher: it's the "economy" remember the "economy"? we were talking about the "economy"] Because current "content" is really nothing more than a test deployment of the combat system while they hammer out 1 through 3. It really seems to me that we need active deployment of a lot more of the content before PGI can go back and evaluate how the economy is even going to work. . . but for now we still need SOME form of content/reward/mech acquisition medium, hence the system we currently have. When we start talking about defending capitol worlds from opposing houses or outside invaders, THEN we can begin to talk "pay scale". . doubly so for merc companies and their contracts
Don't get me wrong here, I share a lot of your views on the current system, and I'm another one of the "on again off again" players as a result. I have yet to hit my "activate" button, and I've let my premium time lapse for awhile until they get some more content implemented, though I may pony up for some time this afternoon when Boris is released. I just don't see the point of making a big fuss about something that's going to need an epically massive overhaul once the majority of content has been implemented. Just a few things to think about ^^
Not really I was simply using F2Ps that I had dabbled in.
I play planetside occasionally, but the TTK is so short that its like whack-a-mole half of the times, and there are rarely big epic brawls because there are only two or three bases that you can really mount a defense at.
I quit wow when it went full casual friendly...because it was boring...really boring. and I still play Eve semi-regularly, I no longer have the time (or playtime in the right TZ) to be really active there anymore. Which doesn't stop me from keeping my four accounts active.
yeah, i loved wow when it was released, spent way too much time in it and quit sometime around the second exp. from time to time i talk with them old guildmates, arguing about how everything was better in classic but always admitting, that NONE of us would have the time to actualy play it today.
ps2 doesnt make my own contribution to fights feel meaningful in any way. tkk is realy short (but so it is in cs, and cs( :go) is still a great game), cpu optimizing is nearly as bad as here.
but btt: leave RnR out till meta, and maybe use some kind of "unobtainable with cash" third currency. owned by participating in RnR. there u go. Balance equip vs equip, cost should not play a factor here.
yeah, i loved wow when it was released, spent way too much time in it and quit sometime around the second exp. from time to time i talk with them old guildmates, arguing about how everything was better in classic but always admitting, that NONE of us would have the time to actualy play it today.
ps2 doesnt make my own contribution to fights feel meaningful in any way. tkk is realy short (but so it is in cs, and cs( :go) is still a great game), cpu optimizing is nearly as bad as here.
but btt: leave RnR out till meta, and maybe use some kind of "unobtainable with cash" third currency. owned by participating in RnR. there u go. Balance equip vs equip, cost should not play a factor here.
I think almost everyone quit playing WoW with the second expansion, it just killed the game. lol isnt this how it always is >.< I don't think most gamers have the time to play like they used to.
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.
Never said I had "all" the answers...
You raise a fair point and without creating separate economic tiers for Founders versus non-Founders, the best recourse is to balance the economy for the non-founder so even in an absolute resounding loss that at worst, a non-founder ekes by with enough to R&R at a wash?
I got the reference without the youtube...well played.
DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:
Never said I had "all" the answers...
You raise a fair point and without creating separate economic tiers for Founders versus non-Founders, the best recourse is to balance the economy for the non-founder so even in an absolute resounding loss that at worst, a non-founder ekes by with enough to R&R at a wash?
Its not founders vs non-founders, its just premium time. The founder's mechs aren't that good, usually the least desirable of each chassis (except the Jenner) even then they are flat outstriped by the Hero mechs.
Its just a matter of how fast you acquire money, and I imagine that they are trying to temp people into buying something other than mechbays (I won't even buy camo, that pay scale is ridiculous).
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.
The thing is, whilst your alive taking a beating in your Atlas, your also doing more damage. Nothing packs a punch like an assault mech, so the higher damage you do would offset the higher repair bill. Atleast in theory, noone is saying the old RnR was perfect.
As for the downsides of hightech gear, most of them are pointless. Is it a light mech? Take XL engine! Is it not an assault? Take Endosteel! Have less than X external heatsinks? DHS Awaaaaaay! Can have ECM? Fit ECM!
Another thing I don't get is the whole "RNR is too hard for new players thing" When I first got this game, it was my first ever Mechwarrior title. Excluding the one on the Snes, which I hated anyway. I got founders because my friends talked me into it, for the early access. My first mech was a Large Pulse Laser Awesome. It sucked, horribly. Probably worse than most of the trial mechs. My first few matches I failed horribly. By around 4/5 games I was getting better, contributing to the team, doing some damage etc. After a few days I was alright at the game. It just isn't a difficult game to learn. And this was in the days when LRMs blotted out the sun, and Gausscats were all over the shop. Nowadays I'd rate myself as pretty good, usually top damage in anything medium and up. It certainly took me a lot longer to get good at say, BF2142, or CS.
If a potential player can't even take a few days to get good at a game, they probably aren't the kind of players we want anyway. We want people willing to learn, to adapt and work as a team. Not entitled whiners who cry if they aren't the bestest straight away. Those types never learn, never play as a team and ultimately hurt the game experience.
On a slightly related note, since playing MWO, I have begun playing through the earlier titles, and even started playing Battletech. As a new player I found the experience great. Now with Cadet bonus removing the grind it's better than ever.
The only real reasoning against RnR I can see is "Bads don't wanna make less CBills" and "Casuals don't wanna think"
The thing is, whilst your alive taking a beating in your Atlas, your also doing more damage. Nothing packs a punch like an assault mech, so the higher damage you do would offset the higher repair bill. Atleast in theory, noone is saying the old RnR was perfect.
As for the downsides of hightech gear, most of them are pointless. Is it a light mech? Take XL engine! Is it not an assault? Take Endosteel! Have less than X external heatsinks? DHS Awaaaaaay! Can have ECM? Fit ECM!
Another thing I don't get is the whole "RNR is too hard for new players thing" When I first got this game, it was my first ever Mechwarrior title. Excluding the one on the Snes, which I hated anyway. I got founders because my friends talked me into it, for the early access. My first mech was a Large Pulse Laser Awesome. It sucked, horribly. Probably worse than most of the trial mechs. My first few matches I failed horribly. By around 4/5 games I was getting better, contributing to the team, doing some damage etc. After a few days I was alright at the game. It just isn't a difficult game to learn. And this was in the days when LRMs blotted out the sun, and Gausscats were all over the shop. Nowadays I'd rate myself as pretty good, usually top damage in anything medium and up. It certainly took me a lot longer to get good at say, BF2142, or CS.
If a potential player can't even take a few days to get good at a game, they probably aren't the kind of players we want anyway. We want people willing to learn, to adapt and work as a team. Not entitled whiners who cry if they aren't the bestest straight away. Those types never learn, never play as a team and ultimately hurt the game experience.
On a slightly related note, since playing MWO, I have begun playing through the earlier titles, and even started playing Battletech. As a new player I found the experience great. Now with Cadet bonus removing the grind it's better than ever.
The only real reasoning against RnR I can see is "Bads don't wanna make less CBills" and "Casuals don't wanna think"
what about "it is used as excuse to balance equip vs. cost and not equip vs. equip"? what about "it widens the gap between winner and loser even more!"? what about "its absolutely pointless without a meta-game to actualy support it"?
so there are more reasons than the ones u use to attack the players, not their arguments.
The economy should not be used to balance the game.
The economy should not penalize me for wanting to play an optimized mech.
Instead, the match making system should be used to prevent people like me from playing against those who are new, can't hit water form a boat, couldn't build an efficient mech, etc.
And I'd like a source for this:
"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,"
Edited by RumRunner151, 15 January 2013 - 12:03 PM.
what about "it is used as excuse to balance equip vs. cost and not equip vs. equip"? what about "it widens the gap between winner and loser even more!"? what about "its absolutely pointless without a meta-game to actually support it"?
so there are more reasons than the ones u use to attack the players, not their arguments.
Where does it say parity is a requirement to play MW:O?
All I see in your response is "everyone should have an equal opportunity to to play without need for acknowledgment of gamesmanship or skill".
A pure equipment to equipment balancing mechanic has only one end result... an arms race. To be competitive everyone and anyone will need to race to the most powerful Mech, field the most premium kit and the end result of competition has little to do with equipment and pilot skill and resigns to a war of attrition.
Let's just do away with all the formalities, scrap all the Mechs and have some beige box kitted with all the premium stuff and just play Mech-Quake!
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
Perhaps its because we already had the repair and rearm debate and we're mostly just too worn out on it to reiterate for you the points we already made in ten other threads.
What Taizan says essentially answers your call to reinstate R&R and to make it even more arduous. The economy is a terrible way to encourage build diversity or to balance the game.
As for immersion and a more arduous R&R, pure silly. Why is R&R where you draw your "immersion" line in the sand? R&R isn't representative of the reality of the BT universe in almost any sense. It's not immersion. Immersion in THIS universe would have you piloting a single, well-worn, hand-me-down mech, not a stable full of shiny death machines, and would have you permanently lose the thing if it was cored or if your side lost the battle, not repair and rearm and hop back out there. In fact, I always think the "immersion" crowd deserves true pilot death as their level of immersion... you get headshot, you lose your pilot, and given that your pilot is your account, you lose that too. Have fun starting from scratch, immersives!
New economy allows people to try all sorts of mechs and play what they want. That some builds are a bit cheesy is not a result of the economy but a result of other factors.
I like being able to play different mechs and being able to pug without having to worry that my team will be so awful that when my mech gets shot to ribbons that I won't be able to repair it.
Perhaps its because we already had the repair and rearm debate and we're mostly just too worn out on it to reiterate for you the points we already made in ten other threads.
What Taizan says essentially answers your call to reinstate R&R and to make it even more arduous. The economy is a terrible way to encourage build diversity or to balance the game.
As for immersion and a more arduous R&R, pure silly. Why is R&R where you draw your "immersion" line in the sand? R&R isn't representative of the reality of the BT universe in almost any sense. It's not immersion. Immersion in THIS universe would have you piloting a single, well-worn, hand-me-down mech, not a stable full of shiny death machines, and would have you permanently lose the thing if it was cored or if your side lost the battle, not repair and rearm and hop back out there. In fact, I always think the "immersion" crowd deserves true pilot death as their level of immersion... you get headshot, you lose your polit, and given that your puilot is your account, you lose that too. Have fun starting from scratch, immersives!
You are unreasonably taking it to the nth degree...
There is a happy medium somewhere where we can "play" and have fun but not at the expense of over-simplifying the mechanics and turning MW:O into a repercussion-less FPS.
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!
There is a happy medium somewhere where we can "play" and have fun but not at the expense of over-simplifying the mechanics and turning MW:O into a repercussion-less FPS.
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).
DaZur, on 15 January 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:
Let's just do away with all the formalities, scrap all the Mechs and have some beige box kitted with all the premium stuff and just play Mech-Quake!
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.
And we want people to not play their favorite mechs why? Every piece of tech has its own drawbacks. DHS takes up 3 slots each, ES/FF take up 14 slots, Artemis adds 1 slot and 1 ton per launcher, XL takes up more room and lets you get side torso cored.
Using the economy to balance ECM is just stupid. And NARC/TAG/BAP are bad enough right now that they don't need any more drawbacks.
I don't want to be forced to use some downgraded peice of crap to farm CBills. We get few enough as is. I don't really want to farm at all, but if I have to I want to do it in my favorite mech with all the upgrades and big guns that I want. I got really bored of running my 4P with a pile of SLs in order to turn a decent profit from matches, and I happen to enjoy running my Centurions with XL engines and not losing CBills as a result.
You are unreasonably taking it to the nth degree...
There is a happy medium somewhere where we can "play" and have fun but not at the expense of over-simplifying the mechanics and turning MW:O into a repercussion-less FPS.
It IS a repercussionless FPS. Unless CW was added in the last patch as a stealth update, this game is currently pure combat for the sake of pure combat.
3
Vassago Rain, on 15 January 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:
This is the HUGE thing to consider relevant to the actual topic at hand, [refresher: it's the "economy" remember the "economy"? we were talking about the "economy"] Because current "content" is really nothing more than a test deployment of the combat system while they hammer out 1 through 3. It really seems to me that we need active deployment of a lot more of the content before PGI can go back and evaluate how the economy is even going to work. . . but for now we still need SOME form of content/reward/mech acquisition medium, hence the system we currently have. When we start talking about defending capitol worlds from opposing houses or outside invaders, THEN we can begin to talk "pay scale". . doubly so for merc companies and their contracts 
