Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:24 AM

There are lots of words in this post. If you make a comment without reading the entire post while still critiquing my views, you will be called out on it. If you disagree with any of the following, please state exactly what you disagree with and why.

V 1.0Section 1: A Observation of Current Economic Problems and a quick analysis on what causes them.Section 2: An in depth analysis of an economic system that seeks to fix the problems of the current one.V 1.1Addendum: An in depth analysis of the current economic system, and how it fosters the problems we currently see.V 1.1.1I realized that there are such "Zero Risks" Mechs already in the game. "Trial Mechs" I have edited how "Zero Risk" or "Trial Mechs" would alleviate some NPE problems people seeV 2.0 Section 3: The New Player ExperienceHow NPE should change (for the better)This thread is intended to foster discussion on how risks, rewards, and repair costs should factor into each other within the scope of the current game. That is to say that the notion of Community Warfare should not be considered when making an argument. Yes, this is a Beta, and CW may or may not change how we look at the game's economy, but let's not use that argument in order to ignore the current state of things.Edit: If you do get tired of reading, at least go to the "Putting it all together" spot. If you want more details on any one of those numbers, the explanations are in the post.The ProblemI'm sure you've seen them, those who farm CBills. Afkers, Suicide runs, unarmed and unrepaired pieces of junk sitting back at your base. 35 ton piles of scrap that give the other team another Jenner to harass your team.The CauseSimply put, the structure of the game's reward system. Here's a quick breakdown on how the game (effectively) rewards players:70k for showing up.10k~20k for Personal Performance (for those that play)30k + Salvage (30k~40k) for being on the winning team (a farmer's dream)Every player that walks into the battlefield is guaranteed 70k. Every. Single. One. Unless PGI has made sweeping general changes (afk detection, a general rule for "suiciders," as a note: How would you be able to detect suiciders? It could just be a genuinely bad scout that gets caught in a group of good cicadas. Would you punish someone for being bad instead of malicioius?) we will treat everyone as gaining this baseline 70k.Similarly, everyone that actually plays the game will earn a similar personal performance reward. Damage, kill shots, team work, will all be put into one category of rewards, as you will get these (if you play the game) whether you win or lose.Now, the only difference for anyone on the battlefield in potential earnings (farmers and players alike) is that of the Winning bonus and Salvage, which (within my experience) averages out to about 70k.Now on to the repair costs. This value varies greatly between one build and another. My 4G only has about 30k R&R whereas my Cent-D can have upwards of 100k on a bad day (usually 90k average). Not only this, but I have seen repair bills on larger Mechs of 215k! Two-Hundred-Thousand! To be honest, I do not know the build, or its viability and contribution to the team, but (assuming that it is indeed a credit to the team) that repair bill is roughly 3 times the possible profit. If that build is balanced and viable on the battlefield, R&R would make the build extinct, depriving the battlefield of diversity.The "Perfect" Economy:This will just describe how I see the "Perfect" economy. A Magical place where. Where those that run "expensive" builds and "cheap" builds alike, but make more than enough on a win to cover running costs. The economy that would reward the performers enough to cover repair costs (within, say, 10% of their repair cost) so that if you contribute to the team you are not penalized for losing with a team-based build.But also an economy that encourages team-based builds and discourages nonviable builds. If you build your mech to maximize your personal rewards rather than the rewards of the team, you will die, and you will lose money. Unfortunately, this point is most lofty, and can never be achieved. But, if your team is good, then your "Personal Glory" build could inadvertently contribute to the team dynamic, therefore will be rewarded.Those that go alone die. Those that contribute to the team are rewarded."But, ArmyOfWon," you ask. "How could we achieve this economy? It sounds too good to be true!"The Proposed Solution:Preface:Now, this isn't an order in which to instate these changes. This economic model assumes that the changes happened far in the past, not influencing current matches. This also assumes that players don't have infinite money, or bank rolls "sufficiently large" compared with Repair and Rearm costs to be inconsequential, even with many losses in a row. We are to ignore these cases, because the are outliers in the economic model.Now, we must first address the problem of farmers, afkers, and those unrepaired piles of scrap on the field that only serve to strengthen the other team. (Note: I am not saying that all unarmed, unrepaired Mechs do this. I have had multiple people tell me that they contribute to the team and maximize team potential.) In order to do this, we must make one extremely painful (with respect to the current system, keep your mind open for an entire new system) decision.We mustThis sounds harsh, but only because right now we are dependent upon them. The system that I propose will not have any such dependence.but now, we must balance everything else: Personal performance, Team performance, Repair & Rearm, as well as scale these numbers vs purchases of new Mechs, weapons, and other outside influences.Now, for the next painful change:Right now, with 75% free repair and 75% free rearm, farmers and afkers actually have battle potential. They would still be rewarded in my proposed system (within the next section) without having to repair or rearm. This is not acceptable.Now, the player would be able to make the decision how much to repair, but it would (hopefully) be within your best interest to fully rearm and repair, but you would have the choice to accept less risk for less personal/team rewards.Next, I will make the statement that if the rewards (winning, personal performance in relationship to the team) are not worth the risks (R&R cost), then people will continue to find ways to profit with minimal R&R costs. This will lead to my second tenant of the economy.Now, if we were to compare to current numbers (where winning is 70k and Personal Performance is "Guaranteed" 20k, assuming you actively contribute to the team), then I would say that the most any team-minded build should pay in R&R is 22k. Now, if you were to run more expensive builds you may be losing around 10k for a loss (30k R&R), EDIT: I will now say that Personal Builds should NEVER be profitable on a loss, given you are an incompetent pilot, no matter how "cheap" R&R may be.So, in these cases, your risks are not the full repair bill, but is the difference between Personal Performance/Team Performance (they should ideally be one and the same) and the repair bill. If you were to only repair 75% of your mech, then you would have only a 75% potential battle capacity, and therefore only deal 75% of what you could have in damage, battle time, absorbing damage (even those scouts that distract the Assaults take damage. Those scouts are working for the team and allowing their damage dealers to deal more damage for longer. The more damage these squirrels can take, the more they can potentially distract the enemy, the more good they do for their team. The less they repair their Mech, the less damage they can possibly take, the less risk they take on the battlefield, the less good they do for their team). Therefore, there should be a direct correlation between Repairing Percentages and Personal Performance Rewards. The more you put forward in repairing your mech, the more you can get out of a match.For those running "Cheap" builds, they have *edit* minimal risk. Just as the farmers of today have zero risk for dropping husks and going afk. They spend zero cash on repair (no difference between personal performance and repair) and get 70k rewards. For those running "Expensive builds," they carry some risk, at the prospect of helping the team more and giving more potential to the team, therefore the team would win more often.For those that are not competent to effectively run different classes or roles, there do exist a class of "Zero Risk" Mechs. They are called "Trial Mechs." The current implementation of these rewards breathing over learning, leading to incompetent pilots that stumble their way into their first mech purchase.Currently, the do nothing more than reducing risk to zero and kneecapping returns without explaining, or even showing how your teamplay helps the team. How much damage did you do? How much money would have made for spotting for that LRM? Who the hell knows in their trial mech?Before going on I must say, Always Positive Economies are not good. EDIT: There are "Always Positive Builds" and those are the trial mechs. If you are not competent enough to contribute to the team in any meaningful way (thus reducing the number of matches you win), you should go back to the trial mechs and learn to play better. A Tutorial would also help this situation leaps and bounds. If there was gain for every single build, no matter the win or loss, then there is no risk involved with taking more expensive builds. What we must avoid, though, is punishing new players for losing. Yes, punish them for running their Jenner into the front lines of the enemy's Atlases, but don't punish them for being on the losing team.*EDIT* Also, it should be noted, that the Max Repair Risk should be calculated for being on the Losing Team, and you contribute to the team. If you are on the winning team, Performance Rewards will be more than those on losing teams based on the fact that, well, one team did better than the other.So the reward for winning should be such that the risks are somewhat inconsequential, or more specifically, should be such that the risks are worth taking every single match. The maximum risk (in my proposed example, numbers can be tweaked, but the intent should stay the same) is 10k or so. For the most expensive build. That's the 215k Atlas repair that I was referring to (again, assuming it has team worth and is not "OP"). Now, the usual PUGger (myself included) has a W/L ratio of about 1:1. Hopefully in the future C3 and other VOIP will be default in the game and will allow for more skilled and team-based PUGgers to increase their winnings, compared with the Lone Wolf Pugger out for glory (when I was a newbie, I was guilty of this as well). That said, if Winnings were also 1:1 with risk, then the average PUGger would not make any meaningful progress toward any shiny, new mechs. I propose that the Winning Bonus: Repair should be between 3:1 and 5:1. Where do I get these numbers? Psychological studies have shown that a bird in the hand was worth about 2 2/3rds of birds in the bush (roughly. Unfortunately I cannot find where exactly I read that article. This article here: http://news.wustl.ed.../Pages/570.aspx describes a study that finds a bird in the hand is worth more than 10 in the bush, but that may be too much reward).No "existing" payoff, no reason to afk (in fact, punishment for afk) (0 CB for loss)Performance Earnings ~1:1 with repair costs. (Earned regardless of win or loss)Winnings ~5:1 with Performance-Maximum Repair (Risk)If we were to scale these numbers against existing equipment and mech prices (from 3mil ~ 12 mil), here's how I would price the system:Personal Performance (losing team): 10k~20kWinnings (including Salvage AND performance due to being on the winning team): 80k~100kMost Expensive Repairs: ~30k (still a little wiggle-room. I would even say 40k is acceptable compared with winning gains).Winning a match would net you about 70k, (which is what the current system rewards for winning), but there are no benefits for afk or farming. In fact, the best way to farm would be to ensure that your team wins.As it seems there is still some confusion over my economic structure, I will apply the same analysis of my economic structure to the one we have currently.Loss earnings: 70kPersonal Performance (with loss and repair): 10k-15kWinning Bonus (including extra performance due to winning team and salvage): 70kGuaranteed Income right now (without repair) is 70k + 75% of Potential Performance. So without putting any money down, you can still earn 80k and still lose. Compare this to the huge disparity between Repair costs. For those light mechs whose repair and rearm bills are 20k or 30k, you're still always earning 50k every match, therefore the increased chance of winning for repairing and rearming is at no financial risk for you. Now, let's compare to my personal Cent-D bill, 90k (with repair and rearm both). Even with the loss bonus and my (average loss) performance bonus I would be losing money. And my build isn't the most expensive out there. Those running Atlas builds that run 215k in repair, rearm have a huge incentive to NOT repair or rearm. No matter the bonuses given for winning, it does not compare to the guaranteed 80k of not repairing and losing vs -160k for repairing.Right now, the difference is 30k + salvage + doing a bit better performance-wise compared to losing, which amounts to around 70k. If your R&R isn't a fraction of that, you have little reason to repair.Suiciders, unrepaired mechs, and afkers abound. Earning 80k by doing nothing is much easier than maybe earning 70k more. If you do nothing, you should earn nothing.People have voiced concerns over the New Player Experience problems that this economic model seems to create. These problems exist in the current economic model as well, they are just covered up by (how I've come to call it) "Breathing Rewards."That is a big statement, and if you don't agree with it, please, speak up. Following that tenant, here is how the NPE fits into my model.There are exactly zero risks to piloting a Trial Mech. None. No repair, No rearm. Nothin. If the current "breathing reward" was to be replaced with "Pilot Skill Rewards" as we see on our personal mechs, the following would occur:This is even without a proper tutorial too! For Basic Gameplay aspects, I think it would be quite obvious that "Shoot your gun at enemy mech earns more money than walk into wall" for even the most green newbie. Now, that doesn't mean that the unintuitive aspects to team work (spotting, for example. I didn't even know about "R" target for the longest time) will be laid out for them. A Proper In-Game tutorial (not a youtube video) would educate on the other more subtle aspects that we've come to know and love about MechWarrior games.Now, this post was mainly to lay out a general template for the economy. As I have said (and will say again) Numbers can change, the relationship between numbers should not, and most importantly, we need to let go of the idea that "We need breathing money."

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 15 November 2012 - 03:42 PM.