Scrapping Settings Punitive

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Legion
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:12 pm
Location: There you are.

Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Legion » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:39 am

So. Yeah. I dislike the scrapping settings. Now I am being punished for winning. It's annoying and discourages me from playing.

Net Pay: -2,373 CBills (Gross Pay: +4,222 CBills, Bay Rental: -6,595 CBills)

I have 15 mediums. I do not want them all. Yet I cannot donate them or scrap them. My Factionmates cannot take them, as there aren't enough Factionmates (perhaps due to certain server settings?), and when they are on they have full bays also.

TIA

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:15 am

What's TIA? I feel the low player count is because we are due for a reset already, im not sure I would pin it on server settings

And holy, that bay rental cost!

Edit: I think the bay rental cost really needs looking at, or possibly even removed. No point charging rental when players dont have fine control over what they have in their hanger

User avatar
Legion
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:12 pm
Location: There you are.

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Legion » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:30 pm

Thanks in advance, dirty birdie.

Yeah, 15 mediums will do that to you.

Also with locked pilots, it makes it hard for viable armies to be fielded... But that's another issue entirely.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:25 pm

I must add though, if you win more than you lose you must take an active interest in clearing your hanger. This means trying to combat scrap your units whenever the chance presents itself, as well as retiring units that get overlevelled. By following these principles I have kept my levels and hanger under control. I also try to sell off units on the BM extremely cheap. Failing to do all this will see your hanger rapidly filled with levelled units you can't use competitively, or just simply accumulating too many units

Average or poor players can count on high natural hanger churn, you probably cant count on that

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:25 pm

I like what we have for settings. However, I suffer from the same problems you do (when I play, which isn't often lately) Though I probably don't suffer to the same extent. In previously voicing my support I didn't consider, and probably didn't realize the challenge it would create for very successful players.

It does seem a little silly to have to "combat scrap" units. Intentionally have units die in combat. Do just enough damage with them so they are useful but have them blow up.

We are limited by the settings. Turning on scrapping allows for scrapping all the time. We can make it crazy expensive, but that just limits the ability to scrap to good players. If possible, I would propose scrapping only units that are considered "heavily damaged" (red in the hangar) and only during the "scrap phase." So fix them or get rid of them, after the post-battle phase is complete you are stuck with it until it gets torn up. Which is pretty much what goes on in 3025. Only if we turned on parts production in the campaign and scrapped units for parts would it be more "realistic." I don't propose that at all. I toyed with that on my own server (when the Co6 existed and I wanted to learn settings) I did not like it.

You do hit on an interesting idea, hangar rental costs. We have used those for years to encourage diverse hangars (as far as weight classes) We had scrapping then, however. So perhaps they should be reduced because players cannot control their hangars as readily as they once could.

Concerning viable armies, I do like this handicap. Good players have to field armies with crazy levels or they have to retire the units. I'd be for retirement after 2 levels but I haven't seen anything to indicate Tuco is for that. (Unless the server settings changed and he didn't tell us)

Honestly, I wish we had this 5 or 7 years ago. So many problems would have been fixed by not allowing scrapping at all. I do think we would have had to adjust things like bay costs. No scrapping removes the challenges of Hangar Jockeys, reduces the challenges of Army Quality differences between strong and weak players. It also makes it reasonable to allow sale on the BM and have an open BM.

So perhaps adjusting hangar costs down is prudent.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by TigerShark » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:24 pm

Outsider's opinion warning

This is (technically) a Succession Wars server, isn't it? Why not simply allow people to play with damaged units? They'd 'blow up' naturally.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:50 am

Nastyogre wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:25 pm
It does seem a little silly to have to "combat scrap" units. Intentionally have units die in combat. Do just enough damage with them so they are useful but have them blow up.
Can I just clarify a little what i mean by "combat scrap"? Perhaps its a poor choice of words. I don't mean deliberately play in a way to cause unit death, and by extension, game loss. I kind of meant not surrendering early when the game turns against you and playing till you lose units to auto-resolve.

For context, Legion and I were actually discussing this issue off forum and I observed that in the past few games we played, he surrendered without even losing a unit, because he didn't want to "waste" units when losing a game to a vet. While I certainly understand the sentiment, I don't think its the correct approach to take in the current environment we have. Without the ability to scrap and manage our hangers, combat units are short term assets (they help you get games and win them) and significant long term liabilities (they level up beyond a useful point, clog up your hanger so its difficult to get newer and more suitable units). Given how fast levelling occurs, in my mind, that makes all units almost single-use and disposable.

So, in the occasion that RNG decides to f**k with you and a loss is certain, you should not surrender just to save that 2/5 LGB.

Hope that clarifies.

Edit: In Legion's case here, its a situation where he is overly focused on the asset value of his units, while ignoring the fact that they are bigger longer run liabilities. In short, he loves them too much LOL

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:51 pm

I knew what you meant, OP. I really meant the same thing. Though I've gone so far as to take a unit I needed to have die (badly leveled, or difficult to pair with lancemates) and used it as the main combatant. If you drop an enemy unit and get your unit killed, then then plan worked. It's not throwing the game. Think of leading with a Centurion and not backing off as you get worn down. You have tons of ammo. They often go up like roman candles.
(Though to be honest, Centurions are rarely the unit that is a problem, high survivability units are. PHX, WVR, LGB)

If Legion's problem is as you describe, then, in part, it is a problem of his own making. You just have to take losses to control your hangar now. I'm not for any proposal that allows for hangar cycling or rewards early surrenders (at least not without taking a loss)

Perhaps we should pair that with a limitation to surrendering. Unable to surrender unless a unit is dead or in the salvage pool. That would solve the problem to some extent. I'm not for draconian rules so much however.

I don't know if units are single use. I view units as having a lifespan.
4/5's. Main use
3/5 for Firepower units, 4/4 for Mobility units: Stars of the Show
2 levels: Possibly a liability (4/3 Warhammer-R) Or paired with cheaper friends as "Super Unit"
3 Levels: Retired unless optimally leveled and a High Quality unit.

I don't really do the above with these settings though. I just play it. I've got some Blackjacks that are dumb 4/3 etc. Whatever. I just play. We win, lose or die.

Gambit
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Gambit » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:49 pm

I think one of the main problems is now that you go online and nobody is there. You can not even combat kill units if ist goes the way:
You have arrived on the front lines!
Intelligence reports the following attack options:
Army 0:
Army 1:
Army 3:
Lyran Commonwealth(4)
[Capture, Epic Capture, Hit'n'Run, Patrol, Pillage, Sabotage, Strategic Invasion]
Army 4:
Army 5:

You are on your way to Alchiba (Strategic Invasion, -1,000cbs, -100flu).
Serena did not defend a Free Worlds League attack on Alchiba(#0) in time. Lyran Commonwealth lost 1cp from the world
Faction Ranking: Lyran Commonwealth (-676/45424), Draconis Combine (-587/43013), Capellan Confederation (-312/22688), Comstar (0/1100), Periphery (+100/22800), Free Worlds League (+536/35736), Federated Suns (+1039/53939).
Serena did not defend a Free Worlds League attack on Alchiba(#0) in time. Lyran Commonwealth lost 1cp from the world
[!] A Lyran Commonwealth unit left the front lines and may no longer be attacked. [Report]
Attack #0 was cancelled because no potential defenders remained (+1,000cbs, +100flu).

Only players around, Serena, Tuco and me.
and as some ideas why building armies gets difficult:
[21:47] Gambit [FWL]: My unit: #3281801 MAD-3M (4/3) [0 EXP ] Kills: 3 Built by Free Worlds League on Bernardo. BV: 1736 Is Fully Functional
[21:47] Gambit [FWL]: My unit: #3275242 Behemoth Heavy Tank (Standard) (3/4) [0 EXP ] Kills: 2 Training Unit. BV: 1619 Is Fully Functional
[21:47] Gambit [FWL]: My unit: #3282436 FS9-K (4/3) [93 EXP ] Kills: 3 Built by Lyran Commonwealth on Hesperus II. BV: 992 Is Fully Functional
[21:47] Gambit [FWL]: My unit: #3284074 MAD-3R (4/3) [0 EXP ] Kills: 1 Sold by mysterious figures. BV: 1772 Is Fully Functional
[21:47] Gambit [FWL]: My unit: #3277749 QKD-4G (3/4) [0 EXP ] Kills: 5 Training Unit. BV: 1645 Is Fully Functional.

retiring at 2 levels would be usefull

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:51 am

Gambit wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:49 pm
I think one of the main problems is now that you go online and nobody is there
Reset time maybe?

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:22 am

Nastyogre wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:51 pm

I don't know if units are single use. I view units as having a lifespan.
4/5's. Main use
3/5 for Firepower units, 4/4 for Mobility units: Stars of the Show
2 levels: Possibly a liability (4/3 Warhammer-R) Or paired with cheaper friends as "Super Unit"
3 Levels: Retired unless optimally leveled and a High Quality unit.

I don't really do the above with these settings though. I just play it. I've got some Blackjacks that are dumb 4/3 etc. Whatever. I just play. We win, lose or die.
I kind of have a similar approach, perhaps "single use" is again not the right terms to use :) But lance construction and hanger management has to revolve around level management with the current settings. My approach:

4/3, 3/4 - Fielded with priority. Every one of these is in a lance. Either they die, or they level, in which case, its retirement and a new 4/5 or hanger space

3/5, 4/4 - i field one per lance. together with the 4/3 and 3/4, this makes it so that every lance has 3 levels.

4/5 - unlevelled filler. critical for the lance to be competitive. The most important components of a hanger. Each one is a precious gem

I don't field anything with 3 level ups, even a "high quality" unit. You are only saying this Nasty because you haven't played games enough this cycle. They are just too costly in terms of 4/5s needed to make the lance competitive. a 2/4 WHM with 3 x 4/5s means i'm using so many 4/5s as to make my other lances noncompetitive.

The settings are definitely tougher for strong players to handle this cycle. I agree with you though, that part of Legion's problem is self created. Actually Legion has five 3 level-up mechs. I did suggest that he retire those, but he didn't take my suggestion.

FYI, I have 9 medium mechs and 9 light mechs, a bit more than optimal, and bay rental costs are 355 cbills. I'm not sure if the legacy setting of increasing rental costs above 6 per weight class is still needed.


Another point of interest, but perhaps we could take this in a new topic:
Edit: moved to cycle feedback

Gambit
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Gambit » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:27 pm

I think he no scrapping after games has a lots of drawbacks.

I had to epair a freaking Stinger R
Repairs have begone on your STG-3R At a Cost of 1,314cbs

Was damaged badly but not destroyed.

Sorry that is no fun this way

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:47 pm

Repairs have begone on your STG-3R At a Cost of 1,702cbs

=)

But... to tell the truth I don't mind. Even a STG-3R is useful when there's no bv spread to worry about

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by Jackal » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:29 pm

So I haven't been on MMNet for quite a while (I'm making an effort to come back though). Since I haven't been around, take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

So I run an internet startup in real life. In that world we constantly have to think in terms of trade offs. Some changes to the product have good intentions behind them, but they end up losing users. This no scrapping issue MAY be an example of such a situation. The intentions may be right, but the 'cure' may be worse than the disease.


Anyway, I think Nasty Ogre has the right idea—allow scrapping of critically damaged (red) units ONLY. That would mean you can only scrap units by playing battles with them. Thus if you pull a unit, you have to use it.

I'd even go so far as to suggest making such scraps free. That way both rich and poor players have the same opportunity to scrap, thus making it a level playing field.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Scrapping Settings Punitive

Post by obese pigeon » Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:31 am

Hey Jackal, long time no see. Clearly you aren't making enough of an effort to come back :)

I actually really like the current no-scrap settings. I'm a 'use what i get' type of player, so the cycle settings including no bv spread are great for me. When scrapping was prevalent in cycles past, one really irritating problem was the the faction pilot pool would often be filled with levelled pilots from the scrapped units of faction mates. That problem is gone now fortunately. Now when i pick up a new unit, more likely than not, its an unlevelled unit!

Also I like that cherry-picking and hanger tuning are all but impossible these days. Then again, i'm speaking as a vet who has been there done that, I can see why tuning your hanger might be appealing to some players

Post Reply