Jump to content

Stop Being Dense . . . This Is Pay 2 Win.


497 replies to this topic

#1 Protection

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • LocationVancouver

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:48 PM

I wasn't happy with the idea of Hero Mechs (as some may remember my 76 page long discussion against Hero Mechs unavailable to free players). I don't like content being unavailable to free players - especially when that content allows different gameplay options, strategies and tactics that free players can never imitate.

But this is worse that that. PGI is introducing a tiered module system. There will be 3 tiers of coolant flush, 3 tiers of artillery strike, and 3 tiers of air strike. And the highest - most powerful - tier will be off limits to free players.

And this is just the start of a tiered module/consumable system that will extend to future modules and future consumables and future equipment. If we allow it into the game here and now, then it will be there to stay. A tiered, paying for power hierarchy will be established and once entrenched it wont be removed.

I cannot emphasize this enough:

Making the most powerful consumables MC only IS PAYING FOR POWER.

Power that free players cannot have access to, exclusively for paying customers. This is no different than Golden Ammunition. Paying customers are being given, not just options, but black and white, clear as day, power - advantageous improvements over free players.

"But Protection - I can just by a tier one coolant module and a tier two coolant module, and have the same desired effect."

At the cost of a module slot! This is not fair. This is not equal playing fields. This is not competition.

If tow players use a mech with only one module: player A has a paid Tier 3 Large Coolant Flush, where Player B has a Tier 2 Medium Coolant Flush -- and everything else (mech loadout) is the same, then player A has purchased an advantage. By cooling more heat faster, he has improved DPS, improved efficiency, less chance to shutdown. This is an absolute advantage.

To illustrate it in other ways:

Quote


So, someone who pays C-Bills only can get with his 4 module slots (max):

T1 Cooling
T2 Cooling
T1 Airstrike
T2 Airstrike

The same person who drops cash can get:

T3 Cooling
T3 Airstrike
T3 Artillery
Module of their Choice.

See the problem here?


Or how about another:




Quote



Or take a free to play lance, each fitted with:

T2 Cooling
T2 Airstrike
T2 Artillery


Dropping against an identical lance, each with

T3 Cooling
T3 AirStrike
T3 Artillery

Both teams have cooling and calldowns, but the second team has far far more damage to be dealt with all eight of theirs, as well as improved cooling. It's a total advantage.


This is complete and total garbage. This is the exact sort of thing we were repeatedly told that PGI would never resort to, and the kind of thing that they were striving to avoid. This kind of thing is utterly ruinous to competitive play - the team that doesn't spend real money doesn't get to play with the same equipment - but only less powerful substitutes (or fewer of them).

This is completely and utterly ruinous to Mechwarrior: Online - as a competitive game or even as a game that many of us want to play.

PGI, please don't implement consumables in this fashion. Don't make free players less competitive. Don't make free players forced to use inferior equipment, regardless of how hard they grind. Don't ruin game balance in this fashion. You will lose players over this - and ultimately revenues.

Posted Image

Edited by Protection, 05 March 2013 - 01:56 AM.


#2 Tennex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 6,619 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:50 PM

i think we'v seen from ECM they dn't give two ***** about balance.



and oh watchout the are going to put the P2W thread into the coolant thread.

cuz this is clearly about Coolant flush, and not about the P2W manner in which it will be implemented.

Edited by Tennex, 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM.


#3 The Cheese

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,558 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

L1 and 2 coolant pods are stackable when you use one of each. You can't install more than one of each kind.

L3 pods are not stackable with other L3 pods or otherwise.

IE: You can have a single L1 pod and a single L2 pod together, but you can't use a L3 with either of them. L3 pods can only be used on their own.

Edited by The Cheese, 04 March 2013 - 09:55 PM.


#4 Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 488 posts
  • LocationNarnia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

Initiating merging in 3...

#5 LordBraxton

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,585 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

I dont know why people are defending this one. Cant let this happen!

#6 Sybreed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,199 posts
  • LocationQuebec

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostTennex, on 04 March 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

oh watchout the are going to put the P2W thread into the coolant thread.

cuz this is clearly about Coolant flush, and not about the P2W manner in which it will be implemented.


people are getting more and more cynical... can't really blame them...

#7 Noobzorz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

Yup. Definitely in agreement here.

It is a central axiom of competitive gaming that it should be fair. This violates that axiom clearly.

The other thing that is really not up for debate is the empirically demonstrated tendency for smaller P2W advantages leading to "spend money to be in contention at all." This is clearly evident in basically every such game that's been around for long enough. Consider Battlefield Heroes, Age of Empires Online, Crossfire, or World of Tanks.

This really does only go one direction, and if you are ok with this move, it's just because you don't know enough about it to hate it yet.

#8 Windies

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,477 posts
  • LocationFL

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

View PostThe Cheese, on 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

L1 and 2 coolant pods are stackable when you use one of each. Two of each won't work.

L3 pods are not stackable with other L3 pods or otherwise.


Raises another issue in that you can stack all 3 and still get a large advantage through RMT means. It's a effing terrible implementation.

Or still stack 2 just the MC one and the top tier C-Bill one. Doesn't matter how you look at it, it's effing terrible and provides a real money advantage which is what P2W is all about.

Edited by Windies, 04 March 2013 - 09:53 PM.


#9 FromHell2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 734 posts
  • LocationGerm0ney

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:53 PM

View PostAstroniomix, on 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Initiating merging in 3...


Denied! The reason why the coolant-crap is addressed is the simple fact that there isn't everything else atm. but there is more to come. You got it?

#10 BARBAR0SSA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,136 posts
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

I can't believe people are whining about an extra slot being used when it comes down to it

DO YOU WANT THE GAME TO FAIL?! Holy hell, let them make money in a MINIMAL way like so, both get 35% coolant flush with the cbills requiring one more slot.

The ONLY thing i'd say that matters is eliminate the 6 PPC builds!

Also
Coolant flush won't save you from a headshot....

Edited by shad0w4life, 04 March 2013 - 09:55 PM.


#11 KinLuu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,917 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

And there dies competitive play.

I suddently no longer look forward to CW. Casual play it shall be.

#12 Windies

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,477 posts
  • LocationFL

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

[Redacted]

Edited by mcann, 05 March 2013 - 12:55 AM.
the quoted post is moderated, no longer needed a reply to it


#13 Stone Profit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Leftenant Colonel
  • Leftenant Colonel
  • 1,376 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:54 PM

View PostWindies, on 04 March 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:


Raises another issue in that you can stack all 3 and still get a large advantage through RMT means. It's a effing terrible implementation.

Or still stack 2 just the MC one and the top tier C-Bill one. Doesn't matter how you look at it, it's effing terrible and provides a real money advantage which is what P2W is all about.

ARE YOU ********? YOU CANT STACK ALL THREE...

#14 Zylo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts
  • Locationunknown, possibly drunk

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:55 PM

View PostProtection, on 04 March 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

PGI, please don't implement consumables in this fashion. Don't make free players less competitive. Don't make free players forced to use inferior equipment, regardless of how hard they grind. Don't ruin game balance in this fashion. You will lose players over this - and ultimately revenues.

The only way PGI can possibly make this system balanced is by having a single item of each type and listing the item with the MC and C-bill price.

Example:
Large coolant flush 35% heat reduction - 100,000 C-bills or 50MC

#15 Fabe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,041 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:55 PM

View PostWindies, on 04 March 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:


Raises another issue in that you can stack all 3 and still get a large advantage through RMT means. It's a effing terrible implementation.

Or still stack 2 just the MC one and the top tier C-Bill one. Doesn't matter how you look at it, it's effing terrible and provides a real money advantage which is what P2W is all about.

you can not stack all three,that has already been stated in the consumables thread in the command chair fourms

#16 The Cheese

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,558 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, Australia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:56 PM

View PostLordBraxton, on 04 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

I dont know why people are defending this one. Cant let this happen!


Oh, I'm not defending it. I'm just clarifying it. Personally, it doesn't really worry me. I'm just gonna go with it, and if it turns out that the game turns into something I don't like because of it, well, there are other games out there.

#17 KinLuu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,917 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostFabe, on 04 March 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

you can not stack all three,that has already been stated in the consumables thread in the command chair fourms


Does not really matter. MC consumables will still take one module slot less, module slots that could be used for target decay, sensor range, 360 deg and so on. It may be only a small advantage, but it IS an advantage. And this is exactly where Pay2win begins.

#18 Dr Killinger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 1,236 posts
  • LocationJohannesburg, South Africa

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

There's no defending this move. It's an advantage for money. No matter how small it may be, it does not bode well for the future.

#19 Terror Teddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

I'll wait for patch and then playtest and then judge.

#20 benth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 177 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

Posted Image


This is the problem with what they plan to implement.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users