243 replies to this topic

[FrozenAnt]

I agree that making this similar to a "founders" package is a little disrespectful to the guys who purchased the real founders package. However I am all for the "Bundles" thing

I think it's totally reasonable to offer a pack of clan mechs, decals, colors, slightly different model variations, along with some premium time. I wouldn't buy it just because im not a dirty clanner

I might buy the faction package, depending on what it includes. As most of the IS mechs are already out, I don't think offering mechs is the way to go.

Maybe house specific skins, colors, model variations, or some kind of faction perk would be cool.

[Pando]

FrozenAnt, on 30 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

I agree that making this similar to a "founders" package is a little disrespectful to the guys who purchased the real founders package. However I am all for the "Bundles" thing

I think it's totally reasonable to offer a pack of clan mechs, decals, colors, slightly different model variations, along with some premium time. I wouldn't buy it just because im not a dirty clanner

I might buy the faction package, depending on what it includes. As most of the IS mechs are already out, I don't think offering mechs is the way to go.

Maybe house specific skins, colors, model variations, or some kind of faction perk would be cool.

It's the loyalty point increase bro!

[Pando]

Morning bump!

[Elder Thorn]

Pando, on 29 March 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

.

Alois Hammer, on 29 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

They played it up as being their core intent...

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

MechWarrior Online is, and will always be, a game focused on 1st person combat in Mechs. That experience is sacrosanct to the classic Mechwarrior experience.

...of course this was also in context of "But we're 'looking into' third person anyway," which then later turned into "grab your ankles, you're getting third person so all you trolls who came out in force against 3pv can help us do it in as inoffensively as possible, or suck it."

There it was, thanks Alois.
So i remembered wrong about where i read that, have to admit that. Think that was even after i purchased the founder's package.
But still. This makes it hard for me to say "yes, i would totally buy another 'support' package". Again, whoever would go for it: do it, whoever judges you negativly for that is an *****.
Also you should not forget the rest of Garth's post there:

Garth Erlam, on 16 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Hi Mechwarriors,

So Russ let slip in an interview with No Guts No Galaxy we are looking into a 3rd person view option. It seems a lot of people are unhappy with this, so we’d like to explain our thought process here.

For reference, we also strongly recommend listening to Russ’s comments, as he provides a clear case for our approach.

Over the course of development, we’ve had a huge number of requests for a 3^rd person camera option. At this early stage, it’s something we feel that warrants further analysis, understanding and exploration.

MechWarrior Online is, and will always be, a game focused on 1st person combat in Mechs. That experience is sacrosanct to the classic Mechwarrior experience.

If we find that there is a relevant role for an optional 3^rd person camera mode, then then would simply be an additional option that, if you don’t want it, won’t affect you. Bryan will be writing a detailed Command Chair post on this (he's currently at 40,000 feet, and not by Jump Jetting) with more details. For now, be assured we're acutely aware of past problems with 3rd person view, and will make sure those same issues are thoroughly addressed. We wouldn’t settle for anything less.

Cheers,
The MechWarrior Online Team

We just have to hope they manage to do it right.

Just for the records: I don't want this thread to derail to another discussion about pro or contra 3rd person. This is just the reason why I, personally, would not support OP's idea and from my understanding, this is what this thread and posts adressed to me are about

Edited by Elder Thorn, 01 April 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[Pando]

Elder Thorn, on 01 April 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

There it was, thanks Alois.
So i remembered wrong about where i read that, have to admit that. Think that was even after i purchased the founder's package.
But still. This makes it hard for me to say "yes, i would totally buy another 'support' package". Again, whoever would go for it: do it, whoever judges you negativly for that is an *****.
Also you should not forget the rest of Garth's post there:



We just have to hope they manage to do it right.

Just for the records: I don't want this thread to derail to another discussion about pro or contra 3rd person. This is just the reason why I, personally, would not support OP's idea and from my understanding, this is what this thread and posts adressed to me are about

Understandable. I respect your stance, and easy ascertain why. I feel they will deliver a great battletech mechwarrior game, of the likes we've not yet seen. That, is why I would support such a platform as I suggested.

[Skadi]

Elizander, on 01 March 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

I'd get it, but where will they put my second tag?

below the current one.

[Skadi]

Clan Legendary Founders; Assault: http://www.sarna.net...i/Mad_Cat_Mk_II, Heavy: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Timber_Wolf, Medium: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mad_Cat_III, Light: http://www.sarna.net...i/UrbanMech_IIC

[Terran123rd]

Skadi, on 01 April 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Clan Legendary Founders; Assault: http://www.sarna.net...i/Mad_Cat_Mk_II, Heavy: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Timber_Wolf, Medium: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mad_Cat_III, Light: http://www.sarna.net...i/UrbanMech_IIC

Mad Cat 2 wasn't developed until 3066. As this year is 3050, we won't be seeing it, in any form, for about decade and a half.
Mad Cat 3 wasn't developed until some time after 3057, so we wouldn't see it, in any form, for another 7 years minimum.

[Skadi]

Terran123rd, on 01 April 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Mad Cat 2 wasn't developed until 3066. As this year is 3050, we won't be seeing it, in any form, for about decade and a half.
Mad Cat 3 wasn't developed until some time after 3057, so we wouldn't see it, in any form, for another 7 years minimum.

SHHH DONT TELL THEM THAT, THEY WANT THEIR MADCATS.

[Imagine Dragons]

Terran123rd, on 01 April 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Mad Cat 2 wasn't developed until 3066. As this year is 3050, we won't be seeing it, in any form, for about decade and a half.
Mad Cat 3 wasn't developed until some time after 3057, so we wouldn't see it, in any form, for another 7 years minimum.

How exactly do you figure that the Mad Cat Mk III would come anytime earlier than the Mk II?

Considering that Clan Diamond Fox Sea Shark Sea Fox Diamond Shark Sea Fox doesn't even develop the Mk III until they realize how bloody popular the Mk II was...

/nitpicking

[Terran123rd]

XenomorphZZ, on 02 April 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

/nitpicking

Well...your nitpicking has a good point.

[Pando]

Back from a short break. Mid-morning bump, keep the votes and comments coming

[Pando]

Afternoon bump, vote!

[Pando]

Just another bump.

[Pando]

Another bump. Back from a long break Vote if you've not. If you have and notice new vote options, remove your vote and re-cast!

[Joanna Conners]

We came back from a break around the same time, Pando.

[Pando]

Demona, on 28 May 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

We came back from a break around the same time, Pando.

Welcome back VOTE PEEPZ!

[Joanna Conners]

Niko Snow, on 30 May 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

Not sure if we'd call it "Founders" again, but I love the spirit of this idea

Yay! I can only take credit for the original idea, but Pando has really added to it and expanded, not to mention running this awesome campaign.

[Pando]

Niko Snow, on 30 May 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

Not sure if we'd call it "Founders" again, but I love the spirit of this idea

I called it "Faction Bundles" c'mon!

[Pando]

Bump a lump, toss some votes if you've not already. If you have, leave a comment and spin what you would like to see represent your faction.