141 replies to this topic

[Royalewithcheese]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Now if you'll all excuse me: I have to compile 142 pages of feedback on this matter.

Have fun

[Noobzorz]

Matt Minus, on 04 March 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

You poor, bro?

P2W is axiomatically bad.

That's it, that's all.

It doesn't matter if he's poor, if he's rich, if he hates it because he needs the money to spend on paying for all the times he parks his hummer in the handicap spot, if he needs it so that he can continue to single handedly support the local puppy shelter, if he's mother teresa, or if he is darth vader.

If you can pay real money for something you cannot buy without, this is an axiomatic game design failure.


After all, before the command chair announcement we were having a debate about consumables being in the game at all and that seemed bad enough. This. . . this. . . is a really black and white issue here, and if you're in favor of it, it is time to take a minute and assess whether that's because you really are (hint: you are not), or because you let your natural tendency towards internet conflict steer you into supporting something that is obviously bad for everyone.

Edited by Noobzorz, 04 March 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Ter Ushaka]

Hello worthless poster M A L I C E!

[Moromillas]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Now if you'll all excuse me: I have to compile 142 pages of feedback on this matter.

Jebus! Uhh, you get over time, right? ;

[Rota Quintus]

Well this is crumbs. I shied away from this game ages and ages ago, after signing up with great hopes, when they started pushing the "founders packs" and such for cash. My impression then was "oh well, that's a goner. Went pay-to-win before it even got out the door."

Recently my friend has been begging me to sign back in, trying to convince me that dropping cash didn't work that way, that golden bullets didn't truly exist, you could earn anything, etc. I decided just this evening to come by and have another look, and what do I find but all this. For shame!

It seems my initial impressions were correct. I shall let this be a lesson to myself not to distrust my instincts again.

[Ter Ushaka]

Ok. Bye.

[Bloodred]

The currently proposed implementation of consumables is clearly P2W in the most blatant sense of the term. The 2 uses the C-bill consumables have don't outweigh the considerable advantage the MC version has - namely the same effect for half the module slots, in a game where lots of mechs don't even have 4 slots even at Master level so won't even be able to take 2 complete consumables without paying.

I think consumables that you have to repurchase for every match are a bad idea in general, even if the MC and C-bill versions were the same, even if you would only be able to purchase them with C-bills. In either case some players get an unfair advantage over others simply because of the money they spent on MWO, even if the item itself is the same. The Hero/Founder/Premium earning bonuses (which I'm fine with) would make paying for C-bill consumables less of an issue because you simply earn more than the regular player. The only way I would be somewhat OK with them is if they were very, very cheap, to the point where anybody could buy them without incurring a significant C-bill income loss.

The best way to go about consumables is to just treat them as regular modules that just provide a limited number of uses per game. This way you invest into something that is permanent and it doesn't turn into a drain on your income. Furthermore modules like artillery strikes and air strikes should require something like a command console or some other tonnage/crit space investment if they're at all useful since giving the entire team the ability to nuke the enemy without any sort of a real drawback sounds like a very bad idea.

I hope PGI change their minds about this and either drastically alter it for the better or just straight up scrap it. I do enjoy and play MWO quite a lot so I do not want to see it go the way of WoT. I liked that game too but after playing for several months their business model left me with nothing but a bitter aftertaste.

[QuantumButler]

I see this has been swept under the rug into the bird alien underhive too.

[Ter Ushaka]

[Dr Killinger]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Do keep in mind we are discussing a feature that has just completed it's initial design and has not yet been introduced into the game. There is still a great deal of development, testing and revision ahead.

Now if you'll all excuse me: I have to compile 142 pages of feedback on this matter.

Please let them know that this is the worst idea that has come up in the history of this game. The backlash on the forums is testament to this, they simply can't go forward with it.

[Ter Ushaka]

[p00k]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Do keep in mind we are discussing a feature that has just completed it's initial design and has not yet been introduced into the game. There is still a great deal of development, testing and revision ahead.

seriously? no one at PGI had the imagination to anticipate what happens when you make a MC-only item hands-down better than a CB item? that's arguably worse than just saying "we need more cash, so poor players go away and rich players give us your money"

Edited by p00k, 04 March 2013 - 11:07 PM.

[Ter Ushaka]

[Ryvucz]

Let me call the wambulance and make sure they give you 50 cc of the smallest violin.

[Ter Ushaka]

I literally cannot believe a company would literally put microtransactions into a literally microtransaction game either. Literally. I literally cannot.

[ollo]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

P2W is something we aim to avoid at all costs. Nobody here, whether it's the developers, the testers, the designers or the publishers, not even the guy who handles the recycling, want the game to end up in the situation where the only people winning are those who put down money.

While i appreciate your post in general, i have to clarify: it's not about the fear that the ONLY people winning will be the paying customers, it's about that the paying customers WIN MORE. That's where P2W begins. Does your statement still stand und this definition of P2W?

[Red Klown X]

RagenBull, on 04 March 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Short and sweet nothing in a game can make me mad as fast as someone who has a clear advantage over me just because they spend money faster then i do. Why not make mech that you can get with mc that are just like their counterparts only they have 3 more weapon hardpoints and why not make mc weapons that do more dmg and dont make as much heat. Then you can truly **** everyone off to the fullest.

Short and sweet nothing in a game can make me mad as fast as someone who cry about advantage , who dont want pay for the game he s playing , who dont want support it at all and want it all for free , who dont get the patience to grind the cbills , who want it all and now just because he turn he s computer on and launch a game .

Bye , i will not miss you . o/

Edited by klownnection, 04 March 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[Zhang]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

P2W is something we aim to avoid at all costs. Nobody here, whether it's the developers, the testers, the designers or the publishers, not even the guy who handles the recycling, want the game to end up in the situation where the only people winning are those who put down money. We've all played those games and we didn't like them either.

Good! Now pardon my rudeness: if you don't like it why did the idea survive long enough it got posted as a factual "this is going to come out" topic?! This should have been squashed before it made it to the fans if you really cared that much about it.

[Araara]

Niko Snow, on 04 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

P2W is something we aim to avoid at all costs. Nobody here, whether it's the developers, the testers, the designers or the publishers, not even the guy who handles the recycling, want the game to end up in the situation where the only people winning are those who put down money. We've all played those games and we didn't like them either.

Do keep in mind we are discussing a feature that has just completed it's initial design and has not yet been introduced into the game. There is still a great deal of development, testing and revision ahead.

Now if you'll all excuse me: I have to compile 142 pages of feedback on this matter.

I'm not sure what I should think of this quote.

Is it the fact that no one at PGI saw this coming in the forums or from the community?

Is it the fact that in past ask the devs / podcast they vehemently said no to coolant flush and are now going with the idea even though the community was against it (which, btw, resembles 3rd person view)?

Is it the fact that even though "There is still a great deal of development, testing and revision ahead.", you WILL be milking your community of money for something that might not even be here on the long term?

Is it the fact that your gamemaking decision pillars that you yourself (PGI) established aren't being followed anymore ?


Whatever reason(s), today marks the day that a lot of trust was lost in your playerbase. And we're talking about the old playerbase that funded PGI with founders and MC too. Getting back that trust (to pay for this game) will be hard I think.


If i were to make a suggestion, opening up a command chair thread with specific details BEFORE implementing/modifying a new gameplay mechanic would be great to get first-hand feedback on what to change/balance (crowdsourcing man, it works).


It worked well for the paint job (suggestions for permanent paint) and PPCs (emp effect) and it would have saved you PGI lots of time/money/extra effort for ECM, ELO and this consumable/module stuff.

Edited by Araara, 05 March 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[SPencil]

A lot of the discussion in this thread is irrelevant.

That makes me a sad pencil.