103 replies to this topic

[Dracol]

IMHO, it seems a lot of people get distracted by the Yankee's pinstripes.

Let's look at just the tier 3 MC only coolent flush. 35% percent reduction in heat. Being generous, it'll affect 5secs of a match. Might be a crucial moment, but in all only 5 secs.

If a match on average lasts only 5 minutes, that's 300 seconds. The MC only option has an affect on a match for only 1.66% of the match.

Does it give the purchaser an advantage? Yes but it is such a small amount that victory is not assured if purchased.

Pay for a slight advantage, not pay to win

[Tarman]

Matt Minus, on 05 March 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

There's not going to be a "better" MechWarrior game, though. I suspect a lot of us are here because of the license. Because of that, the game will probably never achieve the economys of scale needed to sustain itself on the small percentage of players willing to buy cosmetic items, so they need to make money somehow. How else would you propose they do it.

I've put up with issues in this dev where only the IP has kept me here. If the model for delivery is meant to be p2w kit then IP will not keep me either. I <3'd the crap out of the original Star Wars movies but that didn't give Lucas a free pass for the prequels. Haven't even bothered with online SWTOR for similar reasons.

They need to stick with the "pay-for-convenience" and "check out this cool crap" methods they've been using all along, and tweak that system. People will pay to skip something they feel is boring to get to what they feel is the good stuff. They will also buy lots of pointless crap they do not need if they're not forced to buy things merely to stay even with other players in any given match. Content that has appreciable effects dirtside needs to be available to all players so that there isn't unnatural bleedout from the casuals, at an MC price that looks better than a C-bill grind to a decent amount of players to pull in cash.

If they're going to do this game, there are ways to monetize it that don't involve creating a paywall on dirtside gameplay options. A big portion of holding your gamebase is to not make it feel like it's being cheated or locked down. Get all their monies, but get it excited enough about the game and its content to give the monies, don't squeeze it till it runs dry.

[Drake Syn]

Tarman, on 05 March 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I've put up with issues in this dev where only the IP has kept me here. If the model for delivery is meant to be p2w kit then IP will not keep me either. I <3'd the crap out of the original Star Wars movies but that didn't give Lucas a free pass for the prequels. Haven't even bothered with online SWTOR for similar reasons.

They need to stick with the "pay-for-convenience" and "check out this cool crap" methods they've been using all along, and tweak that system. People will pay to skip something they feel is boring to get to what they feel is the good stuff. They will also buy lots of pointless crap they do not need if they're not forced to buy things merely to stay even with other players in any given match. Content that has appreciable effects dirtside needs to be available to all players so that there isn't unnatural bleedout from the casuals, at an MC price that looks better than a C-bill grind to a decent amount of players to pull in cash.

If they're going to do this game, there are ways to monetize it that don't involve creating a paywall on dirtside gameplay options. A big portion of holding your gamebase is to not make it feel like it's being cheated or locked down. Get all their monies, but get it excited enough about the game and its content to give the monies, don't squeeze it till it runs dry.

And if you would actually look at the feature your discussing instead of making assumptions on some sort of slippery slope you are all speculating on, you would see that nothing even resembling what you are worried about is going on. Not even close.

[Bubba Wilkins]

On the surface, isolated from all other information...the coolant module tiers do appear to result in a form of P2W.

BUT...

The compelling argument against it is that we currently now have 14 items competing for the same 2-4 slots in any given mech. When faced with that reality and the abilities of those other 13 modules, very few are going to elect to go with the MC coolant flush. So, if equipping that item results in you not equipping something else such as, clearly there are inherent disadvantages to utilizing it thus defeating the P2W condition. Much like the hero mechs, different doesn't necessarily mean better.

[Tarman]

Drake Syn, on 05 March 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

And if you would actually look at the feature your discussing instead of making assumptions on some sort of slippery slope you are all speculating on, you would see that nothing even resembling what you are worried about is going on. Not even close.

I'd rather do this now and be wrong than let it slide and be right. Being right means less or eventually no giant robot fighting and I am not cool with that.

[Roughneck45]

A simple fix may be to put an extremely high c-bill price tag on the tier 3 modules. Like, 20x more expensive than the tier 2, or close to average earnings for a single match, if not more.

Edited by Roughneck45, 05 March 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[Drake Syn]

Tarman, on 05 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

I'd rather do this now and be wrong than let it slide and be right. Being right means less or eventually no giant robot fighting and I am not cool with that.

/nods respecfully. Fair. And a perfectly valid point. Speculation and voiced opinions give the devs something to think about. I just worry that people are actually going to start quitting, just because of said speculation, and that ~will~ kill the game, before it even releases. I've been trying my best not to be antagonistic, or argumentative, and I hope I didn't come off that way.

[Apnu]

Josef Nader, on 05 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

If two players of equal skill, one paying and one non-paying are using equal equipment save for the paid item (vs any non-paid counterpart), does the paying player have an upper hand?

If the answer to the question is yes, then it's pay to win in my book.

Based off your methodology, are the consumables (or anything else related to MC in this game) P2W?

Because, I don't see it right now. Following your example I think of two pilots with the same Elo rating. One is in a CN9-A the other in Yen-Lo-Wang. Both have taken advantage of upgrades with c-bills (endosteel, double heat sinks and the like). I fail to see how the YLW has any advantage over the CN9-A. Let's go further and say the YLW player also packs in T3 coolant, air strike and arty, the CN9-A player has never paid a dime to IGP/PGI. So he's got a mix of T1 consumables. Where's the advantage for the YLW player? The only one I can think of is YLW, win or lose, will see a better c-bill ROI than the CN9-A on average.

But I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts based off your definition of P2W.

[Mystere]

I interrupt this discussion with a "simple" bullet point:

• The dividing line between Black and White is a whole lot of Grey.

Now you may continue ..

[Vasces Diablo]

Bubba Wilkins, on 05 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

On the surface, isolated from all other information...the coolant module tiers do appear to result in a form of P2W.

BUT...

The compelling argument against it is that we currently now have 14 items competing for the same 2-4 slots in any given mech. When faced with that reality and the abilities of those other 13 modules, very few are going to elect to go with the MC coolant flush. So, if equipping that item results in you not equipping something else such as, clearly there are inherent disadvantages to utilizing it thus defeating the P2W condition. Much like the hero mechs, different doesn't necessarily mean better.

This is a valid point. It will be interesting to see what modules and consumables they come out with in the future. Currently, the only modules I use are target decay and enhanced zoom. I'll dump enhanced view in a second for an air strike.

Regardless, I'm guessing we will see lots of consumables used on the multi module mechs, while lots of the single slot mechs stay with a permanent module. (For example, I get mots more use out of target decay in my LRM mech than I would a coolant flush)

[Josef Nader]

Matt Minus, on 05 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Those games were all pay2win beause you had to pay $60 to get them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some poors don't have $60 so thats not right or fair and is p2w!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


By which I mean referencing a completely different model of game develpoment has nothing to do with this game. The fact of the matter is that many games had to g f2p to get folks to even give them a look, and those games have to generate revenue. A game is not p2w just because they do, in fact, have a model for generating revenue.

Drake Syn, on 05 March 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

Ahem, and when you bought said game, nothing EVER changed about it. So what you are asking for, is for them to complete the game, as is, never let us touch it until it's done, charge us once and forget the game ever existed. In ~my~ day, when a game was online, and being constantly updated, and the dev staff paid attention to the game until no one wanted to play it anymore, and we as a community paid them every frakking month to do so. So, frankly, the fact that people like me, who normally don't pay for frivolties, to even be allowed to play such an awesome game, has literally nothing to complain about. It's not going to unhinge the game, and since the community is the only way to have even remotely competitive play currently, they can regulate whether or not you even get to use them in their ranked matches. So please, stop assuming this will end the game. If you don't want to deal with it, stop playing and let those of us who appreciate these people's fine efforts play in peace.

This is like the people who sell chessboards giving them away for free, but selling gold pawns as in my above example. Playing the game becomes a matter of who can fill the developer's pockets more, rather than who is actually better at the game.

[Drake Syn]

Josef Nader, on 05 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

This is like the people who sell chessboards giving them away for free, but selling gold pawns as in my above example. Playing the game becomes a matter of who can fill the developer's pockets more, rather than who is actually better at the game.

Refer to my previous post about nothing like that existing, please. Speculation is good if done constructively. If done in the "OMG GAME IS BROKAEN!!!1!!!1111!!one one" methedologly, nothing is accomplished.

Also, having to pay for the pawns would imply you feel they are requiring us to pay for something to even play, which is so ludicrous it only bears mentioning to show how silly your argument is.

Edited by Drake Syn, 05 March 2013 - 02:13 PM.

[Tarman]

Drake Syn, on 05 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

/nods respecfully. Fair. And a perfectly valid point. Speculation and voiced opinions give the devs something to think about. I just worry that people are actually going to start quitting, just because of said speculation, and that ~will~ kill the game, before it even releases. I've been trying my best not to be antagonistic, or argumentative, and I hope I didn't come off that way.

Coolio, I'm not here to scrap other players. Well, ingame. But I do not support P2W games, even when that power is mine to wield at will. Had a sitch like that in STO, my fleet was murderous and untouchable, because we rolled with one of the richest and most dangerous captains in the game. Like being a gangster working directly for a don. Gave away literal handfuls of top-end kit and ships because he would buy lockboxes a hundred at a time and give us the "extras". Extras that were superior to free ships and kit. It made me eventually quit even though I was the beneficiary of an entire range of top-tier kit and ships, and not even on my dime. Wins felt cheap because our kit was expensive.

I'm not saying we're falling down a cliff with this first step, but it looks like a first step in the direction of the slope whether it truly is or not. In STO, the steps started slow and then went into track-star speed. I'd rather look like a total paint-huffer right now and be totally wrong about MWO going that way. Being wrong would be my favourite thing to be on this issue. I've waited forever for this franchise to be retooled, and watching it die a slow p2w death would probably put the IP in the can till I need a neural jack to play the next version because I'll be so old.


@ RG Notch below:

No grandstanding here. I want this franchise to succeed so I can continue to play it. P2W delivery model is not the game I signed on for and I'll just hang it up. No llamanistic I R LEEVING posts, I'll just stop coming here and make room on the hard-drive for other games. Easy peasy. If it were just the usual suspects with the hue and cry then sure, chalk it up to hysteria. But I've seen a lot of solid posters and gamers with attitudes similar to mine, people who aren't prone to running their gates unfounded. And if you can get Goons and Ponies to agree on something then there could be an issue.

Edited by Tarman, 05 March 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[RG Notch]

Drake Syn, on 05 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

/nods respecfully. Fair. And a perfectly valid point. Speculation and voiced opinions give the devs something to think about. I just worry that people are actually going to start quitting, just because of said speculation, and that ~will~ kill the game, before it even releases. I've been trying my best not to be antagonistic, or argumentative, and I hope I didn't come off that way.

No it won't because the vast majority of people threatening to quit simply won't. They feel this faux outrage and empty threats will work better than actually trying to be rational. People quit games all the time. The vast majority don't bother posting about it or threatening to do that. The folks that threaten are more likely to keep playing.
Plenty of people will stop playing for various reasons. Most of the vocal critics with thousands of posts aren't going anywhere despite what they post here. The devs know that, that's why they have straight out said pay less attention to their posts from the devs own mouth. It still doesn't stop the grandstanding but oh well.

[Josef Nader]

Apnu, on 05 March 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Based off your methodology, are the consumables (or anything else related to MC in this game) P2W?

Because, I don't see it right now. Following your example I think of two pilots with the same Elo rating. One is in a CN9-A the other in Yen-Lo-Wang. Both have taken advantage of upgrades with c-bills (endosteel, double heat sinks and the like). I fail to see how the YLW has any advantage over the CN9-A. Let's go further and say the YLW player also packs in T3 coolant, air strike and arty, the CN9-A player has never paid a dime to IGP/PGI. So he's got a mix of T1 consumables. Where's the advantage for the YLW player? The only one I can think of is YLW, win or lose, will see a better c-bill ROI than the CN9-A on average.

But I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts based off your definition of P2W.

It's a matter of playstyle, but the YLW can mount an AC20, something that no Centurion can do. If you favor brawling with ballistics in centurions, the YLW is the champion there. Again, though, it's tough to compare these things because you can do things as a free player to mitigate the YLWs advantage. I don't -like- Hero Mechs, but I don't consider them pay to win because you're still using the same weapons and hitboxes (minus odd examples like the YLW's ability to mount the AC20. Free players can still get an AC20, but not on a Centurion. Do I like it? No. Is it pay to win? Not really).

Here's the difference between Hero Mechs and module slots, and why this is a gross breach of P2W in my eyes. Let's take two players with identical mechs (say, two Atlas D-DCs) with identical loadouts and identical skills (I realize this is nigh impossible, but you have to isolate variables to get relevant data). The only difference between the Free player and the Paid player is their module loadout.

Free Player:
T2 Airstrike
T2 Artillery
T2 Cooling
Module

Paid Player:
T3 Airstrike
T3 Artillery
T3 Cooling
Module

Now, we don't have any solid numbers on Airstrikes or Arty yet, but it IS established that T1 + T2 = T3. Roughly, this equates to something around 33% + 66% = 100%, with the T3 module being 100% effectiveness. This means that a free player's modules are functioning 33% less effectively than a paid player's consumables, and this is a significant statistical difference.

Let's use the hard numbers to illustrate this:

35% cooling = maximum cooling effectiveness of the consumable = 100%
25% cooling = T2 cooling effectiveness = 25 / 35 = 0.71% of total effectiveness possible. Close to my estimated 66%.
10% cooling = T1 cooling effectiveness = 10 / 35 = 0.29% of total effectiveness possible. Close to my estimated 33%

Assuming this extrapolates onto artillery and air strikes, like they've said they will, this equates to a significant difference in effectiveness between the consumables. Assuming both players have equal skill in using their consumables, the paid player has a significant advantage in consumable effectiveness compared to a free player, and this is a serious problem in my eyes.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Vasces Diablo, on 05 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

This is a valid point. It will be interesting to see what modules and consumables they come out with in the future. Currently, the only modules I use are target decay and enhanced zoom. I'll dump enhanced view in a second for an air strike.

Regardless, I'm guessing we will see lots of consumables used on the multi module mechs, while lots of the single slot mechs stay with a permanent module. (For example, I get mots more use out of target decay in my LRM mech than I would a coolant flush)

Well, my D-DC for instance will never see a coolant flush. I find that extended sensor range and quicker target info are downright necessary. This leaves me two slots to fill which are going to be Artillary and Airstrikes. And those will be the Cbill versions only as I prefer more damage. If I had unlimited room, I'd take the flush in a heartbeat as that would be a nice option in the thick of things. BUT, I would have to give up those other things entirely which is an untenable proposition.

[DaZur]

Josef Nader, on 05 March 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

MEANWHILE, the company making the chessboards fills up a big pool full of money and rolls around in it like Scrooge McDuck because the stupid ***** above are playing a rousing game of "whoever throws more money into our pockets wins!" with the chessboard manufacturer.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

F2P is not a non-profit venture and correct me if I'm wrong the whole core premise of F2P is to get us to eventually part with our money?

[Drake Syn]

Tarman, on 05 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Coolio, I'm not here to scrap other players. Well, ingame. But I do not support P2W games, even when that power is mine to wield at will. Had a sitch like that in STO, my fleet was murderous and untouchable, because we rolled with one of the richest and most dangerous captains in the game. Like being a gangster working directly for a don. Gave away literal handfuls of top-end kit and ships because he would buy lockboxes a hundred at a time and give us the "extras". Extras that were superior to free ships and kit. It made me eventually quit even though I was the beneficiary of an entire range of top-tier kit and ships, and not even on my dime. Wins felt cheap because our kit was expensive.

I'm not saying we're falling down a cliff with this first step, but it looks like a first step in the direction of the slope whether it truly is or not. In STO, the steps started slow and then went into track-star speed. I'd rather look like a total paint-huffer right now and be totally wrong about MWO going that way. Being wrong would be my favourite thing to be on this issue. I've waited forever for this franchise to be retooled, and watching it die a slow p2w death would probably put the IP in the can till I need a neural jack to play the next version because I'll be so old.

And I feel that it's not that bad of a step because I have a ton of experience with WoT, which has had items similar, or worse, or much much more non-mattering, and watched it thrive as a game. Yes, their community still has people complaining about pay for win, but they are consistently mocked by the devs who see it for what it is, stodgy old gamers refusing the fact that a game can grow and change. Every MMO has this issue, where veterans don't like change because it means they have to adapt. A lot of really great things have come and gone in games, and it never really damages the balance, just changes the dynamic. And I'm not trying to say it doesn't happen, it's just not nearly as common as people think, because people tend to only remember negative things, and not positive.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Josef Nader, on 05 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

It's a matter of playstyle, but the YLW can mount an AC20, something that no Centurion can do. If you favor brawling with ballistics in centurions, the YLW is the champion there. Again, though, it's tough to compare these things because you can do things as a free player to mitigate the YLWs advantage. I don't -like- Hero Mechs, but I don't consider them pay to win because you're still using the same weapons and hitboxes (minus odd examples like the YLW's ability to mount the AC20. Free players can still get an AC20, but not on a Centurion. Do I like it? No. Is it pay to win? Not really).

Here's the difference between Hero Mechs and module slots, and why this is a gross breach of P2W in my eyes. Let's take two players with identical mechs (say, two Atlas D-DCs) with identical loadouts and identical skills (I realize this is nigh impossible, but you have to isolate variables to get relevant data). The only difference between the Free player and the Paid player is their module loadout.

Free Player:
T2 Airstrike
T2 Artillery
T2 Cooling
Module

Paid Player:
T3 Airstrike
T3 Artillery
T3 Cooling
Module

Now, we don't have any solid numbers on Airstrikes or Arty yet, but it IS established that T1 + T2 = T3. Roughly, this equates to something around 33% + 66% = 100%, with the T3 module being 100% effectiveness. This means that a free player's modules are functioning 33% less effectively than a paid player's consumables, and this is a significant statistical difference.

Let's use the hard numbers to illustrate this:

35% cooling = maximum cooling effectiveness of the consumable = 100%
25% cooling = T2 cooling effectiveness = 25 / 35 = 0.71% of total effectiveness possible. Close to my estimated 66%.
10% cooling = T1 cooling effectiveness = 10 / 35 = 0.29% of total effectiveness possible. Close to my estimated 33%

Assuming this extrapolates onto artillery and air strikes, like they've said they will, this equates to a significant difference in effectiveness between the consumables. Assuming both players have equal skill in using their consumables, the paid player has a significant advantage in consumable effectiveness compared to a free player, and this is a serious problem in my eyes.

This point of view ignores the fact that you will have to give up all current and future modules for your strictly worse case MC loadout. Bottom line is we now have 14 items competing for 2-4 slots in our builds. Sure, you might get a slightly better MC flush, but what are you going to give up for it to free that slot up in the first place? Those other modules are far from useless and in many cases clearly a better use of the slot.

[Tarman]

Drake Syn, on 05 March 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

And I feel that it's not that bad of a step because I have a ton of experience with WoT, which has had items similar, or worse, or much much more non-mattering, and watched it thrive as a game. Yes, their community still has people complaining about pay for win, but they are consistently mocked by the devs who see it for what it is, stodgy old gamers refusing the fact that a game can grow and change. Every MMO has this issue, where veterans don't like change because it means they have to adapt. A lot of really great things have come and gone in games, and it never really damages the balance, just changes the dynamic. And I'm not trying to say it doesn't happen, it's just not nearly as common as people think, because people tend to only remember negative things, and not positive.

Oh there are deffo some Queen Llamas up in this beaaaa. Some folks live for the forums themselves even more than the reason the forum was created. But there are also some LALALA IM NOT LISTENING folks as well. Fools appear where there are human beings. I just want my giant robots to not suck because really these are some sweet sweet giant robots. I'll dance all around you in a Spider 5K shooting into the sky to express my joy at being proved completely wrong.