239 replies to this topic

[Antony Weiner]

Simple indisputable argument for why the coolant module tier system is P2W:

You pay real money (through MC) to effectively combine the tier 1 and tier 2 modules (C-BIlls) (which take 2 module slots) into one tier 3 module (which takes only 1 module slot).

Ceteris paribus, this gives a player an advantage of equipping an extra module for real money (through MC), i.e. one now must keep spending real money in order to remain competitive.

Combined with draconian premium time prices/usage policy, where only 30+ days packages are good deals (which effectively causes my premium time to be wasted because I cannot play on some weeks), I am not so sure if I will ever buy MC again. I mean, I love the game and all, but I will not play it if I have to keep bringing them money in order for me to enjoy the game (=stay competitive).

Here is why it is largely irrelevant how effective the advantage of equipping an extra module is:

P2W is a very touchy subject. For an anti-P2W competitive player to keep buying MC, the "objective definition" of P2W is not important. What is important is his/hers subjective definition of P2W. Personally, I gladly bought about $80-105 worth of MC so far, but now that I feel that developers' definition of P2W is getting more and more relaxed almost every month, I am not so eager to put my money into the game. For me, and I am sure for some other players too, it is not so important how much "direct" advantage can be bought with MC, but that it can be bought at all. There is a good reason why I stopped playing WoT after like 3 days. I consider P2W model to be degrading to the player.

If a F2P scheme where people pay for premium time, paint, and extra mechbays is not enough to support the game, then I'm sorry MWO–I won't be buying any MC. I'll give it a spin for a couple of months to see if the F2P/P2W balance is going to shift again, though.

Edited by Antony Weiner, 06 March 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[Livewyr]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 06 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Those that have seen you play understand why you wouldn't think of it as an advantage.

Correct.. I play smart in the first place and don't need the "oh **it" button.

(What the **** was the point of that, Mongoose?)

[Protection]

Okay, I think we can ignore Livewyr. He's full on admitting that he supports pay 2 win and just hopes that gold ammo isn't that powerful.

As for the rest of us that don't want Gold ammo at all in the game; PGI this is still ********.

[Orzorn]

Antony Weiner, on 06 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

P2W is a very touchy subject. For an anti-P2W competitive player to keep buying MC, the "objective definition" of P2W is not important. What is important is his/hers subjective definition of P2W. Personally, I gladly bought about $80-105 worth of MC so far, but now that I feel that developers' definition of P2W is getting more and more relaxed almost every month, I am not so eager to put my money into the game. For me, and I am sure for some other players too, it is not so important how much "direct" advantage can be bought with MC, but that it can be bought at all. There is a good reason why I stopped playing WoT after like 3 days. I hate P2W.

If a F2P scheme where people pay for premium time, paint, and extra mechbays is not enough to support the game, then I'm sorry MWO–I won't be buying any MC. It is a matter of "self-respect." I'll give it a spin for a couple of months to see if the F2P/P2W balance is going to shift again, though.

I'm very much the same.

I have promtly halted my MC purchases until this issue is resolved.

Also, you should probably post that, or something akin to that, in the feedback thread if you have not. It illustrates the issue very well, I'd say.

[Krell Darkmoon]

1 < 2

[vrok]

Protection, on 06 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Okay, I think we can ignore Livewyr. He's full on admitting that he supports pay 2 win and just hopes that gold ammo isn't that powerful.

As for the rest of us that don't want Gold ammo at all in the game; PGI this is still ********.

Agreed. He makes up whatever he feels like to support his imaginary P2W theories. There's no point.

[FrDrake]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Correct.. I play smart in the first place and don't need the "oh **it" button.

(What the **** was the point of that, Mongoose?)

If a cop pulls you over for going 2mph over speed limit and you think it's bollocks and want to go to court, guess who is going to win the case....

But really don't try to mask your argument, you are fine with pay2win as long as the advantage is small enough to fit your definition of "not enough".

You've made your disagreement clear, at least do the rest of the us the courtesy of acknowledging what your argument really is.

[Orzorn]

As for myself, Livewyr, I hope you take something away regarding this issue and can see what I, and some others, have been speaking about. I've got other things to do and I think I'm all out of things to discuss (and it seems like you are as well), considering we've essentially reached the midpoint between our understandings. We both understand the advantages offered, the question comes down to whether one believes it is bad enough.

You have apparently have a some sort of line drawn in the sand, whereas myself and others have no line, because any difference is enough to be upset about for us. I believe the difference is significant, and I believe this game will suffer for it.

That's all for me, thanks.

Edited by Orzorn, 06 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Kurshuk]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

I would like someone to explain to me the decisive advantage of dumping one's heat 35% as compared to 15% ONCE (I repeat, ONCE) in an entire match is some game breaking advantage worthy of the ***t-posting hot-button phrase: "Pay-to-Win."

You don't get to dump 35% every 30-60 seconds.. or even every 2 minutes.. so you don't get to run a new hotter build with any success.

If you're really finding yourself heat-inefficient and would rather purchase a module than fix your build, there is one for 15% (or if you're really desperate, there are two for combined 35%) that you may use to attempt to fight effectively for about 6 seconds.

(I imagine PGI didn't want to add them in the first place, as I agree that one-coolant flush isn't even worth the module space. It was probably from IGP, but regardless of that.. it's still practically useless.)
(I'd say momentary save with the most effective use.)

So other than the lame-duck "It's usable in game" argument, what advantage worthy of "P2W" does this 35% module give you?

You fail to see the point. It's not the module, it's the principle. Any one thing won't make or break anything, but having this type of introduction to the game it's plain to see that the MC version is not equal to the Cbill version for various reasons even though they still hit that same 35%. It's an item for MC only that affects gameplay. I bought into this game because they said they would not include game changing items that were MC only. So I am upset because of this. Why are you angry?

Kurshuk

[Mystere]

Antony Weiner, on 06 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

P2W is a very touchy subject. For an anti-P2W competitive player to keep buying MC, the "objective definition" of P2W is not important. What is important is his/hers subjective definition of P2W ...

Hold a second! I thought this whole brouhaha started out as the laying out of "facts". Do you mean that, all this time, everyone was actually fighting about something that is actually merely subjective?

Holy ****! Everyone's been doing it wrong!

[sycocys]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

I would like someone to explain to me the decisive advantage of dumping one's heat 35% as compared to 15% ONCE (I repeat, ONCE) in an entire match is some game breaking advantage worthy of the ***t-posting hot-button phrase: "Pay-to-Win."

You don't get to dump 35% every 30-60 seconds.. or even every 2 minutes.. so you don't get to run a new hotter build with any success.

If you're really finding yourself heat-inefficient and would rather purchase a module than fix your build, there is one for 15% (or if you're really desperate, there are two for combined 35%) that you may use to attempt to fight effectively for about 6 seconds.

(I imagine PGI didn't want to add them in the first place, as I agree that one-coolant flush isn't even worth the module space. It was probably from IGP, but regardless of that.. it's still practically useless.)
(I'd say momentary save with the most effective use.)

So other than the lame-duck "It's usable in game" argument, what advantage worthy of "P2W" does this 35% module give you?

Let's look at it this way which is the most blatant way to show this.

2 players of equal skill playing the same mech with the same loadout other than their modules.

Player a has modules
a - MC Flush 35%
b - target acquire
c - sensor range

Play b has modules
a - c-bill flush 20%
b - target acquire
c - sensor range

-----
Player a has a 15% heat advantage in the same exact mech playing against a player of the same skill for a real world cash cost. In a brawling duel that is a pretty major advantage for a player to be able to purchase. And this isn't even taking heat heavy builds into consideration - 2 mechs of good efficiency battling it out where 1 mech can last 15% longer before needing to reduce his fire rate to further control heat build up. That sort of thing is a pretty major advantage.

Edited by sycocys, 06 March 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[TB Freelancer]

Budor, on 06 March 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

You cannot equip 2 tier3 coolants. The p2w comes with 35% + module of your desire vs. 15% + 20% (this is on mechs with 2 module slots).


Its either 15% more or +1 free module slot and its only available with real money. If this is not p2w i dont know what is.

I would be completely fine if tier3 would be obtainable for 100,000cbills, thats still p2w but at least you have the option to obtain it without shelling out real money.

I would be fine if tiers 1 and 2 both fit into a single module slot, or if tier 3 took up 2 slots....as it is, this is most definitely the descent into P2W.

Sifright, on 06 March 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Thats flatly not true. I can't compensate for an enemy being able to shoot more than i can in the same time frame if they are even remotely comparable in skill.

All i know is at least two of my mech designs which are built around instant kill burst damage will benefit hugely from this.

it's a game changer for those mech designs.

A lot of guys spout out idiotic nonsense like that in one breath but were ready to burn the forums down at the thought of an ECM cicada....which I wasn't opposed to anyway since all other ECM mechs are freely available. With the exception of the Spider, all highly effective. The X5 kinda sucks.

You're right and to be honest, the higher the player skill, the more game breaking that 15% will become. At the beginner levels, I doubt a full 30% would have much effect in match outcomes, but at the upper echelons of play, 15% will be absolutely devastating in competent hands.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Antony Weiner, on 06 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Simple indisputable argument for why the coolant module tier system is P2W:

You pay real money (through MC) to effectively combine the tier 1 and tier 2 modules (C-BIlls) (which take 2 module slots) into one tier 3 module (which takes only 1 module slot).

Ceteris paribus, this gives a player an advantage of equipping an extra module for real money (through MC), i.e. one now must keep spending real money in order to remain competitive.

Combined with draconian premium time prices/usage policy, where only 30+ days packages are good deals (which effectively causes my premium time to be wasted because I cannot play on some weeks), I am not so sure if I will ever buy MC again. I mean, I love the game and all, but I will not play it if I have to keep bringing them money in order for me to enjoy the game (=stay competitive).

Here is why it is largely irrelevant how effective the advantage of equipping an extra module is:

P2W is a very touchy subject. For an anti-P2W competitive player to keep buying MC, the "objective definition" of P2W is not important. What is important is his/hers subjective definition of P2W. Personally, I gladly bought about $80-105 worth of MC so far, but now that I feel that developers' definition of P2W is getting more and more relaxed almost every month, I am not so eager to put my money into the game. For me, and I am sure for some other players too, it is not so important how much "direct" advantage can be bought with MC, but that it can be bought at all. There is a good reason why I stopped playing WoT after like 3 days. I consider P2W model to be degrading to the player.

If a F2P scheme where people pay for premium time, paint, and extra mechbays is not enough to support the game, then I'm sorry MWO–I won't be buying any MC. I'll give it a spin for a couple of months to see if the F2P/P2W balance is going to shift again, though.

You seem pretty smart, but your argument is far from indisputable.

The choice presented to us is not whether or not we choose this one item regardless of effect. In a vacuum, its a no brainer and everyone will go for it for the obvious advantage.

But there are other items of equal or arguably greater effect which are competing for the same usage slots. A smart person is going to consider the overall effect of all modules/consumables and conclude that there are better options for their purposes and don't cost anything.

By limiting space and offering compelling alternatives which do not cost MC, they have rendered the P2W argument mute.

[Antony Weiner]

Mystere, on 06 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Hold a second! I thought this whole brouhaha started out as the laying out of "facts". Do you mean that, all this time, everyone was actually fighting about something that is actually merely subjective?

Holy ****! Everyone's been doing it wrong!

I'm not trying to find The Truth, but simply pointing out the mechanics behind the psychology of buying MC. You can redefine P2W all you want, but the facts of the matter are not abstract concepts (like F2P or P2W) but a market of virtual goods where people are paying real money (with abstract concept definition being a contributing factor ofc). At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the objectivity of the matter is, since people make decisions based on their subjective perspective. What matters is who plays and who pays.

Coolant module "MC gives you an extra module slot" mechanics is a step too far for many players in terms of their perception of the matter. It doesn't matter if the extra module slot is actually significantly advantageous–what matters is how a customer feels about his purchase. If he feels bad about it and he doesn't have to do it–then he won't.

If IGP wants to limit the player base to MWO-addicts and P2W goblins, then its their right to do so. I won't be here for that though, since I got better things to do with my life. I am not saying that this tiny change is limiting the player base to the aforementioned conditions, but it feels as that is the way it is going, and that is the reason why I won't be buying any MC right now.

[Sifright]

TB Freelancer, on 06 March 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

I would be fine if tiers 1 and 2 both fit into a single module slot, or if tier 3 took up 2 slots....as it is, this is most definitely the descent into P2W.

[size=4]

[size=4]A lot of guys spout out idiotic nonsense like that in one breath but were ready to burn the forums down at the thought of an ECM cicada....which I wasn't opposed to anyway since all other ECM mechs are freely available. With the exception of the Spider, all highly effective. The X5 kinda sucks.

You're right and to be honest, the higher the player skill, the more game breaking that 15% will become. At the beginner levels, I doubt a full 30% would have much effect in match outcomes, but at the upper echelons of play, 15% will be absolutely devastating in competent hands.

Bolded part is what i'm worried about.

i'm not willing to shell out money for this kind of advantage and I can tell you right now that my most played mech would benefit from this massively. I already usually top games with 4-5 kills on a reasonable night with the ability to pump out another couple of alphas in a heavy brawl I can pretty much ensure i've removed all the hard hitters from the enemy team with out even having to worry about heat build up.

[Bagheera]

Roland, on 06 March 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Gold ammo whose damage is only slightly higher than normal ammo, is still gold ammo.

This.

Also, with respect to coolant flush it's a **** idea that I would still think is a **** idea if they gave them out for free.

[Antony Weiner]

Bubba Wilkins, on 06 March 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

You seem pretty smart, but your argument is far from indisputable.

The choice presented to us is not whether or not we choose this one item regardless of effect. In a vacuum, its a no brainer and everyone will go for it for the obvious advantage.

But there are other items of equal or arguably greater effect which are competing for the same usage slots. A smart person is going to consider the overall effect of all modules/consumables and conclude that there are better options for their purposes and don't cost anything.

By limiting space and offering compelling alternatives which do not cost MC, they have rendered the P2W argument mute.

Ceteris Paribus is "in a vacuum," so yeah...

Again, unlike some other contributors to the thread, I am not claiming that coolant module mechanic is a game-breaker; however, it is a buy-breaker for me. I am not spending more money on a game that has a potential to turn into "gold ammo" sh*t-fest until I feel that it won't.

[Mystere]

Antony Weiner, on 06 March 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Ceteris Paribus is "in a vacuum," so yeah...

Again, unlike some other contributors to the thread, I am not claiming that coolant module mechanic is a game-breaker; however, it is a buy-breaker for me. I am not spending more money on a game that has a potential to turn into "gold ammo" sh*t-fest until I feel that it won't.

But here is the problem. For virtually any product out there, there will always be someone who will not like something about it and thus not buy. Maximizing the number of "buys" is not as simple as it sounds. You may not buy it for one specific reason, but two others might do so for the exact same one.


You go with "Ceteris Paribus", I go with "Observer Effect".

(Don't take me seriously on this last one as I am just going for the LOLs given that something just popped in my mind as I was responding).

Edited by Mystere, 06 March 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Sam Slade]

NitroDev, on 06 March 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

it's going to allow bad players to continue to run their bad, heat inefficient, one trick builds a couple seconds longer. oh no!

It's also going to allow good players run high heat high damage builds at peak perormance longer in the middle of a firefight. This will have a noticable impact.

As to the tiresome circle of glareing that is the pay to win argument: does the game mechanic/device offer a bonus only available by spending cash?(in this case maximum use of module slots and maximum use of coolant flush mechanic) In this case the answer is definitivly yes: the mechanic is 'pay to win' as the maximum advantage is related to nothing but cash.

What is relative is how you choose to react: in my case MWO just went on the World of Tanks pile and will not be recieving any money from me, nor do I see myself engaging in the metagame as it will involve use of a definitivly 'pay to win' mechanic.... love the game, despise the pay to win concept.

Edited by Sam Slade, 06 March 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Antony Weiner]

Mystere, on 06 March 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

But here is the problem. For virtually any product out there, there will always be someone who will not like something about it and thus not buy. Maximizing the number of "buys" is not as simple as it sounds. You may not buy it for one specific reason, but two others might do so for the exact same one.

No way, Sherlock. You finally get the basics of it.

Edited by Antony Weiner, 06 March 2013 - 11:01 AM.