239 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

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

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

he shoots, he scores!

[Yokaiko]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

I just bolded it.. did you just say "being Pay to Win is speculation" ?
I just wanted to confirm it...

Your statement, I ****** up the quote.

[Orzorn]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

I just bolded it.. did you just say "being Pay to Win is speculation" ?
I just wanted to confirm it...

You're taking it out of context. Illya being pay to win is speculation.

Flush modules are not. Mechs have hundreds of potential differences. Flush modules have two, both of which work in the MC bought one's favor.

Edited by Orzorn, 06 March 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[Livewyr]

Mystere, on 06 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Maybe I am looking at things from a different angle compared to many here.

For me, the MC version is like the proverbial Get Out of Jail Free card, very desirable, and very useful, in one of those "Oh ****!" moments.

On the other hand, I see the c-bill version as something designed for more strategic use. If I am really good at heat management, and timing, I can probably squeeze more out of it.

But, I will not be certain until I have actually used it. So I will hold off final judgment on the MC version being P2W (i.e. decisive advantage). But, frankly, I really doubt it.

You speak my mind...

Orzorn, on 06 March 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

You're taking it out of context. Illya being pay to win is speculation.

Funny.. you're inventing a context where 35% compared to 20% is a pay-to-win advantage.

Yokaiko, on 06 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Your statement, I ****** up the quote.

Ah ok (was wondering)

[Padic]

Pihoqahiak, on 06 March 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Then you will likely be choosing to play with a handicap and at a disadvantage compared to the players who effectively use those consumables. That's your choice of course, but don't delude yourself into thinking that choice is anything other than giving potential advantage to your opponent. I doubt casual play will see a huge amount of consumable usage after it's been in play for a while, but in competitive play they will be used extensively. That's one thing I find interesting (and concerning) with this situation. PGI is basically targeting the competitive player base with consumables, not the larger players base of casual players. I'm curious to see what player created tournament organizers do to try and regulate consumable usage, although it will be difficult to do so since they have no way to know what modules someone equips currently.

Every decision you make in game should require giving up some potential advantage (though, hopefully to gain another). So that's not a big deal.

I merely hope that the standard, GXP-purchased, passive modules evolve into reasonable choices.

[Yokaiko]

Padic, on 06 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I merely hope that the standard, GXP-purchased, passive modules evolve into reasonable choices.

...and sadly right now 20,000,000 C-bills and 18,000 GXP is pretty much nullified (or justified depending on application) by a 400,000 C-bil 1.5 ton 2 slot add on.

....ask me why I hate ECM as it stands. That isn't a game breaker though.

Edited by Yokaiko, 06 March 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Orzorn, on 06 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

At will means being able to choose when you do it.

You know, like "Fire at will".

I have no idea what you're talking about there. Do you think he was saying you got to pick the amount you dumped? I really don't know what you're going on about.

LOL. So "Flush at will" and "Fire at Will" now mean the same thing? Really. Let's take a flush and a Laser and apply your logic to them. On has unlimited potential and as such can be used without hesitation, it never runs out. While the other hand, a 1 unit, or god forbid they have a 2 unit combo, how many "at wills" do they get?

Really Orzorn....? You can surely do better good sir. If you have 1, you dump once. It would either be 15%, or 20% or 35%. If you have 2 c-bill based units, you will dump the 15% first button push, then the 20%.

How fast you push the button, in the case of the 2 units, and how long it takes to complete the Flush sequence is as yet unknown.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 06 March 2013 - 09:45 AM.

[Orzorn]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Funny.. you're inventing a context where 35% compared to 20% is a pay-to-win advantage.

Once again, keep in mind that pay-to-win is all too often a hyperbole phrase (you don't literally pay and then win games. You pay and get an advantage that non-paying players do not have).

This is an advantage that non-paying players do not have. Can you admit that?

Just say it out loud to yourself and realize what the issue is here.

"MC coolant flush provides an advantage that non-paying players do not have."

The point of contention for you seems to be that a 75% difference in cooling capabilities, or a 100% difference in module slot usage, is not a big enough difference.

I also ask, what is a big enough difference. When, to you, does it become paying for an unfair advantage?

For me, its anything that is quantifiable. .0001% difference or 75%, does not matter. Any difference is paying for an advantage (because even 1% is an advantage).

[Thuzel]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

That's that lame-duck argument I keep seeing.

(technically, thinking like that.. any time you go over the speed limit (1kph/mph); you're being absolutely unsafe to every driver on the road, you should be locked up and have driving privileges removed. I'm glad the people in charge don't think like that...)

"Officer, I just edged 1 mile per hour over." "It's still 1 mile per hour, still dangerous, come with me."

Ridiculous, no?


(now 20-30 mph IS worthy of note.)

That's a horrible analogy, but ok, lets go down that road.

In this case, it's not just a driver on the road. It's a team of drivers competing with another team of drivers. In fact, there's a word for that: It's a "Race".

And yes, if one person in the race has access to technology that is unavailable to others then it IS an unfair advantage, no matter how small. Just to illustrate that, take a look at the auto races we have in the US. If they catch one team using a motor that is just a little more powerful than allowed by the rules, they don't just say "Oh it's only a little advantage, everyone else should just get over it".

The point is that even if the advantage is very small, it is still an advantage, and saying that it's small doesn't change that.

[Ghostrider0067]

MaddMaxx, on 06 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

LOL. So "Flush at will" and "Fire at Will" now mean the same thing? Really. Let's take a flush and a Laser and apply your logic to them. On has unlimited potential and as such can be used without hesitation, it never runs out. While the other hand, a 1 unit, or god forbid they have a 2 unit combo, how many "at wills" do they get?

You know exactly what he meant. Your analogy was unnecessary. Seriously.

[Orzorn]

MaddMaxx, on 06 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

LOL. So "Flush at will" and "Fire at Will" now mean the same thing?

Yes, you do them when you please. One can be done as long as you have ammo, the other can be done once or twice.

Quote

how many "at wills" do they get?

One or two. I'm well aware.

Quote

How fast you push the button, in the case of the 2 units, and how long it takes to complete the Flush sequence is as yet unknown.

Quote

• Small Coolant Flush will instantly reduce a BattleMech's current heat by 15%.
  
• Medium Coolant Flush will instantly reduce a BattleMech's current heat by 20%.
  
• Large Coolant Flush will instantly reduce a Battlemech's current heat by 35%

Yes, it is known.

[Null Signature]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Funny.. you're inventing a context where 35% compared to 20% is a pay-to-win advantage.

Please answer these questions:

1. 35% compared to 20% is a 75% increase. Do you accept this math?
2. What % advantage is an acceptable threshold to you between being "okay" and being "Pay 2 Win." ?

[MaddMaxx]

Ghostrider0067, on 06 March 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

He's not lying. It's true that the person with CF *does* have the opportunity to dump heat at will - as in, when he CHOOSES to dump. He never stated you could repeatedly dump heat over and over again. No need to argue semantics.

It's up to the user of CF to decide if and when a dump is most appropriate to change the outcome of an engagement. Too early and you waste it. Too late and odds are you're toast. Careful tactical planning will be required to make the most of that once-per-match use.

Then perhaps more clarification is in order. "At will" often means as much as one wants without dire consequence in almost all cases I have encountered. Once something runs out, so goes the whole "at will" theory.

In MWO, I would relegate "at will" to being something I can do from the start of the Match until the end and be able to do as much as I wanted, not only as much as the limited amount some add-on allows.

P.S. Just rolled a Snake Eyes on this one. I am out.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 06 March 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Livewyr]

Orzorn, on 06 March 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Once again, keep in mind that pay-to-win is all too often a hyperbole phrase (you don't literally pay and then win games. You pay and get an advantage that non-paying players do not have).

This is an advantage that non-paying players do not have. Can you admit that?

Just say it out loud to yourself and realize what the issue is here.

"MC coolant flush provides an advantage that non-paying players do not have."

The point of contention for you seems to be that a 75% difference in cooling capabilities, or a 100% difference in module slot usage, is not a big enough difference.

I also ask, what is a big enough difference. When, to you, does it become paying for an unfair advantage?

For me, its anything that is quantifiable. .0001% difference or 75%, does not matter. Any difference is paying for an advantage (because even 1% is an advantage).

(You can quote my earlier posts, yes, there is a numbers advantage between 35% and 20% in the single module category. There is also a numbers advantage in the 35% two module versus 35% single module in that category.)

My argument is this:
Pay to Win is a dangerous hyperbole phrase to throw around (in FTP games, I think it's about the equivalent of throwing around "hacks" and such to those sensitive to it)

Now, where do I draw the line?
Something that consistently gives you an advantage for a duration and/or has no in-game competitor.
If the Coolant Pod gave you a constant 10% boost in cooling.. that would be Pay to Win. (consistent)
If the Cbill coolant pod didn't exist, it would be pay to win. (no alternative)
If you got to reuse the pods at all, it could be pay to win. (duration)

And a certain percent based on the whole, not each other. 3 cents is 200% more of 1 cent, but it's still 3 cents.
35% is 15% more than 20%.. but it's still 35%.

At 70%-100% I would be edgy about it, because it's essentially a combat longevity reset.

[Orzorn]

MaddMaxx, on 06 March 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Then perhaps more clarification is in order. "At will" often means as much as one wants without dire consequence in almost all cases I have encountered. Once something runs out, so goes the whole "at will" theory.

In MWO, I would relegate "at will" to being something I can do from the start of the Match until the end and be able to do as much as I wanted, not only as much as the limited amount some add-on allows.

Ah, I was taking "at will" literally meaning, as one pleases. I can flush whenever I want, but only once or twice, of course.

[Livewyr]

Null Signature, on 06 March 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Please answer these questions:

1. 35% compared to 20% is a 75% increase. Do you accept this math?
2. What % advantage is an acceptable threshold to you between being "okay" and being "Pay 2 Win." ?

See most recent post.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

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

[Stone Profit]

Sifright, on 06 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Well they do need it.

because if one player doesn't have it he can no longer pump as much damage out as his enemy that does have it.,

He now needs coolant flush to keep up.

A good players build has a trade off between burst and sustained dps on his mech.

Most good builds have high burst and middling sustained dps because the first part of an engagement with enemy forces sets the pace of battle and more importantly if you can kill an enemy mech or two quickly you remove a huge chunk of the enemy forces battle capability.
Coolant flush allows you to sustain that high burst damage 1-2 salvos longer enabling burst dps builds to be far more powerful whilst making little difference to builds that work on high sustained dps.

Perhaps you dont understand the word need.
For reference:
need

/nēd/
Verb
Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".

[Ghostrider0067]

MaddMaxx, on 06 March 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

In MWO, I would relegate "at will" to being something I can do from the start of the Match until the end and be able to do as much as I wanted, not only as much as the limited amount some add-on allows.

I see your point and can understand your logic. Still, the term "at will" is relevant and/or applicable in this case though the literal meaning is different than what you've got in mind.

Edited by Ghostrider0067, 06 March 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Orzorn]

Livewyr, on 06 March 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

At 70%-100% I would be edgy about it, because it's essentially a combat longevity reset.

So, depending on how it scales with heat sinks, does that mean you would not like it if they scaled linearly, or if double sinks counted essentially twice (as they do now, due to how they raise the heat cap)?

Because that would make the flush 70% if they did.

As for alterantives, I do not believe that to be true. There is no alternative for getting 35% and having one module. You are always at a disadvantage. It isn't a case of being different, its a case of being worse. Its either a 15% difference (if they scaled linearly, it would be 30% at 20 heat sinks) in cooling, or a 100% difference in module slots.

That's too much. In fact, any is too much for me, I'm too hard line for that. Perhaps you are not, but at least you see the difference between the two.

I just can not put a line in the sand on paying for advantages, because the line starts right when there's a straight difference between items. You had a decent point about hero mechs, but so far a lot of them are pretty bad (Pretty Baby, Wang, etc. Or at least not very competitive), and the others are competitive but lack certain metagame factors (jump jets on Illya would absolutely have made it crazy). They've done a good job with hero mechs, because its something that could have been dangerously paying for an advantage, but was not, at least so far (I expressed concern when the wang came out).

This? This is strictly an advantage. You said it yourself. To me, thats "pay to win" (which we both agree is an awful phrase. Pay for Advantage is better, for obvious reasons). And I just can't stand for that. Some say "its not that bad", and I look as say that is is that bad.

Edited by Orzorn, 06 March 2013 - 10:05 AM.