4 replies to this topic

[ownka]

Mods, you're not throwing every thread relating to P2W in a giant heap to be constructive. That doesn't even make sense. Nobody is going to read the ****-pile you guys are throwing together. Just be honest. The current system is purely to sweep the community response under the rug. It is really messed up that you guys even leave the more positive responses out in the open, while quickly locking even the most intelligent and well constructed responses under the guise of consolidation. It is censorship and nothing more.\


[color=#959595]"The MC coolant flush is as much cooling as the cbill 2 put together with 1 more free module slot. You're sacrificing the ability to use your coolant flush in 2 halves for the ability to have an entire extra module. With the introduction of other consumables such as airstrikes, and the hopeful tuning of existing modules to be a little more...desirable, this could easily be game breakingly P2W.[/color]

[color=#959595]As for the proposed airstrike versions, the MC version does less damage, but is also substantially faster. For many mechs, the speed could be much more important, and this could potentially unbalance the game as well.[/color]

[color=#959595]I've seen a lot of people claiming the cbill versions and the MC version of the coolant flush do the same amount of cooling, and thus are equal to it, but this is just as incorrect as saying 2 medium lasers is just as good as 1 large pulse. They do the same amount of damage, have similar ranges, but if you made large pulse lasers MC only, nobody could even claim it wasn't P2W.[/color]

[color=#959595]To those who have been censored beyond all reason, do not lose hope. They may delete your thread, but every thread they have to delete is another time they get the feedback we are SUPPOSED to be here to give. [/color]

[color=#959595]Devs and mods of MWO, I have respected you up until this point, and I'm assuming you guys are being pushed into this, considering at many points you guys have openly rejected the sort of things consumables are bringing to us. I understand you've got your jobs, but please take the feedback of your beta testers into account, we want this game to be successful almost as much as you."[/color]




[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 06 March 2013 - 10:59 AM.
Mod actions

[Vlad Ward]

No. It's what every well-moderated forum on the planet already does, and what MWO General Discussion needs to be doing more often.

[ownka]

Vlad Ward, on 06 March 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

No. It's what every well-moderated forum on the planet already does, and what MWO General Discussion needs to be doing more often.

Completely neuter ONE side of an argument in a forum for a game still in beta?

[F1uffy]

I have been reading the forums about this topic since it started up. I have been seeing some getting thrown into the pot while some have been sitting in the open for a while. That isn't constructive. I would understand if they just missed one for a few minutes and hadn't yet had time to throw it in, but that is not the case. Mods that is not how you deal with a topic. That is picking and choosing certain people's opinions and allowing others to view them easier.

[Vlad Ward]

Maybe you should use the report button on those topics that have slipped through the cracks instead of attributing foul play.

Many of the Consumables threads were started with phony titles like "Which Raven is the best?" in order to throw off the mods.