35 replies to this topic

[BlueSanta]

First, thank you to PGI for listening to the community. I was glad to see so many speak out and have much discussion on a singular issue, and to see so many against anything that resembles pay to win implemented in this game.

However, I was disappointed that that even had to happen. Garth told us in Ask the Devs 18 that the coolant pod idea had been dropped, so the community thought that meant that coolant would not be making an appearance in this game. Garth seemed to argue against it in his explanation and he knew it had the potential to cause a lot of problems. We still have not received any explanation as to why he and PGI went back on their word. Adding coolant as a game mechanic is controversial and unnecessary. If I'm going to be giving my money to PGI, I want to be able to trust that they're going to keep their word and that they're not going to do anything stupid to this game. What they were going to do in their original proposal for consumables on March 4th and 5th was stupid. I'm against giving PGI anymore money until I feel that I can trust them again.

So 50 pages of official feedback later, here we are. Paul released proposed changes to consumables last night to much ado from the community, but I don't believe his solutions go far enough to correct these items.

Coolant should not be in the game at all. Coolant is a crutch that lets players escape from a problem they got into by using a poor build and not managing their heat properly. Heat management is suppose to be a core gameplay mechanic. We already have neutered double heat sinks, which we shouldn't, and now we're going to have coolant. Why not just implement DHS the way they're suppose to be and ditch coolant? Why not alter heat values? It really seems like they're just trying to make a quick buck.

If you insist on coolant, it should exist in the form of a coolant pod because you're suppose to be flushing out old coolant and replacing it with new, so that coolant has to be stored on-board the mech somewhere. Otherwise you're not replacing the coolant and should in fact have worse heat after the flush. The pod should take up space and weight, and since it is pressurized, it should have the ability to be damaged and explode.

Lastly, any kind of called-in support, be it artillery, airstrikes, or UAVs, should require a command console on-board. A commander would have to authenticate the request for support, right? Well, don't you need a command console to be a commander? Imagine 8 and 12 mans where everyone can call in artillery and airstrikes and the like, simply because they have the modules. That sounds like a terribly not fun game to me. [Should only so many people with command consoles be allowed on a team if this is done? Yes. Exactly like only so many people on a team should be allowed ECM.]

[focuspark]

No to coolant.

Yes to CC being needed to activate Air Strikes and Artillery.

[Big Giant Head]

Some kind of coolant system but not like the MW4 one, something lighter, something that will make much smaller difference.
Same goes to R&R (plus ability to choose what to repair)
If you are making coolant flush to have bigger impact on your heat dissipation then they should take up space (because of the DHS, those STD HSs are going to be more acceptable with it)

[Monky]

I think there is room for a coolant pod on single heatsink mechs - they are behind the curve in heat efficiency in general and could use a boost, and since heat mechanics are fairly well entrenched a coolant flush is about the only viable option I can think of. I would like to see it be 1 ton 1 crit 'experimental' tech like you outlined with the coolant flush pod. 1 HP, it pops and does 10 damage to your insides. The item stays equipped but you 'fill' it by purchasing more coolant with the existing layed out structure. Dual heatsink mechs in no way need a boost - we're already able to fire 2x 6PPC alphas without our mechs instantly turning into molten metal and our pilots being evaporated.

Command Console should be mandatory for airstrike/artillery. This should be common sense.

Edited by Monky, 07 March 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

Note, I don't want Coolant Flush, at all, ever, period.

But if we must have it, let it be equipment and not a module.

Hence the vote count looking odd - I voted NO to 1, and YES to 3.

Edited by Kraven Kor, 07 March 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[Bagheera]

Just say No to Flush.

Edited by Bagheera, 07 March 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[Fiachdubh]

Coolant does not bother me at all so voted yes for the bit of extra income it will give PGI. In its current format it is no big deal but would not like to see a coolant system like MW4 which was too kind to bad builds. It has been in since MW3 and there are coolant pods in the canon so even if it is a different system it is still not really new to BT. Maybe have the coolant modules weigh a ton as well as taking up a module slot to bring them more in line with the canon pods.

Voted yes to requiring a CC.

[BlueSanta]

Fascinating results so far:

2/3 of the community do not want to see coolant in any form.
The 1/3 that do would prefer to see it implemented as the coolant pod by a 4 to 1 margin.
95% of the community wants requested support to require the Command Console.

I wonder if PGI will take notice of any of this?

[MaddMaxx]

BlueSanta, on 08 March 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Fascinating results so far:

2/3 of the community do not want to see coolant in any form.
The 1/3 that do would prefer to see it implemented as the coolant pod by a 4 to 1 margin.
95% of the community wants requested support to require the Command Console.

I wonder if PGI will take notice of any of this?

31 votes does not = 95% of the Community. It = 95% of those who voted.

[Oppresor]

Yes to Coolant and in a pod that takes up space. This would work really well with the other ideas scattered across several threads which advocate in field supply and installation of Coolant. It would also work really well with the convoy Escort missions that have been discussed, where the convoy would carry Coolant pods as well as Ammo.

Yes logically we would need some form of Command Console to plan Artillery / Air strikes.

[Dirus Nigh]

No coolant flush ever.

However if the devs really really want to put this dumb thing in the game. It should be a piece of equipment that must be loaded onto the mech with a weight and crit space cost. If the pod if full when hit it explodes like ammo. The size and weight of the pod should be based on the size of the engine.

I would hope the command console was used for managing command assets like off board artillery and air strikes. It can have critical or module slots similar to the extra heat sink slots that large engines do. A player would by the command asset and put them in the command console. I think 3-5 slots is a good number. Or the slots could be based off of the weight class of the mech. 1-2 light, 2-3 med, 3-4 heavy and 4-5 assault.

[BlueSanta]

MaddMaxx, on 08 March 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

31 votes does not = 95% of the Community. It = 95% of those who voted.

I realize that, but at some point you have to infer because the whole community isn't going to vote. However, I would like a larger sample size. 100 minimum.

[Corvus Antaka]

I really think coolant needs to be a pod to be properly balanced, a module seems way too easy mode, overheating is already pretty much a non-factor if yu remember to jam your override key before pulling shots near the heatcap. coolants will just make it even easier to pound out big alpha strike high heat dumps with little risk to the pilot/more forgiveness.

[Bhael Fire]

My response is: I don't care.

[That Dawg]

No to coolant

Yes to command module, research/xp to get airstrikes/arty

no to arty etc being a purchase module, earn it!

[That Dawg]

BlueSanta, on 08 March 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

I realize that, but at some point you have to infer because the whole community isn't going to vote. However, I would like a larger sample size. 100 minimum.

its a dam good sample of the community that cares enough to vote- pug stompers that dont come here, or those who dont care didn't vote, I'd say its quite Representative.

[Severus Baggins Kerensky]

Yes to coolant.
Yes to CC.
No to giving them weight.

HOWEVER, CC should be given to more mechs than just Atlas D-DC:
- Atlas K
- Stalker 4N, 3H
- Awesome 8T, 8V
- Dragon 1C, 1N
- Cicada 2B, 3C
- Trebuchet 5J, 7K
- Jenner K
- Raven 2X
- Spider 5K

This would give these under-represented mechs an extra ability.

[Big Giant Head]

Coolant pods are not in the game yet ( =_=)

Edited by Big Giant Head, 09 March 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[SteelJaws]

I said yes to all, when you look at the HBK, you see it has a pod over its left shoulder, they could implement something like that for Coolant, pretty much just like the AMS system have it take a slot, and have weight. Then you would need to buy coolant to put in it pretty much "Coolant Ammo" for lack of a better word. Buy the added Pod, then pay the 10k cbills or 40k cbills or even 15MC depending on how much Coolant you want.

If you don't pay it for a match, then you drop with an Empty pod. Like when you equip an UAC/5 but put in AC/5 ammo by accident.

[BlueSanta]

Big Giant Head, on 09 March 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Coolant pods are not in the game yet ( =_=)

No duh.