Jump to content

[Cw] Unit Armory & Bank


3 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you agree with the OP's suggestion? (6 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you agree with the OP's suggestion?

  1. Yes (2 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. No (3 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  3. Abstain (1 votes [16.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Multitallented

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 697 posts
  • Locationright behind you (figuratively)

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:35 PM

By unit I mean a group of people that make up a merc corp/ house/ pirate/ clan /etc.
  • I suggest that when Community Warfare comes out, a separate Mech Bay be created for each unit. This way, mechs can be bought, sold, and lost in battles. The reason for this is that the game is so much better when there are real assets on the line. This would not discourage, but rather encourage players to get more mechs for their personal mech bay because they can't use mechs in the unit mech bay that they do not have personally.
  • I suggest that when Community Warfare comes out, a separate currency be created so that units can hire other units, bribe other units, etc. This currency would not be transferrable with the current cbills or MC. It would not be able to be used for personal mech purchases but only for unit mech purchases.
For an example of this, see my website: http://proxis.midgardmc.eu/mwo/

By the way, I set up that website not only to relieve some of the burnout people in my unit were having/provide a league for people to enjoy, but to also help by making suggestions for PGI. It is not meant to compete with the official community warfare. Hope it helps.

Possible Concerns:

Q. This could kill MWO's economy through Real Money Transfers (paying for in-game services using real money).
A. This would need to be implemented in a way that makes RMT not worth it for the people performing the in-game services. In other very successful games (WoW comes to mind), RMT damage was minimized by making the resources/services very time consuming. For example I assume there isn't much of a problem with people buying pre-farmed MWO accounts because the time it would take to grind an account would far exceed the money people would be willing to pay for it. RMT is not something you can just turn off by not including features, and if done properly, it would not be a problem with this suggestion.

Q. PGI will not do this because it wouldn't benefit them financially
A. As mentioned above: "This would not discourage, but rather encourage players to get more mechs for their personal mech bay because they can't use mechs in the unit mech bay that they do not have personally."

Q. This would make the game Pay to Win
A. There is no transfer of the unit currency with MC or Cbills. You can't buy this currency with real money. This could be changed to accommodate business decisions, but that would be a topic for another thread.

Do you have any thoughts or concerns with this suggestion?

Edited by Multitallented, 19 March 2013 - 12:47 PM.


#2 Multitallented

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 697 posts
  • Locationright behind you (figuratively)

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:06 PM

If you don't agree with the suggestion I would love to hear why!

#3 Durant Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,877 posts
  • LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:12 PM

From the info we currently have (admittedly over a year old), it will not be possible for player units to hire other player units. Mercenary unit contracts will be sourced from the system only, just like faction unit "missions" will be sourced from the system only.

#4 Multitallented

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 697 posts
  • Locationright behind you (figuratively)

Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:54 AM

Well, it appears no one agrees with me and no one wants to say why other than "PGI has said they were thinking about doing it a different way than you"





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users