498 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

Let me start off by saying I am usually on the side of PGI is doing it right, and I am not one to jump on the p2w bandwagon, but something I read in the recent press releases has me thinking "perhaps PGI shouldn't do this."

Early on in closed beta I hooked up with House Jurai. A cool group of guys spanning the globe. I like playing with them, and I am sure once CW hits we will be forming a merc corp or pirate corp or whatever, but...

I don't think that we should have to have a premium account to be in a merc corp. Several of the guys I play with are strictly free players, while some of the rest of us I am sure make up for them with paint and what not.

I am not even against a setup fee or whatever, but the subscribe to play together aspect is just a bad idea I feel.

http://www.polygon.c...ild-and-faction

*Edit* I just want to add that several moderators have said that there will be a statement regarding this issue. Please keep the discussion civil.

Edited by Belorion, 29 March 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[Vulkan]

I'm running premium right now, but if they were stupid enough to make it so that you have to be premium to be part of a merc corp I would not give them another cent. In fact, I would flat out boycott the game. Worst business practice I've heard of.

[Roadbeer]

At first I was going to respond WTF are you talking about.

After a couple re-reads I'm 100% on board with you.

1 time fee, totally get that. Premium time required Are they out of their frackin minds?

[KuruptU4Fun]

It's a little strange yes, most of the Merc Corps. that are established and recruiting are on the Outreach Forum already. But how does PGI defend against the guy who wants to make a Merc Corps out of 10 brand new filler accounts he created in a day and a half? How such a person would ever benefit from such an idea is beyond me currently, but I know it will be tried from day one.

[MrPenguin]

Roadbeer, on 29 March 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

1 time fee, totally get that. Premium time required Are they out of their frackin minds?

I'm in complete agreement with this.

[S3dition]

WoT does this and they make quite a bit of money.

That said, I'm 100% against it and would never, ever support it. Even if I did use premium time, simply because they are excluding people who pay money for mechs/paint from playing.

Though I seriously doubt they would follow that model, simply because you end up with the worst elements of the community in a critical part of your game.

[Roadbeer]

For once, I'm saying this and NOT being snide.

This IS serious business, OP, make this into a POLL.

Edited by Roadbeer, 29 March 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[tuokaerf]

I would be in favor of this if there are some advantages to doing this, such as expanded game mode options that allow you to disrupt IS faction campaigns, etc (not P2W benefits).

[S3dition]

KuruptU4Fun, on 29 March 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's a little strange yes, most of the Merc Corps. that are established and recruiting are on the Outreach Forum already. But how does PGI defend against the guy who wants to make a Merc Corps out of 10 brand new filler accounts he created in a day and a half? How such a person would ever benefit from such an idea is beyond me currently, but I know it will be tried from day one.

One time fee of, say 50mc to found a merc corps. That's assuming there is an advantage to running more than 1 corps, which I seriously doubt. Sure, you could try to take more worlds, but you can play 10 matches at the same time to hold them, and I'm betting you can't trade any resources at all between the corps. So, what would be the point?

[Jetfire]

1 time fee: Ok, I understand that.
Premium: Umm... how about must maintain at least 1-5 premium members to stay active. Guilds that go offline need to pay the fee again to re-activate the Corp

This seems more fair and allows a mix of F2P and P2P players.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Roadbeer, on 29 March 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

At first I was going to respond WTF are you talking about.

After a couple re-reads I'm 100% on board with you.

1 time fee, totally get that. Premium time required Are they out of their frackin minds?

On that I will agree, or when you submit a list of players for a created merc corps that team is on "officially established" until the list of players provided can be shown as actively playing at the same time. You can't bid for a contract unless 4 members are online (doen't have to be specific as to who is out of X people listed in your corps roster.

S3dition, on 29 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

One time fee of, say 50mc to found a merc corps. That's assuming there is an advantage to running more than 1 corps, which I seriously doubt. Sure, you could try to take more worlds, but you can play 10 matches at the same time to hold them, and I'm betting you can't trade any resources at all between the corps. So, what would be the point?

I could see if 4 people paid 50 MC to create a merc corps using separate accounts. If the players listed are bidding on contracts and playing concurrently then "as a admission reward" of 4 mil in C-Bills is given to each team member after 4 weeks...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 29 March 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

The way I am reading that is like guild setup fees in other MMOs, and could potentially have some benefits like more team based statistics and possibly some rewards depending on how the CW is setup.

Requiring premium time to maintain the status seems like a stretch though.

[XIRUSPHERE]

Forcing people to be beholden to premium time to fight together as a clan? I like how they can shoot themselves in the foot and the arse at the same time.

[Roadbeer]

S3dition, on 29 March 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

One time fee of, say 50mc to found a merc corps. That's assuming there is an advantage to running more than 1 corps, which I seriously doubt. Sure, you could try to take more worlds, but you can play 10 matches at the same time to hold them, and I'm betting you can't trade any resources at all between the corps. So, what would be the point?

I'm ok with 50,000 MC for a start up, I get it, it's a pain in the *** for PGI, but to require premium time to stay active... HELLZ NOZ

[Noobzorz]

I'm with OP. I'm generally on the side of PGI doing it right, but seriously, who gives a **** if there are a flood of 1 man merc corps?

Requiring cash for gameplay features in a F2P game is axiomatically bad. Requiring cash to use community tools happens to also be colossally ********.

Edited by Noobzorz, 29 March 2013 - 01:03 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Noobzorz, on 29 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'm with OP. I'm generally on the side of PGI doing it right, but seriously, who gives a **** if there are a flood of 1 man merc corps?

Requiring cash for gameplay features in a F2P game is axiomatically bad. Requiring cash to use community tools happens to also be colossally ********.

What would you do to prevent an overwhelming influx of stupid idiots from screwing with your computer, buy an A/V subscription perhaps??? Same concept, different implementation.

[Dr Killinger]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. yeah, they need cash to maintain it... but Premium is expensive. If the houses offer more casual players everything we want, that's grand then.

[S3dition]

KuruptU4Fun, on 29 March 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

What would you do to prevent an overwhelming influx of stupid idiots from screwing with your computer, buy an A/V subscription perhaps??? Same concept, different implementation.

MSE. 100% free, fast, and effective. The subscription A/V programs are bloated, ineffective, and nag you to pay more money.

Same concept, different implementation. People who pay for the CW will feel even more entitled, which will make PGI add more unnecessary features to keep their paying base appeased.

Quote

I'm not sure how I feel about this. yeah, they need cash to maintain it... but Premium is expensive. If the houses offer more casual players everything we want, that's grand then.

It's not a merc/house debate, it's a paid/non-paid debate. In other words, you pay and get community warfare, or you don't pay and you basically get MWO the way it was right now.

Edited by S3dition, 29 March 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[LawDawg]

Roadbeer, on 29 March 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

I'm ok with 50,000 MC for a start up, I get it, it's a pain in the *** for PGI, but to require premium time to stay active... HELLZ NOZ

If they put in a way for a group to band MC together to create a Merc unit (for above said price)... Fine. Then Maybe 1 million (10 Million) Cbill taken from your account each month to ensure you stayed active. If you went into the negative, you were removed and had to pay MC of say 200-500 to rejoin.

On top of that, have each player that joins have to pay 250-500 MC. Another money maker.

But this isnt the end Ladies and Gents........... When Clans are allowed to be played. Ohhhhh h3ll. The COST WILL ramp up. They have this planned out for long term money making. We're the cow, and they are going to milk it till our nits are sore.

[Everything Bagel]

Sigh...

I am pretty bummed with the information that has been released via the latest interviews. I think I may need to just accept that this game is not what I was hoping for. The following points kind of sum up my thoughts over the last week.

1. CW is essentially going to be a subscription service. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with this, after all lots of mmos have subscription systems, however with my life/work I do not play those types of games. Therefore, this pretty much kills the game for me. "Lone Wolf is the play style currently in game"...so meaningless? The free system is a passive system that includes all the houses? So houses don't have active participation....none of this sounds awesome.

2. The list of features that weren't discussed is staggering. All along I have been under the impression that the two game modes that are played currently are placeholders. These game modes are absurd. Stand in a square with a cap module and win in 30 seconds? Play on a huge map that is completely limited by 750 victory points. No base defense, no objectives, no convoy escort, no base destruction, no dropship mode, no arena, nothing... In my opinion the game modes as they currently are implemented are just unacceptable for a real release.

3. UI 2.0 sounds good, but with absolutely no details it is impossible to judge it fairly. Will there be a matchmaker eventually? Lobbies? Team tournaments? And what about voice support. If there is no PUG voice support, then the command functions and commander role certainly need to be fleshed out.

4. Netcode and stability also are nowhere near ready. Textures still flicker on and off, map bugs, chat bugs, mechs can't move at over 150kph, hit boxes are wonky on several mechs, crash to desktops still occur, mechs get stuck on terrain, mechs don't respond to controls and walk in a straight line to their doom, etc. This is all basic stuff that is likely not going to be fixed in a couple of months.

5. Consumables/Modules/Maps are not fully fleshed out. Remember when the pilot tree was a placeholder, apparently that is now a finished system. Are the numbers of modules and maps really at a level that could be contemplated as "ready for release"? Mind you I understand updates will still continue, and the numbers are not really what is important. What is important is that these factors show a baseline for what this game considers acceptable for purposes of publishing. The game we are playing now, is essentially the game that will be released. This is the same game I was playing in closed beta that was going to be drastically changed before it went live. It just seems that there have been a lot of lofty ambitions that have given way to the realities of time constraints and monetary needs.

I am still hoping for the best, but more and more this game is looking to become a casual indulgence for me to remember how much i like battletech.