391 replies to this topic

[Thomas Covenant]

Thomas Covenant, on 02 June 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

I've kind of let down my guard a bit in this threat. Once I started posting solutions, I realized that I think I was quoting the game maker's own plans from old ask the devs.

IV Amen, on 02 June 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:

Links and reference, please.

This is a counter example actually
http://mwomercs.com/...4-role-warfare/

Quote

In that same vein, will there be any kind of skill tree established for Houses/Merc Units/eventual Clans which allows members to advance within the ranks and unlock additional perks for their lances if they are in combat (i.e. a General leading from the front, rather than being a REMF) –DarkTreader

[PAUL] Right now all skill trees enhance the player experience on a global level. House/Merc Unit specific upgrades are not part of our current design.

[DAVID] Merc Corps are free to set up their own ranks and chain of command and we will provide the tools to help them do so. However, there’s no in-game reward associated with Merc Corp rank. Faction players will automatically move through the ranks of a House by earning loyalty points, though rewards are limited to cosmetic items such as unit insignias and special titles.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 03 June 2013 - 02:03 AM.

[Pater Mors]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 01:50 AM, said:

No that is not what I am saying. If you don't think I am saying hero mechs are pay to win, as in, "pay for a tactical advantage" then you have not taken in my argument. I'm sorry but no.

The hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is always thinking that their arguments are misunderstood. I have taken in your arguments and I am saying they are flat out wrong. I have not misunderstood them. Don't insult my intelligence.

1) There's no possible scenario, in this game currently, where the tactical advantage conferred by one chassis is better than another other than subjectively involving personal player skill.

2) Pay-to-win involves a system that confers a clear tactical advantage despite player skill.

3) The fact that one player might be better with Misery than any other chassis is irrelevant in the discussion of whether Hero Mechs are pay to win due to point 2.

4) Without an example of point 2 there is no argument for pay to win.

5) The best version of a consumable (eg: coolant) being available only for MC purchase is an example of point 2.

6) Other arguments may discuss the type of content delivery that PGI currently has and whether it is objectively fair which is the main thrust of your argument.

Edited by Pater Mors, 03 June 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[Thomas Covenant]

If you want to offer healthy skepticism this is welcome. The hallmark of cynicism is to assume a story. You apply the conspiracy theorist to me and that is what you'll see, and it will keep you from taking in new information unburdened with preconceived notions of what it is "all about".
If you are really honest with yourself about my tone, you will see I assign no blame, and really come here as someone who wants to help and discuss an issue.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 03 June 2013 - 02:46 AM.

[Sephlock]

I'd argue that the Yen Lo Wang and Pretty Baby are in fact pay to lose.

[Pater Mors]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

If you want to offer healthy skepticism this is welcome. The hallmark of cynicism is to assume a story. You apply the conspiracy theorist to me and that is what you'll see, and it will keep you from taking in new information unburdened with preconceived notions of what it is "all about".

Again, you assume that I have misunderstood what you were talking about. I have not.

Case closed.

[Ralgas]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

If you want to offer healthy skepticism this is welcome. The hallmark of cynicism is to assume a story. You apply the conspiracy theorist to me and that is what you'll see, and it will keep you from taking in new information unburdened with preconceived notions of what it is "all about".

You lose us at pay to win though. Discrimination maybe, but that's a different argument and even then sketchy at best as it's not the intention. For your definition to apply everyone would be best at the said paid mech, not just the singular.....

Edited by Ralgas, 03 June 2013 - 02:14 AM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Pater Mors, on 03 June 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Case closed.

Was it ever open?

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 03 June 2013 - 02:24 AM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Ralgas, on 03 June 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

You lose us at pay to win though. Discrimination maybe, but that's a different argument and even then sketchy at best as it's not the intention. For your definition to apply everyone would be best at the said paid mech, not just the singular.....

Incorrect. MY DEFINITION is ABOUT the singular.

[Pater Mors]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

Was it ever open?

On the subject of Hero Mech's being pay to win? No not really. It's rather easy to see, in-game, that Hero Mech's are not pay to win.

On the subject of Hero Mech's conferring a subjective advantage to someone who is good at piloting them? That's not even a case.

On the subject of making all chassis available through some means other than MC? It's an interesting case but not one that I think has many valid 'for' arguments. Pay to win certainly isn't one of them.

[Ralgas]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Incorrect. MY DEFINITION is ABOUT the singular.

which is why it's not pay to win. By definition that is to give the singular an unfair advantage, not to preform against his peers at his best.

The same could be said about a pilot just out of cadet bonus, because they could not afford the c-bill mech of his/her choice and layout

Edited by Ralgas, 03 June 2013 - 02:22 AM.

[Pater Mors]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Incorrect. MY DEFINITION is ABOUT the singular.

You don't get to have your own definition.

That's like saying my definition of Maths is that 2+2 = 5.

[Thomas Covenant]

Ralgas, on 03 June 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:

which is why it's not pay to win. By definition that is to give the singular an unfair advantage, not to preform against his peers at his best.

The same could be said about a pilot just out of cadet bonus, because they could not afford the c-bill mech of his/her choice and layout

They can still get them, money just gets them faster.

This is true for other in game advantages such as the mech and pilot tree.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 03 June 2013 - 02:26 AM.

[Pater Mors]

Thomas Covenant, on 03 June 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

They can still get them, money just gets them faster.

This is true for other in game advantages such as the mech and pilot tree.

By your 'definition' and I used that term loosely, anyone piloting any Atlas variant that they bought with MC is paying to win because I can't afford one with C-bills right now.

[KharnZor]

Carrioncrows, on 31 May 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

Powerful imagery.

[Thomas Covenant]

Quote

1) There's no possible scenario, in this game currently, where the tactical advantage conferred by one chassis is better than another other than subjectively involving personal player skill.

@ Mors

I edited a post after you quoted it, so the responsibility falls upon me to show it to you. I further discussed the objectivity of the definition.I use.

Post #197: Objectivity

[HighlandCoo]

I honestly cannot believe you are all being trolled so very badly here. There is no way that a hero mech can be considered P2W as it confers no advantage over the the same item bought with C-Bills.

In fact, I'd go further and point out that each Hero mech actually has LESS weapon hardpoints than it's C-Bill equivalent and is in fact NERFED significantly to offset the 30% C-Bill bost you get from running one. I dont think anyone is going to argue that a Hero mech varient is in any way superior to the C-Bill variants.

You all seem to be arguing that you cannot access a nerfed varient without paying MC. I dont get it.

Edited by HighlandCoo, 03 June 2013 - 02:47 AM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Thomas Covenant, on 02 June 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

"Cheshire Cat."

The prankster is often regarded as the teacher in many societies and legends.

Sephlock, on 02 June 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Don't the Japanese ones do creepy stuff like trick you into eating relatives and such?

[Thomas Covenant]

[FunkyFritter]

In the strictest sense of the word hero mechs are indeed pay2win, judging by these forums people seem to be okay with that idea. The steady stream of new consumables and powerful modules imply that things are only going to get worse, if that doesn't sit well with you it might be time to try out a new game.

[Chrithu]

Thomas Covenant, on 30 May 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

My question for you is do you have a mech you are best at? If you did have one you were best at, and they changed it to a here mech(yours was taken but they gave the cbills back), if then would you consider your best mech to be pay to win?

That's a nice question. But neither answer would qualify as proof for or against hero mechs being P2W. Why? Well because that answer would be purely subjective and if you ask enough people the list of mehcs they're best with would be exactly the list of available mechs. The next problem is that no hero mech has so far replaced any existing variant.

All that matters is objective analyzis. Has any hero mech any objective advantage in combat when it comes to potential damage or suvrivability over any non-hero mech. The answer to that is clearly no. The CBill Bonus is merely a Time Saver.

You people can argument and philosophize as much as you want. Thus far PGI did a damn good job with the Hero Mechs in making them mechs that people would like to get while not making them P2W. The upcoming Jager Hero is just another great example: All it is is a JM6-DD with two of the four energy slots migrated from sidetorso to arms. You can not pack any loadout into it you couldn't also put on a JM6-DD. It's only advantage is in one secific situation: over-ridge shooting. That is because of the new high located energy mounts. This is nice if you like Jagers, but hardly something exclusive across the whole bandwidth of mechs. Catapult K2 has the same weight with the same high mounted energy mounts.


P.S.: Just for fun I'll answer your question. My best mech is the Catapult K2. If they took it away and made it a hero, I'd be pissed, but I wouldn't call it pay to win, because just because I say it's the best mech in game doesn't mean that it really is and thus this is no basis whatsoever to call such a [Richard] move pay to win. It's a [Richard] move nothing more nothing less. But as this hypothetical scenario is VERY unlikely to happen what about something more realistic: What if a Hero Catpult came, that was similar to the K2 only replacing the side torso energy slots by 2 missile slots in the arms? I would consider buying it.