391 replies to this topic

[Devin Takkar]

So, you're still arguing about the same thing? Huh...
Okay, I'm going to repeat myself now: There is no player in the whole world with a skillset that limited that he can only be at his best with only one mech. That's not how skill works. If you claim to have only one mech you can be your best with you just stopped looking for a second or stopped training with your other mechs to get better with them.
"Unlocking your full potential" is not connected to a specific mech. Everybody is able to master (that means "pilot it as good as possible for that specific mechwarrior" in this case) any mech if he wants to.
Your "best" mech is just a mech you already mastered. It's a safety strategy, a trick of your mind. You expect yourself to be good with it, so you are good with it. That's it.

[WarHippy]

Thomas Covenant, on 31 May 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Yes, but that is not pay to win. Unless someone is paying the devs to add mechs to their favor. That not being the case, its a separate issue.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter one way or another if someone's marginally best mech happens to be a hero mech anymore so than if someone's best mech hasn't even been added to the game. It isn't P2W no matter how absurd an argument you try to come up with. P2W is buying a guaranteed advantage regardless of skill, but what you describe is someone's natural skill with a particular hero mech gives them an advantage so it is P2W in your mind when it simply is not the case. When you attach someone's natural talent to an equation there are no guaranties that an advantage has been gained when buying a hero mech over a standard mech. If we could buy ammo, and buying that ammo out performs ammo not purchased with real money then that guaranties an advantage in game regardless of the mech being piloted. That would be P2W.

[Dmitri Valenov]

Thomas Covenant, on 02 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Not suggesting they remove anything.

Really? *searches through thread*

Thomas Covenant, on 31 May 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

My point is that there is an advantage involved.

make the varient cbill available.
or since they are adding mc reward in game with community warefar, make it so anyone can get enough mc to buy one within a reasonable amount of time, perhaps a few months?

By making hero mechs available for cbills PGI would lose a substantial amount of income. Sure there would probably be a few people that would pay MC to get them "Right Now", but a good chunk would just earn the cbills and buy them that way.

So, in conclusion, yes you were suggesting removing hero mechs as a source of revenue for the company. Since the mechs cost around $75k to create (I think that's what Ekman stated), they would be a huge money sink with very little profitability. I support MC only non Pay to Win mechs.

Dmitri

[RG Notch]

Dmitri Valenov, on 03 June 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Really? *searches through thread*



By making hero mechs available for cbills PGI would lose a substantial amount of income. Sure there would probably be a few people that would pay MC to get them "Right Now", but a good chunk would just earn the cbills and buy them that way.

So, in conclusion, yes you were suggesting removing hero mechs as a source of revenue for the company. Since the mechs cost around $75k to create (I think that's what Ekman stated), they would be a huge money sink with very little profitability. I support MC only non Pay to Win mechs.

Dmitri

Well the devs whole problem is paying for things in real money. Why don't they just grind c bills?

[Volthorne]

RG Notch, on 03 June 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Well the devs whole problem is paying for things in real money. Why don't they just grind c bills?

Hats? Hats!

Edited by Volthorne, 03 June 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[Shalune]

Thomas Covenant, on 31 May 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

Extra cbills? You think hero mechs are just custom paint and extra cbills? No. They are unique weapons. Sometimes even having a whole category of weapon not presented on any of the others of it's type. The X-5 the only missile Cicada, Misery, the only ballistic Stalker. They are all unique and pay items.

I see the "pay" in your argument but not the "win."

You seem to like metaphors, so here's one. 2 kids attend class to take a math test. They both bring #2 pencils, the teacher is selling pens for $1*. One student buys one, and the other sticks to his pencil though he is moderately more comfortable using a pen. Who got the higher score on the math test?

Unless you are trying to argue that a minute amount of comfort in a task is going to have such a large effect as to noticeably shift the outcome regardless of skill in the task itself, then this is what the pay to win argument equates to.

*as a way to let kids take it if they forget a writing utensil while teaching them to be more mindful. Aw, yeah. Back story.

[Sephlock]

^ the pencil kid, because you have to use a #2 pencil on those tests, and unless it was an erasable pen the pen kid would still be at a disadvantage even if it wasn't a scantron test .

[Shalune]

Sephlock, on 03 June 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

^ the pencil kid, because you have to use a #2 pencil on those tests, and unless it was an erasable pen the pen kid would still be at a disadvantage even if it wasn't a scantron test .

*chuckle* I'll take that as a compliment on unintentional accuracy!

There's not a single hero mech I would rank as over all better than 1 or more standard variants.

[Gallowglas]

You guys can keep posting a million different conspiracy theories about how hero mechs are P2W, but all it has done thus far is further reinforce to me how much you're simply determined to tilt at windmills.

Show me the matches that are made lopsided by the existence of hero mechs.

Show me the unbeatable combinations that are made possible by hero mechs.

Show me that hero mechs are dominating the leader boards.

Show me that hero mechs are giving you a statistically significant higher winning percentage than any other variant of the same chassis.

Show me that significantly more people are running them than aren't.

Show me that the best players shun the standard variants in favor of them.

Any of those might create a compelling argument. Trying to come up with seven-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon-style connections between hero mechs and P2W simply don't count as compelling.

Edited by Gallowglas, 03 June 2013 - 09:42 PM.

[Deathlike]

Gallowglas, on 03 June 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Show me that the best players shun the standard variants in favor of them.

The only time I can come up with this is the Dragon-5N vs the Flame (Fang is OK by Dragon standards). The 5N is not the most adaptable by design, having 3 ballistic points. MGs in their current state are not the most effective, but some people have tried out the 3 AC2 dakka Dragons occasionally. The 5N is probably the worst option in existence (unless, the Spider gets a hero, in which case, the Spider-5K is made obsolete for the same reasons as the 5N).

[Gallowglas]

Deathlike, on 03 June 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

The only time I can come up with this is the Dragon-5N vs the Flame (Fang is OK by Dragon standards). The 5N is not the most adaptable by design, having 3 ballistic points. MGs in their current state are not the most effective, but some people have tried out the 3 AC2 dakka Dragons occasionally. The 5N is probably the worst option in existence (unless, the Spider gets a hero, in which case, the Spider-5K is made obsolete for the same reasons as the 5N).

Frankly, I think the entire Dragon chassis is simply comparatively weak. I honestly tried to make the chassis work and the best I got was something that eked out a flat even KDR. I wasn't convinced that the Flame would significantly change that for me.

Granted, out of all the chassis out there, this is the most likely one where I'd say the observation holds true. And, truth be told, once in a while you're going to, by chance if nothing else, end up with some combination that just works better than another. Thus far, I just haven't seen any evidence that points toward PGI purposefully stacking all the advantages on the hero variants. Most of the chassis have better standard variants to varying degrees. The funny thing is that alongside the P2W posts, we have posts about how people feel ripped off by the Misery, the Heavy Metal, the Death's Knell, the X5, etc.

I think the stronger argument by far has to do with the pricing structure of the hero mechs. Mind you, that's also a very subjective argument, but it's also one in which there isn't a wealth of information or observed data that seems to undermine your assertion. Ultimately though, I suspect the entire P2W debate is about this: namely that people want the shiny, pretty hero mechs, but don't want to shell out $30 for one. The unfairness is less about the actual performance, and more about the idea that you want it, but don't want to pay the offered price for it.

Edited by Gallowglas, 03 June 2013 - 10:14 PM.

[Deathlike]

Gallowglas, on 03 June 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

Frankly, I think the entire Dragon chassis is simply comparatively weak. I honestly tried to make the chassis work and the best I got was something that eked out a flat even KDR. I wasn't convinced that the Flame would significantly change that for me.

Granted, out of all the chassis out there, this is the most likely one where I'd say the observation holds true. And, truth be told, once in a while you're going to, by chance if nothing else, end up with some combination that just works better than another. Thus far, I just haven't seen any evidence that points toward PGI purposefully stacking all the advantages on the hero variants. Most of the chassis have better standard variants to varying degrees. The funny thing is that alongside the P2W posts, we have posts about how people feel ripped off by the Misery, the Heavy Metal, the Death's Knell, the X5, etc.

Yea... from what I read, this is more or less the case about hero mechs. There's almost always someone with something to gripe about what was paid for.

I think the issue mostly stems from badly "mangled" variants that are simply outright "inferior" to the "decent variants" of the some chassis. I've have asked and often wondered why we don't have more options (like some mechs are stuck to the godawful side variants, like the Raven-3L vs its variants).

Quote

I think the stronger argument by far has to do with the pricing structure of the hero mechs. Mind you, that's also a very subjective argument, but it's also one in which there isn't a wealth of information or observed data that seems to undermine your assertion. Ultimately though, I suspect the entire P2W debate is about this: namely that people want the shiny, pretty hero mechs, but don't want to shell out $30 for one. The unfairness is less about the actual performance, and more about the idea that you want it, but don't want to pay for it.

Yea.. the pricing is "out there", but "technically consistent" with their current pricing model for mechs in general. Still, people do complain the pricing of the HM/PB vs something like the X5, which is probably priced OK (except, when you compare it to the 3M, it kinda looks silly).

The argument is generally about not wanting to pay for it... but noone tries to come up with a fair compromise to provide "accessibility" with "limitations" when it comes to giving "incentive" to paying for the complete product. I could see strong sales for even just bundling hero mechs with a free mechbay thrown in.. (the most oft repeated request), so it's really about value that people are more critical about here (like camos) that technically needs some work on PGI's end.

[Gallowglas]

Deathlike, on 03 June 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

I could see strong sales for even just bundling hero mechs with a free mechbay thrown in.. (the most oft repeated request), so it's really about value that people are more critical about here (like camos) that technically needs some work on PGI's end.

Yeah, I do wish they'd give a free slot for each hero mech purchase. It's technically a very minor hassle and a very small incremental cost, but perceptually it feels like something that SHOULD be bundled, that might create more sales for them, and that would feel like more of a value to the player.

All in all, I'm fine with the prices they've set. I had a problem with the initial way that paints were done, but things feel, to me at least, mostly reasonable now. YMMV though and I at least understand where people are coming from on the pricing model.

Edited by Gallowglas, 03 June 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[Deathlike]

Gallowglas, on 03 June 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Yeah, I do wish they'd give a free slot for each hero mech purchase. It's technically a very minor hassle and a very small incremental cost, but perceptually it feels like something that SHOULD be bundled, that might create more sales for them, and that would feel like more of a value to the player.

In one of the Ask the Devs responses, it is a current limitation of the game. If it was properly built into the game and/or a web component allowed you to make the sales and changes online, they would be offering more sales like that.

[Gallowglas]

Deathlike, on 03 June 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:

In one of the Ask the Devs responses, it is a current limitation of the game. If it was properly built into the game and/or a web component allowed you to make the sales and changes online, they would be offering more sales like that.

Now that you mention it, I do vaguely recall that.

[Valore]

I've taken to referring people I dislike immensely to this thread, because everyone I know so far who has read the OP feels their IQ has fallen a few points.

Definitely worth a laugh though, especially Medic's immediate reply

[Zolaz]

When my Yen-Lo-Wang donkey punches you in the back with an AC20. Do you not hear the wordless sermon?

[Gelion]

To be completely honest, I haven't read the last couple of pages, however I doubt that anything too constructive was said in my brief absence in which there was a lot of activity. I was thinking of the *potential* aspect, and I think one thing which has been glanced over but not properly covered is not just the number of variants, but also the variety of builds one can put on variants.

Just the theory of a person hitting their truest potential is so limited due to the unknown as to what is their best build, as I doubt anyone has tried all the builds, except perhaps theorycrafting in smurfy, but that does not count in a person's actual ability. I am just trying to put out the point that it is not just a mech, but also the mech's loadout which contribute as a factor, which thereby significantly reduces Thomas' argument. I will make the point that theoritcally it does not completely negate his argument, and I do have respect for his argument, but when looking at the ability to change your mech's weapons, armour, engine and modules does significantly reduce the argument to state that simply a Hero mech is best for them.

I hope this argument makes sense and I apoligise if it does not.

[Thomas Covenant]

ask the devs 40

Thomas Covenant, on 05 June 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Will we be able to buy hero 'mechs with saved up faction points? Do you have to be a pro player to get faction points? How is it different to be in a different faction and get points, or for lone wolves and mercs? Do faction points convert to mc?

[Deathlike]

Thomas Covenant, on 05 June 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

ask the devs 40

Good chance the answer is NO. If the answer is different, then I'd be shocked. The most likely scenario is that doesn't get answered at all.