391 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

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

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.

http://cloud-2.steam...836C14968FA0F1/

Look at me in my Hero Highlander.

[Mechteric]

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

The Titanic was designed so it CANNOT sink. I see ice.

From what I recall the Titanic didn't sink due to the design, but most likely due to the crappy iron (and/or steel) that was used during construction. Of course none of that has anything to do with MWO, so I shall now say something on topic.

In my opinion out of the 10 Hero mechs only 2 of them have a few notable advantages over variants of that same chassis (Firebrand for its extra high up weapons, Flame for its excellent weapon hardpoint placement), while the rest are more or less equivalent if not worse than their CBill purchasable cousins. But in this game those variants still share the weaknesses of their CBill cousin variants. The Dragon's large Center Torso, the Jagermech's large side torsos, and so on. The Heavy Metal is the only one which can stand out for not having such vulnerabilities, but even it can't mount as many weapons as the CBill variants can mount.

[Mira Widowmaker]

Thomas Covenant, on 31 May 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

it is objectively better, if someone performs better in one.

This definition is your personal definition, but is far from the general rule.
If all things considered equal, read (skill, experience and so on) this mech always gives an advantage, than it would be "objectively" better.

If it is better only for a specific person, then the mech is subjectively better. But there will always be subjectively better mechs. What you have given is the general definition of subjectively better. And to be pay to win, you have to offer something to buy which is objectively better (for winning).


And on another unrelated thought:
And hey, some people have better hardware, better internet connection which gives them an slight advantage in the game. So it is pay to win, because you have to upgrade your graphic card, your cable connection, your screen (and so on...) because that would it make a little bit easier for you.

You sound like someone who wholeheartly dislikes (or have not enough) money to buy the hero mechs you want.

[Fut]

Thomas Covenant, on 31 May 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

Do you have a single mech you are best at? If you did, and they took it away and made it pay to play hero variant, is it pay to win, by making you pay to play in it?

The simple answer is "No".
Just because you think you're doing the best in one 'Mech, it doesn't mean that you're going to "win" simply by using it. It doesn't even mean that you'll do better than any other player using their favourite 'Mech.
it just means that you have a preference - and tough luck that your preference just happens to be a 'Mech you have to spend $$ on.

Also, all of this is completely hypothetical anyhow, because there's no possible way to determine if a Hero Mech is your "best Mech" unless you buy it first. So why the hell are we even discussing this?

Edited by Fut, 06 June 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Mangonel TwoSix]

There are not any real pay to win heroes out yet. The cataphract came the closest. It was beast and pretty unique at the time.

Most heroes are pretty tame. The flame is really probably the best due to the synergy of having all lasers in the same recticule. Compared to other dragons.

This may not be popular but I think pay to win is inevitable. Once people have a decent chassis with bonus to grind with what is the point of buying more heroes if they are not significantly different or out right better? Only the people who have to have everything or those that identify with a certain mech will continue to buy heroes.

So the devs will have to make better and better heroes. And I'm okay with that, as long as they are not so overpowered that is all people use.

So bring on the pay to win. How else are you going to get the masses to buy more 30 dollar mechs.

Edited by Roknari, 06 June 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[SirLANsalot]

HGN-732

HEAVY METAL

Same build, two different mechs.

That is the HM build I use, and the 732, can do the same damn build. Locations change but the same build is done. The 732 even has one more missile point then the HM dose, so its firepower can be higher then what a poor HM can get. Add in the fact the 732 can use PPC's (max 3), and the HM can't (max 2) I have no idea what all the bellyaching is about here.


As for other "hero" mechs, only ones that change competently, and have no other similarities amongst there own chassis, is the Illya/Flame/X5/Wang. However these mechs are balanced by what similar mechs within there own class can do. The Wang is just a HBK4g, a little faster and its gun in the arm. The Illya...the CTF-4X can preform better then it, AND never jam. The Flame with is ballistic in the torso, is again just an over-sized 4G. And the X5, is a bigger Jenner-D, but thats what ALL of the cicadas are.



Heros by no means change the game AT ALL, no build for them is going to be more OP then what something else can do, and maybe even better then the supposed "hero". This "debate" was said and done back in CB when the wang came out and some overzealous nut-jobs went off the wall on PGI.....and were quickly silenced and dismissed as such.

Edited by SirLANsalot, 06 June 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[armyof1]

While the HM might or might not be the best Highlander depending on your playstyle, the fact that there wasn't a single CBill Highlander that both had a Ballistic slot and at least 2 Energy slots in the arm except HM made me totally lose all interest in Highlanders. It sure didn't help that they released the HM first so for two weeks I was aware of a fun build that existed, but then they release the CBill versions with the stupid torso energy hardpoints that is nowhere as good for lasers. It's no wonder people stuffed Highlanders full of PPCs.

[Thomas Covenant]

Quote

it is objectively better, if someone performs better in one.

Mira Widowmaker, on 06 June 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

This definition is your personal definition, but is far from the general rule.

In context it would read as

Quote

You perform better[at a given task] in the mech you are best in[performing said task], this improvement is objective.

It's not meant as a definition, it is just an observable fact.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 06 June 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Mira Widowmaker]

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

It's not meant as a definition, it is just an observable fact.

But is not. It is a subjective observation and no observation which can be generalized. It does not matter if something is good or bad for a single individual.
As far as pay to win is concerned it is only if the general player (and not some players) have a certain advantage using this mech (advantage for winning - of course you get the advantage of c-bills).

[Volthorne]

Ngamok, on 06 June 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

http://cloud-2.steam...836C14968FA0F1/

Look at me in my Hero Highlander.

Ngamok, your results don't count, you're pretty damned good in anything. Plus you were basically playing for the rest of your Lance (god those scores are abysmal, I'm surprised Ownere had such a bad game).

Not to mention that's only one game from one player.

[Thomas Covenant]

Mira Widowmaker, on 06 June 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

It does not matter if something is good or bad for a single individual.

Spock said:

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few

Uhura's response

[Mira Widowmaker]

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Uhura's response

We do not take about the moral stance but about language and common use of language. It is the code people use to share thoughts and communicate. It does only work properly if we accept some definitions.
Of course you can talk about a "ball" and mean a "calculator" but it will not help yourself to share thoughts with other or communicate properly.
No back to pay to win.
There is a generally accepted definition of pay to win. If everybody (not just some special people but the general mass) who pays real money gets an advantage in winning.

That's the definition. You can hate it, you can have other defintions, but all of this will not help you to communicate here.

Your metaphor is out of place. Because everything I said and discussed had nothing to do with the "need" of the many. It is about objectivity und subjectivity.

Your argument is flawed because the axiom on which you built it, your defintion, is deeply flawed. And as long as you cannot built your argument without that flawed axiom there is no need to discuss further.

Yes in a world where if of 7 billion people on this planet one human might exist who would get an advantage in a game by buying a mech with money (who is only buyable with money), and this would be considered "pay to win", yes, then it would be pay to win.
But that is not the defintion used for pay to win. And yes, if you think your axiom to its logical conclusion that you would have to agree that it would be pay to win. And if you cannot see that this result is absolutely absurd... then... well...

[Thomas Covenant]

For us pay to win means you're able to bypass skill with money that you're able to gain tactical advantage over your fellow player via only one paying course of action -Bryan Ekman.

This is the definition I use. It may not be the definition 7 billion people use, but it is the one the game makers use and the one I care about.

You have the greatest tactical advantage in the mech most suited for your role, and you personally are best able to take advantage of. You can bypass the skill that others need to compensate for from being in a secondary mech. Your only paying option is mc/money(for now, mc rewards in CW have been discussed).

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 06 June 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Mira Widowmaker]

Thomas Covenant, on 06 June 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

For us pay to win means you're able to bypass skill with money that you're able to gain tactical advantage over your fellow player via only one paying course of action -Bryan Ekman.

This is the definition I use. It may not be the definition 7 billion people use, but it is the one the game makers use and the one I care about.

You have the greatest tactical advantage in the mech most suited for your role, and you personally are best able to take advantage of.

I am done to explain you how english language works and what he meant when wording it this way.... He says the same as me, and the many others here... but not what you are saying. You're hearing what you want...

Sorry, obviously I am too stupid... too blonde or whatever, but not intelligent enough to make you see.... wish you happy days in your own private world you seem to live in and talk to....

[RG Notch]

HATS! No possible advantage from ******* HATS! Why can't people see that is the answer.
Seriously, people are taking the wrong tack. The P2W loonies don't even care about the win anymore, its the pay part that disturbs them. If PGI would simply pay it's creditors and employees with C bills we wouldn't have need for any of this crazy real money you people are talking about.
Anyways back to the regularly scheduled program of arguing logically with people who don't subscribe. Plus once one chooses one's own definition, how can you defeat that? I mean that's how I engage in discussions, I make up my own definitions and for some reason other folks who seem to foolishly cling to the common usage never seem to get it.

[Thomas Covenant]

Mira Widowmaker, on 06 June 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

I am done to explain you how english language works and what he meant when wording it this way.... He says the same as me, and the many others here... but not what you are saying. You're hearing what you want...

Sorry, obviously I am too stupid... too blonde or whatever, but not intelligent enough to make you see.... wish you happy days in your own private world you seem to live in and talk to....

Thanks for the lesson. I enjoyed it.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 06 June 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Gallowglas]

Quote

http://cloud-2.steam...836C14968FA0F1/

Look at me in my Hero Highlander.

Yeah, the Highlander is just a solid mech, period. You really can't go very wrong with most (maybe all) of the variants.

Edited by Gallowglas, 06 June 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[Johnny Flyswatter]

So wait...is my mech getting a bow or a spear in the next update? I'm confused...

BTW...most terribad metaphor in the Inner Sphere...ever...

[MekShred]

Thomas Covenant must have major issues with this free to play game. Welfare warriors shall always complain. I do not buy MC to be l33t as you seem to suggest as the reason to purchase. I support the game. I have been the owner of almost all the hero mechs. I can tell you they are not the best. Your argument is based on a personal bias, which you are allowed to have. However we, just like you have our own, which obviously conflict with yours. So why bother arguing over it? There is really only one reason someone would even attempt to call hero mechs pay to win, they either got spanked by them repeatedly, or can't afford them. Everyone here has made sensebut you Thomas Covenant. If you play the game and like, then support it and spend some damn money. If you don't like there is the door.

Edited by MekShred, 06 June 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

My dual LBX Jager absolutely crushes Firebrands when I get the jump on them. I don't see an issue.