391 replies to this topic

[RG Notch]

Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

It's really a terribly flawed argument that assumes that there is one single mech that every player will be best in. Since this is not the case the argument falls apart.

Apparently not if you keep repeating it and ignoring logical critiques.

[Thomas Covenant]

Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

It's really a terribly flawed argument that assumes that there is one single mech that every player will be best in. Since this is not the case the argument falls apart.

Because people have different playstyles? Or they do evenly well in all mechs? Or what angle is it you are saying people don't have individual advantage?

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 10 June 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[Vodrin Thales]

Thomas Covenant, on 10 June 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Really? Because people have different playstyles or they do evenly well in all mechs or what angle is it you are saying people don't have individual advantage?

You can argue that there are preferred equipment for a mech for an individual pilot, but since there are so many overlaps in possible equipment load outs, any reasonably skilled pilot with a good knowledge of the game will find a minimum of 3-4 mechs that suit his/her play style well and allow that pilot to excel. In almost all cases at most one of these mechs will be a hero mech.

The other problem is that each mech has a performance ceiling based on optimal load out and optimal pilot performance. Mechs can be reasonably ranked in strength with this in mind. When this is done there is not a single hero mech that cracks the overall top 5, and there are only 3 that make the top 20.

I can understand you having a somewhat skewed perspective here because you are young and probably have limited competitive gaming experience. I was competing with video games before you were born, back before there was even an internet to make such competitions easy to do, and I have seen many games online and otherwise come and go. This game is not P2W in any way, and is not even pay for a slight advantage. Whenever it seems the game was even sliding in that direction slightly, the resulting outcry has steered it in a better direction. Again this is not a P2W game.

Edit: Let me further clarify. The problem with P2W is not that a player becomes more likely to win if he/she spends real money, it's that others that face that player are at a disadvantage. No hero mech puts an opponent at a competitive disadvantage under any circumstances. Whether or not an opposing player decides to buy a hero mech has no impact on my ability to win in this game, and that players personal playstyle has no impact on that equation.

If that hypothetical player is so limited that they can only achieve their own maximal performance with a hero mech, they are not going to prevent most players in this game from winning when they go against them. That is the real reason that hero mechs are not P2W, and is why your argument is flawed and wrong.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 10 June 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Vodrin Thales, on 10 June 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

You can argue that there are preferred equipment for a mech for an individual pilot, but since there are so many overlaps in possible equipment load outs, any reasonably skilled pilot with a good knowledge of the game will find a minimum of 3-4 mechs that suit his/her play style well and allow that pilot to excel. In almost all cases at most one of these mechs will be a hero mech.

The other problem is that each mech has a performance ceiling based on optimal load out and optimal pilot performance. Mechs can be reasonably ranked in strength with this in mind. When this is done there is not a single hero mech that cracks the overall top 5, and there are only 3 that make the top 20.

I can understand you having a somewhat skewed perspective here because you are young and probably have limited competitive gaming experience. I was competing with video games before you were born, back before there was even an internet to make such competitions easy to do, and I have seen many games online and otherwise come and go. This game is not P2W in any way, and is not even pay for a slight advantage. Whenever it seems the game was even sliding in that direction slightly, the resulting outcry has steered it in a better direction. Again this is not a P2W game.

Edit: Let me further clarify. The problem with P2W is not that a player becomes more likely to win if he/she spends real money, it's that others that face that player are at a disadvantage. No hero mech puts an opponent at a competitive disadvantage under any circumstances. Whether or not an opposing player decides to buy a hero mech has no impact on my ability to win in this game, and that players personal playstyle has no impact on that equation.

If that hypothetical player is so limited that they can only achieve their own maximal performance with a hero mech, they are not going to prevent most players in this game from winning when they go against them. That is the real reason that hero mechs are not P2W, and is why your argument is flawed and wrong.

As I have mentioned before, while loadouts may be able to be replicated, there are so many additional layers of differentiation between mech chassis: mech quirks, hardpoint locations, cockpit locations, speed caps, to name a few that preference comes into play with, more than just what weapons you have. There will be a top 4 yes, on any list of 4 or more items there will be a top 4. The disparity could be large or it could be small, but it's still a factor that wouldn't even have to be debated if it didn't exist.

[RG Notch]

Thomas Covenant, on 10 June 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

As I have mentioned before, while loadouts may be able to be replicated, there are so many additional layers of differentiation between mech chassis: mech quirks, hardpoint locations, cockpit locations, speed caps, to name a few that preference comes into play with, more than just what weapons you have. There will be a top 4 yes, on any list of 4 or more items there will be a top 4. The disparity could be large or it could be small, but it's still a factor that wouldn't even have to be debated if it didn't exist.

Actually, there's no debate. You keep saying something, people prove you wrong, you keep saying the same thing. Again like P2W, I don't think you know what debate means. No matter how many times you say something it doesn't become right. I could be wrong. Maybe if you repeat it enough you will convince someone other than yourself.
Just come out and say you want the hero chassis but don't want to pay real money all this beating around the bush must be tiresome.

[Vodrin Thales]

Thomas Covenant, on 10 June 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

As I have mentioned before, while loadouts may be able to be replicated, there are so many additional layers of differentiation between mech chassis: mech quirks, hardpoint locations, cockpit locations, speed caps, to name a few that preference comes into play with, more than just what weapons you have. There will be a top 4 yes, on any list of 4 or more items there will be a top 4. The disparity could be large or it could be small, but it's still a factor that wouldn't even have to be debated if it didn't exist.

You can say you would like hero mechs to be available for C-bills just for the sake of variety or you think that would make the game more fun. But to say that it is necessary to level the competitive playing field is just wrong, so a substantial portion of the community that bothers to read these forums came here to tell you so. Your not wrong to ask for the ability to purchase the hero mechs without spending real money, your just wrong to state that not having that ability puts you or some other hypothetical player at some kind of a disadvantage.

[Sephlock]

Honestly the whole thing is academic so long as the meta consists entirely of:

[Rytheo]

I would like the game to be varied enough to be able to support this statement, like to take an example out of the street fighter pro scene, poongko's seth is an entirely different animal to his ryu play. So, if the mechs in this game were as varied as different characters in street fighter his post would be true, but I think the sad fact of this situation is that honestly all of the mechs feel basically the same.

[Volthorne]

Rytheo, on 10 June 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I would like the game to be varied enough to be able to support this statement, like to take an example out of the street fighter pro scene, poongko's seth is an entirely different animal to his ryu play. So, if the mechs in this game were as varied as different characters in street fighter his post would be true, but I think the sad fact of this situation is that honestly all of the mechs feel basically the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Seth and Ryu completely different in and of themselves? Therefore, they would have to be played differently.

[The Platypus]

Rytheo, on 10 June 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I would like the game to be varied enough to be able to support this statement, like to take an example out of the street fighter pro scene, poongko's seth is an entirely different animal to his ryu play. So, if the mechs in this game were as varied as different characters in street fighter his post would be true, but I think the sad fact of this situation is that honestly all of the mechs feel basically the same.

The mechs would be varied if loadouts were locked for each variant and chassis, which would be very unpopular with a lot of the playerbase. I'm sure you'd feel a little jaded too if you could strip out a Hadouken from Ryu and Ken, and boat it on Blanka as long as he has the appropriate skill slots available. But that's just me talking gibberish again.

On a side note:I feel like I've just taken a masterclass in 'Shouting at a Wall 101'. Many points have been raised in rebuttal of the Hero P2W theory but all I keep seeing from the other end is 'pilot preference', 'pay for tahcticulllll choices' and 'red spear,blue spear pink mech,blue mech' analogies. It's like you're trying to sell me a chihuahua by telling me it's cute (true for about half of us) but that it's also Emma Watson in disguise.

[Sephlock]

Volthorne, on 10 June 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Seth and Ryu completely different in and of themselves? Therefore, they would have to be played differently.

They both have fireball attacks and Shoryukens . Its not like he's comparing Ryu and Vega (claw).

[Volthorne]

Sephlock, on 10 June 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

They both have fireball attacks and Shoryukens . Its not like he's comparing Ryu and Vega (claw).

A better comparison would probably have been Ken and Ryu, since Ken is basically a Ryu clone. If you'd have said:

Rytheo, on 10 June 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

poongko's ken is an entirely different animal to his ryu play

I would have been more concerned with where you were coming from, but because you used two (relatively) different characters, I'm cool with that analogy. I don't play my C1 and K2 the same way, and they both use the same chassis!

[Rocket Puppy]

Thomas Covenant, on 09 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

If it did.

HAHAHAHA. You are obviously not mentally stable. Good luck.

[Sephlock]

[Rytheo]

Volthorne, on 10 June 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Seth and Ryu completely different in and of themselves? Therefore, they would have to be played differently.

No you are correct there but that was part of the reason I chose it, there are like 3 major factors that cause one mech to differ from another and tbh I really dont think that really gives a level of variation in the gameplay to really differentiate one from another.

Like say next year at this time there are 4 50 ton mechs with the same hardpoints and max engine, it seems to me that while there would be little variations that might make one superior to another, their optimal strategy would basically be the same between all 4. Different tactics and **** change between weight classes but within a weight class someone good at one mech is basically gonna be good at any of them because there is no deeper difference from one mech to another, at a given engine/weight value they all handle the same, and there is a way out here just to keep from being completely negative.

mechs could handle differently with different rates of acceleration and turning and top speeds that are dependant on but ultimately seperate from engine size, different levels of camera wobble when hit, they could implement a lesser degree of jump jet shake while running and change that up for the mechs and in combination all of those would give a certain "feel" to a mech. Right now im pretty sure if they removed or standardized the hud you wouldnt be able to tell one mech from another if you were driving one and I think thats a terrible state of affairs.

[Volthorne]

Rytheo, on 10 June 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

No you are correct there but that was part of the reason I chose it, there are like 3 major factors that cause one mech to differ from another and tbh I really dont think that really gives a level of variation in the gameplay to really differentiate one from another.

Like say next year at this time there are 4 50 ton mechs with the same hardpoints and max engine, it seems to me that while there would be little variations that might make one superior to another, their optimal strategy would basically be the same between all 4. Different tactics and **** change between weight classes but within a weight class someone good at one mech is basically gonna be good at any of them because there is no deeper difference from one mech to another, at a given engine/weight value they all handle the same, and there is a way out here just to keep from being completely negative.

mechs could handle differently with different rates of acceleration and turning and top speeds that are dependant on but ultimately seperate from engine size, different levels of camera wobble when hit, they could implement a lesser degree of jump jet shake while running and change that up for the mechs and in combination all of those would give a certain "feel" to a mech. Right now im pretty sure if they removed or standardized the hud you wouldnt be able to tell one mech from another if you were driving one and I think thats a terrible state of affairs.

I disagree. Take a Hunchback 4H and a Centurion A. They both come with an AC/10 stock, yet handle completely differently due to the differences in their hitboxes and hardpoint locations. I would like to see a bit more variation between different models of the same chassis though, as opposed to just minor tweaks to turning and pitch/yaw.

Edited by Volthorne, 10 June 2013 - 10:42 PM.

[Thomas Covenant]

Rytheo, on 10 June 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I would like the game to be varied enough to be able to support this statement, like to take an example out of the street fighter pro scene, poongko's seth is an entirely different animal to his ryu play. So, if the mechs in this game were as varied as different characters in street fighter his post would be true, but I think the sad fact of this situation is that honestly all of the mechs feel basically the same.

There are some pretty big differences from being an LRM boat, to being a guass sniper, from having or not having ecm or jump jets, or from one weight class to the next.

If they ever release a pay only ecm or jump jet variant of a mech it will heighten the issue. Though I feel having variant unique weapons is already far enough, more than overstepping.

Try the four different trial mechs in four matches to get a reminder of how varied the gameplay can be for you.

[Whompity]

Since you are attempting to address all of the more intricately-worded arguments but not my simple one, lemme try again:

Thomas, you MUST prove that hero mechs confer some sort of combat advantage (not a hypothetical one) to be able to say that they're P2W. A 30% C-Bill bonus would be the only reason I'd buy one (Plus supporting PGI, which is the REAL reason they were put in).

[Thomas Covenant]

Olivia Maybach, on 11 June 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Since you are attempting to address all of the more intricately-worded arguments but not my simple one, lemme try again:

Thomas, you MUST prove that hero mechs confer some sort of combat advantage (not a hypothetical one) to be able to say that they're P2W. A 30% C-Bill bonus would be the only reason I'd buy one (Plus supporting PGI, which is the REAL reason they were put in).

Have you piloted more than one mech?

[Whompity]

Thomas Covenant, on 11 June 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Have you piloted more than one mech?

Please formulate your answer in the form of an answer.