62 replies to this topic

[BlackIronTarkus]

Vodrin Thales, on 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

I don't think so. Would you deny there are significant weapon imbalances, high cost of transactions, and that introducing 3rd person view is probably a bad idea. If you agree with those points, how are they moot? He can be wrong on one point without invalidating his other points.

Exactly, thank you for supporting me.

People are completly ignoring my disclaimer, the second section I posted in my original post.

I AM WRONG FOR THE CONSUMMABLE.

Thats why I made a disclaimer, it doesnt require a module slot and can be upgraded with quite a few GXP. Alright, I get it. But a nice reminder to never sell power is always welcome, and thats what I did. That being said I still consider heroes mech more than convenience for the simple fact that their setup cannot be matched by a free player.

Seriusly, why are people and developers so reluctant to put a CB price on these heroes mech. It can be 20 000 000, it can be 50 000 000 it can even be 1 000 000 000. It doesnt matter, as long as it is possible for a free player to get one without paying.

The whole point is to be on a EVEN PLAYING FIELD.

[Joseph Mallan]

I don't want you on an even playing field with me. I want you trapped in a ravine where I can pour fire into you relentlessly!

[RG Notch]

BlackIronTarkus, on 03 June 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Exactly, thank you for supporting me.

People are completly ignoring my disclaimer, the second section I posted in my original post.

I AM WRONG FOR THE CONSUMMABLE.

Thats why I made a disclaimer, it doesnt require a module slot and can be upgraded with quite a few GXP. Alright, I get it. But a nice reminder to never sell power is always welcome, and thats what I did. That being said I still consider heroes mech more than convenience for the simple fact that their setup cannot be matched by a free player.

Seriusly, why are people and developers so reluctant to put a CB price on these heroes mech. It can be 20 000 000, it can be 50 000 000 it can even be 1 000 000 000. It doesnt matter, as long as it is possible for a free player to get one without paying.

The whole point is to be on a EVEN PLAYING FIELD.

Actually the whole point is to have a field to play on, if no one supports the game you can't play AT ALL. They key a lot of people trying to reason with the P2W loonies, is the loonies focus on the PAY part and not the WIN part. It's easy to see how it's unfair if one wants something but won't pay.
******* HATS people !

[Stone Profit]

OP whines and states his opinion as fact and makes abjectly false claims, then cries foul when other users point it out. CLASSIC!
OP also doesnt understand what p2w means, but at least he loudly proclaims he does!

Edited by Stone Profit, 03 June 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[Praehotec8]

BlackIronTarkus, on 02 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

No, read my post again. Can you make a free mech with the exact same stats, loadout and engine no matter what combination it is as the pretty baby for exemple? The answer is no, so there is an advantage no matter how you turn it around.

I disagree. Different does not necessarily equate to value. Pay to win only exists if there is some unfair advantage/edge for purchasing the product. The moment a hero mech is released that is far and away superior in terms of average combat performance compared to its siblings of the same chassis, then you will have P2W. As it stands now, you are paying for something a bit unique/different, and that is fine. Not every single item in a F2P game needs to be free, nor should they be. So far, you have the 'pay' part correct, but it isn't translating directly into 'winning'.

Even if, as you assert, that a mech that can carry a particular weapon (say a ballistic like Misery), and that becomes FOTM, this is still not P2W. Sure, that variant may be superior to its siblings, but a free player has the option to run a different chassis which may even carry more of the FOTM weapon. You may not WANT to run a different chassis (say you're a stalker fan and want to stick with it), but you have to expect SOME limitations when you're playing for free. You can still be equally competitve, but you might have to suck it up and pilot a different mech. Again, you're paying for a different option, to be able to do something you couldn't otherwise, and that's fine (for many). Whether you agree it's fine is up to you, but even if not, that doesn't make it P2W.


Quote: "Seriusly, why are people and developers so reluctant to put a CB price on these heroes mech. It can be 20 000 000, it can be 50 000 000 it can even be 1 000 000 000. It doesnt matter, as long as it is possible for a free player to get one without paying.
The whole point is to be on a EVEN PLAYING FIELD."

You're missing the point here (and this is where opinion really comes in). Just because a game is free to play doesn't mean that every single item in it ought to be available for free. As long as free players can participate equally effectively, the game is not P2W. As it stands, the playing field is equal, but unless you pony up some money you have fewer (but still equally effective) options.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer a boxed product with a one-time price, but unfortunately that is going the way of the dinosaur. In this day and age, I think of F2P as free trial. If one enjoys the game, one really ought to make some purchase (at least up to the price range they would pay for a boxed product of its quality), because the games aren't free to make, and each person who plays without paying, essentially adds to the amount that needs to be re-couped from the smaller pool of paying customers. If you don't like it, don't pay and don't stick around. (don't take offense, not trying to condescend...it's just how I personally see F2P).

Edited by Praehotec8, 03 June 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Monky]

Praehotec8, on 03 June 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

You're missing the point here (and this is where opinion really comes in). Just because a game is free to play doesn't mean that every single item in it ought to be available for free. As long as free players can participate equally effectively, the game is not P2W. As it stands, the playing field is equal, but unless you pony up some money you have fewer (but still equally effective) options.

Dude, that is literally the definition of free to play. Drop that argument like it is radioactive and walk away.

[Praehotec8]

Monky, on 03 June 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Dude, that is literally the definition of free to play. Drop that argument like it is radioactive and walk away.

No actually it's not. Free to play means that you can play it for free. Everyone likes things for free, but companies are not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make things just because they are fun for us. Which F2P games can you obtain every single item for free? Not many. The concerns of pricing and WHICH items are free/not are separate issues, but it is certainly fair, and expected that some things will be for sale for money (and money alone).

[Blackadder]

Your completely incorrect on pay to win. There is nothing in MWO that is pay to win. Even the posters who complain about consumables are incorrect in regards to pay to win. everything that MC can buy you, you can get the same or better versions by just playing the game, excluding cosmetic items like skins.

1) the MC consumables are equal to the upgraded ones you can buy for cbills, once you invest the general xp in them. They are also exclusive. you can not equip a cool shot 18 and a cool shot 9x9 at the same time, and both do exactly the same thing. While i do not have every other consumable out there, they all function like this as far as i am aware of.

2) Hero mechs are in the same boat. What hero mechs, and to a lesser extent champion mechs offer is the ability to avoid grinding as much. they have improved cbill income. However, Hero mechs are not superior to a cbill mech, in almost every case the best mechs are ones that have been customized and are available to everyone. Cataphract 3D, Stalker 3F, Highlander 732, Cicada 3M, commando 2M, Cent 9A. With the exception of the Dragon mechs, every hero mech has at least one alternative that is clearly better, and in some cases like the cataphract its a very balanced variant list.

MWO has no pay to win at all, people who keep saying that do not really know , nor have ever experienced pay to win on any meaningful way. What MWO has , is Pay to avoid a timesink/grind. there are no super weapons, or super mechs that allow players who spend money to have a significant advantage over those that do not spend money. The only offsetting factor is that a new player has less tools then a long term player, but that is true in any game every created.

heres a novel concept, for 3$ you can convert enough mech xp to general xp to buy any consumable unlock in in the game. Or you can waste money on cool shot 18 and others, which in the long run will cost you far more, then a player who just converts general xp or just grinds out the general xp, for the exact same consumable.

[Taemien]

BlackIronTarkus, on 03 June 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Exactly, thank you for supporting me.

People are completly ignoring my disclaimer, the second section I posted in my original post.

I AM WRONG FOR THE CONSUMMABLE.

Thats why I made a disclaimer, it doesnt require a module slot and can be upgraded with quite a few GXP. Alright, I get it. But a nice reminder to never sell power is always welcome, and thats what I did. That being said I still consider heroes mech more than convenience for the simple fact that their setup cannot be matched by a free player.

Seriusly, why are people and developers so reluctant to put a CB price on these heroes mech. It can be 20 000 000, it can be 50 000 000 it can even be 1 000 000 000. It doesnt matter, as long as it is possible for a free player to get one without paying.

The whole point is to be on a EVEN PLAYING FIELD.

You couldn't win the consumable argument and now you are trying to go for broke on the Hero Mech one. Not going to work. You have yet to provide any empirical evidence on how Hero Mechs are pay to win. The burden of proof is on you since you made the accusation first.

In case you don't know, you'll need to provide game stats (wins/loses) based on Hero Mechs dominating the field. If this isn't possible (aka, Hero mechs do not win more than their mundane counter parts) then this argument is debunked.

Unless you wish to retract your statement and say Fair to Play instead. Specifically retracting your Pay to Win claims so you can argue that PGI should allow everyone full access for free. Course.. the argument against that is, someone's got to pay the bills. So that might be debunked.

OP, your points are slipping on you.

[MaddMaxx]

Vodrin Thales, on 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

I don't think so. Would you deny there are significant weapon imbalances, high cost of transactions, and that introducing 3rd person view is probably a bad idea. If you agree with those points, how are they moot? He can be wrong on one point without invalidating his other points.

Well let's see. "significant" is a word to describe something that needs some oomph. Why not use "severe" or "total absolute bonkers", those would be good words to. Thing is, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Transaction costs? When everything is available for No Cost, then there is no "to high" a transaction cost. Simple concept right?

Unless the Dev force those who do not like 3rd person, to use it, then just like the "high cost of transactions" its introduction will have no bearing on my\their game play. If you wish to argue the semantics about Community splits and numbers you don't have, then feel free to do so and they will be treated as such, fantasy values.

So, in conclusion, the OP does not have a point per say, what he has is a point of view. He has stated it, asked for feedback and is/has received it. If he, or others, do not like said feedback, please feel free to move on.

P.S. Saddest thing? One poor ****** actually believed the OP's BS rhetoric and stated they will not come back and play now. Way to go OP.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 June 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Taemien, on 03 June 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

You couldn't win the consumable argument and now you are trying to go for broke on the Hero Mech one. Not going to work. You have yet to provide any empirical evidence on how Hero Mechs are pay to win. The burden of proof is on you since you made the accusation first.

In case you don't know, you'll need to provide game stats (wins/loses) based on Hero Mechs dominating the field. If this isn't possible (aka, Hero mechs do not win more than their mundane counter parts) then this argument is debunked.

Unless you wish to retract your statement and say Fair to Play instead. Specifically retracting your Pay to Win claims so you can argue that PGI should allow everyone full access for free. Course.. the argument against that is, someone's got to pay the bills. So that might be debunked.

OP, your points are slipping on you.

Its not an argument, people prove me that you can have the same consumable as paying custumers. Its fact, its not pay to win.

I personnaly think that heros mech are pay to win. Thats it, I did bring my points to prove that and you ignore them. I wont dicuss this anymore. I can rehiterate my point for the last time;

This is an exemple, it doesnt matter what mech it is.

A free player want to play one mech in particular.
He looks at the variants and notice that one variant is superior in a specific role that this player want to play as.
Since he is a free player he doesnt have access to that particular variant, so he choose a free one instead that is as close as possible as the hero mech for his desired role.
Once ingame, there are only two mech left at full health. Both have the exact same skill level.
One is the paid mech the other one is the free mech. Both have almost identical loadout, but the paid mech have 1 more hardpoint.
They fight and the paid mech win.

The player with the paid mech had an advantage over the free player and won.

Anyway thats the way I see it.

Win/loss, kill/death ratio have absolutly nothing to do with this problem because of all the factors that can void the tests in a normal game such as your teamates, your positionning, latency or simply your skill level compared to the other player. You need a controlled enviromenement which we dont have so its impossible for me to prove anything but invent a scenario that demonstrate how a paid mech could be better than a non-paid mech.

So, now that we all agree to disagree, CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE OTHER POINTS, thank you.

[BlackIronTarkus]

MaddMaxx, on 03 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

Unless the Dev force those who do not like 3rd person, to use it, then just like the "high cost of transactions" its introduction will have no bearing on my\their game play. If you wish to argue the semantics about Community splits and numbers you don't have, then feel free to do so and they will be treated as such, fantasy values.

Alright, lets imagine the majority move to third person view and a minority stick to first person view. Since they dont want to play against people that have an advantage(see above obstacles, and around corners while staying undercover) they play with each other. But there is so few of them that it take 10 minutes to find a match during the day and they always play with the same people, how wouldn't that affect you if you are one of those that want to stricly play in first person view?

[Tombstoner]

Mercy is a pay to win mech.... its a stalker that has a ballistic hard point.... guess what goes in it.... a 1 heat 15 damage gauss....add to that 3 er ppc's and you have a killer 45 point alpha for the heat of 3 er'ppc.

Its a money mech, it was released to takes full advantage of the current game meta.... its PAY to WIN... you paid for a competitive advantage.... MC stalker has Ballistic HP... normal stalkers dont..... Pay to win is not an automatic win. is the competitive advantage pour people cant afford.

Highlander is also pay to win pop tarding exploded with this mech

Raven the best example of them all.... it got ECM.

So yes PGI is using and creating the meta for profit.... boo hoo.... suck it up like i do and play through it.


3rd person view is needed for some people to learn how to move. the looking and running in diferent directions is not the same as walking and shewing gum at the same time... I think 3rd person view will be training ground only at first and go from there. its the best of both worlds.

OP - you should create a part two

[Multitallented]

Great post OP.

Great points overall, such as perfect imbalance, counter-play, and micro transactions. I hope this helps PGI in some way. *looking at you Bryan Ekman*

Edited by Multitallented, 03 June 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[LegoPirate]

Let me enlighten you good sir, for you have good intentions, but little understanding of reality.

1. You should almost never be using all of the hardpoints on a given chassis, so an extra hardpoint is not any advantage in terms of optimized builds, that and pretty much all the variants of a given chassis are within a single hardpoint of eachother. not to mention that to use this hardpoint you have to sacrifice something else (speed/armor/heatsinks/ammo)

2. this game is not always about direct combat. just because one variant is better against another doesnt mean they arent both effective (a la, jenner D will always beat a jenner F, but a jenner F will do much better against a stalker or an atlas or anything with ecm then a D)

3. The Misery is strictly worse then a 3F.
The Ilya is strictly worse then a 3D and honestly even a 1X. the triple uac build is loads of fun, and potentially effective. but hardly reliable, and the only effective build unique to the variant.
The X-5 is at best on par with a 3M. realistically id want a 3M on my team over an X-5
The TDK is strictly worse then a 2D.
The YLW is strictly worse then a CN9-A
The Fang is strictly worse then every mech ever.
The Flame is on par with the 1C, because the only build it can run that the 1C cant uses an ac-20, which precludes the possibility of an XL, which is pretty much a necessity on a DRG, but that build is quite effective. and honestly nobody cares about dragons cause they are garbage.
The Pretty Baby is strictly worse then the 8R and the 9M. seriously the damn thing needs a 2KM runway just to stop.

4. 1 million cbills for any mech is effectively making it MC only. the playerbase will view a number larger then their entire career earnings as more of a taunt then an alternative. since it would take probably a full year of 40 hour weeks on mwo to earn that much. a similar thing happened in Heroes of Newerth, when S2 games released a voicepack for 6800 silver coins (the earnable currency), which was something like 6 months of 8 hour a day grinding. 6800 became a meme and a huge outcry came from the community over the price. many people felt that 6800 was an unrealistically acheiveable amount.

5. they havent even begun to implement 3rd person yet. wait to see how it comes out before crying about it.

6.lastly, extra credits does occasionally bring up good points, but alot of the time they are also talking straight out of their ***. think about what they are actually saying rather then just posting it blindly. perfect imbalance is a silly idea. league of legends as an example of good balance just throws any credibility they have out the window.

P.S. 80's stompy robots is an unrealistic idea for so many reasons (atlas would float in water, and has just a quarter inch of plating at the thickest points, large caliber autocannons the equivalent of naval cannons only effective a single kilometer). stop trying to make it "realistic".

Edited by LegoPirate, 03 June 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[Blackadder]

Tombstoner, on 03 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Mercy is a pay to win mech.... its a stalker that has a ballistic hard point.... guess what goes in it.... a 1 heat 15 damage gauss....add to that 3 er ppc's and you have a killer 45 point alpha for the heat of 3 er'ppc.

Its a money mech, it was released to takes full advantage of the current game meta.... its PAY to WIN... you paid for a competitive advantage.... MC stalker has Ballistic HP... normal stalkers dont..... Pay to win is not an automatic win. is the competitive advantage pour people cant afford.

Highlander is also pay to win pop tarding exploded with this mech

Raven the best example of them all.... it got ECM.

So yes PGI is using and creating the meta for profit.... boo hoo.... suck it up like i do and play through it.

Your wrong, most of the mechs you list are obtainable without dropping a single penny on this game. Pay to win is exactly what you say it isnt. Its an advantage obtained only by spending money. gold ammo in WOT is pay to win, at least somewhat. A misery is not pay to win, a raven can be bought by anyone , as well as most of the mechs you list here.

What your complaining about is the fact you actually have to put forth effort to get one of the mechs, and are not handed one. all it takes is time and playing the game and you can have every mech you want.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Tombstoner, on 03 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Mercy is a pay to win mech.... its a stalker that has a ballistic hard point.... guess what goes in it.... a 1 heat 15 damage gauss....add to that 3 er ppc's and you have a killer 45 point alpha for the heat of 3 er'ppc.

Its a money mech, it was released to takes full advantage of the current game meta.... its PAY to WIN... you paid for a competitive advantage.... MC stalker has Ballistic HP... normal stalkers dont..... Pay to win is not an automatic win. is the competitive advantage pour people cant afford.

Highlander is also pay to win pop tarding exploded with this mech

Raven the best example of them all.... it got ECM.

So yes PGI is using and creating the meta for profit.... boo hoo.... suck it up like i do and play through it.


3rd person view is needed for some people to learn how to move. the looking and running in diferent directions is not the same as walking and shewing gum at the same time... I think 3rd person view will be training ground only at first and go from there. its the best of both worlds.

OP - you should create a part two

Finally someone who gets it in this sea of ignorance. I will probably create a oart two, but I will wait until the next patch to see how PGI is handling the situation.

About third person view in training ground it could be a decent tool to teach players how to move their legs as long as it is made clear that player wont be able to have that view in actual competitive environment. Even then new player will wonder why they can't use it in multiplayer and will ask for it in these very forums.

But I dont see it as something very important even to learn leg movement, I mean we all learned how to use them without it and it didnt take very long. Most players of the new generation already used tanks in battlefield games, they act exactly like mech in this game.

[Praehotec8]

Sorry BlackIron, but are you trying to troll? Sea of ignorance? People have been very reasonable with you. You can disagree but that doesn't make others ignorant. Please don't be insulting. As far your example of Misery being P2W, you can make yourself an AS7-RS with nearly identical loadout (and more tonnage leftover to boot). Not to mention that, again the 5M and 3F are both equally if not more effective. You're paying to use a stalker with a ballistic, not to win. Even if ballistics are the most OP weapon, a free player can be just as competitive, just not in a stalker. Nowhere does it say that a free player deserves to get everything exactly the same as a player who paid. They just need to be equally competitive, and they can.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Praehotec8, on 03 June 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

Even if ballistics are the most OP weapon, a free player can be just as competitive, just not in a stalker.

THAT! Thats is exactly the problem. Also you are contradicting yourself with the last sentence because indeed a free player cannot be competitive in a free stalker compared to a paid stalker.

[RG Notch]

HATS!!!!! ******* HATS!!!!!!