Lol. You say pay 2 win and are using the pretty baby as an example? That mech is pure ****.
2
Beta Player/tester Report; A Guide To Building A Game 101.
Started by BlackIronTarkus, Jun 02 2013 08:18 AM
62 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- 496 posts
Member
Posted 02 June 2013 - 11:00 AM
I liked your post, and think its hits many important issues, and while I do not believe this game is Pay to win right now. They have set up the Hero mechs such that at some point one probably will become Pay to Win (you either make them all suck so none are ever best, or you try to make them all competitive but not quite the best like they are now. But if you always try to make them near to best sometime you will make one be best even if only by mistake) The real question comes in when they do have a Hero mech that is the best, do they make it available for C-bills, or do they nerf it, or does the game become Pay to Win.
So far they have succeeded, but they are walking the swords edge on this issue.
They need to work a lot on weapon balance(this can include heat, HSR, ECM, Pilot/Mech exp bonuses, and other things), making modes decent, and improving player communication options in game
So far they have succeeded, but they are walking the swords edge on this issue.
They need to work a lot on weapon balance(this can include heat, HSR, ECM, Pilot/Mech exp bonuses, and other things), making modes decent, and improving player communication options in game
Edited by Ningyo, 02 June 2013 - 11:01 AM.
#23
-
-
- 357 posts
Member
- LocationBehind you, breathing on your neck.
Posted 02 June 2013 - 11:07 AM
Waking One, on 02 June 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:
Lol. You say pay 2 win and are using the pretty baby as an example? That mech is pure ****.
So many trolls, it doesnt matter which one it is, its an exemple. I will use iilya muromets next time or would you like to propose me another one?
Ningyo, on 02 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:
I liked your post, and think its hits many important issues, and while I do not believe this game is Pay to win right now. They have set up the Hero mechs such that at some point one probably will become Pay to Win (you either make them all suck so none are ever best, or you try to make them all competitive but not quite the best like they are now. But if you always try to make them near to best sometime you will make one be best even if only by mistake) The real question comes in when they do have a Hero mech that is the best, do they make it available for C-bills, or do they nerf it, or does the game become Pay to Win.
--->So far they have succeeded, but they are walking the swords edge on this issue.<---
--->So far they have succeeded, but they are walking the swords edge on this issue.<---
Exactly.
Tickdoff Tank, on 02 June 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:
Save up your GXP. Then use the GXP to purchase the "buffs" to coolshot. Once you have spent the GXP (which is earned by in-game activity) then your coolshot 9x9 is EXACTLY the same as coolshot 18.
Do you have to fill a module slot to get the same result as the paid version? If yes its pay to win, if no, then I am wrong on this part and this is why I posted a disclaimer in my original post.
Edited by BlackIronTarkus, 02 June 2013 - 11:12 AM.
#24
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,576 posts
Member
- LocationNorth Carolina
Posted 02 June 2013 - 12:13 PM
There's many ways that I can say this, but I'll keep it to two.
The short answer is, OP, you might want to take to a different game. If you're able to nitpick all of those things, then you should probably play something else. I can sit here all day about what is wrong with Baseball and why I don't like to play or watch it, but why bother? I watch and play football instead.
Here's the long answer. I'll take your points in order for the sake of clarity.
Economy.
This is always going to be relative. Micro transactions are small amounts of money. What is a small amount of money? I'll use my personal experience. In 2000 at by first job, I was bringing in about $150 a week, 300 every paycheck. I was also going to college and paying my own way. Something like the mechbay for 3 bucks would have been ludicrous for me. Skip forward a couple of years and I was working on a military base making $650 a paycheck (this was when $5.15 was still minimum wage, so I was making bank). I would have been able to handle something like a mechbay then.
Course the overall economy has changed since then. And of course my employment has changed as well. Dropping 20 bucks for a mech is a little easier for me now. But of course it has to be worth it. And I do have a hero mech currently. Though I haven't bought one in a while. Is this a flaw to the system? Probably not.
Now lets move away from me and onto a buddy of mine. He's already dropped over $500 into the game. Hero mechs are no issue for him as are any other costs. He doesn't use consumables because well quite frankly... he doesn't think they are worth it. But more on those later.
The point here is, to him, 20 bucks is a microtransaction. He's spent much more on other games and I will not go into those details because of privacy issues. But as we can see, microtransaction is relative, to some, 3 bucks is too much, to others 20 bucks is a drop in the bucket. It all has to do with how much money you make, and how much you think something is worth.
OP, obviously you don't think they are worth it in MWO. Which part of the reason I think you should play something else. It means you don't think you'd get as much enjoyment out of the investment. To make an analogy. Think about going to see a new movie. If you think about it, its 25 bucks. Ticket plus drink and popcorn. If a mech isn't worth as much to you as a movie, drink, and popcorn, then you need to look to see if thats actually what you want to play.
Pay to Win.
As others have said, it isn't play to win. You can spend xp to get anything upgraded to the premium levels. Hero mechs are just unique variants of the original chassis and make up a very small percentage of the mechs being used. Part of that is cost (which is intended, they are special), and part is because they aren't overpowered. Please show some empirical evidence (game results statistics) of them being overpowered not simply a spreadsheet (of mech quirks and hardpoints) if you still think otherwise.
Consumables and I reiterate, as stated before can be upgraded by exp to get to the purchased levels. Effectively giving an advantage to those who don't pay for them. Since cbills are unlimited, only limited by how many games you play where as MC is limited by how much you can make in a 40 hour work week.
Herein lies the real debate. Is it right for a company to give a convenience to those players who pay for it? Convenience does not equal advantage. Convenience is buying a gallon of milk at a gas station on the way home, but paying $0.50 more. The same thing is happening here. Both are getting a gallon of milk, except one is getting it in an easier way. But when the match happens, they are on equal terms.
See advantage only counts for what is in the match. If you have the bought airstrike and I have the upgraded free one, who has an advantage? Neither. We both are on equal terms. Thats all that matters.
Now if you want to talk about Pay to Win, lets look at Everquest. It is F2P currently. But you can become a Gold Member by paying a monthly fee. What does this give? I'll speak from an event that happened yesterday. I was in a group with a Magician and an augment dropped with +4 mana regen on it. In a level 55 area. If you know anything about EQ, thats a pretty nice piece we found. The guy loots it (only one who could really use it) and is pretty excited. Until he finds out it has the Prestige Tag. He's a F2P member, not a Gold, meaning he cannot equip the augment. That is Pay to Win... in a minor sense, but still none the less.
There is nothing like that in MWO. Hero mechs are the only thing that come close, but they do not offer any bonus that will give any advantage in a match against another player. Its only after match bonuses (exp cbills), that do not count. Now lets take a look at this from another angle. Lets say MWO did do this.
For MWO to do this, weapons like Streaks, ER Lasers, Pulse Lasers, Gauss Rifles, and ER PPCs could be premium only. This would give a markedly advantage to paying members IN a match. However this isn't happening, and probably never will.
Splitting Community.
I don't like Third Person View anymore than anyone else. However this is how I see it. If the majority doesn't like it, we'll play without it with each other. The ones that do, if in the minority will play their way.. until they find they can't get many matches. Units can help with this too by only launching their premades in 1st person only mode. This effectively makes 3rd Person view obsolete.
The only reason it might stick around is because the asian market prefers 3rd person view. They will be playing on their own servers anyway, so this won't effect the NA players. In the end, we're making a mountain out of a molehole here. Unless of course the majority wants 3rd person view, then our argument that "the majority don't want it." Is not only flawed, but false.
Now where the community is going to be split for real is in Community Warfare. 6 houses plus 4 Clans. Thankfully some houses and clans will be allied, but we're still going to see a major split in the community based on that. When you launch as a Davion, the system will have to find fellow Davions, Steiners, and Mercs associated with those two houses to be on your team, then Liao or Kurita forces with their mercs to play against. The good news is, they'll probably fill in the gaps with lone wolves.
Balance.
I'm going to have to say this, but I don't see the doom and gloom of PPCOnline that everyone claims. I typically still use SRMs, Medium Lasers, Large Lasers, Streaks and AC5s effectively. In fact most of the weapons that get me these days are Lasers and AC20s.
Is everything balanced? No, I don't believe they are yet. But they aren't nearly as bad as people claim. I've been playing since Closed Beta and so I have seen the paradigm shift many times. The only time I've ever seen a weapon system be vastly OP is when LRMs had 1.8 damage a missile + splash + homing on the CT. That was hotfixed rather quickly.
Are weapons underpowered? Absolutely. Are they being fixed? Yes they are. These balancing passes are being done in line with an agile development cycle that uses iterations to push out bug fixes, balance passes, and new content. This is normally a 6, 8, 10, or 12 week process. MWO uses one on a 4 week cycle, which is pretty hectic. But its a Beta so they have to.
They don't have teams and teams of coders. I think they have like 5-6 at the most? Its not as simple as saying, you and you, work on LRMs, then you and you work on machine guns. Theres much more communication going on, in addition to analysis. They take community input and have to derive information from there.
The community is never 100% correct on what the problems are. They don't and cannot see the big picture. Look at ECM. The problem wasn't even ECM. It was a raven hit box compounded by HSR being nonexistent. But everyone wanted ECM nerfed. If they listened to the community, we'd have a waste of 1.5 tons. But many in the community actually wanted that, because lets face it, the community is biased. They want their stuff buffed, and stuff they don't use nerfed.
Its always easier to nerf something down, then it is to bring something up. For all we know SRMs might be balanced and we might see PPCs nerfed (as well as other weapons) to their level to make combat last a bit longer. There are changes being tested, or so the devs say. I trust the devs on their word. Course if you don't, why are you still here? Thats like continuing to eat at a restaurant that you don't trust to not poop in your food.
Future of 2013 vs 1980s.
This is explained in Tactical Operations to why some things work they way they do, even though their RL counterparts in the modern era. I'm not going to go into it. Just know that everything is toned down because a match in TT (and MWO and any other MW) is in a close range fast paced action set. Longer ranges are possible, but the reason we don't do them is because we don't have enough table space for that many mapsheets (in TT) and we don't have enough server resources, ram, or an engine capable of it (MechWarrior in the CryEngine).
You're right, Batman got a face lift... but so did MechWarrior:
As for arms moving into firing positions, this is part balance and part limitation of the cryengine. I'm not sure if a weapon system on a vehicle can change its position on the vehicle itself. I know MWLL wasn't able to do it. But I'm not sure if it was a decision not to in design or a limitation of the engine. Someone who's worked in CryEngine can comment better on this.
I know for balance purposes, it does help make some designs distinct. For example a Jagermech has high arms, and a Cataphract has low arms. Jagermech has an easier time shooting over hills and sniping, where a Cataphract can easier hit those lower small mechs in a brawl.
I've used both mechs and those quirks don't make or break the mechs in question. Its all about style. As in I never lost a match because my Cataphract couldn't fire over a hill.
I do agree that Lower arm actuators and hand actuators are a liability. They take up space for no gain. If they add in physical attacks, then this will be a totally different discussion. They have expressed that they will look into it. But it may yet be an engine limitation. So actuators may serve as a balance tool for some mechs.
My Conclusion.
As I said at the beginning, OP, you seem to have an axe to grind. You are making issues out of things that are not issues, or things so small they might as well be a non-issue. This leads me to believe you are looking for excuses to not play. You don't need to justify leaving by making a forum post about it and get others on board to make you feel better. I will not think any less of you if you just uninstalled and went your merry way.
I've done that to several games. If I try them out and don't like them, I never post about it. I just go find something else to play. Sometimes a game just isn't your style. You don't have any obligation to tell the devs that you simply don't like it. I mean by the things you've pointed out, there'd have to be some major changes to how the game is setup to keep you around, by then it wouldn't be the same game.
Its best to just walk away from this one. Again I wouldn't think of you any less for it.
The short answer is, OP, you might want to take to a different game. If you're able to nitpick all of those things, then you should probably play something else. I can sit here all day about what is wrong with Baseball and why I don't like to play or watch it, but why bother? I watch and play football instead.
Here's the long answer. I'll take your points in order for the sake of clarity.
Economy.
This is always going to be relative. Micro transactions are small amounts of money. What is a small amount of money? I'll use my personal experience. In 2000 at by first job, I was bringing in about $150 a week, 300 every paycheck. I was also going to college and paying my own way. Something like the mechbay for 3 bucks would have been ludicrous for me. Skip forward a couple of years and I was working on a military base making $650 a paycheck (this was when $5.15 was still minimum wage, so I was making bank). I would have been able to handle something like a mechbay then.
Course the overall economy has changed since then. And of course my employment has changed as well. Dropping 20 bucks for a mech is a little easier for me now. But of course it has to be worth it. And I do have a hero mech currently. Though I haven't bought one in a while. Is this a flaw to the system? Probably not.
Now lets move away from me and onto a buddy of mine. He's already dropped over $500 into the game. Hero mechs are no issue for him as are any other costs. He doesn't use consumables because well quite frankly... he doesn't think they are worth it. But more on those later.
The point here is, to him, 20 bucks is a microtransaction. He's spent much more on other games and I will not go into those details because of privacy issues. But as we can see, microtransaction is relative, to some, 3 bucks is too much, to others 20 bucks is a drop in the bucket. It all has to do with how much money you make, and how much you think something is worth.
OP, obviously you don't think they are worth it in MWO. Which part of the reason I think you should play something else. It means you don't think you'd get as much enjoyment out of the investment. To make an analogy. Think about going to see a new movie. If you think about it, its 25 bucks. Ticket plus drink and popcorn. If a mech isn't worth as much to you as a movie, drink, and popcorn, then you need to look to see if thats actually what you want to play.
Pay to Win.
As others have said, it isn't play to win. You can spend xp to get anything upgraded to the premium levels. Hero mechs are just unique variants of the original chassis and make up a very small percentage of the mechs being used. Part of that is cost (which is intended, they are special), and part is because they aren't overpowered. Please show some empirical evidence (game results statistics) of them being overpowered not simply a spreadsheet (of mech quirks and hardpoints) if you still think otherwise.
Consumables and I reiterate, as stated before can be upgraded by exp to get to the purchased levels. Effectively giving an advantage to those who don't pay for them. Since cbills are unlimited, only limited by how many games you play where as MC is limited by how much you can make in a 40 hour work week.
Herein lies the real debate. Is it right for a company to give a convenience to those players who pay for it? Convenience does not equal advantage. Convenience is buying a gallon of milk at a gas station on the way home, but paying $0.50 more. The same thing is happening here. Both are getting a gallon of milk, except one is getting it in an easier way. But when the match happens, they are on equal terms.
See advantage only counts for what is in the match. If you have the bought airstrike and I have the upgraded free one, who has an advantage? Neither. We both are on equal terms. Thats all that matters.
Now if you want to talk about Pay to Win, lets look at Everquest. It is F2P currently. But you can become a Gold Member by paying a monthly fee. What does this give? I'll speak from an event that happened yesterday. I was in a group with a Magician and an augment dropped with +4 mana regen on it. In a level 55 area. If you know anything about EQ, thats a pretty nice piece we found. The guy loots it (only one who could really use it) and is pretty excited. Until he finds out it has the Prestige Tag. He's a F2P member, not a Gold, meaning he cannot equip the augment. That is Pay to Win... in a minor sense, but still none the less.
There is nothing like that in MWO. Hero mechs are the only thing that come close, but they do not offer any bonus that will give any advantage in a match against another player. Its only after match bonuses (exp cbills), that do not count. Now lets take a look at this from another angle. Lets say MWO did do this.
For MWO to do this, weapons like Streaks, ER Lasers, Pulse Lasers, Gauss Rifles, and ER PPCs could be premium only. This would give a markedly advantage to paying members IN a match. However this isn't happening, and probably never will.
Splitting Community.
I don't like Third Person View anymore than anyone else. However this is how I see it. If the majority doesn't like it, we'll play without it with each other. The ones that do, if in the minority will play their way.. until they find they can't get many matches. Units can help with this too by only launching their premades in 1st person only mode. This effectively makes 3rd Person view obsolete.
The only reason it might stick around is because the asian market prefers 3rd person view. They will be playing on their own servers anyway, so this won't effect the NA players. In the end, we're making a mountain out of a molehole here. Unless of course the majority wants 3rd person view, then our argument that "the majority don't want it." Is not only flawed, but false.
Now where the community is going to be split for real is in Community Warfare. 6 houses plus 4 Clans. Thankfully some houses and clans will be allied, but we're still going to see a major split in the community based on that. When you launch as a Davion, the system will have to find fellow Davions, Steiners, and Mercs associated with those two houses to be on your team, then Liao or Kurita forces with their mercs to play against. The good news is, they'll probably fill in the gaps with lone wolves.
Balance.
I'm going to have to say this, but I don't see the doom and gloom of PPCOnline that everyone claims. I typically still use SRMs, Medium Lasers, Large Lasers, Streaks and AC5s effectively. In fact most of the weapons that get me these days are Lasers and AC20s.
Is everything balanced? No, I don't believe they are yet. But they aren't nearly as bad as people claim. I've been playing since Closed Beta and so I have seen the paradigm shift many times. The only time I've ever seen a weapon system be vastly OP is when LRMs had 1.8 damage a missile + splash + homing on the CT. That was hotfixed rather quickly.
Are weapons underpowered? Absolutely. Are they being fixed? Yes they are. These balancing passes are being done in line with an agile development cycle that uses iterations to push out bug fixes, balance passes, and new content. This is normally a 6, 8, 10, or 12 week process. MWO uses one on a 4 week cycle, which is pretty hectic. But its a Beta so they have to.
They don't have teams and teams of coders. I think they have like 5-6 at the most? Its not as simple as saying, you and you, work on LRMs, then you and you work on machine guns. Theres much more communication going on, in addition to analysis. They take community input and have to derive information from there.
The community is never 100% correct on what the problems are. They don't and cannot see the big picture. Look at ECM. The problem wasn't even ECM. It was a raven hit box compounded by HSR being nonexistent. But everyone wanted ECM nerfed. If they listened to the community, we'd have a waste of 1.5 tons. But many in the community actually wanted that, because lets face it, the community is biased. They want their stuff buffed, and stuff they don't use nerfed.
Its always easier to nerf something down, then it is to bring something up. For all we know SRMs might be balanced and we might see PPCs nerfed (as well as other weapons) to their level to make combat last a bit longer. There are changes being tested, or so the devs say. I trust the devs on their word. Course if you don't, why are you still here? Thats like continuing to eat at a restaurant that you don't trust to not poop in your food.
Future of 2013 vs 1980s.
This is explained in Tactical Operations to why some things work they way they do, even though their RL counterparts in the modern era. I'm not going to go into it. Just know that everything is toned down because a match in TT (and MWO and any other MW) is in a close range fast paced action set. Longer ranges are possible, but the reason we don't do them is because we don't have enough table space for that many mapsheets (in TT) and we don't have enough server resources, ram, or an engine capable of it (MechWarrior in the CryEngine).
You're right, Batman got a face lift... but so did MechWarrior:
As for arms moving into firing positions, this is part balance and part limitation of the cryengine. I'm not sure if a weapon system on a vehicle can change its position on the vehicle itself. I know MWLL wasn't able to do it. But I'm not sure if it was a decision not to in design or a limitation of the engine. Someone who's worked in CryEngine can comment better on this.
I know for balance purposes, it does help make some designs distinct. For example a Jagermech has high arms, and a Cataphract has low arms. Jagermech has an easier time shooting over hills and sniping, where a Cataphract can easier hit those lower small mechs in a brawl.
I've used both mechs and those quirks don't make or break the mechs in question. Its all about style. As in I never lost a match because my Cataphract couldn't fire over a hill.
I do agree that Lower arm actuators and hand actuators are a liability. They take up space for no gain. If they add in physical attacks, then this will be a totally different discussion. They have expressed that they will look into it. But it may yet be an engine limitation. So actuators may serve as a balance tool for some mechs.
My Conclusion.
As I said at the beginning, OP, you seem to have an axe to grind. You are making issues out of things that are not issues, or things so small they might as well be a non-issue. This leads me to believe you are looking for excuses to not play. You don't need to justify leaving by making a forum post about it and get others on board to make you feel better. I will not think any less of you if you just uninstalled and went your merry way.
I've done that to several games. If I try them out and don't like them, I never post about it. I just go find something else to play. Sometimes a game just isn't your style. You don't have any obligation to tell the devs that you simply don't like it. I mean by the things you've pointed out, there'd have to be some major changes to how the game is setup to keep you around, by then it wouldn't be the same game.
Its best to just walk away from this one. Again I wouldn't think of you any less for it.
Edited by Taemien, 02 June 2013 - 12:14 PM.
#25
-
-
- 357 posts
Member
- LocationBehind you, breathing on your neck.
Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:46 PM
Taemien, on 02 June 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:
Almost everything is perfecly fine, the game is heading in the best posible direction and nothing need to be changed.
leave, leave, leave.
leave, leave, leave.
I will read your post more throughoutfully later but after skimming it I must say that you have rose thinted glasses or your head is deep in the sand. This is what beta is for, this is not a demo, this is made so delopers can get feedback and fine tuned their game for maximum fun and profitability. Im simply stating my opinion just as you are in your post and the fact that I think this game is in a worse position than you think it is doesn't mean I will leave any time soon or desire to leave.
As an adult I can make the decision if I the cons out weight the pros, I dont need you for that. I took that as an insult by the way.
#26
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 3,585 posts
Member
Posted 02 June 2013 - 02:29 PM
+1 because your name is from Dark Souls
-1 because those videos from penny arcade people post a lot honestly suck
-1 because those videos from penny arcade people post a lot honestly suck
#27
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,576 posts
Member
- LocationNorth Carolina
Posted 02 June 2013 - 03:12 PM
BlackIronTarkus, on 02 June 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:
I will read your post more throughoutfully later but after skimming it I must say that you have rose thinted glasses or your head is deep in the sand. This is what beta is for, this is not a demo, this is made so delopers can get feedback and fine tuned their game for maximum fun and profitability. Im simply stating my opinion just as you are in your post and the fact that I think this game is in a worse position than you think it is doesn't mean I will leave any time soon or desire to leave.
As an adult I can make the decision if I the cons out weight the pros, I dont need you for that. I took that as an insult by the way.
I don't think the game is perfect. I said it wasn't as bad as the vocal minority claims. That is fact, the game would be dead otherwise. No one who is sane keeps doing something they don't like. The point I was making is that you are nitpicking about the small things, many which have been discussed in depth in a multitude of other threads. I mean we have dozens of threads on balance, on pay to win, on 3rd person, on economy ect. You decided to put them all in one place, in detail making your opinion the focus of the thread. You had a purpose for doing so, and I addressed that purpose directly.
If you didn't want that to happen, you should have addressed those issues in their own threads and I would have been glad to address them individually without addressing your personal opinion. You made the topic, I simply replied to it.
If you feel insulted, I suggest putting on some alligator skin. I was being both polite and courteous. I don't have to be neither of those, but I afforded you the luxury because you haven't attacked anyone personally. But I will warn you, you are borderline doing that by misquoting me, and going further would be ill advised. However I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you wish to continue this, I suggest replying in detail to what I said rather then lumping it into a misquote and replying to what you wrote, which is all you have done so far. I addressed you directly, you should afford me the same courtesy. I recommend this as it won't take the subject so far off course that a mod has to send it to K-Town.
#28
-
-
- 535 posts
Member
Posted 02 June 2013 - 06:12 PM
The post is nice (except, probably, the p2w part - I kinda do not agree with that), but there is one smaaaaaal problem:
PGI does not give a ****. Just simple as that. Quite a few people wrote good posts. How many of them were somehow thought about, how many ideas were implemented? Well, it's easy question.
None
Oh, yes, the community is biased, but hey, lots of good ideas just go to trash. Because donuts.
Also, the pace of changes is such that it does not allow any tweaking whatsoever. Why? Noone knows. But the "tweaking" we've had so far is just laughable, it goes from one side to the other, without anytime traversing through the middle values, where the solution may (or may not) lie. Again, why? Because donuts.
PGI does not give a ****. Just simple as that. Quite a few people wrote good posts. How many of them were somehow thought about, how many ideas were implemented? Well, it's easy question.
None
Oh, yes, the community is biased, but hey, lots of good ideas just go to trash. Because donuts.
Also, the pace of changes is such that it does not allow any tweaking whatsoever. Why? Noone knows. But the "tweaking" we've had so far is just laughable, it goes from one side to the other, without anytime traversing through the middle values, where the solution may (or may not) lie. Again, why? Because donuts.
Edited by Undead Bane, 02 June 2013 - 06:22 PM.
#29
-
-
- Big Daddy
- 5,565 posts
Member
- LocationSCIENCE.
Posted 02 June 2013 - 06:24 PM
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.
Nah. No pay to win here, no matter how much spin anyone puts on it.
Don't malign the attempts made by the devs to curb the ingrained greed of publishers. You pay a lot for what's there, but not to win.
#30
-
-
- The Spear
- 683 posts
Member
Posted 02 June 2013 - 06:39 PM
To the OP, nicely put and you have some serious points. I really like the point about items currently viewed while playing ( bobble heads and such) and how adding 3rd person will only subtract yet another way to get MC from players. I've not played a game since they announced 3rd person was happening and wont play another one till its gone. Not sure if that is when MWO goes broke or they get a clue and stop that crap.
#31
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,576 posts
Member
- LocationNorth Carolina
Posted 02 June 2013 - 07:33 PM
Undead Bane, on 02 June 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:
The post is nice (except, probably, the p2w part - I kinda do not agree with that), but there is one smaaaaaal problem:
PGI does not give a ****. Just simple as that. Quite a few people wrote good posts. How many of them were somehow thought about, how many ideas were implemented? Well, it's easy question.
None
Oh, yes, the community is biased, but hey, lots of good ideas just go to trash. Because donuts.
Also, the pace of changes is such that it does not allow any tweaking whatsoever. Why? Noone knows. But the "tweaking" we've had so far is just laughable, it goes from one side to the other, without anytime traversing through the middle values, where the solution may (or may not) lie. Again, why? Because donuts.
PGI does not give a ****. Just simple as that. Quite a few people wrote good posts. How many of them were somehow thought about, how many ideas were implemented? Well, it's easy question.
None
Oh, yes, the community is biased, but hey, lots of good ideas just go to trash. Because donuts.
Also, the pace of changes is such that it does not allow any tweaking whatsoever. Why? Noone knows. But the "tweaking" we've had so far is just laughable, it goes from one side to the other, without anytime traversing through the middle values, where the solution may (or may not) lie. Again, why? Because donuts.
As for PGI not listening, thats not entirely true. The toggle for missile bay doors was added in at the request by players. We didn't have that in the beginning of Closed Beta. Seismic sensors was a feature asked for by players, and to speak personally, private matches is something I asked about and was responded to directly by a Dev that they would be working on putting them in as part of one of the phases of CW.
They do respond to us and do take our ideas into consideration. its just alot of us have very bad ideas or ideas that are decent, but have one of two issues. They either are not feasible or in the direction of design (such as Tanks, or 24 vs 24), or don't see the whole picture (such as nerfing PPCs to default values, when it would be best to adjust them slowly.. as you suggested yourself).
As for balance, they do tweak things slowly. We saw this with LRMs. Originally they were 1.8, then tweaked down to 1.6, was found to be too low, so they tweaked them to 1.7 where they stayed for a while. Is that too drastic of a change for you? Should they have tweaked them down to 1.75 first? I mean really, would you have expected any sort of difference there? It was only when flight characteristics were changed that they had to hotfix them down. God forbid they try a balance pass with the new mechanics as they are currently. Right now they are trying to get the flight characteristics down before rebuffing them. Doing both, well like you said, is causing the pendulums to shift too much.
#32
-
-
- CS 2021 Gold Champ
- 6,852 posts
Member
Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:20 AM
Pretty Baby is P2W...
What is this opposite day?
What is this opposite day?
#34
-
-
- CS 2021 Gold Champ
- 6,852 posts
Member
Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:58 AM
BlackIronTarkus, on 03 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:
Its an exemple, imagine I was talking about the ilya muronets instead if that make you feel better.
Ok that's a less hilarious example.
but...
How is the second best CTF P2W?
Edited by Ghogiel, 03 June 2013 - 06:58 AM.
#35
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:01 AM
BlackIronTarkus, on 03 June 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:
The point
^
I
I
Your head
^
I
I
Your head
No advantage that cannot be bought with C-Bills.
#36
-
-
- Bad Company
- 869 posts
Member
- LocationFlorida
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:05 AM
RiceyFighter, on 02 June 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:
The game is definately NOT pay to win. The hero mechs are completely balanced against their free counter parts. Also consumable modules have GXP and C-Bill upgrade to make them the same as their MC counterparts.
You are completely right about microtransactions though. They are dam too expensive except mechbays.
You are completely right about microtransactions though. They are dam too expensive except mechbays.
I completely agree with this. Just because you can get a different loadout on a bought hero mech does not mean it confers a distinct competitive advantage. I cannot think of a single hero mech, with the possible exception of the flame Dragon, that is considered the best of it's type.
Highlander 732 is generally considered the best of the highlanders, and the 3D is the best of the cataphracts. And those are two of the chassis with the stronger hero versions. Also please note that you can use GXP (which does not need to be bought) to upgrade all consumables to the same strength as the purchased consumables.
So in short. Microtransactions are far too expensive, but the game is most certainly not pay to win. I also agree that 3rd person view is bad, and weapon balance needs some continued work.
#37
-
-
- Survivor
- 5,911 posts
Member
- LocationNova Scotia, Canada
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:10 AM
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.
Quote
I bought it simply because it was the fastest of the assault class and I liked its weapons placements.
Your though about what is P2W versus not is clouded by your mis-understanding of the term. If you can show that your Assault class rating actually skyrocketed after your purchase of the Pretty Baby Mech then it is just in your head.
Many other chassis can't be replicated exactly amongst their kind, does that make on more or less than the others? Not at all. Now you have stated that you will not be swayed, that is fine, have it your way, but currently, skating near the edge or otherwise, MWO is not even close to a P2W scenario.
As a gamer of many games, you should actually know this to be true. The fact that you do not, makes many of your other points moot as well, sadly. ;(
Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM.
#38
-
-
- Survivor
- 5,911 posts
Member
- LocationNova Scotia, Canada
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:17 AM
Appogee, on 02 June 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:
I did not know that! Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me.
I feel better about the game now that I know it hasn't crossed that pay-to-win line as I thought it had.
And I believe you are not alone Appogee. Many make assumptions based on what they glean from the Forum Posts of the Community. Bad idea. The real data and facts are readily available via the Developers posts on the exact subjects.
AS an example, did you read this Post?
http://mwomercs.com/...-drawing-board/
#39
-
-
- Bad Company
- 869 posts
Member
- LocationFlorida
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:18 AM
MaddMaxx, on 03 June 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:
As a gamer of many games, you should actually know this to be true. The fact that you do not, makes many of your other points moot, sadly. ;(
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.
#40
-
-
- 38 posts
Member
Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:33 AM
I had given MWO a try a couple months ago but was put off by the absurd amount of grind and P2W aspects. Thanks for saving me the time and effort of checking whether those elements have changed, OP.
Edited by Blacknsilver, 03 June 2013 - 07:42 AM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
