196 replies to this topic

[Corvus Antaka]

you guys are ridiculous. Yes, the FREE CBILL nurf sucked a tiny bit..BUT

I still managed to make 13 million cbills in a week of playing 2 hours a night with no premium or hero/founders mechs used. Thats enough to buy 1 atlas or 2 XL engines. all FREE.

the worst thing about this nurf is it's brought out the worst people whining way over the top about it.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 20 August 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

you guys are ridiculous. Yes, the FREE CBILL nurf sucked a tiny bit..BUT

I still managed to make 13 million cbills in a week of playing 2 hours a night with no premium or hero/founders mechs used. Thats enough to buy 1 atlas or 2 XL engines. all FREE.

the worst thing about this nurf is it's brought out the worst people whining way over the top about it.

I really don't see people whineing way over the top, rather I see a bunch of people wanting rewards to where they were prior to the patch.

You really need to keep this in mind. According the PGI, the "Overt" reason for the changes to rewards was they felt that without the change, people would actually be making much HIGHER rewards than prior to the patch. The change to rewards was suppose to insure that didn't happen and instead that we would be seeing the SAME rewards in 12 vs 12 that we saw in 8 vs 8.

Basically according to their "Overt" reason, they never intended a C-bill nerf to take place.

This of course is a major part of the issue because it is obvious to 99.8% of the player base that the change resulted in a nerf and it should also be obvious to PGI that this is the case as well.

What makes this a major issue is that PGI isn't doing anything to correct things. I mean if they say the whole purpose of the change is to insure the C-bill rewards remain the same then why the hell aren't they making it a priority to get it back to where it should be?

This then lead to the "Covert" reasons they likely changed the C-bill rewards, i.e., they felt as Paul mentioned, that we were earning too much and decided to LIE to us about why things were changed. It all comes down to a feeling that they have hidden agendas or covert reasons to mislead and lie to us. This is what it feels like right now.

PGI says the change it to insure we are making the same in 12 vs 12 that we did in 8 vs 8, but it is not the same, not even close. Then Paul makes a comment about how he thinks we were making to much but makes it out to be that it is just his "opinion" on the matter rather than an official statement. Then even though the "official" statement is that the change was to insure we were making the same rewards, they take absolutely ZERO action to correct something obviously not in line with their official statement. Anyone else feel just a little mistreated by this sort of BS wishy washy type of business ethics?

[Corvus Antaka]

Viktor Drake, on 21 August 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

PGI says the change it to insure we are making the same in 12 vs 12 that we did in 8 vs 8, but it is not the same, not even close. Then Paul makes a comment about how he thinks we were making to much but makes it out to be that it is just his "opinion" on the matter rather than an official statement. Then even though the "official" statement is that the change was to insure we were making the same rewards, they take absolutely ZERO action to correct something obviously not in line with their official statement. Anyone else feel just a little mistreated by this sort of BS wishy washy type of business ethics?

No more mistreated than how the oil companies swindle the entire planet or nuclear reactors are being rebooted while fukushima continues to spill into the pacific 2 years later.

You might say PGI could handle things better sometimes, but given the furor of gamers, the way they behave, the {Scrap} gaming companies have to deal with, well, honestly, I don't even blame them anymore. If they would have said "hey, we cut down on all the FREE STUFF" everyone is getting, because your all earning way to much, people would be equally up in arms.

[Deathlike]

Here's some facts about the recent Conquest nerf:

If you win (and previously lost), your winnings for the resource bonus was counted like this:
Resource # * 50

If you lose in the current state of Conquest:
Resource # * 12.5

Conquest is hardly worth playing after this change... in the absence of ANY buffs to capping (in addition to ridiculously long capping times).

[Angel of Annihilation]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 21 August 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

No more mistreated than how the oil companies swindle the entire planet or nuclear reactors are being rebooted while fukushima continues to spill into the pacific 2 years later.

You might say PGI could handle things better sometimes, but given the furor of gamers, the way they behave, the {Scrap} gaming companies have to deal with, well, honestly, I don't even blame them anymore. If they would have said "hey, we cut down on all the FREE STUFF" everyone is getting, because your all earning way to much, people would be equally up in arms.

But we wouldn't feel decieved and lied to.

I mean it is much easier to support a game when you can say, "they kind of screwed us with the economy things but at least they were honest about their reasons and have ALWAYS been straight with us about everything."

However how many people want to support a game that one day says, "We adjusted the economy to insure it remained the same with this change." then leave it blatantly and obviously not the same while the community is making it equally obvious that it was nerfed.

Or how about a company that tells you that 3PV will never be in game, then changes it mind but tells you, 3PV will be in seperate ques so you will never have to play with it if you don't want to," but instead changes their mind again and combines the ques.

Or how about a Founders program that is advertised in a fashion that makes everyone believe that their purchase of the Founders Program is to support the development of MWO only to find out at a later date, that something like 75% of the proceeds got shunted to other products none of us care about.

How many lies and deceptions can this game take before the community finally gives up on the game and it fails? Guess we will find out if they continue this trend.

[rainharder]

Before the match I pay for premium because I love 200-250k+ Cbill per match. But I decide to stop paying because I don't see the point now. You get 80-100k without premium and 150k with it, not big differences.

[Calica]

As many previous posters stated, there is a line between grindy and too grindy. Previous, the c-bills might have been a little bit to much and i do feel a small nerf was warranted. But the nerf was way over the top.

Playing mostly my Cicadas, i now dont go for cap anymore in conquest. Playing with my Friend we usally cap a single point in the beginning and then leave the cap to go for damage/assists. Anything else wouldn't earn us any cbills.So, PGI plans to make roles of Lights/Scouts more rewarding....but why the heavy nerf to capping without implementing any reward for doing so?

Even more, why the heavy nerf to cbills without thinking about the new players? I can't really tell any of my friends that the game is free2play cause it really isn't anymore. If you're lucky you might be able to afford a single medium mech after cadet bonus runs out. If you play badly (newbies have a tendency to do that) you might have only enough for a low cost scout. OFC thats without any modifications, XL Engine and shiny double heatsinks. The cbill nerf really doesn't help the new player experience, it just gives new players the experience that you either pay or invest a LOT of time to get to your next mech.

Like i said, previous lvls of income might have been a bit high. But a more then 20% nerf to rewards is just not right. The massive nerf also angered me a bit in the way that PGI told us we would earn roughly the same as before. Now they are telling us that we might see some new rewards coming sometime soon... but reduce rewards even further in the next patch. There was a large post about "miscommunication".... about 3PV not cbills stealth nerf. I believe this is another one of those "miscommunications".

[Scromboid]

Viktor Drake, on 22 August 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

But we wouldn't feel decieved and lied to.

I mean it is much easier to support a game when you can say, "they kind of screwed us with the economy things but at least they were honest about their reasons and have ALWAYS been straight with us about everything."

However how many people want to support a game that one day says, "We adjusted the economy to insure it remained the same with this change." then leave it blatantly and obviously not the same while the community is making it equally obvious that it was nerfed.

Or how about a company that tells you that 3PV will never be in game, then changes it mind but tells you, 3PV will be in seperate ques so you will never have to play with it if you don't want to," but instead changes their mind again and combines the ques.

Or how about a Founders program that is advertised in a fashion that makes everyone believe that their purchase of the Founders Program is to support the development of MWO only to find out at a later date, that something like 75% of the proceeds got shunted to other products none of us care about.

How many lies and deceptions can this game take before the community finally gives up on the game and it fails? Guess we will find out if they continue this trend.

Lied to over and over.

I did not know about the Founder's thing. Wow. It makes me wonder how much of the Phoenix revenue is going to stay with the project...

[Angel of Annihilation]

Scromboid, on 23 August 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Lied to over and over.

I did not know about the Founder's thing. Wow. It makes me wonder how much of the Phoenix revenue is going to stay with the project...

Yeah it was a major blow to find out that much of what was collected in the Founder Program went to other projects. It might have not been 75% because I don't recall exactly, but it might very well have been higher. All I know was most of the 5 million raised went to other projects.

To be fair, they never said it was a kickstarter program or all the proceeds would go to MWO development only but the way it was advertised sure implied that would only be for MWO. I mean the majority of us Founders purchased the packs because we are fans of Battletech/Mechwarrior and wanted to see the game succeed only to find we were lining others pockets.

I am not sure about the Phoenix revenue though I do recall something about them saying they were going to insure that it all stayed with MWO. This could just be rumor though.

[RG Notch]

Viktor Drake, on 23 August 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I am not sure about the Phoenix revenue though I do recall something about them saying they were going to insure that it all stayed with MWO. This could just be rumor though.

That was their position at the time, who the hell knows what they will do until they do it nowadays.

[Kushko]

It would appear that PGI keeps forgetting that we need to buy 3 of the same mech in order to get the most out of it. In the recent ask the devs Paul went on saying that 20h grind is about where they want it to be for people to get a "high end avatar/assault mech" which i agree is fine. But the fact we need to get 3 making it 60h for one type of mech is unacceptable.

In a game where the most variety comes from acquiring new mechs we cant really have that be the most limiting grind factor. Make getting elite/master pilot skills take longer instead (as in add more skills to get).

Also i think that if PGI is dead set on keeping the severely lacking 3 variant system they should atleast introduce something alone the lines of having the other 2 variants be easier to obtain once you get that first mech of that type.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Kushko, on 23 August 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

It would appear that PGI keeps forgetting that we need to buy 3 of the same mech in order to get the most out of it. In the recent ask the devs Paul went on saying that 20h grind is about where they want it to be for people to get a "high end avatar/assault mech" which i agree is fine. But the fact we need to get 3 making it 60h for one type of mech is unacceptable.

In a game where the most variety comes from acquiring new mechs we cant really have that be the most limiting grind factor. Make getting elite/master pilot skills take longer instead (as in add more skills to get).

Also i think that if PGI is dead set on keeping the severely lacking 3 variant system they should atleast introduce something alone the lines of having the other 2 variants be easier to obtain once you get that first mech of that type.

I really don't see where a 20 hour grind is fine for any mech in this game, even an Assault. I mean there is absolutely nothing "high end" about any Assault in the game. In fact 9 times out of 10, I can take any one of them one-on-one in my "low end" Jenner. Assaults are just different and cost more, nothing else. I mean it isn't like WoTs were a Tier 10 tank can't even be scratched by anything under tier 7 after all.

Also I will keep mentioning this over and over. There are over 100 variants in the game and counting, yet Paul thinks it should take 20 hours to aquire just ONE of them??? I just don't get where they are getting their math from when they are talking about progession pace.

At that level of pace and assigning 5 hours to grind a light, 10 to grind a medium, 15 to grind a Heavy and 20 horus to grind an Assault, it would take 1150 hours to aquire all the mechs in game. That is 287 days of 4 hour gaming sessions per day, and this is not even considering the cost of upgrading. This is insane.

[Royalewithcheese]

Viktor Drake, on 23 August 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I mean there is absolutely nothing "high end" about any Assault in the game.

It's also somewhat worrying re: weight balance that Paul thinks that. Don't get me wrong, I like stomping around in muh DDC, but it would also be nice if I could drop in a Kintaro some day without my mech selection being a liability to my team.

[Zolaz]

You know, I dont think Paul can play this game. Ive fought against him and his ability was whelming. He makes bad choices in game with mechs and tactics. So far, Im not too impressed with his choices out of game either.

[Royalewithcheese]

Zolaz, on 25 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

You know, I dont think Paul can play this game.

Paul:

Quote

My personal CPLT-K2 has 19 single heat sinks on it.

No, really. Ladies and gents, the man in charge of making MWO balanced.

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 25 August 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Lunatic_Asylum]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 20 August 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

you guys are ridiculous. Yes, the FREE CBILL nurf sucked a tiny bit..BUT

I still managed to make 13 million cbills in a week of playing 2 hours a night with no premium or hero/founders mechs used. Thats enough to buy 1 atlas or 2 XL engines. all FREE.

the worst thing about this nurf is it's brought out the worst people whining way over the top about it.

Finally, someone who realizes that the change did nothing serious or bad, and that the game is fine with the current earnings!

[Kmieciu]

lunticasylum, on 26 August 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Finally, someone who realizes that the change did nothing serious or bad, and that the game is fine with the current earnings!

The game is fine, but the players are not. And what's a game without the players?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Kmieciu, on 26 August 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

The game is fine, but the players are not. And what's a game without the players?

This is a good point. If the players aren't fine with the C-bill earning rate, they will not play the game. This is the point I have been trying to get across to everyone, including PGI. Basically on a scale of 1 to 10 in fun factor, MWO dropped from a solid 7 to a 5 just because of the economy change. Not low enough to quit, but definately not high enough to want me to spend money on it anymore, not unless there are major changes.

[Archio]

40K Cbills for a loss, this is with premium time activated. Im not a great player, sometimes I get lucky, but I still get less than 150k for a win.

I've played this game off and on since being invited into the closed beta, and it has never been less fun to play than it is now. I have *one* mech that I am trying to build out, and I cant even do that because I dont have the income to finish it in any decent measure of time.


Not happy. I almost dont want to play any more. Maybe some day we'll finally get a BattleTech game that isnt being turned into a more and more blatant cash grab. Every single change that comes down the line feels less motivated by the desire to balance the game for everyone, and more motivated by greed. $15 for a camo scheme? $30 for a hero mech? C'mon.

At least World of Tanks' money sinks are more affordable and allow the player to feel competitive, arcade or not.

Edited by Archio, 09 September 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Archio, on 09 September 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

40K Cbills for a loss, this is with premium time activated. Im not a great player, sometimes I get lucky, but I still get less than 150k for a win.

I've played this game off and on since being invited into the closed beta, and it has never been less fun to play than it is now. I have *one* mech that I am trying to build out, and I cant even do that because I dont have the income to finish it in any decent measure of time.


Not happy. I almost dont want to play any more. Maybe some day we'll finally get a BattleTech game that isnt being turned into a more and more blatant cash grab. Every single change that comes down the line feels less motivated by the desire to balance the game for everyone, and more motivated by greed. $15 for a camo scheme? $30 for a hero mech? C'mon.

At least World of Tanks' money sinks are more affordable and allow the player to feel competitive, arcade or not.

I wouldn't call WoTs money sinks more affordable but they are more valuable.

To compare my Type 59 to my Heavy Metal. The heavy metal earns a 30% boost to the base C-bill reward, before premium is applied where as the Type 59s enhanced rewards are directly proportional to you having premium. Additionally the precentage of rewards is much higher in the Type 59.

For example, my Type 59 earns roughly 200-300% of the earnings of a non-premium tier 8 tank vs MWO Hero with premium only earning roughly 120% of a non-hero (when you consider that the 30% bonus is applied prior to the premium award). That is a huge difference in "Value" for the money and MWO hero mechs aren't that much cheaper than a premium tank.

Also WoTs has a full XP progression system that while still a grind, makes you feel like your progressing faster due to the incremental upgrades you get as you progress through the tank. This allows for small goals like playing toward that suspension upgrade or a new gun.

Lastly, WoTs progression is tied mostly to XP, not money, at least until the higher tiers. From about Tier 1 through 8, you always make more money than you can spend with premium and rarely will you find yourself not being able to buy the next tank in the line of progression when your ready for it unlike MWO where this happens pretty much at every mech. Also in MWO, if you experiment buy buying say an XL engine, you end up with negative progression toward your next mech since progression is tied to money.

Overall WoT is probably more grindy to be honest, but it has a fairlly well thought out and implemented progression system in place that actually motivates your to push forward to that next module or tank. MWO severely lacks this.