Module's Should Be One Time Unlocks
#21
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:40 PM
#22
Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:43 PM
(unless there is an easier way, in which case, please tell me)
#23
Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:36 PM
sneeking, on 12 September 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:
Because that's not a "privilege" that you should have to grind several dozen matches to achieve.
DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:
Luckily, the GXP requirement is a one-time purchase.
The problem is that they're forcing the "incentive" way too much for such a simple yet important system.
Torgun, on 13 September 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:
I guess it depends on how many mechs you own. THe more mechs, the bigger the chance is you lose track of where you left it etc. Either way things that can lead to the game being less grindy is waaaaayyyy low on the priority list.
That's a piss poor way of thinking if you ask me, forcing too much grind and asking for a lot of money to bypass it can easily make people just stop playing the game nearly as much or even completely.
Edited by Pjwned, 13 September 2014 - 03:02 PM.
#24
Posted 13 September 2014 - 03:22 PM
sneeking, on 12 September 2014 - 10:22 PM, said:
If you want the privilege of playing another match when you just died by a cockpit shot in the last match, why shouldn't you have to start all over in the game, levelling all your mechs from scratch?
This isn't a simulator. We don't even have R&R.
Edited by Alistair Winter, 13 September 2014 - 03:23 PM.
#25
Posted 13 September 2014 - 05:34 PM
#26
Posted 13 September 2014 - 05:36 PM
#27
Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:04 AM
wolf74, on 13 September 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:
Lets not balance a game based on the people who contribute nothing to the game in the first place.
#28
Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:28 AM
wolf74, on 13 September 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:
As has been stated and shown however, it's not an effective one. Few use them to begin with, fewer still purchase duplicates to alleviate the annoyance of the system. It really doesn't matter if it's "End Game" or not if it's not being used. Also I'd argue that "End Game" is a really vague term in MWO. The amount of actual play time it takes someone to start investing in modules is going to vary greatly by player, even someone who plays casually may end up investing in them sooner (in terms of actual hours played) than someone who plays hours every day. And, regardless of it being End Game or not, it's hard to argue the system couldn't be greatly improved from its current state.
DAYLEET, on 14 September 2014 - 01:04 AM, said:
Lets not balance a game based on the people who contribute nothing to the game in the first place.
This is not the best way to look at things, no player contributes nothing to a title like this. Even the player that will never spend a dime contributes their playtime, which helps enlarge the player base, which helps queues be shorter, which helps the game persist. The game, especially as a competitive title, should be balanced holistically and not just from one sub-groups perspective. The experience of the player that pays no money is just as important to the health of the game as the experience of the player that spends thousands.
#29
Posted 14 September 2014 - 02:53 AM
Quxudica, on 12 September 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:
Because I did earn it, I did the excessive grinding for 15,000 GEXP and payed enough Cbills to buy an entire heavy mech. Because transferring modules between mechs is unnecessarily fiddly and tedious even when they aren't locked out, because it can be annoying to even remember what mech has what modules when you have a lot of mechs, and because the lockout system itself is arbitrary and serves no practical function. The only reason for the lockout system to exist is hampering suicide grinding, but that's easily circumventable by purchasing a couple cheap chassis. The only thing the lockout system accomplishes is hurting people that like to focus on a single mech at a time (this is a tangential argument though and not what the threads about).
Even ignoring the lockout system, making a player purchase multiple copies of modules (especially in their current expensive state) adds nothing of value to the game. It doesn't make the game better, more interesting or more enjoyable in any way, and only serves as an annoyance. It's an unnecessary complication that serves no beneficial function in the game play experience. Even the "Grind" aspect is unnecessary since plenty of grind remains to unlock them to begin with, and there are plenty of other grind focused systems in the game.
What on earth heavy mech costs 3m c-bills out of interest?
#31
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:20 AM
#32
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:25 AM
#33
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:34 AM
#34
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:37 AM
AUSwarrior24, on 14 September 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:
These concerns are something that could be addressed along with the overhaul to how they function
#35
Posted 14 September 2014 - 06:42 AM
as for the money...i get it, its a cash sink, working as intended, but maybe half the price. or have modules go on sale for weekend events or something, some of them are just too much for what little they add.
#36
Posted 14 September 2014 - 07:12 AM
In other words, when you put a mech in storage, all it's gear is available to another mech, but it's configuration is stored, Then when it's activated, as long as there isn't a conflict with another mech, ie one still in a match, you just launch and go.
#37
Posted 14 September 2014 - 02:37 PM
Nick Makiaveli, on 14 September 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:
In other words, when you put a mech in storage, all it's gear is available to another mech, but it's configuration is stored, Then when it's activated, as long as there isn't a conflict with another mech, ie one still in a match, you just launch and go.
That's definitely another possible solution, though in such a case I would also like to see price reductions.
#38
Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:53 PM
#39
Posted 14 September 2014 - 05:06 PM
IMHO that is patently ridiculous.
#40
Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:48 AM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users