79 replies to this topic

[Dugra Dugrasson]

I would rather PGI release Faction variant 'Mechs and balance their existing weapons before we add "premium" weapons.

[TheArisen]

nodebate, on 20 December 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I would rather PGI release Faction variant 'Mechs and balance their existing weapons before we add "premium" weapons.

Balance is an ongoing type of thing. Plus the people who do game balance & those that would make premium weapons aren't the same people.

Faction specific variants... Anything beyond Clan & IS isn't ever going to happen.

[dillsOn]

I voted mostly no then completed my decision and I do say, I wouldn't be interested in something like this, though I imagine a lot of other players would ... Especially if it offered different cosmetics and sounds, maybe the lasers could have different shapes or the missiles a new color, from a marketing stand point as reply #1 says "Pure Gold" ... Lighter and easier to process too!

post script - As long as it doesn't change the game balance, I strongly feel that MWO Mercs has a great Free to play structure, as some one who has very little money to spend on games.

Edited by dkcc85, 23 December 2015 - 02:40 AM.

[TheArisen]

dkcc85, on 23 December 2015 - 02:37 AM, said:

I voted mostly no then completed my decision and I do say, I wouldn't be interested in something like this, though I imagine a lot of other players would ... Especially if it offered different cosmetics and sounds, maybe the lasers could have different shapes or the missiles a new color, from a marketing stand point as reply #1 says "Pure Gold" ... Lighter and easier to process too!

post script - As long as it doesn't change the game balance, I strongly feel that MWO Mercs has a great Free to play structure, as some one who has very little money to spend on games.

As I've stated before, these premium weapons would have the exact same stats as their regular counterparts aside from the boost to Cbill/XP/Loyalty.

It'd also be a great new source of income for Pgi. Ideally that'd mean increased productivity on other gameplay aspects.

[TheArisen]

As ever, I'd appreciate feedback as to why you voted no. I promise not to rage at you, although I might disagree with your reason.

[TheArisen]

I've made a poll asking about which cbill boosting option is more desirable.
http://mwomercs.com/...boosting-ideas/

[Mmerryweather]

This is the best idea since sliced bread. The people voting "No" don't really have a leg to stand on. How many times do you have to say that the stats would remain constant? >_<

I'd be willing to pay ~150-300MC for permanent use of a boosted reward weapon.

[TheArisen]

Mmerryweather, on 31 December 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

This is the best idea since sliced bread. The people voting &quot;No&quot; don't really have a leg to stand on. How many times do you have to say that the stats would remain constant? &gt;_&lt;

I'd be willing to pay ~150-300MC for permanent use of a boosted reward weapon.

Yeah I don't know what reason ppl have. Some people think this'd take too much dev time to make. Other than that, this idea is airtight IMO.

[TheArisen]

Lots of ppl voting "other" for the price. How much do you think would be fair to both players & Pgi?

[TheArisen]

To anyone worried about needing to play "find the special weapon", I think a simple filter could be added to help find them.

[Astarot]

There are better ways for ideas to be generated then people playing, I want to reskin all my large lasers to look like small lasers.

Mmerryweather, on 31 December 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

This is the best idea since sliced bread. The people voting "No" don't really have a leg to stand on. How many times do you have to say that the stats would remain constant? >_<

I'd be willing to pay ~150-300MC for permanent use of a boosted reward weapon.

I voted no, you know what I voted no? Because it a dangerous road to go down, people rely more on just locking onto a target to find out information on someone, and I personally don't want to play the "So was that a large laser or a medium laser?" Game. Ontop of that, this entire idea seems like a waste of Dev time, Dev time that I remind you could be used to fix many of the broken things in game, which include the Community warfare, among other things.

Here my leg. Who to say they will actually stop at just different colors (which to be frank would only further annoy people who actually are competitive and use more then just their lock on to gather information from people. )

[TheArisen]

Astarot, on 25 January 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

There are better ways for ideas to be generated then people playing, I want to reskin all my large lasers to look like small lasers.


I voted no, you know what I voted no? Because it a dangerous road to go down, people rely more on just locking onto a target to find out information on someone, and I personally don't want to play the &quot;So was that a large laser or a medium laser?&quot; Game. Ontop of that, this entire idea seems like a waste of Dev time, Dev time that I remind you could be used to fix many of the broken things in game, which include the Community warfare, among other things.

Here my leg. Who to say they will actually stop at just different colors (which to be frank would only further annoy people who actually are competitive and use more then just their lock on to gather information from people. )

Two things, first off you can vote against any sort of cosmetic differences with question 3.

Second, if there is no cosmetic differences there is only coding to do. Also, even if Pgi decided to implement this idea it wouldn't interfere with CW phase 3, it wouldn't be implemented in the short term. This idea would be another source of income and would help Pgi increase production.

[Jables McBarty]

This right here is Valve's business model for Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2. Microtransactions for 100% irrelevant cosmetic stuff--and they support entire franchises on it.

Here's what I voted:

Offer: Yes. Reason: See comment above and theorycrafting below.
Cost: Other. Reason: Per Valve, prices would be differential. "Common" and "Uncommon" items are relatively cheap, "Rare" and "Mythical" less so, "Immortal" items are actually expensive. The better-looking items cost more, and have more ambient effects.
Sounds: Yes, More. Reason: Per Cost above, some items would have different sounds/looks to them, but there'd only be one in each class (the analogy here would be per chassis, as in Dota 2, each character generally only has 1 Immortal item if that). So a basic item would just have a different look to it on the 'mech, but wouldn't have any ambient effects.
Cost Same? No Reason: I mean, we pay more in C-bills, right?
Cap: Yes Reason: Maybe have a diminishing return on stacking items.

Right now it seems PGI eschews microtransactions for larger purchases of $40+ once every several months. This sort of change would nudge it towards a microtransactional system, which might be good or bad. The logic behind such a move would be to increase general revenues for minimal design, hence take development resources away from 'Mech packs and towards developing new gameplay mecahnics/maps/modes, etc. that all the diehards want.

Cosmetics: Rather than changing beam color, it'd just be a change to the weapon itself where it is mounted--I agree that having different beam colors would make it impossible to tell what type of laser is being shot at you. This might strain the eye when it comes to recognizing weapons, but that's immersion--with hundreds of weapons manufacturers that's what true MechWarriors have to do.

Bonuses: I'd like to see this as an add-on. Dota has a "socket" system where each item when purchased is inert, but you can put "gems' into "sockets' to count things like kills, assists, damage dealt, etc. while having that item equipped. Do something similar with the weapons, possibly by using the sponsorships--so you buy the cosmetic item, but have to sign a sponsorship in order to get the bonuses. Then PGI could give these out as salvage drops, but still get revenue when people want a sponsorship contract.

Kill Counters: I'd also like to see the kill counters added to the weapons per the "socket" system above. These you'd pay for once to attach to the weapon. So as you move the weapon from 'Mech to 'Mech you can rack up stats on the weapon and brag to your friends.

Or maybe certain branded weapons only get bonuses when equipped on certain 'mechs, or can only fit on certain 'mechs, etc.

In the end, this should only be implemented if it would generate more stable revenue for low dev cost so that PGI can pay attention to rebalance issues, etc. Which has worked phenomenally well for Dota 2, but Dota 2 also has 30+ million players or something so they can survive in a purely microtransactional economy.

[TheArisen]

Jables McBarty, on 26 January 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

This right here is Valve's business model for Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2. Microtransactions for 100% irrelevant cosmetic stuff--and they support entire franchises on it.

Here's what I voted:

Offer: Yes. Reason: See comment above and theorycrafting below.
Cost: Other. Reason: Per Valve, prices would be differential. &quot;Common&quot; and &quot;Uncommon&quot; items are relatively cheap, &quot;Rare&quot; and &quot;Mythical&quot; less so, &quot;Immortal&quot; items are actually expensive. The better-looking items cost more, and have more ambient effects.
Sounds: Yes, More. Reason: Per Cost above, some items would have different sounds/looks to them, but there'd only be one in each class (the analogy here would be per chassis, as in Dota 2, each character generally only has 1 Immortal item if that). So a basic item would just have a different look to it on the 'mech, but wouldn't have any ambient effects.
Cost Same? No Reason: I mean, we pay more in C-bills, right?
Cap: Yes Reason: Maybe have a diminishing return on stacking items.

Right now it seems PGI eschews microtransactions for larger purchases of $40+ once every several months. This sort of change would nudge it towards a microtransactional system, which might be good or bad. The logic behind such a move would be to increase general revenues for minimal design, hence take development resources away from 'Mech packs and towards developing new gameplay mecahnics/maps/modes, etc. that all the diehards want.

Cosmetics: Rather than changing beam color, it'd just be a change to the weapon itself where it is mounted--I agree that having different beam colors would make it impossible to tell what type of laser is being shot at you. This might strain the eye when it comes to recognizing weapons, but that's immersion--with hundreds of weapons manufacturers that's what true MechWarriors have to do.

Bonuses: I'd like to see this as an add-on. Dota has a &quot;socket&quot; system where each item when purchased is inert, but you can put &quot;gems' into &quot;sockets' to count things like kills, assists, damage dealt, etc. while having that item equipped. Do something similar with the weapons, possibly by using the sponsorships--so you buy the cosmetic item, but have to sign a sponsorship in order to get the bonuses. Then PGI could give these out as salvage drops, but still get revenue when people want a sponsorship contract.

Kill Counters: I'd also like to see the kill counters added to the weapons per the &quot;socket&quot; system above. These you'd pay for once to attach to the weapon. So as you move the weapon from 'Mech to 'Mech you can rack up stats on the weapon and brag to your friends.

Or maybe certain branded weapons only get bonuses when equipped on certain 'mechs, or can only fit on certain 'mechs, etc.

In the end, this should only be implemented if it would generate more stable revenue for low dev cost so that PGI can pay attention to rebalance issues, etc. Which has worked phenomenally well for Dota 2, but Dota 2 also has 30+ million players or something so they can survive in a purely microtransactional economy.

Interesting ideas. This idea is about weapons that help reduce the grind. The cosmetic parts are secondary, at least for me. If there was some cosmetic differences that'd be a notable increase on Dev. time. I'd like some different looking lasers/cannons, etc. Of course it's important to have realistic hopes.

[Astarot]

TheArisen, on 25 January 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

Two things, first off you can vote against any sort of cosmetic differences with question 3.

Second, if there is no cosmetic differences there is only coding to do. Also, even if Pgi decided to implement this idea it wouldn't interfere with CW phase 3, it wouldn't be implemented in the short term. This idea would be another source of income and would help Pgi increase production.

I voted against it in general.

First of all, your suggestion means that in the event that they add R and R back in, people would simply bypass it through a system like this. Second position, they have so many different ways to get money at the moment that taking dev time to add in another way seems silly and they should be work on, say the community warfare.

As for saying it would only take coding, you do know that a dev can be a coder, artest, network engineer, all a dev stands for is a developer, taking a dev from a project that could be in a major demand of his attention and stuffed on a project means that you will have less man power on said project, which means less people to catch bugs, and in turn take longer to get out the door.

What you are basically suggesting, is giving people with the wallet, to just blow through and get a large number of mechs at a 1/3rd of the effort of the average joe.

[TheArisen]

Astarot, on 26 January 2016 - 11:16 PM, said:

I voted against it in general.

First of all, your suggestion means that in the event that they add R and R back in, people would simply bypass it through a system like this. Second position, they have so many different ways to get money at the moment that taking dev time to add in another way seems silly and they should be work on, say the community warfare.

As for saying it would only take coding, you do know that a dev can be a coder, artest, network engineer, all a dev stands for is a developer, taking a dev from a project that could be in a major demand of his attention and stuffed on a project means that you will have less man power on said project, which means less people to catch bugs, and in turn take longer to get out the door.

What you are basically suggesting, is giving people with the wallet, to just blow through and get a large number of mechs at a 1/3rd of the effort of the average joe.

As far as I know R&R isn't coming back anytime soon. I don't even think it's on the table tbh. There's premium time & hero mechs, I'd say R&R would be pointless to bring back as is. That probably going to have you asking why bother with this idea. One of the main benefits of putting the bonuses on the weapons is versatility. Also, individual weapons would be cheaper than an a hero mech & prem time, so this idea would actually be helping the average joe. Plus Pgi hands out MC like it's candy or something, so this idea wouldn't necessarily exclude non-paying players.

A Dev can do anything but they still have specialties. For example, you're not going to go to Dennis de Koning (Pgi's art lead) to ask about hit registration. This idea wouldn't be a massive undertaking, it wouldn't derail development on CW or any other current project. They've already done a bit of the work with hero mechs, they could get this done fairly quick. Even if they decided to do it, it's not like they'd begin work on it right away or even drop other projects for it.

[Throe]

I would much rather just be able to buy a "Hero" upgrade for my favorite non-hero 'Mechs, which would be applied to that specific chassis variant permanently.

Implementing OP's idea means I'll have more crap I have to swap between 'Mech variants during my usual play time, which isn't long enough to spend long hours in the 'Mech lab reloading equipment on different 'Mechs. I say this because I can guarantee I won't be buying any more than one set of any given weapon like this.

Great idea, just poorly guided, IMO. I'd much rather simply have variant weapons which have strengths and weaknesses determined by manufacturer. I.E. a Medium Laser which has a 5% bonus to range, but also generates 5% more heat; or an ERPPC which generates 10% less heat, but also has 10% shorter optimal and max range, or a cUAC/10 with a 5% slower normal recycle rate, but with a 5% reduced chance of jamming.

[TheArisen]

Throe, on 03 February 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

I would much rather just be able to buy a &quot;Hero&quot; upgrade for my favorite non-hero 'Mechs, which would be applied to that specific chassis variant permanently.

Implementing OP's idea means I'll have more crap I have to swap between 'Mech variants during my usual play time, which isn't long enough to spend long hours in the 'Mech lab reloading equipment on different 'Mechs. I say this because I can guarantee I won't be buying any more than one set of any given weapon like this.

Great idea, just poorly guided, IMO. I'd much rather simply have variant weapons which have strengths and weaknesses determined by manufacturer. I.E. a Medium Laser which has a 5% bonus to range, but also generates 5% more heat; or an ERPPC which generates 10% less heat, but also has 10% shorter optimal and max range, or a cUAC/10 with a 5% slower normal recycle rate, but with a 5% reduced chance of jamming.

I'd be happy with either making mechs "heroes" or this. The aspect that puts this idea ahead is the versatility it offers. You could mix Cbill & XP boosting weapons, etc. You'd also be able to switch them to other mechs so that means you wouldn't be stuck with just one mech benefiting. If Pgi simply added a filter for these weapons then the "find the weapon" issue is resolved.

Overall I'd say the ideas are equally good.

The problem with these weapons having different stats is 1. Potential P2Win
2. Balance nightmare

It'd be really cool to have weapons with different stats but not worth the extra difficulty to balance. Maybe in a PvE setting where balance is so important.

[TheArisen]

To avoid the issue of hard point starved mechs getting the shaft, what if the cap was set so that you could reach it with a relatively few weapons? Say, 4 Mlas, etc.

Alternatively, booster weapons could give the maximum boost for just one weapon but still be able to have different types if desired.

[TheArisen]

Skimming over this idea & it's just so funny how ppl don't read the OP & just assume.

There's no real downside to this. In a free to play game reducing the grind is always part of the business model.