312 replies to this topic

[Arkhangel]

MovinTarget, on 09 November 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

If they really want to quirk something, how about giving bonus for using the "stock" equipment.

That would have a couple of effects:

1) you wouldn't necessarily feel you *had* to invest yet more cbills into a chassis you just purchased.

2) As most stock builds are not remotely meta, we may get more non-meta builds out there.

3) Those mechs everyone hates b/c they can't be meta'd may actually become viable again depending on the quirks

and finally...

4) QUIRKS WOULD NOT BE ABUSED SO BADLY because most of the time only if you would be able to change your load out and exploit them, you have to choose to go stock w/ quirks or go custom w/o them.

fact is, people shouldn't be going "i'm not bying this because the quirks will suck".. you should buy a mech because ( a ) you like the look of it and ( b ) the hardpoints on it are well situated to your playstyle.

case in point, the Orion. it's a very hard mech to master for a lot of people, but in the right hands, it can be utterly devastating, especially as a brawler.

in fact, i see plenty of not-often used mechs on the field that tend to kick ass, simply because their pilots gave them a chance and got inventive with builds, rather than trying to "supermeta" them like Thunderbolt SSs or Dragon 1Ns. the game should be about piloting skills, builds that work for your playstyle and teamwork.

Edited by Arkhangel, 09 November 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[Druarc]

I've bought the previous 2 but I'll probably skip this one as I have the jagers and just don't see enough of reason to also get them.

[Dakkss]

Nightshade24, on 09 November 2015 - 04:36 AM, said:

Sadly, it isn't the minority that are the bad eggs.

With this 'majority' out of the way, we can nail down to the clump of people that like to talk- problem. The people that talk about anything on topic of MWO is where the extremely heated and polar topics are and even if the first post isn't biased and can be constructive and clear. It does take the following shambles of responses that can quickly soil it. As well as a poll that could have a biased voting population. (ie the only people who showed up to vote are peoples who believe clan lasers are OP and want it nerfed on your topic of laser balancing because the people who think it's fine didn't come around nor the others on the other end of the spectrum rather by the location you posted this or by the title) and so on.

Also the loudest voices on the forums are always the doomsayers, the ones always with the negative topic and the louder ones are the most toxic.

You see threads every month saying the game will die in less than a year (however it hasn't yet, I wonder why) but you haven't seen threads saying it'll last over a decade. You see lots of threads complaining that Gauss is OP or the clan meta laser combo is overwhelming and so on. but you enver see a thread say the AC 20 is at a perfect balance or that the LRM's are feeling alright at the moment. This part isn't part of the problem but it's part of the answer.

Soooo..... even after all you've said, most of the smack-talk occurs on threads about weapon balancing - I can agree. But I would question that it's the weapons that are MWO's problem. Most of the threads about non-weapon issues such as pinpoint fixes like reticle bob, recoil, collisions, weapon impact physics (i.e AC20 force), movement/accuracy/HUD penalties for high heat, and so on. Rarely do you see angry mobs on these issues because, guess what, the people who post them go into great detail about how it works and people who respond offer work-arounds to improve the idea. And these threads come up every week, as well as being bumped from long ago.

And PGI are obviously not afraid of community reaction for buffing/nerfing weapons. They do it all the time implementing their OWN convoluted ideas like untargeted laser damage, removing/adding various quirks, changing values like velocity, damage, heat and cooldown.

And STILL, after all this is said and done, it seems PGI still chooses to totally ignore their own forums simply because their feelings get hurt due to rude, unhelpful posts instead of reading them and shrugging it off. You can't give an example of only weapon balance threads and then say every thread about balance is just a hellhole. You're ignoring threads about gamemodes, maps, mech movement, mech heat, stackpoling, HUD elements, pinpoint convergence and so on which are much more civil. And get to MWO's issues more than silly weapon values ever will.

[Nightshade24]

Repasy, on 09 November 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

What I would prefer for weapon quirks is if they were directly placed on the weapon. For example, a Hellstar manufactured PPC might have higher velocity and increased EMI compared to a General Motors PPC, but on the downside might have a longer cooldown time. Fluff like that would add a nice flavor to the game.

I believe the weapon specific alternates was considered to complicated for the game as well as would take time (but not completely dropped/ ignored for that and is still an option) but this is where the weapon modules come in.
They originally had downsides but it was dropped when specific module slots came in

Because otherwise the only thing that will happen with brands of weapons coming in is that we have a 3rd layer of a rush for the best.


atm it's like this, Best mech, best equipment (lostech mostly, ie DHS, Endo, etc), and than with new weapon stuffs- now equiping the best version of that laser.

Not saying it shouldn't happen but I think a mechanic should be introduced to prevent you mixing companies for the same weapon and to apply to maybe a percentage of the weapons or only a few types (ie like weapon modules, you can only have 2), so you do not have someone with the- say...

Best ER Medium lasers, Best large pulse lasers, and Best Gauss rifle on a direwolf but maybe the 'best' medium lasers, trade-offy Large pulse lasers with some goods but some bad stuff, and a slightly crummy gauss rifle/ average gauss rifle.

A ballancing system could work that if you got 1 things excessively good than you kinda need sacrafices in other places...

maybe equipping Single heatsinks/ no endo / being a bad mech can increase the pool of how much good stuff you can have (For now lets say custom weapon points (CWP)) so like a Nova can have access to a bit better ER medium laser options than a stormcrow due to the lack of Endo and Ferro and due to it's poor profile. Or having single heatsinks on your urbanmech can benifit you a bit more with AC 20 rate of fire and heat than if you had an Xl engine (speaking of which... STD 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95... and XL 60,65,70,75,80,85, 90, and 95.... I'm waiting PGI...) or what ever. Could really up the use of using ferro over endo or SHS over DHS ....

I am over thinking this... I should really make more suggestion threads more often but I would have 80 topics by the end of hte day....

[ASHTAR0N]

MovinTarget, on 09 November 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Yes yes yes, If you are buying a multi-chassis package, yes...

My point is that if you only are getting heavies, the a la carte for resistance can't compare.

Otherwise its apples to oranges.

Well there is no canadian law that would prevent PGI from selling a mech pack that includes 3 heavies.

My problem is that with this sales model they charge more money for less work.
Making 3 mechs is easier then 4, not making unique geo is also less work (even if you dont care about it), reusing legs is also easier (they reuse the model, animations, hitboxes, textures), and they skip the faction patterns.

And I also love how you (and Arcangel) completly ignored my main critique point with PGI:

ASHTAR0N, on 09 November 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

It would be fine with me if they used the money they make with the mechs to produce new content (MRM´s, game modes with objectives, AI, Tanks, Infantry, single player campaign, improving the older mechs...).

But as long as there are people that blindly defend PGI there is no need for them to produce some new content.

[MovinTarget]

ASHTAR0N, on 09 November 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

Well there is no canadian law that would prevent PGI from selling a mech pack that includes 3 heavies.

My problem is that with this sales model they charge more money for less work.
Making 3 mechs is easier then 4, not making unique geo is also less work (even if you dont care about it), reusing legs is also easier (they reuse the model, animations, hitboxes, textures), and they skip the faction patterns.

And I also love how you (and Arcangel) completly ignored my main critique point with PGI:



But as long as there are people that blindly defend PGI there is no need for them to produce some new content.

Ah yes more money for less work...

Ok I see where we differ in opinion now. If I like what I see, feel that the price is fair, and have the money, then I will buy it. The seller is a black box as far as I am concerned, I don't need to know that this product required the same quantity of blood, sweat, and tears as another product. If they skip some facet of the process that I couldn't care less about... In fact, maybe I get what I want faster because they streamlined the process by cutting that aspect out. Maybe it cut too much into badly needed profits. I can't expect a company to discuss all their business tactics to its consumers. All you can do is say, "do I have any reservations about buying this product?"

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Special geo doesn't make it move faster.
Special geo doesn't absorb more damage.
Special geo is fluff, just like the hero paint job.

So I see what your saying, but if many others feel the same way, why would a company continue to spend time and resources on a aspect that perhaps does not encourage a tremendous amount of new sales?

Maybe that's what they are testing out in this marketing?

I don't know... but if they are listening, I'd rather get more battle-useful swag than fluff if it's a matter of putting more work into the package.

[Arkhangel]

ASHTAR0N, on 09 November 2015 - 11:45 PM, said:

Well there is no canadian law that would prevent PGI from selling a mech pack that includes 3 heavies.

My problem is that with this sales model they charge more money for less work.
Making 3 mechs is easier then 4, not making unique geo is also less work (even if you dont care about it), reusing legs is also easier (they reuse the model, animations, hitboxes, textures), and they skip the faction patterns.

And I also love how you (and Arcangel) completly ignored my main critique point with PGI:



But as long as there are people that blindly defend PGI there is no need for them to produce some new content.

it's Arkhangel. despite being closed beta, i STILL got sniped, heh.... and fyi... stuff like MRMs are superfluous currently. you want MRM, just pilot an SRM boat with a range boosting module. MWO SRMs act like MRMs anyways. actual SRMs are supposed to have limited seeking capability. the main diff between them and Streak SRMs was the fact that Streaks wouldn't fire unless GUARANTEED to hit.

we ARE actually reading what you say, it's just 90% of it is a bitchfest at PGI.

[ASHTAR0N]

Arkhangel, on 10 November 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

it's Arkhangel. despite being closed beta, i STILL got sniped, heh.... and fyi... stuff like MRMs are superfluous currently. you want MRM, just pilot an SRM boat with a range boosting module. MWO SRMs act like MRMs anyways. actual SRMs are supposed to have limited seeking capability. the main diff between them and Streak SRMs was the fact that Streaks wouldn't fire unless GUARANTEED to hit.

we ARE actually reading what you say, it's just 90% of it is a bitchfest at PGI.

You failed again to understand my point - thats why assuemed that you didn´t read the post properly.

You only focused on the MRM´s, but the MRM´s are just an example for possible content, just like the other things I mentioned. (I didn´t elaborate this further in my previous posts because I thought it was obvious). Actually the sugestion threads are full of different great ideas for additional content. And I don´t really care that much about which exactly they implement, aslong as they enhance the game expirience.

But my problem is that there is no new content making it into the game, and at the same time they raise the prices. Things like the upcoming re-balancing and map overhauls are just maintenance (something you expect from a game that has been out almost 3 years) and not new content.

And if this critique points make it sound like a bitchfest at PGI, then I´m sorry thats not my intention. I spent a good amount of money on this game, because I enjoy playing it and want to support the Devs, and russ also mentioned a lot of great plans in the town hall´s, but the game is at a standstill(for a good while now) and only new mechs are beeing produced. Additional they are making some very questionble decisions like removing the game mode selection.

Edit: I consider a map like the new forrest colony as maintenance because the old one was designed for 16 players and not very fun to play with 24.

Edited by ASHTAR0N, 10 November 2015 - 04:55 AM.

[Destoroyah]

The Standard and Hero are reasonably priced its the collectors upgrade that needs to be improved to warrant the extra 20 dollars. The collector upgrade adds so little there isn't much to tempt the consumer to make the purchase.

I don't think a la cart makes a good comparison for single packs. It's my opinion the a la cart is grossly overpriced. Yes you theoretically save some money if you go for a heavy or assault, but lose out on a ton of content in the process while paying almost as much if you would of just got up to the proper tier.

[MovinTarget]

Yeah, I look at that one part of these packages and wonder... Is this a gauge of fanatical devotism?

I only compared them to buying heavies a la carte because thats about all there is *to* compare them to...

You can compare them w/ the Urbie packs but then you would be comparing a light (that some consider a punchline) to heavies. Which means that if the price point on urbies is "spot on" (I don't remember grief on the forums like this for the urbie) then all three Icons are a heck of a deal; the max urbie package is $40 and currently comes w/ only 3 mechs ( I think it used to have a 4th redundant one). So by sheer in-game mech value the Icons are hands down a better deal...

Except for one thing:

TEH URBEZ RULEZ!!!

Edited by MovinTarget, 10 November 2015 - 06:29 AM.

[Twilight Fenrir]

MovinTarget, on 10 November 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

Yeah, I look at that one part of these packages and wonder... Is this a gauge of fanatical devotism?

I only compared them to buying heavies a la carte because thats about all there is *to* compare them to...

You can compare them w/ the Urbie packs but then you would be comparing a light (that some consider a punchline) to heavies. Which means that if the price point on urbies is "spot on" (I don't remember grief on the forums like this for the urbie) then all three Icons are a heck of a deal; the max urbie package is $40 and currently comes w/ only 3 mechs ( I think it used to have a 4th redundant one). So by sheer in-game mech value the Icons are hands down a better deal...

Except for one thing:

TEH URBEZ RULEZ!!!

People weren't complaining when the Marauder was announced, either.... I think people are becoming vocal now, because they are worried this is going to be the new, permanent pricing model. That every mech from here on out is going to be sold individually for $20/$40. So, people are just expressing that this kind of model is acceptable for exceptional cases, but it is untenable as a base line.

[Alaric Hasek]

Don't try to make sense, as most of the complainers do so just for the sake of compliaining. No amount of sensible argument will budge them, so what's the point?

Carchemish, on 06 November 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

For those who won't buy until some game content conditions are met, I totally understand your position. Having said that...this is how they make money! Money used to pay their programmers' salaries! This is what gives them the resources to build new content, and I for one will throw a few bucks into the pool to see that happen.

All the best,

Carchemish the Benificent

[Killian Kell]

I'm new to the game and community, and while I love the looks of the Rifleman, I won't be purchasing it..I started just before this whole voting on maps and game mode 'feature' and since then it's been the same 4 maps over and over, (not the usual internet hyperbole, in a 3hr session, it was frozen city, HPG, Canyon, Alpine). I can't see MWO holding my interest or other new players, long enough, to justify spending money on it..4 maps, and 2 game modes(I know there are 3 but after the voting it's just 2 that you actually play)..yeah, no.

I can't speak for all noobs out there, maybe some just have cash to toss away.

[Dakkss]

Alaric Hasek, on 10 November 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

Don't try to make sense, as most of the complainers do so just for the sake of compliaining. No amount of sensible argument will budge them, so what's the point?

Yes, that's it. Nobody has any right to complain about anything and they just do so to be annoying, not because they have a reason to. The pinpoint damage, map/gamemode voting, pricing models, quirks, and content are all perfect. /sarcasm

^ Posts like these are just embarrassing. I swear literally anything people say these days is immediately accused of being PGI bashing whether or not it was a reasonable post.

Yes, money is how they will address the issues I mentioned above but they get addressed at a shockingly slow rate, especially in comparison to the money that gets thrown at them. Not many people are happy to spend ~$200 on a game each year to get 2 maps and not much else.

[KodiakGW]

Dude, you really better watch your tone when posting. You are basically calling me a s*** pilot because I offered up an alternative that could potentially lead to more sales.

Nightshade24, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

Yes, because comparing a 60 ton mech (the lightest heavy) to the 75 ton Timberwolf (the heaviest heavy) is logical?

Yes, because in solo queue you can choose anything between 60 and 75 tons for the heavy queue. More often than not, you will be facing TBRs. So yes, you need to consider that if you are buying it for use in solo queue. EXACTLY what my statement said.

Nightshade24, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

How about this: instead of requiring a huge engine for survivability- why not use the obvious profile and range to take the Timberwolf out at range?

What if you land on Mining Collective? Most of the battle is poking around corners instead of over ramps. You know what helps with poking around corners quickly? Larger engines.

Nightshade24, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

Quickdraw? sure, it moves fast, but this time it isn't even a ranged mech and it does better at close range.

Really? Try a 5K with ERLL or LL. All high mounted on the torso. Great for poking over ridges.

Nightshade24, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

Rifleman? has quite high hardpoints and probable agility. If you want a Rifleman that acts 100% like a dragon than here's an idea, get the dragon. Got it already? than it's a good sign to stop whining.

Right there buddy. That's one. I was offering suggestions to sell more, not whining.

Nightshade24, on 07 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

I am not trying to convince anyone the Rifleman is good because if you are s*** at playing the rifleman it would be s*** for you than.
I can not convince you into getting better in a mech you neglect to play to it's strengths and such.

That's two. I said in my prior post I already have the Firebrand (and also ShadowHawks FYI), so I know how to play the high mount weapons quite well. Maybe you need to take a breather and read through things before posting.

[Nightshade24]

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Dude, you really better watch your tone when posting. You are basically calling me a s*** pilot because I offered up an alternative that could potentially lead to more sales.

Not calling you a s*** pilot. I'm saying you are S*** at playing the rifleman. Which you can't really state is true or false because you haven't played it for 1 match. Nor has anyone else. But you show a clear vibe that goes along the lines of "this isn't my kind of mech, I hate all the advantages or do not think they are good enough and I hate all the disadvantages and I will refuse to play it if it is like this".
Because for me the advantages push it quite respectfully high on the list of effectiveness and the problems stated I consider rather minor- if anything needed for it's weight as for all others the speed and other problems is the strength.

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Yes, because in solo queue you can choose anything between 60 and 75 tons for the heavy queue. More often than not, you will be facing TBRs. So yes, you need to consider that if you are buying it for use in solo queue. EXACTLY what my statement said.

Let me first of all see your thought process. you basically deem all 20, 25, and 30 ton mechs obsolete due to the presence of a 35 tonner and that the 20 to 30 tonners are not 100% like a 35 tonner.
You think all 40, 45, 50 tonners are obsolete because they are not like 100% like a 55 tonner.
you think all 60, 65, 70 tonners are obsolete because they are not like 100% like a 75 tonner
and you think all 80, 85, 90, and 95 tonners are obsolete because they are not 100% like the 100 tonner.

Before I point the extremely massive flaw in this logic. Let me make it a bit more obvious when I apply this to all mech weight classes. Becuase you know- weight class doesn't dictate anything in solo cue and barely anything in group cue. The 3/3/3/3 rule doesn't exist anymore and you can theoretically have 12 assaults in a solo cue just fine on the same team if their is that many of the population playing assaults. hell all 12 of them could be 100 tonners but this huge influx is not really practical. however in the past and current game we have had situations of 6 of the same weight class in the same game rather it be group or solo.

Lets see here, why should I bring a 20 ton mech when it isn't 100% like a 100 ton mech? the Kingcrab has much more firepower and armour and ammo and heat efficiency over a locust as well as have additional armour for it's weight and a good profile as well as high energy and missile hardpoints ,why would anyone want to pilot a locust? I think we should buff the locust.
Why am I comparing these two? because you can pick a king crab over a locust in solo cue any time and you will be vsing king crabs right!

It doesn't work this way, You could say this isn't the same case- but it kind of is. The reason I decided to do this is that it follows the same principle of your post but with a bit more of an extreme polarity occurring as it's a bit more exaggerated just so you can see where the faults may lie.

Rifleman will see Timberwolfs- yes. But guess what else will? locusts.... atlas.... catapult.... kitfox.... the warhammer.... the highlander IIC.... I am pretty sure every mechs sees a timberwolf. Your point?

And why would someone buy a mech specifically for a specific game mode? That sounds like something only an extremely overly competitive E-sport person would do but that level of e-sports doesn't even exist in MW: O. ESPECIALLY single cue.
People who buy this mech or any mech should buy it to play Mechwarrior Online with it.
Not 1 specific map on 1 specific game mode and specifically 16:00 to 17:35 UTC on this 1 specific server or what ever.
That is an exagerated statement there for the example. But I find it silly that there are people who purchase a mech just for a specific time , or a server, or a map and I really doubt making it cator to this will cause it to get 'more sales' or to make the mech better.

There should be no difference in a build between solo and group cue. If it works well in solo, it works well in group,, the only thig that says how well a build is in group cue is not the build itself but your co ordination. Sure, you can skip up on the medium laser back up weapons for more ammo and let your partner do the close range brawling but the same principles remain.

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

What if you land on Mining Collective? Most of the battle is poking around corners instead of over ramps. You know what helps with poking around corners quickly? Larger engines.

So what, the game of rock paper scissors didn't land in your favour. That would hurt most mechs besides the generalistic meta mechs that try to say they are the best at all maps but we have all seen how well a 7 medium pulse laser Thunderbolt or a 5 er medium, 2 large pulse laser timberwolf is on Terra therma....

Also Mining collective has quite a few areas where a Rifleman/ jagermech/ high mounted hardpoints can be used for 'ridge peaking'. For me the ramp is always quite a hot place as well as the other ramps and platforms in the map as well that is often shot over or charged over. It is part of player skill and experience to say how to perform or where to go in what mech and role because you can still can do very well with a mech with the effective range of 260 meters (ie brawler atlas) on maps like alpine peaks or still do good with snipping on maps like forest colony.

Let me humour you though that the advantage of peaking and profile is not there to help you on Mining collective- or lets just say a redo of a map or a new map has no help what so ever. We still got the agility and flexibility of the mech as well as the overal higher energy weapon count over the Jagermech which can boast or be used to make a powerful brawler build with energy or energy mix ballistic builds, rather it be an AC 10 or a gauss rifle with 4 to 6 medium lasers allowign a hard kick at the enemy. (6 med las = 5 damage each, 30, AC 10 does 10, allowing a rather accurate 40 damage alpha strike, quite powerful for a 60 tonner and matches the potential of a jagermechs twin AC 20 with less ammo dependency)
the already stock twin AC 10 build will most likely be quirked towards that and will be overal better at AC 10 over the jagermech, with DPS in mind of the AC 10 and velocity can be quite more of a threat over the Jagermech and has an advantage over a timberwolf in a few respects.
However I will leave going into every little nook and cranny until after the release.


however back onto the map topic- you know what else helps with corner poking? being lighter than a comperable mech- ie TImberwolf, or Jagermech.
You know what else? Not corner peaking. No one is telling you to corner peak just becuase you can't 'ridge peak'. No one even says that you should peak to begin with. Some mechs are pretty good of just getting otu there and unleashing their DPS onto the enemy instead of wasting time peaking.I have never seen a peaking atlas do well or a peaking draogn. (granted all dragons that do not have twin AC 5's do not do well atm...)

That, or you just wait for the peak battle to finish in your teams favour and start to follow in with the push. or if your team fails at the peaking war pull back and let the enemy break into the open to die to the firing line and defensive possitions.
This game isn't just a cheese meta train of repeating the same tactic over and over with the same builds as some may try to lead you to think.

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Really? Try a 5K with ERLL or LL. All high mounted on the torso. Great for poking over ridges.



Right there buddy. That's one. I was offering suggestions to sell more, not whining.



That's two. I said in my prior post I already have the Firebrand (and also ShadowHawks FYI), so I know how to play the high mount weapons quite well. Maybe you need to take a breather and read through things before posting.

Yes, and notice all that part of your mech exposed doing it as well as the larger profile. As well as the weapons being bellow equal your cockpit, making it harder to shoot over higher ridges and such/ minimalising exposure.

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Right there buddy. That's one. I was offering suggestions to sell more, not whining..

And why does PGI need to sell more? Sure, the fact it cost MC for pre order is to get income, but it's also mainly there for people to play a mech they want to play or their favourite mech. Nothing is going to make it sell more or worse than what the mech is. There is also the fact that this mech is already selling as much as the other mechs. So there is no need to make this sell more than the other two mechs.
Even then- the other things besides this mech make up more than the price itself... it doesn't really need a reason to sell itself- especially if it ruins the parts that make it unique OR makes it over powered- which sure might get more sales but what's the point if it 'll be nerfed into submission after the release.

KodiakGW, on 10 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

That's two. I said in my prior post I already have the Firebrand (and also ShadowHawks FYI), so I know how to play the high mount weapons quite well. Maybe you need to take a breather and read through things before posting.

Playing high mounted weapons isn't enough to be a pro at the Rifleman or any other mech that has high hardpoints. Sure, it carries over some techniques and advantages but it is still a completely different mech.






A problem with every mech announcement it seems is there is always people saying it's dead on arival or is under powered...
Happened for the Raven... happened for the Shadowhawk... happened for the timberwolf and direwolf... happened for the marauder too....

[KodiakGW]

Nightshade24, on 11 November 2015 - 02:45 AM, said:

And why does PGI need to sell more?

This statement alone shows me there is no having a logical argument with you. You do know that PGI is a for-profit business, not a "save mechwarrior" charity? More sales = more profit over cost of producing mech = stays in business longer.

But, whatever. Awaiting your next wall of text.

Nightshade24, on 11 November 2015 - 02:45 AM, said:

There is also the fact that this mech is already selling as much as the other mechs. So there is no need to make this sell more than the other two mechs.

Please link proof that sales are on par with the other two packs. Otherwise, you cannot make such statements.

[Arkhangel]

KodiakGW, on 11 November 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

This statement alone shows me there is no having a logical argument with you. You do know that PGI is a for-profit business, not a "save mechwarrior" charity? More sales = more profit over cost of producing mech = stays in business longer.

But, whatever. Awaiting your next wall of text.



Please link proof that sales are on par with the other two packs. Otherwise, you cannot make such statements.

pretty sure you can't link that they aren't, Kodiak, so using that arguement is inherently flawed.

[KodiakGW]

Arkhangel, on 11 November 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

pretty sure you can't link that they aren't, Kodiak, so using that arguement is inherently flawed.

Please point out the exact point where I made any statement saying they were selling less than the other two packs.

It's a valid request to back up his statement. I made no such statement in contrary. Just suggesting I'd be more inclined to purchase if it moved faster.

[Steel Rain]

Sweet! Picked it up. OK, now the archer!