vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
What "everything" are you referring to? Are you saying it would have been better for the game to have weapons cost 10X what they do now? That's what it would take to replace the module C-bill sink with this "everything."
Does that sound new player friendly?
Everything = All content, including that which is behind a paywall currently.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Of course incentives can backfire. And I would agree with you that the three-mech rule can be pretty onerous at times. But you are deflecting from the point that the three-mech rule had a second purpose beyond increasing player drop rates. It is a huge C-bill sink. How many C-bills do you think were flushed from the economy when Kodiaks became available?
But, this C-bill sink is going away, and I think it should for the reason you expressed. However, it has to be replaced.
It would be a different story if respec with c-bills just gave you back XP or whatever the exact story is with how respecing works to not lose resources. MC isn't needed to make respecing a c-bill sink (which while I dislike, that is definitely more acceptable than the current scheme).
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
You suggested a system where players can pay real money to avoid the costs of respeccing. Doesn't sound like you really get it at all.
Sounds like you don't get it at all...
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
You do know that if you want to re-master all those mechs it will cost you about the same XP you are being refunded? At least that's the takeaway I've gotten from PGI's semi-cryptic statements. Any excess Mech XP you have for those mechs will be available for constant respeccing, though.
I understand that, which is why it won't be as much of a problem for me.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
BTW: If even you with your hundreds of mechs and near constant respeccing has enough GXP, tell me why there should be a real money method for avoiding the resource costs?
2 reasons:
- People will pay for it
- That's the whole point of good F2P schemes, pay for convenience.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Says the guy who jumped in here complaining about the massive costs he'll have to bear to re-master all of his hundreds of mechs while also constantly respeccing his comp mechs. Seriously, I'm basing this off of what you said in your first post.
Now you seem to have "discovered" that the sky isn't really falling because you "forgot" about all the excess Mech XP on your mechs. You know, that resource I referenced in every single one of my responses to you so far. Glad you "remembered" it on your own.
Your full of it, I didn't say anything about myself when I first posted in this thread and I honestly forgot about all the Mech XP I have on various mechs sitting around; granted making spend even more MC to get GXP for this crap if I want to respec a newly balanced mech is frustrating. Still not the point I was trying to make at the beginning.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
So public queue drops are for honing your skills or for "fun time' because you seem to have changed your initial claim to match what I said. Funny that.
Since when can't they be both, what is with your white/black definitions. During practice time they are for honing skills, outside of practice they can be a little bit of both.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
If 80% of all current players joined a comp team and entered a league and therefore didn't drop in the public queue anymore, what is the likelihood that any new players to the game would be able to find enough appropriate matches in the public queue? How long do you think the game would last in such a state?
Comp will never be 80% of the player base so playing that impossible hypothetical will never be a situation to even be concerned with.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
You "forgot" the thing that I've mentioned in every response to you? So is respeccing all your mechs going to be a "grind" or not?
Based on current usage, the fact I have plenty of Mech XP built up, and plenty of premium built up, no. That said it will be more of a nuisance to me for minimal game than it would be before.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Gosh, if only there was a way to spend real money to convert some of your "remembered," banked Mech XP on your non-competitive mechs into GXP that you could use for your constant respeccing. I sure wish PGI would get to making that a thing . . .
Maybe I don't feel I should spent anymore money for something I wouldn't have had to do before?
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
It's like your typing hands aren't even connected to your brain. You want to get rid of the hyperinflation fighting C-bill sinks and replace them with a full embrace of massive hyperinflation.
Naw, I want to change what we are using as c-bill sinks. It's almost as if your eyes aren't even connected to your brain.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Go watch the video on reserve currency again. It is very important that you limit the ability of players to convert one currency into the other.
Except it never discuses trading multiple earned in-game currency, it is always ONE single earned in-game currency. Now, MC should be the equivalent of the reserve currency.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
It's an incentive to get players to play the game more. Of course it can feel like a punishment if done improperly, but that's true of every incentive in every game, ever. You are already calling it a punishment and it hasn't even been implemented yet. Does that sound like an objective stance or a "burned out" stance to you?
So I'm not allowed to make an objective stance based on the information we currently have and the implications of such changes? What sense does that make, the burned out status has nothing to do with this decision, sounds more like a problem of you connecting correlated events with the same cause.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Your grammar is a little mangled here but what I'm reading is that you think it's a punishment for players who spent their GXP because PGI didn't tell them that GXP was going to have additional uses in the future? Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?
This has nothing to do with GXP, this has everything to do with respecs costing people time if they didn't know any better when specing in the first place.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
You are thinking of the old system. Will this new system be the same? How do you know?
I doubt they will be trying to make it too different in power levels between mastered mechs on the old and new system. That is a hunch because PGI tends to not deviate too much from the formula. We will see how different things end up in the PSR or whatever they are doing to release this.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
Will you drop in your insta-mastered mech as much as a mech you have to progressively improve? Because years of psychology experiments says you won't.
And years of games before this skill-tree progression BS found its way in everything say they will. The fact I play mechs after they are mastered is proof that I will play an insta-mastered mech.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
I'm pointing out that you haven't thought through your viewpoint completely.
How can you when you don't seem to understand it as evident by your continuous use of strawmen?
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
You called dropping in public queue matches in order to earn C-bills or XP as "grinding." You've said it repeatedly. Don't try to lie now.
Yes, when I'm doing it to EARN c-bills, that's a very important qualifier that you continually gloss over. Playing public queue to grind resources and playing public queue just to play are two different things. So no, I'm not lying, you just are ignoring things that I'm typing apparently.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
The fact that it isn't a free-to-play does invalidate it. Blizzard makes their money off their players on day one. Free-to-play games make their money on day 20, 50 or in your case day 700. The only way you get players to day 700 is if there are games to be had and that only happens if you have as large a player pool as possible.
vandalhooch, on 10 December 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:
The developers earned their money on day one when you bought MW4.
Again, are you willfully ignorant? Whether a game is F2P or not is irrelevant with regard to getting people to play without progression which is what bringing up games like Warcraft 3, MW4, and TF2 was all about. You keep talking about human psychology BS throughout this discussion yet why is it so different for games where you pay a little upfront.