62 replies to this topic

[a gaijin]

Kanil, on 24 January 2017 - 11:12 PM, said:

Except, of course, you already know you can buy them with C-Bills.

That's obvious but my point is that there are people out there who just pay instead of grind.
Let's say we both have the same mech and we both have zero C-Bills left. I decide I will just grind and save up the C-Bills but you decide you want range extension, cooldown, radar deprivation, and seismic modules right now so you go to the store and buy enough C-Bills with real money and install the modules on your mech.

We then both drop into game. My mech's range and weapons are 10% less effective than yours cause I did not pay...and am still grinding C-Bills.
Someday my mech will be just as effective as yours, depending how long it takes me to finish grinding the amount of C-bills needed.

[Kanil]

Star Commander Horse, on 24 January 2017 - 11:19 PM, said:

Someday my mech will be just as effective as yours, depending how long it takes me to finish grinding the amount of C-bills needed.

... and if you can pay for exclusive quirks, then that someday becomes never.

[El Bandito]

BWS2K, on 24 January 2017 - 09:43 AM, said:

Oh yeah, the Loyalty one I can maybe see being an over-performer, for sure - but then, that's the point of a loyalty mech (to be better).

Nope. Loyalty has got nothing to do with being better. Case in point, the CDA-3F, and WVR-7D. They are suppose to offer something different, that's all. Summoner though, is an omnimech so it broke from that mold. Original Summoners were pretty bad before quirks, and decent after heavy amount of quirks. The quirks set for the Summoner were designed many months before the Loyalty release, which means PGI did not take account of high mounted chest points the Loyalty versions had brought later on. Now that the Summoner can have the cake and eat it too, PGI is correct in reducing CERPPC quirks to take account for the 2 nipple points. Of course, they had made a big mistake in removing some other quirks that really messed up other Summoner builds.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 January 2017 - 11:29 PM.

[BWS2K]

Star Commander Horse, on 24 January 2017 - 11:19 PM, said:

Someday my mech will be just as effective as yours, depending how long it takes me to finish grinding the amount of C-bills needed.

But pilot skill, starting location, teammates, etc... still too many variables to use the 'all things equal' slogan. Especially in the case you cite, which would almost certainly be between someone used to 'buying' skill against someone who has honed it through grinding. I think that's a real big piece of this balancing puzzle - mechs aren't effective, pilots are. There may be a slight edge when it comes to loadouts or modules or quirks but an experienced pilot in a stock mech without unlocks is going to be a match for anyone but another experienced pilot. I have a terrible internet speed so I don't upload often but I have a bunch of recordings of matches with me in a MLX-D - which is a terrible mech, and I love Lynxes - fairing very well.

All this leading me to wonder, then, exactly what metric PGI uses to determine when something is performing or not? Even in your scenario, which one is 'performing' better - the one that wins? Is that it? #idunno #butiwanna

[BWS2K]

El Bandito, on 24 January 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

Nope. Loyalty has got nothing to do with being better. Case in point, the CDA-3F, and WVR-7D. They are suppose to offer something different, that's all. Summoner though, is an omnimech so it broke from that mold. Original Summoners were pretty bad before quirks, and decent after heavy amount of quirks. The quirks set for the Summoner were designed many months before the Loyalty release, which means PGI did not take account of high mounted chest points the Loyalty versions had brought later on. Now that the Summoner can have the cake and eat it too, PGI is correct in reducing CERPPC quirks to take account for the 2 nipple points. Of course, they had made a big mistake in removing some other quirks that really messed up other Summoner builds.

Yeah, all I meant to say was that Loyalty mechs are a rarity and I could understand if PGI wanted to give them a little something extra. It wouldn't break the game. As it is, 'nipple mounts' didn't break the game... until PGI decided to judge all the Summoners by that one, apparently. I maintain the Loyalty is still not an OP mech though.

[Vanguard319]

Dimento Graven, on 24 January 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

Hmm... you bring up a good point.

Is PGI taking into consideration the skills of the pilots when assessing a 'mech's "need" for nerfing/quirking?

As the quote suggests, and you imply, it may be that for the most part only the more skilled pilots are the ones piloting the Summoner, due to its bad rep, and they have found a meta build that a skilled pilot can take advantage of.

THAT, plus the fact that the quick play MM is allowing Tier 1's and Tier 4's to face off against each other might result in skewed performance data.

It's an interesting thought. PGI has made similar mistakes in interpreting their data before.

It's PGI. When have they ever made an intelligent decision in regards to balancing anything?

I agree though, I pilot Summoners pretty often, Stock D mostly, Since I never tried different weapon loadouts, I know what the mech can and can't do very well, and I don't "sweep" my lasers like all the scrubs do, so I tend to put out more damage with greater accuracy. Having that kind of experience means that I can naturally hold my own against the meta builds piloted by most pilots, provided I don't get focused on by 2/3 of the enemy team. (Then again I don't know many ppl who can.) Does the fact I'm just that good mean the mech itself should be nerfed? No.

I guess it's easier for ppl to cry about op mechs than to actually learn what their preferred mech can do.

Edited by Vanguard319, 25 January 2017 - 12:32 AM.

[Darth Hotz]

How many loyalty summoners do you see on the battlefield? Many!

How many loyalty cataphracts do you see on the battlefield? None!

So, please stop complaining that your new poptart king got nerfed. If you dont, you have to trade it for my cataphract...

[Marius Evander]

BWS2K, on 24 January 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

The thing is, even if we call it pay-to-win, it doesn't really change anything. The players with the most money will still need *skill*, which those without money will develop quicker as they dodge all the disoriented fire from the Payers. <3

hard to beat a Ak47 with a baretta.

the summoner nerfs is clear example of a few things
PGI dont know what they're doing or they want their game to be pay to win and discourage everyone else from playing (as clear from %loyalty summoners vs non loyalty summoners on battlefield)
The Loyalty shoulder energy mount should have had NEGATIVE PPC quirks instead of anything else getting nerfed on the mech.
The Loyalty omnipods will probably be out for cbills soon so they had to nerf b4 that happened and people saw just how broken op their pay to win rewards were.

[Hotthedd]

BWS2K, on 24 January 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

@ Hotthedd - hence the italicized 'maybe'. I don't mind if they make the actual rare or money-things capable of doing a little more. Pay-to-win isn't terrible in a measured use and I maintain that two high ERPPC mounts on a Summoner is not even close to game-breaking. It's still only a Summoner, lol. Nerfing after the fact though... that's lame.

You might not mind it, but I suspect there are many more who will stop playing altogether if P2W becomes even "a little accepted". For all the mistakes PGI has made, keeping P2W out of MW:O is something they have done right.

BWS2K, on 24 January 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

The thing is, even if we call it pay-to-win, it doesn't really change anything. The players with the most money will still need *skill*, which those without money will develop quicker as they dodge all the disoriented fire from the Payers. <3

I disagree. It changes the whole concept of the game. Pay-to-win is a bad business model. Not necessarily because some things must be bought, but because the perception of the player base changes (for the worse).

Star Commander Horse, on 24 January 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

We actually have that right now and have had it since the beginning:
First you buy 25,000 MC for $99.00 and then you buy 6,500,000 C-Bills for 4,000 MC. That's about $16, right?
After that you can buy Radar Deprivation for every mech if you really wanted to.
Furthermore people can buy weapon range +10% modules and cooldown modules for all their mechs as well, either by grinding C-Bills, for coughing up 4,000 MC for every 6,500,000 C-Bills needed.
I would not be surprised at all to find out about folks out there who've paid $$ for extended range and cooldown modules for all their mechs, or all that they regularly use.
That sounds like 'extra quirks for money' to me.



edited for: oops typos

You are confusing pay-to WIN for pay-to-reduce-the-grind.
There is nothing wrong with players having the option to pay money to save time, there is something very wrong with forcing players to spend real money to have an even playing field.

[a gaijin]

BWS2K, on 24 January 2017 - 11:33 PM, said:

But pilot skill, starting location, teammates, etc... still too many variables to use the 'all things equal' slogan. Especially in the case you cite, which would almost certainly be between someone used to 'buying' skill against someone who has honed it through grinding. I think that's a real big piece of this balancing puzzle - mechs aren't effective, pilots are. There may be a slight edge when it comes to loadouts or modules or quirks but an experienced pilot in a stock mech without unlocks is going to be a match for anyone but another experienced pilot. I have a terrible internet speed so I don't upload often but I have a bunch of recordings of matches with me in a MLX-D - which is a terrible mech, and I love Lynxes - fairing very well.

All this leading me to wonder, then, exactly what metric PGI uses to determine when something is performing or not? Even in your scenario, which one is 'performing' better - the one that wins? Is that it? #idunno #butiwanna

It looks like you're completely missing the point of an all things equal statement.

Instead of thinking in terms of PuG quick play, think of it in terms of two ppl of equal skill, with the same Internet provider, and same ping take the same mech (one with modules, one without) against each other in a Premium Time enabled 1 vs 1 duel.

[a gaijin]

Hotthedd, on 25 January 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

You might not mind it, but I suspect there are many more who will stop playing altogether if P2W becomes even "a little accepted". For all the mistakes PGI has made, keeping P2W out of MW:O is something they have done right.

I disagree. It changes the whole concept of the game. Pay-to-win is a bad business model. Not necessarily because some things must be bought, but because the perception of the player base changes (for the worse).

You are confusing pay-to WIN for pay-to-reduce-the-grind.
There is nothing wrong with players having the option to pay money to save time, there is something very wrong with forcing players to spend real money to have an even playing field.

Actually I agree with you completely.
Even on things like Loyalty Mechs, I do not think they are pay to win. Anybody could have got some but many chose not to.
Now those that chose not to all b*tched, whined, and moaned about some of those Loyalty Mech pods being OP. Which then get hit with a series of penalties.

And this is exactly the reason I don't see myself playing any more free to play games. The barrier to entry is zero which means both the players and the game developers have to hear/read about the complaints of people who pay zero who yet feel entitled to the same things the paying people have.
Idiots.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

Now those that chose not to all b*tched, whined, and moaned about some of those Loyalty Mech pods being OP.

Actually no, some of us that knew the loyalty pods (at least for the Summoner) were OP because we had played with them. That and these pods aren't even PURCHASABLE right now and won't until October.....that is absurd and goes beyond paywall (because it is a limited time paywall before they are completely unavailable for a year).

The only entitlement here seems to be yours.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 January 2017 - 03:46 PM.

[a gaijin]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

Actually no, some of us that knew the loyalty pods (at least for the Summoner) were OP because we had played with them. That and these pods aren't even PURCHASABLE right now and won't until October.....that is absurd and goes beyond paywall (because it is a limited time paywall before they are completely unavailable for a year).

The only entitlement here seems to be yours.

Quicksilver, I had no idea the pods would be "OP" and TBCH that was the last thing on my mind. I just participated in the 2016 Loyalty Program because:
- I like Summoners.
- I like MWO.

That's it.


The 2016 Loyalty Program was open for anyone to participate in. Some did. And those that chose not to participate in the 2016 Loyalty Program now complain that the SMN Loyalty Pods are not purchasable for a year.

Those who did not participate feel both entitled and 'cheated' (for lack of a better term) that you cannot have what people who did participate have.

That is not fair to those who did participate in the 2016 CA Program.

It's also the same as someone who works 4 hours and gets paid $160 complaining about the guy who worked 8 hours and got paid $320.
It is both ludicrous and galling.

[BWS2K]

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

It looks like you're completely missing the point of an all things equal statement.

Instead of thinking in terms of PuG quick play, think of it in terms of two ppl of equal skill, with the same Internet provider, and same ping take the same mech (one with modules, one without) against each other in a Premium Time enabled 1 vs 1 duel.

I'm not missing the point of the statement, I'm saying those conditions never exist en masse - hence that reasoning, and any data made on its basis, is invalid. It's okay, the thread seems to have grown its own legs now. I tried, lol

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Those who did not participate feel both entitled and 'cheated' (for lack of a better term) that you cannot have what people who did participate have.

And they have that right because you can't even BUY those pods with real money or the mech for a full YEAR after they were release to loyalty owners. That's unheard of in good F2P or micro-transaction based games as far as I'm concerned, especially ones that unlock new ways to play a mech and aren't just special skins (which is what is SHOULD be).

That said, you still didn't really refute my claim that some of us that complained are actually owners ourselves because we would know first hand just how powerful they were.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 January 2017 - 04:41 PM.

[a gaijin]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

And they have that right because you can't even BUY those pods with real money or the mech for a full YEAR after they were release to loyalty owners. That's unheard of in good F2P or micro-transaction based games as far as I'm concerned, especially ones that unlock new ways to play a mech and aren't just special skins (which is what is SHOULD be).

That said, you still didn't really refute my claim that some of us that complained are actually owners ourselves because we would know first hand just how powerful they were.

You should have participated in the Customer Appreciation Program. It was open for anyone to participate in. Some did.

You chose not to participate in the 2016 Loyalty Program.
Now you complain that the SMN Loyalty Pods are not purchasable for a year.

The Customer Appreciation Program called those mechs "Loyalty Mechs" for a reason. They should only be available to loyal players, not all players.

Those who did not participate feel both entitled and 'cheated' (for lack of a better term) that you cannot have what people who did participate have.
That some people who own Loyalty Mechs want to side with the "let's cry OP" crowd and be "working man's heroes" is their choice but nerfing an entire chassis because some people got Loyalty Mechs is not fair to those who did participate in the 2016 CA Program.
And it is also not fair to owners of the 'regular' chassis as well.

This is why I hate free to play games. Freebie players ranting against paying players.

If we both worked at the same place and I put in more hours than you and I got a better salary I supposed you'd complain about that too.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

The Customer Appreciation Program called those mechs "Loyalty Mechs" for a reason. They should only be available to loyal players, not all players.

That's a special kind of paywall that is antagonistic to those free players that these games rely on for population not to mention the problem with P2W potential. You feel like spending money should entitle you to something others can't get even if they don't spend money.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

That some people who own Loyalty Mechs want to side with the "let's cry OP" crowd and be "working man's heroes" is their choice but nerfing an entire chassis because some people got Loyalty Mechs is not fair to those who did participate in the 2016 CA Program.

Let's separate two things:

• PGI nerfing a chassis because they are incompetent is a separate issue and the Summoner is far from the first to feel this wrath.
  
• The Summoner loyalty/hero pods were OP.

Those are two separate issues, you rallying against free players because you have some sort of misdirected frustration because of PGI's incompetence is just that, misdirected and ignorant of the situation at hand.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

This is why I hate free to play games. Freebie players ranting against paying players.

That's why you release all gameplay content to free players and paywall cosmetics only.....there is a reason people have made countless videos about the problem of paywalling stuff like unique ways to play and maps and it's for THAT reason, it creates friction between the paying players and the free players, and a game needs both to thrive.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

If we both worked at the same place and I put in more hours than you and I got a better salary I supposed you'd complain about that too.

That has nothing to do with the subject right? Free players are expected to pay with time invested into the game whereas paying players are paying with actual money, both are good for the game, one direction should not entitle you to GAMEPLAY altering stuff.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 25 January 2017 - 05:16 PM.

[a gaijin]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

That's a special kind of paywall that is antagonistic to those free players that these games rely on for population not to mention the problem with P2W potential. You feel like spending money should entitle you to something others can't get even if they don't spend money.

Here's a thought: everything antagonizes somebody. It's hard to get 5 people in a room to agree.

So what if people who did not participate in the 2016 Customer Appreciation are antagonized by not getting what people who did participate got?
They are cry babies. I won't make an assumption what generation they are though I'm pretty confident I can guess. Okay I'm getting too far off topic, so I digress.

Quicksilver, spending money should entitle anyone to something others can't get if they don't spend money. That is life.
Don't let anybody tell you otherwise because you will just end up with less. Or even worse, you may end up poor.

Quote

Let's separate two things:

• PGI nerfing a chassis because they are incompetent is a separate issue and the Summoner is far from the first to feel this wrath.
  
• The Summoner loyalty/hero pods were OP.

Those are two separate issues, you rallying against free players because you have some sort of misdirected frustration because of PGI's incompetence is just that, misdirected and ignorant of the situation at hand.

I'm not going to discuss PGI bashing. You can bash them all you want: your freedom of speech and all. I decline.

The pods are not OP. They simply allow the chassis to do the one thing it can do, well.

Quote

That's why you release all gameplay content to free players and paywall cosmetics only.....there is a reason people have made countless videos about the problem of paywalling stuff like unique ways to play and maps and it's for THAT reason, it creates friction between the paying players and the free players, and a game needs both to thrive.

It needs players to exist but it needs money to thrive. If you have paying players it thrives best.

Therefore, if all the paying players play and the free players leave, the game still functions. If the all the paying players leave and the free players stay, the game dies. It's a company.
Ideally we have both types, playing in harmony, with no one complaining about "how come he gets extra {whatever}?"

Quote

That has nothing to do with the subject right? Free players are expected to pay with time invested into the game whereas paying players are paying with actual money, both are good for the game, one direction should not entitle you to GAMEPLAY altering stuff.

What I stated has everything to do with it.
And I do both: I play and I pay.

Players are needed, but let's face The Ugly Truth: paying players are essential to this game, far more than free-to-players.
Without funding, the project dies.

The loyalty pods are not gamer altering. AIMBOTS are game altering.



I think we should stop this conversation because I think I've been getting nasty and I don't like it. I'm not normally this a**holey. At least I'd like to think so.
But I am very passionate about what I believe in, and aside from work, family, and friends, this is one of the things I've really liked since 96 so...I get a little crazy about it at times.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Here's a thought: everything antagonizes somebody. It's hard to get 5 people in a room to agree.

Sure, but there is such a thing as making things worse unnecessarily....

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

They are cry babies

So are you, you have spent half or more of this thread crying about how "cry babies" ruin everything (when it even wasn't them you should blame.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

Quicksilver, spending money should entitle anyone to something others can't get if they don't spend money.

It should entitle you to have to spend less time in game to access content, that is all.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

It needs players to exist but it needs money to thrive. If you have paying players it thrives best.

Not if they are playing with themselves they don't, that's part of the problem with this game and its low population. You don't seem to understand how important it is to bring in as many players as you can to play the game, playing or not, because it compounds as people bring in more of their friends, and their friend's friend, etc. Once you start bleeding players, you will eventually bleed paying players too.

Your ugly truth btw, flies in the face of what is accepted as measurements of success with regards to a F2P game. Sorry but when you are left with only whales, you are on borrowed time, where as a game that has plenty of free players will live a long time because many of those can, and will eventually be paying players.

Star Commander Horse, on 25 January 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

The loyalty pods are not gamer altering. AIMBOTS are game altering.

Any thing that allows you to play a mech in a new way is altering, you can argue semantics all you want.

[a gaijin]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 January 2017 - 06:17 PM, said:

So are you, you have spent half or more of this thread crying about how "cry babies" ruin everything (when it even wasn't them you should blame.

You are right. Cry babies crying "nerf something I don't have, it's not fair" has actually caused me to b**ch, whine, and moan about them.
Now that's what I call stooping to their level.

Quote

It should entitle you to have to spend less time in game to access content, that is all.

That's exactly what being awarded Loyalty Mechs is:
Spending less time in game to access content. Those who participated in the 2016 Customer Loyalty program have spent less time to access content.
Everyone will have access eventually.
It's similar as paying MC for C-Bills to instantly get Radar Dep modules on all mechs over the guy who has to wait weeks or whatever grinding C-Bills.

Quote

Not if they are playing with themselves they don't, that's part of the problem with this game and its low population. You don't seem to understand how important it is to bring in as many players as you can to play the game, playing or not, because it compounds as people bring in more of their friends, and their friend's friend, etc.

MWO is bringing in new blood which is nice, but I do not approve of doing it at the cost of pissing off the "vets" by screwing up MechWarrior lore and what not.

I do wonder what the actual percentage of MechWarrior fans is we have playing MWO compared to the rest.

Quote

Once you start bleeding players, you will eventually bleed paying players too.

There will still be players. And when all are paying players you have an ideal customer base. I believe that's over optimistic for any free to play game though.
Which is why MWO will be the last F2P game I ever play.

Quote

Your ugly truth btw, flies in the face of what is accepted as measurements of success with regards to a F2P game. Sorry but when you are left with only whales, you are on borrowed time, where as a game that has plenty of free players will live a long time because many of those can, and will eventually be paying players.

I'd rather play with the same 100 "whales" every day than 1000 free to play people who constantly whine about what they didn't pay for.
Also, when all have premium time there are better game options.

And when free-to-players are called paying players names, that says a lot about the entitled attitude of the non-paying customer base.

Quote

Any thing that allows you to play a mech in a new way is altering.

That is total bull. "Jump sniping" is not a "new way" of playing MWO.
If you are specifically talking Loyalty Mechs, other mechs have energy torso points, other mechs have jump jets, plenty of other mechs have quirks.
I foresee this going round robin right back to "but I can't buuuuy this for a yeeaaaar ...not faaair ."

Quote

you can argue semantics all you want.

Heh, right back at you.