310 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

You may not like that the best version is behind a paywall but it isn't an OP mech.

It doesn't have to OP to be P2W, how many times must that be said. It just has to offer an advantage (which it does in context of the Kit Fox) that is not available without real money. It offers you a better version of the Kit Fox, therefore is pay to win, because it increases the winning potential when using the Kit Fox not because it maximizes your winning potential in the game.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

The betterment of the game would be getting rid of CW or making QP just have some impact on the faction map (like win percentages of faction players causes some shift on the map or something) and just adding a 6v6 ranked mode.

LOL no, especially the underlined part!

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

Considering they are using it as a method for income, it is a high priority problem. Things that are antagonistic towards free players tends to be problematic with attracting new players and attracting (and keeping) new players is probably one of the biggest issues with MWO.

Do you seriously believe that P2W is the thing that is keeping new players from staying in MWO?

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

LOL no, especially the underlined part!

Well forcing CW down everyone's throat is definitely going to be a good way to kill the game unless Solaris is just another term for QP (in which case nothing will change).

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Do you seriously believe that P2W is the thing that is keeping new players from staying in MWO?

If the mech they like has good stuff that they have to spend money to get, yes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 January 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

The other part of my "wants" is a Solaris VII mode. That is where such an "open freestyle mode" should exist.

Thus QP should be eliminated and properly redistributed to "Community Warfare", "Solaris VII", and "Training Academy". It was supposed to be a mere filler until CW was better developed, not the main MWO game mode. I see it as the "ball and chain" hindering the betterment of the game.

You see it that way and being that I am very focused on playing with my unit and enjoy FW, I can at least appreciate what you are saying.

However, quick play no matter what it may have been advertised in the begining as, has since grown to be the most popular mode that people enjoy. So not really an option to be ripped from the game and replaced with Solaris. Although I would like to see Solaris mode added in the future instead of a crappy one on one map....

[MacClearly]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

It doesn't have to OP to be P2W, how many times must that be said. It just has to offer an advantage (which it does in context of the Kit Fox) that is not available without real money. It offers you a better version of the Kit Fox, therefore is pay to win, because it increases the winning potential when using the Kit Fox not because it maximizes your winning potential in the game.

It can be said over and over and over and it will be wrong every single time someone erroneously tries to expand what pay to win is to include their own interpretation of what it means. It means what it means period and as long as there are options you can't make it apply.

It is like me deciding that giving amnesty actually means drowning someone in a pool.

So again you can go get another free version and get the same if not better results. That is the key point since there is no Kitfox free for all in game where those with Purifiers rule the roost.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 January 2017 - 03:26 PM.

[Mystere]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

You see it that way and being that I am very focused on playing with my unit and enjoy FW, I can at least appreciate what you are saying.

However, quick play no matter what it may have been advertised in the begining as, has since grown to be the most popular mode that people enjoy. So not really an option to be ripped from the game and replaced with Solaris. Although I would like to see Solaris mode added in the future instead of a crappy one on one map....

The key phrase in my post is "properly distributed". New players go to the "Training Academy" which should have a team-training option. Those who just want to shoot robots and/or do not care a whit about lore, go to "Solaris VII". Those who do go to Community Warfare". If all three are properly designed, that is.

QP is the "ball and chain" that is preventing any of that from happening.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

The key phrase in my post is "properly distributed". New players go to the "Training Academy" which should have a team-training option. Those who just want to shoot robots and/or do not care a whit about lore, go to "Solaris VII". Those who do go to Community Warfare". If all three are properly designed, that is.

I love how you make it sound so simple despite the incredible complexity, and no, that isn't a compliment.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:27 PM, said:

The key phrase in my post is "properly distributed". New players go to the "Training Academy" which should have a team-training option. Those who just want to shoot robots and/or do not care a whit about lore, go to "Solaris VII". Those who do go to Community Warfare". If all three are properly designed, that is.

QP is the "ball and chain" that is preventing any of that from happening.

By you saying that you appear to be saying that you know what is best for everyone. I am saying there are a great deal of people who enjoy quick play the way it is and it doesn't make sense that it be scrapped at this point. Realistically that isn't going to happen.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

I love how you make it sound so simple despite the incredible complexity, and no, that isn't a compliment.

I never said it was simple.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

It can be said over and over and over and it will be wrong every single time someone erroneously tries to expand what pay to win is to include their own interpretation of what it means. It means what it means period and as long as there are options you can't make it apply.

It is like me deciding that giving amnesty actually means drowning someone in a pool.

So again you can go get another free version and get the same if not better results. That is the key point since there is no Kitfox free for all in game where those with Purifiers rule the roost.

You realize definitions change over time right (this also includes connotations surrounding them).....? Especially one that is used and defined as loosely as Pay 2 Win and only cropped up once microtransactions started to become a big thing.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 January 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[Mystere]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

By you saying that you appear to be saying that you know what is best for everyone. I am saying there are a great deal of people who enjoy quick play the way it is and it doesn't make sense that it be scrapped at this point. Realistically that isn't going to happen.

I'm afraid you're still missing it. The best part of what people like about QP would be in Solaris VII (again, if designed properly). I am not really taking anything away as far as functionality is concerned. I am just putting them in the proper places, and with new players accounted for.

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 03:37 PM.

[MacClearly]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

You realize definitions change over time right (this also includes connotations surrounding them).....? Especially one that is used and defined as loosely as Pay 2 Win and only cropped up once microtransactions started to become a big thing.

Yes individual words and terms evolve and expand and there are times where people try to do that fit into their agenda. It waters down the meaning however and confuses the issue. Often words like racism and genocide get thrown around without being actually applicable.

As far as how loosely pay to win is defined, it is only an issue for those who are using the term expanded to their own personal interpretation is it then a problem. There are clear win conditions defined in the game and the Purifier does not give an unfair advantage compared to other options.

So as long as you insist that pay to win is what you define it as and therefore whatever you say fits, fits. I am going to counter with, I don't follow your personal interpretation of the English language and will always view the term on face value, which makes what you are saying incorrect.

Now if you were to argue that it wasn't fair the the best version of the Kitfox is behind a paywall I wouldn't disagree with you feeling that way. It just isn't pay to win.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 January 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

I'm afraid you're still missing it. The best part of what people like about QP would be in Solaris VII (again, if designed properly). I am not really taking anything away as far as functionality is concerned. I am just putting them in the proper places, and with new players accounted for.

No I am not missing it. I am outright saying you don't know what is best for everyone, and that messing with a popular mode at this point is a terrible idea. There is a big difference between a 24 player free for all and 12 vs 12. Functionally they are very different. Since folks are playing it this way and it is so popular, why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to change that completely? Since I am not new to earth I can tell you that would not go over very well.

[Mystere]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

No I am not missing it. I am outright saying you don't know what is best for everyone, and that messing with a popular mode at this point is a terrible idea. There is a big difference between a 24 player free for all and 12 vs 12. Functionally they are very different. Since folks are playing it this way and it is so popular, why on earth do you think it would be a good idea to change that completely? Since I am not new to earth I can tell you that would not go over very well.

What's stopping us from having a 12 vs. 12 (or any N vs. N for that matter) in a "Solaris" mode?

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

As far as how loosely pay to win is defined, it is only an issue for those who are using the term expanded to their own personal interpretation is it then a problem.

Maybe there is a good reason for that expanding definition because of situations LIKE THIS.....

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

I don't follow your personal interpretation of the English language and will always view the term on face value

Pay-2-Win is more akin to slang than which is why it has never had a solid definition and why context matters. FFS why does this even matter, either way the practice is bad.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 31 January 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[Scout Derek]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

What's stopping us from having a 12 vs. 12 (or any N vs. N for that matter) in a "Solaris" mode?

Ironically nothing is. Probably, however the only thing would be balancing mechs of similar weight against one another.

Especially when you put a LRM boat in a 12v12, with the LRM boat close to them is a brawler build. LRM boats and some types of builds suffer.

[Revis Volek]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

No being able to make a garbage mech playable when there are other mechs that more than viable doesn't make it pay to win at all. No one is dominating the game unfairly in a Purifier. You may not like that the best version is behind a paywall but it isn't an OP mech.

Its the best Variant of its chassis, Same with a few others like the SMN and MAD IIC (which is one of the top mechs in the game)

Please explain to me how it is not P2W in some sound and logical words though..... I;m playing devils advocate here.


It may not be p2w on a GAME WIDE level (because that impossible honestly in this game) put it is on a that particular mech p2w in that chassis.

Edited by Revis Volek, 31 January 2017 - 04:11 PM.

[MacClearly]

Revis Volek, on 31 January 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Its the best Variant of its chassis, Same with a few others like the SMN and MAD IIC (which is one of the top mechs in the game)

Please explain to me how it is not P2W in some sound and logical words though..... I;m playing devils advocate here.


It may not be p2w on a GAME WIDE level (because that impossible honestly in this game) put it is on a that particular mech p2w in that chassis.

Sure i will bite.

You do not get an advantage with the Purifier over other mechs that are available for cbills.

It is the best option on a bad chassis I don't think that is a debate.

If you want to expand or selectively apply based on your views what level of this or that needs to be accounted for instead of keeping things simple and applicable for everyone, then you are just arguing about what is in your head instead of a tangible fact.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

What's stopping us from having a 12 vs. 12 (or any N vs. N for that matter) in a "Solaris" mode?

Nothing. Not the point. It would be a drastic change. Not only that it would be a drastic change to the most popular mode. So the issue isn't what is stopping it from maybe becoming 12 vs. 12, it is if that would be enforced as it is now by in game mechanics or are you suggesting that it be voluntary?

Basically I have learned to play hockey with five fowards and a goalie on each team. It is the way I have always played it. I don't want players to be able to change teams dynamically. It wouldn't be the same game that I love.

[MacClearly]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 31 January 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

Maybe there is a good reason for that expanding definition because of situations LIKE THIS.....


Pay-2-Win is more akin to slang than which is why it has never had a solid definition and why context matters. FFS why does this even matter, either way the practice is bad.

Maybe, maybe not. Who then gets to decide to change what the term means? How does that become readily adopted and common knowledge? We are not at that point. I am not going to bend to your private definition of what it means. You are arguing from a position of your own personal intrepretation without fact to back you.

Why this matters is you can't say why it is wrong when you are talking about one thing and applying it to another. It doesn't make sense. It is like you are saying that a navel orange is the worst tasting apple.