188 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

process, on 05 April 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

P2W? No. There's nothing outstanding about any of the exclusive omnipods that will suddenly catapult these mechs to top tier.

The forums have subconsciously defined P2W as anything that creates a new role for a chassis, or one that improves a role of a chassis, even if it is still at a point less optimal than other options.

In other words, any omnipods on MC heros are either worthless or P2W, there is no in between. Despite people trying to come up with compromising hardpoints, they are still either worthless or P2W.

[MischiefSC]

Same choice is to have everything out for cbills but let players buy the 30% bonus for MC/cash on whatever they want.

[Khobai]

wanna fix omnimech heroes being pay2win?

heres how:

1) balance overpowered omnipods with negative quirks. 2E is better than 1E so the 2E torso should have a negative quirk like a penalty to mobility. More weapons on an omnipod means youre less mobile. Makes sense to me.

2) give better set bonuses to omnimechs when they use omnipods that all belong to the same variant to encourage more pure builds and discourage mixing and matching omnipods. This will help reduce min/maxing because the added bonus from pure builds will have to be considered vs mixing and matching omnipods and not getting the bonus.

or maybe instead of set bonuses (or in addition to set bonuses), you could allow "pure" omnimechs to unlock their equipment effectively making them the same as battlemechs. since theyre giving up the advantage of being an omnimech by being a pure build that makes sense.

Edited by Khobai, 05 April 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[Lupis Volk]

People seem to have destroyed the meaning of "pay to win"

Pay to win means i exchange money for a clear cut power advantage over players that can't be gotten any other way.

What we have here isn't that. These heroes don't have anything that makes them jesus or gods among mechs aside from a god tier pilot. If anything they are pay to optimise.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 05 April 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 05 April 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

2) give better set bonuses to omnimechs when they use omnipods that all belong to the same variant to encourage more pure builds and discourage mixing and matching omnipods. This will help reduce min/maxing because the added bonus from pure builds will have to be considered vs mixing and matching omnipods and not getting the bonus.

Sorry, but this is still a stupid approach. I get giving mild quirks to stock configs to throw super stock players a bit of a bone, but this still doesn't balance the Mr Potatohead factor of the Omnis nor should it given that they pay a certain price for being able to swap like that (no hardpoint inflation and locked equipment).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 April 2017 - 01:07 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Lupis Volk, on 05 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

People seem to have destroyed the meaning of "pay to win"

Pay to win means i exchange money for a clear cut power advantage over players that can't be gotten any other way.

What we have here isn't that. These heroes don't have anything that makes them jesus or gods among mechs aside from a god tier pilot. If anything they are pay to optimise.

"But you can grab a Cheetah? Who cares if the Lynx NEEDs $$ to be made comparable?"


That sounds horrible, to me

[process]

Mcgral18, on 05 April 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

"But you can grab a Cheetah? Who cares if the Lynx NEEDs $$ to be made comparable?"

I think that's an argument for making the Lynx relevant, not whether there's one viable variant.

[Y E O N N E]

Lupis Volk, on 05 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

People seem to have destroyed the meaning of "pay to win"

Pay to win means i exchange money for a clear cut power advantage over players that can't be gotten any other way.

What we have here isn't that. These heroes don't have anything that makes them jesus or gods among mechs aside from a god tier pilot. If anything they are pay to optimise.

That has never, ever been the broadly agreed upon meaning of "pay to win."

[Marquis De Lafayette]

For the most part this isn't P2W....this is mostly P2BMS (pay to be made serviceable) for the Mist Lynx, Ice Ferret, Gargoyle and Executioner. Across the board the c-bill variants of these are terrible to sub-par mechs. So, PGI's "fix" to these chassis is to pay some $.

For the other hero variant's there is nothing that changes "balance". A dual-Guass EBJ, maybe...but personally I won't be running around with a bomb strapped to each of my side torso's, so idk. Overall, it looks pretty balance neutral to me. The Mist Lynx hero might get used a bit in FW, as a 4th mech..but it still won't be strong and the IS is getting large streak packs pretty much at the same time this drops.

If it doesn't affect balance, I don't get to aggrevated about PGI trying to make some $, so as to stay in business. Which is something we all should want. If it does effect balance, PGI will just nerf it after they have gotten the cash.

[z3a1ot]

JackalBeast, on 05 April 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but that's relative as the SuperNova kinda blows.

Perhaps, its all matter of perspective. But they still have the best hardpoints within their chasis. I mean dont you wanna slap those 2 gauss and 2 erppc on there.

[MechaBattler]

I guess when they said they would address lack of hard points. This must be what the had in mind.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. But if Clans get c-bill access to pods, IS has to get access to hero variants for c-bills too then.

Honestly, you're going to make them stop doing heroes.

[Mcgral18]

MechaBattler, on 05 April 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

I guess when they said they would address lack of hard points. This must be what the had in mind.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. But if Clans get c-bill access to pods, IS has to get access to hero variants for c-bills too then.

Honestly, you're going to make them stop doing heroes.

That's like saying they're gonna stop releasing GrabDeals because you can get them for Cbills

[MechaBattler]

If they give people the c-bill option, even months, it will eat away at their profits on these. Plenty pass on things and wait for c-bill release. Heroes have been one of those things that isn't the case. If they see a sharp drop in sales, they might not consider heroes worth it.

Edited by MechaBattler, 05 April 2017 - 02:00 PM.

[Lupis Volk]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 April 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

That has never, ever been the broadly agreed upon meaning of "pay to win."

So then regal me the "true" meaning of what Pay to Win is oh great sir.

[GrimRiver]

Lupis Volk, on 05 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

People seem to have destroyed the meaning of "pay to win"

Pay to win means i exchange money for a clear cut power advantage over players that can't be gotten any other way.

What we have here isn't that. These heroes don't have anything that makes them jesus or gods among mechs aside from a god tier pilot. If anything they are pay to optimise.

^^^This, this right here.

People keep saying P2W But I don't think P2W means what they think it means.

Here's the definition: "Explaining a common definition of the term "pay-to-win". ... "In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games."

"to gain a (significant) advantage over those playing for free"

Those pods don't look so significant to me.

The strongest pod I see is maybe the ECM pod for the Icebox.

[Y E O N N E]

Lupis Volk, on 05 April 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

So then regal me the "true" meaning of what Pay to Win is oh great sir.

There is no "true" meaning. For as long as the concept of gameplay-influencing premium content has been around, there have been two broad camps: those who share your opinion on the previous page and those who define it as anything that gives you an edge.

[Mcgral18]

GrimRiver, on 05 April 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

^^^This, this right here.

People keep saying P2W But I don't think P2W means what they think it means.

Here's the definition: "Explaining a common definition of the term "pay-to-win". ... "In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" (p2w) games."

"to gain a (significant) advantage over those playing for free"

Those pods don't look so significant to me.

The strongest pod I see is maybe the ECM pod for the Icebox.

33% more firepower


Not significant

[Snazzy Dragon]

Mcgral18, on 05 April 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

33% more firepower


Not significant

Kit fox with spls got 100% more firepower potential

Not significant

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 April 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

33% more firepower


Not significant

I feel some people calculate from zero.

Math is probably not important... like the money one makes (33% more money is obviously not significant). How's about 20% less money instead?

0 hardpoints vs 1 or 2 hardpoints.

Obviously, we gotta take 0. There's obviously no other option.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 April 2017 - 04:32 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 April 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

The forums have subconsciously defined P2W as anything that creates a new role for a chassis, or one that improves a role of a chassis, even if it is still at a point less optimal than other options.

In other words, any omnipods on MC heros are either worthless or P2W, there is no in between. Despite people trying to come up with compromising hardpoints, they are still either worthless or P2W.

Fine its not p2w its now pay2balance. If you wanted balanced mechs you got to pay cash now.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 05 April 2017 - 04:36 PM.