33 replies to this topic

[NextGame]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Pro: You tried to think.

Con: You failed miserably.

Pro: You are the hero that no one deserves

Con: You are also the hero that no one needs

[Deathlike]

Unless you're MW:LL, this is the least practical thing for the least useful function.

I get the awe feeling some people get, but it's not everlasting.

It's only good for an "added feature" when actual major features are added, not something you want front and center over (sounds minutely like the EVE debacle).

Edited by Deathlike, 07 April 2017 - 12:35 PM.

[DAYLEET]

NextGame, on 07 April 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Pro: You are the hero that no one deserves

Con: You are also the hero that no one needs

I mostly agree with you, which is why i didnt try to help you understand but instead replied something equally stupid as your first comment.

[NextGame]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

I mostly agree with you, which is why i didnt try to help you understand but instead replied something equally stupid as your first comment.

You cant tell me that my first comment isnt the likely implementation that PGI would come up with left to their own devices.

[DAYLEET]

NextGame, on 07 April 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

You cant tell me that my first comment isnt the likely implementation that PGI would come up with left to their own devices.

lol, ill mostly agree with you again. But that problem has a simple and obvious solution that is already in game. Therefore i dont see a problem or that pgi could screw it up. But really we might just flip a coin here.

Deathlike, on 07 April 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Unless you're MW:LL, this is the least practical thing for the least useful function.

I get the awe feeling some people get, but it's not everlasting.

It's only good for an "added feature" when actual major features are added, not something you want front and center over (sounds minutely like the EVE debacle).

it just fluff and nothing more but its fluff people would buy into and been asking for a long time. Its Another way for pgi to make money and give people something else than mechpack. And its better than split everyone with map dlc. The game isnt big enough to have map dlc.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

it just fluff and nothing more but its fluff people would buy into and been asking for a long time. Its Another way for pgi to make money and give people something else than mechpack. And its better than split everyone with map dlc. The game isnt big enough to have map dlc.

Map DLC would never work on this game given prior examples of bad designs (see Alpine, old Terra Therma, etc.).

[DAYLEET]

Deathlike, on 07 April 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

Map DLC would never work on this game given prior examples of bad designs (see Alpine, old Terra Therma, etc.).

I liked the old Terra, the "door" was a rite of passage newplayers wont get to experience. I would have pointed out CW for bad map design and static spawn points as a problem more than the map itself.

[SuomiWarder]

Seems like a waste of effort. After you wander around one to three times that's it and you never use that part of the game again.

Now people do seem to like house/base building. If you could decorate a set of cabins in a dropship (your bay, the briefing room, trophy room, office and bedroom) some people might actually pay money for stuff within those areas. Not my cup of tea (my Skyrim and Fallout 4 "houses" are just a place to craft and store crap I can't carry and don't want to sell) but some people would eat it up.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

I liked the old Terra, the "door" was a rite of passage newplayers wont get to experience. I would have pointed out CW for bad map design and static spawn points as a problem more than the map itself.

I hated old Terra because some people would stall at the entrances, causing the effect of "fish in a barrel" when the opfor are all set up to fire into the kill zone.

[TercieI]

I'll take "waste of dev resources" for 800, Alex.

[DAYLEET]

TercieI, on 07 April 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'll take "waste of dev resources" for 800, Alex.

PGI can afford it. Look at all the money wasted on the championship for nothing beside a publicity stunt. How many years before it brings enough new people to pay for it? It dont need to because of all the mechpack sold. might as well add content that bring cash home and cant possibly break the game.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

PGI can afford it. Look at all the money wasted on the championship for nothing beside a publicity stunt. How many years before it brings enough new people to pay for it? It dont need to because of all the mechpack sold. might as well add content that bring cash home and cant possibly break the game.

Technically, you're not wrong with that logic.

It's just funny how it describes the situation.

[Erronius]

DAYLEET, on 07 April 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

PGI can afford it. Look at all the money wasted on the championship for nothing beside a publicity stunt. How many years before it brings enough new people to pay for it? It dont need to because of all the mechpack sold. might as well add content that bring cash home and cant possibly break the game.

[TLBFestus]

Vellron2005, on 07 April 2017 - 05:56 AM, said:

Wrong.. The rooms would be customizable, and we could spend MC on things like banners, decals, specialty items, trophies.. it's actually one of the best revenue ideas for PGI..

And it would cost less than a new map, cose' they already have the main hangar bay modeled and working..

That might be true IF you believe that they are going to keep moving this game forward, but I think that the combination of the modified engine they are using, and their work on MW5 means that they simply have this game in a holding pattern until such time as they can move on to MWO2.

You might, likely will, see what you are suggesting in a newer game, just not this one.