96 replies to this topic

[Requiemking]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 10 April 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

This is the part of the whole discussion I can't get my head around. I.e..."why would PGI be motivated to change what they have been doing with heros at this point in time?"....just from a business standpoint.

While (as a player), I would love it if they made hero omnipods available for C-bills or a few hundred MC....it would save me some $ and eliminate P2W concerns...I can't see any way PGI would benefit from it. It might not cost them a high % of sales to do this, but it would certainly cost them some % to do it either of these ways. Also, for every person that might shut their wallet out of protest, there are probably as many or more that would cancel or reduce their number of orders if they could get the hero omnipods another way.. I plan to buy the Mist Lynx and Ferret hero for $, but would cancel if I could just buy the omnipods for MC. Not out of protest...just out of the desire to save some $. Just being real here...

I suppose PGI could go the MC route for the Omni's and just stop giving away MC in events. That way more people would just have to buy MC for $. I suspect however that might make players just as (or more) unhappy as they are about the current Hero mech system.

So, in principle I am for the change....just need to understand (from those advocating for change) how PGI makes up the lost revenue.

Thats the issue. They can't. With the way this game has built itself up, PGI literally has to rely on MC sales and Mechpacks for cash, including the new heros. How are they supposed to make money off of the heros if the heros are boring or the most interesting parts can be gotten free? I, however, do have one potential solution. Make a variant with similar, but slightly inferior, hardpoints. For example, make a Mist Lynx variant with one torso-mounted energy hardpoint rather than two, or an Ice Ferret with an ECM arm.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 10 April 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

Just a simple question:

From a business standpoint, would you:

A) release a $ hero variant which is by all means ******** then their free2play counterpart.

or

release a $ hero variant which is just slightly better then their free2play counterpart.

Bonuspoints if you take into consideration that you probably need money at the end of the month.

Question:

Why buy a Collector's Pack for twice the price, when it only gives you cosmetic items and no combat advantage?

And yet, people do. Funny, that.

Requiemking, on 10 April 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

Thats the issue. They can't. With the way this game has built itself up, PGI literally has to rely on MC sales and Mechpacks for cash, including the new heros. How are they supposed to make money off of the heros if the heros are boring or the most interesting parts can be gotten free? I, however, do have one potential solution. Make a variant with similar, but slightly inferior, hardpoints. For example, make a Mist Lynx variant with one torso-mounted energy hardpoint rather than two, or an Ice Ferret with an ECM arm.

As above. Why do you think people purchase Collector's Packs over Standard, if they offer no combat advantage?

[Fox the Apprentice]

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

Except an "improved" Gargoyle is still worse than other mechs you can buy with cbills. So its NOT pay2win at all.
[...]

If I'm bringing a F2P Gargoyle (just as an example), and the enemy is bringing a Gargoyle with the cash omnipod, then it doesn't matter why we chose them. Maybe they're my favorite lore mech, maybe I'm just looking to basic/elite the chassis.
The point is this:
A free player's Gargoyle is going to be worse than a paid player's, because the paid player has a straight upgrade to one of the omnipods.

Telling me to "bring a better mech", because they exist, won't help me basic/elite the chassis. It won't help my team overcome the disadvantage while I'm working on that chassis.

These aren't the first mechs to be P2W, but they seem to be the ones everyone's rallying around. These new hero mechs won't change the game enough for me to care, but there IS a clear advantage. That advantage exists for the paid player, even if the chassis is bad enough to never be used in FP. Therefore it is pay for advantage (abbreviated as "pay 2 win", even if the difference doesn't result in a win).

I'm not worried about these hero mechs, they don't really bother me much. I am, however, worried that the P2W will keep getting bigger and bigger, and that it will eventually come to a point where it does bother me (slippery slope argument).

Edited by Fox the Apprentice, 10 April 2017 - 10:30 AM.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

the 50%+ more armor on that ANH-1X threw me for a loop.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Fox the Apprentice, on 10 April 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

I'm not worried about these hero mechs, they don't really bother me much. I am, however, worried that the P2W will keep getting bigger and bigger, and that it will eventually come to a point where it does bother me (slippery slope argument).

Already happening. Especially in FP.
Had games where IS premades brought literally nothing but pirates' banes to a conquest game.
Likewise, Clan premades on a skirmish game with 20 MAD-IIC Scorches (whatever the plural is).

Look at the comp scene.. if you haven't shelled out a bit for kdk-3 you've put yourself at a servere disadvantage for a while.
Or like how the stormcrow and timberwolf both got nerfed into oblivion as soon as the ebon jaguar was up for sale.

besides, to the guy with the collector's edition, those are for collectors duuh.
I highly doubt that a lot of non-collectors would shell out cash for a "20% worse MLX collectors edition".

[Revis Volek]

Athom83, on 10 April 2017 - 05:09 AM, said:

Your last 2 posts both fall under the "name & shame" rule. Your other post falls under "Abuse or MIsuse of Reporting System". Also, by doing this you're also breaking the "Harassment/Defamation/Insults/Toxicity" rule. Which finally breaks the "Spamming/Trolling/Unconstructive Behavior" rule. Breaking the codes of conduct to make your argument is not a good way of going about things.

How is it name and shame when PGI is the one that puts it out there?


Wouldn't PGI be the one breaking their own CoC then? All you have to do it look at the boards THEY post and we can see where anyone sits.


I thinks its a great use of the tool, someone who is bad at the game should be taken into consideration sure but not more then someone who is well versed at the game, its mechanics and excels skill wise.

Fox the Apprentice, on 10 April 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

If I'm bringing a F2P Gargoyle (just as an example), and the enemy is bringing a Gargoyle with the cash omnipod, then it doesn't matter why we chose them. Maybe they're my favorite lore mech, maybe I'm just looking to basic/elite the chassis.
The point is this:
A free player's Gargoyle is going to be worse than a paid player's, because the paid player has a straight upgrade to one of the omnipods.

Telling me to "bring a better mech", because they exist, won't help me basic/elite the chassis. It won't help my team overcome the disadvantage while I'm working on that chassis.

These aren't the first mechs to be P2W, but they seem to be the ones everyone's rallying around. These new hero mechs won't change the game enough for me to care, but there IS a clear advantage. That advantage exists for the paid player, even if the chassis is bad enough to never be used in FP. Therefore it is pay for advantage (abbreviated as "pay 2 win", even if the difference doesn't result in a win).

I'm not worried about these hero mechs, they don't really bother me much. I am, however, worried that the P2W will keep getting bigger and bigger, and that it will eventually come to a point where it does bother me (slippery slope argument).

Exactly, its the precedent not necessarily the goods.

[Moomtazz]

Pay2Win and OP are not necessarily the same thing.

Say you have two options for a mech, one bought with C-bills, and one slightly more powerful available only for cash. Now take two pilots with exactly the same skill. Obviously, the pilot in the more powerful mech would have an advantage, however so slight. It may not be OP compared to the C-bill one, but I would argue that it is Pay2Win.

Personally, geometry or skins don't matter. C-bill bonus is what I buy mech packs for.

Another thing, the Purifier mech really ticked me off. I bought Clan I for $120, somewhat for early access, but mainly for the Prime variant C-bill bonuses. The Kit Fox was pretty much DOA and stayed that way for years. Now I bought the Purifier and it is a deadly beast. Why did I have to pay $10 for pods to make my previous $30 purchase worth playing? Little things like that add up and make me hesitate when considering future purchases, so I can see why many older players have decided to close their wallets.

[Sjorpha]

Lupis Volk, on 10 April 2017 - 12:35 AM, said:

Following this train of thought. Would it be P2W is a series of mediocre mechs with an assortment of issues that limit their usability had hero's that have pods that gave a wider diversity of build options, but the mech itself still suffers from the issues it chassis suffers from?

First of all, the fact that we think of such a category as "mediocre mechs" is a problem, a chassis that isn't competitive should be a tadget for buffs rather than used as an opportunity for skirting the p2w issue.

In other words if you say it's ok that the hero pods provide stronger builds just because the chassis is still weak you are in a sense saying these chassis should remain weak, in my opinion that's a really bad direction to go in.

Is it possible to design hero omnimechs for strong chassis without causing problems. In my opinion it's not, because even if those poss currently don't lead to a stronger metabuild because maybe its not the optimal weapon class, like now with the missiles on the gargoyle hero, you still have paygated options that might become the meta in the future, for example if a new gargoyle variant or other change to weapons etc. comes aling that makes srms the optimal build, that hero pod might become very much p2w. It seems to these unique pods are bound to either become p2w to and from over time, or else they permanently limit the design space for new variants and even weapon rebalancing to avoid this, and both of those scenarios are super bad. Also this has aldeady happened and will keep happening, PGI is simply very bad at predicting the metagame changes of their game, if there was a record of competent balancing and monitoring of issues like these it would be different, but so far I'd say they can't handle it.

It's all about the hero pods and omnimechs really, battlemech heroes that become p2w can be nerfed individually as needed which makes them manageable. Omni heroes should simply not exist, or they should have locked pods so they don't affect the balancing of that mech as a whole. Consider the to nerf to summoners because of the loyalty pods, if that variant had locked pods for as long as it was paywalled there would be no need for that. Omni heroes being about grabbing a new pod is just extremely bad design and think they should recall it and do something different.

[Lupis Volk]

Jay Leon Hart, on 10 April 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

Question:

Why buy a Collector's Pack for twice the price, when it only gives you cosmetic items and no combat advantage?

And yet, people do. Funny, that.



As above. Why do you think people purchase Collector's Packs over Standard, if they offer no combat advantage?

Collectors bundle gives you 9 extra cockpit items, extra premium time and a mech with a 30% cbill bonus when compared to a standard bundle.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 12 April 2017 - 12:54 AM.

[Mechteric]

Crying P2W had become sick a chicken little followed with the boy who cried wolf every time. Sorry but why should we believe this time it is any different once they are actually in game? You can't blame people for being skeptical, so best to just wait and see, reality will prove either way over theory.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 12 April 2017 - 05:22 AM.

[Sjorpha]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Crying P2W had become sick a chicken little followed with the boy who cried wolf every time. Sorry but why should wet
believe this time it is any different once they are actually in game? You can't blame people for being skeptical, so best to just wait and see, reality will prove either way over theory.

The fear is that it will be the same this time, looking back at very problematic p2w situations in the past like Dragon Slayer, Ember, Oxide and most recently the loyalty summoner. The record so far is actually very bad in this regard.

People labeling concerns they don't share as "crying" are just bad for the discussion climate, it also looks a bit dense to speak or write like that.

[Mechteric]

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 04:05 AM, said:

The fear is that it will be the same this time, looking back at very problematic p2w situations in the past like Dragon Slayer, Ember, Oxide and most recently the loyalty summoner. The record so far is actually very bad in this regard.

People labeling concerns they don't share as "crying" are just bad for the discussion climate, it also looks a bit dense to speak or write like that.

You actually just proved my point, those mechs are nothing to get your panties in a bunch about about because there are plenty of mechs you can buy with CBills that have more to offer.

Dragon Slayer: Who even pilots a Victor anymore?
Ember: Yawn.
Oxide: Jenner IIC called, they stole the Oxide's lunch money
Summoner: Night Gyr says hello and goodbye


Maybe they enjoyed their few weeks in the spotlight when they were released, but then normality kicked right in after and people went back to whatever it is the meta was at the time. Shifting meta is exactly what helps prevent P2W from prevailing.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 12 April 2017 - 05:29 AM.

[Athom83]

Revis Volek, on 10 April 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

How is it name and shame when PGI is the one that puts it out there?
Wouldn't PGI be the one breaking their own CoC then? All you have to do it look at the boards THEY post and we can see where anyone sits.

The data being out there isn't name-n-shame as noone is pointing it out. But when someone goes "Hey look at his bad stats, he is bad so his argument is invalid" is name-n-shame because you are naming and shaming him because of his numbered stats.

Revis Volek, on 10 April 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

I thinks its a great use of the tool, someone who is bad at the game should be taken into consideration sure but not more then someone who is well versed at the game, its mechanics and excels skill wise.

I agree. Going and looking at someones stats and taking that into how you structure your argument is a good way to use available tools. Basing your argument on publicly shaming someone is not a good use of available tools.

[R Valentine]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Crying P2W had become sick a chicken little followed with the boy who cried wolf every time. Sorry but why should we believe this time it is any different once they are actually in game? You can't blame people for being skeptical, so best to just wait and see, reality will prove either way over theory.

Except those p2w criers in the past were right. Things like the Oxide and Dragonslayer were pay to win. Do we really want to go back to that?

[Mechteric]

Kiran Yagami, on 12 April 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

Except those p2w criers in the past were right. Things like the Oxide and Dragonslayer were pay to win. Do we really want to go back to that?

Like I just said a few comments ago, how many people do you see running those two mechs anymore? Check and mate.

[R Valentine]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2017 - 05:53 AM, said:

Like I just said a few comments ago, how many people do you see running those two mechs anymore? Check and mate.

Huh? That's not a "check" or a "mate". The meta changed. That has nothing to do with PGI learning its lesson. You go releasing clan omnipods that fit into the meta and you'll see plenty of pay-to-win builds. Check and mate.

[PAYWALL]

Some stuff in this game is either "Pay2Shortcut" or "Pay4SlightAdvantage". A good player can always use the existing c-bill stuff and make it work, but the thing is, the more you get into the game, the more you want to experiment with new builds and loadouts that are often paywalled. This is even more relevant in FP (if you even play it), cause of perfectly fit dropdecks.

[Sjorpha]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

You actually just proved my point, those mechs are nothing to get your panties in a bunch about about because there are plenty of mechs you can buy with CBills that have more to offer.

Dragon Slayer: Who even pilots a Victor anymore?
Ember: Yawn.
Oxide: Jenner IIC called, they stole the Oxide's lunch money
Summoner: Night Gyr says hello and goodbye


Maybe they enjoyed their few weeks in the spotlight when they were released, but then normality kicked right in after and people went back to whatever it is the meta was at the time. Shifting meta is exactly what helps prevent P2W from prevailing.

The Dragon Slayer and Ember were big p2w elements in the comp meta for a long time. Maybe you weren't around for that period, but that doesn't mean it was short. This was before the clan tech was introduced, during the first poptart era when Cataphract D3 and Dragon slayer were the dominant mechs. Oxide was extremely strong for a long time.

The fact that things like this are addressed after a year or two doesn't mean they aren't problems while they dominate.

For example if we get the equivalent p2w degree as the Dragon Slayer used to be that would mean a hero mech that dominates head and shoulders over other mech for more than a year.

You can argue that it's fine to have paywalled comp builds in the game for a couple years at a time, that's fine if that's your opinion, many games have that, we have that.

Personally i think it's bad and sloppy game design, and i don't think there should be any form of monetized gameplay advantages in f2p games, the monetization should be only in the categories of cosmetics, early access and grind reduction, not in gameplay.

[Athom83]

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

The Dragon Slayer and Ember were big p2w elements in the comp meta for a long time. Maybe you weren't around for that period, but that doesn't mean it was short. This was before the clan tech was introduced, during the first poptart era when Cataphract D3 and Dragon slayer were the dominant mechs. Oxide was extremely strong for a long time.

He's been here years longer than you have (at least the account you used to post this).

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

The fact that things like this are addressed after a year or two doesn't mean they aren't problems while they dominate.

You mean PGI balanced/nerfed something that was overperforming to better bring it in line with everything else *gasp*?

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

For example if we get the equivalent p2w degree as the Dragon Slayer used to be that would mean a hero mech that dominates head and shoulders over other mech for more than a year.

What does/did the Dragon Slayer have over other Victors? 2 energy hardpoints in the right torso. What does the Hero Hellbringer have over other Hellbringers? 2 energy in the right torso. Wait a minute... some people describe the Dragon Slayer as OP on launch so obviously everything else with 2 energy in the right torso must be completely OP and P2W Illuminati confirmed. You see how ridiculous this is getting?

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

You can argue that it's fine to have paywalled comp builds in the game for a couple years at a time, that's fine if that's your opinion, many games have that, we have that.

1) Heroes will eventually be available for MC. 2) You can get MC in game for free. Therefore, while initially it only comes in a mechpack paid for with irl $, it is also Free 2 Win. Now, if it had super-quirks that nothing else would get, then I'd agree to calling it P2W. But as it is, I'll only call it Pay 2 Collect-em-all *"Pokemech!"*.

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 07:33 AM, said:

Personally i think it's bad and sloppy game design, and i don't think there should be any form of monetized gameplay advantages in f2p games, the monetization should be only in the categories of cosmetics, early access and grind reduction, not in gameplay.

Actually, F2P games can do monetized gameplay quite well if they are done right. Take a WWII vehicle based team vs team combat game (not WoT, they don't fulfill the "done right" part). A paywalled gameplay feature could be prototype and experimental vehicles that never entered mass production. They add historical depth while also giving a larger variety to the gameplay. While it is true some of them may be a bit powerful, most have a relative equivalent within the free technology tree for research/purchase with in game currency. Another monetized gameplay feature could be squad/unit size caps. A free account would still have a decent number of slots for friends to drop with, but a premium account would just have more room for more firends etc. Although, in technical terms that could be ascribed as grind reduction as the grind is generally reduced the more people you can coordinate with.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Lupis Volk, on 12 April 2017 - 12:54 AM, said:

Collectors bundle gives you 9 extra cockpit items, extra premium time and a mech with a 30% cbill bonus when compared to a standard bundle.

Then I'm glad you agree Hero 'mechs don't need anything new with regards to gameplay. A unique pattern, cockpit item(s) and a C-Bill boost are enough to have people buy them.