96 replies to this topic

[Mechteric]

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.

I was there, and I just don't recall it being a that big of a deal when factored with other more important themes of the era (poptarting in general, which also applied to the highlander which you could get with CBills).

But if we are looking at the here and now we have so many more choices in mechs that when a new mech comes out its but a splash in the reservoir of choices. Perhaps back then they were bigger splashes due to fewer mech choices at the time, but still relevant if you factor in the nerfs that have come since then (poptart nerfs, ghost heat, etc). I find it better to compare against what we have now rather than how something new would have affected something in the past.

[Mystere]

Kiran Yagami, on 12 April 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

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.

I think what people are trying to say is that some newly released mechs become the flavor of the month but then are eventually knocked down from their exalted position once a new set of shinies are released. Whether or not the former were pay walled or c-bill accessible made no difference long term.

[Mystere]

Athom83, on 12 April 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

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.

You're too polite. So I will be blunt.

In other words, if War Thunder can do it, why not MWO?

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 12 April 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

You're too polite. So I will be blunt.
In other words, if War Thunder can do it, why not MWO?

I prefer sticking a dagger in someone's back than clubbing them over the head with a Jenner. But essentially, correct. As long as there are almost equivalent vehicles/mechs/pods or similar/better performing mechs/pods available for free, then it isn't P2W.

[MischiefSC]

It's not a good practice to shame someone for their stats -

However if someone is going to argue against the math of mech design and say that while the mech has more/better hardpoints, etc. It doesn't really perform better they are essentially trying to argue the value of their experience and opinion is mute valuable than the math of the mechs design they need to be able to back that up. Full stop.

That's not unreasonable. If you're saying the better mechs for MC are not really better because reasons needs to be able to demonstrate the value of their opinion.

[Rhent]

PTW:
When the best item in slot has to be bought with currency.

PTW MWO:
When the best omnipod has to be bought with currency.

Look at the new heroes, look at their omnipods and tell me if you want to run a missile/energy/ballistic build that the heroes don't have some of the best in slot pods.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Rhent, on 12 April 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

PTW:


PTW MWO:
When the best omnipod has to be bought with currency.

who determines what the best omnipod is?

[Monkey Lover]

Rhent, on 12 April 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

PTW:
When the best item in slot has to be bought with currency.

PTW MWO:
When the best omnipod has to be bought with currency.

Look at the new heroes, look at their omnipods and tell me if you want to run a missile/energy/ballistic build that the heroes don't have some of the best in slot pods.

ya but these mechs are so unbalance the p2w pods only pushes them up to tier 2. This is how they're justifying it haha

[Monkey Lover]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 April 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

who determines what the best omnipod is?

Some of these are kind of easy "no hardpoints before" and "hardpoints after" for example ifr RT, gar LT and Mist LT RT.
Unless they put in some negative quirks haha

Edited by Monkey Lover, 12 April 2017 - 10:07 AM.

[MischiefSC]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 April 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

who determines what the best omnipod is?

The same people who determine that 10 dollars is worth more than 5 dollars? That if I have 2 knives for chopping vegies and one IS sharper, the sharper one is better?

I really mean this -

are you ****ing serious?

The desire to argue that reality isn't reality is a stone cold stupid approach to this sort of an issue. Yes, obviously, the better mounts, more numerous hardpoints and such are better than the fewer, lower mounts. How can anyone seriously even try to argue that.

[Rhent]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 April 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

who determines what the best omnipod is?

The ability to add extra weapon types to slots that lack that ability determines what the best omnipod is.

Say you want to run 4 ballistic slots on Maddog you can't unless you buy the hero. Or you want to run a missile heavy Hellbringer, then the only way to get 2 missile slots in the Left Arm omni is with the hero. Why do you think people are bitching, almost every hero pod have capabilities that can't be replaced with any other currency pod, which is by definition PTW.

But please keep white knighting, I find this highly entertaining. You are basically this guy now:

https://youtu.be/ZOnmBZHsnAM

Edited by Rhent, 12 April 2017 - 02:51 PM.

[Moldur]

Well gee, I would hope people aren't that ******* ******** to not understand what P2W means, but I guess this is the mwo crowd, right?

[Sjorpha]

Athom83, on 12 April 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

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

And yet he claims the DS poptart meta was "a few weeks", since we have now ruled out honest ignorance that leaves dishonesty, thanks.

Quote

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

Not sure how that's relevant, at least it isn't disputing anything I've said or point I've made.

Quote

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?

Optimal builds are specific ant contextual to the meta, a hardpoint on one mech can do the trick in a certain context and not in another.

Dragons Slayer was the best mech in the game for a good while during the first poptart era, because the hardpoints and chassis converged to make it the best poptart at the time, the 2 torso energy mattered in that specific context.

Quote

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!"*.

No, there isn't enough free MC in the game to make that a sound argument. Also I haven't claimed heroes in general are a problem, hero omnipods that are necessary to build the best configuration on a given omni chassis are a problem however. The Purifier is one example. The optimal builds on any given omni should not involve hero pods.

Quote

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.

Yes you can argue that p2w is ok, it's ok in a lot of games. Magic the Gathering, which I play competitivelyu, is entirely p2w and it has a healthy comp scene, so clearly that is possible. I'm not arguing p2w is always bad, I'm just arguing that the definition of p2w is a gameplay advantage that you must pay for, however minor. Whether it's ok or not is another discussion.

My claim is that p2w elements aren't good for f2p game models like MWO. You offer some hypothetical game but no real game, I have personally not seen p2w in a free to play game done well yet.

[Mechteric]

Sjorpha, on 12 April 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

And yet he claims the DS poptart meta was "a few weeks", since we have now ruled out honest ignorance that leaves dishonesty, thanks.

No, I claimed the Dragon Slayer wasn't the only or best poptart meta capable choice. I personally drove a lot of Highlanders and Victors which I purchased only with CBills in the poptart dominated landscape and never purchased a DS to take part. That is my counter argument, that the Heros resided in a period in which non-Hero mechs also participated and certain people seem to be forgetting that.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 14 April 2017 - 06:33 AM.

[Sjorpha]

CapperDeluxe, on 14 April 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

No, I claimed the Dragon Slayer wasn't the only or best poptart meta capable choice. I personally drove a lot of Highlanders and Victors which I purchased only with CBills in the poptart dominated landscape and never purchased a DS to take part. That is my counter argument, that the Heros resided in a period in which non-Hero mechs also participated and certain people seem to be forgetting that.

Counter argument to what? I didn't claim it was the only competitive mech, so it doesn't seem to dispute any of my points.

[Moomtazz]

CapperDeluxe, on 14 April 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

No, I claimed the Dragon Slayer wasn't the only or best poptart meta capable choice. I personally drove a lot of Highlanders and Victors which I purchased only with CBills in the poptart dominated landscape and never purchased a DS to take part. That is my counter argument, that the Heros resided in a period in which non-Hero mechs also participated and certain people seem to be forgetting that.

But the Dragon Slayer was better than all of those C-bill mechs. That's the whole problem.

[MauttyKoray]

Requiemking, on 08 April 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

So, with the recent Clan hero preorder, a lot of P2W accusation have been slung around. However, no one has managed to provide an actual, concrete definition of Pay to Win. (Before you start with the inflammatory comments about the new Heros, I couldn't care less) My personal definition, which I view as a fair definition of P2W, ties into my definition of Overpowered. They follow as such:

Overpowered: a state in which a piece of in-game gear(In this instance, mechs or weapons) is so powerful that it allows a player with minimal skill to consistently outperform and defeat players of a far greater skill level who do not possess said gear.

Pay to win: the same as Overpowered, but said gear cannot be obtained without paying real money.

I think these definitions are fair because it takes into account the fact that most if not all of the new heros are for chassis that are consistent underperformers(such as the Ice Fridge), and the few Meta-tier mechs that came with waves 2 and 3 are getting heros that add little value to the chassis as a whole(ACH hero am I right?).

A fair opinion which I somewhat agree with. For me its anything you can purchase with a RTM (real money transaction) that allows someone to benefit over other players that do not have access to that content. This would include things like the Ice Ferret's ECM torso, some non-specific examples including hardpoint inflation, and imo the Ballistic STs on the Mad Dog.

However PGI responded well to this, both by addressing the pure hardpoint inflation problems and the Ice Ferret's ECM by moving it to the CT and releasing a CBill variant providing the same feature. My only qualm is still having Ballistic STs on the Mad Dog which are exclusive to the hero as they could be used to provide from quite useful builds with decently high mounted hardpoints depending on their location. It would have been a good move to at least provide a variant or simply a standalone pod that provided at least 1 Ballistic in at least either the right or left torso for CBills. Partly because I'm just a Mad Dog nut so my opinion may be biased.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 14 April 2017 - 02:29 PM.