As I make comments, I will mention right now: We are all entitled to our own opinion. Even if I disagree with you opinion because my own opinion is different doesn't reflect or invalidate anything. It's just a difference of opinion.
Zombiesbum, on 21 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:
Mech bays
Currently PGI offers a whopping 4 mech bays to use for any player that starts. This is beyond pathetic considering that it shouldn't even be a resource in this game.
The only way a new player is going to be able to use more than 4 mechs is either dropping faction play, joining the game during or just before an event that offers MC/Bays, or forking over money. This is not good enough.
New players should have more starting bays and ideally mech bays should be removed all together. After all I'm willing to guess that mech packs are really what makes the money.
As far as mech bays go, four is plenty more than enough to start with. If you can't decide if you like this game off four mech bays, then it's probably not a game for you.
I will make note now that this is a free to play game. As such, it's completely free for people to play. However, also realize now that it's also produced with the intention of making money as well. mech bays make for a reasonable low income portion of the games profit. They are cheap to get, but you really don't need many unless you want more.
I may also be from a different school of thought here, but personally if I've enjoyed the game enough to play and obtain four mechs, then why not throw the game a bone and purchase a few more mech bays? I question people on "do you see this game being worth $7?" If your answer is yes (and you've filled up your free mechbays), then why not spend $7 and get another four mech bays? Catch it on a sale, and that could be eight bays.
Also, I will note, there are plenty of ways a free to play only player can get lots of mechbays. Currently, with enough work, a player can earn two free mechbays per faction when working in FP. If one wanted bays faster, they can do a tour of all the factions for the tier two reward bay. And, on top of that, you don't have to own four mechs for that, just one. Do scouting mode. (There are forums with New Player Help for a reason. They have the resources, if they choose to use them.)
So, even as a free player, one can still earn plenty of mech bays to have a large collection of mechs. This even excludes events that pop up with free mechbays and potentially free mechs (C-bill boosters and Exp boosters). So there is no shortage of ways to obtain more than enough bays. (Not to mention how many MC you might earn during an event as well. I mean, I've got a ton of MC for free so far. Enough to purchase a few hero mechs (that were on sale) already...)
Zombiesbum, on 21 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:
Trial Mechs
Trial mechs need to be customizable with skills to allocate so players can better make a choice if a mech suits them. I don't understand why a players can't customize trial mechs. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be the case.
Trial mechs don't need to be customized, as they are always available. However, we could certainly use more up to date loadouts that aren't based upon the current or past metas. We need reliable mech loadouts that are easy to use, without being bland, stale or require a huge in depth understanding of the game/heat management. Right now, we have so many medium laser champion builds... it's crazy. And all of them typically run hot or in such a niche role that it's more difficult for a new player than "older" players seem to realize.
We also could use trial mechs to rotate a lot more often, or have more of them available. The last round of champion mechs introduced were a good start for revamping the loadouts. A lot of them really did consider new player strategies, but we still had a few flops enter in...
As far as why they shouldn't be customizable... if they where then what point would there be in owning your own mech? Recall above about mech bays that the intent for the game is to earn income. mech bays and selling mechs (even for C-bills) aids in this. Remove some of the need to purchase sets of mechs, and now people would only need to purchase non-trial mechs.
I certainly will agree that all trial mechs should earn experience on themselves, and that (to better help new players understand the skill tree) maybe have it where they can grant some skill points, but not to mastery levels. Of course, excluding the C-bill cost of skill points (because they don't own the mech). It could be a risk free way to explore the skill tree system.
Zombiesbum, on 21 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:
Payouts
Payouts for games screw over new players completely. A new player is only going to have 2 mechs outfitted by the time he/she finishes their 20 odd games of "starter cash". Of which those mechs may not even be optimal or fun to play.
A new player does not have the mechs OR experience to gain high damage during games. When I first started I was lucky to get over 100k for a win. A new player is going to look at their **** payout and understand that's its going to take a long time buy the mechs they want.
And I don't care what any of you say. You do not make a thriving community by strangling your consumers until they pay for mechs just because they are playing for free. Especially when the quality of content is questionable (unfixed bugs for over 2 years for example), I'm not going to support a company that does not improve basic features like chat, friends lists, UI, rep system, loading times, etc.
I digress. Every player in a match should have an equal payout depending on win/loss rather than damage done. This not only helps new players not leave in frustration but actually encourages team play and objective based games instead of chasing kills to get paid. It also addresses the problem of trying to measure unmeasurable contribution to the team.
I really do not understand why PGI has not done this already.
I will mention, a new player I've helped recently was able to, right out of the academy, purchase their very own Vindicator. That is excluding the bonus C-bills from their first 20 matches. If they (once again) come onto the forums, they can receive plenty of advice on what to potentially purchase with their boosted C-bills.
As far as match earnings, it is suppose to be based upon match participation to better reward those who play better. It's to incentivize players to improve and earn more C-bills. I'll also mention that, in a game designed such as this, you don't want players to earn new mechs too quickly. If they could purchase a new mech after only five matches (to say a random number), then we'd all be swimming in C-bills. There is suppose to be an element of grind, otherwise people would lose a sense of accomplishment when they did manage to get that new mech. Not to mention a lacking of any personal goals...
Combined C-bill pools for the team based only on win or loss would be equally frustrating, and overall would probably be stale and reward low/non-participation. It would lead to events of frustrated high involvement players dragging around low involved players.
Have you ever heard of the class room experiment where the whole class gets the same grade, based upon their group average? At first, the students where excited for it. The students who got low grades loved it because they ended up getting higher grades. The high grade students ended up giving up, because no matter what happened their grades where going down, till eventually the whole class failed because no one wanted to try and get good grades, counting on "someone else" to do the work. Then, they all got upset (especially those still trying to do the work and get a good grade) when they all failed the class together.
This is what would happen if that system was placed into this game.
Rest of this section seems more like... needless and unrelated ranting no associated with in game income...
Zombiesbum, on 21 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:
Consumables
Consumables should be free to use but obviously not generate any income. I don't use consumables that often because I need the c-bills. While other people have over 200 million.
This means that if you don't need the c-bills you are going to fill your mech with consumables and thus have a slight advantage because you don't care about making money. This creates an even wider gap between new players and long time players. Also consumables rarely pay for themselves.
Balance consumables based on their stats and usage, not on how much they cost.
I find that, most times, a single well used consumable earns itself in C-bills and then some. I will also note, new players are in T5. Most "long time players" are probably in T3-2 (not a guarantee). So, at the new player level, most players probably are not using consumables...
However, I've always been of the opinion that consumables never should have been placed within the game... ever. It just isn't very "Battletech"... and throws the whole game out of wack.
I digress though. I don't think making consumables free would be good, and they would have to give rewards for good use of them. I don't know how you could make them "not grant rewards when used"... Maybe they should be cheaper? Maybe they need to be reworked? Sure. However, we wont see them removed now, and they certainly will never be free...
Zombiesbum, on 21 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:
QoL
PGI, it seems to me that you underestimate quality of life changes. When you go to an interview dressed like **** how likely are you to get that job?
The same applies to MWO. When new players see things like; broken friends list (for over 2 years), basic features like not being able to chat to friends in a match, or loading times that makes windows 95 seem fast, is it any wonder why the game has such a low population when these things are left in such a state?
My friend's list hasn't been broken as far as I know of. I've seen a few bugs where players where offline, but where registered as online still. And another small bug about incorrect factions showing sometimes. Besides those few minor (in my opinion) bugs, I've not seen anything horrifically wrong with the social tab.
Load times seem reasonable to me. I've seen many other games with much longer load times. (Blade and Soul for example, takes forever just to get into the game. Or Star Trek Online as another example, or Guild Wars 2.) If you are seeing exceptionally long load times, it might be your computer or internet, rather than PGI's program...
Oh, and BT/MW has never had a high population. There is a reason Microsoft hadn't created a game off the IP for so many years... because there isn't as much of a demand for it as other IPs might have. So, our population is low mostly because of niche game IP, rather than bugs in the systems.
1
This topic is locked
