So while PGI is busy taking a break, I'll post these probably controversial but still money making features :
1) MC Consumables :
1a) All MC consumables are maxed out, regardless of skill tree (as they used to be before the skill trees).
1b) MC Consumables don't use up a consumable slot point.
1c) Maximum amount of consumables stays at 5.
2) Premium Time Consumable 6th Slot :
2a) A sixth consumable slot is added to all mechs, that can be equipped at any time with a consumable without using up a consumable slot point.
2b) However the consumable equipped in that special 6th slot is only available for use in-game when Premium Time is activated.
3) Extra Premium time bonuses :
3a) Allows to use the consumable equipped in the Premium Time Consumable 6th Slot.
3b) Adds +5T to the maximum weight of all Faction Play Drop Decks (but the Scouting Deck cannot exceed 55T).
4) Unlock Extra Skill Points for MC :
4a) Up to ~9 permanent Extra Skill Points can be purchased with MC, for a total of up to 100 Skill Points per Mech (instead of 91 default).
4b) The MC cost of Extra Skill Points is reduced by half during promotions.
4c) All future Mech Pack sales will include all of those permanent MC Extra Skill Points unlocked for free, for every Mech in those packs.
5) Special Mechs (Hero Mech...) :
5a) Special Mechs start out with 100 Skill Points instead of 91.
5b) Up to ~9 permanent Extra Skill Points can still be purchased for MC, for a maximum total of 109 Skill Points.
5c) As mentioned before, all Special Mechs purchased through a future Mech Pack will come with all of it's permanent Extra Skill Points unlocked for free.
6) New Mech Packs for sale.
The aim of this Feature Request is :
- To boost Mech Pack sales.
- To boost MC Special Mech sales.
- To boost MC Consumable sales.
- To boost MC Premium Time sales.
- To create MC Skill Point sales.
- To secure the future of MWO.
- Not to please everyone.


Controversial Ways To Make Mwo More Profitable
Started by Warning incoming Humble Dexterer, Dec 26 2019 07:03 AM
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 26 December 2019 - 07:03 AM
#2
Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:28 AM
Too many of these suggestions would push into the "Pay to Win" category.
Also, your poll should include which category one agrees with.
About the only think I can agree with would be 1A. It's only of a minor increase, and PGI tends to give away MC consumables like candy. Wouldn't be much of an issue in my head, but could become borderline P2W...
Also, your poll should include which category one agrees with.
About the only think I can agree with would be 1A. It's only of a minor increase, and PGI tends to give away MC consumables like candy. Wouldn't be much of an issue in my head, but could become borderline P2W...
#3
Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:34 AM
My recommendations would follow more so:
- Upgrade any mech (not already upgraded) with a +30% C-bill or experience gain boost.
- Shrink mech packs to a cheaper "per mech" option, rather than the "rule of three" set.
- Any mech purchased from a Mechpack could come with a +30% boost built in.
- Introduce additional cockpit items that grant a small % increase on Experience and C-bills earned for sale. This can make additional stacks of bonuses for any mech.
- Upgrade any mech (not already upgraded) with a +30% C-bill or experience gain boost.
- Shrink mech packs to a cheaper "per mech" option, rather than the "rule of three" set.
- Any mech purchased from a Mechpack could come with a +30% boost built in.
- Introduce additional cockpit items that grant a small % increase on Experience and C-bills earned for sale. This can make additional stacks of bonuses for any mech.
#4
Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:50 PM
You made me realize I needlessly complicated things by going into the details.
What I really meant was :
- I think PGI should put some Pay To Win back into MWO, specially f the alternative is going to be to close down MWO.
- I think it should be done through something consumable, meaning something that has be renewed to keep it's effect running, instead of just being a one time purchase.
One example of this is World Of Tanks, which uses premium shell consumables that are 100% pay to win (the alternative to using those premium shells being comparable to requiring a headshot every time you want to kill a mech in MWO). But that game is balanced around that kind of OP premium feature, and as a result WoT pulls it off and has ~1000x more players then MWO, despite WoT being full P2W.
So my solution to making MWO more profitable is : Give MWO P2W players a bone, and I don't mean a bolt-on.
What I really meant was :
- I think PGI should put some Pay To Win back into MWO, specially f the alternative is going to be to close down MWO.
- I think it should be done through something consumable, meaning something that has be renewed to keep it's effect running, instead of just being a one time purchase.
One example of this is World Of Tanks, which uses premium shell consumables that are 100% pay to win (the alternative to using those premium shells being comparable to requiring a headshot every time you want to kill a mech in MWO). But that game is balanced around that kind of OP premium feature, and as a result WoT pulls it off and has ~1000x more players then MWO, despite WoT being full P2W.
So my solution to making MWO more profitable is : Give MWO P2W players a bone, and I don't mean a bolt-on.
#5
Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:25 PM
You've come up with an agenda and try to twist facts to support it. That's trash-tier pseudoscience. No cookies for you and this P2W garbage you want added would burn more players than it would attract.
The existing ones haven't been selling enough to justify the man-hour investment according to PGI. I don't see them changing their tune on that - the most you can expect is repacks of pre-mechpack chassis into the mechpack paradigm (as they can do that just adding an extra pattern for the (S) variant).
Quote
6) New Mech Packs for sale.
#6
Posted 26 December 2019 - 06:07 PM
This has never been a pay to win game and that is exactly what these suggestions are. It would kill it faster than ever as PGI has said they would never do that
#7
Posted 27 December 2019 - 11:06 AM
Firewuff, on 26 December 2019 - 06:07 PM, said:
This has never been a pay to win game and that is exactly what these suggestions are. It would kill it faster than ever as PGI has said they would never do that
Then you can surely explain why World Of Tanks has over 1000 times more players despite being 100% pay to win ?
There's a difference between pay to win and pay nothing, and MWO is just too close to pay nothing for its own good.
#8
Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:33 PM
Humble Dexter, on 27 December 2019 - 11:06 AM, said:
Then you can surely explain why World Of Tanks has over 1000 times more players despite being 100% pay to win ?
WoT has Tanks, and there are plenty of a following for tank warfare and historical followers to populate the game's following. That basis in a real life aspect tends to draw more people in because of it's basis compared to other factors, such as Battletech's mechs and basis in it's own personal lore (which will naturally have it's own limited following).
This is like comparing a game based off a lesser known or generic fantasy setting verse a Lord of the Rings themed game or even a game based upon actual medieval events and times. The larger the following, the more population it is likely to see. (Excluding other factors such as game play, graphics, story line, etc.)
For example, a Gundum inspired video game is likely to see a larger player base because of it's size of followers than Battletech is likely to see, because Battletech typically is lesser known and less followed.
#9
Posted 28 December 2019 - 10:29 PM
PGI needs to include a match history feature
After that, have the match be watched by spectators with delay
It sucks when you can't record glorious moments or even see what actually happened on an overview level.
After that, have the match be watched by spectators with delay
It sucks when you can't record glorious moments or even see what actually happened on an overview level.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users