576 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

socialSavant, on 08 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Thank you James for replying so quickly and efficiently to my request on research material.



This is the closest statement in that entire thread, which I could find, to the claim that PGI has made it clear that EVERY MECH/EVERY BUILD/NO PENALTIES.

Is there any other evidence that you can proffer?

You missed the opening statement of the blog.

Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay.

How can you optimize your game for your style of gameplay if you do not make enough rewards for your mech?

Then there is this tidbit.

After purchasing modules from the store, using soft currency (C-Bills), the player can equip them to the BattleMech of their choice. The maximum number of Modules that can be equipped is determined by the BattleMech chassis.

How can you equip items into the "BattleMech of their choice" if you do not make enough in rewards?

Finally there is this quote at the end?

Great care is being taken to ensure that the new systems are designed in a way that make sense for gameplay as well as to not step on the toes of the BattleTech™ Universe.

How can they not step on the toes of the BatteTech Universe if they do not follow the pay scale as presented in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised)?

socialSavant, on 08 November 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

First of all, I don't need to. Others have done this already. Many numbers about Cost/Benefit ratios have been passed back and forth.

Secondly, the numbers you provided and that I did indeed read fully, argue nothing about the actual experience of the "new free player." To quote your OP. You have yet to provide any proof of your original assertion as stated in your post and title:

Strawman since I never stated "new free player".

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

BTW, from your source Dixon.


Mech classes are not roles. One mech class shares the name with a role, but that role can be played by any class.
Really expensive missile mech is also not a role.
It's up to you to build a mech that is profitable in it's role.

http://www.sarna.net...LDF#Combat_Role

Lore disagrees with you and lore is important to the developers. The following applies to House and Merc units since they follow what was put down by SLDF originally.

Quote

Combat Role
Ground units of the SLDF were classified and equipped depending upon role.[5]

Heavy Assault BattleMech regiments consisted of mainly heavy-to-assault weight BattleMechs and a fourth company of artillery. The main assault force of the SLDF, most corps possessed at least a single Heavy Assault regiment.

Battle BattleMech regiments were the core of most BattleMech brigades, consisting of medium-to-heavy weight 'Mechs.

Striker BattleMech regiments were reconnaissance and breakthrough formations. Composed of light-to-medium weight 'Mechs, they also included a Recon company of Land Air 'Mechs, and usually had pairs of ASF assigned for their use.

Dragoon BattleMech regiments were composed of heavy-to-assault weight 'Mechs, tanks and hovercraft, their primary purpose being to fight against well-equipped enemies.

Hussar BattleMech regiments were the most common of the Independent regiments, composed of medium-to-heavy 'Mechs, tanks and hovercraft.

Light Horse BattleMech regiments were primarily reconnaissance units, often the first one dropped onto a world to discover the enemy's strengths. Emphasizing light-to-medium weight 'Mechs and vehicles, at least two companies used dedicated information-gathering units like Ostscouts.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 08 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Weiland]

MWO Forums: Where you can get over 3K posts just by arguing semantics over and over and over and over.

Obviously the spirit of this thread has been long-since lost. The original ID was, succinctly, that the economy is borked for heavier mechs and ammunition-users, specifically boats.

Now tack on about 500 posts of absolute drivel that devolve a concept into a battered ball of red goo.

You now have the main reason this community is just as borked as the economy.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Yes but it'll probably result in a ban this time

Try posting this in an EXISTING THREAD!!!! that's exactly why your duplicate threads are getting locked. Try following the rules and CoC for the forums

Given that this is 28 pages deep.....

[Weiland]

Five. Hundred. Posts. Of nitpicking.

Jesus, I just had a realization. This is why the the American government doesn't get a damn thing done and all of our legislators look like a bunch of *ssholes.

Holy hell. Congress is full of trolls. Quick, are any of you in politics? Tell me now!

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

No it does not, but you never said anything about repairs. You stated ammo only to which I replied to. Check and mate. Invalid move on your part.

Nice try on a deflection, but still no dice.
You used the ammo argument on the basis of a oneshot vs a campaign.

Since MWO tracks CB, ammo and repairs... which one of the two is it closer to.
A campaign, that tracks all those things, or a oneshot, that doesn't.
Now personally I'd call it more of a career since we don't' have CW yet but that's just me.

Check and mate.

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

You missed the opening statement of the blog.

Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay.

How can you optimize your game for your style of gameplay if you do not make enough rewards for your mech?

*highlighted for effect*

This says "assist" not "make the game do what they want."

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Then there is this tidbit.

After purchasing modules from the store, using soft currency (C-Bills), the player can equip them to the BattleMech of their choice. The maximum number of Modules that can be equipped is determined by the BattleMech chassis.

How can you equip items into the "BattleMech of their choice" if you do not make enough in rewards?

*highlighted for effect*

They say "Modules" which are a very specific piece of equipment. You referred to items. You're trying to apply a general argument to a very specific point that does not support your argument.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Finally there is this quote at the end?

Great care is being taken to ensure that the new systems are designed in a way that make sense for gameplay as well as to not step on the toes of the BattleTech™ Universe.

How can they not step on the toes of the BatteTech Universe if they do not follow the pay scale as presented in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised)?

*highlighted for effect*

They're telling you that they are trying to strike a balance between a 3D simulation and a tabletop board game.
They're not telling you that they will follow the rules to a T.



I'm really truly not trying to be an {REDACTED] here James, but you're trying to apply interpretation to statements that are clear as glass.

Edited by RAM, 08 November 2012 - 05:52 PM.
Bypassing Profanity Filter

[Sandpit]

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

A.)This thread has been ignored by the developers and they have not made any comments about how they intend to fix the current economic problems.

B.)Looking at the numbers, you can see that no matter what the player does in winning the match they will always end up in the red as a free player. The only alternative they have is for free players to pilot something like a Commando or a Jenner without any of the upgrades in order to make money.
This is further compounded by the skill system that requires a player to buy three mech variants of the same chassis in order to gain the bonuses. With ammo based builds they will never be able to afford a second or third chassis in a reasonable amount of time. A reasonable amount of time in this discussion is about 3 hours worth of matches regardless of winning or losing.

C.)For example, a player is running an A1 Catapult with 6xLRM5's and 10 tons of ammo, it will take them an average of 180 matches @ a rate of 30k earnings for a win to afford a second Catapult variant. They will end up losing money to the tune of 10k or more on a loss. The average time to get the money together, at a 100% win rate, is 1080 minutes (average match time of 6 minutes) or 18 hours. This isn't a really attractive option since no one can achieve a 100% win/loss ratio, so let's look at 50% win/loss with 30k for a win and 10k for a loss. To buy the subsequent variant will require 293 matches for an average time of 1,758 minutes or 29.3 hours for the free player.

Let's clarify the hours in regards to a casual player that plays about 2 hours a night. For the 18 hours spread into 2 hour increments they would earn enough c-bills to buy a second variant in 9 days. For the 29.3 hours, it will be 15 days to buy the second variant.

D.)As it is shown that the current economic is unsustainable for free players since they will leave out of frustration due to the lack of progress.

I went through and put together a list of the weapon and ammo cost currently in the game. Ammo for missiles are used to deter using them due to high cost. However, the replacement cost for other weapons is far, far higher than what missiles cost. Ballistics are the hardest hit with the ammo cost and the high replacement cost for a destroyed weapon. Energy weapons are the better alternative to the two others. The first number is the purchase price and the second number is the replacement cost for destroyed weapons. The repair cost is 1.75%.


The best weapon in terms of replacement cost for each category are SRM2 for missiles, MG for ballistics, and Small Lasers for energy weapons. SRMs have the best cost ratio of 270 C-Bills per round. MGs have 1 C-Bill per round. If you are a free player with an average payout of 150k for a winning match and you lose the bigger weapons you are looking at a huge loss of C-Bills. This is just for replacing them. If you lose a match this is even worse.

If a f2p player earns 150k for a nearly perfect match, but suffers 2 tons of standard armor damage, loses a Gauss Rifle, and uses 6 tons of ammo; minus any repair costs to internal structure and other expenses like engines and heat sinks. His/her repair cost is going to be 20,032+10,500+120,000=150,532. They will incur a net loss of 532 C-Bills for winning the match and not dying. Taking the same damage and losing the match, earning 75k, they will incur a net loss of 75,532 C-Bills. Is it worth it to even fight in a match? Is it worth is to even play the game?

All quotes from OP

A.) Maybe because they agree it isn't broken?

B.) Several free players have chimed in and proven this completely false and misleading especially since it blankets EVERY free player in the game which would mean absolutely no free players make a profit. Again flat out falsehoods as proven by free players who have posted in this thread Players DO need to buy 3 variants and have 4 mech bays for free. They don't HAVE to pay for extra mech bays to get to the top of the piloting tree for any chassis

C.) This shows that your example is purely a high ammo build. I have stated that THIS is the basis for your theory that the economy is broken several times but you've chosen to ignore it even though this is the exact example you've used in your OP. Your numbers are skewed because you use an extremely limited example and say nothing about the numerous free players who do in fact make money buy running different builds. You are using what YOU like to do and do NOT represent the entirety of the free player base. YOUR numbers are your numbers and not indicative or representative of the entire player population free or otherwise.

D.) Several free players in this thread alone have proven this to be COMPLETELY false. It is not completely sustainable for YOU and a small part of the population that run missile boats, refuse to use the 75% free rearm option sometimes, and want to run no other mechs at all. Other replacement costs might be more expensive but you're using this as a partial deflection over the real issue that you just want reload fees cheaper so you can run one particular mech build 100% of the time. Those other higher cost systems do not need to be replaced nearly as often as ammo and thus are not as expensive. You can't equate one to the other. That's like saying a gallon of nasal spray might cost $600 while a gallon of gas only costs $3.25. Yes that seems a much cheaper option until you realize how much longer a gallon of nasal spray would last in contrast to a gallon of gas.
You also fail to show the difference in ammo usage in your attempt to explain why and how srm2's are cheaper to use than say an srm 6. 100 missiles will last much longer firing 2 per shot than they will at 6 per shot. Your data is skewed at this point because you attempt to make too many lump assumptions


These are all from your OP and should show where everyone is coming from.
Your example most certainly DOES show that a player would make more money in your economic model. What it does NOT do is give an honest unbiased representation of the free player population and how they can't earn money even in the face of SEVERAL free players telling you otherwise.
Your example DOES show that players (free or otherwise) will have a hard time running a missile boat exclusively 100% of the time and making a profit without running ANY other mech or weapon loadout.
Essentially you're saying that missile boaters have a hard time in the economy. Not free players. Again you chose a very limited scope to represent when to comes to the population. Your economic examples do NOT represent the entire player base or even the entire free player base. It doesn't even come close. It represents a small select portion of the player base

NOTE:
The only reason I cut out any portions of the quoted OP were merely for space saving and time saving issues. I don't feel I've represented anything out of context or misleading. These were direct quotes from the original post.

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Nice try on a deflection, but still no dice.
You used the ammo argument on the basis of a oneshot vs a campaign.

Since MWO tracks CB, ammo and repairs... which one of the two is it closer to.
A campaign, that tracks all those things, or a oneshot, that doesn't.
Now personally I'd call it more of a career since we don't' have CW yet but that's just me.

Check and mate.

Moving goal posts. Invalid move. Check and mate.

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Moving goal posts. Invalid move. Check and mate.

Actually James, he provided an example, you brought up the example of one-shot battles and campaigns, and how they correlate with counting costs of ammo, repairs, etc.
You evolved the equation but left out important details, he just filled in those details.

[James The Fox Dixon]

The Phigment, on 08 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

snip

Strawmanning so invalid move.

[Erasus Magnus]

ngl, on 08 November 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Simply dont use expensive weapons like gauss, ac20, LL and lrm20 and you will make profit.

yes so we should use tech 1 weapons to have the money to finance our tech 2 weapons we arent allowed to use because they are costly. makes perfect sense to me. why do we not just abandon all tech 2 tech and the bigger weps and just play 3025 timeline then?

want to have my cicada have 8 ballistic slots so i can machine gun boat then.

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 08 November 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

All quotes from OP

A.) Maybe because they agree it isn't broken?

B.) Several free players have chimed in and proven this completely false and misleading especially since it blankets EVERY free player in the game which would mean absolutely no free players make a profit. Again flat out falsehoods as proven by free players who have posted in this thread Players DO need to buy 3 variants and have 4 mech bays for free. They don't HAVE to pay for extra mech bays to get to the top of the piloting tree for any chassis

C.) This shows that your example is purely a high ammo build. I have stated that THIS is the basis for your theory that the economy is broken several times but you've chosen to ignore it even though this is the exact example you've used in your OP. Your numbers are skewed because you use an extremely limited example and say nothing about the numerous free players who do in fact make money buy running different builds. You are using what YOU like to do and do NOT represent the entirety of the free player base. YOUR numbers are your numbers and not indicative or representative of the entire player population free or otherwise.

D.) Several free players in this thread alone have proven this to be COMPLETELY false. It is not completely sustainable for YOU and a small part of the population that run missile boats, refuse to use the 75% free rearm option sometimes, and want to run no other mechs at all. Other replacement costs might be more expensive but you're using this as a partial deflection over the real issue that you just want reload fees cheaper so you can run one particular mech build 100% of the time. Those other higher cost systems do not need to be replaced nearly as often as ammo and thus are not as expensive. You can't equate one to the other. That's like saying a gallon of nasal spray might cost $600 while a gallon of gas only costs $3.25. Yes that seems a much cheaper option until you realize how much longer a gallon of nasal spray would last in contrast to a gallon of gas.
You also fail to show the difference in ammo usage in your attempt to explain why and how srm2's are cheaper to use than say an srm 6. 100 missiles will last much longer firing 2 per shot than they will at 6 per shot. Your data is skewed at this point because you attempt to make too many lump assumptions


These are all from your OP and should show where everyone is coming from.
Your example most certainly DOES show that a player would make more money in your economic model. What it does NOT do is give an honest unbiased representation of the free player population and how they can't earn money even in the face of SEVERAL free players telling you otherwise.
Your example DOES show that players (free or otherwise) will have a hard time running a missile boat exclusively 100% of the time and making a profit without running ANY other mech or weapon loadout.
Essentially you're saying that missile boaters have a hard time in the economy. Not free players. Again you chose a very limited scope to represent when to comes to the population. Your economic examples do NOT represent the entire player base or even the entire free player base. It doesn't even come close. It represents a small select portion of the player base

NOTE:
The only reason I cut out any portions of the quoted OP were merely for space saving and time saving issues. I don't feel I've represented anything out of context or misleading. These were direct quotes from the original post.

You have misrepresented what I've said. Try again.

[Erasus Magnus]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

All quotes from OP

A.) Maybe because they agree it isn't broken?

B.) Several free players have chimed in and proven this completely false and misleading especially since it blankets EVERY free player in the game which would mean absolutely no free players make a profit. Again flat out falsehoods as proven by free players who have posted in this thread Players DO need to buy 3 variants and have 4 mech bays for free. They don't HAVE to pay for extra mech bays to get to the top of the piloting tree for any chassis

C.) This shows that your example is purely a high ammo build. I have stated that THIS is the basis for your theory that the economy is broken several times but you've chosen to ignore it even though this is the exact example you've used in your OP. Your numbers are skewed because you use an extremely limited example and say nothing about the numerous free players who do in fact make money buy running different builds. You are using what YOU like to do and do NOT represent the entirety of the free player base. YOUR numbers are your numbers and not indicative or representative of the entire player population free or otherwise.

D.) Several free players in this thread alone have proven this to be COMPLETELY false. It is not completely sustainable for YOU and a small part of the population that run missile boats, refuse to use the 75% free rearm option sometimes, and want to run no other mechs at all. Other replacement costs might be more expensive but you're using this as a partial deflection over the real issue that you just want reload fees cheaper so you can run one particular mech build 100% of the time. Those other higher cost systems do not need to be replaced nearly as often as ammo and thus are not as expensive. You can't equate one to the other. That's like saying a gallon of nasal spray might cost $600 while a gallon of gas only costs $3.25. Yes that seems a much cheaper option until you realize how much longer a gallon of nasal spray would last in contrast to a gallon of gas.
You also fail to show the difference in ammo usage in your attempt to explain why and how srm2's are cheaper to use than say an srm 6. 100 missiles will last much longer firing 2 per shot than they will at 6 per shot. Your data is skewed at this point because you attempt to make too many lump assumptions


These are all from your OP and should show where everyone is coming from.
Your example most certainly DOES show that a player would make more money in your economic model. What it does NOT do is give an honest unbiased representation of the free player population and how they can't earn money even in the face of SEVERAL free players telling you otherwise.
Your example DOES show that players (free or otherwise) will have a hard time running a missile boat exclusively 100% of the time and making a profit without running ANY other mech or weapon loadout.
Essentially you're saying that missile boaters have a hard time in the economy. Not free players. Again you chose a very limited scope to represent when to comes to the population. Your economic examples do NOT represent the entire player base or even the entire free player base. It doesn't even come close. It represents a small select portion of the player base

NOTE:
The only reason I cut out any portions of the quoted OP were merely for space saving and time saving issues. I don't feel I've represented anything out of context or misleading. These were direct quotes from the original post.

i still think, at least for lrms, they should nerf the damage and double the amount of ammo per ton for the same price per ton, so you arent penalized for beeing an lrm boater.

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

You missed the opening statement of the blog.

Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay.

How can you optimize your game for your style of gameplay if you do not make enough rewards for your mech?

Then there is this tidbit.

After purchasing modules from the store, using soft currency (C-Bills), the player can equip them to the BattleMech of their choice. The maximum number of Modules that can be equipped is determined by the BattleMech chassis.

How can you equip items into the "BattleMech of their choice" if you do not make enough in rewards?

Finally there is this quote at the end?

Great care is being taken to ensure that the new systems are designed in a way that make sense for gameplay as well as to not step on the toes of the BattleTech™ Universe.

How can they not step on the toes of the BatteTech Universe if they do not follow the pay scale as presented in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised)?

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...LDF#Combat_Role

Lore disagrees with you and lore is important to the developers. The following applies to House and Merc units since they follow what was put down by SLDF originally.

Really? Is that all you've got.
Try to twist the words from the dev blogs all you want dixon. They never said you would be able to make money with every mech combination.
Every player can earn enough CB to do whatever they want. They just have to make use of the options available to them, such as trial mechs, not re-arming, using cheaper mechs, aiming for higher salvage bonuses.

Do whatever I want is not the game. That's acting like cartman.


You also can't use roles from sarna to define the roles set by the devs when they have different roles listed in the same topic you pulled your role reward quote from.

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Strawmanning so invalid move.

2.a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted syn: straw man]

Learn the meaning of the term you are using.
If you're going to throw around terminology, know how to use it.


As for my points, legitimately debunked your argument, but you like to dodge the points people make that break your arguments.
There's a difference between being set in your ways, and being unwilling to see other points. You are unwilling to see other points.

Edited by The Phigment, 08 November 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

[url="http://www.sarna.net/wiki/SLDF#Combat_Role"]
Really? Is that all you've got.
Try to twist the words from the dev blogs all you want dixon. They never said you would be able to make money with every mech combination.
Every player can earn enough CB to do whatever they want. They just have to make use of the options available to them, such as trial mechs, not re-arming, using cheaper mechs, aiming for higher salvage bonuses.

Do whatever I want is not the game. That's acting like cartman.


You also can't use roles from sarna to define the roles set by the devs when they have different roles listed in the same topic you pulled your role reward quote from.

Look at who is twisting what people have said. Try again. Invalid move.

[Sandpit]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

You have misrepresented what I've said. Try again.

Nope, just quoted you verbatim and to prove I had, in fact, read your OP since you seem to like to accuse everyone of not sticking to points in your OP.
You just continuously avoid any contradiction to your statements.
It's ok though I can have my opinion and you can have yours
I think the points been proven and now we are jsut beating the dead horse about it. I think the devs are happy with the way things are, I don't think players will leave in droves because of the current economy, and I think you should try playing something other than a missile boat once in a while, you might even have fun in a different build to switch things up now and then
I AM going to do my best to shoot you in the face if I see you on the battlefield though (unless you're on my team)
GL&GH

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Moving goal posts. Invalid move. Check and mate.

The Phigment, on 08 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Actually James, he provided an example, you brought up the example of one-shot battles and campaigns, and how they correlate with counting costs of ammo, repairs, etc.
You evolved the equation but left out important details, he just filled in those details.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Strawmanning so invalid move.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what losing an argument and throwing a tantrum looks like.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

man when do they lock this thing lol

[socialSavant]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

You missed the opening statement of the blog.

No I didn't.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Role Warfare is a term used for applying in-game mechanics and features, which assist a player in optimizing the game for their style of gameplay.

How can you optimize your game for your style of gameplay if you do not make enough rewards for your mech?

"which assist a player in optimizing..." This is not a statement from PGI of EVERY MECH/EVERY BUILD/NO PENALTIES.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

After purchasing modules from the store, using soft currency (C-Bills), the player can equip them to the BattleMech of their choice. The maximum number of Modules that can be equipped is determined by the BattleMech chassis.

How can you equip items into the "BattleMech of their choice" if you do not make enough in rewards?

The key term here is "Modules." Not items. Not to mention that you can and many players have bought items to place in their 'Mech of choice by earning rewards. Nowhere in this statement does it claim that such rewards MUST or even should be earned in same said 'Mech.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Great care is being taken to ensure that the new systems are designed in a way that make sense for gameplay as well as to not step on the toes of the BattleTech™ Universe.

How can they not step on the toes of the BatteTech Universe if they do not follow the pay scale as presented in Field Manual: Mercenaries (Revised)?

The answer to that is in the question: "step on toes." A phrase often uttered when one knows that offenses may be made but will be kept to a minimum so as not to harm or truly offend others. This is still NOT a statement by PGI that they will in fact follow every BattleTech book every published. They have, in fact, stated just the opposite.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Strawman since I never stated "new free player".

I stand corrected. "Free player."

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

...free player....free players....free players...

And then there is the part about "new players."

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

PGI could fix it by implementing a comprehensive reward system that accounts for mech weight and in game performance. This will bring in new players and keep them here while the current system will drive them away.

Back to the "free players:"

James The Fox Dixon, on 06 November 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

...f2p player...

So you see, you did indeed say these things, good sir. Again, I have quoted you directly from your own OP.

PLEASE STAY TOPICAL and STOP NAME CALLING.