34 replies to this topic

[MWHawke]

Allekatrase, on 13 November 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

You cannot load an AC/20 in the arm of the CN9-D. If you're going to make an argument about people knowing what they're talking about you should probably have some idea what you're talking about.

Edit: I see I'm late to this point.

As it is the term pay to win has as many interpretations as there are people who've heard it so it's not a good term to use for anything. It's never a definitive term, just a derogatory term applied to business models that are crappy. In which case I could very well see it applying to the introduction of the YLW.

It's not a great mech. It's not overpowered, or even that powerful at all, though it's not as awful as some people make it out to be. However, it does have unique abilities that are only available if you pay real money for it (and I'm not talking about the skin or C-Bill boost) which I am opposed to on principal. If you want a competitive free to play game and to avoid the pay to win term you need free players to be on equal footing with paying players. Making things that have in-game effects available only to paying players breaks this and is a bad business model in my opinion.

What is unique about it? I play it, but I don't find anything unique about it other than what you said, skin and CB boost. In terms of hard points, it is pretty much not that great.

At the end of the storyline, YLW sported a Gauss.

[ArmyOfWon]

MWHawke, on 13 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

What is unique about it? I play it, but I don't find anything unique about it other than what you said, skin and CB boost. In terms of hard points, it is pretty much not that great.

At the end of the storyline, YLW sported a Gauss.

The uniqueness of YLW comes from the lack of a Lower Actuator in its gun-arm, allowing the use of AC20s. In the other CN9 variants there is a lower arm actuator taking up one crit slot. When (If?) the CN9-AH is reinstated, this will no longer be unique to a CN9 variant (although, the AH has missile hardpoints in the LT instead of energy hardpoints in the CT)

MajorLeeHung, on 13 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Cus its not Gausswarrior: Online. Also, give the gauss back its minimum range and you will praise the ac/20 as one of *note I did NOT say the absolute best* the best in your face weapon systems in the game.

Doesn't mean that the Gauss isn't flat-out better than the AC20 right now. Even if the Gauss had its minimum range reinstated, you would still see many more Gauss than AC20s.

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 13 November 2012 - 05:33 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

AC 20 in an arm is just an alternate option. It makes almost no difference at all in actual gameplay or performance. Most of us don't even want the YLW. I'm still sitting on my 20kMC from Legendary and I'm not spending any of it on that variant I don't want. If I ever did get it; it'd be for the boost, not the wonder arm.

[Allekatrase]

Unique is the XL engine and an AC/20. Theoretically you could do this on a Raven currently, but that's hardly equivalent. Aside from that it has a unique set of hardpoints.

It also has unique characteristics such as increased torso twist speed, but I won't really go into that since all the chassis are supposed to get "quirks" like this.

I'm not saying it's overpowered or even powerful at all. I'm certainly not saying it's pay to win (except as a general purpose derogatory term for a business model I disagree with). I'm just saying it shows a willingness to put unique in game behavior behind a pay-wall, which is a very bad business model in my opinion.

[ArmyOfWon]

Allekatrase, on 13 November 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

I'm just saying it shows a willingness to put unique in game behavior behind a pay-wall, which is a very bad business model in my opinion.

My argument is that the YLW isn't unique enough to claim uniqueness behind a pay wall.

(And the Hardpoints aren't unique)

Edited by ArmyOfWon, 13 November 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Allekatrase]

ArmyOfWon, on 13 November 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

My argument is that the YLW isn't unique enough to claim uniqueness behind a pay wall.

(And the Hardpoints aren't unique)

Well, technically they are unique, the CN9-D has missile hardpoints that the YLW doesn't so the hardpoint layout IS unique

That's irrelevant though. It doesn't change the fact that it has a unique capability to mount an XL engine and an AC/20. That's unique enough for me to be worried.

Also, I feel like there's almost no possible way that all future Hero mechs are going to be that close in their hardpoints.

[xenoglyph]

Speaking of IP bans, I would hand them out generously for the people who start threads like this one.

[MWHawke]

ArmyOfWon, on 13 November 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

My argument is that the YLW isn't unique enough to claim uniqueness behind a pay wall.

(And the Hardpoints aren't unique)

Agree with this and I think unique is used in terms of advantage. Is that right? As in, isn't advantageous enough to claim uniqueness behind a pay wall?

[ArmyOfWon]

MWHawke, on 13 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Agree with this and I think unique is used in terms of advantage. Is that right? As in, isn't advantageous enough to claim uniqueness behind a pay wall?

No, I'm saying that the hardpoints just aren't unique. The CN9-D has the exact same hardpoints in the exact same spots. With the -D you get extra hardpoints, but any build that can be done on a YLW (minus AC20) can be replicated to the "t" on a -D, therefore the only "uniqueness" from the YLW is the fact it can mount an AC20 in its arm (as far as currently released CN9 variants are concerned. A Raven can mount an AC20 in its arm and the CN9-AH can mount one, but was pulled from the game a couple patches ago).

[ArmyOfWon]

Erm... uh... That's not the title I posted with... Who changed it?...

[Sarevos]

"Pay 2 get your right arm shot off at the beginning of every fight" =x

[ArmyOfWon]

Well it was "I know I'm going to get flamed hard for this..." because (I had thought until I saw posts in the Wang Griefers thread) that the argument was dead. When I saw that people were still whining about Pay2Win, I couldn't help but post.

[Sarevos]

ArmyOfWon, on 14 November 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Well it was "I know I'm going to get flamed hard for this..." because (I had thought until I saw posts in the Wang Griefers thread) that the argument was dead. When I saw that people were still whining about Pay2Win, I couldn't help but post.

lol i dont think anyone serioulsy carries the notion that YLW is p2w it is easily identified and effectively neutralized the rising sun may as well be a giant bulls-eye

[Allekatrase]

Sarevos, on 14 November 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

lol i dont think anyone serioulsy carries the notion that YLW is p2w it is easily identified and effectively neutralized the rising sun may as well be a giant bulls-eye

Depends on your definition of pay to win. There was extensive debate on this and though the debate has died, I don't think opinions have changed.

I don't think it's pay to win, but I think it's a terrible business model and I'm against it on principal. Maybe I'll repost the poll on F2P business models that I posted in the closed beta forum since that one's gone.

Actually, given the other issues at present it wouldn't get any attention anyway. I'll wait for a calmer time on the forums.

Edited by Allekatrase, 14 November 2012 - 03:45 PM.

[ArmyOfWon]

Sarevos, on 14 November 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

lol i dont think anyone serioulsy carries the notion that YLW is p2w it is easily identified and effectively neutralized the rising sun may as well be a giant bulls-eye

Allekatrase, on 14 November 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Depends on your definition of pay to win. There was extensive debate on this and though the debate has died[...]

I would like to direct your attention to this topic:

http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__120

This is what led to my post of this thread.