3036 replies to this topic

[Damocles69]

this is absolute BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bloody Moon]

My only problem is the fact the devs were whining about "OMG a Cicada kills an Atlas under 3 seconds with 2.0 DHS" then later on they implement a Coolant flush. >.>

[Lonestar1771]

Coolant Flush is EXACTLY why we won't get real 2.0 DHS. CF has a better chance of drawing in more cash with it's MC price tag and so they nerfed DHS to make them less useful and encouraging people to spend real money on crap they wouldn't need if PGI/IGP didn't have their heads up their *****.

skullman86, on 04 March 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I bet we'll see some kind of 3rd person module alongside the coolant flush.

AKA UAV consumables

[Monky]

The only way I can see coolant flush being a realistic option for MWO is if it prevents any firing for 5-10 seconds when it's used and you have reduced heat efficiency afterwards. Either way, I feel it's a bad idea. Heat management is already minimalistic and honestly needs to be more important.

[Yokaiko]

Terror Teddy, on 04 March 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think I've become jaded when it comes to bugs never getting fixed though...I blame EVE online for that.

CCPs solution to bugs and **** implementation is to just remove features.

[Lonestar1771]

$$$

[Strelitzia]

Critical criticism is good, it's how the 3rd person idea got stopped. The sooner they know there is a large opposition to something the less development time that is wasted on it.

[p00k]

blah blah command chair post out sky falling etc

Edited by p00k, 04 March 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Flying Fish]

I am so sick of everyone being obsessed with following canon - it makes absolutely no sense to me! i mean i get the specific dates like the beginning of the clan invasion etc but to say "ok guys no argus/uziels because they dont exist until ten years in the future" is ridiculous! yeah i agree dont give em away now but TEN YEARS!?!?! can't we at least follow a -somewhat- accelerated calendar?

in conclusion, screw the lore i dont want to wait a DECADE for coolant flush

-yeah i said it

[Yokaiko]

Strelitzia, on 04 March 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Critical criticism is good, it's how the 3rd person idea got stopped. The sooner they know there is a large opposition to something the less development time that is wasted on it.

You mean like coolant flushes? This **** was getting beaten up in JUNE of last year.

[Righ]

I feel like the "Coolant flush" is being mistaken as something a lot more broken than it is. Anyone remember MW4? Same thing. You flush coolant so you dont overheat, and you can fire a couple more weapons. Once the coolant is gone, it's gone. So it would probably be around 100 MC for a single match coolant flush, and it would give the user a SLIGHT improvement during combat. Honestly, I'm not at all worried about it.

However, the Artillery Strike and Airstrikes are bothering me.

[Signal27]

I'm personally going to reserve judgement until we see just how exactly it works. It's a consumable item, after all. For all we know, that could mean you only get ONE coolant flush and then IT'S GONE

Just like how World of Tanks handles their own consumables.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Orzorn, on 04 March 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

It really depends on how its implemented.

I'm not thinking of a MW4 style flush, where you have a pool that you can use (which was way too strong, since you got to use it multiple times). I'm thinking of a one time flush that dumps a lot of heat (maybe not all of it, though). Just once, that's it.

A 6 PPC stalker would only get one free shot out of that. It's enough to do some interesting things, but not enough to be gigantically overpowering, at least when I'm sitting here theocrafting it. Actual gameplay for that could still show it to be too strong.

And that's all assuming it even worked like that. I hope it does.

It would be fairly overpowering if it allows that Stalker to rapidly cool off and get a kill. Its 8 vs 8, so allowing a mechanic so a build like that can make it rapidly 8 vs 7 would be bad for gameplay. Armor doesn't come back, so giving people the ability to just drop heat and continuing shooting will be a very bad game mechanic, even if they have to pay for it. Hell if they can get kills and wins with it, money will not be an issue for them.

[Liberty]

Instead of MC for the Command chair options it would be interesting if they added team points. Faction guilds and mercenaries earn points when community warfare comes out so they can equip their lances with airstrikes and artillery strikes. I would prefer this over spending MC.

[Noobzorz]

Matt Minus, on 04 March 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I am getting really tired of hearing the poors howl. Consumable items are incredibly common in F2P games. Get over it.

The devs have to find a way to monetize the game. This game is no LoL, it's inherently niche and it's not going to sustain itself selling fuzzy dice.

What they should be doing is lowering the prices to a tolerable point (again, I can purchase Tomb Raider on steam and a six inch sandwich from subway for the same price as the Pretty Baby and the Ilya Muromets) if they want to generate revenue. P2W has a very real possibility of killing this game. Battlefield Heroes (despite what their phony press releases would claim - like anyone couldn't just check the server browser) was destroyed almost overnight by a pricing patch.

Most of us are older (I suspect the youngest significant demographic playing this game is old enough to remember Battletech: The Animated Series, from 1994), so we come from a time before microtransactions, and we likely all played some form of genuinely competitive gaming, whether that's tabletop or warcraft or whatever. Unfair advantages are the sorts of things that rub us the wrong way (consider the tremendous amount of sophisticated balance talk on the forums, even if you don't agree with it - we want this game to be fair). Because I suspect that I am not a unique and beautiful snowflake, I anticipate that consumables will enrage a lot of the other people in this fanbase. They should be trying to court new players without alienating us, instead of managing to do the latter while failing at the former.

Consumables do not make sense in Mechwarrior Online. In the best case scenario they are a stupid addition that necessitate that everyone spend a little of their post-match winnings to stay competitive, and worst case, a minor income generator that prevents this community (and PGI's revenue) from growing.

Edited by Noobzorz, 04 March 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

p00k, on 04 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

anyone who was around when pgi said "no coolant flush" has also been around long enough to know, whenever pgi says "never <something>" you know to disregard that statement. this should be nothing new

Yes indeed. Sad but true.

Given the high-heatcap (ie even shooting 6 erppc is possible) adding coolant flush to norespawn is an...interesting choice esp given PGI's previous stance on the matter.

I for one would like to know what changed their minds, given the MC or cbill cost one could surmise that some people have emailed them saying "I'll give you MC for coolant flush"

PGI has done a lot of good the past 6 months so I'm happy to hang in there...for now.

[Cache]

DeadlyNerd, on 04 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I'm sure everyone remembers that sunny day PGI said something about "NO COOLANT FLUSH EVER", as it would create too many imbalances they couldn't fix.

Hmmm... your version of it looks very different from the actual quote.

1) They didn't give their word.
2) Things (obviously) changed since that post.
3) Save the vitriol for after the patch and you've tested them and seen them in action. Makes for less embarrassment when it isn't near as bad as you'd imagined.

[Oinkage]

Oh noes consumables. The world is ending. The poors will all quit!

[Ashnod]

It's all about dat 3 second Jenner, you know.. The one that can't really take advantage of extra heatsinks outside the engine?

[Ilwrath]

Tennex, on 04 March 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I will not pay real money to be competitive in an online game.

Maybe you don't want to but I can ensure you that there is heaps of morons that will pay for advantages.

But we don't know how this will be implemented yet. Of course the main focus of the devs is income. So that makes it reasonable to think that this is another ******** cash grab. But.. maybe its just balance.

Oinkage, on 04 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Oh noes consumables. The world is ending. The poors will all quit!

When all the poors has quit, only the "special people" remains.

Edited by Ilwrath, 04 March 2013 - 03:26 PM.