3036 replies to this topic

[Voridan Atreides]

Rebas Kradd, on 04 March 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

How about a more fair poll option like, "It depends on what it is and how it's implemented?"

Exactly. Not a very well implemented poll. Its obviously geared towards the nerd rage about the Coolant Flush.

[Paul Inouye]

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Rebas Kradd, on 04 March 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

How about a more fair poll option like, "It depends on what it is and how it's implemented?" Banning all consumables just because another poor game like Hawken had them...feels like painting with way too broad a brush.

PGI has shown no ability to adapt to what the players want. It's all or nothing.

See ECM if you need proof of that?

1000 people polled, and a large majority do not like ECM.

If PGI puts in consumables it's going to be their way, which as we see now benefits people spending actual cash.

[The Cheese]

Always remember: There are other games out there.

That message goes for you too, PGI.

[Royalewithcheese]

I don't really care about punishing PGI for adopting a business model I don't like.

What I do care about is spending the money I've budgeted for entertainment on things that are fun. There's a pretty reasonable chance that this sort of grind/pay to win stuff would make the game less fun (from my perspective). If I'm not sure I'll still be playing it in a couple of months, it isn't really a good call to buy (for instance) mechbay slots I don't know if I'll fill. I'm pretty sure there are other people with a similar take on this.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I pray this pay per coolant bs goes the way of knockdowns and Repairs.


If you're going to include some type of "coolant" just do the ******* coolant pods from TT where is one time, takes up criticals and can explode.

Edited by mwhighlander, 04 March 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Monky]

Y U DO DIS PUAL

[FromHell2k]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

This isn't P2W. This won't change a damn thing. If anything, it'll cripple whoever decides to sacrifice a passive module for a one-off coolant flush.

Keep sharing your tears, I feed on them.

Read the whole damn post!!

[Shumabot]

stjobe, on 04 March 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

The MC one only gives one 35% flush. And 15% + 20% does not add up to 35%, funnily enough.

2 slots vs 1, Gold will also have artillery. Congrats, you got 5% more until you run out of spacemoney and can't, they get airstrikes.

[Alex Wolfe]

Cache, on 04 March 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

whoa... whoa... whoa... slow your roll. 35% max cooling for one use per match. that's enough to keep from shutting down once but not enough for another alpha in an energy boat. what's the problem with that?

"We said there won't be coolant flush, but there will be. Don't worry, it'll only give a SLIGHT advantage, maybe two alphas more depending on what you're packing! What kind of difference one or two extra alpha strikes make anyway, right guys?"

"Oh, and the MC version will be only SLIGHTLY better, more convenient. No need to panic! Everything's fine, dare I say, nominal? Ha ha ha, good one, that!"



Four words, my good man:

Foot in the door.

EDIT: also, thanks to haruko for pointing it out: the amount of goldflush cooling scales with heat sinks, it's supposed to be 35% with 10. Most mechs have more than 10 heat sinks, so it might end up being more.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 04 March 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[Halfbreed]

Am I the only one who doesn't get why all these people think you can have more mods if you pay with MC over CBils?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Seanamal, on 04 March 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Well this post certainly caused the community to go ape. Of course that's because most people glossed over it and saw that as is, MC version will be better than c-bill version.

If you read it closely 2 sets of keywords jump out at you:


Examples of planned consumables:


Note: The values above are subject to tuning pending further gameplay testing.

What this means is that:

1: Coolant Flush may very well NOT be included in the game.

2: MC only Version may NOT necessarily be better than c-bill versions.

3: You should not freak out YET.

Why do you think it won't be included in the game? HOW ELSE WILL THEY TEST IT? Of course it's coming (with C-billers getting screwed by an extra module slot.....not very equitable if you're trying to avoid P2W issues).

Why do you think the MC version isn't better. In the demonstrated table, it's CLEARLY better. No doubt about it.

As to your third point....I'm not freaking out. But I'm certainly disappointed in this course of action by PGI. Can only hope PGI revisits it and tweaks it...heavily.

[Cache]

WolvesX, on 04 March 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

You lose 2 module slots, MC you use 1 module slot.

I'm really trying to understand how a one-use 35% pod for real money (MC) is better than a dual-use 20% pod for fake money (C-bills).

[Balsover]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

This isn't P2W. This won't change a damn thing. If anything, it'll cripple whoever decides to sacrifice a passive module for a one-off coolant flush.

Keep sharing your tears, I feed on them.

Because the current passive modules make that big of a difference?

[JimSuperBleeder]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 March 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

So since the match maker won't be taking these into account, like ECM. What if one team has the MC version of Air Strike and Coolant on all their mechs, and the other side doesn't?

Then what? Might as well give them an extra mech.

The match making system is still under works, as well as all the above mentioned things. I'll let the game get out of beta then complain about things.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Broad5ide, on 04 March 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

It says it on the post you get 2 uses

The 2 uses is one use...10%...second use 25%. = 35%

MC version = one use, 35%

Same item. 2 slots for the c-bill version.

JimSuperBleeder, on 04 March 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

The match making system is still under works, as well as all the above mentioned things. I'll let the game get out of beta then complain about things.

You obviously didn't read the Ask the Dev's. When asked about including ECM in the matchmaker they said they wouldn't be adding it into the mix. Guess what? If ECM isn't getting added, can sure as hell guess consumables aren't.

[Fuzzy Wuzzy]

der langsamere, on 04 March 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

2 35% flushes vs 2 adding up to 35%. Yeah not p2w

The rage in this thread is completely called for, but please don't spread misinformation.

Paul Inouye said:

Large Coolant Flush is not stackable with any other Coolant Flush module including itself.

Of course, by the time this post gets out he might have edited that...

Edited by Fuzzy Wuzzy, 04 March 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[Rashhaverak]

Isn't the tactical advantage of being able to flush coolant twice better than the once. I know the percentage is higher, but seriously, I'd love to see a game where one team has one use at 35% and the other team has all two for 15% and 20%. The greater advantage of using the ability twice seems to me to be the better of the two, if you even have to use it at all.

Edited by Rashhaverak, 04 March 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[Eramen]

Good suggestion, we need to make it ring clear: NO to P2W!

I also will not be spending any MC on P2W items. I just can't support it.

I would prefer a game that's based on skill, competative play, and friendly atmosphere - and it has been good at that up to this point - so I simply can't advocate spending real money on P2W items that would ruin this merit-based (not money based) gameplay.

Edited by Eramen, 04 March 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[Viper217]

Absolutely do not want consumables AT ALL in MWO! Crippling drain on f2p players cbills or just an annoyance this BS path they're aiming at should not be taken at all.