3036 replies to this topic

[WerewolfX]

Seriously PGI? Not happy, not happy at all. I supported your endeavor from the get go I defended the majority of decisions. You spoke about the importance of player skill. The importance of managing your heat, of watching your ammo, of aiming your weapons, of facing your fresh armor towards the enemy, and totally awesome player experience I get from piloting a mech. I played WoT I suffered through that damn game untill my face was red from rage of the Gold ammo killing me in one blast simply cause some guy could afford to whip out his wallet and get the best stuff in the game. This removes all of the core tennets you as a developer said. I'm sorry, if you keep on this track I'm sure many others agree and will also disagree though I can't see your playerbase growing from this. This is a shattering of trust for many and I for one can't see why this decision with the coolant flush was made.

Edited by WerewolfX, 04 March 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[KharnZor]

PanchoTortilla, on 04 March 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

L2P. Adapt. It has counters.

lol. no, just no.
How do you counter it? lol

[Ilwrath]

Noobzorz, on 04 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

I thought that got canned?

Anyway, I'm much cooler with 3rd person view than I am with this abomination.

They have said they canned stuff before. Like the infamous coolant flush. Surprise!

I think the most awful thing will be air or artillery strikes. That always stinks in fps games.

[IceSerpent]

Cache, on 04 March 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

True, though I think Paul could work on his writing a little too. Long day and too many pictures between sentences. Doesn't change my opinion that the flushes (both MC and C-bill) are near useless. P2W they ain't. Not by a long shot.

They are actually extremely useful (as described) - take any of your favorite configs and compare your "burst damage" (i.e. firing as many weapons as possible as fast as possible) with 35% flush and without. CF will practically guarantee you one kill against an equal opponent without CF.

[Mackman]

To all those claiming that the MC one is not objectively better than the C-Bill one: Can someone explain to me how this is any different than if PGI decided to sell, say, a Large Laser that only took up one crit, instead of two, and it was MC only? Or an Engine that took up one less crit? Isn't that piece of equipment better in every single way than the one that takes up more crits?

This is actually more imbalanced than that example, because most mechs have 2-4 module slots, meaning that the MC one giving you 100% better slot efficiency than the CB one is a much, much bigger deal. And the problem will only become worse and worse as more consumables are added in. Want both Coolant Flush and Airstrike? Better be prepared to spend dem monies, son, because otherwise, you're going to be at a significant (and objectively measurable) disadvantage to someone who spent MC.

[Bilbo]

Shumabot, on 04 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

I bask in glorious vindication.

Of what, exactly.

[BigJim]

BertyBargo, on 04 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I love how people are all 'what? 35%? Two flushes? Psh. No big deal.'

6 PPC stalker, 60 damage alpha strike, flush when necessary. I guarantee it could take down at least two fully armored atlases before it ran out of cooling and had to finally fall into a heat coma.

If those atlases are walking in LoS of a 6x PPC stalker they deserve to get slagged.

if you're playing the level of opponent who walk in LoS of a 6x PPC stalker, you don't even need any bonuses.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

ferranis, on 04 March 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Yes but please be reasonable, we are talking about a heat flush once in a match that normally lasts around 10 minutes.
This is the same kind of 'meh' and downright useless modules like we have now.

It's also something that the matchmaker won't take into account.

So lets see...P2W. Level 3 Coolant, Airstrike, Artillery and the level 2 Sensor Module. Now multiply that by 4 or 5 people on one team?

What if the other team has none?

It's a whole other f'd up version of ECM.

[ProtoformX]

Crazycajun, on 04 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Jump off a bridge if your that upset that a developer is trying to move forwards with its game design..

you people act like you run this show ...

Who you callin' "you people?"

[Shumabot]

Psikez, on 04 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Im glad your lifes dream has been realized and you can die happily now

Me too! I was getting worried for a while there.

[Owlfeathers]

The CB one is much better IMO... With the current numbers, it pretty much gives you one more shot before overheat and that's it. The MC one costs real money, gives you one extra shot, and you can only have one, but the CB one doesn't cost real money, still gives you your one shot before overheat, and you have the option of getting two at once. Sure, the MC one might, maybe, give you two shots if you have a lot of heat sinks or weapons that don't heat up much, but I don't honestly see much of an advantage. I'd rather be able to use it twice in one match with a little less effectiveness than once but working a little bit better. The fact that there is a difference at all between MC and CB purchases for these is a bit of a concern in itself, but as long as they don't go overboard and stay with stuff like this, there doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to me.

[Damocles69]

this^

[Josef Nader]

You have 4 module slots. I have 4 module slots.

You have:
Coolant 1
Coolant 2
Airstrike 1
Airstrike 2

I have
Coolant 3
Airstrike 3
Arty 3
Module of my choice

Guess who's got the upper hand (assuming relatively equal skill level).

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

You are ********.

It's 2 uses 10% & 25%

MC version 1 use 35%

It's the same, MC one is less slots. Can you read?

Not to mention that he doesnt have the brain power to realize that this is the minimal heat dissipation for the modules, and that its just going to benefit more boating of SRMs and PPCs.

[Monky]

It comes down to whether it's basing the cooling off of the number of heatsinks or the amount of heat. It could be read as 35% of 'current heat stored by heatsinks' as heatsinks do indeed store heat in MWO, or 35% of 'current cooling capability based on # of heatsinks'.

Either, way, it's an insane idea. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Lootee]

KharnZor, on 04 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

lol. no, just no.
How do you counter it? lol

Easy. Shoot them in the head before they can hit the coolant button.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Damocles69, on 04 March 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

this^

This is the second thread I've had to explain this to him in.

[El Penguin]

Everyone knows about the P2W part where MC will take one less module slots where CBills would need 2 to equal out.

But these consumables I bet you will be used a lot less often in pub matches because whos going to risk there MC or CBills on a match where its almost a gamble if you have good teammates? While premades will know if it's smart to activate any these consumables to help save or secure a win. Not mention you have more variables to balance and we don't even have our current line up of equipment balanced yet!

Just some thoughts... Please remove consumables or change them dramatically and CBill only like the rest of our weapons...

[LordBraxton]

Crazycajun, on 04 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Jump off a bridge if your that upset that a developer is trying to move forwards with its game design..

you people act like you run this show ...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL what is this bioware forum? the fanbois here are so devoted.

they are moving backwards with this one

[Kunae]

Think about this:

In community warfare play, all 8(12) players on one side have spent MC's to get Arty(3), Orb-Bomb(3), and Airstrike(3). This forces their opponents to do the same. If they do not also buy the MC purchasable items they will most likely lose the match.

This is the definition of Pay to Win.

This issue really isn't about PUG matches.