

#801
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:33 PM
#802
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:33 PM
#803
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM
M3atloaf, on 04 March 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:
I'm so glad you are the community spokesperson and knows exactly what everyone single player in MWO wants.
It's not hard to get a general consensus of the communities wants and needs by simply monitoring the threads here.
I have to agree with the OP too, there are virtually zero threads about overheating, and if there are, they are confined to a certain weapon system.
This really is a solution to a problem that nobody had. It can however potentially impact the game vastly for the worse, as it is a step toward P2W ( either in the form of CBills or worse, real cash, but one inevitably feeds the other ), making the game easier for people with huge wallets, either virtual or worse, literal.
I see 10x more threads calling for external DHS to be 2.0 vs 1.4 effectiveness than I have ever seen for the ability to flush coolants, especially in this form.
#804
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM
Sybreed, on 04 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:
Several threads were made about this and the general consensus was that we didn't want that feature in the game, it was potentially too game breaking and gave too much of an advantage to energy heavy mechs (which are already doing very well currently).
I gotta admit, I'm disappointed... feels like PGI is taking the path to the dark side...
Thanks for taking the time to poll all of the MWO player base in the hour since the announcement. I appreciate the amount of effort it must have taken!
#805
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM
Angus McBeef, on 04 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:
It's not like it's never been brought up and discussed before. During CB, it was quite clear that any form of coolant flush was unacceptable. Coolant Pods (as per TT) were generally acceptable. However, despite the vigorous discussions in CB, they have chosen to use the label 'Coolant Flush.' People don't care how it is implemented because we were given the impression it would never be implemented in any way, shape, or form. It's not neccessarily a case of jumping to conclusions; some of us thought that the conclusion had already been reached.
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised about it too. I knew air strikes were going to be part of the consumable system, but hearing coolant flush again after all this time, especially after we weren't even under the assumption (considering they told us they wouldn't use them) that they wouldn't show up.
But here they are!
Oh man, this patch is going to be a doozy.
Edited by Orzorn, 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM.
#806
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM
#807
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:35 PM
MustrumRidcully, on 04 March 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:
Edited that for you to point out the biggest point of contention with this change.
#808
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:35 PM
Without ECM or jumpjets, this thing is useless. With ECM, it could not out-Raven a 3L (to go the same top speed, it doesn't have the tonnage to support the 3L's weapon loadout), and with a slower speed, it is much more feasible to hit it, making it not nearly as cheesy as the 3L. I don't get why people think putting ECM on this thing would be P2W, as it would be just a side grade from the 3M.
As it is, I'm not buying one because it offers nothing I don't already have better with other mechs...even in the same class. Give me jump jets and/or ECM, and I'll buy one. Otherwise, no point. The 3M is better than this thing in every way, and if you want missiles in a medium Mech, go with any other chassis for a better set of hardpoints.
#809
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:35 PM
#810
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:35 PM
Extinction, on 04 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:
Actualy i dont care even the slightest if anyone thinks i am gona troll their favorite game or not. If things like over 6 months "payed" beta is something normal and the whole gaming industry should adapt to this new developement style, then its your opinion and i respect it. Pls respect mine if i say its complete Bull....
But instead you could have answered my question about metagame and pugstomping. Thx
Yeah, I guess I could have. Of course I'm not sure why anyone should. Go read past patch notes, or play the game. Seriously, posting a thread here is the worst possible way to get the information you want.
#811
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:36 PM
Josef Nader, on 04 March 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:
Sounds awfully familiar, give or take the technical details.
Not everyone will have it, and I think it's an interesting way to use modules. I'm much more excited about Long Toms and the like.
yeah, perhaps they have something to back it up lore-wise, but this is starting to feel like WoT's system, which is something that is worrying me a lot at the moment. People who put the most money per-games on items have a huge advantage. To be able to do this you need, guess what, premium accounts. I guess it's too early to tell, but if people who put money on said items have a huge advantage, people will start screaming p2w faster than a Bugatti Veyron.
#812
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:36 PM
#813
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:36 PM
#814
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:36 PM
#817
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:38 PM
Artgathan, on 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:
Thanks for taking the time to poll all of the MWO player base in the hour since the announcement. I appreciate the amount of effort it must have taken!
enough with that kind of crap post already, this is coming from a closed beta player who read most threads on the subject. If you have done the same thing, then you'd know most people don't want coolant flush.
Serapth, on 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:
I have to agree with the OP too, there are virtually zero threads about overheating, and if there are, they are confined to a certain weapon system.
This really is a solution to a problem that nobody had. It can however potentially impact the game vastly for the worse, as it is a step toward P2W ( either in the form of CBills or worse, real cash, but one inevitably feeds the other ), making the game easier for people with huge wallets, either virtual or worse, literal.
I see 10x more threads calling for external DHS to be 2.0 vs 1.4 effectiveness than I have ever seen for the ability to flush coolants, especially in this form.
my point exactly
#818
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:39 PM
Artgathan, on 04 March 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:
Thanks for taking the time to poll all of the MWO player base in the hour since the announcement. I appreciate the amount of effort it must have taken!
What about the weeks of discussion in Closed Beta where it became obvious that this was not a desired feature? Polls then indicated that almost nobody wanted Coolant Flush of any sort (coolant pods are a different animal). Current sentiment appears to be about the same. I forget what date the old Beta forums were taken down, so you might not have seen that.
#819
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:39 PM
Maybe, just maybe, piling on 6 PPCs onto that Stalker isn't the brightest of ideas.
Build a balanced unit that is capable of dealing with the heat it generates and you won't have to rely on such a crutch.
#820
Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:39 PM
Kyone Akashi, on 04 March 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:
This isn't about "choice", it is about a superior option being available for real money only. If you think that such a Medium would easily beat a 3L, it stands to reason it has even less of a challenge with other typical "3L victims".
In essence, such a Cicada would be a Jenner-D with an added Guardian-suite and 3.5 tons of additional armor or heat-sinks for its medium lasers.
For the Cicada to load the same loadout as a 3L, it necessarily has to be slower. In fact, it would likely be going 130 kph to be competitive due to engine weight increases past 300. It could kill a 3L in a 1v1 if the 3L were a terrible shot, but it would be much easier for everything else to kill the Cicada, so I don't see it as a problem. Simplistically, it would be the rock to the 3L's scissors to everyone else's paper.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users