3036 replies to this topic

[AlixX]

You can buy it with Cbills so how is this P2W? Module slots are not a big deal anyway at the moment!!!

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Voridan Atreides, on 04 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I don't think you should talk. Your poll was not very good either.

Yes and No.

Not skewed or biased in any way.

GAME ARE FINE and DURR I R QQ'r

totally a good poll.

I wish they never advertised this game on Facebook, maybe there would be less ******* playing it and being on these forums.

[Hekalite]

I'm still baffled by this decision. What is wrong with having the same exact options available for c-bills and MC?

[Kunae]

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

I reserve all judgement until I see it ingame and working as intended. I honestly don't see them being used that often anyways.

They'll be used all the time.

Your statement is like saying that no one will ever use gold ammunition in WoT, very often. How's that analogy played itself out, eh?

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

True, though I think Paul could work on his writing a little too. 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.

It's not about "coolant flush"! It's about what comes after, such as artillery strikes, orbital bombardment and airstrikes.

Edited by Kunae, 04 March 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Noobzorz]

Orzorn, on 04 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

I believe he's saying that the flush is even stronger than people realize. If it was linear, then doubling your heat sinks (or switching to double heat sinks, perhaps depending on implementation) would raise it to 70%.

That's a lot of cooling power.

Well in that case, yes, it's even more broken than we already thought, and I'd like to apologize to the guy.

This is bad though. I don't want MWO to go this route. The upshot of this is that I no longer feel like an ***** for missing the founders packages or hanging on to my money until I was sure.

I almost bought the ilya muromets this morning. I am going to wait and see the extent of the damage before I consider it now.

[skullman86]

Somewhere in the middle.

[Monky]

From the way I've read it, it looks like it scales heat dumping off of the NUMBER, but not the STRENGTH, of the heatsinks, so allowing a scaling coolant flush could in some sense make single heatsinks more viable when fitted with this module. Not saying I support coolant flush as an idea (hahaahahahahahahahhahahaha), but it is something to consider. Unless I'm ***-end wrong and it counts total heatsink strength, it could at least provide slightly more competetive single heatsinks in Coolantflush Warrior Online.

Edited by Monky, 04 March 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[Fuzzy Wuzzy]

stjobe, on 04 March 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

I don't know if my math is off, or if it's PGI's math that is off, but subtracting 15% followed by 20% is NOT the same as subtracting 35%:
100 - 15% = 85
85 - 20% = 68

100 - 35% = 65

68 != 65

That actually depends on how they're implementing it. There are two methods, multiplicative and additive.

Suppose we're working with how much heat you have, right now. Like you fired off PPCs and are now at 80%.
You perform 2 coolant flushes:
20% coolant flush -> 80% - 20% (of 80%) = 64%
15% coolant flush -> 64% - 15% (of 64%) = 54% (-ish)

That is multiplicative.

Suppose we're working with your heat capacity, i.e. how much your mech can take. Assuming you're using 10 standard heatsinks (which is insane with any PPC build), and you flush twice from 80%:
20% coolant flush -> (80-20)% = 60%
15% coolant flush -> (60-15)% = 45%

That is additive (or subtractive, in this case).

Which will get implemented? It depends on PGI's programmers, but if we look at Paul's post at face value, we see that

Paul Inouye said:

CB Coolant Flush Tier 1 = 15% cooling of TOTAL heat on your Mech.
CB Coolant Flush Tier 2 = 20% cooling of TOTAL heat on your Mech.
TOTAL cooling of your Mech is 35%.

MC Coolant Flush = 35% cooling of TOTAL heat on your Mech.

It's safe to assume that it'll be additive. Not that it improves the situation much.

[WolvesX]

... so shut up and take what we give you.

I was in hospital for months, when the founders program was up, so I couldn't get one...

I was very sad about that... TILL the day MWO went Pay-to-Win.

- EU founders, had bought it the frist day.
- CLAN founders, had bought it the day before the program even went up.

But, you know, that makes me even more sad... I though that would be my game for the next years.

Edited by WolvesX, 04 March 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Targetloc]

With heat capacity being 30 + your heatsinks, the vast majority of builds out there were already capable of killing a similar sized target before having to actually manage heat.

Maybe my math needs some double-checking, but I'm finding a typical brawler Atlas can put out 240-280 damage before heat capping. You can build a ML HBK-4P that does around 110 damage before letting off the trigger.

Depends how steady your aim is and how good your target is at twisting, but mechs already drop pretty darn quick when there's a few crack shots on one team.


Can't say I like the idea of coolant flush at all.

[Melcyna]

It basically comes down to how much the value of a module slot is

is it more than getting an extra shot of lower coolant flush ?? (same total for both)

if yes then a potential P2W, if not then we go on our merry way

Since most modules in general are pretty damn powerful, there's a valid argument in that the 1 extra module slot saved by the MC variant may well be superior (this also depends heavily on just how the modules are fleshed out later because as we all know, the modules we got right now are bare bones)

problem is, i have no idea if that's true in practice since i don't have ANYWHERE close to fully fitted out modules on my mechs

Actually for that matter, i've been curious... is there ANY LIMITATION whatsoever for stacking modules currently existing in the game? I obviously don't have the XP or C-Bills to purchase fully fitted out mech with modules yet, but i assume there's SOMEONE out there who has done so or tried to.

[El Penguin]

Im holding off all MC purchases now until this gets changed. It can only go downhill from here

[ferranis]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 04 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

If you knew how to read you would realize that Mc Consumables are better and take up 1 module slot.
And lol at your "just use it too" logic. Hilariously dumb.

Hm, i am not the one who needs to read again it seems.

cb version: 2x flush
mc version: 1x flush (higher amount)

And it only benefits cheese builds like the ppc boats which will surely get nerfed, like the gauss was.

[LordBraxton]

Seanamal, on 04 March 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

My point was that this is the first pass at implementation, remember,

THIS IS STILL BETA

They may very well see that a certain module type is OP, unbalanced, or something else that causes it to disrupt gameplay. Hence they may make changes that say, make the MC version more attractive to buy, but not make it superior to c-bill version. For example By setting high c-bill price points and relatively low MC price points may cause people to purchase the MC version. Again

IT'S STILL BETA!

holy **** its still in beta and they are already adding huge P2W features

WHAT WILL FULL RELEASE LOOK LIKE>!?!?!?!!??!

3rd PERSON MC MODULE?!?!

[Radko]

Even if this is an incredibly minor effect (and we don't know whether or not it is yet), it means that any time you lose, you'll think "Was he better than me, or did he just pay a dollar for some kind of SPECIAL PRO GAMER EDGE?"

Even if the module is so minor as to be worthless (and who would pay for a worthless module?), it'll leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

No matter how small a change this represents, it means that a prospective new player who asks "Is this one of those games where you pay for special advantages?" must now be answered with "Yes" instead of "No."

[Team Leader]

Too bad some of the laser heavy mechs that would use it (K2, 4P) Only have one module slot...

[Commander Kobold]

ohtochooseaname, on 04 March 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Oh, I give them a 5% chance to not completely bork consumables, but I'd give them a 95% chance to have it passable within 3 months...like the ECM situation. It's passable now.

ECM passable? BAHAHAHA you're funny bub.

Khell DarkWolf, on 04 March 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

snip

no this X5 does have a niche to fill in that it's the fastest medium in the game (as far as I know) has lovely symetrical hardpoints and will make a great skirmisher, along with blocking the enemy team from taking another streak craven.

[Ashnod]

Pay to win 3 second jenner!!

[JokerVictor]

Darius Deadeye, on 04 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Very much looking forward to Star Citizen, optimistically set for BETA release november 2014.

I really had high hopes for this game. It was going to be my holdover till SC came out. But if this is the intended direction of it, I will not support it. I love BT, I love building mechs, I love stompy robot fighting. But I won't support a lazy-*ss money grubbing developer. This is a complete slap in the face to anyone who bought a founder's package.

Where are the basic functionality/quality of life features PGI? In-game voice? A UI that doesn't totally suck? Lobbies? No, instead it's you trying to peddle bullsh*t to us. At least you got this bombshell out the way early enough that I don't regret spending a ton of money on it.

It's gonna be absolutely hilarious when this goes into effect. GG PGI, you bast*rds. Stick to bass fishing you godd*mn hacks.

[Grits N Gravy]

So many Jimmies rustling, you can hear them in the wind.