3036 replies to this topic

[Alex Wolfe]

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

That's a misquote if I've ever seen one. Try again.

It's not a quote, it's paraphrasing. If I was quoting, I'd put it in quote tags, like this:

Garth Erlam, on 24 September 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Q: Have you guys considered adding Coolant Pods to increase heat dissipation of a mech's heatsinks when used? [vayne]
A: Yes, we considered and then dropped the idea. We found it more of a crutch and lead to more issues than it helped with. If you're in a long, multi-targetted single player game, it makes sense. In a player vs. player environment you get a MASSIVE increase in firepower for no cost, or it wouldn't be enough to make a difference (IE. the match would never last long enough for you running out of coolant to matter, because you've already killed two people. Or, it doesn't even last a single fight, then why even have it?) Does that make sense? [Garth]

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

It isn't. It truly isn't.

Well, now that convinced me. Good thing extra module slot available for sensors or goldbombs doesn't matter. Guess we can all go home now then.

[Broad5ide]

Team Leader, on 04 March 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

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

that's what master is for...

RiceyFighter, on 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

It is P2W because C-BIll version takes up 2 module slots while MC version takes up 1 module slot.

Example:

F2P: Coolant (1), Coolant (2), Airstrike (1), AirStrike (2) = Coolant 3 x 2 + Airstrike 3 x 2

P2W: Coolant (3) x 1 , Airstrike (3) x 1, Module 1, Module 2 = balanced

1 uses vs 2 uses. I fixed your post

[Accurs3D]

Hardly any heat lost?

Is education or uncommon sense not valued highly in Australia?

[LordBraxton]

agreed

6 PPC builds should never even exist, now they have coolant flush.

[Shumabot]

I bask in glorious vindication.

[Noobzorz]

Ilwrath, on 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

It may be wise to wait till after they implement 3rd person view. That may make the game really awful.

I thought that got canned?

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

[Tetatae Squawkins]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Will you chill with that dumbass pic? It's not even funny man.

[Chrithu]

Maybe not the coolant flush necessarily.

But regarding Air and Artillery Strikes I like the approach of making them consumables that take up module slots rather than items you buy once and then use as often as you see fit. This will definetly prevent them from becoming a must have item, since everyone will think carefully about what to stuff into their module slots and what to shell out those CBills for.

I mean we all know the fuzz that keeps going here about LRMs dominating matches. Just imagine what happens if air strikes and artillery fire start to take down whole groups of mechs every game. This is something I'd not like very much.

[Crazycajun]

WolvesX, on 04 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

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

I was in hospital, 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.

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 ...

[JakeSteel21]

I understand that the mc system is in place to support the development of the game but i think its bs. I wish theyd just sell us the game for a one time purchase like normal fricken games instead of goin all EA on us

[Strelitzia]

PGI's proposed system http://mwomercs.com/...10-consumables/ , it aligns with our assumptions.

[Oni Ralas]

Tigerchen, on 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Yeah and in the next step we maybe get ammo with more power, more speed or something like that. Come on dude how hard is it, to imagine the next stage of this system.

Because you are using a logical fallacy. The basis of future itterations is not contained soley on the creation of a currnet one.

[Hawkwings]

Poll option 1 is supposed to evoke the authoritarian state of 1984, where Big Brother is all-knowing and knows what is best for you. But not really.

Poll option 2 is supposed to evoke Chicken Little and the story of how he hugely freaked out about what ended up to be nothing.

Sheesh people, way to kill the joke.

So can someone please explain to me which way this poll is biased? If I get arguments in both directions, then I know I have achieved balance.

[Monky]

You serious?

[Tabrias07]

One Medic Army, on 04 March 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

It's 15% and 20% of total possible heat on the mech, not based on current heat.

ah, ok. thanks.

[Fuzzy Wuzzy]

stjobe, on 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

65 != 68

Lad, go back a page, and scroll down.

[ferranis]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

The other problem here is the devs have stated that modules are the end game.

We have crappyish modules now. What if modules start becoming better and better? Then those modules slots become more precious.

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.

[Barbaric Soul]

I can not believe you people are so worried about coolant and not even mentioning anything about the artillery and air strikes they are adding.

[SgtMagor]

for this thread:just kidding!

Edited by SgtMagor, 04 March 2013 - 04:51 PM.