605 replies to this topic

[Evil Ash]

Quote

If you do, then you're the cancer killing quality videogames.

The amount of "Quality" video games coming out now days is like the gold nuggets you find while sieving sand on the beach.

Edited by Evil Ash, 28 March 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[Yeti Fiasco]

palebear, on 28 March 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Whoah, did I just get called cancer in a thread? Too harsh, friend.
What makes you think a person would only play long enough to discover the most optimized gear/mech?
Even if there was a 'best setup' (which I think will not be the case) I think people would still play differing load-outs for different reasons- fun, mission objectives, economy etc.

There is no economy, you buy an item and have it forever, nothing has value because you can't sell any of it to other players. Yes people would use different loadouts for maps and missions, but it would still come down to a set minmaxed team in each instance.

For a competitive example, a match on desert planet A with a base capture mission might require lance loadout A because it is best suited, BOTH teams will take lance loadout A because it is the best. A match on the same planet for a take-and-hold mission might make lance loadout B the best option, BOTH teams will take it again because its the best option available, no ones going to purposefully give themselves a disadvantage in a competitive scenario.

This is a very simplified example, of course you're going to have small personal changes like modules and weapons, but the core mechs themselves will usually stay the same with very little change.

Edited by Yeti Fiasco, 29 March 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[palebear]

Sorry, Yeti. I'm just not seeing your point.
A game like chess must really bother you - both teams use the same loadout every time.

[guardian wolf]

palebear, on 29 March 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sorry, Yeti. I'm just not seeing your point.
A game like chess must really bother you - both teams use the same loadout every time.

Hey I love chess!

[Trevnor]

See, the thing about 'mechs is this. It doesn't matter what loadout or mech you have, because each and every player will have different opinions on which 'mech is the best. Because each player plays a different way. Hell, some people will only have one 'mech they ever pilot, because it's a versatile design, or they really really like it. There isn't any such thing as "best" mech loadout for any given map or area or mission. There would be many different 'mechs that can preform the same functions, with different weaponry, etc. etc.

[Dr Killinger]

I've been thinking about F2P lately. It was recently announced that in Battlefield 3, you will be able to buy the unlocks with real money. Of course, this was met with huge uproar, because it's ridiculously fashionable to hate EA at the moment. But as a BF3 player, I realised that I couldn't care less. Granted, the starting loadouts in BF3 are slightly woeful, but everyone somehow manages to level up two or three times, and then they have weapons that can kill even the level 50 guys. Will those level 50 guys be skilled enough to avoid this? Probably, unless they bought their level, in which case, they'll probably help some noobs level up nice and quickly.

In conclusion, free to play is how it should be, because I'm starting a cushy new job on Monday, and I don't have enough time to get to level 50, but I sure as hell have enough money

[Anita Chess]

an additional info: playing a bit the new Tribes mmo Beta, it has skills/abilities in it for the character, I hope to see such things in this game too, to show how much variety among characters can be as they gain experience, and grow stronger in different things

[Yeti Fiasco]

palebear, on 29 March 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sorry, Yeti. I'm just not seeing your point.
A game like chess must really bother you - both teams use the same loadout every time.

I hate you so much, thanks for belittling my argument.

Chess only has one team, the entire game is based around it, mechwarrior has alternate loadouts.

I don't even know why I'm gracing your offensive posting with a reply.

2/10 for getting me this mad.

[Magnificent Bastard]

Love F2P. Companies like PGI are pushing the F2P model forward and with a little refinement I think F2P could be the future of gaming. I intend to support PGI in this endeavor by purchasing items in the MWO online store.

[Kristarian]

I've actually played several online games in which the player has the ability to earn and save in game money. Whether it be C-bills or g.p. or whatever you call it, they can then exchange this game money for items that are normally cash money items. In one game you were able to save (and I'm going to use c-bills as an example) 10k c-bills you could use them to purchase "premium" items, with an exchange rate of approximately 1%. It gave the player that could not normally afford to "pay to play" the same chance at getting their hands on the good stuff and at the same time giving the players a reason to play more and sticking with the game longer.
I know as a MMO player the one thing that makes a game not so much fun is getting my rear handed to my by someone in "store bought" items I could never afford. I know this may have been talked about before, but I'm old and tend to repeat things.

[Requital]

as long as the "carrot" doesn't involve getting the "stick" when you don't buy the carrot.

Let me explain, I played Star Trek Online for a few months before they went F2P because I like MMO's and I like Sci Fi. Not a big trekkie, but the game wasn't bad. The subscription was 14.99 per month (the stick), and they had an online store. After Cryptic was bought out by Perfect World, they offered the carrot...a F2P model. The problem was, in order to keep what you had worked for and the game features, you had to keep paying the 14.99 per month, and the amount of store points with that subscription was not enough(because right after it went F2P they raised the store prices). And yes, that game was pay to win. Needless to say I dumped that game.

There is a level of skill involved in MW that is a powerful equalizer. I watched many people on NHUA servers get their buts handed to them in cross tech Diashi's and Atlas' by people in pure tech light and medium inner sphere mechs from the NBT league. While I know that skill cannot be bought, there is a fine line, and if the store offers very powerful items it can tip the balance. As long as the dev's realize this and proceed with caution, I have no issue with a F2P model, and honestly, I will spend $ on custom decals and mech skins, and small cosmetic and other things we can expect to see, as I am sure many other pilots will.

So, keep up the good work PGI, stay away from P2W, and advance the model with caution and develop the game with gusto!

[Alpha Nexus]

I really wish I could have been around to play the other games because I like lore and this game seems amazing

[Kupid]

I'm all in on this system cause if it becomes where the pay player are too high you can either pay the money to go the same way they are or quit with out have you feel jipped because you didn't put any money in.

[BerryChunks]

I would rather pay full money for a quality game and have noone have advantages over me because they are from a rich family and will drop 1000$ or more on a video game because they like beating people ez mode.it'd be no different from buying accounts that people have previously levelled in WoW or other games. And there's a reason account selling is bannable in those games.

People did it in Evony, a terrible browser based game. It'll obviously happen here.

F2P is a diametrically opposite response to the increasing number of expensive games that have no substance to them. The middle ground, where you pay a slightly lower price for a far superior product, is the proper ground. That's what would happen in a truly capitalistic market, but consumers had the "gotta have 'ems" so long that they allowed companies to keep making lower quality higher price games, and only then did all consumers jump ship to Free games and invoke the creation of the F2P model market, which imo isn't good.

Edited by BerryChunks, 09 April 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Sir Ollie]

Yeti Fiasco, on 29 March 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

There is no economy, you buy an item and have it forever, nothing has value because you can't sell any of it to other players. Yes people would use different loadouts for maps and missions, but it would still come down to a set minmaxed team in each instance.

For a competitive example, a match on desert planet A with a base capture mission might require lance loadout A because it is best suited, BOTH teams will take lance loadout A because it is the best. A match on the same planet for a take-and-hold mission might make lance loadout B the best option, BOTH teams will take it again because its the best option available, no ones going to purposefully give themselves a disadvantage in a competitive scenario.

This is a very simplified example, of course you're going to have small personal changes like modules and weapons, but the core mechs themselves will usually stay the same with very little change.

Actually you just made a great point, If you KNOW that Set up A is "the best" and you KNOW you opponent will always take that, then you can easily defeat them by taking the COUNTER to Set up A. And THAT is why your argument falls apart, there will be no PERFECT set up. EVER..

[guardian wolf]

Sir Ollie, on 09 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Actually you just made a great point, If you KNOW that Set up A is "the best" and you KNOW you opponent will always take that, then you can easily defeat them by taking the COUNTER to Set up A. And THAT is why your argument falls apart, there will be no PERFECT set up. EVER..

All because of the fact that Counter A, also has a Counter, and that has a Counter, which has a Counter, which can be countered, etc, etc

[Soviet Alex]

Why should MW-O be free to play? Because I'm buying my first house, & I really won't have spare £ to drop this summer on anything beyond furniture.

[Victor Morson]

If we have to purchase things like individual weapons (and can lose them from battle damage), I think ideas like offering "salvage packs" with a small percentage chance to include advanced (or even Clan) tech for cheap might be a good thing to spend some money on, but ultimately, I'll mostly pay for cosmetic items or unlocking more options - like if a 'mech garage only has 2 hangar spaces without paying a fee, for example.

[AlanEsh]

guardian wolf, on 09 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

All because of the fact that Counter A, also has a Counter, and that has a Counter, which has a Counter, which can be countered, etc, etc

But that is where it ends! So if you just calculate and use the fifth tier of counter-counter-counter, you WIN!

[Aegis Kleais]

If the game mechanic starts out that you have to buy weapons and can lose them, but via salvage and/or via market you can buy them back with in-game currency; if even your average pilot can stay in the black with their operating costs, then people probably won't have too much issue when you can give yourself X C-Bills for $X because it's all just a matter of convenience of buying yourself more funds.

But weapons were made to be so expensive that people were constantly in the red, and getting enough weapons to fit your Mech out properly was a time-consuming and costly affair, then I would think it would breed aggravation when you lost those weapons in game due to the high cost they had.

Truly the economy is going to take some balancing; there will be issues of "Get it while it's good before it gets patched" and getting screwed over after buying something when the economy gets patched later on and highly devalues what you got. Nature o' tha beast!