HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password_ SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


The Fallacy of the Free-to-Play Game and Hawken


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 LordofNosgoth

LordofNosgoth

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted December 31 2012 - 11:08 PM

I've heard it time and time again:

"F2P sounds good, but they always end up being Pay2Win and that's wrong and it sux."

^ This, ladies and germs, is a fallacy. In point of fact, it's a blatant lie. I know that sounds like a bold claim, but let's review why it isn't, shall we_
  • Every game - like any other product - requires time, investment, effort and skill in order to develop.

  • Developers, at the end of the day, are just like you and I: They want to receive a fair wage for their efforts; they want to be paid for the work they do.

  • People who pay money for an item desire for their returns to be worth their investment. This is where the problem begins.

  • While some purchasers might be okay with unlocking new skins or paint jobs, most players will not be okay with paying hard-earned cash for what amounts to an image they could easily create for themselves in Gimp - for free.

  • It seems like a good idea to charge for new mech parts - and it would be - except for the fact that they must continue to do so for every new mech they use (parts not being transferrable in any way). This leads to players being daunted by the fact they will have to purchase new parts each and every time they add a new mech type to their inventory.

  • "Pay2Win" is a negative connotation that is assigned to games that offer new weapons in exchange for real world money. This is particular term was coined by people who don't feel as if they should have to pay for new content. Example: A good example is the Crossbow that's now offered in BF3: It is a one-shot kill if it impacts, period. And the complaining hasn't stopped. Those who complain always conveniently overlook the fact that to equip the crossbow, the player in question must sacrifice their gadget. For Recon, this means no MAV (which is the smallest sacrifice that can be made), For Assault it means no Med kit; for Support it means no explosives and for Engineer they must sacrifice their RPG, SMAW or Javelin. With the exception of the Recon class (which is largely a semi-suicidal all-or-nothing class with a high-skill ceiling to high-power ratio class anyway) the other classes must sacrifice crucial and more beneficial items to gain this weapon. In addition, you can only unlock the weapon by actually meeting the new unlock criterion that also came with the DLC. In short: High skill players will largely ignore this weapon because it's more of a detriment than a benefit to competitive play. It's for this reason you see noobie players using far more often than Veterans, who typically rely on higher skill-sets and better tactics than a single-shot weapon with an incredibly long reload time - the fact it is a one-shot kill can be ignored for this very reason.
What I've noticed about Hawken that has mostly been ignored is that the TOW missle is severely OP - especially on new mechs. It can be - and has been - argued that the reason for putting such a weapon on a class used by every new player is that it balances the skill to power ratio. But what obviously hasn't been considered is that, as long as new players - playing at no cost or investment from themselves - can continue using a weapon that, even by the admission of skilled veterans, has a High Reward/Low Risk ratio (the very definition of "broken" in the gaming community; broken weapons also correctly being labled "OP" or over-powered) why would they ever pay to use anything else_ Why would you_ Why would anyone_ Especially if, like many of us, you only spent a measly $10 or so to purchase other mech types to see if anything had changed since the last Closed Beta, only to find that all other weapons - when compared to the general utility of TOW - are pathetic in comparison. New players will find, much to their disappointment, that only 1 other mech has this weapon. Given that it's also in the lightest class and is the fastest chassis in the game, after purchasing that one mech, why ever play anything else_ It's like the "FOO" Strategy argument; new players will simply whale away until they run into a strategem/combination they can't beat and then quit. The problem with this is the game will quickly become a Ghost Town. Don't believe me_ Go play "Transformers: War for Cybertron". Newbies always end up resorting to using Leader with a Fusion Cannon, Magma Frag launcher and Warcry. These abilities also have a HRwd/LRsk ratio and, as such, are common place. With no balance changes put in place by the developers - after 2 solid years of begging for it - no anti-cheat and this strategem reaching the point of insanity (since Warcry + Rage perk adds +35% ATK and +25% DEF and this is stackable, provided each user has a different - if any - Warcry perk applied) led to entire 5 man teams playing the class in a noob-fest we veterans refer to as "Angry Red Lights".

Right now, Hawken is a noob-fest with the TOW missile. Because the game is still new, most folks are just rolling the the proverbial punches and playing through the insanity. But this won't last. Like War for Cybertron - and its successor, which the devs did something equally stupid with - I forsee Hawken will be a ghost town in very short order. Maybe 6 months; 9 at the outside. But I digress...

The problem with Hawken's model as it currently stands is that because of things like TOW, there is simply no reward for paying into the game. With no mode to play by which the story can be told (the entire point of playing a video game for a large portion of the population), no definitive advantages to paying monies into the game and no balance structure that supports higher-skill level play, this game will likely die a short and miserable death and become like so many other wonderfully created but poorly implemented games like it.

Here's some examples:

AvP(2010): A beautifully designed game with a unique twist on multiplayer, but... For Predator and Alien types, this means the "E" kill Conga-line (stealth killing, which is instant, going back as far as the eye can see; so much so that the first player killed this way would often find themselves the next member in the Conga line right after spawn and consequently, the next member killed immediately thereafter) while those playing Marines simply spam the pulse rifle to death, shredding anything that crosses their paths in mere seconds - thus garnering the highest KD/R's in the game.

War for Cybertron: No anti-cheat, no balance changes, no updates and no map or character packs. This game became a haven for cheese-balls, noobs and hackers alike with the few remaining players being those of us who ground our way through to skill-sets others would consider impossible and/or unattainable.

Fall of Cybertron: Again, no anti-cheat, all paid "DLC" is really just skin unlocks (visual stuff that has little, if any, impact on gameplay) and the developers admitting that the best weapon in the game also requires an incredibly high skill-set just to be effective and impeccable strategem added to said skills in order to be good... and then promptly nerfing it into oblivion and utter uselessness. Meanwhile, the weapons that did need massive changes were largely left unchanged and to this day remained over-powered. Which means it's still the most frequently used. Why try a sniper rifle that takes a full minute to charge when you can use the X-18 which fires 5X faster than every other weapon in the game, has 3/4 the range and can counter nearly any defensive measures. Stack on top of that giving the largest class the ability to run and dash at the same speed and a "shotgun" that revives the user's health while dealing damage to the victim; why would you ever play any other class_

BRINK: Another brilliantly planned and designed game that fell short of the mark. Balance changes the community begged for were dismally slow in being implemented, DLC releases should've been faster as the Single Player, Co-Op and Multi-Player were seamlessly integrated in terms of player progression and maps were poorly balanced in their layout. Gameplay was also heavily reliant on team-play and objective accomplishment based on class. Those who joined a server with a well put together team easily dominated the competition while more casual players found themselves dying every couple of minutes. And there was really only one mode of play.

Crysis: One of the most beautiful games ever designed, this game's multiplayer was incredibly unique... but it completely lacked focus on objectives. Unlike BRINK, which was too focused, Crysis lacked any real focus of anykind. Add that to the fact the the game required hardware that few could afford in order to play it on even high settings and that it premiered at a time when Broadband was still in its adolescence, Crysis was simply doomed to fail.

Crysis 2: More beautiful than it's predecessor - after the DX 11 and texture patches - and having greater focus on game play with clearer and more obtainable objectives, the problem with this game came like it has in nearly all of the others: Poorly and/or slowly implemented updates, little if any anti-cheat and poor choices in balance changes, this game died a quiet and unremarkable death. It also didn't help that the online store was broken and rarely worked. Some complained that the weapons purchased were broken beyond reason, but by the time this had happened, the game was already dead. They had nerfed the suit to being mostly useless, the SCAR was insanely broken (and everyone started with it) upgraded or earned weapons had little if any benefit to their use. Like its predecessor, it now exists solely as a very fun to play SP game used as benchmarking tool.

The thing to be noticed with each of these games is that developers considered that most people who paid just wanted new stuff to look at. They also seemed to think that, because plenty of people initially paid for the game that new people would continue to do so based on merits the game didn't posses and they had no intention of fixing. Most of these games are fine examples of things to not do. Things the developers at Hawken are blatantly ignoring. In fact, so far, Meteor has repeated nearly every one of these mistakes; it has been pointed out by the community and continually ignored, with the developers obviously thinking the status quo will be sufficient to keep the flow going. I've posted this warning more than once and this will be the very last time I do so. I've been gaming since the '80's and have accurately predicted the deaths of each of these games in turn and posted arguments to the developers only to be ignored. Funny how my predictions came true, isn't it_ Disregard at your own risk, Meteor.

Let's review Hawken's problems thus far:
  • TOW comes on the starting mechs for every player, both free and paid. TOW is both powerful, has a very low risk behind it's use, requires very little skill to use effectively and it benefits greatly from the perks/skill points that can be unlocked naturally through leveling. This makes it the Swiss Army knife of the game. A giant, explosive, fire and forget, infinite ranged swiss army knife. How can this possibly be good_
  • Weapons like Slug Rifle, Sabot Rifle, HEAT Cannon and Grenade launcher in order to be used effectively have a lower Reward/Risk ratio than the initial loadout, making them stupid choices by comparison.
  • All paid for content must be paid for more than once if players desire to play more than one class, which currently, there is no need to do other than blind curiosity which will quickly dry up as more players post publicly.
  • There's no distinct benefit to paying for any content, ever. The fallacy of all content being unlockable for free suggests that developers don't need money to live. A blatant lie. It also suggests there should be no advantage to paying into a game aside from making your mech visually different - something the paying player would never see outside of the garage.
  • There's no cheat protection. As the game grows, this will become a very large problem, very quickly.
  • The game isn't friendly to new players as there are more advantages to never paying a dime into the game as opposed to paying into it; but simply grinding away like a madman until you have enough skill points to class out your tree to your play style. While including TOW somewhat alleviates this, it also feeds into the problem: the game gets very boring, very quickly because everyone is using the same exact outfit and tactic.
Suggestions for fixing TOW, pick 2:
  • Give it a maximum effective range. Either it auto explodes after X distance or make it clatter harmlessly to the ground.
  • Cut the splash damage to 1/3 of its current value.
  • Take away the ability to manually detonate it.
  • User splash back damage for being too close when it explodes should be doubled. It should punish players for using it like a melee (as is the current most common use).
To put it succinctly: Most people who pay money for a game - while others do not - will rightfully and correctly desire advantages that free players simply don't or can't have. Doing anything less only serves to alienate the populous who actually can and will pay for the game and its content. This, of course, doesn't mean that paying players should be offered weapons that will dominate the free competition so completely that it drives them away from playing the game. But under no circumstances should free players receive top tier weapon like TOW from the outset of the game either. This is blatantly wrong, short-sighted and stupid and this type of craziness will result in the death of Hawken before it gets to really live. If anything, such a weapon should be an unlockable for paying players. Same goes for the Seeker missile for the Rocketeer.

Edited by Moderator02, January 01 2013 - 06:05 AM.
Removed comment calling out another player

"There is no true genius without a tincture of madness." - Aristotle
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; that is the definition of insanity." - Albert Einstein
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." General George Patton
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
"Only two things are infinite: The universe and stupidity... and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

#2 Warwhale

Warwhale

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted December 31 2012 - 11:32 PM

how on earth is the TOW OP_

its a strong weapon but so is nade launcher, AR, flak etc etc

its what i expect from a slow loading projectile and does less damage than its equivalent in quake, tribes or tf2

#3 Karaipantsu

Karaipantsu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted December 31 2012 - 11:33 PM

There's a huge and very glaring counterpoint to your statement that paying players should get the best stuff:  League of Legends.  Arguably the most successful F2P multiplayer game ever created, and there's not a single advantage to be gained by paying for anything that you could not eventually obtain thru perseverance.

However, I'm with you on the TOW issue.  TOW is pretty much the best weapon in the game at the moment, and is not hard to play with effectively nearly right out of the box.  Learning the missile airburst is not a hard skill to master.  TOW needs some balancing to bring it more in line with every other weapon.  Its DPS isn't that great, but the burst is phenomenal, and given the predisposition to "slap a TOW on it and call it a day" with secondary weapons, it feels a little too good and a little too ubiquitous at the moment.

#4 LordofNosgoth

LordofNosgoth

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:05 AM

View PostKaraipantsu, on December 31 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

There's a huge and very glaring counterpoint to your statement that paying players should get the best stuff:  League of Legends.  Arguably the most successful F2P multiplayer game ever created, and there's not a single advantage to be gained by paying for anything that you could not eventually obtain thru perseverance.

Your example here only serves to further prove my point: LoL didn't become the self-feeding success it currently is if it didn't offer at least some advantage to paying for the content as opposed to grinding away for it. Just because you can grind to get gear/levels/abilities that others pay for doesn't mean that there aren't distinct advantages for paying. You also seem to forget that LoL had a lot of content that, initially, was pay only. It only went F2P as enough funds became available to make such actions self-feeding.

Hawken has ignored both of these traits. Completely.
"There is no true genius without a tincture of madness." - Aristotle
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; that is the definition of insanity." - Albert Einstein
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." General George Patton
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
"Only two things are infinite: The universe and stupidity... and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

#5 PlagueDoctor

PlagueDoctor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 389 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:21 AM

The game is like 3 weeks old in its current iteration. Its impossible to call something a fallacy when it hasn't developed. Wards in LoL lasted for 10 minutes when it first hit beta. The game needs to develop a bit before we can call criticism. Also, in lower skill brackets, yes, the TOW is powerful, because it has such a low skill floor. Other weapons have higher skill floors, so they won't seem as powerful in low level play.


I think it is 1000's of money. IT IS 1000,s OF MONEY!!!.


#6 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:23 AM

View PostPlagueDoctor, on January 01 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

The game is like 3 weeks old in its current iteration. Its impossible to call something a fallacy when it hasn't developed. Wards in LoL lasted for 10 minutes when it first hit beta. The game needs to develop a bit before we can call criticism. Also, in lower skill brackets, yes, the TOW is powerful, because it has such a low skill floor. Other weapons have higher skill floors, so they won't seem as powerful in low level play.
TOW received a damage buff it really didn't need for OB.
It hits hard right now.

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#7 Mewvg

Mewvg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:30 AM

Its just a noob tube, let the game develop and you'll see players getting good enough to use the other weapons to greater effect.

#8 Guiotine

Guiotine

    Mech Collector

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,136 posts
  • Locationsomewhere between Illal and Eorzea

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:38 AM

Did I understand you right in saying that in order to attract people to buy new mechs, these mechs should carry a secondary more powerful than the TOW_ You ask why people should buy new mechs if the TOW is the best in the game. You know why I did_ Variety. I wanted to try out different playstyles, I was looking for a mech that suited me, and I bought two of them, the infil and the SS. I love both of them. I know I am just one person, but I highly doubt I am unique. I can't say whether the people who pay for mechs or the people who don't are the majority or minority, and neither can you, as neither of us have access to that data. We both can speculate, but in the end we don't really know. Personally, I think people would pay to help get rid of some of the grind. EXP/HC boosters, new mechs, items, internals. If people want to pay to skip the grind, they will. I did. I spent 30 bucks on this game, and I am glad not one cent went to getting something that was better than the TOW. Actually, scratch that, I did. I got 2 mechs that felt good with me. I got 2 mechs that I can use with more effectiveness and more versatility than the TOW could ever provide for me. I apologize my experience is all I can speak from, but it is all I know.

ReachH said:

I dub thee, Guiotine, 'Coloxxen, the mech pokemon'

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on July 02 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

This wall of text gets the AJK Seal of Approval.

#9 LordofNosgoth

LordofNosgoth

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:44 AM

View PostMewvg, on January 01 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Its just a noob tube, let the game develop and you'll see players getting good enough to use the other weapons to greater effect.

I've heard this sentiment before. I've also heard the bullsugar statements claiming it was possible to become effective with SS. Contrary to popular belief, it's also possible to move objects with your mind using telekinesis. Just because a thing is possible doesn't make it viable (http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/viable ; see definition #3). And the BS statements about the game being in OB and therefore subject to massive changes is largely laughable too, as that tends to not happen at all.

Given the number of times I've personally witnessed - and begged for - existing games to recieve much needed changes in order to survive or become successful and been disappointed, the only reason I posted any of this at all was because it's in OB and therefore sweeping changes - however unlikely - are still possible, I like Hawken, mostly; but I'd like to be able to love it. Right now, that's just not going to happen. Since my tastes in games are pretty vanilla, the likelihood of others sharing my opinions/views is very, very high.

I've said all I'm going to say on the subject. Hopefully my efforts will bear some fruit. If they do not, I will simply move on.
"There is no true genius without a tincture of madness." - Aristotle
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; that is the definition of insanity." - Albert Einstein
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." General George Patton
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
"Only two things are infinite: The universe and stupidity... and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

#10 PlagueDoctor

PlagueDoctor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 389 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 12:49 AM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on January 01 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

TOW received a damage buff it really didn't need for OB.
It hits hard right now.

Btw, in my vernacular, things typically go like this. Broken>terrible>underpowered>balanced>powerful>overpowered>Broken. Don't mistake my use of powerful for saying its balanced :V

Edited by PlagueDoctor, January 01 2013 - 12:49 AM.


I think it is 1000's of money. IT IS 1000,s OF MONEY!!!.


#11 Adreni

Adreni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 01:16 AM

This should have been included with the initial argument...



Since I'm pretty sure "FOO Strategy" is a direct and exclusive reference to that video.

Honestly, I've always found heavy splash from rockets to be unrealistic. FACT: The RPG7 and I am certain most or all other anti-tank rockets work by detonating a SHAPED CHARGE surrounding a base-first-approach hollow cone of copper. The detonation does very little damage... it's the jet of superheated liquid metal that burns its way through the hull and ignites everything inside, leaving nothing but a stinking heap of a tank...

As such, the splash damage of the TOW rocket should NOT be anything even remotely similar to that of a grenade or pipe bomb. And for AA missiles, aircraft are made of rice paper flying at supersonic speeds... it doesn't take much to grind them into dust, so a detonation of shrapnel is FAR more deadly to them... i.e.: AA weapons are NOT applicable here.

View PostMewvg, on January 01 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Its just a noob tube, let the game develop and you'll see players getting good enough to use the other weapons to greater effect.

That's a reference to a GRENADE LAUNCHER, which Hawken already HAS. Honestly I would consider using the GL as a secondary instead of the TOW rocket... OR replace the CR-T's alternate primary with the Rev GL.

A noob tube should be good... but not EXCEPTIONAL. Watch the video. You'll understand.

Edited by Adreni, January 01 2013 - 01:21 AM.


#12 Mewvg

Mewvg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted January 01 2013 - 02:49 AM

Actually, I was referring to the RPG in Combat Arms, but rage all you like.
I haven't seen any real problem with the TOW, other than the realism problem explained above. As with an rpg, molten metal (copper, usually if I'm not mistaken) is shot from the explosion in two cones (assuming it's remotely detonated in mid-air), one forward and a smaller one backwards. This is probably as easy way to buff the user damage in cqc, since realistically the user would get molten metal burning into his mech too.
Also, the SS does pretty well unless you get in cqc, I don't have a tough time shredding armor to get a kill/assist. It's made to be a long range sniper, and it does quite well in that role. If you try to put it in other roles, no it doesn't do so well. The TOW is good for mid-range combat, which is a good portion of most conflicts along with cqc, so it's a viable choice a lot more often.

#13 Rosengren

Rosengren

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts
  • LocationGothenburg, Sweden

Posted January 01 2013 - 04:02 AM

View PostLordofNosgoth, on December 31 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

To put it succinctly: Most people who pay money for a game - while others do not - will rightfully and correctly desire advantages that free players simply don't or can't have.

You type like a million words about this fundamentally wrong thing. Nobody is deserving of an in-game advantage because they paid money. The TOW may currently be too good but the problem with that is overall balance of mechs, not that people who have paid don't receive something better.

Yeesh. What, do you think that people who have paid more should receive a bigger advantage as well_

#14 Viruts

Viruts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 54 posts
  • LocationThat one place

Posted January 01 2013 - 04:34 AM

i could list several f2p games and are not p2w. most (if not all) of the games you listed in the op are not true f2p (you actualy have to buy the game). out of all the games i have played only 2 have been and still are p2w. the rest are f2p and the only reason you spend rl money is to ether look cool, or to speed up the grinds.

#15 Pursang

Pursang

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • LocationTera

Posted January 01 2013 - 05:34 AM

Yeah! Great idea! Let's give paying players a tangible, in-game advantage over non-paying players! Nothing can go wrong with this idea!

Posted Image

The moment this game goes pay-to-win is the moment I stop playing it.

Edited by Pursang, January 01 2013 - 05:34 AM.

Posted Image

#16 HotDog

HotDog

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 06:47 AM

Like allot of Community Members already sad:

- The Game is Jung!
- This is Open Beta!
- Balance will be done!
- Basic Issues have to come first!

To the Weapon Tow:

The Tow is only as good as the User! I'm no Pro-Gamer but be competitive this is one of the best choices now... Why_!

Hellfire needs a Buff as the Community already suggested in allot of other Threads.

I cant wait until the Devs. permit Dual Weal-ding a Weapon... I'm a huge HEAT Cannon fan and I Love it! Crowed Control and Fast Fire-rate for a Cannon. Range is beautiful that is My Anti Sniper Weapon and C-Class Armor opener... ^^

The Main Point and that is a issue i brought up earlier:

Need more content! I understand it is a jung game and so on..... But allot of our Members have a routine fit for all the Maps.. Known good Players for matches are just there but feel board because of missing balance issues... Skill vs Skill

Content is meant to be like a Group Join to servers - Clan List - and more Social-media.... In-game...

This game is clearly no Pay2Win!

Best regards

-BV-HotDog

Posted Image


#17 Steakhouse

Steakhouse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 07:11 AM

View PostGuiotine, on January 01 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

Did I understand you right in saying that in order to attract people to buy new mechs, these mechs should carry a secondary more powerful than the TOW_ You ask why people should buy new mechs if the TOW is the best in the game. You know why I did_ Variety.

Exactly. In fact, once I bought the Bruiser and started playing it instead of the CR-T Recruit, I had much better results in terms of survivability and kills. TOWs aren't even a major issue for me; they aren't the be-all-end-all of weapons. At range, you can see them coming and a quick dodge can get you out of harm's way. Even if you get smacked by the splash damage or a direct hit, if you've kept your mech in good shape and you're in a team game, you can fall back to a relatively safe spot and fix yourself up. It's not like TOWs  have a high rate of fire.

My worst nightmares tend to be the A-Class mech players (especially Scouts) who have the guts and skill to flank and skate in circles around everyone else.

So, let me just say ...

Pay-gating visual appearance options_ Not a problem.

Pay-gating new "sidegrade" mechs and equipment that have balanced advantages and disadvantages with the stuff you can get through Hawken Credits_ Also not a problem, as we've got a fine selection as it is.

Pay-gating new content that's more powerful than the TOW and takes an equal amount of skill or less to use_ That gets a big fat "NOPE" from me.

Edited by Steakhouse, January 01 2013 - 07:28 PM.


#18 deusex2

deusex2

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 07:32 AM

Those are mighty walls of text, however no matter how you try to spin it, there simply is no excuse for F2P game to be pay2win, other than dev's own greed.
   CRITICAL ASSIST
  

View PostDaPheel, on December 03 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

   Oh, man.... Deus rants make everything better...
   B-listers, screenshots for the Grand kids......

#19 LordofNosgoth

LordofNosgoth

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 07:09 PM

View PostPursang, on January 01 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Yeah! Great idea! Let's give paying players a tangible, in-game advantage over non-paying players! Nothing can go wrong with this idea!

Posted Image

The moment this game goes pay-to-win is the moment I stop playing it.

The whole problem with everything you just said is this:

In all other F2P games, you can bypass the grind (to a greater or lesser degree) with money. Here, you can do nothing of the sort. So I present this simple logic so that you may understand the fallacious nature of your statement:

If there is no advantage to be gained from paying, there is no reason to pay.
If there is no reason to pay, most people simply won't pay. <- This is human nature. Take a psychology class or ten; you'll learn this.
If the majority of people play, but do not pay, there is no tangible returns on the investments made by the developers or their investors.
If there are no tangible returns, then there is no money to pay the ever-renewing costs of support.
If there are no monies for support, it dies.
If support dries up, players get angry.
If players get angry over a continued lack of support, they quit playing.
If players quit playing, the game dies.

Logic: +1
You: 0

Winner_: Logic.
"There is no true genius without a tincture of madness." - Aristotle
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; that is the definition of insanity." - Albert Einstein
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." General George Patton
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
"Only two things are infinite: The universe and stupidity... and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

#20 xbox690

xbox690

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted January 01 2013 - 07:25 PM

i fail to see your point_

Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users