283 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

DarkonFullPower, on 21 April 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

I wonder if they are avoiding buffing MG's because they think this is where they will end up regardless once engine crits are introduced.

They have yet to say that, but even then, that still makes them useless for 66% of the time where you have to punch through the armor first to get to.

[specx]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Ask the Devs #36

Prosperity Park: Will the Heat mechanism be changed in the future such that Overheating to greater than, lets say 150%, would result in inescapable, guaranteed Heat Damage regardless if your Mech is Powered Down?
A: We’re happy with the existing system, so I don’t see this being added anytime soon.

That's sad. Overheating with no further consequences than shutdown will let us see more and more Laser- and PPC-Boats.
Much ammount of heat should result in some kind of damage to the reactor or something like that. Referring to the TT, those mechs should not be able to move as normal any more, when they have huge ammounts of heat to bear.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Arcturious, on 22 April 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

We've been asking for a public test server, so it's great to know this is coming.

No idea why some people find this strange. Currently all our skills, MC, cbills, mechs etc are permanent. Nobody wants to test with these, as they are effectively real money.

A test server is required for proper, no consequences testing. There can be resets, and extreme values that won't interrupt normal play.

So you are admitting this isn't beta then? Because all the things you listed are typically done to a beta server.

Are you saying that because they added monetary transactions that the game has entered a released state?

[Peter von Danzig]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 19 April 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

You did, Mr Ekman, you did.

Epic :-)

[Syllogy]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 April 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

So you are admitting this isn't beta then? Because all the things you listed are typically done to a beta server.

Are you saying that because they added monetary transactions that the game has entered a released state?

So you are saying that Arma 3 is a released game? What about Starforge or Kinetic Void?

These are all games that are in Alpha stages, but are charging fully boxed prices.

You have to let go of the archaic concept of "Everything in Beta is free, because it's Beta."

Beta is defined as a game that is mostly feature-complete, but is still being optimized, fixed, and tweaked. It has nothing to do with monetary transactions that fund the game.

This all started with MMORPG's (Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.) where a game would release a "final version", sell it on store shelves for $50, charge $15 per month, and still be plagued by bugs and balanced issues.

Then every week, the company would release a patch and change some things, break others, and add a few more. Sound familiar?

The only difference here is that PGI is telling you that this game is in Beta. Blizzard, EA, and SOE blatantly lied to you and said it was a finished product when it hit the shelves.

Edited by Syllogy, 22 April 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Syllogy, on 22 April 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

So you are saying that Arma 3 is a released game? What about Starforge or Kinetic Void?

These are all games that are in Alpha stages, but are charging fully boxed prices.

You have to let go of the archaic concept of "Everything in Beta is free, because it's Beta."

Beta is defined as a game that is mostly feature-complete, but is still being optimized, fixed, and tweaked. It has nothing to do with monetary transactions that fund the game.

This all started with MMORPG's (Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc.) where a game would release a "final version", sell it on store shelves for $50, charge $15 per month, and still be plagued by bugs and balanced issues.

Then every week, the company would release a patch and change some things, break others, and add a few more. Sound familiar?

The only difference here is that PGI is telling you that this game is in Beta. Blizzard, EA, and SOE blatantly lied to you and said it was a finished product when it hit the shelves.

Yeah there is a lot of lying that goes on in this industry now.

SOE, Blizzard and EA are some of the biggest liars in the game. Did you play everquest? Do you remember Shadows of Luclin, Planes of Power or Gates of Discord where we were raiding to unlock the next zone. And they swore up and down that the next zone was done and we could unlock it. And then people finally beat the giant raid boss blocking the next area and...it wasn't done.

Blizzard has done similar things in WoW.

And EA is the worst company in the United States.

Quote

Beta is defined as a game that is mostly feature-complete, but is still being optimized, fixed, and tweaked. It has nothing to do with monetary transactions that fund the game.

Well this is an alpha then. And people are paying for Alpha.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with your post.

They do not fix thing in any meaningful time frame. The game stays messed up for months at a time. We have no indication that this poptart thing is going to get changed next patch. So that means a month of it. And at least a month and a half before a fix.

And we are suppose to release in the next 4-5 months? You are crazy.

[mekabuser]

ask the devs responses have devolved into one big giant NO.

[Syllogy]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

They do not fix thing in any meaningful time frame. The game stays messed up for months at a time. We have no indication that this poptart thing is going to get changed next patch. So that means a month of it. And at least a month and a half before a fix.

Please explain, in detail, why poptarting needs to be addressed, and how you feel it needs to be addressed.

Keep in mind, "because everyone does it" is not an acceptable answer.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Syllogy, on 22 April 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Please explain, in detail, why poptarting needs to be addressed, and how you feel it needs to be addressed.

Keep in mind, "because everyone does it" is not an acceptable answer.

It's bad for the health of the game long term if that is going to be the preferred style of fighting.

We should never be at a point where 2 or 3 weapons dominate the 30 or whatever weapons we have.

Jump Jets should also not be mandatory (and it sounds really bad that Jump Jets will have some sort of advantage in the next map).

Variety is the spice of life as they say, and it's very important in a game like this that we do not have one style of play dominating the rest. I've said similar for brawling. I'd say the same if LRM's were all we used as well.

And please don't tell me how i'm allowed to answer a question. If you don't like my answer that is fine.

Also I like how you completely ignored the fact that your examples of SOE/Blizz/EA are all HUGE liars in this industry.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 22 April 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[Deathlike]

Shooting poptarts is not hard. If you're having trouble, learn to shoot. This is doable with lasers AND PPCs.

[Bagheera]

Syllogy, on 22 April 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

Please explain, in detail, why poptarting needs to be addressed, and how you feel it needs to be addressed.

Keep in mind, "because everyone does it" is not an acceptable answer.

Agent of Change hit the nail on the head in another thread:

Agent of Change, on 22 April 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Because the alternative is everyone runs a Brawler sniper and waddles towards the same spot to have a the same fight every match?

The fight is exactly the same on every map, with everyone waddling into the same spot and doing the same thing.

It needs to be addressed because it makes the game boring.

And Noesis has some excellent thoughts on the "how" portion of your question:

Noesis, on 22 April 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

Edited by Bagheera, 22 April 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[PropagandaWar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 19 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I am really surprised people aren't more peeved by the voice com answer.

Considering for the 6 months or so I've been playing, EVERY and I mean EVERY time a PUG vs. Premade argument comes up. All the premades do is say "GET VOICE, GET VOICE, GET VOICE".

Actually with them waffling on the Premades that were supposed to be 2-12 now limitied its even to only 4 or 12 It's even more crucial to implement comms. even a crappy com system would work that can be tweaked as time goes on. Let lances have priv if they want but in MWO communiation is key and flanking while other Group Pre or Pug ridge but are unsure to push a ridge can be critical. And the text can be easily missed.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 22 April 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 April 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Jump Jets should also not be mandatory (and it sounds really bad that Jump Jets will have some sort of advantage in the next map).

I don't see how you can say that it's bad that mechs that put aside tonnage and crits for jump jets should have some advantage over mechs that don't. In essence, you are saying it's a good thing that jump jets are worthless, which is counter-logical. Jump jets were developed and mechs designed to use them precisely because they were useful under certain terrain conditions, something not present in the game right now. Therefore, it is not a bad thing to have maps where they would confer an advantage, especially given that all maps in the game right now allow non-jumping mechs as many movement options as full jump-capable units.

Also, there is nothing in there about it being 'mandatory', but rather offering advantages. Just because there is a shortcut a jump mech can take that a normal mech cannot does not mean the normal mech cannot take a different, longer route to get to the same place, or that there will only be positions that jump jet mechs can use and none for non-jumpers. Right now, putting jump jets on a mech is little more than a thrill piece, a slight turn boost, or just a means to get to places with zero tactical value, and so there is no reason to use them or buy a mech with them except 'wow' factor. Even as recon items, they don't go high enough to enable good battlefield recon.

So, I disagree quite strongly that it would be bad for the game to have maps that offered mechs that equipped jump jets some benefits equal to the tonnage and crits spent on them. If anything, it would reward players who chose mechs that were more capable in areas other than slugfest fighting, encouraging more diversity and bringing MWO closer to the original game it is supposed to be. Note also that we are only talking a fraction of the maps in circulation, and there would not be any way to guarantee a mech with jump jets would find itself getting that map instead of one of the current ones where that capability is wasted.

My own two cents.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 22 April 2013 - 10:56 AM.

[Syllogy]

Actually, I didn't disagree with your statement about EA, SOE, or Blizzard. However, the example still stands: It is common for a subscription-based game to charge full retail price, and a monthly subscription fee to play a game that is constantly being tweaked, balanced, and fixed.

Also, I agree that variety of weapon loadouts should definitely be encouraged. Where you and I disagree (regularly) is the execution of how that balance should be addressed. Where you want to nerf a certain weapon for being too overused or overpowered, I want to buff the alternatives and counters to that weapon.

I also agree that cockpit shake would help correct the issue without nerfing the weapon itself.

Personally, I believe that the LRM and HSR missile fix will go a long way. Even further, I think that the addition of Mech Mortars would also impact Jump Snipers, and add a completely new dynamic to the game.

I'm not attacking you, Carlyle, I am attacking your approach to the problem.

[Particle Man]

shintakie, on 21 April 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

How about answerin what a pilot of a Spider-5K is supposed to do with gimped as crap Machine Guns?

use a different mech. It's very simple.
"doctor it hurts when i do this!"
"so dont do that!"

Quote

Its a light mech with 4 ballistic slots and only 1 energy slot in the CT. You have no options in that mech other than 4 MG's + 1 energy unless you gimp somethin horribly to fit a heavy energy/heavy ballistic in the mech. If you go heavy energy, you've just made a crappier 5V. If you go heavy ballistics you'll be so slow that any moron with a PPC can kill you.

so dont use it. not all mechs are equal.

Quote

You can't get around it like you can with the 3C Cicada by just skippin the whole thing and pickin a nongarbage variant. You can't shove a couple decent energy weapons on it like you can with the 4X because it only has 1 nonballistic slot.

so use one of those.

Quote

PGI has, quite literally, added a variant of a mech to this game that's only purpose is to grind out elite for a different variant. This variant (the 5K and to a lesser extent the 3C) has absolutely no redeemin value to it and PGI purposely designed it this way by makin MG's 100% useless in any remotely reasonable situation. There is nothin of value that this mech brings, at all, and the fact that PGI is happy with how MG's are means they're happy that they created a 100% useless variant whose only reason to exist is to force their xp system to work.

so dont use it, or grind through it until it's done then sell it, or convert XP from another mech and just use MC to be done with it. I remember trying to max out commands, and those suffer from the same types of sucking as the spiders and i spent weeks sucking with those fragile and useless mechs until i finally said f'k it and just decided that i didnt need a maxxed out commando anyway.


not all mechs are created equal. send a support ticket about how and why it sucks and use something else until they get around to fixing it (or not)

[Matta]

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

use a different mech. It's very simple. ..... [cut]....

Still, that doesn't solve the fact that some Mechs SUCK and that it takes a wee bit of effort to make them less suckable (thus more desirable).

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Syllogy, on 22 April 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Actually, I didn't disagree with your statement about EA, SOE, or Blizzard. However, the example still stands: It is common for a subscription-based game to charge full retail price, and a monthly subscription fee to play a game that is constantly being tweaked, balanced, and fixed.

Also, I agree that variety of weapon loadouts should definitely be encouraged. Where you and I disagree (regularly) is the execution of how that balance should be addressed. Where you want to nerf a certain weapon for being too overused or overpowered, I want to buff the alternatives and counters to that weapon.

I also agree that cockpit shake would help correct the issue without nerfing the weapon itself.

Personally, I believe that the LRM and HSR missile fix will go a long way. Even further, I think that the addition of Mech Mortars would also impact Jump Snipers, and add a completely new dynamic to the game.

I'm not attacking you, Carlyle, I am attacking your approach to the problem.

Ok now I'm going to get annoyed at you. Because you obviously aren't reading my posts.

I very rarely call for direct nerfs.

ECM is about the only item I've called for a nerf on. And even then...I made a post saying "If we won't nerf ECM, how are we planning to flesh out the rest of the Information Warfare pillar so that ECM isn't the end-all-be-all?".

I believe you even "liked" or posted in it. I can't remember.

I don't think PPC's need to be nerfed.

I think covergence needs to be looked at (I guess if you call changing it a nerf, but I call it adjusting to balance).

Same thing with jump jet rumble. I feel like there should be more rumble when a 90 ton mech takes off.

But I am not really worried about whether it's a nerf or a buff. I want to see meaningful strides to reach balance.

PGI moves at a snails pace, and does things in conjunction with eachother, without looking at the bigger picture.

Once again I don't care how we reach balance. I just want it done. And they seem to have no idea what direction they are going with things.

And back to my original point. I don't think we should have to add a Public Test Server during a beta to balance the game.

it's redundant and shows they haven't been treating this game properly leading up till now.

[Syllogy]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

And back to my original point. I don't think we should have to add a Public Test Server during a beta to balance the game.

it's redundant and shows they haven't been treating this game properly leading up till now.

A Public Test Server allows PGI to make changes on an unscheduled and/or daily basis. By having that separate from the "public" servers, PGI can test these changes much more effectively than they can in-house, and get real-time live feedback from thousands of people instead of from a small group of testers that play in-house with standardized rigs.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Syllogy, on 22 April 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

A Public Test Server allows PGI to make changes on an unscheduled and/or daily basis. By having that separate from the "public" servers, PGI can test these changes much more effectively than they can in-house, and get real-time live feedback from thousands of people instead of from a small group of testers that play in-house with standardized rigs.

That is what a beta is supposed to be.

Not this abomination.

Edit: and at least acknowledge the rest of my response to you saying I call for nerfs when I don't.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 22 April 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Deathlike, on 21 April 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

My more serious point is this:

If people keep saying that MGs are fine, what are the "alternatives" to making the Spider-5K viable in the current version of the game? As I said in the MG thread, I stopped trying to argue Cicada-3C as you can certainly work around that by using a different variant (Cicada-2B is OK) and you can use semblance of a different build on a Raven-4X (I did try 2 meds + 1 LBX10 with mixed success). I have a hard time trying to find one for the Spider-5K that is "usable" without making many different sacrifices.

I like options, but limiting them w/o providing an alternative is not a way to BALANCE the game. I bet most deaths are not MG related... in fact MG ammo is a bigger death trap than most other ammo in the game and people don't seem to notice that. For providing this "crit-dishing service", it can be difficult to consume the ammo at the same rate most other ammo is consumed... it's a sad "death trap".

But please... someone show us a good Spider-5K... because it must be pretty legendary right?

while a 4 MG spider cannot core an atlas from behind in 5 seconds, a 1 uac 5 spider can if the uac doesnt jam. id suggest you try it, the 1 uac 5 spider is a nasty little build.