267 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

I wrote a number of posts following the Ask the Devs answers regarding MGs. I'm unsure if Paul even got word of it, let alone read it, but I wasn't entirely serious when I wrote it in terms of making a dev suffer the Spider-5K grind. However, my point was serious... that making no effort to recognize problematic builds (whether underpowered or overpowered) or mech chassis designs truly does need to be investigated. Remember that people have been calling for Splatcat nerfs for a while (until the overall missile nerf), and that in itself was never investigated thoroughly until one poster pointed out the effect of splash damage to light mechs. Suffice it to say, the devs are human and overlook things. However, it does not give them the built in excuse to keep repeating the words "working as intended" for various issues that come up repeatedly.. if not excessively for legitimate reasons.

The fact is, had Paul spent a good time and deal of effort to recognize that things "aren't working as intended" and doesn't care to explain in some detail what they are looking at and what ideas they believe are on the table.. any sort of insight is better than the equivalent of the "black box"... the idea that "we have the numbers", but can't extrapolate "the numbers" is a consequence of "not explaining yourself well". This is why the community continues to press on these issues... to downright trolling to get an answer. It's not healthy... it's never been healthy, and it's not sustainable.

In being thorough, both logically and fairly communicating balance issues, players will still be angry, but they won't begrudge you as they do now. Without sharing your thoughts or mindset, all the feedback you will get is vitriol and skepticism and people "guessing what you are thinking" in a mocking tone. So, the better your answer, the less people will criticize your constructive criticism. Otherwise, don't be surprised if these kinds of threads continue to be brought up, at the insistence of your perceived incompetence.

[Klaus]

Seems like I'm the only one happy they're at least doing something.

[hammerreborn]

Quote

Note that Paul did not say "fire multiple weapons in the same instant," but in a short period of time. If you make that time interval long enough to affect 4-6 PPCs it will also be large enough to affect 4-9 MLs. There won't be any utility in carrying more of that weapon.

Also the time-scale may be an even greater problems for high-rate-of-fire weapons, such as AC/2 and Ultra AC/5. The AC/2 is already the worst dmg/heat ballistic weapon and builds that boat AC/2s are already limited by heat quite effectively (IMO.) I don't like being attacked by a quad AC/2 Jagermech, but it's not like that is the dominant build in the game. Can they kill me? Yeah, sure can. But not with 0 skill, and it's not an automatic win for those pilots. I think Paul's new system will nerf them, and I don't really like that.

So? Ac/2s heat is low enough that unless a flat rate is added is going to be barely noticeable.

Until you have facts **** and stop with the doomsaying. You're the reason devs never post proposed ideas and possible balance changes on the boards.

[jeffsw6]

hammerreborn, on 18 May 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

So? Ac/2s heat is low enough that unless a flat rate is added is going to be barely noticeable.

Have you played a quad AC/2 Jagermech? Switched the AC/20 on an Atlas out for two AC/2? Those things make a lot of heat. A quad AC/2 mech will overheat even faster than a quad LL mech (but it also has roughly twice the DPS and stronger crits.)

[Deathlike]

Klaus, on 18 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Seems like I'm the only one happy they're at least doing something.

Most of the time, the something makes me go facepalming.

Ironically, the only change that I recall that made the most sense was buffing the AC20's health. However, every other good balance change is few and far in between...

[Taemien]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Note that Paul did not say "fire multiple weapons in the same instant," but in a short period of time. If you make that time interval long enough to affect 4-6 PPCs it will also be large enough to affect 4-9 MLs. There won't be any utility in carrying more of that weapon.

Also the time-scale may be an even greater problems for high-rate-of-fire weapons, such as AC/2 and Ultra AC/5. The AC/2 is already the worst dmg/heat ballistic weapon and builds that boat AC/2s are already limited by heat quite effectively (IMO.) I don't like being attacked by a quad AC/2 Jagermech, but it's not like that is the dominant build in the game. Can they kill me? Yeah, sure can. But not with 0 skill, and it's not an automatic win for those pilots. I think Paul's new system will nerf them, and I don't really like that.

Someone said it before, and I'll repeat it.

It seems that you don't like PPC boats. But you're fine with your own medium laser boats. So this change has you in a tizzy. Hypocrisy, selfishness, arrogance, and entitled are all terms I would use to describe that.

Yet... thats only based on what you said.

You're blasting Paul because of wanting to adjust large energy weapons so they are balanced in their DPS against one another. Since when were medium lasers considered LARGE energy weapons? Since when was a 1 ton, 1 critical, 270 range, 5 damage weapon considered a LARGE weapon?

He never said anything about Medium Lasers, Small Lasers or their Pulse equivalents. In fact he never mentioned that the change would even touch the Large versions of Lasers and Pulse Lasers. Only that PPCs and ER PPCs would be balanced against the Lasers.

So its safe to say, for the moment, that Lasers are going to be the same. OP, you are simply making a Mountain out of a Molehill. You are complaining about a glass of spilled milk before it was poured, and for all we know it might be water that is being served. Its like a virgin taking a morning after pill after kissing another girl.

Leave it alone and wait to see what happens before you judge. You look like a fool when you don't. More so then what you are calling the devs.

[jeffsw6]

Taemien, on 18 May 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

He never said anything about Medium Lasers, Small Lasers or their Pulse equivalents. In fact he never mentioned that the change would even touch the Large versions of Lasers and Pulse Lasers. Only that PPCs and ER PPCs would be balanced against the Lasers.

You're talking about two different parts of his post. The DPS part is related to the PPC cool-down change.

The heat scale change is, as far as we can tell, a universal change meant to affect "high alpha" builds, not specific to PPCs. That is absolutely directed at 9 ML Hunchback, 6 ML Jenner, etc.

I actually don't play any of the ML-boaters, but I do have 4 SLs on my STK-3F (brawler) and they give me low-ton, low-heat damage in face-hug range. I don't want my 4 SLs making more heat, because the only reason I use them is because I can have 4 and they are heat-efficient.

I have 5 MPLs on my LRM boat. Why? Because if someone gets inside 180m on me, I need something punchy and relatively heat-efficient to fight them; and it has to be low-ton because I have all those LRM launchers. I guess now I'll have to change out some of my MPLs to MLs, because of a change that should be targeted specifically at PPC/ERPPC/Gauss meta.

I can live without 5 MPLs on an LRM boat, but some mechs really don't have good alternatives to the load-outs they are using. Mechs which are not over-powered are going to share in a nerf that won't fix pop-tarts anyway. That is stupid. So stupid, it needs adjectives like: fantastically stupid. Incredibly stupid. You get the idea.

[Taemien]

You don't even know if its going to affect 5 MPL or not. And if it does, you might only have to swap one out for two more HS to get it inline. But the thing is, everyone is going to feel the change. So its not like one config is going to be better. Maybe it will allow for 2MPL and 3 Medium Lasers to be fired at once since they are different weapon systems.

You don't have to boat weapons to be effective. Mix it up a bit. You get 6 weapon groups to work with for a reason. Most gaming mice have 5-6 buttons. Some have 17.

[MisterPlanetarian]

I just hope this gets limited to weapons that are problematic when boated, like 4+ PPC's on 85 ton innersphere hulls. I'd accept that on a 100T supernova with 8 Clan ER Large Lasers but even that thing can explode like a gasoline truck if it doesn't watch it's heat. Example mechs like the Hunchback 4p, Awesome 8q and 9m are designed with boating in mind. Lots of hardpoints for extra weapons., all of them primarily energy.


The real solution will be to have match permanent penalties on excessive overheating and to tweak ppc's a bit. Im sure PGI will arrive to this descision by testing it, especially when the community and PGI themselves have been talking about it for some time.

I'd be suprised and disappointed if the game wide weapon stacking penalties gets implemented.

[Helmer]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Do you know how many threads I've started, and replies I've posted in other threads, where there was a great deal of non-inflammatory discussion about different ways to nerf PPC boating? Lots.

Know how many of those received one iota of attention from the devs? Zero. Otherwise, they might be talking about some of those other ideas. Perhaps they'd tell us why they don't like them. Perhaps those would be play-tested.

I'm curious as to how you've come to this conclusion. (Sorry, I do not mean to derail your thread. I agree, in part, with your stance on PPCs and heat in general)


Cheers.

[jeffsw6]

Helmer, on 18 May 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'm curious as to how you've come to this conclusion. (Sorry, I do not mean to derail your thread. I agree, in part, with your stance on PPCs and heat in general)

The singular idea they have discussed is one that, by Paul's explanation, would impact all of these other weapons & builds. History has shown that, when they only have one idea, no matter how far-reaching, overly-complex, or apparently foolish it may be; that idea is what they charge ahead with.

[Helmer]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

The singular idea they have discussed is one that, by Paul's explanation, would impact all of these other weapons & builds. History has shown that, when they only have one idea, no matter how far-reaching, overly-complex, or apparently foolish it may be; that idea is what they charge ahead with.

My apologies, my question was not clear.

How is it that you derived that your other posts did not received one iota of attention from the devs?



Cheers.

[SmurfOff]

Maybe I'm biased as a jagger AC/2 boat, but messing with convergence would vacate whatever player base this game has left. Why not just blank the screens of High ELO players instead? That might be the only way to solve this problem....

OR - fix the heat system. It is horribly broken badly. My quad AC/2 build overheats faster than my dual ERPPC build, and for less damage as a bonus Seriously, you took a system that assigned heat to per round fire rates, and then messed with the fire rates (in a good sense) but left the heat at the same values (in a bad sense). So now a pew-pew AC/2 generates more heat / second than a PPC...

[Sable]

this thread is hilarious. Its like everyone forgot or just plain ignored that last CRUCIAL sentence after the ONLY official change of the extra second cooldown.

"Investigation items are not locked in and are exactly that... thoughts and tests. Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post."

Yet this thread turned into exactly that. Emotions run wild. I feel like i need to go watch a chick flick to tone it down some.

Edited by Sable, 18 May 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Kiiyor]

Sable, on 18 May 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

this thread is hilarious. Its like everyone forgot or just plain ignored that last CRUCIAL sentence after the ONLY official change of the extra second cooldown.

"Investigation items are not locked in and are exactly that... thoughts and tests. Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post."

Yet this thread turned into exactly that. Emotions run wild. I feel like i need to go watch a chick flick to tone it down some.

You are correct sir! As far as chick flicks go, I reccommend the Adventure Time cartoon. Well, it's not a chick flick, but it is awesome, and far more calming than the notebook.

Common sense has no place in this thread though, conclusion jumping seems to be the order of the day here.

If people go too long without bitterly complaining against something, they seem to start suffering from withdrawals. That means it's just about high time to start seizing upon ANYTHING that will allow them to ride that sweet, sweet rage filled high just a little longer.

PAUL said:

...Do NOT go flying off the handle about how this won't work or that won't work until we make an official post...

BAH! YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME PAUL.

Helmer, on 18 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

My apologies, my question was not clear.

How is it that you derived that your other posts did not received one iota of attention from the devs?



Cheers.

Now jeffy, I think Helmer is asking you to explain why you think the devs aren't listening (except he is being far more polite than is required in the context of this thread). As as been stated many times before, the devs do read the forums. They read suggestions. They don't always reply, as doing so is often riot bait, as evidenced by this very thread. You took one reply from Paul where he explained his rationale and defended against an accusation, and decided it meant he was "digging his heels" in on something he hadn't even remotely insinuated would make it into the game.

You seem to think that the devs need to post replies to every single whine filled complaint on the forums. Now, before you start tossing around the "we don't need replies to everything, we just want to know they are listening at all! Just one lousy reply waaaaaa" card, I'd like to point you to this post, were they specifically point out that they are looking into the very issues you are complaining about.

It's right here. You're probably familiar with it, it's the one that you mutilated and paraphrased to incite a forum riot.

Please stop doing this. I would rather the devs spend time on the game, rather than reply to barely-civil personal callouts. I applaud Paul for responding in the first place, even if it was merely to point out the absurdity of your claims. I applaud him further for moving away from it since.

I HEREBY REQUEST THIS THREAD BE LOCKED. Many people seem to be trying to steer it back into the magical rainbow land of polite discussion, but the OP and a few determined trolls will keep steering it determinedly back into the badlands.

[jeffsw6]

Helmer, on 18 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

How is it that you derived that your other posts did not received one iota of attention from the devs?

Did you see Paul, or other devs, discuss any of the other player-generated ideas? I didn't!

Did he mention they are considering anything else when he posted in this thread? No.

I'm just reading what's in front of me. Do you interpret the situation differently?

[Kiiyor]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

The singular idea they have discussed is one that, by Paul's explanation, would impact all of these other weapons & builds. History has shown that, when they only have one idea, no matter how far-reaching, overly-complex, or apparently foolish it may be; that idea is what they charge ahead with.

PROVE IT. Also, here's me steering it back into the badlands. THREAD POLICE, WE MUST BE STOPPED.

[jeffsw6]

Kiiyor, on 18 May 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

You seem to think that the devs need to post replies to every single whine filled complaint on the forums.

No, I think they could spend a few minutes telling us if they are considering or testing any other ideas. They haven't. I don't want them to spend all day on the forums having arguments. I do want them to say, "you know, we are thinking of doing this change, because here's why we think it is better than just changing the PPC range, crit mechanic, heat, blablah" or "we think the 9 ML Hunchback is over-powered anyway, or maybe players should choose an alternative load-out for that mech by including other viable lasers"

[TheFlyingScotsman]

I'm sorry OP, but Paul has gone pretty far out of his way to explain this to us. Certain weapons as individuals will have individual scales. For example, Large and Medium lasers in all likliness will not share the same scaling system.

And frankly, I agree with this idea fully. Mech builds are far too polarized, especially when all the slots are of the same type. At the same time people are touting Small Lasers as being useless, they are overheating from stacking Medium Lasers and dieing as a result.

Guess what the difference in DPS between an ML and an SL is? 0.25DPS. That is nothing, and the heat drop is very large. Builds that use nothing but one weapon type are a very blunt way to kill yourself and possibly kill another ***** at the same time if you're lucky. Balanced weapon layouts are key.

Edited by TheFlyingScotsman, 18 May 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Helmer]

jeffsw6, on 18 May 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Did you see Paul, or other devs, discuss any of the other player-generated ideas? I didn't!

Did he mention they are considering anything else when he posted in this thread? No.

I'm just reading what's in front of me. Do you interpret the situation differently?

I see, as I had figured.

Thank you for the response.



Cheers.