133 replies to this topic

[Hammertrial]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 May 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Seriously? Have you read the command chairs? They have gotten to the point where they might as well not do them half the time. They used to be really informative. And there is definitely no dialogue. It's just "HERE IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, SUCK IT UP".

ATD is the same way, you are lucky to get a real answer, and when you do sometimes it involves spiders with 6MG.

In fact most of the official posts end up contradicting themselves a month later. ECM is fine, ECM is fine, OUT OF THE BLUE HERE IS HARDCOUNTER BAP.

MG's are fine, MG's COULD CORE AN ATLAS FROM BEHIND....SUDDENLY WE ARE CHANGING MG'S.

Didn't Bryan actually say "I don't know who said it, but it was wrong" and it was him who said it?

Good lord.

The only real communication we have right now is UI 2.0, which while it will be a help and is good, certainly isn't the number one issue with the game.

Those all sound like statements to me. Each and everyone of them. They could be statements that aren't liked, or changing, or nebulous, but to argue that PGI makes no statements at all is patently false.

There are those who clearly believe that there is no communication from PGI about anything, while there are plenty of places where you can find information.

Hell, not even a full dayish after the LRM patch they had a command chair up about what was going wrong and how they were looking into fixing it.

Wanting more clear explanations, fine, wanting less Twitter comments and more on the boards, fine, wanting less backtracking, meh, fine.

If you say that there is no communication, you're just blind.

Edited by Hammertrial, 29 May 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Roland]

If they are changing the spread, then the wise thing to do is to wait until that change is in before changing the damage.

[Deathlike]

Every change with respect to PGI and balance falls into the following categories:

Still OP/bad
Still UP/insignificant
"Was that really necessary?"

Rarely does one change ends up being "hey, it's just right".

That is the state of PGI balance™.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Victor Morson, on 29 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

I really believe that half the people in this thread could fix the weapons with one hour access to the weapons data file, without even needing programming experience.

I'd say there are definitely 25-30 people I've had conversations with on the board that would have balance at a minimum better than PGI does now.

And probably would be a ton better.

[Mister Blastman]

Victor Morson, on 29 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

And that is the major reason that we absolutely need to get a response, and to shake some sense into, PGI. If they honestly believe damage is alright, I hate to say it, but they need to hire someone else to do balancing because it's most positively way, way off.

I really believe that half the people in this thread could fix the weapons with one hour access to the weapons data file, without even needing programming experience.

Back in closed beta back in June... this was being done.

[Victor Morson]

Deathlike, on 29 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Every change with respect to PGI and balance falls into the following categories:

Still OP/bad
Still UP/insignificant
"Was that really necessary?"

Rarely does one change ends up being "hey, it's just right".

To be honest I said that about PPCs when they fixed them and they became a viable weapon system. They weren't overrunning the game or anything.

Then they nerf'ed missiles about two weeks later and we've been in MechWarrior: Purgatory ever since. Before that you'd see like 2-3 jumpers tops in any given game and they would end up fighting serious SRM boats they simply could not deal with and they'd get massively punished by LRMs if they left cover.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 May 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[I am]

This thread is full of cry babies, who can't get their jollies unless they are scoring 1000+ damage in MWO every match with LRMs.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 29 May 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

To be honest I said that about PPCs when they fixed them and they became a viable weapon system. They weren't overrunning the game or anything.

Then they nerf'ed missiles about two weeks later and we've been in MechWarrior: Purgatory ever since. Before that you'd see like 2-3 jumpers tops in any given game and they would end up fighting serious SRM boats they simply could not deal with and they'd get massively punished by LRMs if they left cover.

I was there. I didn't forget about it (I was abusing it for a brief time then).

Prior to the most recent LRM hotfix, despite the CT coring mechanic of the LRMs, it was actually an interesting meta. I saw way more diversity then (flamers+MGs notwithstanding) and it was enjoyable for the most part. I don't think I can take the same meta that was started almost 2 months ago, so they need to change this ASAP before I really get bored...

[StalaggtIKE]

As some have already posted, every couple of patches have LRM/SRM/SSRM constantly swinging back and forth between being OP and UP. I feel a large part of that has to do with the sheer amount of hardcounters the devs insist on injecting into the game. How can you honestly judge the usefulness of something if the mere presence of another completely negates it?

They really need to go back and revamp all hardcounters and anything pertaining to them.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 29 May 2013 - 01:23 PM.

[Victor Morson]

I hate hard counters for weapons; soft counters are definitely the way to go. I actually regret including the ECM in my OP in hindsight, but I only did so because I wish it did what it was supposed to (Debuffing missiles) with maybe stuff in the spirit of that (Making SSRM2 dumbfire instead of "can't fire") instead of this hard jamming that was so OP that they had to nerf it out of existence, to the point it's not even clear what's going on with the mess anymore.

But ECM isn't killing the game right now and that's why I would have left it off in a do-over. It's still all over the map though.

[StalaggtIKE]

Victor Morson, on 29 May 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

I hate hard counters for weapons; soft counters are definitely the way to go. I actually regret including the ECM in my OP in hindsight, but I only did so because I wish it did what it was supposed to (Debuffing missiles) with maybe stuff in the spirit of that (Making SSRM2 dumbfire instead of "can't fire") instead of this hard jamming that was so OP that they had to nerf it out of existence, to the point it's not even clear what's going on with the mess anymore.

But ECM isn't killing the game right now and that's why I would have left it off in a do-over. It's still all over the map though.

See, I believe ECM is a major culprit. I say this because since its arrival most of the accumulated balance changes have been focused around it:

• LRM buffs
  
• TAG buff
  
• PPC buff
  
• module buffs
  
• BAP buff

While focusing on all things concerning ECM they've been unable to focus any real attention to MG, flame and pulse lasers. Shoot we still have nothing for the Command Console (a 3 ton paperweight).

[Victor Morson]

That is a good point; tons of effort was spent on balancing the ECM, when it was honestly kind of a silly system to begin with; I don't know why they felt the need to incorporate stuff from AECM and all those hard counters, when it would have been a very worthwhile system if it operated just for you and debuffed all missiles near you - if missiles worked, anyway.

To me, turning Streak boats into regular SRM2 boats is both highly effective and not nearly as frustrating as locking their ability to fire for just one example. If being near ECM firing LRMs disables your Artemis, that's ENTIRELY reasonable - unlike jamming their ability to fire at all.

It's really a poorly thought out system as most super hard counters tend to be, but right now it's nerf'ed to being nearly moot outside of some range protection so it's not my primary concern. Would be nice to see it redesigned some day but for now I'd prefer they just shelve it and forget it exists until they fix the serious issues.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 May 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Hammertrial]

StalaggtIKE, on 29 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

See, I believe ECM is a major culprit. I say this because since its arrival most of the accumulated balance changes have been focused around it:

• LRM buffs
  
• TAG buff
  
• PPC buff
  
• module buffs
  
• BAP buff

While focusing on all things concerning ECM they've been unable to focus any real attention to MG, flame and pulse lasers. Shoot we still have nothing for the Command Console (a 3 ton paperweight).

Once again, how do you balance weapons that have no reasonable chance of success of even hitting their target?

You can't.

You can alter how certain equipment works with relation to each other no matter how the netcode is working.

[StalaggtIKE]

Hammertrial, on 29 May 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Once again, how do you balance weapons that have no reasonable chance of success of even hitting their target?

Exactly. Hard counters deny any chance of success.

[jeffsw6]

TexAss, on 29 May 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Today bryan tweeted me that a fix to SRM spread is coming next patch.
No word about damage buff though. Looks like their damage is "as intended". :/

At least that is a step in the right direction, unlike the last 2 patches (or 1 patch and 1 hotfix, if you use their terminology.)

Deathlike, on 29 May 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Every change with respect to PGI and balance falls into the following categories:

Still OP/bad
Still UP/insignificant
"Was that really necessary?"

Rarely does one change ends up being "hey, it's just right".

That is the state of PGI balance™.

AC/5 seems okay now!

Nicholas Carlyle, on 29 May 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

I'd say there are definitely 25-30 people I've had conversations with on the board that would have balance at a minimum better than PGI does now.

And probably would be a ton better.

Some of these people know how to analyze data collected from game logs in order to aggregate play-experience information without relying entirely on QQ or guessing to direct the balance changes. PGI do not seem to do this, or they would not have thought Machine Guns were fine. It's impossible to draw that conclusion from game-play evidence.

[Deathlike]

jeffsw6, on 29 May 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

AC/5 seems okay now!

Rare moments happen! Now how about a better MG buff...

[Syllogy]

You are a Beta Tester. You don't need a statement. But if you got one, it would be something like this:

We are always evaluating weapons and making adjustments as necessary.

Edited by Syllogy, 29 May 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Syllogy, on 29 May 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

You are a Beta Tester. You don't need a statement. But if you got one, it would be something like this:

We are always evaluating weapons and making adjustments as necessary.

Indeed, that is what they always say - the implicit message to this is that because they are not making many adjustments very often that they believe things are hunky dory. This is not a good message and is very poor communication given the wild shifts in balance.

[Victor Morson]

Syllogy, on 29 May 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

You are a Beta Tester. You don't need a statement. But if you got one, it would be something like this:

We are always evaluating weapons and making adjustments as necessary.

People who think this is a normal "beta" are hopelessly naieve. It stopped being that early in the year, realistically.

[Renthrak]

Victor Morson, on 29 May 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

People who think this is a normal "beta" are hopelessly naieve. It stopped being that early in the year, realistically.

I don't think there is any such thing as a 'normal' beta. It seems like every developer has their own, often very unique definition of 'beta'.