1217 replies to this topic

[DeaconW]

Rip Snorgan, on 30 June 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

One thing the JJ change did do, is lead me to purchase my very first Assault mechs. As of last night I now own an AS7-D, AS7-D-DC and an AS7-RS. Had to go Atlas since the Fed-Suns were manufacturing them on Quentin until 3039 and after that were getting them from Steiner space via the Fed-Com agreements, unlike the other available Assault mechs. Plus, come on, it's the ride of First Prince Ian Davion, so there's also that.

I am glad you posted this in this manner...because it really differentiates the type of players in this game...the people who are really into it intellectually as compared to the "drive bys". I don't have a problem with "drive bys" necessarily, but I do I think PGI should be catering more to the former than the later. We will stay and pay them if they do. If they don't we will reach a breaking point and move on to wait for MWO to die so someone else can pick up the IP and try again.

[Kunae]

DeaconW, on 30 June 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I am glad you posted this in this manner...because it really differentiates the type of players in this game...the people who are really into it intellectually as compared to the "drive bys". I don't have a problem with "drive bys" necessarily, but I do I think PGI should be catering more to the former than the later. We will stay and pay them if they do. If they don't we will reach a breaking point and move on to wait for MWO to die so someone else can pick up the IP and try again.

Ah, but they don't care about people's opinions who are deep in the lore of BT. They only care about the e-sport lovin F2P fly-by-nighter, who will spend $$ on stupid cockpit items and converting XP to GXP.

[keith]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Just remember the cardinal rule for atlases: Your job is to get shot, so your team can blow up the enemy while they're shooting you.

um no. your job is to be able to dish out enough dam with the amount of HS u have to make an enemy pay for letting u get close. sometimes that means using your armor, if u are lucky u never have to use it, thats when they really pay.

[Kunae]

keith, on 30 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

um no. your job is to be able to dish out enough dam with the amount of HS u have to make an enemy pay for letting u get close. sometimes that means using your armor, if u are lucky u never have to use it, thats when they really pay.

Sorry, but I must disagree. If you're not getting hit, you're not doing your job. Your damage output is secondary. Your job is to be enough of a threat that the enemy focuses on you, letting your team have free-reign to shoot and maneuver while not under fire themselves.

This is why sniper or LRM atlases are the most worthless mechs to field, in my opinion. This is especially true when any sort of weight or class-matching is in effect.

[DeaconW]

keith, on 30 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

um no. your job is to be able to dish out enough dam with the amount of HS u have to make an enemy pay for letting u get close. sometimes that means using your armor, if u are lucky u never have to use it, thats when they really pay.

I agree...there are no "tanks" in this game. That is a flawed concept for a sim.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

sgt scout, on 29 June 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

ok, i read the post above, you are deffinately trying to address some of the issues but i am woundering if youl agree with my logic.

PGI has created this meta from terrible planning.
You dont have a founders badge so im not sure how long youve been with us but PPC's used to travel much slower, they also generated more heat. These 2 combinations on top of the horrible hit detection made PPC's very unpopular.
To counter this PGI first increased its travel speed, then decreased the heat, then fixed net code + ECM disruption.
This leaves us with the PPC's we have today.

To highten the affectivness of PPC's, SRM's have had there damage reduced from 2.5 to 1.5.
SRM's being the complete counter to PPC's ( SRM's where only realy affective at 100m due to there spread, PPC decreases in damage below 90m ).

Now, jj's used to get you off the ground real slow so PGI introduced an instant boost when your jj's are first fired off. This gave birth to the poptart.

+ coolent flush for and double heat syncs.

In order to bring ballance to the game we have now may seem like a tough thing to do barring in mind it has taken PGI months to address these issues yet i feel a real simple approuch can be taken.

In stages, ( use beta for what its for and test small changes rather than changing 3 things for one system at a time ) introduce more heat for the PPC. Im not sure what the numbers where to PPC heat prior to them getting there reduction but with all the above systems that are pro for the PPC prehaps revert them to there old heat consumption or somewhere close.
This alone should see more PPC boats shutting down more frequently and would detere players from using them.
If however this is not the case, and the boating continues then prehaps slowing down the travel time of the PPC to somthing like a guass will further detere players, if not it will obviously decrease players ability to hit things at a great distance.

Whilst introducing these changes simultaneously increase SRM damage to further encourage players to move from the PPC's. As stated abouve small increases in damage could be given to SRM's over a periode of time to ensure a degree of ballance ( 1.7, 1.8 maybe down to 1.6 if damage proves to great.)

After a couple of month of us testing these new changes, PGI can than see if further changes need to be made such as heat scaling when firing 3 + PPC's for example. This may even see the OP poptart as not so OP without having to **** EVERY JJ USING MECH IN THE GAME !!!

Just my 2 cents, no one from PGI will see this and they'll probably intoduce some half baked idea to deture players from using PPC's that will probably brake another 4 or 5 unbroken things.

i agree with pretty much everything you said, i have been playing since open beta. i play alot of games and have cranked as much money into this game as likely any other. (38 mech bays, 33 mechs every hero except misery and firebrand, around 3/4 of my mechs were bought with cbills, i splurged on a few non heros like the highlanders est) that said only thing i want to point out, and please take the forest for the trees here.

i find many many good founders that have a great concept of tactics and teamwork as well as fair play (sportsmanship), i find you and some others on this good side of rationality. on the flip side sadly as a whole, the vast majority of the founders seem to be the ones that are always abusing the $*(%& out of alpha strike builds almost exclusively. (i like to play varied and balanced mechs cuz its fun ) almost always i see founders as the first adopters and most prolific abusers of the game meta, forgoing tactics and fun for "i just want to win cuz i think im the bomb/founder"

to add insult to injury as they say, i also find that some the founders are the most "whiny" bunch of players i have ever seen, clawing and scraping trying to force this game into only what they want it to be solely, instead of a balanced and systematic adoption of TT into an PC FPS. i just find that attitude patently offensive and immature.

and it seems a load of $%(&$ that some would insinuate that those that joined and don't "have a founders tag" have some kind of "lesser opinion" or some %$*%& like that. i could have bought the founders package easily, i wanted to make sure that this game showed signs of taking off the ground first. i own BT and every mechwarrior game ever made, have beaten them all too.

and the argument that "this game should be the way i want because i put money into it" is invalid, i dont use it and never will. i just would let you know i was already a seasoned mechwarrior long before this game was ever conceived. but those that do hold this attitude are destroying this game. so even if i was a "founder" i probably would be to embarrassed by other "founders" conduct to use the badge thingy anyway.

luckily there are a few that are good sports that want to make this a fun game .

Edited by Mellifluer, 30 June 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[P e n u m b r a]

whats the problem, is using cover OP now? its why its used in real life and players with half a brain cell will do it here. Its terrain tactics and its more interesting than using the hills and mountains as a simple line of sight block in order steam into close range. is that the direction of this game now? is using cover not intended and considered cheese? personally I find the mech movements to slow and the size to large for brawling to be anything other than boring its just not responsive enough to get a kind of dog fight going its just barn side vs barn side weapon plastering and if the devs keep listening to the people crying and they keep removing ways to play the game all we will be left with is steaming in =_=

they should add in more weapons and buff some of the close range weapons and then ppcs may not be so dominant its sad they made jump jets useless as a serious combat dynamic.

Edited by Le0yo, 30 June 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[DeaconW]

Le0yo, on 30 June 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

its sad they made jump jets useless as a serious combat dynamic.

I and others use JJ quite effectively, and I see them regularly in game, therefore your "useless" argument is invalid.

[Kunae]

DeaconW, on 30 June 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

I and others use JJ quite effectively, and I see them regularly in game, therefore your "useless" argument is invalid.

Not invalid. Just different.

Just because not everyone uses JJ's only to the limited extent that you do, does not mean that their way is wrong, nor that they weren't severely hampered by this nerf.

[Kunae]

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

i find many many good founders that have a great concept of tactics and teamwork as well as fair play (sportsmanship), i find you and some others on this good side of rationality. on the flip side sadly as a whole, the vast majority of the founders seem to be the ones that are always abusing the $*(%& out of alpha strike builds almost exclusively. (i like to play varied and balanced mechs cuz its fun ) almost always i see founders as the first adopters and most prolific abusers of the game meta, forgoing tactics and fun for "i just want to win cuz i think im the bomb/founder"

to add insult to injury as they say, i also find that some the founders are the most "whiny" bunch of players i have ever seen, clawing and scraping trying to force this game into only what they want it to be solely, instead of a balanced and systematic adoption of TT into an PC FPS. i just find that attitude patently offensive and immature.

and it seems a load of $%(&$ that some would insinuate that those that joined and don't "have a founders tag" have some kind of "lesser opinion" or some %$*%& like that. i could have bought the founders package easily, i wanted to make sure that this game showed signs of taking off the ground first. i own BT and every mechwarrior game ever made, have beaten them all too.

and the argument that "this game should be the way i want because i put money into it" is invalid, i dont use it and never will. i just would let you know i was already a seasoned mechwarrior long before this game was ever conceived. but those that do hold this attitude are destroying this game. so even if i was a "founder" i probably would be to embarrassed by other "founders" conduct to use the badge thingy anyway.

luckily there are a few that are good sports that want to make this a fun game .

Oh please.

That's got to be one of the most bigoted diatribes I have seen on here in months. Can you get any more sanctimonious? "Founders are evil", Founders are mostly exploiters", yada yada yada.

People who bought into the "founders program" are people who are passionate about this game, most of whom have been playing BT and its off-shoots for 30 years. I, for one, am bloody sick and tired of all the resentful envy, and irrational hatred towards good people who want the best MW game for us all.

Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Oh please.

That's got to be one of the most bigoted diatribes I have seen on here in months. Can you get any more sanctimonious? "Founders are evil", Founders are mostly exploiters", yada yada yada.

People who bought into the "founders program" are people who are passionate about this game, most of whom have been playing BT and its off-shoots for 30 years. I, for one, am bloody sick and tired of all the resentful envy, and irrational hatred towards good people who want the best MW game for us all. <- get off your throne, there is no ivory tower in MWO

Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand. <--- see above

will not even bother countering drivel. but your attitude only proves me right. all i said was most founders are poor sports and abuse the game meta horribly, this is true. and the fact that most (apparently including you) dont care for anyone else to play this game, is just horrid. grow up

Edited by Mellifluer, 30 June 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Kunae]

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

will not even bother countering drivel. but your attitude only proves me right. all i said was most founders are poor sports and abuse the game meta horribly, this is true. and the fact that most (apparently including you) dont care for anyone else to play this game, is just horrid. grow up

And even when it's pointed out to you, you continue. Your's is the attitude which needs adjustment. You seriously need to learn to read without it going through your "entitlement filter". Recognize that there are people who know more than you, about many many things.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're under 30? Honestly, I am guessing that you're under 25. I hope that I am correct, otherwise I fear you'll never outgrow your ignorance.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

Oh please.

That's got to be one of the most bigoted diatribes I have seen on here in months. Can you get any more sanctimonious? "Founders are evil", Founders are mostly exploiters", yada yada yada.

People who bought into the "founders program" are people who are passionate about this game, most of whom have been playing BT and its off-shoots for 30 years. I, for one, am bloody sick and tired of all the resentful envy, and irrational hatred towards good people who want the best MW game for us all.

Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand.

if i need to break this down for you i shall.

----> That's got to be one of the most bigoted diatribes I have seen on here in months. Can you get any more sanctimonious? "Founders are evil", Founders are mostly exploiters", yada yada yada. <--- making a straw man, read exactly what i said and not what you think i said. your words were "founders are evil" not mine.

---->People who bought into the "founders program" are people who are passionate about this game, most of whom have been playing BT and its off-shoots for 30 years. I, for one, am bloody sick and tired of all the resentful envy, and irrational hatred towards good people who want the best MW game for us all. <---- argument from elitesim, IE "I have more experience, more knowledge and should be trusted, thus i am right". if i am to interpret what you said correctly you mean to say that founders always are good people and always will want the best game for everyone? then i ask you ----> "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand"<---- please explain this, is this what you really think of all the newcommers? because it appears to me that your preconceived notion of the new guys was biased from the start, again go read what i said in the first place.

Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand. <--- argument from authority and an ad hominim attack on all newbs, really? ---->jonny-come-lately"s <---- the exact attitude i am referring to. everyone that isn't a founder to you obviously doesn't know what he is talking about anyway, right?

because if i am to interpret what you said correctly, then i am indeed absolutely correct in determining that most founders are poor sports that don't like their position as "founders" questioned or redefined. your opinion by its nature leaves no room for others,founders are the leaders, founders are to be the best players always, founders always know what their talking about. ----> Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand.

and im sry but even if you were "older then me" (no i wont tell me my age other then you are wrong in your assumption) it means nothing, again ageism is also a faulty position to reason from. so again i don't care how old or young you are or anyone in MWO is. grow up and think of others instead of only you and your buddies. and realize that not all founders are good for this game, realize most are bad for it because of their attitudes and their overly competitive nature. the newbs to this game do not deserve to be wallpapered by the founders just because they paid for a head start.

if you doubt me just read every single post in this thread. because i read every post, it seems to me that most founders are in favor of JJ shake overwhelmingly. by my count less then 10 have said they don't like it, and far more than that said it was good.

Edited by Mellifluer, 30 June 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

And even when it's pointed out to you, you continue. Your's is the attitude which needs adjustment. You seriously need to learn to read without it going through your "entitlement filter". Recognize that there are people who know more than you, about many many things. <---- you should realize the same, that maybe i do know more than you about MW maybe i do actually know exactly what im talking about. would it matter if i told you that i am actually a game designer and that things exactly like game balance and feel, flow, story lines are my specialty? I am a game designer btw. but i will be the first to say, it means nothing because it would be an elitist remark to simply say "i make PC games so thus im right" i try to actually use logic and reason.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're under 30? Honestly, I am guessing that you're under 25. I hope that I am correct, otherwise I fear you'll never outgrow your ignorance. <--- again laughable, don't assume so much.

Edited by Mellifluer, 30 June 2013 - 06:11 PM.

[Kunae]

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

if i need to break this down for you i shall.
<snip>

Tone down the assumptions there, kiddo. You appear to enjoy not understanding written words until they have passed through your "crazy persecution filter".

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

----> That's got to be one of the most bigoted diatribes I have seen on here in months. Can you get any more sanctimonious? "Founders are evil", Founders are mostly exploiters", yada yada yada. <--- making a straw man, read exactly what i said and not what you think i said. your words were "founders are evil" not mine.

It's not a straw-man, it's paraphrasing. Try not to use words you don't understand, just because they sound "cool".

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

---->People who bought into the "founders program" are people who are passionate about this game, most of whom have been playing BT and its off-shoots for 30 years. I, for one, am bloody sick and tired of all the resentful envy, and irrational hatred towards good people who want the best MW game for us all. <---- argument from elitesim, IE "I have more experience, more knowledge and should be trusted, thus i am right". if i am to interpret what you said correctly you mean to say that founders always are good people and always will want the best game for everyone?

No, youngun, it's pointing out that most people who bought into founders are not the "evil boogey-man" that you've posited, in a bigoted fashion. Note the word most.

And you should listen to people who have more experience that you. That's just common sense.

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

then i ask you ----> "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand"<---- please explain this, is this what you really think of all the newcommers? because it appears to me that your preconceived notion of the new guys was biased from the start, again go read what i said in the first place.

Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand. <--- argument from authority and an ad hominim attack on all newbs, really? ---->jonny-come-lately"s <---- the exact attitude i am referring to. everyone that isn't a founder to you obviously doesn't know what he is talking about anyway, right?

Again with this resentment towards people who know more than you. I do hope you're not in any critical profession which requires learning, or reading comprehension, for that matter.

If you'll note the context, (big word, may want to look it up), you'll see that "jonny-come-lately" was right next to another bit of the sentence: "who whine about things they don't understand". Are you trying to say that all new-comers whine about things they don't understand?

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

because if i am to interpret what you said correctly, then i am indeed absolutely correct in determining that most founders are poor sports that don't like their position as "founders" questioned or redefined. your opinion by its nature leaves no room for others,founders are the leaders, founders are to be the best players always, founders always know what their talking about. ----> Btw, "founders" will tend to have much more experience to draw on than you, since they've been playing for over a year. This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand.

Ah, cute. You've really gained an affection for that paragraph. It's good to like things.

Mellifluer, on 30 June 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

and im sry but even if you were "older then me" (no i wont tell me my age other then you are wrong in your assumption) it means nothing, again ageism is also a faulty position to reason from. so again i don't care how old or young you are or anyone in MWO is. grow up and think of others instead of only you and your buddies. and realize that not all founders are good for this game, realize most are bad for it because of their attitudes and their overly competitive nature. the newbs to this game do not deserve to be wallpapered by the founders just because they paid for a head start.

Ah, you're just immature for your age then. I am sorry for you.

Since you're still filtering everything through your epeen-envy filter, we'll just leave it at that, and hope that somehow you can move past your shortcomings in the future.

[h0wl]

Niko Snow, on 04 June 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Tell us what you think of the new Jump-Jet Shake gameplay tweaks!

Spoiler

- Screen shake - Jump jetting Mechs shake while jump jets are active.
- Cross hair shake - Cross-hair shake while jump jets are active.
- Weapon fire spread - Aiming weapons is randomly offset while jump jets are active.

----
Just a quick FYI for everyone. We will investigate the reduction of screen shake to help those experiencing motion sickness and will try to reduce it to bearable levels. The targeting shake however will remain the same for the foreseeable future.

-Paul

1. Why are you penalizing the Highlander worse than other mechs?

2. Did you bother even testing this before annoying the crap out of the entire customer base? Making players sick and wasting our time buying mechs that you essentially neuter. How about refunding MC and CBills for making us play test your mistakes.

3. If you had play-tested it maybe you would have figured out that you could just make the mech heat up more due to the jump jets instead of making it shake. It would have served the same purpose as cutting down on how many back to back attacks or uses someone would get, especially those with PPC.

4. And when are you going to make these changes to "reduce it."

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Tone down the assumptions there, kiddo. You appear to enjoy not understanding written words until they have passed through your "crazy persecution filter".


It's not a straw-man, it's paraphrasing. Try not to use words you don't understand, just because they sound "cool". <- sry but no dice, your words had a totally different meaning completely. you put words in my mouth as they say.


No, youngun, it's pointing out that most people who bought into founders are not the "evil boogey-man" that you've posited, in a bigoted fashion. Note the word most. <- grow up and read what i said not what you think i said.

And you should listen to people who have more experience that you. That's just common sense. <- of course that is why i have taken to time to read everyone's posts, can you say the same? you did not respond to my questions at all btw. you are "red herring" your way through this.


Again with this resentment towards people who know more than you. I do hope you're not in any critical profession which requires learning, or reading comprehension, for that matter. <-- ad ho-minim attacks mean nothing. petty

If you'll note the context, (big word, may want to look it up), you'll see that "jonny-come-lately" was right next to another bit of the sentence: "who whine about things they don't understand". Are you trying to say that all new-comers whine about things they don't understand? <--- you really have to be joshing me ----> "This in addition to their years of experience with BT and MW, means they probably know what they're talking about and should be listened to by the devs more than the "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand."<---- because only the founders really have a good understanding? they get to call certain players whiners and johnny come lately s? i don't get to do that because im not a founder you say.....?and...... where do you come off? really? even if i don't like someone i still don't insult their intelligence or disregard what they have to say so blithely.


Ah, cute. You've really gained an affection for that paragraph. It's good to like things. <-- more petty comments


Ah, you're just immature for your age then. I am sorry for you. <-- as are you apparently

Since you're still filtering everything through your epeen-envy filter, we'll just leave it at that, and hope that somehow you can move past your shortcomings in the future. <---- it become obvious to me a long time ago that people with small minds and even smaller egos always without fail, degrade themselves to petty remarks and comments that have nothing to do with the conversation. the more you attack me directly the more you prove my original point. so thank you very much.

so i ask you questions now, since you haven't answered one of them. yet i pose to you directly.

if i am wrong why you are so upset?, and you are because you use petty attacks

if you are "so aged and learned" why do you not know how to enlighten and enrich another s knowledge? i certainly hope your not in charge of anything "mission critical".

why do you resort to petty attempts at attacking me directly?

why would anyone new to this game want to team with you/people like you and your attitude towards others? <- the crux of the point, why would anyone new want to team up with players that "know what they are talking about" and anyone who disagrees is a "jonny-come-lately"s who whine about things they don't understand.", because that is what is referred to as a damming statement.

why do you attack my English?

do you know how to teach yourself? or have others always taught you? consider that both kinds exist.

if lets say a team of founders always ran with founders, aren't all the nubs just meat to grind? and in which case what is the point of this game?

Edited by Mellifluer, 30 June 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Kunae, you should've just ignored the guy. His post wasn't worth responding to in the first place. Ignore it unless other people start jumping on his wagon.



Deacon, I, too, have spent hundreds of dollars on this game since I got into closed beta last year. I don't know the exact tally right now, but the last time I did a count, it was just under $500, and that was two or three MC purchases ago. So believe me when I say that I have just as much financial and emotional investment in this game as you do.


We both agree that poptarts were an over-powered, meta-dominating build, and that that was bad, but where we disagree seems to be on the normalization point for poptarts, and how best to achieve that normalization.

First, to avoid any further confusion between different JJ playstyles, and to clarify exactly what is meant by poptarts, let us define a "poptart" as any sniper mech build equipped with JumpJets to allow it to pop up from behind cover, fire on a target at range, and drop back down behind cover. A mech jumping and firing, even from behind cover, is not necessarily a poptart (a Jenner can do that 3 meters in front of your face, but it is most certainly not a poptart), a poptart is a jumping sniper.


Second, we both agreed that poptarts were overpowered, but before we get into why they are overpowered, and how best to correctly balance them, we first need to establish a normalization point for poptarts. Where should they be balanced to?

It sounds like to me that you oppose any Heavy or Assault mech combining a sniper build with JumpJets, or in short, you oppose the poptart playstyle all together, and think the correct normalization point for poptarts is to be effectively non-existent. Is this correct?

If it is, then I fundamentally disagree with you. I think that poptarting is a perfectly valid playstyle, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with being able to poptart, so long as it is balanced to a niche role.

If you are willing to accept poptarting as a balanced, niche role, as a long-time poptart, I can provide some valuable input on how to best balance poptarts (and I want to see them balanced in a niche role that requires a combination of high skill and enjoyment of certain play styles to do well in, not something that every Tom, {Richard Cameron}, and Larry can grab and do well in - I have a lot of experience and skill in poptarts and poptart hybrids, and I want to be able to take great pride in that), but if you do not want to have any poptarts in the game at all, then we will have a fundamental disagreement that will place us at an impasse.

[DeaconW]

h0wl, on 30 June 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

1. Why are you penalizing the Highlander worse than other mechs?

2. Did you bother even testing this before annoying the crap out of the entire customer base? Making players sick and wasting our time buying mechs that you essentially neuter. How about refunding MC and CBills for making us play test your mistakes.

3. If you had play-tested it maybe you would have figured out that you could just make the mech heat up more due to the jump jets instead of making it shake. It would have served the same purpose as cutting down on how many back to back attacks or uses someone would get, especially those with PPC.

4. And when are you going to make these changes to "reduce it."

For the folks who are all "there arn't any poptarts complaining about this to get their meta back"...I give you exhibit A(actually probably "Z"...but I digress). I will refrain from my typical response as it would probably be lost on h0wl anyway.

[DeaconW]

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Ah, but they don't care about people's opinions who are deep in the lore of BT. They only care about the e-sport lovin F2P fly-by-nighter, who will spend $$ on stupid cockpit items and converting XP to GXP.

Hey, I resemble that remark wrt stupid cockpit items and XP to GXP!

Kunae, on 30 June 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Not invalid. Just different.

No, it's invalid. He made an absolute statement which only requires one counter-example to be provably untrue.