471 replies to this topic

[Sug]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

We've run into PGI numerous times in game, and everyone at PGI runs horrible frankenbuilds. I'm unsure if this is because you think they are good in the game, or because you don't want to advertise the fact that taking the best items exclusively is how you actually win. I could buy either.

I have often wondered this myself. It was awhile ago but I ran into a PGI in a K2 with 4 med pulse lasers and machine guns.

Kaspirikay, on 24 June 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

I don't see this game progressing atm. It seems like it stagnated and is now about game play balance alone.

http://mwomercs.com/...72#entry2481972

I wish I had a timemachine so i could tell 2012 me not to get too excited over that article in PCGamer.

[Lightfoot]

PGI responds to the community very well, you're just not going to get what you want usually, but this is normal. They know more than we do.

Happy with everything except LRMs. If I were PGI I would just scrap them and start over. MWO LRMs hit over hills and are impossible to dodge so they will always have to be very weak. Too weak to be worth taking. Artemis system is a good idea if it worked, but when it does work everyone whines they were defeated by LRMs. I am thinking, so what? You shouldn't be charging across open ground. I was never once killed by LRMs when they were supposed to be OP hell missiles.

Anyway, I think PGI responds as much as they can. As much as they should.

[Blackadder]

Very good post, agree for the most part, and i fail to understand why PGI refuses to embrace the community, even if it was on a moderated forum to get rid of the white noise, at least discussion would be ongoing.

[FupDup]

Lightfoot, on 24 June 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

PGI responds to the community very well, you're just not going to get what you want usually, but this is normal. They know more than we do.

Happy with everything except LRMs. --

Anyway, I think PGI responds as much as they can. As much as they should.

[Felbombling]

Bunko, on 24 June 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

There is nothing that kills a game quicker than a game company having too much pride to acknowledge they were wrong and saw the light too late.

I imagine 80+ point Clan alpha strikes are going to come as quite a shock to the development team.

[xengk]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

Let me tell you why it's a really, really bad idea to get this mindset. You want a game that's balanced well at the highest levels, because you know what that means? It's balanced, by default, well at the lowest levels.

That is an even worst idea.
Balancing based on competitive play basically punish everyone who is not playing competitively and promoted FOTM build. This why MtG is still fun after 20 years, the game is balanced for the mass so everyone can find different build for their deck and meta deck often gets countered after awhile.

In fighter term, you end up with everyone using either only the top tier character or the mastering the cheapest combo. Because to play anything different means doing it wrong and have their butt handed to them.

[Asmudius Heng]

xengk, on 24 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

That is an even worst idea.
Balancing based on competitive play basically punish everyone who is not playing competitively and promoted FOTM build. This why MtG is still fun after 20 years, the game is balanced for the mass so everyone can find different build for their deck and meta deck often gets countered after awhile.

In fighter term, you end up with everyone using either only the top tier character or the mastering the cheapest combo. Because to play anything different means doing it wrong and have their butt handed to them.

Perhaps you didnt understand the point. If you balance for the top teirs that means in the top tiers there is no FOTM build because the game is balanced so the highly competitive players cannot min-max because of the balancing done for their sphere of play.

This balance then trickles down to the rest of us because it cannot be broken easily. Though there may be certian builds and combos are certain skill levels that take precedence due to skill/teamwork. However because it was balanced for high end play there will be counters easily available if you look into it further.

When you simplify things and balance to the lowest common denominator you leave huge balance gaps a mile long that high level players will exploit.

Balancing for high level play means balancing to minimize exploits - high level play form other games is often bugged by min maxing not because it was high level play, but because the game was not balanced around that and those players found the edge to compete.

Chicken and egg discussion.

[Asmosis]

Syllogy, on 24 June 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

ERMAGERD! PPC+Gauss is so OP! ... Except for the part where they have been in the game as long as the Atlas has.

thats true, and 6 months ago you couldnt hit the broadside of a bus rolling down a hill due to latency. HSR fixed that though, now that people around the world are shooting acurately, long range alpha is now an issue. THATS why it never came up before. Now that you can properly lead and one-shot a light/med mech with 4-6 heavy long range ppc/ballistics there are issues.

[TOGSolid]

xengk, on 24 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

That is an even worst idea.
Balancing based on competitive play basically punish everyone who is not playing competitively and promoted FOTM build. This why MtG is still fun after 20 years, the game is balanced for the mass so everyone can find different build for their deck and meta deck often gets countered after awhile.

In fighter term, you end up with everyone using either only the top tier character or the mastering the cheapest combo. Because to play anything different means doing it wrong and have their butt handed to them.

You do realize that there are a lot of card bannings/restrictions in MTG so that the game is balanced for the top tier players right? Don't try to use something for an example when you clearly have no idea how it works.

As far as fighting games go, what do you expect? People play to win and the best do the most efficient and optimal thing they can to win. It's better these days now that companies can patch their games to even the meta out (though some characters are intended to be joke/funsy characters and will never be top tier see: Dan from Street Fighter for Exhibit A) but there will always be a top tier and the best players will always gravitate towards it. That said, you do rarely get some surprises. Chris G's Morrigan team in MVC3 being a great example of a top playing doing really well with something not many people can pull off with equal results.

Edited by TOGSolid, 24 June 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[MavRCK]

The game has progressed poorly - the weapons are imbalanced, the new mechs offer little to nothing over over already available mechs, jumpjet shake has removed skill and maneuverability from light mech play, and matchmaking doesn't work. Competitive play is non-existent and morale is at an all-time low.

Worst part is that the community has offered to help and we've been ignored repeatedly for 6+ months.

[Stormwolf]

MavRCK, on 24 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

The game has progressed poorly - the weapons are imbalanced, the new mechs offer little to nothing over over already available mechs, jumpjet shake has removed skill and maneuverability from light mech play, and matchmaking doesn't work. Competitive play is non-existent and morale is at an all-time low.

Worst part is that the community has offered to help and we've been ignored repeatedly for 6+ months.

Yeah, the common excuse is "this is Beta", but we don't seem to do be doing any real beta testing.

[The Cheese]

Stormwolf, on 24 June 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Yeah, the common excuse is "this is Beta", but we don't seem to do be doing any real beta testing.

I'm having a tough time accepting that anyone really thinks "It's still in beta" is a passable excuse. The end user (and I use that term in a general sense) doesn't care what tag you put on it. The only thing they care about is whether it works or not.

Edited by The Cheese, 24 June 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[PEEFsmash]

xengk, on 24 June 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

This why MtG is still fun after 20 years, the game is balanced for the mass so everyone can find different build for their deck and meta deck often gets countered after awhile.

Do you know how many great competitive games are built based on competitive community input right now? Almost all of them. And you quote a card game? A CARD GAME. The best analogy you can find for competitive pvp video gaming is a literal, undisputably pay-to-win CARD GAME.

Edited by PEEFsmash, 24 June 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Stormwolf]

The Cheese, on 24 June 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I'm having a tough time accepting that anyone really thinks "It's still in beta" is a passable excuse. The end user (and I use that term in a general sense) doesn't care what tag you put on it. The only thing they care about is whether it works or not.

Well, it really isn't much of an excuse, yet people always seem to lapse back into it.

Contrast this to the Neverwinter Beta, I played it for a bit and was surprised that they still called it beta.

[Arkatrex]

Stormwolf, on 24 June 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Well, it really isn't much of an excuse, yet people always seem to lapse back into it.

Contrast this to the Neverwinter Beta, I played it for a bit and was surprised that they still called it beta.

But that's the major problem.
There are many players here in the forum who guess that they're the master of the slave PGI.

At the beginning of the closed beta we all know that MWO was an unfinished product. And hey, that was not a problem.
And that has not changed.

And yes, those guy's don't want to hear that either.
PGI needs the feedback of the players to balance it..that's right.

But no player has to dictate PGI what they have to do or what they not have to do.
It's their work for us. And they did a great job.

Where's the problem to wait for the patches, for the process that finished the game? Why so many people need's to crying out for attention?

I could vomit. That's my opinions...and it is useless to say that i can think what i want about this themes. So some people are thinking that somebody is an asshamster only because he did not share the same opinion.

Sorry guys, but i'm happy with the game. For sure..PGI have much work to do...but it's to them how they do it. Essential thing is..they do it...and it looks like they can do it.

Don't forget the upcoming features:
UI 2.0
Community Warfare

Only these two points are many many many work. This is not like... one click and ready. Think about that.

Edited by Arkatrex, 24 June 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Xie Belvoule]

MavRCK, on 24 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

The game has progressed poorly - the weapons are imbalanced, the new mechs offer little to nothing over over already available mechs, jumpjet shake has removed skill and maneuverability from light mech play, and matchmaking doesn't work. Competitive play is non-existent and morale is at an all-time low.

Worst part is that the community has offered to help and we've been ignored repeatedly for 6+ months.

[TOGSolid]

Arkatrex, on 24 June 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

But that's the major problem.
There are many players here in the forum who guess that they're the master of the slave PGI.

At the beginning of the closed beta we all know that MWO was an unfinished product. And hey, that was not a problem.
And that has not changed.

And yes, those guy's don't want to hear that either.
PGI needs the feedback of the players to balance it..that's right.

But no player has to dictate PGI what they have to do or what they not have to do.
It's their work for us. And they did a great job.

Where's the problem to wait for the patches, for the process that finished the game? Why so many people need's to crying out for attention?

I could vomit. That's my opinions...and it is useless to say that i can think what i want about this themes. So some people are thinking that somebody is an asshamster only because he did not share the same opinion.

Sorry guys, but i'm happy with the game. For sure..PGI have much work to do...but it's to them how they do it. Essential thing is..they do it...and it looks like they can do it.

Don't forget the upcoming features:
UI 2.0
Community Warfare

Only these two points are many many many work. This is not like... one click and ready. Think about that.

While some members around here are total assclowns that contribute nothing of value to the discussions, a lot of us have shown infinite patience with PGI. We do our best to point out issues calmly and logically as much as possible. However, PGI's community interaction has gone down the drain to the point of being non-existent, leaving us with a feeling of being ignored and forgotten about. Furthermore, a lot of us have grown astoundingly frustrated with how this game's glaring issues are being either ignored (SRMs) or band-aided with "fixes" that don't address the actual problem (Alpha Strikes).

I used to lean towards defending PGI back in the day but these days they've shown nothing but a complete disregard for us, and seemingly the very game they're producing.

Edited by TOGSolid, 24 June 2013 - 11:30 PM.

[Arkatrex]

Xie Belvoule, on 24 June 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

Yes..this is ********.
Any player who started and the beta knows that the progress is very big between closed beta and now. Sorry for that..but that's really ********.

[TOGSolid]

Arkatrex, on 24 June 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Yes..this is ********.
Any player who started and the beta knows that the progress is very big between closed beta and now. Sorry for that..but that's really ********.

What does this "progress" have to do with the ****** state the game is currently in? Broken HSR, imbalanced as **** combat, and a complete lack of communication that has become downright insulting aren't exactly positive steps.

Edited by TOGSolid, 24 June 2013 - 11:36 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

TOGSolid, on 24 June 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think this is part of what makes all of this so infuriating. PGI had two prior multiplayer Mechwarrior games that had very similar problems to go off of. From day one of starting production on this game they should have been asking themselves "how do we avoid repeating this clustefuck a third time?"

But no, instead they went in as if they had never played a Mechwarrior game before in their lives and look at where we're at. It's damn near MW4 all over again only without poptarting.

They actually thought about it. That'S why we have lasers with a beam duration and while ballistics have projectile speeds.

It just turns out that's not sufficient. Maybe that was predictable, maybe it needed some testing. Back in Closed Beta, we only had single heat sinks. It would have been ridicilious trying to build an 4 PPC anything. Even two PPCs were not manageable. Two AC/20s where not practical (especially since the heat of AC/20s was still higher back then). The ony pinpoint option was the Gauss Rifle. And we had tons of those Dual Gauss RIfle mechs (they all looked like a Catapult K2). But since it was only one weapon, the "nerfs" focused on that weapon, too.*

Some argue "just get rid of double heat sinks". But that's short-sighted. Dual, Triple, Quad Gauss RIfle, if you have the hard points and the weight, they will still deliver pinpoint alphas and you can do little iwth heat to fix this.

Lowering the heat and lowering the heat dissipation is not a full solution to the convergence+group fire problem either. It has the advantage, however, to making stock mechs more... maybe not viable, but "playable." But we still need a solution for low-heat weapons like the entire Ballistic weapon group, especially the Gauss.

*) An amusing fact of the time is: The devs seemed to be surprised by the popularity of the Gauss Rifle compared to the Ultra Auto-Cannon. The Ultra Auto-Cannon back then didn't jam for quite a while, and delivered a lot of DPS for its 8 tons. But it was still not the most favored weapon. Roland's fundamental mechwarrior truth "Mechwarrior is about who can do enough damage to a single kill location to destroy it, as fast as possible." is the reason - the UAC5 had great DPS on paper, but the damage would never be delivered with the neccessary precision.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 June 2013 - 11:53 PM.