471 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 23 June 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Well, until I see hard evidence in the form of a dev post with confirmation I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that builds like the 6 ML Jenner/Quickdraw don't get pooped on. Right now we're just abstracting text that doesn't make any concrete claims about the limit differing per chassis.

I can only tell you that 6 med Quickdraws are not optimal.

With respect to the OP... you're right for the most part.

The solution here... TUTORIALS. OMG!!!$!1111#!1!!!

SO OP THESE THINGS ARE!!!

Edited by Deathlike, 23 June 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[Victor Morson]

StaggerCheck, on 23 June 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Vic, I cannot imagine that you honestly think there are players here who want dice rolling in this game. The closest I've seen to suggest that would be people asking for the death of pinpoint weapon convergence, and offering up systems that help simulate something less game-breaking. You lost me there, while I generally agree with most everything else you've said in your post.

Not all TT players are like this, mind you, but there's a hardcore set that refuse to shift from stockish load outs that want every gun to randomly roll different hit locations. They're a vocal, painfully so, minority but they do exist. Not the same thing as what you might consider as convergence, and definitely not all of them.

Hell, I love TT and would push for more spirtual successors to it's systems - including heat effects - in MW:O, but I'm also strongly in the camp MW:O needs to balance around the game we have here, not a board game with it's own laundry list of balance problems.

So yeah. This isn't against all TT players. I'm a TT player: It's specifically for the ones that want to make this effectively a Megamek game from a 'mech POV.

StaggerCheck, on 23 June 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

The one thing that just blows my mind, endlessly, is the total lack of forethought going into some of the decisions PGI make. I've got friends that will never come back after getting thrown to the wolves as a new player. The way ECM was implemented was downright shocking. Their vice-like determination not to change some obviously broken core mechanics is just amazing, as well. I cannot imagine this game being in balance at any level until they revisit some core mechanics, because you can tweak the living **** out of every weapon on the chart, but unless the core mechanics change, people will just migrate to the next best weapon. It is plain as day that it has happened, continues to happen and will continue again and again.

I understand when bad systems show up, but the speed in which they are tuned is pretty shockingly and painfully slow. There's no reason we still have crappy AC/10s and LBX/10s. None at all.

[Sephlock]

@ The poll questions:

PGI is a small operation so I can understand why things would be the way they are- and they ARE trying.

With regards to the facebook and twitter stuff, my guess is that they may feel that its easier to focus on just those kinds of media (as opposed to making forum posts or homepage updates which may be missed by the wider audiences of facebook/twitter, etc).

As far as progression goes: We're definitely going in the right direction, it's just that there have been missteps along the way, with more to come... I mean, I'm cringing at the upcoming SSRM nerf...

But overall things are shaping up. Canyon is SO MUCH BETTER THAN ALPINE AND TOURMALINE THAT THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO FULLY DESCRIBE THE DEGREE OF SUPERIORITY.

There are good things in the works...

Believe me, as the self-appointed king of the curmudgeons, I understand how frustrating it can be when goalposts get moved, etc... but I seriously doubt they're doing it for ***** and giggles, and even if it's for the wrong reasons, they're still working hard.

...

That said, @ PGI:

SWEET BABY JESUS JUST MAKE MGs AND FLAMERS USABLE ALREADY! AND BUFF SRMS!

I won't counsel you against nerfing SSRMs since that is probably already set in stone, but for the love of god at least buff SRMs before you nerf SSRMs so I have something to stick in my missile slots that I don't *HAVE* to boat.

Aside from that:

AC/2s feel great. AC/5s are about right- I think they may need a little something more....

AC/10s need a bit more than AC/5s... not sure what though. AC/20s feel about right. Gauss feels about right.

PPCs... need to not converge. If you absolutely insist on keeping convergence, make it so that only PPC bolts don't converge. You can use the excuse that the beams are negatively or positively charged and therefore blah blah science blah blah whatever.

Missiles.. are in a sorry state.

Pulse lasers... are being worked on. I'll grit my teeth and bear it, because TBH I haven't bothered with them in a while, aside from the occasional brief dabbling when I got bored.

Regular lasers seem okay, although ERLLAS could use a little boost, slas could use a little boost, and although the current beam duration for LLas is good, the nerd in me misses the longer beam duration....

MGs and flamers are poopy, as is LBX, and they will remain so as long as you refuse to break them out of the little box you've put them in (critseeker, heat cap, and narrowing the spread).

[Victor Morson]

Deathlike, on 23 June 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

The solution here... TUTORIALS. OMG!!!$!1111#!1!!!

Yep. That and I heard they're finally dropping the Trial 'Mech thing in favor of a 5-set "training mission" after which they will be allowed to pick a weight class starter 'mech. Which is a great idea and I am glad they are moving to it, but I think it's about a year too slow.

It's basically like the original launch plan. I screamed to the heavens when Trials were added it would kill new user retention, which we've seen first hand - nobody wants to jump into a game where their first 25 matches are basically being executed over and over. Also, the lesson PGI took from this however is that we apparently need 3rd person? What?

Sephlock, on 23 June 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

But overall things are shaping up. Canyon is SO MUCH BETTER THAN ALPINE AND TOURMALINE THAT THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO FULLY DESCRIBE THE DEGREE OF SUPERIORITY.

Oh I totally agree. One thing I must positively give PGI credit for is that they have apparently hired far, far, far better map designers than we initially had. The new maps are night & day from the old maps and are a massive step in the right direction.

Also I totally agree with your balance assessment, even on the AC/2 even though I think the AC/2 is an awful weapon overall. It's just that it's about as good as it's ever going to get given it's legacy values; without breaking them (things like weight) it'll never be really competitive. Still, it's vastly superior than past incarnations of the AC/2 and isn't entirely worthless, so I'm happy with it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 23 June 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Deathlike]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Yep. That and I heard they're finally dropping the Trial 'Mech thing in favor of a 5-set "training mission" after which they will be allowed to pick a weight class starter 'mech. Which is a great idea and I am glad they are moving to it, but I think it's about a year too slow.

It's basically like the original launch plan. I screamed to the heavens when Trials were added it would kill new user retention, which we've seen first hand - nobody wants to jump into a game where their first 25 matches are basically being executed over and over. Also, the lesson PGI took from this however is that we apparently need 3rd person? What?

I've asked this question out loud to PGI... when I offered the Spider-5K challenge.

The reason for it is because they have their own ideas... but it's simply put as "HAVE YOU ACTUALLY TRIED THIS YOURSELF?"

The reality is that it is no and those that play @ PGI already have their mechs @ max stats/mastered... but I bet their QA Testers have NEVER played the game at the lower levels... to understood the problems and frustrations that their system creates. So when it comes to ask them the question "Do you play your own game?", the answer is "kinda". They don't play the game like a trial player plays the game... thus rendering all logical arguments by PGI as POOP.

[FupDup]

Victor Morson, on 23 June 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Also I totally agree with your balance assessment, even on the AC/2 even though I think the AC/2 is an awful weapon overall. It's just that it's about as good as it's ever going to get given it's legacy values; without breaking them (things like weight) it'll never be really competitive. Still, it's vastly superior than past incarnations of the AC/2 and isn't entirely worthless, so I'm happy with it.

Reducing the heat per shot to something like 0.3-0.5 might do the trick for the AC/2.

BRING ON THE DAKKA! Now with less heat!

Edited by FupDup, 23 June 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

pgi are you going to fix your ******* game or what? Or is this your design intention? contrary to popular belief, you'll go bankrupt and my wallet will still be full of money if you keep pretending like what you're doing is working. Sweep **** under the rug and you may not see it, but it's still there stinking up the house.

and this is coming from someone with a 66% win rate and nearly 3 kd/r with a sub optimal build.

so imagine what i can do with a gauss or ppc boat? I already know what I can do with a gauss boat, and if i really started looking at winning objectively? Well I've got good news, that's exactly whats on my agenda as soon as I'm done getting my D-DC to elite. I'm tired of needing to stack weapons to be effective, so at this point I'm going to do it to help kill the game, after all it's not my fault the game is very imbalanced, I'm just using whats available.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[NinetyProof]

What I find ironic is the OP's use of the word "kid" so many times in regards to PGI. The OP's arguement is based upon utter speculation as to why / how decisions are being made, which is EXACTLY what a child does. The reality is that the OP is the one acting like a Child and doing nothing more then trying to draw attention to himself.

Like the OP's arguments about testers. I happen to know "closed testing" happens and the issue is not frequency, but the issue is focus on certain things that need to be tested. Of course, PGI already knows about the testing issue and is already fixing that with open test servers, and has communicated the same ... so why even bring that up?

I think the OP needs to stop "assuming" he actually know what / why decisions are happening ... that is what a child does. Frankly, as a software developer, I laugh at most everything posted on these boards, including much of the OP's post. People, in general, don't have a clue about how to develop software ... heck, the majority of people on these boards don't have a clue about how to run a business.

PGI ignores most all of you, as it should, because most all of you don't have a clue. Express what your unhappy about, make some suggestions, but until you have walked a mile in a developers shoes or borne the responsibility for keeping a company afloat ... sit down and shut up.

Most of you just need to grow up ...

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Here's my question.

Why do we even have an "official" forum, when they have stated that the MWO forums are not representative of the MWO playerbase?

Why not just have a twitter, facebook, and Reddit pages, and just shut down the forums, frankly it would save on bandwidth costs.

I mean, we've been told the forums are not representitive of the playerbase, the most massive poll regarding 3rd person view was flat out ignored. There's this catering to the "Silent majority" which makes no sense.

I don't understand. Yes I understand that forums are a small percentage of your playerbase, that makes sense. But if you're going to flat out ignore the concerns being brought to you by those players who care enough to come here and bring those to your attention...

PGI has done nothing but fumbled with their "community" interactions. Opting to go to places such as Reddit, where unpopular opinions get silenced, instead of listening to actual, constructive feedback.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

What I find ironic is the OP's use of the word "kid" so many times in regards to PGI. The OP's arguement is based upon utter speculation as to why / how decisions are being made, which is EXACTLY what a child does. The reality is that the OP is the one acting like a Child and doing nothing more then trying to draw attention to himself.

Like the OP's arguments about testers. I happen to know "closed testing" happens and the issue is not frequency, but the issue is focus on certain things that need to be tested. Of course, PGI already knows about the testing issue and is already fixing that with open test servers, and has communicated the same ... so why even bring that up?

I think the OP needs to stop "assuming" he actually know what / why decisions are happening ... that is what a child does. Frankly, as a software developer, I laugh at most everything posted on these boards, including much of the OP's post. People, in general, don't have a clue about how to develop software ... heck, the majority of people on these boards don't have a clue about how to run a business.

PGI ignores most all of you, as it should, because most all of you don't have a clue. Express what your unhappy about, make some suggestions, but until you have walked a mile in a developers shoes or borne the responsibility for keeping a company afloat ... sit down and shut up.

Most of you just need to grow up ...

First off, no.Why? Because consumers have rights in regards to their products.

A company cannot just walk over you because they want to. And that kind of opinion only shows that you're more than happy to bend over and take it. If your customers are unhappy with something, you don't just forge ahead with that thing. [Que X-box one reference here.]

[Victor Morson]

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

What I find ironic is the OP's use of the word "kid" so many times in regards to PGI. The OP's arguement is based upon utter speculation as to why / how decisions are being made, which is EXACTLY what a child does. The reality is that the OP is the one acting like a Child and doing nothing more then trying to draw attention to himself.

It was an analogy I think a lot of us that grew up in an era without readily available internet fighting games could relate to, trying to explain what I meant by the "bubble" in clearer terms. If all you are doing is play testing in a small group of people, you have no idea how the game is played at upper tiers.

Second, I think at this point it is safe to say that nothing I've said about their balancing methods are invalid, including from various comments PGI themselves have said. I'm not shooting in the dark, here.

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Like the OP's arguments about testers. I happen to know "closed testing" happens and the issue is not frequency, but the issue is focus on certain things that need to be tested. Of course, PGI already knows about the testing issue and is already fixing that with open test servers, and has communicated the same ... so why even bring that up?

I'm extremely familiar with how test teams are myself, and yes, looking for bugs is their priority. That is why other companies contact upper tier teams and use their feedback for balancing, so their testers can remain focused on bugs. PGI is doing all balance testing internally. That is not an assumption.

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

I think the OP needs to stop "assuming" he actually know what / why decisions are happening ... that is what a child does. Frankly, as a software developer, I laugh at most everything posted on these boards, including much of the OP's post. People, in general, don't have a clue about how to develop software ... heck, the majority of people on these boards don't have a clue about how to run a business.

I've been apart of several tripple A releases myself, in the game industry. If you're going at this from a business software POV, you've already misunderstood the unique challenges to multiplayer game development.

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

PGI ignores most all of you, as it should, because most all of you don't have a clue. Express what your unhappy about, make some suggestions, but until you have walked a mile in a developers shoes or borne the responsibility for keeping a company afloat ... sit down and shut up.

That is, again, not the issue. Because like I said, they do have limited resources - and they've got them committed to terrible systems that make no sense and are universally hated, like their concept of how to fix alphas or their "You're gonna have it and you're going to like it!" bullheadedness on 3rd Person Camera. If you haven't noticed every poll regarding the camera is a crushing landslide, the last was around 5-95 when it got shut down.

Believe me, I full well understand the limits of being a small dev on a tight budget and things like this are not going to help matters any. Unless you think spending their limited resources to add features everyone hates without a single response to the pages of hate to those systems is a wise way to optimize their development, instead of having those same people spend the same amount of time working on weapon tuning.

Or if you think occasionally dropping a tweet about hot button issues will take so much time, it would bury their company from the time lost...

NinetyProof, on 23 June 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Most of you just need to grow up ...

... and some of you need to open your eyes and look at the patterns emerging in the way things are being handled.

Edited by Victor Morson, 23 June 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[TOGSolid]

Dornhal, on 23 June 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Most of us think the game is fine.

We really don't.

[aniviron]

There's no way I am going through the first post with a line by line reply; suffice it to say that I agree with almost all of it.

I would also point out how much love Karl Berg gets on these forums to back up what Victor's main point: every time there is a big issue that KB is involved in bugfixing, he posts about it on the forums. Usually only a short paragraph or two, letting us know what caused the problem, what they are doing to fix it, and his best eta of when the fix will go live. If the fix is going to be late, he posts and tells us. Every time he posts, it's like hearing a chorus of angels, and everyone in the thread comes out to let him know how much we all appreciate his honesty and his communication.

[Victor Morson]

aniviron, on 23 June 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

There's no way I am going through the first post with a line by line reply; suffice it to say that I agree with almost all of it.

I would also point out how much love Karl Berg gets on these forums to back up what Victor's main point: every time there is a big issue that KB is involved in bugfixing, he posts about it on the forums. Usually only a short paragraph or two, letting us know what caused the problem, what they are doing to fix it, and his best eta of when the fix will go live. If the fix is going to be late, he posts and tells us. Every time he posts, it's like hearing a chorus of angels, and everyone in the thread comes out to let him know how much we all appreciate his honesty and his communication.

Indeed, I have to say, he's done more to let us know positive things going on than anyone else lately. Definitely worth mentioning.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

First, in respose to the poll questions ...

- happy w/ community interaction ... NO ... I don't think they should be answering every gripe and question personally, but I think they could provide more information about the overall plan and vision for the game. Part of what convinced me to buy my founders package was the original Dev Blog posts. I would be mostly happy just to see something like that to talk about the big picture items that are coming down the road.

- how is it progressing ... more right than wrong ... I still have faith that MW:O can be great, and that PGI wants that more than we do, but for different reasons. They've worked on failed games ... it can't be fun. Many of us love the BT/MW universe and want to play a great game in it. If this game is great, we'll still be playing, along with many more, for years. If it's not, we move on to something else. It's not there yet, without knowing where the road leads, I am taking a leap of faith. The difference between me (and the rest of the community) and PGI is, if the game fails, all we've lost is time and a little money.

- balance ... other ... you asked about mechs and weapons, so here's my take:
-- Mechs are imbalanced by design. Some of them are better at some roles than others, some of them are pretty good at a couple of things ... the CPLT-K2, for example, can be a pretty good sniper, skirmisher, or brawler (not really great at any of these, but capable). Others are pretty much crappy all around ... the SDR-5V, for example ... being able to only mount 2 slots worth of energy weapons. Others are phenomenal at one thing, and crappy at others. I actually like that you have to grind three variants of the same chassis to advance skills ... it helps me learn more as pilot.
-- Weapons are also imbalanced by design, but need to be balanced more closely than 'mechs. There will always be "bad" or ineffective builds, but each weapon, weapon combination, and weapon/equipment combination needs to be closely watched for trends. When one combination starts winning more consistently than others, PGI needs to start watching that trend closely.

Second ... more later ... I'm at work and need to actually do some work ...

[Deathlike]

aniviron, on 23 June 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

There's no way I am going through the first post with a line by line reply; suffice it to say that I agree with almost all of it.

I would also point out how much love Karl Berg gets on these forums to back up what Victor's main point: every time there is a big issue that KB is involved in bugfixing, he posts about it on the forums. Usually only a short paragraph or two, letting us know what caused the problem, what they are doing to fix it, and his best eta of when the fix will go live. If the fix is going to be late, he posts and tells us. Every time he posts, it's like hearing a chorus of angels, and everyone in the thread comes out to let him know how much we all appreciate his honesty and his communication.

Best PGI dev evahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Tekadept]

Karl Berg and Matt D Should be be the Community Managers! The current community manager reminds me of Zh1nt0 from the BF3 days, he was a ghost you hardly heard from to.

I agree with everything said here, the lack of communication is appalling, it is almost a throw back to the early days of the internet when game developers were just learning that they had to start communicating with people on a whole new medium vs the traditional magazine articles.

This current incarnation of the game is boring grind same thing over and over, at least decent communications from devs would keep me interested. If i was playing as a solo pug and not part of a unit TBH I would have stopped playing this game long ago. It is a shame, I came into the "Free to play" game knowing a F2P title will always cost you more then a normal game, but I was cool with that, hey its mechwarrior. Here I am with a whole lot of disposable income but no inclination to spend it on this game at the moment..

As far as game balance? the biggest issue here is that this is being treated like a released game, any balance changes that happen are very minor and insignificant as they are too wary to upset their paying player base. patches should be far more daring to help balance things out because hey its beta right?, The only reason to balance they way they are in minute amounts is because they think things are perfectly balanced, that makes things even more scary.

As far as a lot of the bad decisions, I personally don't blame PGI though, I think its more IGP that is causing the issues, typical relationship, the person who holds the purse strings is ultimately the one in control. If it was all ong PGI I would be surprised and even more dissapointed then I already am.

Edited by Tekadept, 23 June 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[Sephlock]

Quote

I think the OP needs to stop "assuming" he actually know what / why decisions are happening ... that is what a child does. Frankly, as a software developer, I laugh at most everything posted on these boards, including much of the OP's post. People, in general, don't have a clue about how to develop software ... heck, the majority of people on these boards don't have a clue about how to run a business.

Quote

I've been apart of several tripple A releases myself, in the game industry. If you're going at this from a business software POV, you've already misunderstood the unique challenges to multiplayer game development.

I just have this mental image of two guys in adjacent cubicles, furiously typing away... completely unaware of their neighbor .

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 23 June 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Second ... more later ... I'm at work and need to actually do some work ...

Looking back at what drew me in, and helped me believe that PGI can make a great Mech Warrior game ... the original Dev Blog posts ... How do I think they're doing so far on achieving the goals they established for themselves ...
- Community Warfare - Maybe 10% implemented so far ... This is probably the biggest dissappointment for me to date ... not because of where I think it's going, but that we're less than 90 days from "release", and the only news we have had started a forum firestorm bigger than LRMpocalypse. I try to avoid idle speculation, but I am very eager to see where this is headed, and right now, we're in an information vacuum.
- Information Warfare - Maybe 50% implemented so far ... Until we had viable counters for ECM (keeping IFF icons on friendly mechs, BAP at close range, UAV, Seismic), all we had was information denial. Now that we have some means of gathering information, we need a useful way to share it and make decisions as a team based on that information. In-game chat is not it. 3rd-party tools, like TeamSpeak, etc., should not be it. Unless the pace of the game slows down significantly, the battle grid and command orders are not it.
- Role Warfare - Maybe 60% implemented so far ... Adding XP/C-Bill rewards for spotting, using TAG, NARC, Savior Kills, Defensive Kills, etc. helps, but the current game modes don't really make anything except "Assault" and "Defense" really that significant in who wins or loses.
- Mech Warfare - Maybe 90% implemented so far ... This is really all we have at the moment. It is the core of the game, and should be the primary focus of balance discussions. PGI has done a fair job of managing this ... there have been some things that have slipped through the cracks, but the game balance rules vs. players' ingenuity arms race has been going on as long as organized competition.

So, in my opinion, they're just a little more than halfway to reaching full implementation of the "pillars" of MW:O. I think reworking the front end (U.I. 2.0) has probably set back some major milestones, but that's OK ... if the front end, social aspects, and mech lab are difficult and frustrating, it will sour some players' experiences. The game should be easy (and fun) to play, hard (and challenging) to do well, and difficult (but not impossible) to master.

Until the "pulse lasers being normalized" (whatever that means) nerf to LPLs, I was convinced that PGI was using long term use, damage, kill, and win telemetry to determine which weapons needed adjustment. Reading between the lines in Command Chair posts and Ask the Devs answers, I think they're looking at trends over months, and making small adjustments. (Unless things were way out of whack.) While that approach does not satisfy the immediate gratification we've come to accept from the internet, it makes sense. However, giving LPLs more heat than a PPC just doesn't make any sense to me.

So, how to keep the game balanced ... There will always be "bad" / "fun, but ineffective" / "good, but not great" / "optimum" builds. Finding out which builds are "bad", "fun", "good", and "optimum" should be part of the game, but "optimum" builds should not dominate the game.

In my opinion, the balance between a "good" build and an "optimum" build should be slim enough that for the masses, it doesn't significantly impact the outcome of the match, and for the top tier, a top 1% player in a "good" build is going to have a fair shot at a top 5% player in an "optimum" build.

I agree that PGI should pay more attention to the top 5%-10% of players than the masses, when it comes to weapon balancing. Except in the very rare instances of players with pure superior talent, these are the players who use every slight advantage to win. When those slight advantages combine in certain forms -- older examples: ECM + Streaks, Missile boating + Additive Splash Damage, Jump Jets + PPC + Gauss -- they become the "flavor of the month". While this is OK for the top tier, who will happily do whatever it takes to win, it is exceptionally frustrating for the casual player.

They should be paying attention to which mechs and builds are being used by the top tier players, and when those trends change, PGI should be asking them why. Are they just bored with jump sniping, or has the meta changed because of something new?

[p00k]

PGI is desperately trying to take away EA's distinction as the company that killed the IP