471 replies to this topic

[Xie Belvoule]

Antarus, on 25 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Good and Optimum builds should force you to adapt your playstyle to their weaknesses.

The weakness of snipers is fast brawlers, but with SRMs nerfed the only natural enemy of snipers has been taken out of the food chain.

[Tom Sawyer]

Staggercheck when Rush did that I was laughing my *** off. It was epic seeing it live

Also as I type this I see a big banner PGI is hiring. I wonder just how many holes are there in the company?

[Victor Morson]

Xie Belvoule, on 25 June 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

The weakness of snipers is fast brawlers, but with SRMs nerfed the only natural enemy of snipers has been taken out of the food chain.

That was the only enemy of brawlers; if they'd do something about AC/10 and LBX/10, that would make a big difference as well. Not to mention if LPLs were good.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 June 2013 - 11:58 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Project Phoenix is officially overrunning the boards and wiping away several highly active, critical of PGI threads that were going. I really wish people wouldn't go "Oh, shiny!" just because they are unseen 'mechs.

I think PP is handled well and the value is definitely there, but we cannot forget that unless something changes, all it will bring is a new PPC + Gauss 'mechs, which most of them are capable of doing.

[RG Notch]

Victor Morson, on 25 June 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Project Phoenix is officially overrunning the boards and wiping away several highly active, critical of PGI threads that were going. I really wish people wouldn't go "Oh, shiny!" just because they are unseen 'mechs.

I think PP is handled well and the value is definitely there, but we cannot forget that unless something changes, all it will bring is a new PPC + Gauss 'mechs, which most of them are capable of doing.

Project Phoenix working as intended then. And people say PGI can't manage the community, well I say it.

[FupDup]

Victor Morson, on 25 June 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Project Phoenix is officially overrunning the boards and wiping away several highly active, critical of PGI threads that were going. I really wish people wouldn't go "Oh, shiny!" just because they are unseen 'mechs.

I think PP is handled well and the value is definitely there, but we cannot forget that unless something changes, all it will bring is a new PPC + Gauss 'mechs, which most of them are capable of doing.

Depending on the Battlemaster's MG locations, it might be able to do dual Gauss or AC/40 (are the MGs both in the same side torso?).

[Lostdragon]

This is kind of a faux pas but I am going to repost this here because I think it is relevant and will likely not be seen elsewhere.

Prosperity Park, on 25 June 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

If PGI had a company Pizza Party on Friday evening after work, there would be people up-in-arms about how they should be working through the weekends instead of taking weekends off, and not wasting money on pizza when they should be spending it on hiring all new staff.

Here's the thing, I work in IT for bank. We are going through a lot of major changes and projects I have to manage. My customers are the management of the bank and the people who use the systems for which I am responsible.

When something goes wrong, I tell my customers what is wrong an estimated time to fix it. If I am not going to meet a deadline I tell them and provide an explanation and new estimated time to completion. Why do I do these things? Because if I don't my customers will be breathing down my neck wanting to know what is going on and what I am doing to fix it. I do it because it is the professional and respectful thing to do.

If I am behind on a project I damn sure not going to have a pizza party after work. I am going to buckle down and work OT to fix it, then I will have that pizza party.

PGI has brought the current level of player frustration on themselves by failing to meet deadlines then not saying anything about it and failing to address player concerns about their balancing and the direction of the game. I am not going to go to my boss and ask for a raise when I am not able to complete my work and have been avoiding his calls, so I don't understand how you and others are surprised that PGI has drawn my ire and that of other customers when they ask us for more money after ignoring us for weeks.

Edited by Lostdragon, 25 June 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Roland, on 25 June 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Because there are certain principles of mech design which enable skillful use.

For instance, if you take a mech which is just a bunch of random crap, with no focus, then that mech is gonna be trash.... There's no way to make terrible configurations into good configurations.

.

One way does exist and that is team work. Clasic TT designs where created for flavor text. the atlas should be rocking at least 8 medium lasers. It's not min maxed in any way. for example a thunderbolt 1 lrm 15, 1 LL, 3 ML comes to mind..... by its self its load out is blended and week, but using 4 thunderbolts with cooperation and you got 4 LRM 15's 4 LL, 12 ML. only if they work together like a 4 man lance would, do they become powerful. not as powerful as a pure ppc load out, but again its for flavor text.

Skill full use make me think the mech carries only one weapon type. for MWO it better, but for TT again it better but if your making an abstract weapon of war your going to be blending weapon systems. Modern fighters have missiles and MG's, tanks can have missiles, MG along with the main gun.

ER PPC'S are great for all ranges so why not boat them. in later TT designs they did. The currant game design funnels players into using single weapons boats. so yea fun non min maxed build are week,
Franken builds are to me a lot like the old flavor text mechs. yes i can make something better, but they need a place just because they're fun.

I love the classic Warhammer but its a flavor text mech. its not viable in its stock configuration.

what would you change to make it viable in MWO.?

The point is i shouldn't have too.

[Undead Bane]

Hey, OP!

I really hope, that at least your post will get a reply... Well, some reaction at least.

But even if so, I'm SO pessimistic about that. I mean, I, personally, was here since the beginning of august 2012. Till a certain point everything was improving.
Then, at certain point the first BS got implemented, the thing that most of the (forum attenders) player base hated. Then second BS. Then the devs devoted more and more time trying to explain to everyone, that BS is not a BS, but is actually a good thing. And things started to feel progressing slower...and slower...and slower. Till a complete standstill around, I'd say, the New year, maybe February. And then went to regression, where we are now, as devs keep devoting enormous resources to try to make people love the BS and totally ignoring the issues, that even the dumbest one has already seen (like, say, perfect convergence, ECM being stupid and so on).
The more they follow this path, the more they try to persuade people that BS is not a BS but a candy - the harder it will be to get back.

Roland, on 24 June 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

No. This is a mistaken impression.

The problem is not those builds. Those builds are merely symptoms of the problem.

The problem is that you can fire any number of weapons, and they will magically hit a singular point in space. This is what leads to the current metagame. It's exactly what has been the driving force in all competent mech design throughout the entire history of mechwarrior.

I understand that many people are afraid to deal with this core issue, but it's the real reason for the gameplay that you have now.

And that gameplay IS NOT NEW. It's exactly what we saw in prior incarnations of Mechwarrior. It's always been about putting together the biggest alpha strike you could, because the damage modeling in the game rewards being able to focus damage through a single panel.

Earlier in beta, there were some fools who disputed that this was the case. They said that their garbage mixed range/DPS configurations were effective in MWO. But they weren't. They just happened to be playing against other garbage players, giving them the mistaken illusion that those configurations were effective. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. But as things progressed, it's gotten to the point where even the trash players now understand some of these basic fundamental aspects of mech design, and now yo finally see that essentially everyone has migrated to high alpha builds.. because those builds WILL ALWAYS BE BEST WHEN WEAPONS CONVERGE PERFECTLY. You can, potentially, run mixed range lances, if team coordination is well orchestrated, and if brawling weapons offer significant damage efficiency over long range mechs.. but those are some big caveats, and the latter isn't the case currently.

You either deal with this issue, or you get our current meta. Those are your options.

I don't really care either way. I can play with whatever the devs give me, but folks who argue that convergence isn't at the core of everything you see in the current metagame are either fools, liars, or both.

Hey, Roland. Every time I see a post like yours, I keep remembering my own post, offering to fix the convergence back in CB (such a pity it got slaughtered, I've spent quite some time doing all the math there and drawing pictures). I kinda got flamed to death on 6+ pages. And I kinda remember people, that were flaming like a lot about things like "no stupid randomness in my game, it will kill all the skill blah-blah".
Funny enough, now I sometimes see same people whining about high alpha builds (it's not about you anyhow, your post just triggered the memories). And the funniest thing ever is, that if you see them replying in a post about convergence, they still tend to reply like "no randomness in my game, it will kill all the skill blah-blah". How do you think, what should it take for them to make this logical connection in their brains? =)

Edited by Undead Bane, 25 June 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[DocBach]

Undead Bane, on 25 June 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Hey, Roland. Every time I see a post like yours, I keep remembering my own post, offering to fix the convergence back in CB (such a pity it got slaughtered, I've spent quite some time doing all the math there and drawing pictures). I kinda got flamed to death on 6+ pages. And I kinda remember people, that were flaming like a lot about things like "no stupid randomness in my game, it will kill all the skill blah-blah".
Funny enough, now I sometimes see same people whining about high alpha builds (it's not about you anyhow, your post just triggered the memories). And the funniest thing ever is, that if you see them replying in a post about convergence, they still tend to reply like "no randomness in my game, it will kill all the skill blah-blah". How do you think, what should it take for them to make this logical connection in their brains? =)

Convergence doesn't have to be random, and could be fixed while giving players complete control over the extent and quickness their convergence occurs:

http://mwomercs.com/...active-reticle/

[General Taskeen]

Tombstoner, on 25 June 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

I love the classic Warhammer but its a flavor text mech. its not viable in its stock configuration.

what would you change to make it viable in MWO.?

The point is i shouldn't have too.

Huh? I'm confused. Have you thoroughly tested some stock builds? Because there are quite a few that are (minus anything affected by fantasy-ecm, or weapons/equipment that remain bad). Its not viable probably because you have been on Mechlab-amphetamine for too long. The stock Warhammer actually has a very good, balanced loadout.

Edited by General Taskeen, 25 June 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[Undead Bane]

DocBach, on 25 June 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Convergence doesn't have to be random, and could be fixed while giving players complete control over the extent and quickness their convergence occurs:

http://mwomercs.com/...active-reticle/

Well, guess wat, my friend, my old CB idea was very close to what u've posted, with connection to all the penalties TT originally had, but adapted to action mechanics. Unfortunately, it first got flamed, then the forums got slaughtered and I'm too lazy to make myself post it again.
As, obviously, devs have stated, that they don't give a single **** about all ideas that are about making convergence not perfect

UPD
Actually, I didn't take locations into consideration that much. I just made different math for hand-mounted weapons and torso-mounted weapons. Slightly easier to comprehend.

Edited by Undead Bane, 25 June 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[DocBach]

Undead Bane, on 25 June 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Actually, I didn't take locations into consideration that much. I just made different math for hand-mounted weapons and torso-mounted weapons. Slightly easier to comprehend.

I think thats the key that would get the players clamoring about no randomness on board - the weapons would not behave randomly, the reticle would tell a player exactly where his shots will go, rather than just open for a random hit somewhere inside the spread open reticle.

[Undead Bane]

DocBach, on 25 June 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I think thats the key that would get the players clamoring about no randomness on board - the weapons would not behave randomly, the reticle would tell a player exactly where his shots will go, rather than just open for a random hit somewhere inside the spread open reticle.

Yeah, I get you. I will even bump your topic.
However, my point was, that introducing that many hit locations (AND moving ones!) may be confusing, so I just went for more "common" (before CoD and BF) FPS mechanic, where these to-hit points would still be present, but not explicitly.
The best example of such approach is, probably, AK74 in original CS. All the pros knew, that it will eventually converge to the top of upper crosshair bar. And used it to headshot everyone for quite some time (though, it still required quite some skill to do that). But if you were to use that u had to spend some ammo and time shooting. What time and what amount - that what the skill was about.

Edited by Undead Bane, 25 June 2013 - 02:53 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Antarus, on 25 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Good and Optimum builds should force you to adapt your playstyle to their weaknesses.

The current meta's long range pinpoint builds force you to adapt by playing the same game they are instead, which is the issue.

Operational Art of War 101. Taking advantage of an adversaries weaknesses is usually the most effective way to deal with them, another is to neutralize their strengths ... the least effective (but for many, the most fun) is of course to meet strength vs. strength and let skill or luck decide.

[Victor Morson]

TOGSolid, on 25 June 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

It could also just be a matter of certain people being more recognizable j

It's also a matter of certain members being more recognizable because we post a lot and those posts tend to get attention. When you notice them on the scoreboard it's like "hey, I remember that guy!" The people who post well also tend to play well which means we run into each other more regularly. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Now, if game after game you're seeing the same people, then yeah, there's a problem.

But that's my point: If I can recognize multiple forum members in every single match I play, I simply do not think you can claim the forum users are a minority opinion at this point.

[Valore]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 25 June 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Operational Art of War 101. Taking advantage of an adversaries weaknesses is usually the most effective way to deal with them, another is to neutralize their strengths ... the least effective (but for many, the most fun) is of course to meet strength vs. strength and let skill or luck decide.

Yes but unlike actual war, a war game's critical criteria includes both fun AND challenge.

While these are not mutually exclusive, drowning out one or the other is fairly risky.

I for one am enjoying the current meta. I don't play PPC Stalkers, but have clan mates who are gods with those things, so I'm more than happy to play bodyguard/cleanup crew with them in my brawler.

But I could fully understand how some others who may not have friends etc are not enjoying themselves.

[Victor Morson]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 25 June 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Operational Art of War 101. Taking advantage of an adversaries weaknesses is usually the most effective way to deal with them, another is to neutralize their strengths ... the least effective (but for many, the most fun) is of course to meet strength vs. strength and let skill or luck decide.

That's all well in good, but anything other than sniper builds is pretty much a ticket for one free *** kicking.

Now, back when SRMs were good, this quote totally applied. You know, back when the K2 was the best thing out there for sniping and people thought -that- was bad? Yeah, you could totally use different strengths and roles to combat others. It made the game really fun to play.

Then they destroyed missiles and never fixed ballistics, and are actively nerfing midrange builds (Medlas boats, LPLs), well, there is no longer a "different strength" to exploit. Throw in arm locked convergence and finally fixing the PPC and you're left with what we have.

Edited by Victor Morson, 25 June 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[Sephlock]

If they let Overlord purchases have the mechs right now and gave them tophats and monocles for the humanoid ones, all would be forgiven for-ever-and-ever.

[Valore]

Sephlock, on 25 June 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

If they let Overlord purchases have the mechs right now and gave them tophats and monocles for the humanoid ones, all would be forgiven for-ever-and-ever.

I would agree with that, except no matter how uber and shiny your new mech is, if it came with dud weapons that did not hitreg half the time, it would be a huge downer.