471 replies to this topic

[Hammerfinn]

8RoundsRapid, on 29 June 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Once your game raises 5 mil, you are no longer allowed to play this card. They got filthy stinkin rich off of empty promises and outright lies.

Do you realize how LITTLE 5 mil is for game development? That's, like, a 20th of the budget for the big releases. That barely covers salaries, much less development costs.

[Accursed Richards]

Homeless Bill, on 29 June 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

I'm not talking about people like you or this thread in general (I've only read the OP and agree with quite a bit of it). I don't even have a particular instance or comment in mind. It's just **** that I read every day in various threads. Whiny, entitled, ungrateful, unconstructive ******** that makes me sigh ("another ******** sale?? FIX MY BUGS!1"). It is the people that want it NOW NOW NOW that ruin the developers' attitudes for the community at large. I'm not saying it should, but it does.

That's not very professional, then. You'd think in a beta, the developers would want to listen to the actual beta testers. Talk to the people who make an effort to express their points in a civil way, and simply ignore the ranters. Reward good behaviour and positive attempts to start dialogue and you'll get more of it, and more goodwill from the player base. This is pretty basic public relations. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring everyone only makes things worse, as people get the message that if reasonable attempts to engage will be ignored, might as well rant. It won't get anything done, but at least it'll make them feel better.

[jakucha]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 29 June 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

This game has gotten worse since closed beta, not better.

That simply isn't true; you're looking at that through nostalgia goggles.

[Victor Morson]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

That simply isn't true; you're looking at that through nostalgia goggles.

No, it is true, unfortunately - from a balance only POV.

From a technical standpoint, the game has improved quite a bit. From a map standpoint, it is in fact much better.

But you know what matters most in a game? Gameplay. And the Gameplay from near closed beta was far and away better than what we have now, even with it's flaws - I would say it reached it's peak shortly after the engine caps and definitely before ECM came about.

Sure there were problems. LRMs were too slow to be useful in serious matches and there were still a number of dud weapons like the LBX/10 that needed work.

But you know what? Much like what I've said about MW4, which also had a lot of busted guns, all the roles worked. At this point in the game you had a reason to have snipers (K2 2x Gauss Snipers were drastically less powerful than what we have today), brawlers, flankers and scouts.
Laser balance was closer, Pulse laser balance was closer, SRMs were way closer and LRMs just needed a freaking speed boost. There was no "hard counter rock paper scissors" systems, just augments and eventually debuffs like the TAG.

Sure, some neat things have been added since then and again, it was not perfect, but you had a reason to diversify your force and your snipers were, while still reasonably solid in an infight, outclassed by 'mechs dedicated to it.

So yes, I'd say the gameplay has gotten far worse since closed beta, in spite of technical achievements and some nice features. People will stick with games that are falling apart at the techncial seems if the gameplay is good, and they will leave a great looking, technically impressive game in a heartbeat if the gameplay is bad. Gameplay really is king, and that's why I am concerned.

[jakucha]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

No, it is true, unfortunately - from a balance only POV.

From a technical standpoint, the game has improved quite a bit. From a map standpoint, it is in fact much better.

But you know what matters most in a game? Gameplay. And the Gameplay from near closed beta was far and away better than what we have now, even with it's flaws - I would say it reached it's peak shortly after the engine caps and definitely before ECM came about.

Sure there were problems. LRMs were too slow to be useful in serious matches and there were still a number of dud weapons like the LBX/10 that needed work.

But you know what? Much like what I've said about MW4, which also had a lot of busted guns, all the roles worked. At this point in the game you had a reason to have snipers (K2 2x Gauss Snipers were drastically less powerful than what we have today), brawlers, flankers and scouts.
Laser balance was closer, Pulse laser balance was closer, SRMs were way closer and LRMs just needed a freaking speed boost. There was no "hard counter rock paper scissors" systems, just augments and eventually debuffs like the TAG.

Sure, some neat things have been added since then and again, it was not perfect, but you had a reason to diversify your force and your snipers were, while still reasonably solid in an infight, outclassed by 'mechs dedicated to it.

So yes, I'd say the gameplay has gotten far worse since closed beta, in spite of technical achievements and some nice features. People will stick with games that are falling apart at the techncial seems if the gameplay is good, and they will leave a great looking, technically impressive game in a heartbeat if the gameplay is bad. Gameplay really is king, and that's why I am concerned.

Seems like we played different closed betas then. Weapon balance was just as broken as it is now to me in closed beta. PPCs were useless partially due to hit detection and other stats. Gauss rifles were spammed like PPCs are. Where some weapons might have been nice, others were broken like now.

Edited by jakucha, 29 June 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don't think Closed Beta was better.

But from a gameplay perspective, there is a point - a useless weapon is just poor design, yes. But a useless weapon doesn't affect gameplay much. People (that know what they are doing) just avoid the ****** weapon and take the good weapons instead.

Dual Gauss Snipers might have been too powerful, but there "too powerful" was ultimately still relatively limited. A 30 damage alpha is just not the same as a 40 or 45 alpha. No one used the PPC, because it just could not possibly be useful in a system where mechs could still sink their table top heat levels but produced 2.5 as much heat. Even the high heat cap back then was not enough to change this fundamental aspect - the cap was not high enough, and the dissipation was considerably lower than now with double heat sinks.

The lack of HSR lead to broken lag shields and weakened most weapons, but particularly ballistics. But again, this meant that these weapons were not as powerful in game as the could be. Lights and Mediums also were more powerful than they should be, because they benefitted among the most from lag shields. Which might have made role balance better.

This doesn't mean we don't need HSR, of course. It just means that any "balance" in gameplay that we might have felt was a pure accident, and not carefully engineered to be so... And quite possibly worse - it could not have been purposefully and carefully designed because the effects of lag shields are not really balance-able, since they depend on random factors that cannot be sensibly predicted. (Without implementing HSR, at least.)

[Victor Morson]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Seems like we played different closed betas then. Weapon balance was just as broken as it is now to me in closed beta. PPCs were useless partially due to hit detection and other stats. Gauss rifles were spammed like PPCs are. Where some weapons might have been nice, others were broken like now.

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Seems like we played different closed betas then. Weapon balance was just as broken as it is now to me in closed beta. PPCs were useless partially due to hit detection and other stats. Gauss rifles were spammed like PPCs are. Where some weapons might have been nice, others were broken like now.

Midrange Laser = Viable
Laser Brawler = Viable
SRM Brawler = Viable
Sniper = Viable
Large Laser builds = Viable
Assault Sniper = Viable
Assault Zombie = Viable
LRM Support = Not viable due to speed but great damage
Recon = Viable

Now:

Snipers = Viable
Recon = Viable

I am speaking of games without player-imposed restrictions, which opens things on both sides up more.

[jakucha]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Midrange Laser = Viable
Laser Brawler = Viable
SRM Brawler = Viable
Sniper = Viable
Large Laser builds = Viable
Assault Sniper = Viable
Assault Zombie = Viable
LRM Support = Not viable due to speed but great damage
Recon = Viable

Now:

Snipers = Viable
Recon = Viable

I am speaking of games without player-imposed restrictions, which opens things on both sides up more.

A lot of these things are still viable, except long range alpha spam is overpowered. Whereas if those were all broken you'd have to fix everything, but in this case it's mostly having to just fix the alpha spam/convergence/big damage problem.

Edited by jakucha, 29 June 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[RG Notch]

Victor Morson, on 29 June 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Midrange Laser = Viable
Laser Brawler = Viable
SRM Brawler = Viable
Sniper = Viable
Large Laser builds = Viable
Assault Sniper = Viable
Assault Zombie = Viable
LRM Support = Not viable due to speed but great damage
Recon = Viable

Now:

Snipers = Viable
Recon = Viable

I am speaking of games without player-imposed restrictions, which opens things on both sides up more.

Wow, rose colored glasses I guess. The frightening part is I think it's not hyperbole, I think you really believe that and that scares me that you consider yourself a good source for balancing. I guess if enough time passes and there are enough changes people will look back and honestly feel this is a great time for balance.
Not saying balance is good now, but the honest and true belief that balance was better in CB is unfathomable. Then I remember some people want the meta a certain way and are happy. Like the jump snipers that continue to whine about JJ shake. As long as it was good for your playstyle I guess then balance is good. Like everything else, balance is subjective.

[aniviron]

Cathy, on 29 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

An example is 3PV I don't think adding it is going to make this game easier to play and increase the playing population, which is the reason PGI have stated is going to be introduced. I hope my posts on it have been reasonable, but the hardcore community have basically stamped their feet and acted like kids no matter what ring fencing has been claimed to be put in place to preserve the game. Yes that ring fencing is about as reliable as a chocolate chastity belt in the summer time, for the 'promises' broken in the past, but it has been clearly explained.

Are chocolate chastity belts a real thing?

[Victor Morson]

RG Notch, on 29 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Wow, rose colored glasses I guess. The frightening part is I think it's not hyperbole, I think you really believe that and that scares me that you consider yourself a good source for balancing.

Depending on the point you are talking about in closed beta, it absolutely was better. Yes, there were times the balance in closed beta was awful - like I said, before the engine speed cap things were a freaking mess (Max awesomes galore). So I don't think every version of closed beta was better than what we have now.

But the version that existed before ECM? Yes, it absolutely was better in every possible way. Not ENGINE wise, not NETCODE wise, but gameplay wise? Positively absolutely definitely.

It wasn't perfect by any means, and a lot of guns were terrible, but the biggest complaint people had back then was twin Gauss "being so OP." Pages and pages of hate for the K2 because it's not what people pictured the K2 should "supposed" to do.

You know what? I can live with that.

SRMs worked then. Pulse lasers worked then. LRMs.. OK, they were too slow but their damage was right then. Gauss was fine. PPCs sucked, but like I said, some weapons were broken. Large Lasers and even ER Large Lasers still were among the top tier guns.

Not a perfect world, but better than this PPC, Gauss, ML, SSRM world we live in today.

Edited by Victor Morson, 30 June 2013 - 01:09 AM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

That simply isn't true; you're looking at that through nostalgia goggles.

you either haven't played since closed or are insane.

[RG Notch]

Victor Morson, on 30 June 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

Depending on the point you are talking about in closed beta, it absolutely was better. Yes, there were times the balance in closed beta was awful - like I said, before the engine speed cap things were a freaking mess (Max awesomes galore). So I don't think every version of closed beta was better than what we have now.

But the version that existed before ECM? Yes, it absolutely was better in every possible way. Not ENGINE wise, not NETCODE wise, but gameplay wise? Positively absolutely definitely.

It wasn't perfect by any means, and a lot of guns were terrible, but the biggest complaint people had back then was twin Gauss "being so OP." Pages and pages of hate for the K2 because it's not what people pictured the K2 should "supposed" to do.

You know what? I can live with that.

SRMs worked then. Pulse lasers worked then. LRMs.. OK, they were too slow but their damage was right then. Gauss was fine. PPCs sucked, but like I said, some weapons were broken. Large Lasers and even ER Large Lasers still were among the top tier guns.

Not a perfect world, but better than this PPC, Gauss, ML, SSRM world we live in today.

Yup rose colored glasses. I guess you borrowed Russ's since he thinks the game is at its best now. Appears to be a number of people who are wearing them, must be fashionable.

[R Razor]

I think overall the game is on the right track.........I voted other in the Balance portion of the poll because I strongly believe that the game needs to change the hard point modification abilities to reflect weapon size as well as type.........the days of AC-40 Jagermechs and other ridiculous builds would end immediately and I think that would do more to balance the game than any amount of heat tweaking or weapon damage/range characteristic changes ever will.

[Red squirrel]

Victor Morson said:

The extreme minority of people who refuse to adapt but don't burn out are almost exclusively very bullheaded table top players who, again, would be happier with dice rolls.

I completely refuse to use those FOTM mix/max builds.

When everybody hated PPCs and we had the outcry about the Awesome hitboxes I exclusively played PPC Awesomes.
I painted it bright red to increase the embaressment of anybody getting killed by me
Today I dont even remember my last match with a PPC.
I love to use my crappy little half-way TT conform builds and I think that my piloting skills can compensate the lack of super alpha strikes.


PS: No I am not a crazy TT purist - and everyone suggesting dice based random hits in a real time game is nuts.

[Demuder]

jakucha, on 29 June 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

They may be slow at making this game and balancing it, but at least they're doing it. Getting that emotionally upset over this doesn't help anyone.

I know it will sound snide and smart-assy, but if people stop getting emotionally upset about a game, it usually means the game is... over.

The main gripe of the community is not the amount of balancing per se, but the way it is done. Ie, the heat penalty for X amount of same weapon. If anyone took the time to play for a couple of hours, or even put pen to paper, they would know it will do nothing, just like a band aid that will not stick. Still, it was announced and will be probably even implemented.

[Victor Morson]

dimstog, on 01 July 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

I know it will sound snide and smart-assy, but if people stop getting emotionally upset about a game, it usually means the game is... over.

The situation is different here, with this game.

This is the first MechWarrior game in over a decade, and it has VERY high expectations as a result, at least for the mech combat sim part.

Due to an apparent ignorance of how the game actually plays and an unwillingness to try to communicate with different levels of the community has lead to a game where, in order play at your peak, requires you are forced into 3 or 4 pigeon holes.

A lot of us are upset not because were are going "THIS GAME SUCKS, RAGE!" - though that is still happening - we're upset because we're seeing the whole franchise slip through our fingers because PGI is unwilling to get some feedback from their better players that have a better idea of how things are going, or otherwise being capable of making good balance calls for the GAME WE HAVE - not the GAME THEY PICTURE.

I think there are literally a good 200 or so players on these forums that could make this game two times as fun if they had an hour in a room alone with the weapon database. And that's infuriating.

The forum rage quitters aren't the ones to watch out for. The DOZENS AND DOZENS of people I personally know that quit or semi-retired because of the poor gun balance - all long time huge fans of Btech and MW no less - is alarming to say the least. I'm actually scared the game won't even be alive long enough for me to use all the Project Phoenix Overlord time at the current rate.

I really hope that PGI recognizes the situation and finally comes out of their bubble when they return from Holiday. This situation is nearing it's most critical point - if the meta isn't FIXED by CW and a large number of guns and gun families improved by this launch, we are going to go right over a cliff. The new users we attract at CW launch - likely due to Steam - will turn on this game VICIOUSLY if we're still locked to such a tiny number of limited roles, and most customization is moot because PPC/Gauss/Streaks dominate line 'mechs and PPC/ML/SL/Streaks dominate recon. (Maybe SPL now).

Basically I think unless we get through to PGI - and send the right message (PLEASE talk to upper tier players about balance and other tiers about game experience stuff, or at least, weight their opinions as such) to snap them out of this isolated view of the game they seem to have, I think there will be no hope left.
I do not want that. I want MW:O to be running 2 years from now with improvements still coming down the pipe. To have the game die because the weapon balance and community management guys failed to make guns be useful on their own OR work with each other well - simple stat tweaks - would be beyond depressing.

EDIT: Doubly alarming is PGI's idea of "fixes" are entirely random and show a complete disconnect from any understanding of what is going on, which is largely why we were are doubly alarmed. I'd be content waiting for patches to fix this stuff if they didn't seem to be showing less and less understanding for what needs to be done.

Edited by Victor Morson, 01 July 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Quote

The forum rage quitters aren't the ones to watch out for. The DOZENS AND DOZENS of people I personally know that quit or semi-retired because of the poor gun balance - all long time huge fans of Btech and MW no less - is alarming to say the least. I'm actually scared the game won't even be alive long enough for me to use all the Project Phoenix Overlord time at the current rate.

While I am concerned about the guys who have sidelined themselves, I'm even more concerned about the millions of prospective players out there that haven't tried it yet, are waiting for "official launch", or who haven't even heard of the game.

If the "total members" stat is to believed, there are nearly a half million registered players. While a significant portion of those are probably smurf accounts or players who "tried it a couple times, too hard", or guys on the sidelines waiting for things to get better, we -- the die hards who have weathered worse storms than this -- are the best potential source for advertising that PGI has.

If they can convince us that this is a game that we want all our friends playing, then PGI will have created something great, but right now, all I can say is "hold off for a little bit, it will probably be better in a couple of months".

[Demuder]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

The situation is different here, with this game.
.......

Uhm... that's what I meant in the first place. I am not talking about forum rage quitters because I have hardly seen any - on this subforum at least. Sure, discussions are heated sometimes but more or less civilized, certainly interesting, and that's all you can expect.

The fact that you spend quite a bit of time to write all that is an indication that you do have an emotional response to the game. If you didn't, you would have just stopped playing a long time ago, thus, the game would be "over".

As for PGI listening or not, I don't think they are not listening. I just think that they have heavily prioritized on features for release and have left actual balancing for later - or at least I hope they have.

[tenderloving]

Victor Morson, on 01 July 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I think there are literally a good 200 or so players on these forums that could make this game two times as fun if they had an hour in a room alone with the weapon database. And that's infuriating.

There are players that I strongly disagree with on most things, but I would feel comfortable with those same players being given free reign to change weapon stats. That's how simple most of the problems are; the ideas that I think are bad are still better than what we currently have.