65 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

and I say that, by the way, as a person who makes decisions about how to spend millions of dollars of clients' money for a living. I don't make those decisions in a vacuum. I stay in close touch with colleagues who have similar, and different, technical needs. I test new options. I carefully monitor the performance of my choices. I work to correct mistakes before they spin out of control, not after. I hedge risky bets with back-up options.

PGI seems to have all of MW:O's eggs in Paul's basket. This is very unwise. How about trying some of the things he thinks are wrong? If I was betting millions of dollars, the future of MW:O, on getting my game balance in order, I would get that public test server ready in a hurry (months ago) and see how various available options actually play out.

[Malora Sidewinder]

I would like to say that I speak for everybody when I say that in this thread, NOBODY finds it to be "answered."

Ahem, for dramatic effect,

This thread has not been given an acceptable answer.

[Deathlike]

If the only "acceptable answer" is to actually brush off people who care... well, the game gets what it deserves.

[pesco]

The problem isn't that they don't listen, the problem is that they think they know what they're doing and can't admit that they don't. I commend OP for their politeness, but it is my humble opinion that the game is broken by design and that it is the immediate responsibility of its designer(s).

In order for this game to reach its potential, one would have to make sweeping changes to virtually every design mechanic; an idea I am guessing PGI is very much terrified of, because it would mean kicking months of work directly into the bin where they belong. And that, in the eye of the manager, is the same as taking a blowtorch to the money they spent on it. But sometimes one just has to accept that money is already gone and nothing is made worse by getting rid of the crap it produced.

I'll close with a little anecdote, just because. I am currently grinding (when I do play) a HBK-4SP with its dual SRM-6. Everyone knows that SRMs are **** right now, but even if they get buffed, this variant, will never be viable in anything resembling its stock configuration (using SRMs as primary armament). A Splatcat will always be the better choice. No amount of "roles" or "rewards" will compare to raw damage in a game where the prime and most pressing goal at any time is to reduce the enemy's ... hit points faster than they are reducing yours. The problem is not the crappy Hunchback's non-viability, it is the overblown boats' viability. But that is exactly how the game is currently designed.

Edited by pesco, 01 July 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[Galen Crayn]

Quote

The problem is not the crappy Hunchback's non-viability, it is the overblown boats' viability. But that is exactly how the game is currently designed.

If they would not only make a weight restriction for the matches but a class/weight restriction this problem would be solved. For example in 12 vs12 : 1 Lance with Lights, 1 Lance with Meds, 1 Lance with Heavy and Assault and a restriction of 700t.

[pesco]

Galen Crayn, on 01 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

If they would not only make a weight restriction for the matches but a class/weight restriction this problem would be solved. For example in 12 vs12 : 1 Lance with Lights, 1 Lance with Meds, 1 Lance with Heavy and Assault and a restriction of 700t.

I agree that a matchmaking based on total tonnage is required, as opposed to the current class matching. Why they didn't do total tonnage matching from the get-go is a mystery to me; class-for-class has no benefits at all.

I'm not convinced it would solve the medium-viability problem completely, but it would be one part in solving it. My opinion is that in order for medium Mechs to become desirable to field, an economic component has to enter the picture. Restricting total tonnage to a given value is one way of simulating that ("nobody can afford more"), but it brings the question of which value is appropriate and why it is such a sharp cut-off. Fielding anything less than the maximum would never be desirable while bringing even a single gram more would never be possible -- weird.

I would suggest a more market-like model where (a) the matchmaker ensures that teams of equal total tonnage are matched against each other and (b ) the higher a team's total tonnage, the lower its reward for victory.

Remember, we're supposed to be cut-throat mercenary corporations starved for salvage parts here. As the game currently stands, we're all fat dynasties with infinite vaults overflowing with recovered Star League technology.

Edited by pesco, 02 July 2013 - 04:44 AM.