721 replies to this topic

[Wrenchfarm]

I actually really like the Power Output idea. I'd love some mechanic that gives you an advantage for packing multiple small weapons for a variety of weapons for different ranges than just heat (which pretty clearly favours the current PPC/Massive ballistic meta).

[Khan Reaper]

Aullido, on 01 July 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

I don't mind wait 10 seconds for shot. In fact I will love it. For me Mechwarrior was a slow dance where every shot matters. I barely touched MW4, it didn't have the feeling and MWO either.

To PGI:

Implement joystick exclusive matches. I miss its use where stick and throttle made the difference, besides crappy aiming could bring back some of the old gameplay.

Is this idea possible? I've played a little using my joystick and the first thing I thought was "this would be awesome for all of those that have issues with the convergence." However, it was no fun as the mouse and keyboard are just so much more superior for me. I'm one of the few that have no problems with the game as it currently is. But I don't play as much because it's getting that "been in beta forever" feel (likely because it's been in beta forever).

May I recommend plugging in a joystick to those that are hating the current game? It's much harder, and I know you shouldn't have to gimp yourself to have fun with a game, but perhaps it will give you the needed patience to deal with the game until launch. Then you can dig in deep and find the issues with the real game. I mean, I know the excuse sounds old and played out, and I know there are those that find this excuse to never have been true, but the game is still in beta. I'm willing to wait until the game launches to judge almost anything in the game because the game is in constant flux.

But, yeah...JOYSTICK ONLY MATCHES!!!

[Diablobo]

The game plays pretty well right now. Sure there are a couple tweaks that need to be done to missiles, PPCs and some energy weapons, but all of these things are trivial compared to the horrible matchmaking system that is currently in place.

When we can drop without having totally IMBALANCED teams all of the rest of the issues will be able to be addressed. Having Assaults and Heavies outmatch a bunch of Mediums and Heavies is the problem. Having one team with no fast mechs go up against a team with a couple fast cappers in Conquest will go a long way to make a match imbalanced. Until PGI takes tonnage and mech loadouts into consideration in the matchmaker, or sets up a lobby system that can make better matches, none of the weapon balance issues will make much difference.

Fix the MATCHMAKER, not the weapons.

Edited by Diablobo, 09 July 2013 - 04:00 PM.

[stjobe]

Diablobo, on 09 July 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Fix the matchmaker AND the weapons.

FTFY. Without some semblance of weapons balance, the matchmaker won't be able to give us balanced matches anyway. It's a double-edged sword - or, if you prefer, the problems plaguing MWO aren't so simple as to boil down to a single fix. There's a lot of minor and major fixes that needs to be done. A better matchmaker is one of those, as is weapons balance.

[Warge]

Khan Reaper, on 09 July 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

"this would be awesome for all of those that have issues with the convergence."

...to remove convergence from torso mounted weapons.

[jeffsw6]

Garth Erlam, on 09 July 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hey guys, I wanted to thank you for all of these ideas, and wanted you to know they have been forwarded to design. I cannot guarantee they'll be used, but thanks for the effort of putting your thoughts and ideas to paper text

We'd be happy if something was being done to move the game-balance in the right direction. Like Tennex says, baby steps are just fine.

The forums aren't on fire about MGs. There have been two MG adjustments and now it is 150% stronger. I think it's still not enough, but hey, they adjusted it twice, and hopefully they will keep on adjusting it until it's a useful weapon. So I'm not screaming about the MG because it got some attention, twice, and hopefully will again.

It should be clear to you that MW:O's armament balance is very bad. It should also be clear that Paul is not going to get it right by making some huge batch of adjustments, or making one pass at PPCs or heat scaling, and hoping everything will suddenly be perfect.

And no one is asking for that, or wants it. We want adjustments in the right direction, and evidence of 1) problem acknowledged; and 2) progress.

You guys could have done this months ago and had a lot of things right by now. That time is gone, as are many players.

Instead we have got a lot of modifications that actually made things worse. See Seismic Sensor, SRMs worse than ever, LPL nerf (wtf?), LRMs still busted, and so on. Stop doing that!

Tennex, on 09 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

just a +1 heat to both PPC and ERPPC would be fine imo.

baby steps

I think it needs more than just head modifications; I think range adjustments are needed, but like you said ... baby steps.

Helmer, on 09 July 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Because then everyone expects it. People already rage about "Why did X question get answered and not mine?" Imagine how it would be when 1 person gets to sit down with Paul and someone else doesn't.

There's like 20 people on this forum who could be that 1 person, and virtually no-one would complain.

Know why? Because there are 20 people who are universally agreed to be far smarter about the game balance than PGI has ever demonstrated itself to be, and who are reasonable, and are good communicators on the forum.

I'll repeat, though, that I think the problem is Paul himself. Remember, game-play is everything. Graphics, SFX, etc. that will attract someone to a game, but it won't keep them. WoT has ****** graphics compared to MW:O, yet you have pointed out, WoT has a lot of players. WoT also has (see below) a good matchmaker and far better balance.

You guys have all your eggs in Paul's basket. Millions of dollars invested, dozens of jobs (how many people will PGI have to lay-off if MW:O flops?) and all the potential, future revenue from MW:O if it becomes successful.

Paul has demonstrated failure after failure, when it comes to balance. Why do you continue to carry all your eggs in his basket? Seems to me that you need more employees involved in that decision-making process. Pat him on the back about the graphics and give him some help when it comes to the weapons.

Diablobo, on 09 July 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Fix the MATCHMAKER, not the weapons.

Hard to have an effective MM with a low player-count and PUGs being matched against 4-mans. Since the moderator already brought up World of Tanks, have you ever played it? The WoT match-maker does a much better job than MW:O. Why? There is very little customization in WoT, and there are so many players online (even off-peak) that its MM can literally make a 15-man game where each side has an equal amount of artillery units, heavy tanks, scout tanks, etc.

The MW:O matchmaker can't be significantly better without more players. Kind of a chicken-or-egg problem, except PGI already had the chicken, and they killed it by ignoring the crappy meta-game for so long. Now the only egg they've got is on their face.

[Pht]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Sorry, 1 last post. Noticed the Herb reference that I missed before. I'd take Jordan Weismans take on the feel of Mechwarrior over Herbs.

Thanks for the link. I'll watch it when I get some time. Yes, I know who JW is. Wonder where babcock is these days...

Quote

"..finding the right balance between universe and game system. I'll always lean more towards the universe because in the long run you'll fix a game system to make it work how you want to a universe you emotionally want to be part of..."

... he's basically pointing out that you want the universe (the setting) should control the game system, here.

He's not saying that the TT didn't define/set boundaries for/how the 'mechs behave in combat for the novels and the rest of the setting.

Quote

And remember, Weisman was active early on in the development of MWO

How did your collaboration with Russ Bullock and Piranha Games come about?
" ,snip>..Their talents and enthusiasm has only been exceeded by the talent of their team to execute upon the concepts that we came up with together. It has truly been a pleasure."

It seems Weisman feels this is close enough to be called a "Mechwarrior" game.

Weisman didn't say anything in the article you've referenced about wether MWO is "close enough to be called an MW game."

Quote

I'm sure this won't change anyone's mind, if this isn't Mechwarrior to you, I can respect that. As I said, its a semantic arguement.

Where did I say that MWO isn't an MW video game? Or did you simply presume it of me?
---
This is not a "semantic argument" in the perjorative sense of the term.

The definition that determines what an "MW" video game is not a wax nose; I think (at least I hope) that we can all agree on that.

while, atm, I don't have the time to grab the links, the MWO dev team realized that ultimately, it's the TT game that forms that definition; and that while the older MW video games are useful to see how others have tried to make a game in the series... they're context; but they aren't definitional.

Besides which, the various games contradict each other. Should the mechlab be completely unrestricted? Or use hardpoints like mw4 did? The weapons vs armor balance of every one of these games are different as well; in fact, some vary from patch to patch... how should we decide which of these should be emulated or not?

Again, in a game that is about carrying out combat in a battlemech, how that battlemech carries out combat is central.

So far, the preivous games have tried to get the movement and mechlab aspects into the game ... but nobodoy ... nobody ... has modeled the battlemech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear.

Kaspirikay, on 07 July 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Balance with more than 1 weapon type is impossible. Case closed.

Only if you think "balance" means everything should perform up to some nebulous, never defined definition of "similarly overall."

There is a definition of balance that allows for some things to be just better, that doesn't make for bad one or two dimensional gameplay.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 07 July 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

PHt refuses to acknowledge that anything is even wrong with TT...

This is absolutely completely and utterly untrue.

From 2011:

Pht, on 04 December 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

Why use the TT for a baseline? Because it's non-arbitrary, it has over 20 years of work on balancing it, and where it does "break" (ALL gaming systems break!) the problems are well known (meaning they can be worked against); they would produce (IMO) enough of a suspension of disbelief (realism) for us to engage in some escapism and fun, all the while being easily controlled on the dev end.

Concluding that someone thinks something isn't broken because they ask for specifics from someone about what they think is broken about it; because they ask why a turn based game can't be converted into real time... is ... irrational.

Quote

and had quite the argument with me in the past that the AC/2 is the most terrible, pointless gun in the game.. and I never could convince him otherwise.

... and apparently VM is still mad that I don't agree with the idea of whack-a-mole balance, where everthing must be some sort of nebulous "equal in overall performance."

If memory serves, VM can't figure out why anyone would think that an AC2 or an equivalent mass/size of AC2's to a gauss rifle shouldn't be somehow equivalent to a gauss rifle.

I find it amazing that he's STILL sore about this.

Quote

He will remain one of the hardest core of the "dice rolling MechWarrior" group that I can absolutely assure you does not represent all long-time BattleTech & MechWarrior fans...

... and the only reason anyone should agree with you is simply because you say this is true?

Quote

... that simply will not tolerate any variation - even when necessary for realtime game balance.

Also utterly untrue:

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

As for using the tabletop rules (TT) and stats in a VG - the idea is not to pursue slavish adherence to form of the various rules with no thought for the translation to a real-time VG format and no care for the concept of MW being a first person real time armored combat sim game set in the BTU.

Rather, the various rules give the raw numbers to work with and the behaviors to work towards. As far as the human-skill end, the rules and stats from the TT that are there to simulate the skills of the 'Mech's pilot should be left out, if at all possible... meaning that ALL of the piloting skill rules that simulate anything that we, the VG players, can control with our PC's and their peripherals should be left out. ALL of the pilot's gunnery simulation rules are not to be put into the video game, because we can control everything that the fictional 'Mech's pilot can control with our computer controls.

Exactly how the various rules are implemented in the back-end of the VG format is not an issue as long as they cause the VG to interact with the player in a way that intuitively makes sense in the player's head. In other words, if a simpler fix for a problem can produce the same "intuitively good" result as a more complex fix, there's no reason to go over-kill and chose the needlessly more complex fix.

...

Target movement/ Target has moved (x) number of hexes:
Immobile -4 (Immobile =target CAN NOT move)
0 hexes moved -1 0 meters (standing still)
1-2 hexes moved +0 30-60 meters (10.8 to 21.6 KM/h - 6.7 to 13.4 mph)
3-4 hexes moved +1 90-120m (32.4 to 43.2 KM/h - 20.1 to 26.8 mph)
5-6 hexes moved +2 150-180m (54.0 to 64.8 KM/h - 33.5 to 40.2 mph)
7-9 hexes moved +3 210-270m (75.6 to 97.2 KM/h - 46.9 to 60.3 mph)
10-17 hexes moved +4 300-510m (108.0 to 183.6 KM/h - 67.1 to 114.0 mph)
18-24 hexes moved +5 540-720m (194.4 to 259.2 KM/h - 120.7 to 161.0 mph)
25+ hexes moved +6 750m (270.0 KM/h - 167.7 mph and up)

Yes, there are "range gaps" here; but the raw math data here can be plotted on a graph, so these "range gaps" can be "filled in," and if necessary, the raw velocities can be used to determine to-hit numbers, if that is easier for the back-end of the video game. This is an example where the exact form of the TT rules might not be the best to use, but the math expressed can still be used to get good results.

...

It should be very obvious by now that the hit-location tables are VERY important. In fact, there is good reason to use the tables we already have as a standard baseline to construct more hit-tables to account for some situations which crop up in the video game format.

I still don't understand why people think making false statements about someone else's position on a forum where things can be directly quoted is a viable way to bolster their position...

Quote

For the record PHt both Living Legends and MW:O did start with TT "Hard Values" and it was awful in both of them. REALLY awful. It simply is terrible.

So, am I supposed to think that you didn't read my whole post to realize that I was pointing out that the combat mechanic numbers/math wasn't used, or should I think that you did and your'e simply attacking me because you're still sore about the balance argument over the ac2?

Or is it something else?

Tal Kharn, on 08 July 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

I've long asked myself why there was no mechanic that determined how much energy it required to fire different weapon system.

Mech fusion reactors can put out far more energy than a battlemech will ever use; is why this consideration has never entered the equation.

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

random is crap, I mean come on do people really want to miss thier shots thanks to RNG saying they missed for the sake of a round dragging on for another minuite or two...

Nobody has proposed this. who are you arguing with?

What has been proposed is that there be hit percentages used that are based upon how well a battlemech can bring it's weapons to bear in any given situation.

Nobody wants any sort of unpredictable randomness that cannot be controlled by player gameplay decisions.

MustrumRidcully, on 08 July 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

How would you implement "-2 attack"?

Easily.

Use the to-hit mechanic that the -2 was designed to work with in the game engine back end in real time.

[Pht]

FaceRipt, on 08 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

IF I AM AIMING AT SAID GAUSS ARM OF A HIGHLANDER OR PHRAC

To get it out of the way first... I don't care for the cone of fire either.

That said; do you think it is proper or improper for the battlemech's ability to physically align each individual weapon you are firing, based upon it's targeting computer's calculations about how to hit what you, the pilot, are targeting and tracking with the reticule, to be modeled in a MW video game?

[Pht]

Garth Erlam, on 09 July 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hey guys, I wanted to thank you for all of these ideas, and wanted you to know they have been forwarded to design. I cannot guarantee they'll be used, but thanks for the effort of putting your thoughts and ideas to paper text

*wonders if the devs have even seen the post I made on this topic that's been floating around on the forums since 2011: http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/2001-weapons-fire-resolution-convergnce-a-different-idea/*

It seems to be the only one that's not doing the COF fix, the "use full on newtonian physics" or some variant thereof.

Edited by Pht, 09 July 2013 - 04:04 PM.

[B0oN]

I really like many parts of this quite enjoyable discussion so far, so I am throwing something into the RNG ring myself ...

Did any of you guys ever play CS (which ever version, although 1.5/1.6 were the most stable iterations) more than just casual ?

Did you note that all the guns had several spreading patterns at different rates of fire ?

Did anyone learn these spreading patterns by heart so well he was literally auto-adjusting his aim without even thinking about the process ?
And please be very aware of the fact I am NOT talking about full-auto spraying most of the clip into 5 enemies, but single-clicking them all in the fastest rate possible without actually going full-auto.

Would the above stated very subtle and self-repeating introduction of RNG-firepatterning be something worthwhile to have ?

Would further an introduction of differentiation of same-classed weapons (AC/20 model 1 has 3 bullets at x ROF, etc etc etc ... as earlier mentioned by Schrottfrosch IIRC) through installing different weapon manufacturers be something worthwhile to have ?

I think it would be quite exciting to have these both implemented into the game as is, as it would probably diversify it immensely although still not be a solution to the highalpha-pinpoint metagame we currently have to endure.

Discussion please !

Edited by Rad Hanzo, 09 July 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Garth Erlam, on 09 July 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hey guys, I wanted to thank you for all of these ideas, and wanted you to know they have been forwarded to design. I cannot guarantee they'll be used, but thanks for the effort of putting your thoughts and ideas to paper text

Garth,

Thank you for your reply, and the assurances that our feedback is indeed looked at. I will modify my OP to be less hostile, as you have proven me wildly incorrect about PGI listening to it's player base. I also plan to modify the OP with a lot of updated information, graphics, and ideas that have been mentioned in this discussion.

Jack Lowe, on 09 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

So if I read your reply correctly Mr. Jaguar the problem is essentially three fold as you mentioned in your original OP. One is that certain weapons are doing able to sustain fire longer than intended allowing them to do more damage than intended. Those weapons happen to be the one's creating the current meta. Second is that they can do this damage down to a pinpoint and because of their nature they can do it a extreme ranges. Third they can be boated with 4 to 6 and used in unison to give very high very accurate damage due to current mechanics, or lack thereof. So readjusting heat would be required to bring the worst of the culprits back in line but it's only a partial fix. Then people would just do what I did with my AL that is trade out some of their weapons for lower heat varieties probably gauss rifles. Problem get's better somewhat but not fixed. That's where your COF idea comes in which mitigates the problem of pinpoint high alpha shots and all is well. Yep that sounds about right fully agree with the general principles need to fix the problems.

We are probably not going to agree with the method, we've already said as much but at the same time remain respectful of the other's POV on the issue. See I used to shoot quite a bit, because of my proficiency with weapons I was given the opportunity and selected to be a .50 cal gunner on one of my ships. I realize that COF exists I've seen it in action. I also realize that with patience, practice, weapon familiarity and experience, in short skill that COF can be reduced in size. Where as I was once able to be certain of a head shot with an old .22 hornet on a rabbit at 75-100 yards just eyeballing it no scope, or be very confident of hitting a deer in the head with a muzzle loader at 150-200 yards using homemade round balls with only about 6 in of clearance between head and tree. I fully realize others would not be able to do so. My COF or margin for error as I thought of it as a child and theirs would have been significantly larger. I wasn't a professional shooter by any means I've run across one or two and they are truly something to watch, put me to shame that's for certain. Using skill and knowledge of their weapon they made shots I couldn't think about making then, definitely not now.

The key point is, one weapon, one shot, totally focused and concentrating on just that. Ask the same marksman to do something similar with 4 of the same weapon, fired simultaneously, and even if it were possible I am 100% confident that the results would be much different. Now if you were saying I could snipe with one weapon and still hit the limb or section of my choice although perhaps not pixel perfect right where I wished I would go with it. If you were saying it would get harder at more extreme range but it would be nothing more nor less than a matter of my skill at maintaining that target and with practice I could still hit the targeted area but perhaps not the precise point again firing only a single weapon then I would be able to go for it wholeheartedly. If you can determine how to bring that function into your convergence proposal then I will gladly give it absolute unrestrained support. Otherwise unless a better idea is tendered I'll have to stick with the ideas presented in my original post in this thread.

Jack,

as I mentioned earlier, 2112's build and maintain Sniper rifles for the Marine Corps. I brought this up because I was a 2111 for 8 years (Armorer), and did a lot of cross training with our 2112's. Additionally, I am a Parris Island certified Combat Marksmanship Instructor, so I taught the best shots America has, how to do it. I mention this only to salute you as a fellow brother in the Armed forces, and to sort of put into perspective some of my suggestions...

While I agree that a skilled pilot aiming one weapon should be able to do so better than an unskilled pilot, one key issue that bothers me about this is that the pilot is not aiming the weapon at all. In canon lore, the pilot simply designates where the target is, or where to move and how fast to get there. The battlemech's onboard computer then translates the pilots desires into action. While this isn't important for movement (as that's a low return on investment to try and emulate), it is important to now when speaking about weapons. The pilot is NEVER aiming the weapons, the pilot is only designating where the target is, at which point the mech aims the weapons. This does tie in somewhat with you idea, as firing one weapon singly SHOULD be less taxing on the targeting computer, but it also gives a wonderful reason as to why a higher "skilled" pilot isn't going to gain a CoF advantage over a new player. Unless the computer is upgraded, player "level" should not affect the CoF.

Now, how do we handle a variable cone of fire based on the number of weapons firing? The best way I can think of is a "Ballistic Complexity Rating". The targeting computer is, realistically, setting the firing solutions for every weapon that mech carries at all times. By having the targeting computer an upgradeable module, you allow for two things to occur to make the game more interesting.

1) A player can upgrade their targeting computer to bear MORE weapons without suffering cone of fire decay.
2) A player can upgrade their targeting computer to shrink the CoF for fewer weapon.

By doing it along these lines, a player can now opt to take a stock Swayback with 8ML. Because medium lasers have no travel time, they are ballisticly simple, not a lot of load on the targeting computer. On the other hand, a stalker bearing 4 PPCs would suffer a CoF decay, as PPCs have travel time and must also have their plasma beam stabalized for mech movement to prevent the discharge from dispersing into the atmosphere. Would you find this an acceptable compromise? This would limit the heavy hitting weapons to either close range engagements (where their low rates of fire would be a hindrance) or to only one for the closest to pinpoint accuracy possible (allowing those players who do in fact want to try and pick out a Highlander's arm at 600m to try.)

[Sereglach]

Phenomenal to see that PGI has been looking at this and sent it to their DEV team. I hope that, even if they don't implement it word for word, maybe it will help shape their gameplay balance in the future. There has also been such great discussion here. It's hard to follow it all, but I think there's been some amazing feedback. I hope it keeps up.

Thank you again for putting together an amazing write-up. I look forward to seeing the new graphics and information that you've garnered, as well.

[Jack Lowe]

Yes your reasoning is sound and I didn't really want a person to hit every time with even one weapon. A shot should stray now and again. We are human after all and can't perfectly account for all the variables involved in such a complex action all the time as ur well aware. I do think it also addresses the concern of others in this thread although some were less patient or respectful in their approach. As a possible alternative to consider I do believe I once mentioned that in the tech readouts it's mentioned, haphazardly, that some targeting computers were superior to other. I advanced the idea to add this into the game as a way to further reinforce roles and diversify different chassis further. The intention was to encourage more variety in builds as well as mechs brought to the battlefield. I admit it was more of a passing thought and I haven't given it as deep a consideration. In any case I thank u and salute u as well and thank u for all the hard work with this thread and this fine discussion we've had. Just because the squids and jarheads give each other hell don't mean it ain't all in good fun. This has been quite enjoyable and I almost want to argue more just so it will continue. If I may be of any further assistance please feel free to hit me up.

Edited by Jack Lowe, 09 July 2013 - 08:31 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Jack Lowe, on 09 July 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Yes your reasoning is sound and I didn't really want a person to hit every time with even one weapon. A shot should stray now and again. We are human after all and can't perfectly account for all the variables involved in such a complex action all the time as ur well aware. I do think it also addresses the concern of others in this thread although some were less patient or respectful in their approach. As a possible alternative to consider I do believe I once mentioned that in the tech readouts it's mentioned, haphazardly, that some targeting computers were superior to other. I advanced the idea to add this into the game as a way to further reinforce roles and diversify different chassis further. The intention was to encourage more variety in builds as well as mechs brought to the battlefield. I admit it was more of a passing thought and I haven't given it as deep a consideration. In any case I thank u and salute u as well and thank u for all the hard work with this thread and this fine discussion we've had. Just because the squids and jarheads give each other hell don't mean it ain't all in good fun. This has been quite enjoyable and I almost want to argue more just so it will continue. If I may be of any further assistance please feel free to hit me up.

Roger that, shipmate.

The OP has now been edited with updated content from a wide variety of contributors, as well as a general consolidation of graphics so that it's easier to be on the same page as the conversation currently is.

[Unbound Inferno]

Helmer, on 09 July 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Because then everyone expects it. People already rage about "Why did X question get answered and not mine?" Imagine how it would be when 1 person gets to sit down with Paul and someone else doesn't.

1) Like Garth pointed out here , everyone wants to have an indepth , back and forth conversation with the developers (mostly Paul).
2) Often times the issue or decision behind a problem or feature requests a baseline understanding of PGIs overall gameplan or future features. Something I doubt they're going to share. (Unfortunately!)
3) Time. No matter how well a developer might explain WHY they went with a different system, there will still be a hundred posts asking other questions, raising new arguments., etc etc. In this thread alone I simply stated I thought it was and interesting idea, I didn't see PGI changing a fundamental system this late in the game, and that Mechwarrior means different things to different people. All 3 are opinions. My personal opinion, and yet people wanted to argue opinion. And I'm just a forum janitor. Not particularly smart or creative , and with no input on the project what-so-ever (But still very damn good looking, just for the record).
If Paul actually did come into this thread I doubt he'd satisfy anyone ( .... ) Evenutally it would end up with some people understanding, some people saying Paul is an *****, some people saying PGI is stubborn and really doesnt want feedback, etc etc etc.

I'll be the first to admit, communication could improve greatly. Honestly tho, on a day to day , week to week basis, there's not much to communicate. "We're looking at feedback" "We understand the issues" "We're working on the game" are pretty much all anyone can say.


Cheers.

#2 is a good question.

Why not?

If we had an idea of what they wanted to do with this game, maybe while we brainstorm possibilities for fixing balance we could find a way to get that balance and what they want.


Real pity, because I'm willing to bet a good number of posters here would stop asking to change what they don't want to change and begin to try and rationalize how to fix the other part of the problem.

[Jack Lowe]

I reread your original post. Very very nice put a smile on my face. If not exactly what u proposed I hope it has great influence on whatever future adjustments they make on the game. Well done.

[DarkJaguar]

Jack Lowe, on 09 July 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

I reread your original post. Very very nice put a smile on my face. If not exactly what u proposed I hope it has great influence on whatever future adjustments they make on the game. Well done.

Thank you, and thank you to everyone whose input helped evolve the OP into it's current form.

[Unbound Inferno]

DarkJaguar, on 09 July 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Thank you, and thank you to everyone whose input helped evolve the OP into it's current form.

II re-read it recently since its changed alot from the first time.

I really like where your going with this - now how do we get PGI to listen?

[DarkJaguar]

Void Angel, on 09 July 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Words.

Excellent feedback, I especially like the part where not only did you ignore the entire content of the thread, but you decided to instead pick apart every little comment like a W.A.S.P. at a country club.

+1 liked.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 09 July 2013 - 10:28 PM.