82 replies to this topic

[soarra]

Countess Hemah, on 04 July 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

New Day New Poll from Victor Shocking I say

i figured the 12 he posted yesterday would give us a poll free day, guess not4

[Munk8]

I heart grognards!

[CancR]

I'll never stop telling you I told you so.

[Renaissance]

CancR, on 04 July 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

I'll never stop telling you I told you so.

[superbob]

I mentioned this back in closed beta (and quickly got redacted), but this might be a good place for the blast from the past.

I believe there is evidence there were plans to introduce varied-size hadrpoints on mechs, early on. Dunno if they cleaned it up now, but the original 4 mechs have varied hardpoint slot count (or something like that), which pretty much fits their original purposes.

For example only the AC-20 HBK and three atlas variants were assigned enough slots in their ballistic hardpoint to mount the AC-20 there. Similarly, only dedicated energy boats like the K2 would be able to fit a PPC in their hardpoints. I don't think this was ever used though.

Initially I just figured that since we only had 5 mechs back then, this would definitely be too restrictive and wouldn't really help testing. But as we got more mechs, I think the Cicada was the last one to get slots meaningfully assigned to their hardpoints.

This stuff looks like this if you don't feel like looking yourself (cleaned up):

Spoiler

(hardpoint type: 0 = ballistic, 1 = energy, 2=missile)
hbk-4g:

right_torso
	Hardpoint ID="1" Type="0" Slots="10" <!-- AC/20 -->

hbk-4h:

right_torso
	Hardpoint ID="11" Type="0" Slots="7" <!-- AC/10 -->
	Hardpoint ID="12" Type="1" Slots="2" <!-- Medium Lasers -->

as7-rs

left_torso  
	Hardpoint ID="30" Type="2" Slots="3" <!-- LRM15 and SRM4 -->
 
 
right_torso
	Hardpoint ID="31" Type="0" Slots="7" <!-- AC/10 -->

as7-k (note: gauss rifle = 7 slots, hardpoint fit for ac20)

left_torso
	Hardpoint ID="21" Type="2" Slots="5" <!-- LRM 20 -->
 
 
right_torso
	Hardpoint ID="22" Type="0" Slots="10"   <!-- Gauss Rifle -->

Now I'll just state here to be perfectly clear, I've no proof to back my theory, and these "slots" might've served some internal purpose completely unrelated to my theory, and only be present in the later files so they validate properly (have all the attributes required, even if they don't do anything). But the numbers do seem to add up.

So basically I'm guessing that there was a MW4-like hardpoint size limit in the works, but it never happened, and now that people have bought their hero mechs for real money, I can't imagine the outrage if suddenly their loadouts would no longer work. Heck, I'd be angry too.

The current (and final) system is obviously a lot harder, if not impossible, to balance. But PGI have made their choice, now they have to somehow make it work with an ever growing army of mechs. So far I've enjoyed watching them fumble the process, even though I'd rather have a more playable game right now.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Look we all knew what would happen period. We knew this back in the day talking about the 6 srm cats and ac/40 cats we saw what was happening.

It started off small then a nerf would happen so the min/max people moved on and moved on and moved on. Till we are in the current state. All they need to do to fix the PPCs is up the heat back to the prefix reduction since it was in place to help PPCs till HSR was put in.

After they do that then people will move onto the next OP thing till its nerfed in some way and it will continue till all weapons do 1 damage and we have quadruple armor (yeah yeah exaggeration) so the simplest solution right now is demand the heat to be brought back if that doesn't solve it then go on something else.

[Victor Morson]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 04 July 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

Look we all knew what would happen period. We knew this back in the day talking about the 6 srm cats and ac/40 cats we saw what was happening.

Oh, I entirely agree. That's much of the reason I labeled the subject "We told you so." I suspect there's literally hundreds of examples and I'd love to see more thread necromancy here. I just decided to open with my own comments, rather than to grab other's.

Also that's largely my point: If we could entirely predict how the game would play out, and scream it over and over again, bringing it up at every dev Q&A and trying to constantly show concern and they still let it happen, that shows that whoever is the lead of balance has failed their position utterly and completely.

When someone fails for this hard, and this long, in most groups - they get replaced. I'm sorry, I believe we're at this point. I don't want to ride the "aggressive fixes" train, when it's conducted by someone who has no idea where we should be going, let alone how to get there.

I have literally begged for them consider, petitions and all, taking more community feedback not because we're a bunch of forum whiners but because I believe this thread demonstrates once and for all that the competitive community understands this game immensely better than those that are making it, and they need to swallow their pride and finally deal with it before it is too late.

Open beta is our 2nd chance. If they do not heed this final series of warnings, it will be the last chance we will have.

[Victor Morson]

Countess Hemah, on 04 July 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

New Day New Poll from Victor Shocking I say

Because clearly, this thread demonstrates that I (and the others saying the same thing) have no idea what I'm talking about and have no understanding of the game mechanics.

Oh well, I think those threads indicate I hit the same kind of nonsense then as now, and I think we see how that worked out.

[WolvesX]

Valore, on 04 July 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Sorry Victor. Game can only get better. You're wrong.

QTF

[AntiCitizenJuan]

[Teralitha]

Vassago Rain, on 04 July 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

I predicted everything, and then some, gausscats included.

I predicted you. And all the same, and I was right. But did anyone at PGI care? Never did. Never will. The game and company will go under b4 anything is openly admitted. MWO will be past tense and devs without a job will be saying.... we were just doing what paul told us to do!!

Edited by Teralitha, 04 July 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Gamgee]

Your right at least on the Stalker front. Soon as I seen the slots I knew.

[TheDeckardCain]

I guess we won't be lucky enough to hear any of the predictions you got wrong will we?

[Victor Morson]

TheDeckardCain, on 04 July 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I guess we won't be lucky enough to hear any of the predictions you got wrong will we?

Please feel free to dig up threads like that and post them here.

I didn't cherry pick, I tried to google all of my posts from 2012 and grab anything relevant.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I'm moving this down to the Barracks as a discussion about our forum and gameplay experiences.

[Victor Morson]

Prosperity Park, on 04 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

I'm moving this down to the Barracks as a discussion about our forum and gameplay experiences.

I'd argue that discussing the fact that balance hasn't gotten better in a year, and how the same issues are continuing to either remain or get worse is something that people didn't want on their most active sub-forum despite being intensely linked to balance; it's all about balances changes that were made/not made, and how they impacted us today, and how we're repeating them.

No offense to you Park, I'm pretty sure you were ordered to do this just now, in particular in light of what is happening in other threads at the moment.

At least it's not K-Town!

Edited by Victor Morson, 04 July 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[lonewolf13]

Prosperity Park, on 04 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

I'm moving this down to the Barracks as a discussion about our forum and gameplay experiences.

Barracks

Discuss your MechWarrior® Online™ battles against other players!

Umm... how does this thread relate to battles against other players? This thread seems like a discussion about game play balance and a reflection of said balances over the past year... or did i miss something?

[Victor Morson]

lonewolf13, on 04 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Barracks

Discuss your MechWarrior® Online™ battles against other players!

Umm... how does this thread relate to battles against other players? This thread seems like a discussion about game play balance and a reflection of said balances over the past year... or did i miss something?

Devs are confirmed as reading Gameplay Balance right now and this thread is probably the ugliest one there, because it's content was written over a year ago and is spot on today.

It's very hard to logically attack or theory craft your opinion against an argument that describes exactly what we have today. There's very little you can even argue with in that situation. It is, in essence, unwinnable by people supporting the direction we were/are going in.

Thus I'd bet $5 it was ordered to be moved. It's really hard to combat factual information that can be proved as such.

[TheDeckardCain]

Victor Morson, on 04 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Please feel free to dig up threads like that and post them here.

I didn't cherry pick, I tried to google all of my posts from 2012 and grab anything relevant.

This is the equivalent to taking nostradamus's book and applying it into current events. There have been some crazy claims in the past too that have been dead wrong. Should I dig those up and make another thread?
The thread serves no purpose other than to incite a flame fest against PGI, and really unproductive....

Edited by TheDeckardCain, 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Victor Morson]

TheDeckardCain, on 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

This is the equivalent to taking nostradamus's book and applying it into current events.

If nostradamus's book specifically spelled out precisely what modern military tactics would be, right down to the types of guns used on the tanks, I wouldn't think he was a hack.

TheDeckardCain, on 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

There have been some crazy claims in the past too that have been dead wrong. Should I dig those up and make another thread?

Thousands. But almost all of them are from the non-competitive community. The competitive community came into this knowing what worked in the past and what did not, and how that would apply to MW:O.

We are not psychic, not really. It was prediction through experience. It is also the reason I keep shouting to ignore "low ELO" or "PUG" gamers, because almost all of the horrible suggestions you're talking about came from there, where most of the competitive community players were saying very close to exactly the same things I was.

...things that came 100% true, or at least very close (i.e. not predicting the Cataphract and instead calling the K2 the mobile heavy.)

TheDeckardCain, on 04 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

The thread serves no purpose other than to incite a flame fest against PGI, and really unproductive....

This thread serves a purpose of exposing trends so we can change them.

My only interest, including when I am EXTREMELY critical of PGI, is breaking us out of this cycle before we go down in flames.