I wouldn't say history is repeating itself; these last few months are the first time we've seen a PPC meta.
Obviously a few people were able to predict some of the balance problems we now have, but if you leave a thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters eventually you get Hamlet.
0
Flashback 2012: We Told You So. We Really Did.
Started by Victor Morson, Jul 04 2013 03:04 AM
82 replies to this topic
#62
-
-
- The Widow Maker
- 3,910 posts
Member
Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:02 AM
I had to say other. Mostly because it repeats itself due to the faulty logic of the players more often than not.
If a given weapon system doesn't allow them to be all lazy and "Fat WoW Guy from SOuthpark" on the game, they think it's broken.
WHen it is easy enough to be all fat wow guy they get equally upset because they were stupid and made a mistake.
If a given weapon system doesn't allow them to be all lazy and "Fat WoW Guy from SOuthpark" on the game, they think it's broken.
WHen it is easy enough to be all fat wow guy they get equally upset because they were stupid and made a mistake.
#63
-
-
- The Flame
- 500 posts
Member
Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:28 AM
We're not playing battletech, we're playing macross O_O
#64
-
-
- 3,327 posts
Member
- LocationComanche, Texas
Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:29 AM
Victor Morson, on 05 July 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:
Honestly outside of balance - which does include things like tonnage - there's very little wrong with MW:O and a lot right with it. I think that the biggest thing needed for content is stuff like more maps.. but I know that's coming, and their maps have been getting better and better with each release.
Balance has been, and still is, my sticking point.
A thousand times this.
PGI both has a long way to go, and very little ways to go. SRMs are getting their buff, which we need to take a hit to the sniper meta (so that when brawlers get in range, snipers die in a timely manner).
But PPCs need a heat increase, and it DOESN'T need to be a complex system that causes more problems than it solves. Just increase the PPC heat to where it was before they started buffing it (10 for PPCs, 15 for ERPPCs) and go from there.
PGI's balance moves at a glacial pace, and sometimes they do a really good job, but its just amazing how long it can take for them to finally get it right when people are, in unison, telling them what's wrong over and over and over again. Its tiring for us and I'm damn sure its tiring for them.
The game in recent times has felt better than before, mostly because of jump jet nerfs, but I'm also really tired of mechs being DOA thanks to awful hitboxes, mostly related to their sizes. Why is the Trebuchet one of the tallest mechs in the game? Why does the Quickdraw, a 60 ton mech, have larger volume overall than mechs up to 80 or so tons? Why is PGI so afraid of quick mechs that they nerf them into the ground by sizing them up way past what is reasonable? Several mechs needs serious sizing changes, and yet every Q&A has given us "No, we won't resize mechs, we'll use other things to make them balanced", and yet I haven't seen a lick of what they're going to use to do that. Mech quirks alone can't save the Quickdraw from its massive size (And awful center torso hitbox, thanks to its massive head counting as its CT). I'm a veteran Dragon pilot, and the Quickdraw is LESS survivable at most ranges than the Dragon is (and I can generally last to be one of the final people alive in my Dragon, so I know how to torso twist and use my arms).
#65
-
-
- 2,183 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:14 AM
Orzorn, on 10 July 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:
A thousand times this.
PGI both has a long way to go, and very little ways to go. SRMs are getting their buff, which we need to take a hit to the sniper meta (so that when brawlers get in range, snipers die in a timely manner).
But PPCs need a heat increase, and it DOESN'T need to be a complex system that causes more problems than it solves. Just increase the PPC heat to where it was before they started buffing it (10 for PPCs, 15 for ERPPCs) and go from there.
PGI's balance moves at a glacial pace, and sometimes they do a really good job, but its just amazing how long it can take for them to finally get it right when people are, in unison, telling them what's wrong over and over and over again. Its tiring for us and I'm damn sure its tiring for them.
PGI both has a long way to go, and very little ways to go. SRMs are getting their buff, which we need to take a hit to the sniper meta (so that when brawlers get in range, snipers die in a timely manner).
But PPCs need a heat increase, and it DOESN'T need to be a complex system that causes more problems than it solves. Just increase the PPC heat to where it was before they started buffing it (10 for PPCs, 15 for ERPPCs) and go from there.
PGI's balance moves at a glacial pace, and sometimes they do a really good job, but its just amazing how long it can take for them to finally get it right when people are, in unison, telling them what's wrong over and over and over again. Its tiring for us and I'm damn sure its tiring for them.
Every time I see that black, yellow and blue signature I know the words above it are going to make sense. I've said it before, you guys have a knack for recruiting rational, intelligent people. Thank you for a sound post.
#66
-
-
- 3,327 posts
Member
- LocationComanche, Texas
Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:47 AM
GaussDragon, on 10 July 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:
Every time I see that black, yellow and blue signature I know the words above it are going to make sense. I've said it before, you guys have a knack for recruiting rational, intelligent people. Thank you for a sound post.
We do our best!
#67
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 9,274 posts
Member
- LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters
Posted 10 July 2013 - 12:08 PM
superbob, on 04 July 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:
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):
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.
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
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.
I wouldn't be angry if it was going to fix the stupid loadouts people, including myself are using at present, one thing waregamming net did have the stones for was to neft the hell out the premium type59 medium tank back in the day
#68
-
-
- 3,562 posts
Member
Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:38 AM
3rdworld, on 10 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:
Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:17 AM
PPC sits alone in his office at the top of the meta world tower.
He menacingly chuckles to himself:
"Yes, lets nerf the srm6. Then my takeover will be complete."
PPC sits alone in his office at the top of the meta world tower.
He menacingly chuckles to himself:
"Yes, lets nerf the srm6. Then my takeover will be complete."
Won't let me quote it because the thread is locked.
Posted 3/1/2013 after they said they are nerfing SRMs.
3rdworld, on 10 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:
Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:36 AM
It is not tough at all. PPCs are so much better than LL or MLs that tonage is the only deciding factor. If you nerf SRMs into non use. You leave competitive 8s with nothing but 4PPC + Gauss RS, Pop-tarts, 3 PPC Pop-Trebs, and 3Ls.
SRMs being good is the only reason D-DCs and Cent-As are still used. D-DCs are becoming less and less fearsome as the uprising of the PPC continues.
Not to mention you remove the only solid counter to the sniper team, a freaking six-pack to the face.
Off a bit on the mechs, as highlanders weren't out yet and Jump sniping was still better than stalkers.
Edited by 3rdworld, 11 July 2013 - 05:43 AM.
#69
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 658 posts
Member
Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:06 AM
superbob, on 04 July 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:
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):
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.
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
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.
You are correct, PGI did indeed start out to have size limitited hardpoints and I have the proof. I had a PM conversion with Paul about this very thing as I beleave it is the key to balance the game. Here is his answer to my question about this copyed from my PM's:
Paul Inouye
Lead Designer
-
- [color=yellow]Staff Moderators[/color]
- 1916 posts
- LocationVancouver, BC
Hey Cutter, thanks for taking the time to write this out.
Weapon size/weight restrictions is something we considered early on in production. It seemed like a good idea at the start but we found it to be very constricting in terms of customization. We already trimmed the idea of full customization down when we implemented hardpoints. We really didn't want to take it much further than that.
There are some "cheese" builds out there, but they all come at a cost. With the recent fix of the Gauss rifle for example makes the Gauss K2 a glass cannon. With the Streak and SRM6 C4 build, they have to reduce armor and speed in order to keep that type of loadout.
While there is still a small amount of tuning to be done to help balance these builds out we feel that we're not that far off from where we want to be.
On another note, since day 1, we have stressed the point that TT/BT rules are a base guideline for our game. In no way shape or form will we consider it a bible and allow it to supercede the gameplay vision that we have for where we want to take the game. Unfortunately this means that players will have to wait until the full suite of features makes it into the game before we start making any sort of drastic change to what we set out to build.
-Paul
Thanks Nekomimi for the new sig!
CutterWolf
Member
-
- [color=#ffcb18]Legendary Founder[/color]
- 506 posts
Thanks for looking it over Paul, I just wanted to offer up a new angle that mite of been over looked to help out your Dev team.
Thanks for you time!
Paul Inouye
Lead Designer
-
- [color=yellow]Staff Moderators[/color]
- 1916 posts
- LocationVancouver, BC
Don't go away discouraged... we had to think long and hard over the plan of weighted hardpoints and it wasn't an easy decision.
Plus... don't have to thank me. I enjoy reading over well constructed and laid out thoughts unlike the current forum RAH!!! in your face type of post. hahaha
Thanks Nekomimi for the new sig!
Edited by CutterWolf, 11 July 2013 - 06:09 AM.
#70
-
-
- 2,183 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:35 AM
3rdworld said:
Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:17 AM
PPC sits alone in his office at the top of the meta world tower.
He menacingly chuckles to himself:
"Yes, lets nerf the srm6. Then my takeover will be complete."
PPC sits alone in his office at the top of the meta world tower.
He menacingly chuckles to himself:
"Yes, lets nerf the srm6. Then my takeover will be complete."
Hahahaha, brilliant.
#71
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 6,370 posts
Member
- LocationAnder's Moon
Posted 14 July 2013 - 01:35 AM
CutterWolf, on 11 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:
You are correct, PGI did indeed start out to have size limitited hardpoints and I have the proof. I had a PM conversion with Paul about this very thing as I beleave it is the key to balance the game. Here is his answer to my question about this copyed from my PM's:
Paul Inouye
Lead Designer
-
- [color=yellow]Staff Moderators[/color]
- 1916 posts
- LocationVancouver, BC
Hey Cutter, thanks for taking the time to write this out.
Weapon size/weight restrictions is something we considered early on in production. It seemed like a good idea at the start but we found it to be very constricting in terms of customization. We already trimmed the idea of full customization down when we implemented hardpoints. We really didn't want to take it much further than that.
There are some "cheese" builds out there, but they all come at a cost. With the recent fix of the Gauss rifle for example makes the Gauss K2 a glass cannon. With the Streak and SRM6 C4 build, they have to reduce armor and speed in order to keep that type of loadout.
While there is still a small amount of tuning to be done to help balance these builds out we feel that we're not that far off from where we want to be.
On another note, since day 1, we have stressed the point that TT/BT rules are a base guideline for our game. In no way shape or form will we consider it a bible and allow it to supercede the gameplay vision that we have for where we want to take the game. Unfortunately this means that players will have to wait until the full suite of features makes it into the game before we start making any sort of drastic change to what we set out to build.
-Paul
Thanks Nekomimi for the new sig!
CutterWolf
Member
-
- [color=#ffcb18]Legendary Founder[/color]
- 506 posts
Thanks for looking it over Paul, I just wanted to offer up a new angle that mite of been over looked to help out your Dev team.
Thanks for you time!
Paul Inouye
Lead Designer
-
- [color=yellow]Staff Moderators[/color]
- 1916 posts
- LocationVancouver, BC
Don't go away discouraged... we had to think long and hard over the plan of weighted hardpoints and it wasn't an easy decision.
Plus... don't have to thank me. I enjoy reading over well constructed and laid out thoughts unlike the current forum RAH!!! in your face type of post. hahaha
Thanks Nekomimi for the new sig!
This belongs in a museum, the first example of a PGI balance dev staring straight at a solution and turning it down.
#72
-
-
- 5,902 posts
Member
- LocationUnited States of Paranoia
Posted 14 July 2013 - 01:44 AM
Blame the internet. It gave people the feeling that their opinion would matter.
#74
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 6,370 posts
Member
- LocationAnder's Moon
Posted 14 July 2013 - 03:17 AM
Die Primate Die, on 14 July 2013 - 01:46 AM, said:
Now do you see why they destroyed General Discussion?
God forbid the future CoD 3PV players see what they're buying into....
God forbid the future CoD 3PV players see what they're buying into....
Don't blame the CoD players, they don't even like 3rd person. I think the reason they are so fixated on it, supposedly, is the Asian market because.. uh, their RPGs are often 3rd person just like ours?
PGI is just flat out saying "Screw the entire community, everyone's gonna love it." And they won't. And they'll pretend we do anyway.
Thorn Hallis, on 14 July 2013 - 01:44 AM, said:
Blame the internet. It gave people the feeling that their opinion would matter.
I'm also going to blame most AAA devs that are focusing on multiplayer. Because they ALL do the things I've been saying from day one.
Not Paul though. He can't possibly take someone else's feedback. He knows best. Truly he doesn't need to do what the other studios do, because after balancing the multi-player component of Transformers 2, how could he possibly be wrong?
#75
-
-
- 547 posts
Member
Posted 14 July 2013 - 04:06 AM
Cathy, on 10 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:
I wouldn't be angry if it was going to fix the stupid loadouts people, including myself are using at present, one thing waregamming net did have the stones for was to neft the hell out the premium type59 medium tank back in the day
I have played a lot of WoT (on the EU server) and the nerfs on the Type59 were nothing, for every nerf - it got a buff to compensate, in the end it was/is so overpowered the only solution WG could do is to remove it from the store.
Also WG did not have the balls to nerf T59s gun depression, which it planned to do but the community went up in flames which scared them so much they simply dropped the idea.
And that practice of introducing overpowered premium tanks didn't stop with the T59, take a look at the FCM36P40, SU100Y, etc.
If anything, MWO does not have any P2W content compared to WoT.
#76
-
-
- Storm
- 58 posts
Member
- LocationCalifornia
Posted 14 July 2013 - 04:08 AM
I believe you. I started since beta first hit open and I know I haven't dropped as much money as some people here, but I can safely say that MWO has claimed eighty dollars from my pocket. That's more than most MMO's (Aside from WoW, stupid WoW) has claimed from me. Hell, not even World of Tanks was graced with even that much. What I'm saying is that myself, a bunch of you, and many more have contributed financially to this project in what is for the most part a free to play game. You can drop nothing and still get the general experience from it.
What we gamers don't like? Dropping money and then being told we don't matter by being ignored. Victor makes/made valid points that ultimately turned out true. The way LRM's are jump the line between Zeus's Lightning Bolts and Bottle Rockets. Or how PPC's can just utterly ruin your day if you happen to be standing in front of a STalker. And said Stalker is a kilometer away. Or that we keep getting these mechs that I have to shell out real money for just so I can put a cookie-cutter build on it as well and reap on. (You seen those gauss/PPC Dragonslayers? Nasty).
How about the AC20 and I have to scratch a little line into my desk every time I see one. Hell, i even comment and say, "Oh look, another Jager that thinks it's a King Crab." We're seeing less and less custom variety and more of these builds based around what's biggest and baddest. But this is the same with all games and singling out MWO wouldn't be the best way to argue my case. But let's get off that beaten trail.
This is OUR game. This is something we all enjoy and love playing. We have 25 if not more years of Battletech history to keep us glued to this genre and the very cocnept of Mechwarrior itself. And you'd so willingly take a dump on this? You'd allow some one to take almost 200 bucks from you and then pay you no heed in the future?
You are FOUNDERS and you should act like it. Your contribution has made this game what it is now and if you are not pleased with it, then you should be able to say so. It's not like they'd just yank the carpet out from under us like we were spoiled children whining about "This hurts more" "This hurts less" and my personal favorite "I keep dying, nerf nerf nerf!" If you honestly believe that the game is fine as it is, argue it in a way that makes sense. I know most of you are grown men and women because Mechwarrior belongs to a generation, not this FTP MMO uprising. So let's start getting **** done and not devolve into this passive aggressive bull. It just hinders and stops all the progress we could attain if we just came to this simple consensus:
I want MWO to be fun without being samey.
Good on you, Victor. Stick that finger in their eye and make them resort to namecalling to put you down. It shows who the better men are in this fight.
What we gamers don't like? Dropping money and then being told we don't matter by being ignored. Victor makes/made valid points that ultimately turned out true. The way LRM's are jump the line between Zeus's Lightning Bolts and Bottle Rockets. Or how PPC's can just utterly ruin your day if you happen to be standing in front of a STalker. And said Stalker is a kilometer away. Or that we keep getting these mechs that I have to shell out real money for just so I can put a cookie-cutter build on it as well and reap on. (You seen those gauss/PPC Dragonslayers? Nasty).
How about the AC20 and I have to scratch a little line into my desk every time I see one. Hell, i even comment and say, "Oh look, another Jager that thinks it's a King Crab." We're seeing less and less custom variety and more of these builds based around what's biggest and baddest. But this is the same with all games and singling out MWO wouldn't be the best way to argue my case. But let's get off that beaten trail.
This is OUR game. This is something we all enjoy and love playing. We have 25 if not more years of Battletech history to keep us glued to this genre and the very cocnept of Mechwarrior itself. And you'd so willingly take a dump on this? You'd allow some one to take almost 200 bucks from you and then pay you no heed in the future?
You are FOUNDERS and you should act like it. Your contribution has made this game what it is now and if you are not pleased with it, then you should be able to say so. It's not like they'd just yank the carpet out from under us like we were spoiled children whining about "This hurts more" "This hurts less" and my personal favorite "I keep dying, nerf nerf nerf!" If you honestly believe that the game is fine as it is, argue it in a way that makes sense. I know most of you are grown men and women because Mechwarrior belongs to a generation, not this FTP MMO uprising. So let's start getting **** done and not devolve into this passive aggressive bull. It just hinders and stops all the progress we could attain if we just came to this simple consensus:
I want MWO to be fun without being samey.
Good on you, Victor. Stick that finger in their eye and make them resort to namecalling to put you down. It shows who the better men are in this fight.
#77
-
-
- 2,183 posts
Member
- LocationToronto
Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:14 PM
Shagohad, on 14 July 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:
What we gamers don't like? Dropping money and then being told we don't matter by being ignored. Victor makes/made valid points that ultimately turned out true. The way LRM's are jump the line between Zeus's Lightning Bolts and Bottle Rockets. Or how PPC's can just utterly ruin your day if you happen to be standing in front of a STalker. And said Stalker is a kilometer away. Or that we keep getting these mechs that I have to shell out real money for just so I can put a cookie-cutter build on it as well and reap on. (You seen those gauss/PPC Dragonslayers? Nasty).
How about the AC20 and I have to scratch a little line into my desk every time I see one. Hell, i even comment and say, "Oh look, another Jager that thinks it's a King Crab." We're seeing less and less custom variety and more of these builds based around what's biggest and baddest. But this is the same with all games and singling out MWO wouldn't be the best way to argue my case. But let's get off that beaten trail.
How about the AC20 and I have to scratch a little line into my desk every time I see one. Hell, i even comment and say, "Oh look, another Jager that thinks it's a King Crab." We're seeing less and less custom variety and more of these builds based around what's biggest and baddest. But this is the same with all games and singling out MWO wouldn't be the best way to argue my case. But let's get off that beaten trail.
#78
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 6,370 posts
Member
- LocationAnder's Moon
Posted 15 July 2013 - 01:29 AM
OpCentar, on 14 July 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:
If anything, MWO does not have any P2W content compared to WoT.
MW:O has stayed remarkably anti-P2W.
However, they are likely to start if trends continue, because they will want to blame everything other than their own failure to listen to balance. I have a feeling MW:O will go down in flames and they will accuse everything from the IP to keeping a fair system.
I mean come on guys; I don't know what the majority of the gameplay people at PGI have been doing, honestly. All the cool things like 'mech decals and such could have brought them tons of cash but they didn't bother to follow it up; they apparently haven't been working on Community Warfare in any serious capacity, all the balance is totally wrecked, etc.
Have they seriously spent all year messing with a UI and adding a stupid alpha system and 3rd Person Camera?
#79
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 831 posts
Member
Posted 25 July 2013 - 10:00 PM
Just a bump that i can find this thread later.
Edited by Daumantas Galland, 25 July 2013 - 10:01 PM.
#80
-
-
- 71 posts
Member
Posted 26 July 2013 - 04:34 AM
Victor Morson, on 14 July 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:
This belongs in a museum, the first example of a PGI balance dev staring straight at a solution and turning it down.
Not really.... They had a vision of where they wanted to go with the game, because he doesn't straight out agree with YOU, doesn't mean that it belongs in a museum.
Museum.... Actually the only thing that belongs in the museum is this entire thread - under Fail. Who goes back points one thing out months ago, comes back later and says "I told you so!!!111". No one does that in real life without getting laid out, so why do it in a forum.
There is a lot of brilliance in this thread. I'm not quite sure what the reasoning was on Cutter posting a private convo - all he had to say is that Paul didn't agree with it.
@Victor if you truly hate the game that much then vote with your wallet and don't buy anything. Eventually they will get the point and change up. Yes I would like to see the game take off, and yes they should be able to implement their vision of things. However if anyone remembers that dev blog about role warfare... Things never measured up. Its taken them this long to implement their 'vision' of things - its just too long.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
