592 replies to this topic

[Stalkerr]

Also, any time I say "EST", I really mean "EDT". UTC/GMT -4 hours. Sorry for the confusion, Euros.

[Adridos]

GaussDragon, on 23 July 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

At what point did the community say 'Please nerf the SRM down to 1.5 damage in order to ruin the only meaningful counter to PPCs?' I don't recall SRM damage ever being a major complaint prior to the nerf nearly 4 months ago.

Splattcat dominance whining.

I'd dug up some threads about it, but I hope there's no need since you should remember by now and I really don't want to derail this.

[GaussDragon]

Adridos, on 23 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Splattcat dominance whining.

I'd dug up some threads about it, but I hope there's no need since you should remember by now and I really don't want to derail this.

That's a Bukkakapult problem, not an SRM problem.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Lobby system, planet / map / mission / chassis / camouflage. More controls / customization / intriguing reward system.

[Adridos]

GaussDragon, on 23 July 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

That's a Bukkakapult problem, not an SRM problem.

Yep, but the general consensus on the forums was that SRMs must be nerfed, regardless of the effect on the other mechs.

[fil5000]

Adridos, on 23 July 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Yep, but the general consensus on the forums was that SRMs must be nerfed, regardless of the effect on the other mechs.

I really think you'll have to back that up, Adridos - I saw a lot of people complaining about the splatcat but I really don't recall "NERF SRMS2 being the rallying cry. More people were asking why the A1 was in the game than why SRMs were good, as I remember.

Edit: In fact there's even less reason for the A1 to exist now this boating penalty is in. Unless you're going to run a pair of streaks, a pair of SRMs and a pair of LRMs that is.

Edited by fil5000, 23 July 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[GaussDragon]

Adridos, on 23 July 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Yep, but the general consensus on the forums was that SRMs must be nerfed, regardless of the effect on the other mechs.

What general consensus? Anybody suggesting that the solution to the Bukkakapult was to nerf an entire class of weapon instead of that one chassis that has 6 missile slots doesn't know what they're doing in terms of balance... oh, wait... oops? The K2 had 8 energy slots at one point, then they nerfed it to 6, then to 4, then when it became the Gaussapult and they made the Gauss really squishy. Through iteration, they finally brought the K2 to a good place. I think it was sheer luck that the Gauss health nerf didn't have huge repercussions to the rest of the game. The characteristics of the weapon were otherwise unchanged. The point being, they did what they should have which is focus overwhelmingly on the variant, not the weapons it was carrying.

Edited by GaussDragon, 23 July 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Ken Fury]

Even though I dislike the Gauss Rifle being squishy, exactly this change makes it hard to decide between Gauss and AC/20 on some builds. Which actually prooves that this change was the thing that enabled balance between Gauss and AC/20. Sadly all smaller ballistics still have a lot of issues. Their weight and having to stare at your opponent being the main problem areas. And don't get me started on the LB-X.

[Adridos]

fil5000, on 23 July 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

I really think you'll have to back that up, Adridos - I saw a lot of people complaining about the splatcat but I really don't recall "NERF SRMS2" being the rallying cry. More people were asking why the A1 was in the game than why SRMs were good, as I remember.

Generally SRM. As far as SRM 2/4 were concrened, they didn't exits to anyone.

Posts like this one: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2070820 and threads like these did indeed target SRM damage: http://mwomercs.com/...amage-too-high/

The rest was mostly concentrated on the splatacts and the SRM nerf was the closest you could get to a unified conclusion around those parts. I do have to give you, though, that finding direct quotes is much harder than I initially thought.

http://mwomercs.com/...nerfed-already/
http://mwomercs.com/...nerf-catapults/
http://mwomercs.com/...rf-the-cata-a1/ (not OP directly, but response to him)

[Ken Fury]

They could have simply reduced the missile hardpoints to 4 on the A1 and given it 2 more Module Slots. Perhaps even a single CT energy hardpoint. Problem solved.

[MangoBogadog]

GaussDragon, on 23 July 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

That's a Bukkakapult problem, not an SRM problem.

Agree with this, that mech is promoting boating.

Will try and be there on Thursday at 9pm EST

[TheDeckardCain]

Gwaihir, on 23 July 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

****, this genius has discovered my secret, I'm actually Snidely Whiplash IRL.

Yea, smartguy, clearly it's all about us, that's why we bothered to go talk to all the other big units still left playing the game to see if they've got similar concerns, and to see what we could do to work together to end up with a good game at the end of the day, instead of a dead one.

Here's a big clue: If goons, kaos, and ponies all not only think something is wrong, but want to work together to do something about it? IT'S PROBABLY A BIG DEAL.

Only the EGO of Goons, Kaos and some of the other high end groups could possibly fathom that only they alone would be able to change a few things. I know other groups too!! A few of those are large groups too!! We all know its broken... Thanks for stating the obvious and putting a #savemwo. Which in of itself is over dramatic. Its up to the developers, they want to save it they will, and they will. They want the money, there would be no incentive for them not to 'fix' it to be honest.

Its the nature of the beast with the Goons, your buddies in eve created this persona history that most people will judge the MWO side on. Not saying its fair but that's what is going to happen. If you all somehow separate from the trolltastic nature of the eve counter parts, I will be shocked and will offer an apology.

[Woska]

Personally, I have no particular issue with the direction of the game. I think they're doing a good job with it. My only issue is that as the game has been developing, my computer has become less and less able to run it. At this point the performance is so low that I can't really play satisfactorily.

Now, it all fairness, my computer is not new, and was not awesome when new. So I'm not sure if it's a game issue, just just an out of date system.

[Chet Manley]

More than just the plethora of PPC's. The forthcoming implementation of 3rd Person view that is a waste of development resources when bugs and a lack of metagame continue to be issues. Not to mention being something we were originally assured we wouldn't see.

And a almost complete lack of the previously promised role warfare with a variety of skill trees that unlocked specific roles and abilities to enhance each mechs experience. Instead we have weak upgrade pyramids and a few features to aid lights as spotters.

BallisticLogistics will be there.

Edited by Chet Manley, 23 July 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Wilburg, on 23 July 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

PGI DID react to community-whining ... SRM dmg ... PPCs are too hot ... It´s hard to hit --> convergence ... too much dmg ... --> heat penalty

Yep ... concur completely ... what they did not do is respond to changes in the game, such as adding hit-state-rewind, that turned this into a perfect storm of PPC bad-assery. Back in early open beta, PPCs still sucked.

As soon as PGI realized that they had become the go-to weapon, they should have started testing ideas to add risk to carrying PPCs. This could have been bringing the heat back to where it was, nerfing the speed back to where it was, changing it to an area effect (see: missile splash damage for how to start fixing a problem and not completely following through).

They could have been providing us more information about the things they were looking into ... or what features were coming down the road ... ECM is working as intended ... sure, after BAP is a close range counter, and Seismic is in the game, and friendly IFF still works ... but they didn't tell us "we have some counters in testing ... please be patient." I could have accepted that ... instead, I have a deep-seated hatred for ECM+Streak lights because of how OP they were (RVN-3L still is, compared to other Ravens).

If nothing else comes out of this event, I hope the message to PGI is loud and clear that we want more information about how they plan to make this game great. I would bet that almost every group that will be represented and most unaffiliated players want to be a recruiter for this game. I want PGI to give us some good reason to tell our friends, "come play now ... this is friggin' awesome."

Edit: Wow, I was angry and border-line incoherent last night ... the things that "could have" changed to respond to PPCs becoming more powerful (specifically area effect) were just ideas that were tossed around over the past few months ... not all are good ideas or solve any problems.

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 23 July 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Adridos, on 23 July 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Generally SRM. As far as SRM 2/4 were concrened, they didn't exits to anyone.

Posts like this one: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2070820 and threads like these did indeed target SRM damage: http://mwomercs.com/...amage-too-high/

During one of the LRMaggedons I'm sure I could have found people complaining that TAG and NARC were OP. I'm going to be blunt; some people just don't know what constitutes good balance(everyone thinks they do) but inevitably some people are just plain wrong. The posts that you found only prove that there were people complaining about SRMs, it in no way proves that they were right.

[PropagandaWar]

Gwaihir, on 21 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that 3025 tech itself is more balanced, necessarily, but what certainly is true is that with lower heat capacity and dissipation, heat efficient weapons (aka brawling weapons, aka ballistics and properly working SRMs) ARE more important, and perform better in relationship to large lasers and PPCs.

Fundamentally, the game's not going to be balanced while sticking to anything close to TT numbers.

If you want an example of a game that felt very "mechwarrior-y" but had actually balanced weapons, then just look at MWLL. In MWLL, PPCs were almost the lowest DPS weapons in the game, only beating out small lasers, medium lasers, small pulse lasers, and (s)SRM 2s. Yes, it dealt a really large chunk of pinpoint damage at long range, but it was hot enough so that you couldn't fire more than 5 at a time, and had a long enough cooldown so that missing was a big deal, and demanded carefully picking your shots.
Meanwhile, you had ballistic weapons ideally suited for the big "main gun" role, pulse lasers for very tonnage efficient brawling purposes, and SRMs that bridged the gap. It wasn't a perfect game, and MWO already mechanically works much, much better and has better art (Thanks to not being a mod, among other things), but the weapons numbers would be a superb place to start fixing balance, and best of all they require absolutely no code changes to try out.

I played MWLL and it was "OK". Not near as good as MWO in terms of mech combat or balance. That being said PGI has been sucking that sack and us who still tend to pay dry. Sooo many broken promises. They aren't only a week or two off target with new content they are months. Heck CW I thought after the what third time of stating its rollout would be released. These guys still don't even have anything out and we were supposed to get silly house tags last month. Battletech 3025 had a map we picked a planet and allegience went and fought. Yeah we want a bit more but it would be a start. If its do to poor numbers well have mercs work for house contracts not border planets. Start rollling out planet capture perks after that. As to heat I could care less as I was never one to boat to begin with, but making convergence get wonky at certain heat points on your scale makes more sense.

GaussDragon, on 23 July 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

At what point did the community say 'Please nerf the SRM down to 1.5 damage in order to ruin the only meaningful counter to PPCs?' I don't recall SRM damage ever being a major complaint prior to the nerf nearly 4 months ago.

notice how it still isn't even though Paul basically said 2.0 is op. Still takes a few shots to break through armor. Yep no serious flame threads on that weapon.

[Dakkath]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 23 July 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

<snip>
Yep ... concur completely ... what they did not do is respond to changes in the game, such as adding hit-state-rewind, that turned this into a perfect storm of PPC bad-assery. Back in early open beta, PPCs still sucked.

As soon as PGI realized that they had become the go-to weapon, they should have started testing ideas to add risk to carrying PPCs. This could have been bringing the heat back to where it was, nerfing the speed back to where it was, changing it to an area effect (see: missile splash damage for how to start fixing a problem and not completely following through).

Splash damage for PPC's? Ugh. no. Increased recycle time ok. Reticule bob with increased movement ok. Heat spikes cause reticule to fade-out causing some aiming challenges ok. Most of the laser/beam weapons would be fine if they implemented some sort of convergence inability with torso mounted weapons (meaning they converge at a fixed optimal range, instead of at any range).

Lets think outside the box before we start blasting the weapons into something unrecognizable, imo.

Edited by Dakkath, 23 July 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Wilburg]

fil5000, on 23 July 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

The buff to SRM damage is the single best change we've had to gameplay in months, and the lead designer very specifically did not want to do it. I'm not sure what that example is supposed to indicate other than "community involvement is a good idea".

The changes to PPC heat and projectile speed were useful when hit detection was appallingly bad. Now HSR is in the logical response is to roll back the PPC heat and projectile changes, not to bolt another mechanic on to the game. Your post suggests that somehow the heat scale was the next logical step in some sort of chain, which is patently false.

And we still have had no statement from PGI saying what the heat scale is actually for. I realise this is a cue for someone to jump in and say "Well OBVIOUSLY it's to do X", but that's just players speculating on the intent. Seriously, go look at the command chair posts. No indication whatsoever of what this thing is intended to accomplish.

Seems I went to fast there.

That SRMs had to be fixed: agree. But you should never do polls on issues you are going to fix, that´s what I mean. Imagine if they start a poll on "Is your armor enough" yes / no ... As developers they should stick to their way to go and not be the ******* of a "I-want-it-all-community" (exaggerating again )

Exactly, the changes to PPCs were useful, one by one. But the sum of it should have been rethought after a time, especially after HSR and convergence. Before PPCs were difficult to usles, but after it, they were op. The logical thing would be: better gameplay -> weapons back to standard. Not nerf the nerf of the nerf.

Where´s the problem of setting up heat and reload cycle again and test it? Would it be a step back to a worse balancing just because months ago it did not work that way? Now it might do so.

Also, instead of heat-penalty, the long ago planned impact of heat in your hud (like in the books and games). Blurry aiming, passing out/trembling of ****** up pilots, etc ...

Edited by Wilburg, 23 July 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Mycrus]

good job goons, i've posted this link in our internal forums... not sure if anybody attending with our timezone though UTC+8 / +10.. that's mid-day for us.

hope you will record the entirety and share it on VCRS or something.