552 replies to this topic

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

The could always add a popup when grouping weapons that states:

"You have grouped more than 2 PPC's in one firing group. Firing more than 2 PPC's at once incurs additional heat."

Or they could go with just about any other solution that makes sense. TT heat penalties being my pet favorite. Make heat-neutral, low-alpha, high sustained-DPS builds an option, while keeping high-alpha builds an option that takes quite a bit of skill to really use well (penalties if you alpha a second time before cooling off more.)

[Belorion]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Or they could go with just about any other solution that makes sense. TT heat penalties being my pet favorite. Make heat-neutral, low-alpha, high sustained-DPS builds an option, while keeping high-alpha builds an option that takes quite a bit of skill to really use well (penalties if you alpha a second time before cooling off more.)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I am not all that picky, however you would see the meta shift to low caliber weapon heat neutral builds with high alphas. The end result would be the same as what people are complaining about now.

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I am not all that picky, however you would see the meta shift to low caliber weapon heat neutral builds with high alphas. The end result would be the same as what people are complaining about now.

What is a "low caliber weapon heat neutral build with a high alpha."

4x AC/5? 20 point alpha out to 550ish meters? Compared to 2x PPC + Gauss 35 point alpha out to 650 or so meters?

And if what you fear there occurs, well, then we address it. With well thought out, lore-friendly, and easy to understand solutions.

[Ridersofdoom]

lately the game is more fun than the forums, cya on the battlefield.

[Belorion]

Or a lot of MLs... Then you have the additional problem of them being able to fire that continuously without letting up.

Not unlike the 2xPPC + Gauss replaced the 4 PPC option.

[Kraven Kor]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Or a lot of MLs... Then you have the additional problem of them being able to fire that continuously without letting up.

Not unlike the 2xPPC + Gauss replaced the 4 PPC option.

And balance issues will never be 100% solved. We just play whack-a-mole as problematic builds come along.

And firing 4 Medium Lasers continuously is not a game-breaking, overpowering build, period.

They basically need a threshhold of alpha damage vs. heat and dps vs. heat such that "heat neutral builds" deal about half the DPS as "hot builds" but hot builds have to space out their DPS. A happy balance can be found, and outlier builds that violate the rule can be addressed with minor changes to heat, damage, rate of fire, etc.

[GySgtMurphy]

After playing 12 vs 12, I must say that I enjoy playing MWO again. The previous meta of "come in an assault Mech or don't come at all" for general purpose BattleMechs (straight up brawlers/strikers) was getting really boring and frustrating, but with the introduction of 12 vs 12, mediums and lighter heavies are again viable. I had a killer game in my Founder's Hunchback where I didn't get shot to pieces within 5 seconds of being spotted, because there aren't the 6x PPC alpha Stalkers coring me ever time. Playing in an Assault Class Mech now requires some thought to both the armament and the best way to implement the Assault. When I was playing in my Awesome-9M, I played strong point on the attack line, drawing fire and keeping people's heads down while cycling through the three ER PPC's. I did have some heat issues, but I got more kills in that match than I have in a long time playing that Awesome, because I could accurately hit people at close range with the ER PPC's, along with my 3 SSRM2's and small pulse.

I understand that people are angry that they cannot core mechs in one or two alphas with no penalties, but an alpha is not suppose to be the weapon of first resort, or even second. It is the weapon of last resort, where you fire everything you have in the slim to moderate chance of getting that kill before you get killed. It should be expected that heat penalties will happen when trying to fire every Laser/PPC/SRM/whatever when you mount 4 or 6 of them. What this will cause is a shift in playstyle, where builds built for the extended fight, such as mounting one or two primary weapons, along with dependable back up weapons, will become the norm, save for specific variants and chassis ( Hunchback-4P and the Awesome-8Q/-9M coming to mind at the moment), along with a few mechs built for the niche roles.

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post, but I would like to see people look at the positive effects of the patches.

[Kraven Kor]

GySgtMurphy, on 08 August 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post, but I would like to see people look at the positive effects of the patches.

Most of us are agreeing that the ghost heat did achieve the desired results, for all but 2x PPC + Gauss.

But there are other, better, less convoluted, simpler to understand solutions that would be less problematic for new players and would not see them releasing a MC-Only Hero Mech where its stock loadout suffers from undue penalties... and there wouldn't be so much complaining over builds that were "non-issues" that got nerfed to hell (large lasers.)

Just sayin'

[Chronojam]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Only in the context of the one person. That is hardly a community response. Specific individuals can't use a blanket statement to push their agenda.

If those two issues were truly a community concern then they should have been included in the letter.

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

Its a few hundred that *think* they represent thousands more. I don't see thousands of people signing the letter.

I don't think you get how spokesmen and representative governance work, and I would hope PGI is less closed-minded. Does a senator not vote for his constituents? Does a head of household not fill the census for his family? Does Russ not speak for Piranha Games?

We have hundreds of non-group members who have signed directly, and hundreds of grouped members who signed directly because their whole group couldn't come to consensus, and that's OK. We also have many group leaders who represent thousands supporting the consensus, and that's OK, too.

It's as baffling as Ghost Heat that you would not want to #savemwo and would try to undermine the efforts of those who would.

[Belorion]

Chronojam, on 08 August 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I don't think you get how spokesmen and representative governance work, and I would hope PGI is less closed-minded. Does a senator not vote for his constituents? Does a head of household not fill the census for his family? Does Russ not speak for Piranha Games?

We have hundreds of non-group members who have signed directly, and hundreds of grouped members who signed directly because their whole group couldn't come to consensus, and that's OK. We also have many group leaders who represent thousands supporting the consensus, and that's OK, too.

It's as baffling as Ghost Heat that you would not want to #savemwo and would try to undermine the efforts of those who would.

Transparency used to be a lot better before all of the extreme PGI hate on the forums. We really can't blame PGI for stoppering up the information flow when it didn't do anything but cause bickering on the forums.

Now those negative people want to demand that PGI release information?

Perhaps you should start a grass roots movement to make the forums more civil. In the long run it would be more beneficial, but just as unlikely to succeed as PGI's attempt at working with people on the forums.

MWO doesn't need saving, especially from the worst detractors of the game.

Edited by Belorion, 08 August 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[UnwantedProblem]

I hate the new capping time, takes forever to cap a base alone :C

[Mason Grimm]

Speaking strictly as a player? The last thing PGI needs is a repeat of what some other companies have done; a panel of 10 people thinking they represent the voice of thousands because they have managed, through whatever means, to acquire enough votes to put them there? Those types of things become popularity contests and somewhere along the way the "mission" gets lost. I can see it now, dunce caps and drunken speeches from self-styled (and other adjectives) "community spokespersons" who claim to represent the community and yet somehow are free of their own personal agenda and power plays? I weep at the mere possibility of something like this.

Folks, at the end of the day they run a business, not a democracy. Provide your feedback, participate in the tests, enjoy the game (or not, as is your want). You should even provide your negative feedback or displeasure at the current direction, if that is how you feel, but do not think that strong-arm tactics, utilized by larger organizations in other games, will be afforded more credibility under the guise of supposed legitimacy.

Edited by Mason Grimm, 08 August 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Belorion]

Graufalk, on 08 August 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

deleted

I don't know about him, but I am concerned the PGI haters are trying to ruin this game. A game I happen to like a lot.

[Graufalk]

Belorion, on 08 August 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I don't know about him, but I am concerned the PGI haters are trying to ruin this game. A game I happen to like a lot.

You do realize how little sense that makes, right?

"Oh man time to ruin this game I spent $120+ on! That'll teach 'em!"

It's like you people completely ignored the point of the townhall discussion because goons.

[Kraven Kor]

Graufalk, on 08 August 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

You do realize how little sense that makes, right?

"Oh man time to ruin this game I spent $120+ on! That'll teach 'em!"

It's like you people completely ignored the point of the townhall discussion because goons.

I am sure there are at least a few "Watch the World Burn" types involved; so fed up they are actively sabotaging things.

I doubt they are the majority, or even a statistical minority, but I'm sure they are there.

Most of us just want the game PGI sold us last year.

I mean, I feel I have been very polite and professional, if a bit annoyingly persistent. Or at least I hope so. I know there is a lot of hate thrown at PGI; I do not hate. I am confused, I am angry, I am feeling cheated, but I do not hate nor do I riddle my posts or opinions with subtle or overt jabs and insults towards PGI.

I think most of the more lucid posters on the subject would fall in the same category.

The "**** PGI" guys can EABOD because they are not helping.

[Tarzilman]

Hate everytime needs a reason to be triggered. I don't think, that there're lot of players joining the game thinking "Let's flame f***ing PGI" just for fun or to sabotage it.
Many of those players shouting out loud their criticism are founders. Like Graufalk said, why would they ruin this game after spending so much time and money in it? That really doesn't make sense.
And their shouting meanwhile became so loud that it's heading the atmosphere in the forums. THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT!

Edited by Tarzilman, 08 August 2013 - 11:15 AM.

[BlueVisionWarrior Online]

I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. The trees dgaf about #saveMWO, they're too busy playing the game to think it needs saving.

Now #shaveMWO, the Lorax could get down on that.

[Kraven Kor]

Tarzilman, on 08 August 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Hate everytime needs a reason to be triggered. I don't think, that there're lot of players joining the game thinking "Let's flame f***ing PGI" just for fun.
Many of those players shouting out loud their criticism are founders. Like Graufalk said, why would they ruin this game after spending so much time and money in it? That really doesn't make sense.
And their shouting meanwhile became so loud that it's heading the atmosphere in the forums. THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT!

Right, which is more likely:

1. Every Founder posting discontent is a crazy person, hell-bent on creating misery and loathing in anyone they can possibly communicate with

-or-

2. PGI has moved away from the original design goals and seriously let down the very people who funded there game.

They can't make us all happy, and we won't all ever fully agree on any one problem or solution.

But the preponderance (I got to use this word twice today! yay!) of evidence is pointing to the latter.

And only they can fix it.

I assure you, if they at least change direction back towards original design goals, if they make a post saying they hear us and will return to the original pillars, if they show us an awesome concept for Community Warfare, even if I do not fully agree with every little detail, I will return and I will return to being a paying customer.

Only PGI can fix this. Only PGI can restore our faith. Only PGI can begin to actually deliver on original promises and design goals.

[Viper69]

Kraven Kor, on 08 August 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Right, which is more likely:

1. Every Founder posting discontent is a crazy person, hell-bent on creating misery and loathing in anyone they can possibly communicate with

-or-

2. PGI has moved away from the original design goals and seriously let down the very people who funded there game.

They can't make us all happy, and we won't all ever fully agree on any one problem or solution.

But the preponderance (I got to use this word twice today! yay!) of evidence is pointing to the latter.

And only they can fix it.

I assure you, if they at least change direction back towards original design goals, if they make a post saying they hear us and will return to the original pillars, if they show us an awesome concept for Community Warfare, even if I do not fully agree with every little detail, I will return and I will return to being a paying customer.

Only PGI can fix this. Only PGI can restore our faith. Only PGI can begin to actually deliver on original promises and design goals.

Dude they dont care. The founders are not their target audience any more, we were used to get the game going by being fed lines here and there to get our cash. Now they are targeting the FPS crowd who get their kicks from a different style of play and sadly they are a larger group than the old sim crowd. Why else would you think they are going the route of 3pv and they even let in their coolant flushing. We are a dying market share figuratively and literally.

[Kraven Kor]

Viper69, on 08 August 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Dude they dont care. The founders are not their target audience any more, we were used to get the game going by being fed lines here and there to get our cash. Now they are targeting the FPS crowd who get their kicks from a different style of play and sadly they are a larger group than the old sim crowd. Why else would you think they are going the route of 3pv and they even let in their coolant flushing. We are a dying market share figuratively and literally.

Then:

1. Bye

2. I weep for Humanity.

Cheating the Founders out of the game they funded is NOT a good business plan, and I will do everything in my power to make them regret that if that ends up truly being the case.

I don't really think that is the case.

I think they are being pressured "from on high" to do this, and I want to do everything I can to change that.

Hence my constant posting here, facebook, twitter, etc. to ensure people know what PGI is currently doing so far as breaking initial promises.

Of course, how has shaming EA helped reform that steaming pile of greedy evil? Not well.

Edited by Kraven Kor, 08 August 2013 - 11:28 AM.