552 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

Just say no to aiming nerfs...

You wont see me in star citizen. I am stearing clear of that cash grab.

[StarscreamDolf]

Its 100% (personal estimation) clear that 12 vs 12 and the gameplay changes it brought with it, is only fitting for a couple of big maps and completely irrelevant on the small ones.

TACTICAL CHANGES
----------------------------
1) Its discouraging for new players who tend to do tactical mistakes during their learning curve and end up dead in a few minutes at best. 12 vs 12 leaves no room for mistakes..a wrong turn makes a dead man . At least 8 vs 8 was more forgiving in this matter

2)Removes tactical freedom on load-outs and aggressive approaches. More mechs in the game means more PPC and in 70% of the games i played after 12vs12 patch was all about having 8-10 mechs behind a rock sniping and throwing lrms for like 5mins till the game starts to snowball towards one side. Not sure if you guys like playing the "new strategy" but it makes me feel more sad.

3) Ammunition based load-outs force the pilots to be more picky on their targets. Weapon balance is still in favor of long range lasers (aka ER-PPc) more than ever, since now most ppl don't want to risk their neck getting close to a massive blob of enemy assaults. They prefer to sit back and fire from a safe and far spot till the snowball starts to roll on their favor.You will realry see any old school atlas D-DC with 2meds,1ac/20 3 srm6 now and if you do you will just see him standing in the middle of the blob just to provide ecm cover and w8 for like i don;t know how long till the balance of forces start to shift. Lrms now feel way more effective and many ppl sport them now since with more ppl on the field is now way harder to break a missile lock on you especially when your team start losing.

4) Capture timers reduce the effectiveness of lights and mediums. Especially clear on small maps, lights now feel like dead weight on a team. You can't cap effectively in small maps since bot teams can cover ground faster and even if you manage to get to a cap point unscathed you need a lot of time to get it making you more exposed/vulnerable. And that inevitably makes you useless to your team cause by the time you manage to cap a point either your team is dead or the enemies, so you basically didn't contribute as much as before.

ECONOMY CHANGES
-----------------------------

1)For most of us we already got enough c-bills already to have most of the mechs we want....How about the new players?....
How do you intend to make them stick in- game when you discourage them both in gameplay and c-bill reward?. They will have to endure tons of games with trial mechs not designed for the current meta, just to make way less money than before. By the time they have enough c-bills to buy and tune a Hunchie (for example) most of them will be frustrated.

2)C-bill nerf = Premium time nerf. By reducing the c bills earned by the end of the match you actually also nerf the premium time value proportionally. In terms of marketing this is a huge mistake cause now you actually reduced the value of a service you were selling to us.... If PGI wanted ppl to buy more premium time ( which is all this 12 vs 12 was all about according to me) they could have easily just return the "repair" cost to some effect and don't touch c bill earning at all. Its really hard to understand why they had to resort to this.

Edited by StarscreamDolf, 10 August 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[bardlord]

I have not had much of an ammo issue since the patch. 12v12 can eat up more ammo,but u should have more teammates to help.......and backup weapons. Cat-c1 is still a great multipurpose unit. LRM-100 builds should only be used with friends anyway. still not happy with cap changes

[MechFrog1]

Morhadel, on 10 August 2013 - 02:15 AM, said:

Each weapon has a trade-off and they are overall balanced

Not even PGI would make such a ridiculous claim. Stop white knighting, it isn't helping MWO to be a better game.

[DonVincenzo]

They are balanced by the fact they are either not a gauss rifle or a PPC.

[Morhadel]

mint frog, on 10 August 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Not even PGI would make such a ridiculous claim. Stop white knighting, it isn't helping MWO to be a better game.

DonVincenzo, on 10 August 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

They are balanced by the fact they are either not a gauss rifle or a PPC.

Wow Next time READ the post your replying to, they weapon stats and balance was about CBTT, the whole post was about how unbalanced MWO is making things, Hence the title ORIGINALLY over the weapons stats, I will NEVER white knight for PGI, in fact if i ever win the lottery (going to be hard since i dont play) i would buy pgi and fire Russ and a lot of other devs.

DonVincenzo, on 10 August 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

AIming is OP.

NO - pin point accuracy is OP, actually having to aim is not, could you imagine playing BF3 or any other fps where your aim is as good as MWO, they would be broken too.

[Chronojam]

Belorion, on 10 August 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

Just say no to aiming nerfs...

You wont see me in star citizen. I am stearing clear of that cash grab.

What's interesting is that after MechWarrior: Living Legends was shut down due to the impending release of MWO, the creator of Star Citizen hired staff from MW:LL to go work for him! If only PGI had such foresight.

[RoboPatton]

Im always just a little worried about the calls for "Nerf (or nothin)", since most of the time they "balance" things TOO FAR into the negative.

Whens the last time you saw a viable SSRM build? Streaks were nerfed into oblivion.

[Chronojam]

Which calls would that be?

[Literally]

This thread has been eminently embarrassing to PGI. After PGI's total failure to reply to #saveMWO, or engage the community in any way, I saw the activity in this patch thread and expected that a PGI employee must have come in here to talk about the problems we have right now.

Instead we get pages of dedicated fans explaining and debating balance issues and what should be done next, ever hopeful, still here against all odds . . . followed by one single Dev post with a poor attitude.

I expected the first Dev response in this thread would be a statement of what the team was working on, or at least an acknowledgment of what the problems currently are. It would be about time, certainly.

What we got was one sarcastic sentence about the game, followed by two sentences of passive-agressive threats. Are these PGI's actual priorities? How embarrassing is that? We get one poorly researched and cavalier piece of bad attitude towards a fan who understands and still writes about game balance here. We get two pieces of completely misdirected and ignorant threatening language towards someone who does their homework, the homework which the Dev team shows no evidence of either having done or listening to.

Garth, when you make misplaced threats towards someone who is arguing factually in good faith, someone with whom most of the community certainly seems to agree with, you make yourself look small, petty, and blind. You could have posted about the game, but instead you showed up to insult someone and then slink away.

Garth, you owe Chronojam a public apology in this thread. If you can't do that, or have someone proofread your statements before you press the post button, then perhaps it would be best if you simply don't post on these forums at all.


Quoted for posterity:

Garth Erlam, on 09 August 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

You mean when the k2 'gausscat' was 'all you saw in 8v8' - you're right, that was a far better non long-range, high-alpha 'meta.'

PS. This is your only warning about insulting people. Do it again and you can sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

[Literally]

Helmer, on 09 August 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Graufalk, on 09 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Why are the devs using "at least you don't see X build anymore!" as a justification for current balance?

In fact, why is this the ONLY dev post when it comes to 2PPC1Gauss?

Because there's nothing else to share yet.


Cheers.

I hope you, a volunteer moderator, do absolutely not represent the Dev team of MWO when you tell us that they have "nothing else to share" on the current state of the game.

The Word of Lowtax mumble server, which is available to the public, now has more people on it playing League of Legends than MWO. We are the single largest group of players in the game, I believe the only group to send multiple lances to every player-organized tournament, and now we can't field more than one or two casual 4-mans on a weekend.

The next official reply really should be a statement of how the whole PGI team currently sees the state of game balance, a statement of where they would like it to be, and preferably a plan of action. MWO is the foundation of an excellent game, but it's not going to get better with the current attitude. Normally when a game ceases to be fun I simply stop playing, and normally I would not even post seriously on a game forums. But when multiple members of a company get on the official forums and twitter just to be obtuse and insulting, it's time to say something.

[Helmer]

Literally, on 10 August 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

I hope you, a volunteer moderator, do absolutely not represent the Dev team of MWO when you tell us that they have "nothing else to share" on the current state of the game.

The Word of Lowtax mumble server, which is available to the public, now has more people on it playing League of Legends than MWO. We are the single largest group of players in the game, I believe the only group to send multiple lances to every player-organized tournament, and now we can't field more than one or two casual 4-mans on a weekend.

The next official reply really should be a statement of how the whole PGI team currently sees the state of game balance, a statement of where they would like it to be, and preferably a plan of action. MWO is the foundation of an excellent game, but it's not going to get better with the current attitude. Normally when a game ceases to be fun I simply stop playing, and normally I would not even post seriously on a game forums. But when multiple members of a company get on the official forums and twitter just to be obtuse and insulting, it's time to say something.

Please do not read more into my statement then what was written.

Please go back and reread the statement I was responding to. The statement was in regards to the PPC and Gauss build specifically, NOT about the current state of the game.
In regards to weapon balancing , except for a few generalized statements from Paul, PGI seems very reluctant to say anything specific about weapon balancing. Considering some slip ups in the past (Coolant) , I can understand their reluctance to say anything concrete until its in the patch notes.

Several community members , in this very thread, have demonstrated that polite discourse with the developers can reap rewards. Russ' post on 3rd person was a direct result on some of the community politely asking on Twitter.



I agree that there are several very easy wasy to improve communication with the community and have been a proponent of this thread and respectful communication in general.



Cheers.

Edited by Helmer, 10 August 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[General Discussion Kerensky]

Helmer, on 10 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Considering some slip ups in the past (Coolant) , I can understand their reluctance to say anything concrete until its in the patch notes.

"Slip ups" such as telling us they wouldn't be adding pay-for coolant and then doing it anyway a few months later?

Helmer, on 10 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

I agree that there are several very easy wasy to improve communication with the community

And yet none of them have been implemented. Do you understand why this might be a little disheartening, or how it could cause tempers to flare?

Helmer, on 10 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Please do not read more into my statement then what was written.

As a volunteer moderator, how do you know whether or not there is any other information to share?

You can make an assumption that they have nothing to share, or you can assert that you don't believe they're willing to discuss balance, but the statement:

Helmer, on 09 August 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Because there's nothing else to share yet.

is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe PGI wishes to discuss fine balance points at this time."

That is a perfectly reasonable statement to make; what you actually said is less so. Also: If that really is PGI's position on balance discussion, I do have to ask: if Open Beta isn't the time to discuss fine balance, when should we discuss it?





Cheers.

Edited by Kiyoshi Mizumura, 10 August 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[Windies]

Helmer, on 10 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Please do not read more into my statement then what was written.

Please go back and reread the statement I was responding to. The statement was in regards to the PPC and Gauss build specifically, NOT about the current state of the game.
In regards to weapon balancing , except for a few generalized statements from Paul, PGI seems very reluctant to say anything specific about weapon balancing. Considering some slip ups in the past (Coolant) , I can understand their reluctance to say anything concrete until its in the patch notes.

Several community members , in this very thread, have demonstrated that polite discourse with the developers can reap rewards. Russ' post on 3rd person was a direct result on some of the community politely asking on Twitter.



I agree that there are several very easy wasy to improve communication with the community and have been a proponent of this thread and respectful communication in general.



Cheers.

The post you quoted was about why they don't respond to the current balance issue's properly and why when Garth chose to respond it was about some semi op build that was honestly not really a huge problem and was nothing more than a passive aggressive threat towards a community member trying to spark discussion.

Responding to that by saying

Helmer, on 09 August 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Because there's nothing else to share yet.


Cheers.

has a lot to do with the current state of the game as well as the state of communication from PGI about the state of the game thus far. Might want to think about what you are implying or actually saying before hitting the reply button.

Edited by Windies, 10 August 2013 - 08:39 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Literally, on 10 August 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Garth, you owe Chronojam a public apology in this thread. If you can't do that, or have someone proofread your statements before you press the post button, then perhaps it would be best if you simply don't post on these forums at all.


Quoted for posterity:

Indeed. Not that anything of the sort will happen. But that's what any man who places his pride lower than his integrity would do. And not a conciliatory PM, either - all that would do is show insincerity and cowardice. Insulting someone publicly demands apologizing to them publicly.

[Ter Ushaka]

Kiyoshi Mizumura, on 10 August 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

if Open Beta isn't the time to discuss fine balance, when should we discuss it?

Any time prior to October 29th, 2012.

[Helmer]

Kiyoshi Mizumura, on 10 August 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

"Slip ups" such as telling us they wouldn't be adding pay-for coolant and then doing it anyway a few months later?

Exactly. Garth posted about coolant with the misinformed notion that it wasn't going to be added, when it was something that hadn't yet actually determined. After being branded a liar for a slip up, I can understand the reluctance to not talk about something until its actually in.
In this case Occams Razor really does apply.

Kiyoshi Mizumura, on 10 August 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

And yet none of them have been implemented. Do you understand why this might be a little disheartening, or how it could cause tempers to flare?

Yes, of course. I'm part of the community as well. I guess I am not understanding the point of your question?

Kiyoshi Mizumura, on 10 August 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

"Also: If that really is PGI's position on balance discussion, I do have to ask: if Open Beta isn't the time to discuss fine balance, when should we discuss it?"

What position are you talking about? Forum users are free to respectfully discuss balance all they wish , and provide all the feedback and viewpoints they wish. That's one of the central reasons of the forums.

Windies, on 10 August 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

The post you quoted was about why they don't respond to the current balance issue's properly and why when Garth chose to respond it was about some semi op build that was honestly not really a huge problem and was nothing more than a passive aggressive threat towards a community member trying to spark discussion.

Responding to that by saying



has a lot to do with the current state of the game as well as the state of communication from PGI about the state of the game thus far. Might want to think about what you are implying or actually saying before hitting the reply button.

The post I quoted is located here . It says

"Why are the devs using "at least you don't see X build anymore!" as a justification for current balance?

In fact, why is this the ONLY dev post when it comes to 2PPC1Gauss?"

There are, as you can see, two questions posed here.

Now If you would kindly reread my statement located here you can see that I deliberately only quoted part of his statement ,as that was the part I was responding to.

If you wish to misinterpret or infer that I am speaking to something else, even after I clearly displayed the question I was responding to, then there's nothing more I can say.

Even forum janitors must respect NDAs.




Cheers.

[Windies]

Helmer, on 11 August 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

Exactly. Garth posted about coolant with the misinformed notion that it wasn't going to be added, when it was something that hadn't yet actually determined. After being branded a liar for a slip up, I can understand the reluctance to not talk about something until its actually in.
In this case Occams Razor really does apply.



Yes, of course. I'm part of the community as well. I guess I am not understanding the point of your question?




What position are you talking about? Forum users are free to respectfully discuss balance all they wish , and provide all the feedback and viewpoints they wish. That's one of the central reasons of the forums.






The post I quoted is located here . It says

"Why are the devs using "at least you don't see X build anymore!" as a justification for current balance?

In fact, why is this the ONLY dev post when it comes to 2PPC1Gauss?"

There are, as you can see, two questions posed here.

Now If you would kindly reread my statement located here you can see that I deliberately only quoted part of his statement ,as that was the part I was responding to.

If you wish to misinterpret or infer that I am speaking to something else, even after I clearly displayed the question I was responding to, then there's nothing more I can say.

Even forum janitors must respect NDAs.




Cheers.

And how does the #2ppc1gauss issue not play into the current state of the game or the terrible #ghostheat #magnumopus implementation and how does the lack of response other than a passive aggressive threat and a moderator saying that there's nothing to say do anything to either alleviate the concerns or provide any info whatsoever? In fact how does it do anything except stir up trouble in an already annoyed community?

I for one would be interested in hearing a possible solution to the #2ppc1gauss issue, but according to you PGI has nothing to say....

[Ken Fury]

Helmer, on 10 August 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

PGI seems very reluctant to say anything specific about weapon balancing. Considering some slip ups in the past (Coolant) , I can understand their reluctance to say anything concrete until its in the patch notes.

Even though those slips ups created a shitstorm, those public slip ups were good. Because 90% of the playerbase never saw them. It's certainly not cool if people get aggressive about your work. But sadly rational discussion on discussion boards is a rare thing to see.

In the end it will only help PGI to put their development ideas into the public. Hiding them until it get's patched to the live server can create more backlash.

Other companies profit from a deeper interaction with the whole community

Initial review of CCP intendeds change: http://themittani.co...ningful-choices
Review of change based on Community change: http://themittani.co...strials-changed

[Helmer]

Windies, on 11 August 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

And how does the #2ppc1gauss issue not play into the current state of the game or the terrible #ghostheat #magnumopus implementation and how does the lack of response other than a passive aggressive threat and a moderator saying that there's nothing to say do anything to either alleviate the concerns or provide any info whatsoever? In fact how does it do anything except stir up trouble in an already annoyed community?

I for one would be interested in hearing a possible solution to the #2ppc1gauss issue, but according to you PGI has nothing to say....

Yet.

Please reread it ... again.

One aspect or concern is not the sum or totality of the communities questions or concerns. If you visit the Gameplay Balance forums there are plenty of other issues the community would like to hear about. I spoke to one of them.

If I were to say I love video games, is this an all encompassing statement that MUST refer to all video games ever created?

Tank Boy Ken, on 11 August 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

Even though those slips ups created a shitstorm, those public slip ups were good. Because 90% of the playerbase never saw them. It's certainly not cool if people get aggressive about your work. But sadly rational discussion on discussion boards is a rare thing to see.

In the end it will only help PGI to put their development ideas into the public. Hiding them until it get's patched to the live server can create more backlash.

Other companies profit from a deeper interaction with the whole community

Initial review of CCP intendeds change: http://themittani.co...ningful-choices
Review of change based on Community change: http://themittani.co...strials-changed

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm all for more communication. You're preaching to the converted.

Cheers.

Edited by Helmer, 11 August 2013 - 01:11 AM.