483 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Borak Bloodaxe, on 13 August 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Frankly I'm tired of all these cries and complaints.
you have wept for ppc alpha ... they have been nerfed and it was fine to do so.
But it was not enough ... and they have increased the heat.
But it was not enough ... now do not go well ppc + 2 gauss ... it is
too powerful.
Now they will be nerfed again. Then you will weep for what?
The problem is not the PPC ... or the gauss ... the problem is not the
snipers .. the problem is you!
Spending too much time crying and too little to try to play better, to
improve yourself.
I do both the sniper and brawler that there is always someone who
complains about something.
They call us cheaters, they say that we use aimbot and everything else
I see too many times players without a minimum of tactics, using mechs
without criteria and getting out there thinking they are invincible,
or thinking that it is enough to have an atlas to be able to run in
open field to destroy everything that we encounter.
You're playing the wrong game.
I've never complained meeting snipers, I move with caution, I change
position frequently, unfortunately, is full of people who are still
there and take the blows and then they cry.
People that does not know how to play, this is the problem, MWO is
full of bad players who cannot adapt, don't know how to play but they
can only complain about everything.
When MWO will be reduced to "i run around in my mech shooting stuff
blidnly" you will achieve your goal, but at that point the game will
be dead and no one of the good players will be left.

Welcome to the conversation that nobody is having.

People are not complaining that things are overpowered, or that they can't play well. They are complaining that there are balance issues between the weapon types that make certain load outs the go to option over everything else, and that any of the fixes that have been put into place by the devs have been convoluted nonsense that either didn't fix the problem or added contradiction to the system that didn't exist before.

[Sug]

Niko Snow, on 12 August 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Answer from David: [color=#959595]Regarding Advanced Zoom, that has admittedly gotten left by the wayside. It’s still too expensive to properly render a picture in picture zoom like that, but we probably should take another look at that module, and find some ways to make it more viable.[/color]

Why does it need to be a PiP? Can't you just make it zoom in the fov like the 1.5x and the 3x?

[Appogee]

Sug, on 13 August 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Why does it need to be a PiP? Can't you just make it zoom in the fov like the 1.5x and the 3x?

Stop suggesting obvious and easy solutions.

[Sug]

Appogee, on 13 August 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Stop suggesting obvious and easy solutions.

Seriously if they read my idea and are like "Holy **** why didn't we think of that'' I'l jump out this god damn 4th story window right now I swear to christ.

[Jakob Knight]

It's interesting how, when posters on this thread put out their ideas for what Desynch between the PPC and the Gauss Rifle means, the knee-jerk reaction is to bring restrictions/changes to the PPC.

Given that the PPC already has been hit by several nerfs recently while the Gauss Rifle is the weapon that has avoided any changes, it seems more just and 'balanced' that it will be the Gauss Rifle that will be tweeked, especially when one considers that dual GRs have the same or better killing power than dual AC/20s (which were determined to be so overpowered that they needed to be hit with penalties).

This assumes, of course, that the Gauss Rifle isn't the pet favorite of the Dev in control. In that case, it won't matter much, since it will be kept in a protected state as other systems in similar status.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 13 August 2013 - 10:45 AM.

[SmallandBlue]

Jakob Knight, on 13 August 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

dual AC/20s (which were so overpowered that they needed to be hit with penalties).

Literally no-one in their right mind thought this. Didn't stop Paul though.

[Archon Adam Steiner]

SmallandBlue, on 13 August 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Literally no-one in their right mind thought this. Didn't stop Paul though.

Dual AC/20's were joke builds that were never seen in competitive matches, but that doesn't mean that forty pin-point damage on demand and with absolutely zero draw-backs was not ridiculous, though.

[Jakob Knight]

SmallandBlue, on 13 August 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Literally no-one in their right mind thought this. Didn't stop Paul though.

No one in their right mind would have thought heavy weapons doing heavy damage that could kill a mech with a few shots was overpowered. However, it is the people who are not in their right minds who are determining the standard for what gets penalized, and that's what we have to gauge for.

The disconnect is when people think 3 PPCs doing 30 damage over long distances with alot of heat generation are overpowered and needs to be penalized, 2 AC/20s doing 40 damage at very close ranges with medium heat generation and limited ammo are overpowered and needs to be penalized, but 2 Gauss Rifles doing 30 damage over long distances with little or no heat and limited ammo is not overpowered and should not be penalized. And, when a change is announced, it is the -PPC- and not the Guass Rifle that should be cut back. Again.

[Tegiminis]

I read the Ask The Dev answers again and I got angry again. Glory be to PGI and their balance team, for only they truly understand how LRMs are TOTALLY part of the pinpoint alpha problem, u guise.

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Dual AC/20's were joke builds that were never seen in competitive matches, but that doesn't mean that forty pin-point damage on demand and with absolutely zero draw-backs was not ridiculous, though.

Zero drawbacks except the whole "literally all that mech can carry" and "must be within 270m to get full damage" and "can only be used on really slow mechs with really slow turns."

Vastly prefer AC40 Jaegers/Boomcats over sniper meta. At least I can do **** like "dance out of range" or "stick behind."

[Bilbo]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Dual AC/20's were joke builds that were never seen in competitive matches, but that doesn't mean that forty pin-point damage on demand and with absolutely zero draw-backs was not ridiculous, though.

They may be joke builds now, but when assault mechs come into play that can wield multiples of them, they won't be nearly as funny.

[Sug]

Sug, on 13 August 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Why does it need to be a PiP? Can't you just make it zoom in the fov like the 1.5x and the 3x?

Seriously though what exactly is zooming in now? Is the pilot holding binoculars up to his eyes?

Yeah PiP is more immersive, and MW3 did it best, but if we're already cheesing out zoom by adjusting the fov you might as well make it work for 4x so I can get my cbills worth out of this utterly useless advance zoom module.

[Jakob Knight]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Dual AC/20's were joke builds that were never seen in competitive matches, but that doesn't mean that forty pin-point damage on demand and with absolutely zero draw-backs was not ridiculous, though.

I used them for very specific jobs, such as base defense and close support of fire support units, so yes, they were used in competative matches, but only on teams that knew what they were for. The reason for this was that they did, indeed, have quite serious drawbacks, which made them not useful in competative matches where their role wasn't kept in mind or desired. Short range, limited ammo, long recycle times, and moderate heat generation all worked against using these weapons in general combat.

Notably, the dual Gauss Rifle configs were notoriously dangerous, such that an entire campaign was waged against the CPLT-K2 (and is still ongoing) mounting those. Yet, apparently those are not considered worth penalizing.

[Yagyu]

Gwaihir, on 12 August 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

I've used nothing but dual PPC + gauss cataphracts, and then triple PPC highlanders since, oh, January of this year. That's how long they've reigned supreme. Why? Because the counters have been systematically stripped away or otherwise neutered, while the fundamental facets of the weapons in question have remained untouched.

There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with pinpoint long range damage. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. *IF* shorter range weapons do comparatively MORE DPS so that once they can get in range they can make up the difference. (Also mechs, even lights, should have enough health not to get one shotted.) Right now, you have the triple threat of short range weapons being decidedly lackluster, mechs not having enough health, AND the sniper weapons doing excellent DPS on their own, without taking in to account the advantages of pinpoint burst.

How many times do we have to re-hash this before it sinks in? How much longer will anyone wait around to care if it's even fixed?

This, This, THIS.

Well, that plus hit detection... and this lamp. And these MG fixes. But not that chair. I don't need that chair.

[Gwaihir]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Dual AC/20's were joke builds that were never seen in competitive matches, but that doesn't mean that forty pin-point damage on demand and with absolutely zero draw-backs was not ridiculous, though.

Dual AC20 cats were absolutely not joke builds back when running a brawling team was a viable proposition. They were absolutely viable pairings with splatcats.

[DirePhoenix]

Blue Footed Booby, on 13 August 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Uh, no, ad hominem literally means "argument against the man." It can be "you're wrong because you're dumb" but that's the trivial example given in a Logic 101 textbook. In practice, ad hominem is ignoring the content of the argument to make accusations against the person making it, leaving the conclusion implicit. Quoting a post that makes a point and talking about the poster is absolutely an ad hominem even if it doesn't literally end with "...and therefore you're wrong."

And Wales Grey's statement is still incorrect because Arrachtas and The14th were not "Arguing against the man". They were saying that just because PGI didn't go out of their way to address that twitter/reddit hashtag, it does not mean that it was ignored, unseen, or otherwise not considered.

They were not being dismissed because of the person or persons making the argument.

[Archon Adam Steiner]

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

Dual AC20 cats were absolutely not joke builds back when running a brawling team was a viable proposition. They were absolutely viable pairings with splatcats.

Smart players in organized drops (i.e. 8-man teams) would simply recognize the build and pick it off from a distance. I've played in the top ELO bracket ever since ELO came out, and I've seldom seen any of them (and there really weren't that many teams out there, so it's easy to remember!).

Anyway, I think we should pay more attention (at least right now) to the answers from the devs that started this whole thread. I see some good ideas (or at least good suggestions of ideas).

[Tegiminis]

Ad hominem is when the personal attack is unrelated to the debate at hand. Saying "your idea is invalid because you're dumb" is a simplification, but it's not ad hominem, because your intelligence is correlated to the veracity/evaluation of your statements. If you are dumb, it calls into question if you are smart enough to really make such observations.

If someone said "your idea is invalid because you like children's tv shows" or "your idea is invalid because you are a goon/marik/whatever" then you've got an ad hominem attack.

[Mokou]

Niko Snow, on 12 August 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

It’s still too expensive to properly render a picture in picture zoom like that, but we probably should take another look at that module

OH MY GLOB HOW THEY MAKE IT IN NINETEEN NINETY-NINE?!

[Gwaihir]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Smart players in organized drops (i.e. 8-man teams) would simply recognize the build and pick it off from a distance. I've played in the top ELO bracket ever since ELO came out, and I've seldom seen any of them (and there really weren't that many teams out there, so it's easy to remember!).

Anyway, I think we should pay more attention (at least right now) to the answers from the devs that started this whole thread. I see some good ideas (or at least good suggestions of ideas).

Brawling comps have not been at all viable ever since Elo came out. That should clarify my comment. And yes, all my commentary comes from the perspective of organized team play. It doesn't matter in a pub match.

Edited by Gwaihir, 13 August 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Kunae]

Arrachtas, on 13 August 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Smart players in organized drops (i.e. 8-man teams) would simply recognize the build and pick it off from a distance. I've played in the top ELO bracket ever since ELO came out, and I've seldom seen any of them (and there really weren't that many teams out there, so it's easy to remember!).

Anyway, I think we should pay more attention (at least right now) to the answers from the devs that started this whole thread. I see some good ideas (or at least good suggestions of ideas).

Yep, you're "leet" alright.

Most, though not all, people who announce that their team has been "top tier" for months upon months so they know the compositions, are rarely doing more than playing the current meta.

AC20 cats were perfectly viable, and not "picked off from a distance", if the team understood how to utilize them appropriately. The fact that you think they were, indicates something.

Most videos that I have seen of the self-proclaimed "top tier" teams, and tournament winning teams... well,... it's not very impressive, to put it politely.