483 replies to this topic

[101011]

MisterFiveSeven, on 13 August 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

I always stand next to a ddc when riding in my blackjack.

I'm typically the last mech standing if we lose.

Correlation? (hint :: target priority might come in handy here)

D-DC: brawler that goes 54.6 kph. BJ, flanker that goes 86.4 kph. Correlation? Absolutely none, these 'mechs are completely different. You shouldn't have to stick with a 'mech that's 55 tons heavier than you just to survive long enough to make a difference.

[Thariel]

Who considers the awesome a bad assault? who even wasted a question for that. Imho one of the top notch assaults, if you can do better than jumptarting

[Mike Getsome]

Quote

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.

My god!! How hard it is??

Just make it enable regular zooming to 4x like it was in closed beta, in fact revert everything to the state of closed beta, when the game was balanced and the skill mattered, not pin point alpha assaults and streak aimbots (which should be the way they are in mw4).

[Mike Getsome]

101011, on 13 August 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

D-DC: brawler that goes 54.6 kph. BJ, flanker that goes 86.4 kph. Correlation? Absolutely none, these 'mechs are completely different. You shouldn't have to stick with a 'mech that's 55 tons heavier than you just to survive long enough to make a difference.

I don't know where have you been, but since the start of closed beta it was a thing that assault hugely benefit from a medium mech defending it from lights.

Well, maybe now it changed since the game is gauss+2ppc spam between everybody.

E: what a dumb way to 'fix' 2ppc+gauss, oh, pgi, what is wrong with you?

You ruined and keep ruining your game.

Edited by Mike Getsome, 13 August 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[hkk]

Posted 12 August 2013 - 08:07 PM
No amount of rational argument, or open letters with thousands of signatures will change any minds. You guys want change? then do the only thing that will get their attention, vote with your wallets, or lack thereof.
Posted 12 August 2013 - 09:41 PM
I'm sure i play on the same servers and against the same players as everyone else and with the right tactics i love bagging snipers and especially LRM boats. Harden up adapt to the game don'y make the game adapt to you.
Posted 12 August 2013 - 11:36 PM
I said that you need to be more tactical in your approach.
Posted Yesterday, 01:07 AM
Personally, after seeing this same type of "concern" all over the LoL boards years back it's really hard to take most of you "critics" seriously.
Posted Yesterday, 01:26 AM
People love - LOVE - to doom and gloom. There's something innate in the human condition that delights in being right about something (or somebody) being 'bad'. We see a lot of that here.

Any light bulbs coming on over there in the angry people town hall?

People with experience out at the pointy end of the stick often say
"if the troops ain't bitching about something, then somethings wrong"

[Victor Morson]

Chronojam, on 12 August 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Are these "Synchronization Issues" you refer to actually netcode issues, or is David alluding to problems where developers want to work on meaningful fixes and enjoyable new features and game modes, but they are instead made to work on things like "Ghost Heat" and "Ghost Damage" and "Ghost Delay" (instead of being "in sync" with what the players want)? I know it must seem daunting if not impossible, but please try hard during meetings to make sure priorities are set properly, and less "ghost tasking" is assigned.

Well, at least I know who we need to call to sort this out now.

Thariel, on 13 August 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

Who considers the awesome a bad assault? who even wasted a question for that. Imho one of the top notch assaults, if you can do better than jumptarting

Is is bottom of the barrel.

Bad hard points. Bad engine restrictions. Bad hardpoints.

The 9M was a niche (it was fast) until the Victor came along. The Victor is proving to not be that great but is worlds better than the Awesome.

[Victor Morson]

Homeless Bill, on 13 August 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

This. Everyone whining about how easy PIP is needs to shut the **** up. If you aren't a rendering programmer and you don't know how the engine is set up, you have no right to be talking.

Yes, they should do something else to make it functional in the meantime, but the massive amount of ignorant whine ****** me off to no end. Making games is not as easy as you kids seem to think.

I think the bigger point is they would like them to just drop PIP entirely until they can get it right.

That would make it a useful module and solve all the complaints.

[John MatriX82]

Chronojam, on 13 August 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

If you use "now" to mean "at present" then yes, it is true that #2ppc1gauss is the dominant build of the dominant metagame.

If you use "now" to mean "recently changed" then no, because #2ppc1gauss has been the dominant build of the dominant metagame for seven months.

In one week, you will have been playing this game for a year, and for over half of it, one single build will have been the most effective in most situations. That gets old, fast, especially when "balancing" changes regularly remove what little remains of that build's main competition. Can't wait for the Orion to come out so I can put two PPCs and a Gauss Rifle on it, guys, who's with me?

It was said with a little sarcasm.. it's not op atm. It's the most effective at the moment, since it doesn't have any counter because 4PPC is gone, or like you said 4/5 LLs were a good counter to poptarts (usually armed with GR and PPCs), now also that thing is gone..

You know what will be next? AC 20 and 2 PPCs. I see it already used and the wheel will go on, everyone will probably switch to 2PPC 2LLs or LPLs, then that will be nerfed as well to a point that we'll be tossing our mechs' legs at each other or i don't know, boat machineguns until they won't be nerfed as well.

Actually the game is unbalanced, with convoluted and difficult to explain penalties; we need to either make PPCs and GR's actually be a pure sniping weapon (raise recycle times for PPCs to 5 and GR to 6?), get hardpoint restrictions instead of absurd heat penalties (differentiating and giving to each variant more specific roles, buffing the "useless" ones), rescale many mechs (it has been said a million times). We're less than 1 month away from launch and the direction is still the wrong one with virtually no time to address any of the many issues of the game

[Victor Morson]

Squid von Torgar, on 13 August 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Recent developments though seem to indicate that PGI are looking at the 2PPC and Gauss meta. Despite harsh criticism over their recent and I quote "Ghost Heat Nerf" the meta has responded and is showing signs of life.

It didn't respond at all to any serious groups. We're still using the same builds, plus SRMs, since SRMs are viable.

PS: The reason SRMs are working at 2.0 is they turned SRMs into LBXs that fire like a shotgun scatter shot. The previous arc required much much more skill and thus 2.5 would have been appropriate.

It is, however, a shame the LBX is now out-LBX'ed by a missile.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 August 2013 - 01:28 AM.

[Deathz Jester]

On the lines of heat, why the hell is the mech generating so much heat when using its jump-jets..... jump-jets are using vented exhaust from the battlemech's reactor, it should technically not be generating heat to vent what is basically "heat" out the *** end of my mech.

[Victor Morson]

Screech, on 12 August 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Like the part about them finally fixing the matchmaker and getting rid of the arbitrary group limit. Looks like they will balance by tonnage. Though not great still better then a player limit. Just wish they could get it down before launch.

Well it's nice to see what we begged them to do at the end of 2011 might finally arrive. I'm actually happy about this.

[Victor Morson]

Kunae, on 13 August 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

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.

AC/20 cats are still horrible due to their massive head hit box. I'd honestly much rather take a splatcat in the current environment anyway.

Not to say the AC/20 is useless, it's not as it pairs reasonably well with SRMs, at least.

Also, what might not look impressive in a video = what works. All the flashy crazy stuff is broken right now. So competitive play isn't exactly exciting looking.. and that's part of why we're complaining.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Let's just implement Chain Fire Only mode and no more than 1 of each type of weapon per chassis and be done with it.

[Victor Morson]

I would like to say that once upon a time, PGI made a statement about the forums being "vocal minorities" and it gets quoted a lot around here.

They went on to say when people come on with less than a dozen posts to comment on something, they take double notice.

.. have they taken notice to the amount of people coming to these forums just to post displeasure with the direction we're taking? I really don't think so. I rather believe they do not care at all.

[Archon Adam Steiner]

It's statistics that in any MMO, the forums are indeed a vocal minority; the game has had over one million registered accounts. Even if only a fraction of those ever played the game, and a fraction of that fraction is still around... how many people are posting here? How many have truly good ideas? How many are just ranting and foaming at the mouth? These are not just rhetorical questions, they are fair ones.

This game is PGI's livelihood; for us, it's for fun. For them, it's about putting food on the table and paying a mortgage. The suggestion that they don't care about the game or what people think is therefore absolutely incredible. PGI not implementing what a certain forum demographic argues is the right idea (until they are blue in the face) does not mean that they are not reading and understanding what is being said; they are electing to do something else. Yes, we can disagree with what they do, have every right to do so, and should do so if we disagree, but is it not also, perhaps, just slightly arrogant for a niche of forum-goers to presume that they always know best? We don't have access to even 1/100th of the statistics and data that PGI does; all we have is play experience. They have play experience AND statistics. Who is therefore the more informed party?

We should be critical. We should seek to propose solutions, or critique ideas we don't like. The suggestions that PGI 'doesn't care' are rubbish, though. No game developer 'doesn't care'. At the end of our day, we can take our money elsewhere. At the end of their day, they either can pay their bills or they can't. Who do you think is more invested?

Edited by Arrachtas, 14 August 2013 - 01:51 AM.

[ghos t in the shel l]

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

Greetings MechWarriors!
You asked and the Devs Answered!
Here's ATD 44!

Question from Solis Obscuri:[color=#959595] Why do you consider the 2xPPC+Gauss high-alpha build which nearly everyone has been using for the last three months a lesser balance problem [/color]

Answer from Paul:[color=#959595] The assumption that we think the 2PPC+Gauss is a lesser problem than any of the other high alpha builds, is incorrect. .[/color]

I'm sorry, but since when is firing sniping weapons a problem? If you consider using Alpha strikes a problem, you are seriously misguided and have a distorted view on the game. The only problem with using these weapons is the fact that half the time they do not damage what they are shot at. So, you might want to check and re-check your facts, both Paul and Solis Obscuri, because you are way off with that statement that using simple sniping weapons is a problem. In fact, it is clear that you have a serious problem with understanding how the game works and probably need play another 1-2 thousand games to get a better picture of the game balance. As of now, the damage issue makes it hard to take PPC at all, and yet people still complain about it being a problem to use these weapons? The problem is that the weapon needs fixed, and not further degraded into a state of unusability.

Edited by RENZOKUKEN, 14 August 2013 - 01:56 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Arrachtas, on 14 August 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

It's statistics that in any MMO, the forums are indeed a vocal minority; the game has had over one million registered accounts. Even if only a fraction of those ever played the game, and a fraction of that fraction is still around... how many people are posting here? How many have truly good ideas? How many are just ranting and foaming at the mouth? These are not just rhetorical questions, they are fair ones.

This game is PGI's livelihood; for us, it's for fun. For them, it's about putting food on the table and paying a mortgage. The suggestion that they don't care about the game or what people think is therefore absolutely incredible. PGI not implementing what a certain forum demographic argues is the right idea (until they are blue in the face) does not mean that they are not reading and understanding what is being said; they are electing to do something else. Yes, we can disagree with what they do, have every right to do so, and should do so if we disagree, but is it not also, perhaps, just slightly arrogant for a niche of forum-goers to presume that they always know best? We don't have access to even 1/100th of the statistics and data that PGI does; all we have is play experience. They have play experience AND statistics. Who is therefore the more informed party?

We should be critical. We should seek to propose solutions, or critique ideas we don't like. The suggestions that PGI 'doesn't care' are rubbish, though. No game developer 'doesn't care'. At the end of our day, we can take our money elsewhere. At the end of their day, they either can pay their bills or they can't. Who do you think is more invested?

Right. So why they do not share their stats with the "vocal minority"? If we are so interested in the game that we write and check the forums i see no reason why this part of the community cannot be considered ,not better, but ..passioned.

If they share more of their information,we could understand better their choices and maybe complaint less. Lack of communication does not exacly ispire trust.

[Morang]

FuzzyLog1c, on 13 August 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Lack of familiarity with CryEngine 3 does not make that a true statement.

Even if you can't implement it properly, you could do the OPPOSITE of the present implementation and make everything AROUND YOU blurry, instead of the stuff in the scope.



Genius!

Current blur of PIP zoom have different nature from the out-of-scope blur you've shown. Here there are still two scenes actually rendered with two different zoom levels (what PGI wants to avoid), then zoomed-out picture is blurred deliberately to simulate eye focusing on the near plane (of image in the scope). So it's not a solution and adding blur to peripheral part of picture here doesn't remove double strain from GPU. PGI's PIP zoom is blurred because they are not rendering zoomed part for the second time, they just take a piece of x1 render and increase it in size by four, so each one pixel of your unzoomed view turns to 4x4 square.

Purposes are different too. The purpose of a picture shown by you is to imitate the behaviour of a human eye looking through the scope. PGI's purpose is to grant an advantage by combining zoomed window for long-range accuracy (in which they fail) with unzoomed periphery for situational awareness (in which they succeed). All that while rendering the whole scene on the same level (to avoid GPU stress), then only rescaling already rendered parts. And they can render whole scene in 4x scale and then "squeese" out-of-window part (instead of rendering in 1x and then stretching the window part as it is now) because that would mean rendering in 4x resolution (again overstressing GPU).

I suggest that they can mate this technique with full-screen zoom to temporarily fix the problem. Let PIP part be increased not four, but two times, but make it work together with normal zoom (re-rendering whole screen to another zoom level). Currently with PIP zoom we have our peripheral vision at 1x and our central window at 4x. Perhaps they should switch to other modes, for example with PIP zoom peripheral vision should be at 2x (still not as narrow as default 3x max zoom) and central window at 4x as it is now (but in this case 4x is done by rescaling 2x, not 1x view, it will be 2 times sharper than now). Or other combinations - 1.5x periphery with 3x window, for example, maybe even 3x/6x variant.

[Aym]

MisterFiveSeven, on 12 August 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

"desyncing" needs to be clarified.

But I wonder why all of our minds jumped to the worst possible conclusion...

Yeah, it really could just mean that the cool downs will be tweaked, and maybe damage, and travel speed, to make them less of a great combo for alpha-striking at range.

[Victor Morson]

Arrachtas, on 14 August 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

We should be critical. We should seek to propose solutions, or critique ideas we don't like. The suggestions that PGI 'doesn't care' are rubbish, though. No game developer 'doesn't care'. At the end of our day, we can take our money elsewhere. At the end of their day, they either can pay their bills or they can't. Who do you think is more invested?

You would think that would be the case. However, their course of action is smashing their bottom line and turning new players away in droves.

For example if they had actually listened and not gone with the mind-numbingly stupid trial 'mech system, they would have a LOT more paying customers. Instead they decided that all reviewers and new customers should enter a game with no tutorial, then hog-tie them into massively handicapped builds and then slap ghost heat on the newbie builds, with absolutely no explanation.

We all said "Give new players a 'mech, they'll buy more if they're interested." A year later they sound like they agree.

Do you know how many paying customers they've lost over their recent decisions? The answer is a lot. WoL was maintaining a spreadsheet, and they lost over $16,000 just from one group alone. For every person on that list there were likely five more that were already gone, or didn't care enough to reach that point.

The inmates are running the asylum.

EDIT: Furthermore, have you read any twitter conversations? Any replies they give are entirely clueless as to 99% of what we've said, such as not even really understanding why grouping missiles the way they did doesn't work out. They really have absolutely no idea how the game is played beyond the very, very basic level, they won't take input, and they won't change direction no matter how bad backlash gets.

If they do care.. they're doing it wrong.

EDIT 2: PS, aggressive weapon balance changes =/= a couple minor tweaks over half a month, again, when you can fix this stuff in under an hour.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 August 2013 - 05:27 AM.