31 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

So I've made a list of 7 changes related to gameplay balance and I'd like to see your opinion on each of these changes. I've made a poll because it seems like a good way of finding out what people think of the latest patch. Of course, some changes are more important than others, but just bear with me and check the boxes if you'd like

I don't want to make the poll biased, so I won't give any comments about what I feel.

[Kaldor]

Bad patch was bad.

LBX change - good, will help it a little bit
Machine guns - good, crits were crazy over the top
UAC5 - good, jams were the primary cause of people using macros
SSRM - bad, crack is bad m'kay. I think Ill fire up the StreakCat tonite and go splatter some Spiders
Conquest - bad, Why?
Medium buffs - good, its a start. Still need tighter turn radius to increase survivability
3PV - bad, way to waste time and energy on something that is worthless

[Sir Wulfrick]

Excellent news for the LB-10X and the U/AC-5. Don't really care about medium mechs though I suppose buffing them would be good for variety. Not a good move regarding the economic nerf. As for 3rd person view:

[Alistair Winter]

Of course, the poll results aren't necessarily very informative.

For example, I want MG to do less crit damage, but do more damage. I voted that it was a bad change because this nerfs the MG without countering it with a proper buff. Some people might vote that it's a bad change, because it's a step in the right direction (e.g. lower crits, higher damage) Same goes for every option. One can't really be sure if people agreed or disagreed with the decision, without seeing additional comments. But it gives us a rough idea, anyway.

So far:

• Majority liked LBX change
  
• Split decision in regards to MG change
  
• People liked UAC5 change
  
• Majority disliked SSRM change
  
• Majority disliked Conquest reward change
  
• Majority liked medium buff
  
• Majority disliked 3PV change

[JeepStuff]

IMO, people responding and voting at this point should be ashamed of themselves. It's been live for like half an hour.

People.

Play the game. Try it for a while. Then vote. And I don't mean a couple games. I mean TRY IT for a while.

[Alistair Winter]

EJT, on 20 August 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

IMO, people responding and voting at this point should be ashamed of themselves. It's been live for like half an hour.
People.
Play the game. Try it for a while. Then vote. And I don't mean a couple games. I mean TRY IT for a while.

People who have played the game tens of thousands of hours probably have enough expertise to answer certain questions without trying it. I don't need playtesting to check if the ER PPC needs to be buffed. I don't really need to try that. Not even a couple of games.

The same principle applies to other questions as well.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Alistair Winter, on 20 August 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Of course, the poll results aren't necessarily very informative.

For example, I want MG to do less crit damage, but do more damage. I voted that it was a bad change because this nerfs the MG without countering it with a proper buff. Some people might vote that it's a bad change, because it's a step in the right direction (e.g. lower crits, higher damage) Same goes for every option. One can't really be sure if people agreed or disagreed with the decision, without seeing additional comments. But it gives us a rough idea, anyway.

So far:

• Majority liked LBX change
  
• Split decision in regards to MG change
  
• People liked UAC5 change
  
• Majority disliked SSRM change
  
• Majority disliked Conquest reward change
  
• Majority liked medium buff
  
• Majority disliked 3PV change

Yeah I kind of feel this way myself. Most of the changes were good changes or at least better than being left alone but most didn't do anything or weren't fixes at all.

2.5 damage on the Streaks is a prime example. The damage on Steaks isn't what is making them suck now, it is the way the damage is applied. I am not sure if I would use them if they were doing 10 damage per missile simply because I need to rely on them doing damage where it is needed, not randomly assigned all over the mech. So is 2.5 better than 1.5 yes which makes it a good change. Does 2.5 fix the problem, no because it is not the change that is needed.

Some of the changes like the medium mech changes I don't even think will have an impact on the game. Is a buff a good change? Yes always. Again does it fix the underlying issue? doubt it.

3PV...why? It isn't even really usable and gives advantages to mech without fully articulated arms since you can't turn off arm lock for mechs that rely on fully articulated arms. Waste of resources and no one really wanted it. Also with it being so handicaped I am not even sure how it is suppose to attract new players. Lets face it, players who like to play in 3PV, like to play entirely in 3PV, not have to swap back and forth to see the minimap or use their arms to aim with. Soon as they realize they can't play the game fully in 3PV, they will bail so again 3PV....why?

[Sable Dove]

Your poll is missing options.
Like
"Good, but completely ineffective." Like the medium buffs.
or
"Good, but shouldn't have both been done." Like for the MG double-nerf.

The CBill nerf for the team who loses a gametype where the winner is most often chosen by the matchmaker is not cool.

[JeepStuff]

Alistair Winter, on 20 August 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

People who have played the game tens of thousands of hours probably have enough expertise to answer certain questions without trying it. I don't need playtesting to check if the ER PPC needs to be buffed. I don't really need to try that. Not even a couple of games.

The same principle applies to other questions as well.

 

Here's a conversation that happens every day in my house and in homes across the world:
"I don't like it."
"How do you know you don't like it? You haven't even tried it."
"But Dad, I KNOW I don't like it. I just KNOW."
"Try it please. You might be surprised."
"Noooooo, Dad, I hate it."

Etc etc.

And before you argue that you're not a kid anymore (and by "you" I don't mean you, OP, I mean the collective "you" -- everyone reading this post), stop for a second and have a little self-awareness and realize that you're raging about a video game.

But to play devil's advocate, let's assume you're right and that some things are obvious and past experience allows you to form an opinion without trying it...even if that's true, consider this:

- Not everything on your poll is obvious to all players
- In a poll, you have to vote for all items at once (you can't pick and choose)

So this means that if you vote on items you think you know about, you also have to vote on items you may or may not really know without trying. So I give the same spiel I give my kids every day. Please try it before you hate it. You might be surprised. And if you're not, and you were right all along, what have you lost?

I don't have a problem with the poll whatsoever, or even the results, I just wish folks would relax, try the changes, then voice their opinion. Too often all we hear is uninformed knee-jerk raging, in my opinion.

 

[Sable Dove]

EJT, on 20 August 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

Here's a conversation that happens every day in my house and in homes across the world:
"I don't like it."
"How do you know you don't like it? You haven't even tried it."
"But Dad, I KNOW I don't like it. I just KNOW."
"Try it please. You might be surprised."
"Noooooo, Dad, I hate it."

Etc etc.

And before you argue that you're not a kid anymore (and by "you" I don't mean you, OP, I mean the collective "you" -- everyone reading this post), stop for a second and have a little self-awareness and realize that you're raging about a video game.

But to play devil's advocate, let's assume you're right and that some things are obvious and past experience allows you to form an opinion without trying it...even if that's true, consider this:

- Not everything on your poll is obvious to all players
- In a poll, you have to vote for all items at once (you can't pick and choose)

So this means that if you vote on items you think you know about, you also have to vote on items you may or may not really know without trying. So I give the same spiel I give my kids every day. Please try it before you hate it. You might be surprised. And if you're not, and you were right all along, what have you lost?

I don't have a problem with the poll whatsoever, or even the results, I just wish folks would relax, try the changes, then voice their opinion. Too often all we hear is uninformed knee-jerk raging, in my opinion.

We can also change our votes if we change our minds.

However, I voted before playing, and playing hasn't changed my choices. It's blindingly obvious how bad most of this patch is.

Buffs for underpowered weapons are good, nerfs to underpowered weapons are bad.

Buffs to underpowered mechs are good, but the slightest experience with Mediums would tell you that these buffs are going to be almost completely ineffective.

Anyone who played the 3PV on the test server knew it was a bad idea already, and they haven't changed it since.

More CBill nerfs following another CBill nerf is bad. Anyone can tell you that.

Anyone who has experience in the game can tell you how bad this patch is by looking at the notes.

If someone offered to burn you to death, I'm pretty sure you'd say no, despite not having been burned to death before. Or would you try it, just to be sure? Prior experience and basic sense would tell you it's a bad idea.

Edited by Sable Dove, 20 August 2013 - 12:48 PM.

[ATao]

Alistair Winter, on 20 August 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

• Majority disliked SSRM change

This. Get on with it. Streaks are fine and at long last viable again .

[Training Instructor]

Machine guns suck now. If they're going to nerf the one useful thing they did, they need to make them more accurate.

[WaddeHaddeDudeda]

My personal favourite this month:

Quote

- Cockpit lights indicating the open/closed state of weapon bay doors are currently non-functional. Normal functionality will return in a future release.

Thought we been already there a couple months ago.

PGI: One step forward, two steps back! ^^ SNAP!

[Zphyr]

The poll does not really reflect my opinion:

LBX buff - good. But may have buffed a bit too much... probably nerfed soon.
MG nerf - not needed. There's no ballistic alternative. A little nerf is good, but cutting it half is terrible.
UAC5 buff - don't care and can't speak of it as I don't use UAC5.
Streak buff - needed but still bad. Can't they do something in between instead of always buffing to heavens or nerfing to hell?
Conquest rewards nerf - bad bad. Absolutely no reason for it.
Medium mechs buff - great! Not much of a difference and probably won't make people use them more as piloting a medium is still quite a suicide run for most, IMO, but it's better than nothing.
3PoV feature - bad. Not because it's 3PoV, but because it currently does little of what was advised (helping the new players), and will even end up hurting players' experience. It still need more work before hitting live servers. Bad decisions, guys.

WaddeHaddeDudeda, on 20 August 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Thought we been already there a couple months ago.

Yep, memory lane! It looks like it's impossible for them to not break some random thing at every single patch.

Edited by Zphyr, 20 August 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Kaldor, on 20 August 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

SSRM - bad, crack is bad m'kay. I think Ill fire up the StreakCat tonite and go splatter some Spiders

Streaks aren't even likely to be a tier 2 weapon after the change, because they still target random locations outside of player control.

The damage increase was necessary and a good thing but it won't stop the fact they are just as likely to constantly fling the upgraded damage at a guy's dead arm.

Again, the 2.5 buff is not OP because Streaks still randomly target 'mech locations.

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 August 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[Alex Warden]

you forgot "adding aimbot to MWO"...

fk this...really

[Swetrekki]

I've just played a couple of rounds, and if you want to attract new players, cutting off the c-bills like you have in the last patches is not the way to make someone want to work their way to an atlas. but you don't want them to grind it, you want them to buy it with MC's i know.. UAC5 was way to unreliable, now it's borderlining on to good but i still like the upgrade. mediums, good for them.
3pv... its a wallhack... "look there are 3 mechs walking by in a canyon BEHIND THIS RIDGE".

[HadesOne]

I never post, but I will to say that I hate the MG change.

Not playing until this is reversed. Most heavy-handed nerf I've ever seen. Might as well replace them with garden hoses.

[Lord de Seis]

Kaldor, on 20 August 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Bad patch was bad.

LBX change - good, will help it a little bit
Machine guns - good, crits were crazy over the top
UAC5 - good, jams were the primary cause of people using macros
SSRM - bad, crack is bad m'kay. I think Ill fire up the StreakCat tonite and go splatter some Spiders
Conquest - bad, Why?
Medium buffs - good, its a start. Still need tighter turn radius to increase survivability
3PV - bad, way to waste time and energy on something that is worthless

The patch was bad but you like most of the changes? You confuse me.

[White Bear 84]

Alistair Winter, on 20 August 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

So I've made a list of 7 changes related to gameplay balance and I'd like to see your opinion on each of these changes. I've made a poll because it seems like a good way of finding out what people think of the latest patch.

OP - this is a great idea, i think the developers need this kind of direct and CLEAR feedback from the community on what they are doing. Ironically enough its not like there are any surprises given what people have expressed on the forums e.g. overall good for LBX/UAC fixes, overall bad for 3PV and a mixed bag for streaks/MG crits.

Can we make it any clearer?!