1105 replies to this topic

[nitra]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 02 September 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

I had a feeling you'd all keep trying to troll with this idiocy.

No one searches for "mwomercs" when searching for "mechwarrior online" and the term "mechwarrior online" INCLUDES "mechwarrior"

I understand you are trying to create the idea this game is "Dead", for whatever reason.

So, let's dig a little deeper into "real" results by using alexa.



From this alexa chart we can clearly see that World of tanks is very popular - no surprise given our google results. We can also see that the website mwomercs.com receives more traffic than star citizen does.

Let's again bear in mind here - mwomercs is not a term people search for when searching for mechwarrior - they search for "mechwarrior" or mechwarrior online". since mechwarrior online is an INCLUSIVE search term, the term "mechwarrior equally applies. In the case of "world of tanks" world of is NOT an inclusive search therm, which again, skews results.

In any event, the point remains that you guys are still trolling and trying to skew results to create some bizarre idea that this game or website is "Dead" and you are showing us results that are not sensical - either because you fail to understand how Search works, or you don't want to.

Kudos for bucking up to that panada, while i dont agree with you i know you had to go above and beyond to get those results.

[Corvus Antaka]

nitra, on 02 September 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Kudos for bucking up to that panada, while i dont agree with you i know you had to go above and beyond to get those results.

yeah, above and beyond being about 1 minute of using my brain and alexa.

[Solis Obscuri]

Kilo 40, on 02 September 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

if you can't get past the fact that things happen even if you haven't seen it with your own eyes, I really don't see this conversation have any further purpose.

My point was that it was unlikely any significant number of threats were made if I didn't see ANY. Did you see any?

[nitra]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 02 September 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

yeah, above and beyond being about 1 minute of using my brain and alexa.

sorry your right , you didnt have to anything except sign up for a free account . missed that .

i had actually thought you signed up for their services.

thanks for the clarification.

[Chronojam]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 02 September 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

yeah. I miss when LRM was all anyone took, when the only viable boats where dual ac/20 mechs or 4 PPC stalkers.

not.

This is curious, because Ghost Heat targets SRM-2 boats, Small Laser boats, and Medium Laser boats. Also restricted as a side note are AC/2s in basically any build because "two" is a ridiculously low number for a penalty,and Large Lasers in basically any build because "two" is a ridiculously low number for a penalty.

If AC/20 mechs and 4PPC stalkers were the only viable boats, it makes you wonder why the SRM2 was nerfed so sharply. I'm sure you have some explanation.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 02 September 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I miss when LRM was all anyone took

This in particular is interesting to me, in light of the seven+ month high-alpha long-range sniper metagame dominated by jumpsniping.

According to my records, overpowered LRMs have been historically caused by code issues and are quickly corrected. For example, the November 6th Festival of Artemis lasted a mere three days. By November 9th, a patch was put out to correct the enhanced LRM performance.

For all their "overpowered" nature, LRMs received a boost on January 15th, and only two months later on March 19ths did another code issue cause the Second Festival of Artemis. This, too, was fixed three days later on March 22nd.

The times where "LRM was all anyone took" were incredibly short windows in the game's year-long history. The time when 2PPC1Gauss dominated started shortly after the first Festival of Artemis in November of last year, and has shown little sign of slowing or stopping. There was the momentary jumpsniping "nerf" in June but it lasted only a short while before being reverted into worthlessness. Oh and the hilarious 1-point heat increase for PPCs, that was pretty great!

Basically anybody saying that LRMs have been such a horrible thing, or that "boating" was ever a problem, are either simply not remembering things properly or have an agenda and are purposely misrepresenting both the past and Ghost Heat's design.

[FriscoeHotsauce]

Chronojam, on 02 September 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

This is curious, because Ghost Heat targets SRM-2 boats, Small Laser boats, and Medium Laser boats. Also restricted as a side note are AC/2s in basically any build because "two" is a ridiculously low number for a penalty,and Large Lasers in basically any build because "two" is a ridiculously low number for a penalty.

If AC/20 mechs and 4PPC stalkers were the only viable boats, it makes you wonder why the SRM2 was nerfed so sharply. I'm sure you have some explanation.



This in particular is interesting to me, in light of the seven+ month high-alpha long-range sniper metagame dominated by jumpsniping.

According to my records, overpowered LRMs have been historically caused by code issues and are quickly corrected. For example, the November 6th Festival of Artemis lasted a mere three days. By November 9th, a patch was put out to correct the enhanced LRM performance.

For all their "overpowered" nature, LRMs received a boost on January 15th, and only two months later on March 19ths did another code issue cause the Second Festival of Artemis. This, too, was fixed three days later on March 22nd.

The times where "LRM was all anyone took" were incredibly short windows in the game's year-long history. The time when 2PPC1Gauss dominated started shortly after the first Festival of Artemis in November of last year, and has shown little sign of slowing or stopping. There was the momentary jumpsniping "nerf" in June but it lasted only a short while before being reverted into worthlessness. Oh and the hilarious 1-point heat increase for PPCs, that was pretty great!

Basically anybody saying that LRMs have been such a horrible thing, or that "boating" was ever a problem, are either simply not remembering things properly or have an agenda and are purposely misrepresenting both the past and Ghost Heat's design.

I swear, {Scrap} like this takes the fun out of this game, and I'm sick of hearing it. All I hear is "THE M16 IS OVERPOWERED" like some call of duty {Noble MechWarriors}. Battletech {Noble MechWarriors} are just as bad (if not exponentially worse).

Do any of you actually play the game, or just whine about it on the forums?

[Victor Morson]

Hey, I've been trying to find out.. but I remember a really big part of the Legendary Founder's package was your name in the credits, right?

Where can I find the credits? Are they even in the game? Given that Legendary Founders are told they got all their promised content already, they'd have to be, right?

I have a thread up in New User Help (I think I must have posted in the wrong sub-forum before, because I thought I posted earlier and can no longer find the question) but thought maybe you guys would know where I can find the Legendary Founder credits?

[Victor Morson]

Chronojam, on 02 September 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

If AC/20 mechs and 4PPC stalkers were the only viable boats, it makes you wonder why the SRM2 was nerfed so sharply. I'm sure you have some explanation.

Listen to NGNG #87 at the 31:00 minute mark. I ask a question about Ghost Heat, and Garth attempts to answer it. (It seems he believes you need at least 4 launchers to cause it, and that mechs that could do so are "extremely rare" and "highly uncommon.")

https://soundcloud.c...ogalaxy/ngng-87

Props to the hosts for making a serious attempt to get an answer.

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 September 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[Chronojam]

Victor Morson, on 03 September 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

Listen to NGNG #87 at the 31:00 minute mark. I ask a question about Ghost Heat, and Garth attempts to answer it. (It seems he believes you need at least 4 launchers to cause it, and that mechs that could do so are "extremely rare" and "highly uncommon.")

https://soundcloud.c...ogalaxy/ngng-87

Props to the hosts for making a serious attempt to get an answer.

If it's extremely rare and highly uncommon, what the hell? Why put the change through? What was the point?

What if you wanted to build a really trashy Stalker, Kintaro, Battlemaster, Catapult, Jaegermech, Awesome, or Highlander that inexplicably had a pile of dumbfire SRM2 launchers on it? Why punish this stupid build if you won't punish other stupid builds that --for example-- run nine TAG lasers?

[Victor Morson]

Chronojam, on 03 September 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

If it's extremely rare and highly uncommon, what the hell? Why put the change through? What was the point?

What if you wanted to build a really trashy Stalker, Kintaro, Battlemaster, Catapult, Jaegermech, Awesome, or Highlander that inexplicably had a pile of dumbfire SRM2 launchers on it? Why punish this stupid build if you won't punish other stupid builds that --for example-- run nine TAG lasers?

On top of that, it's a silly situation from a logical standpoint, too.

Why should you pay 3x LRM20 ghost heat to fire 2x LRM10 and 1x LRM20, for a third the missiles?

[Corvus Antaka]

Flavious59, on 02 September 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

I swear, {Scrap} like this takes the fun out of this game, and I'm sick of hearing it. All I hear is "THE M16 IS OVERPOWERED" like some call of duty {Noble MechWarriors}. Battletech {Noble MechWarriors} are just as bad (if not exponentially worse).

Do any of you actually play the game, or just whine about it on the forums?

they just whine on the forums.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Ocilfa, on 27 August 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

So...Orion next month?

I are is want my Orion!

[Jakob Knight]

Solis Obscuri, on 02 September 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think more of the outright "rage" right now is coming out of bad PR handling - a little more direct acknowledgement of player concerns on some of these items, or at least an explanation of why a convoluted system like Ghost Heat was chosen over all other alternatives would've gone a long ways. A statement that 3PV was being thrown into general queues because it's still beta and PGI wanted a maximum pool of testers (but that separate "Hardcore" queues were coded and could be turned on later) would've calmed people a lot more than a belated "apology" that was more an explanation of why Russ didn't think an apology was warranted and why be and Bryan didn't plan on implementing "Hardcore" mode, despite it being coded and available and having promised separate queues several months ago.

Perhaps. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I'm that unusual or that there aren't others out there that might hold similar views.

While I have my opinions about how a certain system is included or not in the game, about if how certain weapons or conditions within the game are tweaked, I realize that these are design/engineering changes that may have considerations I am not seeing. I will disagree with the things I disagree with (that is every person's right, and one reason the Forums exist at all), but at the end of the day I'll play through the changes and post my feedback in hopes someone at the Dev team cares enough to give that feedback due consideration. That's all part of online gaming, and I like to think I'm thick-skinned enough to absorb decisions that don't go my particular way as long as they aren't game-breaking.

However, the core issue that is unacceptable to myself is that the Devs made a direct, documented, and fully-thoughtout promise that 3PV would never be something a player would be forced to play with, and that seperate queues were part of the implementation of 3PV. Even relegating the prior statements that 3PV was not something that would be part of MWO to 'bad communication', this was a clear and definitive statement of core values and a promise to the players who had severe doubts about 3PV. The fact that they then did everything they said they would not do, and did not do what they had promised to the community they would do is what is the core reason for the rage is, and it is a fully justifiable rage. Forget weapon balance and in-game economics....this was an act of such blatent disregard for honoring their commitments that it calls into question if the Devs overseeing the game possess morals, and the lack of any sort of apology for doing so (the apology was for not telling people they were going to disregard their promises and commitments, not for the actual act) to date has only driven home just how little the company values it's own integrity.

So, I can say that it wouldn't have mattered that much if they had had good communication about their actions. I would still be as angry as I am now because the root of that rage lies in their broken promise, not how they (didn't) inform me of it.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 03 September 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[nitra]

SirSmokes, on 03 September 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

I are is want my Orion!

Granted

[Chronojam]

Victor Morson, on 03 September 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

On top of that, it's a silly situation from a logical standpoint, too.

Why should you pay 3x LRM20 ghost heat to fire 2x LRM10 and 1x LRM20, for a third the missiles?

It's because we have ignorant users who think that makes perfect sense without batting an eyelid, and then post things like

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 03 September 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

they just whine on the forums.

when you point out that the SRM2 or AC\2 having ghost heat is absurd and warrantless {Scrap}, the harmful collateral damage of a flawed system that was never fully explained and which failed its reluctantly-stated goal.

[Solis Obscuri]

Jakob Knight, on 03 September 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

So, I can say that it wouldn't have mattered that much if they had had good communication about their actions. I would still be as angry as I am now because the root of that rage lies in their broken promise, not how they (didn't) inform me of it.

My point was that if the devs had said up front they had back-end code ready for separate queues, but wanted to try it first without separating so they could have a large testing pool (and maybe win some people over on 3PV), they wouldn't have had the backlash they've received. Now even if they do split everything (not just 12v12), they're already branded as liars and double-dealers in a lot of players' minds, and that could've been avoided with some timely info.

[pantherzero]

seems as though theyre just trying to gloss over the lack of 1pv and ignore the issue still

[CyBerkut]

Jakob Knight, on 03 September 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

However, the core issue that is unacceptable to myself is that the Devs made a direct, documented, and fully-thoughtout promise that 3PV would never be something a player would be forced to play with, and that seperate queues were part of the implementation of 3PV. Even relegating the prior statements that 3PV was not something that would be part of MWO to 'bad communication', this was a clear and definitive statement of core values and a promise to the players who had severe doubts about 3PV. The fact that they then did everything they said they would not do, and did not do what they had promised to the community they would do is what is the core reason for the rage is, and it is a fully justifiable rage. Forget weapon balance and in-game economics....this was an act of such blatent disregard for honoring their commitments that it calls into question if the Devs overseeing the game possess morals, and the lack of any sort of apology for doing so (the apology was for not telling people they were going to disregard their promises and commitments, not for the actual act) to date has only driven home just how little the company values it's own integrity.

So, I can say that it wouldn't have mattered that much if they had had good communication about their actions. I would still be as angry as I am now because the root of that rage lies in their broken promise, not how they (didn't) inform me of it.

Amen!

Quoted for truth.

[CyBerkut]

Solis Obscuri, on 03 September 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

My point was that if the devs had said up front they had back-end code ready for separate queues, but wanted to try it first without separating so they could have a large testing pool (and maybe win some people over on 3PV), they wouldn't have had the backlash they've received. Now even if they do split everything (not just 12v12), they're already branded as liars and double-dealers in a lot of players' minds, and that could've been avoided with some timely info.

It undoubtedly would have reduced the uproar, as it appears many people are still willing to give some weight to what PGI says.

To me, it would still have been a direct, willful contradiction of the promise made earlier about never having to play in 3PV. The second that patch was deployed, their own action rendered their own words untrue.

They are not merely "branded as liars and double-dealers in a lot of players' minds". They made themselves liars in actual fact. Some slick PR words could have reduced the perception, but the fact would have remained just as true in spite of that.

[Porkue]

Yet another reason to go play hawken. how is it possible a little indy developer could do so right, when this established franchise turns wrong again and again and again.

Seriously, see you guys in hawken.