42 replies to this topic

[James DeGriz]

I have to say I have renewed faith in PGI after listening to these first two parts. Sure, I don't fully agree with every decision they've made, but I do recognise some of the reasoning behind what they're trying to do and also their belief and passion in what they're doing.

It's a shame some of that doesn't come across very well in their forum posts, but hey these guys are only human.

[SteelPaladin]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 September 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

This sounds mutually exclusive.

Special snowflake weapon mechanics don't mix well. Okay, you can probably change weapons so they aren't really delivering alpha strikes (Lasers are basically like that already), but you won't get people to mix weapons if every weapon behaves differently. It just becomes impractical to run such builds. This isn't a traditional FPS where you use one weapon at a time, this is a game where you basically switch your weapon 3 times in 4 seconds.

We've argued on the need for each weapon to have a role, but I'm going to tentatively agree here.

I love to use the Marauder as an example, because it's a classic mech that does a mixed loadout well (rather than being some freaky chimera that slapped 4 random guns together). The basic MAD-3R carries 3 weapon types that fill 2 roles. The main battery is a pair of PPCs (long range damage as primary role, high heat/spike damage as “style”) supported by an AC/5 (also long range damage, but low heat/sustained damage as “style”). The secondary weapons are a pair of medium lasers (close range efficient damage).

The PPCs and AC/5 go together as much for their similarities as their differences. They have the exact same range (including minimum range of 90m). In MWO terms, that would mean same range and same projectile speed. You don’t have to change your lead or wait for the target to get closer to fire one or the other. You can fire 1 PPC and 1 AC/5 together as easily as you can fire 2 PPCs, and that’s exactly what the Marauder does. The fire pattern goes 2 PPCs (building heat), 1 PPC + AC/5 (cooling), repeat until target is dead (or you run out of AC ammo).

The similarities of the weapons let the pilot alternate very easily to keep up steady fire pattern, but the differences of the weapons give a REASON to do so. The shared minimum range brings in the medium lasers for targets too close for the main battery to keep up with.

Making every weapon “feel” different, as PGI is suggesting, kills the reasons to build that way. You have to have each weapon type on a different trigger, and people are only going to accept so many different triggers. If you’re running 4 or 5 different groups, you’re very likely sacrificing a bunch of efficiency. Hardpoints help a bit in the sense of forcing diversification, but that’s going to get weaker and weaker as more diverse chassis come out and it is easier and easier for people to just pick a mech w/the hardpoints that will let them keep to similar firing weapons.

This is the issue I have w/PGI’s current design. They say that high damage alphas are bad and that boating is bad, and yet they build a heat system that encourages front-loaded fire rather than sustained fire and make it so that the best way to have your weapons synergize is to carry more of the same weapon (i.e. boating). Then they add things like ghost heat to effectively punch you in the face for building a design that works w/the (perverse) incentives built into their core systems. The first step towards fixing a system out of balance is to correct the perverse incentives. Adding additional punishments is the LAST resort, not the first.

EDIT: Typos and word choice.

Edited by SteelPaladin, 06 September 2013 - 11:35 AM.

[bigrigross]

Ive already lost faith in PGI and in doing so with debacle after debacle and finally to the 3rd person issue that they said would NEVER happen, I am not attempting a refund for founders. Not sure if it will go through but they blatantly straight up lied to each and every founder that bought the package. I will update if it goes through, or I wont if they perma ban me.

[S3dition]

Bushwacker!

[Dodger79]

NamesAreStupid, on 06 September 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

But no CB/EXP means it won't be that heavily used. More used than 3PV for sure, but still I think that other things should be a priority.

Making private matches (read: trains and wars between units) earn you nothing means, that no player in a unit that has a job and a family will be able to earn enough CB to buy new Mechs or even customize Mechs bought with MC (read: real money). So the players that are committed to the game and that might have deeper pockets than the usual F2P-player are cut off from new content like Mechs, modules, weapons etc.

[Roland]

NamesAreStupid, on 06 September 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

But no CB/EXP means it won't be that heavily used. More used than 3PV for sure, but still I think that other things should be a priority.

You are incorrect in your assessment here.

Private lobbies will be heavilly used by organized units.

[Blackfoot]

Thanks Peiper. I hate listening to NGNG.

I thought the devs were supposed to post info like this, instead a player is doing it. That's telling.

One thing concerns me though, are they really going to mess with heat sinks after they have things "aggressively balanced" with heat already? If they mess with heat sink values all the "heat changes" they have done over the last year will be for naught. Do they even realize this?

[N Danger]

Roland, on 06 September 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

You are incorrect in your assessment here.

Private lobbies will be heavilly used by organized units.

Until CW a lobby will allow 3rd parties to run leagues and versions of community warfare that will keep people interested in the the game. Maybe even spend $$ on the game while waiting for the "official" CW.

[Aerokii]

Whew. Thank god for these interviews, because the latest AtD was... less than thrilling. So much more good information here.

[Maris]

I'm really hopeful reading all of this.

I'm happy that they have grand dreams and visions for this game. I'm not that particular about balancing, even old games like Eve and WoW are undergoing endless rebalancing, its a process that will never end. As long as they are aggressive in approaching it, its fine with me.

Its also good to hear that they are thinking of giving players options. Private lobbies, customised matches, even different shards.

Keep going PGI.

N Danger, on 06 September 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Until CW a lobby will allow 3rd parties to run leagues and versions of community warfare that will keep people interested in the the game. Maybe even spend $$ on the game while waiting for the "official" CW.

Agreed. IMHO they should make private lobbies a very top priority as a feature to be implemented as soon as possible. Giving the players power to customise their gaming experience will make their playerbase a lot happier while they wait for the bigger and more extensive content like CW. I can imagined a lot of players returning while making loads of new players as well.

[Corvus Antaka]

Thank you for posting this.

[Droz]

Any chance we are getting Part 3 tonight? I'd love to finish listening. Myself and my Merc Corp are actually very happy with what we are hearing with some things.

[Staplebeater]

Dodger79, on 06 September 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Making private matches (read: trains and wars between units) earn you nothing means, that no player in a unit that has a job and a family will be able to earn enough CB to buy new Mechs or even customize Mechs bought with MC (read: real money). So the players that are committed to the game and that might have deeper pockets than the usual F2P-player are cut off from new content like Mechs, modules, weapons etc.

Disagree completely. You will make your money in the standard queue and in community warfare. The private lobbies will be for fun organized plan outside of community warfare. I doesn't take me any cbills to play any of the mechs in my stable and i have enough engines and weapons to customize them pretty heavily as it is right now with not additional cbill gains.

[Johnny Z]

When is part 3 expected?

[Peiper]

Saturday, if I remember correctly. I just refresh the following site from time to time in hopes that they post it.
http://www.nogutsnogalaxy.net/

I will try to do part III summary/notes too, but even if I am online and aware the moment they finish/post the podcast, it'll still take a couple hours to listen, take notes, and do a cursory spell check before they're posted.

[Will9761]

Thanks for posting this, there are some really good bits in here.

[Zakie Chan]

Thanks for the notes!

I appreciate what NGNG do. But I cant stand certain members of their podcast, thus I dont listen.

[New Day]

Roland, on 06 September 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

You are incorrect in your assessment here.

Private lobbies will be heavilly used by organized units.

Maybe if they plan on only driving the mechs they have so far. Or do you honestly expect your clanmates (or people in corps/clans in general) to spend hours in private matches getting NO EXP/CB and then spending even more hours grinding for more mechs. Also there's also the point of corps already being a minority of a minority and there are so many things they should implement before that would affect everyone/more people.

[OneEyed Jack]

Dodger79, on 06 September 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Making private matches (read: trains and wars between units) earn you nothing means, that no player in a unit that has a job and a family will be able to earn enough CB to buy new Mechs or even customize Mechs bought with MC (read: real money). So the players that are committed to the game and that might have deeper pockets than the usual F2P-player are cut off from new content like Mechs, modules, weapons etc.

As has been said, they're not cut off. Private matches will be a part-time thing for when people want to play challenges, special events, player-run tourneys and such. In general, those in desperate need of space bucks won't be those interested in private matches much.

To allow any in-game gain at all for private matches would simply destroy any semblance of an economy, as they could be used for infinite farming. It would be tantamount to removing XP and C-bills from the game.

[Dodger79]

OneEyed Jack, on 07 September 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

As has been said, they're not cut off. Private matches will be a part-time thing for when people want to play challenges, special events, player-run tourneys and such. In general, those in desperate need of space bucks won't be those interested in private matches much.

To allow any in-game gain at all for private matches would simply destroy any semblance of an economy, as they could be used for infinite farming. It would be tantamount to removing XP and C-bills from the game.

Well, as a player who has only little time iam in desperate need of CBills if i want to pilot a new, fully customized Mech. Considering 90% of my playtime is trainings and wars with my unit and that these with a great chance will take place in private matches i see myself running out of ingame resources pretty fast.