71 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Earl White, on 12 September 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

If you believe the devs nerf weapons based on forum posts, you are sadly mistaken, they can use thousands of players data (yes data - objective facts, not opinions) to determine what is under or overperforming. Besides if someone "cries nerf" and then a few weeks later said weapon is nerfed, doesn't it perhaps suggest they were right about it?

Other games do this. Maybe even PGI does it, but if they do it, they take a lot of time.

You know how long MGs have been ****** weapons that no one used? Or LBX-10?

I think after a month of play, you would have the data needed to show that this weapon was underperforming. And underperforming HARD.

Also, it would take about an hour of testing to identify the LRM apocalypse issues we had.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Disagee with your evaluation of the PPC/ER PPC needing a nerf but DEFINATELY agree with the Spirt of your post.

Hell there are already posts asking for the Large Laser to be nerfed since some many people have dismounted the now USELESS PPCs and ER PPCs from their mechs and mounted LLs instead.

People can seem to figure out popular doesn't necessarily mean OPed.

[New Day]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 September 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Other games do this. Maybe even PGI does it, but if they do it, they take a lot of time.

You know how long MGs have been ****** weapons that no one used? Or LBX-10?

I think after a month of play, you would have the data needed to show that this weapon was underperforming. And underperforming HARD.

Also, it would take about an hour of testing to identify the LRM apocalypse issues we had.

Or better yet Flamers. Or the fact that the PPCGauss meta lasted more than half a year.

[Jman5]

The developers do not nerf and buff things based on who cries the loudest on a forum. If they did, the game would be completely different. Ghost Heat and 3PV would have been out ages ago if this was the case.

The developers look at what people are saying, they look at their own server-wide data, and they look at potential changes coming down the pipeline that could impact said-weapon (like fixing HSR, or the introduction of a new mech), and finally they look at whether it's fun. The community is part of the process, but we are only one small piece.

Your opinion that UACs are fine is no more valid than my opinion that UACs need some tweaks or a reworking of how the weapon works. If you disagree with the developers, make an argument based on reason and evidence and not: "It's fine because I say it's fine and if you disagree, you're wrong!"

Edited by Jman5, 12 September 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[MonkeyDCecil]

Jman5, on 12 September 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

The developers do not nerf and buff things based on who cries the loudest on a forum. If they did, the game would be completely different. Ghost Heat and 3PV would have been out ages ago if this was the case.

The developers look at what people are saying, they look at their own server-wide data, and they look at potential changes coming down the pipeline that could impact said-weapon (like fixing HSR, or the introduction of a new mech), and finally they look at whether it's fun. The community is part of the process, but we are only one small piece.

Your opinion that UACs are fine is no more valid than my opinion that UACs need some tweaks or a reworking of how the weapon works. If you disagree with the developers, make an argument based on reason and evidence and not: "It's fine because I say it's fine and if you disagree, you're wrong!"

Never said that "It's fine because I say it's fine and if you disagree, your wrong". Nor have I said do not post your opinions. And I never said that my opinion is better then anyone else. Come on people there is no need to get mean or snarky about this. And also my butt does not hurt. It is just my opinion that the nerfs and complicated mechanics are getting out of hand. And I should of made two post, one about nerfs and one about macros. My bad.

But my question is this when will a weapon be popular and not get nerfed? When will the cycle stop? People will always cry when they get kill alot by one type of said weapon or said mech. But maybe it is just a good weapon and is fun or easy to use. Why does it always have to be nerfed? I am just complaining that every time a new weapon start to be popular, people cry nerf. And then it is nerfed. Again just my opinion.

Edited by MonkeyDCecil, 12 September 2013 - 01:57 PM.

[Jman5]

MonkeyDCecil, on 12 September 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

But my question is this when will a weapon be popular and not get nerfed? When will the cycle stop? People will always cry when they get kill alot by one type of said weapon or said mech. But maybe it is just a good weapon and is fun or easy to use. Why does it always have to be nerfed? I am just complaining that every time a new weapon start to be popular, people cry nerf. And then it is nerfed. Again just my opinion.

It will never stop as long as development money is allocated toward the game. As new features, mechs, game modes arrive balance will need to change. As people test new builds or new strategies emerge from old weapons, the developers will have to rebalance. Even if nothing changed, sometimes it takes a new paradigm in thinking about something to reveal it's imbalance. Who knows, maybe we've all been looking at this game wrong and there are massive untapped imbalances just waiting to be exploited.

This is the current model for multiplayer gaming that companies like Blizzard and many F2P titles have created. We're never going to reach an end-goal where all weapons are declared balanced and Paul Inouye is out of a job. In fact many changes will come that have little to do with balance and more to do with fun.

Weapon balance is going to be tumultuous for a while until the major features are fully implemented. We've still got an entire series of clan weapons coming our way so you have to prepare yourself for a lot of changes. Throughout this process the complaining will never stop: right or wrong. This is just the reality of a game balance forum.

Edited by Jman5, 12 September 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[Scryed]

Mister Blastman, on 12 September 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Macro users are pathetc. The real problem, however, is that PGI has put a mechanic into the game that can be gamed/abused by Macros. That's the issue. PGI can fix the UAC mechanic completely. All they have to do is adapt Mechwarrior: Living Legends method of implementing the UACs. The problem will be solved and there's practically nothing a macro can do to give that an edge.

Get rid of the randomness. Insert a skill based weapon system in its place.

They did it is called muthafuckin Gauss rifle.

[akpavker]

MonkeyDCecil, on 12 September 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Man it seems to me that the community is crying nerf to much. Every time there is a new "meta" ( I hate that word) we cry nerf. So when is this going to stop, never it seems. Now people are crying nerf on the UAC/5. WTF people, the weapon is perfect.

Its the cheaters using macros that are ruining this weapon. Now I do not know if anything can be done about macros. I personal do not use them. They are cheating. It is no different then using a hack. It is a type of hack if you think about it.


And lastly, STOP USING ******* MACROS. That is cheating. Why is it cheating because you are using a outside scrip to influence the game. That is cheating period.

i used this macro for 2 min befor throwing it in the bin. all it does is alow the UAC5 to refire once every 1.2 seconds there for bypassing the jam at this point you may aswell just use a AC5.i didnt like the macro when the jam rate was %25. if you double tap the UAC5 the ROF is 0.5 seconds and with the jam rate at %15 the macro completely defeats the porpose of useing a UAC5 over a AC5. atm you would be pritty dumb to be useing a macro!!!

[Deathlike]

Jman5, on 12 September 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

This is the current model for multiplayer gaming that companies like Blizzard and many F2P titles have created. We're never going to reach an end-goal where all weapons are declared balanced and Paul Inouye is out of a job. In fact many changes will come that have little to do with balance and more to do with fun.

When that day comes, there will be a party.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 September 2013 - 07:37 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jman5, on 12 September 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

The developers do not nerf and buff things based on who cries the loudest on a forum. If they did, the game would be completely different. Ghost Heat and 3PV would have been out ages ago if this was the case.

The developers look at what people are saying, they look at their own server-wide data, and they look at potential changes coming down the pipeline that could impact said-weapon (like fixing HSR, or the introduction of a new mech), and finally they look at whether it's fun. The community is part of the process, but we are only one small piece.

Your opinion that UACs are fine is no more valid than my opinion that UACs need some tweaks or a reworking of how the weapon works. If you disagree with the developers, make an argument based on reason and evidence and not: "It's fine because I say it's fine and if you disagree, you're wrong!"

I am not sure I agree with you that the Devs never balance weapons based on input from the forums because when it comes down to it, perception is much stronger than reality.

Case in point is the Type 59 in WoTs and if you have ever played that game you know that it is considered the most Overpowered and unbalanced tank in the game, even after several nerfs. In any case, there was a dev post once discussing why they had to remove the Type 59 from sale. They specifically said that according to all their data, the Type 59 was an average performing tank at best. The key is is that "ACCORDING TO ALL THEIR DATA" the Type 59 was average.

However, player perception was that this tank was far from average so all it did was generate complaint after complaint of its Overpoweredness and everyone with the spare money to buy one was doing so to the point that the game got to be 7-10 Type 59s per side. Therefore WG had to actually stop selling these premium tanks and commit to some nerfs to keep them from being so popular. Basically due to mass hysteria, an average performing tank by all the data WG collected had to be made unavailable. The point is, there is definate precedence for balancing based on feedback, not actual data if for no other reason than to fix player perception.

I think the same thing happens in MWO more often than people think. Though alot of people will disagree, take the PPC for example. Everyone precieved them as overpowered and it got to the point 80% of the player based mounted as many as they could on every mech they owned. This created issues beyond the weapon being balanced or not as far as the actually backend data was concerned including alot of negative press when they were struggling for market share. Therefore they had to nerf their popularity which they accomplished in an astounding fashion. I think it when from 80% PPC usage to like 10-20% PPC usage in just a few days. PPC problem goes away, negative press diminishes and none of it has anything to do with balance.

This scenerio may or may not have happened (though based on my testing it is 100% accurate) but you have to admit, it would be an easy way to solve a balancing problem that was occuring just before the official launch of the game.

[Livewyr]

macros are only even useful because the natural firing rate (without double tap) is faster than the AC5 for some unknown reason.

up the jam to 20 percent, put the natural rof at 1.5, problem solved.

[MustrumRidcully]

This might be interesting regarding the UAC5:

https://twitter.com/...246199259566080

Apparantly it's none-double-shot rate will be the same as the AC/5 after the "nerf". What I don't know if the double shot mode will get a dedicated control mechanic you can't accidentally trigger (so there is no need for macros to avoid it.)