143 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Captain Stiffy, on 23 January 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

Someone give this guy a shrubbery.... and maybe a Valium.

Edited by DaZur, 23 January 2014 - 11:58 AM.

[PropagandaWar]

FactorlanP, on 21 January 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Must agree. Last thing this train wreck of a game needs is new ways to make it harder to see.

Nice to know its a train wreck of a game after you have over 1500 post. Move on with your pointless qq'ing. I like the windows and this games not a trainwreck. Your life might be so you want to take it out on this game; however the games still playable even with its problems.

[Captain Stiffy]

Art {Surat} got it backwards anyway. Go into the cave and you see all the dust. In the light it's clear. They don't even know how to do it the right way or can't and had to reverse it.

SO BAD SO SUCK FIRE THE ART DEPARTMENT

[Josef Nader]

Stuffy, why don't you tell us how you really feel.

[Sandpit]

Captain Stiffy, on 23 January 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Art {Surat} got it backwards anyway. Go into the cave and you see all the dust. In the light it's clear. They don't even know how to do it the right way or can't and had to reverse it.

SO BAD SO SUCK FIRE THE ART DEPARTMENT

[citation needed]

[ReXspec]

DaZur, on 23 January 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

"Bad apple" paradox...

The windscreen filter / glare issue, while noticeable all the time... is most noticeable under only specific situations. I.e...

Why should someone go out of their way to example what is seen 95% of the time when the forwarded issues are only viewable less than that?

Orrrrr... we can assume the grievance is more noticeable for other people under certain conditions (I.E. bad monitor, rendering, etc.).

Look, I'm not saying people won't complain for no reason, but just because someone DOES complain about a highly "situational" grievance doesn't mean we should just brush it off as a pointless complaint.

Captain Stiffy, on 23 January 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Art {Surat} got it backwards anyway. Go into the cave and you see all the dust. In the light it's clear. They don't even know how to do it the right way or can't and had to reverse it.

SO BAD SO SUCK FIRE THE ART DEPARTMENT

You spelled, "FIRE THE BALANCE DEPARTMENT" wrong.

Edited by ReXspec, 24 January 2014 - 12:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 23 January 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

[/size]
Someone give this guy a shrubbery.... and maybe a Valium.

Shrubbery!

[DaZur]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 12:36 AM, said:

Orrrrr... we can assume the grievance is more noticeable for other people under certain conditions (I.E. bad monitor, rendering, etc.).

Look, I'm not saying people won't complain for no reason, but just because someone DOES complain about a highly "situational" grievance doesn't mean we should just brush it off as a pointless complaint.

Nor am I implying that the glare effect does not need some refinement.

The point I'm making is this community for whatever reason (I guess I'm expecting too much..) has no problem making example of unique evidence, clinging to it like it's empirical and riding it into the ground.

[Sandpit]

DaZur, on 24 January 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

[/size]
Nor am I implying that the glare effect does not need some refinement.

The point I'm making is this community for whatever reason (I guess I'm expecting too much..) has no problem making example of unique evidence, clinging to it like it's empirical and riding it into the ground.

One example on one map in a very specific location means it's "ruining the game" doncha' know?

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 24 January 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

One example on one map in a very specific location means it's "ruining the game" doncha' know?

I think the complaint against this grievance is less about the grievance itself, and more about the wider implication of said grievance.

To me, it shows that the visual/artistic devs are working overtime, while the balance devs are sitting on their hands. As DaZur stated, the system needs refinement. As pretty as it is, it lacks any foresight.

... that's kind of the story of PGI's content release policy, actually. They keep pumping out things that look pretty (I.E. mechs, paintjobs, etc.) but have given very little work to the game in terms of balance.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

I think the complaint against this grievance is less about the grievance itself, and more about the wider implication of said grievance.

To me, it shows that the visual/artistic devs are working overtime, while the balance devs are sitting on their hands. As DaZur stated, the system needs refinement. As pretty as it is, it lacks any foresight.

... that's kind of the story of PGI's content release policy, actually. They keep pumping out things that look pretty (I.E. mechs, paintjobs, etc.) but have given very little work to the game in terms of balance.

"Cockpit glass gives me motion sickness:
"Cockpit glass is ruining the game"
"Cockpit glass is stupid and hinders my ability to see"
"Cockpit glass gets icey and it shouldn't"

While I can understand what YOU are saying, none of the above quotes has anything to do with "art department is working but the rest of PGI isn't" and is exactly what all these "cockpit is (insert whatever negative adjective you'd like here)" threads are saying.

and I, along with others, happen to like the current balance we have

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 24 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

"Cockpit glass gives me motion sickness:
"Cockpit glass is ruining the game"
"Cockpit glass is stupid and hinders my ability to see"
"Cockpit glass gets icey and it shouldn't"

While I can understand what YOU are saying, none of the above quotes has anything to do with "art department is working but the rest of PGI isn't" and is exactly what all these "cockpit is (insert whatever negative adjective you'd like here)" threads are saying.

and I, along with others, happen to like the current balance we have

Again, I think the above quotes are a clumsy way of saying that there needs to be more consideration on the core mechanics of the game before content that simply looks pretty.

As for the current state of balance, I'm going to try to put this as politely as possible... as an "olde-thyme" mechwarrior I've been infuriated by PGI's proposals to balance the game, so I'm a little jaded, but I'd like to think I'm still capable of putting this in analytical terms.

I think most players can agree that PGIs decisions on "balance" as far as the game goes have been ungraceful (to say the least). Empirically speaking, the number of players after the third-person debacle DROPPED, and then the complaining/player-leaving was further compounded with the introduction of "heat scaling."

Yes, I agree with you that these changes were necessary, but here is a critical caveat to that statement: They wouldn't NEED to be necessary if PGI had overhauled/refined their balance design with time-tested ways such as these:

- Making slot numbers in 'mechs dynamic; based on 'mech design. Every. Single. 'Mech. has twelve slots in the torso and arms and six slots in the legs and head--implying that every single 'mech has the same amount of space within the 'mech. Not only is this physically impossible, but it's incorrect. 'Mechs on both the TT and MW4 had dynamic numbers of slots based on their design and a variety of hardpoint types that further defined 'mech roles. If we introduced a system like this into MWO, we would see a lot less cheese builds, greater role definiton, and less sub-optimal 'mechs.

- Reducing rate of fire of all weapons and placing armor protection value at TT level. The rate of fire of all the weapons in MWO are increased by 2.5x in this game, while armor values are poorly scaled to the tremendous amounts of DPS that this puts out. This means that not only do we have the problem with lesser 'mech longevity, but also heat management, introduction of the overly-complex "heat scaling" system, and a "SPAM ALL THE THINGS" mentality. By reducing rates of fire and putting armor values at TT level, PGI would also curb DPS with certain weapon systems, eliminate the need for heat scaling and making heat-management less troublesome while forcing mechwarriors to think before they shoot.

- Introducing Battle Value to the matchmaking system. Battle Value is an indicator on the tactical advantage certain 'mechs, weapons, and modules give a mechwarrior in the field. As of right now, the matchmaking system is based on two things: Individual player rank, and weight class. By replacing the weight-class requirements with Battle Value, we would see a lot less lob-sided matches.

- Introducing crosshair deviation based on movement and weapon recoil. This is self-explanatory. It would lessen pinpoint damage considerably and would eliminate the need to nerf or buff convergence.

So no... to say that you like PGI's idea of balance is fine, but I'm stating that there are better ways to balance the game as opposed to their current model of balance.

Edited by ReXspec, 24 January 2014 - 05:40 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Again, I think the above quotes are a clumsy way of saying that there needs to be more consideration on the core mechanics of the game before content that simply looks pretty.

As for the current state of balance, I'm going to try to put this as politely as possible... as an "olde-thyme" mechwarrior I've been infuriated by PGI's proposals to balance the game, so I'm a little jaded, but I'd like to think I'm still capable of putting this in analytical terms.

I think most players can agree that PGIs decisions on "balance" as far as the game goes have been ungraceful (to say the least). Empirically speaking, the number of players after the third-person debacle DROPPED, and then the complaining/player-leaving was further compounded with the introduction of "heat scaling."

Yes, I agree with you that these changes were necessary, but here is a critical caveat to that statement: They wouldn't NEED to be necessary if PGI had overhauled/refined their balance design with time-tested ways such as these:

- Making slot numbers in 'mechs dynamic; based on 'mech design. Every. Single. 'Mech. has twelve slots in the torso and arms and six slots in the legs and head--implying that every single 'mech has the same amount of space within the 'mech. Not only is this physically impossible, but it's incorrect. 'Mechs on both the TT and MW4 had dynamic numbers of slots based on their design and a variety of hardpoint types that further defined 'mech roles. If we introduced a system like this into MWO, we would see a lot less cheese builds, greater role definiton, and less sub-optimal 'mechs.

- Reducing rate of fire of all weapons and placing armor protection value at TT level. The rate of fire of all the weapons in MWO are increased by 2.5x in this game, while armor values are poorly scaled to the tremendous amounts of DPS that this puts out. This means that not only do we have the problem with lesser 'mech longevity, but also heat management, introduction of the overly-complex "heat scaling" system, and a "SPAM ALL THE THINGS" mentality. By reducing rates of fire and putting armor values at TT level, PGI would also curb DPS with certain weapon systems, eliminate the need for heat scaling and making heat-management less troublesome while forcing mechwarriors to think before they shoot.

- Introducing Battle Value to the matchmaking system. Battle Value is an indicator on the tactical advantage certain 'mechs, weapons, and modules give a mechwarrior in the field. As of right now, the matchmaking system is based on two things: Individual player rank, and weight class. By replacing the weight-class requirements with Battle Value, we would see a lot less lob-sided matches.

- Introducing crosshair deviation based on movement and weapon recoil. This is self-explanatory. It would lessen pinpoint damage considerably and would eliminate the need to nerf or buff convergence.

So no... to say that you like PGI's idea of balance is fine, but I'm stating that there are better ways to balance the game as opposed to their current model of balance.

I'm not debating your opinions on balance (I liked some others I didn't to be honest)
Those statements you quoted me on? They're not a clumsy way of asking for better balance. They're "I don't like it so it should be removed" threads. There's a huge difference. Most of us are getting tired of every time something new is done we have to weed through 20 duplicate threads all talking about how (insert latest bandwagon here) is "ruining" the game or is "op" so it should be removed/nerfed.

I (and most reasonable people) have no problem with someone having their opinion, suggesting ideas, etc. but too many on here think "my idea is great and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong and dumb" or the ever infamous "PGI sucks and never listens to feedback so I'll jsut post 20 duplicate threads because surely THAT will get my idea implemented"

The sad part is a lot of times the OP will have a good idea, etc. but it gets trampled on by those wanting their exact idea implemented instead. The cockpit glass gives off a horrible glare
on 1 map
in 2-3 different areas
in 2-3 situations
So of course that don't like it posted a couple of screenshots of that very isolated incident and use it to say "Look! See? I'm right! Cockpit glass ruins the game!" and hope that it will garner support from others who don't like it and some that haven't experienced it yet.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 24 January 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

I'm not debating your opinions on balance (I liked some others I didn't to be honest)
Those statements you quoted me on? They're not a clumsy way of asking for better balance. They're "I don't like it so it should be removed" threads. There's a huge difference. Most of us are getting tired of every time something new is done we have to weed through 20 duplicate threads all talking about how (insert latest bandwagon here) is "ruining" the game or is "op" so it should be removed/nerfed.

I (and most reasonable people) have no problem with someone having their opinion, suggesting ideas, etc. but too many on here think "my idea is great and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong and dumb" or the ever infamous "PGI sucks and never listens to feedback so I'll jsut post 20 duplicate threads because surely THAT will get my idea implemented"

The sad part is a lot of times the OP will have a good idea, etc. but it gets trampled on by those wanting their exact idea implemented instead. The cockpit glass gives off a horrible glare
on 1 map
in 2-3 different areas
in 2-3 situations
So of course that don't like it posted a couple of screenshots of that very isolated incident and use it to say "Look! See? I'm right! Cockpit glass ruins the game!" and hope that it will garner support from others who don't like it and some that haven't experienced it yet.

I'm fairly sure the opinion that PGI doesn't listen to it's consumer base (old mechwarriors or new) is fairly common... to classify genuine, well-thought-out complaint/suggestion threads as "bandwagons" is kind of an asinine generalization, isn't it?

Keeping the favor of a game companies consumer base is more then a matter of developer integrity, it means the difference between making a profit by the end of the next quarter, or going broke. With the way PGI has been conducting business, however, sales alone are specifically targeting borderline oblivious newcomers to MWO with A LOT of disposable income (HA!). Look at the Clan mech sales, for example. Five hundred dollars for a golden 'mech? Fifty-five dollars for individual clan 'mechs? A bunch of ones and zeroes? No long time player of this game (let alone a long time player of mechwarrior) is going to spend money on a volatile market item such as this.

In the case of the screen glare issue, again, it represents the long-standing disparity between how fast artistic content is developed, and how slow balance is developed. Yes, it is a generalization to say "'X' problem is ruining the game!'" but if no feedback is given to the players that the grievance will even be looked at, the players WILL cry louder, and the company will lose more sales because players will stop playing the game because of the grievance, or they convince themselves that the grievance will never be fixed because the devs are not listening.

Edited by ReXspec, 24 January 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

I'm fairly sure the opinion that PGI doesn't listen to it's consumer base (old mechwarriors or new) is fairly common... to classify genuine, well-thought-out complaint/suggestion threads as "bandwagons" is kind of an asinine generalization, isn't it?

Keeping the favor of a game companies consumer base is more then a matter of developer integrity, it means the difference between making a profit by the end of the next quarter, or going broke. With the way PGI has been conducting business, however, sales alone are specifically targeting borderline oblivious newcomers to MWO with A LOT of disposable income (HA!). Look at the Clan mech sales, for example. Five hundred dollars for a golden 'mech? Fifty-five dollars for individual clan 'mechs? A bunch of ones and zeroes? No long time player of this game (let alone a long time player of mechwarrior) is going to spend money on a volatile market item such as this.

In the case of the screen glare issue, again, it represents the long-standing disparity between how fast artistic content is developed, and how slow balance is developed. Yes, it is a generalization to say "'X' problem is ruining the game!'" but if no feedback is given to the players that the grievance will even be looked at, the players WILL cry louder, and the company will lose more sales because players will stop playing the game because of the grievance, or they convince themselves that the grievance will never be fixed because the devs are not listening.

Sarlic, on 21 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

See thread title.

After the update. It totally does not make sense. Why even bothering adding it? And it blocks your vision.

As of today we have electronics who prevents getting iced windows. Either let it 'warm up' when your Mech walks a few metres or in the heat of the battle.

Or just make this un-done. This 'fancy' addon is not adding any realism to the game at all.

Update: These 'icing'' show also in Tourmaline Desert. It's probaly some 'reflection' overlay or whatever some kind. These so called 'icing' does not show up when i angle my Mech cockpit to the sky.

Show me where in the OP there is ANYTHING regarding what you're talking about. Especially the frustration of art development being so fast compared to other areas....

[Alex Warden]

lol really? you guys have trouble with the window glass? maybe some actual glasses would help... seriously, it´s a bit strange, but not in any way affecting my gameplay much... are there so few problems in the game currently, that ppl now have to cry about this? MWO seems to be on a good way then...

oh and btw...how is this topic balance related? since everyone has it, it´s not a balance issue...

Edited by Alex Warden, 24 January 2014 - 09:28 PM.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 24 January 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

Show me where in the OP there is ANYTHING regarding what you're talking about. Especially the frustration of art development being so fast compared to other areas....

I never stated what the OP said, I'm stating what the presence of this artistic oversight represents. It may serve you to re-read my post calmly if you did not understand me...

Alex Warden, on 24 January 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

lol really? you guys have trouble with the window glass? maybe some actual glasses would help... seriously, it´s a bit strange, but not in any way affecting my gameplay much... are there so few problems in the game currently, that ppl now have to cry about this? MWO seems to be on a good way then...

-shrug- it's a simple artistic oversight that some people can deal with better then others.

[El Bandito]

A multiplayer only first person shooter game is striving to make vision as limited as possible? Say it ain't so.


If there is a script that can remove the effect as well as film grain I would be on it ASAP.

Edited by El Bandito, 24 January 2014 - 10:10 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 24 January 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

I never stated what the OP said, I'm stating what the presence of this artistic oversight represents. It may serve you to re-read my post calmly if you did not understand me...



-shrug- it's a simple artistic oversight that some people can deal with better then others.

and I directed my comments at the players like the op
again maybe you should read back as well?

[Elfman]

From my personal observations its not only one map that is the issue and in fact seems to depend on the mech you use.

Some maps such as arctic the view is still crystal clear on ll my mechs apart from griffon when looking out the side windows where it looks like a dirty fish tank.

Other maps such as Forest colony all the saber mechs have such dirty screens after playing two matches in a row last night I had to quit due to a headache and eye strain.

I tried various mechs out both in game and in training rounds and the impact is not the same for every mech which to me is giving certain mech and map combinations an unfair nerf

Weirdly I seem to have very few issues in my Jager mech but all my favourite mediums I in a lot of games can see for !"£$%