213 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

I can't imagine PGI will make it 'harder' for PUG's to play and enjoy the game. If it becomes a 'join a team or you're dead' exercise they'll be in for a tough time.

I suspect if you have 8 guys organised in a team and you get 4 individual PUG's of your faction, play the game. Doesn't matter if it's 5 organised and 7 solo PUG's all of the same faction, play the game.

If you have a strong enough "unit" and you want to play 12 mans, play the game.

The game should be flexible enough for those "unit" formations to do their thing without compromising the PUG who drops in for 2 hours or so.

[Blaike]

What might work is if you look at the Ngng Ts server you see all the clans listed.
Well imagine if each team looked like that on Mw Ui, so you pick a team you want to join.
But each team can only have 2 lights, 2 heavys, 2 assaults and 6 mediums.
It dosent have to say the name or type of the mech just slots to fill.
may make for some interesting drops.
just an idea.

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 10 February 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Nope, I just assumed that this was an axiom, but apparently not.

What's an axiom?

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 11 February 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

What's an axiom?

Accepted theory or principle.

[990Dreams]

Or you could just use your brains. More resources to CW.

Honestly PGI should just finish what they said they would and leave the meta alone till CW and UI 2.0 are completely finished. Then they can have all their focus on meta problems. (not that there are any major meta problems)

[Noesis]

DavidHurricane, on 11 February 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Or you could just use your brains. More resources to CW.

Honestly PGI should just finish what they said they would and leave the meta alone till CW and UI 2.0 are completely finished. Then they can have all their focus on meta problems. (not that there are any major meta problems)

Ideally we need to have an accepted understanding of the Tech though to be able to make strategic decisions about tech acquisition though with any confidence with CW.

Besides it does not take a lot of resources to tweak XML files for current mechanics. Something I feel Paul is more than capable of doing so. It does not really need dedicated programming resources unless new or changed mechanics are needed.

Given various comments about the lack of investment to fixing SRMs though I would probably say that resources are being focused away from some existing gaming issues of importance to the new features as a result of "player concerns" about wanting more new feature content. Specifically CW.

I'm not against having CW asap either as it will make the game more purposeful, but potentially diluted at the strategic level if the tech confidence all changes around later due to balance changes following this introduction.

Interestingly I had thought about and idea for the future of balance and FOTM issues and that you could have dynamic preference change around which is the more dominant Tech on a quarterly/monthly basis say, which could help to simulate tech advancement, but all is really happening is the weapon values stay around the same point but are adjusted in some way to show dominance. This could then introduce regular changes to FOTM and not maintain issues with the idea of just one being so dominant like we have with Sniping AC/PPC mix atm.

I still feel though that there is enough resourse for ongoing balance issues and CW to be worked on in parallel. Assuming no significant changes to the actual existing mechanics are needed and that balance just needs to tweak numbers and test them to find a more preferential sweet spot that encourages as much confident equal diversity with roles.

Tonnage restrictions has the potential to shift the Meta though, so it is most likely that PGI will be waiting to see the apparent effects of this being introduced. But the underlying form for some tech will still be there so some issues may remain. It is just that the relative application of the Tech by players defines the Meta, which to some extent can include some interesting preferences, so there is room for a shift with tonnage restrictions here I feel. Just a shame we have to wait till April really.

Edited by Noesis, 11 February 2014 - 10:16 AM.

[990Dreams]

I still think that you all make some of the meta sound way worse than it really is.

[Black Arachne]

PGI can you make the Awesome playable? The mech should be able to use its 3 ERPPC's it has the double heatsinks to get the job done but your broken heat system, and busted dhs have turned this game into AC Online.

[Joseph Mallan]

I thought it was an Ark ship from Wall-E'

[990Dreams]

Black Arachne, on 11 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

PGI can you make the Awesome playable? The mech should be able to use its 3 ERPPC's it has the double heatsinks to get the job done but your broken heat system, and busted dhs have turned this game into AC Online.

6 ERPPC Stalkers made PGI do Ghost Heat and PPC heat raises.

Ghost heat suffices (except for AC/2s, which are glitchy), so I think PPC heat should be lowered.

[Joseph Mallan]

DavidHurricane, on 11 February 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

6 ERPPC Stalkers made PGI do Ghost Heat and PPC heat raises.

Ghost heat suffices (except for AC/2s, which are glitchy), so I think PPC heat should be lowered.

A 6 PPC anything should have caused the same results... That it relaced an Awesome as the PPC boat is sad.

[Damocles69]

PGI will nerf jump jets and jump capable assaults

Good players will move back to mass stalkers

Baddies will continue to get crushed

Baddies will once again cry

Broken gameplay mechanics will remain broken

Bad devs will continue to be bad

[Joseph Mallan]

Damocles69, on 13 February 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

PGI will nerf jump jets and jump capable assaults

Good players will move back to mass stalkers

Baddies will continue to get crushed

Baddies will once again cry

Broken gameplay mechanics will remain broken

Bad devs will continue to be bad

Actually... I agree with this line of thinking.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 10 February 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

^This

Though hopefully this will become more of a focus to player issues in the first stage of CW with group organisation definitions. Ideally some more helpful understanding of incentives and benefits to being a part of groups also helpful to better have a more informed choice now prior to the advent of CW and it becoming a mass scramble of interests in a short time frame.

Please PGI/IGP, bring on the Decals and don't be afraid to enthuse and help players into the back story by being representated in the factions and more team orientated game play with an understanding of what these elements will help provide to players as a part of CW.

This made me smile. Mostly because of the fact that there is a deep seated part of me that sees people playing "Wolf Dragoons" And most of them are a bunch of 14-16 year olds that want to troll that makes me cringe deep down inside.

I think it would be interesting if the devs contacted a few mature, highish elo players and simply asked them if they would be interested in founding units that would be willing to fullfill roles properly. Or even contacting current merc core/House/clan factions out there and seeing who would be interested in running a 'pgi approved' unit that would make up the core of certain house factions. Perhaps allow a degree of decals or some such for those willing to fall within these units.

Then again this would also facilitate the need for something that I think this game has been soly missing and needs desperatly.

A public community representative to monitor this. And honestly although there 'is one' right now. Its not working out very well. There are enough dedicated mature players out there that about 3-4 players could easily be elected to this that probly wouldnt want to be paid or anything but would just like to see this game and community run well and would be willing to help facilitate this.

Just some thoughts.

[Willard Phule]

Varent, on 13 February 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

This made me smile. Mostly because of the fact that there is a deep seated part of me that sees people playing "Wolf Dragoons" And most of them are a bunch of 14-16 year olds that want to troll that makes me cringe deep down inside.

I think it would be interesting if the devs contacted a few mature, highish elo players and simply asked them if they would be interested in founding units that would be willing to fullfill roles properly. Or even contacting current merc core/House/clan factions out there and seeing who would be interested in running a 'pgi approved' unit that would make up the core of certain house factions. Perhaps allow a degree of decals or some such for those willing to fall within these units.

Then again this would also facilitate the need for something that I think this game has been soly missing and needs desperatly.

A public community representative to monitor this. And honestly although there 'is one' right now. Its not working out very well. There are enough dedicated mature players out there that about 3-4 players could easily be elected to this that probly wouldnt want to be paid or anything but would just like to see this game and community run well and would be willing to help facilitate this.

Just some thoughts.

Something like a PGI approved "Mercenary Bonding and Review Commission (MBRC)" perhaps?

Edited by Willard Phule, 13 February 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Daeqar]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Cept I have had lots and lots of very skilled people tell me that when you are in a fight, the faster you can put your opponent down the better it is for your personal well being. Was Mike Tyson a bad boxer cause he could knock out his opponents in just a few seconds? How well did he do long drawn out fights? My martial art teachers uniformly tell students to end fights quickly to limit harm to themselves.

So I bring that philosophy to the computer as well, The less TTK for me, the better for me to survive a match.

You're way off target with this line of thinking because you're making the wrong analogs.

The situation the developers are dealing with is that everyone can choose to play with the Mike Tyson body. In a hypothetical boxing match, you could put Tyson against Tyson, and the match would probably only last a couple rounds and flip a coin on which one gets a "decisive" victory, even though they have identical "skill"and ability. In a game sense, is this fun game play? Maybe. Is it an accurate reflection of player skill? Maybe, so long as the players realize it was a essentially a coin flip.

Just because it's completely obvious that a player should pursue shortest TTK they can achieve as a likely route to victory has no bearing whatsoever on how game developers should pursue a certain target TTK for gameplay and balance purposes. Playing a game and making a game are two different things.

[Joseph Mallan]

Daeqar, on 13 February 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

You're way off target with this line of thinking because you're making the wrong analogs.

The situation the developers are dealing with is that everyone can choose to play with the Mike Tyson body. In a hypothetical boxing match, you could put Tyson against Tyson, and the match would probably only last a couple rounds and flip a coin on which one gets a "decisive" victory, even though they have identical "skill"and ability. In a game sense, is this fun game play? Maybe. Is it an accurate reflection of player skill? Maybe, so long as the players realize it was a essentially a coin flip.

Just because it's completely obvious that a player should pursue shortest TTK they can achieve as a likely route to victory has no bearing whatsoever on how game developers should pursue a certain target TTK for gameplay and balance purposes. Playing a game and making a game are two different things.

A point well made, so long as the makers of the game remember threre are two camps at least and do their best to give each some of what they want.

Also so many players say they want that Tyson v Tyson. Nice to see some outer box thinking!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 13 February 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Varent]

DavidHurricane, on 11 February 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

6 ERPPC Stalkers made PGI do Ghost Heat and PPC heat raises.

Ghost heat suffices (except for AC/2s, which are glitchy), so I think PPC heat should be lowered.

Realistically you could probly get away with lowering the ERPPC heat by at least 2 points and not see overt boating and it would be put in its place a little more.

I think what they need to do is customize mechs more to specific rules instead of making blanket rules. Or perhaps make rule exceptions. I dont know about ERPPC but id love to see the ghost heat moved up to 3 PPC for a mech like the awesome. This would allow you to run it closer to lore and have it find its place in the battlefield once more.

Willard Phule, on 13 February 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Something like a PGI approved "Mercenary Bonding and Review Commission (MBRC)" perhaps?

who knows, something.. ANYTHING at this point. I know there are plenty of players out there that simply love this game and are level headed enough to pull it off. None of them would want money. They just want to see this game succeed.

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

Once weight limit hits not everyone and their grandma can drop in a poptarting assault anymore, just a heads up for all the meta followers...
no nerf is needed your team composition will simply be prevented once proper game modes are released...
Personally I cant wait for the sweet tears to start rolling.

[Daeqar]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 February 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

A point well made, so long as the makers of the game remember threre are two camps at least and do their best to give each some of what they want.

Also so many players say they want that Tyson v Tyson. Nice to see some outer box thinking!

Most games (not necessarily MWO) decide to include high offense, short duration build possibilities. Usually, glass cannon builds at least in concept. MWO's version of building that way would normally be skimping armor off a chassis in favor of more ordinance, but realistically speaking that is not normally a reasonable way to build - especially not on an assault chassis. Instead, we get high burst + high defense in the same package. The balancing factor is instead big target that moves slowly and changes direction even slower. Easy to shoot, and if they are in position to attack they are extremely easy to hit back. That works mostly as intended until Jump Jets enter the picture and provide a mechanism for bypassing the combat weakness of the chassis.