166 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 March 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

this reads like you are against diversity Varent!

Folks are arguing for/Against FLD and For/Against Convergence, For/Against Heat To slow/to fast TTK. The diversity/balance many people have been talking about is running rampant if you ask me.

I'm not against diversity. However diversity does not help consolidation. And consolidation is needed to a degree for the game to move foreward. I'm not saying everyone has to perfectly agree or disgaree. I'm saying there needs to be give and take from all groups in an understanding that every group is going to get a little something that another group might not like. And acceptable balance is better then perfect balance with this community.

[Joseph Mallan]

Well said sir.

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 10 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Of course it's my opinion. I don't state my opinion as fact but I'm also not going to type out (just in my opinion) every single time I write something in that regard. Now with that said...

Quote

So...and please understand, I wasn't here in Closed Beta, so I don't know what was or wasn't available....there were no mechs that could use JumpJets, PPCs, ACs or Gauss Rifles in Closed Beta? Or, is it simply a matter of the game mechanics at that time not favoring the current Meta? Because, it seems to me, that as PGI implements new "fixes" to the game, new Metas come to the fore.

There weren't any big mechs with JJs and hardpoints that accomodated that tactic as effectively. Really it didn't become prevalent until the Phract and then Highlander. I understand everyone has different experiences. That's why I said the only time I see it. The meta shifts and always will shift. You'll always have a min/max portion that (for them personally) find it fun to use the absolute maximum effective build at all times based on current game mechanics. there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes, that's their perception of fun which is fine. I'm just using it to point out WHY we'll always have a meta in that regard.

Quote

1 - Again, this is simply YOUR opinion. Other people may believe that balance CAN be achieved. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs? Your command of your native language and ability to express your thoughts?

no sir, this is not an opinion. This IS a statement of fact. You will never get thousands of players to agree unanimously that this game is perfectly balanced. That's because every single person DOES have an opinion based on their perceptions. There will never be a 100% unified "Yup, the game is in perfect balance" That has NOTHING to do with my opinion being any more valid than anyone else's You're just trying to be combative and there's absolutely no basis for you to try and say I've made my opinion more valid than anyone else's.

Quote

2 - With regard to "teammates and coordination," how quickly can you type "Alpha Lance, move to B3 and hold position" in Russian during a game? In German? In Spanish? Does it detract from your ability to get out of the line of fire? Simply saying that you need teamwork and coordination without explaining how to achieve that across multiple language barriers isn't a whole lot of help. In fact, it's rather condescending. It's almost as if you think that noone else could possibly have noticed that lack of both is a problem.

What exactly does that have to do with this topic?
Who has said anything about not integrating things like voip? Who has argued against that? Since you quoted me personally I'm assuming you mean that I am dismissing the need for things like voip and such or a command bloom. Please show me where I've said ANYthing even remotely close to that. I've said the exact opposite since Closed Beta. I've been a proponent of these things from day 1 so I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at with this comment other than try to dismiss or discredit what I've said in this thread by making it into something it simply is not

Quote

Again. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. The recent modification to JumpJets (not a nerf, really) affected the Highlander far more than any other chassis. Why is that? Because the modification was based on the Class of JumpJet. Class I got hit far harder than Class II, Class III or Class IV. The Victor uses a Class II, so wasn't effected nearly as much. The Cataphract uses a Class III and I can tell you from my personal experience that I haven't noticed a difference at all. As for the current Jumpsniper Meta, I'm sure it will eventually go away as PGI continues to nerf/break/change the game..and a new Meta will emerge.

The class 2 were hit pretty hard as well. It was stated that Heavies and Assaults would be greatly affected while Mediums and Lights wouldn't notice it nearly as much.

Quote

Why is PGI making this game? Is a non-profit organization or is it to generate income for a company? That's what I thought. So...where is the majority of their funding coming from? Is it coming from the few die-hard, Closed Beta old-timers that still drop a hundred bucks a month on the game?
Or, is it coming from the hordes of "new players" that play for a little while, drop thirty bucks for some premium time, get bored with getting roflstomped repeatedly and then leave?

Because, and this is only my opinion which is based on personal observation of people I got involved in the game, that has to be a HUGE hurdle for PGI's financial situation right now. Longevity and a stable player base. Hell, even WoW still has a stable (albeit declining) player base.

So, and again it's only my opinion, it seems to me that getting new people to join and then keeping them here has been a focus for PGI for so long, they've lost sight of what the old-timers are trying to tell them. And, even though I rarely take PGI's side in anything, from a business standpoint....they're right. Weapon balance, poptart metas, convergence issues...they all take a backseat when compared to keeping the doors open and the lights on. Whenever you see a modification, like the one with JumpJets, try to look at how it effects gameplay from a "new player's" point of view....and then you'll see why they did it.

Of course getting new players to join and retain is essential to this game growing. That's exactly what I've said, numerous times. Repeatedly. What I also said is that the "new" launch module is NOT going to accomplish that for a myriad of reasons that I've already stated in this very thread. This is about the new launch module, not poptarting. It's about the new launch module NOT helping to mitigate roflstomps, it's about PGI's mistakes when it came to breaking down the data. That's not an opinion that's a simple statement of fact. They made an error. They didn't break the data down correctly and as a result have misinterpreted it. I'm not going to repeat how and why they made that error. It has been well documented in this and other threads at this point. Ignoring those statements, ignoring the entirety of responses that have been made in this regard to focus on poptarting does nothing.

[Odins Fist]

The only thing that needs to be said about MWO: "Two years later and stuff still isn't finished"
There ya go, now you all can sit down, relax and have some chips and dip.
Stroke Averted

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Hold on. I never said anyone used the AC20 at long range. I said the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 at the AC10s optimum range. The AC10's optimum range is 450m. Players use AC20s at 450m all the time. Where you got this "long range" nonsense from is beyond me, but its definitely not from anything I said.

AC10 = 10 damage at 450m
AC20 = 10 damage at 540m

See the problem? The AC10 is supposed to out range the AC20 yet the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 past the AC10s optimum range!

The AC5 and AC2 have the same exact problem with overlapping ranges.

AC2 = 2 damage at 720m
AC5 = 2 damage at 1116m

So how do we fix this? The obvious solution is to decrease the range of the AC20 and AC5 and possibly increase the range of the AC2 (because you can only decrease the AC5s range so much before it overlaps with the AC10 so you may have to buff the AC2 instead).

Although true by strict values, the use of an AC20 (7/t) to do the same damage as an AC10 (15/t) should be seen as a piss poor use of ammo when both cost 1 ton btw.

Yes, then the argument could be made that Mechs can carry enough to make that not a real concern, but then perhaps, that is more the real issue than a mere 90m overlap for a half damage per shell potential...

Ac2's (75/t) and AC5's (30/t) pretty much the same issue. Reducing the ranges of Ballistics will only make them even more powerful.

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 March 2014 - 11:19 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Although true by strict values, the use of an AC20 (7/t) to do the same damage as an AC10 (15/t) should be seen as a piss poor use of ammo when both cost 1 ton btw.

Thats true. But what youre forgetting is that the AC20 only weighs 2 tons more than the AC10. The more efficient weight of the AC20 more than makes up for the ammo inefficiency. Also not all shots fired with the AC20 will be at 540m, only some of them will be, the others will be doing the full 20 damage. So the inefficiency only applies to a small percentage of your shots anyway.

Quote

Reducing the ranges of Ballistics will only make them even more powerful.

I fail to see how reducing their range makes them more powerful. Reducing their range is purely a nerf.

Edited by Khobai, 10 March 2014 - 11:32 AM.

[Varent]

Willard Phule, on 10 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Let's take a real quick look at that for a moment.

Why is PGI making this game? Is a non-profit organization or is it to generate income for a company? That's what I thought. So...where is the majority of their funding coming from? Is it coming from the few die-hard, Closed Beta old-timers that still drop a hundred bucks a month on the game?

Or, is it coming from the hordes of "new players" that play for a little while, drop thirty bucks for some premium time, get bored with getting roflstomped repeatedly and then leave?

Because, and this is only my opinion which is based on personal observation of people I got involved in the game, that has to be a HUGE hurdle for PGI's financial situation right now. Longevity and a stable player base. Hell, even WoW still has a stable (albeit declining) player base.

So, and again it's only my opinion, it seems to me that getting new people to join and then keeping them here has been a focus for PGI for so long, they've lost sight of what the old-timers are trying to tell them. And, even though I rarely take PGI's side in anything, from a business standpoint....they're right. Weapon balance, poptart metas, convergence issues...they all take a backseat when compared to keeping the doors open and the lights on. Whenever you see a modification, like the one with JumpJets, try to look at how it effects gameplay from a "new player's" point of view....and then you'll see why they did it.

The money from this game comes from may sources. It comes from the three groups overall I originally described and because of that it needs to cater to the wants of each of those groups. Also besides the fact of just money player base itself is important. You need a large group of players playing or you just sit in que all day long and don't find any matches. So in essence. As a company they need to do things that appease all of these crowds.

Willard Phule, on 10 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Again. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. The recent modification to JumpJets (not a nerf, really) affected the Highlander far more than any other chassis. Why is that? Because the modification was based on the Class of JumpJet. Class I got hit far harder than Class II, Class III or Class IV. The Victor uses a Class II, so wasn't effected nearly as much. The Cataphract uses a Class III and I can tell you from my personal experience that I haven't noticed a difference at all. As for the current Jumpsniper Meta, I'm sure it will eventually go away as PGI continues to nerf/break/change the game..and a new Meta will emerge.

I Do actually feel that PGI needs to make victors use the same class of JJ as the highlander... im not sure why they don't... but *shrug* who knows. That said the amount of boost and speed of boost that your getting makes victors climb incredibly slow still. Many at higher elo do not feel they are fully the monster they once were but perhaps this is just the community needing to catch up.

Willard Phule, on 10 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

1 - Again, this is simply YOUR opinion. Other people may believe that balance CAN be achieved. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs? Your command of your native language and ability to express your thoughts?
2 - With regard to "teammates and coordination," how quickly can you type "Alpha Lance, move to B3 and hold position" in Russian during a game? In German? In Spanish? Does it detract from your ability to get out of the line of fire? Simply saying that you need teamwork and coordination without explaining how to achieve that across multiple language barriers isn't a whole lot of help. In fact, it's rather condescending. It's almost as if you think that noone else could possibly have noticed that lack of both is a problem.

1. Read the original post. If you honestly feel balance can be achieved in regards to what all of the player base wants then you are sorely mistaken. 2. nothing is preventing you from hoping on a team speak and enjoying this. You can argue VOIP if you wish but that wouldn't resolve that, This also exists in every Shooter, so its a moot point.

[stjobe]

Almond Brown, on 10 March 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

a mere 90m overlap for a half damage per shell potential...

Do the math. An AC/20 outdamages an AC/10 at any range up to about 580m:

Up to 270m the AC/20 does 20 damage. It then loses 20 points during the next 540m (0.037 dmg/m).
At 540m, the AC/20 does 10 damage.

The AC/10 does 10 points out to 450m, then loses 0.011 points every meter after that. At 540m it does 9 damage.

At 550m the AC/20 does 9.63 damage. The AC/10 does 8.89
At 560m the AC/20 does 9.26 damage. The AC/10 does 8.78
At 570m the AC/20 does 8.89 damage. The AC/10 does 8.67
At 580m the AC/20 does 8.52 damage. The AC/10 does 8.56

So at any range under roughly 580m, the AC/20 outdamages the AC/10.

Let me restate that: During the whole effective engagement envelope of the AC/10, it is out-damaged by what by rights should be a shorter-ranged weapon. Not until the AC/10 gets into fall-off damage range does it start to do more damage than the AC/20.

In TT, it was outdamaged by the AC/20 only at ranges under 270m. Not 580m - more than double the effective range of the AC/20.

This is BAD, and it plays merry hell with intra-ballistic balance as well as inter-weapon balance - why is the AC/20 the only AC that doesn't out-range LONG-RANGE missiles?

It boggles the mind...

Almond Brown, on 10 March 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Reducing the ranges of Ballistics will only make them even more powerful.

Wait, what? That... just makes no sense. No sense at all.

[Trauglodyte]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Ive read every novel, Ive played every game, Ive played the board game and ive even done the roleplaying gaming with friends. There was even a time I collected the card game.

-In hopes of a brighter future and a more unified community.
Varent.

I disagree with everything you said because of THIS - you are a nerd and I snub thee!!!



Honestly, you are correct in your assessment of the community. There are those that want the game to be Battletech table top because that is what they remembered and all of the good times along with it. There are those that want nothing more than the game to be balanced - they probably never played TT or, if they did, not much of it and only had a little bit of the game experience. Until the game is fit for everyone, they won't be happy. And then there are those sad sack biased POSs that plague every game and just want everything that they don't use nerfed into the dirt because someone used it once and they died.

Game forums are always polarized around those same sentiments. You're either blind because you're too close to what you use or you're blind because you've been abused by it. In the end, neither group cares about the class, or in this case mech/weapon, that nobody uses or isn't dangerous because you can just ignore it until you're done wiht everything else.

[Willard Phule]

Varent, on 10 March 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

1. Read the original post. If you honestly feel balance can be achieved in regards to what all of the player base wants then you are sorely mistaken.

Personally, whether balance can be achieved or not is almost irrelevant to the situation. The question that would probably be more accurate would be "Can balance be achieved by the programmers/developers at PGI?" I really don't have a whole lot of faith in them, anyway, even if some genius figured out the magic equation for overall balance. No way to implement it.

But, that's my opinion. I'm not calling it a "fact" with no way to back it up. It's just an opinion....the same as the people out there that think balance can be achieved. It's their opinion. Who's to say which person's opinion is more important than any other's? Sandpit? I think not, since I value his opinion even less than he values mine.

Varent, on 10 March 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

2. nothing is preventing you from hoping on a team speak and enjoying this. You can argue VOIP if you wish but that wouldn't resolve that, This also exists in every Shooter, so its a moot point.

Actually, I wasn't arguing for VOIP, to be honest. My statement to Sandpit was that although we (new and experienced players alike) can agree that lack of coordination and teamwork is the biggest killer of matches there is...even moreso than completely imbalanced roflstomps. My point to him was that simply pointing to a problem without even a hint of a viable solution is almost condescending. Here's a solution:

But, what good would VOIP do me if I don't speak the same language as 80% of my team? What good would it do them?

How about this....remember MW3 and MW4? Remember being in command of a lance of NPC's? How did you get them to move to a waypoint or to attack a target? There were preset keys set up for quick comms. What's stopping PGI from implementing a system like that? If I'm in the Company Commander position and hit F6 (because that's what I set it for), everyone in the Company gets a voice message that says "Fall back!"....and...it says it in whatever language the people installed on their computers. You can't tell me that the Germans and Russians are all playing an English version of the game.

Edited by Willard Phule, 10 March 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[stjobe]

Willard Phule, on 10 March 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Remember being in command of a lance of NPC's? How did you get them to move to a waypoint or to attack a target? There were preset keys set up for quick comms. What's stopping PGI from implementing a system like that?

Perhaps they haven't understood that it's something the player base wants? I mean, we've only been pestering them about it since freaking closed beta!

It has to be something really, really complicated to program - I mean, press a key, get it to write something in chat, whoa... Hold on there cowboy, that's some serious computer wizardry right there!

In short, nothing. Nothing but the Not Invented Here syndrome that seems to permeate the PGI offices.

[Abivard]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

Perhaps they haven't understood that it's something the player base wants? I mean, we've only been pestering them about it since freaking closed beta!

It has to be something really, really complicated to program - I mean, press a key, get it to write something in chat, whoa... Hold on there cowboy, that's some serious computer wizardry right there!

In short, nothing. Nothing but the Not Invented Here syndrome that seems to permeate the PGI offices.

I am starting to wonder if every time an idea is posted on the forums, someone at PGI crosses that idea off their master list of possibilities for the game.

If true, that would really help explain SOOOOOO MUCH!

[Livebait]

The problem is not the community. The problem is the devs. The end. This is Quake in robot skins. After two years, all we have are the same small maps with no objective points. No change in spawn location or weather or time of day. Nothing. After two years we get base turrets that are designed to destroy an entire lance. Oh and a UI 2.0 fail.

Its obvious these devs never played any Mechwarrior game. All this going back and forth with weapons being changed would be rendered mute, IF the maps were more complex. IF we can choose a map. IF we could build a mech for a drop. IF objective points were needed to be accomplished to get a win. I could go on but whats the point. I logged on did a few drops this weekend and went back to playing PS2. So sad that a game with such history and with fans who want to pay to have the game succeed are constantly blown off by PGI.

Edited by Livebait, 10 March 2014 - 03:25 PM.

[Roland]

Abivard, on 10 March 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

I am starting to wonder if every time an idea is posted on the forums, someone at PGI crosses that idea off their master list of possibilities for the game.

If true, that would really help explain SOOOOOO MUCH!

To some extent I feel like sometimes when Paul makes a bad decision, and the community points out how to fix it (such as the multitude of suggestions about how to better implement groups), he kind of goes on the defensive and refuses to admit that the community could come up with a better idea, and thus just rejects the idea forever.

In reality though, being able to take good ideas from the community is a sign of a good designer. There is no shame in saying, "That sounds kind of cool, let's give it a shot."

It's not like folks are gonna say, "Hah! PGI is doing what we said! That must mean they don't know what to do on their own!"

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

To some extent I feel like sometimes when Paul makes a bad decision, and the community points out how to fix it (such as the multitude of suggestions about how to better implement groups), he kind of goes on the defensive and refuses to admit that the community could come up with a better idea, and thus just rejects the idea forever.

In reality though, being able to take good ideas from the community is a sign of a good designer. There is no shame in saying, "That sounds kind of cool, let's give it a shot."

It's not like folks are gonna say, "Hah! PGI is doing what we said! That must mean they don't know what to do on their own!"

I think that's changed a bit and also why some of us get better responses from them on twitter. It's VERY hard for any of the devs to have any kind of meaningful discussion on the forums because as soon as they post something they're bombarded with responses, questions, etc. and at some point the usual "I hate PGI and MWO but I can't leave" crowd swoops down and just begin the attacks.

I agree though that the Dev team takes some things a little too personally (as do a LOT of players here) when someone points out that their decision wasn't as good as they may have thought

[Roland]

I dunno man.. I mean, with the launch module, we have how many pages of responses from players, and in over a week, we have ONE response from the devs on the issue in response to that mountain of (mostly negative) feedback?

I mean, come on. That's crappy.

[Sandpit]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

I dunno man.. I mean, with the launch module, we have how many pages of responses from players, and in over a week, we have ONE response from the devs on the issue in response to that mountain of (mostly negative) feedback?

I mean, come on. That's crappy.

I've gotten 2-3 responses to my questions on Twitter from Russ thus far.

Interestingly enough some of us have already figured out two major issues regarding the new launch module. Solo sync dropping will jsut bypass that a lot of times.
and
(Thanks for this one Davers)
They expect 12 players to band together and spend millions of cbills for a dropship but then can't drop with each other? Which makes me wonder if that has to do with mercs having their own bucket and being able to bypass the 4man limit. If that's the case I'm sure you'll see more than a few Faction based websites throw up the skull and crossbones and go merc in a hurry

[Sephlock]

Quote

The Mwo Community In Regards To Balance

[Asmudius Heng]

Sandpit, on 10 March 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I think that's changed a bit and also why some of us get better responses from them on twitter. It's VERY hard for any of the devs to have any kind of meaningful discussion on the forums because as soon as they post something they're bombarded with responses, questions, etc. and at some point the usual "I hate PGI and MWO but I can't leave" crowd swoops down and just begin the attacks.

I agree though that the Dev team takes some things a little too personally (as do a LOT of players here) when someone points out that their decision wasn't as good as they may have thought

It is not so much the fact it is hard to have a meaningful dialogue (though yes some people make it hard). It is when well placed, well thought out questions are asked without any vitriol on very important points and those questions go unanswered over more obvious easily answered questions. The ask the devs posts were full of that - it is very easy to see they cherry pick what to reply to and that gets people frustrated.

Lack of communication over major issues is what is the problem and has been for a long time. That and any communication about the WHY they make decisions that are controversial.

They can ignore the crappy posters easy enough but when i see really well asked respectiful - but difficult - questions for them there is this stoney wall of silence. It makes people feel ignored and discounted when it happens all the time.

This is a hole they have dug themselves for a large portion, people would not be so angry if communication had been better for much longer

[StaIker]

Roland, on 10 March 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

In reality though, being able to take good ideas from the community is a sign of a good designer. There is no shame in saying, "That sounds kind of cool, let's give it a shot."

It's not like folks are gonna say, "Hah! PGI is doing what we said! That must mean they don't know what to do on their own!"

Well, the fact is PGI have proven they don't know what to do on their own, taking advice could hardly make things much worse than they've already managed. I really doubt that their business strategy was to take money from 50,000 founders based on the IP alone and then through a series of deliberate actions, shed all those paying customers and try to find new ones. I mean seriously, that was not their intention. The fact it worked out that way illustrates just how horrendous their stewardship of the title has been in the eyes of the existing fanbase. While PGI has been able to produce a robot game, it is not a robot game that most fans recognise as having anything to do with Mechwarrior, other than the IP which is slapped over the top. It is... unfortunate.