Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 02 July 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:
Where-ever canonical values work, we intend to keep them in place, but we will have to continue to reserve our right to deviate and adapt from the numbers of BT where-ever it would further benefit the balance and experience for players here. We hope you understand.
There are so many games, so many shooters, which also have robot optics. The only clear reason to prefer MWO over them is "Battletech", that should be inside - you name it a "simulation" yourself, named it a "thinking mans shooter". And this lives to a big part on tactical/strategical things, on being much more complex than an arcade shooter, and on the connection to the BT universe. The more you deviate, the more you lose the people that have the biggest potential of being long-term customers (or in commercial terms, the "cash-cows") like me. I do not know if some time the fact will make you think, that I STILL have the money in my pocket that I planned to spend on MWO over one year ago, when I expected it to get closer to the targets initially described soon and waited for it. But, it makes me think, if I really should invest even more time in waiting and hoping (I was really optimistic, when you were introducing the weapon/targeting jitter during JJ use proposed in the forums). Are you really reading those feedback threads?
Truly, the way you turned away with a shrug from really spending thoughts in trying to make the Targeting Computer and especially the Command Console something like in the battletech description (I'm explicitly naming description, not some numerical values from TT) and just claim that it is better how you changed it, doesn't make my immersion bigger and bring you closer to my wallet, as have some other things before. Just to be honest and direct, it's not meant as an insult: Sure, it's YOUR game, YOUR rules. But it's still MY experience and not yours, and MY money and not yours.