1263 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

I would of course be happy with this suggestion, but also would be ok with some recoil with single ACs as well. I'm not stupid, any change that keeps me firing on target easier is of course preferred, I'm just a little more flexible when it comes to ballistic recoil is all.

I just see no need to penalize players who show some fire discipline with chain fire and such. By not having a recoil penalty for that, it encourages players to use those big alphas in last-ditch efforts instead of shooting every single weapon every single time as fast as they possibly can.

I don't "like" the ghost heat mechanic but I'm thankful for it because it helped me learn how to chain fire effectively, cycle my weapons, etc. so that I actually know when, where, how, and why I should shoot off alpha strikes and I rarely overheat even on terra and caustic with 5+LL boats.

Don't take that to mean I think ghost heat is a "good" mechanic though. I think there were tons of other, much less complicated, and more effective ways to scale the heat and use heat as a balancing mechanic.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

I just see no need to penalize players who show some fire discipline with chain fire and such. By not having a recoil penalty for that, it encourages players to use those big alphas in last-ditch efforts instead of shooting every single weapon every single time as fast as they possibly can.

I don't "like" the ghost heat mechanic but I'm thankful for it because it helped me learn how to chain fire effectively, cycle my weapons, etc. so that I actually know when, where, how, and why I should shoot off alpha strikes and I rarely overheat even on terra and caustic with 5+LL boats.

Don't take that to mean I think ghost heat is a "good" mechanic though. I think there were tons of other, much less complicated, and more effective ways to scale the heat and use heat as a balancing mechanic.

There are easier ways to learn firing and targeting discipline though... unfortunately, Paul chose the unnecesarily painful way of doing it.

Again, I'm still just worried that ALL this excellent feedback will be all for naught... that P.G.I. will just go off and do their own thing, and accentuate the horrendous cycles of nerfs, buffs, metas, and over-complication.

There NEEDS to be some sort of response to this feedback thread. Like I said before, I'd even take a vague statement from Niko at this point.

Why won't P.G.I. listen to us?

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 05:34 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

... Why won't P.G.I. listen to us?

They're still in "Step (2)" of my theorized observation of their communication timeline (see spoiler).

Spoiler

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 24 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

In my observation ... part of the problem is that PGI has a different yardstick for measuring "successful communication". Their "let's get some community feedback" process seems to be ...

(1) Float an idea (like a revamped module system) and see what the community thinks
(2) Watch the forum firestorm for a few days, sort out the good ideas, positive and negative feedback, ignore as much extra noise as possible
(3) (new step added this year) if something is particularly contentious or if there's a nugget of brilliant wisdom in the feedback, acknowledge it and return to step (2)
(3.a.) Forum firestorm continues
(4) When it makes the agenda at a scheduled meeting (this might take a few weeks), revise the design document
(4.a.) Forum firestorm starts dying off
(5) Start programming the change (this might take weeks)
(5.a.) New issue replaces previous forum firestorm, excpet for guys who just can't stop bitching about it, or those who keep a list of all the things they've ever bitched about and just won't get over it
(6) QA testing (this will take weeks)
(7) Build into patch
(8) If it's a big change, document it in patch notes or a Command Chair post
(9) Go back to step (2)

Part of the problem is patience. (deleted stuff specific to the other thread) I do wish the process was faster, and that they would communicate with us more, but I would also rather that they spend more time actually doing development work than talking about it (although I sincerely appreciate it when they do talk to us about it).

Also, this was an idea floated to get our feedback on something that they might implement. As far as we know, there are no plans to actually flip the switch.

Edit: Holy crap! they went from Step (1) to Step (9) in about two weeks, including incorporating feedback from the community, and bouncing their ideas off of competitive players ... good job PGI!

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 07 August 2014 - 08:20 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

There are easier ways to learn firing and targeting discipline though... unfortunately, Paul chose the unnecesarily painful way of doing it.

Again, I'm still just worried that ALL this excellent feedback will be all for naught... that P.G.I. will just go off and do their own thing, and accentuate the horrendous cycles of nerfs, buffs, metas, and over-complication.

There NEEDS to be some sort of response to this feedback thread. Like I said before, I'd even take a vague statement from Niko at this point.

Why won't P.G.I. listen to us?

*shrugs* no idea. I hope they do though. 56 pages of nearly universal constructive feedback and all of it negative regarding the changes Paul suggested, is not an easy task for this community. It would be nice if someone took 5 seconds to type "We're listening, thank you for all the feedback"
and be done with it.

[Ultimax]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

*shrugs* no idea. I hope they do though. 56 pages of nearly universal constructive feedback and all of it negative regarding the changes Paul suggested, is not an easy task for this community. It would be nice if someone took 5 seconds to type "We're listening, thank you for all the feedback"
and be done with it.

Paul's listening, he heard what the comp players in the thread said and proceeded to cook up an overly drastic nerf for the cER LLAS as well as the PPC slow down nerf.

[ReXspec]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 07 August 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

They're still in "Step (2)" of my theorized observation of their communication timeline (see spoiler).

Spoiler

Also, this was an idea floated to get our feedback on something that they might implement. As far as we know, there are no plans to actually flip the switch.

That still doesn't justify why they can't (like Sandpit said) take five seconds to say something as simple as, "We're listening. Thank you for all the feedback."

It makes no logical sense.

[Gorgo7]

I can't say I'm a fan of convergence, as postulated above...

The only convergence change that I think could improve the experience would involve locking a target and getting instant convergence (basically as it works now).
Not locking a target and firing should have all weapons fire in a straight line perpendicular to the mech's facing at the actual separation as they exist on the firing mech. This would serve to spread snapshot damage against unlocked targets of opportunity and enforce a doctrine of long range sensors for snipers...ECM however would be more powerful than ever.

The converging crosshairs as postulated in the posts above also pose a number of problems from the perspective of the pilot.
1. Presumably they only work on locked targets, otherwise you'll be converging constantly while in motion at everything you can see to infinity and beyond.
2. A locked target at 50m is vastly different in size than a locked target at 900m. Am I to understand that the 0.3 sec or whatever it happens to be is applicable in both cases? How can that be? How would it be represented in your HUD? Would the crosshairs for your arms rest naturally outside of your vision and then come sweeping in to center torso crosshair? If the pilot has convergence on a left torso at 50 meters but moves his targeter to the right torso while walking does that throw off his hard earned convergence?
3. A target that is crossing your field of vision at speed that you are attempting to hold in your crosshairs will by definition be impossible to converge on while you have any forward motion. The game would devolve into one where stopping to aim would become a tactic of necessity.
4. Maximizing alpha strikes would become far more important than it is now because once you have the opportunity (You at rest) the pilot would not dare to begin moving and lose his convergence. Thus only some FLD builds would come to dominate while the others would wither and die.

Well, anyway, the thinking is outside of the box but it seems to have too many problems.

Besides, my ego demands that we go with my solution in paragraph one!

Edited by Gorgo7, 07 August 2014 - 07:44 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

There are easier ways to learn firing and targeting discipline though... unfortunately, Paul chose the unnecesarily painful way of doing it.

Again, I'm still just worried that ALL this excellent feedback will be all for naught... that P.G.I. will just go off and do their own thing, and accentuate the horrendous cycles of nerfs, buffs, metas, and over-complication.

There NEEDS to be some sort of response to this feedback thread. Like I said before, I'd even take a vague statement from Niko at this point.

Why won't P.G.I. listen to us?

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 07 August 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

They're still in "Step (2)" of my theorized observation of their communication timeline (see spoiler).

Spoiler

Also, this was an idea floated to get our feedback on something that they might implement. As far as we know, there are no plans to actually flip the switch.

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 06:57 PM, said:

*shrugs* no idea. I hope they do though. 56 pages of nearly universal constructive feedback and all of it negative regarding the changes Paul suggested, is not an easy task for this community. It would be nice if someone took 5 seconds to type "We're listening, thank you for all the feedback"
and be done with it.

Ultimatum X, on 07 August 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

Paul's listening, he heard what the comp players in the thread said and proceeded to cook up an overly drastic nerf for the cER LLAS as well as the PPC slow down nerf.

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

That still doesn't justify why they can't (like Sandpit said) take five seconds to say something as simple as, "We're listening. Thank you for all the feedback."

It makes no logical sense.

Gorgo7, on 07 August 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

I can't say I'm a fan of convergence, as postulated above...

The only convergence change that I think could improve the experience would involve locking a target and getting instant convergence (basically as it works now).
Not locking a target and firing should have all weapons fire in a straight line perpendicular to the mech's facing at the actual separation as they exist on the firing mech. This would serve to spread snapshot damage against unlocked targets of opportunity and enforce a doctrine of long range sensors for snipers...ECM however would be more powerful than ever.

The converging crosshairs as postulated in the posts above also pose a number of problems from the perspective of the pilot.
1. Presumably they only work on locked targets, otherwise you'll be converging constantly while in motion at everything you can see to infinity and beyond.
2. A locked target at 50m is vastly different in size than a locked target at 900m. Am I to understand that the 0.3 sec or whatever it happens to be is applicable in both cases? How can that be? How would it be represented in your HUD? Would the crosshairs for your arms rest naturally outside of your vision and then come sweeping in to center torso crosshair? If the pilot has convergence on a left torso at 50 meters but moves his targeter to the right torso while walking does that throw off his hard earned convergence?
3. A target that is crossing your field of vision at speed that you are attempting to hold in your crosshairs will by definition be impossible to converge on while you have any forward motion. The game would devolve into one where stopping to aim would become a tactic of necessity.
4. Maximizing alpha strikes would become far more important than it is now because once you have the opportunity (You at rest) the pilot would not dare to begin moving and lose his convergence. Thus only some FLD builds would come to dominate while the others would wither and die.

Well, anyway, the thinking is outside of the box but it seems to have too many problems.

Besides, my ego demands that we go with my solution in paragraph one!

http://mwomercs.com/...patch-feedback/

[ReXspec]

IraqiWalker, on 07 August 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...patch-feedback/

That is a sick joke.

[IraqiWalker]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

That is a sick joke.

No one is laughing. Except for the few in the corner have lost all sanity after reading that.

[Jungle Rhino]

Reno Blade, on 07 August 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Well, I think that the usual convergence, reticule-bloom and recoil ideas are all lacking so

mething.
They do not change the behaviour of groupfire (in a logical way).
While they could all bloom or lose convergence on alpha striking, how do you expect the shots to shoot?
Random ? Isn't RNG what everyone hates?
Bloom works good for machineguns in typical FPS game, but not for alpha shots in MWO.

So I thought it would be easy to understand and always the same, no RNG, to have fixed crosshairs.

I would have no problem with RNG working just like a sniper rifle in battlefield I.e. It doesn't shoot straight if you are running around at speed. Slow down or stop and your accuracy then improves and the RNG goes away.

[Antagonist]

...you had good ideas in here. What happened to them?

Did they risk inducing too little rage and losing too few players?

[Sandpit]

why is this thread even here? It was pointless in the first place
#ignored56pages

[GunnyKintaro 01]

but after spending almost $3000 in this game and the non stop nerf's its just become to much.... some of the Atlashunters will be leaving... some will stay but it just takes the heart out of the game for a lot of us to spend money and then have what we bought changed ...

Edited by AH Osprey 02, 08 August 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[Cimarb]

AH Osprey 02, on 08 August 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

but after spending almost $3000 in this game and the non stop nerf's its just become to much.... some of the Atlashunters will be leaving... some will stay but it just takes the heart out of the game for a lot of us to spend money and then have what we bought changed ...

It is not like the changes are earth-shattering. They are dumb, I agree, but you are being pretty over dramatic if you leave the game because they change a laser from 1.5 to 2.0 duration...

[Mister Blastman]

So we can has no charge Gauss back now?

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

So far for me, and exclusive ERLL and ERPPC player, the changes are fine. I am learning to lead targets. I am learning to chainfire more. I am STILL killing more than my share and STILL smiling every game today

[IraqiWalker]

AH Osprey 02, on 08 August 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

but after spending almost $3000 in this game and the non stop nerf's its just become to much.... some of the Atlashunters will be leaving... some will stay but it just takes the heart out of the game for a lot of us to spend money and then have what we bought changed ...

Start using LPLs, I'm serious. they're now the most efficient large laser the clans have.

[pwnface]

I think for most upset players that are leaving, it isn't just about individual weapons being nerfed/tweaked. It is about PGI just not giving a **** about what the community has to say about gameplay balance and doing the exact opposite of what we wanted. This trend isn't going to change and many players won't continue to support the ******* who are doing this to the game.

[IraqiWalker]

pwnface, on 08 August 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I think for most upset players that are leaving, it isn't just about individual weapons being nerfed/tweaked. It is about PGI just not giving a **** about what the community has to say about gameplay balance and doing the exact opposite of what we wanted. This trend isn't going to change and many players won't continue to support the ******* who are doing this to the game.

I'm pretty much not going to spend more money on this game. I will keep on playing it because it's fun, and I enjoy my friends here. Even those I see only on the forums. However, I'm cutting them off while I see the direction they take.


You know, I honestly think this "fix" would have been far better received if they actually told us the logic behind it.