Calling Out Bryan Ekman Over Modules
#1
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:25 PM
That seems like a radical change to me.
#2
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:28 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...e-roles-better/
#3
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:33 PM
PGI probably doesn't consider this to be a radical change, since the modules themselves are the same. Only their implementation is different.
#4
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:35 PM
#5
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:39 PM
#6
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:40 PM
Zolaz, on 29 July 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:
That seems like a radical change to me.
Bryan Ekman, on 12 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:
"No promises yet..." doesn't seem very assuring.
#8
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:52 PM
#9
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:59 PM
Alistair Winter, on 29 July 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:
forum winner of the day
Crotch RockIt, on 29 July 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:
What's the NuPaul joke? I must have missed it.
Makes me think of this "guy."
can't wait for the photoshoppers to get ahold of this one
#10
Posted 29 July 2014 - 02:59 PM
It's also convenient how they implemented them after most people have stopped buying the Clan packages.
Edited by damonwolf, 29 July 2014 - 03:03 PM.
#12
Posted 29 July 2014 - 03:05 PM
with that i dont see too big of a problem with new module layouts 2 mech modules is plenty anything more than that should be an extremely limited situation.
#13
Posted 29 July 2014 - 03:26 PM
damonwolf, on 29 July 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:
They know no such thing; they think everyone will understand how wonderful, well thought out, and frankly amazingly well implemented these new changes are that will only make the game better.
Because nobody at PGI has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Paul and tell him his ideas are bad and he should feel bad.
It's called groupthink and PGI has a major case of it.
#14
Posted 29 July 2014 - 03:58 PM
stjobe, on 29 July 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:
Because nobody at PGI has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Paul and tell him his ideas are bad and he should feel bad.
It's called groupthink and PGI has a major case of it.
dunno about WHO in particular it is but yea, someone needs to go 3 stooges in the office on some of the things I've seen them do
#16
Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:01 PM
damonwolf, on 29 July 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:
Change no matter what almost always upsets the playerbase because in general people don't like change. The only real bad decision here is the always 2 consumables as it has heavily increased Arty strike use. The others are basically making you choose what to bring, rather than always take what you view as best. Now the otherside of that, they do need to change the number of modules on some of the mechs and make the other bad module better.
#17
Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:10 PM
Want a zoom module and a radar mod so lrms are a little better? nope can't have. Want to drop 2 strikes every game? Sure no problem
Im never using to use the shock module or the hill climb. I only got one flippen spot.
Edited by Monkey Lover, 29 July 2014 - 04:12 PM.
#18
Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:23 PM
Noth, on 29 July 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:
Change no matter what almost always upsets the playerbase because in general people don't like change. The only real bad decision here is the always 2 consumables as it has heavily increased Arty strike use. The others are basically making you choose what to bring, rather than always take what you view as best. Now the otherside of that, they do need to change the number of modules on some of the mechs and make the other bad module better.
Most people don't like change, that is true. But, here are good changes that add to the gaming experience, and bad changes that add little, take away, and generally piss people off because there are more negatives that positives.
The module changes are more negative than positive...and were not asked for or even discussed with the community. People are losing a mech module that enhanced their play, and gaining a weapon module that doesn't (they are THAT bad), and 2 consumable modules that most people don't need, cost $$, and will use for strikes..that will totally make matches #$%@ to experience with the potential for 48 strikes. And then here is the wasted GXP and CBills used to buy modules that will no longer bed used, and the added cost to have to buy modules to replace them.
#19
Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:27 PM
#20
Posted 29 July 2014 - 04:32 PM
damonwolf, on 29 July 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:
The module changes are more negative than positive...and were not asked for or even discussed with the community. People are losing a mech module that enhanced their play, and gaining a weapon module that doesn't (they are THAT bad), and 2 consumable modules that most people don't need, cost $$, and will use for strikes..that will totally make matches #$%@ to experience with the potential for 48 strikes. And then here is the wasted GXP and CBills used to buy modules that will no longer bed used, and the added cost to have to buy modules to replace them.
I'm not disagreeing with the consumables issue, I think they need to fix that. I do disagree with what enhances gameplay. I don't find being able to use pretty much all useful modules on a mech as enhancing gameplay. There is no choice, no reason to think. Choice is an important part of making gaming interesting. DId they go about it the wrong way? Possibly. This is also only a first step in the system, not the final product of the change. I just fail to see most the complaints about losing module slot as little more than "they took away my toy, now I have to choose."
You can add in that always in a game that will be in development for its life (any online game pushing content will be), you should expect that things will change in both good and bad way, ways you like or ways you hate. You can also expect the developers to make changes to fit what they want their design to be and not to what the forums cry for. Yes they will change some things that players complain about (see mastery slot now being a mech slot instead of a weapon slot, the quirks for the awesome and CN9s).
They do need to balance the modules more though.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users