367 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

and explain to me how ANY of that has mitigated the effect of FLD and PPD on this game which is the single biggest complaint form the entire community for nearly 3 years now

not to mention?
Absolutely NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with them ignoring all that feedback regarding THIS.

Well all balance is interlinked as a buff elsewhere is a relative change but keeping things simple ...

Range nerfs, speed nerfs, ghost heat, desyncs, burst fire, jj shake, weapon value changes ....a WIP.

This mainly due to the fact that most ideas surrounding convergance or random spread dont fully address all the issues associated with FLD/PPD issues or contain unwanted elements that are undesirable to a twitch FPS game. Hence why the magic solution hasn't been found and the reason why PGI seem to have taken alternative directions with development.

As more tech, environments etc are introduced the sample changes and the effective balance changes are an ongoing element that needs to be considered as a result. PGI have slowly but surely approach a good point with balancing things as these systems are observed and worked upon with these introductions. But also the reason why with ongoing additional tech variance and possibilities certain conditions or combinations have had to be refined as there are the edge cases that cause issues as opposed to the general gaming systems.

It doesnt suprise me then that the Clan tech will similarly be needed to be fine tuned based on the observed use and choices of the playerbase, which in itself should be encouraging that there isnt just a fixed formula and ignoring what actually happens with the dynamics of the playerbase with the application of new tech.

Edited by Noesis, 08 August 2014 - 09:05 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 August 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

Well all balance is interlinked as a buff elsewhere is a relative change but keeping things simple ...

Range nerfs, speed nerfs, ghost heat, desyncs, burst fire, jj shake, weapon value changes ....a WIP.

This mainly due to the fact that most ideas surrounding convergance or random spread dont fully address all the issues associated with FLD/PPD issues or contain unwanted elements that are undesirable to a twitch FPS game. Hence why the magic solution hasn't been found and the reason why PGI seem to have taken alternative directions with development.

As more tech, environments etc are introduced the sample changes and the effective balance changes are an ongoing element that needs to be considered as a result. PGI have slowly but surely approach a good point with balancing things as these systems are observed and worked upon with these introductions. But also the reason why with ongoing additional tech variance and possibilities certain conditions or combinations have had to be refined as there are the edge cases that cause issues as opposed to the general gaming systems.

It doesnt suprise me then that the Clan tech will similarly be needed to be fine tuned based on the observed use and choices of the playerbase, which in itself should be encouraging that there isnt just a fixed formula and ignoring what actually happens with the dynamics of the playerbase with the application of new tech.

ok

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:

which the suggestions given fixed along with PPD and FLD instead of nerfing a weapon based on its effectiveness while boated and.or combined with other weapons. A single weapon nerf severely hampers that weapon's ability to function well when it ISN'T boated.

You can ignore the points all you want but the fact of the matter is Paul's idea was poor, other ideas were better
Pauls idea doesn't fix the FLD and PPD issues that have plagued this game since day 1
The other ideas did
Paul's idea doesn't stop the PPC from being just as effective when synergized with other weapons like the AC10 and 20
Other ideas did

The only thing Paul's "fix" fixed was shifting the meta around slightly just as it has always done since day one. You can defend it all you want but those are factual statements regarding his "fix" and the other ideas that actually fixed the issues.

I don't get it. it's universally agreed that FLD and PPD is creating hellatious issues with weapon balance. THen you cheer and/or support Paul's ideas that do NOTHING to solve that issue while trying to dismiss community ideas that DO fix that issue
smh

that pretty much sums it up

[Smargl]

Why can't you just make restrictions on weapon quantity? For example if you using PPC's you cant mount more then 2 of it, same goes with gauss, if LLas no more then four, and something like that? Why you don't want to actually work. Yesterday hotfix was real shot in the head.

I think i'll just make a pause playing MWO.

[Sandpit]

argue against it all you want, doesn't change the fact that after nearly 3 years of this same exact cycle, the same exact problems are STILL problems. You can support PGI's decisions all you want and dismiss community ideas all you want. The facts are listed above

FACT:
Paul's nerf cycle has done NOTHING to solve the FLD and PPD issues

FACT:
Paul's ideas (this time) were universally hated

FACT:
Many community members gave viable alternatives

FACT:
Those ideas would have solved the FLD and PPD issues which are really at the core of weapon balance issues

FACT:
All of that was ignored for yet another nerf that did NOTHING to address FLD and PPD

Smargl, on 08 August 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

Why can't you just make restrictions on weapon quantity? For example if you using PPC's you cant mount more then 2 of it, same goes with gauss, if LLas no more then four, and something like that? Why you don't want to actually work. Yesterday hotfix was real shot in the head.

I think i'll just make a pause playing MWO.

so stock mechs like the Awesome are supposed to do what....?

[Smargl]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

so stock mechs like the Awesome are supposed to do what....?

Mech quirks?

[Noesis]

Nah I'm just more forgiving of the idea that PGI are trying to find the fight solutions as per their vision of MWO.

Like I said it is a WIP and I consider that there is still quite a bit of work on balance that needs to be done. But to think there are magical solutions to these issues is unrealistic imho. Without seeing specifics its hard to debate "magic". But sometimes people believe they have a solution but dont actually cover all the issues or end up not actually correcting the issue mentioned.

E.g. convergance doesn't completley remove FLD/PPD it just delays it. Nor does it effect so much the shorter game. So would you want to re-introduce 6 PPC stalkers without ghost heat but then having to wait a second or so longer to then vapourise a target? See, it isnt as simple as you think and a lot of the interplay with the gaming mechanisms then not solved by that one initiative or idea. And half the time these compartmentalised ideas only look at a small aspect of the game rather than considering a more hollistic version of game play.

That's before you actually start looking at the actual technical solutions and how feasible it is for a MMO that needs responsive netcode. Some ideas can induce simply too much processing that it is a complicated solution to implement that has a knock on effect to gaming performance that is obviously not helpful.

Edited by Noesis, 08 August 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[Sandpit]

Smargl, on 08 August 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Mech quirks?

so you're going to limit what would be considered stock loadouts and then use quirks to "fix" it instead of just working on solving the FLD and PPD issue that have been prevalent since day 1 that PGI has refused to acknowledge even in teh face of hard numbers, math, statistics, alternatives, etc. given over the years...?

That's just it. We keep getting these complicated and unneeded mechanics that could solved by simply adjusting convergence. That's it. Problem solved.

[Daehoth]

Noesis, on 08 August 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

Nah I'm just more forgiving of the idea that PGI are trying to find the fight solutions as per their vision of MWO.

Like I said it is a WIP and I consider that there is still quite a bit of work on balance that needs to be done.

1. Would be nice if they had an actual concrete vision.
2. They've been in WIP mode on the same few issues for 2-3 years already. Is it not painfully obvious that they're not up to the task by now?

Edited by Daehoth, 08 August 2014 - 09:36 PM.

[Noesis]

Daehoth, on 08 August 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

1. Would be nice if they had an actual concrete vision.
2. They've been in WIP mode on the same few issues after 2-3 years. When is it finally obvious that they're not up to the task?

I hope that the development target for some understood weapon balance is before the introduction of CW real. As an understood baseline it is then important to understand the relative value of tech. Which will impact strategical thinking in CW.

But development for MWO, hopefully an evolving thing for many years if not decades to come would be my hope. This with the possibility of other generations of tech over the life span of the product.

Edited by Noesis, 08 August 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

argue against it all you want, doesn't change the fact that after nearly 3 years of this same exact cycle, the same exact problems are STILL problems. You can support PGI's decisions all you want and dismiss community ideas all you want. The facts are listed above

FACT:
Paul's nerf cycle has done NOTHING to solve the FLD and PPD issues

FACT:
Paul's ideas (this time) were universally hated

FACT:
Many community members gave viable alternatives

FACT:
Those ideas would have solved the FLD and PPD issues which are really at the core of weapon balance issues

FACT:
All of that was ignored for yet another nerf that did NOTHING to address FLD and PPD


so stock mechs like the Awesome are supposed to do what....?

So please fill me in on the meetings where this was discussed and you know 100% what was Pauls idea and what wasn't and how the different staff at PGI feel about it and who actually directly and personally did what. I'd love to hear all about it.

This was PGIs decision. They don't get let off the hook because the same guy usually announces balance changes. This isn't about one persons opinion or feelings on anything. Stop trying to make it that.

This is PGIs approach to balancing MW:O and PPFLD, or more to the point the avoidance of balancing it.

[Daehoth]

Just a tip to those who feel just as frustrated as I have been since these silly and unnecessary changes were implemented by PGI.

I find that I have cut down on MWO play time significantly and have used this to cope in its place: http://www.agame.com/game/super-mechs

It's surprisingly helpful and fun ..... lol

To PGI, this is just genuine feedback on how these game changes have affected me as a player of this ONCE great game called mechwarrior online.

Edited by Daehoth, 08 August 2014 - 09:30 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 08 August 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

E.g. convergance doesn't completley remove FLD/PPD it just delays it. Nor does it effect so much the shorter game. So would you want to re-introduce 6 PPC stalkers without ghost heat but then having to wait a second or so longer to then vapourise a target? See, it isnt as simple as you think and a lot of the interplay with the gaming mechanisms then not solved by that one initiative or idea. And half the time these compartmentalised ideas only look at a small aspect of the game rather than considering a more hollistic version of game play..

exactly
it shouldn't be removed from the game. SO yes, you're absolutely correct. I never said it removed PPD and FLD. I said it solved the issue. Big difference. You don't have to remove something just to fix a broken system. The delayed convergence means you're exposing yourself for a m uch longer time to return fire if you're deadset on making every weapon land in the exact same spot.

Keep on though dude. You can say what you want but the bottom line is that in nearly 3 years PGI can't solve or fix that problem with their "vision". I don't understand why ANYone would keep supporting a system that isn't working instead of supporting some ideas and suggestions that WOULD fix it.

This is where you and I differ I think

I'm being completely impartial about this.

I don't use meta builds, dakka builds, PPCs, clans, etc. on a regular basis (no clans at all actually), but I can recognize the problems with those systems. I'm impartial enough to see that PGI has failed at solving those issues. I'm also impartial enough to realize that some of the other ideas the community has come up with WOULD solve those problems.

It seems players like you tend to have that blind faith and loyalty to PGI. The problem with that? PGI is comprised of people. People make mistakes and you, and players like you along with PGI, don't want to acknowledge that this game, balance, mechs, etc. are not perfect.If you did acknowledge that, you would be willing to acknowledge that they made a mistake with a few of their fundamental designs that has led to the problem. Instead you want to shoot down and dismiss community ideas that would fix it in favor of "I trust PGI". You've been shown with factual points how PGI's methods aren't working. You've been shown with factual points how other ideas would work. You, and PGI for that matter, just refuse to accept it.

That's fine and dandy. Get used to the popularity and success of MWO at this exact moment because until PGI accepts that they've made some mistakes and need to fix them, this is as far as MWO is going. Clans sold less than Founders money-wise and clans were more popular AND had a larger player base to buy them.

Feel free to keep sticking your head in the sand with PGI though. We'll be having this same discussion with the same people (because this isn't every going past its current size in its current form) a year from now. That's not progress, that's stagnation.

MischiefSC, on 08 August 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

So please fill me in on the meetings where this was discussed and you know 100% what was Pauls idea and what wasn't and how the different staff at PGI feel about it and who actually directly and personally did what. I'd love to hear all about it.

This was PGIs decision. They don't get let off the hook because the same guy usually announces balance changes. This isn't about one persons opinion or feelings on anything. Stop trying to make it that.

This is PGIs approach to balancing MW:O and PPFLD, or more to the point the avoidance of balancing it.

omg FINE
just replace Paul's name with PGI. lol

Daehoth, on 08 August 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

http://www.agame.com/game/super-mechs

that's actually a fun little flash game. Sadly it has about the same depth and storyline as MWO has had for 3 years...

Edited by Sandpit, 08 August 2014 - 09:37 PM.

[Daehoth]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

exactly


that's actually a fun little flash game. Sadly it has about the same depth and storyline as MWO has had for 3 years...

Hehe...yea, so my point is...might as well play that since they're both practically about at the same depth.
difference is, you can excuse SuperMechs for its flaws because it's a simple flash game... what's MWO's excuse? lol

Edited by Daehoth, 08 August 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Sandpit]

Daehoth, on 08 August 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Hehe...yea, so my point is...might as well play that since they're both practically about at the same depth.
difference is, you can excuse SuperMechs for its flaws because it's a simple flash game... what's MWO's excuse? lol

angry birds has a deeper story than MWO. It's not hard to do.

[Daehoth]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

angry birds has a deeper story than MWO. It's not hard to do.

lol.... too true bro, too true

[wobbles3285]

Beyond hilarious to watch all these folks playing mechs that obscenely outgun IS mechs in every respect whine like little girls over one of their many very powerful weapons being nerfed....

[MischiefSC]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

omg FINE
just replace Paul's name with PGI. Happy now? At least some of the players have picked up on PGI's ability to ignore valid points and nitpick something like the specific name of a person responsible for the decision....

Yes, actually. You don't know who's responsible for what decision. For all you know Paul hates this stuff and it's all Russ' idea, but Russ knows people will flip so he makes Paul post it. I've effectively had that job before in fact.

You make stuff personal and that personal crap overshadows the issues and makes it harder for people who make bad decisions to step back from them.

You want to force someone out of a room, Sandpit, you make sure you give them a clear and easy exit. Otherwise they'll just fight it out. You don't like an idea you don't pin the person involved in it into trying to defend it - you give him an opportunity to look like the hero by killing it.

Sooner or later PPFLD will need addressed. either by nerfing all PPFLD weapons into the ground so they're just not viable and only DOT weapons are or by actually addressing PPFLD.

Currently we've finally managed to get PPCs balanced. Rolling back all the buffs they got to make them viable in spite of borked hit detection. YAY! A year late but it got to the party.

That's progress. Celebrate it. CERLLs got whacked on the left side of the head instead of the right side, which they needed, but it needed slapped regardless.

Also, it's not that feedback is ignored. You remember, to some greater or lesser degree, everything you've heard. You may not like it or value it or accept it but it's there, a seed planted and waiting for the right time to grow. How viable that idea is can be directly influenced by your opinion of who had the idea. If Mudhutwarrior had a brilliant idea it would likely be hard to take it seriously but I might end up there eventually.

See where that's going? PPFLD doesn't work in MW:O, not with instant conversion. It never has and it never will. We've done a full ride on the merry-go-round on PPCs. We'll likely take ACs for a loop again sooner or later. PPFLD will, however, in some form or fashion, get addressed. If only because profits decline.

You need to open that door and make a clean and easy exit though or you're going to be slap-fighting with a cornered rat - which is just awkward for everyone.

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

It seems players like you tend to have that blind faith and loyalty to PGI.

I said I considered MWO a WIP. And as far as balance goes the objective of reaching an acceptable point yes I do have faith that PGI can achieve this. Prior to the introduction of clan tech, the community was quite vocal about how close the balancing of things were coming to fruition, hence why I retain this faith. I dont expect it to happen overnight, and like I said I can be sympathetic to the gaming development now since we dont yet have the purposeful environment of CW where the relevancy of the value of tech is more apparent and a part of the objectives of the game. That's my deadline and I also am not obsessed with attaining perfection here either which would also be an unrealistic goal.

I'm happy in that, I can be content with that, I can and will endeveour to enjoy playing and supporting MWO despite being aware of things that might need tweaking here and there, I will adapt and have fun. I play many styles and own lots of tech so I guess it is easier for me to personally adjust however, but that shouldnt mean that balance can induce nerfs or buffs to any of the tech. I'm in it for the long haul and personally value the franchise. And all the negativity in the world wont find solutions any the faster, it will only end up hampering things.

I'm sorry if you don't like my pragmatism here, but I'm also a player of this game that recognises it is a WIP also, like I said. I just prefer to work with PGI. And I certainly don't invent fallacies about the state of things cause I'm a dissaffected player.

Edited by Noesis, 08 August 2014 - 09:50 PM.

[Ky Vina]

Sandpit, on 08 August 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

argue against it all you want, doesn't change the fact that after nearly 3 years of this same exact cycle, the same exact problems are STILL problems. You can support PGI's decisions all you want and dismiss community ideas all you want. The facts are listed above

FACT:
Paul's nerf cycle has done NOTHING to solve the FLD and PPD issues

FACT:
Paul's ideas (this time) were universally hated

FACT:
Many community members gave viable alternatives

FACT:
Those ideas would have solved the FLD and PPD issues which are really at the core of weapon balance issues

FACT:
All of that was ignored for yet another nerf that did NOTHING to address FLD and PPD


so stock mechs like the Awesome are supposed to do what....?

Paul only listen to the ngng pals..

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 08 August 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

Yes, actually. You don't know who's responsible for what decision. For all you know Paul hates this stuff and it's all Russ' idea, but Russ knows people will flip so he makes Paul post it. I've effectively had that job before in fact.

You make stuff personal and that personal crap overshadows the issues and makes it harder for people who make bad decisions to step back from them.

You want to force someone out of a room, Sandpit, you make sure you give them a clear and easy exit. Otherwise they'll just fight it out. You don't like an idea you don't pin the person involved in it into trying to defend it - you give him an opportunity to look like the hero by killing it.

Sooner or later PPFLD will need addressed. either by nerfing all PPFLD weapons into the ground so they're just not viable and only DOT weapons are or by actually addressing PPFLD.

Currently we've finally managed to get PPCs balanced. Rolling back all the buffs they got to make them viable in spite of borked hit detection. YAY! A year late but it got to the party.

That's progress. Celebrate it. CERLLs got whacked on the left side of the head instead of the right side, which they needed, but it needed slapped regardless.

Also, it's not that feedback is ignored. You remember, to some greater or lesser degree, everything you've heard. You may not like it or value it or accept it but it's there, a seed planted and waiting for the right time to grow. How viable that idea is can be directly influenced by your opinion of who had the idea. If Mudhutwarrior had a brilliant idea it would likely be hard to take it seriously but I might end up there eventually.

See where that's going? PPFLD doesn't work in MW:O, not with instant conversion. It never has and it never will. We've done a full ride on the merry-go-round on PPCs. We'll likely take ACs for a loop again sooner or later. PPFLD will, however, in some form or fashion, get addressed. If only because profits decline.



You need to open that door and make a clean and easy exit though or you're going to be slap-fighting with a cornered rat - which is just awkward for everyone.

The only reason Paul was mentioned specifically by name in that post (if you'll notice I almost always say "PGI" instead) is because it was HIS thread, HIS ideas, HIS feedback HE wanted.

PPCs are not balanced. BOATED and PPCS combined with Gauss is now balanced
Single PPC
PPC+AC10
PPC+AC20
are NOT balanced. That's what happens when you try to balance an issue that involves boating and multiple loadouts by nerfing a single weapon in the equation.

PPD and FLD are a major issue. Too bad PGI has ignored any and all suggestions on how to fix that for 3 years

Noesis, on 08 August 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

I said I considered MWO a WIP. And as far as balance goes the objective of reaching an acceptable point yes I do have faith that PGI can achieve this. Prior to the introduction of clan tech, the community was quite vocal about how close the balancing of things were coming to fruition, hence why I retain this faith. I dont expect it to happen overnight, and like I said I can be sympathetic to the gaming development now since we dont yet have the purposeful environment of CW where the relevancy of the value of tech is more apparent and a part of the objectives of the game. That's my deadline and I also am not obsessed with attaining perfection here either which would also be an unrealistic goal.

I'm happy in that, I can be content with that, I can and will endeveour to enjoy playing and supporting MWO despite being aware of things that might need tweaking here and there, I will adapt and have fun. I play many styles and own lots of tech so I guess it is easier for me to personally adjust however, but that shouldnt mean that balance can induce nerfs or buffs to any of the tech. I'm in it for the long haul and personally value the franchise. And all the negativity in the world wont find solutions any the faster, it will only end up hampering things.

I'm sorry if you don't like my pragmatism here, but I'm also a player of this game that recognises it is a WIP also, like I said. I just prefer to work with PGI. And I certainly don't invent fallacies about the state of things cause I'm a dissaffected player.

Do you feel MWO is perfect?