104 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Pht, on 16 August 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

We know for a fact that your ability to fire any given weapon in a turn is controlled by your overheat level.

This simply isn't true. ACs are rapid fire weapons. They fire their shells in a nearly continuous stream. That means over 10 seconds they do X damage. As things like AC/5s do 1 heat a mech with 10 HS can not fire an AC/5 1 time a second and do 5 damage to a mech every second. Logic dictates the most a weapon system on a mech can do in 10 seconds is what is listed on the chart or any mech would fire them more often.

If you could get a Medium laser to do the work of 3 medium lasers and deliver 15 damage for 9 heat in a single turn you would not carry multiples of them, instead you would add more heatsinks. So the logical conclusion is that a ML can do a MAXIMUM of 5 damage to a mech over 10 seconds or they WOULD push it and do more.

[Noesis]

Been debated numerous time before.

Been explained that you cannot expect PGI to honour BT rulings to the letter or that indeed this is even needed to make MWO fun.

You want to re-introduce an old debate but then also get selective like PGI about which rule you want to apply.

Possibly 3 - 4 months till CW and you expect PGI to re-write mechanics and re-test and reapply appropriate balance to suit in this time when it isnt needed or possibly wanted in MWO to be able to have a fun game or that the game cannot in fact be balanced to suit these alternative interpreted rules by PGI. And by balance considerations I mean overall gameplay not focussing at specific things on their own and how well they follow TT rulings.

So guess what, as per further realistic interpretations I really don't think its going to happen.

[Pht]

Mercules, on 18 August 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

This simply isn't true. ACs are rapid fire weapons. They fire their shells in a nearly continuous stream. That means over 10 seconds they do X damage.

"Acs are rapid fire weapons"

Plus

"(ACs) fire their shells in a nearly continuous stream"

does NOT equal:

They do their damage over ten seconds in the lore.

Bad math - the two don't add up to what you want them to.

We simply don't know the "on time" of any given weapon in the lore - and we simply don't know the recycle time of any given weapon in the lore.

There's also the factor that none of the actions *after* you fire have any effect on the ability to hit targets - any after effects that get applied at all are applied in the *next* turn.

In fact, in order to "walk" AC fire across targets, you have to engage in a kind of rapid firing mode that can result in your AC becoming uselessly jammed, if not exploded.

Weapons that DO spread fire by firing many rounds rapidly (not in shotgun manner) use the cluster-hits table. Take the HAG class of weapons for example.

Quote

As things like AC/5s do 1 heat a mech with 10 HS can not fire an AC/5 1 time a second and do 5 damage to a mech every second.

Not what I was proposing at all nor required by what I was proposing. I was simply stating that we don't know the actual fictional recycle times for the weapons but that we DO have one mechanic that DOES control if you can fire in any given turn; the heat mechanic.

Yes, you could attempt to spread the damage over 10 seconds and math it that way, as you've proposed, but the armor/damage system was never built for that and the result would be that all weapons would be doing far less damage to any given section of a target than they ever did in the lore (or in past MW games). The game would turn into "who can blowtorch the hardest and most precisely."

Noesis, on 18 August 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Been debated numerous time before.

Beating a dead horse has been used before too, but that didn't stop you from thinking it was valid to use, did it?

Quote

Been explained that you cannot expect PGI to honour BT rulings to the letter or that indeed this is even needed to make MWO fun.

... and yet, nobody's been saying "pgi should honor bt rulings to the letter." Even I have said that some things need to be added or changed for the conversion. which is ignoring the FACT that the part that was left out of a 'mech combat game ... is the MECH'S COMBAT performance - that's exactly what the parts that were left out of the conversion process are in the tt to simulate. Those rules weren't even *considered* in the conversion process beyond the false idea that they represented something they didn't. They were misunderstood (per the BT line developer) and because they were misunderstood they were tossed out.

Quote

You want to re-introduce an old debate but then also get selective like PGI about which rule you want to apply.

I do? This is based upon ... which... of my posts? It's wrong to say that for an MW video game, all rules that simulate human skill should be selected out, which is the standard I applied/apply as to which to keep and which to not keep...?

Quote

Possibly 3 - 4 months till CW and you expect PGI to re-write mechanics and re-test and reapply appropriate balance to suit...

I don't think PGI *could* take a mulligan on this one. I don't think IGP would allow them if they wanted to. As I've already said repeatedly elsewhere, at this point we are in the "an example for later developers" stage. At this point, I'm here for the long-view.

Quote

in this time when it isnt needed or possibly wanted in MWO to be able to have a fun game or that the game cannot in fact be balanced to suit these alternative interpreted rules by PGI. And by balance considerations I mean overall gameplay not focussing at specific things on their own and how well they follow TT rulings.

... all assertions that, if things follow the usual route, you'll never bother to give valid reasons for believing. You don't like the snark, even though you don't have the slightest idea what the snark is, and you're quite content apparently to say anyone who does like the snark is an idiot for doing so, even if they actually know what a snark is and you don't.

Edited by Pht, 18 August 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[wwiiogre]

Yes Noesis,

You are beating a dead horse in that you keep saying nothing to see here, move along. That is in itself nothing but yes man, sycophantic behavior. Since you are not debating the topic, merely saying you and PGI are right and that talking about it is useless.

Once again very intellectually dishonest in a topic specifically talking about very real issues, with very real game consequences. But not only are we discussing the problems, but also adding constructive ideas to fix the problems. And showing how core rules and lore have been not only been used, but in some cases used poorly but also used out of the timeline leading to a chain of unfortunate game play decisions leading to a weaker gaming experience.

Now, All I can say to you is, your input once again is not needed since it had no real reason here but to disrupt and diminish the intellectual debate going on. So please follow the rules for this forum. I do think you could add some real input into this discussion if you actually bothered to read all the comments and then actually addressed the issues being discussed.

I look forward to a real response, discussing the op and counterpoints and opinions around the op. Not a blather on about how PGI has made a perfect balanced game in your opinion and how you are so taken by their game design and balance and that discussing any thing than how PGI made such a great balanced game is beating a dead horse and should not be done.

Any programmer or game designer that is not continually looking to make a better product should be selling used cars. Because they have no place in a business where customer retention should be king. Where making a better product is more important than making a quick buck. Where mediocrity is not the goal, but a mistake to be used to find or attempt to find perfection. But perhaps I have a different outlook on personal responsibility and pride in one's own workmanship.

Chris

[Serpieri]

The sad state of the game is because they haven't followed the core rules.

[Mercules]

Pht, on 18 August 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

We simply don't know the "on time" of any given weapon in the lore - and we simply don't know the recycle time of any given weapon in the lore.

There's also the factor that none of the actions *after* you fire have any effect on the ability to hit targets - any after effects that get applied at all are applied in the *next* turn.

In fact, in order to "walk" AC fire across targets, you have to engage in a kind of rapid firing mode that can result in your AC becoming uselessly jammed, if not exploded.

Except we DO know that all those factors add up to AC/5s not doing more than 5 damage in 10 seconds or people would be using them to do more than 5 damage in 10 seconds. That is exactly what I am talking about. All that abstracted stuff adds up to 5 damage in 10 second and no more.

If you could increase damage by targeting smoother then targeting computers and pilot Gunnery skill would allow you to increase damage, it doesn't.

Pht, on 18 August 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Weapons that DO spread fire by firing many rounds rapidly (not in shotgun manner) use the cluster-hits table. Take the HAG class of weapons for example.

Um.. the shotgun manner weapons use the same cluster-hits table and the lore has ALWAYS stated that PPCs are streams and beams and AC/s fire multiple projectiles that add up to X damage to a mech in one location. So.... yeah they don't spread damage, but they also can't do more than the table says in 10 seconds time either do to Recoil, capacitors, reloading mechanism, and more.

Pht, on 18 August 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Not what I was proposing at all nor required by what I was proposing. I was simply stating that we don't know the actual fictional recycle times for the weapons but that we DO have one mechanic that DOES control if you can fire in any given turn; the heat mechanic.

No it doesn't. As I stated. if I could fire a laser 2 times in 10 seconds and I only didn't because of heat, well with 10 heat sinks nothing is stopping me from firing it twice in that second. So mechs that normally fire 3 and let the heat go away over those 10 seconds could save 2 tons and fire 1 Laser 4 times with 0 heat over the same 10 seconds. Heat is not a governing factor in how often a weapon can be used BY ITSELF.

Pht, on 18 August 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Yes, you could attempt to spread the damage over 10 seconds and math it that way, as you've proposed, but the armor/damage system was never built for that and the result would be that all weapons would be doing far less damage to any given section of a target than they ever did in the lore (or in past MW games). The game would turn into "who can blowtorch the hardest and most precisely."

Actually, that is EXACTLY what the TT armor was designed for. AC/5 does 5 damage to a mech in 10 seconds. Add in a second and statistically they won't hit the same location every time you fire so the damage would "spread" just like having multiple shots like a Clan AC. They could all hit the same location and a skilled person would increase the chances, but it would also simulate the "spread" that random dice hit locations do.

[Noesis]

I'm being intellectually realistic wii.

But do continue with the ad-hominem if it makes you feel better.

Just because you want the game to be a different way and follow TT rules more closely does not mean that we will not end up with a balanced game (overall) and a fun interpretation of BT. So claiming this is not intellectual honest is it?

But by all means continue to call PGI stupid cause they do things different to TT and how you want it. I call it being practical and realistic whilst looking at the bigger picture and is nothing to do with being a fanboi of PGI but recognising that reality sometimes needs you to be pragmatic and make compromises or allow for some differences to make things more fun than homogonised meaningless rulings that defeat the purpose of helping MWO.

In the end if PGI can add sufficient flavourings as BT and make a fun game to play I will be happy and I will spend money. I'm not interested in auditing how close things are to TT rulings and find that kind of "nitpicking" behaviour simply detrimental to the process when these things can be used as "PRECEDENTS".

Edited by Noesis, 18 August 2014 - 11:18 AM.

[Gyrok]

MecatamaMk2, on 12 August 2014 - 05:58 AM, said:

this is ONLINE, NOT BOARD.
MWO bound bt boardgame.

for balance. corerule ignore.

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things are fine with locked internals for clans...seriously...

Y U NO B3TT3R BR0?!

[Mercules]

Noesis, on 18 August 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

In the end if PGI can add sufficient flavourings as BT and make a fun game to play I will be happy and I will spend money. I'm not interested in auditing how close things are to TT rulings and find that kind of "nitpicking" behaviour simply detrimental to the process when these things can be used as "PRECIDENTS".

The problem is that PGI can NOT add sufficient flavourings as BT and make a fun game to play. In part because they cherry pick a few things to stick to like it was stamped on two stone tablets carried down a mountain by Moses and then completely ignore anything that makes those few things they stick to workable.

ECM - Most broken thing in the game. Not even CLOSE to TT rules.

Heat - notice they keep adding things like Ghost Heat, and such as "balancing factors"? Notice that these are seen by the majority of the community as "unfun" or at the very least "necessary evil" to be tolerated? Well, following the TT heat scale would have put the kebosh on the things they are trying to balance with Ghost Heat. But they didn't implement ANY of the heat rules properly from day one according to TT rules and have created an unbalanced and thus less than fun game.


The list goes on and on. What it has lead to is a game that is amusing but is becoming less and less fun as they keep having to throw in new "fixes" to the damage they did ignoring "core rules" from TT.

[wwiiogre]

Once Again Noesis,

You ignore the debate, make generalizations, do not address the topic and think everything is fine. Sorry, that is the definition of fanboi. Accepting mediocrity because you are ok with mediocrity because you like it how it is or you have an dog in this fight.

Since I see you will not be drawn out into real discussion on this topic. Why are you really here? Not to discuss the topic as per forum rules.

I am realistic, its why I like discussion real problems, why they are problems, what are the possible solutions to the problems. How did one problem cause another problem and why bad game design decisions lead to more bad game design decisions.

The topic of this thread was core rules. Many people have come here to not only discuss core rules, but to show how PGI used bad core rules, rules outside of the timeline lore of this game and how those bad decisions have led to more bad decisions.

At the heart of MWO is a really good game hoping to be given life. Currently it is on life support because of all the bad game design decisions leading to nerfs, adjustments, money grabbing module choices. Etc.

Yet all you can do is pop in and say everything is alright, PGI has made great game design choices to make the game fun. Fun for whom? You?

Apparently not for everyone, otherwise you wouldn't have this forum full of topics like this, etc, etc, etc.

Target sharing, game design decision following BT core rules, but not in this timeline. ECM using stealth, core rule once again not in this timeline and directly implemented because of target sharing. Note two core rules, implemented, not fun for anyone except those exploiting the bad game design, outside of this timeline yet currently untouchable because someone at PGI is invested in these bad choices.

TAG in this timeline 3050 does not work for LRM's. But because of target sharing and ecm/stealth pgi had to implement tag, then increase its abilities because ECM is so broken. So instead of admitting a bad decision, they instead continue to add bad game design decisions to cover the original problem. ECM/Stealth is a problem, it is broken because it gives future tech at no cost in tonnage, crit slots or heat. Which in the core rules it has.

Target Sharing, once again C3 is future tech, but PGI gives everyone advanced C3 target sharing, without tonnage, crit slots, etc. So free future tech that is not balanced with other items in the timeline.

See BAD GAME DESIGN and BAD DECISIONS do not equal fun game play. They equal broken game play that continually has to be adjusted, then have other game items added to counter or then nerf.

Now had PGI invested all that time in programming a fix for the first bad decision, instead of two years of attempts to code fixes, and add new items to counter the original broken part. Perhaps we would have a better game.

Instead we have fanbois attempting to blather on and ruin good topics like this one. Where ideas are being shared.

Yet once again, here you are without an idea. Merely more blather about anything but the topic.

Well done, instead of blinding us with your brilliance you are attempting to confuse us with your bs.

Chris

[MischiefSC]

The core rules were tested for decades, refined and re-refined. They work great. Translating for a MPFPS is about translating that data into a dynamic environment.

That doesn't include Ghost Heat, 4x refire for same damage/heat, 2x armor, hoverjet JJs, weapon modules, etc. etc. etc.

Some form of convergence or CoF system would have been ideal but if that was just too complex then just break up heat/damage fire rates from base over 10 second increments. AC/20 for example would be 1 5pt shot every 2.5 seconds - however, remember. Armor/IS would be 1/2 what it is now.

Reduce turn rate and mobility on biggest mechs by a bit, increase it significantly on lights and mediums. Assaults shouldn't be the best mech - that should be split between some mediums and assaults, depending on your build preference. How do you make that work? Mobility and cost to support. Best reflected in MW:O via R&R or even just an earnings boost depending on your mechs weight class to reflect lower cost to maintain.

Anyway. A lot of ways to do it, most of which are not reflected here. Sometimes things in MW:O just feel like someone wanted to make something *way different* - which isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's a terrible thing. Weapon hardpoint size limitations would have been reasonably viable but Ghost Heat et al were NOT the best possible solution. They are cludgy and counter-intuitive and create a purely negative experience in how they work. Nobody likes it. Nobody.

This isn't politics. Getting a compromise nobody likes isn't a win.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pht, on 12 August 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

At one point I was with you... until I learned a few things, directly from the people who ... wrote for the lore and *control* the entire lore.

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

Boiled down: As far as was/is possible, the 'mechs in the lore actually perform like they do in the rules - this has actually *been enforced.* Obviously character fiat and such will break this rule (although oddly, not as much as I first thought).

If you want the feel from the novels and the short stories and fluff text ... converting over the tt stuff (not just the basic game, but the advanced rues too) and adding in a few pieces is what will get that for you.

The rule for continuity review of new material is that:

1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 August 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Noesis]

Like I said before Wii, I consider MWO a WIP, but you seem to want to label me with various statuses in order to make it easier for you to debunk my opinion and also not from a point related to the topic material. Why have you ignored this previous statement I made that I consider MWO a WIP and suggested I consider everything to be fine, when you have seen me declare otherwise? You talk about intellectual honesty, perhaps apply some?

It seems that since my opinion is raised in objection to your premise you choose to ignore this and only stick with your own interpretation of how things are or should be from your perspective. That being TT rules should be correctly implemented. It really is a waste of time discussing things with you as a result as your steadfast opinions ignore the possibility that PGI have the opportunity to make a fun game that does not need to follow TT rules in order for it to be overall balanced. It is your outright denial of this possibility that I object to and the fact that you choose to ignore that there are practical and technical realities in making a computer simulation to achieve this.

The fact that you sit there with naive ideas that TT rules can all be introduced without issue and that everything will run perfectly no problem with no technical or practical obstacles to overcome in terms of balancing the interpretation for a 1st person simulator, with numerous player choice needed, that is an FPS game from rules designed for top down, dice rolling, turn based, multi-unit board game without the need to refine these rules to work in this different context. You claim this and yet don't consider the practical ideas of achieving this and that it would simply happen.

The idea that tabletop has no problems is a flawed premise anyway as we all know the complications with the TT design. Even the designer has remarked about imbalances in the game. E.g. introduction of Clan tech and its application with BV, as one example. So lets use this example, if you made Clan tech the premier platform in terms of Mech use, don't you think that everyone would want to gravitate to this use as it is the most poweful thing to use? This even with balancing sides numerically to have overall similar strengths. And yet this also then reduces the amount of players in teams in each partition which increases overheads with server costs. It would also make Clan tech much more expensive to buy and presumably to introduce the Clan skill factors you would then have to gimp IS capabilities with things like aiming in order to recognise Clan as better aiming since in reality in a twitch based game we all have similar skill sets that arent genetically enhanced. How does that make the defacto IS platform more enjoyable to play if say IS have to suffer screen jitter to reduce their aim?

Anyhow, PGI have chose to modify this premise in trying to balance Clan tech against IS as their strategy for their interpretation for MWO. This then without having to introduce negative fun ideas to completely reflect the TT differences or nuances that really do not translate well to a FPS simulator.

But by all means explore your "ideals" if you wish. But the idea of arguing that MWO cannot be fun or have overall balanced gameplay with PGI's interpretation using TT precidents is not a fair position to take. That is just being a pedant for TT rulings in my book.

[PANZERKAT]

Balancing mechs in regards to clan and IS is something that could have been imported almost intact, but they didn't adopt Battle Value and aren't able to currently implement 10vs12, which only works when doing all IS against all Clans, with no mixing. Not sure what the hell they are going to do.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 19 August 2014 - 02:25 AM.

[Black Ivan]

If PGI would have adhered to TT rules there wouldn't be so many problems.

[PANZERKAT]

Lets not kid ourselves. We'd still have the weapon issues as gauss and ppc were the dominant weapons in that as well. I say add 1/3 armour to everything.

[Mercules]

Noesis, on 18 August 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

This then without having to introduce negative fun ideas to completely reflect the TT differences or nuances that really do not translate well to a FPS simulator.

You mean without having to introduce elements like Ghost Heat or have them apply to firing 2 C ER LLs? Oh wait....

[stjobe]

KOMMISSAR KITTY, on 19 August 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

I say add 1/3 armour to everything.

That would only serve to even further encourage the already epidemic boating, since it would make single weapons that much weaker.

And that IS the root of the issue; by having instant, pin-point convergence, individual weapons CANNOT be balanced, since having two or more of the same weapon effectively creates one massive mega-weapon.

The armour system was never intended to withstand the massive single-location hits we get from our pin-point instant convergence mega-weaponry.

Simply adding more armour just makes it even more important than it already is to boat weapons to be able to kill effectively.

Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2014 - 06:18 AM.

[PANZERKAT]

Hmmm. Bringing engines into it so that the more powerful weapon systems need more powerful engines, reducing the number a mech can take because they need the appropriate engine that weighs more.

Blah.

[wwiiogre]

Noesis wrote:

Anyhow, PGI have chose to modify this premise in trying to balance Clan tech against IS as their strategy for their interpretation for MWO. This then without having to introduce negative fun ideas to completely reflect the TT differences or nuances that really do not translate well to a FPS simulator.

Every single part of core table top rules translates perfectly to an fps. Unfortunately PGI has chosen to translate things that should not have been translated, are not part of this timeline and completely unbalance the game. PGI introducing negative fun ideas. Now that is exactly what PGI have done, ecm/stealth is a negative fun idea. Target sharing ensuring LRMageddon once again a negative fun idea. No convergence, negative fun idea. Pay 2 Win modules, requiring no skill to counteract over heating negative fun idea. Ghost Heat, to counteract boating and bad weapon balance and hardpoint decisions once again negative fun idea. ARTY/AIR spam, once again a pay to win no skill negative fun idea.

Way back in closed beta it was brought to PGI's attention that their current heat scale was not going to work when clan came out and that their weapon balance was way off. PGI ignored that until they changed almost every IS weapon back to core heat values. WHY? Because when they started working on the clan finally, they actually saw that guess what, Core Rules had the heat balance right. Just like most of us had told them in closed beta.

Negative Fun IDEA. Is exactly what PGI does best. Is this game Hawken? Is this game Titanfall? No its Mech Warrior Online a Battle Tech game. I remember reading their original spiel to sell Founders Packs. I remember reading all the original role warfare and community warfare concepts. All of them were workable and made sense. Then PGI abandoned them.

But role warfare goes out the door when you have target sharing C3 in every mech without cost. It immediately makes the game unbalanced. Then you throw in an attempt to counter target sharing by giving ECM stealth capability without cost in heat or tonnage or crit slots. Which makes ECM the most powerful item in MWO. Period.

ECM is so powerful PGI had to change the rules completely and continue to keep trying to make items to balance against it. They have not allowed ecm to be put on any mech. Why? If its balanced and not op every mech should have it. They have fudged to give ecm to the clan.

Noesis, what is your point? Do you have a position other than how I explained it. Nothing to see here, move along. I know what I am talking about game design and you don't.

Prove it.

What games have you worked on in any industry that have your name on it. I have an actual resume in the gaming industry and have my name on rule books and scenario books. I worked with a game designer for years and ran some of the games we made together at Pacificon in the 80's.

So excuse me if I chose to ignore your I know what I am talking about because I say so attitude. Which in my opinion is the epitome of fanboi.

Once again, you choose not to debate facts. But to avoid them. You choose not to debate a topic but to claim you know better and that is why it should be your way.

Sorry, that is the tactic of a politician/lawyer. This is not politics and this is not a courtroom. This is a forum with specific rules that say you have to stay on topic. Instead you choose to specifically target me with your inuendo and insults. And yes I take them as such. Since repeatedly you refuse to debate the topic. Other than holier than thou proclamations. You know before you can make a proclamation and expect people to respect it, you need to earn respect other than to repeatedly post fanboi protestations. Which have you ever read your own forum posting history. It speaks volumes. And it proves my hypothesis that you are indeed a fanboi as highly probable and according to the scientific method easily provable by anyone willing to invest the time to read your posts.

So lets try again Noesis, please explain at length why your proclamation that PGI knows what it is doing with core rules is or is not negative fun. I can show repeatedly how their decisions to use core rules out of timeline continue to break the game. I can show repeatedly how their decisions to use modules as a pay to win easy mode continue to break the game and make it no fun. I can show repeatedly how simple changes using existing code could fix and balance the game and make it more fun at the same time.

Does Game Balance equal fun? To me and most people it does. At this moment in time is MWO balanced? Have PGI's choices made the game unbalanced. Has PGI attempted to fix problems or merely slap temp fixes that continue to add imbalance to the game?

The answers to the above are Balanced games are more fun. MWO is not balanced. PGI's choices have made it unbalanced. Yes PGI continues to attempt to slap temp fixes but not address the real problems.

Yet you think everything is fine. That because MWO is a work in progress its ok. Sorry, MWO according to PGI is a released game now. Not a work in progress, not a beta. Yet in reality it clearly is a beta since not all game content has been released yet. CW, Role Warfare still unreleased. Meaning yeah its a work in progress.

Sorry, but that still is not a viable excuse for what we are discussing in this topic. The topic is core rules. You have yet to address core rules. Other than to say its fine, PGI knows what they are doing. Nobody else knows anything, my opinion is king because I say so.

Sorry this isn't third grade, bullies do not get to say cause I say so, you are not my mom.

Try again Noesis and once again please attempt to stick to the topic. Core Rules, should they be used or not. Has PGI used them, did they use them correctly. Why did they not use them correctly. How can this be fixed. How can we help PGI make better decisions and fix problems by passing on constructive ideas to fix said errors.

My favorite PGI blunder is the latest change to modules. Where Bryan Ekman stated on ngng the day after the module change that PGI was tracking in real time the increase in module sales caused by the latest change. When asked by the audience in chat questions, All questions were ignored. NGNG is now employed by PGI. They are no longer able to ask even the least critical question since it would effect their job and position with PGI. So pretty sad, but telling when Ekman states unequivocally that the module change was designed to increase revenue and that revenue stream was watched in real time and showed you guessed it an increase in sales of arty/air spam.

So negative fun idea. Confirmed. Pay to win confirmed. Game Design choice coded and made to make game balanced, no, to make money confirmed.

In one match yesterday I was hit by 7 arty/air strikes in 8 minutes. I took all my damage from arty/air. I was not visible to the enemy any time I took damage. I was hit by air strikes and arty strikes. Yeah lots of fun and skill required to place an air strike to hit enemies behind a ridge or obstacle. Wait it didn't take skill it took $. The enemy didn't have to expose themself either merely guess where I was behind a linear obstacle. No I didn't stay in the same place. Yes the enemy won in a stomp because they spammed a no skill module, with no tonnage or crit slot cost. To cause damage to the enemy without risking damage to themselves and is the equivalent of a Regimental Artillery Strike at little to no cost. Fun Idea, Negative Fun Idea, Game Design Decision or Money Grab Decision. Balanced?

Chris