I think that is kind of how we got the 6PPC stalker. (Smaller community, with much smaller vocal minority clamoring for reduced heat PPCs...which have mutated into Ghost Heat.)
I think we got the 6PPC stalker because PGI ignored lots of well thought out posts in 2012/13 about how the hardpoint system was far too ripe for boating.
There's no reason for those arm mounted 3F PPC's to even exist. Have you seen the Stalker's "arms"?
How did they strip out a MLAS and put in a PPC? Its stupid. Its stupid for the game, its stupid for the lore, it makes all mech's that much less unique and useful. It makes picking the "best" mech too easy.
Why can a Raven mount a AC20? Because this hardpoint system is stupid. The Hollander or other mechs built around mounting unusual weapon systems will never have a place in MWO because of the hardpoint system.
Because of that hardpoint failure, which gave us PPC stalkers, we got the following:
-big nerfs to climb (this was to combat ridge-humping, which it failed to do)
-which resulted in getting stuck on pebbles for every mech
-ghost heat (to prevent boating)
-round after round of weapon nerfs to whatever the best FLD weapon combination was (because ghost heat didn't fix anything but 4+ PPC, 4+ LLAS and AC40 eventually, oh and it nerfed SRM boating and therefore brawling pretty hard for awhile)
All of that traces back to one simple failure very early on that people did point out because there have been lots of other battletech video games. It wasn't rocket science to see what this hardpoint system would result in.
There's a counter argument. Players love min/maxing their mechs, they like messing in the mechlab. PGI may be correct that the player enjoyment derived from being able to boat practically every mech was worth all of that.
Its their jobs to get that call right. But I know that people who get to where the game is played for keeps or end up facing people playing that way in CW (if it exists) will be crying about Dakka-DWF's or dual-gauss builds really really hard really really fast.
Having players like that is done all the time by all sorts of game devs.
They usually do it quietly through pm's to players they trust to give good useful feedback on what the community will think of some change.
Its not done like this. Except in Eve, which is its own kind of crazy animal and CCP really only felt the need to do it after they had a series of events that created the environment in their community that CCP was listening to some players and playing favorites and ignoring the will of the majority.
PGI could have tagged Koniving or DocBach months ago through pm and just said:
"hey we're planning on balancing clan mechs 1:1 with IS mechs, primarily through making clan tech much less heat efficient what do you think the community will think of that?"
or
"here's a list of changes to the clan weapons, any of this seem like way too much or not at all enough?"
That would be a million times more effective than this farce.
While I don't inherently disagree in terms of effectiveness/efficiency, people like to be heard and at least involved in the process. Not only that, but one person just can't think of everything by his or herself; there will always be something, or some aspect, that gets overlooked that way. It can be a real tricky balance between too few opinions and too many opinions, and it's absolutely a lot of work to sift through them and try to do a good job (which traditionally would be a community manager's job or some other similar position - but I digress).
But, considering the alternative that Paul's basically brought on with his own stubbornness and unwillingness to listen, there doesn't seem to be many other means of recourse, no?
I think we got the 6PPC stalker because PGI ignored lots of well thought out posts in 2012/13 about how the hardpoint system was far too ripe for boating.
There's no reason for those arm mounted 3F PPC's to even exist. Have you seen the Stalker's "arms"?
How did they strip out a MLAS and put in a PPC? Its stupid. Its stupid for the game, its stupid for the lore, it makes all mech's that much less unique and useful.
Because of that hardpoint failure we got the following:
-big nerfs to climb (this was to combat ridge-humping, which it failed to do)
-which resulted in getting stuck on pebbles for every mech
-ghost heat (to prevent boating)
-round after round of weapon nerfs to whatever the best FLD weapon combination was (because ghost heat didn't fix anything but 4+ PPC, 4+ LLAS and AC40 eventually, oh and it nerfed SRM boating and therefore brawling pretty hard for awhile)
All of that traces back to one simple failure very early on that people did point out because there have been lots of other battletech video games. It wasn't rocket science to see what this hardpoint system would result in.
I think you are forgetting something:
You could boat 6 PPCs on the stalker as soon as it came out. That did not start it.
What started it was dropping PPC heat to 8.. (at the clamoring request of a very vocal set of people.)
If you think that raising PPC heat back up would have put that genie back in its bottle you are insane.
The game was still being figured out, that happens in video games. Players can't instantly know what is the most powerful thing. Was lowering the heat foolish in hindsight? Yes it was. Did it make players look into using PPC's more? Yes it did.
But given time players would have realized that 4xPPC stalkers were insanely good, let alone 6, the heat never changing would have just delayed the advent of that discovery.
You will see this constantly in Mobas, a buff is given out to a hero, people play the hero more. Suddenly everyone realizes that hero is ridiculously strong, way stronger than the playerbase realized it was even without that buff.
Here's a more concrete MWO example. After they nerfed PPC Stalkers what did players do? They just switched to Laser Stalkers. Because they know felt sure that STK was an ideal chassis for boating energy thanks to its hardpoint/hitbox/torso twist range setup. Nerfing one stalker build didn't change the fact that people now knew how strong stalkers were if they just ridge humped with those high hardpoints.
Konivig Would be my pick. Adiuvo for comp team. Both are eloquent and craft well thought out arguments. I think both actually care about the future of the game.
If you think that raising PPC heat back up would have put that genie back in its bottle you are insane.
By itself, it would have. (48 Heat spike was manageable- 60, not-so-much)
Hoax415, on 13 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:
The game was still being figured out, that happens in video games. Players can't instantly know what is the most powerful thing. Was lowering the heat foolish in hindsight? Yes it was. Did it make players look into using PPC's more? Yes it did.
But given time players would have realized that 4xPPC stalkers were insanely good, let alone 6, the heat never changing would have just delayed the advent of that discovery.
You will see this constantly in Mobas, a buff is given out to a hero, people play the hero more. Suddenly everyone realizes that hero is ridiculously strong, way stronger than the playerbase realized it was even without that buff.
Here's a more concrete MWO example. After they nerfed PPC Stalkers what did players do? They just switched to Laser Stalkers. Because they know felt sure that STK was an ideal chassis for boating energy thanks to its hardpoint/hitbox/torso twist range setup.
4 PPC stalkers at 10 heat would have had a rough time trying to justify it. 40 Damage is a lot, but for 40 heat? Not when you could take 2 PPCs and Gauss and do 35 dmg for 21 heat. (Which, I think, would have happened- ghost heat or not when the heat went back up, or at least 3xPPC and Gauss, which still happened even with Ghost Heat.)
Are nominations still accepted? I admit i have not read trough 27 pages of comments..
If so, i nominate:
-Homeless Bill
-Konivig (useless, he already got 40 votes!)
-Joseph Mallan
-Cimarb
-Coffinail
The last three have few or no votes, but i feel we need the presence of at least a BT veteran in the player council, quiaff?
Besides, i am interested in this initiative as i am writing right now a very long post about suggestions for CW and Invasion mode that i would like to submit to this council.
Heh.
-----------
It's like I also disagree with about half the things Bishop says, but I still see the value of what he could bring. I have always seen value...and convolusion in Homeless Bill's biggest idea (the most popular one of the targeting overload as an anti-pinpoint) which I could get very similar results (not for the same reasons but nevertheless similar results) with in a far more simplified version by just converting all mechs to a locked 30 threshold for heat. Even so it'd be possible to go out and get a drink together -- though I strongly suspect I'd be buying.
Even Khobai or Ultimatum X [I know I'm probably butchering this name] I can respect, both of whom had opinions with which I have had incredible disputes over to the point where I've rewritten what would have originally come out as almost benignly hostile responses before returning, trying to see it from his or her point of view and trying again -- repeatedly -- to try and find a middle ground. But just because I can be friendly doesn't mean we'd go conspiring to conquer the world. Though we might eventually settle on an agreement.
The point in general is you can disagree and give counter points whether you like the person or not. I mean even Russ has demonstrated this ability in overturning some of Paul's balancing decisions. The old and new results are things I strongly disagree with, but it's a fine demonstration that opinions can vary, compete, etc., without having to "hate" everyone you're with.
On the mention I had before, the US Senate could debate and eventually compromise on something but Congress, the two sides are so at odds that absolutely nothing is getting done. I can see why 'buddies' can be seen as an issue, but so are 'enemies' that despite each other for the sake of doing so.
Me and StJobe aren't really buddies and we've never spoken outside of debates about what functions this or that has versus what it should have and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't.
That said however, if I were to choose anyone, the last thing I'd want is a "yes man." I've seen that side of game development and the results are so awful that you might find them familiar. It's a thinking person's shooter and it needs thinking people. Homeless Bill, DocBach, Livewyr, Bishop, and some of the others: these are people that I know actually put some thought into things. Some more than others. They were voted on for a reason and it's not because "I like or dislike this." It's because they study issues, look into what things were supposed to be, and even find ways to make things fit in a way that seems fair even if it's not 100% satisfactory to even themselves.
(Also I did wind up finding StJobe did get some votes. Still surprised at how few though; I mean who else has found ways to break conceptions I've had based on what I could read on BT and do on Megamek? So far no one else has ever been able to directly disprove anything I've derived from a combination of the lore/fluff and the game.)
I have heard a few requests to wait until around Tuesday for a poll, sure that is fine with me.
There as also a fair point for those concerned about having a group speak for them, remember they will need to present a full proposal and you the players will read it and get to vote. So I think you can feel secure in knowing that the proposal is really going to have to speak clearly to a portion of players.
We will also discuss that 80% more to ensure it isn't just those that spend time on the forums but that they have significant play time which are stats I can easily gather. We will figure that part out.
As to the PPC conversation that just popped up, super tempting jump in and share all the history and logic which I am sure many would love to hear. But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.
I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.
Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:
But first things first, staying on topic we have chosen this ECM subject as our test case. I happen to think it is a great starting point.
I would say its one of the first major issues that caused massive player complaints.... It's had some changes but like you said, IMO its never felt right and I've been complaining about it for two years. In fact, I think when we drinking PPC's at the launch party (no, not Jaeger) I complained to you about it.
"Based on PGI's idiom, I think this council will just amount to another way players are pissing up the "let's recommend how to fix XYZ" rope."
These sort of statements just aren't going to help in the least. Keeping wait and see attitude is completely fine but in these threads it should stay on point and trying to help.
(Quote ability doesn't work in IE on my Surface tablet)
By itself, it would have. (48 Heat spike was manageable- 60, not-so-much)
To settle something between you and Hoax -- both of you do have some valid opinions but really quick I'd like to point out something.
The typical 6 PPC build on a Stalker had a number of flaws.
1) It was a glass cannon that required players supporting it or it would always fail. This actually created some role warfare -- which ghost heat has hurt across multiple aspects of the game. A glass cannon needs supporting mechs. And in and of itself, while powerful, it was also easily defeated by trial Centurion Ds or even a trial Cataphract 4X back before the Champion mechs.
2) It usually had 17 DHS. Before elites, this was a one shot wonder that instantly shut down -- if we had 10 heat for PPCs and 15 heat for ER PPCs at the time.
3) 17 DHS provides us with (after elites)... Cooling Rate : 3.43 heat/sec Heat Threshold : 71.75999999999999
(With basics)
Cooling Rate : 2.98 heat/sec Heat Threshold : 59.8 4) While NOT popular back in the day due to heat reasons, there was a second reason for not doing a 6 PPC stalker before the heat was reduced: Once you fired it'd take over 26 seconds to cool down enough to fire (safely) again. This was until the second change in the heat system and how override worked. Before that, if you fired once with 6 regular PPCs you'd instantly die. After that second change, it became super popular.
On the very same day that Ghost Heat was announced, I was on the 30 threshold bandwagon because I saw that if heatsinks cool by X amount per second, a turn is 10 seconds, then 30 units of heat is the logical limit for weapons fired at once. Even then with the heatsink overtaxing rule, it was possible to have limits of less than 30 which would melt heatsinks. Yet... PGI's concept gives us a minimum of 40 and a current maximum of... Cooling Rate : 7.71 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 125.4
(Which you can only obtain as a Clan mech). That is 6 Clan ER PPCs fired at once while running at full speed and still fully functional. That's 12 standard PPCs fired at once and still fully functional. It's insane!
Yet... with 30 threshold the maximum alpha strike damage of a single boated weapon would (with canon values per weapon) always favor the Inner Sphere, regardless of heatsink count as with a locked threshold the number of heatsinks you have does not create a never-ending paradox of how much more awesome your alpha strike is; just how quickly you can do it again (where currently the number of heatsinks dictates both your maximum alpha strike potential of a boated weapon as well as how fast you can use it again..and again..and again..and again).
To note: A tabletop Stalker with 6 PPCs has about a 60% chance of shutting down after spending 10 seconds, stationary, firing one PPC at a time. This chance is a variable representative of how well the Stalker spaces and times his shots as a human pilot could never perfectly space a single shot from each of all 6 PPCs without the help of a macro. Sometimes they are spaced well, sometimes a shot is rushed.
(Also to note: 6 ER PPCs wouldn't shut my own Stalker down. Yet, only once out of 11 games of tabletop using them has a 6 ER PPC Stalker managed to not shut down when firing 6 ER PPCs one at a time across 10 seconds, hitting up to 6 different areas of impact, and it carries more heatsinks than the one in MWO can ever hope to have due to a 340 engine.)
In other words: Reducing the heat threw flames on the fire and spiced it into live action... Ghost Heat was thrown in to help deal with the situation. Though a 6 PPC Stalker done a la tabletop in MWO is still not only viable but terrifying to the extent that it is in fact viable even in Terra Therma. The very reason it even existed in the form it did (60 damage pinpoint versus 60 damage spread in TT) comes down to two things: 1) pinpoint convergence -- which isn't as bad as people think if not for 2)... rising thresholds.
Also: Earlier PPC and ER PPC heat, before the 6 PPC Stalker became viable.
To note: I chain fire because the amount of time of NOT being able to fire due to the heat rises was actually very devastating to whether or not the mech was viable back then.
This is 10 heat per PPC, and following it 15 heat per ER PPC, and as you can see... even with the high heat, it really..doesn't stop much. What's hilariously true is that this would still be possible with 30 threshold (contrary to what people think), however, it would fire a little less than half as frequently.
But as Russ said, it's a completely different topic. I'm just interjecting to end it for the moment.
Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:
"Based on PGI's idiom, I think this council will just amount to another way players are pissing up the "let's recommend how to fix XYZ" rope."
These sort of statements just aren't going to help in the least. Keeping wait and see attitude is completely fine but in these threads it should stay on point and trying to help.
(Quote ability doesn't work in IE on my Surface tablet)
I've been with you (PGI) since the beginning. I'm still here (with my 20,000 Founder's MC and Phoenix Premium time), but I've seen where well reasoned and welcome suggestions from groups of players have gotten. Please permit me my scepticism.
Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:
I to do not care for the fact that many groups including competitive ones won't take any spiders except the ECM version. That to me does smell not quite right, never has.
Um... it's been repeated chapter and verse as to why this is. I feel like I've repeated it since forever, but just because you brought it up...
If Paul or whoever looked at the telemetry as to why that is... let's just analyze the variants themselves BEFORE we include ECM into the mix.
Spider-5D - 3E, 2 of them in the RA (Right Arm), 1 in the CT - Arguably the strongest Spider in the set... just because of the potential of the arm hardpoint by design instead of the "limited" CT hardpoint.
Spider-5K - 1E (CT only), 4B (2 on each arm) - There's very little in variety in this mech. It will end up being something resembling the champion mech... with 4 MGs and some laser weapon. That's it. You could do something else with it, but you'd have to be special or crazy. Either way, it succeeds most as a "cleanup mech" like the Ember, except the Ember has more lasers to chew armor. This mech solely relies on teammates to do most of the work.
Spider-5V - 2E (CT only). It's hard to make this mech diverse. You could add as many JJs you want, but you will do no more damage than 2 Med Pulse Lasers. Sure, people can go the route of using a standard engine for zombie power like the classic tanking ability, but ultimately it has no particular power or role... even if you give it more module slots. If anything, it stands to be the worst variant in the game. It's been pointed out multiple times, and suggested to add an energy hardpoint somewhere... but at this point that assumes people have been paying attention to why this matters.
I'm not going into full detail about the hero mech since that is most recent. Suffice it to say, the problem with the hero mech lies in the state of "2 MGs". The most recent MG nerf (the preemptive MG Damage/DPS nerf) has certainly hurt MGs in general, but it lies further back a year ago when the crit damage was significantly reduced to the point where you need at least 3 MGs to be useful. 2 MGs at this point isn't very impactful as it depends significantly on the volume of MGs and the chances it must success through the RNG where the crit bonus damage has to be maximized. Of course, it ends up being some sort of NARC boat, so MGs are not really useful to its cause.
If you took a real close look at such thing, you wouldn't have issues with balancing variants, like the current state of the Jenner-K vs the Jenner-D... where the Jenner-K has literally no value over the D at this very point in time.... especially when it used to have more module slots under the previous module system to "counter balance" or "justify" its existence.
If people paid more attention to the finer details of why an ECM mech is superior than the rest, it's primarily because ECM is a contributing factor, if not the overriding factor... especially compared to the other variants. In most cases, the ECM variant is superior to the others (there are some exceptions/debatable parts)... before ECM is a factor. That's the actual problem. There's no real reason to take the Raven-2X (or the 4X) over the Raven-3L... for all intents and purposes of league/competitive play. It's just another step to grind in the 3 variant system...
LocationA fog where no one notices the contrast of white on white
Posted 13 September 2014 - 12:26 PM
I am curious, people. How many thousand posts must you have to get nominated?
I get the feeling that this thread is not about who has the best ideas, but who is the most popular troll.
I'm not judging anyone here, because my memory doesn't catalog names when I think of ideas I've heard. When I have ideas, I don't often remember if I've heard/synthesized other ideas in my mind, or if they're my own original ideas. The ideas are relevant information, but the people behind them are less.
Whoever you pick, there's things that have to be done in a timely manner.
1. Those people have to be willing to get together on teamspeak and spend time brainstorming the ideas.
2. There has to be a chairman of the board. He would be elected - probably - by the group that gets elected, if there is an election. His job is to organize the ideas/concepts/rules of development in order, so the discussion is productive and not sidetracked to all hell and gone.
3. The people have to set aside their egos. When I see the most popular nominations on here, I gotta wonder if that's possible.
4. There has to be a secretary to log all the ideas and put them into a concise order to whittle them down into a proposal, and that secretary has to be unbiased about which order he/she puts them in.
5. The council should have no more than 5 people on it. This is simply because more than 5 and scheduling and management becomes far more difficult the more people there are. The types of people that will most likely be selected for this will be those who are most passionate and have the most ideas, I'm thinking. Those people are very hard to shut up. So 5 is enough.
6. The writer. Someone has to put these ideas into an order that other people can digest and/or vote on.
A suggestion for the selection process of the ECM council.
We create a heavily moderated thread. Each person gets ONE entry in the thread, where they put down their ideas for an ECM fix. They describe the fix and WHY they suggested it. They also explain how ECM will now work in relation with the other equipment in the game - because it will change gameplay. They make any other suggestions that flush out the overall proposal.
The forum mod adds up the 'likes' for each post (Or puts up a pole at the beginning of the thread) where we vote for each idea. The people with the top five ideas/proposals get contacted to be on the council by PGI/moderators. They meet in CLOSED sessions to hammer out the final proposal.
Something like this. Only with submissions for the ECM fix as detailed above. Give people until, say, Tuesday evening to put in their ONE submission, clearing out any other posts in the thread, then vote by 'likes' or by a poll. Then, the community really does have a say.
When the top five have been elected, the council meets, hammers out a final proposal or two, and puts those up for approval by vote by the community. If enough people like the idea, then PGI will have their answer.
Russ Bullock, on 13 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:
"Based on PGI's idiom, I think this council will just amount to another way players are pissing up the "let's recommend how to fix XYZ" rope."
These sort of statements just aren't going to help in the least. Keeping wait and see attitude is completely fine but in these threads it should stay on point and trying to help.
(Quote ability doesn't work in IE on my Surface tablet)
To this end here are a couple of video's that we should all view and strive toward.
Enjoy!
Ps. stop whining about the coffee, it is contagious.
36
This topic is locked
Livewyr, on 13 September 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:
