40 replies to this topic

[Rashhaverak]

With the increase in PGI's communication among the forum players, the number of threads theory crafting game design changes has skyrocketed. And while I think it's great that people have a renewed enthusiasm for the game, I'd like to point out that not all of the players want massive changes to ECM, LRM, BAP, TAG, UAV, PPC, and other assorted acronyms, weapon systems, consumables, modules and game design features.

I have my own pet peeves with game mechanics. For example, I hate the gauss charge mechanic. At the same time, I'm pretty happy with PPCs as they currently are. Opinions among players will always vary.

I hope that, in this new gold rush to change the game that some players seem to be rushing towards, PGI acts in moderation and doesn't lose sight of those players who think the game is already fun to play and relatively balanced, because those of us who think the game is pretty good right now will not be as vocal as those who think the game is bad.

Am I saying the game is perfect? No. But at the same time, not everything in MWO is broken.

[Mystere]

The most broken part of MWO is the player base. There are just too many players who collected a whole bunch of these while growing up:

Edited by Mystere, 19 September 2014 - 07:50 PM.

[Jacob Side]

Well put Boss

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Amen.

except the PPC part.

Edited by ugrakarma, 19 September 2014 - 07:52 PM.

[Pika]

Honestly not sure what people have against these changes. I still do just fine with them, I still get plenty of kills and I still get holes punched through my cockpit from time to time too. Not sure what the big deal with the changes have been lately.

Even the Large Laser burn time didn't bother me.

[Xtrekker]

I think they need to remove the gauss charge. IS needs a go-to large weapon that competes with Clan tech. Gauss would be one of those weapons, but they applied this non-canon nonsensical thing to it that takes it out of a lot of roles. I absolutely love the weapon, but the days of the dual-gauss monster mechs are gone. Now I might pull a leg off a light, but against bigger targets it seems like they just don't connect like they used to.

[Pika]

Xtrekker, on 19 September 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

I think they need to remove the gauss charge. IS needs a go-to large weapon that competes with Clan tech. Gauss would be one of those weapons, but they applied this non-canon nonsensical thing to it that takes it out of a lot of roles. I absolutely love the weapon, but the days of the dual-gauss monster mechs are gone. Now I might pull a leg off a light, but against bigger targets it seems like they just don't connect like they used to.

It's unfortunate but sorta needed. It removes easy alpha-ing. Yeah you can still do it but at least now it's a skill\timing thing, not just press left click. D:

[Keith Side]

Quote

Honestly not sure what people have against these changes. I still do just fine with them, I still get plenty of kills and I still get holes punched through my cockpit from time to time too. Not sure what the big deal with the changes have been lately.

Even the Large Laser burn time didn't bother me.

OP wasn't talking about the changes already institiuted. He was talking about the large, sweeping, changes being called for by some of the more vocal members of the community.

Many of whitch are not so well thought out, for the game as a whole.

[Xtrekker]

At least give us one of those silly modules that lets you reduce the charge time. "Pre-charge" if you will. Only way it's successful now is if you get a shot off unnoticed. Waiting around for a second shot gets you a faceful of ripple-fire LRMs or chained CUACs.

Eh, I think I'm going off-topic. Carry on.

[Mystere]

Pika, on 19 September 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

Honestly not sure what people have against these changes. I still do just fine with them, I still get plenty of kills and I still get holes punched through my cockpit from time to time too. Not sure what the big deal with the changes have been lately.

Even the Large Laser burn time didn't bother me.

It's beyond just the changes. There is a decades long Crusade that's been waged since the Clans came out. It's fitting really for the IP.

[meteorol]

There are issues with this game (who could argue against that), but the community itself has even more issues.
Many of this "MWO is broken" stuff comes from guys who think "not the way i would like to have it=broken". They are unable to see that their way is not necessarily the best or only way or the way others would like to get things done.

Looking back to past mechwarrior titles with rose-tinted glasses is another issue that plagues this community. MWO does many things right that are not appreciated because of OMG MECHWARRIOR X Y Z BEST GAME EVUUUUR.

Edited by meteorol, 19 September 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Quxudica]

Rashhaverak, on 19 September 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

With the increase in PGI's communication among the forum players, the number of threads theory crafting game design changes has skyrocketed. And while I think it's great that people have a renewed enthusiasm for the game, I'd like to point out that not all of the players want massive changes to ECM, LRM, BAP, TAG, UAV, PPC, and other assorted acronyms, weapon systems, consumables, modules and game design features.

I have my own pet peeves with game mechanics. For example, I hate the gauss charge mechanic. At the same time, I'm pretty happy with PPCs as they currently are. Opinions among players will always vary.

I hope that, in this new gold rush to change the game that some players seem to be rushing towards, PGI acts in moderation and doesn't lose sight of those players who think the game is already fun to play and relatively balanced, because those of us who think the game is pretty good right now will not be as vocal as those who think the game is bad.

Am I saying the game is perfect? No. But at the same time, not everything in MWO is broken.

While this is true, it should not negate valid critisizm. Not everything is broken, but there is a lot that can be improved and some that can be much much better.

[Russ Bullock]

Rashhaverak, on 19 September 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

With the increase in PGI's communication among the forum players, the number of threads theory crafting game design changes has skyrocketed. And while I think it's great that people have a renewed enthusiasm for the game, I'd like to point out that not all of the players want massive changes to ECM, LRM, BAP, TAG, UAV, PPC, and other assorted acronyms, weapon systems, consumables, modules and game design features.

I have my own pet peeves with game mechanics. For example, I hate the gauss charge mechanic. At the same time, I'm pretty happy with PPCs as they currently are. Opinions among players will always vary.

I hope that, in this new gold rush to change the game that some players seem to be rushing towards, PGI acts in moderation and doesn't lose sight of those players who think the game is already fun to play and relatively balanced, because those of us who think the game is pretty good right now will not be as vocal as those who think the game is bad.

Am I saying the game is perfect? No. But at the same time, not everything in MWO is broken.

Thanks for this, we do need to thanks people when they take the time for a positive post.

However I will say that even though there has been a lot of posts lately with criticism, I do agree that the tone has been pretty good, more conversational and less enraged.

I will be posting next week about getting those town halls rolling, I still feel that is the first step, giving some context.

[STEF_]

Pika, on 19 September 2014 - 08:18 PM, said:

It's unfortunate but sorta needed. It removes easy alpha-ing. Yeah you can still do it but at least now it's a skill\timing thing, not just press left click. D:

I think it was pedagogical. You know: a pilot standing and stopping right above a hill or a building (how can we call him?... a nooooob!), and BANG!
He could learn at once!

[Lord de Seis]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

.

I personally don't have an issue with ECM, but there is obviously a good chunk of people out there who do so it is worth discussing.

LRM's are fine, you see matches where they are a major factor and matches where they aren't which can depend largely on the map. The only time you hear about it though is where they are a major factor, no one goes to the forum to say "hey I just played a match where there wasn't a lot of LRM's being thrown around". I have worked in the restaurant industry for 12 years and 95% of the feedback you get is negative and often exaggerated to varying degrees and that applies to most facets of life.

BAP & TAG? What could be the issue? Unless you have an issue with ECM in the first place. They seem fine and are utilized.

UAV's are cool but seem to get shot down in very short order, maybe higher altitude?

I think PPC's are right where they need to be, they are fun to use & pack a good punch and I am using them on more mechs currently then ever before.

Considering all the different factors that PGI has to consider when attempting to balance the sheer number of weapons in the game then factoring in all the different possible ways they can be combined in mechs gameplay is fun and enjoyable and I have never heard otherwise even from people who are/were extremely frustrated with the game.

I could do away with Ghost Heat, correct me if I am wrong Russ but when it was discussed there was also the idea thrown around of trying of doing a certain number of crit slots for a weapon type (3 energy slots in a arm or 6 missile slots in a torso with 4 ballistic, etc). Was it ever tested? I mean it could be tricky to try and maintain the freedom of customization and prevent boating. I remember the PPC stalkers and they made the game EXTREMELY NOT ENJOYABLE. Like it or not there are boat mechs out there (HBK-4P, AWS-8Q, Nova) that are part of the lore, they can definitely be taken to another level with customization though.

I personally loved how Multiplayer Battletech 3025 stuck to stock mechs, sure customization is awesome but you utilized a larger variety of mechs and it made balancing way way way less complicated.

[Rashhaverak]

Russ Bullock, on 19 September 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

Thanks for this, we do need to thanks people when they take the time for a positive post.

However I will say that even though there has been a lot of posts lately with criticism, I do agree that the tone has been pretty good, more conversational and less enraged.

I will be posting next week about getting those town halls rolling, I still feel that is the first step, giving some context.

I agree that the tone and content of player criticism have been more positive, and that aspect has been a bit of fresh air in what was previously a bitter environment. I also love the rise in communication from you and PGI in general, which I think was the window that let that air in.

I just felt that I had to express the fact that there are those of us out there that think the game is pretty good, and we play it every week. There is room in the game for continued improvement, and there are also things in the game that were done right and are worth keeping. That's an opinion that I hope is not drowned out in the rising roar... it's a fact of human nature that people who are happy are not as loud as those who are not.

[Castigatus]

Rashhaverak, on 20 September 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

I agree that the tone and content of player criticism have been more positive, and that aspect has been a bit of fresh air in what was previously a bitter environment. I also love the rise in communication from you and PGI in general, which I think was the window that let that air in.

I just felt that I had to express the fact that there are those of us out there that think the game is pretty good, and we play it every week. There is room in the game for continued improvement, and there are also things in the game that were done right and are worth keeping. That's an opinion that I hope is not drowned out in the rising roar... it's a fact of human nature that people who are happy are not as loud as those who are not.

this tbh, extra communication is never a bad thing.

What I tell people who ask me about MWO these days is pretty simple - It isnt everything I wanted but it is a perfectly solid game for those who like blowing the crap out of people while piloting big stompy robots.

[Necroconvict]

Yeah most of us still disagree though. Firing speeds of weapons need to change, like AC weapons should all fire at the same speed, except of course for UAC's for obvious weapons. The Gauss rifle timed fire thing was a sick joke that can go away at any time now. The penalty to a mech that uses flamers is crap as well, a shame that it discourages flamers except in people that goof off, and try spinning in the air while shooting flames (it looks fantastic though, great visuals)! There are other things that could be complained about, but mostly I am here trolling a friends forum post, because I am a "jerk" Damn that word was sensored.

(these are actually my real thoughts though, I am just hijacking a thread instead of posting my own)

Edited by Necroconvict, 20 September 2014 - 04:54 AM.

[HumpingBunny]

Mystere, on 19 September 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

The most broken part of MWO is the player base. There are just too many players who collected a whole bunch of these while growing up:

Amen! The player base is the only truly broken part of the game. So many players only play to win, which takes the fun out for those of us who play because we enjoy playing - Not to mention the play-to-win people are the ones complaining the most. Overall, I believe the game is fine where it is currently. Am I unhappy with a few things here and there? Yes, but there exist many more details of the game that I enjoy. Bottom line: What I enjoy about the game far out weighs what I despise in the game. So I am happy with MWO and the direction it is headed.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Yeah and the worst are those pay to win folks.