431 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Deathlike, on 12 September 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

Pics or it didn't happen.



I'm not skeptical, but I'm sure it was perfect timing for him considering what happened with the PTS.

I saw him in game on mt friends list as well so I can back up what she's saying

[FupDup]

Mister D, on 12 September 2015 - 01:12 PM, said:

If ever there was a time for us to stand together and say in one voice "No"

This is it.

So it has been written, so it shall be done.

Forumwarriors, we must unite!

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

xe N on, on 12 September 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

It is the very unprofessional handling of the whole balance test by PGI. They should have never given open access for a balancing at this stage.

They WERE planning om rolling it out AS IS on the 22nd till the Town Hall. Whats that say?

[Nightmare1]

They did say that they are balancing the chassis variants first, and then they will balance the chassis themselves later. I think what we're looking at is just the variant pass; I don't think they have balanced between chassis yet.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 September 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

They WERE planning om rolling it out AS IS on the 22nd till the Town Hall. Whats that say?

They should thank us for hopefully stopping the end of the game as they know it. No more players = no more money = dead game.

Nightmare1, on 13 September 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

They did say that they are balancing the chassis variants first, and then they will balance the chassis themselves later. I think what we're looking at is just the variant pass; I don't think they have balanced between chassis yet.

Even if thats the case, they did a terrible job. Armor and structure buffs need to be the same across all variants of a chassis, otherwise you feel gimped for taking one with less and mech's lose there identity. It also makes things very complicated for new players, since they plan on releasing on steam.

Edited by Alwrath, 13 September 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Nightmare1, on 13 September 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

They did say that they are balancing the chassis variants first, and then they will balance the chassis themselves later. I think what we're looking at is just the variant pass; I don't think they have balanced between chassis yet.

and yet this WAS going to be on the live server as is. They obviously thought it was good enough for that

[FupDup]

Nightmare1, on 13 September 2015 - 07:50 AM, said:

They did say that they are balancing the chassis variants first, and then they will balance the chassis themselves later. I think what we're looking at is just the variant pass; I don't think they have balanced between chassis yet.

It would make more sense to go the other way around, starting by balancing chassis and then going down to the variant-level.

[Astrocanis]

FupDup, on 13 September 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

It would make more sense to go the other way around, starting by balancing chassis and then going down to the variant-level.

I think they are trying to accomplish the concept of "role warfare" without making the game support it. Mechs are the last component of role warfare. The first component is to define, within the current confines of the game, what it means.

By trying to "balance" variants (loosely translated - "Force a given variant into a role"), they just keep digging the hole deeper. They need to rethink game elements first and THEN balance for the roles as they've been designed and evolved into the skills, modules, maps and objectives.

This will probably yield yet more suboptimal results.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Astrocanis, on 13 September 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

I think they are trying to accomplish the concept of "role warfare" without making the game support it. Mechs are the last component of role warfare. The first component is to define, within the current confines of the game, what it means.

By trying to "balance" variants (loosely translated - "Force a given variant into a role"), they just keep digging the hole deeper. They need to rethink game elements first and THEN balance for the roles as they've been designed and evolved into the skills, modules, maps and objectives.

This will probably yield yet more suboptimal results.

minimal viable results?

[SilentWolff]

Wish Microsoft would do us all a favor and pull the MW license from these clowns.

[Astrocanis]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 September 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

minimal viable results?

With the QC displayed on the PTS deployment, I'd settle for anything remotely "viable". Because what's on the PTS couldn't have even been reviewed. At least I hope it wasn't reviewed. If it was, that speaks volumes.

[Nightmare1]

Alwrath, on 13 September 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

Even if thats the case, they did a terrible job. Armor and structure buffs need to be the same across all variants of a chassis, otherwise you feel gimped for taking one with less and mech's lose there identity. It also makes things very complicated for new players, since they plan on releasing on steam.

I think the idea, based on my understanding from Paul's post about it, was that they wanted to make some variants more focused on mobility, others on firepower, and still others on InfoTech or defense. Personally, I think that sounds fine. I wouldn't mind owning, say, one variant with a firepower focus and a second variant with mobility advantages. That's actually how I tend to set my variants up now anyways. It just buffs my own play style.

The InfoTech stuff is a bit underwhelming though.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 September 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

and yet this WAS going to be on the live server as is. They obviously thought it was good enough for that

Hmm...my understanding is that this was their rough build, open to further refinement and incomplete as-is.

FupDup, on 13 September 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

It would make more sense to go the other way around, starting by balancing chassis and then going down to the variant-level.

I agree.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Nightmare1, on 13 September 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Hmm...my understanding is that this was their rough build, open to further refinement and incomplete as-is.

Was that said before or after they delayed it till after the 22nd patch as it was originally planned?

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Nightmare1, on 13 September 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

I think the idea, based on my understanding from Paul's post about it, was that they wanted to make some variants more focused on mobility, others on firepower, and still others on InfoTech or defense. Personally, I think that sounds fine. I wouldn't mind owning, say, one variant with a firepower focus and a second variant with mobility advantages. That's actually how I tend to set my variants up now anyways. It just buffs my own play style.

The InfoTech stuff is a bit underwhelming though.

Its not a bad idea in and of itself, just badly implemented and like I said, new players coming in from steam are going to be so confused there going to just laugh and play a different game. When you have variants of the same chassis where 1 has +8 armor across the board and another with + 16 and another with + 21 and another with +30 all with different abilities then you lose all sense of purpose and identity that the mech was supposed to be in the first place. Its a convoluted confusing mess. What we have going on in game now is much better.

[Nightmare1]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 September 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

Was that said before or after they delayed it till after the 22nd patch as it was originally planned?

That, I don't know. I know I read Paul's post pretty soon after it was posted. I don't know where that falls in relation to the timeline of news releases.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 September 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

Grid Iron was introduced WITHOUT said quirks. All things are subject to change with F2P games. If people bought a chassis solely for a (temporarily) broken quirk, can't say I feel for em.

Frankly, I could care less about the Gauss Quirk. The 50% level quirks often broke the scales in the first place, the GI's old quirks(and proper module use) gave a Gauss+3MPL more sustained firepower than any Gauss-Cat or Gauss-Jager, which dedicated more than twice the tonnage to their firepower.

Problem I have is that the GI got hit with -50% Accel/Deccel quirks while the 4G got +10% in those same quirk sections. Armor and tankiness? 4G got +12 to RT and all structure locations, GI got +24 to RT and all structure locations. For a bonus +12 RT armor / all structure and bonus missile hardpoints it has a difference of 60% to accel/deccel quirks and a 50% difference in turn rate quirks when comparing the 4G to the GI.

The PTS GI is a pig in slop to the level of the Pretty Baby back when it had negative accel/deccel quirks. It's as if they put those quirks on to balance it out with the weapon quirks it had- then removed the weapon quirks. Something I paid money for getting turned to slop.

As for honestly unique quirks getting removed, the Hellslinger lost it's -50% External Heat Influence quirk. That was the one that made hot maps heat it up less and cold maps cool it less. Unique and interesting mechanic- something different and yet it was tossed away on the PTS. That does have me upset.

Experiencing just how off the mark in terms of direction these changes are sapped any excitement I have for the game after getting excited for the double XP weekend (for once) and the way the town hall was handled. Sensor distance remained unchanged by quirks, only sensor times were changed. All weapon quirks were removed instead of using a light touch on them as a tool. Sub-par mech chassis got smacked down (the ones that originally had stronger weapon quirks getting the some of the worst) while witnessing those chassis strong in the Pre-Quirkening getting positive mobility or durability quirks- becoming stronger and more attractive than before.

The sense of dread I feel comes from the history of PTS First Looks making it to the live build despite mountains of criticism and feedback as to what needs to be improved.

[Mawai]

InRev, on 11 September 2015 - 08:19 PM, said:

Any goodwill generated by the 2nd anniversary gifts has been stomped into the ground by this abomination of a "rebalance".

No wonder they didn't say anything about it in the town hall and just pimped out the Marauder. It's a ******* trainwreck.

No. It hasn't lost any goodwill.

Although I agree with the general feedback and commentary on these changes ... they are being presented on tthe TEST server as some sort of INITIAL PASS that is no where close to being done. The entire POINT of the test server was to demonstrate to the community ... "HERE are some changes we are considering. What do you think?"

The goodwill will be won or lost depending on their reaction to the feedback and how they choose to respond in terms of either tweaking or going back to the drawing board. If they do it properly they will gain goodwill ... but unfortunately, I don't have a lot of faith that they will successfully execute on this.

[NocturnalBeast]

Calm down people, this is just the PTS server, I am sure PGI will see all of the QQ and make changes accordingly before it reaches the live game. Seriously, PGI needs to stop asking us if we like the changes or not and just make them; people will like the changes and stay, or hate them and leave, but it would be far less stressful.

[FupDup]

Ed Steele, on 13 September 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

Calm down people, this is just the PTS server, I am sure PGI will see all of the QQ and make changes accordingly before it reaches the live game. Seriously, PGI needs to stop asking us if we like the changes or not and just make them; people will like the changes and stay, or hate them and leave, but it would be far less stressful.

Have you attended any of the past PTS sessions? What you've described doesn't really happen.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 13 September 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

Have you attended any of the past PTS sessions? What you've described doesn't really happen.

safe to say I've attended more than most. And perhaps that is part of the problem. Aside from the "Clan Sneak Peek", essentially NOBODY has actually contributed to them in meaningful numbers or quantity to give actual data to counter PGIs ideas. Sorry you think posting your opinions on the Forums should override actual telemetry from gameplay, but it doesn't.

Don't like what you are seeing in the Mechlab? Then play the crap out of it and expose it.

That also hasn't happened. Considering that our Forum Regulars tend to be just as over-reactionary as Paul's Nerfhammers, seems like Pots complaining about Kettles to me.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2015 - 11:59 AM.