170 replies to this topic

[gloowa]

Dr Tachyon, on 17 September 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

Give it up guys, some are clearly incapable or unwilling to add 2 + 2. The opposite of captain obvious is lord gullible

At hominem? check.
No relation to my argument? check.
Declaring someone as gullible and/or stupid and/or whatever because he hold different opinion then you? check.

Good job sir. You have me totally convinced. You are absolutely right. The game is ****, PGI is ****, balance is ****. Why do we even play this?

[mad kat]

To OP yes and no. I agree with the balance issue in that a chassis needs the same flavour but some mechs having particular quirks should stay. The Grid iron's gauss charge, the BJ-1DC's AC2 quirks, The CN9-D's LB10-X, The AWS-8Q PPC and DRG-1N all need to stay IMO.

Boosting these mechs in the IS gives them a reason to take them over another in the same chassis so there is always at least one strong performing variant. What most people seem to be overlooking is that a quirked build is usually a niche build as the mech is built around its primary quirked weapons for example the dragon. Take that enormous right arm off and it's goosed. Its a matter of advantage offsetting that's key here.

Remove the BJ-1DC's auto cannon quirk and it's now redundant there is now no reason to keep it as the same build can be done on other variants. Same goes for a lot of the Centurions hunchbacks etc etc. i'd hardly call them quirked meta builds as yes you can load up on a particular quirk but that doesn't mean that that mech will now be all powerful as everyone should know by now that you aim to destroy your enemies strengths first (i.e. dragon arm, Awesomes side torso's catapults ears).

Removing the mechs individual weapon quirks will render some mechs redundant immediately have little to no reason to take them over the next. This segregates mechs nicely removing any uniqueness means you have to find what you want with a different chassis.

Edited by mad kat, 17 September 2015 - 07:38 AM.

[Mogney]

No sir, gullible means you will believe a lie despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. I support pgis efforts, i just wish they had the humility to be honest about this mistake instead of trying to spin it with bs.

Edited by Dr Tachyon, 17 September 2015 - 08:25 AM.

[Noth]

Dr Tachyon, on 17 September 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

No sir, gullible means you will believe a lie despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

What evidence? We have people making claims such as "Was close to ready", "meant for the 22nd release" and many more, and then claiming that they are backpedalling on those things because of the response on PTS when before the PTS even went live we were told 22nd was off the table, Oct.6th was best case only, they expected it to not be perfect, they expected to have a lot of people that hate it, they expected to have to change things.

Pretty much all the complaints have been addressed, but that isn't good enough for some people who can't let go of the fact that they aren't getting exactly what they want and can't look past their own little view of what is going on.

Edited by Noth, 17 September 2015 - 08:25 AM.

[Voivode]

I think based on what I saw there's a lot that needs to be worked out before this goes into production. I have to agree with people that infotech in this game straddles the line between marginally useful and irrelevant. Infotech quirks are only going to be as good as the infotech features of the game itself, and in the current iteration those are weak.

I do like the idea of certain mechs having greater toughness than others, and I think an across the board armor/structure buff of mechs featuring low mounted hard points would be a nice touch that could even many things out.

I would hope they are thoughtful in balancing weapons and are finally willing to consider using cooldowns more aggressively in balancing things. In the end though, there are certain mechs that were being propped up by weapon quirks because of limited hardpoints and/or bad weapons. As long as machine guns are essentially wasted tonnage mechs like the Huggin are just going to be flat out worse than every other mech.

[gloowa]

Dr Tachyon, on 17 September 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

No sir, gullible means you will believe a lie despite a preponderance of evidence to the contrary^{[citation needed]}.

[Mogney]

Post #144 in this thread summarizes a good bit of it. Plus Paul post when the pts went up, as well as what was actually in the pts makes it pretty clear they thought they wee giving us a priduct that was close to reay outside of a few tweaks.

[Mogney]

If all your testing is infotech concepts there is no need for balmce feedback forums for every chassis. They felt that conceptualy this would balance the game and it was jst a matter of fidling with the numbers.

[gloowa]

Post number 144 is a good representation of not understing what "process" and "part of the process" mean.

Regarding Pauls post. So you see him explain how they plan on balancing with 4 factors (firepower, mobility, hp and info), see that what's on test is a total lack of balancing by one of them (firepower) and conclude that:
1) they didn't really want to do balance with all 4 factors
2) they were thinking that balancing only using 3 factors will be good enough, despite them saying that balance will use all 4 factors
3) they lie when they explain that they wanted to add 4th later
4) they lie about this being first step in several iterations, despite it being said on numerous occasions

Ok.

[Iqfish]

The point is that Russ tweeted that the Balance pass was "completed" and he did NOT say that stuff will be added afterwards.

The stuff Sean Lang is talking about in the video has NOT been said before the PTS.

Its up to you to decide if this is a fabricated, cheap apology or if it was just communicated poorly.

[Mogney]

ecactly, seans video came out when they were in full on damage control mode. Its just spin.