205 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Vlad Ward, on 14 September 2015 - 02:35 AM, said:

Gotta go yell at Imperius and tell him to stop playing Metal Gear and get on the ball.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Duke Nedo, on 13 September 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

It would have helped if they had announced that before hand...

because before this it was schueduled for the 22 patch.

[Mawai]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 09:49 PM, said:

Was headed over here to post! Thanks @Hans! Hope that clears the air of a few things, as I felt future communication needs to be very clear and overall better to help ease players expectations!

Agreed .. but I have two questions

1) Why was the communication before the PTS test so bad
2) Why are you doing this instead of someone who actually works for PGI?

Perhaps PGI should consider contracting out their community communications to people who actually care about both the community and the game?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yokaiko, on 14 September 2015 - 05:19 AM, said:

So on the 22nd we would have gotten this pile of **** on the production server?

You didnt listen to the town hall did you? Get out yourself

Mawai, on 14 September 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Agreed .. but I have two questions

1) Why was the communication before the PTS test so bad

as the Town Hall said, until they noticed a hardware bug, this was going to the live server on the 22nd.
There was no plan to PTS it or anything till AFTER they delayed it. What would be the point after it had made to the live server to then test it?

[Yokaiko]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 14 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

You didnt listen to the town hall did you? Get out yourself



as the Town Hall said, until they noticed a hardware bug, this was going to the live server on the 22nd.
There was no plan to PTS it or anything till AFTER they delayed it. What would be the point after it had made to the live server to then test it?

Yeah thanks for making my point.

SERIOUSLY THEY WERE GOING TO GO LIVE WITH THAT ****

[jlawsl]

Anyone else see the problem with just giving stucture buffs to make a mech more durable? In game, that's fine, but when you look at the scores you would possibly get from killing some IS assaults, especially things like the AWS-PB, which has +37(if I remember correctly) structure to everything but +40 of the CT or the AS7-D which has a crazy amount added. So, from the video, it is saying, yeah, clan mechs may be left totally op weapon wise, but an idea is to turn IS mechs into point farms. Can't say its too bad of an idea if there wasn't a score involved, buy it would also just be forking over c bills and scores, competition wise/event wise to clan players all day. So a Dire Wolf will have a ridiculously inflated score from killing an Atlas as opposed to an Atlas killing a Dire Wolf. Because you also have to remember that- A massive structure bonus+components+better mechs=component destruction point farm.

[Clownwarlord]

Duke Nedo, on 13 September 2015 - 09:41 PM, said:

It would have helped if they had announced that before hand...

If they would have it might have hurt the number of members participating in the test.

[FupDup]

RocketDog, on 13 September 2015 - 10:36 PM, said:

Quirks up to 10 or 20% are fine and help differentiate the mechs (which you need if you want us to buy new content).

Quirks of 50%+ are not fine.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't necessarily want weapon quirks up to that 50+ level, but I would like to ask how you feel about durability or agility quirks of that same level?

For example, the current Mist Lynx has a structure quirk of +8 per arm, which translates to literally 100% bonus structure!

[Yokaiko]

clownwarlord, on 14 September 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

If they would have it might have hurt the number of members participating in the test.

There were next to no members participating, most tried to get a game, sat around for 20 minutes or so watching it search and bailed.

[Clownwarlord]

Yokaiko, on 14 September 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

There were next to no members participating, most tried to get a game, sat around for 20 minutes or so watching it search and bailed.

Yeah, I know for me personally I do not do the play test because it causes issue with my regular mwo client. Also I wanted o work on my Maulers (bad timing in my opinion to do a play test same week a new mech came into game).

[UberStuka]

Massive facepalm @ 32:01

[Lexx]

I watched the whole video, and I think it's great that you recognize things like clan endo and ferro and double heat sinks being superior, but you never said PGI has any plans to do anything about it. (other than maybe give better quirks to clan omnis that don't have both)

When the IIC mechs come out and later fully customizable clan second line mechs, there has to be balance between clan and IS on all levels. Something like IS double heat sinks dissipating heat a little better to make up for the extra slot. IS endo and ferro freeing up more tonnage than their clan counterparts. Also weapon balance with weapons like the clan gauss being just plain better by weighing 3 tons less and taking up one less critical slot. I think that could be balanced by a longer chargeup time on clan gauss and less explosion chance on the IS gauss rifle. Longer cooldown on the clan ER PPC, slightly more damage for IS SRMs, ect.

If PGI does remove all IS weapon quirks, I really hope we get a complete rebalance to the weapons along with component balancing.

[SaltBeef]

I would suggest for the Best Data Collection on New quirks and sensor data collection to have 3 events with rewards.
Faction IS vs IS to Balance out between the IS mechs. Group and Solo Que.
1 week of Play
Faction Clan vs Clan to balance out Clan mechs vs Clan mechs. Group and Solo Que.1
week of Play
Faction Clan vs IS to balance out Structures by weight Class, Sensors, and some of the weapons.
2 weeks of Play.

Analyze the Data.

Test changes from all 3 data mining events on PTS.
Patch and Play.

Edited by SaltBeef, 14 September 2015 - 06:36 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Vlad Ward, on 14 September 2015 - 02:25 AM, said:

You can apply this statement to every single change in this PTS. I'm amazed no one pointed this out in the play testing phase.

we arent the testing phase? That huge disconnect seems to speak towards this

Mawai, on 14 September 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

2) Why are you doing this instead of someone who actually works for PGI?

because theyre paib BY PGI so they basically are employees. Just ones without any power

Yokaiko, on 14 September 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

Yeah thanks for making my point.

SERIOUSLY THEY WERE GOING TO GO LIVE WITH THAT ****

oops missed the sarcasm on the get out lol

[ApolloKaras]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 09:49 PM, said:

Was headed over here to post! Thanks @Hans! Hope that clears the air of a few things, as I felt future communication needs to be very clear and overall better to help ease players expectations!

ummm this has been said everyday since beta....

Frankly I have ZERO expectations this will change.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 11:44 PM, said:

That's all been addressed, so everyone is happy.

....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........... yeah, that'll happen.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 14 September 2015 - 05:15 AM, said:

because before this it was schueduled for the 22 patch.

actually they announced it was off the table for the 22nd patch before the live PTS was put up.

[TLBFestus]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 September 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

But since they are the same people who have complained about EVERYTHING for 3 years? Why change now?

I object to this ludicrous, blanket statement.

I take Christmas's off.

[Bishop Steiner]

TLBFestus, on 14 September 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

I object to this ludicrous, blanket statement.

I take Christmas's off.

Lol. Hey at least you are honest about it. Now get off my grass.

[Nightmare1]

Sean Lang, on 13 September 2015 - 10:30 PM, said:

This is incorrect. As I mentioned in the video, I stated you had to whipe clean current weapon quirks to get a better understanding. Also I mentioned that adding small weapon quirks here and there could help distinguish a variant from one another and chassis v chassis. But even then, you would not see massive 20-50% quirks like how you do with weapon quirks, but small ones instead. It's still on the table, but for the first iteration, clean slate is needed.

This. It's basic experimentation iteration. If the goal is to test one variable, then you eliminate all other variables so that you can establish a baseline. Once that is accomplished, you proceed from there, adding the other variables back in incrementally.

Folks just freak out because they don't think critically any more. They see something they don't like and have a knee-jerk reaction to it rather than thinking about the reasons for why that something may exist in such a manner. I thought Paul's announcement regarding the PTS was fairly clear that this was an early, highly experimental, and unfinished build of the new rebalance. Thus, I took it with a grain of salt that they were just wanting to test what they had accomplished to date.

Going forward, I have high hopes for the rebalance and faith that PGI will get it right. It's in their best interest to do so, after all.