24 replies to this topic

[Veev]

With the emphasis on tonnage costs for the drop ship why not expand it a little bit and instead of subjective fixes from PGI's end allow the players to change the dynamics...
1. Armor/Health quirks. Why not create modules that can represent extra armor/crits in single components based on slot/tons usage and get rid of the quirks completely. Battletech has always been about trade offs and not simply giving arbitrary handouts to change the meta. Make them mountable anywhere.
2. Adjust the tonnage rules to work on the actual weight of a mech and not its max tonnage. If someone makes an Atlas that weighs in at 70 Tons let them count it as a 70 Ton atlas for drop ship purposes. -This would completely change the dynamic of the game.
3. Instead of Arbitrary quirks to try and fix role-warfare why not get size detection/range working optimally? That Direwhale should be detectable at about 5 times the distance of the Locust. Problem solved. no stupid quirks, no subjective love. Just a simple solution.
4. Ever notice how PGI created the current problem with IS laser quirks and are now trying to fix them by breaking the game and making players mad? Give the ballistics more ammo per ton. Get rid of the laser quirks. LRM's and Streaks are getting a buff thanks to ECM getting fixed. Wait and see how this looks than balance the game from there.
5. Instead of nurfing the skill tree why not put some thought into it and create a SKILL tree. Give each weight class an option of 4 paths they can go. Let the player choose which path they want to go and leave it there.
6. Change the current rewards system to actually focus on Role's. There are plenty of threads discussing this issue. I know, I created one and got some awesome feedback on it. If you want people to fill a role you need to justly compensate them for it. All the changes will not change the fact we want the carrot for doing the role. PGI focuses on rewarding damage and kills. Change that focus and problem solved.
7. Give us more play modes. Lance vs Lance was interesting, but what about the 6 way lance vs lance? Or how about King of the Hill 24 mech style?

At the end of the day, I do not care for arbitrary controlling changes from PGI. I have heard more than one person complain about with the statement we are leaving the game or we are not spending anymore money with PGI if they implement these changes. My question based on this PTS is "Is this ghost heat/third person view 2.0?"

I have currently invested some more money in the game on my account and my sons account. I am trying up my purse strings again. My son likes the game so I will play with him. But I wont be spending more money if these changes go through.

Put the cash grab schemes away and realize if you make a great game people will spend money. This game has never been great. Development has been slow with weird changes, but Battletech has been great and that is why we are here.

[Mordale]

That will never happen,....Shut up and buy more mechs,..

[Kira Onime]

Did you hear about the riffleman?

[Veev]

Kira Onime, on 06 November 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

Did you hear about the riffleman?

I did not and I do not care, I want a game with good fixes and not more $$ cash grab mechs with bandaids that break the game and are being used to push the next meta mech.

[Kira Onime]

Veev, on 06 November 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

I did not and I do not care, I want a game with good fixes and not more $$ cash grab mechs with bandaids that break the game and are being used to push the next meta mech.

But did you hear about the new mech they want you to focus on instead of actual game problems?

[man du]

Well thought out post.

As a light pilot, I don't always get the opportunity to get 300-600 damage and 5 kills every drop. I tag, narc, scout, distract enemies and relay intel to help the whole team win. Besides pats on the back from teammates for a job well done, the in game rewards for this play style are severely lacking.

[Mordale]

The game is still in Beta! One day,..maybe after another year or two of buying more Mechs, they may Fix it.

[TristramTheRed]

I would really like to see some changes. Assault/Conquest seem to be severely underrated game types, especially now with the new system. I think for those two game types to become relevant, they need to take out the skirmish aspect of them. It's not skirmish, so why is one of the win conditions eliminating all of the enemy team? Change assault bases into ACTUAL bases (No one's 'base' is a playpen, unless you're 4 years old) and implement timed respawns in locations that are close to, but not on top of, the team's base. Not a dropship, mind you, but a respawn for the 'mech you're currently in. You could even have objectives that influence the fight itself. Power gens that, when destroyed, increase the enemy team's respawn timer. I think if turrets were to be on these bases, they should have sort of repair time as well to keep it interesting as the game goes on. I see a huge aspect of this game being teamwork, yet our gametypes involve simply blowing up the enemy without much though. Conquest and Assault are objective based, so why doesn't it feel like it?

[Veev]

TristramTheRed, on 06 November 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

I would really like to see some changes. Assault/Conquest seem to be severely underrated game types, especially now with the new system. I think for those two game types to become relevant, they need to take out the skirmish aspect of them. It's not skirmish, so why is one of the win conditions eliminating all of the enemy team? Change assault bases into ACTUAL bases (No one's 'base' is a playpen, unless you're 4 years old) and implement timed respawns in locations that are close to, but not on top of, the team's base. Not a dropship, mind you, but a respawn for the 'mech you're currently in. You could even have objectives that influence the fight itself. Power gens that, when destroyed, increase the enemy team's respawn timer. I think if turrets were to be on these bases, they should have sort of repair time as well to keep it interesting as the game goes on. I see a huge aspect of this game being teamwork, yet our gametypes involve simply blowing up the enemy without much though. Conquest and Assault are objective based, so why doesn't it feel like it?

The rewards are also severely lacking for doing the objective.

Edited by Veev, 06 November 2015 - 11:50 AM.

[Mordale]

Never going to happen,......

[Veev]

Mordale, on 06 November 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Never going to happen,......

I know, they seem to love driving away paying customers...

[Mordale]

Cause your not buy enough Mechs!!!! Maybe when they bring out the "Golden" IS mechs, thing will get better!!

[Gubernaut]

These are some good ideas, they need to get this guy's brain and put it in a think tank.

[Dracol]

Veev, on 06 November 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

7. Give us more play modes. Lance vs Lance was interesting, but what about the 6 way lance vs lance? Or how about King of the Hill 24 mech style?

Per the last town hall, the voting system allows PGI to develop more game modes for solo/group queue. Prior to that, they were hesitant to divide the queue up beyond 3. Hopefully, they get around to adding new ones sooner rather than later.

The rest of your ideas, not a fan of em except armor/structure modules. They'd have to tread a fine line between mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention.

[Veev]

Dracol, on 06 November 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Per the last town hall, the voting system allows PGI to develop more game modes for solo/group queue. Prior to that, they were hesitant to divide the queue up beyond 3. Hopefully, they get around to adding new ones sooner rather than later.

The rest of your ideas, not a fan of em except armor/structure modules. They'd have to tread a fine line between mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention.

Where did you get mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention from the conversation from my post?

Dracol, on 06 November 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Per the last town hall, the voting system allows PGI to develop more game modes for solo/group queue. Prior to that, they were hesitant to divide the queue up beyond 3. Hopefully, they get around to adding new ones sooner rather than later.

The rest of your ideas, not a fan of em except armor/structure modules. They'd have to tread a fine line between mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention.

Where did you get mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention from the conversation from my post?

[Dracol]

Veev, on 06 November 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

Where did you get mandatory seismic and near useless 360 retention from the conversation from my post?

Um, those two weren't from your quote. More of a generalized perception of those two modules.

Another way to say what I was saying: Armor quirks would need to be balanced were they're not over powered and always taken, nor under powered where they're practically useless.

Edited by Dracol, 06 November 2015 - 02:14 PM.

[Veev]

Dracol, on 06 November 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

Um, those two weren't from your quote. More of a generalized perception of those two modules.

Another way to say what I was saying: Armor quirks would need to be balanced were they're not over powered and always taken, nor under powered where they're practically useless.

I am saying get rid of QUIRKS. Give us the armor modules and structure modules that we can sacrifice tonnage and slots for. Make it a flat amount per ton.

[BigBucket]

I agree, get rid of quirks.

Reduce max alpha size to 20 if convergence cannot be fixed or allow only (rapid) chain firing of weapons.

Increase all weapon cooldowns (make them longer). More hardpoints would mean more DPS and not more pinpoint alpha.

Make the heat system more meaningful (lower cap, have incremental penalties akin to table top).

Make the crit system meaningful by adding engine hits, actuator hits, gyro hits, etc. and their effects on the mech.

Add active/passive radar modes.

Edited by BigBucket, 06 November 2015 - 05:31 PM.

[Phantomime]

BigBucket, on 06 November 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

I agree, get rid of quirks.

Reduce max alpha size to 20 if convergence cannot be fixed or allow only (rapid) chain firing of weapons.

Increase all weapon cooldowns (make them longer). More hardpoints would mean more DPS and not more pinpoint alpha.

Make the heat system more meaningful (lower cap, have incremental penalties akin to table top).

Make the crit system meaningful by adding engine hits, actuator hits, gyro hits, etc. and their effects on the mech.

Add active/passive radar modes.

Ya.. this is my wish list. Making convergance an issue should be the counter to Alpha-Pinpoint boats. Convergance also effected by heat, should also be a thing...

But ya, have you heard about the Rifleman? why make an intersting game when you can make money.

Edited by Phantomime, 06 November 2015 - 07:30 PM.

[Shin Kicker]

Boom