298 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Except when you remove all the mechanics from the game what lore is left? We don't even have the map accurate to the era.

Inaccuracy is lore represented, most game mechanics stuff shows up, etc.

I get your point, I do. However when you strip put the nature of the Clans, the tech differences and how the game mechanics work literally all you have left is names of stuff and shapes of stuff. We're moderately accurate there.

Clans were a mistake for tt or anything PvP. They were always a PVE concept when an GM or gentlemens agreements between friends could balance them vs IS. Either letting munchkin players run Clans vs IS and stomp around OP as **** or setting up an OP enemy that the players could defeat via plot armor events or trickery that involved the enemy being incredibly stupid. They were terrible in tournament TT.

[mgto]

LT totally ruined it for me. What is most frustrating is that even if you look closely for purple smoke you don't have enough time to get out of the blast radius. So it starts to be kind of an unavoidable effect which is always a bad game design decision.

So just reducing the damage itself isn't enough imo. It would be necessary to turn the LT to some kind of game (play) element. Something you can react to and maybe counter.

Beside that I think CW has a way bigger problem. It should give me a reason to play it and not head over to quick play. If there is no (fun) reason it can just as well turned into a game mode for quick play. Which would make a lot more fun to me at least.

[Void Angel]

MischiefSC, on 09 July 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Except when you remove all the mechanics from the game what lore is left? We don't even have the map accurate to the era.

Inaccuracy is lore represented, most game mechanics stuff shows up, etc.

I get your point, I do. However when you strip put the nature of the Clans, the tech differences and how the game mechanics work literally all you have left is names of stuff and shapes of stuff. We're moderately accurate there.

Clans were a mistake for tt or anything PvP. They were always a PVE concept when an GM or gentlemens agreements between friends could balance them vs IS. Either letting munchkin players run Clans vs IS and stomp around OP as **** or setting up an OP enemy that the players could defeat via plot armor events or trickery that involved the enemy being incredibly stupid. They were terrible in tournament TT.

That's the thing: you've got to differentiate between "lore" and "canon." Because there is a real difference between story and mechanics - and when we use those terms interchangeably, bad logic and outright dishonesty creep in.

The Clans are an excellent example - Clan supertechnology is a bad idea. So, you can't have the canon Clantech in-game unless you want to create a tier system with the Clans at the top (this is exactly what PGI said when they announced Clan balance.) No reasonable person really expects an FPS to emulate a dice-rolling tabletop game where I can shoot you with two lasers from the same torso at point-blank range, and have the weapons land on the opposite sides of your 'mech. But a reasonable person might expect that story elements within the scope of the game be preserved.

That's where the distribution fallacies start. Many of the professionally dissatisfied - who show up to every single thread about balance and game mechanics with troll posts and vitriolic, often personal, diatribes about PGI - will shamelessly conflate story and rulesets in an attempt to claim moral superiority. "I just want what PGI promised, right in the title: 'A Battletech Game.'" And then they claim that this isn't "really" Battletech, and then engage in echo-chamber reinforcement with others of their ilk while they wait for someone to disagree so that they can have a good yell - while pretending to be attacked and shouted down by "PGI fanboys." Hell, they even made up a slur: "White Knights."

When you can get past the personal attacks and conspiracy theories, what you normally find out is that the "lore" these people are complaining about is really just game mechanics that they wanted changed in different ways than PGI changed them. Often central to their positions is a dogmatic assertion that Clan supertechnology is essential to the story elements of the lore, and that it was perfectly well balanced in tabletop - because Zellbrigen, or BattleValue, or flying magical unicorn flatulence. This is obviously not a story issue, but conflating the two makes the position seem more reasonable - and, more importantly, makes dissenters' arguments more difficult, because they have to shovel past the horse manure to actually argue the real points.

I wouldn't care so much, except that these jokers make having an intelligent discussion about anything balance or mechanics related so much more difficult - witness the two jackasses last page linking to Overwatch (because it's such a similar game!) The professionally salty are enough of a vermin problem already; I just don't think we need to make it easier on them.

[Koniving]

First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the supposed damage of a Long Tom is...
30 / 20 / 10.
In the 30 meter radius it hits, 30 damage. At 60 meters, 20 damage. Up to 90 meters, 10 damage.
In particular, it is noteworthy that this damage is split into lots of 5 per space.

The total damage when considering this using this stock image to show you how Hexes are arranged.


30 damage in 6 lots of 5 damage on anyone within 30 meters of the impact point. (30*1)
20 damage allotted in 4 lots of 5 damage on each of the hexes surrounding that central point which is 6 hexes. (20*6)
10 damage allotted in 2 lots of damage on each of the hexes surrounding those and not within a previous blast zone... (so 10*12).
This means..
30+(20*6)+(10*12) = 270 damage, assuming one mech is in each location but even if you have several in a location the fact is you're looking at the worst case scenario if you're dead center you're getting 30 damage. Even if it was focused as a headshot you wouldn't die. OR assuming that this is the total damage in each point, 270 damage period.

Long Tom being the game breaker that it is has to do with PGI, as many game breakers often are from poor interpretation from source to PGI's haphazard translation.

Spoiler

(such as single shot autocannons doing 20 damage when they are effectively tank-sized machine guns of similar calibers where the biggest difference between an AC/5, an AC/10 and a UAC/5, is the AC/10 shoots twice as fast without a jam risk and is ungodly heavy, and the UAC/5 does it with a jam risk for very little weight difference. Or how laser weapons on mechs typically have beam times between 0.1 to 2 seconds long and the big difference between them is that the quick duration laser weapons require several shots over time, while a laser of the same class with more power might have longer durations and fewer shots required to meet its class of damage. Implying that it is rarely if ever "1 zap = full damage." So many alpha issues would drop like *snap* that if PGI had read these.).

Anyway, my suggestion is this:
Manual control, limited amount of shots. Even 2 shots per player nets roughly 24 shots. My personal idea is having it available between deployments so it isn't a spur of the moment thing, but... Consumable method as suggested by Cathy seems more suitable.

Rather than one side being exclusive in having it, perhaps both sides get Long Tom but one side gets only half the use.

Say neutral territory, 2 uses per player on both sides, winning side on scouting gets 2 uses and losing side gets 1, due to interception of intel about the location of half of their Long Toms.

-----

An alternative, is to take the above and factor in some other potentials, too. Such as Arrow IV. So it's not always Long Toms since Long Toms aren't commonly used due to the long time they take to set up even when Mech Portable, while an Arrow IV is easily portable in Mechs and Aerospace Fighters and is aimed by a TAG on a spotting unit.

The Arrow IV only has the 90 meter diameter (30 meter center and 1 layer of surrounding hexes is 90 meters wide) as opposed to Long Tom's 150 meter diameter (30 meter center and 2 layers of surrounding hexes is 150 meters), is aimed by TAG, and would take less time to be delivered provided an Aerospace Fighter is in the air ready to make deliveries. Since each launcher has 5 shots per ton of ammo, PGI could have them all fired at once in a scatter pattern or allow each missile to be called upon.

So while Long Tom might have 2 shots of devastating stuff per player kinda generally aimed, Arrow IV could come in, will home in on the TAG (even if it is directly on a target that is moving), and could provide for some additional tactical options with 5 shots per player sporting a TAG, or perhaps a finite amount for the team and those with TAGs are the ones who can call on them? Gives you a tactical reason to destroy TAG users, doesn't it? Like with Long Toms, one side might get more than the other. Or it could be implemented as a Long Tom counter; if that side gets full Long Toms, we get full Arrow IVs which aren't quite like tactical nukes, but we can aim them much better and have them home in!

Anyway, since we know PGI doesn't really care about suggestions it'll never happen, but it is nice to dream.

[Void Angel]

I dream about arguments made without fallacious appeals to common knowledge, but alas, the waking world does not accommodate me.

[MBenji]

The results of this poll are completely irrelevant as the third viable option, to leave long tom as it is, is not represented.

[Clownwarlord]

It is just too over powering. I suggest it be removed and maybe a reward bonus of 30% to replace it. This would also help make player Faction Warfare more desirable to play which will hopefully increase people in cue for it to help drive down time to get a match.

[50 50]

@Void Angel
That was very well written. Nicely done.

[MischiefSC]

Void Angel, on 10 July 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

That's the thing: you've got to differentiate between "lore" and "canon." Because there is a real difference between story and mechanics - and when we use those terms interchangeably, bad logic and outright dishonesty creep in.

The Clans are an excellent example - Clan supertechnology is a bad idea. So, you can't have the canon Clantech in-game unless you want to create a tier system with the Clans at the top (this is exactly what PGI said when they announced Clan balance.) No reasonable person really expects an FPS to emulate a dice-rolling tabletop game where I can shoot you with two lasers from the same torso at point-blank range, and have the weapons land on the opposite sides of your 'mech. But a reasonable person might expect that story elements within the scope of the game be preserved.

That's where the distribution fallacies start. Many of the professionally dissatisfied - who show up to every single thread about balance and game mechanics with troll posts and vitriolic, often personal, diatribes about PGI - will shamelessly conflate story and rulesets in an attempt to claim moral superiority. "I just want what PGI promised, right in the title: 'A Battletech Game.'" And then they claim that this isn't "really" Battletech, and then engage in echo-chamber reinforcement with others of their ilk while they wait for someone to disagree so that they can have a good yell - while pretending to be attacked and shouted down by "PGI fanboys." Hell, they even made up a slur: "White Knights."

When you can get past the personal attacks and conspiracy theories, what you normally find out is that the "lore" these people are complaining about is really just game mechanics that they wanted changed in different ways than PGI changed them. Often central to their positions is a dogmatic assertion that Clan supertechnology is essential to the story elements of the lore, and that it was perfectly well balanced in tabletop - because Zellbrigen, or BattleValue, or flying magical unicorn flatulence. This is obviously not a story issue, but conflating the two makes the position seem more reasonable - and, more importantly, makes dissenters' arguments more difficult, because they have to shovel past the horse manure to actually argue the real points.

I wouldn't care so much, except that these jokers make having an intelligent discussion about anything balance or mechanics related so much more difficult - witness the two jackasses last page linking to Overwatch (because it's such a similar game!) The professionally salty are enough of a vermin problem already; I just don't think we need to make it easier on them.

You make a number of reasonable points I would agree with - not the least of which is that everyone actually wants lore broken (because a direct translation would be unplayable as a FPS) but they want it broken in their favor.

I argue against the point a lot in terms of game balance.

However I can't argue that PGI has made a bunch of good decisions and their pace of fixing problems is absolutely glacial. They tend to leave big problems for years. ECM, IS/Clan balance, all that. Years it was bad for. FW has been pretty wonky and incomplete for *years*. So then when it does get fixed nobody really cares anymore.

[Void Angel]

Well, maybe - they've gotten a lot better since jettisoning IGP. They're still not perfect, but I'm OK with the pace of changes and fixes for now. Obviously CW - sorry, Faction Play - needs work, but they are working on it. And the purpose of this thread was a (heavily slanted) desire to talk about the Long Tom and discuss what we as players think should be done about it.

Conflating the game lore with canon rulesets isn't helpful for that, which is the point all my arguments have been in aid of. It's just so hard to get any real discussion without people showing up to dispense Jr. High mockery, make snarky links to other games, or otherwise be stupid (again, all of that was just last page on this thread.) Being clear about terminology that's often abused by the trolls at least makes it easier on the grownups.

[MischiefSC]

Void Angel, on 10 July 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

Well, maybe - they've gotten a lot better since jettisoning IGP. They're still not perfect, but I'm OK with the pace of changes and fixes for now. Obviously CW - sorry, Faction Play - needs work, but they are working on it. And the purpose of this thread was a (heavily slanted) desire to talk about the Long Tom and discuss what we as players think should be done about it.

Conflating the game lore with canon rulesets isn't helpful for that, which is the point all my arguments have been in aid of. It's just so hard to get any real discussion without people showing up to dispense Jr. High mockery, make snarky links to other games, or otherwise be stupid (again, all of that was just last page on this thread.) Being clear about terminology that's often abused by the trolls at least makes it easier on the grownups.

It's easy to get salty. I fall prey to it plenty as do others. Long Tom for example was a neat concept that with even a bit of serious consideration though would be seen as a bad idea. Clan balance was broken and known to be broken for *years*. I can't understand how critical balance issues can be left broken for *years* in a game. PGI (I hate saying 'Russ' or 'Paul' or names, there is no way for us to know who makes decisions and naming people when making a complaint is both unreasonably personal and unreasonably judgemental IMO) has also promised things it never delivered or made promises it didn't actual plan on delivering (CW in 90 days!) to make players happy.

Quite simply PGI has broken faith too often for a lot of people to just trust they'll make the right decision. FW has had huge gaps and flaws and promised content missing for years now. You can't blame people for being salty and upset over that. Combine that with the general withdraw of PGI (go read Command Chair posts, starting at page 3. Look how often they were, look how much communication happened in them, look at the level of engagement then compared to now. It's depressing) and you see where the complaints are.

Thousands of people *want* to love FW. What they want out of it is pretty consistent too - in a general sense. When PGI not only does the opposite but then tells you 'we know what we're doing, you don't, this is best for the game' and then makes decisions that drive people out of FW....

yeah. People get critical. Rightly so in my opinion. However it's important to remember that being critical for the sake of being critical is pointless. If you're going to give feedback it needs to be geared toward helping things improve. Throwing insults around doesn't help, never has never will.

[EvilCow]

In my opinion nerfing it is not sufficient, direct automatic damage should not be part of the game.

It would be better to implement some other bonus as 3rd step, for example:
- Increased scanning rate, 30 seconds for example.
- Scanning controllable directly by the team commander. Reloading in one minute.
- Give lance leaders a pack of 12 air strikes (the normal kind) per mech. This would encourage people taking up that role too. Alternatively give 3 to all players, per mech.
- Decrease/increase base defences, stronger/weaker turrets, more/less of them.
- Make DSs do a quick pass on the battlefield with lasers blazing after dropping a mech.

Or combinations of the above plus other thigs.

No direct damage please, it is just frustrating and also the team that takes advantage of it often feels bad.

[Void Angel]

It's not direct automatic damage - it's a strike asset on steroids. And that's fine - you just need a longer avoidance window, less damage, and/or a smaller blast radius. The reason teams feel bad (I know I do) about having the Long Tom is that it's too powerful - not that it's there.

MischiefSC, on 10 July 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

It's easy to get salty. I fall prey to it plenty as do others. Long Tom for example was a neat concept that with even a bit of serious consideration though would be seen as a bad idea. Clan balance was broken and known to be broken for *years*. I can't understand how critical balance issues can be left broken for *years* in a game. PGI (I hate saying 'Russ' or 'Paul' or names, there is no way for us to know who makes decisions and naming people when making a complaint is both unreasonably personal and unreasonably judgemental IMO) has also promised things it never delivered or made promises it didn't actual plan on delivering (CW in 90 days!) to make players happy.

Quite simply PGI has broken faith too often for a lot of people to just trust they'll make the right decision. FW has had huge gaps and flaws and promised content missing for years now. You can't blame people for being salty and upset over that. Combine that with the general withdraw of PGI (go read Command Chair posts, starting at page 3. Look how often they were, look how much communication happened in them, look at the level of engagement then compared to now. It's depressing) and you see where the complaints are.

Thousands of people *want* to love FW. What they want out of it is pretty consistent too - in a general sense. When PGI not only does the opposite but then tells you 'we know what we're doing, you don't, this is best for the game' and then makes decisions that drive people out of FW....

yeah. People get critical. Rightly so in my opinion. However it's important to remember that being critical for the sake of being critical is pointless. If you're going to give feedback it needs to be geared toward helping things improve. Throwing insults around doesn't help, never has never will.

The problem isn't that people have criticisms - the problem is that people have internalized dissatisfaction to the point that it's become a basis for reasoning, not a conclusion. I've seen people show up for the patch notes, admitting in their snipe post that they haven't played for years, just to bash a game they're not playing - because whatever hobby horse they're riding around on didn't get the attention they wanted.

And they're not all on the same page, oh no! This guy thinks LRMs are "destroying the game," while this one thinks that nerfing them is just PGI "caving in" to hypothetical whiners on the forums, and this other guy is taking the opportunity to explain that if we just used canon armor values, Everything Would Be Perfect. Whether LRMs get nerfed or buffed, one group thinks PGI is spiraling down into incompetent madness, while the others aren't happy with the degree of the change - and of course you've got That Guy still over in the corner penning diatribes about how PGI is "too proud" to just listen to his expert opinion and fix the "real issue." All with a heaping helping of "PGI didn't do what I wanted, so they don't listen to their 'customers.'"

This sort of thing is typical of every MMO I've ever seen, but whether it's the smaller size, the cult fan base for the intellectual property, bad customer relations skills, or a combination of the above, the recriminations leveled at PGI (often personally directed) for literally everything they do or say make reasonable conversation nearly impossible. If you really want to understand PGI's withdrawal from the boards, you should cross reference command chair posts and twitter comments with the acrimonious feedback and rage generated, particularly when they had to change a plan. It's gotten so bad at times that I've been reminded of a spoiled child demanding that he still be taken to Disney world even though the family's finances have changed: "I don't care if Daddy lost his job, you promised!"

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but a lot of these guys feel entitled to their own facts. They make sweeping statements about things they cannot possibly know (such as how many players there are playing, how many players have quit playing, the internal workings of PGI, PGI's budget and profit margins, etc, etc.) Then they draw "obvious" conclusions based on these assumptions and respond to any challenge with slurs and vitriol. If we're going to hold intelligible (to say nothing of intelligent) conversations about the game, we have to challenge the bad logic and fact-less reasoning we see going on; this includes sourcing factual claims - and being clear on definitions.

[Dawnstealer]

MischiefSC, on 08 July 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Look, you can't replace LT with map changes and such. It needs to be an "event trigger". As in when scouting hits 90% an in game event is triggered.

Honestly?

Dropship flyby. On the sensor sweep the 3 dropships make a pass down the map in formation, doing their laser spam damage. That's enough damage to make a difference spread over the other team but not obliterating them. At 2 minute intervals it means every wave will have taken some torso hits before they even get to the gate.

This is significant without being OP. It's doable with existing mechanics and triggers. As a solution it's a pretty easy one.

Yeah, this is good.

[MischiefSC]

Void Angel, on 11 July 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

It's not direct automatic damage - it's a strike asset on steroids. And that's fine - you just need a longer avoidance window, less damage, and/or a smaller blast radius. The reason teams feel bad (I know I do) about having the Long Tom is that it's too powerful - not that it's there.



The problem isn't that people have criticisms - the problem is that people have internalized dissatisfaction to the point that it's become a basis for reasoning, not a conclusion. I've seen people show up for the patch notes, admitting in their snipe post that they haven't played for years, just to bash a game they're not playing - because whatever hobby horse they're riding around on didn't get the attention they wanted.

And they're not all on the same page, oh no! This guy thinks LRMs are "destroying the game," while this one thinks that nerfing them is just PGI "caving in" to hypothetical whiners on the forums, and this other guy is taking the opportunity to explain that if we just used canon armor values, Everything Would Be Perfect. Whether LRMs get nerfed or buffed, one group thinks PGI is spiraling down into incompetent madness, while the others aren't happy with the degree of the change - and of course you've got That Guy still over in the corner penning diatribes about how PGI is "too proud" to just listen to his expert opinion and fix the "real issue." All with a heaping helping of "PGI didn't do what I wanted, so they don't listen to their 'customers.'"

This sort of thing is typical of every MMO I've ever seen, but whether it's the smaller size, the cult fan base for the intellectual property, bad customer relations skills, or a combination of the above, the recriminations leveled at PGI (often personally directed) for literally everything they do or say make reasonable conversation nearly impossible. If you really want to understand PGI's withdrawal from the boards, you should cross reference command chair posts and twitter comments with the acrimonious feedback and rage generated, particularly when they had to change a plan. It's gotten so bad at times that I've been reminded of a spoiled child demanding that he still be taken to Disney world even though the family's finances have changed: "I don't care if Daddy lost his job, you promised!"

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but a lot of these guys feel entitled to their own facts. They make sweeping statements about things they cannot possibly know (such as how many players there are playing, how many players have quit playing, the internal workings of PGI, PGI's budget and profit margins, etc, etc.) Then they draw "obvious" conclusions based on these assumptions and respond to any challenge with slurs and vitriol. If we're going to hold intelligible (to say nothing of intelligent) conversations about the game, we have to challenge the bad logic and fact-less reasoning we see going on; this includes sourcing factual claims - and being clear on definitions.

If you want to work in the gaming industry you need to learn to deal with criticism. The problem is that normally when you're designing a game you get a modicum of negative feedback but a lot of positive feedback. By leaving problems ignored and unresolved for long stretches PGI has cultivated a sense of apathy and contempt that the player base mimics. Disconnecting from feedback leaves you unable to respond to it effectively.

Yes, someone will complain no matter what you do. However the response to that is not to just do whatever. FW is a great example; look at what was pitched for FW, look at what we got. Look at the consistent response to Long Tom, look at their response - dialing it way back, then buffing it back up. 1650 damage per mech, reduced linearly to 300m? So at 270m it's still doing 165 damage over a mech?

I don't want any sort of Long Tom in game. Also, every 2 minutes is bad too. A dropship fly-by every 5 or 7 minutes? Sure. However if scouting creates a significant, match-swaying advantage consistently then 4man queue > 12man queue and you'll have problems for your population.

People will play scouting for the same reason people play Conquest and Domination instead of just Skirmish. It's what they want and enjoy. Having scouting be critical to Invasion success is never going to work unless balance for Scouting is better than balance for Invasion, which isn't even close to the case nor is it likely to ever be.

[Void Angel]

Changing long-term plans is also a part of playing a game - but we have this incredibly loud, irreconcilably hostile minority that just screams at PGI all day long. These guys have been banned from talking about MWO on the Star Citizen forums - for repeatedly bashing anyone who disagreed with them about the game. Is this a small minority of the forum population? Almost certainly. Are they an excessively loud minority of the people who are excercised over nearly everything PGI does? I'd like to think so. But the fact remains that a lot of the people who offer complaints are disinclined to be fair, or even honest about the subject - witness all the outright lies posted in "reviews" on the Steam release, claiming that the game was pay-to-win, or posting things from before the IGP split as current affairs.

PGI definitely needs a better forum presence - I think they could start by putting. down. the. fracking. Twitter. Remove the impulse-driven temptations of small, limited messages and just write explanations of things; maybe find yourself someone who excelled in college English to edit your releases to remove ambiguity and enhance clarity, and boom! We do know that PGI reads feedback, though - otherwise there's no reason to care about the Terrible Twos and and the tinfoil hats. They reference things they read on the forums and occasionally post; it's just haphazard and not always clear.

None of this obviates the need for the forums to provide coherent feedback - and we're not helping to do that if we sound like the people who responded to the question, "You don't even play any more; when are you going to let it go," with, "When Russ and Paul are fired, or the company loses the IP license!"

[1 21 Giggawatts]

Just spitballing some idea's here but i think its clear the majority of the population would like the long tom mechanic removed.

I think it could be replaced by 'Air Superiority'

It could have the benefits of each Mech on the team being granted an extra superior air strike, as well as drop ships that fly across the map zapping with large lasers.

On top of that, I think it could be cool to randomize the drop locations for the side losing scouting. This could be due the the fact the drop ship has to just dump and run before losing out to air superiority. Also the dropships guns should be disabled from hitting mechs on the ground as they are already tied up trying to keep the fighter's at bay.

Do you think it would be a disadvantage to have individual mechs dropped 'behind enemy lines' or could that in fact turn out to be a positive factor for the side losing scouting?

Another feature could be to increase the scouting sides sensor range - while decreasing the enemies sensor range, as a result of information warfare aircraft.

Another feature could be as dropships are taking damage on the flight in, there is a chance your mech can land with some form of damage already, although this might be a little harsh.


These bonuses would be very powerful, but still give the opposition a chance. Im not sure about the randomized drop locations as that could be the biggest game change, would be keen to hear your opinions on that one?

[MischiefSC]

Void Angel, on 11 July 2016 - 07:18 PM, said:

Changing long-term plans is also a part of playing a game - but we have this incredibly loud, irreconcilably hostile minority that just screams at PGI all day long. These guys have been banned from talking about MWO on the Star Citizen forums - for repeatedly bashing anyone who disagreed with them about the game. Is this a small minority of the forum population? Almost certainly. Are they an excessively loud minority of the people who are excercised over nearly everything PGI does? I'd like to think so. But the fact remains that a lot of the people who offer complaints are disinclined to be fair, or even honest about the subject - witness all the outright lies posted in "reviews" on the Steam release, claiming that the game was pay-to-win, or posting things from before the IGP split as current affairs.

PGI definitely needs a better forum presence - I think they could start by putting. down. the. fracking. Twitter. Remove the impulse-driven temptations of small, limited messages and just write explanations of things; maybe find yourself someone who excelled in college English to edit your releases to remove ambiguity and enhance clarity, and boom! We do know that PGI reads feedback, though - otherwise there's no reason to care about the Terrible Twos and and the tinfoil hats. They reference things they read on the forums and occasionally post; it's just haphazard and not always clear.

None of this obviates the need for the forums to provide coherent feedback - and we're not helping to do that if we sound like the people who responded to the question, "You don't even play any more; when are you going to let it go," with, "When Russ and Paul are fired, or the company loses the IP license!"

Pfft, that set of nutbars on the SC forum was a bunch of really broken people. Like that crazy stalker ex, watching your window, fapping and saying 'I hate you, you *****! COME BACK I LOVE YOU! Nobody cares about you like I do! That's why I'll dance around wearing your skin!' They're a couple steps past creepy and on towards scary.

That sort of crazy is a part of every games population though. They're not part of the games population, they're just crazy people who moved through.

Part of dealing with customers is separating the 'I hate you all and want you to die in a fire' feedback from 'This new change you made really makes me unhappy'. It's not actually that hard, you just need to invest in it.

[Avian Blackfrost]

I think the Long Toms add a bit of urgency to a battle which is always good in my book. I find the pressure really exhilarating.

I think reduced AoE and/or increased firing delay would help stem the rage by giving pilots a bigger window of opportunity to dodge. The point is to nerf the Long Toms enough that a player can only blame himself for getting killed.

Case in point, there are a few times where a Long Tom would drop directly behind me. I notice the plume of smoke and continue to waddle out of LT range.... only to get one-shotted anyway. The feeling of not being able to dodge it is actually pretty tilting...

Edited by Judy Hopps, 11 July 2016 - 11:04 PM.

[Void Angel]

The signal to noise ratio in this game seems worse than the old vanilla WoW Shaman forums - and that's bad. Imagine a neurosurgeon, his shaking hand clutching a shot glass of the whiskey he is drinking to combat his ******* withdrawals, clutching a rusty steak knife as he prepares to operate. This is a mere fraction of the brain damage you risked by simply looking at the link to those forums. I mean seriously - how many other games have people engaging in a deliberate misinformation campaign to sabotage its Steam launch? That goes way "you get some in every game." It goes up and down around here, and a lot of the people on my ignore list don't come around any more (one of them's been banned; vindication!) but the overall amount of just pure, hostile, stupid sometimes beggars my imagination.

Judy Hopps, on 11 July 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

I think the Long Toms add a bit of urgency to a battle which is always good in my book. I find the pressure really exhilarating.

I think reduced AoE and/or increased firing delay would help stem the rage by giving pilots a bigger window of opportunity to dodge. The point is to nerf the Long Toms enough that a player can only blame himself for getting killed.

Case in point, there are a few times where a Long Tom would drop directly behind me. I notice the plume of smoke and continue to waddle out of LT range.... only to get one-shotted anyway. The feeling of not being able to dodge it is actually pretty tilting...

Yeah, it's the lack of counterplay that really makes the Long Tom frustrating. It's enough to have it be a powerful area denial weapon; but I've never seen it not kill at least one person. Even Lights have problems evading it, and that's neither balanced nor fair.