205 replies to this topic

[C E Dwyer]

Johnny Z, on 23 November 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

Why Can't Paul Be Like This?



I was wondering why he cant be like this.

you want to see Paul in a blue dress !

you are so weird

[Graugger]

RedDragon, on 23 November 2016 - 10:26 AM, said:

So ... what's keeping PGI from entering that niche?
During Closed Beta, they really looked like they would care about the game and the players. I even had some chats with Russ and Paul over PM here on the boards. The combination of "We make a game for hardcore BT players" and keeping close to the community is a no-brainer IMO (look at HBS). Instead PGI went the way of "we don't care about you, you are not our target audience anymore, go buy another mechpack".

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's what.

Additionally, I think that was before Transverse fell through.

Edited by Graugger, 24 November 2016 - 05:36 AM.

[Davers]

I wasn't going to comment in this thread, until I saw this.

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 November 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

in in the video he is talking about his approach to balancing the character in the game, how the character fits in the game. Paul did the same thing in the dev vlogs. albeit not recently but that gave insight to they at least in some structure converse about balance.

PGI spends little, If any, time thinking how mechs fit into the game. There is no plan, no foresight, no roles or niches to fill. The way quirks are applied seems completely random and gives the impression that PGI doesn't understand the game. An example being when the BJ-X1 was buffed into being the premier medium mech, something I am sure was accidental and not planned.

PGI just wants to sell mechs, regardless of whether they remain competitive for years, or are trash from day one. And I don't believe they themselves know the difference until they see what the players can do with them.

[H I A S]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 November 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Paul understanding the game

lmao

never happens

Edited by arivio, 24 November 2016 - 06:05 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Davers, on 24 November 2016 - 05:55 AM, said:

PGI spends little, If any, time thinking how mechs fit into the game. There is no plan, no foresight, no roles or niches to fill.

that's an assertion. I would be better served trying to have a conversation with a dev that try to have one based on opinion.

the second part to this is the mechs in battletech have per-configurations. They weren't made up for the game, their load outs where already decided before they were put into the game. The weapons and values were already decided before they came in also.

PGI has had an uphill climb when it comes to balance, and even after all is said and done, there are going to be mechs that outclass others, you can not get around that.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 November 2016 - 06:13 AM.

[Davers]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 November 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

that's an assertion. I would be better served trying to have a conversation with a dev that try to have one based on opinion.

the second part to this is the mechs in battletech have per-configurations. They weren't made up for the game, their load outs where already decided before they were put into the game. The weapons and values were already decided before they came in also.

PGI has had an uphill climb when it comes to balance, and even after all is said and done, there are going to be mechs that outclass others, you can not get around that.

Then mechs that are fundamentally weaker or stronger shouldn't be added to the game. Its like adding unnecessary pieces to chess. Just because it existed in Battletech doesn't mean it has to be added to MWO. That's why the "buy a mechpack" approach hurts MWO in the long term. Weaker mechs being sold at equal dollar amounts to stronger mechs.instead of a game designed around balance and mech roles we have art collections of wildly inconsistent performers.

[Sjorpha]

BLOOD WOLF, on 23 November 2016 - 10:27 PM, said:

yea, but the intellectual demand is still there. How is the Op's assertion that overwatch is better in terms of balancing is not special pleading when some people claim in that game that the balance is screwed the same claim people in MWO make.

How many people complain about balance isn't really that relevant to that claim. If you wanted to use complaints as an indicator you'd have to divide the number of complaints by the active player base, and that would probably favor overwatch.

But it's much better to look at tournament play and measure the strategic variance directly, that comparison also favors overwatch, there is a much smaller ratio of useless characters not used in comp play and a much higher ratio of mechs not used in comp play in mwo. That alone proves overwatch has superior balance.

That blizzard adresses balance concerns quicker and that their changes are better received is beyond doubt though, because they actually do it and pgi usually does not. How do I compare PGIs response to machine guns being bad to blizzards response on fixing symmetry. I can't because pgi hasn't even posted a tweet on the subject, while blizzard both has rebalanced the character and made a video explanation.

[Kmieciu]

Davers, on 24 November 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

Then mechs that are fundamentally weaker or stronger shouldn't be added to the game.

Quirks can make any mech the best one in the game.
Even the Quickdraw with a single LRM5.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Davers, on 24 November 2016 - 06:23 AM, said:

Then mechs that are fundamentally weaker or stronger shouldn't be added to the game. Its like adding unnecessary pieces to chess. Just because it existed in Battletech doesn't mean it has to be added to MWO. That's why the "buy a mechpack" approach hurts MWO in the long term. Weaker mechs being sold at equal dollar amounts to stronger mechs.instead of a game designed around balance and mech roles we have art collections of wildly inconsistent performers.

okay sure. Now what do you say to the other players that wanted mechs like the Timberwolf, which by it's design was meant to shred everything, not litteraly of course. Should they remove all mechs with a certain number of hardpoints?

Sjorpha, on 24 November 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

How many people complain about balance isn't really that relevant to that claim. If you wanted to use complaints as an indicator you'd have to divide the number of complaints by the active player base, and that would probably favor overwatch.

sure, the number of people complaining has nothing to do with the fact of something being balanced. Yea, you don't have any evidence for the favor rating so I am not going to contend with things that can not be proven.

Sjorpha, on 24 November 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

But it's much better to look at tournament play and measure the strategic variance directly, that comparison also favors overwatch, there is a much smaller ratio of useless characters not used in comp play and a much higher ratio of mechs not used in comp play in mwo. That alone proves overwatch has superior balance.

no, comp play focuses on enhanced performance, by nature some mechs are cut out, despite if they are balanced or not. Meta strategies and tactics, let alone stats of characters has nothing to do with balance. There is a smaller ratio becuase they have less characters. By nature of the games this is true, given the history of battletech and the approach to giving people the mechs they want regardless of mech performance. That doesn't prove that over watch has superior balance because you have to look at all characters in a game.

Sjorpha, on 24 November 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

That blizzard adresses balance concerns quicker and that their changes are better received is beyond doubt though, because they actually do it and pgi usually does not. How do I compare PGIs response to machine guns being bad to blizzards response on fixing symmetry. I can't because pgi hasn't even posted a tweet on the subject, while blizzard both has re-balanced the character and made a video explanation.

to be honest I can't verify much of what you are even claiming, but i will say that they do make videos on the subject. then again PGI explains the balance in patches, so you are saying video is better than text......so?

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 November 2016 - 07:45 AM.

[Davers]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 November 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

okay sure. Now what do you say to the other players that wanted mechs like the Timberwolf, which by it's design was meant to shred everything, not litteraly of course. Should they remove all mechs with a certain number of hardpoints?

Can you not see what totally horrible game design that is? A game financed by the sale of mechs, where there is a mech "designed to shred everything"? But, you answered your own question- it shouldn't be able to do it. So it's not a mech that is designed to shred anything. Because mechs like that make for a very stale game. Look at the Kodiak- a mech that has far better stats than any other assault mech. Unless a more powerful mech comes out, there isn't any reason for players (interested in winning) to ever purchase another mech ever again.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Davers, on 24 November 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Can you not see what totally horrible game design that is? A game financed by the sale of mechs, where there is a mech "designed to shred everything"? But, you answered your own question- it shouldn't be able to do it. So it's not a mech that is designed to shred anything. Because mechs like that make for a very stale game. Look at the Kodiak- a mech that has far better stats than any other assault mech. Unless a more powerful mech comes out, there isn't any reason for players (interested in winning) to ever purchase another mech ever again.

sure, unfortunately that is battletech, that is why HBS is probably sticking with an earlier timeline. What can they really balance? weapons? cooldowns? doesn't change the fact that mechs can pack a lot of firepower, and some more than others.

what are they gonna tell people? this mech is going to be OP so we will bar mechs from the game? should they just start taking out mechs? maybe they should. or limit mechs in comp play, who knows.

Once again, unlike over watch, these mechs where never meant to be balanced. although PGI can still do their best. might be a golden mean somewhere.

This game however has dynamics that can account for more the mech at times. Usually it is the teams that make or break the battles, not the mechs. 100 alphas mean nothing at times in this game.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 November 2016 - 07:55 AM.

[Oberost]

Oh great, another thread hijacked by BW.

This guy is redefining the lore of BT. No more Word of Blake, from now onwards it will be Word of Blood Wolf because he's right and all of you are a bunch of heretics...

[Revis Volek]

dervishx5, on 23 November 2016 - 09:51 PM, said:

It's your attitude.

and the way your present yourself over text, its also could just be due to a lack of inflection. 9 times out of 10 people assumes each other are mad over text, i dunno why that is.

Davers, on 24 November 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

Can you not see what totally horrible game design that is? A game financed by the sale of mechs, where there is a mech "designed to shred everything"? But, you answered your own question- it shouldn't be able to do it. So it's not a mech that is designed to shred anything. Because mechs like that make for a very stale game. Look at the Kodiak- a mech that has far better stats than any other assault mech. Unless a more powerful mech comes out, there isn't any reason for players (interested in winning) to ever purchase another mech ever again.

and thus the power creep train rolls on....

[Novakaine]

I wish Paul was this brother.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Oberost, on 24 November 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Oh great, another thread hijacked by BW.

This guy is redefining the lore of BT. No more Word of Blake, from now onwards it will be Word of Blood Wolf because he's right and all of you are a bunch of heretics...

yep, now I have to go onward to the tens of other threads I don't participate on.

the ironic thing is he post an unrelated-off topic post to the thread and claims that i hijack. I don't know if thats stupidity, or just ignorance.

Also i can't help it when i have to respond to multiple people, by state of the circumstances I just make more post on a thread. The longer the post towards me the longer my response.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 November 2016 - 09:17 AM.

[Revis Volek]

Novakaine, on 24 November 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

I wish Paul was this brother.

Thats Don "Magic" Juan, Snoop doggs right hand man. lol



I somehow don't think green suits and cognac would help anyone balance this game but then again we have been spinning the wheel for four years. Maybe Paul needs some booty and Hennessy to get this straightened out?

[Deathlike]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 23 November 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

I was a "gotta win all arguments at all cost" teenager. Then someone refused to argue with me called me an idiot that needs to be ignored and I noticed people started ignoring me.

Then I realized I was being an argumentative @sshole and no one wanted to be around me. I decided to change my tune and learned "when to fold them and walk away" so to speak.

He still needs to learn that.

It's not about winning Internet arguments... it's more about not being a total douche when confronted with facts... but these facts won't phase this one...

[BLOOD WOLF]

Deathlike, on 24 November 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

It's not about winning Internet arguments... it's more about not being a total douche when confronted with facts... but these facts won't phase this one...

they are not facts, the OP is cherry picking, its opinion.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 November 2016 - 09:28 AM, said:

they are not facts, the OP is cherry picking, its opinion.

Aren't you?

See, it doesn't seem any less obvious to the rest of us, but... then there's you.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Deathlike, on 24 November 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

Aren't you?

See, it doesn't seem any less obvious to the rest of us, but... then there's you.

who the heck is the rest of? still pretending as if everyone thinks the same way as you do but me? maybe you need to talk with different people on the forums, instead of running back to the safe zone.

Its easy to stick around and converse with like minded people,but it takes more nerve to speak to people who might disagree.

I like anyone to state using quotes and facts where I special pleaded. I criticized both games on this thread. Some people here remind me of SJW's, the more correct term is forum warrior.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 November 2016 - 09:38 AM.