2368 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 23 March 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

The majority? Or the vocal minority? In this game, it is way too easy to conflate the two.

Does it really matter? Either way it is more productive that in a case where the public opinion may not act in its own self-interest that PGI should avoid public polls that it may have to override.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 March 2017 - 11:58 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 March 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

Except by going against the wishes of the majority, you will get significantly more salt because that sympathy only goes so far.....

Yes, I understand that this is your view of the matter.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 March 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

Does it really matter? Either way it is more productive that in a case where the public opinion may not act in its own self-interest that PGI should avoid public polls that it may have to override.

It does, to a degree. The content player plays the game. The discontent whine about it. Further, only a small percentage of any given playerbase utilize the in game forums, so all the complaints we ever see here are either the tip of the iceberg, or nothing but the screeching of a select few. If it's just a few, who cares about their noise if the far majority find it absolutely acceptable? If it is, however, the sound of the iceberg, than that is concerning.

The fact that it is so damned hard to distinguish the two due to how bipolar this community tends to be makes sorting out static from actual public consensus a problem.

That said, any addition or change PGI, or, in fact, ANY developer makes to their game, will rock the boat. People will be upset. Either they will feel like they were ignored, or that they know best and how dare they not be heeded to. There is literally no way to make everyone happy, regardless of the way a developer goes about introducing something. If it is the vocal minority, they can go choke on a [redacted] if it improves the enjoyment for the silent majority. If it is, indeed, the consensus of the overall community, however, it should be listened to.


Edit:

That said, I'd still love an in game poll system. Something where PGI pushes opinion polls directly to the player base, bypassing the forums entirely. That would significantly widen the opinion base for a more accurate cross section for feedback. Would require PGI to produce unbiased polls, however.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 23 March 2017 - 12:08 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 23 March 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

That said, any addition or change PGI, or, in fact, ANY developer makes to their game, will rock the boat. People will be upset.

There is a difference between making a change, and making a change that used a poll to inform itself on what change to make (if the results are public that is).

Pariah Devalis, on 23 March 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

That said, I'd still love an in game poll system. Something where PGI pushes opinion polls directly to the player base, bypassing the forums entirely. That would significantly widen the opinion base for a more accurate cross section for feedback. Would require PGI to produce unbiased polls, however.

It would be nice, but not if PGI if it can easily be seen that PGI is overriding those decisions. For example if you never saw the results and PGI just used that as a way to get a good judgement on opinion of the player base, that would work.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 March 2017 - 12:14 PM.

[Metus regem]

Pariah Devalis, on 23 March 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

That said, I'd still love an in game poll system. Something where PGI pushes opinion polls directly to the player base, bypassing the forums entirely. That would significantly widen the opinion base for a more accurate cross section for feedback. Would require PGI to produce unbiased polls, however.

They could garner a quick response, even if they instinctive it, say give enough MC to unlock a skin or decal of the player's choosing for taking part in the poll... As it stands for PGI to hand out MC, it really costs them next to nothing.... Provided that doing said poll was done from the UI in game upon log in.


Edit:

Thinking a bit more on it, use a community poll like this one to pick say the top choices in each weight class, then offer a week long vote system in game (you can only pick once, it is locked to your account), where you can vote for which you want in each weight class. Then the next week, change it to the next weight class...

Edited by Metus regem, 23 March 2017 - 12:18 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 March 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

There is a difference between making a change, and making a change that used a poll to inform itself on what change to make (if the results are public that is).


It would be nice, but not if PGI if it can easily be seen that PGI is overriding those decisions. For example if you never saw the results and PGI just used that as a way to get a good judgement on opinion of the player base, that would work.

I'd actually be fine with that. At the very least, it would provide an ear to the ground for PGI. They could cast a wide net for opinion, and act as they see fit. I mean, seeing the results are ultimately pointless for the community. It's the data PGI could gather that is important.

[Bluttrunken]

Is there any way to change my votes? At the time I submitted my votes the list of mechs was comparatively small.

Edited by Bluttrunken, 23 March 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bluttrunken, on 23 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Is there any way to change my votes? At the time I submitted my votes the list of mechs was comparatively small.

Yes, would be silly to not allow that given how often Gas has added options.

[Metus regem]

Bluttrunken, on 23 March 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Is there any way to change my votes? At the time I submitted my votes the list of mechs was comparatively small.

Use the "delete my vote" button then vote again...

[Bluttrunken]

Metus regem, on 23 March 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

Use the "delete my vote" button then vote again...

I guess I'm blind. Thanks a bunch.

[Alan Davion]

Gas Guzzler, on 22 March 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

Well good riddance then if you are going to be close minded like that. Your way isn't the only way. BTW, do you only play Faction Play or what? I noticed on the leaderboards you haven't played quick play in 9 months. Or if you have, less than 10 matches per month.

Honestly, we are talking about what good loadouts we can put on the mech. What do you expect me to say? LB10, some small lasers, an SRM4 and an LRM15? Get over it. People want to be able to play mechs that have good loadouts.

I never said it was "my way or the highway", what's closed my mind is how far this game has fallen in that damage is the only thing that's really rewarded in this game, and the more damage you can rack up, the more "effective" a mech.

Also, are you insane? Asking if someone plays only CW? I'm in an IS Loyalist unit. We stay away from CW/FW/FP/Whatever like it's the god damned plague because the Clan mechs are just plain better, and always will be. If we had the 12v10 rule in place things might be different. But we don't, so everything is same-shite-different-day.

Gas Guzzler, on 22 March 2017 - 07:04 AM, said:

Yeah, well its getting tiresome hearing "meta cheese" as if running an effective build is "dishonorable".

Honestly at this point in time "effective" might as well mean "meta", because people are so blinded by the need to be "effective", that any mech that doesn't meet the trifecta required to be "effective", is immediately derided as being trash tier.

FLG 01, on 22 March 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

When was the last IS-Mech release that was decided by meta-concerns? Assassin, Cyclops, Archer...?

The IS has a boat-load of Mechs released for nostalgia only. That is fine and all for those who have nostalgic feelings for the Mech, but don't tell me people cared about "meta cheese" when clamoring for the Uziel.

I have my share of Mechs I like for nostalgia, but atm the IS would not benefit from an Excalibur or a Spartan. (And they would not have much fan in this forum anyway). What the IS currently needs is a powerful Mech.

Problem is, the Clans will always have a BETTER mech. Unless PGI just throws out the rulebook and makes everything equal from the bottom up, the Clans will always have the advantage in everything.

Whatever the best IS Mech might be, the Clans will always have a better one.

Let's give the Clans a few stinker trash-tier mechs for a while, that's about the only way the IS could get a few powerful mechs.

TheArisen, on 22 March 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

What would be nice is if both sides of this debate would stop putting each other down and we could just discuss things.

For example, a lot of these guys that want the 3025 and before mechs are just worried those mechs will be forgotten. On the other side are mw4 fans and for them they've waited for quite some time to get their stuff. Of course there's the players that just want some good mechs because after all the game is meant to be played.

And they have a god given right to be worried, considering the blatant power creep the game is suffering from. I shudder to think of what's coming down the pipeline in the next 6 to 9 months.

chucklesMuch, on 22 March 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

I agree - this game needs both nostalgic/quirky/interesting/lore mechs... and effective ones, great when they are both!

IS are especially in need of some better performing ones, to complete with the top tier clan ones. Please can we have a round of performance IS mechs being released before the next (underwhelming but greatly loved nostalgia mechs).

The game does need both, yes, but there also need to be concessions made in order for some mechs to be effective.

A number of the 3025 mechs, unless they get some serious, and I mean serious hard point inflation would be absolute garbage, and even then, they still wouldn't hold a candle to many other mechs. Especially the Clans.

About the only way for some 3025 mechs to be effective would be if there were a 3025 stock only mode. And I'm talking on the LIVE server, not the lamea$$ private lobbies where you don't earn a single red cent.

The only hope most 3025'ers have to enjoy some of their mechs the way they were meant to be enjoyed is the upcoming HBS Battletech game.

[Gas Guzzler]

Alan Davion, on 23 March 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

I never said it was "my way or the highway", what's closed my mind is how far this game has fallen in that damage is the only thing that's really rewarded in this game, and the more damage you can rack up, the more "effective" a mech.

Also, are you insane? Asking if someone plays only CW? I'm in an IS Loyalist unit. We stay away from CW/FW/FP/Whatever like it's the god damned plague because the Clan mechs are just plain better, and always will be. If we had the 12v10 rule in place things might be different. But we don't, so everything is same-shite-different-day.

So you don't play CW, therefore according to the Leaderboards you have played this game less than 10 matches a month for the past 9 months. Why are you even here?

Yeah its all about damage, its a PvP MechWarrior game. There are different ways of getting to high damage though, either bringing more firepower and being slow or less firepower but being fast and agile enough to be able to apply that firepower often. What else do you want? In what universe is playing a PvP video game fun where the goal is to simply run around doing nothing/standing in specified zones.

Alan Davion, on 23 March 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

Honestly at this point in time "effective" might as well mean "meta", because people are so blinded by the need to be "effective", that any mech that doesn't meet the trifecta required to be "effective", is immediately derided as being trash tier.

I just like to run builds that can efficiently inflict damage. Not all of the mechs I like could be called "meta", some are, but others not as much. I especially like putting "meta" loadouts on non-meta mechs because I am a hipster like that.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 23 March 2017 - 01:02 PM.

[FLG 01]

Alan Davion, on 23 March 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

Problem is, the Clans will always have a BETTER mech. Unless PGI just throws out the rulebook and makes everything equal from the bottom up, the Clans will always have the advantage in everything.

Whatever the best IS Mech might be, the Clans will always have a better one.

Let's give the Clans a few stinker trash-tier mechs for a while, that's about the only way the IS could get a few powerful mechs.

On the one hand, that was not the point. You claimed people only cared about "meta cheese", though this is simply not true going by the Mech releases and sales.
On the other hand, this is not TT. It should be well possible for an IS-Mech to compete with a Clan-Mech and, actually, it is:with good geometry, good hardpoint layout, high engine cap, ECM etc., an IS-Mech can have a big impact in MWO.

I am not willing to just roll over and give up on basic performance requirements because we are dealing with an IS-Mech.


(Btw., the standard Fafnir-5 has a higher BV than the Kodiak-3. Just saying.)

Edited by FLG 01, 23 March 2017 - 01:15 PM.

[Metus regem]

FLG 01, on 23 March 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

(Btw., the standard Fafnir-5 has a higher BV than the Kodiak-3. Just saying.)

And it does more damage per hit than the Kodiak 3....

Wooohoo for 25 damage HGR's at short range, and 20 damage HGR's out to past where the LB-20's can hit and 10 damage HGR's at nearly double the max range for LB-20's...

(13 hex mid range for HGR's vs 12hex max for cLB-20's....)

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Metus regem, on 23 March 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

And it does more damage per hit than the Kodiak 3....

Wooohoo for 25 damage HGR's at short range, and 20 damage HGR's out to past where the LB-20's can hit and 10 damage HGR's at nearly double the max range for LB-20's...

(13 hex mid range for HGR's vs 12hex max for cLB-20's....)

Well, here's a thought, we could get Peter's Fafnir, which has 9 Rocket Launcher 10's on it, so 9 missile hardpoints, 5 energy hard points, and a ballistic. That would be able to make one hell of a brawler or mid range build, even long range. There is also a version with ballistic arms (2xUAC20) with 4 light ppc's, 2 in each torso. Pretty much every Fafnir has around 5 energy hard points on it and two ballistic, at least. I think that works pretty nicely. Sure no KDK-3 but the KDK-3 is a fluke due to PGI gave it too many ballistic hardpoints. Seriously should just be 2B, 1 in the RT 1 in the LT, 3 energy in the arms, and two missile hard points in the CT. Just wish PGI would swallow the bitter pill and fix the KDK-3 instead of nerfs that hurt other mechs more than the KDK-3.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 23 March 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

That would be able to make one hell of a brawler

Unless it gets Atlas structure quirks, it is too slow to be a good assault brawler. That said, missile hardpoints aren't really the secret to good assaults unless MRMs just become this secret weapon. Otherwise it is ballistic hardpoints that matter, with maybe a couple energy hardpoints (that support PPCs). Outside of that there is the option for a 6 LPL 100 tonner that doesn't have horrible mounts (looking at you AS7-BH, MAL-2P, CP-10-Z).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 March 2017 - 03:01 PM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 March 2017 - 02:58 PM, said:

Unless it gets Atlas structure quirks, it is too slow to be a good assault brawler. That said, missile hardpoints aren't really the secret to good assaults unless MRMs just become this secret weapon. Otherwise it is ballistic hardpoints that matter, with maybe a couple energy hardpoints (that support PPCs). Outside of that there is the option for a 6 LPL 100 tonner that doesn't have horrible mounts (looking at you AS7-BH, MAL-2P, CP-10-Z).

Fafnir 5B likely will at least mount 4xLPL, so long as it isn't locked at a engine cap of 300 that is in line with cockpit 4xLPL with whatever ballistic you want. If they make the 5B's arms have 3 energy, 6xLPL easy, or ERLL/LL again in line with the cockpit with a 330 light engine. XL it for whatever reason and likely hit engine cap with that free 10 tons instead of 5 of the LFE over the STD300. It isn't the most meta mech, but, hey, no low mounts, counts for something. Sidegrade I would say to the Atlas and not an upgrade. Also the thing is box with legs so we are looking at more like Cicada hitboxes than Atlas.

Edited by Moonlight Grimoire, 23 March 2017 - 03:18 PM.

[TheArisen]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 23 March 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

Fafnir 5B likely will at least mount 4xLPL, so long as it isn't locked at a engine cap of 300 that is in line with cockpit 4xLPL with whatever ballistic you want. If they make the 5B's arms have 3 energy, 6xLPL easy, or ERLL/LL again in line with the cockpit with a 330 light engine. XL it for whatever reason and likely hit engine cap with that free 10 tons instead of 5 of the LFE over the STD300. It isn't the most meta mech, but, hey, no low mounts, counts for something. Sidegrade I would say to the Atlas and not an upgrade. Also the thing is box with legs so we are looking at more like Cicada hitboxes than Atlas.

Well the Fafnir comes with a 300 so it's max engine would be 360 like the KCrab & Atlas

Tina Benoit, on 23 March 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

Woo! I love these poll threads. I always take these to our big Mech meetings. Don't worry we aren't having one soon or anything so don't feel rushed with it but know that we'll be using this~

Thanks OP!

Nightstar & Dragon Fire plz!

[Gas Guzzler]

Wow, how did I miss Tina and Paul posting in here.

I am honored the devs graced my poll discussion

[TheArisen]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 March 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

Wow, how did I miss Tina and Paul posting in here.

I am honored the devs graced my poll discussion

I'd change the title to mention they posted here. I'm sure there are a fair number of people that haven't voted because they think it doesn't matter.