61 replies to this topic

[Lukoi Banacek]

Something that gets washed out alot on these forums is beneath alot of the hyperbole, there are some very reasonable reasons for the backlash. PGI can adjust/adapt as well to keep their players or risk their income-generating game dying out completely.

I think the vast majority of backlash isn't focused on bringing the game down. People are passionate about their game, their favorite IP and want the game to kick ***.

[R Valentine]

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 April 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Something that gets washed out alot on these forums is beneath alot of the hyperbole, there are some very reasonable reasons for the backlash. PGI can adjust/adapt as well to keep their players or risk their income-generating game dying out completely. I think the vast majority of backlash isn't focused on bringing the game down. People are passionate about their game, their favorite IP and want the game to kick ***.

^ This. What all the "adapt or die" [Redacted] fail to notice is that we don't actually have to adapt. We don't have to do anything. We don't have to play the game. We don't have to spend money. If they want us to leave so they can enjoy their 4 hour FP queue times and even lower game population, more power to them. PGI is the one who's balls are on the line. It's their livelihood at stake. Not ours. They have to adapt or die. Their game has to adapt or die. You guys have it all backwards.

Edited by draiocht, 29 April 2017 - 05:06 PM.
insult

[Alexander of Macedon]

Honestly. The only reason people put up with PGI was because they were the only option. But at this point, even without HBS BTech, I'd be considering going back to MechCommander for good.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Kiran Yagami, on 29 April 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:

.... it all has to go. The tree if flawed from its very foundation. Not just a minor concern with the refund.

Well, I don't agree with you even remotely here. I don't think it all needs to go at all. I think the tree, the dequirkening, the desyncing and the flexibility of CB vs value of GSP needs a rethinking and modification before it goes to live. I don't believe it needs to be scrapped entirely.

[SmokedJag]

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 April 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Something that gets washed out alot on these forums is beneath alot of the hyperbole, there are some very reasonable reasons for the backlash. PGI can adjust/adapt as well to keep their players or risk their income-generating game dying out completely.

I think the vast majority of backlash isn't focused on bringing the game down. People are passionate about their game, their favorite IP and want the game to kick ***.

Most of the current backlash looks to be about trying to get 200% of inventory resale value for modules after allegedly just wanting progression retained. "But being able to buy every node for free including on as many new 'Mechs as I am likely to EVER buy is bad compensation!" Barf.

People wanted progression comp, they're getting progression comp.

[MechaBattler]

Doing the opposite actually. Ordered my brother's Annihilator. ;p

[Bishop Steiner]

MechaBattler, on 29 April 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

Doing the opposite actually. Ordered my brother's Annihilator. ;p

I'll be your brother from another mother...

[Lukoi Banacek]

SmokedJag, on 29 April 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

Most of the current backlash looks to be about trying to get 200% of inventory resale value for modules after allegedly just wanting progression retained. "But being able to buy every node for free including on as many new 'Mechs as I am likely to EVER buy is bad compensation!" Barf.

People wanted progression comp, they're getting progression comp.

That's not even remotely correct (and mind you, I think the GSP refund is relatively fair). What they want is the flexibility of CB as the refunded currency vice the GSP which is stovepiped to one use. They can get around it somewhat by guessing which modules to sell and get the cash at 50%. With HSP on their mastered mechs, and more money invested in modules rather than mechs (which is opposite the complaining demographic in the first iteration), the GSP is useless to them (or at least less valuable.

The HSP is their progression. They want the modules turned into CB, not GSP which is the current plan. I can't say I blame them. I think the argument doesn't recognize the value of the GSP properly, but that's their perspective whether they believe playing the long game with the GSP is valuable or not.

That's why they want CB in lieu of GSP. They aren't asking for both, because HSP already covers their share of the progression issue.

[Alan Davion]

fat4eyes, on 29 April 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

If you have to rely on blackmail instead of reason to make your case, then you've lost the argument. The skill web is not going to destroy the game, the same way 3rd person did not destroy the game, the same way escort and incursion did not destroy the game. Observe, adapt, MAKE REASONED ARGUMENTS, and move on.

Except 3rd person was not a huge, sweeping, game changing mechanic like the skill web is.

The skill web is making sweeping, wholesale changes to game balance as we know it.

Bad mechs are still going to be bad, some might even become worse because of the nerfs required before hand.

Good mechs are going to be made better.

Great mechs are going to be OPAF. Looking at you KDK.

Incursion and escort are just examples of PGIs ineptitude when it comes to making game modes.

The only thing you're correct in saying is the skill web won't destroy the game. It's just going to throw the biggest f***ing monkey wrench ever into the core mechanics and turn the game on it's flipping head.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Alan Davion, on 29 April 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

Except 3rd person was not a huge, sweeping, game changing mechanic like the skill web is.

It wasn't because the community showed examples from other games on exactly why it was dangerous to introduce. To their credit, PGI listened and made 3PV functional but so far from optimal that you rarely if ever see it's "negative" potential utilized in games against seasoned players.

3PV had the potential to completely flip this game on its head too, which is why the backlash was massive, vocal and persistent. PGI listened and frankly, we got a "fair" implementation of 3PV and folks have long since moved on from it (minus still making jokes about their PR skills as they consistently promised to never introduce 3PV and then did).

Hopefully PGI is listening now. And the ST+ isn't slated to patch in until....mid May? So hopefully there's time for quality fixes here.

[Alan Davion]

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 April 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

It wasn't because the community showed examples from other games on exactly why it was dangerous to introduce. To their credit, PGI listened and made 3PV functional but so far from optimal that you rarely if ever see it's "negative" potential utilized in games against seasoned players.

3PV had the potential to completely flip this game on its head too, which is why the backlash was massive, vocal and persistent. PGI listened and frankly, we got a "fair" implementation of 3PV and folks have long since moved on from it (minus still making jokes about their PR skills as they consistently promised to never introduce 3PV and then did).

Hopefully PGI is listening now. And the ST+ isn't slated to patch in until....mid May? So hopefully there's time for quality fixes here.

It's slated for May last I heard, but the real question is what do you mean by quality fixes?

Cause the biggest fix I think the webs need is the firepower web. Specifically, mechs with only 1 type of hardpoint. Death's Kneel, Wolfhounds, Grasshoppers, even a Warhammer and a couple Marauders come to mind.

Mechs like these are going to fall even further out of favor because of the attempted "one size fits all" skill web.

Well one size doesn't fit all in this case.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Alan Davion, on 29 April 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

It's slated for May last I heard, but the real question is what do you mean by quality fixes?

The fixes I've repeatedly asked for on multiple threads:

• Reimbursement: Give players the choice to do GSP or CB; HSP covers progression already.
  
• Engine Desync: not convinced this is as awesome as some AND it's masked by a ton of other variables introduced with the upcoming patch.
  
• Tree design: remove or rework it so I never have to take a useless node (note, I don't mean node "I don't want" - I get why they are gating the nodes to make it harder to specialize, but I should never have to take a missile node on a mech with no missiles for example) and just rework some of the tracing; They've already said they're going to take a look specifically at firepower to allow for cleaner access to general/global weapon nodes but at the cost of hyper-specialization (my word, not theirs).
  
• Clicks: Seriously reconsider your arbitrary # and see if this can be a bit less time consuming
  
• UI: clean it up a bit. More intuitive. Also, make sure tool-tips are 100% clear on what we're getting with each unlock.
  
• Respec cost: lower it/reconsider it
  
• Dequirkening: I get we're trying to "baseline" the game for balance before the newtech comes out but you're just widening the effectiveness gap between strong mechs and weak in the meantime and that impacts IS much heavier than Clan mechs.

That's the very short version. But they are also areas I think PGI can address in the time they have left before putting this on live.

[JC Daxion]

No thanks.. I will finally have every mech i own skilled up and ready to go at a moments notice..

My ammo starved builds on a few mechs now have the ammo to use..

I get better sensors on some mechs, along with some greater jumping abilities on a few and i look forward to future balance tweaks in the trees, to see if it can help making mechs more tanky for example.


My grind will completely end, and i also get back nearly 100m to spend on new tech..


I will happily await my Javelin, Haven't been this excited for a patch in a very,very long time.. Not since polar Dropped, and Terra Redux

Lukoi Banacek, on 29 April 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

• Tree design: remove or rework it so I never have to take a useless node (note, I don't mean node "I don't want" - I get why they are gating the nodes to make it harder to specialize, but I should never have to take a missile node on a mech with no missiles for example) and just rework some of the tracing; They've already said they're going to take a look specifically at firepower to allow for cleaner access to general/global weapon nodes but at the cost of hyper-specialization (my word, not theirs)

And if you do that, you just give extra points to single weapon boats.. NOT a good idea. If you can get every single global weapon node with out investing extra.. any one that has more than one weapon type, just spend Extra points. That is NOT a good idea/design for balance.

[Alteran]

fat4eyes, on 29 April 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

If you have to rely on blackmail instead of reason to make your case, then you've lost the argument. The skill web is not going to destroy the game, the same way 3rd person did not destroy the game, the same way escort and incursion did not destroy the game. Observe, adapt, MAKE REASONED ARGUMENTS, and move on.

You really don't need reason in this argument, you either like or dislike the changes and cancelling your pre-orders is a viable expression of your stance.

Personally, I've disliked the path that PGI has taken in the last year and not issued any new orders since the Kodiak. I've pumped nearly $700 into PGI's pockets in the last 3 years and I'm done, but guess what... I still get to purchase, with Cbills, new Mechs almost every month now. My latest purchases have been the Marauder IIC's. Toyed with the idea of buying the Linebackers, but meh. Soon, I'll have the option of buying the Bushwackers and Supernova's.

IMO, if you've bought one Mech Pack a year since the release of MWO then you've done your part in financing MWO and it's future developments.

[Alan Davion]

JC Daxion, on 29 April 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

And if you do that, you just give extra points to single weapon boats.. NOT a good idea. If you can get every single global weapon node with out investing extra.. any one that has more than one weapon type, just spend Extra points. That is NOT a good idea/design for balance.

And yet there are mechs out there, specifically IS mechs, that only have one type of weapon hard point. Clan mechs can swap around and get one type of weapon hard point thanks to omnipods, and those mechs are going to be made even more powerful thanks to some of the additions being made in the skill web system.

IS mechs that have only one type of weapon hard point, such as the examples I cited, Commando Death's Knell, all the Wolfhounds, many of the Grasshoppers, one of the Warhammers and a couple Marauders, these mechs will severely underperform in the new system thanks to having to waste points in ballistic or missiles when they have access to none of those weapon hard points.

Mechs like those need to be taken into account, and it seems clear PGI has not taken them into account.

[Lupis Volk]

If people put as much energy, effort and soul as they do with this "chicken littleing" into oh i don't know coming up with idea or ways to make the tree better. But nooo only a small few are doing that.

[Pjwned]

This sort of thread has been started so many times that it's lost all meaning.

Nobody follows through with canceling any of their overpriced pre-orders so PGI has no reason to care if somebody says they're finally fed up because for every fed up customer there's at least a dozen others who buy nearly everything.

[Mystere]

Hamerclone, on 29 April 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

If you don't like the way PGI is developing the game, Cancel your prepacks! they are in this for the money! if that does not get their attention, then they are even bigger fools then they appear to be!

That would be great, except I have not ordered any.

[Ghogiel]

Hold on a sec, let me preorder somerthing so I can cancel it.

[Mystere]

Matt2496, on 29 April 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

I'm getting kind of sick of these "Adapt and overcome" arguments. The fact is, the IS is going to take a massive hit and the Clan vs IS disparity will increase even further.

Then it's time for 10 vs. 12, or Clan vs. IS formations in general.