27 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

The 4SP was a beast of a tank. it simply was NOT a beast in DPS (there are too many other mediums, even for Hunchbacks that are better than the 4SP in that bracket, let alone as an overall choice).

So, if you're removing the only good attribute that the mech is capable of doing - you might as well have eliminate it from play altogether (not that it won't be used - it simply gets much less of a look in comp play, especially when it's commonly the 4th medium option).

In other words, lol no. PGI doesn't understand how things work in MWO. That's pretty self-evident.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 June 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[Elizander]

PGI could just make the skill tree affect base armor/structure ONLY and then put quirk armor on top, but no, that's too practical.

[4rcs1ne]

Wattila, on 17 June 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

Most likely a victim of spreadsheet balancing (I mean, the guy nerfed the IS Large Laser). Subjectively, the mech wasn't OP, and there was no mention of overperformance in the patch notes. I guess the designer just felt it (and the BLR-2C) had too strong structure quirks and decided to bring it in line just because. RIP.

I agree. Contrast this with the Battletech devs. They are constantly playing their game and taking in feedback from the Beta players regarding both balance and gameplay.

PGI on the other hand thinks they know it all and constatnly makes blind stabs in the dark ... just hoping something works out ok.

The mentality of these two devs are literally like night and day lol.

[Deathlike]

Matt2496, on 18 June 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

I agree. Contrast this with the Battletech devs. They are constantly playing their game and taking in feedback from the Beta players regarding both balance and gameplay.

PGI on the other hand thinks they know it all and constatnly makes blind stabs in the dark ... just hoping something works out ok.

The mentality of these two devs are literally like night and day lol.

Feedback? What is this feedback? Lostech?

[Tordin]

El Bandito, on 17 June 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

First they take away the weapon quirks, and then they take away the durability quirks. It's medium class version of what happened to the GHR-5P.

Well it was to put it into line with the other hunchbacks, wasnt it? I have only piloted its clan Battlemech cousins the IIc. So I MAY not have the appropriate say in if it should have these nerfs, but you gotta admit. It was famous for its thoughness, the other hunchies got jealous. At least it didnt get em removed at least. Mid way amount might be enough I think.

Well. Why people fell tears becasue of nerfs to PGI made P "abominations" I dont know
Psst, I love the Panther P version and the Enforcer 5P, acceptable because of ballistics. So people might get upset of home made variants and mechs from PGI getting nerfhammered because that they at LEAST brings something interesting and or new to the table, which is always a good thing IMO.

The Grasshopper 5P might stay good even without those quirks because of high torso mounts compensation. Those means alot, so I KINDA see why PGI nerfed that particular variant. If that nerf or any other ( laser adjusts etc) are worth it?
Gotta give MWO alot of more time, to see what was worth a nerf or buff, being weapons, structure, armor, mobility and so on.

At least give some 2-4 months after the Civil War tech avalanche to settle for to judge, it might be though and cringeworthy to see PGI dart board balancing, but give Chris time, he just cant get worse than, you know. He might have wanted to use his own tools, but had to use the dartboart, not his fault then I guess

[Brain Cancer]

Viktor Drake, on 18 June 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Honestly I think that is the problem. I mean I got to ask exactly how many of devs who make balancing decisions play their game religiously and have a deep understanding of how things perform from general players perspective?

They don't, nor does PGI make an effort to integrate good players into their development. I am a firm believer that it takes the input of people who push a game to it's breaking points to manage balancing it properly.

Deathlike, on 18 June 2017 - 12:13 PM, said:

Feedback? What is this feedback? Lostech?

Must be, it's only found in Battletech games that are set in 3025.

[Ghogiel]

Viktor Drake, on 18 June 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Yeah we get too much of that going on. Numbers only tell part of the story, the other part it told when you are actually fighting against them or using them. Which brings me to ask. How many matches has this new balancing guy have under his belt. when he gets 50+ matches per chassis in all aspects of game play, then he might actually know how to balance a particular mech chassis.

Honestly I think that is the problem. I mean I got to ask exactly how many of devs who make balancing decisions play their game religiously and have a deep understanding of how things perform from general players perspective?

There are players that have been playing since 2012 and they have 1000s of matches and are still grade A potatoes. In light of that I can say I wouldn't expect much difference even if they all played **** tons.

[QuantumButler]

No