95 replies to this topic

[DGTLDaemon]

Alan Davion, on 20 June 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

You can bet dollars to donuts that Night Gyr fans are going to FLOCK to that mech in DROVES because it's lighter and will have a better movement profile, and it does laser vomit pretty much second to none.

Unfortunatelly, you're gonna need those dollars if you want to get your hands on the Nova Cat It's gonna be a while before it becomes available to the general public, and in the meantime, there will be no replacement for the Night Gyr.

[Alan Davion]

DGTLDaemon, on 20 June 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Unfortunatelly, you're gonna need those dollars if you want to get your hands on the Nova Cat It's gonna be a while before it becomes available to the general public, and in the meantime, there will be no replacement for the Night Gyr.

And that's exactly the point. It's the only reason PGI is still in business. PGI nerfs the everlovingshit out of one mech or another, then oh hey look, another mech is coming out that does the job the previous mech did, only it does it better in some way.

Night Gyr moves too slow? Nova Cat comes out which is lighter and faster, and does extreme laser vomit.

PGI profits because they continually shove mechs down the toilet and then releases better mechs.

I only wonder when people in general will figure that out and stop spending money, forcing PGI to say "Oh... Crap... We've been doing this all wrong and now we're going to suffer for it."

[C E Dwyer]

Alan Davion, on 20 June 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

You haven't kept up with CGL's development lately, have you. We're in the 3150s or something right now, and the next "era" set to happen is the era of the iLClan.

That's right, one Clan is finally going to take Terra and re-establish the Star League under their own twisted view of how it should be.

I'm glad I haven't kept up then

[HGAK47]

Dont worry guys! Fuctionally invulnerable turrets come in today on HPG incursion! Thats exactly what we all needed to make more fun! Yay! \o/

[James Argent]

Regarding the skill tree and 'useless' nodes. I have only encountered a single instance where in order to maximize a build I would have had to take ONE node that provided zero benefit to my mech. PPC-only builds cannot take that last velocity node without taking one of a missile, laser, or autocannon specific node to get to it. That's it. Every other node I had to take to get where I wanted to be would provide my mech with some kind of benefit, whether it was desired or undesired. Because I'm a stingy ******* I wound up skipping it and putting the three or four nodes it left me somewhere else.

My gameplay has improved dramatically since the implementation of the skill tree system, and it's probably in no small way connected to the contribution of these 'have to take' nodes. I suspect that if people truly got their way about not having to take these undesired yet still beneficial nodes, their min/maxing would result in some horrendously unplayable builds.

[Cy Mitchell]

Alan Davion, on 20 June 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

And that's exactly the point. It's the only reason PGI is still in business. PGI nerfs the everlovingshit out of one mech or another, then oh hey look, another mech is coming out that does the job the previous mech did, only it does it better in some way.

Night Gyr moves too slow? Nova Cat comes out which is lighter and faster, and does extreme laser vomit.

PGI profits because they continually shove mechs down the toilet and then releases better mechs.

I only wonder when people in general will figure that out and stop spending money, forcing PGI to say "Oh... Crap... We've been doing this all wrong and now we're going to suffer for it."

Nova Cat moves at the same speed as the Night Gyr, 64.8KPH. PGI just significantly nerfed Clan Laser vomit in this patch so the Nova Cat laser vomit build is unlikely to replace the Night Gyr. The builds that the Night Gyr are known for, Gauss/PPC sniping and pop tarting and dakka are not going to be killed by the mobility adjustments.

[Roughneck45]

James Argent, on 20 June 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

Regarding the skill tree and 'useless' nodes. I have only encountered a single instance where in order to maximize a build I would have had to take ONE node that provided zero benefit to my mech.

Because your definition is correct, useless=useless

Theirs is, useless=I don't want it.

[Bigbacon]

HGAK47, on 20 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Dont worry guys! Fuctionally invulnerable turrets come in today on HPG incursion! Thats exactly what we all needed to make more fun! Yay! \o/

wait what?

[PhoenixFire55]

James Argent, on 20 June 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

Regarding the skill tree and 'useless' nodes.
... stuff ...

You have a somewhat overly optimistic definition of useless. For instance, I have an ERLL build ... I don't need range quirks, I got enough range as it is, I need duration, heat generation and cooldown nodes, yet what am I forced to take first ... right, at least three range nodes.

This isn't customization, nor is it "meaningful" choice, this is BS.

[Imperius]

This game pushes for e-sports!

Yet it balances by potato.

The game is now what it balances by, which is potato.

I'm so confused at this point of what PGI actually wants MWO to be.

[The Basilisk]

DGTLDaemon, on 20 June 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

THAT. I can live with the skill tree - I don't particularly like it, but I can work with it, it's not rocket science. What's much worse is that PGI are essentially removing mechs from the game by giving them mobility values that make them unplayable. Between the previous patch and the upcoming one, I've already lost a good chunk of my stable to engine desync, namely:
2 Kodiaks
1 Dire Wolf
2 Marauder IICs
3 Night Gyrs
That's a total of 8 mechs that I'll never touch again. And I can barely force myself to play my Timber Wolves now, because they are balancing right on the edge of being unplayable. Plus the upcoming cSPL nerf will invalidate at least two more of my mechs - the 6xSPL Jenner IIC and the 10xSPL Nova. So while some people may be angry about the changes, I'm simply sad. I'm playing fewer and fewer mechs and builds with each passing month. It just doesn't make sense, you're supposed to expand your stable over time, but mine is growing smaller instead. And I can see no light at the end of the tunnel. I expect nothing positive from the game anymore. With each patch, the only thing I can think about is how hard the nerf bat will hit my mechs, and what can I do to salvage at least some of them...

Sometimes I find it real realy realy REALREALYREEEEEAAAAALYYYYYYY hard to accept that you can not dislike posts or mark them for deletion.

[Imperius]

The Basilisk, on 20 June 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

Sometimes I find it real realy realy REALREALYREEEEEAAAAALYYYYYYY hard to accept that you can not dislike posts or mark them for deletion.

I'm having that same feeling about yours, strange!

Edited by Imperius, 20 June 2017 - 11:57 AM.

[HGAK47]

mogs01gt, on 20 June 2017 - 05:30 AM, said:

The game hasnt been fun since they made it 12v12 without increasing map size or supplying game modes that functioned with this many mechs on the field.

Ive had fun with both 8 v 8 and 12 v 12. Honestly its a very tough choice as to which one was better / more fun. They both have merits and downsides.

Bigbacon, on 20 June 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

wait what?

On the walls the patch notes said. Presumably one or two mechs have been sniping from the walls and made some people cry. I for one have never done this but I dont like the idea of invulnerable turrets.

[mogs01gt]

HGAK47, on 20 June 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

Ive had fun with both 8 v 8 and 12 v 12. Honestly its a very tough choice as to which one was better / more fun. They both have merits and downsides.

I'd have no issues with 12v12 if it was on larger maps and you spawned in a lance configuration rather than a "speed" or "weight" configuration.

[Gwahlur]

mogs01gt, on 20 June 2017 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'd have no issues with 12v12 if it was on larger maps and you spawned in a lance configuration rather than a "speed" or "weight" configuration.

Yeah, i'd like to see even bigger maps with even bigger teams, with each lance consisting of one of each class and dropping far apart

[oldradagast]

Alan Davion, on 20 June 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

I only wonder when people in general will figure that out and stop spending money, forcing PGI to say "Oh... Crap... We've been doing this all wrong and now we're going to suffer for it."

I'm honestly amazed at how long it's worked. I assumed one of the trademarks of Battletech was the huge number of mechs and the feel each one has. Normally, in such an environment, people develop some level of attachment to certain mechs, so you'd think that when such a mech comes out and then gets nerfed into scrap metal months later, eventually the players would get ticked that their favorite toy is trash and stop putting money into the game.

Surprisingly - at least to me - it seems many people just don't care. They either must have every mech, and will thus pour a staggering amount of cash into the game, or they just move on to the latest "pay to win" mech pack after each round of nerfs to their current toys. I don't get it, but it's their money to spend, I suppose. Still, I'd be more inclined to expect this mindset from a game with no long-standing Lore or personal attachments to any of the toons, and where winning is all that matters.

Edited by oldradagast, 20 June 2017 - 04:35 PM.

[Connor Davion]

oldradagast, on 20 June 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

I'm honestly amazed at how long it's worked. I assumed one of the trademarks of Battletech was the huge number of mechs and the feel each one has. Normally, in such an environment, people develop some level of attachment to certain mechs, so you'd think that when such a mech comes out and then gets nerfed into scrap metal months later, eventually the players would get ticked that their favorite toy is trash and stop putting money into the game.

Surprisingly - at least to me - it seems many people just don't care. They either must have every mech, and will thus pour a staggering amount of cash into the game, or they just move on to the latest "pay to win" mech pack after each round of nerfs to their current toys. I don't get it, but it's their money to spend, I suppose. Still, I'd be more inclined to expect this mindset from a game with no long-standing Lore or personal attachments to any of the toons, and where winning is all that matters.

I think a lot of it is the fact there is no other BattleTech FPS or titles of any sort available. I think many would have preferred this to have been MW5 (I know they are finally developing MW5 and really look forward to HBS Battletech).

I am here to play in my favorite game universe. I have favorite Mechs and get frustrated when they get the nerf bat. I even get frustrated enough to quit from time to time, but I always come back (even after up to 6 months away) just because it is a little taste of my favorite IP.

As to balance IMHO the only way to do that is to return to the 4th Succession War and drop the clans. That obviously isn't going to happen as many (myself included) have invested real world money on clan mechs.

[Mawai]

HGAK47, on 20 June 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

Dont worry guys! Fuctionally invulnerable turrets come in today on HPG incursion! Thats exactly what we all needed to make more fun! Yay! \o/

Yes ... though I personally consider that to be a stopgap for bad map/base/game mode design. A better solution would have been to adjust the terrain near the base to make it impossible to snipe into the base destroying targets from beyond the range of base defenses. Adding invulnerable turrets is quite silly. In addition, I figure that some folks will be scouting for spots where they can still snipe into the base from outside the turret range ... and I expect that there will likely be some of those.

[Raidflex]

With all these balance changes, am I the only one that thinks its messed up that we need to pay to respec mechs due to changes to the game? Even if at least the changes were more incremental over time it would not be as bad, but when you cut 1/3 the damage from a weapon, in this case the CSPL how is this fair to pay for respec? The only conclusion I can come to is that PGI wants more of a pay to win structure.

[Bud Crue]

Raidflex, on 21 June 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:

With all these balance changes, am I the only one that thinks its messed up that we need to pay to respec mechs due to changes to the game? Even if at least the changes were more incremental over time it would not be as bad, but when you cut 1/3 the damage from a weapon, in this case the CSPL how is this fair to pay for respec? The only conclusion I can come to is that PGI wants more of a pay to win structure.

That's the game now. Fair has nothing to do with it.

Before modules and three mech requirement was the c-bill sink.
Absent those elements PGI needs a new one.

That new sink is partial node respecs or additional mech purchases driven by substantial changes to game mechanics at intervals. Get used to this.