74 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

El Bandito, on 04 August 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

Thats not true. Mechs such as MAD-IIC, BNC-3M, and Battlemasters had showed that Assaults can be deadlier than Heavies with laservomit, not just big ballistics. High mounts are the key, not the weapon types.

That was at least partly due to the fact that those mechs also gained a lot of agility from having a huge engine compared to their dakka brothers, an advantages that is now lost. Not saying high mount energy assaults are bad now, just that they were probably the class/build most damaged by engine desync

[Bud Crue]

FupDup, on 03 August 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

PGI can always just nerf the base agility if there are no quirks left.

No one is safe from the Nerfinator™.

This.
For those arguing that nerfs are about "balance", pardon me but you know that it blatantly untrue.

Were the nerfs to all the NON Kodiak 3s applied because those Kodiaks were dominating the game? For christsakes I don't think I've ever even seen most of the Kodiaks other than a 3 or Sprirt Bear in game, yet PGI asserted that their real in game data showed that the Kodiak 2 need several smacks of the nerf bat for balance?! No. That was and remains total bulls***.

How about the three nerfs to my believed Quickdraws throughout 2016. The Jester. The Enforcer 5P. The Shadowhawk 5M. The repeated nerfs to every Grasshopper EXCEPT the 5P which was the meta for that entire year, yet the crapier less played variants got hit repeatedly. Mechs not often played, and mechs in some of the most niche roles, getting nerfed repeatedly while those that were currently dominating play both in terms of frequency and by successful outcomes were left alone or nerfed to a lesser extent than their objectively crapier brethren; that is how the nerf hammer might just be applied. So don't pretend that nerfs are about "OP mechs getting brought down to the baseline of performance".

Nerfs may be about selling mechs, they may be part of some plan on behalf of PGI, etc. But one thing I can tell you for fu**ing certain is that they quite often have absolutely NOTHING to do with balance.
Buying a quirked mech or unquirked mech makes no difference. When the master of the dartboard gets an itch to throw, NOTHING is safe.

[invernomuto]

Bud Crue, on 04 August 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

TNerfs may be about selling mechs, they may be part of some plan on behalf of PGI, etc. But one thing I can tell you for fu**ing certain is that they quite often have absolutely NOTHING to do with balance. Buying a quirked mech or unquirked mech makes no difference. When the master of the dartboard gets an itch to throw, NOTHING is safe.

I can accept that some limited nerf could be used to sell mech or for some marketing purposes...
But in the case of the Kodiak they nerfed to the oblivion every variants (included and expecially the spirit bear, a 15$ hero) in order to punish the KDK-3 one. I tried to use the Spirit Bear yesterday, it was a very good brawler, now it's rubbish against Atlas, Annihilator and so on.
Nonsense.

Edited by invernomuto, 04 August 2017 - 05:04 AM.

[Asym]

Bud Crue, on 04 August 2017 - 03:53 AM, said:

This.
For those arguing that nerfs are about "balance", pardon me but you know that it blatantly untrue.

Were the nerfs to all the NON Kodiak 3s applied because those Kodiaks were dominating the game? For christsakes I don't think I've ever even seen most of the Kodiaks other than a 3 or Sprirt Bear in game, yet PGI asserted that their real in game data showed that the Kodiak 2 need several smacks of the nerf bat for balance?! No. That was and remains total bulls***.

How about the three nerfs to my believed Quickdraws throughout 2016. The Jester. The Enforcer 5P. The Shadowhawk 5M. The repeated nerfs to every Grasshopper EXCEPT the 5P which was the meta for that entire year, yet the crapier less played variants got hit repeatedly. Mechs not often played, and mechs in some of the most niche roles, getting nerfed repeatedly while those that were currently dominating play both in terms of frequency and by successful outcomes were left alone or nerfed to a lesser extent than their objectively crapier brethren; that is how the nerf hammer might just be applied. So don't pretend that nerfs are about "OP mechs getting brought down to the baseline of performance".

Nerfs may be about selling mechs, they may be part of some plan on behalf of PGI, etc. But one thing I can tell you for fu**ing certain is that they quite often have absolutely NOTHING to do with balance.
Buying a quirked mech or unquirked mech makes no difference. When the master of the dartboard gets an itch to throw, NOTHING is safe.

What do you know, someone is starting to see what is really going on here....

Balance is a "key word" for redistribution..... Redistibution is a strategic way to change cultural systems from independant to dependant styles of existance....

What is it you really want? To be challenged because the game is hard and challenging or easy, where all you ahve to do is walk into the tunnel and blast everything you see into tiny pieces???

[Snazzy Dragon]

The Lighthouse, on 03 August 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

You can restrict yourself to mechs that do not rely on quirks.

Those get baseline agility nerfs

[Bud Crue]

Asym, on 04 August 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

What do you know, someone is starting to see what is really going on here....

Starting? Dude, the balance of this game has been done by dartboard for a very long time. It is only recently that people have started giving PGI the benefit of the doubt due to Chris Lowery's installation as the new keeper of the dartboard. While his throwing is more consistent than the old keeper (he seems to be sticking to his plan to remove or minimize quirks come hell or high water), he is still suffering from an obsessive need to try broad brush changes that often hurt the worst mechs as much if not more than the OP mechs, that a given "balance pass" is claimed to be directed at. That has not changed.

Iterative balance by subtle, small increments, seems utterly beyond these people. Its like they were only taught multiplication and division and simply don't understand basic addition or subtraction. Why nerf problem mechs (Mad IIc, Kodiak 3, Night Gyr) when you can nerf the weapons that that all mech but especially these are known to carry (Gauss/ppc)? Why nerf one problematic variant (Kodiak 3) when you can nerf all of them? Why give one mech a bit more quirks when you can give an entire tech base a 10% range boost and then take it away? Etc. etc. etc.
Drives me nuts has since I started playing.

[Admiral-Dan]

Viktor Drake, on 03 August 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

However, I can't trust PGI not to nerf premium content so I can't bring myself to buy the hero.
Kind of a sad state of the game when you have players feeling like this don't you all think.

A really sad state of a game would be if the developers are afraid of balancing because some players may dislike nerfs.

[The Lighthouse]

AlphaEtOmega, on 04 August 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

A really sad state of a game would be if the developers are afraid of balancing because some players may dislike nerfs.

People don't necessarily dislike nerfs.... if such nerfs are logical and beneficial to the game.

The entire balancing by PGI has been anything but logical, with reason, nor beneficial to the game. Really PGI has no one else to blame but themselves.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 04 August 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[Khobai]

the problem is PGI nerfs when they should buff instead

like ISXL shouldve been changed to survive side torso destruction a long time ago

thats such an obvious change to balance the two tech bases

but instead of making the game less miserable for IS they opted to make the game equally miserable for clans. now everyone is miserable. how does that make sense? buffing ISXL wouldve made IS happy without making clans miserable.

Edited by Khobai, 04 August 2017 - 07:43 AM.

[R Valentine]

Khobai, on 04 August 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

the problem is PGI nerfs when they should buff instead

like ISXL shouldve been changed to survive side torso destruction a long time ago

thats such an obvious change to balance the two tech bases

Agreed. The LFE was just throwing us table scraps. PGI could have avoided a large conundrum of balance issues had they just fixed the damn XL engine. It wasn't rocket science, and they already flagrantly disregard TT rules and numbers when it suits them, so they they held onto the XL side torso death was just beyond me.

But PGI refuses to buff. Just look at Light Gauss. It will probably be 8 damage of years and be relegated to the scrap heap for that entire duration. Why? Because it's TT numbers, even though they're already disregarding MANY TT numbers.

Edited by Kiran Yagami, 04 August 2017 - 06:59 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Cementi, on 03 August 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

Balance is an ever changing thing and does not influence my real money purchases. Especially when the stuff that is being newly released is often unproven. I expect it to get buffs or nerfs within a couple months of release (really it should be sooner but PGI is really slow about that kinda thing).

Buy it if you want it or don't but never pay real cash for quirks as they WILL change at some point.

I have paid cbills for qurks many times and will continue to do so.

Here is the thing though. I am taking about a Clan Hero so it is a mech that has been released a long, long time ago however even though that is the case, I can't seems to count on them not changing it drastically at a whim. Case in point, my Heavy Metal and Dragon Slayer. JJs had been virtually the same for the entire closed beta period and we were probably a year past that point when I bought this mechs so I was thinking it was pretty safe to assume that the JJ mechanics were fleshed out and wouldn't be changing. However, obviously not the case.

Point here is that yes, I do understand and even expect there to be changes when a new mech is released. However those changes should be put into place within 30 days or so and once the mech has been out 3-4 months, there shouldn't be any more changes. PGI on the other hand just tosses out changes sometimes years after release.

[Lucian Nostra]

AlphaEtOmega, on 04 August 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

A really sad state of a game would be if the developers are afraid of balancing because some players may dislike nerfs.

One of pgi's major faults is that when they over nerf something it takes them forever to un-nerf it IF they do at all. Look at stuff like assault class JJs they've been terrible for how long now?

So I think a lot of the fear of your favorite mwo thing getting nerfed isn't so much the nerf but the fear that if it's to much it'll never get buffed again

[invernomuto]

Viktor Drake, on 04 August 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

Point here is that yes, I do understand and even expect there to be changes when a new mech is released. However those changes should be put into place within 30 days or so and once the mech has been out 3-4 months, there shouldn't be any more changes. PGI on the other hand just tosses out changes sometimes years after release.

To be fair, it would be impossible not to change specs for mechs that are 4 months old. If game mechanics change (e.g. skill tree introduction or changes for weapons/equipments), I think it's fair that quirks for all mechs could be revised by the dev. What I'd like to know is the logic behind this buffs or nerfs. IMHO every mech should have a role in PGI mind (e.g. Atlas one of the tankies, Kodiak one of the fastest, etc) and basic stats and quirks should be "fine-tuned" to let the mech fulfill its role. At least in the recent past there were some balancing decision that were questionable at best, like nerfing of mech / variants that every veteran player tought were weak, while not touching some "meta" variants.
To be honest, I found PGI more willing to explain to the community their decisions in the recent patches.
Still, I'd like to see a more "dynamic" approach to this topic by PGI, with focuses on the status, from a gaming balance point of view, of a group of mech each month.
Each mech variant in game should be reviewed by the dev at least yearly.

Edited by invernomuto, 04 August 2017 - 09:07 AM.

[JagdpantherX]

I dont get why people think what they use should be immune to nerfs. If its for the good of the game don't let it bother you, balance changes need to happen for a reason.


Now if only PGI could be logical with it more often...

[Bud Crue]

Bit of a vent/digression/eating lunch at my desk so why not go on a rant using someone else's post as a spring board, follows. Should delete it but nah.

invernomuto, on 04 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

To be fair, it would be impossible not to change specs for mechs that are 4 months old. If game mechanics change (e.g. skill tree introduction or changes for weapons/equipments), I think it's fair that quirks for all mechs could be revised by the dev. What I'd like to know is the logic behind this buffs or nerfs. IMHO every mech should have a role in PGI mind (e.g. Atlas one of the tankies, Kodiak one of the fastest, etc) and basic stats and quirks should be "fine-tuned" to let the mech fulfill its role.

Funny that used to be PGI's stated balance goal as well (go back and read the notes for the original infotech PTS). Current goal appears to be the vanila-fication of all mechs so as to ensure all mechs are equally bad (except of course for the most recent releases).

invernomuto, on 04 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

At least in the recent past there were some balancing decision that were questionable at best, like nerfing of mech / variants that every veteran player tought were weak, while not touching some "meta" variants.
To be honest, I found PGI more willing to explain to the community their decisions in the recent patches.

I think Chris (the new balance overlord) has been very forthcoming about his balance goals, but I think he is missing the forest for the trees much like his predecsssor/boss. For example his repeated statements about a need to eliminate quirks seems horribly misguided absent an explanation as to how/why the truly bad but highly quirked mechs can be made competitive or even viable without quirks. Within that incomplete rationalization (the "why" AND the "how" being notably missing) mechanics changes in furtherance of that goal however good that goal may be are going to breed discontent. Just like always. For a more focused example, consider the recent energy pass (iterative my a$$) and its communication.

invernomuto, on 04 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Still, I'd like to see a more "dynamic" approach to this topic by PGI, with focuses on the status, from a gaming balance point of view, of a group of mech each month.
Each mech variant in game should be reviewed by the dev at least yearly.

So you are looking for a quirk pass yearly instead of the current trend of every few months or so? I'd be down for that. Seriously though, there is no bright line here. I mean leaving the Victor to rot for three years is unacceptable. But so to is the near constant nerfs they apply to some mechs and some entire chassis over a scant few months (see Quickdraws last summer, see Kodiaks this last year). PGI doesn't do iterative balance they hit hard with the nerf hammer (aforementioned Kodiaks) and just as often inexplicably bless some mediocre mech with godhood for no reason what so ever (remember the super Oxide and assault level structure on the Black Jacks)...which incidentally brings us back to their poor communication skills and their seemingly willful breeding of discontent.

Edited by Bud Crue, 04 August 2017 - 09:40 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

A really sad state of a game would be if the developers are afraid of balancing because some players may dislike nerfs.

Or buffs. LOL, LRMs, the potato-salter.

[B0oN]

Lasses ´n Lads .
Take a step back .
Smoke your joint/drink your beer/meditate .

Remember what I did with the 2ERPPC+TC7 Summoner to many of you and what came out of my fun with my signature Battlemech .

Pursue your vision .

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 04 August 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

the problem is PGI nerfs when they should buff instead

No, I'd say the problem is that PGI generally nerfs the wrong things, and when they do finally nerf the right things they tend to either nerf in the wrong way or they nerf too severely.

[Khobai]

Quote

No, I'd say the problem is that PGI generally nerfs the wrong things, and when they do finally nerf the right things they tend to either nerf in the wrong way or they nerf too severely.

they do that too.

but they also nerf when they should buff instead. they shouldved made ISXL survive side torso blowout instead of giving clans agility nerfs.

they somehow find a way to do everything wrong P

[Asym]

Bud Crue, on 04 August 2017 - 05:52 AM, said:

Starting? Dude, the balance of this game has been done by dartboard for a very long time. It is only recently that people have started giving PGI the benefit of the doubt due to Chris Lowery's installation as the new keeper of the dartboard. While his throwing is more consistent than the old keeper (he seems to be sticking to his plan to remove or minimize quirks come hell or high water), he is still suffering from an obsessive need to try broad brush changes that often hurt the worst mechs as much if not more than the OP mechs, that a given "balance pass" is claimed to be directed at. That has not changed.

Iterative balance by subtle, small increments, seems utterly beyond these people. Its like they were only taught multiplication and division and simply don't understand basic addition or subtraction. Why nerf problem mechs (Mad IIc, Kodiak 3, Night Gyr) when you can nerf the weapons that that all mech but especially these are known to carry (Gauss/ppc)? Why nerf one problematic variant (Kodiak 3) when you can nerf all of them? Why give one mech a bit more quirks when you can give an entire tech base a 10% range boost and then take it away? Etc. etc. etc.
Drives me nuts has since I started playing.

This isn't about balance...... It's about simplifying the game to reduce their costs and increase their sales....

If they were really serious, they'd un-nerf and un-quirk all mechs back to their original configurations at release and let the chips fall where they may..... THEN, the game would be about who was smart enough to survive long enough to beat the other team... THEN, teamwork would be absolutely necessart because the battelspace would be soooooooo lethal.

Then, we'd have mech "warriors"......