16 replies to this topic

[Shifty McSwift]

Personally I am generally willing to go with the flow when it comes to devs trying different things in these kinds of projects, so long as they are willing to respond to real feedback, and have a sort of real specified goal overall, not necessarily just an explanation for each specific change (though that is better than nothing).

Obviously though you will always get a section of bad responses to any sort of nerf, and alongside that any kind of buff comes up as fodder for those who feel impacted by nerfs etc.

Along with that, the more you change at the same time the more general resistance you will come up against.

So with that in mind, I think the healthy course is to reinforce that idea that you (the devs) are looking over the current weapon balancing for the purposes of a specific goal (this was done well in the previous energy patch in terms of telling us what the goal was). When it comes to your overall planned changes you only need to speak in vagaries at that early stage, and reinforce that idea with each patch in that light.

But when it comes to the patches, stick with the idea of taking a focus like was done with the energy weapon patch, the negative responses to that patch were controlled by the idea that the other weapon categories would also see a pass, a scattered shotgun blast array of changes at a time is difficult to justify in that same regard particularly this far into the games standing position and content.

TL/DR (not that any dev will likely read this lol), focus on that idea of system changes, over just continuous small changes that come across as straight up little nerfs or buffs. People I think are much more willing to accept the idea that you are trying to keep weapon systems distinct as well as universally somewhat useful (which will inherently involve a lot of stat shifting), and then responding to how that plays out, particularly after the new weapon releases.

[Asym]

I like this train of thought.

The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.

I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????

How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?

[MadRover]

Asym, on 16 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

I like this train of thought.

The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.

I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????

How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?

How much money and how many candy bars do you have because it will probably take a good chunk of it for them to communicate with us.

[El Bandito]

Here I am hoping that someone will bother to look at LBX stats and increase the pellet damage value a nudge (by sacrificing range if necessary). Literally 10 minutes of work that can make a weapon system fun and viable.

Edited by El Bandito, 16 October 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[InvictusLee]

Asym, on 16 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

I like this train of thought.

The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.

I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????

How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?

Bro, I know Runescape gets alot of **** for being runescape, but its Devs have excellent community contact and even go way way out of their way to film podcasts and even livestream the game, or show off upcoming improvements and changes in videos.

Even compared to the battletech staff, PGI is silent.
... It makes me feel like PGI just doesnt care, and is just sitting behind a desk, laughing evilly while counting our mechpack money. It should also be noted that criticism is okay, and it isnt always an attack. legitimate criticisms are how things get fixed or changed based on player experience.

[Leif Heggland]

With the negativity that I see on this forum if I was in their shoes I doubt that I would be very active either. Since I have only been playing for a couple years I can't say for certain that it is wholey unjustifiable. What I have noticed is that there seems to be a small but vocal group that will not be happy until all weapon and mechs are just reskined version of each other.

[Kiiyor]

I too wish the devs would communicate more, but we burned that bridge from both ends long ago (though PGI didn't thermite the remains and salt the earth quite like we did).

We used to talk a lot. Back in CB there were even devs who would actually join discussion in forum threads, instead of just making announcements. We all then realised that there were groups either fanatically supportive of or viciously opposed to any attempt at discussion about changing things. Some of the stuff we said was... well, pretty vile. If I were PGI, I wouldn't talk to us either. One thing this community is good at, is proving we are incapable of rational discourse - though we are getting better.

[InvictusLee]

Kiiyor, on 16 October 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

One thing this community is good at, is proving we are incapable of rational discourse - though we are getting better.

This is what we are doing now is it not?

[Shifty McSwift]

The other reason I get a bit miffed at OTT responses to change is that idea the devs dropped a substantial weapon patch recently, not only is after the fact adjusting to be expected, but now is the perfect time for what they had called "better defining the weapon roles" and general rebalancing, the size of the changes shouldn't make people freak out, the result in game is what matters.

[Kiiyor]

November11th, on 16 October 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

This is what we are doing now is it not?

Mostly. I'm surprised we haven't heard the approaching hoofbeats of the 33rd Irregular WTFPGI Brigade yet though.

They're out there. Probably musterin', and reminding everyone of the hundreds of dollars they suddenly aren't going to spend on mechpacks they weren't going to buy anyway.

[InvictusLee]

Kiiyor, on 16 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Mostly. I'm surprised we haven't heard the approaching hoofbeats of the 33rd Irregular WTFPGI Brigade yet though.

They're out there. Probably musterin', and reminding everyone of the hundreds of dollars they suddenly aren't going to spend on mechpacks they weren't going to buy anyway.

You know I said i wasnt going to give PGI money, and then they put up the piranha... they know my weaknesses TT__TT

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the WTFPGI brigade is actually occupied in another thread.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

The HBK-IIC-A is one of the best 'Mechs in the game. It can carry massive laser alphas for its size and fire them safely with minimal exposure to return fire. The NVA, at the same tonnage, can also carry huge laser alphas, but is far more vulnerable to return fire while dumping them. Should both 'Mechs receive the same degree of nerf? How about the ACH vs. the KFX? The COM-TDK vs. the WLF-2? How about the SDR-5V? All getting hit with the same exact set of nerfs.

Global weapon balance changes simply should not be made without an accompanying comprehensive 'Mech balance pass. Otherwise, just like the UAC nerfs last year, they will create more problems than they solve by hurting 'Mechs that are already sub-per to outright bad instead of only normalizing the small handful of overperforming variants. Individual targeted nerfs, like the ones that were applied to the TBR and SCR to break their game dominance several years ago, are a much better solution. The drivers of those specific 'Mechs and variants wouldn't be happy, but the game as a whole would be much better off than it will be with the current weapon-focused balance strategy.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Too many people get attached to OP things in this game. No balance changes will take away your own skills.

[YueFei]

Teer Kerensky, on 16 October 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:

Too many people get attached to OP things in this game. No balance changes will take away your own skills.

That's not what people are complaining about. Things that aren't OP, and are in fact either OK or even underpowered, also get hit by the nerf bat in this patch, as collateral damage.

Like, any mech using IS Medium Laser with SRM6 gets nerfed. The cooldowns no longer align, either costing you DPS on your SRM6's if you wait for cooldown alignment, or giving more face-time to get off a follow-up shot.

Hell, ASRM6's are also nerfed with the change to Artemis.

[Lily from animove]

YueFei, on 16 October 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

That's not what people are complaining about. Things that aren't OP, and are in fact either OK or even underpowered, also get hit by the nerf bat in this patch, as collateral damage.

Like, any mech using IS Medium Laser with SRM6 gets nerfed. The cooldowns no longer align, either costing you DPS on your SRM6's if you wait for cooldown alignment, or giving more face-time to get off a follow-up shot.

Hell, ASRM6's are also nerfed with the change to Artemis.

thats because PGI still tries to balance on tech level, but as long as chassis differ so much but use the same tech these "balancings" will never equally balance in a fair way to the chassis utilising this tech. PGI needs to focus on chassis balance

Edited by Lily from animove, 17 October 2017 - 01:02 AM.

[Asym]

November11th, on 16 October 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Bro, I know Runescape gets alot of **** for being runescape, but its Devs have excellent community contact and even go way way out of their way to film podcasts and even livestream the game, or show off upcoming improvements and changes in videos.

Even compared to the battletech staff, PGI is silent.
... It makes me feel like PGI just doesnt care, and is just sitting behind a desk, laughing evilly while counting our mechpack money. It should also be noted that criticism is okay, and it isnt always an attack. legitimate criticisms are how things get fixed or changed based on player experience.

Look at League of Legends (LoL) as an example of video game staff involvement. Many Business reviews, Universities and others have used LoL in their graduate programs as a "teaching tool" for customer support paradigms in advanced technology markets.... Everyone that is hired must demonstrate their proficiency in playing the actual game before they are hired...... The entire executive staff "drops" in all of the time and actualy looks forward to hearing from players directly..... Sometimes, that is a bad thing and scandals have happended because of executive involvement..... But, at what, 6 to 10 million people on line each and everyday, maybe, just maybe, we should expect better from PGI and say "if they can do this, why can't you?"
If we are happy and feel part of the team and we buy more, because we are happy, then, PGI has the cash to reinvest in the game itself.... I know, "oh what pittiful stuff" but, sometimes, simple, the Occam's Razor approach works.

[Shifty McSwift]

Asym, on 17 October 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:

Look at League of Legends (LoL) as an example of video game staff involvement. Many Business reviews, Universities and others have used LoL in their graduate programs as a "teaching tool" for customer support paradigms in advanced technology markets.... Everyone that is hired must demonstrate their proficiency in playing the actual game before they are hired...... The entire executive staff "drops" in all of the time and actualy looks forward to hearing from players directly..... Sometimes, that is a bad thing and scandals have happended because of executive involvement..... But, at what, 6 to 10 million people on line each and everyday, maybe, just maybe, we should expect better from PGI and say "if they can do this, why can't you?"
If we are happy and feel part of the team and we buy more, because we are happy, then, PGI has the cash to reinvest in the game itself.... I know, "oh what pittiful stuff" but, sometimes, simple, the Occam's Razor approach works.

LoL is a different case for sure, not only is it their main project (or at least has been for however long) that they have the majority of their development team involved in, they also don't have the "burden" of a lore to adhere to in exact specifics as well as that need to develop the next single player version that seems attached to Mech Warrior, and then the engine/graphics difference is substantial.

And if you don't think there are bad responses from the community that go ignored there then you are just deluding yourself, the moderators are likely worked pretty hard over there in fact.

They definitely stand out as an example of keeping the majority happy though it seems.