31 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 03:18 AM, said:

Yeah, I'm still amused every time a single mech variant or combination of weapons that Ghost Heat can't handle that people still refuse to consider Energy Draw despite it being able to handle these instances in a heartbeat.

Wouldn't it be because the latest edition of ED was becoming just as convoluted as GH, hence the nickname GH 2.0? <shrugs>

Edited by Mystere, 16 May 2018 - 06:18 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Mystere, on 16 May 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

Wouldn't it be because the latest edition of ED was becoming just as convoluted as GH, hence the nickname GH 2.0? <shrugs>

What editions of ED? There was only made one attempt. And calling it GH 2.0 only served to illustrate that it attempts to fix the same problem, but in a new and better way.

But if it was PGI who came up with it, then remember that they have released Mechlab 2.0 twice.

Energy draw only needs one value per weapon system in the game currently and then you have taken all combinations of weapons into account.

[Bud Crue]

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

What editions of ED? There was only made one attempt. And calling it GH 2.0 only served to illustrate that it attempts to fix the same problem, but in a new and better way.

But if it was PGI who came up with it, then remember that they have released Mechlab 2.0 twice.

Energy draw only needs one value per weapon system in the game currently and then you have taken all combinations of weapons into account.

He’s talking about the PTS. Original ED was sort of intriguing if perhaps not exactly addressing the problem that it was intended to to as it could be designed around. But during the run of the ED PTS, PGI made progressive changes to a few weapons, then more, then more to the point where by the end of the PTS it was impossible to determine of ED was god bad or whatever because no one had a base line of comparision since the weapon values were everywhere.

[Savage Wolf]

Bud Crue, on 16 May 2018 - 08:18 AM, said:

He’s talking about the PTS. Original ED was sort of intriguing if perhaps not exactly addressing the problem that it was intended to to as it could be designed around. But during the run of the ED PTS, PGI made progressive changes to a few weapons, then more, then more to the point where by the end of the PTS it was impossible to determine of ED was god bad or whatever because no one had a base line of comparision since the weapon values were everywhere.

Yeah, and it still pains me that people are judging the performance of ED vs GH on that mess PGI put out. And now they don't dare go near it again because they ****** up. But PGI just can't seem to get their changes right whenever they do them and then just lets them rot instead of going back and doing it right,

[Bud Crue]

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

Yeah, and it still pains me that people are judging the performance of ED vs GH on that mess PGI put out.

How else are/were we supposed to judge its performance? Judge it in a theoretical way where PGI isn’t involved? We can only provide feed back on what they provide, the rest is just wishful thinking.

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

And now they don't dare go near it again because they ****** up. But PGI just can't seem to get their changes right whenever they do them and then just lets them rot instead of going back and doing it right,

Well, ego can be kind of a ***** sometimes. Various members of this community have provided PGI with all sorts of ideas on how to balance things, make things more fun, fix broken mechanics (including replacing GH), etc. PGI sometimes listens, mostly it doesn’t and does what it wants instead. This isn’t necessarily some evil plot to scorn their players (then again it might be) , but rather simply an illustration that they are the devs and they will run this game and develop it as they see fit.
Whadiyagonnado? It’s their game.

[Savage Wolf]

Bud Crue, on 16 May 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

How else are/were we supposed to judge its performance? Judge it in a theoretical way where PGI isn’t involved? We can only provide feed back on what they provide, the rest is just wishful thinking.

But you have nothing to judge it by currently. I guess it's an adequate test of what PGI is able to do with it. But people think the idea is bad, not the implementation, despite everyone who knows how ED was supposed to work knows that PGI did it badly.
So the point is, we have nothing to judge ED done right by.

Bud Crue, on 16 May 2018 - 09:10 AM, said:

Well, ego can be kind of a ***** sometimes. Various members of this community have provided PGI with all sorts of ideas on how to balance things, make things more fun, fix broken mechanics (including replacing GH), etc. PGI sometimes listens, mostly it doesn’t and does what it wants instead. This isn’t necessarily some evil plot to scorn their players (then again it might be) , but rather simply an illustration that they are the devs and they will run this game and develop it as they see fit.
Whadiyagonnado? It’s their game.

This is not about PGI listening or not listening, it's about their ability to actually follow through with anything. All of their implementations are half-baked. Even when they listen it's half-baked.
I could accept it if they took an iteration or two to get it right, but so far anything they have implemented is just left in it's initial half-baked version. If we are lucky, they tweak a few values but that's about it.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 16 May 2018 - 09:36 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

But you have nothing to judge it by currently. Etc.

Yup. And that brings us back to your exchange with Mystere at the top of this page.
There is no ED in game, so folks supposed refusal or not to consider ED as a mechanism to address or correct or deal with or whatever flaws in the existing GH mechanic is nothing more than random ponderings of the infinite. Your assertion that ED could handle these instances in a heartbeat is thus, just wishful thinking. You have no idea what ED could handle since as you point out, we don’t have anything with which to judge in the current game, because there is no ED other than its memory from a PTS. There is no proposal from PGI to suggest that ED will ever return or be a thing. But keep wishing, ya never know; maybe PGI will bring it back.

Edited by Bud Crue, 16 May 2018 - 09:52 AM.

[Battlemaster56]

Sorry to be uninformed here but someone explain the ED concept? I know I missed out on it during it's run but that's do to me not having a pc or a phone at the time and was in the dark for nearly a year.

[Bud Crue]

Battlemaster56, on 16 May 2018 - 09:53 AM, said:

Sorry to be uninformed here but someone explain the ED concept? I know I missed out on it during it's run but that's do to me not having a pc or a phone at the time and was in the dark for nearly a year.

Too much to sum up accurately so:
https://mwomercs.com...aw-pts-archive/

But for a biased summary: it was ghost heat PLUS another 30 point damage cap mechanism (sort of) that would trigger more GH if you fired the wrong combination of weapons that exceeded a 30 point of combined damage potential firing. An example would be to think back to before Gauss/PPC GH, now add that GH mechanism back for any time you fired ANY combination of weapons over 30 points and call it energy draw.

[Battlemaster56]

Bud Crue, on 16 May 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

Too much to sum up accurately so:
https://mwomercs.com...aw-pts-archive/

But for a biased summary: it was ghost heat PLUS another 30 point damage cap mechanism (sort of) that would trigger more GH if you fired the wrong combination of weapons that exceeded a 30 point of combined damage potential firing. An example would be to think back to before Gauss/PPC GH, now add that GH mechanism back for any time you fired ANY combination of weapons over 30 points and call it energy draw.

So basically a extreme limiter on high alpha builds or builds that brush up on the 30 point limited (AC20 comes in mind). Just from the quick summary alone it sounds like a lot of convoluted thought into a shooter with unnecessary mechanics to keep track of in a game we already have to track atleast five different things off the top my head.

I think a mechanic like this would kill the game for if released.

[Bud Crue]

Battlemaster56, on 16 May 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

So basically a extreme limiter on high alpha builds or builds that brush up on the 30 point limited (AC20 comes in mind). Just from the quick summary alone it sounds like a lot of convoluted thought into a shooter with unnecessary mechanics to keep track of in a game we already have to track atleast five different things off the top my head.

I think a mechanic like this would kill the game for if released.

Convoluted? Maybe, it always struck me as just kinda redundant or maybe excessive (see the many GH2.0 comments) they did give the UI another little status bar to track it in the CP, which did give it the pretense of being distinct from GH (though it never played that way to me). There were work arounds too (which depending on your point of view was a good thing or a bad thing) and timing of fire made a big difference too. But yeah, by the end of the PTS that “kill the game” feeling was approaching consensus.

[Mystere]

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

What editions of ED? There was only made one attempt. And calling it GH 2.0 only served to illustrate that it attempts to fix the same problem, but in a new and better way.

I was referring to the last version placed on the PTS. It was a far cry from the simplicity of the first cut.

Savage Wolf, on 16 May 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

So the point is, we have nothing to judge ED done right by.

I don't know about you, but to me that's a moot point given that PGI abandoned it before "getting it right".

Edited by Mystere, 16 May 2018 - 10:27 AM.