283 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

I have only this to say..

The Blood Asp is the first mech I preordered.. I've been in the game only since closed beta.

Due to the prices being high for me, it was given to me as a gift, cose' I was giggling like a little girl over how awesome the concept art looked.

It will most definitely also be the LAST mech I ever preorder.

Why? I guess I missed the fine print where it says the mech I bought will come with torso mounted billboards.

Should have read better.. silly me.

GG.

P.S.

I retract any and all previous statements over how proud I am of PGI fixing the arm energy slots.. they messed them up again.. changed what needed no changing.. so.. yeah.. foot in own mouth.

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 June 2018 - 10:55 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Spheroid, on 19 June 2018 - 10:48 AM, said:

I was in that match. I was shooting it with dual HPPC. Seemed no more fragile than Blood Asps previously.

Yeah, I made the mistake of shooting CT rather then your ST. Lol. Can't blip enough info on everyone.

I do have to say that none of the armor values have changed, I was hoping for some gauss buff for the increased scale that I saw in some thread. Oh well, I still like my Blood Asps.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 19 June 2018 - 11:00 AM.

[MTier Slayed Up]

Last screen shot. That's it for me, I need some Z's.

Edited by DrtyDshSoap, 19 June 2018 - 11:06 AM.

[Tesunie]

Viktor Drake, on 29 May 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

So I was just curious if anyone besides me is really upset they are planning to lengthen the barrel on the ST torso mounts, which will increase the side torso hitboxs and which will indirectly nerf the Blood Asp perhaps substantially.

I don't know how anyone else feels but I added the Reinforcement Package and Hero to my purchase specifically because I had a chance to try out the Standard Pack mechs prior to my purchase. I really liked the way PGI proactively adjusted the ST mount lengths to reduce their profile thus improving the hit boxes. I can't say for sure that this was their intent when they shortened them but their intent or not, it gave us a released mech that was very good, good enough for me to add an additional $35 to my purchase.

Now they apparently are going to extend the hit boxes because alot of people were upset that the mech didn't match the concept art and I guess prefer looking cool to actual in game performance. I unfortunately don't and will probably pursue a refund for the Reinforcement Add on and Hero if the change has significant adverse effect on the performance of the Blood Asp.

Anyone aside from me feel it is kind of bait and switch to release a mech with the current in game model and after reviews have went out and people have made purchasing decisions, then decide to change the model which will result in a net nerf to the performance of the mech?

Note: I know there are alot of people pleased with the changes or else this issue wouldn't have came up so you don't have answer back that your pleased or happy about the change. I am more curious about if I am the only one really upset at the incoming nerf/geometry change on the Blood Asp.

You call this bait and switch, but I might mention that the same could be said in reverse. That having the in game model differentiate so much from the preview art (that many people paid for) means it isn't what they paid for...

And for the record, it was probably unintentional at first, and then they decided to make it match the original art better because, honestly, it should have from the start.

I might also remind, most times preorders are "you are taking a risk". I'll make mention here as well that many people do purchase mechs and in game gear (outside of MW:O) strictly for looks... I know I own a lot of my mechs simply from nostalgia, and it has nothing to do with in game performance.

[Nightbird]

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

You call this bait and switch, but I might mention that the same could be said in reverse. That having the in game model differentiate so much from the preview art (that many people paid for) means it isn't what they paid for...

And for the record, it was probably unintentional at first, and then they decided to make it match the original art better because, honestly, it should have from the start.

I might also remind, most times preorders are "you are taking a risk". I'll make mention here as well that many people do purchase mechs and in game gear (outside of MW:O) strictly for looks... I know I own a lot of my mechs simply from nostalgia, and it has nothing to do with in game performance.

I agree with this, the art is what it is, PGI made too much of a change in development. That been said, I believe only the ECM variants will be viable with this change and will leave the collector and hero variant owners in the cold.

[Vellron2005]

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

And for the record, it was probably unintentional at first, and then they decided to make it match the original art better because, honestly, it should have from the start.

Only it doesn't match the artwork at all.. the shoulder cannons need to be half as thin to be even close..

[Jay Leon Hart]

So, it's not as long as the concept art and it's still significantly thicker to boot.

I guess everyone loses.

YAY!?

[Angel of Annihilation]

Vesper11, on 19 June 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

So if a mech you bought gets nerfed it's fine to ask for refunds? That's like asking for p2w, what a ****** thread.

Nope. I don't ask for refunds when a mech gets nerfed for balance reasons. I do however get rather annoyed when a mech is nerfed for cosmetic reason. That is and has been my issue here. This change is just because some people like the longer barrel look of the mech. That change results in a significant nerf to the mech. There is no and has been no justification for the nerf from a balance perspective.

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

You call this bait and switch, but I might mention that the same could be said in reverse. That having the in game model differentiate so much from the preview art (that many people paid for) means it isn't what they paid for...

And for the record, it was probably unintentional at first, and then they decided to make it match the original art better because, honestly, it should have from the start.

I might also remind, most times preorders are "you are taking a risk". I'll make mention here as well that many people do purchase mechs and in game gear (outside of MW:O) strictly for looks... I know I own a lot of my mechs simply from nostalgia, and it has nothing to do with in game performance.

I don't call it a bait and switch in any way shape or form. I just call it an unreasonable change because it is just being done for cosmetic reasons. I pointed in out a couple times now but a nerf due to balance issues is one thing, a nerf just to satisfy the whim of players who want to look cool is absurd.

Also I am well aware of the risk of pre-orders. That is generally why I limit my risk to just purchasing the standard packs of mechs I might be interested in. Then once the mech is released and I get a chance to play it and insure it is of good quality and fun to play, then I decide if I want to invest the additional $35 for the hero and reinforcements. In the case of the Blood Asp I did just that. I tested the standard pack, loved the mech and decided based on what was "Released" that it was worthwhile for me to invest the additional $35. I do this because after release the only thing I generally ever, in 5 years and dozens of mech packs, that I had to worry about was a change due to balance reasons. Then this abomination of an idea comes around and the mech gets a big flipping nerf to accommodate the "look cool" crowd. Seriously? That is why I am upset.

Whether it should have looked like this to begin with or not, that is besides the point. If it should have looked like this they should have make it look like this before release or at least in the patch notes, notified us about an upcoming geometry change. Changing it after release is what is total BS.

Also I am perfect fine with the mech looking cooler, I really am. I have zero real problem with the the long barrel aesthetic, well almost zero as I think the longer barrel look worse than the Stubby ones but I can live with the longer barrels. However, I don't feel it is fair that the mech should end up nerfed as a result of a cosmetic change. If PGI want to add 15 armor to the STs, I will shut up and call it a day, however they didn't so I am upset.

[Stinger554]

Viktor Drake, on 19 June 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

Nope. I don't ask for refunds when a mech gets nerfed for balance reasons. I do however get rather annoyed when a mech is nerfed for cosmetic reason. That is and has been my issue here. This change is just because some people like the longer barrel look of the mech. That change results in a significant nerf to the mech. There is no and has been no justification for the nerf from a balance perspective.



I don't call it a bait and switch in any way shape or form. I just call it an unreasonable change because it is just being done for cosmetic reasons. I pointed in out a couple times now but a nerf due to balance issues is one thing, a nerf just to satisfy the whim of players who want to look cool is absurd.

Also I am well aware of the risk of pre-orders. That is generally why I limit my risk to just purchasing the standard packs of mechs I might be interested in. Then once the mech is released and I get a chance to play it and insure it is of good quality and fun to play, then I decide if I want to invest the additional $35 for the hero and reinforcements. In the case of the Blood Asp I did just that. I tested the standard pack, loved the mech and decided based on what was "Released" that it was worthwhile for me to invest the additional $35. I do this because after release the only thing I generally ever, in 5 years and dozens of mech packs, that I had to worry about was a change due to balance reasons. Then this abomination of an idea comes around and the mech gets a big flipping nerf to accommodate the "look cool" crowd. Seriously? That is why I am upset.

Whether it should have looked like this to begin with or not, that is besides the point. If it should have looked like this they should have make it look like this before release or at least in the patch notes, notified us about an upcoming geometry change. Changing it after release is what is total BS.

Also I am perfect fine with the mech looking cooler, I really am. I have zero real problem with the the long barrel aesthetic, well almost zero as I think the longer barrel look worse than the Stubby ones but I can live with the longer barrels. However, I don't feel it is fair that the mech should end up nerfed as a result of a cosmetic change. If PGI want to add 15 armor to the STs, I will shut up and call it a day, however they didn't so I am upset.

Basically this. Making the already easy to isolate ST of the Asp and making it bigger...like um no thanks. Now it doesn't look like you can even twist effectively at all. Before I at least had the chance.

[Captain Polux]

DrtyDshSoap, on 19 June 2018 - 10:36 AM, said:

Firing up a match to see how I do. Only got off work a little bit ago and i plan to sleep, I'll post the results shortly.

The gauss rifle accounts for only 33% of that mount. C'mon PGI, remove the superfluous **** around the actual weapon...

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 19 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

Only it doesn't match the artwork at all.. the shoulder cannons need to be half as thin to be even close..

It's closer, and recall that it "wasn't final art". So, my question might be, is it close enough?

I'm not going to say it's "perfect", just that trying to change it to closer resemble the original prototype art seems to be appeasing a lot of the people who did preorder the packs based on the concept art...

Viktor Drake, on 19 June 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

I don't call it a bait and switch in any way shape or form. I just call it an unreasonable change because it is just being done for cosmetic reasons. I pointed in out a couple times now but a nerf due to balance issues is one thing, a nerf just to satisfy the whim of players who want to look cool is absurd.

Also I am well aware of the risk of pre-orders. That is generally why I limit my risk to just purchasing the standard packs of mechs I might be interested in. Then once the mech is released and I get a chance to play it and insure it is of good quality and fun to play, then I decide if I want to invest the additional $35 for the hero and reinforcements. In the case of the Blood Asp I did just that. I tested the standard pack, loved the mech and decided based on what was "Released" that it was worthwhile for me to invest the additional $35. I do this because after release the only thing I generally ever, in 5 years and dozens of mech packs, that I had to worry about was a change due to balance reasons. Then this abomination of an idea comes around and the mech gets a big flipping nerf to accommodate the "look cool" crowd. Seriously? That is why I am upset.

Whether it should have looked like this to begin with or not, that is besides the point. If it should have looked like this they should have make it look like this before release or at least in the patch notes, notified us about an upcoming geometry change. Changing it after release is what is total BS.

Also I am perfect fine with the mech looking cooler, I really am. I have zero real problem with the the long barrel aesthetic, well almost zero as I think the longer barrel look worse than the Stubby ones but I can live with the longer barrels. However, I don't feel it is fair that the mech should end up nerfed as a result of a cosmetic change. If PGI want to add 15 armor to the STs, I will shut up and call it a day, however they didn't so I am upset.

You don't consider it close to "bait and switch"?

Viktor Drake, on 29 May 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

Anyone aside from me feel it is kind of bait and switch

That aside, has it been effecting your game play? Does the changes negatively impact the mech's overall game performance? Are you actually dying any faster than previously?

Also, the change just happened. PGI needs to collect data, and if it is being a problem, they may give it some added health quirks to compensate. Balance should be done slowly, and after gathering data. Not knee jerk reaction and "predictive" to what may not be a needed change.

[Vesper11]

Viktor Drake, on 19 June 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

Nope. I don't ask for refunds when a mech gets nerfed for balance reasons. I do however get rather annoyed when a mech is nerfed for cosmetic reason. That is and has been my issue here. This change is just because some people like the longer barrel look of the mech. That change results in a significant nerf to the mech. There is no and has been no justification for the nerf from a balance perspective.

You can call whatever you like but it's all the same **** to me - it gets "nerfed" and this is why you want refund. It's a mechwarrior game and staying closer to mechwarrior universe is more important than "effective design" which many mechs already lack anyway, if that causes certain machines to be weaker or stronger there are always other tools to change the balance other than bastardizing the mech model.

[Dogstar]

Vesper11, on 19 June 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

You can call whatever you like but it's all the same **** to me

You're wrong and you're being unpleasant about it too. What is it to you that someone else isn't happy with this post-release change, a type of change that PGI have never done before? Is it that you just want to prevent anyone else from having any input to the game?

[Antares102]

Vesper11, on 19 June 2018 - 12:21 PM, said:

It's a mechwarrior game and staying closer to mechwarrior universe is more important than "effective design" ...

Have you checked weapon stats (except tons/slots) lately?
Also do you know that quirks exists?
And that engined for battlemechs can be fractions of tonnage?
There have been many many changes to MWO by PGI which are not inline with "lore".
Staying close to BTech lore stats is one thing but staying close to concept art and calling it "important for lore" is a totally different bandwaggon that is crammed with s special kind of loretard.

First and foremost the game must be "fun" to play.
And for some "fun" is running around in an effective mech.

Edited by Antares102, 19 June 2018 - 01:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 01:06 PM, said:

You're wrong and you're being unpleasant about it too. What is it to you that someone else isn't happy with this post-release change, a type of change that PGI have never done before? Is it that you just want to prevent anyone else from having any input to the game?

Though everyone is entitled to their opinion... I will mention that PGI has made mech model changes in the past. Typically to address the scale of the mech more than anything else, but that is still a mech model change.

I personally think having the in game mech better represent the preorder artwork is probably a better idea. I know there was a previous mech that was petitioned to have it changed to better match it's original artwork, though I can't recall what it was. (PGI didn't change that one though.)

[SFC174]

Nightbird, on 19 June 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

OH MY GOD THOSE STs

I LOL'd when I saw that mechlab shot. Holy crap, that's funny.

I love ECM mechs, B-ASP seemed to be doing well in QP, but I'm really hesitant to pick one up before it comes out for c-bills now.

Oh well, PGI giveth, PGI taketh away.

[Dogstar]

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Though everyone is entitled to their opinion... I will mention that PGI has made mech model changes in the past. Typically to address the scale of the mech more than anything else, but that is still a mech model change.

I personally think having the in game mech better represent the preorder artwork is probably a better idea. I know there was a previous mech that was petitioned to have it changed to better match it's original artwork, though I can't recall what it was. (PGI didn't change that one though.)

Please note that all those changes have occurred between the release of the first in-game pics of the mech and the release of the mech. e.g The Nighstar's 'droopy' arms. This change is different in that it has been _after_ the release of the mech.

Unless you're referring to the volumetric re-scaling - but that was to _all_ mechs evenly and wasn't this type of change.

[Tesunie]

Dogstar, on 19 June 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

Please note that all those changes have occurred between the release of the first in-game pics of the mech and the release of the mech. e.g The Nighstar's 'droopy' arms. This change is different in that it has been _after_ the release of the mech.

Unless you're referring to the volumetric re-scaling - but that was to _all_ mechs evenly and wasn't this type of change.

The Night Star is a good example for this I believe. It was changed after it's preview was released, and quickly adjusted before it was introduced into the game. But lets face it, it's a lot easier to adjust an arm angle, rather than the a shape of the side torso...

As for rescale, the Nova comes to mind. it was specifically shrank (as a point to try and balance it) beyond the volume based rescale. Otherwise, it should be about the size of the Crab by volume... and it appears to be smaller.

But there was a mech that people wanted to have changed to better represent it's concept art and PGI didn't do it... but I can't recall what mech it was to save myself. I know many of use petitioned to have the roll cage blinders on the Locust (P) be removed from the visual sight of the pilot... and that never happened. (Still feels like "pay for hindrance" to me every time I play that mech.)

I can't see the mech on the store... It was an old chassis. Think it may have been the Stalker? With it's waist? I think?

(Edit: I remember now. It was the Stalker. People thought the waist was too high compared to the concept art. PGI didn't change it despite the petitions because of hit box collisions with the lower waist.)

Edited by Tesunie, 19 June 2018 - 01:36 PM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Tesunie, on 19 June 2018 - 01:29 PM, said:

The Night Star is a good example for this I believe. It was changed after it's preview was released, and quickly adjusted before it was introduced into the game. But lets face it, it's a lot easier to adjust an arm angle, rather than the a shape of the side torso...

One of my issues with this nerf (I have many), is PGI already had this "new" model ready to go - you can see it in the countdown thread.

Then, after backlash about asymmetrical mounts (not low, short mounts), they altered them all to the short, low ones.

Then everything died down, at least here. (I couldn't give 2 salty shits about Reddit or Twitter, sorry-not-sorry).

So they had 2 models to use. They got backlash, and decided to use one of them. Then they changed their minds and swapped them.

If PGI had released the Blood Asp with just the high, long mounts from the start, I wouldn't care. But they didn't. They chose to go with the short, low ones. They chose to let people play a 'mech, knowing full well they were going to change it a month later.

I don't know why this annoys me so much, it's just a game. But it does, so feel free to put me on ignore, anybody who's so bothered about my opinion for the thing I paid for and had taken away.

[Tesunie]

Jay Leon Hart, on 19 June 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

They chose to let people play a 'mech, knowing full well they were going to change it a month later.

I do not disagree with your opinion, nor am I trying to change it.

I will comment that I am not so sure PGI knew they would change it later after their initial decision. More than likely, someone convinced them with a strong enough reasons, on top of possibly had enough people with them, that PGI chose to change it. (Rather than "knowing full well they were going to change it".)

You don't have to like the change. Not everyone likes every change made into the game. (Ho boy do some people not like some of the changes.) You would be fully within your rights to desire a refund after these changes, but I'd recommend playing the mech first and seeing if it even made a difference. I suspect that it probably wont make that much of a difference due to the location of the shoulder mounts. If people aim for them specifically, their shots are as likely to go high or low and miss completely. People probably are more likely to still aim for center mass or a shoulder/arm rather than the barrels.

If you really don't like how the mech looks now... or really just have no interest in it, you can submit for a refund. Support is normally good about things, and they tend to do a once per account refund. After the first refund, they get a little more strict about it though... but they still might do it even then.