283 replies to this topic

[Luminis]

El Bandito, on 29 May 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

Uziel also suffers from its low mounted cockpit--which allows the enemy to generally shoot at the mech before it can see the them. If its cockpit was high up, I doubt its big STs would been this much of an issue.

The fundamental issue is the same, though, whether it's the Uziel's STs or the missile ears on the TBR, MCII or WHM: Chunks of your Mech clearing an obstacle before you cockpit dies is bad. As are prominent "shoot here" parts on a Mech.

[Jackal Noble]

El Bandito, on 29 May 2018 - 09:24 PM, said:

Uziel also suffers from its low mounted cockpit--which allows the enemy to generally shoot at the mech before it can see the them. If its cockpit was high up, I doubt its big STs would been this much of an issue.

Was there a stealth buff to the Uzi? It seems much tougher.

[El Bandito]

JackalBeast, on 29 May 2018 - 10:02 PM, said:

Was there a stealth buff to the Uzi? It seems much tougher.

PGI gave them durability quirks. At release they didn't have that.

[Jackal Noble]

El Bandito, on 29 May 2018 - 10:21 PM, said:

PGI gave them durability quirks. At release they didn't have that.

No no not that, I have the lot of em. More recently than that.

[El Bandito]

JackalBeast, on 29 May 2018 - 11:24 PM, said:

No no not that, I have the lot of em. More recently than that.

Then perhaps only good Uziel players are left in QP, and they know how to roll damage?

[JudauAshta]

great now gauss blood asp will be even easier to disarm

[ForceUser]

Luminis, on 29 May 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

Exhibit A:The Uziel.

counter exhibit: my season 20 stats, done exclusively with an uziel. Best season ive ever had by a wide margin.

The biggest problem here with justifying a refund request is that PGI is making the in game model CLOSER to the concept art, not further from it. If it was the other way around then maybe op would have some justification even if he probably still wouldnt get a refund.

And like it or not but the majority of people that have given input on this are people that are in favor of the change. May or may not be the majority of the community but it is the majority of responders. There is still a lot of different opinions, and this is exactly what PGI talked about with 12v12 vs 8v8, the spread of opinions is too even. In this case however they can justify it with it being closer to the concept art. With 8v8 on the other hand the gain is too small for the possible loss in playerbase.

Luminis, on 29 May 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

Exhibit A:The Uziel.

counter exhibit: my season 20 stats, done exclusively with an uziel. Best season ive ever had by a wide margin.

The biggest problem here with justifying a refund request is that PGI is making the in game model CLOSER to the concept art, not further from it. If it was the other way around then maybe op would have some justification even if he probably still wouldnt get a refund.

And like it or not but the majority of people that have given input on this are people that are in favor of the change. May or may not be the majority of the community but it is the majority of responders. There is still a lot of different opinions, and this is exactly what PGI talked about with 12v12 vs 8v8, the spread of opinions is too even. In this case however they can justify it with it being closer to the concept art. With 8v8 on the other hand the gain is too small for the possible loss in playerbase.

[Cer6erus]

Pgi: releases artwork of bloodasp showing large cannon mounts.
Community: orders mech packs.
Pgi: releases blood asp with shorter mounts.
Community: "why is it not like it was in the original art?!? We want a refund!"
Pgi: changes the mounts
Community: " god damn it this is a nerf, I want my money back!"

Wtf is wrong with you people? Can't you read the disclaimers that state the mechs/builds are subject to change?

[Luminis]

ForceUser, on 30 May 2018 - 12:07 AM, said:

counter exhibit: my season 20 stats, done exclusively with an uziel. Best season ive ever had by a wide margin.

The biggest problem here with justifying a refund request is that PGI is making the in game model CLOSER to the concept art, not further from it. If it was the other way around then maybe op would have some justification even if he probably still wouldnt get a refund.

And like it or not but the majority of people that have given input on this are people that are in favor of the change. May or may not be the majority of the community but it is the majority of responders. There is still a lot of different opinions, and this is exactly what PGI talked about with 12v12 vs 8v8, the spread of opinions is too even. In this case however they can justify it with it being closer to the concept art. With 8v8 on the other hand the gain is too small for the possible loss in playerbase.

1) I have better stats in my AS7-D than in the MCII-B, does that make it a better Mech? Same thing I said to Bandito though: Is the TBR better with our without the missile ears, hitbox wise?

2) Whatever the concept art situation is, the change didn't go through before the refund window closed. Someone who bought it shortly after release based on what it was shortly after release isn't getting what they paid for and should supposedly not get a refund? People who pre-ordered got to refund it when it didn't look as expected, why should people who made that decision based on (supposedly) more reliable information get shafted?

Also, why would I ever spend cash on MWO again if I gotta expect that what I buy isn't what I get with no chance to refund - as opposed to pre-ordereing (aka bait and switch)? I ain't the gambling type, sorry.

3) The majority wanting this or that isn't swaying my opinion either way, I'm afraid. If they wanna change it because that's what the majority wants, fine, just give me my money back and we're cool.

Cer6erus, on 30 May 2018 - 01:22 AM, said:

Pgi: releases artwork of bloodasp showing large cannon mounts.
Community: orders mech packs.
Pgi: releases blood asp with shorter mounts.
Community: "why is it not like it was in the original art?!? We want a refund!"
Pgi: changes the mounts
Community: " god damn it this is a nerf, I want my money back!"

Wtf is wrong with you people? Can't you read the disclaimers that state the mechs/builds are subject to change?

You conveniently got the "huge canons = DOA PGI pls fix" bit that precedented the changes.

[visionGT4]

entitlement

The fact of having a right to something

‘full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered’

The amount to which a person has a right
‘her annual leave entitlement’

The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
‘no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement’

Edited by visionGT4, 30 May 2018 - 03:02 AM.

[Luminis]

visionGT4, on 30 May 2018 - 02:59 AM, said:

entitlement

The fact of having a right to something

‘full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered’

The amount to which a person has a right
‘her annual leave entitlement’

The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
‘no wonder your kids have a sense of entitlement’

Wanting the same chance to refund something based on broken expectations as someone who pre-ordered = entitlement.

You heard it here first, folks.

[Khobai]

if I was PGI I wouldnt give a refund

its not like clan mechs getting massively nerf post-release is anything new... I mean how many times has this happened?

this is exactly why i wont spend money on this game anymore

I let myself get fooled too many times in the past. but unlike the rest of you I learned from my mistakes

[R Valentine]

It can't possibly be any worse than the Fafnir's CT, and we didn't get a refund for that so no. Take your nerfing and like it.

[Luminis]

Kiran Yagami, on 30 May 2018 - 05:54 AM, said:

It can't possibly be any worse than the Fafnir's CT, and we didn't get a refund for that so no. Take your nerfing and like it.

I just don't want those fugly long barrels on my BAS. The change resulting in a nerf is icing on the cake but there's a reason I bought it after seeing the in-game model (which wasn't explicitly denoted as subject to change when I bought it) instead of pre-ordering based on the concept art (which is explicitly denoted as subject to change).

[Vanguard836]

Luminis, on 30 May 2018 - 05:59 AM, said:

I just don't want those fugly long barrels on my BAS. The change resulting in a nerf is icing on the cake but there's a reason I bought it after seeing the in-game model (which wasn't explicitly denoted as subject to change when I bought it) instead of pre-ordering based on the concept art (which is explicitly denoted as subject to change).

Can’t seem to be able to find the statement on mobile, can you take a screenshot of it (subject to change)

[Luminis]

Vanguard836, on 30 May 2018 - 07:19 AM, said:

Can’t seem to be able to find the statement on mobile, can you take a screenshot of it (subject to change)

Store page -> CTRL + F -> "not final".

Also, the literal definition of the word "concept".

Quote

an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

[Jay Leon Hart]

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

Judging by the outrage on Twitter. Reddit, here on the forums, and ect from the first model shown during the countdown and the little bits (usually the same like dozen people if that honestly it seems....) the majority want the new model. People always flip more **** when not satisfied or agree then when they do....remember negative experiences usually are always known and reported about the. The the usual many good experiences....

The majority won't even know the new model exists, so... yeah.

We'll see what happens when all the people perfectly happy with the current model have it changed with no prior warning.

The Lighthouse, on 29 May 2018 - 03:10 PM, said:

I may even spend real cash if PGI fixes the mech well.

Here is the problem I see so much - many of the people who want a "prettier" Blood Asp haven't bought the damned thing. Why should PGI listen to the people who haven't spent money on a product vs the ones who have, unless they want to really anger their remaining paying customers?

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

PGI wouldn't act and do this if there was not a lot of request for it. Obviously more then not doing it...fact...

More than not doing it, because most people don't even know the fix exists. Fact.

CK16, on 29 May 2018 - 08:05 PM, said:

Except. .you know....the mech will still be very functional...unlike square wheels on a car....I bet a mechpack people will die the exact same as now and most mechs....ct cored....or all the mech beat up.....stop making a mountain out of a mole hill....

More than half my deaths have been ST loss.

Less than half my deaths have been CT loss.

Anecdotal, but there ya go.

[Jay Leon Hart]

ForceUser, on 30 May 2018 - 12:07 AM, said:

And like it or not but the majority of people that have given input on this are people that are in favor of the change. May or may not be the majority of the community but it is the majority of responders.

And the majority of purchasers won;t even know about the change, because it's only on Twitter and a scant few threads. People who don't like the in game model will have come to the forums to complain. People who like it, won't have come to say how much they like it. They will come later, when it's changed, with no prior warning, likely demanding refunds.

[Haipyng]

Jay Leon Hart, on 30 May 2018 - 08:16 AM, said:

Here is the problem I see so much - many of the people who want a "prettier" Blood Asp haven't bought the damned thing. Why should PGI listen to the people who haven't spent money on a product vs the ones who have, unless they want to really anger their remaining paying customers?

PGI may listen because they want to sell more Mechs and in the past they haven't shown too much concern over aggravating players over nerfs and broad stroke balancing changes affecting those who have already purchased mechs. After all they don't do refunds. IJS

[Jay Leon Hart]

Cer6erus, on 30 May 2018 - 01:22 AM, said:

Pgi: releases artwork of bloodasp showing large cannon mounts.
Community: orders mech packs.
Pgi: releases blood asp with shorter mounts.
Community: "why is it not like it was in the original art?!? We want a refund!"
Pgi: changes the mounts
Community: " god damn it this is a nerf, I want my money back!"

Wtf is wrong with you people? Can't you read the disclaimers that state the mechs/builds are subject to change?

It was changed prior to release. Now it exists and people cancelled or purchased based on the existing model. Now PGI want to double-dip - get people who like the concept art to (re)purchase and screw over those who bought the current version because of what was presented as the final product. They only have money to gain and goodwill to lose.

Luminis, on 30 May 2018 - 02:51 AM, said:

3) The majority wanting this or that isn't swaying my opinion either way, I'm afraid. If they wanna change it because that's what the majority wants, fine, just give me my money back and we're cool.

Agreed.

Haipyng, on 30 May 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:

PGI may listen because they want to sell more Mechs and in the past they haven't shown too much concern over aggravating players over nerfs and broad stroke balancing changes affecting those who have already purchased mechs. After all they don't do refunds. IJS

The unfortunate truth