59 replies to this topic

[GeminiWolf]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 21 January 2019 - 05:00 AM, said:

Mean come on it's just a humongous waste of time it's never gonna be perfect.
They could be pulling their resources from this shizzle towards Faction play which they say is going to be their big focus this year or optimization or find a way to integrate all old maps in the rotation without sacrificing other things, fixing their draw distance issue and streamline their freaking hitboxes on certain maps.

But no instead PGI is wasting time on removing and adding quirks buffing and nerfing weapons which creates an imbalance in other weapons and mechs.

Well the other stuff actually requires work... the "balancing" requires a few text edits in their XML file.

[Variant1]

Antares102, on 21 January 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

Ah yes and also this:

i hate to burst that bubble, but i would take any extra credits vid with a grain of salt because these are the same people that gave call of duty praise.
You know that game where you get jam smeared on your screan and aim down sights 24/7
just saying......

[Y E O N N E]

Call of Duty was actually a good game, though. The real meme about Call of Duty is that they release one every year and it's barely changed year-over-year.

[Prototelis]

Also, this game plays nothing like CoD.

Even if they slowed all of the action down the players with better mechanical skill are still going to eat low skill players alive.

[Variant1]

Y E O N N E, on 21 January 2019 - 09:11 PM, said:

Call of Duty was actually a good game, though. The real meme about Call of Duty is that they release one every year and it's barely changed year-over-year.

the 1st and second maybe, i did enjoy cod4 a bit. but thats the problem, they keep releasing the same game with no much changes when they could have just released one game and update it continuously while adding content same with other game publishers.

[Y E O N N E]

Variant1, on 21 January 2019 - 09:32 PM, said:

the 1st and second maybe, i did enjoy cod4 a bit. but thats the problem, they keep releasing the same game with no much changes when they could have just released one game and update it continuously while adding content same with other game publishers.

Yes and no; one of the things they kept getting dinged for was using an extremely old engine, and updating games to new engines is not actually a normal thing, especially not for numbered entries like those.

[Vellron2005]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 21 January 2019 - 05:00 AM, said:

Mean come on it's just a humongous waste of time it's never gonna be perfect.
They could be pulling their resources from this shizzle towards Faction play which they say is going to be their big focus this year or optimization or find a way to integrate all old maps in the rotation without sacrificing other things, fixing their draw distance issue and streamline their freaking hitboxes on certain maps.

But no instead PGI is wasting time on removing and adding quirks buffing and nerfing weapons which creates an imbalance in other weapons and mechs.

Oh you poor misguided fool..

There is absolutely no interest in actual "balance" in this game..

"Balance" changes are a tool PGI uses to change the meta, forcing players to change builds and buy new mechs (and new mech packs), and in this way, they are trying to keep the game fresh.

If they left balance alone, then they would be forced to introduce all the things that can't be changed with an XML spreadsheet, like actual content.. maps, game modes, and other things.. and this means costly dev hours they would rather spend on MW5 and money spent on you know.. ice cream.

[OrmsbyGore]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 21 January 2019 - 05:00 AM, said:

They could be pulling their resources from this shizzle towards Faction play which they say is going to be their big focus this year or optimization or find a way to integrate all old maps in the rotation without sacrificing other things, fixing their draw distance issue and streamline their freaking hitboxes on certain maps.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, they'll get around to all that in 90 days.

On a more serious note, the only way to truly balance the game would be to re-introduce repair and re-arm costs, as well as having limited mech bay space (say, 4 per person). And to have a finite #of each piece of equipment, which would only be renewed on a monthly basis (depending on the construction time of said piece of equipment). And to reintroduce the concept of sized hardpoints (no more ac20 urbies, alas). And to introduce role warfare, so theat lights and mediums have a true purpose. Or even just remake MW2. Point is, if you're waiting for balance or a more functional game, you'll be waiting a while. But the good news is, there will be a new mech pack available soon, if you'd like to buy one.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The programmers with cryengine experience leaves PGI 2014 and 2015...and take her knowhow to other company's... Now PGI can not doing many with this heavy modified engine... A new start with mw5 abd UE4 and build new experience was a logical way..buffs and nerfs the little things thats can PGI doing with the engine

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 22 January 2019 - 03:11 AM.

[Timuroslav]

MrVaad, on 21 January 2019 - 06:10 AM, said:

I played world of warcraft for years and i remember the nerfs were constant and targetting a different class each patch.
The joke was who would get the nerf "bat" in the next patch

I have a question for the MWO veterans, does the nerf game eventually puts an old nerfed mech/weapon in the meta ?

No because people still want to one shot light mechs and flamers to be useless.

[ImperialKnight]

MrVaad, on 21 January 2019 - 06:10 AM, said:

I played world of warcraft for years and i remember the nerfs were constant and targetting a different class each patch.
The joke was who would get the nerf "bat" in the next patch

I have a question for the MWO veterans, does the nerf game eventually puts an old nerfed mech/weapon in the meta ?

NOPE. power creep is a real thing, to keep you buying new stuff.

Just ask the Atlas, Dragon Slayer, Highlanders etc.....

[DarkDevilDancer]

Ultimately because not all pilots are of equal skill you'll never have perfect balance, the mechs may be equal but a good pilot will beat a bad one.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 21 January 2019 - 08:04 AM, said:

I'm just saying that they should focus on bigger fish then balancing.
Hitboxes on maps like rubelite and tourmaline also draw distance is an issue and let's not forget the most basic thing in any online multiplayer game is an actual functioning friend list.
Heck ask yourself outside of balancing that could use some fixing up.



Plenty of people leaving the game of the balancing decisions or starters who got put off by the insanely terrible tutorial and the terrible optimization in this game.

Game developers aren't interchangeable. The people who work on balance have a different skillset than those who fix map hitboxes and optimization. You can't just ask them to stop doing their job to work on someone else's

[Prototelis]

If you really think the developer balances based on creating an in game free digital currency demand and this somehow makes them money you are a very special brand of stupid.

Powercreep is very much a part of battletech. It's part of the lore a lot of people keep crying they want to see.

The battletech IP needs a reboot.

Edited by Prototelis, 22 January 2019 - 09:15 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Prototelis, on 22 January 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

If you really think the developer balances based on creating an in game free digital currency demand and this somehow makes them money you are a very special brand of stupid.

It isn’t to “make them money” (well, it is in the sense that it might occasionally encourage a mech pack sale here or there), but rather to drive the c-bill sink that Russ said was necessary to removing the rule of three. This isn’t some sort of theory. It’s straight from Russ. The promise of future non-stop balance passes was one of the things the devs used to answer all of the negativity regarding the skills tree and how it would encourage greater depth and diversity of mech choice.

As to powercreep, yes it is indeed part of Battletech. This isn’t Battletech. Rather this is supposedly a competitive FPS. But more to the point, do keep in mind that the Devs are on record asserting that quirks, yes, quirks of all things, are the source of unwanted power creep in their view. Not new mechs, not better weapons, but quirks.

And yet, why are they constantly messing with quirks, which they imply are bad, on some of the worst mechs in the game (nerfing far more often than they buff until very recently), while the best most “powerful” mechs in the game remain largely untouched?

Consider how most nerfs in the last two years have been directed at weapons. What does that do to the mechs at the top (i.e. mechs representing powercreep in the normal, non-PGI sense)? It nerfs them certainly, but such weapons based nerfs also effectively nerf every relatively lower tier mech and build that utilizes that weapon as well. That does nothing to address power creep, but merely maintains the relative status quo of the top mechs and builds remaining at the top. So if they aren’t fighting actual power creep why do they make these sorts of broad brush changes?

[Prototelis]

Bud Crue, on 22 January 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

It isn’t to “make them money” (well, it is in the sense that it might occasionally encourage a mech pack sale here or there), but rather to drive the c-bill sink

Oh yeah, have a source?

The only real additional cbill sink introduced in this game has been the civil war tech, especially LFE engines.

[Bud Crue]

Prototelis, on 22 January 2019 - 10:18 AM, said:

Oh yeah, have a source?

The only real additional cbill sink introduced in this game has been the civil war tech, especially LFE engines.

The c-bill sink discussion was in the NGNG cast where Russ called folks switching modules “cheapskates” its #157 I think. It was also discussed during a more recent one, but I’ll have to search for it if you are really interested. The rest of my post is from Chris’s and Paul’s commentary both here and on Reddit going back to shortly after the skills tree launched and of course nearly every patch since the skills tree.

As to civil war tech as a sink...really it only was for new players who came after that. I mean I don’t know about you, but I had such a large module etc. refund, that outfitting old mechs with new tech wasn’t really much of a problem.

Edited by Bud Crue, 22 January 2019 - 10:33 AM.

[Prototelis]

That sounds like whole bunch of conjecture on your part.

Current balance passes have nothing to do with modules, or the "cheapskates" remark.

Top mechs/meta hasn't changed significantly since civil war tech, which absolutely was a new cbill sink. That still has nothing to do with current balance passes.

New mechs represent power-creep, but that still doesn't support your position that the developers enact balance changes to intentionally create more grind.

Edited by Prototelis, 22 January 2019 - 10:37 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Prototelis, on 22 January 2019 - 10:37 AM, said:

That sounds like whole bunch of conjecture on your part.

Current balance passes have nothing to do with modules, or the "cheapskates" remark.

Top mechs/meta hasn't changed significantly since civil war tech, which absolutely was a new cbill sink. That still has nothing to do with current balance passes.

New mechs represent power-creep, but that still doesn't support your position that the developers enact balance changes to intentionally create more grind.

Dude. I never said current balance passes have anything to do with modules. Or the cheapskate remark. You asked for a cite. Russ discussed the need for a c-bill sink in the podcast where he talked about module refunds and called people cheapskates.

New mech do represent power creep, to you and I. But PGI has said clearly that quirks rather than mechs represent unwanted power creep.

Nevermind. This is all int the record of the devs comments. You can find it all by going beck and looking and in the case of the casts, listening. Don’t know what else to tell you.

[Prototelis]

Bud Crue, on 22 January 2019 - 10:41 AM, said:

Dude. I never said current balance passes have anything to do with modules. Or the cheapskate remark. You asked for a cite.

Then why bring it up? Oh yeah, because strawman.

Quote

Russ discussed the need for a c-bill sink in the podcast where he talked about module refunds and called people cheapskates.

This isn't helping support your argument. This has nothing to do with balance passes as currency sinks.

Quote

New mech do represent power creep, to you and I. But PGI has said clearly that quirks rather than mechs represent unwanted power creep.

Still not supporting your argument.

Quote

Nevermind. This is all int the record of the devs comments. You can find it all by going beck and looking and in the case of the casts, listening. Don’t know what else to tell you.

"I can't prove my point, you do it for me!"

Show me where they said balance passes are an intentional method of increasing grind/creating a cbill sink.

I'll make it a little more clear for you; Balance changes are not intentional currency sinks; the skill tree was designed to replace the existing currency sink with another that on the surface appears less grindy.

Edited by Prototelis, 22 January 2019 - 11:00 AM.