75 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

TheCaptainJZ, on 26 February 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

Yes, I agree PGI has done too little too slowly, but this time around, I also recognize that this is the first time that Daeron and Matt have "been in charge" of balance so I can understand their hesitance to make widescale changes. If they do a class of weapons each month--and actually maintain monthly changes--I think that would be an acceptable approach. In the past, absolutely, PGI has failed to do this, but I think these two are more receptive to what the players are saying more than Paul and team were in the past. As for MW5? Think that always came down financial constraints. MWO too in a number of ways (mainly, not enough people to deliver content, or not an efficient enough operation).

If they made small changes on a frequent basis that would be one thing. I think most of us would be able to deal with that just fine.

The issue is that MWO's past has mostly been small changes made over very long periods of time. I will remain skeptical until a difference in methods/philosophy is shown (as in not just talking the talk, but walking the walk).

Edited by FupDup, 26 February 2021 - 06:16 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

FupDup, on 26 February 2021 - 06:15 PM, said:

If they made small changes on a frequent basis that would be one thing. I think most of us would be able to deal with that just fine.

The issue is that MWO's past has mostly been small changes made over very long periods of time. I will remain skeptical until a difference in methods/philosophy is shown (as in not just talking the talk, but walking the walk).

Absolutely. They've dropped the ball in the past frequently. No argument there.

And the player base is just so ready for changes after a 2 year hiatus.

[The6thMessenger]

TheCaptainJZ, on 26 February 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

Yes, I agree PGI has done too little too slowly, but this time around, I also recognize that this is the first time that Daeron and Matt have "been in charge" of balance so I can understand their hesitance to make widescale changes.

In the past, absolutely, PGI has failed to do this, but I think these two are more receptive to what the players are saying more than Paul and team were in the past.

You know, IIRC that Chris Lowrey used to be in charge too, the last guy they actually have as a balance overlord that actually plays the game unlike the rest of the devs. We still ended up with a bad direction. I don't think Chris is to blame, but I think its more of that he's not really in charge.

TheCaptainJZ, on 26 February 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

If they do a class of weapons each month--and actually maintain monthly changes--I think that would be an acceptable approach.

TheCaptainJZ, on 26 February 2021 - 06:17 PM, said:

Absolutely. They've dropped the ball in the past frequently. No argument there.

And the player base is just so ready for changes after a 2 year hiatus.

2 years and barely have to show anything for it? How are you not outraged about that? 2 year worth of data for the very same BS of a balance-scheme, and right now they are just still trying to figure things out by baby-stepping the entire way? The Gulag, despite the contradicting voices yours-truly included, at least got a handle on things.

It's like a child doing homework last-minute, asking for glue 7pm just minutes before bed. This is their revitalization effort? They might as well stop to save us the time hoping for a better MWO with their lazy-*** approach -- we've been there, and we know that there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, baby-steps is reasonable sure, but Gulag is the baby-steps that MWO needs. I haven't seen the actual changes, but if it's anything we've seen before, -- and it sounds like it will be, there isn't hope.

TheCaptainJZ, on 26 February 2021 - 06:12 PM, said:

As for MW5? Think that always came down financial constraints. MWO too in a number of ways (mainly, not enough people to deliver content, or not an efficient enough operation).

While financial stability is important, I don't think any amount of financial backing will cure bad decisions.

I waited 1 year for their Exclusivity BS still willing to pay full price for a game that's not even worth half that they are charging. No more.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2021 - 06:40 PM, said:

You know, IIRC that Chris Lowrey used to be in charge too, the last guy they actually have as a balance overlord that actually plays the game unlike the rest of the devs. We still ended up with a bad direction. I don't think Chris is to blame, but I think its more of that he's not really in charge.

IIRC didn't Paul have the final say over any changes Chris wanted to make? That would ultimately explain why the new boss felt the same as the old boss.

[Buenaventura]

InnerSphereNews, on 24 February 2021 - 05:17 PM, said:

- Population and Revenues Show a Continued Upward Trend Since October 2020

So, when can we expect to get the groups back in their own queue again? So many matches resulting in a stomp, that's not funny anymore.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 26 February 2021 - 06:50 PM, said:

IIRC didn't Paul have the final say over any changes Chris wanted to make? That would ultimately explain why the new boss felt the same as the old boss.

Exactly.

And right now, for all of his faith to Daeron and Matt having a say in this, we all know that it ultimately befalls on the clueless devs that barely play their own game.

[TheCaptainJZ]

The6thMessenger, on 26 February 2021 - 06:40 PM, said:

2 years and barely have to show anything for it? How are you not outraged about that?

Probably because I'm only a casual player, and I stopped playing for most of that time. So it doesn't bother me as much and take what I have to say with a grain of salt if you want. Happy to see some attention given finally. The level of communication lately is what we should have had all along. Not sure how much of the plan will be realized, but I don't have high expectations in the first place for more than just balancing.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Buenaventura, on 26 February 2021 - 06:51 PM, said:

So, when can we expect to get the groups back in their own queue again? So many matches resulting in a stomp, that's not funny anymore.

Even if there weren't groups merged in solo queue, we'd still have a lot of stomps. The structure of this game just naturally lends itself to it. Higher populations will help, but never eliminate them all.

[IshanDeston]

Lockheed_, on 26 February 2021 - 12:22 PM, said:

You are right you are operating under different guidelines now, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between old PGI behavior and new PGI behavior.

Well, i for one can't distinguish one from the other. I do hope there comes to be the time where i can, but right now i can't. Right now it sounds like business as usual.

The Grand Dragon is a good example of that. 16 votes and the "friends" on Stream voted for it. After years of driving people away from this forum (at least based on people flooding into other communities talking about the official forums as some kind of censoring dictatorship)... its not really that surprising.

Why not actually ask what the community wanted by implementing a community vote into the actual game? Pop up a splash screen after the news splash with an opinion that says: "Vote for which mech variant to go into the game next, here are the top 10 suggestions from the forum, you got two votes... go".

That way it wouldn't be just something that could be easily influenced by some Streamer or even just some unit that goes "wouldn't it be funny if we all voted for the worst possible choice? And get that put into the game!"

And i am not saying that this is what happened, as i wasn't paying attention, but i also can say that i looked into that thread once it was announced and then i didn't go back to it, because it was most people posting new mechs and i don't have the time and energy to wade through pages and pages of threads in search for the one or two variant suggestions. And i am sure i am not alone in that.

When i then hear they selected something like the GD because of 16 votes and some elusive "People on my stream told me"... well.. so these 16 people voted for it and then went on twitch to repeat it there... and campaign... and everyone that isn't super active, reads through pages and pages of the forum and hangs out on streams just gets told to basically deal with it, because 16 people wanted it... when the solution could be as simple as: "Here are the finalists, vote", ideally via an Ingame Popup.

I am not actually active on this forum. I might be around since the beta in one shape or another, but as everyone can see at my post count, i am not really participating, unless it's something I really have to say something. I have become a little more active in a few posts, because i genuinely want to give Matt and Daeron a chance.

But there is a lot of things that went wrong in the past and a lot of goodwill and trust to restore. Especially the whole MW5 thing still has me really cross. And since i am not interested in being banned or having my post removed, i shall stop here, but the last Streamer Hunt event also had some very "Old PGI" vibes to me.

Lockheed_, on 26 February 2021 - 12:22 PM, said:

I see you guys doing a lot of good stuff these days, it must be very frustrating at times to get just lots of feedback based on how players have perceived PGI in the past and deal with that baggage.

I am pretty sure its equally frustrating for the community, at least its for me. If i had the choice i wouldn't have been put into this position in the first place.

I am rooting for them to succeed... i am just not ready to trust them yet.

[a frying pan to the CT]

Great job, its fun to see a couple new mechs. Your engagement in the forums is really noticed, and I think something that has been missing for a long time to counterbalance the often salty, loud voices that seem to usually dominate on here.
The streamer hunts are a fun idea, and maybe you could take these limited time events even farther, say take Solaris mode, declare a weight class, and then announce an hour or two hour period for the tournament that week. That tight timeframe would flood it, and that with a true spectator mode for the top matches would be great fun and electric advertising for the game. Then you could rotate the tournaments through different timezones, with the expectation that no one will be able to play them all, but when they come up for you, you will have a good time or watch a great match.
Think about it.

[SPNKRGrenth]

I'm a little late to the conversation, but now I have a better understanding about why the devs are asking about if they should make big changes or baby steps, because of limited resources and not being able to do sweeping changes across everything at once. So it's a good question to ask, if things can only be updated in parts due to time and manpower constraints, when the Gulag rebalance is designed around all the changes being made at once, should they still be big changes even if the requirement of doing it a bit at a time could really throw things off?

My personal answer to that question is yes, still make the big changes, don't do baby steps even if that's what feels safe, even if only a few things can be changed at a time. For example, the PPC line up, just hit them with the full rebalance, don't do tiny little bumps each time, even if they're getting rebalanced alone without all other weapons getting the new balance with them. Make the big change to the weapons you can first, then do small tweaks and changes later as the new balance develops.

[PocketYoda]

I for one am looking forward to the Polar map changes.

Daeron Katz, on 24 February 2021 - 10:35 PM, said:

Well of course a guy named Heavy Money would say that.

Please up the cbills map content for being with your team to off set the lost AMS cbills.. We really need more reason to keep the teams together as a group. Currently the team aspect of MWO seems to have taken a back seat.

Edited by Samial, 03 March 2021 - 09:08 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

SPNKRGrenth, on 03 March 2021 - 04:52 AM, said:

My personal answer to that question is yes, still make the big changes, don't do baby steps even if that's what feels safe, even if only a few things can be changed at a time.

I mean, I guess I do see both sides of it. Make all the changes at once vs, make changes to just a class of weapons at once. One the one hand, we are out of time for the March patch at this point so it would be silly to dump a ton of changes without really understanding it yourself what the implications are. You also have to QA the changes to make sure you didn't make a typo and that the changes work the way you intended. That takes some time and effort and has been an area where PGI has got in trouble before not thoroughly testing enough. That's the risk to PGI. On the other hand, the player base is clamoring for sweeping changes since the game has been static for so long, and with the way balance is, a group designed it in such a way that if they don't implement it all at once, something is left unbalanced against the whole. Still, due to time constraints, they should only include a subset of changes in this first patch. They can get another batch in each month and then constantly tweak from there. As long as they do it every month, it's not that big of a problem. It's when they never revisit it that it becomes a problem. You need a dedicated team or person whose responsibility it is to ensure monthly weapon updates.

[WeaponMasterX]

Is there going to be a Solaris Event for this Season? There is an event every season but seems like this season it's past due. I know Solaris is not on your mind but there are people expecting the event to start soon.

[DeadWeight18]

Actually the Dev Log for March should have happend already.

[Javin]

New maps?