92 replies to this topic

[Sjorpha]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 05:37 AM, said:

even back in 2014 I spent $55 to get some Timber Wolfs and the next week they changed them
I went into a rage and called my CC company, the people on the forums convinced me this was normal and to just accept it
...
not one of the changes have done me a bit of good (yeah I know I am nobody)

This seems a bit contradictory as the Cauldron changes this summer made specifically the Timber Wolf very competitive again, it's one of the best heavies in the game now. Arguably THE best heavy for quickplay (not sure about comp) if you do the S variant ECM+JJ laser vomit build enabled by the new ECM omnipod. (You can shave another ton of armour for 25 DHS if you want)

The changes that wrecked the Timber Wolf after your 2014 purchase was [redacted] Paul (and later on Chris) derping about, and now the Cauldron has fixed that problem for you.

Maybe something to think about, would you rather have the PGI balance guy that ruined your purchase or the new team that fixed it?

Quote

I can't for the life of me understand the concept of trying to change the game/games (if we changed the rules for the game Risk could we still call it Risk)

Nonsense.

Most games have seen lots of balance overhauls over the year, not sure about Risk but for example Chess rules have been updated many times through history and is still called Chess.

In Risk I suppose balance changes would involve adjusting starting conditions or troop count for the nations as the battle system itself is symmetrical, you could also change the victory cards either by adjusting the victory conditions on them or by adding or removing new victory cards to draw. If Risk became a big enough competitive game with real money and recognition on the line this would likely happen sooner or later, and yes it would still be called Risk.

Magic the Gathering that I play competitively from time to time had it's mulligan rule changed multiple times, it it still MtG? Cards have been banned and printed into various formats changing the metagame significantly, is it still MtG? Even core rules such as the addition of the stack, the introduction of the exile zone, the removal of damage on the stack, the removal of graveyard ordering, interrupt spell type being replaced by split second keyword and so on and so forth, still MtG? Of course it is still MtG, most of those changes were made for good reasons and made the game better.

With activity and competition comes pressure to fix problems. Balance updates are a sign that the game is still healthy and relevant for competitions, it's when rebalancing stops that you should get worried.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 24 November 2021 - 09:33 PM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 06:53 AM, said:

MW2 show me how that game changed

You mean apart from the changeover from MS-DOS to Windows 95, or the upgrade from 8 bit to 16 bit graphics, or the adoption of online PVP play with the Kali add-on, or the introduction of omni-pods 2 years after the game released, or the later additions that allow you to salvage parts and buy and sell mechs? apart from all that?

[pbiggz]

Mulligan rules get changed in mtg sure.

The more apt comparison would be bans. Wizards sells sealed packs with random cards in them. Some of them are rarer, and worth more than others, but some of those cards, are called Omnath, Locus of Creation. Omnath is banned. That means if you went out and bought a Zendikar rising pack, intending to play standard, and Omnath (which should be a rare and valuable card) is in it, in practice you bought a pack that had one less card, because Omnath is useless to you.


So, in other words, games, physical or not, change all the time.

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 05:37 AM, said:

I can't for the life of me understand the concept of trying to change the game/games (if we changed the rules for the game Risk could we still call it Risk)

not one of the changes have done me a bit of good (yeah I know I am nobody)

This is frankly silly. You cannot expect a developer not to retroactively balance their game.

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 06:53 AM, said:

MW2 show me how that game changed

And this is a false equivalence, that is also wrong. PC games from the early 90s didn't get software patches because the internet wasn't reliably in peoples houses yet, and the PC was still an expensive, niche, difficult to manage toy, not the ubiquitous, easily sourced device it's become today. What's more, in practical terms, mechwarrior 2 did change. There are like, a dozen different releases of mechwarrior 2 across 3 different expansions; dos, ibm, ati 3d rage edition, 3dfx, titanium, pentium, etc. In modern terms, these are basically software patches, some tweaked just graphics, but others were extensively different, with different weapon and mech stats, different heat calculations, etc. In the early to mid 90s, they could only be reliably distributed as physical media. MWO is a modern, managed real time competitive FPS game. Expecting its balance to stay exactly static forever is unreasonable.

I certainly don't endorse the Paul/Chris balance regime, all they seemed to know how to do was nerf things, and they did it until every weapon in the game hit like a wet noodle. The Cauldron has patently, not taken that approach, an act that has earned them the ire of brainless mplas brawlbabies everywhere, who now claim to be personally victimized because mechs can shoot them at outside of 600 meters and they wont be able to shoot back unless they dodge.

The timby's biggest issue is its ears, which are easy to shoot off, otherwise, its a pretty serviceable, jump capable, fast 75 ton gunboat. Consider giving it a try.

Edited by pbiggz, 24 November 2021 - 07:09 AM.

[Thorqemada]

To speak freely, i see how the balance improved in a certain way by the C-Council measures.

I dislike the Missileplay in this game, especially the lock on missile gameplay, sinces year well b4 the c-council.
It was at best serviceable and is now brute numbers vs countless countermeasures - its not fun at all to play a weapon that should be iconic to a futuristic shooter.

I understand that it can not be balanced the way the game works.

So i do not accuse the C-Council of destroying Missileplay, albeit they despise Missileplay it does not matter - its not fixable.

The one thing, the elephant in the room that is concerning is something the C-Council can not change:
The hard blocks that prevent players from staying like Skilltree, Modemonotony, Mechinferiority (there are simply mechs that can not compete regardless what you do), even the actual hardware requirements prevent players from having a good experiences despite being a deacade old as the game engine is that inefficient.
Not to speak of the lack of social tools that give easy ingame access to the general socializing playerpool.

Probably there are more hard blocks that prevent lasting increases in the playernumbers, like the games age, which is a semi hard block, but all of that is out of reach to change for the C-Council.

That is concerning stuff - more Maps and better balance at this point is life stabilizing first aid until the rescue comes...

...does it come in time?

Edited by Thorqemada, 24 November 2021 - 07:51 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 06:53 AM, said:

why would my opinion be nonsense and yours be golden ?

that makes no sense to me

The idea that changing details of a game for balance reasons makes it a different game (or that this in itself is an argument against needed changes) is nonsensical in my opinion. There just isn't any good argument for that claim.

If you think a specific position of mine is nonsense I don't mind you telling me so, what matters to me is that you explain why. Saying that a specific belief, position or claim is nonsensical isn't personal to me, it either is or isn't and that's where you unpack the arguments for or against it.

Quote

I could post a 1000 game titles where the games and or rules never changed

how is that nonsense

It would actually be a nonsensical thing to do in this context because apart from being insanely tedious for you to find 1000 such games, it also wouldn't be on topic or contradict anyting I've said here. It would be a giant waste of energy only to produce a non-sequitur.

Some games not changing, either because they aren't big enough competitive games or because the balance was very good from the start (or for some other reason), is not a reason to not change other games that are big competitive games or that have balance problems that need fixing.

Quote

MW2 show me how that game changed

I haven't talked about MW2 here and I don't know if it was changed, it was never primarily a PVP game though and single player is irrelevant to this conversation. Most single player titles does see balance updates as well though, and one reason older titles were changed less was the fact that you didn't have online updates back then. I only had MW2 on CD for example, there was no way for me to update, but that doesn't mean the game wouldn't have benefitted from updates because the balance in MW2 isn't very good.

Quote

on the TBR I just wanted what I paid for

like anything and everything I have bought

And with the Cauldrons unnerfing of the TImber Wolf you finally got that, they undid the nerfs made by PGI that had previously ruined your purchase. That is a fact and it contradicts your previous claim that "not one of the changes have done me a bit of good". It would be a good idea for you to recognise that.

Quote

listen I am not trying to convince you of anything

I you think I'm wrong you should try to convince me, and if I am wrong I'd like to understand why.

Quote

lets just depart on good terms

There is no beef on my end.

Edited by Sjorpha, 24 November 2021 - 08:26 AM.

[pattonesque]

“I am incredibly angry and incapable of understanding basic facts. Let’s part on good terms so no one points this out to me”

[Storming Angel]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 06:53 AM, said:

why would my opinion be nonsense and yours be golden ?

that makes no sense to me

you see the mentality you display

I could post a 1000 game titles where the games and or rules never changed
how is that nonsense

MW2 show me how that game changed

on the TBR I just wanted what I paid for
like anything and everything I have bought

listen I am not trying to convince you of anything

lets just depart on good terms

Welcome to the current gaming industry, it should be obvious by now that standards across the board, across the planet are in severe decline and show no signs of getting better.

Basically, you should expect last minute changes. Companies currently release games unfinished and in a terrible buggy state or just plain terrible. (BF2024, Vanguard, fallout 76, cyberpunk, no mans sky, ride to hell, anthem, wolfenstein youngblood).

This is because they can get aware with it and dont care about the consequences as people are happy with spending money on a product that isnt even ready (like buying a car, with only 40% of shipped to you and the promise the 60% will with you in good time, while paying up front the full cost).

It's why things like lootboxes, microtransactions, games as a service, stats, data are so prevalent in games as they are geared either solely or mostly towards short term profit.

Clearly you have no clue how the industry runs as you comments suggest and also have no idea how stagnant this game was before ash and the lads touched on it (too the point where only a few weapons actually made sense and the rest were memes or terrible or mediocore).

Like it or not, metas will exist and people will want changes to remove broken things or to make sure things are underpowered, or overpowered to the point they are either useless against their peers or too powerful and require little to no skill.

Also not sure why people like you feel the need to mention you worked in the armed forces, that doesn't automatically gain you respect not credence by the way. Makes you seem more like a mug really.

[pbiggz]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 08:17 AM, said:

my opinion is I wanted the TBR I bought in 2014 but people on the forums made me understand that is not how things work
ok I don't like it but I accepted it

You don't get to have un-nerfed clans.

[Sjorpha]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 08:17 AM, said:

wow how many face palm memes can I post

I could just as easily put the game checkers in my post

I have my copy of MW2 in my hands its still the same as I bought, (its what I paid for)


about my MWO TBR purchase: when I contacted my CC they said it would not be a problem to get a refund

but that is not the point in this thread Ash posted his thoughts and opinions (just like the OP)

I am not going to pick apart his post in every fine detail an say oh yeah
well it rained yesterday so your wrong-- geez

has the game of checkers changed ? so so got you
like I said I could post 1000 game titles where the games never changed (yeah big deal fine points again)
https://en.wikipedia..._in_video_games

I worked on A10s, F4s, F16s
guess what some times software updates in the 1980's and 90's came over the phone (that's whole new programs)

You still haven't explained the relevance of any of this. What diffrence does it make if checkers changed or not (btw it's an old game so how do you know it never changed or evolved along the way?). What relevance do the proposed 1000 games have to this conversation (I explained in my last post why they don't)? Why does it matter where you worked or how software was updated in the 90s?

Quote

my opinion is I wanted the TBR I bought in 2014 but people on the forums made me understand that is not how things work
ok I don't like it but I accepted it

we could have kept the TBR original and saved this NASCAR around the Mech pole LOL
same for a lot of other things in the game

I don't think Chris was around back in 2014 (I could be wrong)
the community said "PGI needs to get one guy to work on balance"
guess what PGI did
they got Chris

8 months or more after any change the same people will have there pitch forks out demanding another change
chanting balance! balance!

hey it is what it is

Clans were completely broken at release unfortunately. Yes releasing them balanced against IS tech from the start would have been much better of course, that was a huge mistake and PGI did not handle the inevitable rebalancing well.

Still, the TBR is now unnerfed an once again one of the best mechs in the game thanks to the Cauldron. A fact you keep dancing around.

If you don't want to accept that balancing must happen you can at least recognise that where we use to have incompetent balancing we now have competent balancing and this has in fact fixed your Timber Wolves.

Quote

like I said I am not trying to convince you and others of anything

lets just depart on good terms

Again if you think someone is wrong it is much nicer to tell them so and argue why, even if you're a bit blunt about it that is the caring and repectful thing to do. The pleasantville approach of leaving people to their ignorance and mistakes isn't nice at all.

If you don't enjoy the conversation you can stop responding at any time, problem solved. What you can not do is shut me up, sorry.

And there is still no beef or bad terms on my end, that's all in your head.

Edited by Sjorpha, 24 November 2021 - 09:36 AM.

[caravann]

Developments, is propagating. I mean, If your goal is to propagate the game ´... MWO is likely the wrong forum to find new followers. Developer, is a person who speaks at a stage. Any programmer can be developer and any person who has no clue about the profuct can be the developer of the product. Of course sitting on many chairs means that you can have some insight but I see these words used very common without understanding what they're saying.

You want to speak to a developer? Keanu Reeves was a developer of Cyberpunk 2077.
Does Keanu Reeves know much about making Cyberpunk 2077?

[justcallme A S H]

Dave I have read your posts 3-4 times and unless I remove all logic and sense - I cannot understand your actual point(s)...

Expecting there to be no balance adjustments in a online FPS is completely whack.

[Verilligo]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 08:17 AM, said:

has the game of checkers changed ? so so got you

Hello, Dave. You've picked an interesting game to quote. Checkers is in fact the American version of a game called Draughts, which in and of itself is an evolution of a game that has been played since approximately 3000 BCE. You have decided to settle on, as your example, a game that has been changing over the past 5000 years with continuous evolutions made to the rules and manners in which it is played. It is, in fact, an example of a game where the rules have changed despite being the same game.

As another example, you chose the game Risk, which actually officially supports multiple versions of rulesets depending on how the players would prefer to carry out the game. It literally comes to you as-purchased with several ways to play the game Risk. That is without bringing up all the various sets of house rules employed by any number of unofficial and official play groups.

Would you like to pick again?

[Valdarion Silarius]

I'm mostly on board with the Cauldron changes for mech balancing, however I do have questions with some of their map design changes. I am not 100% on board with the removal of maps (since we have maps like frozen city classic and such) and I do question balancing decisions with this latest pass like the Hellbringer buffs (which I'm fine with, but did the mech really need buffs when it was good to begin with?).

I hope the Cauldron doesn't interpret criticism as some kind of personal attack on their work, but if we are not to see a repeat of history with Chris/Paul then I think they need alot more transparency besides Discord when we have these forums. Maybe monthly live town halls would help in this case where they could go though a list of proposed changes and get feedback in return.

[Verilligo]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 03:13 PM, said:

sure how about F19 stealth fighter

F-19 Stealth Fighter is a 16-bit remake of the Commodore 64 game Project Stealth Fighter. It used some military and flight data from the original, but changed everything else. It is an example of a game that just changed the rules from what it originally was.

F-19 Stealth Fighter also got a remake game of itself called Night Hawk: F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0. Why? Because F-19 was completely incorrect about the nature of the jet (that had not been shown yet) that it was trying to base itself off of. What's special about Night Hawk? You can change your jet to the ACTUAL correct F-117A or use the fictional F-19 from the previous version of the game. Sure, technically this changed the name of the game, but it is fundamentally still the same game.

Additionally, WITHIN F-19, you can choose to play the game in different ways (conventional, limited, cold war), which in and of itself means you are changing the rules of F-19. All in summation, I believe this displays how it is a poor example and through three different ways of examining the example in question depending on how you want to look at it.

Edited by Verilligo, 24 November 2021 - 03:27 PM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Davegt27, on 24 November 2021 - 03:21 PM, said:

https://en.wikipedia..._in_video_games


go ahead make your on day

How is this relevant? Crescent Hawk's Revenge was the only battletech title released in 1990, and it didn't make that list.

[YueFei]

He's gonna die on that hill yelling at clouds.

Stop wasting time trying to stop him from tilting at windmills.

[Verilligo]

YueFei, on 24 November 2021 - 03:32 PM, said:

He's gonna die on that hill yelling at clouds.

Stop wasting time trying to stop him from tilting at windmills.

Quoth the Cardassian: "A strange hill to die on, but at least you're dead."

[justcallme A S H]

Valdarion Silarius, on 24 November 2021 - 03:21 PM, said:

I'm mostly on board with the Cauldron changes for mech balancing, however I do have questions with some of their map design changes. I am not 100% on board with the removal of maps (since we have maps like frozen city classic and such) and I do question balancing decisions with this latest pass like the Hellbringer buffs (which I'm fine with, but did the mech really need buffs when it was good to begin with?).

As for the Maps - Cauldron has limited input into. We can make suggestions based on what we are shown (not everything in full detail). Additionally without being able to play them - its often hard to give more intricate feedback.

As for the final decisions, map pools etc - that is all PGI and PGI alone.



As for HBRs...
Laser ones were good - those were not buffed.
Ballistic, Missile and So8 ones were all horrible - those were all buffed to be viable.

The end result is not non-laser HBRs should be a viable option and you should see more varying builds performing solidly because of it. This is a forward step for the game and chassis as increasing viability and diversity was a key aim for Cauldron balance passes.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 24 November 2021 - 04:48 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Thorqemada, on 24 November 2021 - 07:48 AM, said:

So i do not accuse the C-Council of destroying Missileplay, albeit they despise Missileplay it does not matter - its not fixable.

Can I ask why you persist with this constant point of misinformation? From the last two patches as an example:

HBR So8


WHM-7S



I mean why are Cauldron buffing mechs with solid missile quirks if they are against it? There are plenty more I can dig up to show the reality of the situation.

Comes back to many of my posts where I talk about people just spreading blatant misinformation.

Just stop.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 24 November 2021 - 06:28 PM.

[w0qj]

+1
I fully support Cauldron MWO quirk buffs.

+10000000 support
(If there is such a thing!)

justcallme A S H, on 16 April 2021 - 12:40 AM, said:

All discussion has been in the Announcements threads since Sept [2020].

It's about as close to one place as people can get really.