48 replies to this topic

[Kunae]

Rather than adjusting DHS to 1.4 heat redux per, and "monitoring telemetry", set them to 2.0 and monitor.

Allow your "beta-testers" to see if they are too "overpowered" at that level, and provide you feedback, rather than pre-nerf them and make us work with that.

You will get much more accurate telemetry and testing if you choose to let us do our part.

I suspect that you will not have nearly the number of people to derive telemetry from if you choose to implement them in this fashion.

[ReD3y3]

Bad choice on their part.

I am not happy.

I want my DHS cost back.

[Vassago Rain]

Please, PGI. You can't be stupid enough to not do it like this.

[shintakie]

For the love of. How many threads are you people goin to make. Stop spammin the friggin forums.

[Telemetry]

I'm Telemetry....and I approve this message!

[Marzepans]

Exactly. These would be the same internal testers that didn't spot the problem in the first place after supposedly three weeks of testing.

[bobthebomb]

Telemetry, on 02 November 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

I'm Telemetry....and I approve this message!

gold !

yea i agree too

[FearFighter]

Unbelievable! I was looking forward to fielding a competitive HS based energy mech. Use some PPC's or something. I have basically waited for the DHS to be implemented so I could do this, and now we won't be able to? Let the BETA testers test it for you. Make the point of balancing the game making the game FUN, with other considerations coming after that. Awful.

[CodeNameValtus]

Hey guys, we here at PGI want to roll out this new feature...but we fear it's going to be too powerful....so instead we just roll it out at garbage bottom of the heap of trash values and 'gather data' about how much it's used....

If it isn't strong enough, people won't use it, and you won't get any data...

If you suspect that it is going to be too powerful, it will right itself in the long run if you release at launch as Overpowered and nerf into line (small tweaks, don't go all heavy barbarian handed). Than you would if you release as Underpowered and try to tweak up, you just won't get the useage data you require.

[Krivvan]

No one sees how ridiculously overpowered Double Heat Sinks would be with the fixed engine heat sinks if they kept the 2.0 value? No one? If they kept that you'd see accusations of "Pay 2 win" rise even more.

[Noth]

Krivvan, on 02 November 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

No one sees how ridiculously overpowered Double Heat Sinks would be with the fixed engine heat sinks if they kept the 2.0 value? No one? If they kept that you'd see accusations of "Pay 2 win" rise even more.

I agree that 2.0 would be OP, but 1.4 is just too low (nerfs builds with more than 17 heatsinks.. I would had start at 1.6 or so.

[Frosted]

Kunae, on 02 November 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Rather than adjusting DHS to 1.4 heat redux per, and "monitoring telemetry", set them to 2.0 and monitor.

Allow your "beta-testers" to see if they are too "overpowered" at that level, and provide you feedback, rather than pre-nerf them and make us work with that.

You will get much more accurate telemetry and testing if you choose to let us do our part.

I suspect that you will not have nearly the number of people to derive telemetry from if you choose to implement them in this fashion.

I hope you didn't really think we were beta testers. We are customers. This isn't really a beta test. It's more like here is a game that is half finish and you can spend money if you want.

[Kunae]

Krivvan, on 02 November 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

No one sees how ridiculously overpowered Double Heat Sinks would be with the fixed engine heat sinks if they kept the 2.0 value? No one? If they kept that you'd see accusations of "Pay 2 win" rise even more.

Noth, on 02 November 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I agree that 2.0 would be OP, but 1.4 is just too low (nerfs builds with more than 17 heatsinks.. I would had start at 1.6 or so.

How can we know for sure, unless they let us test them?

Frosted, on 02 November 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I hope you didn't really think we were beta testers. We are customers. This isn't really a beta test. It's more like here is a game that is half finish and you can spend money if you want.

I realize it's more of an honorary thing, but I still maintain a smidgen of hope.

[Firesteel]

Krivvan, on 02 November 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

No one sees how ridiculously overpowered Double Heat Sinks would be with the fixed engine heat sinks if they kept the 2.0 value? No one? If they kept that you'd see accusations of "Pay 2 win" rise even more.

How are DHS pay to win? You can't buy them with MC and you have to spend time grinding/playing, and that means you'll get better and earn more money per match leading up to you buying them. I do not see "Pay to win" since everyone has to grind for them the same.

[Relic1701]

OK....

Presume they start it at 200% and then find that everything is too good, so they make them gradually worse, everyone crys

Presume they start at 140%, find that they aren't as good as they'd hoped, so they increase it, everyone smiles.

I'd rather have some bad that gets better, than something that is good and gets worse!

Edited by Relic1701, 02 November 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Noth]

Kunae, on 02 November 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

How can we know for sure, unless they let us test them?

Math has already been done. New number actually nerfs builds with 17 heatsinks or more when compare to the current way the heatsinks work. They did not have to test to see this.

[Corpse Grinder]

Krivvan, on 02 November 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

No one sees how ridiculously overpowered Double Heat Sinks would be with the fixed engine heat sinks if they kept the 2.0 value? No one? If they kept that you'd see accusations of "Pay 2 win" rise even more.

LOL How would the P2W accusations rise? Since the DHS are available to literally everyone who plays the game.

[Squidhead Jax]

ReD3y3, on 02 November 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Bad choice on their part.

I am not happy.

I want my DHS cost back.

What I want to know is how they imagine this is worth the steep cost.

At least it makes sense that they didn't catch it in testing, now

[Blackfire1]

Kunae, on 02 November 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Rather than adjusting DHS to 1.4 heat redux per, and "monitoring telemetry", set them to 2.0 and monitor.

Allow your "beta-testers" to see if they are too "overpowered" at that level, and provide you feedback, rather than pre-nerf them and make us work with that.

You will get much more accurate telemetry and testing if you choose to let us do our part.

I suspect that you will not have nearly the number of people to derive telemetry from if you choose to implement them in this fashion.

Um..... Here

Quote

After fixing the EHS bug, and setting DHS to a cannon value of 2.0, we experienced anticipated result. Heat was no longer a concern, increasing DPS exponentially on certain types of mech loadouts. After testing a variety of standard builds, we settled on 1.4. This value maintains the spirit of both DHS and maintains the integrity of MWO's overall gameplay experience.

2.0 takes a mech that has 20 heat sinks. And gives them 40. Yea.... NO. This was smart on PGI's part.

/thread

Edited by Blackfire1, 02 November 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[AlexEss]

Again this is a Lose/Lose situation... Either you put them in a 2.0 and then quickly start to "nerf" them down to a level that actually works... Or you do as they do now and start low and "buff" them up if it is needed.

Either that or they either increase the heat per round on the weapons or force a longer recycle.. Somehow things need to be balanced out.

Or they could just go ahead and have a horrid broken game... Not a very good idea but then at least people would not have a hissy-fit over DHS