Pihoqahiak, on 20 February 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:
I remember it well, although trading one demon for another doesn't really improve anything. PGI made poor decisions regarding LRM balance, just as they've made poor decisions regarding ECM capability. The troubling aspect to it is how long it takes them to admit when they've gone the wrong way with something and how long it takes them to properly address the balancing problems. LRM balancing would've been easily addressed with minor reduction in damage per missile and reduced cockpit shake (well and not having that whole period of time where they would mostly drop down onto your head because of the trajectory they used). There are quite a few methods of addressing ECM balance that many people have posted on the forums, but from what has happened so far, they have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Instead, PGI tries to marginally chip away at ECM with many other pieces of equipment with very little success and oblivious to the fact that none of those change the basic premise of 1.5 tons and 2 crit locations worth of ECM is just plain doing more than it should for such a minor cost.
There is this viewpoint. There is also the viewpoint that PGI is aware and trying to balance via Tabletop rules. Unfortunately this makes many things useless, like the BAP and NARC. I guess the question PGI needs to answer is will they stick to TT and have many items that are simply worthless, or will they balance for good gameplay and every item being useful?
with the addition of modules for lock on time and sensor range we are a step closer to a better battlefield. However some choices remain questionable like the new "warning you are being targetted" which really hurts spotters even more.
Currently it seems to me that PGI has their own view of how the game should progress and be balanced, and that that viewpoint is leading to increased user numbers & improved overall gameplay, and that while there is a large and vocal group that has expressed discontent with ECM, this group is completely overshadowed by the massive majority that seems to love ECM but says very little on the forums.
Again this just comes down to numbers - if player numbers are increasing and the overall experience & game has improved from ECM why would PGI change?
if on the other hand people are getting fed up by poor gameplay, the worst radar since mechwarrior 1, and ECM that seems extremely OP for a 400K item and cant be countered by anything but ECM, well, in a normal game a developer would be like hmmmm I bet now everyone will take ECM or direct fire, since here PGI must stick to tabletop rules we are perhaps simply out of luck.
Another possibility could be that the license for the game where sold under very strict rules to PGI, and PGI is being forced to implement poor balance choices due to lack of options to do otherwise.
imho NARC is still useless, as is BAP. ECM is dominant, and when it comes down to pure winning and community warfare with current game design we will see 75% ECM mechs, with non ECM mechs being pure direct fire mechs to insure that they never bring a weapon that could possibly end up being completely worthless on the battlefield due to ECM.
Overall it strikes me that we have seen incredible suggestions to balance ECM and yet maintain its ability to disrupt LRM/SSRM boats, and given the months of time PGI has had to address we will either see some real progress soon in game balance or we will see the continuation of gravitation to more and more ECM mechs on the battlefield, with jumpsnipers to round the teams out.
The game isnt terrible, certainly, but it still stands to see improved development over it's predecessors.
6
This topic is locked
