Main > Gameplay

The Meta is dead, long live the Meta.

<< < (6/13) > >>

Long Max:
There is more simple way, if greased overpower - slightly drop rate of fire. SLIGHTLY! Less DPS for all, but no make random. "Proposals included increased drop and reduced speed without affecting arm-time" - sounds too complex. Arming range don't must decrease and increased drop should not allow lumberjack shoot direct down. If anyway we have jitter now on greased, why not set fixed value of jitter to weapon without it?

Red-Xiii:

--- Quote ---Byron, if you would like to get out of the salt circle you have drawn and know what is actually going on instead of reading a few posts here from people that exiled themselves, feel free to join us. If not, then I don't really care what you have to say.

Naoura, we have been focused on nothing be the current ammo patch for over two months with a very specific goal. Get off your high Spire.
--- End quote ---

Another self-appointed community ambassador getting on his high horse talking down to people while his heart is bleeding for his community to do all the things we never asked of him to do. 

This community is cursed with these types.  Keep working hard on your ammo changes.  Its helping the community sooooo much.

Red-Xiii:
Going to reply to my own since I noticed how snarky I was.  I dont personally blame you for the self-appointment.  I realize people feel the need to fill the void the Devs have left time after time.   I just think the focus on balancing ammos is not helping the game or the community as a whole.  It only caters to the hardcore folks that give a shit about the little details. 

It does NOT grow the player base by balancing ammos over and over,  it does not help player retention, alliance has not helped either of those, and new ways and methods of player retention need to be implemented to grow.  Things are not stagnated because of Meta builds, and ammo types.  That only stagnates the vets.  But I feel like everyone knows this already and just likes to focus on what they can immediately control. 

Naoura:
Oh, did not see the 'High spire' part.

I wasn't on anything of the sort, Richard. I was just recommending something on terms for combining all three sources, so that everyone is able to work on the same page, even if they aren't present.

If you're referring to the planning portion of what I've talked about, I rather believe that of Muse as well. It's not any kind of soap-boxing, just my personal opinion. The planning doesn't seem to be there on any side. Maybe that's due to me not really being a part of those who are privvy to what Muse has in mind, maybe it's just a faulty perception, but I don't see a proper plan in place.

Certainly, the ammo changes have been in the works for months, and there's plenty of controversy on it. To me, it's neither yea nor nay. The Greased changes make some weapons... interesting, and then don't affect others very greatly. This may have been due to Testing bias, some people not using the new greased in, say, the Lumber or the Hades as extensively as they might have, which led to bias on some parts. I can't be there very often. I don't know. What I do know is the controversy over it, and the issues coming across.

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that the Charged changes were certainly a positive. There's.. literally no downside to the charged changes. For those who are unhappy about the, currently, incredibly inaccurate Greased, there's Heavy for component working, there's Regular for neither positive nor negative, and you still have the wonderfully effective Lesmok. With the added Extended, there's an obvious alternative for medium range combat.... in gatlings and banshees.

As for everything else... That's where the controversy really, really lies, I think.

As for Red's speech, I do think that the Veteran half does either discourage or kind of push out new blood, simply because of the game's size. Shaking up the meta means that the veteran's cannot create a solid barrier of skill between themselves and the newer players, which might help or drive away veteran players. Probably a little of both and neither. You might get some revived interest from those vets who've given up on the game, and make it interesting enough that newer players might see it coming to life a little more. Or it might simply shatter what's remaining. You don't know until it happens.

Just look at the introduction of Stamina. No one asked for it. Cropped up randomly. Came about rather unexpected. And has been mostly looked upon positively. Fluke? Maybe. But it did add a completely new part to the game that rather did shake up the game. I wasn't present for the time, but if anything happened, I'm guessing it's along the same line; some agreed, some came back, some were discouraged, some left in protest.

Changing up how the ammos work may inspire newer players to use varying ammunition types, which does mean they can become more skilled as they try out new things. They may think along the wrong lines, but that's why veterans are here, to help point the way.

Or They could fix the gunner Tutorial to actually include ammunition types, rather than just saying "Here comes another one!" 6 times. Like, seriously. The engineer tutorial is.. okay? At best? Piloting is alright, but gunner desperately needs help.

Richard LeMoon:
Red, I am not certain you understand how this community interaction thing works. In six months, we have gone from just testing whatever Muse gave us, to completely designing weapons, ammos, and laying out map adaptations based on our requests. These things do not come over night. They do not come from salty posts on a little read forum. They come from small steps and perseverance.

Honestly, I don't know what you are expecting, but it won't happen here. Nor do I understand what you are talking about by balancing ammos over and over. There have been less than 4 ammo changes in the last 4 years, not counting the ones we just did.

I think you are a little confused about me as well. Self-appointed? Hardly. A person mentioned earlier in this tread as a pillar of the community asked for me to be put in charge of balance long before any of this happened, and was not the only one. "while his heart is bleeding for his community to do all the things we never asked of him to do" again, wrong. I'll ask that you don't speak of the community, since the community did, indeed, ask of me to do. Even now, YOU are asking me to do things. What those things are, I don't know.

"But I feel like everyone knows this already and just likes to focus on what they can immediately control."

Should we instead focus on the things we can't control? This point makes no sense. Again, what are you asking for? 6 months ago, what we could control was nothing, then random things to test for fun, then slight balance changes, to more substantial changes. 'Control' is a very strong word for what we do as well. At this point, it is a shaky partnership. The creation of the Nemesis tested the limits. Delaying Mag was stabilizing it. Suddenly making salty demands would shatter it.

Ammo is our testbed. It is our focus for several reasons. One is that it HAS been asked for for a very long time. Even before you started playing. The other is that it is our proving ground. The Experimental Crew and partnership with Muse is still very much in build mode. That is something I don't think you understand. Balance changes are easy to do, which is why we are allowed to do them. Core mechanic changes take weeks, if not months to do. The partnership is not yet strong enough to make those calls. We don't do the work there. Muse does. We are still working on the foundation.

So, yes, we have been making some semi-random changes, and some changes just for change's sake. The reaction has been mostly positive, adding more bricks to our foundation. We do what we can to reinforce the partnership, and move on to bigger projects. That is the plan. To be allowed more access. How we get there is inconsequential, be it Tanks Spires or jittery Greased.

You have your opinions of what should happen, as do the others in this thread. None of you have actually stated what your overarching goals are, so I have no answers for you. If you want to sit on the outside and wait for your changes to happen, that is not likely to happen. If you have no interest in a 'dead game', what are you doing here? Trying to get others to share your lack of interest?

By the way, the removal of nerfs to Greased based on Hades and LJ was a group decision based on the predicted reactions of vets losing their favorite ammo on too many guns at once, and the fact that Hades and LJ have quite the well rounded ammo set (which was a goal). Nerfing Greased in them would have removed a viable ammo that was used in conjunction with other ammos, including normal. In Gat, mortar and Banshee, however, Greased was the "load it and use it like normal forever" ammo. In the end, it was decided that Greased was to be the 'close range' ammo, and it made no sense nerfing it for LJ and Hades to increase the range. We also tried removing the AOE radius, which had little effect. Maybe someone will come up with a good idea for it, but none of the ones we thought of were very viable in the end, especially for two higher skill guns that already use a lot of other ammos. Greased in Gat and Banshee is still very viable in conjunction with other ammos (the goal), creating a more dynamic ammo/gun play in some of the most used guns in the game.

Anyways, I have spent far too much time here. Busy things to do.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page