101 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

FupDup, on 16 March 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

X-5 is a medium.

Cicada's are jumped up lights.

[Hayashi]

Oh do calm down... there's no need to argue...

The 'Gold Defense Force' thing is odd, since I'm willing to bet most people who sank that much money into the game want to see it succeed, and keeping issues unfixed is not exactly a good way to ensure that. I think you'll find there are people who are more vocal supporters and people who are more vocal about highlighting bugs on the forums, there is diversity in every group of players.

Back to topic. If splash damage is just removed outright with no balancing changes, the damage of LRMs will drop (well duh) and the viability of some builds will be affected (because the current unbalanced situation is making them too viable at present). If the point damage is raised to compensate, the CT-homing nature of LRMs will result in larger Mechs, especially Atlases, start to fall from CT coring by LRMs when the patch is done. Either way, a complete fix is not on the short term horizon. Thanks to the efforts of Amaris, though, it will probably happen in the medium term. If not for him, it would have taken that much longer for the devs to know it's a problem.

So regarding the OP's sentiment, things will get better on 2 April, but not completely. The complete fix may take some time to come. If you wish to take a break from the way things are at the moment you can do so with no penalty (unless your premium time is ticking), but I do trust that in the long term things will turn out well as long as devs still listen to player feedback.

Because I expected the iteration to be buggy until PGI declares it is at 'Release' stage, I'm not activating my Premium Time till then to give me the flexibility of sitting out bad patches. =P

Edited by Hayashi, 16 March 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[Kingdok]

Yokaiko, on 16 March 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Yup.

Just sitting out my premium time, then I am done with this piece for a while.

Between the ****** up matchmaker, and almost THREE weeks to fix missiles doing x4 damage, this is ceassing to be amusing, quickly.




I have no idea why it takes three weeks to comment out code.

It does NOT take 3 weeks to comment out the code. It takes 3 weeks to figure out exactly which bits of code are to be commented out, make the changes, test the changes, figure out why the changes broke something else, make more changes, test the new changes.... and so on, until at the end of three weeks PGI has a patch in hand that will LIKELY do what they intend without borking the rest of the game.

They could probably do it faster if they put every other game content development on hold... you want that?

[Stoicblitzer]

Scratx, on 16 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Tch, I rarely die to LRMs. Sometimes I do take a nasty hit but still, it's rare to take significant damage...

What ARE you (not) doing? Think about it.

it's not helpful when your team runs into the open and dies while you stand behind cover. just saying. i rarely die by LRM.

[Voridan Atreides]

Moonsavage, on 16 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

Seems like LRMs need to spread a little more. When I get hit they often seem to all impact on the same part.

That's because those LRMs have Artemis guiding them.

[Voridan Atreides]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

According to the numbers posted, LRMs are actually do less damage than expected in live games against bigger mechs,

Oh and as for things that aren't true getting lots of views, I have two words for you....
"Fox News"
"Liberal News" Because covering a dude who drank water is important!!!!!!

[Yokaiko]

Stoicblitzer, on 16 March 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

it's not helpful when your team runs into the open and dies while you stand behind cover. just saying. i rarely die by LRM.

This I rarely die to LRM until its just me and 7 mechs and my give a damn breaks.

....I can't claim this for my team.

[Voridan Atreides]

Comguard, on 16 March 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Gold Defense force for the rescue?

I use LRMs a lot and I've seen a change, too. They concentrate too much on center torso. You can even see the difference when you observe the flightpath. It doesn't even make a difference if it is a large mech or a small mech, when I shoot LRMs at lights they suddenly get cored where before their whole armor would have been damaged and some missiles just impact around them because of weapon spread.

Do you run Artemis? Also when you have a LOS w/ ART you get a bonus in the grouping.

[Eddy Hawkins]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Its nothing to do with politics, you claimed if it wasn't true it wouldn't get lots of views.
Fox news proves otherwise, they have been proven wrong multiple times and still get millions of view. Views mean nothing.

And I was addressing the person saying they were 2-3 times damage, which is incorrect and a training grounds bug.

every MSM company states things that are not true, and to single out FOX as the only one does, is in fact, being political. Leave those comments on your FB and drop the subject here. I for one will no longer reply to such comments.

Back on topic, a damage increase of at least 200% has in fact been recored on live servers. if it was only a training grounds bug, the Devs would not be taking the action they are.

[Gaan Cathal]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

And I was addressing the person saying they were 2-3 times damage, which is incorrect and a training grounds bug.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-test-results/

Oh look, no it's not.

[Drenzul]

Eddy Hawkins, on 16 March 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

every MSM company states things that are not true, and to single out FOX as the only one does, is in fact, being political. Leave those comments on your FB and drop the subject here. I for one will no longer reply to such comments.

Back on topic, a damage increase of at least 200% has in fact been recored on live servers. if it was only a training grounds bug, the Devs would not be taking the action they are.

I don't debate that, but Fox News are far far worse than most and are internationally known, hence they they were selected.
Fortunately in countries that actually have a democracy, news services aren't allow to talk crap like the american ones do, hence why Fox isn't allowed to broadcast in Canada.

http://readersupport...m-out-of-canada

Gaan Cathal, on 16 March 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...e-test-results/

Oh look, no it's not.

Tests with SRMs, reflect on LRMs how?
We have no idea if they even use the same mechanics and in several tests the SRMs produced LESS than the expected damage. Unless you've tested it with LRMs as well, then you can't say that the same factors apply. From my experience, I'm not seeing anything unexpected with LRMs really, still takes 6+ direct volleys from 4xLRM 15s to kill at Atlas (unless its stationary and facing you exactly).

Given 3 volleys from a 6 PPC Stalker will do exactly the same thing and with less opportunity for the Atlas to avoid the damage, this hardly seems OP to me.

[Gaan Cathal]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Tests with SRMs, reflect on LRMs how?
We have no idea if they even use the same mechanics and in several tests the SRMs produced LESS than the expected damage. Unless you've tested it with LRMs as well, then you can't say that the same factors apply. From my experience, I'm not seeing anything unexpected with LRMs really, still takes 6+ direct volleys from 4xLRM 15s to kill at Atlas (unless its stationary and facing you exactly).

Because associated Testing Grounds tests showed the same splash damage effects as SRMs being applied to LRMs. Since they both appear to use Splash effects, it follows that Live Server splash tests apply to both.

That said - splash damage currently means they're doing an uneven amount of damage across mechs. An LRM shouldn't do more damage to a Commando than a Jenner, or a Stalker than an Atlas. They just shouldn't. Once the cause of this (splash damage) is removed, it may be that the damage reduction requires that LRMs receive a further point-damage buff, as they have in the past. The splash damage (presuming it's present) still needs to go, however, because of the inherent disparity across mechs with more complex/tighter hitboxes.

[Drenzul]

Your making a fairly large assumption that they use exactly the same mechanic, with the same splash damage values as SRMs.

Not saying they don't but there is no evidence to show that they do, and even if they do, if the reduction is a straight, x distance = -x damage (as opposed to -x% damage) then it would affect LRMs a lot less than SRMs due to the lower base damage per missile.

[Eddy Hawkins]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Your making a fairly large assumption that they use exactly the same mechanic, with the same splash damage values as SRMs.

Not saying they don't but there is no evidence to show that they do, and even if they do, if the reduction is a straight, x distance = -x damage (as opposed to -x% damage) then it would affect LRMs a lot less than SRMs due to the lower base damage per missile.

However with SRM the most you can fire is 6 at a time, while with LRM it can be 20. the lower damage per missile is offset by the number of missiles being fired.

There is no debate, LRMs are, in some cases, doing more damage than listed. With testing done and results posted in that 600+ thread.

if you wish to discuss the validity of the assumptions, I suggest you post your questions in those threads, not here

http://mwomercs.com/...ted-2013-03-15/

Edited by Eddy Hawkins, 16 March 2013 - 09:10 AM.

[Calamus]

I have no idea what you're talking about Immelmann. Yes, there are a lot of LRM's in the game since they tightened up the formations. Yes they do more concentrated damage. No, it hasn't ruined anything.

I like that there are more people out there with LRM boats that can't do any damage within 180m. I've flanked and destroyed more LRM boats in my Dragon and Centurion in the last few weeks than I did at all previously.

How about trying tactics? No team to try tactics with? Join one. There's plenty of great options out there.

[NRP]

I've mostly been a supporter of this game (I've spent over US$300 so far), but I have to say the last dozen or so times I've tried to play I've given up in frustration after about 3-4 matches. I don't really know what the deal is, but I'm just flat out not as effective as I used to be. It seems like LRMs are a problem, but I don't know if that is the whole story. I do know I'm often one of the last people on my team and then I have to face 3-5 enemies at once in a rush brawl, while the other 3-5 enemies rain LRMs on me during the ensuing brawl. A lot of matches seem to go like this. It seems the matchmaker isn't doing a good enough job balancing the teams' skill compositions. On top of all this, all of my mechs just feel less powerful than they previously did. It seems like it takes years of shooting an enemy before they go down. The whole experience just feels "off" somehow. It's definitely not nearly as fun now as when I started playing this game, even with its brutally steep learning curve.

I'm not sure what I should do. I do really like the game, but I don't want to just keep banging my head against a wall in frustration. If I keep playing like this, I'll eventually just say "screw it" and be gone for good. This isn't a threat or anything like that. I'm just thinking out loud I guess.

So far, I have only PUGed solo, so my experiences are based on that perspective. Perhaps I'll try to find a group to drop with and see how that goes. I'm not sure what I'm going to do.

[Drenzul]

Eddy Hawkins, on 16 March 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

However with SRM the most you can fire is 6 at a time, while with LRM it can be 20. the lower damage per missile is offset by the number of missiles being fired.

There is no debate, LRMs are, in some cases, doing more damage than listed. With testing done and results posted in that 600+ thread.

if you wish to discuss the validity of the assumptions, I suggest you post your questions in those threads, not here

http://mwomercs.com/...ted-2013-03-15/

1> Thats a SSRM thread.
2> I didn't say that they weren't doing more damage, I said we don't know how much affect the splash has on LRMs since we haven't done any testing and we KNOW the tests in the testing ground are flawed. The tests were done with SRMs and SSRMs, we simply DON'T KNOW how much of this carries over to LRMs. It might be all of it, some of it or none of it. We don't know without testing and the OP of that thread doesn't claim to know.

As I said, you are making assumptions.

[Pihb]

I was going to type some long thought filled post. But why? The game is stale. Hopefully some game making company will try again in the next ten years or so.

[Gaan Cathal]

Drenzul, on 16 March 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I didn't say that they weren't doing more damage, I said we don't know how much affect the splash has on LRMs since we haven't done any testing and we KNOW the tests in the testing ground are flawed.

I'm actually slightly dubious about this. For all that we've been told there's 'some issue' with testing grounds damage reporting, all of Amaris' TG tests with non-missile weapons reported accurate damage. That suggests his tests are valid, even before they were validated in a live environment (which they were).

Yes, it's possible LRM splash damage is a totally different mechanic to SRM splash, implemented differently in the TG and in Live and his tests would then not be applicable but:

a: There are other tests in that thread that at least suggest they use a similar model
b: It's not the occam's razor solution. It's possible they wrote an entierly separate splash damage code for LRMs. It's not likely, because splash damage modelling is splash damage modelling.

Basically, it's possible that LRMs are immune to the missile splash issue. It is, however, rather unlikely and preliminary tests mentioned in that thread suggest otherwise.

[Sephlock]

Mazzyplz, on 16 March 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

i find it hilarious that light mech pilots are so out of it they say:
i pilot an X5, you must be dodging missiles wrong in your assault mech!!!!

no you dimwit, slower mechs are much more vulnerable to it...
and yes lrms were made a little too powerful last patch, they're gonna fix it afaik

LOOOOL.

I for one generally prefer using the slowest of the slow assault mechs (with engines downgraded so severely that to go any further would leave me with a pair of bicycle pedals to move my Atlas), and its easy as hell to just peek, fire, then move backwards before the missiles reach you.

No, actually, it was easy as hell back in the pre open beta days... Now its RIDICULOUSLY easy: You get an nice little warning that OH NOES YOU ARE BEING TARGETTED. You get another warning that OH NOES MISSILES ARE IN THE AIR AND HEADED TOWARDS YOU!

OH NOES, JEFF AND JANE ARE GETTING MARRIED IN SIX MONTHS! RSVP!

If you cannot hit the S key within all of that time, you deserve to get pummeled by slow moving missiles that lazily arc across the sky.

Look, I'll admit it- I used to make the mistake that you are apparently making: trying to flank (or lets face it, just getting caught flat footed) and dying like this guy:



The solution is not to rush out into the open. I guarantee you that even if LRMs were entirely removed from the game, you'd still have the same problems- it might even get worse, since snipers would be tagging you in blurry squint-o-vision™ even if only the tip of your weapon barrel is peeking out from around a corner for an instant.

I know it makes for a beautiful image in your mind: Your mech cleverly flanks the enemy while they are distracted, and then you ALPHA STRIKE YOUR WAY TO VICTORY, tearing away at their unprotected backs.

But then you get spotted partway through and suddenly you're this guy:



And just FYI it even worse if you're a light mech and you run into at least one enemy light mech (often times its more).