234 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

RIP Flea.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Vassago Rain, on 08 April 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

RIP Flea.

Why they thought they should even make that mech is beyond me.

[anonymous161]

So no one asked the devs why the texture problems are still rampant on the snow level with the tunnel?, or why we are still getting no huds, and or glitchy maps?

These ask the devs dont solve anything, it's mostly them saying sure later, or not at all. This game has gotten stale, hardly any weapon options, I cant change the color of my mech without spending real money which is lame, not that many mech classes to choose from...Why not just start everything fromt he clan era when it was the most bad *** time? I dont get why they want to do this free to play thing when they could have put in a great story, let us have everything. Sure it might take a few years but I rather play a completed product than this anymore.

I'm just tired of waiting, I've waited almost 10 years now for a decent mechwarrior game and what we get is a badly done online only game...I think I'm just about done with this grinding. I dont feel I get enoughf or the money I have spent. I mine as well stay with mechwarrior 4.

[Deathlike]

Vassago Rain, on 08 April 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

RIP Flea.

RIP? More like DOA.

Can't even get DFA for a while either.

[Koniving]

Darth Bane001, on 08 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

So no one asked the devs why the texture problems are still rampant on the snow level with the tunnel?, or why we are still getting no huds, and or glitchy maps?

These ask the devs dont solve anything, it's mostly them saying sure later, or not at all. This game has gotten stale, hardly any weapon options, I cant change the color of my mech without spending real money which is lame, not that many mech classes to choose from...Why not just start everything fromt he clan era when it was the most bad *** time? I dont get why they want to do this free to play thing when they could have put in a great story, let us have everything. Sure it might take a few years but I rather play a completed product than this anymore.

I'm just tired of waiting, I've waited almost 10 years now for a decent mechwarrior game and what we get is a badly done online only game...I think I'm just about done with this grinding. I dont feel I get enoughf or the money I have spent. I mine as well stay with mechwarrior 4.

It stopped being rampant for me several patches ago. If you're still having them you should consider sending in a support ticket to help you narrow it down.

In the mean time, have you cleared your Shaders folder lately? Deleting it does help, as usually the issue is with corruption in the shaders. Just delete the shaders folder in
MWO\MechWarrior Online\USER\Shaders
and then try the game again. This won't solve the damage textures showing as white patches bug. Not sure what's causing it. But it will help with your levels issue.

Vassago Rain, on 08 April 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

RIP Flea.

I'm getting this guy. Quite eager for it. Gonna sport me an ER PPC on this 20 ton POS, and really rock some socks. Taken out Raven 3-Ls a plenty with an ER PPC Spider. A faster flea? Sign me up. I love a challenge.

Edited by Koniving, 08 April 2013 - 04:06 PM.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

Bryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

CCQ 3: Why is Machine Gun damage so low?
A: Partly due to the nature of how MGs work in the TT rules, partially due to how we chose to make it useful. When equipping a MG, keep in mind that it is not meant to burn through armor but is very useful for tearing up internals (crits). Bumping MG damage will turn it into a laser that can be kept on with no heat penalty until it runs out of ammo. Now imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! We are still investigating balance of the MG but don’t expect any significant increase in damage.

Bryan, you do realize it's mistakes like this that reinforce my belief that PGI will forever continue to fail yourselves and everyone else? Math, Bryan, learn it: 4 =/= 6, so either proofread, or get someone who actually has a grasp on the facts to do that.

Edited by Sir Roland MXIII, 08 April 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Team Leader]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Dual AC-10s. You're not supposed to use MGs alone. You have to strip the armor off first and then pelt 'em with MGs. In my method I just spam them as they make him think I'm hitting his arms, all torsos, legs, and head simultaneously as I pepper him, while my cannons are concentrated a little more directly. By the time he realizes it he's already dead.

Also. Been a lot of things. My Raven 3-L uses flamers. I have done a Raven 4x with flamers, MGs, and SRM-6. However it did not have the speed necessary to make up for its frame and could not beat the AC-20 build I had.
The Spider I load up a Gauss Rifle or UAC-5 AC-2 combo. Yes it's possible. Yes it's freakin' hilarious. Yes, mechs RUN from the second of those two builds.
Now an MG spider? Back it up with a Large Pulse Laser, and it'll be worth something. Tear through the armor with the power of an AC-10 in laser form, and then MG the crap out of the spot. Aim for legs, where it'd be easiest to get ammo explosions. Or any point with a Gauss Rifle in it. Now your MG just got dangerous.
Takes 50 shots to get 2 damage. If all shots were strong crits, you'd do 6 damage. Engines have 3 Health. Do the math. What we need is engine crits enabled, and ammo health lowered to maybe 4. Then they would be purely devastating without changing any damage from the MGs as they are now.
If you treat the symptom (MGs feel useless), you solve nothing. Treat the problem (ammo has too much health, engine crits not enabled, gyro and structure crits not enabled; can't disable enemy actuators if we can't crit them).

You're trying way too hard to make up for the fact that the MG sucks. All weapons should be capable of stripping armor. And the thing with the LPL? You can't mount the max engine without giving up jump jets or a pretty good portion of armor to get that 1.5 tons, and that's for a single MG plus ammo. You're better off maxing armor and jets, and getting the max XL in there.

Even so, I'll cut you some slack, you've proven that the MG is "viable" and "working as intended" in it's current crappy role. Big whoop. Nobody else wants the MG to work that way. Also, that Atlas pilot you killed? Yeah, he sucked hard. That wasn't your MGs doing anything. The flamers do the exact same thing. You're just giving the risk for an 80 point ammo explosion and losing some tonnage in AC10 ammo and/or heatsinks for a useless weapon.

[Hellen Wheels]

Bryan Ekman, on 08 April 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Ask the Devs #35

Community Consolidated Questions/Concerns

CCQ 1: Bryan, can you elaborate on you statement: “That's exactly the polarizing type of content we want!”?
A: We want there to always be a debate about whether something is too powerful or too weak. There’s a sweet spot where players from both sides of an opinion balance each other out. This means we have a mechanic or design that has the desired polarizing or competitive effect.

Thank you, Sir, for confirming your plans to screw the MW franchise six ways from Sunday.

You have cemented my decision to spend my cash elsewhere.

Cheers!
=H=

[BFett]

Ah, the second to last question.... Just remember folks that even in COD and Modern Warfare you can see over your characters shoulder during battle.

[Team Leader]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

I'm getting this guy. Quite eager for it. Gonna sport me an ER PPC on this 20 ton POS, and really rock some socks. Taken out Raven 3-Ls a plenty with an ER PPC Spider. A faster flea? Sign me up. I love a challenge.

I totally agree with his though, except for the fact that there is no speed advantage because of the 150.4 kph server speed cap. There is literally no difference between a max engine spider and max engine flea speed wise. And the flea doesn't even have jump jets.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Hellen Wheels, on 08 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Thank you, Sir, for confirming your plans to screw the MW franchise six ways from Sunday.

You have cemented my decision to spend my cash elsewhere.

Cheers!
=H=

That question was so easy, I didn't even bother ripping him a new one for it.

50% of your player base should NEVER hate an item. NEVER.

[Koniving]

Team Leader, on 08 April 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

You're trying way too hard to make up for the fact that the MG sucks. All weapons should be capable of stripping armor. And the thing with the LPL? You can't mount the max engine without giving up jump jets or a pretty good portion of armor to get that 1.5 tons, and that's for a single MG plus ammo. You're better off maxing armor and jets, and getting the max XL in there.

Even so, I'll cut you some slack, you've proven that the MG is "viable" and "working as intended" in it's current crappy role. Big whoop. Nobody else wants the MG to work that way. Also, that Atlas pilot you killed? Yeah, he sucked hard. That wasn't your MGs doing anything. The flamers do the exact same thing. You're just giving the risk for an 80 point ammo explosion and losing some tonnage in AC10 ammo and/or heatsinks for a useless weapon.

Allow me to put it this way. If I brought a tank, and you brought a .22, would you be able to strip my armor? What if you brought a 9mm? An M16? Even a 50 cal takes several shots to get through the armor of a 62 ton M1 Abrams. That's with our current alloys. These are highly advanced alloys that are made to take lots of abusive from bigger weapons, that shake off LRMs with ease, and still allow a machine that would weigh over 200 tons (for a commando mind you) to weigh 25 tons. And you expect to get through it a bullet?

It isn't happening. These guns are made to kill people. Flesh. Not tear apart tanks or mechs. It is however practical to expect them to set off missiles to explode, to fry electrical components, to screw up joints.

But even if its a .50 caliber MG (which btw it's not), you're not stripping the armor off of anything. Just making a tiny hole.

[stjobe]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

Allow me to put it this way. If I brought a tank, and you brought a .22, would you be able to strip my armor? What if you brought a 9mm? An M16? Even a 50 cal takes several shots to get through the armor of a 62 ton M1 Abrams. That's with our current alloys. These are highly advanced alloys that are made to take lots of abusive from bigger weapons, that shake off LRMs with ease, and still allow a machine that would weigh over 200 tons (for a commando mind you) to weigh 25 tons. And you expect to get through it a bullet?

It isn't happening. These guns are made to kill people. Flesh. Not tear apart tanks or mechs. It is however practical to expect them to set off missiles to explode, to fry electrical components, to screw up joints.

But even if its a .50 caliber MG (which btw it's not), you're not stripping the armor off of anything. Just making a tiny hole.

Two things:
1. 'Mech armour is ablative. Look it up if you don't know what that means.
2. The BattleTech MG isn't a dinky man-portable thing, it's a half-ton, 'mech-sized weapon designed specifically to damage the ablative armour of BattleMechs. It also happens to be *very* good at killing power-armoured infantry in large numbers, but that's a side-effect.

[Koniving]

Team Leader, on 08 April 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

You're trying way too hard to make up for the fact that the MG sucks. All weapons should be capable of stripping armor. And the thing with the LPL? You can't mount the max engine without giving up jump jets or a pretty good portion of armor to get that 1.5 tons, and that's for a single MG plus ammo. You're better off maxing armor and jets, and getting the max XL in there.

I should also mention that speed is not everything. A fast Spider can't aim, can't focus its fire, can't do anything without stopping first. You want the fastest, most powerful thing there is, but you can't accept that things have drawbacks. Why don't we all take the Atlas, give it a 500 kph speed, and mount 27 UAC-20s on it? You won't be happy until you get that.

Doesn't make it useful.

There's fast spiders, and then there's spiders that actually kill things. I believe you're using them wrong. No wonder you think MGs are so weak. You're running so fast you can't focus on your target. Stand behind a stationary target with the leg armor gone and use the MGs. Takes about 8 seconds to take a yellow leg of an Atlas and destroy it. With MGs only. Less if it's got missiles or AC ammo.

Fastest Atlas kill by MG by me (mind you I was using a Cataphract 4X with LPL, 4 MGs but the LPL was destroyed and I was blatantly ignored by the Atlas because "MGs are so weak.") was 3 seconds, when an explosion destroyed his fully armored side torso while a team of Cicadas kept him busy (they were going for his other side, but he lost the torso of his left side, where his internal structure was completely destroyed yet his armor fully intact and yellowish.) He had an XL engine. His right torso armor was gone, his right torso internals still yellow. He died by MGs. The message came up, Koniving killed. MGs were my only surviving weapons due to some CT damage.

I think you should take another look at MGs, after you start piloting a little slower or focus your shots. It's not important to run around all the time if you have a team that can keep them busy.

Edited by Koniving, 10 April 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Koniving]

stjobe, on 08 April 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Two things:
1. 'Mech armour is ablative. Look it up if you don't know what that means.
2. The BattleTech MG isn't a dinky man-portable thing, it's a half-ton, 'mech-sized weapon designed specifically to damage the ablative armour of BattleMechs. It also happens to be *very* good at killing power-armoured infantry in large numbers, but that's a side-effect.

Ablative means it peels off in layers. I'm aware. So is the armor of certain tanks.

MGs are NOT designed specifically to damage battlemechs.

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs. It should be noted that despite their enhanced effectiveness against infantry, BattleMech machine guns are perfectly capable of stripping the armor off any BattleMech. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

It just happens to "still be able" to damage battlemechs. It is capable of that too. 1 MG can kill an Atlas in 1 minute and 40 seconds of sustained fire to the left eyeball (cockpit), dealing a total of over 27 damage.

And if you want to go tabletop with it... MG does 2 damage in a 10 second window (a turn). MG currently does (goes to test) 78 shots in ten seconds. 50 shots does exactly 2 damage. 78 at 0.04 = 3.12 damage in a ten second window for a single MG. So it's above table top without the crit bonuses. With crit bonuses it'd deal at that same time 9.36 damage. That's almost an AC-10. What more do you want from it? The MG is NOT the problem. That's enough damage to destroy the enemy's engine 3 times over without having to destroy the torso! From one MG!

It's the intended target, the ammo in the enemy mech, that is the problem. With internal components having healths of 1 and 3... Why does AMMO, which is our INTENDED MG target, have 10 HP per ton? Worse. The internal components such as ammo with their 10 HP per ton, only takes damage from "Crits" and not sustained fire. So the damage we deal inside is by random dice rolls while we focus our fire.

Again, people need to not look at the symptom, and look at the cause. The MGs feeling weak is a symptom. Trust me you enable Engine Crits, and watch me use a 4 MG spider to take out an Atlas that has no back armor in no more than 3 seconds.

The cause is not the MG, but the ammo components and their insane health. The cockpit gets 9 health when the armor is gone. But a ton of highly explosive ammo gets 10 health, and can only be hurt during a "CRIT" dice roll which per bullet of the MG can do up to 0.12 damage? MGs get high crit rates, but even then it isn't going to reach that quickly enough with all the double heat sinks and 'padding' in there.

Edited by Koniving, 08 April 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Quote

A: At the outset we had no intention to support 3rd Person. However as with all design choices, it became clear we were limiting our audience and needed to explore ways to retain the core experience, while making the game more accessible.

3rd person does not make the game more accessible.

CoD Modern Warfare 2 and on have a 3rd person gamemode, do you know what the LEAST PLAYED GAME MODE IN COD IS!?! It's the 3rd person view, with maybe 500 players using it at maximum.

My god every time I see the devs mention that there's some accessibility issue that 3rd person will solve, I find myself banging my head against my desk because this is not only flat out wrong, but it's not a thing... 3rd person view is in no way an accessibility thing, it doesn't solve any problems, it doesn't add to the game experience. And it causes more issues than it's worth.

The fact that there's even any considering going into it at that point baffles me.

[PropagandaWar]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Again, people need to not look at the symptom, and look at the cause. The MGs feeling weak is a symptom. The cause is not the MG, but the ammo components and their insane health. The cockpit gets 9 health when the armor is gone. But a ton of highly explosive ammo gets 10 health, and can only be hurt during a "CRIT" dice roll which per bullet of the MG can do up to 0.12 damage? MGs get high crit rates, but even then it isn't going to reach that quickly enough with all the double heat sinks and 'padding' in there.

I agree with the end part. That's why we have CASE. Install it or die!!!!!

Jade Kitsune, on 08 April 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

3rd person does not make the game more accessible.

CoD Modern Warfare 2 and on have a 3rd person gamemode, do you know what the LEAST PLAYED GAME MODE IN COD IS!?! It's the 3rd person view, with maybe 500 players using it at maximum.

My god every time I see the devs mention that there's some accessibility issue that 3rd person will solve, I find myself banging my head against my desk because this is not only flat out wrong, but it's not a thing... 3rd person view is in no way an accessibility thing, it doesn't solve any problems, it doesn't add to the game experience. And it causes more issues than it's worth.

The fact that there's even any considering going into it at that point baffles me.

Then why fear 3rd person? I don't like it and I still don't care if its in or out. Never bothered me in the other games.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 08 April 2013 - 04:43 PM.

[FupDup]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

MGs are NOT designed specifically to damage battlemechs.

See your quote below:

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

"The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs. It should be noted that despite their enhanced effectiveness against infantry, BattleMech machine guns are perfectly capable of stripping the armor off any BattleMech. Vehicular-scale machine guns mounted on BattleMechs can lay low entire platoons in just a few passes thanks to their high rate of fire, though they are more commonly found on Combat Vehicles and ProtoMechs.[3] These weapons are much heavier than those typically carried by infantry, but can be used by them when placed on a static mount, where they are called Support Machine Guns.[4] Battle Armor can also carry machine guns, typically upgraded versions of infantry-support weapons, which can rival their larger vehicular-scale cousins."

You just did a 180 degree spin on what you said before this.

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

It's the intended target, the ammo in the enemy mech, that is the problem. 3... Why does AMMO, which is our INTENDED MG target, have 10 HP per ton? ...

The Sarna page you quoted above says nothing about Critical Hits. At all. All it talks about is r@ping infantry platoons and stripping Battlemech armor.

[Deathlike]

Koniving, on 08 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

There's fast spiders, and then there's spiders that actually kill things. I believe you're using them wrong. No wonder you think MGs are so weak. You're running so fast you can't focus on your target. Stand behind a stationary target with the leg armor gone and use the MGs. Takes less than 8 seconds to take a yellow leg of an Atlas and destroy it. With MGs only. Less if it's got missiles or AC ammo.

I've seen spiders that kill. Most of the time, it's not with the MG (PPCs, Large Laser, Some Pulse Laser).

Quote

Fastest Atlas kill by MG by me (mind you I was using a Cataphract 4X with LPL, 4 MGs but the LPL was destroyed and blatantly ignored because "MGs are so weak.") was 3 seconds, when an explosion destroyed his fully armored side torso while a team of Cicadas kept him busy (they were going for his other side, but he lost the torso of his left side, where his internal structure was completely destroyed yet his armor fully intact and yellowish.) He had an XL engine. His right torso armor was gone, his right torso internals still yellow. He died by MGs. The message came up, Koniving killed. MGs were my only surviving weapons due to some CT damage.

I think you should take another look at MGs, after you start piloting a little slower or focus your shots. It's not important to run around all the time if you have a team that can keep them busy.

MGs shouldn't need the kind of help that LRMs+TAG is required vs ECM. For .5 tons, a small laser would be more effective. That doesn't even factor in that MGs still need 1 ton of ammo.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 April 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[Slater01]

CSLaoch: With the addition of the highlander, is there a chance that "death from above" may become possible, ex: crushing light mechs, or at least causing structural damage?
A: Yes when we re-introduce collisions after launch.

I though collisions where coming in, in a couple months.
Why is everything taking so friking long?[/color] (don't anwser, please, ive heard it all)

Edited by Slater01, 08 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.