283 replies to this topic

[Particle Man]

Matta, on 22 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Still, that doesn't solve the fact that some Mechs SUCK

that's not something that needs to be solved. Some mechs have ALWAYS sucked compared to others. We dont have infantry, so a 4mg spider isnt very useful and changing what MGs are and how they work doesnt fit into the restraints of what battletech is that the devs have decided to constrain themselves to (mostly).

why they decide to add those mechs in in the first place is a different issue that DOES need addressing, but not the way you're suggesting, in my opinion, at least

Edited by Particle Man, 22 April 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[DemonRaziel]

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

use a different mech. It's very simple.
...
so dont use it. not all mechs are equal.
...
so dont use it, or grind through it until it's done then sell it, or convert XP from another mech and just use MC to be done with it. I remember trying to max out commands, and those suffer from the same types of sucking as the spiders and i spent weeks sucking with those fragile and useless mechs until i finally said f'k it and just decided that i didnt need a maxxed out commando anyway.

...
not all mechs are created equal. send a support ticket about how and why it sucks and use something else until they get around to fixing it (or not)

You are completely missing the point, I'm afraid.

First of all, your Commando example is weird as all the COM chassi are sort of similar (4 hard points total, distributed between E and M), with the 2D having a clear advantage with ECM. So your problem was more likely in the 'Mech itself, instead of a particular variant...

The Spider 5K problem is different, as A) you only have 3 variants and need to grind all of them in order to master at least one and the 5K is inferior to it's energy-heavier counterparts because its hard points literally enforce it to carry MGs - a weapon that is just not effective in any meaningful way and there are no alternatives that would make it in any way better (or at least comparable) to the other Spider variants.

Griding the 'Mech with GXP, or grinding your teeth together with grinding the 'Mech and selling it once the basics are unlocked in NO WAY solves the problem - that we have a useless weapon and by extension a couple of useless 'Mech chassi that rely on said weapon.

Ignoring a weapon and the 'Mechs that use it, or going out of our way to come up with some crazy builds overcomming the inherent flaws (introduced by strange - non-canon and counter productive - developer choices in regards to MGs) is not a solution, it's a workaround... and a bad one.

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

We dont have infantry, so a 4mg spider isnt very useful and changing what MGs are and how they work doesnt fit into the restraints of what battletech is that the devs have decided to constrain themselves to (mostly).

An MG, is not an anti-infantry weapon. It's a short range AC2 with bonus against infantry. If you really want to discuss BT canon.

By nerfing the MG to it's current state, claiming it's supposed to be an anti-infantry weapon (and thus inefficient against 'Mechs) and not implementing infantry (and confirming there are no plans to do so in the future), the devs have just wasted their time. Adding a low-tonnage balistics-heavy 'Mechs just adds insult to injury.

Edited by DemonRaziel, 22 April 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[codynyc]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Community Warfare/Clans
Logan Doyle: Can I ask when Clans will be able to be a playable faction?
A: No official timeline has been announced for Clans yet. We plan to reveal more information after Launch in late Summer.

As a founder that dropped 120 On promises the devs had made... The amount of back pedaling done in this game is ridiculous. No official time line.. as 90 after launch i must have dreamed up along with every one else. The only reason I still play is because i have friends that do. I think PGI bite off more then it can chew.

[Deathlike]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 22 April 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

while a 4 MG spider cannot core an atlas from behind in 5 seconds, a 1 uac 5 spider can if the uac doesnt jam. id suggest you try it, the 1 uac 5 spider is a nasty little build.

I cannot imagine myself using an solely ammo-dependent build.. unless it was the Splatcat of lore. At least with the Splatcat, you were somewhat important to be rid of... now, not so much.

DemonRaziel, on 22 April 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

The Spider 5K problem is different, as A) you only have 3 variants and need to grind all of them in order to master at least one and the 5K is inferior to it's energy-heavier counterparts because its hard points literally enforce it to carry MGs - a weapon that is just not effective in any meaningful way and there are no alternatives that would make it in any way better (or at least comparable) to the other Spider variants.

Believe it or not, if we don't use the 5K's ballistic hard points... what mech and/or variant does it most resemble? The answer is strangely enough.. the Spider-5V.

There's an actual issue with the Spider chassis in general.. the MG issue only highlights the fact, but differently.

I may write a post regarding this, but suffice it to say... MG balance is a symptom of a greater problem... same goes with the Spider-5K.

[DemonRaziel]

Deathlike, on 22 April 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Believe it or not, if we don't use the 5K's ballistic hard points... what mech and/or variant does it most resemble? The answer is strangely enough.. the Spider-5V.

There's an actual issue with the Spider chassis in general.. the MG issue only highlights the fact, but differently.

I may write a post regarding this, but suffice it to say... MG balance is a symptom of a greater problem... same goes with the Spider-5K.

Believe it or not... but if you don't use the ballistic hard points on the 5K, you are a gimped 5V - 1 E hard point less, 4 JJs less... essentially you gave up 80% of your weapon potential because you had no valid options. And as far as Spiders go... the 5D is a viable 'Mech... I was even able to use it in 8-mens with great success...

[Particle Man]

DemonRaziel, on 22 April 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

First of all, your Commando example is weird as all the COM chassi are sort of similar (4 hard points total, distributed between E and M), with the 2D having a clear advantage with ECM. So your problem was more likely in the 'Mech itself, instead of a particular variant...

they're not really comparable to spiders in what they carry, but in how useless they can be and how delicate they are. pretty much the only commando worth taking at all is the 2d (not counting the death smell). the rest are fairly weak, cant really do much of anything damage wise, cant really take much ammo or heat sinks, and arent really worth taking if you have any other mech to take. if you had all 3 variants why would you ever take anything other than the 2d if you arent trying to master the chassis?

Quote

The Spider 5K problem is different, as A) you only have 3 variants and need to grind all of them in order to master at least one and the 5K is inferior to it's energy-heavier counterparts because its hard points literally enforce it to carry MGs - a weapon that is just not effective in any meaningful way and there are no alternatives that would make it in any way better (or at least comparable) to the other Spider variants.

right, just like the various commando variants suck compared to the 2d. It's just got the added crappiness that you HAVE to take the sh***iest variant if you want to master them.

Quote

Griding the 'Mech with GXP, or grinding your teeth together with grinding the 'Mech and selling it once the basics are unlocked in NO WAY solves the problem - that we have a useless weapon and by extension a couple of useless 'Mech chassi that rely on said weapon.

right, which brings up MY question of "WTF did they add it if they know MGs suck and that they probably arent going to change them much, if at all" and not "They added a variant that is useless because MGs suck against mechs, gotta buff MGs" when i'm saying just get rid of the useless variant and add one that isnt designed to suck. They complain about limited resources, they probably shouldnt be wasting those resources putting out variants with no use in THIS game.

Quote

Ignoring a weapon and the 'Mechs that use it, or going out of our way to come up with some crazy builds overcomming the inherent flaws (introduced by strange - non-canon and counter productive - developer choices in regards to MGs) is not a solution, it's a workaround... and a bad one.

i think they just need to either sh*t or get off the pot on the MGs, either buff them, or leave them useless for some reason and get rid of variants that rely on them, or add extra variants that dont, if they dont want to throw away the useless ones.

Quote

An MG, is not an anti-infantry weapon. It's a short range AC2 with bonus against infantry. If you really want to discuss BT canon.

then they should make it do that, and i agree. why are they fighting that fact so much?

Quote

By nerfing the MG to it's current state, claiming it's supposed to be an anti-infantry weapon (and thus inefficient against 'Mechs) and not implementing infantry (and confirming there are no plans to do so in the future), the devs have just wasted their time. Adding a low-tonnage balistics-heavy 'Mechs just adds insult to injury.

this i agree with, which is why i said it up higher, and i guess we're on the same page.
They either need to stop beating around the bush with the MGs and decide what they want them to do, or stop putting out variants that rely on them.

there's also the possibility that they have plans to fix them later and are waiting for something else to get finished before doing it for some reason, just like every other thing that they said they want in the game and have been putting off for months to add. That excuse is wearing a little thin as well.

Edited by Particle Man, 22 April 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Deathlike]

DemonRaziel, on 22 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Believe it or not... but if you don't use the ballistic hard points on the 5K, you are a gimped 5V - 1 E hard point less, 4 JJs less... essentially you gave up 80% of your weapon potential because you had no valid options. And as far as Spiders go... the 5D is a viable 'Mech... I was even able to use it in 8-mens with great success...

Well, remember that the Spider-5D functions with the solo CT energy hardpoint in addition to the 2 energy right arm hardpoint...

The Spider is the definition of the "ultimate zombie" (as it can fart into the air)... but not quite the Centurion.

[BlackBeltJones]

Dirus Nigh, on 20 April 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

Battlefield 2 to this day has had the best voice system I have ever used in a game. One of the biggest disappointments I've had with the Battlefield IP was when BF3 did not have voice. And a commander role or command assets but thats a different topic. Which PGI should rip off of shamelessly for the voice and command console functionality.



One of the most contentious topics in the closed beta forums was integrated voice coms. A very vocal population against MWO having integrated voice coms were players who used TS3.

Their stated reasoning was fear of the hypothetical 12 year old racist misogynist and how they will be meany heads. They deliberately ignored reasonable suggestions like being able to mute an individual player, report function for problem players, or the ability to turn the whole thing off if TS3 was preferred. They were full of crap.

What they really wanted was to deny pug groups voice coms so they could had an advantage over them.

I am still adamant in my believe that integrated voice coms would only serve to strengthen the MWO community. However I gave up arguing for it when it became clear that the MWO community dropped the issue like yesterdays news, and PGI never really seemed all that interested in having it. I want to be wrong about that. It just feels like that ship has sailed.

So I looked up a group, The Lone Wolves, and have been playing with them. I still pug frequently and the need for integrated voice coms is even more glaringly obvious.

So much THIS. I find it absolutely laughable that PGI feigns interest in a new user experience yet fails to see that COMS are a vital function. There is no user experience offered within MWO if communication is not allowed or not considered valuable enough to implement.

Edited by BlackBeltJones, 22 April 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[DemonRaziel]

Seems like we agree on some points, disagree on the others, which is fine by me, so I will only address some parts of your post

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

they're not really comparable to spiders in what they carry, but in how useless they can be and how delicate they are. pretty much the only commando worth taking at all is the 2d (not counting the death smell). the rest are fairly weak, cant really do much of anything damage wise, cant really take much ammo or heat sinks, and arent really worth taking if you have any other mech to take. if you had all 3 variants why would you ever take anything other than the 2d if you arent trying to master the chassis?

The 2D is ahead of the other chassi by virtue of the ECM, but weaponry-wise, all the chassi are pretty similar. Their squishiness is a quality shared by all the lights.

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

there's also the possibility that they have plans to fix them later and are waiting for something else to get finished before doing it for some reason, just like every other thing that they said they want in the game and have been putting off for months to add. That excuse is wearing a little thin as well.

If they do, they really should tell the community. There are hundreds of posts regarding the MG balance... and all the uproar could have been mitigated by letting us know they are planing to fix the issue (if they are).

[White Bear 84]

ATD 36 in one image... ...i think all the players scared PGI from commiting to solid answers on anything..

Edited by White Bear 84, 22 April 2013 - 07:10 PM.

[Arcturious]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 April 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

So you are admitting this isn't beta then? Because all the things you listed are typically done to a beta server.

Are you saying that because they added monetary transactions that the game has entered a released state?

To use IT parlance, we're in Staging. Closed beta is what you appear to be referring to. That was closer to your idea of an open test sandbox.

In Open Beta, we are at that stage where the testing is into pilot user, or staging environment.

However in a good IT shop you still have Test, Dev, Staging and Production. Currently in MWO, we only have Dev and Staging.

So I'm glad they are adding back in the proper test environment.

[DemonRaziel]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

CCQ2 (as described by stjobe):
Q: Would you please reconsider buffing the MG's damage?
A: We are always looking at weapons. No plans to buff damage specifically.

If you are looking at weapons, you must be aware that MGs in their current iteration are an ineffective weapon.

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Ghost Badger: Has PGI considered matching the armor values to the cosmetics, shape, size of the mechs? For example, more armor on the 'shield' arm of a centurion, or the shield shoulder/arms of an Awesome, or the finned/side torsos of a Jagermech? Conversely, less side torso armor on mechs with smaller side torsos, like Catapults and Stalkers?
A: No plans currently, as the armor values are derived initially from the table top rules.

The randomness that exists in TT makes all the difference.

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Prosperity Park: Will the Heat mechanism be changed in the future such that Overheating to greater than, lets say 150%, would result in inescapable, guaranteed Heat Damage regardless if your Mech is Powered Down?
A: We’re happy with the existing system, so I don’t see this being added anytime soon.

Now I am not sure you fully grasp the issues with flawed heat management that are currently prevalent in the game. Boating hIgh-alpha weapons is encouraged by the lack of adverse effects overheating has on 'Mech. And this negatively affects the gaming experience for many players (new and old alike).

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

Butane9000: Can you post in detail how you plan for groups to work when you launch
the 12 v 12 functionality?
A: Exactly as they work now, except pre-made 8 player groups will require 12 players.

Cyberassassin: To create some competition among less formal groups, groups that play when they can actually get together or smaller groups, when can we have Lance(4) vs Lance(4)?
A: Since the cost of a running a dedicated servers is the same whether there is 1 or 24 players, we currently are not planning to allow matches to kick off without the maximum number of players.

Not allowing groups of 5-11 players to play together and forcing PUGs into these groups might encourage snyc dropping and PUG stomping in amounts before unseen.
The new player exprience might once again be reduced to them getting stomped over and over again by more organized groups that are forced to sync drop in the "PUG queue" in order to be able to play together, unless they are able to get 12 players online at the same time

[Matta]

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

that's not something that needs to be solved. Some mechs have ALWAYS sucked compared to others. We dont have infantry, so a 4mg spider isnt very useful and changing what MGs are and how they work doesnt fit into the restraints of what battletech is that the devs have decided to constrain themselves to (mostly).

why they decide to add those mechs in in the first place is a different issue that DOES need addressing, but not the way you're suggesting, in my opinion, at least

You already went from above opinion to opinion that we agree upon more or less but I'll reply on this one.

You said some Mechs (I say some variants, not entire line) suck more than others. That's not an issue at all. Issue here is almost totally useless variants of few Mech lines that are doomed to carry equally useless weapons. Why the heck introduce them at all if they are to remain crappy ?
Best solution is usually always the simplest: improve the weapon that suck and you'll get Mech that don't suck (that much) anymore.

Personally, of all 3 variants I really enjoy driving K variant, mostly because of the dakkadakkas. I know it's not useful, it's not very contributive but it's helluva fun.

[stjobe]

Particle Man, on 22 April 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

changing what MGs are and how they work doesnt fit into the restraints of what battletech is that the devs have decided to constrain themselves to (mostly).

You have that completely backwards.

It is precisely BECAUSE our beloved MWO devs changed the MG from its TT roots that it is currently useless. A TT MG was, as DemonRaziel pointed out, just a very short-ranged AC/2.

It had no silly limitation that it couldn't do damage to armour - it did 2 damage. It didn't have any extra crit buff; it critted exactly as much as any other weapon.

But because the devs have gotten into their head that the MG shouldn't do damage to armour (which, as I've stated so many times now, completely flies in the face of BattleTech canon), they had to come up with their useless crit buff instead.

And thus the MG remains useless and the ballistic lights are underused and unloved.

The galling part is that it's such a simple fix as well:
1. Increase the per-projectile damage so the weapon does somewhere between 1-2 DPS*
2. Adjust the crit and crit damage buff so the crit buff stays the same as it is now (or just remove it completely).

That's it. Nothing more needed but to wait a few weeks and perhaps do some minor adjustments to those numbers if the weapon still isn't usable.

*Don't faint. Remember that the MG has a lot of drawbacks that prohibit it from ever reaching those numbers:
- RNG spread. At 89m, only 50% of the projectiles hit what you're aiming at
- Continuous-fire mechanic. Unless you're prepared to face your enemy 100% of the time, your DPS will drop significantly.
- Low range. You'll need to be really close if you want to do damage, and even closer if you want to do damage to a specific location.

There's all sorts of other drawbacks of the MG as well, but I've listed them in detail elsewhere.

[Loler skates]

stjobe, on 23 April 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

You have that completely backwards.

It is precisely BECAUSE our beloved MWO devs changed the MG from its TT roots that it is currently useless. A TT MG was, as DemonRaziel pointed out, just a very short-ranged AC/2.

It had no silly limitation that it couldn't do damage to armour - it did 2 damage. It didn't have any extra crit buff; it critted exactly as much as any other weapon.

But because the devs have gotten into their head that the MG shouldn't do damage to armour (which, as I've stated so many times now, completely flies in the face of BattleTech canon), they had to come up with their useless crit buff instead.

And thus the MG remains useless and the ballistic lights are underused and unloved.

The galling part is that it's such a simple fix as well:
1. Increase the per-projectile damage so the weapon does somewhere between 1-2 DPS*
2. Adjust the crit and crit damage buff so the crit buff stays the same as it is now (or just remove it completely).

That's it. Nothing more needed but to wait a few weeks and perhaps do some minor adjustments to those numbers if the weapon still isn't usable.

*Don't faint. Remember that the MG has a lot of drawbacks that prohibit it from ever reaching those numbers:
- RNG spread. At 89m, only 50% of the projectiles hit what you're aiming at
- Continuous-fire mechanic. Unless you're prepared to face your enemy 100% of the time, your DPS will drop significantly.
- Low range. You'll need to be really close if you want to do damage, and even closer if you want to do damage to a specific location.

There's all sorts of other drawbacks of the MG as well, but I've listed them in detail elsewhere.

any one arguing against MG buff is flat out ignorant... especially the devs, they appear to be the most ignorant of all the people arguing against it which is the most baffling.

[Jakob Knight]

stjobe, on 23 April 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

You have that completely backwards.

It is precisely BECAUSE our beloved MWO devs changed the MG from its TT roots that it is currently useless. A TT MG was, as DemonRaziel pointed out, just a very short-ranged AC/2.

It had no silly limitation that it couldn't do damage to armour - it did 2 damage. It didn't have any extra crit buff; it critted exactly as much as any other weapon.

But because the devs have gotten into their head that the MG shouldn't do damage to armour (which, as I've stated so many times now, completely flies in the face of BattleTech canon), they had to come up with their useless crit buff instead.

And thus the MG remains useless and the ballistic lights are underused and unloved.

The galling part is that it's such a simple fix as well:
1. Increase the per-projectile damage so the weapon does somewhere between 1-2 DPS*
2. Adjust the crit and crit damage buff so the crit buff stays the same as it is now (or just remove it completely).

That's it. Nothing more needed but to wait a few weeks and perhaps do some minor adjustments to those numbers if the weapon still isn't usable.

*Don't faint. Remember that the MG has a lot of drawbacks that prohibit it from ever reaching those numbers:
- RNG spread. At 89m, only 50% of the projectiles hit what you're aiming at
- Continuous-fire mechanic. Unless you're prepared to face your enemy 100% of the time, your DPS will drop significantly.
- Low range. You'll need to be really close if you want to do damage, and even closer if you want to do damage to a specific location.

There's all sorts of other drawbacks of the MG as well, but I've listed them in detail elsewhere.

Actually, the biggest problem was the Devs importing the weapon and then trying to make it perform to match video gamer's ideas of what a Machine Gun should be (based on DOOM and other FPS). If it were just an AC/2 with very short range (and note that AC/2s can strip armor pretty quickly), then it might not be as much a problem. However, the problem lies in the fact that gamers would not accept a Machine Gun that only fired a round every two seconds....instead, it has to fire a round every quarter second, or gamers would complain that 'that isn't a Machine Gun'.

Therein lies the problem. To have the fire rate gamers demand to make the Machine Gun look and sound to their expectations and -still- have it do the same damage as an AC/2 in absolute terms, the damage per round has to be very, very low. This then has the countereffect of making the MG seem puny and without merit because it seems the weapon is not doing the damage it should when the TT states it does '2 points per shot'.

Ultimately, they shouldn't have put the MGs in the game, nor mechs that required their use. That, or they should have made them identical to AC/2s in fire rate and fx, with the understanding these were 'heavy rifles' with a low fire, high-calibur profile. As it stands now, they cannot win. If they increase the damage to the point the MGs become what gamers want, they become too powerful as a zero-heat, rapid dps crutch for players who just want to suicide into an enemy. If they don't increase the damage, players feel the MGs don't have enough damage output to feel worthwhile.

Best fix, in my opinion, would be to eliminate the crit bonus, clone the AC/2 stats and fire rate with the exception of it being 0.5 tons, 1 crit, and having the same range as a Small Laser. Let the game performance outweigh eyecandy satisfaction for those who can't accept it that way. Anything else, at this point, would be courting imbalance.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 23 April 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Loler skates]

Jakob Knight, on 23 April 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

Actually, the biggest problem was the Devs importing the weapon and then trying to make it perform to match video gamer's ideas of what a Machine Gun should be (based on DOOM and other FPS). If it were just an AC/2 with very short range (and note that AC/2s can strip armor pretty quickly), then it might not be as much a problem. However, the problem lies in the fact that gamers would not accept a Machine Gun that only fired a round every two seconds....instead, it has to fire a round every quarter second, or gamers would complain that 'that isn't a Machine Gun'.

Which would be .4 damage a bullet with 10 bullets a second to equal the AC/2

That isn't exactly hard to work out.

And most people who want the mg buffed aren't asking for such a high damage output.

It would also be great if pgi fixed their mech lab so it doesn't lie and tell people that the mgs firepower is 2 when its actually 0.04

Edited by Loler skates, 23 April 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Pakidis79]

So...after reading all of this, before launch we will NOT get:

Clans
Community warfare
Collisions

What we will get in the next 6 months:

UI update
MORE weapon tweaks, unspecified...
2 new maps

It REALLY begs the question, what are you doing with the time and money we, your beta testers, are giving you?

Also, almost EVERY upcoming request has NO ETA. IS there a plan? Doesn't seem like there is a plan, schedule, or ANY type of organization here. As investors in your game, you are VERY vague and secretive, especially after the new terms and conditions...

1 more thing: NO ETA, after launch, not at this time, eventually, may see, if we do, ongoing, no decision, intime, are not answers. They are the absence of an answer. Its a bit insulting to "answer" the ask the devs questions with 32 instances such as these.

Edited by Pakidis79, 23 April 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[TheMaker]

ryoma, on 19 April 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad to see you guys ignoring this issue.
http://mwomercs.com/...ll-side-torsos/

http://mwomercs.com/...46#entry2220446

Jenner hit Boxes are currently very borked.

I don't understand, from the sreen shot what im seeing. If your trying to get a headshot off, the cockpit is basically the nose of the mech. What your hitting with the lasers Idk. I would have aimed for the joint for the upper/lower torso, but he was legged.

[Kyoulkoa]

shintakie, on 19 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Well, awesome. Guess yall really are perfectly happy with the 4X, 5k, and 3C bein completely useless.

-1 for that.

Either that or they're secretly plannin to add noncanon light ballistics so that those 3 mechs can actually get a use out of their ballistics slots.

perhaps they are planning on adding light, medium , heavy rifles. or heavy machineguns(although that would be quite ahead schedule lorewise)