Missile Update - Feedback
#41
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:21 PM
#42
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:23 PM
Gerwig, on 21 May 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:
It stopped being a beta when they started advertising weekly sales on facebook without advertising it as a beta. That word has no meaning.
Edited by Shumabot, 21 May 2013 - 04:23 PM.
#43
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:23 PM
1) Damage - too high with splash still enabled which wasn't removed in this patch. Not making any further calls here as I think it should be 1.0 to be standard with TT, but .9 is close enough.
2) Flight Path - Can you hotfix the downward arc? Right now there's nothing one can consider cover except the tallest structures in the game.
3) Lock on Time - Too fast, considering that everyone is going to have Tag + Artemis. I felt the original lock on time was fine, especially given lock on retention via modules. The new flight speed nullifies a lot of the need for faster lock from before.
4) Missile Speed - Spot on IMHO and I'd been a big proponent of boosting the speed.
5) Missile Grouping - Little too tight still.
#44
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:24 PM
Victor Morson, on 21 May 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:
The whole point is this counters pop-tarting. People will complain about it a lot, because of that.
So let me make this plea, Paul: DON'T FIX THIS STUFF. LRMs are nowhere near OP right now and it is literally the first time I've found them potentially useful - and on closer review maybe even useful in serious 8 mans - since closed freaking beta (not counting the day of LRM nuking.)
LRMs if anything might need a slight buff from where they're at, not anymore nerfing. The fact they push serious CT damage when TAG'ed is a good thing. LRMs are now apart of the balance sea-saw keeping other ranged weapons in line.
Seriously the things you're considering "broken" has made them reach "usable."
DO NOT NERF LRMs IN THE NEXT PATCH!
They did counter poptarts before this patch - nwhat they do now is counter cover.
Seriously I do not get why instead of changing one parameter at a time and sort the results afterwards our brilliant developers have to change 5+ whenever they change something and we need to cope with a totaly differend abd probaly broken game after that.
Edited by Nebelfeuer, 21 May 2013 - 04:26 PM.
#46
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:25 PM
Nebelfeuer, on 21 May 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:
I use LRM in nearly all my builds to some degree and this patch has changed them from a weapon that weas fun to play and required some skill make use of to a lock-click no brainer that hits almost all of the time. Furtermore it was fun to dodge mislles by using cover or good movemtpattern - right now it´s nearly impossible to do so - partly because flightpattern is so steep that you do not even see them coming most of the time - partly because theyr high trajectory allows them to adjust to much to positional changes withou being hindered by terrain.
As far as I am concerned I´d rather have all of the changes made with this patch concerning LRMs reverted.
None of these changes was really needed und the game is a lot less fun the way it is now.
Yes, exactly my opinion. If you liked to play with lrms up to this point, since the latest patch, it isn't fun anymore. It's just to overpowered, because it feels that you don't need any skill to hit with them.
And in many of the matches i played since the patch, there was a rain of rockets all over the map, and you couldn't escape or hide. that could not have been the intention of the devs, because that makes the matches boring!
#47
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:28 PM
Victor Morson, on 21 May 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:
The whole point is this counters pop-tarting. People will complain about it a lot, because of that.
So let me make this plea, Paul: DON'T FIX THIS STUFF. LRMs are nowhere near OP right now and it is literally the first time I've found them potentially useful - and on closer review maybe even useful in serious 8 mans - since closed freaking beta (not counting the day of LRM nuking.)
LRMs if anything might need a slight buff from where they're at, not anymore nerfing. The fact they push serious CT damage when TAG'ed is a good thing. LRMs are now apart of the balance sea-saw keeping other ranged weapons in line.
Seriously the things you're considering "broken" has made them reach "usable."
DO NOT NERF LRMs IN THE NEXT PATCH!
The whole counter poptart argument really becomes invalid since the way lrms act now will affect ANYONE, with jumpjets or not. Of course they are usable, because they can hit you even when you're taking cover behind tall hills as long as the hills slope downward, because it takes almost fully vertical cover to counter the equally almost vertical flight path or the lrms. There's no doubt whatsoever this needs to be fixed or else you're nullifying a huge majority of what used to be good cover, leaving little left as useful cover whatsoever. To leave it as is would be nothing but a huge mistake.
#48
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:28 PM
But what i dont get is: when you know you wont reach the deadline in time for the splash damage, why do you increase the damage at all? The massive CT damage from the missiles was an issue since when? Like ever?
It wasn't like the last hotfix values where fine?
This all seems that you dont playtest your patches at all, i mean it was obvious to me in the first game. I know that deadlines can be hard, but whats the reason of the 2 week schedule if you dont play test the changes?
Then you would be better of with an more frequent update.
But nevermind, hopefully i dont have to play with the broken LRMs, there are other things to do.
#49
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:30 PM
They have been over-buffed in the damage area due to this new fact.
Every single time I am hit with LRMS I instantly lose my Core Armor.
Move the LRM damage back down a few points (one or two) and it should improve dramatically, as it is now it is way overpowered (mechs are too slow to fairly get behind cover before three volleys can core them and 50% of the cover doesn't even block the lrms anymore).
Please lower the damage, otherwise you've done a good job with this patch PGI.
#50
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:30 PM
#51
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:32 PM
Devs, return LRMS to their normal state and reduce the % we play on tourmaline ... AND LEAVE THEM ALONE!... its forking ridiculous to the point where it's getting old and us players should have the choice to decide which map we really wanna play on rather than force a map we dont wanna play on down our throats... then and only then you can do stats on which maps are more popular than the least ones by the # of times they've been played on.
I'm starting to think you (PGI) are slowly losing ppl because you're not following other gaming models (which are more popular and are more successful as a whole).
Thontor, believe me, getting hit while behind a hill is beyond ridiculous and that is something that should never happen™, cept for air strikes. Yes this is without any LOS from the missile mech but from a scout behind enemy lines.
I'll still play but if this ain't fixed then... take a guess.
Edited by JDH4mm3r, 21 May 2013 - 04:34 PM.
#52
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:34 PM
JDH4mm3r, on 21 May 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:
Devs, return LRMS to their normal state and reduce the % we play on tourmaline ... AND LEAVE THEM ALONE!... its forking ridiculous to the point where it's getting old and us players should have the choice to decide which map we really wanna play on rather than force a map we dont wanna play on down out throats... then and only then you can do stats on which maps are more popular than the least ones by the # of times they've been played on.
I'm starting to think you (PGI) are slowly losing ppl because you're not following other gaming models (which are more popular and are more successful as a whole).
Thontor, believe me, getting hit while behind a hill is beyond ridiculous and that is something that should never happen™, cept for air strikes. Yes this is without any LOS from the missile mech but from a scout behind enemy lines.
I'll still play but if this ain't fixed then... take a guess.
Yeah i'll admit, not being able to play on the new map is kind of bugging me.
I come to play the new patch in the new mech on the new map and I am stuck grinding cbills in my old mechs on frozen city, river city and tourmaline just like before. -.-;;
Edited by karoushi, 21 May 2013 - 04:34 PM.
#53
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:36 PM
I've had some experience in doing play testing and beta testing in a number of titles and mods over the years. One of those I was in a group in was the mod for the Desert Combat mod (0.8) of Battlefield 1942. I don't mean some Rommel warfare in tanks in North Africa, I mean the mod that made the game more or less "modern" warfare, before battlefield 2 came out, with abrahams tanks, apache and cobra gunships, russian tanks in Iraqi colors, missles, jets and expansive maps. It was alot of fun working with a few of the Modders and I enjoyed it. One of the things that some of the modellers and some of those working on the weapons mods and physics were doing was trying to get a little bit of realism into weapon behaviors and flight paths of missiles. In the end I think they failed miserably, but what they settled for was what was fun, not overly fatal. I was able to be involved in a bit of that and see some of what they did. One of the interesting research tools available even then a decade ago was Janes Defense, which publishes defense and weapons analysis journals, as well as videos and promotional things for the defense industry which is always trying to sell a new weapons system or other doo dad to the armed forces.
Some of those videos showed how modern day... actually obsolete at this point, lock on weapons worked, what level of agility they had and how persistent thier locks were, regardless of battlefield jamming, chaff, flares, flakk what have you. Some of them would put streaks to shame. And they move in an incredibly violent flash at that range, but still can do elbow turns, s turns, curlicues and the like in homing in on whatever their lock was established on.
As for indirect fire, with a spotter... even two decades ago, one could steer a missile down a corridor entrance to a bunker, or have it drop/burn straight down on top of a person or tank that was behind a building after burning in an upward arc to get velocity and height. There are weapons that are man portable that can be set to detonate after passing through a building, or reaching an EXACT distance in meters... after plowing through trees, grass and even masonry walls.
These standard arcs are good. Even the spotted arcs are realistic and good. They underline the usefulness of a real spotter, exactly what people want to encourage scouts and other mechs to do, using TAG etc. If the QQ about these missile burn vectors nerfs indirect fire to be even more direct than it is, all it does is take a few steps back from something that finally is positive about team work, using a spotter for effective INDIRECT fire.
To Recap :
- The current trajectories without spotting are fine, already stated and believed by Paul Inoyue and apparently others.
- Seems that the knee jerk reaction from players to change and the return of LRM effectiveness has been to misidentify the Spotter assisted steep arc in missile angle as being unfair or unbalanced and inappropriate, DESPITE it being the whole advantage of indirect fire and using a Spotter - and being entirely realistic, plausible and appropriate.
- Suggest you resist this knee jerk reaction to change spotter assisted missile vectors and pay attention to how scouts/lights/taggers are being used to assist the team in using LRMs for indirect fire, a long standing tactic and aspect of battletech/mechwarrior game play.
That's about all I've got for ya now. Yeah, I expect people to disagree, but had to say something.
- Madporthos
P.S.: Just noted something above, situation mentioned by another poster. Being hit behind a hill or building or tall wall as being something that never should happen. Well, just about any vehicle that runs in any way, in any temperature generates heat, even internal combustion engines. This heat goes generally straight up in the air, though it might trail off in the wind. It's called a heat plume. Missiles target such and ride it in to the hottest point, the vehicle. That's what should happen. Often. Repeatedly. Yes, this is a fantasy giant stompy tank game, very true. But it's a game where we are screaming around in walking fusion plants generating thousands of degrees of temperature that has to be expelled out into the environment around you... missles ain't blind, your enemy isn't either and thats what they are getting locks on, even with you behind cover, out of line of sight, behind the building, or wall. Or should be at least. Lord knows that's a level of detail that perhaps would be too much for general player base, but it's still not too much to say that having it as it is now shows a "resemblance" to reality, versimilitude. That's to be desired.
Edited by Mad Porthos, 21 May 2013 - 04:47 PM.
#54
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:38 PM
- Known Issue: Mechs with Artemis will currently receive the spread reduction bonus from Narc beacons.
Does this mean Artemis'ed LRMS are getting a spread bonus they should not (as in a narc bonus even if they don't have narc equipped) or are they getting a narc spread bonus if a mech is hit with narc on an Artemis mech when they shouldn't be? Am I not understanding something really simple? Do I need more coffee?
#55
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:38 PM
#56
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:41 PM
Quote
Are you using real world logic to dictate how weapons in a setting with giant walking land battleships that have to be close enough to talk to eachother to shoot eahcother should work? You do realize that this is a setting where the space japanese are fighting people who name their clans after pokemon using giant man shaped robots in space. Mechs are laughably impractical in the first place, leave your desert storm youtube fandom at home.
Quote
Yes, we all saw the slideshow. Thank you.
Quote
Except where the games own lead designer states that its a bug and is unintentionally making the LRMs wildly more powerful than they should be.
Quote
It's never been in a previous mechwarrior game and has no proxy in battletech. It's also wildly imbalancing, is very clearly a bug, and makes for terrible gameplay. Also you forgot to note that splash damage wasn't taken out yet because they missed the deadline meaning that the weapons also doing more damage than its intended to do.
Where do people like you come from? Is there some sort of factory that makes mindless yes men?
Edited by Shumabot, 21 May 2013 - 04:44 PM.
#57
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:42 PM
#58
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:44 PM
Fool me twice, shame on me?
#59
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:45 PM
Caleb Lee, on 21 May 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:
1) Damage - too high with splash still enabled which wasn't removed in this patch. Not making any further calls here as I think it should be 1.0 to be standard with TT, but .9 is close enough.
2) Flight Path - Can you hotfix the downward arc? Right now there's nothing one can consider cover except the tallest structures in the game.
3) Lock on Time - Too fast, considering that everyone is going to have Tag + Artemis. I felt the original lock on time was fine, especially given lock on retention via modules. The new flight speed nullifies a lot of the need for faster lock from before.
4) Missile Speed - Spot on IMHO and I'd been a big proponent of boosting the speed.
5) Missile Grouping - Little too tight still.
I disagree with everything except 4. They are BARELY qualified to be usable weapons right now. I think they might even see serious 8 man use for once.
They don't need their splash or grouping changed, or even their arc changed. If anything they might need a buff yet. Don't screw them over PGI, for the love of God. It's nice having LRMs be "usable." I am ENTIRELY SICK of having LRMs go from good to trash every few months.
#60
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:47 PM
Yeah, they're going to Have to hotfix this immediately, this is in no way acceptable in any form and forget your deadlines, if you openly tell people what is going on nobody would have minded waiting a day just to have a playable game.
I want to play but as it is, it is unreasonable.
People are blatantly abusing the LRMS to remove core armor so that they can kill you with lights and in embarrassing ways.
Edited by karoushi, 21 May 2013 - 04:48 PM.
10 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users