507 replies to this topic

[SmurfOff]

Maybe I'm confused / dense / ignorant, but what is splash damage? Is it additional damage ontop of initial missile dmg (ie 1 pt to CT and .2 PT to head / RT / LT)?

I can understand splash, in the sense that out of an LRM 20, 4 missiles hit CT,4 hit RT, and 6 hit LT. That makes sense.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Can I ask you a question. What are you going to do when they fix the trajectory, and lower the splash, but LRM's still hurt when you come out?

If LRM's were every working properly, the concept of hiding in cover is still going to be very necessary.

People who ran into me when I had a good spotter before this patch would get mauled if they didn't adjust.

I think way too many people have been without LRM's for too long.

SmurfOff, on 21 May 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

Maybe I'm confused / dense / ignorant, but what is splash damage? Is it additional damage ontop of initial missile dmg (ie 1 pt to CT and .2 PT to head / RT / LT)?

I can understand splash, in the sense that out of an LRM 20, 4 missiles hit CT,4 hit RT, and 6 hit LT. That makes sense.

No the splash isn't the missile spread.

So each missile does .9 damage. But then it ALSO does splash damage ontop of that

I can't remember how much splash damage is, but I think it probably puts it around 1.3 or so. Which was about right for LRM's. Problem is it's all going center torso right now.

[aniviron]

Needs more than just a trajectory change.

[DeaconW]

Would like to submit some (hopefully) rational feedback (if that is even possible at this point amid all the shouting and QQ tears).

First, there are going to be a lot of people QQing about LRM's even if they got marginally better because it interferes with their narcissistic FOTM mindset. All should ignore them.

Second, you changed 4 things(damage, trajectory, speed, and Artemis effectiveness) simultaneously with LRM's while letting a known problem (splash damage) remain. This doesn't make sense to me. Was there any consideration of rolling these out one at a time to minimize their synergistic effect and allow you to see the effects of each? I just don't get why everything was changed at once. Personally I would leave the 0.9 damage and roll everything else for LRM's back to pre-patch. Then do the rest in the following order, one fix per week, analyzing for a week on each:

1. FIX THE KNOWN SPLASH DAMAGE ISSUE.
2. Adjust missile speed
3. Adjust artemis effect
4. Adjust missile arc

Again, appreciate PGI making LRM's viable again but this should have been a paced approach, not a shotgun approach.

[Evax]

4 hrs of patch testing on your local TEST SERVER would have alerted you to these problems. I would have waited a day for a working patch (or a week even without the map) now you say it may be the first patch in June, even if you do roll out a hot fix, we have to put up with this for a week (or weeks)? I can't do it...I can't play through another week of one dimensional drops....

[Damocles69]

PGI you are honestly the WORST game development company i have ever had the sad, unfortunate circumstance to know. while looking at your track record (Duke Nukem Forever) i guess i should have been tipped off. the worst part is that i am stuck with you. if this game doesn't succeed i may never see another BT game. Every patch, EVERT DAMN PATCH you break something. here is an idea, IF THERE ARE KNOWN BUGS WITH A BUILD DONT LET IT GO LIVE YOU FREAKING MORONS

[Delas Ting Usee]

I don't see why anyone is complaining...
Isn't this par for course for PGI...
New patch = bug infestation
or worse, fixing things that never really needed fixing.
There's no such thing as quality assurance I gather.
I mean seriously, is anyone here REALLY surprise anymore?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

DeaconW, on 21 May 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Would like to submit some (hopefully) rational feedback (if that is even possible at this point amid all the shouting and QQ tears).

First, there are going to be a lot of people QQing about LRM's even if they got marginally better because it interferes with their narcissistic FOTM mindset. All should ignore them.

Second, you changed 4 things(damage, trajectory, speed, and Artemis effectiveness) simultaneously with LRM's while letting a known problem (splash damage) remain. This doesn't make sense to me. Was there any consideration of rolling these out one at a time to minimize their synergistic effect and allow you to see the effects of each? I just don't get why everything was changed at once. Personally I would leave the 0.9 damage and roll everything else for LRM's back to pre-patch. Then do the rest in the following order, one fix per week, analyzing for a week on each:

1. FIX THE KNOWN SPLASH DAMAGE ISSUE.
2. Adjust missile speed
3. Adjust artemis effect
4. Adjust missile arc

Again, appreciate PGI making LRM's viable again but this should have been a paced approach, not a shotgun approach.

I disagree. Fix the trajectory and splash damage. Leave the rest. LRM's need to be faster. They have never (aside from when they are UTTERLY broken) used in the high end game. Skilled players who understand the game and are in voice together have never had an issue avoiding and ignoring LRM's.

aniviron, on 21 May 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Needs more than just a trajectory change.

Is this a training ground vid?

If so pre-patch I 2 shot every light, 3 shot every heavy and 6 shot every assault with 3 LRM 15's. Before...the...patch.

Don't post that crap here.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 21 May 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[Koreanese]

i actually quit playing the game before I even started first match after work. just bought the defiance and hope its not a **** up! btw, I still want my hula girls btw. thanks PGI~!

[DeaconW]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 21 May 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

I disagree. Fix the trajectory and splash damage. Leave the rest. LRM's need to be faster. They have never (aside from when they are UTTERLY broken) used in the high end game. Skilled players who understand the game and are in voice together have never had an issue avoiding and ignoring LRM's.

You disagree with a rational approach? OK....

[CarpetShark]

There is really only one word left to describe this:

Incompetence.

[Vassago Rain]

RiceyFighter, on 21 May 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

The fifth MISSILE war is upon us.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

DeaconW, on 21 May 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

You disagree with a rational approach? OK....

No your approach is not rational, it's knee jerk.

Lets get to where the changes do not involve bugs. And test them.

[KableGuy]

LRMpocolypse V2.0

[KableGuy]

Zphyr, on 21 May 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

So you missed by a day. About a serious problem that will severely affect the game experience of the entire playerbase. Tell us (or me), how many "a day" did you... hum, miss already? A few times is understandable. The unexpected does happen from time to time, but constantly? How long have you been tweaking and failing on balancing the missiles, knowing that what you put online's a bad bad thing? The missiles were doing fine then you broke it. Then broke it further and further. Finally managed to get it to a good level but soon broke it again! This is just the missiles, not even the tons of other issues that plague MWO. I really want to believe that you are giving your 110%, however it's getting more and more difficult to feel it (or even see it) as time goes by. I know things are easier said than done, and your latest tale of hunting down the HUD corruption was quite a read... but really? Missiles? Can you stop hyper-nerfing it and hyper-buffing it all the time? How about something in the middle? How about testing it as a whole before sending the catastrophe to the frustrating masses? If you knew that unless you get the whole "package" delivered together things will go very wrong, why did you not hold it for a while? Unfixed can sometimes be better than overfixed. Although I did like the faster missile lock... overall it's still a mess.

There are these things called paragraphs, look into it.

[Koniving]

Personally, I like this setup in terms of flight trajectory. The splash damage does need either a fix or to just be kicked out the door. It makes missile damage a guessing game which it should never be.

The flight paths are great, and I'm saying that as someone using them as well as fighting against them. It reminds me of this old closed beta LRM setup.
Referring to the LRMs fired by the Dragon. Watch that flight path. Loved it back then. Easy to dodge, but deadly if you didn't.

Now if only if the missiles I'm using (LRM-5s) weren't firing as a single bullet and actually scattering a bit like missiles. I'm seeing the same issue with other people using standard LRMs, where the missiles are clustered so tightly together that they fire artillery shells instead.

[Mad Porthos]

Shumabot, on 21 May 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

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.

Left my desert storm youtube fandom at home, along with my snark and my sarcasm. You've shown your inability to fully read a post, albeit a long one. Semblence of reality, versimilitude, something I stated in the post was desirable. I acknowledged this is giant stompy robots, but you still tromped out the pendantic argument that I am trying to apply real world logic. People keep using an fallacious ad hominem argument against things they don't like, admonishing that real world logic should not apply when the blatant facts of any simulation of reality is that it resembles reality enough to fool the eye and get immersion into the content.


Yes, we all saw the slideshow. Thank you.



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.

After initial response to thier arc behavior was QQ, immediate QQ and more QQ, and they realized they HAD to put out a hey, we're aware there are still issues post. Seems people forget that being Beta Testers does not mean we see things first, we see it second hand, maybe third. You can bet their in house Devs who don't like LRMs flagged this to Paul's attention immediately. Wildly more powerful? Hyperbole. Added by you. Not swallowing that along with your other words.

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.

You know, I looked up Battletech Rules... not a wargamer/miniature gamer, but got into reading them recently to know where this stuff comes from, systems and such and rules. Guess what, indirect fire does have a rule system, a "proxy" if that's how you're using the term, in Battletech. You know, the game Mechwarrior comes from. Ironically, it basically says hey, if someone is spotting for the LRM guy and is standing right next to the target, those missiles hit as if the person firing them was free and clear looking at the target with no obstructions and with a hit chance as if they were right up close, rather than way over that hill. Not saying that's how it should be in Mechwarrior exactly, I'm not into RNG and firing arcs and doo dads to reduce one's aim simply because someone wants thier particular version of a weapon or not. But I WAS pointing out the effectiveness of indirect spotting being a good thing, which you missed or disagreed with - but didn't actually address.

Where do people like you come from? Is there some sort of factory that makes mindless yes men?

Not a yes man, but obviously someone you want to take the time to dismiss or negate, since you tried. Seems your ad hominem fallacy continues attacking the person, calling me a yes man, and a mindless one at that. Fail to have something detailed and informative to say about the actual expressed information or anecdotal experience? Then just attack the person and dismiss them because you disagree. Expected as much, just not of you, read some of your former posts Shumabot and agreed with them. Yeesh. Last time I knee jerk agree with you. Thank you I've learnt my lesson.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 21 May 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[BlueSanta]

There are 8, count them, 8 patches until launch. I am sure you are aware of this as much as we are. You CANNOT keep doing this kind of ****. Your QA is still terrible. I want to believe MWO is going to succeed, but until you can consistently release patches that either don't contain something broken or break something in the process, I cannot put much faith in you. Faith = $

And for anyone who is interested in spamming an inbox, Thomas informed in-game earlier that Omid/Buckton are to blame for this ******* ********, but really, it was a collective effort to be completely oblivious to a huge ******* bug in their patch.

Edited by BlueSanta, 22 May 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Sephlock]

Rebas Kradd, on 21 May 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Devs, may I politely ask how this excessive "dive point" escaped your notice during testing? Surely you guys played the patch thoroughly before pushing it out.

They gave it the same amount of testing as the fabled 2.0 DHS that were apparently far too powerful for our grubby hands to manage.

[Shumabot]

Mad Porthos, on 21 May 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

You gotta learn how to use quotes.