40 replies to this topic

[Broad5ide]

vettie, on 23 May 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

You really should not bash people and their jobs when you may not understand the difference between the jobs. I should fire you for delivering a bad tasting pizza when the cook put Alfredo sauce on instead of pizza sauce? I think not.

I actually prefer most pizza with white sauce. It's pretty good with the garlic crust domino's has. In fact, I would go so far as to say the red sauce on Papa Murphy's pizza is downright inedible. If given the choice between free red sauce Papa Murphy's pizza and not eating, I would choose not eating.

[orcir]

My biggest issue with LRMs at the moment is the inadequate cover afforded to most maps to get into range to take them on. When it seems you are facing nothing but a team of them its like a charge of the light brigade.

As it stands now my best chance against LRMs it to find a more eager and niave player who is prepared to charge into the wall of death and exploit his death to my advantage. It seems a massive flaw that you have to sacrifice team mates that way just to stand a chance. LRMs should have a viable role, especially against other long range roles like sniper builds. Personally I would like to see their damage signifcantly reduced, while retaining current accuracy and a greater screen shake. Artillery imo should be there make sniper builds have to maintain movement and encourage brawler mechs to neutralise artillery threats.

[Kraven Kor]

Fabe, on 23 May 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Perhaps the smartest thing I read here in a long time.

It isn't even smart, just true.

I'm a smart fella from time to time, and an incredibly lucky ***** more often than not.

Honestly, the idea of "balance" is a prime example of us both outsmarting ourselves (overthinking the solution), and being too stupid to realize it (ignoring that "balance" is subjective.)

[Fabe]

Kraven Kor, on 23 May 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

It isn't even smart, just true.

I'm a smart fella from time to time, and an incredibly lucky ***** more often than not.

Honestly, the idea of "balance" is a prime example of us both outsmarting ourselves (overthinking the solution), and being too stupid to realize it (ignoring that "balance" is subjective.)

Yes but you might have to agree that around here realizing a simple truth should be considered the equivalent of having Mensa levels of intelligence.

[CravenMadness]

Yea, there's a recurring theme that I keep seeing in a lot of these threads... It's the sense that things should even -be- 'balanced' ... That's downright stupid. If everything were 'balanced' then you might as well throw out the lights, heavies and assaults and cram everyone into a 2 ballistic, 1 missile, 2 laser, 1 ams medium mech with no ecm or modules or personalization at all and see how long the scene lasts. MechWarrior, BattleTech, even other table-top games such as Warhammer or even older D&D... You build your character through levels (represented here as gxp, c-bills, mech and pilot xp, or pay to win as is your flavor) but there's always going to be a bigger, better equipped, or smarter opponent out there and it's not going to be 'fair' when you run into them and get your nose bloodied. And yet who are you to disparage the time and effort or resources those people have put into their side of the game to get to their point? I just keep reading these threads and laughing at the rage and the angst and the 'I'm not playing until the fix' chatter. Especially when a quarter to half of the problems (lets call them opportunities for improvement) are going to be considered in the next patch and has been stated quite openly.

Edited by CravenMadness, 23 May 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Sheraf]

MrNemo, on 23 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

are you a ******? developmentally challenged? Horse crap. If missiles are in the game (and they are) and they go virtually straight up and down (and they do now) there has to be a way to maneuver without getting bathed in the damn things..(there isn't) Let us face the elephant in the room...PGI is a basement development company without either the know how or personnel to carry this franchise. They picked it up when it seemed worthless and have done a decent job reviving it, however the current state is they are out of their depth. get rid of these canadia **** and get a full bore big money name behind it. like EA...



yep...fix the missiles or fix the maps to have useable cover.

You can't make use of cover? Try to maneuvers better, shrug the lock off, kill the spotter, or don't get spotted first, spot your enemies first

[MuKen]

Telling PGI they are horrible everytime they over-correct something that needed correcting is not helping. The primary problem we have is that they wait so long to try out new changes. If they were putting out changes and tweaks every week and watching the results, we'd be much further along with balancing by now. Why aren't they doing this? Because they get a shitload of flack about doing "too much" all the time, so they start spending a lot of time overthinking stuff before they do it.

In short, as long as they ARE trying to fix things that need fixing, be happy about it and encourage them to do it more.

[Helsbane]

Blaming the map designers for poor LRM performance is like blaming earth for bad military strategies throughout history, just pure BS. Terrain is variable, and cannot hide you from everything, either in real life or a game. PGI knows they put a crap patch in, and they'll alter it (note I didn't use 'fix' there). What troubles me is that they knew it was crap and said 'Oh, let's put it in anyway.' Poor design, followed by poor decision, makes me glad they don't manufacture anything dangerous. "Stability issues? Oh, just ship these and rework the fuses for the next batch."

[General Taskeen]

I used 4 LRM20's today. There is no hiding from my missiles that blot out the sun, unless there is a cave (in the shade). The LRM Arc was fine the way it was before, now its just sillyness. I'd like a game where every build and range of combat is close to equally balanced. Maybe someday? Exploiting game mechanics is easy sauce.

LRMs in MW:LL have no where near this kind crazy arc by the way.

Edited by General Taskeen, 23 May 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[jeffsw6]

orcir, on 23 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

My biggest issue with LRMs at the moment is the inadequate cover afforded to most maps to get into range to take them on. When it seems you are facing nothing but a team of them its like a charge of the light brigade.

The maps we have are trash, but aside from Alpine, they basically do have adequate cover from LRMs (PPCs is another story.)

With the outrageous guidance / arc that LRMs currently take, and the large splash damage they are doing which penetrates solid objects, the cover we have is not adequate for the broken missile mechanics. That is not surprising. PGI has admitted this. They will fix it "soon," "hopefully" before June. Pathetic. Just roll back all the LRM code to what it was last week.

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

I actually like the idea of indirect weapon which can reach any place on the battlefield and force enemy out of cover
But it must not dominate a game that plays best with cannon and laser

Imo there are 2 ways to fix this problem
One is keep it as it is or even add the lethality but make the ammo very restricted, at least somehow the rain will cease and we can start shouting CHAAAAAARGE!!!!!!

The other way is reduce the damage to the point of crippling at best, right now it is 180 missiles per ton or 5.6 kg per missile, how much warhead will it carry ? They cannot be lethal to 100 ton mech

[Soulscour]

What bothers me is that we were specifically told LRMs will get a small speed increase a month ago. Then comes patch day and BAM "SURPRISE SUCKERS!!". They knew it was messed up and still put it out. The difference is instead of complaining and debating about it two weeks ago, we get blindsided by the unannounced changes and are more pissed off about it.

[Ralgas]

MrNemo, on 23 May 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

For love of those who love the game sell this franchise to a large studio before you bury a beloved franchise.

Microsoft had it, and sold the license instead of simply publishing for pgi and sucking on the revenue themselves. Oh and it took 2 years and a kick starter to get financial backing. Tells you what the large studios think of it..........

Edited by Ralgas, 23 May 2013 - 11:41 PM.

[Beodin]

Hurray, now we get nothing but LRM spam again! I agree, LRMs were perfect before this last patch, dangerous enough people didn't just walk out in the open. Not so ******* out of control that even playing with ECM and using cover, you can't close in. (and i know all you ******* are gonna say learn to play so **** you all in advance).

[subgenius]

Beodin, on 24 May 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

Hurray, now we get nothing but LRM spam again! I agree, LRMs were perfect before this last patch, dangerous enough people didn't just walk out in the open. Not so ******* out of control that even playing with ECM and using cover, you can't close in. (and i know all you ******* are gonna say learn to play so **** you all in advance).

Perfect? If by completely unused you mean perfect, then yes...

They needed something for sure. We'll see if the result after the flight path and splash damage tweaks are enough.

[Soulscour]

subgenius, on 24 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

Perfect? If by completely unused you mean perfect, then yes...

They needed something for sure. We'll see if the result after the flight path and splash damage tweaks are enough.

I used them quite successfully prior to the patch. HGN-733P They did need a small buff. I don't understand why PGI jacked up the damage and flight path.

[Locutus239]

I buyed 4 hero mechs and now this game is SIMPLY UNPLAYABLE, search a backup copy and run the first alpha or return to school and learn how program a game, otherwise u may consider to change job.

[SpartanFiredog317]

They could keep LRMS exactly as is and buff AMS and have an easier time of it methinks. Anti-missile system isn't really anti anything. Given the loadout system's capability to boat Launchers they should Buff AMS to where it can take out a single full LRM20 barrage. Maybe AMS should be added as module with tonnage, and capable of putting 2x on every mech. Along with that change they could make AMS consume ammo at a faster rate so you would have to dedicate some more tonnage to having adequate ability to 'stand in the fire'.

Also, I personally DESPISE dying to them, but LOVE the artistic flare that the new LRM arc adds, Its beautiful when three or four volleys go up from seperate locations

[SpartanFiredog317]

Clarification: I think there needs to be some capability to take LRM volleys in open field, because there are so many ways to get firing angles, and every enemy gets to LRM you if ONE of them can target you. Also, the majority of cover in this game provides cover from only one or two directions.

Direct fire weapons are devastating if your an ***** about seeking cover, so LRM's don't need to neccesarily be the reminder to stick your *** to cover.

...also, i didn't know that ID10T was a vulgar word lol

[James DeGriz]

MrNemo, on 23 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

are you a ******? developmentally challenged? ..... get rid of these canadia **** and get a full bore big money name behind it. like EA...

Irony. In action.