31 replies to this topic

[RiceyFighter]

Niko Snow, on 23 May 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Green Light Approved!
Dust-off ETA @ 10AM PDT / 01PM EDT 24/05/2013

CHANGE LIST
Gameplay:
Changes to Missile damage and spread.

Paul Inouye, on 23 May 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

LRM flight path has had it's drop point moved back along the path by 23% when using indirect firing. Splash damage drastically reduced. Damage per missile and all other aspects have not been changed.

The flight path change makes it so that when you have indirect firing capabilities, the missiles don't come down at 80'ish degrees. They now come down between 60-70 degrees allowing you to take cover much easier. Stay out in the open and you're still going to feel the pain.

http://mwomercs.com/...t-fix-24052013/

Edited by RiceyFighter, 23 May 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[Billygoat]

Cool. Missile hotfix.

Be prepared for accidental PPC cooldown regression or seismic sensor covering the whole map or LRMs not arming until after 500m because somebody compiled from the wrong branch or put a decimal point in the wrong place or something and nobody tested it before pushing it to the live servers.

Or maybe it'll just work as intended. I give it 50/50.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Cool. Now this is the beta stuff I've been hoping for

[Svalfangr]

Billygoat, on 23 May 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Cool. Missile hotfix.

Be prepared for accidental PPC cooldown regression or seismic sensor covering the whole map or LRMs not arming until after 500m because somebody compiled from the wrong branch or put a decimal point in the wrong place or something and nobody tested it before pushing it to the live servers.

Or maybe it'll just work as intended. I give it 50/50.

Well aren't you just a beacon of sunshine and hope.

Just a little bit of advice: Attitude is Everything

[YueFei]

Actually I was thinking they should swap the indirect and direct fire arcs. Make the indirect fire arc the shallower one. And then make the direct fire arc the crazy high diving one. After all, direct fire involves more risk to the LRM user, so it should provide more reward. You pop up, lock on, and possibly get shot at by sniper fire, but when you fire your missiles, even if the enemy mech drops behind taller cover, your missiles can arc high over it and get in a retaliatory strike.

[Billygoat]

Svalfangr, on 23 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well aren't you just a beacon of sunshine and hope.

Just a little bit of advice: Attitude is Everything

More like, platitudes are everything.

I'm just preparing for the worst. Happy to be wrong.

[Lord Ikka]

Svalfangr, on 23 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well aren't you just a beacon of sunshine and hope.

Just a little bit of advice: Attitude is Everything

FRR members tend to be lacking hope, what with being between two actual star-nations and an impending Clan takeover.

[Sephlock]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 23 May 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Cool. Now this is the beta stuff I've been hoping for

You mean months and months of waiting for DESPERATELY NEEDED buffs, and days (at most) of waiting for nerfs?

[Ningyo]

Its not a Nerf its a bugfix, putting flamers on a mech is a nerf.

(seriously though the CT damage as a major bug, if the damage becomes too low after the spread is proper then the damage can be raised again easily enough. The CT damage bug has got to go though)

[VXJaeger]

Well, that was fast. I'd settle even for tuesday, but will not complain when bugfix comes out today

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Sephlock, on 23 May 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

You mean months and months of waiting for DESPERATELY NEEDED buffs, and days (at most) of waiting for nerfs?

just happy to see them actually reacting to whats happening in their game in a timely fashion instead of leaving broken, high alpha poptardio gameplay for 2 months

[jeffsw6]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 23 May 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

just happy to see them actually reacting to whats happening in their game in a timely fashion instead of leaving broken, high alpha poptardio gameplay for 2 months

So PPCs are being deleted from the game? Excellent ...

[Der Hesse]

Reducing the Angle was necessary, but also reducing the Splashdamage without buffing the General Damage is no good. This will most likely take LRMs out of the Game again.
People always forget that an LRM 20 with Artemis weights 11 Tons without Ammo. It should do alot of Damage even after counting in ECM, many time to get into cover after getting fired at, min-range and all the ohter more or less hard Countermeasures.
If the Tonnage/Damgeoutput-relation is too bad a weapon wont be used. And im quite sure this will happen to LRMs again because they dont seem to have a real Lobby in the Forums or the whining form Poptarters and Snipers is much louder.

[dario03]

Der Hesse, on 24 May 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Reducing the Angle was necessary, but also reducing the Splashdamage without buffing the General Damage is no good. This will most likely take LRMs out of the Game again.
People always forget that an LRM 20 with Artemis weights 11 Tons without Ammo. It should do alot of Damage even after counting in ECM, many time to get into cover after getting fired at, min-range and all the ohter more or less hard Countermeasures.
If the Tonnage/Damgeoutput-relation is too bad a weapon wont be used. And im quite sure this will happen to LRMs again because they dont seem to have a real Lobby in the Forums or the whining form Poptarters and Snipers is much louder.

They bump the damage in the last regular patch (0.9 up from 0.7) and the splash damage reduction was supposed to happen then too but got pushed back. So really this is just making things be how they were supposed to be a few days ago. Speed increase, damage increase but splash reduction, and I believe the flight path is still different. I think that's enough changes at once, let them see how that works and maybe bump damage up again if they are to weak.

[Zyllos]

Wait...splash damage is reduced instead of removed?

...I thought it was to be removed...

[Kitane]

Zyllos, on 24 May 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

Wait...splash damage is reduced instead of removed?

...I thought it was to be removed...

What's wrong with explosive ordnance doing splash damage?

[Zyllos]

Because it's going to mean that it's still dealing damage to the CT if it hits any of the torso locations.

And that they did not deal splash in CBT.

[Svalfangr]

Lord Ikka, on 23 May 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

FRR members tend to be lacking hope, what with being between two actual star-nations and an impending Clan takeover.

The FRR knows no fear.

(besides at worst we become the Ghost Bear Dominion, and i dont know if you heard but they are pretty cool guys who dont afraid of anything.)

[Kitane]

Zyllos, on 24 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

Because it's going to mean that it's still dealing damage to the CT if it hits any of the torso locations.


And that they did not deal splash in CBT.

Yes, that's exactly what is going to happen. And there is nothing wrong with it as long as the damage caused is reduced and calculated properly.

[Appogee]

Der Hesse, on 24 May 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

If the Tonnage/Damgeoutput-relation is too bad a weapon wont be used.

Nah. There are people out there for whom LRMing is their favourite - perhaps only - playstyle.

Regardless of the damage value, they'll continue to load up Assaults with LRMs, park them behind rocks, and rain down waves of guided munitions at targets they can't see.

So, when it comes to damage per ton, the only difference is whether LRM campers will continue to finish at the top of the scoreboard, or lower down.

Edited by Appogee, 24 May 2013 - 06:42 AM.