483 replies to this topic

[Gwaihir]

101011, on 13 August 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

That's Crysis, not MW:LL.

I think the point was that Crysis, MWO, and MWLL are all Cryengine games. Aside from models and art there's not much mechanically different there. (OK, MWLL was cryengine 2 and MWO is cryengine 3.4, close enough).

[Kraven Kor]

Gwaihir, on 13 August 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I think the point was that Crysis, MWO, and MWLL are all Cryengine games. Aside from models and art there's not much mechanically different there. (OK, MWLL was cryengine 2 and MWO is cryengine 3.4, close enough).

I know that CryEngine 3 and CryEngine 2 are, essentially, not even the same engine.

Or so it seems.

In fact, it seem CryEngine 2 could do things CryEngine 3 can not, or that is the impression when comparing Crysis (where you can shoot off individual leaves from every plant on the island...) to MWO. I know, it is an apples and oranges comparison, but that is the kind of comparison us walking money dispensers (gamers) are going to make.

[DragonsFire]

For those of you decrying PGI and the Advanced Zoom module I suggest you read and understand the post by TheUncle contained in my link below. It is an excellent technical breakdown on the engine and the current limitation around the zoom module.

http://mwomercs.com/...17#entry2530617

[Homeless Bill]

DragonsFire, on 13 August 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

For those of you decrying PGI and the Advanced Zoom module I suggest you read and understand the post by TheUncle contained in my link below. It is an excellent technical breakdown on the engine and the current limitation around the zoom module.

http://mwomercs.com/...17#entry2530617

This. Everyone whining about how easy PIP is needs to shut the **** up. If you aren't a rendering programmer and you don't know how the engine is set up, you have no right to be talking.

Yes, they should do something else to make it functional in the meantime, but the massive amount of ignorant whine ****** me off to no end. Making games is not as easy as you kids seem to think.

[Squid von Torgar]

In other news we go to weapons balance and forthcoming meta changes. Squid? What do you have for us?

Well Marjorie, its been a subject of serious contention and also one of heated debate, I can tell you.

Recent developments though seem to indicate that PGI are looking at the 2PPC and Gauss meta. Despite harsh criticism over their recent and I quote "Ghost Heat Nerf" the meta has responded and is showing signs of life.

Paul indicated that the next operation would concern the "Holy Trinity" and whilst many are nervous, this reporter can only express optimism that stompy robots will get to stomp again and not get spammed with 35 alphas where 1/3 (approx) of that telling damage is heat free.

Back to the studio Marjorie.

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 13 August 2013 - 03:12 PM.

[Chronojam]

Niko Snow, on 12 August 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Question from Chronojam: Are there any plans to increase internal health to capture that stubborn resilience we're told mechs have, to capture the feel of wrangling a giant war machine as various weapons and support systems shut down over time, to diminish the impact of the high-alpha long-range dominance over short range builds, to reduce the odds of a lucky snap-shot or bad maneuver insta-killing lighter mechs, and ultimately to increase time to kill so we feel we're playing a mech sim where strategy and maneuvers (plus a commander's quick decision-making) matter more?

Answer from Paul:
We currently have the ability to do this on a global scale (i.e. all Mechs are affected by the same multiplier.) However, it wouldn’t be pertinent to set this number yet as we are still waiting on HSR improvements. Depending on the amount of time HSR fixes will require, we MAY bump IS health by a small percentage to hold us over until the majority of HSR issues are dealt with. We are going to be looking at this on 2 levels. We need to make sure we don’t end up with a bunch of Mechs running around with no weapons/ammo and we need to make sure we don’t make the armor destruction time shorter than the IS destruction time.

Whichever team is out of offense-capable mechs first should lose. They're mission-killed. You won't end up with mechs simply running down the clock, but that can still happen in the current gameplay with a full-health mech (especially with jumpjets) that hides carefully.

It's also currently still feasible that, for example, two remaining LRMboats can disarm each other as they exchange volleys. Ruling the first side to suffer the loss of all offensive weaponry the match's loser is something that will handle this existing edge case.

The matchmaker and emphasis on high-alpha long-range burst damage that comes in a single pinpoint hit merely makes it less likely for that mutual-disarmament edge case, much like it makes it less likely for a mech to take more than "yellow" damage to anything but the CT.

Furthermore, it seems silly to avoid taking longer to kill internal structure than armor when the point of the question -- and increasing health -- is to make mechs specifically take longer to kill, and stomp around wounded while losing components longer. If you want to add more armor, too, go ahead. Sure. But making a mech take longer to die while in the structure's part of the point.

Critical hits have no significance if the mech dies moments after a breach.

[Chronojam]

John MatriX82, on 13 August 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

now 2PPC 1 GR is op.

If you use "now" to mean "at present" then yes, it is true that #2ppc1gauss is the dominant build of the dominant metagame.

If you use "now" to mean "recently changed" then no, because #2ppc1gauss has been the dominant build of the dominant metagame for seven months.

In one week, you will have been playing this game for a year, and for over half of it, one single build will have been the most effective in most situations. That gets old, fast, especially when "balancing" changes regularly remove what little remains of that build's main competition. Can't wait for the Orion to come out so I can put two PPCs and a Gauss Rifle on it, guys, who's with me?

[W A R L O R D]

Gwaihir, on 12 August 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Ahahahaha, manually desynching the firing of Gauss rifles and PPCs, that is absolutely great.

Seriously, has no one considered that they're fine without all this artificial messing around, and that they just need their numbers changed to be balanced sniper weapons?

If it was absolutely fine and balanced to have them work without any ghost heat, crazy convergence, cone of fire, or "Manual desynchronization" in MW:LL, why won't it work for MW:O? I've yet to hear any good reasoning on this point.

I agree! Why do all the questions revolve around nerfing one thing or another. "...How will you address the heat issue?..." What heat issue?...There is no heat issue. The issue is that you're not good enough to out-smart a 6 PPC Stalker.

What about POPTARTS...one of the worst builds ever to encounter on the field. Not because it was a "worthy adversary" (in my opinion) but because it was annoying as hell. So, instead of complaining about the build you should learn to use the terrain to flank the $%^&*$#. But not MWO players, we would rather complain about poptarts SO much that PGI makes the reticule shake during flight. Then, just when you think that's the end of it, the poptarters start complaining they're getting "sea-sick". Good grief! - unless you live on a boat that has to be the WORST excuse ever...my six year old son has better ones than that! "...I cant play the game because I'm getting motion sickness in my chair at home..." (Sigh) PGI - rather than listening to these yahoo's, encourage them to be BETTER MECHWARRIORS.

Sincerely,

SAYF

[Archon Adam Steiner]

Sadly, pop-tarts are actually quite good. The ability to pin-point Alpha a high amount of damage from long range at virtually no risk to oneself is immensely useful. Many of the top MWO teams employ such 'mechs en masse because they do in fact work. They aren't unbeatable, but they are a useful tool. That said, the sooner they disappear, the better... they make combat dreadfully boring.

[Chronojam]

A problem is that one of the best counters to jump-snipers (massed large lasers) that still remained was very recently cut, and also the aiming shake that cut back on jumpsniping was also reverted down to little more than an annoyance. One remaining counter to jump-sniping that remains is more jump-sniping from your team.

Once upon a time, we did not have jump-sniping as a problem. It was manufactured by PGI, and it was neither un-done nor were other playstyles/fittings made more competitive. The opposite was done, and it's mindboggling.

The second #saveMWO townhall is currently taking place at http://www.twitch.tv/wales_grey so please join in and listen. You can get more info and participate in the text chat via the web jabber client.

[Lonestar1771]

Homeless Bill, on 13 August 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

This. Everyone whining about how easy PIP is needs to shut the **** up. If you aren't a rendering programmer and you don't know how the engine is set up, you have no right to be talking.

Yes, they should do something else to make it functional in the meantime, but the massive amount of ignorant whine ****** me off to no end. Making games is not as easy as you kids seem to think.

"Making video games is hard" is not a valid excuse for shoddy workmanship, bad management, and terrible design decisions.

[Homeless Bill]

Lonestar1771, on 13 August 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

"Making video games is hard" is not a valid excuse for shoddy workmanship, bad management, and terrible design decisions.

I'm not exactly PGI's white knight here. I think a lot of the things they do (including the decision to wait for PIP to work to make Advanced Zoom useful) are mindbogglingly stupid. But people saying PIP should just magically happen need to shut up. My point was about a very specific criticism and nothing more.

Don't mistake me calling people morons for me defending PGI's decision making.

[Joseph Mallan]

Chronojam, on 13 August 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

If you use "now" to mean "at present" then yes, it is true that #2ppc1gauss is the dominant build of the dominant metagame.

If you use "now" to mean "recently changed" then no, because #2ppc1gauss has been the dominant build of the dominant metagame for seven months.

In one week, you will have been playing this game for a year, and for over half of it, one single build will have been the most effective in most situations. That gets old, fast, especially when "balancing" changes regularly remove what little remains of that build's main competition. Can't wait for the Orion to come out so I can put two PPCs and a Gauss Rifle on it, guys, who's with me?

But Dominant does not make it OP. 3 PPC and a Gauss had been the Highlander of choice. But Until 6 PPC Stalkers and he Highlander was nerfed, the mob turned to the next good build. And in this case that is all it is. A Good Build. It is not OP. 35 damage is a solid punch to the Jaw i should make you take notice, unless you are a Light, then your world should be rocked.

[Joseph Mallan]

FuzzyLog1c, on 13 August 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Lack of familiarity with CryEngine 3 does not make that a true statement.

Even if you can't implement it properly, you could do the OPPOSITE of the present implementation and make everything AROUND YOU blurry, instead of the stuff in the scope.



Genius!

[Chronojam]

I never said it was overpowered, and I do not want to see PPC heat raised, and I do not want to see weird unintuitive trigger-locking mechanics. I want to see PPC/ERPPC decoupled and ghost heat removed from every weapon immediately.

You are incredibly misinformed if you believe 6PPC Stalkers were a serious build, and that is a myth that needs to be put to bed. It is perhaps true that a skilled player finding himself in a low-skill match can cause some serious damage with it, but it was never anything but a joke/gimmick build. Please stop parroting this false talking point, you are damaging discourse every time you bring it up as fact.

The 6PPC Stalker -- much like PPCs themselves -- also did not and do not need a targeted, punitive mechanic to balance out its use. That is the wrong attitude. The much needed adjustment to heat capacity would be help address how effective it can be against new players, but it is absolutely wrong to specifically target this build.

Much like it is specifically wrong to target #2ppc1gauss. It is far more important to bring parity to play styles, making more builds competitive/viable, and increase mech time-to-live across the board. Part of that means leaving behind tired, old, busted tabletop figures so that weapons like the LB-10X can have a role.

[101011]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 August 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

But Dominant does not make it OP. 3 PPC and a Gauss had been the Highlander of choice. But Until 6 PPC Stalkers and he Highlander was nerfed, the mob turned to the next good build. And in this case that is all it is. A Good Build. It is not OP. 35 damage is a solid punch to the Jaw i should make you take notice, unless you are a Light, then your world should be rocked.

A solid punch to the jaw? In a BlackJack you can mount 44 points of armor in a side torso. One alpha at 800 meters and you just lost (in all reality, you aren't going to max out your frontal armor, let's say you put 10 in rear) you just lost all your ST armor. That's more than a solid punch to the jaw, more like a solid punch to the groin, with another one coming in four seconds, and another after that.

[Grimmnyr]

101011, on 13 August 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

A solid punch to the jaw? In a BlackJack you can mount 44 points of armor in a side torso. One alpha at 800 meters and you just lost (in all reality, you aren't going to max out your frontal armor, let's say you put 10 in rear) you just lost all your ST armor. That's more than a solid punch to the jaw, more like a solid punch to the groin, with another one coming in four seconds, and another after that.

Don't stand in front of 3 PPCs and a Gauss. Most of the maps have plenty of cover. Let the Assaults go out in the open like their supposed to.

[101011]

Ed Steele, on 13 August 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Don't stand in front of 3 PPCs and a Gauss. Most of the maps have plenty of cover. Let the Assaults go out in the open like their supposed to.

Most doesn't mean all. Alpine, for example, has very little cover, and if you happen to run into a sniper on that map, you're screwed.

[RG Notch]

Ed Steele, on 13 August 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

Don't stand in front of 3 PPCs and a Gauss. Most of the maps have plenty of cover. Let the Assaults go out in the open like their supposed to.

Or just bring an assault, particularly one armed with 2 PPC and a Gauss.

[MisterFiveSeven]

101011, on 13 August 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

A solid punch to the jaw? In a BlackJack you can mount 44 points of armor in a side torso. One alpha at 800 meters and you just lost (in all reality, you aren't going to max out your frontal armor, let's say you put 10 in rear) you just lost all your ST armor. That's more than a solid punch to the jaw, more like a solid punch to the groin, with another one coming in four seconds, and another after that.

I always stand next to a ddc when riding in my blackjack.

I'm typically the last mech standing if we lose.

Correlation? (hint :: target priority might come in handy here)