71 replies to this topic

[MonkeyDCecil]

Man it seems to me that the community is crying nerf to much. Every time there is a new "meta" ( I hate that word) we cry nerf. So when is this going to stop, never it seems. Now people are crying nerf on the UAC/5. WTF people, the weapon is perfect.

   Its the cheaters using macros that are ruining this weapon. Now I do not know if anything can be done about macros. I personal do not use them. They are cheating. It is no different then using a hack. It is a type of hack if you think about it.

  OK, I am getting of topic here. We the community have cried nerf so much, we now have ghost heat and a stupid charge to the Gauss. So stupid. Now I know somethings really needed to be nerfed. Like the PPC/ERPPC and LRMs. But I want to point out the PPC/ERPPC did not need a nerf, tell they got their heat reduced and projectile speed increased. And why was that done, because we asked for it. Yeah that is right, we ask for the PPC/ERPPC to be bad ***. We got what we wanted and the we cried about it.

  We should give our feed back about the game. But I think all this crying nerf is ruining the game. Because PGI listens to it and tries to fix it. But goes about it in a overly complicated way. So should PGI listen to us when we cry nerf? Yes and no, they should just take a look into it and make their own decision about it.

And lastly, STOP USING ******* MACROS. That is cheating. Why is it cheating because you are using a outside scrip to influence the game. That is cheating period.

Edited by MonkeyDCecil, 12 September 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Team Leader]

yes

As angry and strange as this was to read, I agree

[Xandre Blackheart]

1) You missed some grammar and spelling.

2) I agree in principle but for different reasons.

It's not that there isn't a need for some balancing, but balancing is absolutely useless at this point. The game doesn't provide a consistent play environment from match to match. Buggy net-code, flawed matchmaking, abysmal hit registration, all make for a completely unpredictable environment.

How can they even say they are balancing with a straight face when you can't predict with any certainty when a weapon will even do damage to a particular mech chassis under a given condition?

They should reset everything to tabletop values and start focusing on getting some consistent weapon performance before they start adjusting values.

[The Boz]

Since it is impossible to ban, or even DETECT, macros, nerfing the **** out of the OP weapon seems like a good idea to me.

[DocBach]

"this game is only fun if there is an abusable mechanic that gives me a better chance of winning, quit crying about it and l2p!"

[Feetwet]

If we take PGI at there word <snicker,snicker>, then they are constantly watching the weapon use data and balancing according to that. As a result, nerfs would happen whether we cry about it or not.

Don't believe me...did you ever hear anyone crying for a L pulse laser heat increase? Ever...

S

[Team Leader]

The Boz, on 12 September 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Since it is impossible to ban, or even DETECT, macros, nerfing the **** out of the OP weapon seems like a good idea to me.

DocBach, on 12 September 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

"this game is only fun if there is an abusable mechanic that gives me a better chance of winning, quit crying about it and l2p!"

Im not sure that what he was really going for with this post

[Wolfways]

The Boz, on 12 September 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Since it is impossible to ban, or even DETECT, macros, nerfing the **** out of the OP weapon seems like a good idea to me.

Instead of changing the way the weapon functions so you can't use a macro?

[Team Leader]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Instead of changing the way the weapon functions so you can't use a macro?

PGI logic

[DocBach]

Team Leader, on 12 September 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Im not sure that what he was really going for with this post

I wasn't replying to him really, I was posting in sarcasm for what I imagined most posts would be in response to his post.

[Thoummim]

When everybody was using dual ac20 jagger long before ghost heat I was using 3uac5 jagger. I was doing insane score without the use of any macro or anything, the uac5 always have been a very powerful weapon, now that they got buffed for no reason they are op, there is not even a need to argue about it.

The nerf need to happen, not a big one just put them back to where they were.

Edited by Thoummim, 12 September 2013 - 07:52 AM.

[AlexEss]

I have to agree. on it´s own without any artificial help the U/AC5 is in a pretty good spot. Not perfect but no weapon will ever be in that spot. Even boated it is not all that bad as long as the player is willing to eat the jamming. The problem is that some people refuse to do that and use 3:d-party tool to bypass it.

Now if i was PGI i would set up a little thing that flagged every account that manages to run the UAC5 without jamming for X amount of time and then simply observe them to see if they are bypassing or just being very lucky. The macro ones shoudl then get a warning / temp ban / perma ban of account for their first / second / third infraction.

After all once the beta tag goes down there is no more hiding behind "i am testing if it can be abused" as stuff like that will be done on the test server going forward. But for another week or so i guess we will have to live with it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Or including the macro so everyone is on the same page...

[DocBach]

Wolfways, on 12 September 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Instead of changing the way the weapon functions so you can't use a macro?

Make it a burst fire weapon like an M16A2 or AN94 from other FPS with a *gasp* random cone of fire - make the caliber of the autocannon dictate how large the random cone is, so UAC2 and 5 have less point of impact deviation from the point of aim as an Ultra AC/10 or 20. Thank me when the Clan tech comes and we get UAC/20 boats that can put out massive FPS, but can't land all of their bursts in a single panel or even miss sometimes with the second shot.

[Joseph Mallan]

DocBach, on 12 September 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Make it a burst fire weapon like an M16A2 or AN94 from other FPS with a *gasp* random cone of fire - make the caliber of the autocannon dictate how large the random cone is, so UAC2 and 5 have less point of impact deviation from the point of aim as an Ultra AC/10 or 20. Thank me when the Clan tech comes and we get UAC/20 boats that can put out massive FPS, but can't land all of their bursts in a single panel or even miss sometimes with the second shot.

But but but Doc What about those Mad Skillz everyone's bragging about???

[Gallowglas]

In before someone posts: "You shouldn't nerf everything, just buff everything else so it's equally good",

[DocBach]

the skill would be in compensating for the recoil of the shot to land both shots on target instead of landing one center of mass and having the second shot whiff over the head. The weapons would still do high DPS, just not high concentrated DPS.

[Mister Blastman]

Macro users are pathetc. The real problem, however, is that PGI has put a mechanic into the game that can be gamed/abused by Macros. That's the issue. PGI can fix the UAC mechanic completely. All they have to do is adapt Mechwarrior: Living Legends method of implementing the UACs. The problem will be solved and there's practically nothing a macro can do to give that an edge.

Get rid of the randomness. Insert a skill based weapon system in its place.

[Xandre Blackheart]

1-2% chance of permanent jam will balance out the U/AC5.

But it's premature. You can't even tell HOW badly it is overpowered (if in fact it is) without a consistent environment.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 September 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Macro users are pathetc. The real problem, however, is that PGI has put a mechanic into the game that can be gamed/abused by Macros. That's the issue. PGI can fix the UAC mechanic completely. All they have to do is adapt Mechwarrior: Living Legends method of implementing the UACs. The problem will be solved and there's practically nothing a macro can do to give that an edge.

Get rid of the randomness. Insert a skill based weapon system in its place.

Is a M-16 as accurate in 3 round burst as it is in single shot? Or is there a bit of randomness to where the rounds hit?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 September 2013 - 08:08 AM.