71 replies to this topic

[MnDragon]

MonkeyDCecil, on 12 September 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

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.

If I may refer you to http://mwomercs.com/...wo-game-client/ you will find that your argument lacks basis in truth. The devs have said the following regarding the use of macros:

Q: My mouse/keyboard came with macro software that lets me emulate a series of clicks or helps me with some process. Is this allowed?

A: Yes, using macros as provided by 3rd party hardware vendors is allowed. Though the use of any modifications to assist with aiming, aimbots, wall hacks, or any attempt to give information or tactical assistance that other players would not have by default, is a serious violation of our Terms of Use and any account found to be using such software will likely be suspended or banned.

[Mister Blastman]

The M-16 is being held by a person weighing between 160 - 200 lbs. If fired from a prone position, it is extremely accurate even in burst. Same with bench. If fired from standing/crouching... not so much.

I've shot more than my share of firearms including .223/5.56 mm. They aren't the same as a more stabilized mech platform.

[Alistair Winter]

I disagree. Here's why:

• Only buffing and never nerfing leads to inflation, meaning weapons constantly get better and if PGI fumbles up and occassionally makes a good weapon even better (UAC5), then the proposed never-say-nerf rule means that you constantly have to buff weapons to match the current best.
  
• Very rarely have OP weapons been nerfed too hard in this game. There are more examples of unsuccessful buffs than nerfs. The LRM nerf was too hard, it resulted in LRMs being a joke for a long time. The gauss nerf was fine (I still use double gauss), the PPC nerf was fine (I still run my AWS-8Q), even the large laser nerf via ghost heat didn't have a big effect, as people are still boating LL's like never before.
  
• Mechs are still dying too fast in this game. In order to stop that, you need to either nerf weapons or increase durability. Increased internal structure hitpoints may be a good alternative, but regardless of how you solve the problem, PGI needs to address this issue.
  
• PGI has a vision that I share, where players need to switch between different weapon groups depending on the circumstance, making this more of a thinking man's game and less like Quake 1 with rocket launchers. Boating with alpha strikes has always been a threat to this vision, and if you want to have a game where both boating and combining weapons is effective, you need to figure out a way to adjust the natural advantage of boating. Boating is usually the best choice in any game, not just MWO. So to adjust the advantages from boating, you can either buff mechs with different weapon groups, which makes no sense (why would your AC be more effective if you also mount an SRM on the mech?) or you can nerf mechs that are boating, which you can always find some kind of explanation for (e.g. the Stalker was never made to carry 6 large lasers)

[Mechteric]

The UAC5 actually is a bit OP, but not because of macros. Its because their chance to jam is pretty laughable now, combined with having a faster cycle time than the standard AC5. Honestly I think putting the cycle time to the same as an AC5 would help a lot, but also that jam chance probably should be somewhere between now and where it used to be.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 12 September 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

The M-16 is being held by a person weighing between 160 - 200 lbs. If fired from a prone position, it is extremely accurate even in burst. Same with bench. If fired from standing/crouching... not so much.

I've shot more than my share of firearms including .223/5.56 mm. They aren't the same as a more stabilized mech platform.

And you know this how? Since a Mech is basically a Man shaped tank? True Prone would be more accurate that standing, but would it be as accurate as single shot?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 September 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

MonkeyDCecil, on 12 September 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

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.

FYI the buff to UAC5 was to make it less "macro intensive" this way you didn't need a macro to have a stupidly powerful weapon.
The thing I find rediculous about the whole senario is PGI (Garth I believe) has posted multiple times that the UAC5 is a powerful and severly underrated weapon. So PGI was obviously aware of the potential for abuse, and decided to buff it anyway.

I would like to point out that if you round a corner and get double AC20's in your chest, thats 40 damage, and it will hurt but wont kill you. In respons you open up with your 3 UAC5 on the offending Jaegermech, and before he can fire his second AC40 shot he has taken 3 UAC5 x 2 shots/1.1sec x5 damage x 4 seconds = 109 damage to his Center Torso.
And we are talking about going toe to toe with an AC40 Jager in his wheelhouse, not what would happen to it if it had to travel several hundred meters to get into range.

If you don't think the UAC5 needs heavily nerfed you need to get back on your meds, because you have lost touch with reality.

[Alistair Winter]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

And you know this how? Since a Mech is basically a Man shaped tank? True Prone would be more accurate that standing, but would it be as accurate as single shot?

Just to end this discussion:
You can fire an co-axial machine gun on a 50-ton tank, it's still not going to land every round on the same exact spot every time.

Then again, a machine gun isn't actually a part of the tank, but even if you fire a turret-mounted machine cannon on a tank, it's still not going to land every shell on the same exact spot.

Of course... a co-axial machine gun on tank isn't going to fire a wild spray of bullets like the MG in MWO either. That weapon is just plain ridiculous, it's like someone attached the MG to the mech with wet duct tape.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alistair Winter, on 12 September 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Just to end this discussion:
You can fire an co-axial machine gun on a 50-ton tank, it's still not going to land every round on the same exact spot every time.

Then again, a machine gun isn't actually a part of the tank, but even if you fire a turret-mounted machine cannon on a tank, it's still not going to land every shell on the same exact spot.

Of course... a co-axial machine gun on tank isn't going to fire a wild spray of bullets like the MG in MWO either. That weapon is just plain ridiculous, it's like someone attached the MG to the mech with wet duct tape.

Thank You. That is all I wanted to get across. The faster we fire the less accurate we should be. So when firing in volume a weapon like an Ultra AC should be less accurate, even if capable of more Dakka per second.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

"Metas" are a product of poor game balance, and posters bringing up issues with whatever the current "meta" is are warning the casual public what to watch for and let PGI know there is an issue with. MechWarrior/Battletech is about variety and choice, and when a game is so poorly designed that there is little to no choice between being effective or not, "metas" will exist.

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

So when firing in volume a weapon like an Ultra AC should be less accurate, even if capable of more Dakka per second.

I could get behind this if lasers remained accurate.

[Sheraf]

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.

The marco does not mean cheating or anything, even with marco, they still follow the firing rule of that weapon. Nerfing the weapon doesn't solve anything. The best way to handle this is learn to play

[Joseph Mallan]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

"Metas" are a product of poor game balance, and posters bringing up issues with whatever the current "meta" is are warning the casual public what to watch for and let PGI know there is an issue with. MechWarrior/Battletech is about variety and choice, and when a game is so poorly designed that there is little to no choice between being effective or not, "metas" will exist.



I could get behind this if lasers remained accurate.

Since Lasers don't have a recoil factor I don't see why lasers would ever lose accuracy even fired in volume. They are the only weapon that should converge flawlessly.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

A player using a trackball vs a mouse is at a disadvantage and that is a genuine L2P issue. A person using a macro vs having extra fingers or an extra set of eyeballs is an issue of cheating. I'm sorry so few can grasp the difference.

[MustrumRidcully]

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.

It would not be hard to remove the need for macros to optimize the usage of the UAC, and then use the fact that anyone can do what a macro can do to balance the UAC correctly.

1) To use the double shot feature, you need to explicitly double tap. Pressing the same key twice is not hard to pull off and doesn't require a macro. It's also easy to avoid doing it accidentally, so again, you don't need a macro.
2) To activate the double shot feature, you must press the "activate double shot mode" button. To deactivate it, press again.

A game mechanic that relies on people being imperfect when it comes to the timing of key presses is flawed, because macros can be used to circumvent this.

[Sheraf]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

"Metas" are a product of poor game balance, and posters bringing up issues with whatever the current "meta" is are warning the casual public what to watch for and let PGI know there is an issue with. MechWarrior/Battletech is about variety and choice, and when a game is so poorly designed that there is little to no choice between being effective or not, "metas" will exist.



I could get behind this if lasers remained accurate.

There is always choice for me. I run my Stalker with 2 LL,4 medium lasers, 2 LRM10, 2 SSRMs, and do just fine during all the metas. Just because someone can't make use of a certain combinations doesn't mean that no one can. This nerf is getting ridiculous.

[Navy Sixes]

I dunno. I think that in Beta, complaining about mechanics we think are overpowered is acceptable. The question is, which ones are? The OP thinks LRMs are in need of a nerf. Really?

Gripe about ghost heat all you want. I remember 3-4 6 PPC Stalkers on every 8 man team before the patch came down. The game was stupid. I don't see that anymore.

We're finally getting away from 4-6 2 PPC/Gauss 'phracts per 12-man team now.

When there's a system in-game that clearly out performs all other systems and provides so big an advantage that to not go with it is stupid, the game suffers. That system is OP.

I don't think UAC is such a system, but the macros that some players are using makes it one.

Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion on what needs a nerf or what's wrong with the game. If people agree, they'll let you know. If people think your wrong, they'll have no problem telling you that, too.

What's wrong is telling people they shouldn't speak their mind.

[Tamerathon]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 12 September 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

FYI the buff to UAC5 was to make it less "macro intensive" this way you didn't need a macro to have a stupidly powerful weapon.
The thing I find rediculous about the whole senario is PGI (Garth I believe) has posted multiple times that the UAC5 is a powerful and severly underrated weapon. So PGI was obviously aware of the potential for abuse, and decided to buff it anyway.

I would like to point out that if you round a corner and get double AC20's in your chest, thats 40 damage, and it will hurt but wont kill you. In respons you open up with your 3 UAC5 on the offending Jaegermech, and before he can fire his second AC40 shot he has taken 3 UAC5 x 2 shots/1.1sec x5 damage x 4 seconds = 109 damage to his Center Torso.
And we are talking about going toe to toe with an AC40 Jager in his wheelhouse, not what would happen to it if it had to travel several hundred meters to get into range.

If you don't think the UAC5 needs heavily nerfed you need to get back on your meds, because you have lost touch with reality.

What he said. A mech has sacrificed range and committed to heavy tonnage and high limitations for burst damage. The UAC5, by comparison, is lower tonnage, and higher dps.

In classic battletech, the UAC5 fired 1 or 2 shots, maximum, over a ten second window. One shot was .5 dps (5 damage/10 seconds) 2 shots was at best, 1dps. In comparison, a single AC20 was 2 DPS. Dual AC20s is 4 DPS. So, 3 UACs should be 1.5 to 3 DPS. The Jaeger who's committed to running 2 AC20s should outgun the 3x UAC5 variant everytime. Especially at close range. That's just not how it goes down though. I've faced UAC5 Jaegers in my Highlander, with maximum armor and token back armor, and I've gone down like a sack of potatos in an instant before I could move to cover or before I could even reload.

On top of this, the ghost heat system makes weapons like ERPPCS virtually useless.

[Joseph Mallan]

lockwoodx, on 12 September 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

A player using a trackball vs a mouse is at a disadvantage and that is a genuine L2P issue. A person using a macro vs having extra fingers or an extra set of eyeballs is an issue of cheating. I'm sorry so few can grasp the difference.

however the Devs have said that Macros are not cheating, and therefore devalues your argument.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Sheraf, on 12 September 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Just because someone can't make use of a certain combinations doesn't mean that no one can. This nerf is getting ridiculous.

Matches are clearly determined by three factors.

1. The number of players using voice communication/sync dropping
2. The number of players abusing a meta/exploiting macros
3. The number of disconnected players.

You can claim you do fine all you want, the rest of us are working on these three major issues one /thread/post at a time until PGI can share a concise plan in detail spelling out their state of the address for MWO's future. At the moment they've lost so many customers, it would be commercial suicide to tell the casual public this is how the game is intended to be, and their silence is deafening.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 September 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

however the Devs have said that Macros are not cheating, and therefore devalues your argument.

Taking advantage of game mechanics is "exploiting" and while I respect the discretion of the managements decision, that's code for "we can't fix it so we'll just allow it". If you have any previous experience with inept MMO companies, allowing macros in a controlled competitive online environment should raise all sorts of red flags for you. I'm out for now so take care David. (On a side not this has to be one of most buggy forums I've ever experienced in over two decades. Soooo ghetto and slow not to mention how to auto-logs you out every other post.)

[General Taskeen]

The UAC was always something that needed to change. This is nothing new. Its mechanics simply won't work with UAC/2, UAC/10, and UAC/20. (2xUAC/20 would do 80 damage alpha's, which is definitely not going to fly with balance) People just use the current uac/5 more since the PPC runs super hot now.

Some nerfs are simply changing mechanics. The PPC thing was the wrong direction (with the min range). The community also did not ask for ghost heat, but asked for other things like a revamped heat system - which paul simply brushed casually off as "nah that won't work."

There are also plenty of discussions (feedback) on the improvement of other lackluster weapons, which we have asked PGI to make better since Closed Beta. The MG has suffered from a constant buff or nerf cycle, instead of a revamp. Only now has PGI acknowledged that they will revamp the flamer and the NARC will finally get its ability for SRMs to seek beacons like from other Mech games, LB-X is still partial trash and no where near as good as it was in other Mech games, pulse lasers are poo and need revamp, etc. I could go on and on about other broken mechanics that need to change.