Jump to content

Ac20 Nerfed?


424 replies to this topic

#141 Dymlos2003

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,473 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

The people whining, have you even used them or all the other weapons you guys whine about? Just whining for the sake of whining.

#142 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

View PostSandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

It just isn't going to do much except nerf those weapons. Which is the exact opposite of what most want. Even the ones that are asking for huge changes (for the most part) on ballistics aren't wanting a nerf. Just because it was a quick edit doesnt' make it a good one :)


Very true. The point is though... they slaved little over these changes. They did them in notepad.

#143 wanderer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 11,152 posts
  • LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

View Postdymlos2003, on 07 January 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

The people whining, have you even used them or all the other weapons you guys whine about? Just whining for the sake of whining.


The change is actually a reversion to the older shot speeds, meaning that actually- yes, a lot of us HAVE already used them.

#144 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:37 PM

View Postdymlos2003, on 07 January 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

The people whining, have you even used them or all the other weapons you guys whine about? Just whining for the sake of whining.


No. I'm too busy pressing keys randomly on my keyboard to figure out how to get out of 3rd person view. I still can't figure it out!

#145 Roland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,260 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:38 PM

View Post3rdworld, on 07 January 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:


While that may be possible, I sure hope that isn't true. If so, that means they have either been ignorant of the LPL being bad, or don't care.

It totally is true... Back in CB, folks were actually opening up the game files and looking at it.

The weapons stats are set in a freaking XML file.

#146 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:38 PM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 07 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I suggested improving energy weapons as opposed to nerfing Ballistics!

Remember the time they'd said too much damage was flowing?

:)

#147 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:39 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 07 January 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:


Here's a hint: Zip/Compression apps are good for both testing the archives for being corrupt (the cause of many stability issues in this game) and for actually looking into the data.


I have looked at the XML files before. I was just hoping changing weapons wouldn't just be changing values in there. If he is saying they actually changed some and did mess with balance, then the delays on real weapon changes is incredibly disappointing.

Edited by 3rdworld, 07 January 2014 - 01:40 PM.


#148 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:41 PM

View Post3rdworld, on 07 January 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

… that means they have either been ignorant of the LPL being bad, or don't care.

You know they're real big on large statistical samples, right?

#149 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:44 PM

View PostGoose, on 07 January 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

You know they're real big on large statistical samples, right?

Just like how they were able to *clearly* show increased player retention only like a few weeks after 3PV was added.

#150 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:45 PM

View Post3rdworld, on 07 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I have looked at the XML files before. I was just hoping changing weapons wouldn't just be changing values in there. If he is saying they actually changed some and did mess with balance, then the delays on real weapon changes is incredibly disappointing.


That is what happened.

If it were something "new" like Paul's "infamous" ghost heat system, you'd have to do stuff in the game (like, actual coding), but then add the parameters in the file to make it work (there are a number of parameters for ghost heat) and it's nice that smurfy has it available because it is easy to parse.

AFAIK, modifying the changes doesn't affect the client for games (since the game is server side controlled), but you can test the changes in the training grounds AFAIK.

#151 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:46 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 07 January 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:


That is what happened.

If it were something "new" like Paul's "infamous" ghost heat system, you'd have to do stuff in the game (like, actual coding), but then add the parameters in the file to make it work (there are a number of parameters for ghost heat) and it's nice that smurfy has it available because it is easy to parse.

AFAIK, modifying the changes doesn't affect the client for games (since the game is server side controlled), but you can test the changes in the training grounds AFAIK.


Probably, because testing grounds its all client side, which is why mech efficiency and pilot skills have no effect.

#152 KharnZor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,584 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:47 PM

PGI are gud et baluncing

Posted Image

#153 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 07 January 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

AFAIK, modifying the changes doesn't affect the client for games (since the game is server side controlled), but you can test the changes in the training grounds AFAIK.


Well then and now are different things. I'm bound by code of conduct or I could talk. The change was stupid easy to make.

You're on the money with ghost heat though. That requires *cough* coding.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 07 January 2014 - 01:49 PM.


#154 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,685 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

Autocannons in MWO are wrong. They should fire a burst of bullets.

#155 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

View Post3rdworld, on 07 January 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Probably, because testing grounds its all client side, which is why mech efficiency and pilot skills have no effect.


Unfortunately, that doesn't explain how the Flamer works in Fupdup's video. It's incredibly bad and worse than I had imagined.

#156 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM

View PostBig Bad Werewolf, on 07 January 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Oh boy now we get to underhand toss softballs at people instead of firing shells, why don't we put the ballistics firing delay back in while we're at it? Can someone explain how these things even do damage at these speeds instead of just bouncing off?


You can toss softballs at 650 m/s? Why are you not playing professional American baseball? :)

#157 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:49 PM

View PostMister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Well then and now are different things. I'm bound by code of conduct or I could talk. The change was stupid easy to make.


I guess, that's working as intended™.

:) :P

#158 Big Bad Werewolf

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 13 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:51 PM

View PostMister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:


F = M * A


Exactly and with mass and acceleration being exceptionally low so is force. Now if the shell was the size of a hunchback maybe the speed wouldn't matter.

View PostMystere, on 07 January 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:


You can toss softballs at 650 m/s? Why are you not playing professional American baseball? :)

Burned out my arm during college and they frown on underhanded pitching and softballs in baseball.

#159 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:52 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 07 January 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:


I guess, that's working as intended™.

:P :P


Sometimes I wonder if dictionaries vary by country.

Say, for example, if M-Theory is true and one were to traverse to the next higher dimension and pick up a dictionary there.  In it our paradigms would be crushed when we realize that in our simple planar existence bound by 3 euclids + 1 time, the dictionaries we held were incomplete.  Inconsistencies such as "working" and "broken" would ultimately be clarified.

That is... if M-Theory is true.  I might be.  Who knows, right? :)

Edited by Mister Blastman, 07 January 2014 - 02:05 PM.


#160 Radar Glitch

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 52 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 01:53 PM

I was telling another player yesterday I thought the AC20 was nerfed after pouring several rounds into the back of an enemy mech without killing it...

As for sniping with the AC20, if you're playing hide and seek...I will. I would love to brawl with ya p, but since your assaults are emptying their 1 LRM5 before they wade in from 900m, who exactly am I supposed to shoot at?

As for the change, now the AC20 is going to be nearly useless against lights at medium range. Is that the best way to use the AC20? No. But I've killed my share of lights that way and it's a GREAT way to stop the,"Half the team is chasing that Jenner again", situation we all love so much; BLAM!, now get back over here!





22 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 22 guests, 0 anonymous users