518 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

Of all the things to change...really? Thanks for trying to make it better, but this is what I mean by needing someone to focus your attention on important issues.

yup, no matter what gets fixed, someone needs to complain.

[Roadbeer]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

yup, no matter what gets fixed, someone needs to complain.

Usual suspect.
QQs relentlessly about changes needing to be made to IW, gets a change to IW and because it wasn't 100% what HE wanted, it's {Scrap}.

5000th post!!!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

yup, no matter what gets fixed, someone needs to complain.

When they start doing these things more than once a quarter, then i'll stop complaining. Promise.

Don't be dense Bishop, you know full well what i'm complaining about.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

When they start doing these things more than once a quarter, then i'll stop complaining. Promise.

Don't be dense Bishop, you know full well what i'm complaining about.

c'mon Nic, don't make any promises you can't keep! (leave that to PGI!)

[Coralld]

Sephlock, on 22 January 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

Thanks. I was pretty sure that it did, but I wasn't sure if I was just misremembering it or not... any other properties?

And who is that in your sig, on the right ?

NARC also gives a 50% increase to missile accuracy when you have direct line of site and it also stacks with TAG which adds another 25 or 30%, so you are looking at around 75 to 80% accuracy for missiles.

Yeah, I get that question a lot, but sadly I do not know.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 22 January 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

3-4 brawling mediums with NARC's and LRM support might just be enough to crack those pop-snipers cowering under ECM wide open

*Gets a empty 10 gallon keg ready for the tears that will be shed by the so called "elite" players*

[Deathlike]

Coralld, on 22 January 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

NARC also gives a 50% increase to missile accuracy when you have direct line of site and it also stacks with TAG which adds another 25 or 30%, so you are looking at around 75 to 80% accuracy for missiles.

Yeah, I get that question a lot, but sadly I do not know.

NARC is not compatible with Artemis, FWIW.

Edited by Deathlike, 22 January 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[Coralld]

Deathlike, on 22 January 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

NARC is not compatible with Artemis, FWIW.

I know, and that's why I didn't say it was.

[Sephlock]

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d2d24514b83bebe

?

[Prezimonto]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Except even as one of the defenders mentioned earlier in this thread. Hitting a fast moving light with a NARC beacon is like pulling teeth.

If you have trouble with orbitting light mechs, that you'd need to NARC it, then you won't be able to hit it.

I've been playing with NARC for several days due to Sandpit's thread. I manage to land about 1 in 3 Narc's on fast targets and better than 1 in 2 (but not every) beacon on large and/or slow targets. It is fun hitting poptarts on the rise with them... aim for the crotch and it usually hits them on the way back down.

Roadbeer, on 22 January 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Usual suspect.
QQs relentlessly about changes needing to be made to IW, gets a change to IW and because it wasn't 100% what HE wanted, it's {Scrap}.

5000th post!!!

Does that qualify you for a pro-troll award yet?

[Chronojam]

Roadbeer, on 22 January 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Usual suspect.
QQs relentlessly about changes needing to be made to IW, gets a change to IW and because it wasn't 100% what HE wanted, it's {Scrap}.

Stop your usual sycophantic white noise posting for a moment and realize that when people asked for changes to information warfare and role warfare, they never for a moment thought they were requesting "NARC disables ECM Gear" -- especially because this idea was just announced here for the first time yet is presumably already sent out for development since it's supposed to be coming shortly after the Feb 4. patch as per the OP.

Of course, as per the OP, this is being done in response to particular requests done in "that lovely NARC thread." Now, I don't know if he means any of the ones from 2012, or any of the ones from 2013, but the most popular one so far for January 2014 is Inderect Fire/narc And Tag Use Suggestion[sic]

This thread does get into the Tabletop rationale for indirect fire and uses for the Narc launcher. For example,

Quote

Instead, what I propose is something akin to 'transmission lag'. Cause indirectly-fired LRMs, LRMS on mechs without direct Line Of Sight to target, to fire on the target's position from a few milliseconds ago, or otherwise have reduced accuracy. Also an option, is for targets lit up by mechs who are currently locking on with their own missiles, to not be able to transmit targeting data to other mechs without LOS.

One of the primary suggestions is reducing accuracy of bog-standard indirect fire, reducing its impact on faster mechs, and also the player choice to have sensors/comms to provide indirect fire feeds or providing local missile guidance (mechanically similar to the choice to run your Guardian as ECM or ECCM, presumably). This would replace the improved C3 network behavior that comes standard on all mechs to a certain extent.

NARC would improve that indirect fire, restoring its accuracy. You'd run in, tag a mech with NARC, and be free to both use your own onboard Streak or LRM guidance while providing friendly mechs a superior lock for indirect fire. Neat!

TAG would also add a (cumulative if used together) accuracy bonus, while requiring line of sight and a fairly constant view of the enemy.

In the thread, ECM does come up. Have ECM-impacted mechs NARC-able for an eyes-free way to indirect fire them, perhaps have ECM reduce the NARC effective bonus range still, etc.






Notice the part where nobody suggested "Have NARC disable the ECM gear on any mech you hit, like a slow-moving short-range PPC that does no damage, requires ammunition, needs a somewhat-rare missile tube, but for three tons cheaper!"





I think it's fair to point this out without you blubbering on about ~the usual suspects~ not being happy with unsolicited changes that make no sense from a gameplay, fiction, or "what the players are discussing" standpoint.

[Prezimonto]

MischiefSC, on 22 January 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Try it. Seriously, try it. A 5V is at least hard to hit. The locust is an easier target with bigger hitboxes, no JJs and less armor. Give it a try, it's dirt cheap. You don't even need DHS for it, no point. You want the ultimate 'worst mech' experience that little bad boy is it. Try 4xSRM2s (not artemis of course, too heavy!) and 1ML and see what happens.




Yep, the most damage you'll do in one.

I do okay with 2 LRM5's and a tag or ml. You need to pick targets. I'm looking forward to packing a useful NARC on it along with a ml.

[Chronojam]

It's possible there's some thread that thought making the NARC like a worse damage-free XL PPC was a good idea, but I must have missed it, and that's hardly an IW overhaul.

[FupDup]

Chronojam, on 22 January 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

It's possible there's some thread that thought making the NARC like a worse damage-free XL PPC was a good idea, but I must have missed it, and that's hardly an IW overhaul.

The thread Paul is referring to is Sandpit's "Something That Really Needs A Buff" thread: http://mwomercs.com/...y-needs-a-buff/

The mixup is that it doesn't reference Narc at all in its title.

[RG Notch]

Helmer, on 22 January 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

PGI reads the boards daily. They play the game often (Despite popular belief) . They have plenty of people who forward them on statistical data and threads. Niko Snow does an incredible job with the feedback and known issue threads. The "important issues" are many , varied, and subjective. Even Garth, who is physically located at PGI, had a difficult time pulling people away from work to answer threads.

Its a slow process, and people get upset already with monthly reiterations of the things PGI are working on. A daily or weekly "Hey we're still working on X things , so maybe later we can work on Y things" would just enrage people because of the slow progress. I'm all for more communication, but as we've seen, its never enough. Take Pauls most recent post. If you look at the feedback thread there are numerous "Well you didn't talk about this... or that....or What about all these other issues". Its normal. What people really want is a sit down 1v1 with certain Devs and know the complete day to day goings on, and for PGI to justify working on X over Y. As many are financially and emotionally invested in the game, its understandable and , to an extent, reasonable.
This is not to say they should stop communicating. As I've said, I'm all for more communication, however, I also understand the realities of the industry. Taking a few hours out of your day to carefully craft a post, have to vetted by the other departments that it might pertain to, have it Ok'd by Bryan/Russ... it slows you down and takes away from development. They're understandably cautious about what they post considering past reactions of the forums.

PGI seemingly understands the passion of the playerbase, and wanting more information. Hopefully they keep this up and find that fine line between communication and development time.


TL:DR Having another person poking Devs and shoving information in their face is not going to help, mostly likely it will hurt.


Cheers.

I always laugh when I see these posts because it just makes things worse in my opinion. If they really read the forums, play the game alot, have feedback formatted for them and still respond so slowly and use awful mechanics like ghost heat, there's really not much hope. At least if they weren't doing these things one could hope they would start doing them and things would improve. If all that is true, then this game is really beyond their ability to fix and improve.
A team that had the admittedly bad excuse of not getting the feedback or actually playing could get better at that and learn. A team that gets all this feedback and does what this team does seems hopeless. Why would one expect things to change if they really are doing all this and still blundering. At least if they blundered but it was due to being out of touch, one could hope they would get in touch and get their heads out of their rears. This, if true, makes it appear they get the feedback and don't know what to do with it. They really are in over their heads and not just ignoring feedback.
This reminds me of when they told us the reasons for the CW delay, i.e. that they weren't working on it because they we waiting for the license extension to see if they should bother. Why would they think this kind of info would be inspiring?
I'd prefer if they didn't get the feedback and that explained things. This makes the situation much sadder.

[Sephlock]

RG Notch, on 22 January 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

This reminds me of when they told us the reasons for the CW delay, i.e. that they weren't working on it because they we waiting for the license extension to see if they should bother. Why would they think this kind of info would be inspiring?
I'd prefer if they didn't get the feedback and that explained things. This makes the situation much sadder.

It's a fairly reasonable explanation though- it wouldn't have worked out for anyone if they had worked hard on CW and then not had their license extended...

[Chronojam]

Ah, one from the verrrrrry end of 2013. Now I'm wondering if it will count as a single ECCM point as long as it exists, or what. The early posts and OP, and most common posts throughout, talk more about breaking through ECM rather than literally breaking ECM because even basic ECM's designed to defeat Artemis & NARC...

It feels more like it needs easier fitting requirements (a constant throughout that thread, the other thread, every NARC thread ever, and this thread) and maybe an ammo boost (another constant NARC complaint, including this thread).

I'm not sure a free point of friendly ECCM for every mech you can nail with it is a great idea at all and it seems to be a brand new, and not entirely popular idea. Making NARC itself have less opportunity cost by improving its fitting ease, giving it more shots, having it more durable (or even invulnerable to most friendly fire), and a much longer timer, and a more obvious HUD indicator would be great to try.

Hell you could make friendly PPCs be the only thing that fries NARC out if you still want to counter the PPC menace or something, and have them otherwise invulnerable. It's just weird to pop out "Well, the thing ECM is designed to stop actually now stops ECM."

FupDup, on 22 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

The thread Paul is referring to is Sandpit's "Something That Really Needs A Buff" thread: http://mwomercs.com/...y-needs-a-buff/

The mixup is that it doesn't reference Narc at all in its title.

[Prezimonto]

Chronojam, on 22 January 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Stop your usual sycophantic white noise posting for a moment and realize that when people asked for changes to information warfare and role warfare, they never for a moment thought they were requesting "NARC disables ECM Gear" -- especially because this idea was just announced here for the first time yet is presumably already sent out for development since it's supposed to be coming shortly after the Feb 4. patch as per the OP.

Actually, this is almost exactly what a pile of us who have realized we're not going to get IW that doesn't center around ECM asked for in Sandpit's thread. This includes people like me who have railed and harped against PGI's IW implementation.

It might not be ideal, but if NARC actually cancels the ECM bubble, we now have a real check and balance, and a strong roll for missile carrying non-ECM lights and mediums. This is a good thing.

[RG Notch]

Sephlock, on 22 January 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

It's a fairly reasonable explanation though- it wouldn't have worked out for anyone if they had worked hard on CW and then not had their license extended...

But it was ok to say it was in development and only 90 days away from OB and 6 months away from launch, both times when they were selling things? Does that mean that CW is really 6 months away, because they're selling something again. I get that some people don't mind being lied to, but not everyone feels that way.

[Sephlock]

RG Notch, on 22 January 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

But it was ok to say it was in development and only 90 days away from OB and 6 months away from launch, both times when they were selling things? Does that mean that CW is really 6 months away, because they're selling something again. I get that some people don't mind being lied to, but not everyone feels that way.

Maybe it was 90 days away then, but then other things came up and/or they realized it'd take longer than they thought!

[Chronojam]

Prezimonto, on 22 January 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

Actually, this is almost exactly what a pile of us who have realized we're not going to get IW that doesn't center around ECM asked for in Sandpit's thread. This includes people like me who have railed and harped against PGI's IW implementation.

It might not be ideal, but if NARC actually cancels the ECM bubble, we now have a real check and balance, and a strong roll for missile carrying non-ECM lights and mediums. This is a good thing.

For a group so averse to code changes, it's amazing to see them not try tweaking the values on the NARC to make it more desirable instead of "also it's an EMP cannon." Maybe the plan is to simply set it identically to the PPC with a different duration value? Will NARC suppress ECCM effects? I wish we'd get more information on these changes and a real chance to test them before they're dumped on everybody.