518 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

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.

That's a load of {Scrap}. UI2.0's first test on the test server, do you know when that was?

I sure do.

Do you remember what the number one complaint was?

I sure do.

Do you know what wasn't put in place for the February 4th patch?

The one thing everyone said they should do.

If they are reading, then comprehension is a major problem.

And if you're telling me they couldn't fix it between October and February 4th, we are freaking screwed.

By the way, love the sucking up. You guys are like abuse victims. Good lord.

[Monky]

The main remaining issues would be projectile speed on the NARC, ammo per ton, and duration. I don't know if most people have genuinely tried using a NARC, but the duration is too short for more than one volley of LRM from more than 300 meters usually. This itself isn't so bad as a team could coordinate fire if used smartly and hit someone hard. The real problem here is you have very few shots for available tonnage and the NARC beacon flies like a ****. It's damn near impossible to hit anything moving, I've seen it wiff past assaults moving at 60 kph on what should be a dead on shot.

The whole weapon needs an overhaul. I understand keeping it as a hard to hit weapon - IF it has decent ammo and worthwhile performance when you do hit. If it doesn't get those, make it easier to hit with.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Monky, on 22 January 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

The main remaining issues would be projectile speed on the NARC, ammo per ton, and duration. I don't know if most people have genuinely tried using a NARC, but the duration is too short for more than one volley of LRM from more than 300 meters usually. This itself isn't so bad as a team could coordinate fire if used smartly and hit someone hard. The real problem here is you have very few shots for available tonnage and the NARC beacon flies like a ****. It's damn near impossible to hit anything moving, I've seen it wiff past assaults moving at 60 kph on what should be a dead on shot.

The whole weapon needs an overhaul. I understand keeping it as a hard to hit weapon - IF it has decent ammo and worthwhile performance when you do hit. If it doesn't get those, make it easier to hit with.

^^^^

Ding, ding, ding. This whole thing is a ploy. For the love of Mike people, don't fall for this.

[tayhimself]

Wispsy, on 22 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

Ignorance is bliss?

Could you please elaborate? In your opinions LRMs are in a good place?

[Mystere]

How about we steer the discussion back to NARCs?

If you have a different pet peeve, create a new (and probably already redundant) thread.

[Helmer]

Terciel1976, on 22 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

So any hit on an ECM mech will provide C-ECM bonuses? Interesting.

Still seems very heavy at 4 tons/12 shots, but...

Agreed. Its still a big investment of tonnage for something I can pretty much do with a 40,000 CB UAV (Yes, there are caveats to that, and the UAV is a single use, destroyable, etc)

I like the changes!!! It just seems to need to be lighter, or something else to make it a big more viable.



Cheers.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mystere, on 22 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

How about we steer the discussion back to NARCs?

If you have a different pet peeve, create a new (and probably already redundant) thread.

How about the fact that what he proposed doesn't fix NARC?

It needs about 3 other major changes to even be a thought.

And why WE have to point that out to PGI's lead designer? Beyond me.

[Fut]

Paul Inouye, on 22 January 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

After reading through that lovely NARC thread, I'm going to side with you guys and do 2 things to it.

First off, NARC will no longer be disabled/knocked off through damage. It will last its full duration.

Secondly, NARC will receive the EMP effect on ECM.

This will likely come shortly after Feb 4th due to the size of the Feb 4th patch.


Peace out -

Simply amazing!
When I was reading through the NARC threads, I never imagined that you guys would actually get around to fixing it.
Great ******* job!

Helmer, on 22 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I like the changes!!! It just seems to need to be lighter, or something else to make it a big more viable.

This still needs to be done though.
NARC weighs too much at the moment, adding more shots per t/ammo would be nice as well.

Edited by Fut, 22 January 2014 - 12:21 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

How about the fact that what he proposed doesn't fix NARC?

It needs about 3 other major changes to even be a thought.

And why WE have to point that out to PGI's lead designer? Beyond me.

Yes, because it's always worked out so well when they changed 5 things simultaneously. Lurmpocalypse anyone?

Forumites: "FIX NARC!"
Paul: "Ok, I hear you, here's some changes"
Forumites: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!!53!!!!"

Shaddup

[Drunk Canuck]

Helmer, on 22 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Agreed. Its still a big investment of tonnage for something I can pretty much do with a 40,000 CB UAV (Yes, there are caveats to that, and the UAV is a single use, destroyable, etc)

I like the changes!!! It just seems to need to be lighter, or something else to make it a big more viable.



Cheers.

I think it's a positive thing, especially my comp team enjoys packing LRM's and playing some unique ways rather then the current PPC/Gauss/AC20 high alpha meta game in our drops.

[Noober]

Hazzah!

Thanks for this, much needed... However I don't think it goes far enough, I guess we'll see.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadbeer, on 22 January 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

Yes, because it's always worked out so well when they changed 5 things simultaneously. Lurmpocalypse anyone?

Forumites: "FIX NARC!"
Paul: "Ok, I hear you, here's some changes"
Forumites: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!!53!!!!"

Shaddup

Sorry, but I'd much rather they fix the 3 minor things that make the item actually USABLE before adding a brand new super effect to it.

Adding counter ECM to it, but having it be near impossible to actually use is just freaking counter intuitive.

[Helmer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

That's a load of {Scrap}. UI2.0's first test on the test server, do you know when that was?

I sure do.

Do you remember what the number one complaint was?

I sure do.

Do you know what wasn't put in place for the February 4th patch?

The one thing everyone said they should do.

If they are reading, then comprehension is a major problem.

And if you're telling me they couldn't fix it between October and February 4th, we are freaking screwed.

By the way, love the sucking up. You guys are like abuse victims. Good lord.

Yep, I remember. It's easy to find out the dates.


Ah, personal attacks, lovely.

Monky, on 22 January 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

The main remaining issues would be projectile speed on the NARC, ammo per ton, and duration. I don't know if most people have genuinely tried using a NARC, but the duration is too short for more than one volley of LRM from more than 300 meters usually. This itself isn't so bad as a team could coordinate fire if used smartly and hit someone hard. The real problem here is you have very few shots for available tonnage and the NARC beacon flies like a ****. It's damn near impossible to hit anything moving, I've seen it wiff past assaults moving at 60 kph on what should be a dead on shot.

The whole weapon needs an overhaul. I understand keeping it as a hard to hit weapon - IF it has decent ammo and worthwhile performance when you do hit. If it doesn't get those, make it easier to hit with.

YES!

Cheers.

[Ambuscade]

You should read the topic I started on relating a mech's heat level to ammo explosion chance called "Making Heat More Relevant: Tying Heat, Ammo, And Flamers Together " in the Gameplay Balance section.

Here's link http://mwomercs.com/...amers-together/

On topic, the narc buff is very good. Proof that with a patience and a little faith, the system will work.

Ambuscade

[Roadbeer]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 22 January 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Sorry, but I'd much rather they fix the 3 minor things that make the item actually USABLE before adding a brand new super effect to it.

Adding counter ECM to it, but having it be near impossible to actually use is just freaking counter intuitive.

How about you enjoy this nice bit of candy before you ask for another?

[Mechteric]

Fut, on 22 January 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

NARC weighs too much at the moment, adding more shots per t/ammo would be nice as well.

Thats just how much it happens to weigh in BT. Upping the ammo count is certainly within reason I would hope.

[fluffypinkbunny]

FupDup, on 22 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Well, the thing about ammo explosions is that it affects all ammo-consuming weapons in the game, not just the "meta" ones.


"Complete list of affected weapons."

You forgot AMS ammo explosions.

[Mcgral18]

So Sandpit, about those Flamers...

[FupDup]

fluffypinkbunny, on 22 January 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

You forgot AMS ammo explosions.

Oh yeah, thanks.

[DocBach]

Sandpit, start posting in this thread here

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1