775 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

Sandpit, on 24 March 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

That's funny, last time I checked a week was 7 days not 6....

I also thought it kind of funny how a week's worth of data is conclusive...

Whatever, QQers have had their way with this game for a year now. Just keep handing out easy buttons I suppose. That will make "everyone happy"

Stop pandering and catering to the lowest common denominator OR (if you insist on doing this) give those who DON'T want an easy "I win" button option a way to play the game that DOESN'T cost them money simply because they're tired of PGI dumbing this game down to those unwilling to adapt. Why SHOULD they adapt to anything? Every time PGi changes something they just wail and flail on the forums until it gets changed.

Would you say getting cover is an easy button, or sitting behind cover lobbing LRM's is the easy button?

[wintersborn]

Well dusted off the LRM support mech's and now it is time to sell them.

Are you going to ever address the real issues or just make everything but AC's and Strikes worthless?

Honestly drop the Nerf bat and buy a clue.

BTW Titanfall is out and its good.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 24 March 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Come on now. Don't leave us hanging on what those "interesting finds" were. A lot of inquiring minds want to know.

They "found" that any buff to a weapon that doesn't adhere to the metahumpers or the "i want it easy" crowd gets QQed and wailed about enough that they nerf it. Well that's what I found interesting anyhow

[Mystere]

Appogee, on 24 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

It's not the speed, it's the boating.

You nerfed the boating of other weapons like PPCs. You desynced the Gauss.

Now nerf the LRM boating and we're fine.

Varied loadouts should be encouraged vs min/maxed loadouts.

As long as dedicated missile boats (e.g. CPLT-A1) are unaffected, I'm on board with that.

The Awesome is no longer awesome because it can't boat PPCs without severe consequences.

[Sandpit]

DocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Would you say getting cover is an easy button, or sitting behind cover lobbing LRM's is the easy button?

I'd say "I can't beat this guy so PGI should nerf how they play" is the easy button. Come on Doc, you've been here long enough to know this isn't an isolated occurence. This is common practice EVERY single time something is buffed and/or changed.

[xREIVERx]

Everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions on this...the fact remains - LRMS , since the buff - are a total pain in the arse.

-Use cover as best you can - who DOESN'T ?? but you cant stay in safe areas all game...

-Encourage the use of AMS for lesser damage ?? - might sort of help if you didn't have multiples of mechs focus firing super speedy accurate LRMS on ya...you'd be as well ****** against the wind.

-Range Nerfing ? - Does it matter in the current meta ? - simply tweaking the LRMS speed has resulted in LRMageddon , I dont care what any of you say...any total noobs playing for their first few games right now simply wont give the game the focus it requires as they will be too busy getting hosed by LRM boats sitting on the edge of the map.

They wont be back.

As for releasing the tweak onto the live servers - I pity anyone who has settled builds who normally weren't affected by LRMS and who had activated premium time...I would be asking for a refund.
LRMS get 'fixed' within a week but other issues remain unchanged ? <cough>
I think someones been watching the forums and the amount of players taking a break right now - rather than watching any in-game results...more than a few are on standby till this is sorted.

[Ngamok]

Appogee, on 24 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

It's not the speed, it's the boating.

You nerfed the boating of other weapons like PPCs. You desynced the Gauss.

Now nerf the LRM boating and we're fine.

Varied loadouts should be encouraged vs min/maxed loadouts.

You can't do it with LRMs. Desyncing Gauss with PPCs didn't fix the problem. It went from Gauss to 2x AC/5s. You can't desync the LRMs since they have no other indirect long range alternative.

[Fut]

Evax, on 24 March 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

New min range should be 280m.

Bigbacon, on 24 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

or higher....

Make the LRMs what they are "Long range" if you want to get into close range battles with a missile system, equip a different missile system. I'm talking make minimum range like 400-500m.

Sure increase the min range on Long Range missiles, but with that their Max Range should also increase. Isn't it strange that "Long Range" missiles don't even have the longest range of all the weapons?

Bigbacon, on 24 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Make the boats gets their targets from teammates and get their defense from teammates. LRM boat should never be an offensive player which least in my little time playing, they seem to do a lot.

What?
LRMs are a weapon system like all the rest, why shouldn't they be used by "offensive players"?

[Av4tar]

How about, abit slower then the last 20m missiles use afterburner and get tripple speed.

[Prezimonto]

Trauglodyte, on 24 March 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Paul, could you have not just bumped up AMS ammo to 2000 rounds per ton and reduced LRM damage from 1.1 per to 1.0 per? The speed of the missiles isn't the problem. It is the amount of people using LRMs right now (which will change when April's patch releases the 3/3/3/3 setup) and the few people using AMS/ECM on top of just piloting poorly.

I actually think this gets closer to the truth.

The issue isn't so much speed, but the effect of speed increses vs. move mechs. LRM's are largely boated, and the speed increase is just enough that more missile than used to now hit the CT again.

I don't the proposed tweaks are awful, but I'd much rather have the .1 damage less and more consistent ams than lose the missile speed.

EVEN BETTER, I'd like to see all missiles fire in rank in packs of 5. So Even LRM20's fire 5x5x5x5. This gives a much better correlation with flight patterns to the LRM 5/LRM 10 when fired in pairs. It slightly increase the time to kill for boats, but not touch small launchers. It would give AMS more time to bite into larger flights.

In theory a small heat benefit could be given to large launchers using multiple tubes to help compensate.

[VagGR]

buff LRMS yes..175m/s!??! NO...150 is the sweet spot not even 160...and ppl please stop it with "cover cover cover". for the love of God this isnt Gears of War. its not like every map is FULL of places with good cover furthermore trying to reach that cover with a slow moving mech(try a 60kph atlas) while being tagged and narced is not easy. in between AC/PPCs and LRMs its a long range fest...if you are running anything with sorter range most of the times you just find a piece of cover and you just wait there for 5 mins waiting to see what happens. and even worse 5 more teammates in PUGs will think that you found a sweet spot and will run to hug you.. you all know how that feels.

its not about LRMs being OP its about the overall effect this change has on the game..yes they could use the buff but not this...

and honestly even though im not an LRM lover i was doing just fine with them before patch...

Edited by VagGR, 24 March 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

Darian DelFord, on 24 March 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

First Response )

Thanks Paul, I still think when you all make changes such as this, its a good idea to throw them up on the Test Server for a day so we can all test and exploit the heck out of it so you all can get great feedback before they hit the live. Is there any plans to have a test server up 24/7 with the advance patch already installed so we can test it before it goes live?

Hate to burst your bubble (and you probably won't even see this reply) but putting a build up on the test server is (probably)way more work than you think. Other games that run permanent or frequent test servers have more servers, more engineers, more developers, more everything, than PGI. They've said before that putting up the test server takes a lot of work and management and takes time away from the regular patch process

[Fut]

Redshift2k5, on 24 March 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Hate to burst your bubble (and you probably won't even see this reply) but putting a build up on the test server is (probably)way more work than you think. Other games that run permanent or frequent test servers have more servers, more engineers, more developers, more everything, than PGI. They've said before that putting up the test
server takes a lot of work and management and takes time away from the regular patch process

On top of what you said, the state of the game is basically prolonged-beta anyhow, despite the "official launch".
So let PGI test changes "live", it's better than there being no changes at all.

[Paul Inouye]

About the interesting find I was talking about:

• Lower Elo players adapted to the changes much faster than the higher Elo players.
  
• LRM use spiked hugely on the day of the change and has been dropping off slowly as time goes by.

About the reason why the slight nerf? Had nothing to do with the outcry... it was the monitoring of games and seeing the impact on the various types of gameplay that was observed.

[FupDup]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

About the interesting find I was talking about:

• Lower Elo players adapted to the changes much faster than the higher Elo players.
  
• LRM use spiked hugely on the day of the change and has been dropping off slowly as time goes by.

About the reason why the slight nerf? Had nothing to do with the outcry... it was the monitoring of games and seeing the impact on the various types of gameplay that was observed.

#1 sounds very, very strange. One would assume that higher Elo players would be more likely to use "tried and true" powerbuilds like the dreaded poptarts. And, I would *think* that higher Elo folks would be more likely to use cover and other tactics to defeat the newly buffed Lurms than lower Elo folks.

#2, though, sounds pretty normal.

Edited by FupDup, 24 March 2014 - 11:13 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Kjudoon, on 24 March 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

I will dial back my feelings and just say I am severely disappointed we did not give the LRM buff more than 5 days before it was decided to do this. Why didn't we wait 2-3 weeks so we could see if the community would actually adapt?

Will AMS's buff be dialed back or will it continue to chew up even more LRMs SRMs and Streaks than it did before because of more time given to do damage? (I believe 5-6 will now be average per volley compared to 4-5) and SRMs are still even more usless thanks to that defensive buff since they are also shot up by AMS.

Again, I'm severely disappointed at backing away from something that was encouraging smarter play more viable options in PUGs and 12mans.

I can see that the poptart community is breathing a huge sigh of relief because they will remain uncontested kings of the battlefield.

Just curious, how many matches did you see the whole team bring AMS and at least 2 tons? i would also ask is why cant players spare 3.5 tons for AMS. There were some matches i played were only half the team brought AMS and sometimes less than that. With speed reduced i sure hope people don't think they can start to leave behind a handy AMS. Even with 1 ton its still something

[Prezimonto]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

monitoring of games and seeing the impact on the various types of gameplay that was observed.

Would you please elaborate on your process? I'm very interested to have a better handle on how these kinds of decisions are reached.. What types of game play?, impacted how?, that kind of thing.

[stjobe]

I get flashbacks from the last MG buff - where they were dangerous as hell to an opponent with exposed armour, even in pairs. That took what, two weeks? for the whiners to get their way and now MGs aren't effective with less than three again.

What this patch did was enable single LRM launchers to be somewhat effective, two was good - which meant I see lots and lots of very BattleTech-like builds out there, not just boat this boat that.

I'm afraid that reducing the LRMs will only get us to where the MG is right now; you have to boat them to be effective.

And that's a bad place for a weapon system to be.

Edit: Just for the record, most my builds are what people call "Frankenmechs", i.e. balanced, BattleTech-like builds with a mix of direct-fire, LRM, and close-range weaponry. I tried a BLR-1S LRM boat yesterday, loaded up with 50 tubes and 1800 missiles - and did a total of 478 damage in two drops. 0 kills, 2 deaths. LRM boating doesn't seem to be my forte

Edited by stjobe, 24 March 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[DocBach]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

About the interesting find I was talking about:

• Lower Elo players adapted to the changes much faster than the higher Elo players.
  
• LRM use spiked hugely on the day of the change and has been dropping off slowly as time goes by.

About the reason why the slight nerf? Had nothing to do with the outcry... it was the monitoring of games and seeing the impact on the various types of gameplay that was observed.

By adapting to change, do you mean "continued to use the Stalker trial 'Mech"?

[BLOOD WOLF]

FupDup, on 24 March 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

#1 sounds very, very strange. One would assume that higher Elo players would be more likely to use "tried and true" powerbuilds like the dreaded poptarts. And, I would *think* that higher Elo folks would be more likely to use cover and other tactics to defeat the newly buffed Lurms than lower Elo folks.

#2, though, sounds pretty normal.

coming from personal experience, dropping with premades is that even after advertising "hey we should all run AMS" the fact they used all their tons in a build that they liked or ran and therefore to put AMS would cost them another component. that is for #1

as for number #2 i would agree

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 March 2014 - 11:18 AM.