305 replies to this topic

[Solahma]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 April 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Are we getting 6 new Variants or 6 new Mechs? Getting new variants of what we already have is a bit less exciting.

the 2 new locust variants look fun

[Wildedge]

You killed the AC2. Nice work.

[wanderer]

*looks at Smurfy*

AC/2's no longer make sense relative to the other autocannons.

They're outreached by the (U)AC/5 and with the faster damage dropoff, are even worse off on that regard, nearly outranged by the AC/10 (and at range, 2 AC/2 don't match up well with an AC/10 over most of it's range band), etc. etc.

A more balanced application of range across the board might have worked better here.

[nihilocrat]

I never realized there was a problem with the missile explosion detection!

I applaud the rate of fire increase on SRMs, but feel like (assuming the explosion problem is fixed) a straight damage or projectile speed increase would be a lot better. The current state of weapons highly rewards long-distance, high-speed, high-damage, instant point damage weapons; poptart favorites like PPCs, ACs, and Gauss Rifles. Enough SRMs can give you a similar amount of damage, but at a huge range penalty and having that damage spread out over several components. Also, the projectiles are slower than PPCs, ACs, and most notably the Gauss Rifle; when a light is circling you you're better served by a pair of Gauss Rifles than a brace of SRMs, Gauss Rifles which also happen to be effective at ranges several times above the SRM's range and produce virtually no heat.

It seems like SRMs should be the ultimate brawling weapon and a preferrable alternative to poptarting. I would just increase the damage by a ton and see what happens; 3 per missile? 3x SRM 6 = 48, an insane amount of damage that's better than a x2 AC/20 jager BUT spread across several components, using very slow projectiles, and only viable at an anemic range. I have trouble in my 3x SRM6 Centurion actually getting into range without dying horribly, why not reward people who can actually get in that range by making them better damage-dealers than the poptarts? There would be a terrifying "splat cat" build with 6x SRM6 clocking in at 108 firepower, but it's already possible to make a 72 firepower build that does almost twice the damage of a boomjager... why aren't we already overrun by splat cats?

Edited by nihilocrat, 15 April 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Since when have AC/2s actually been a problem that they have to keep getting nerfed?

[Solis Obscuri]

As for SRMs, here's a thought: why don't you just have the missiles apply damage where they hit instead of dealing with this explosions garbage?

Explosion radii were the problem with missiles a year ago and they still are the problem now, so don't bother with them. The spread we currently have smears damage just fine on its own. Damage per SRM never seems too high and in fact sometimes seems way too low. I think getting rid of explosions, adding a small crit modifier, and maybe a ~0.2 damage buff per missile is in order, not an increase in rate of fire. With the generally mediocre damage and poor hit reg, all that's going to do is let 'mechs overheat faster.

[Karl Streiger]

They turned the AC 2 from a mediocre long range weapon into a mediocre brawling weapon.

In comparison with 2 AC 5s at short range 2 AC 2 could still work even with a reduction in RoF ,same could be said about the AC 10 or AC 20.

I used the AC 2 but never liked it - not because of its bad performance but because of its "simplicity" take the crosshair lay it over a enemy and hold the mouse button.... maybe i had only "rookie" players - but i did made in one round with 2 AC 2s on my Wolverine more damage as in 4 rounds before with AC 5 and SRMs.... (the later build should really be more dangerous and short range but wasn't)

Lets wait for the coming AC nerfs.
I always like crying on game forums about nerfs.... it means a lot of people have to switch there loadouts - would be an interesting time in the next days.

btw 76% of nothing is still nothing

Edited by Karl Streiger, 15 April 2014 - 11:33 PM.

[AssaultPig]

I don't see what the purpose of an AC2 is now. Like, at all.

Let's compare a single AC5 to a single AC2+2DHS:

Same weight (eight tons)
Same damage per ton of ammo
Range functionally the same (1700 vs 1440)
AC2+2DHS produces more heat per second and per damage, and AC2 suffers from ghost heat
AC2 requires better aim (user must hold targets more consistently to maximize DPS)

While the AC2 does have significantly higher velocity, (2000 vs. 1150), it's hard to see why you'd ever carry an AC2 on most mechs. Two AC5s is likely a better choice than three AC2s in most situations, considering heat.

AC2s were already a marginal choice; I'm not sure why they needed a nerf.

[Karl Streiger]

Oh wait a moment....1 AC 2 plus 2 DHS don't have ghost heat
The opposite happened.
With the reduction of RoF - of 150ms....you shouldn't be able to get Ghost Heat when you fire 3 AC 2 at once - before you get Ghost Heat with Elite Perk - when firing only 2 AC 2s..... you see PGI did hear the complaining of players.

The range is another story - but I'm sure other ACs get their range nerf too

And reagarding 2 AC 5s (MACs) vs 3 AC 2s (LACs).....

you can also compare 2 LACs vs 2 MACs....12 vs 16tons.
The LACs fire each 0.67 seconds..... dealing 4dmg to a single location
The MACs are fired in chain - firing each 0.75sec - dealing 5dmg to each location

the DPS of the MACs is slightly increased in comparison to the LACs

[Satan n stuff]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 11 April 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

There’s a traffic jam on the old ‘Mech highway and the tow trucks have removed the blockage… prepare yourself for 6 more variants of the Phoenix ‘Mechs on April 15. Yes you read that right… 6! Keep checking backing to the website as there are more details on those ‘Mechs coming online soon.

What could conceivably be the reason for releasing 6 new variants of the phoenix mechs? I'm hesitant to say it because if I'm wrong it would disappoint a lot of people, but could it be... MASC?

Edited by Satan n stuff, 16 April 2014 - 05:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

The only Phoenix Mechs that will have MASC are two beautiful Wolverines.... and they still didn't arrive.

I hope they made it with the next patch.....

I believe it would feel really great to make a short sprint, while running after a Spider:
"hey Mister you have forgotten those beautiful 18 SRMs...."

with elite and a 350 fusion - 146 kph must be possible....that would be great for a Medium Mech

[Threat Doc]

Kay Wolf, on 11 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

1) The interface chat system is beyond the pale horrible: it does not retain messages, and it does not express to someone in another part of the conversation that the Launch button has been hit. These need to be done, conversations recorded for a night full of dropping, and then a purge done once a player has been logged out for a certain amount of time, like 15 or 20 minutes, for that player's conversations, while retaining conversations for people who've dropped into a game and remain logged into the interface.

Alright, so I like the changes you made to the chat system, recently, with retention of one basic message and the Searching functionality once a Launch goes in, meaning you can't contact anyone else, nor receive a message. Those are good.

However, now instead of having retention of messages, they get bounced back. Will you please fix this, and make temporary conversation retention possible. If I log out of the game, or crash out for that matter, and then come back before 15 or 20 minutes are up, my conversation should still be there. However, if I log out for 21 minutes, for example, or more, my conversations are blanked and I would have to pick up new threads.

You're almost there, PGI.

Also, I agree heavily that the AC/2 nerf, now that I've taken the time to read several pages about it, was unnecessary. The AC/2 is one of the longest ranged weapons in BattleTech, and it should remain that way, here.

[Xenok]

Launch Module, will it be more of this. Use MC to buy premium time to you can play in a private game (otherwise excluded in many ways) where you will not get any of the benifits of your premium time. That is theft plain and simply, you sold something to provide a bonus on CBill and experience earnings and then do not provide them. Going to be delivering a bit more theft in the future with other launch modes as well?

[Cimarb]

Xenok, on 05 May 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Launch Module, will it be more of this. Use MC to buy premium time to you can play in a private game (otherwise excluded in many ways) where you will not get any of the benifits of your premium time. That is theft plain and simply, you sold something to provide a bonus on CBill and experience earnings and then do not provide them. Going to be delivering a bit more theft in the future with other launch modes as well?

3/3 so far on the "whine more" meter, and that's just the threads I am subscribed to...

Currently, private matches only require premium time if you want to change group size (premium private match). In those cases, only 2 out of 24 people are required to have premium time, which is kind of an insignificantly low level of commitment in my opinion. They have hinted that it may change to a "pay per match" model, but I hope they never do that. If they do, you won't see me in premium private matches anymore, but it's still a pretty silly thing to be upset about.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Xenok, on 05 May 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Launch Module, will it be more of this. Use MC to buy premium time to you can play in a private game (otherwise excluded in many ways) where you will not get any of the benifits of your premium time. That is theft plain and simply, you sold something to provide a bonus on CBill and experience earnings and then do not provide them. Going to be delivering a bit more theft in the future with other launch modes as well?

It's not "theft", it's an additional feature.

Premium Time = XP and CB bonus for public matches (same as before) and the ability to host private premium matches (new bonus feature).

So should I feel gypped that I'm getting charged for a feature I haven't used yet (hosting a private match)?

Would you rather a "pay per use" model, where you're charged MC for each time you want to play a premium private match?

[Zolaz]

PGI's implementation of services is a joke. You can nit pick about this or that but all of that is unimportant as the fact that PGI isnt investing into their own product. PGI puts its resources to making more mechs and other F2P titles but not into more employees or game that isnt a laughing stock.

How can anyone with half a brain expect to charge 500 dollars for a mech? How can a truthful person say they are going to put out CW in 90 days 4 different times? How can a decent person tell their most loyal part of the player base that they arent their target audience after fleecing them?

PGI has a lot of ground to make up if they expect people to spend more money on their game.

[Cimarb]

If you don't like the price, don't pay it. Simple as that. Just don't whine about it being available for those that ARE willing to buy it. I don't whine about Ferrari making six figure cars, because they obviously have lots of customers that are fine with the price, but I'm not about to buy one myself.

Be glad people are buying the Gold mechs, as that is helping finance the game you are playing for free.

[wanderer]

Quote

Be glad people are buying the Gold mechs, as that is helping finance the game you are playing for free.

I'd rather have more things that many people find useful vs vanity paint jobs and a slightly different model going forward. The forum tags show you that I've bought in when I find it's worth it...but PGI has done a terrible job of making the Clan packages seem worthless by comparison.

[Cimarb]

wanderer, on 13 May 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I'd rather have more things that many people find useful vs vanity paint jobs and a slightly different model going forward. The forum tags show you that I've bought in when I find it's worth it...but PGI has done a terrible job of making the Clan packages seem worthless by comparison.

The communications blackout about the Clans is being very poorly done, I agree. We know they are coming, but have no idea whether anyone will like how they are implemented, which is pretty much diametrically opposite of how it should have been done!

Instead, we should have a full understanding of HOW they will be implemented, but the actual WHEN that they will be invading should have been a quick timeline, like a firestorm sale for two weeks leading up to a large community event where PGI ran matches in a clan mechs against us in Inner Sphere mechs for the weekend before the launch. Once we "stopped" the initial invasion by PGI/Clans, the packages would be released and we would choose sides. THAT would have been a good rollout to the Clans!

A vanity paint job takes very little resources, though, so I welcome them and hope lots of people buy them.

[Nightmare1]

Mofwangana Bogogono, on 11 April 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the update. Any thoughts to giving the AC/2 and (U)AC/5 minimum ranges, just like in TT?

You want to give bullets a min range? Dude, this is MechWarrior, not TableTop. In the books and in real-life, guns don't have a min-range. If you don't believe me, then...on second thought, don't do that. You might hurt yourself.

Seriously though, in the books, ACs and Gauss could be fired point-blank. LRMs had a min range though. I don't recall ever reading about PPCs having a min range, although I've had a couple people tell me that they did. I can reason that one out a bit, I suppose, but ballistics? Really?

Let's stop playing NerfWarrior and go play MechWarrior...

Hands off my ballistics! My Hunchies have been nerfed enough!