356 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

So, the last SRM update was sometime around May...


http://mwomercs.com/...23-21-may-2013/

Quote

LRM and SRM flight paths have been re-engineered. Missiles now fall in a manner that aligns with our vision of their operation.

A spread change was made in June...

http://mwomercs.com/...26-04-jun-2013/

Quote

SRM spread reduced from 8m to 6m.

Since then (this is literally 11 months ago), nothing has changed.

Only NOW that they got tweaked?

I found a reference SRM video regarding spread with Artemis and non-Artemis... (that's all I could find for now).
https://www.youtube....Rr0J6V3tyY#t=26

There were threads about this very topic...
http://mwomercs.com/...mis-comparison/
http://mwomercs.com/.../158076-srm-2s/
http://mwomercs.com/...-srm4-and-srm6/

I'm sure there's more I can find (there was some rage about SRMs and its spread, but I'm just doing a quick search of the matter for now).

In sum, had you read the feedback in the forums, it would NOT have taken 11 months to the spread corrected on the smaller launchers.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 May 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Helmer, on 28 May 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

Between maxed out armor and internal structure the head has 36 pts of damage it can take. So as long as a pilot doesnt skimp on head armor, they can still sustain a direct head hit and survive (until someone sneezes on their head)



Cheers.

33. There's only 15 internal structure points on the head. This has always been the case, and is why the Gauss+2ERPPC combo was so potent - one click, one kill, at long range.

[Mystere]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

I've seen this thrown around a few times now so let me respond to it.

There are a total of 9 different builds of MWO on my machine... all at varying stages of completion of new features.

In 7 of these specialized builds, I can turn on specific debug tools that allow me to see exactly what's happening in the game simulation which is something you will never be able to determine in production (live build). I can also dynamically tune things as the game is running in these builds which is also something that is impossible to do on the live servers.

I do play the game, just not on production where I don't have the tools that let me see exactly what's going on in the game engine. Plus I do randomly play now and then on production and I do spectate players quite a bit when I'm not at work.

And remember, PGI is not a huge company where I sit in my office isolated from the team and just messing about doing this or that. I'm very hands on with the dev team and don't have a lot of time to head up features and play the game during the average workday.

LOL!

Edited by Mystere, 28 May 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I like these.

However, I have a few quibbles.

1 - Why is the LBX not going to 1.2 per pellet or something?

2 - SL should go to 120/240 so that it gets a bit of an edge on the spl as far as range goes.

3 - Still no PPC damage arcing, alas.

[XX Sulla XX]

Looks like updates heading things in the right direction. Will have to get in some play time to see how they work. Glad some tweeks are being made to help brawling.

[luigi256]

Are these changes already in game? I was unaware of all of these if they are.

[The Dancing Joker]

Mystere, on 28 May 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Well, otherwise, it won't be Artillery!

In all seriousness, though, don't you think that was intentional?

Not to raise the TT head, but, Arty should be 5 point clusters splashed around the target area. They should "wash" the 'mech with damage. Not punch holes in it.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Mystere, on 28 May 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Well, otherwise, it won't be Artillery!

In all seriousness, though, don't you think that was intentional?

I dunno I guess it's just gonna be a gradual dialing down to a happy medium.


And reducing damage per shell is fine, though I think more shells could be fired per strike in exchange;
and I wouldn't mind seeing some variety at some point in the future too. I posted here about Long Toms, Arrow IV, Thumpers and so on, along with other ideas regarding strikes and Role Warfare.

[White Bear 84]

I am just going to say that I hope you properly tested the AC changes because you really could get a lot flaming after this patch for such a substantial decrease in the range. (I am just going to put this out there, but you have really just hurt the Firebrand and jagerkind in a big way..)

I suppose now ERLL/ERPPC ravens and spiders will have even more impunity on the battlefield now that a reasonable ballistic counter has been nerfed.

SRM and MPL changes are mucho gusta.

Edited by White Bear 84, 28 May 2014 - 06:09 PM.

[101011]

luigi256, on 28 May 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Are these changes already in game? I was unaware of all of these if they are.

It says right in the post, June 3rd...

[Goose]

Helmer, on 28 May 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

Between maxed out armor and internal structure the head has 36 pts of damage it can take. So as long as a pilot doesn't skimp on head armor, they can still sustain a direct head hit and survive (until someone sneezes on their head)

And what light can afford max head armor?

Look: I have no problem with th'ah strikes being non-bluffs, but since even the highly alert tend to not see the smoke, it should be Betty's job to say something …

[Mechteric]

Why not have increased timers between arty/air strikes? Part of the problem is they can be launched so quickly and so often!

[Clownwarlord]

When are these planned to be entered into the game? I didn't see a date if there was one.

As for my opinion I like the thought of bringing back in a brawling factor to the game currently it is a pain to get into a brawl with the lrms being spammed, sniper builds of ac5 and ppc doing the damage before you even get in 400 meters preventing anyone from wanting to get out of cover and brawl. This hopefully will force more people to use SRMs, Medium Lasers, Small Lasers, and big ACs no in that 200 meter range mixing it up in more one on ones or 5 on 5 and so on.

Current game play is like:


With these fixes we might see more in the donut fighting like it use to be. For example when everyone use to gather at the downed drop ship at frozen city and one side bull rushes the other and the best mechs win or pilots. It makes it a lot more fun in my opinion.

[The Dancing Joker]

perhaps a klaxon warning, or INCOMING arty/air. Not unlike the missile warning. Warning that you are in the proximity of an incoming attack.

[Wintersdark]

As to the overall changes...

I hated the AC2 nerf, as it was unfairly punishing a sub-par weapon vs. the already significantly stronger weapons. However, reducing all AC ranges in a similar way is a good thing, IMHO. Currently, ballistics are just too strong, and a major part of this is effectiveness at range.

Don't get me wrong - I love me some long range combat, too - but when your very long range weapons are also excellent brawling weapons (very low heat increases endurance) it leads to a situation where most combats start playing out at extreme range.

While this won't really impact AC/PPC combos at all, it will help bring ballistics into line with energy weapons, helping to make energy weapons a little more viable in the process. The combination will remain stronger than either on it's own, but at least they'll be closer together when considering either/or.

[ImperialKnight]

YES! to the SRMs, Small laser and Medium Pulse changes.

With the reduced ranged, can we get the projectile speed of AC10 and AC20s up again?

Spacing out the arti/strikes doesn't work, if anything, it makes them easier to hit targets.

There needs to be a strike limit for teams or longer cool downs

[BlackBeltJones]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

I've seen this thrown around a few times now so let me respond to it.

There are a total of 9 different builds of MWO on my machine... all at varying stages of completion of new features.

In 7 of these specialized builds, I can turn on specific debug tools that allow me to see exactly what's happening in the game simulation which is something you will never be able to determine in production (live build). I can also dynamically tune things as the game is running in these builds which is also something that is impossible to do on the live servers.

I do play the game, just not on production where I don't have the tools that let me see exactly what's going on in the game engine. Plus I do randomly play now and then on production and I do spectate players quite a bit when I'm not at work.

And remember, PGI is not a huge company where I sit in my office isolated from the team and just messing about doing this or that. I'm very hands on with the dev team and don't have a lot of time to head up features and play the game during the average workday.

Paul,

When the community (in general) talks about "Paul doesn't play this game" they mean a real game on a live server with your customers. Among the sane circles here there could be no doubt you 'play the game' but as you indicate you do not, as speculated on the forums, play many live games with your customers. This is a huge problem! Your admission is commendable and I appreciate your honesty, I think this can be an opportunity for you to recognize there is a serious need for you to play the same game you're selling to us. Like a chef MUST eat in his/her own restaurant to see not only what their staff is doing but to get a feel for the entire customer experience. Doing this is not just to find faults and bugs but to connect with your vision, to experience the manifestation of your vision, and to find inspiration for the next evolution of your vision. It is so very important that you spend significant time experiencing what your customers experience, the entire culture and context of the game simply can not be understood if you do not play it on a live server.
To this I will add that you have a great reason to play your game; its fun and it looks great. I know you're in a hot seat quite a bit and it may seem unfavorable to mingle with us but it is an unavoidable exercise you must endure if you want to move the game to that magic place we all dream of. As with anything the heavy lifting is easy, you're past that, now we need the fine tuning, the delicate and sometimes ambiguous work - very tough most of the time. There is no way your team will be able to 'feel' what is right or needed if you all do not play on live servers with your customers. There are subtleties to your game that will require a robust effort on your part to unravel, there are things raw data collection will never correct - you need to play the game on live servers with your customers.
We (mostly) all know you're busy and probably aren't too eager to add another thing to your list but I see your admission as a huge opportunity. There is a simple disconnect and you revealed that with your post (commendable, as I said earlier), this is an easy fix, a really easy fix, just play this game on a live server with your customers.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I haven't read any previous feedback, so if this is redundant, tough.

Quote

... major potential fixes for SRMs. While this has been improved, it has not been fixed completely. The engineering team is still working diligently on finding out the root cause and even as I write this, there are investigations into some other possible causes.

- So no "Button" fix (I'm going to have to remember that typo next time I see him in TS3).

Quote

AutoCannons. ... fall off range reduced ... Instead of having triple the max range, all AutoCannons are now double.

- This should be a good change ... should increase average time to kill slightly.

Quote

... slightly affect the PPC/AC combination at long range.

- A quick comparison of new and old damage at different ranges looks to me like this is not really a significant change within about 900m (under that range the most significant factor is PPC damage drop-off).

Quote

SRMs are next. ... spread ... 0.15 damage increase. This is to help average out DPS when missiles hit and miss due to Host State Rewind issues. ... impulse

- All good news ... just don't forget to bring the damage back down after you figure out HSR (like you forgot to bump PPC heat back up after fixing ballistics HSR).

Quote

Laser systems ... Small Lasers (SL and SPL) ... ranges increased slightly. ... Medium Pulse laser ... heat ... reduced ... range ... increased

- It won't have me exchanging MLs for SPLs, but I will consider MPLs on certain builds now ... this is interesting.

Quote

... Air Strike and Artillery Strike. ... Air Strikes ... spacing between shells increased by 20%. ... Artillery Strikes ... area of effect increased from 60m to 75m ... damage reduced from 40/shell to 35/shell.

- Seven months ... it's taken you seven months to figure this out. However, decreasing the damage for a direct hit from 40 to 35 doesn't address the most frustrating thing about strikes, the "random headshot" mechanic.

All in all, these are some pretty positive changes, and I'm looking forward to testing them out.

However, this little bit of insight into your publishing cycle disturbs me ... it is written in past tense, when the next patch is still almost a week away. Either your editor really needs to go back to grammar school, or you were planning on sitting on this information until after the patch. I'm guessing it was the latter ... what other nuggets of information are you sitting on?

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 28 May 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[DeathlyEyes]

Please focus on getting rid of ghost heat. It is unnecessary and terrible. If it really is deemed necessary why not make it where if a mech generates x amount of heat, regardless of the weapons generating it, ghost heat is generated. This simplifies the heat penalty for new players.

I personally don't think ghost heat is necessary. It isn't practical to boat PPCs without heat penalties even right now because of the heat generated on their own and the fact that PPCs don't do damage within 90 meters. I think these things need to be investigated above anything else. It is clear that ghost heat is bad for the game. It makes lasers borderline useless when combined with the current duration settings.

AC changes were completely unnecessary and completely terrible. If you are shooting a mech at 1000 meters with an AC10 you are doing 1 Damage. That's a waste of ammo. The good thing about the extended range is that it lets the weapon be useful at 600 meters. Under the proposed change it will be doing less than 5 damage which would basically be considered a waste of ammo. The AC20 is worse. The AC20 will lose 1 point of damage every 13.5 meters over 270 meters. This means that at 400 meters you will only be doing 10 damage. (basically a waste of ammo). Most team engagements seem to take place around 400 meters. These weapons will be completely useless. PUGs rarely move in as well furthering this issue.

Good direction with the airstrike/artystrike mechanic. Perhaps adding an "incoming ordinance" warning will help even more instead of just the red smoke.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 29 May 2014 - 05:54 AM.

[Khobai]

love the upcoming balances changes.

but im worried that the ERLL will be a little too good now