356 replies to this topic

[xeromynd]

WM Xitomatl, on 28 May 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

Seems like the right direction. Not everything we wanted, some things we didn't, but better than the current state.

Some other changes I want to see:

Flamers: More damage, less heat production for user
MG's: More range. They had better MG's in World War II
PPCs: Longer cycle time
Pulse Lasers: Shorter duration of action -- 1/2 second for all pulse lasers
Arti/Air Strikes: Further dmg reduction. We went from 10 to 40. That was crazy. How about 20?

I could settle for Airstrikes and Arty being 30dmg, that being said: if they added these tweaks into the current patch planned for June 3rd.....oof....what a patch that would be.

Edited by xeromynd, 02 June 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[PanzerMagier]

Yes let's nerf all the autocannons, that way PPC's won't be as effective anymore!

That logic...

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

Azoic23, on 02 June 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Changing srm damage to 2.15 is basically non-existent for a buff. Srm6+buff 12.90 damage up from 12. That's not even a full damage increase even if they all connect and or register. going from 6-5.7 meter spread with or without artemis is a joke as well. The logic fails me. It's like hey we recognize srms suck as brawling weapons but our wisdom dictates we change a few numbers that amount in practicality a big tangible nothing. It doesn't even begin to bandaid the hit reg issue or damage inferiority. Honestly a velocity increase with a spread reduction of actual value is needed. Without putting a srm6 up to 14-15 damage at the very least people simply won't take them seriously. They are just another spread damage weapon. People see missile hardpoints and go lol srms or lol lrms. The instant target loss module will further neuter lrms in much the same way tagging a poptart who is in ecm cloud does. As soon as you lose tag lock when they fall behind the hill the ecm takes over and your missiles harmlessly impact terrain. That's one mechanic in the game that already hard counters advanced target decay making lrms useless against a proper poptart, while you still take the damage from having to be exposed to maintain tag. Everyone knows spread lrm damage simply can't handle ballistic mech damage in a faceoff either. I don't understand why pgi increased missile speed when they are just going to come up with ways to push an already inferior hardpoint class further into the dirt with a module like that.

The problem is that sometimes the damn srm actually work, i´ve had a single match where a commando´s 3 x srm4 actually connected twice to my rather red center torsos dismay. So id rather then slowly move things up instead of putting something totally out of balance because it takes forever before things go the other way as we could see with the ppc.
Finally not sure if anyone has noticed but there is almost a constant nerfing going on, reason being that it increases survivability, which i congratulate PGI for.

[Nightmare1]

Karl Streiger, on 02 June 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

OH now I'm curious.
So tell me where is the weakness of a Quad AC 5 build - or a LRM 60 boat that is guarded by an AC40 Jaeger.


Wait - you will start to argue - just shoot at the arms of a BoomJager....or run into the minimum range of a LRM boat - or use cover. Generalism at its best - and complete nonsense. A single player is dead a less coordinated team is dead no matter what the other team uses - they will even kill with LBX, SRMs and Small Pulse Lasers - as long as their coordination is better

...So, according to you, there is no hope?

Seriously, if you're up against a Boom Jager guarding an LRM boat, you shouldn't rush in alone anyways. Work in with your lance, using cover and/or ECM to cancel the LRM boat as you skirmish the Boom Jager.

Both will fall - been there, done that.

Good teamwork beats bad teamwork.

As for dueling between two pilots, just use the enemy Mech's weakness to your advantage. For the Boom Jager, it's range and slow cycle time. For the LRM boat, it's range.

For the Quad AC/5 Jager, its the arms. I've killed them solo many times.

Just be smart about it.

[Nightmare1]

Mad Cow Jenkins, on 02 June 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

I'd rather then slowly move things up instead of putting something totally out of balance because it takes forever before things go the other way as we could see with the ppc.

Finally not sure if anyone has noticed but there is almost a constant nerfing going on, reason being that it increases survivability, which i congratulate PGI for.

Agreed on the incremental changes - they should never shock the system like they did with the LRMs earlier this year!

As for "survivability", that's not a reason to nerf. That's tied more to your skill as a pilot than to the weapons themselves. It's a lot like saying, "Huh, that guy just nailed my hide to the wall and he was using such and such to do it...better Nerf Irelia!"




...Yes, I'm aware that character was supposed to be OP when it premiered. ACs aren't though - they're just a feature of the game and have pretty much always been better weapons throughout the MechWarrior game series.

It's time for people to get over it so that we can move on to other things like CW...

[Grimm Peaper]

Wait, so you buff Artillery and Airstrikes from 10 damage to 40 damage, which is a x4 increase and then it's so OMG overpowered that people are forced to take them or be at a severe disadvantage, but then you turn around and nerf it by just 5 damage? Really? You openly admit you've gotten feedback from the tourney that the strikes dominated the tournament. You have the NGNG entire crew telling you they are CLEARLY OP. You have people making multiple threads on the forums about the issue causing them to not want to play, and this is your response after months of deliberation? A decrease in damage of 12.5 percent. A decrease of 5 damage is paltry and will have little affect.

Unless you really want to embarass yourselves by showing your desperation into forcing people to use them to get them to spend cbills/mc on them, there needs to be a much larger nerf to Airstrikes and Artillery. Try more like 20-25 damage. A 5 damage nerf to a 40 damage strike and you might as well do nothing, because that's what the practical influence will be.

You've had enough data and time and soul searching to know better by now. Really PGI, 5 damage reduction is laughable and you really should know that by now.

[Nightmare1]

Grimm Peaper, on 02 June 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Wait, so you buff Artillery and Airstrikes from 10 damage to 40 damage, which is a x4 increase and then it's so OMG overpowered that people are forced to take them or be at a severe disadvantage, but then you turn around and nerf it by just 5 damage? Really? You openly admit you've gotten feedback from the tourney that the strikes dominated the tournament. You have the NGNG entire crew telling you they are CLEARLY OP. You have people making multiple threads on the forums about the issue causing them to not want to play, and this is your response after months of deliberation? A decrease in damage of 12.5 percent. A decrease of 5 damage is paltry and will have little affect.

Unless you really want to embarass yourselves by showing your desperation into forcing people to use them to get them to spend cbills/mc on them, there needs to be a much larger nerf to Airstrikes and Artillery. Try more like 20-25 damage. A 5 damage nerf to a 40 damage strike and you might as well do nothing, because that's what the practical influence will be.

You've had enough data and time and soul searching to know better by now. Really PGI, 5 damage reduction is laughable and you really should know that by now.

They're increasing the spread too - that means less concentration, more saturation (more area effect, less focusing). Should lead to decreased Mech deaths and an increasing in damage allocation across a group/area.

If strikes go back to being 10 damage, then I'll quit buying them - they won't be worth the 40,000 C-bills. I can save up those funds to purchase new Mechs and equipment instead, or buy one of those outlandishly priced permanent modules...

[ZachMan119]

PanzerMagier, on 02 June 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Yes let's nerf all the autocannons, that way PPC's won't be as effective anymore!

That logic...

I know, right...

Grimm Peaper, on 02 June 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Wait, so you buff Artillery and Airstrikes from 10 damage to 40 damage, which is a x4 increase and then it's so OMG overpowered that people are forced to take them or be at a severe disadvantage, but then you turn around and nerf it by just 5 damage? Really? You openly admit you've gotten feedback from the tourney that the strikes dominated the tournament. You have the NGNG entire crew telling you they are CLEARLY OP. You have people making multiple threads on the forums about the issue causing them to not want to play, and this is your response after months of deliberation? A decrease in damage of 12.5 percent. A decrease of 5 damage is paltry and will have little affect.

Unless you really want to embarass yourselves by showing your desperation into forcing people to use them to get them to spend cbills/mc on them, there needs to be a much larger nerf to Airstrikes and Artillery. Try more like 20-25 damage. A 5 damage nerf to a 40 damage strike and you might as well do nothing, because that's what the practical influence will be.

You've had enough data and time and soul searching to know better by now. Really PGI, 5 damage reduction is laughable and you really should know that by now.

Well said.

[ZachMan119]

I say they should put in MRMs and have them the current LRMs, and have the LRM's range maybe after 1,000 to about 1,500 or farther.

[moso]

According to my conservative estimate and usual comments during play maybe you should do something with LRM boats in the first place? You had nerfed laser boats, gauss boats, nerfing AC boats now but LRMs are still the same.

Thought-provoking information: I didn't meet assault or heavy beggars with "Please, kill lights for me", or lights with "Please protect my legs from heavy fire using your bodies", but half of matches start with: "Lock please, LRM boat here", "30000000000000 LRMs looking for home, please lock".

Quite strange that the game balance is set so you can construct a mech that is playable using one mouse button only (some LRM boat even don't move) and have decent results. I tried. Boring, but effective even I never used LRMs before, so completely LRM-noob.
Maybe LRMs should work like presently only if the player had direct vision on his target? Or LRM damage should decrease over distance? Or levels should have more covers, or LRMs wouldn't be so clever to avoid almost every obstacle? Or give ECM ability to each mech in the game, so LRM boats vanish by themselves giving way to balanced builds with LRMs?


And some observations about matchmaker - seems that pure random should work better. Current version runs to extremes, looks like you try to balance teams using player's average statistics as absolute value. That works only for singleplayer modes. You can't save weak team by putting there 1-2 good players, in team-oriented games 1+1+1+2+5 does not equal 0+0+0+5+5. As the result, now you have 2-3 matches where you need to be fast to have some kills or your team will make all job for you, and then you have matches when you can have maximum score among both teams (playing as usual) but nevertheless your team loose.
And occasionally you can have a match when one of the sides will have 2-3 ECMs (1-2 of them are lights) and 3-4 LRM boats, while another team has no any ECM cover, pack of mediums, one light and one assault. On most maps (as you don't have enough covers on most) final is quite obvious and fast.

[Onlystolen]

Found out how paul does weapon balancing;

http://www.random.org/dice/

[Tombstoner]

Koniving, on 29 May 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Would you believe that despite how that idea praises 3rd person (for having a crosshair system based on mech movement that increases and decreases accuracy by body movement without ever removing pinpoint; a perfectly ideal thing for first person), it got deleted from third person's announcement?

And frequently deleted in later threads about pinpoint accuracy (because it shows how unfairly superior first person is despite how it's asking/suggesting that we implement that in first person to increase the 'skill' quotient of the game)? o.o;

i think that's because its a stealth COF/RNG. Its pseudo random external input affecting your chance to make shot placement.

[Grimm Peaper]

Nightmare1, on 02 June 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

They're increasing the spread too - that means less concentration, more saturation (more area effect, less focusing). Should lead to decreased Mech deaths and an increasing in damage allocation across a group/area.

If strikes go back to being 10 damage, then I'll quit buying them - they won't be worth the 40,000 C-bills. I can save up those funds to purchase new Mechs and equipment instead, or buy one of those outlandishly priced permanent modules...

Has ANYONE called for them to be decreased back to 10 damage? You're ignoring that there could be a middle ground. It is not either/or.

I'd actually prefer you stop buying them, and wouldn't you? I don't want to buy them either. More money to spend on your actual mechs right. It would be more fair for everyone to get them for free or no one to have them. Having to choose to spend either real or virtual money to have them to help you to win creates have and have nots based on $$ in either real life or spacebucks. That's called p2w. You're not paying to save time or extra variety, you're paying to WIN.

[Nightmare1]

moso, on 02 June 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

Maybe LRMs should work like presently only if the player had direct vision on his target? Or LRM damage should decrease over distance? Or levels should have more covers, or LRMs wouldn't be so clever to avoid almost every obstacle? Or give ECM ability to each mech in the game, so LRM boats vanish by themselves giving way to balanced builds with LRMs?

I'm also a non-LRM'er, although I recently built a BLR-1S boat just to see what it's all about. Like you, I wasn't impressed - I felt overpowered at range, and fragile up close. Not really how I like to play, so I went back to my Beams, Ballistics, and SRMs.

That being said, some of your suggestions aren't feasible, I'm afraid. Here's why:

Canonically, you don't have to have direct LOS to lock LRMs on an enemy Mech. While you do need it in MW4, that's a bit of a toss-up. Frankly, even though I dislike LRMs overall, I think that the current, indirect fire method is best and is most in keeping with the BattleTech/MechWarrior spirit.

LRM damage shouldn't decrease over distance - LRMs are warheads, not projectiles. Thus, the damage they inflict is tied directly to the power of the warhead, and not the speed or distance traveled by the missile.

Cover...with that I totally agree! LRMs have such a steep angle that they can rain down on you despite having a tall building to hide behind. I can't count the number of times I duck behind something roughly thrice my height, only to have LRMs come peeking over the top to nail me. I don't think that their angle should be so steep - in the books, there are moments when Mechs took cover behind small hillocks to evade missile fire. Why can't we do the same? As for maps, I think the current ones are fine as they are, but I would like to see some better cover in future ones. A cityscape map (completely urban - not like Crimson or River) would be incredible! LRMs would be seriously disadvantaged there while Brawlers would gain a new lease on life. MW4: Vengeance and Mercs had some good cityscape maps in them.

ECM...while that's exciting it, again, isn't canonical. Only certain Mechs were ECM capable in the books and in the previous MechWarrior titles. Now, yes, you could modify Mechs to fit what you want on them in the books, but that was restricted for people of notoriety or power. Take Morgan Kell's Archer, for example, and the suspected lostech ECM that he may have equipped to create the controversial Phantom Mech effect: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Phantom_'Mech. In MechWarrior Online, such exception would necessarily be regulated to the realm of the Hero Mechs.

[Nightmare1]

Grimm Peaper, on 02 June 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

Has ANYONE called for them to be decreased back to 10 damage? You're ignoring that there could be a middle ground. It is not either/or.

I'd actually prefer you stop buying them, and wouldn't you? I don't want to buy them either. More money to spend on your actual mechs right. It would be more fair for everyone to get them for free or no one to have them. Having to choose to spend either real or virtual money to have them to help you to win creates have and have nots based on $$ in either real life or spacebucks. That's called p2w. You're not paying to save time or extra variety, you're paying to WIN.

Yes, there have been a couple.

While there could be a middle ground, there really doesn't need to be one. Here's another easy fix: create more strike modules. Let's take the arties for instance:

Light arty strike: 10 damage, 20,000 C-bills
Med. arty strike: 25 damage, 40,000 C-bills
Heavy arty strike: 40 damage, 70,000 C-bills

That's all arbitrary and just thrown out for discussion - please tweak as you want. That would, however, provide more options to pilots and possibly reduce the amount of 40 damage arties that everyone seems upset about.

No, not really - I like using them. Sometimes, I don't even target enemy Mechs - I target a pass or zone that I do not want them entering. It's called possession denial. Sometimes, that is just as important (if not more so) as actually dropping a strike on an enemy Mech. For that alone, I would continue to purchase them.

Fair? Really? I think that's funny. How is it currently unfair? Everyone pays the same amount for them - whether or not you use them is entirely up to you. If you don't use them because you do not wish to, then there is nothing unfair about that at all.

As for P2W, no, that's not really. I've been F2P since Closed Beta and have been using the strikes since they buffed them to 40 damage. Even though I wasn't earning tons of C-bills because I didn't have Premium Time or Hero Mechs, I still made more than 40,000 per match - I could afford them without being P2W.

This is one of the best F2P games I've seen. For an example of a F2P gone P2W in a bad way, just look over at Star Trek Online. That's why I quit playing it - it became so ridiculous that you had to be in a fleet, with gobs of money spent on ships, weapons, and equipment, just to beat some of the AIs that they recently introduced. If you weren't P2W, then you didn't even think about going up against real players. Another bad example of P2W is Star Wars: The Old Republic. EVERYTHING is monetized on that one!

The only other two games I've seen with decent F2P models like this one, are Ghost Recon: Phantoms (Previously GR:O) and Planetside 2.

Besides, PGI has to make money somehow to keep the game running. That's why the packages are so expensive and why you have modules. Life and entertainment aren't free dude; just be glad that it's not worse like STO or TOR.

[Grimm Peaper]

Nightmare1, on 02 June 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Yes, there have been a couple.

While there could be a middle ground, there really doesn't need to be one. Here's another easy fix: create more strike modules. Let's take the arties for instance:

Light arty strike: 10 damage, 20,000 C-bills
Med. arty strike: 25 damage, 40,000 C-bills
Heavy arty strike: 40 damage, 70,000 C-bills

That's all arbitrary and just thrown out for discussion - please tweak as you want. That would, however, provide more options to pilots and possibly reduce the amount of 40 damage arties that everyone seems upset about.

No, not really - I like using them. Sometimes, I don't even target enemy Mechs - I target a pass or zone that I do not want them entering. It's called possession denial. Sometimes, that is just as important (if not more so) as actually dropping a strike on an enemy Mech. For that alone, I would continue to purchase them.

Fair? Really? I think that's funny. How is it currently unfair? Everyone pays the same amount for them - whether or not you use them is entirely up to you. If you don't use them because you do not wish to, then there is nothing unfair about that at all.

As for P2W, no, that's not really. I've been F2P since Closed Beta and have been using the strikes since they buffed them to 40 damage. Even though I wasn't earning tons of C-bills because I didn't have Premium Time or Hero Mechs, I still made more than 40,000 per match - I could afford them without being P2W.

This is one of the best F2P games I've seen. For an example of a F2P gone P2W in a bad way, just look over at Star Trek Online. That's why I quit playing it - it became so ridiculous that you had to be in a fleet, with gobs of money spent on ships, weapons, and equipment, just to beat some of the AIs that they recently introduced. If you weren't P2W, then you didn't even think about going up against real players. Another bad example of P2W is Star Wars: The Old Republic. EVERYTHING is monetized on that one!

The only other two games I've seen with decent F2P models like this one, are Ghost Recon: Phantoms (Previously GR:O) and Planetside 2.

Besides, PGI has to make money somehow to keep the game running. That's why the packages are so expensive and why you have modules. Life and entertainment aren't free dude; just be glad that it's not worse like STO or TOR.

Here, I will exaggerate it so that you can better understand it. Here is what you're trying to convince me of:

See there's this new module called easy button. You buy it for 1 million cbills or 5 American dollars and when you press it, the entire enemy team dies. It's totally fair because anyone can buy it. The fact that you don't buy it, is your funny little logic that I call being poor "little person". It's ENTIRELY fair, see? I can buy it and enjoy using it. The fact that you don't want to buy it or can't afford it is your problem, not mine. I laugh in your general direction. /rolls eyes

And of course it's not p2w, it's kinda like murder you see. You think murder/artillery is evil, but there's this thing called genocide going on over in that foreign country over there and if you think murder is bad, you should go see what genocide is like. And because it's so bad over there, murder looks like rainbows and unicorns in comparison. You should be thankful I'm only murdering 1 person cuz genocide makes it all ok in comparison. You believe that right?

Exaggerated for your better understanding.

[Koniving]

Tombstoner, on 02 June 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

i think that's because its a stealth COF/RNG. Its pseudo random external input affecting your chance to make shot placement.

It's 100% internal input. Everything your mech does affects it. Want to stop the effect? Stop the mech.
Or adjust your speed to reduce it. In the end, you have 100% control of your mech and everything it does, so you have all the control. It's like having a gun in real life. Braced, you are 100% accurate to your own faults. Moving, you are 100% accurate to your faults. Running, you are 100% accurate to your faults. It's just while walking or running you're not as accurate if your personal skill and timing is off.

In the end you control everything about your accuracy.
Here's a demonstration.
Short: Demonstrates movement.


Long, demonstrates first person's b.s. 100% stagnent crosshair. Then it demonstrates movement across multiple mechs and how it affects the crosshair, throughout accuracy is demonstrated and then near the last 3 minutes demonstrates multiple repeated headshots while moving, proving that "with skill and timing" you can always hit your target. It's 100% player controlled, and 100% pinpoint. It's simply and exclusively the mech's movement that affects your accuracy. And that movement is 100% controlled by you and what you do. (You can't blame the rocks, you chose to step on them.)

Edited by Koniving, 02 June 2014 - 09:28 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Grimm Peaper, on 02 June 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here, I will exaggerate it so that you can better understand it. Here is what you're trying to convince me of:

See there's this new module called easy button. You buy it for 1 million cbills or 5 American dollars and when you press it, the entire enemy team dies. It's totally fair because anyone can buy it. The fact that you don't buy it, is your funny little logic that I call being poor "little person". It's ENTIRELY fair, see? I can buy it and enjoy using it. The fact that you don't want to buy it or can't afford it is your problem, not mine. I laugh in your general direction. /rolls eyes

And of course it's not p2w, it's kinda like murder you see. You think murder/artillery is evil, but there's this thing called genocide going on over in that foreign country over there and if you think murder is bad, you should go see what genocide is like. And because it's so bad over there, murder looks like rainbows and unicorns in comparison. You should be thankful I'm only murdering 1 person cuz genocide makes it all ok in comparison. You believe that right?

Exaggerated for your better understanding.

Rage much bro?

I well understand the concept of P2W - I've been on the losing end of that before. Your exaggerations might be humorous if they weren't so...pathetic. You would really compare arty strikes to murder and P2W to genocide? Even as an exaggeration, that's pretty extreme and quite revolting.

If you had read my earlier posts, you would see that I am fairly neutral on strikes - I neither love them nor do I hate them. I do use them, but that is my choice.

As for being OP, I really don't see them being such as they are now. I typically see between two and four arties a match, and have actually had several matches recently where I didn't see any of them. The smoke gives you enough warning to avoid the bulk of the strike too.

This prevents strikes from being P2W. P2W means that you are putting down money for victories. I've seen teams that lacked arties beat teams that had several. It all comes down to piloting. If you're stupid, and stand in one place a lot or congregate together, then you'll probably get artied (and you would just about be asking for it). Smart pilots keep moving and stay cognizant of their surroundings.



It's like that picture - just don't line up or group together. Play smart, and you won't get hit.

[moso]

Nightmare1, on 02 June 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

Canonically, you don't have to have direct LOS to lock LRMs on an enemy Mech...

...LRM damage shouldn't decrease over distance - LRMs are warheads, not projectiles. Thus, the damage they inflict is tied directly to the power of the warhead, and not the speed or distance traveled by the missile.

I know that, but TT isn't MW and vice versa. There are so many departures from canons in each MW that seems like it's better to think about game balance. Current situation is that MWO have to be more casual, that other games in series. F2P games have to be widely available or everything they get at the end will be financial collapse. It's sad for fans (I can name myself a moderate fan - first MW experience had with the MW2, and read some books from BT universe when was a teenager), but that's the way the todays materialistic world wags.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one weapon in MWO doesn't offend more than LRMs. It's a pleasure to watch (being already dead ) someone who have interesting build and uses all his weapons adding some imagination and quickness. Attacking one mech with LRMs, while shooting ballistics at two other mech at the same time and buging out to cool down and then attack previously noticed mech to it's critically damaged parts... Or anything like that, tons of situations that inspire youself to play better.

And then you watch the last LRM boat hiding in bushes for 3 minutes to be eventually mocked by one-legged light. Or watch the same boat, standing dull and pressing one or two buttons to attack mech that he even doesn't see (and sometimes LRM boat don't see any enemy mech until the victorious end of the match). He even haven't to know the map - if the damage is done, he sees reddening of his crosshair.

To gain a better understanding of my point, I don't make light of talented LRM boaters. When you see such you definitely couldn't be mistaken. But current balance allows to use LRM boats as no one other build you can - without any decent skill. That down-grades good skills of people. My point is - LRM boats are great if using them requires high skills, as concerns any other weapon in the game.

...And do something with the flamer please. It's so beautiful and so underrated.

[Tombstoner]

Koniving, on 02 June 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

Stuff

By external i am referring to anything not player. All that bouncing around effects the CEP ratting for the gun and what a COF is trying to simulate. The main gun for the M1A1 often sited as an example of MWO pin point accuracy yet it has a circle of error probable for 50% of its shot landing http://en.wikipedia...._error_probable in effect a COF.

I completely agree with that it should be implemented, but i provided IMO an explanation as to why it will never get traction...