139 replies to this topic

[WhoDidTheElf]

Gigastrike, on 08 June 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

They do have different stats. 10 and 20 rated Clan ACs generate less heat. Bishop just doesn't value that over double tap because he wants this to be a problem.

In other news: features that you don't plan to use, yet require no additional effort to implement ruin te game!

Talking about the heat difference on it is really a moot point. The only AC that has ever had an issue with heat was the A/C2 and that was because it was being loaded with 4/5 of them.

Really the point that Bishop makes is fair. The CUAC is better in every respect than a cAC.

Edited by WhoDidTheElf, 08 June 2014 - 10:03 PM.

[Zerberus]

Dymlos2003, on 08 June 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

So don't use them? They are only here as placeholders for now. People wanted the slug firing LBXs so we get this for now. Rather just have LBX spread and UCs?

Exactly. No real warrior would be satisfied at a choice between 2 weapons that are situational (LBX scatter and UAC jam), so implementing a reliable "Standard type" AC for the clans was a no-brainer.

Or to use a RL example: How many soldiers in Vietnam hated their M-16s becasue they jammed constantly (regardless of whether the military`s out of spec ammo or the actual weapon design was the cause)? And how many DIED because of it?

Now, how exactly would have giving them the option to take shotguns instead been a viable solution?

If you understand that connection, the reasons for implementing a non jamming ac for the clans are painfiully obvious.

There`s a good reason armies outfit their GIs with reliable multi-range weapons and only allow a few people in certain units to take shotguns or higher-maintenance weapons like an m249.

Edited by Zerberus, 08 June 2014 - 11:13 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Zerberus, on 08 June 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Exactly. No real warrior would be satisfied at a choice between 2 weapons that are situational (LBX scatter and UAC jam), so implementing a reliable "Standard type" AC for the clans was a no-brainer.

Or to use a RL example: How many soldiers in Vietnam hated their M-16s becasue they jammed constantly (regardless of whether the military`s out of spec ammo or the actual weapon design was the cause)? And how many DIED because of it?

Now, how exactly would have giving them the option to take shotguns instead been a viable solution?

If you understand that connection, the reasons for implementing a non jamming ac for the clans are painfiully obvious.

Why can't they, you know, fix the LBX instead, or at least implement it properly?

[Zerberus]

Becasue making people that paid real money for the clans would not be happy with a 2+ week delay just to implement the features of a single weapon when there is a simple workaround.

They never said they weren`t going to fix the LBX, in fact it is strongly implied that this is in fact an interim solution until said fix is done.

And do you really think they would KNOWINGLY breach the contract they have with hundreds or thousands of players, setting themselves up for mass refunds and possibly even a class action lawsuit, because of ONE weapon that not everyone will even use or care about, One who`s implementation is primarily being criticized by IS aligned pilots who still have their panties in a terrified bunch from 1994, and not the clanners it actually affects?

The packs were promised on the 17th, and they damn well better be here on the 17th. If we have to have a 3rd class of ac as an interim solution until LBX work properly, fine.. but delaying the pack to wait for a unknown time until they get a single gimmick /feature implemented is a major deal breaker, and expecting them to do so is ......

Edited by Zerberus, 08 June 2014 - 11:35 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Zerberus, on 08 June 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

Becasue making people that paid real money for the clans would not be happy with a 2+ week delay just to implement the features of a single weapon when there is a simple workaround.

They never said they weren`t going to fix the LBX, in fact it is strongly implied that this is in fact an interim solution until said fix is done.

And do you really think they would KNOWINGLY breach the contract they have with hundreds or thousands of players, setting themselves up for mass refunds and possibly even a class action lawsuit, because of ONE weapon that not everyone will even use or care about, One who`s implementation is primarily being criticized by IS aligned pilots who still have their panties in a terrified bunch from 1994, and not the clanners it actually affects?

The packs were promised on the 17th, and they damn well better be here on the 17th. If we have to have a 3rd class of ac as an interim solution until LBX work properly, fine.. but delaying the pack to wait for a unknown time until they get a single gimmick /feature implemented is a major deal breaker, and expecting them to do so is ......

PGI placeholders and 'fixes' sometimes take years. For instance, I've been waiting since july last year for my phoenix loyalty point medallion to do something, and the loyalty point bonus on the hero shaq itself.

The point here is, they shouldn't even be in a situation where they don't have all the stuff ready. How can you be so bad 8 months isn't enough time to implement switchable ammo?

[Zerberus]

^^ I love the way you always pick out one or 2 specific iterms and then assume that the entire time was spent only on those one or 2 features, just to paint PGI in the worst light possible. To be honest, part of me missed it during your absence... And now that Darthbane has finally quit for good (ROFL, I`ll believe it when I see it for more than 7 days), you DO have some slack to pick up

For example, have you ever considered the possibility that the switchable ammo might have been a low priority for the first 5 months, because in the big picture it was the same drop of fly dung that it is now, and because they (like everyone else) wrongly assumed that the Cryengine already had this feature coded in due to past experiences with Cryengine 1+2, whioch would have made it a 5 minute deal to actually implement??

Of course not, and that`s why you`re depicting the fly dropping as an elephant pile. Which, if they had truly spent 8 months only working on switchable LBX ammo (which wasn`t even announced until , what, april?) it truly would be.

But it only works entirely on the assumption that the rest of teh clan packs and all other things that have happened to the game since december were done by magical Coding Faeries that come in when PGI is out and write good code that PGI can`t. And believing that without a significant amopunt of mind altering substances is, for me, a pretty tall order.

BTW clans were announced in december, which is not 8 months before June. L2Calendar

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 12:01 AM.

[Jun Watarase]

Gee i wonder what are the odds of PGI addressing the concerns raised in this thread instead of quietly ignoring it...

[Alex Warden]

you can switch between armor peeling and critseeking in the middle of a match... you can´t do that with an ultra...

how desirable that "advantage" is on the other hand, i´m not sure yet, we gotta see

[wanderer]

Quote

Becasue making people that paid real money for the clans would not be happy with a 2+ week delay just to implement the features of a single weapon when there is a simple workaround.

Yes, it would have been working on the problem in July 2012, back when it was first officially mentioned.

Also, for Clanners it means half of the autocannons available do not function. That's the LB-2X,-5X,10-X,and 20-X.

[General Taskeen]

Couple this in with the fact that when the community asked for basic ammunition switching of an IS LB-X since Closed Beta, A Long Time Ago, In An Innersphere Galaxy Far Far Away, suddenly they want it for just a Clan version, and say, "Lol no, you don't get cool things for your gunz, because reasons."

[Kmieciu]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 June 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

"For the time being, we have created a one off weapon type thathas the exact same characteristics as the LB-X in terms of weight and space requirements but fire slugs with the same characteristics of the Clan Ultra AutoCannon counterparts. For example, the Clan LB 2-X will fire a cluster round totalling 2 damage. The Clan AutoCannon/2 will fire a 2 round volley with each slug doing 1 damage for a total of 2 damage."

Can you imagine a 20 round burst from the LBX20 "slug mode" ? I know it will not be competitive when fighting FLD squads, but the DAKKA will be epic! The cockpit shake will surpass even the "dreaded" 5xAC2 Jagers.


Also maybe there will be no gost heat for LBX20, while the UAC20 will get the same ghost heat as IS AC20 (104.64 heat for firing 4 rounds in 0.5 seconds?)

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 June 2014 - 05:41 AM.

[Zerberus]

wanderer, on 09 June 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

Yes, it would have been working on the problem in July 2012, back when it was first officially mentioned.

I think you are coinfusiung something here.

AFAICR (which include a large portion of CB) there was NEVER an intent from teh Dev side to allow the LBX dual fire mode, much less a confirmation of such intent or announcement that work on it has started.

It is something that PLAYERS wanted. However the dev postion was (and afaik IS) that it invalicated teh necessity of having an AC/10. Our wishes do not always = PGIs intent, meaning just becasue we WHISH something would work in way X does not mean it will ever happen. Especially if it was never said it was going to happen but actually the contray was repeatedly stated.

Especially since this communits constantly asks for a whole buttload of things that, when implemented, it finds out it really didn`t want in the long run (CB PPC heat buff pre HSR? Skirmish mode? Assault Turrets? Need I really continue?)

Either way, you can not tack on 2 years as "that`s how much time they had" when the intent was not ever there in those 2 years to acknowledge much less tackle a "problem" that the devs did not agree was even a problem.

What you`re doing is kind of like chjastising Coca Cola for having coke for over 100 years and still not releasing Kohlrabi Coke after 80 years of product development time, even though they never even considered much less intended to do so and therefore never started development, until 2 months ago when they suddenly said "Hey, we`re going to release Kohlrabi Coke in the near future, and here`s what it "should" taste like.


Or your wife asking why dinner isn`t done yet, you`ve been working on it for 25 years.. and it better be that "awesome" cricket and goat cheese lasagna that you`ve never made before in your life but that she thinks she has wanted for the last 20 years... The one that you never said you would or even knew how to make.

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 05:49 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Ha, op said 'thought out'. PGI is twitch.

[Kmieciu]

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

AFAICR (which include a large portion of CB) there was NEVER an intent from teh Dev side to allow the LBX dual fire mode, much less a confirmation of such intent or announcement that work on it has started.

The players just wanted a fully functional LBX. PGI calls MWO "A Battletach game". LBX could fire solid slugs in Battletech. Simple as that.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 June 2014 - 05:50 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

AFAICR (which include a large portion of CB) there was NEVER an intent from teh Dev side to allow the LBX dual fire mode, much less a confirmation of such intent or announcement that work on it has started.

It was proposed in Closed Beta... they even mentioned it in a giant sticky post of "things to do/things being considered."

[Zerberus]

"Being considered" being the active phrase.

I consider quitting my Job and becoming a hemp farmer in Colorado on a regular basis.

But that does not mean I have actually started preparing to do so, nor that I ever will.

That is the entire point, and why it can not be served up as "they`ve been working on it for 2 years " as some are attempting to do.

How many times a day do you think "Should I do x, or y?" Becasue that is what considering is, weighing the options. Ergo if you make a choice for x, that stongly implies that y will not happen any time soon, doesn`t it?

I dunno, Maybe it`'s just me, but maybe I`m also just the only person that hasn`t read more between than within the lines of every post since Dec. `11.. maybe that`s also why I generally end up getting exactly what I expected and paid for, instead of constantly being diasppointed by thing that were never promised to me not coming....

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[wanderer]

Ironically, if they'd just gone ahead and made LB-10X functional, they wouldn't be putting placeholders in because the code for the other guns would be trivial to add.

Which we also mentioned back in the day,considering Clanners. You can see how much forethought was used.

[Jun Watarase]

Yea the LBX is supposed to invalidate the older ACs. Thats the entire point. They are a new model AC. ER weapons invalidated the older ones and DHS invalidated SHS.

The devs are completely fine with DHS invalidating SHS but they are not with the LBX and AC? Talk about double standards.

There are plenty of ways to make the older ACs viable if they really want to. For one, they could fire speciality ammo.

But that still doesnt address the problem of cluster shot being pointless when they do the same damage as a slug except that its spread out.

Imagine if 4 SRM-6s did the same damage as an AC20 except they were spread out. Oh god...

[Kmieciu]

Zerberus, on 09 June 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

"Being considered" being the active phrase.

I consider quitting my Job and becoming a hemp farmer in Colorado on a regular basis.

But that does not mean I have actually started preparing to do so, nor that I ever will.

That is the entire point, and why it can not be served up as "they`ve been working on it for 2 years " as some are attempting to do.

I've heard they consider introducing Community Warfare.

[Zerberus]

wanderer, on 09 June 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

Ironically, if they'd just gone ahead and made LB-10X functional, they wouldn't be putting placeholders in because the code for the other guns would be trivial to add.

Which we also mentioned back in the day,considering Clanners. You can see how much forethought was used.

I agree 100%.... But while were on the topic of forethought, how many of us said lowering PPC heat was a bad idea before HSR? How many of us said skirmish was a really bad idea?

How many of our own brethren decided we were full of **** and crusaded that much harder for these changes?
How many of them flooded the forums for weeks or even months afterwards qqing like crazy (ok, in the case of ppc heat only after HSR was later improved, but still)

It doesn`t matter who PGI tries to satisfy, somebody is ALWAYS going to find something to ***** and moan about.... where it gets hilarious is when it`s the people that were the strongest advocates that are bitching the loudest that it sucks, even though it`s exactly what they wanted in every way (skirmish)

Kmieciu, on 09 June 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

I've heard they consider introducing Community Warfare.

You hear wrong, may I recommend reading dev posts instead?

Edited by Zerberus, 09 June 2014 - 07:05 AM.