41 replies to this topic

[Diablobo]

Quxudica, on 24 September 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

Damn, got my hopes up they were talking about giving us map selection.

Map selection was just one of the suggestions that came in the comments in the thread. The whole thing is idiotic because they are just trying to make things more complicated and buggy when what they need to be doing is fixing the whole map repetition thing. That's way more important to me than what mode I'm playing. It's even more annoying than lopsided MM selections. Playing the same map over and over and not getting much variety is WAY bigger an issue. Fix that first, PGI.

[Quxudica]

Diablobo, on 24 September 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

Map selection was just one of the suggestions that came in the comments in the thread. The whole thing is idiotic because they are just trying to make things more complicated and buggy when what they need to be doing is fixing the whole map repetition thing. That's way more important to me than what mode I'm playing. It's even more annoying than lopsided MM selections. Playing the same map over and over and not getting much variety is WAY bigger an issue. Fix that first, PGI.

I strongly believe map selection is something that should have been added before the game went into Open Beta. It's silly on multiple levels that we don't have it and would solve the repetition thing. People should be able to play the maps they want to play, if they want to specialize in certain environments they should be able to. If some maps become very unpopular they can be given bonuses to encourage drops, though if a map is that unpopular the devs need to take notice and understand why, instead of forcing people to blind drop into maps they don't like playing.

PC gaming used to be about player choice, yet many modern games really seem to hate that concept.

[Triordinant]

FupDup, on 24 September 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

EDIT: I misinterpreted the thread. I thought this was about the assault mech poll, not the map/mode poll!

The Zeus' late comeback surprised me.

I hope that if we do get it (Russ said it would be either the Zeus or Clops, depending on certain game factors) we get the ZEU-6Y variant. It's the best excuse we've got to get the Binary Laser Cannon in-game. IS customization is fairly stale right now.

Blazer (binary laser) vs. two large lasers:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 16 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 12 damage, range 450m

Those are TT stats, possible MWO stats (actual for the LLs) are:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 18 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 14 damage, range 450m

The only advantage Blazers had in TT was that system used random hit locations where you rolled dice to see where on the enemy 'mech your beams hit and both of a Blazer's beams would hit the same location. In MWO, its advantage would be using only 1 energy hardpoint compared to 2 hardpoints for 2 LLs, but I'm not sure if that'll offset the bad heat to damage ratio. It might be a roundabout way to get around ghost heat, though. Just my 2 space cents...

[Diablobo]

The whole idea of taking players' votes into consideration is just going to be a buggy, broken, and lame failure. They don't need to give the players choice for public matches. They let us choose the maps and modes in private matches. We also are not going to get to choose maps in CW, so that is just another fail and thing for them to waste time on when they could be fixing REAL issues like the map repetition thing. Constantly playing the same map over and over in the course of a session is a way bigger problem and issue. I know I'm not the only one who has experienced this phenomenon. It's ridiculous.

FIX THAT FIRST BEFORE YOU GO SCREWING THE MATCHMAKER UP EVEN MORE!!

[FupDup]

Triordinant, on 24 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Blazer (binary laser) vs. two large lasers:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 16 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 12 damage, range 450m

Those are TT stats, possible MWO stats (actual for the LLs) are:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 18 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 14 damage, range 450m

The only advantage Blazers had in TT was that system used random hit locations where you rolled dice to see where on the enemy 'mech your beams hit and both of a Blazer's beams would hit the same location. In MWO, its advantage would be using only 1 energy hardpoint compared to 2 hardpoints for 2 LLs, but I'm not sure if that'll offset the bad heat to damage ratio. It might be a roundabout way to get around ghost heat, though. Just my 2 space cents...

We can modify the Blazer however we need to for MWO's purposes. I posted an example on the previous page:

<Weapon id="1015" name="BinaryLaser" HardpointAliases="Energy,Laser" faction="InnerSphere">
	<Loc nameTag="@BL" descTag="@BL_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\BinaryLaser.dds" />
	<WeaponStats Health="10" slots="4" type="Energy" projectileclass="" numFiring="1" damage="16.0" heatdamage="0" heatpenalty="3.4" minheatpenaltylevel="3" impulse="0.0" heatPenaltyID="3" heat="14.0" cooldown="3.55" ammoType="" ammoPerShot="0" minRange="0" longRange="450" maxRange="900" visRange="1500" tons="9" duration="1.2" lifetime="0" speed="0" volleydelay="0.0" maxDepth="10.0" />
	<EffectList>
	  <Effect name="Beam" asset="Objects/weapons/laser_beam_binary.cgf" />
	  <Effect name="BeamCap" asset="Objects/weapons/laser_impact_binary.cgf" />
	  <!--time : time it takes for the beam to scale to 100% for x,z scale	 distance :  how much the beam grows in one sec-->
	  <Effect name="ParticleBeam" asset="" />
	  <Effect name="TraceEffects" asset="laser_binary" />
	  <Effect name="Sound:Fire" asset="sounds/weapons:lasers:laser_binary_fire" float="0.0" />
	  <Effect name="Sound:PostFire" asset="sounds/weapons:lasers:laser_binary_power" float="0.0" />
	  <Effect name="DamageBrush" asset="Textures\\decals\\damage_brushes\\laser_binary.tif" />
	  <Effect name="DamageBrushType" asset="laser" float="32" float2="32" />
	  <Effect name="Projector:icecave" asset="textures/defaults/sparks_test.dds" vector="0.243,0.411,1.0" float="0.5" float2="1.5" float3="12" float4="160" float5="80" float6="6.5" num="9" />
	</EffectList>
	<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_BinaryLaser_Destroyed" />
  </Weapon>

It would have a bit less DPS and longer duration, at the upsides of lower tonnage, only using 1 hardpoint, and slightly better heat efficiency due to slightly longer duration and cooldown.

[xeromynd]

So, everyone talking about the Blazer.

Isn't it actually a really bad weapon?? Low damage and high heat?

[FupDup]

xeromynd, on 24 September 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

So, everyone talking about the Blazer.

Isn't it actually a really bad weapon?? Low damage and high heat?

It was really bad in Battletech/TT, but it doesn't need to be bad in MWO.

[Triordinant]

FupDup, on 24 September 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

It was really bad in Battletech/TT, but it doesn't need to be bad in MWO.

Maybe they should make it use up only 3 slots instead of 4. You'd also have a higher alpha with 2 binary lasers compared to 2 LLs, assuming ghost heat for either kicks in after firing more than 2 like it is now.

[FupDup]

Triordinant, on 24 September 2014 - 08:52 PM, said:

Maybe they should make it use up only 3 slots instead of 4. You'd also have a higher alpha with 2 binary lasers compared to 2 LLs, assuming ghost heat for either kicks in after firing more than 2 like it is now.

PGI seems reluctant to playing with critslot and tonnage aspects of weapons. What they don't have issues with so far are damage, heat, range, and cooldowns (and secondary mechanics like beam duration).

[Valore]

Yeah this is why I'm suggesting that polls be integrated inclient/ingame, as per my thread here.

We'd get far better 'voter turnout' so to speak that way.

http://mwomercs.com/...for-free-mcgxp/

[Triordinant]

FupDup, on 24 September 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

PGI seems reluctant to playing with critslot and tonnage aspects of weapons. What they don't have issues with so far are damage, heat, range, and cooldowns (and secondary mechanics like beam duration).

That's true. If they go with the stats you posted, it would be worth it because you'd save on hardpoints.

[Russ Bullock]

The reason I closed it down was there were 6 different threads about the quality of competition in the group queue at the same time as my poll was running.

That to me made it clear that even though the poll was at about 80% approval - people we're loud and clear that they want some improvements to the group queue and the game mode selector change is one of the quickest ways we can improve it.

We have to try it

[Johnny Reb]

Maybe 12 only 12 or bust. Any less and group is fooked!

edit: go back to 4 man limit and I am gone for awhile! Like my threat means anything!

Edited by Johnny Reb, 24 September 2014 - 09:31 PM.

[Diablobo]

I understand the circumstances surrounding the closure of the poll now. Thank you for the candid and detailed explanation. I appreciate the response and feedback. That's great, but do you have any response to my map repetition issue? Do you think it is a sign of a flaw in matchmaking when the same map is played over and over many times repeatedly in a short session? Don't you think this is an issue that needs to be resolved?

[Warchild Corsair]

IMO 1500+ votes is enough to be statistically relevant (if you consider the forum users of this forum a good enough representation of the gaming population of MWO).

[Diablobo]

Russ Bullock, on 24 September 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

The reason I closed it down was there were 6 different threads about the quality of competition in the group queue at the same time as my poll was running.

That to me made it clear that even though the poll was at about 80% approval - people we're loud and clear that they want some improvements to the group queue and the game mode selector change is one of the quickest ways we can improve it.

We have to try it

You don't have to try it. What about fixing the map repetition issue? I would rather play unbalanced and mismatched games on a variety of matches and modes rather than the same map over and over. Quit making us play the same map so much. Make it so the same map cannot be played more than 3 times out of 10. There are more than enough maps to make this possible. The maps reappear too frequently in a single session.

[Glythe]

I regularly read the forums and missed both polls.... damn.

They should really keep those open for about a week and have them be on the main page.

[El Bandito]

Triordinant, on 24 September 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Blazer (binary laser) vs. two large lasers:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 16 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 16 heat, 12 damage, range 450m

Those are TT stats, possible MWO stats (actual for the LLs) are:

2 large lasers = 10 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 18 damage, range 450m
1 binary laser = 9 tons, 4 slots, 14 heat, 14 damage, range 450m

The only advantage Blazers had in TT was that system used random hit locations where you rolled dice to see where on the enemy 'mech your beams hit and both of a Blazer's beams would hit the same location. In MWO, its advantage would be using only 1 energy hardpoint compared to 2 hardpoints for 2 LLs, but I'm not sure if that'll offset the bad heat to damage ratio. It might be a roundabout way to get around ghost heat, though. Just my 2 space cents...

I'll use it on my Atlas. Lack of hardpoints is my only gripe with my Fattie.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 September 2014 - 12:03 AM.

[aniviron]

FupDup, on 24 September 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

The Zeus' late comeback surprised me.

Really? You're surprised by Steiners moving slowly but hitting hard? ;]

[FupDup]

aniviron, on 25 September 2014 - 12:25 AM, said:

Really? You're surprised by Steiners moving slowly but hitting hard? ;]