335 replies to this topic

[PhoenixFire55]

Gallowglas, on 07 July 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

However, just because it might prevent a base loss doesn't mean it's compelling gameplay to twiddle your thumbs at base on the chance someone might rush.

How's it any worse then twiddling your thumbs at base because you don't want to fight an enemy team AND their turrets at their base? At least now people can actually attack the base without putting themselves at a disadvantage simply because they want to do smth instead of camping.

[PFC Carsten]

Reducing the LRMs/LL to SRM/ML would've been enough, so they won't cover half the map as in Forest Colony, Old River City or the Mining Collective.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Any chance of having the turrets back fitted with SRM & Medium Lasers? The LRM auto targeting across the map was the big issue with them. Otherwise, apart from the insane fps drop in the new River City, things are looking good from this update.

[Meihru]

PeppaPig, on 08 July 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Otherwise, apart from the insane fps drop in the new River City, things are looking good from this update.

didnt notice ANY fps drops on new river. its just the opposite, i have better fps on this map than on any other map we have


did anyone notice that our beloved e-bunny still has its breakdance animation? <3

[Gallowglas]

PhoenixFire55, on 08 July 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

How's it any worse then twiddling your thumbs at base because you don't want to fight an enemy team AND their turrets at their base? At least now people can actually attack the base without putting themselves at a disadvantage simply because they want to do smth instead of camping.

At least in the scenario you describe, people are usually still pressing the opponent on some front. I don't know that I really recall many stagnant matches. In fact, as long as there were other mechs with me, I didn't worry too much about the turrets. However, it did discourage me from doing a solo rush and did provide a tactical option to fall back to the turrets late game when the balance might have shifted against us.

Now? I'm unlikely to play it at all unless forced to by events or another player making game mode decisions. It's not fun to lose in 5 minutes because a single light mech slipped past your lines and it's not fun to have to be the guy that sits on his hands defending against that. Furthermore, that isn't/wasn't even a rare occurance in assault mode. It is/was rather routine whereas the turtle team defense turning into something super-stagnant was very, very rare.

PeppaPig, on 08 July 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Any chance of having the turrets back fitted with SRM & Medium Lasers? The LRM auto targeting across the map was the big issue with them.

This, to me, is the crux.

[Koniving]

Gallowglas, on 07 July 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

And now for my constructive criticism: removing the turrets from assault mode just guarantees that even fewer people will play it. Remember how it was before turrets? Yeah, that's back now. I'm not sure I understand why Assault mode was deemed better with light base rushes.

You mean like we had with turrets?

Oh yeah, loads of fun.

Meanwhile... base defense!


More base defense!


Even more base defense -- with turrets!


Now what was more fun? With.... or without?
I'd say without.

But you tell me which was better.

And if light rushes are a problem, then why not make it that the assault bases need to be destroyed instead of camped on... so that some real firepower needs to be brought to bear?

Always thought bases should be destroyed anyway. No sense waiting for enemies to surrender while smoking a cig in the cockpit and standing next to them creepily waving "Hi there."

[Wildstreak]

jimpansen182, on 07 July 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

Sorry... but it was the easiest way to quote after a bottle of wine

Edit pics next time, thanks.
Though to be fair, so many pics in one post should have been in Spoilers.

Azzgaroth, on 07 July 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

River City is STILL full of invisible wall...

You sure? I have not run into any. Now there are places that used to be climbable that are not, F4 shoreline for example, you used to be able to go from Water to Land with any Mech, now a Light might be able to crash into it at full speed and get up but unless you have JJs, no luck due to change in terrain design.

The new F5/G5 area is the same, there are places that look like steps you can climb but the water right next to them is deep enough to prevent that except in one area.

Koniving, on 07 July 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

At the very least I was hoping for 3 missile hardpoints or at maybe left/right arm energy/ballistic hardpoints. Something about more energy hardpoints than I know what to do with doesn't really seem to fly...

Still surprised no one wants missing Phoenix variants.

Edited by Wildstreak, 08 July 2015 - 05:27 AM.

[Koniving]

Wildstreak, on 08 July 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Still surprised no one wants missing Phoenix variants.

Which are missing? You mean missing standard Thunderbolt variants?

Because they will come. And PGI will dangle them for cash, then for MC, then for cbills as they have been, whenever they feel like doing it. No point wishing for what we can get. Just wishing for what we can't.

[Wildstreak]

Koniving, on 07 July 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

YAY! Drop it!

First video link broken. Try to play and get

Watch this video on YouTube.

Playback on other websites has been disabled

by the video owner.

Gallowglas, on 07 July 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

And now for my constructive criticism: removing the turrets from assault mode just guarantees that even fewer people will play it. Remember how it was before turrets? Yeah, that's back now. I'm not sure I understand why Assault mode was deemed better with light base rushes.

And, yes, I know all the old arguments: guard your base and that won't happen. However, just because it might prevent a base loss doesn't mean it's compelling gameplay to twiddle your thumbs at base on the chance someone might rush.

I thought they were changing it with turret redesign, not removal.

PFC Carsten, on 08 July 2015 - 12:41 AM, said:

Reducing the LRMs/LL to SRM/ML would've been enough, so they won't cover half the map as in Forest Colony, Old River City or the Mining Collective.

The LLs are from CW only.

[Wildstreak]

Koniving, on 08 July 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Which are missing? You mean missing standard Thunderbolt variants?

Because they will come. And PGI will dangle them for cash, then for MC, then for cbills as they have been, whenever they feel like doing it. No point wishing for what we can get. Just wishing for what we can't.

Check below my Point 8 here.
1 Griffin
3 Wolverines
2 Thunderbolts
1 Battlemaster

[dangerzone]

GenJack, on 07 July 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

10/10 Would download patch twice if I could.

You sir win the internet I already downloaded it twice. Two computers haha...

[Dakkss]

Koniving, on 08 July 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

And if light rushes are a problem, then why not make it that the assault bases need to be destroyed instead of camped on... so that some real firepower needs to be brought to bear?

Always thought bases should be destroyed anyway.

PeppaPig, on 08 July 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Any chance of having the turrets back fitted with SRM & Medium Lasers? The LRM auto targeting across the map was the big issue with them.

These two are on the ball. Would actually make the Assault gamemode different from the other two. Why should CW get the only 'Destroy Omega' objectives? Assault needs it too. All we have now is TDM (Skirmish), TDM with turrets (Assault) and Zones (Conquest).

I would play the **** out of Destroy-The-Base Assault. It would be like a mini CW without the ridiculous aimbotting LL turrets/dropships and respawning meta-sniper mechs since the maps are smaller. And y'know, BRAWLERS WOULDN'T BE USELESS like they mostly are on CW.

Edited by Dak Darklighter, 08 July 2015 - 07:05 AM.

[Meihru]

i cant complain about the turrets being deleted, actually if someone thinks about it it gives the gamemode much more sense

before, it was simply skirmish with some turrets to care of - no one ever cared for the base

now you REALLY have to care about your base to prevent a lance of lights capping it, so you have to think twice before leaving the base all unprotectet, just as it SHOULD BE

having problems with lights capping like **** now? THINK and DEFEND the F*** BASE THEN. thats the f** SENSE of this gamemode and NOT beeing skirmish!

Edited by S1lenceR, 08 July 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Dak Darklighter, on 08 July 2015 - 07:02 AM, said:

These two are on the ball. Would actually make the Assault gamemode different from the other two. Why should CW get the only 'Destroy Omega' objectives? Assault needs it too. All we have now is TDM (Skirmish), TDM with turrets (Assault) and Zones (Conquest).

I would play the **** out of Destroy-The-Base Assault. It would be like a mini CW without the ridiculous aimbotting LL turrets/dropships and respawning meta-sniper mechs since the maps are smaller. And y'know, BRAWLERS WOULDN'T BE USELESS like they mostly are on CW.

So you want TDM with a 13th target, this is different how?

[sizz0r]

Btw, 02. June Patchnotes:

Panther PNT-10P

• Release date for purchase through the Gift Store: July 7th

... but it's not released there :-(

[Wintersdark]

PhoenixFire55, on 08 July 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

Piss poor pathetic excuse is still piss poor. We'd have vastly better matchmaking if people responsible for programming it actually had a clue what they were doing. A MM that for all intents and purposes treats a Dragon-1C exactly the same way it does a TimberWolf is a fkn fail. Not only this is a poor excuse, but it is also full of lies and BS, beacuse your mr. Russ has said not very long ago that game poplulation is at its highest, so either he was lieing, or you do when you say that MM queues don't have enough people for quality MM'ing.

*shrugs* We've got a small player pool. The game population may well be at it's highest, but that doesn't mean there's a massive pool to draw from. You can wrap your mind around that, right? That you can have higher population than before, but still not a massive number? I've shown the math in a lot of threads before, but assuming you have 20,000 people concurrently playing(that is, constantly in matches or requeuing, not in the mechlab or afk or whatever), with NO map select, there's still only enough to get reasonable matches for average Elo people, and medium-high and above (and the related below) will have sketchy matches at best. Add map select, force the MM to try to match not just Heavy vs. Heavy but more precisely? If you go battlevalue, you've got a massively complex balancing task ahead of you that would be awesome if done correctly but is totally impractical to do, and would STILL ultimately make it far slower to build matches. Right now, the MM just tries for 3/3/3/3; to try to match mechs by some more precise rating system would limit options exponetially.

Given that, stop ranting for a minute and THINK about it. If there isn't enough people to quickly get good matches for everyone with the current set of parameters at prime time (though there is enough to get decent matches for the bulk of average players then); adding more parameters makes it exponentially more difficult for the MM. And by "more difficult" I don't mean harder to code (because ultimately it's a simple algorithm), I mean it's going to take a LOT longer to find the appropriate people.

Perhaps you feel there should be much longer queue times for everyone, and that's a discussion that's fair enough to have. Longer queues = better matches, but there's a point where your average Joe player just wants to get into a game rather than stare at "searching for match" endlessly.

It would make match finding times at off hours and for very high/low ranked players many times worse than it currently is.

Quote

Plus, I am still waiting for you to tell me exactly how "wrong" I am and exactly what was the problem with the original RiverCity map.

Until then, ggclose.

How about ridiculously tiny size, hideous color filter, and poor overall design? It wasn't a good map to play on at all. RCN in particular was one of the most hated maps overall. There's a reason River City was viewed as the #1 map to be redone. Now, this is a subjective thing, certainly, but going by response to the new River City, pretty damn close to 100% of people like it a hell of a lot more than the old POS map.

---

TLDR version:

It doesn't matter how well the MM is coded, if there aren't enough players to make great matches quickly, the MM cannot make great matches quickly. Period.

[PhoenixFire55]

Wintersdark, on 08 July 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

How about ridiculously tiny size, hideous color filter, and poor overall design?

It was built for 8v8. There is nothing preventing current MM from creating 8v8 matches as well as 12v12.

Wintersdark, on 08 July 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

It wasn't a good map to play on at all.

Yes it was. The fact that YOU don't like it means sh!t.

Wintersdark, on 08 July 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

RCN in particular was one of the most hated maps overall.

If you read the forum every map is hated by baddies who blame everything but themselves for their losses - Forest Colonies, River Cities, Alpine, TerraTherma, Crimson ...

Wintersdark, on 08 July 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

There's a reason River City was viewed as the #1 map to be redone. Now, this is a subjective thing, certainly, but going by response to the new River City, pretty damn close to 100% of people like it a hell of a lot more than the old POS map.

Oooooo ... shiny. Yeah, whatever. Baddies who never care about map balance in the first place.

You still didn't bring a single valid reason.

[Jaspbo1]

PhoenixFire55, on 08 July 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

It was built for 8v8. There is nothing preventing current MM from creating 8v8 matches as well as 12v12.



Yes it was. The fact that YOU don't like it means sh!t.



If you read the forum every map is hated by baddies who blame everything but themselves for their losses - Forest Colonies, River Cities, Alpine, TerraTherma, Crimson ...



Oooooo ... shiny. Yeah, whatever. Baddies who never care about map balance in the first place.

You still didn't bring a single valid reason.

Despite my knowledge that this will end in blood, sweat and tears I will join in on this...''discussion''.

The predominant problemo was that River City was a cramped map with 12v12, and 8v8 MM would solve this correct, but I just want to know, what exactly is bad with the new RC? Sure there have been complaints of FPS drops (Which so far I haven't gotten despite my ancient 2011 graphics card an AMD no less) I'd all be for the old RC maps for 8v8 private game mods, sure, but to put it back into rotation with or without 8v8 being a thing.

Maybe...Big maybe, it just has a few issues, assault really doesn't belong on that map as it stands, conquest....still too small really for a real conquest game, rather than everyone pushing centre and getting caught in the open river by the bridge.

Personally me and a lot of the guys I play with didn't like it as it was in the current game, it's one of those maps that was more balanced and fun when the game was slower, but now with all the lights pushing 150kph and all the kind of meta there is, the map would seem too small even with 8v8. Too much boom, not enough cover, need rework, which could be used on making MM better if they chose to, or actually moving on instead of being stuck in the past.

My five pence, take it as it is, of course I am bias, I didn't like the map as it stood in the current game, in the old closed beta and when 8v8 was a thing and the meta was far more concise and controlled, it was fun.

The new one though just accommodates for the 12v12, which is fine. Also destructible things.

[Sam Slade]

Host State Rewind Fixes and Improvements

• HSR algorithm now rewinds animation state when compensating for ping
  
• Fixed some issues with the HSR algorithm that would contribute to missed shots

Optimizations

• Reduced client upstream bandwidth usage by approximately 40-45%
  
• Reduced client downstream bandwidth usage by approximately 20-25%

Best news from PGI in a year

[IraqiWalker]

Pezzer, on 07 July 2015 - 06:28 PM, said:

You sure? Thought they were in the 1080m/s range, then boosted back up to 1300m/s with ERPPCs being at 1500m/s. I don't have these numbers saved, so I certainly could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong as a matter of fact.

IIRC we were discussing PGI dropping them to 1500 m/s so they don't synch up with Gauss anymore, while still being too fast to synch with AC5s.

So they were in the 1800 range. I could be wrong, because I didn't save the numbers either, but I'm pretty confident it was in the 1800 range.