366 replies to this topic

[Luise Koschinski]

Nice patch but you crippled my whole hardware configuration.

Yeah no mech whining. Changed to hardware whining.

2 monitors. Primary houses windowed MWO client - secondary shows chrome / firefox / whatever.

Windowed because you cannot switch between programs without minimizing MWO if in full screen.

Changing to full screnn via alt+enter now shuts my second monitor off. It goes blank just the moment i switch to full screen. Very nice new feature i have to say. If i was using some apple product / software i would say thats ok. It's not a bug but a lifechanging feature. Fortunately or unfortunately it is no apple crap.

[Jabilo]

This was the best we could come up with for the under class clan mechs like the summoner and Mist Lynx?

Really?

Shall I laugh, cry, facepalm or all three?

[Paperdog]

Flamers are for decoration purposes only. Only there to anger you on RNG involved reward events, like last time on christmas.
Clans shoud be better in every aspect if we follow the role (i know there are many role and TT fanatics).
But! If we wanna achive some kind of balance here, we have to reconsider a few things.

Clan equipment should cost far more (high tech, low manufacturing capacity) and IS things should be cheaper, way way cheaper (lower tech, much more production capacity and materials).
So A, Bring back the re-arm and repair costs, or
B, Hardcap Clan-IS mech (8 Clan vs 12 IS or 4 Clan+8 IS vs a simlar team) or
C, Rework the whole quirq system. For example IS has to be tanky if Clans are the damage dealers. Or give structure bonus to standard engined mechs.
D, Resize the IS mechs, seriously. My 55 ton Gray Death is as big as an Atlas! Why?!
E, 1000 other ideas you could red on forum.

The whole "cut off 10% Is energy range" is a primitive and lazy way to do it. Every patch IS lose quirks and what we got back it is nerfed/removed/tweaked(mostly nerfed) next patch. (Like what did PGI whit the IS PPC/ERPPC quirked mechs, my reward Cicada is gutted, but look just the PPC master AWESOM and rip Grid Iron Gauss build) So far the only big nerf Clans got was the heat-treshold nerf and maybe the 33% speed loss on ST loss (wich is still superior compared to an IS XL ST loss).

TLDR: Clans are the general stronger pick, you have to work hard to be effectie with an IS mech.

I play both, before you cry "clanner".

[Felicitatem Parco]

Paperdog, on 17 February 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Clans shoud be better in every aspect if we follow the role (i know there are many role and TT fanatics).

This is a 12v12 game. Clan Mechs should be equal to IS Mechs.

If Clan Mechs are better, then Clan Mechs will be more fun. That would screw half the playerbase over.
As more and more players learn that Clan Mechs are more fun (more power, more kills since you have more targets and fewer teammates to share them with), they will flock to the Clans. Since the Clan to IS ratio would have to be 10v12, but more people queue for Clans than IS, the wait times would skyrocket.

It would drive wait times through the roof as the pool of IS players continues to diminish until the MatchMaker [effectively] breaks. IS Players who are sick of using inferior equipment and scoring fewer kills per match (since they have fewer clanner target to shoot at, and more teammates to share kikls with) that don't defect to Clans would quit the game. MatchMaker gets even worse. Clanners then quit the game as MatchMaker gets stalled too hard to function.

It's a losing proposal for everyone.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 February 2016 - 04:23 PM.

[codynyc]

the crits added to the Targeting computers are WAY OP .... in favor of the clans. Think they need to be tweaked abit.

[Dawnstealer]

What if Faction play vs Clans was 10v12? I know, I know: PGI/Russ nixed this a long time ago because it was too difficult to implement, but I'm not a programmer - could someone explain why?

And I'm not talking Quick Play, where there's mixed drops on the teams and potentially anyone or everyone *could* be running Clan mechs. OBVIOUSLY you wouldn't balance the teams with 10v12 because you couldn't know what one team would be running over the other.

But Faction play? If it's IS v Clans = 12 v 10. IS v IS = 12 v 12. Clan v Clan = 10 v 10.

Then your Clan mechs could be as OP as lore and no one would feel bad about it.

I've said this elsewhere, but you could push this further:

• If someone's running a Clan mech, they get zero XP/Cbills for an Assist
  
• They get a comparatively larger reward for Most Damage and Solo Kills
  
• If a Clan player drops under-tonnage on CW, they get a Cbill/XP boost to match
  
• If an entire team drops under their tonnage, they get a multiplier on top of it

What about Hardpoints being size-based? And weapons have a size to them? So a mech might have a Large Laser Slot on it's arm (so 1 energy slot), so it could put one Large energy weapon there (so LL or PPC), or two Medium Energy Weapons, or four Light Energy Weapons. If the slot were a Medium Energy Slot, you couldn't put a Large Energy weapon in the hardpoint. You get the idea.

Different variants would have these hardpoints in different places. Or different type of hardpoints.

Annnnnd...I dunno. I guess I'm saying that there's better ways to balance than this see-saw quirkening/dequirkening/requirking dance. It was a good experiment, but...it's run it's course.

[zudukai]

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

What if Faction play vs Clans was 10v12? I know, I know: PGI/Russ nixed this a long time ago because it was too difficult to implement, but I'm not a programmer - could someone explain why?

And I'm not talking Quick Play, where there's mixed drops on the teams and potentially anyone or everyone *could* be running Clan mechs. OBVIOUSLY you wouldn't balance the teams with 10v12 because you couldn't know what one team would be running over the other.

But Faction play? If it's IS v Clans = 12 v 10. IS v IS = 12 v 12. Clan v Clan = 10 v 10.

Then your Clan mechs could be as OP as lore and no one would feel bad about it.

I've said this elsewhere, but you could push this further:

• If someone's running a Clan mech, they get zero XP/Cbills for an Assist
  
• They get a comparatively larger reward for Most Damage and Solo Kills
  
• If a Clan player drops under-tonnage on CW, they get a Cbill/XP boost to match
  
• If an entire team drops under their tonnage, they get a multiplier on top of it

What about Hardpoints being size-based? And weapons have a size to them? So a mech might have a Large Laser Slot on it's arm (so 1 energy slot), so it could put one Large energy weapon there (so LL or PPC), or two Medium Energy Weapons, or four Light Energy Weapons. If the slot were a Medium Energy Slot, you couldn't put a Large Energy weapon in the hardpoint. You get the idea.


Different variants would have these hardpoints in different places. Or different type of hardpoints.

Annnnnd...I dunno. I guess I'm saying that there's better ways to balance than this see-saw quirkening/dequirkening/requirking dance. It was a good experiment, but...it's run it's course.

that doesn't work because of quick play, because you are mixed tech there.

[Dawnstealer]

zudukai, on 17 February 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

that doesn't work because of quick play, because you are mixed tech there.

I'm going to guess you didn't read my post. Especially not this:

Quote

"And I'm not talking Quick Play, where there's mixed drops on the teams and potentially anyone or everyone *could* be running Clan mechs."

Edited by Dawnstealer, 17 February 2016 - 08:31 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

I'm going to guess you didn't read my post. Especially not this:

Silly monkey. It doesn't matter what you're "talking"; quick play is still impacted. It would turn Quick Play into "The team with the most Clan Mechs wins" and that's just stupid. Basically, your change would remove IS mechs from Quick Play, and that's unacceptable.

[Bolter01]

Canned Ham and Spam!

Could you please look into the random Crash To Destop (Nvidia for me)

Which I have only experienced since last 2 patches

[mad kat]

Ever since the patch everytime my client loads it pushes the screen a third of the way of the screen to the left i keep on having to go to change to windowed, save then fullscreen then save to get it back. Luckily its not the other way or id have no way to fix it.

Problem wasn't present before patch.

[mikerso]

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

I'm going to guess you didn't read my post. Especially not this:

Wintersdark, on 17 February 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Silly monkey. It doesn't matter what you're "talking"; quick play is still impacted. It would turn Quick Play into "The team with the most Clan Mechs wins" and that's just stupid. Basically, your change would remove IS mechs from Quick Play, and that's unacceptable.

Wintersdark is spot on here. People cry for lances and stars, and don't realize that the game mode that suffers the most from imbalance, is actually quick play. They just don't have a map to show it. Are all mechs created eqaul, no. And they shouldn't be. Mech were built to do different things. Some are fragile, but fast. Some are tanky laser vomit monsters. I am not a fan of making all mechs the same, but there should be a relative ability to have success in any mech. Especially for quick play.

[Archie4Strings]

I do like this patch very much!

I already feel as if the summoner can, with a specific loadout, be a fine mech compared to others. In a few testing round with UAC20 i did a lot of damage! (This mech really did need some quirks! If its enough, we'll have to see...)

For the gargoyle and nove: I dont know, dont own them.

Also:
The changes for the MASC are great!! You feel a great boost now and it changes especially the Executioner pretty much! Its gonna make it to a really good mech and finally a second clan assault mech becomes viable!
Also the same for the shadowcat!
And thx due to the reduction of the range quirks of the IS, the Clans might be the better snipers, as it is in the Lore! Thank you PGi!

The IS still got strong quirks! They shouldnt complain! Also they have a better Heat Management, shorter burning times for lasers, pin point damage on ACs, more different and viable Mechs, also cheaper to master a new Chassis...
So pls dont complain!

I think this could be the first time, that the different factions are balanced. And if you lose anyway, never forget:
Teamplay > Balancing

[Sky Hawk]

ExoForce, on 17 February 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Need better tester then me. Looks like I cannot fire both arm and torso LRMS at the same time on Stalker.
I have LRM15 on the arm and 10 in torso. Doors open. Door light green. Fire all.
Arms shooting first, then after few seconds torso fires in two salvos (same as before with 6 tubes) but why pause between arm and torso???

First, I can (post patch ) fire from my Stalkers torso both an LRM10 and an LRM15 launchers in one salvo. Perhaps, you should strip down your Mech, save it empty, and build it up again...

Second, for me works it in the other way. I have arm-torso time delay too, but, first shoot my torsos, than after that, my arms. I think, there is a bug in the weapon door system... I saw something similar in the patch-feedback too... Anyway... After closing-opening my weapon doors several times, the bug goes away, any I can shoot whole Alphas (45/50/60) in one salvo .. Try it... Perhaps it will work for you too...

Edited by Sky Hawk, 18 February 2016 - 05:28 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

Wintersdark, on 17 February 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Thus far, I've been at worst mildly inconvenienced by flamer wielding mechs resulting in my having to hold laser fire/fire very carefully.

It can be very irritating if you're packing nothing but lasers, but when you can just poke autocannons into your target as he stands relatively still in 90m staring at you... That works out pretty well.

Just wait some, see how it works out after people adapt.

It seems you have missed the point, as has Russ. The issue is not predicated on whether or not you specifically (or anyone else) have been seriously impacted by flamers. That's anecdotal; it means nothing, because it is only relevant to that particular occurrence. What occurred in any one particular situation can not be claimed to occur in other, different situations.

The issue is that a 'Mech with flamers, used in a specific way, can cause a target to overheat without building up any heat itself. This is a direct effect of the mechanics by which flamers work - it is not anecdotal, it is in effect at all times, and applies to all situations. Any time a 'Mech uses this mechanic, he will not build up heat, and his target will.

This is not "working as intended." It is a workaround. PGI put in a goofy exponential-heat mechanic specifically to give flamers a usage cost, but the players have immediately figured out a way to exploit that same mechanic to avoid any usage cost whatsoever. That's what makes it broken. It's supposed to prevent overuse, and instead does nothing. Whether or not any one individual has been seriously affected by that doesn't really matter, because it doesn't change the fact that the weapon system has no downside to the user.

[Bloodweaver]

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

What if Faction play vs Clans was 10v12? I know, I know: PGI/Russ nixed this a long time ago because it was too difficult to implement, but I'm not a programmer - could someone explain why?

And I'm not talking Quick Play, where there's mixed drops on the teams and potentially anyone or everyone *could* be running Clan mechs. OBVIOUSLY you wouldn't balance the teams with 10v12 because you couldn't know what one team would be running over the other.

Giving the Clans in CW fewer 'Mechs would have been the most obvious way to balance the game... in THAT game mode. Problem is, Quick Play is still affected even if you're "not talking about that." 10v12 in CW, or 3 spawns vs 5 spawns, or whatever, and all the bullet points you listed, would be a great way to have implemented CW - but they would only work so long as Clan 'Mechs were significantly more powerful than Inner Sphere 'Mechs. And so long as that was true, QP matches would be an imbalanced mess as well, even with the teams' sizes being the same - UNLESS they somehow separated the factions in QP matches as well. But, PGI has always been 100% against that possibility even in theory. So, (y)our energy is better spent moving on to other things.

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

What about Hardpoints being size-based? And weapons have a size to them? So a mech might have a Large Laser Slot on it's arm (so 1 energy slot), so it could put one Large energy weapon there (so LL or PPC), or two Medium Energy Weapons, or four Light Energy Weapons. If the slot were a Medium Energy Slot, you couldn't put a Large Energy weapon in the hardpoint. You get the idea.

Different variants would have these hardpoints in different places. Or different type of hardpoints.

Another good idea. And another idea that PGI has always been 100% against, even in theory. To note, Koniving pointed out a modified version of the sized-hardpoints system; you could still put a Large Laser into, say, a medium-size energy slot - but doing so would result in an upscaled beam duration and/or heat output. Large ballistics in slots designed for machine-guns would need to fire more shells(as with Clan ACs). Basically, it'd be the same as what PGI originally did with missile tube counts, before all their customization passes went into place.

Dawnstealer, on 17 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Annnnnd...I dunno. I guess I'm saying that there's better ways to balance than this see-saw quirkening/dequirkening/requirking dance. It was a good experiment, but...it's run it's course.

Agreed 100%. But PGI seems to love quirks. And why wouldn't they? It's a lot easier to just adjust some armor and agility values on pre-existing mechanics than it is to design whole new mechanics. Shame.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 18 February 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[Bloodweaver]

Wintersdark, on 15 February 2016 - 07:28 PM, said:

Because that's the only way to increase accuracy in MWO. Targeting computer's express purpose is to increase targeting accuracy. That's what they *do*. But because people are adamant that, no matter what's going on, shots fired always fly *exactly* to the crosshairs. Whether that's a good idea or not is irrelevant, it is what it is.

As such, the only way to make players more accurate with a TC is by having it increase projectile velocity.

On that note - why the hell is it that TCs don't shorten beam durations for ER lasers? Why is it that they increase laser ranges? As you said, TCs are supposed to increase a weapon's accuracy... which isn't accomplished by extending its range O_o Never really understood why they did that. As if Clan lasers didn't already have significant range advantages over IS lasers... And then they had to change Clan laser mechanics as a result by giving them lower max (i.e., past optimal) ranges. I mean, just... LOL.

[Paperdog]

Archie4Strings, on 18 February 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:

And thx due to the reduction of the range quirks of the IS, the Clans might be the better snipers, as it is in the Lore! Thank you PGi!

The IS still got strong quirks! They shouldnt complain! Also they have a better Heat Management, shorter burning times for lasers, pin point damage on ACs, more different and viable Mechs, also cheaper to master a new Chassis...
So pls dont complain!

I think this could be the first time, that the different factions are balanced. And if you lose anyway, never forget:
Teamplay > Balancing

Then Is shoud be better at tanking or reducing damage to get close, but they are don't. Unless PGy gives them structure quirks, not MG quirks FFS.
Clans have lighter and stronger weapons, bult in CXL, C.A.S.E, endo and ferro (occupy less slot than IS counterparts) and have omnipods and have useful Targeting Computers (not a 3 ton of **** Command Console)

Sure, IS chassis are cheaper... if you don't wanna buy XL, endo and ferro and.. whoops! It costs almost as much as a clan mech (and you can't swich your hardpoints unless you buy another chassis).

And if you look closely you can see that IS mech are losing their OP quirks bit by bit. sure PGI throw in 1-2 stupid OP quirks, but this adffects only a few IS chassis variants (not all variants of the same chassis). however Clan omnipods doesn't have this (necessary) Is quirking limit, 1 good omnipod can be equipped on all variants of that chassis.
Clans has the upper hand and still better at throwing alfas from range (wich is still the meta, even with the lowered heat cap)

[Dawnstealer]

Wintersdark, on 17 February 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Silly monkey. It doesn't matter what you're "talking"; quick play is still impacted. It would turn Quick Play into "The team with the most Clan Mechs wins" and that's just stupid. Basically, your change would remove IS mechs from Quick Play, and that's unacceptable.

How is that different from now?

And your last point is asinine, no offense. I'm an IS loyalist and have run a clan mech all of one time (it was a trial and I wanted to make a point about the damage potential of Clan mechs). I'm not alone there: plenty of people don't want to run Clan mechs for a variety of reasons.

Not everyone wants the crutch of supermechs.

[Dawnstealer]

mikerso, on 18 February 2016 - 12:45 AM, said:

Wintersdark is spot on here. People cry for lances and stars, and don't realize that the game mode that suffers the most from imbalance, is actually quick play. They just don't have a map to show it. Are all mechs created eqaul, no. And they shouldn't be. Mech were built to do different things. Some are fragile, but fast. Some are tanky laser vomit monsters. I am not a fan of making all mechs the same, but there should be a relative ability to have success in any mech. Especially for quick play.

My point being that each team has an equal chance of having clan mechs on their team. As long as that averages out, who cares? I play plenty of Quick Play and CW.

If you're really that convinced it would ruin Quick Play for life or whatever, then just balance the number of Clan mechs per team. I just notice that in nearly every Quick Play game I have, the numbers are usually pretty balanced. Usually about five Clan mechs and seven IS mechs.