366 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

Zmflyin, on 14 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Maintaining a +45% laser range quirk, but with a counter of -35% ErLL range quirk.

No need. There is already a STD LASER RANGE quirk, that only works for small, medium and large lasers.

[Koshirou]

Or, as has been said several times now, you could just reduce the range of the IS ERLL. But why take the elegant approach when there are complicated solutions with unforseeable repercussions available...

[Insufficient Skill]

Rampage, on 14 February 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

Those numbers have nothing to do with nerfing or buffing in patches.

While I agree with most of the other things you said, this is not necessarily true. People buying stuff with real money, steam starter packs or how they're called, going for specific attributes of their mechs only to find that those attributes are gone two weeks later, will surely not come back.

[Insufficient Skill]

Zmflyin, on 14 February 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think people might be thinking short term here instead of long term about the laser dequirking for IS. Though there were pts servers for a bit, I am pretty sure this is a way for them to collect real test data about laser ranges for the IS and provide quirks like people expect, appropriately. IE: Maintaining a +45% laser range quirk, but with a counter of -35% ErLL range quirk.

As a positive, these broad changes keep me from getting bored as I get to tinker more with what I thought was g2g before a patch.

Who put a pistol to PGIs head and forced them to cap all energy range quirks at 10%? Reduce INDIVIDUAL Uber quirks 5 or 10 points see how it goes, iterate.

[Dee Eight]

How about the regular medium lasers follow the original game material closer... 1 ton, 3 heat, 5 damage.

Also the energy range reduction to I.S. mechs just nerfed half my fleet. And I don't use any LL or PPCs with those quiirks. I use Mediums and Smalls.

Edited by Dee Eight, 14 February 2016 - 06:27 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

How about the regular medium lasers follow the original game material closer... 1 ton, 3 heat, 5 damage.

There was a time when this was done. Over the years, numbers had to be modified. I recall Open Beta and some time after that, MLs were much better than MPLs, no one ever used a MPL except for funsies or they were new.

[Deathlike]

spectralthundr, on 13 February 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

Oh jeez who cares? It's a flamer, did any one expect it to eventually become a meta weapon? It's largely been a useless weapon in practically every MW title it's been in. I swear some in this community just make up reasons to ***** at this point.

That's actually not accurate.

In MW2 Mercs (single play, not through Netmech), you had projectile Flamers that would insta-gib mechs that would overheat. You'd have to boat them to generate that effect (death through overheating).

In MW3, a Flamer boat actually could randomly kill you due to how overheating works in MW3... especially on hot maps. Shutting down would only delay your death by flamer damage (although, water cooling was ridiculously powerful in MW3).

So... no.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 February 2016 - 06:37 PM.

[ball0fire]

i pre orderd the standard rifleman pack aloooong time ago so its got the early adopter rewards, if i chose to upgrade now do i still get them or not?

[DevilCrayon]

Adding to your order sure shouldn't take anything you're already getting away. That would be ... poor customer service.

[NocturnalBeast]

Dee Eight, on 14 February 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

How about the regular medium lasers follow the original game material closer... 1 ton, 3 heat, 5 damage.

Also the energy range reduction to I.S. mechs just nerfed half my fleet. And I don't use any LL or PPCs with those quiirks. I use Mediums and Smalls.

They do not follow TT closely in order to increase TTK, since they don't wan't COD kiddies to get upset and play other games.

[Sereglach]

Wildstreak, on 14 February 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

There was a time when this was done. Over the years, numbers had to be modified. I recall Open Beta and some time after that, MLs were much better than MPLs, no one ever used a MPL except for funsies or they were new.

The sad thing is that there were several really good suggestions/conversations about turning pulse lasers into a completely different kind of short-range-pinpoint-brawler weapon system by cutting the cooldown and damage in half (give or take), but also having the burn time only be no more than a half second for even the LPL. It would have been a great way to differentiate the weapon systems in form, function, and purpose.

Instead we've got the laser types that are so close in functionality that there's only modest difference, at best, in the grand scheme of things. We've gotten pulse lasers range increased multiple times, damage increased multiple times and heat brought closer to the standard counterparts. At this point they're just higher damage standard lasers with slightly shorter burn time, at the cost of some weight.

Deathlike, on 14 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

That's actually not accurate.

In MW2 Mercs (single play, not through Netmech), you had projectile Flamers that would insta-gib mechs that would overheat. You'd have to boat them to generate that effect (death through overheating).

In MW3, a Flamer boat actually could randomly kill you due to how overheating works in MW3... especially on hot maps. Shutting down would only delay your death by flamer damage (although, water cooling was ridiculously powerful in MW3).

So... no.

Too true on all accounts; and oh how I miss those flamers. I remember FEARING that Gray Death Legion Flashman, in MW2 Mercs, when it first comes out of the derelict ship on that desert planet. If it hit you with its flamer you were suffering dearly for the mistake. I remembered intentionally going out of my way to bring Machine Guns and Flamers of my own on that mission.

[Sereglach]

Flamer functionality and effectiveness debates aside . . . I'll try to make this as clear as possible, again.

I think the one thing people are overlooking, which is probably the biggest reason for my . . . sour disposition . . . on the subject of Flamers (regardless of my annoyance over the massive nerf to most of the weapon's properties) . . . is that PGI may have created a horrific weapon for building heat on targets for Trolls and exploiters. Why, you might ask? Simple. At the same time they've done this "fix", they've still left a glaring exploit in the Flamer weapon system that I pointed out over a year ago to MWO support, due to PGI's very poor heat mechanics for the weapon system; and PGI's decision was to ignore it because the Flamer was just that terrible of a weapon system.

I hate to be "that guy", but once this patch goes live, if that exploit is still in there (which I KNOW it is, because they're using the same acceleration based heat mechanics . . . the right properties are even listed as being adjusted in the patch notes), then the trolls will be out there in force using the right kind of chain fire macros on just the right number of flamers (I'm not going to post the full exploit on these forums) to ruin everyone's day and lock the majority of mechs in the game down to a near helpless state . . . with no one doing any real damage to anyone . . . Unless, of course, the trolls and exploiters find a way around that, too.

[PFC Carsten]

Sereglach, on 14 February 2016 - 09:43 PM, said:

[…]ruin everyone's day and lock the majority of mechs in the game down to a near helpless state . . . with no one doing any real damage to anyone . . . Unless, of course, the trolls and exploiters find a way around that, too.

Easy, combine with machine gun and/or AC2-5.

BTW - PGI, please delay the patch, cancel the blunt IS nerf to <=10% energy range and only apply it to those mechs who get „abused“ (or rather overused). Maybe even there don't cut it to 10% but go down step by step in 5% increments until you found the right balance.

[Ninjah]

As other pointed out, iterate PGI! First you nerf Clans into the ground, now you'll nerf IS into the ground. Do smaller eduction, see how it works out first... Fine balance is not achieved by changing values by 15% lol. Try -5% first...

[Herr Vorragend]

Wait until the changes are live. We had so many balance passes and we survived all of them. 10% reduce is what exactly? 18 meters? You can pimp it back to the current range with a range module?
Doesn´t sound too bad. At least I won´t scream in rage. I will adapt.

[Koshirou]

Herr Vorragend, on 15 February 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:

Wait until the changes are live. We had so many balance passes and we survived all of them.

I have also survived a car crash. That doesn't mean that when someone proposes "Hey, I'm going to ignore a red light and smash my car into yours, okay?" I'm going to respond "sure, let's try it out first."

Quote

10% reduce is what exactly? 18 meters? You can pimp it back to the current range with a range module?

"Not what is proposed in this quirk pass", "certainly not", and "no you can't", in that order.

[Nightbird]

Hopefully clan over pop will reverse a little. The tweaks are more mild than I expected, other than unnecessary nerfs to locusts and other lights, the balance should be improved with this quirk pass.

[Lily from animove]

Sereglach, on 14 February 2016 - 09:40 PM, said:

Too true on all accounts; and oh how I miss those flamers. I remember FEARING that Gray Death Legion Flashman, in MW2 Mercs, when it first comes out of the derelict ship on that desert planet. If it hit you with its flamer you were suffering dearly for the mistake. I remembered intentionally going out of my way to bring Machine Guns and Flamers of my own on that mission.

yes but wouldn't work. Because in the other MW's there was open terrain, and terrain was WIDE. and a single laser battery took out a light mech. if we had these flamers in MWO, FS9's would be Op beyong imagination with the small maps and "cover everywhere" deisgn + the ability for lights to tank like baws.

would be a hell of a new broken meta gameplay, but surely fun in it's first days.

[Kmieciu]

Herr Vorragend, on 15 February 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:

Wait until the changes are live. We had so many balance passes and we survived all of them. 10% reduce is what exactly? 18 meters? You can pimp it back to the current range with a range module?
Doesn´t sound too bad. At least I won´t scream in rage. I will adapt.

It's not a 10% reduction, it's a reduction from 50% to 10 %. So a Locust-1M that used an ERLL lost 270 meters of range.

Edited by Kmieciu, 15 February 2016 - 06:19 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Deathlike, on 14 February 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

That's actually not accurate.

In MW2 Mercs (single play, not through Netmech), you had projectile Flamers that would insta-gib mechs that would overheat. You'd have to boat them to generate that effect (death through overheating).

In MW3, a Flamer boat actually could randomly kill you due to how overheating works in MW3... especially on hot maps. Shutting down would only delay your death by flamer damage (although, water cooling was ridiculously powerful in MW3).

So... no.

So you would advocate for Flamers that Insta-Gib enemy Mechs, or Randomly cause them to explode...? Ok, no thanks...

Maybe when SP play is available for MWO....perhaps...