140 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 February 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Are quirks not still in the .cdf files? The main problem it seems is they are doing this by hand rather than doing a search and replace across files.

I think so, but it's still actual text AFAIK.

[Dimento Graven]

Prosperity Park, on 16 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

To be honest, PGI should ignore everyone who's asking for 8v12 and 10v12 so they can have their Lore OP ClanTech. But, I know that is not the case here, and I also didn't specify "Clanners" (since Lorebangers from both ends of the Sphere have asked for that crap).

There are many Clanners who do this, and Spheroids who do that. Lumping them together is probably not good for anyone's argument.

I only suggest that 10v12 should be utilized in CW to allow Clans to maintain their tech superiority, then, who would need to give a crap about balancing Clan vs. IS when the "balance" is that IS brings more numbers to the table?

OTHERWISE, we gotta go through this constant BS of tweaking/nerfing/quirking/breaking of weapons/game play to try and make it where Clans are "superior" but somehow still "balanced".

It's BS, and we oughta stop wasting our time on it...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 16 February 2016 - 01:59 PM.

[Jman5]

Another thing I have noticed is that several of the mechs have energy + specific laser range quirks giving it higher than 10%. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but here it is:

• Stalker 4N: 5% LL 10% Energy
  
• Stalker 5S: 5% LPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 3S: 5% MPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 1G: 10% ML, 10% energy
  
• Banshee 3S: 10% ML, 5% energy
  
• thunderbolt 9SE: 10% LPL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5S: 10% LL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5SS: 15% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Trebuchet 5J: 20% std laser range
  
• Loup de guerre: 10% MPL, 5% energy
  
• Golden Boy: 20% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Enforcer 4R: 10% LL, 10% energy

[Aethon]

Chuck Jager, on 16 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

If you ever work with tech, especially online tech, there will always be mistakes.

Especially when you happen to be PGI, lol.

[pwnface]

Jman5, on 16 February 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

Another thing I have noticed is that several of the mechs have energy + specific laser range quirks giving it higher than 10%. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but here it is:

• Stalker 4N: 5% LL 10% Energy
  
• Stalker 5S: 5% LPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 3S: 5% MPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 1G: 10% ML, 10% energy
  
• Banshee 3S: 10% ML, 5% energy
  
• thunderbolt 9SE: 10% LPL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5S: 10% LL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5SS: 15% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Trebuchet 5J: 20% std laser range
  
• Loup de guerre: 10% MPL, 5% energy
  
• Golden Boy: 20% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Enforcer 4R: 10% LL, 10% energy

This is intentional.

[LegendaryArticuno]

^ Jman stahp!!!

[Dimento Graven]

Jman5, on 16 February 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

Another thing I have noticed is that several of the mechs have energy + specific laser range quirks giving it higher than 10%. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, but here it is:

• Stalker 4N: 5% LL 10% Energy
  
• Stalker 5S: 5% LPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 3S: 5% MPL 10% energy
  
• Battlemaster 1G: 10% ML, 10% energy
  
• Banshee 3S: 10% ML, 5% energy
  
• thunderbolt 9SE: 10% LPL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5S: 10% LL, 10% energy
  
• Thunderbolt 5SS: 15% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Trebuchet 5J: 20% std laser range
  
• Loup de guerre: 10% MPL, 5% energy
  
• Golden Boy: 20% MPL, 10% energy
  
• Enforcer 4R: 10% LL, 10% energy

I believe that was actually intentional.

I know that at one point PGI was talking about removing the 'weapon specific' quirk and just quirking the weapon class on a 'mech by 'mech basis, but then something happened and they switched to what we're currently seeing.

No idea what happened or why, but that's my take on it.

[Chemie]

MischiefSC, on 16 February 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

The Raven 4x is the bad boy there.

That thing is a stone cold killer of a sniper at 35 tons. With those range quirks and fast fire and short burn time it's the best light sniper in the game by a long stretch.

and by this you mean having a light that is something other than the oxide or cheata brawlers role is an issue?

[Revis Volek]

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

So there's like... FIVE 'mechs out of the hundreds that still have generic energy range bonuses greater than 10% and we're sharpening the points on our pitchforks and oiling up our torches?

Is that what I'm reading here?

The end of all Clan OP'ness ends with those 5 individual 'mechs, and now Clan 'easy mode' players won't be able to win any more if any ONE of those 'mechs shows up on the battlefield?

Is that what I'm really reading here?

<sigh>

Paul, this is why you need to ignore the crap out of the Clanners... They have no sense of perspective...

Then you read and comprehended it wrong, we are not saying that one tech is better or worse then another in this thread, we are saying that when you are SUPPOSE to do a job to 100% completion and more then 1 or 2 mechs slip through the cracks (and mechs not chassis) there is a problem, either in your employees ability, Your procedure or maybe both.

Either way, One mech i wouldnt care about, 3 or more and someone didnt do their job correctly. I have to be 100% accurate all day long, its not impossible at all. Just have to take your time, get a prcedure and follow it so each one is the same or as close to it as possible.

This seems really easy in comparison to milling something down to .001 tolerances and such or engraving 3000 words with not a single mistake. Hence the hub bub....

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

I only suggest that 10v12 should be utilized in CW to allow Clans to maintain their tech superiority, then, who would need to give a crap about balancing Clan vs. IS when the "balance" is that IS brings more numbers to the table?

OTHERWISE, we gotta go through this constant BS of tweaking/nerfing/quirking/breaking of weapons/game play to try and make it where Clans are "superior" but somehow still "balanced".

It's BS, and we oughta stop wasting our time on it...

This breaks the solo queue, how can we have 10v12 in one mode and 12v12 in another without mechs being on 1:1 with each other?

If you have it this way in one mode, its this way in ALL modes or mechs are stronger and weaker depending on the mode which IMO is most the BS thing i heard all week.

Its a bad idea for more reasons then that...

[Dimento Graven]

Revis Volek, on 16 February 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

Then you read and comprehended it wrong, we are not saying that one tech is better or worse then another in this thread, we are saying that when you are SUPPOSE to do a job to 100% completion and more then 1 or 2 mechs slip through the cracks (and mechs not chassis) there is a problem, either in your employees ability, Your procedure or maybe both.

Either way, One mech i wouldnt care about, 3 or more and someone didnt do their job correctly. I have to be 100% accurate all day long, its not impossible at all. Just have to take your time, get a prcedure and follow it so each one is the same or as close to it as possible.

This seems really easy in comparison to milling something down to .001 tolerances and such or engraving 3000 words with not a single mistake. Hence the hub bub....

Yeah, either 5 'mechs were missed, OR, Paul misspoke when he said "all", he meant "NEARLY all", which is what we currently have.

Either way, the tone and venom from the Clanners on this, again, over the top.

Quote

This breaks the solo queue, how can we have 10v12 in one mode and 12v12 in another without mechs being on 1:1 with each other?

Don't give flying F bomb about the solo queue, let it stay as it is. The public queues were supposed to be the "stop gap" game while CW was being developed.

The "main game" of MWO is supposed to be CW, not the public queues. The game should be being balanced for the "main game", not the 'stop gap' mode.

Quote

If you have it this way in one mode, its this way in ALL modes or mechs are stronger and weaker depending on the mode which IMO is most the BS thing i heard all week.

Its a bad idea for more reasons then that...

No it really isn't, but we can end this discussion with the simple words:

"Programming is hard™" - Spoken with a tear drop from an eye and a quivering lip...

[Chuck Jager]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 February 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Are quirks not still in the .cdf files? The main problem it seems is they are doing this by hand rather than doing a search and replace across files.

XML is usually only for client side graphics. If I made a game, I would make a dunny XML files and then record how they were accessed to get info for possible exploiters. XML is too slow to process in real time compared to compiled code.

As someone who has been in charge of CSS layout and form parsing on websites, I have run into to many separate tasks amongst front end, backend and designers/planners. The person making the changes is not told to do what Russ said in the patch notes. They probably do not see the patch notes. They are probably given the slip of paper that the big bosses looked at and said this is to much info "just say no more than 10% for the releases" and nobody said except for x,y,z.

Trying to do a find and replace is not always easy because in different places the quirks may be listed differently based on how they are applied in that language. Unfortunately every group of folks I have worked with talks about common libraries, but this gets dropped over time. As code gets more complicated trying to patch and add "stuff", it gets harder to add stuff. Not saying it is excusable, but just that it will continually happen. The sad part is it is actually quicker and cheaper to do the basic testing and then wait for it to go live and then fix.

ALSO with all of the complaining about the range nerfs for IS, this sounds more like little children (insecure adults) trying to find spelling errors just to say I'm better than you. I am waiting for more weapon specific range quirks in 3 months and then we will be back to folks QQing about template builds that then led to generic quirks, etc, etc.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Chuck Jager, on 16 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

As someone who has been in charge of CSS layout and form parsing on websites, I have run into to many separate tasks amongst front end, backend and designers/planners. The person making the changes is not told to do what Russ said in the patch notes. They probably do not see the patch notes.

This is what things like JIRA are for, tracking this exact sort of thing.....

Chuck Jager, on 16 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Trying to do a find and replace is not always easy because in different places the quirks may be listed differently based on how they are applied in that language.

Last I knew, they were just plain text in .cdf files, so yes, find and replace could work (especially since the limit is the first double digit integer).

Chuck Jager, on 16 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

XML is usually only for client side graphics.

XML is used for more than that, even though it shouldn't, I much prefer yaml over xml any day.

Chuck Jager, on 16 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

XML is too slow to process in real time compared to compiled code.

I don't think it is that slow, compared to interpreted languages which are used in some cases with game engines (unreal being the most notable). I don't like XML though so meh.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 February 2016 - 02:29 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Yeah, either 5 'mechs were missed, OR, Paul misspoke when he said "all", he meant "NEARLY all", which is what we currently have.

Either way, the tone and venom from the Clanners on this, again, over the top.

Don't give flying F bomb about the solo queue, let it stay as it is. The public queues were supposed to be the "stop gap" game while CW was being developed.

The "main game" of MWO is supposed to be CW, not the public queues. The game should be being balanced for the "main game", not the 'stop gap' mode.

No it really isn't, but we can end this discussion with the simple words:

"Programming is hard™" - Spoken with a tear drop from an eye and a quivering lip...

So we can take your ideas and throw them in the trash then, because you are trying to balance the game for about 12% of the population.


Breaking half the game to make the other half one thing work is dumb, you dont take from Paul to pay peter. Otherwise we are in the same place just different circumstances. One mode is fun and one is lame....

Edited by Revis Volek, 16 February 2016 - 02:28 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Revis Volek, on 16 February 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

So we can take your ideas and throw them in the trash then, because you are trying to balance the game for about 12% of the population.


Breaking half the game to make the other half one thing work is dumb, you dont take from Paul to pay peter. Otherwise we are in the same place just different circumstances. One mode is fun and one is lame....

Yet, that's EXACTLY what was done.

MWO was supposed to be all about CW warfare.

CW was nowhere near ready, the 'testing mode' of public queues became what everyone has become used to, and in the process MOST of you forgot the fact that the "real" game was NEVER intended to be the public queues, and NOW we can't really "fix" the game for CW because it will be perceived as breaking the public queues.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 16 February 2016 - 02:34 PM.

[cSand]

yes it's patch day!

let the neckbearding nitpickinginane criticisms begin!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

NOW we can't really "fix" the game for CW because it will be perceived as breaking the public queues.

We can't fix CW because PGI is having trouble making it a worthwhile game mode, not because of balance.

[Johnny Z]

Prosperity Park, on 16 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

To be honest, PGI should ignore everyone who's asking for 8v12 and 10v12 so they can have their Lore OP ClanTech. But, I know that is not the case here, and I also didn't specify &quot;Clanners&quot; (since Lorebangers from both ends of the Sphere have asked for that crap).

There are many Clanners who do this, and Spheroids who do that. Lumping them together is probably not good for anyone's argument.

Clan alt chatting above. Its Sphereian and no Sphereian want to be in mechs that don't have a fair chance.

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 February 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

We can't fix CW because PGI is having trouble making it a worthwhile game mode, not because of balance.

I disagree. It's worthwhile, but not when one side gets to bring the same numbers as you AND an overwhelming technological edge.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

I disagree.

The rest of the population seems to disagree with you, so meh.

Dimento Graven, on 16 February 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

but not when one side gets to bring the same numbers as you AND an overwhelming technological edge.

Bolded the hyperbole.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 February 2016 - 02:43 PM.

[Soldier91]

Laser ranges was way too strong. Kind of glad I maxed out my WVR-6k right away skill wise when I got it a few days ago since that's sort of what it really had going for it. This is probably a good change though.