298 replies to this topic

[Pat Kell]

Thanks Von, I will check that out.

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 14 July 2016 - 01:43 AM, said:

Thanks Von, I will check that out.

What makes me a bit twitchy is that this is how we were told -

Quote

Some updates to the road map: http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/227702-mayjunejuly-road-map/ …

That's it. That tweet. Here's what got changed -

Quote

Long Tom adjustments
Blast Radius is being reduced from 300m to 200m, max amount of Damage to a single ‘Mech is being reduced from 150DMG per component to 120 DMG per component.

Buried in a page worth of info, no direct reference, no response to tweets about it.

Yeah. Like that.

Edited to add -

Scorpio Bulkers Inc. stock last closed at $3.15 a share, it just might be time for you to invest along with the rest of us.

Just call your broker and say you want to invest in SALT. The rest of us have already done so.

Edited by MischiefSC, 14 July 2016 - 03:19 AM.

[Mystere]

50 50, on 13 July 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

To make an analogy:
This is like having a football match where all the players on the opposing team lie down on the field every time a tennis player across town wins a set.

A terrible analogy is still terrible no matter how it is packaged.

Winning the scouting side of CW is equivalent to attaining complete air superiority in a war campaign.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 13 July 2016 - 02:50 PM, said:

Scouting doesn't need to be a game changer- indeed, it shouldn't br. Nor should state of invasion queue change scout queue. This just makes one shut down the other.

That is a bad design, especially with already low populations.

Bad design? I disagree. It's analogous to the US having complete air superiority over the Taliban.

I say it's bad implementation of a reasonable idea.

As for low population, not much in the design side of things can fix that problem.

Edited by Mystere, 14 July 2016 - 09:57 AM.

[Pat Kell]

Mystere, on 14 July 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

Bad design? I disagree. It's analogous to the US having complete air superiority over the Taliban.

I say it's bad implementation of a reasonable idea.

As for low population, not much in the design side of things can fix that problem.

And when we decide to go to war with the Taliban by using MWO as the basis of determining who wins the war or not, then you can start using this analogy. This is a game that requires players in order to keep it up and running. If you create an atmosphere where one side or the other is able to farm something to completion and then be able to win a VAST majority of games via this farming, then people will leave. Stop comparing how war isn't fair to a game that requires it to be fair and balance in order to stay viable.

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 14 July 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

As for low population, not much in the design side of things can fix that problem.

To my way of thinking the "design side of things" is all about population.

Along the lines of "build It and they will come"...especially if it is built to be fun, balanced and still a challenge to play.
Word gets out, especially around here.

On the flip side if you make the design crap...oh like, as a random example: including a insta-kill mechanism in a game that is primarily about team play and dealing damage...then the "they" will not come, and those that are here will leave.

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 14 July 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

To my way of thinking the "design side of things" is all about population.

Along the lines of "build It and they will come"...especially if it is built to be fun, balanced and still a challenge to play.
Word gets out, especially around here.

On the flip side if you make the design crap...oh like, as a random example: including a insta-kill mechanism in a game that is primarily about team play and dealing damage...then the "they" will not come, and those that are here will leave.

The problem is: who will still come? The game has already garnered such a bad rep.

[Mystere]

Pat Kell, on 14 July 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

And when we decide to go to war with the Taliban by using MWO as the basis of determining who wins the war or not, then you can start using this analogy.

Well, it's a much better analogy than the one given involving football and tennis. <shrugs>

Pat Kell, on 14 July 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

This is a game that requires players in order to keep it up and running. If you create an atmosphere where one side or the other is able to farm something to completion and then be able to win a VAST majority of games via this farming, then people will leave. Stop comparing how war isn't fair to a game that requires it to be fair and balance in order to stay viable.

One side gaining complete LT superiority means the other side failed. How different is that from individual teams getting spawn camped because they massively failed? Heck, I think the latter is even far worse.

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 14 July 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

The problem is: who will still come? The game has already garnered such a bad rep.

Well a lot of folks are still playing...just not FP or not FP on a planet where LT is active. If LT were gone, I think lot of those 'FP/CW expatriates' would return to the mode, and be willing to fight on more fronts. Might there also be a chance that word would get out beyond the immediate community if things improved? Maybe. But as long as FP sucks, or is perceived to suck -because of LT- there is zero chance of that occurring.



As an aside, imagine if CW were interactive and immersive as it is supposed to be? Where each faction had real benefits and drawbacks? Where planets affected the game more than by granting a few MC? Where mercenaries were merely hired hands and not the controlling power of the game? Where loyalty to your house mattered? I think if CW had even ONE of these these things, word would get out and people would most definitely come back. As it is, I'd settle for fixing the stupid long tom nuclear detonation mechanism...at least as a start.

Edited for typo

Edited by Bud Crue, 14 July 2016 - 11:49 AM.

[dezgra]

I like the Long Tom. With or without it I will still play. I would like to see a smaller version or maybe a thumper for my mech though.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Kin3ticX, on 12 July 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

what is this counterplay thing you speak of?

I think you lost PGI at "test again and again" and "observe (test) players reactions".


In before...
New long tom damage reduced by 90% and no longer crits, but only hits head now.

But seriously, 80 to 90% damage reduction and 4 to 6 minute cool down as a minimum nerf.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Long Tom adjustments
Blast Radius is being reduced from 300m to 200m, max amount of Damage to a single ‘Mech is being reduced from 150DMG per component to 120 DMG per component.


They still don't get it. Instant kill mechanic is bad.


How do I change my vote from nerf to remove. We will have 35% of the tournament teams drop before this gets nerfed adequately.


FYI, I did the event in one week and did not get hit by the long tom in any matches.
Instant kill mechanic is not fun for either side.
It would be fine if the radius was 300 and damage was limited so fresh 50 tonners and up were not instant killed.

Edited by Remover of Obstacles, 14 July 2016 - 12:43 PM.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Voted for nerf instead of removal.

I am even okay with the damage it does.
I would like if it would hit significantly less often and also a longer time delay between smoke and impact.
Smoke should be bigger and i would like a visual and audio warning.
Something like "cation, impact incoming" similar to lrm warning.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Remover of Obstacles, on 14 July 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

Long Tom adjustments
Blast Radius is being reduced from 300m to 200m, max amount of Damage to a single ‘Mech is being reduced from 150DMG per component to 120 DMG per component.

Please post feedback from the testing of the revised damage.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Remover of Obstacles, on 14 July 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

Long Tom adjustments
Blast Radius is being reduced from 300m to 200m, max amount of Damage to a single ‘Mech is being reduced from 150DMG per component to 120 DMG per component.

120 dmg per component is still certain death to every IS mech with XL up to 75 ton heavies and STD mediums sub 55 tons.
Even a 55 ton STD shadowhawk barely survives that.


TBU. doesn't matter if it's 120 or 1200.
cockpits only have 18 points armor and 15 internal.
Legs can't handle 120 points of damage.

even a 75 ton blacknight will be left with nothing but cherry red open CT when hit. Assuming the longtom didn't blasted the legs or the cockpit away.

It's like they have an Ultra Pulse laser with 1000 damage nerfed to 500 damage, wouldn't change a thing.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 14 July 2016 - 01:22 PM.

[Karmen Baric]

More proof PGI doesn't have clue about its players or its own game.
LT will keep killing players even with this minor nerf and players will keep leaving the mode due to its presence.
Honestly cant be bothered playing Faction Warfare any longer.

Edited by Karmen Baric, 14 July 2016 - 01:45 PM.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Still a headshot. Still a double leg. Still an instant kill on an atlas.

Do they even play this game.

[Remover of Obstacles]

Can someone with a twit account get Russ over here?

[FallingAce]

Don't know why anyone would play a game where you win 99.99% of the time.

Don't know why someone would play a game where you lose 99.99% of the time. Oh wait, the informed ones don't.
Only the poor puggles that don't know better do.

[MischiefSC]

Russ has gotten something like 40 or 50 tweets saying we hate LT. I think that's what prompted him to make this functionally insignificant change.

This is what he considered a fix.