303 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 05:06 PM, said:

Not sure what your point is here.

CSPLs are better on the live servers but cMPLS are more limited on the PTS.

[Kaptain]

Bud Crue, on 23 August 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

That being said ya gotta admit that in the context of the PTS, for them to make a statement like "the feedback we are getting is that we should do X", but then in the next sentence describe how they are going to do the exact opposite of X, just strikes me as inordinately funny in this context: a PTS supposedly driven by player input. Just so perfectly PGI.

My frustrations exactly.

[Wintersdark]

Kaptain, on 23 August 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Completely taken back that they took a simple system and mucked it all up. Many of us (countless threads) asked for a reduction of energy draw on SRMs, an increase in ED for PPCs and a penalty of 1 to 1. The only thing they took from our feedback is the 1 to 1 penalty. The rest they arbitrarily decided on their own.

Proof positive that they do not listen and that these tests are absolutely pointless.

Extremely disappointed.

They discussed why they didn't lower SRM draw.

In practice (have you tested it?) I've found SRM/LBX based brawlers are monsterously effective now. Haven't run an AC20 yet, though; my AS7-DDC rolled with dual LBX10's.

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

CSPLs are better on the live servers but cMPLS are more limited on the PTS.

...so you feel CSPL's are better than CMPL's on the PTS? I don't really care about PTS vs. live comparisons; just how things work there now.

I have not tested CSPL's or CMPL's yet, though, so I don't know. I guess I'll start doing that now.

[Frattak]

This energy draw system is going to kill the game,i'd like to know what the **** you guys use in canada to get so high on ******** because PGI's conduct with this game is a blistering pile of **** as tall as andre the giant,starting with the tournament[oh yeah,some salty comment from a JGx so you can enjoy more and go back to your roleplaying tier 968].
If someone is going to approve this should unistall the life from his chest.
If PGI is going to do this,the game will be dead.

[Vincent Quatermain]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

So Kanajashi's feedback trumps all then it looks like.

That is merely an artifact of his ideas being objectively better than the alternatives. The primary alternatives being:

1) Keeping Ghost Heat -- which no one really likes, but some people don't like change

2) Ghost Aim a.k.a. convergence -- which is favored by people who want random dice rolls and/or think that mechs with widely separated hardpoints need to be nerfed into oblivion

3) Lower Heat Cap -- which is favored by people who want to be shutdown all the time so that they can plan their next "turn"

Basically, PGI may have finally learned that glue-eating TT grognards do not provide useful input into how to make a first-person PvP sim/shooter. Right on, PGI! Keep up the good work!

[xeromynd]

Wait...what? I genuinely expected different changes than these. So now, essentially, we're diving into each individual weapon system and giving them specific values that will contribute to your mech's heat. Sound familiar anyone?

People defending this system as "less complicated than Ghost Heat," your argument just got taken down a peg.

People were making good suggestions like scaling "Energy Pools" based on Engine Size (not in favor) or Weight Class. Removing the Gauss charge, undoing the nerfs to C-LPL range, etc... People were telling you exactly what they wanted to change, and which changes were stupid to begin with. Where did they get the metrics, comments, and opinions that lead to these new changes? (Aka. "everything needs to draw more energy, basically) I'd thought the consensus was that Auto-cannons drawing the same ratio of energy to damage as lasers was stupid, not the opposite.


Oh and, here are things you still aren't doing, PGI:

-You are not incentivizing PTS participation. This needs to happen. You need people in this PTS, all kinds of people, you need casual players, experienced players, veterans who're trying out the game again, etc... I give up on PTS after 3-4 matches because I'm not having fun (yes, that's subjective) and not making any CBills in an already tiring grind.

-(Because of the above) You are not accurately capturing what matches will be like with only 4v4 battles. Yes, I know it's hard to get people on the PTS, but would it kill you to give a player say, 5,000,000 CBills in their live account for 1 Hour of PTS participation? "WoAh FiVe MiLlIoN!!??! R U INsAnE Br0??"

Is our feedback and time not valuable? When Johnny-Mech-Bro overheats in a 4v4 match, survives enemy fire, and continues on to help his team eliminate the 4 enemies, he thinks "wow I overheated but it wasn't that bad!" Yeah, because you don't have 8 other players to lob missiles, bullets, and lasers at you the instant you shut down. Not to mention ammo count is totally different. Focus-fire from more than 4 players is not represented at all.

-You are not making the grind any more fun. Longer TTK? Longer grind, simple.

-(As far as we can see) You are not taking into consideration that many of your Champion/Trial mechs are not built for this system at all. Why even bother asking the community to make trial builds if they're made for a system that'll be going out the window.

-You are not making this easy for new players. Where will a new player go in game to find out what the hell his energy bar is doing, and the energy draw values for each of his weapons? Having to go on a forum to find out weapon values and use third party build tools is off-putting to new players. (But this could be said about many aspects of this game...) I trust the Mechwarrior Academy will be updated with thorough training on the energy draw system when this patch is implemented?

Edited by xeromynd, 23 August 2016 - 05:45 PM.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 23 August 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

I don't entirely get why the CMPL (.7s) has a smaller duration than the CSPL (.75).

Now this is getting hilarious.

Is anyone here still not starting to think that ED is probably going to get more convoluted ... ahem, I meant ... complicated than GH?

Prosperity Park, on 23 August 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want your TT weapon values back for our 12v12 game?

How about having TT values back for a 10v12 game?

Edited by Mystere, 23 August 2016 - 06:27 PM.

[DrxAbstract]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 August 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Why don't you explain why cSPLs are outstanding brawling weapons on the live servers while cMPLs are only found in pug land? You didn't address that.

Derp.

Probably because that's your opinion, not fact. But also: C Splas are the equivalent of IS Mplas (Which hold some popularity on IS builds) and C LPlas's are astonishingly good with their combination of range+dmg+low tonnage which puts C Mplas in that awkward middle-child position of being a bit too hot for brawling and having too short of a range to semi-snipe with. That said, C Mplas work quite well in mid-range poking, but C Mlas affords a bit more distance for less tonnage and, by extension, more room for Heat Sinks coupled with comparable discharge+recharge with C Lplas makes them ideal an ideal pairing (For avoiding ghost heat). Whereas pure C Splas are best for brawling, as short range weapons should be, and C Mplas as more of a standalone weapon that works best in 5-7 weapon clusters, which is limited by ghost heat, further devaluing their use.

The ED system will probably see C Mplas become much more prominent.

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

In what manner is it not balanced?

Can you not see why not actually providing feedback ensures they don't listen to you?

"This isn't balanced!" is useless. It doesn't highlight problems; and while people may agree with you, that agreement is also useless because what they feel is not balanced may not be what you feel is not balanced.

Oh I know it's useless. But this isn't twitter.

[Mystere]

Elizander, on 23 August 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

Balance aside guys, make sure the game is still fun afterwards. :3

Fun? Who needs fun? MWO is serius eSport bizness. The balance Gods must be obeyed unquestionably.

Edited by Mystere, 23 August 2016 - 05:50 PM.

[Domenoth]

Kaptain, on 23 August 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Completely taken back that they took a simple system and mucked it all up. Many of us (countless threads) asked for a reduction of energy draw on SRMs, an increase in ED for PPCs and a penalty of 1 to 1. The only thing they took from our feedback is the 1 to 1 penalty. The rest they arbitrarily decided on their own.

Proof positive that they do not listen and that these tests are absolutely pointless.

Extremely disappointed.

wat?

Kaptain, on 23 August 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

an increase in ED for PPCs...The only thing they took from our feedback is the 1 to 1 penalty.

InnerSphereNews, on 23 August 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

PPC
• Energy Consumption increased to 12 Energy total (from 10)

ERPPC
• Energy Consumption increased to 12 (from 10)

C-ERPPC
• Energy Consumption increased to 15 (from 13.5)

And for SRMs, you do realize if everything SRMs competes with (e.g. Sniping Weapons like PPCs and Gauss) gets increased, that's the same as decreasing SRMs. You do realize that, right?

Seems to me like we got 3 out of 3. Maybe not the exact numbers you were expecting, but you can't be just a little bit flexible?

Edited by Domenoth, 23 August 2016 - 05:55 PM.

[X T R E M E]

xeromynd, on 23 August 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

People were making good suggestions like scaling "Energy Pools" based on Engine Size (not in favor) or Weight Class.

E 'wrong to assume that the engine will resolve the problem.

JENNER (35) Max engine 300 vs HUNCHBACK (50ton) max engine 275:
the 50-ton medium would have fewer points of light
If He does for the weight, are not most of the

• Raven 3 ERLL or the
  
• OXIDE 4 Srm4 or the
  
• Locust 6 Medium Laser or 6Small Pulse Laser or the
  
• Stomcrow Full Laser Vomit or 6 Streek
  
• ecc...

... THE LIGHT MAKES LIGHT AND THE ASSAULT MAKES ASSAULT.

If I have a light and I see an assault, I have fun.
This is not possible, not 'correct, that a light destroys an assault. It is' as if a quad destroys a tank with machine guns.

The Assault it 's slow must do a good alpha.

If I have a Assault with engine 325 and the Heavy have engine 325.
What I choose to play, if both have the same energy points?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO LAST PTS: http://mwomercs.com/...ionsuggestions/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by XtremeAlex, 23 August 2016 - 06:05 PM.

[Wintersdark]

4MPL is perfectly managable on the PTS. Running a 4MPL/4SRM4 build now, and it's fine.

Exceeding draw by 2? Meh. Doesn't matter.

[Mystere]

Wintersdark, on 23 August 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

Oh, hey, it shows your alpha strike energy draw on the mechlab screen!

Which begs the question: why did they not do the same for GH?

[MovinTarget]

Hmmm. My comments about questioning the validity of my 4 erppc 2 guass dire might have been noted?

Seriously guys, you can disagree all you want but unless you get on the pts and prove it, how can you be taken 100% seriously?

I am glad they provided reasons for their tweaks, they developed theories and thanks to the pts we can prove/disprove them without it getting arbitrarily shoved down our throats.

I was on the pts while we had down time today, my friend and I were 2 of 3 people on at one point.

Get on the pts, prove your points and back it up with data they can review.

Don't give me that bs that they should know how to make it work, bug free... if blizzard can screw balance up in WoW with all the money and players they have...

[Wintersdark]

Frattak, on 23 August 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

This energy draw system is going to kill the game,i'd like to know what the **** you guys use in canada to get so high on ******** because PGI's conduct with this game is a blistering pile of **** as tall as andre the giant,starting with the tournament[oh yeah,some salty comment from a JGx so you can enjoy more and go back to your roleplaying tier 968].
If someone is going to approve this should unistall the life from his chest.
If PGI is going to do this,the game will be dead.

^^ Feedback that doesn't get listened to.

Mystere, on 23 August 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

Which begs the question: why did they not do the same for GH?

It's a lot harder. How would you show it? They DID show if your weapons exceeded the GH limit, though.

---

Well, 4MPL/4SRM4 Timber is definitely not weak.

Use both, get in close, then twist rapidly while hammering with SRM's.

Edited by Wintersdark, 23 August 2016 - 06:15 PM.

[Wintersdark]

XtremeAlex, on 23 August 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

If I have a Assault with engine 325 and the Heavy have engine 325.
What I choose to play, if both have the same energy points?

There are assault vs. heavy issues that already exist.

However, how many energy points you have isn't very relevant:

See my KDK builds above. Running LBX20, 4ASRM6, 2ERML: No problem, devastating performance. AS7-DDC, 2LBX10, 3SRM4, 2ML: Again, crushed it. KDK-1, 4ERML, 2LPL, Gauss? Smashy, smashy. No heat issues on any of them.

Sure, you've got 30E. But you get 20 energy back per second. LPL/ERML burns? Roughly 1S.

Look at cooldowns; most weapons have long cooldowns down. Even midrange lasers are around 3. That's 60 energy. So it's pretty easy to rock 2x30 energy strikes over 3-4 seconds.

This is entirely managable if you're not a potato.

I mean, I guess if your MWO experience is "Imma assign all my lasers to one weapon group, and MAYBE all of them on chainfire to another" then this may be hard for you. But with 2-3 weapon groups, an Assault can push WAY WAY more damage than a lighter mech.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

I think I'm going to have to take a break if this goes live. They've pushed the Cooldown on the PPC up so high... now single PPC builds feel kindof pointless. The issue we were having on the PTS was from the newly free'd PPC boats, but instead of bringing them in line, they slapped all PPC toting mechs with a nerf.

5.25 seconds?

If you don't count the splash damage on the clan ER's this is what the DPS numbers look like on all PPCs now (similar range bracket weapons for reference).


Live:
cLPL: 2.97
Gauss Rifle: 2.61 (With charge time)
ERPPC: 2.50


PTS (previous patch):
cLPL: 2.67
Gauss Rifle: 2.24
ERPPC: 2.22


PTS (current patch):
cLPL: 2.67
Gauss Rifle: 2.24
ERPPC: 1.90

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 23 August 2016 - 06:22 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

DrxAbstract, on 23 August 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

The ED system will probably see C Mplas become much more prominent.

Pass that pipe you are smoking.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 23 August 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

2) Ghost Aim a.k.a. convergence -- which is favored by people who want random dice rolls and/or think that mechs with widely separated hardpoints need to be nerfed into oblivion

Which is why a "convergence on lock" system is closest to what we used to have -- delayed convergence -- and ties in nicely with the concept of "information warfare".