476 replies to this topic

[Arcanite]

sorry, mb i missed that, but where i can see "Clan Hero mechs wave 1" quirks?

[Tibbnak]

Post patch I expect this build to have, in a direct line of sight + tag situation within 300-600 meters, to have between 22 and 27.5 dps, assuming 12% cooldown module, the 10% lrm 20 and 10% missile cooldown quirks, and the skill for 5% cooldown.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c4cea0a7d7ec8b5

If you sacrifice two tons of ammo, and get an XL250, you can use double heatsinks to have better heat managment, fired in groups of two.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...be9274d2021f1bf

With the stalker's hill peeking profile and a high mounted tag laser, I could see this being pretty devastating in the right hands in a group op.

Edited by Tibbnak, 14 November 2016 - 12:37 AM.

[Navid A1]

I noticed something today. Atlas as an IS close range brawler with low mounted all torso weapons has miserable torso pitch angle range.

So here is a balancing suggestion PGI:
Swap torso pitch angle between atlas and kodiak for a start.

Spoiler

[qeurul]

Unbelieveable.

I'm 33 and the one reason which first appealed to me in MWO half a year back was the appraised community of mature players. I have played multiplayer and massive-multiplayers all my life and there has always been bickering in community, but not in the scale like this. I't would seem that the only ingredient the 'maturity' is bringing to the mix is the fine nurtured grief, backed by the ever marvelous logical -yet monomaniacal- solutions on how to solve the holy grail of game balance.

Now sit back and think: have you ever played any multiplayer game (in which you have classes, races, items, etc.) where the equilibrium has been reached, and been able to hold more than a fleeting moment?

I did not think so, so remember that when you point your finger at PGI you have grand total of three fingers pointing back at you. You could name them 1) attitude 2) presumptions 3) lack of statistical knowledge

But cheer up, you still have you thumb left you point PGI! So thumbs up: I think that most of you who have sinked 1000+ hours to MWO had a bit of fun there in the middle? Don't forget that. I do not believe anyone of you who says that he spent mastering specific meta-mechs for hundreds of hours, that he didn't enjoy his time at least a bit.

This is not a troll post, rather a friendly slap in the back of the head saying: "hey, life is about change, get over it".

Edited by qeurul, 14 November 2016 - 12:53 AM.

[Navid A1]

qeurul, on 14 November 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

Unbelieveable.

I'm 33 and the one reason which first appealed to me in MWO half a year back was the appraised community of mature players. I have played multiplayer and massive-multiplayers all my life and there has always been bickering in community, but not in the scale like this. I't would seem that the only ingredient the 'maturity' is bringing to the mix is the fine nurtured grief, backed by the ever marvelous logical -yet monomaniacal- solutions on how to solve the holy grail of game balance.

Now sit back and think: have you ever played any multiplayer game (in which you have classes, races, items, etc.) where the equilibrium has been reached, and been able to hold more than a fleeting moment?

I did not think so, so remember that when you point your finger at PGI you have grand total of three fingers pointing back at you. You could name them 1) attitude 2) presumptions 3) lack of statistical knowledge

But cheer up, you still have you thumb left you point PGI! So thumbs up: I think that most of you who have sinked 1000+ hours to MWO had a bit of fun there in the middle? Don't forget that. I do not believe anyone of you who says that he spent mastering specific meta-mechs for hundreds of hours, that he didn't enjoy his time at least a bit.

This is not a troll post, rather a friendly slap in the back of the head saying: "hey, life is about change, get over it".

Let me introduce you to PTS. Public test server.

PGI set those up for people to test weapon changes and to receive feedback.

After many iterations of PTS (which btw have no incentives to participate) people agree on a change being good and asking PGI to implement it.... or agreeing on a change being bad and asking PGI to ditch it.

after some months PGI does exactly the items they received negative feedback on and doesn't do any of the changes players liked!

So, how do you think we should feel?... after 4 years of this happening continuously?

how many times have you been there where developers have shown themselves to be completely unaware of simple long running issues. Issues that you can find by spending 30 seconds on the forums.
what would you do when after they know the issue, they do something to make it worse?

how would you react?

[Vellron2005]

I use alot of small lasers on my builds, so I'm happy they are getting a range bump.. Also, nice new decals..

As far as the nerfs go, I'm not affected much.. The AC meta is now finally over, and it seems my favorite - LRM's are the new meta.. great for me

Now all those LRM's are bad crybabies will have some more ammo to fuel their tears.. And as old McDonald said it.. I'm loving it!

[DGTLDaemon]

qeurul, on 14 November 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

Now sit back and think: have you ever played any multiplayer game (in which you have classes, races, items, etc.) where the equilibrium has been reached, and been able to hold more than a fleeting moment?

A question for a question: how many single- or multiplayer games do you know where each player has anywhere from dozens to hundreds active characters, and has to rebuild all or a large portion of them with each balance pass? This is something that a lot of people who advocate for constant changes in MWO either don't understand or pretend not to understand. Rebuilding one or two mechs isn't a problem, but rebuilding a deck requires an immense amount of time and effort - or money to bypass the grinding process if you can afford it. But I guess this is what PGI's business plan is all about: forcing the players to keep grinding and/or keep paying - not because of new content being added to the game, but because of the existing content being continuously rewritten.

[Peter Overheater]

The EXE needs some love! How about some structure Quirks for it?

[Taxxian]

Why do so many players think the Meta will simply shift to PPC Gauss even more? Its not that simple...

Why did the Meta shift from LaserVomit to PPC Gauss?
- larger maps
- more DakkaMechs that need to be outranged
- heavier larger Mechs mostly slower where on the battlefield to play dakka better

If dakka now becomes unfavoured (which remains to be seen) Mechs will become smaller and faster to counter Gauss/PPC.

It may all as well shift back to Laser vomit...

[Ashmodai Virolac]

When i see this changes for "balancing", my question is "What for?"
Clan and IS-Mechs were never ment to be balanced in an "one on one" comparison.
It all seems to be some experimenting with data to try to counterbalance a lack of some effort to find a suitable comparison-system for matches ...

... why not introduce Binary-Star (Clan-Mechs) vs. Company (IS-Mechs)
... why do they still try to compare single tannage-values and not Match-Unit http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value

Yes there would be need some effort and statistics be needed to make both suitable for MWO, but ... it would maybe worth it and ... maybe wouldn't be so much more effort then try to balance quirks again and again (and be honest, every new mech might make it necessary to rebalance the quirks again)

And such will also make players use more different Cassis and Fits as MetaMechs will cost more BV
THAT would bring really some balancing to the games.

Not sure if PGI ever pays attention to this post, but if ... there are different ways to implement such with different amount of visible changes for the players.

[Dodger79]

qeurul, on 14 November 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

Unbelieveable.

I'm 33 and the one reason which first appealed to me in MWO half a year back was the appraised community of mature players. I have played multiplayer and massive-multiplayers all my life and there has always been bickering in community, but not in the scale like this. I't would seem that the only ingredient the 'maturity' is bringing to the mix is the fine nurtured grief, backed by the ever marvelous logical -yet monomaniacal- solutions on how to solve the holy grail of game balance.

Now sit back and think: have you ever played any multiplayer game (in which you have classes, races, items, etc.) where the equilibrium has been reached, and been able to hold more than a fleeting moment?

I did not think so, so remember that when you point your finger at PGI you have grand total of three fingers pointing back at you. You could name them 1) attitude 2) presumptions 3) lack of statistical knowledge

But cheer up, you still have you thumb left you point PGI! So thumbs up: I think that most of you who have sinked 1000+ hours to MWO had a bit of fun there in the middle? Don't forget that. I do not believe anyone of you who says that he spent mastering specific meta-mechs for hundreds of hours, that he didn't enjoy his time at least a bit.

This is not a troll post, rather a friendly slap in the back of the head saying: "hey, life is about change, get over it".

Judging a community that struggles with false promises from the devs for about 5 years now after being a member of this community for only 5 months is quite big mouthed, in my opinion. How many balance changes have you experienced in your 5 months? This one must be the first, i think. So, please do not judge the players that have experienced this every 6 months since more then 4 years of playing this game.

And it isn't even about the fact that there are balance changes but the about the way PGI comes to the conclusion WHY there has to be a change and their aprroach to achieve that.

[Cy Mitchell]

Arcanite, on 13 November 2016 - 11:29 PM, said:

sorry, mb i missed that, but where i can see "Clan Hero mechs wave 1" quirks?

The Clan Heroes are included on the Clan Quirk speadsheet that is linked in the original post.

[Cy Mitchell]

Navid A1, on 14 November 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

Let me introduce you to PTS. Public test server.

PGI set those up for people to test weapon changes and to receive feedback.

After many iterations of PTS (which btw have no incentives to participate) people agree on a change being good and asking PGI to implement it.... or agreeing on a change being bad and asking PGI to ditch it.

after some months PGI does exactly the items they received negative feedback on and doesn't do any of the changes players liked!

So, how do you think we should feel?... after 4 years of this happening continuously?

how many times have you been there where developers have shown themselves to be completely unaware of simple long running issues. Issues that you can find by spending 30 seconds on the forums.
what would you do when after they know the issue, they do something to make it worse?

how would you react?

To be fair, there was hardly a consensus among those that actually tested on PTS and many who posted in the feedback thread openly admitted they were there in opposition to ED and were not testing and had not tested the changes at all.



PGI was gathering data all through the PTS test as well as feedback from all sides of the debate. I have no problem with them implementing changes based on the data they gathered. I just wonder if, in the case of the UAC changes, they considered all the ramifications of the changes they made. In their zeal to rein in the UAC boaters, they may have instead inadvertently crippled those builds that can only carry one or two ballistics.

I do not see a problem with suggesting alternatives that may accomplish the same goal without having other unintended impacts.If the suggestions are accompanied by "go "F" yourself PGI, profanity, hyperbole, threats, personal insults aimed at Devs, calls to bring down the company and other such lunacy then I doubt that they will get the attention that they may deserve.

Too often suggestions are not presented in an appropriate manner and even if they are, there should be no expectations that everything that is suggested will or even should make it into the game.

[Jaegon]

The biggest issue for the lights, across the board (with one exception), is the size. They're too damn big now to perform as lights.

Maybe the previous scales were too small, but we could go back that direction 50% and still be in a good place.

A vehicle or piece of technology has a size that is not 100% tied to its weight. There are cars that are about the same size that weigh very different amounts, due to simply having different priorities in production/design. It makes no sense to assume that the designers of something like the Firestarter were as cavalier with space wasting as the designers of the Atlas. Geeky argument, I know.

That whole class of mechs is gimped to obsolescence right now as long as things like a wolfhound are like a walking barn.

[MovinTarget]

DGTLDaemon, on 14 November 2016 - 02:24 AM, said:

A question for a question: how many single- or multiplayer games do you know where each player has anywhere from dozens to hundreds active characters, and has to rebuild all or a large portion of them with each balance pass? This is something that a lot of people who advocate for constant changes in MWO either don't understand or pretend not to understand. Rebuilding one or two mechs isn't a problem, but rebuilding a deck requires an immense amount of time and effort - or money to bypass the grinding process if you can afford it. But I guess this is what PGI's business plan is all about: forcing the players to keep grinding and/or keep paying - not because of new content being added to the game, but because of the existing content being continuously rewritten.

I don't think it's *that* bad. I have 230+ mechs and only use at most 16 of them at a time for FP (4 drop decks)...

The whole point of having tons of mechs it to have this flexibility of picking your optimum mechs for a situation. This will naturally evolve anyway as the "scene" evolves...

For example, scouting for IS used to be "OMG STREAK CROWZ OP PLZ NERF" but clanners have realized that streaks are *not* op vs IS Mediums with armor/structure quirks... So many have shifted to more heat efficient dual UAC10 Hunchie builds or ERSL/ASRM combos.

No changes were made to the game, it just evolved on its own.

So chill and be glad you have options if you have a ton of mechs.

[TercieI]

MovinTarget, on 14 November 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

I don't think it's *that* bad. I have 230+ mechs and only use at most 16 of them at a time for FP (4 drop decks)...

Yep. I have 363, only about 25 of which are active at any time (whatever I'm leveling and my favorites). If you've played this game long enough to have accumulated a ton of mechs and don't know how to adjust them quickly to meta shifts...that's on you alone (now that save times are sane).

[A Bag Full of Puppies]

TercieI, on 14 November 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

now that save times are sane

Yeah, a few patches ago, the "pain of retooling all mah mechs" would almost be valid... almost...

[Felicitatem Parco]

A Bag Full of Puppies, on 14 November 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

Yeah, a few patches ago, the "pain of retooling all mah mechs" would almost be valid... almost...

It's a "balance pass.". It's meant to make the game more rounded and fair.

If you have a problem of having to retool your various Mechs, then why are you investing time in a game with a Mechlab? And, secondly, what's wrong with some adjustments? Gives you time to explore a new combat environment...

I, for one, am extremely looking forward to the LRM and AC/2 adjustments. I have been tinkering all weekend with my Night Gyrs because the 6xUAC/2 and my LRM90 builds will be getting buffed like crazy tomorrow...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 14 November 2016 - 09:18 AM.

[Graugger]

Maybe they should halve AC velocities and double LRM & SRM velocities while they're at it, that way the LRM will move faster than the AC/20 --- Missile vs. Mortar eh?

[Felicitatem Parco]

The patch notes show heat reduction for the AC/2, CAC/2, LBX/2, but not the CUAC/2.

Intentional? I guess I will have to email support about it, since moderation does not like getting patch note reports...