Jump to content

Hot-Fix Scheduled For 20-Dec-2016


134 replies to this topic

#81 Thogal76

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Icon
  • The Icon
  • 10 posts
  • LocationLynchburg, Virginia

Posted 20 December 2016 - 11:32 AM

View PostBig Tin Man, on 20 December 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I've been saying this since scouting dropped, but they just don't get it. Maybe I should shout more:

PGI: REWORK THE SCORING FORMULA AND MAKE COLLECTING INTEL THE ONLY THING THAT PROVIDES REWARDS FOR THE ATTACKERS.




As it stands right now, I could take my ecm locust, zip around, collect 10 points on my own and escape without firing a shot. I'd likely net 45,000 cbills and a piddly amount of LP. In a hero mech. And god help me if there is an event going on with a minimum match score requirement, because I likely didn't meet it, even though I was an intelligence scouting hero. I lose money on the match if I think about using a consumable. Taking a grif 2N and slaughtering 4 stormcrows and ignoring intel completely nets me 250,000 cbills. THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

Scouting does not reward SCOUTING. It rewards skirmishing. FIX THAT. FIX THE SCORING and just maybe you'll pull more people in and develop some tactics in skirmish that aren't "Ball up and find them"



i completely agree with this guy. i can do the same in my jenner-iiic-A. but make money and LP? nah, not in the cards. you want to balance scouting, make it worth it to actually scout. as defenders protecting intel, then yeah, destruction should be the goal. but for the one gathering, survivng to escape with as much intel as possible should be the goal.

#82 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,025 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:10 PM

I have trouble taking anyone seriously who uses HUGE BLOCK LETTERS in lieu of a good argument. We do need better rewards for collecting intel (on both sides,) but making intel the only reward for attackers is a Bad Idea.

There are several major problems with the arrangement. First, you're punishing people for using the tonnage allotment. It's all but impossible for a group of Novas, or even Vipers, to reliably catch a group of 4 Locusts/Commandos who simply scatter and cap points. Second, you're drastically restricting the pool of effective 'mechs; you're basically looking at the Arctic Cheetah, Ice Ferret, or Jenner IIC as your primary viable Clan 'mech in that instance - nothing else is fast enough to even kind of keep up with the enemy 'mechs. And last but not least, a game mode where the attackers are incentivized to actually avoid all combat gets really old really quick. Back in the Day, when Assault capture timers were much shorter, you'd see premade groups of Raven 3Ls (with Capture Acceleration modules) who would ignore everyone to run around the side of the map to the enemy base, capping it literally before anyone could get back to stop them. There was no counterplay, and everyone hated those guys until PGI increased the cap timer. It wasn't fun, and eliminating combat rewards for the attackers will result in an almost identical situation.

You'll still get enemies that take slower 'mechs because they don't own the fast ones, and you'll get to wolf-pack them down, but you're still taking that time to kill them while a Pirates' Bane runs around capping everything. Literally the only hope you will have is taking 10 of the intel points yourselves, and then trying to camp the last point on the map after they get 9. And the deck is stacked heavily against you, because if they jump one of your sentries and then switch to the point, it will be very difficult for you to kill them before they cap - and only one of them has to get away. Plus they're all faster than you can possibly be.

We've needed better rewards for the actual intel points for a long time, but eliminating all combat rewards on one side hucks a lot of baby out the window with the bath water.

Edited by Void Angel, 20 December 2016 - 12:11 PM.


#83 RaptorCWS

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 144 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:19 PM

View PostPGI='1482215490 said:


[color=#558ED5]While the forces of the Inner Sphere have at times made decent gains in the Scouting Tug of War during the recent Conflicts, the greater distribution of higher Skill Tiered players on the Clan side, combined with a greater presence of organized, high-tier Units also aligned under the Clan banner[/color]


so instead of resetting contracts or giving a real reason to play for the side with the lower population you decide to make it an uphill battle for the lower tiered players on one side or even the average tier when be matched up against an equal opponent. this is absurd i was joking about having clan mechs have a random chance of ejecting their pilots every 5 minutes last week, but after a 3rd nerfing of drop deck tonnage i wouldnt be surprised to see it next patch.

#84 Fobhopper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Crusader
  • The Crusader
  • 344 posts
  • LocationClan Nova Cat agent working for Davion

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:20 PM

View PostJingseng, on 19 December 2016 - 11:49 PM, said:

Love how most people also don't get that the clan players are not crying over 5 tons =p Read =p

It is how the change is arbitrary and solves literally nothing... it is about how the change targets exactly one mech, and appears to be reactionary from all the IS CRYING =p

the point being raised is, When Does This Stop Because This Is Kinda Stupid. Stormcrow too op? ok now it's gone. Fine.

But then the next mechs, will they be 'op' too? Will there be incessant crying about them (precedent says: yes)? And then you ban them too... When Does This Stop Because This Is Kinda Stupid.

If it is, in fact about player populations of skilled players:

1) Move them yourself as PGI =p It makes no sense to apply blanket penalty/annoyances and blanket bonuses to obtain precision results. It makes even less sense to keep doing so when the petty incentives (if you call crutches that) and pettier still penalties (if you call crutches that)Aren't Doing Working At All.

2) Institute Population Caps - seriously, this is not a new solution by any means. Tie it in with a cbill sink of some arbitrary sort, and you are fine.

3) Apply penalties/incentives ONLY to those players who are creating the imbalance - clearly PGI has certain players in mind or it would not be able to say there are imbalances in highly skilled players. Certainly PGI has some means of tracking those players and identifying them/distinguishing them from the rest of us rabble, or it would not be able to say there are imbalances in highly skilled players.

Certainly deficits and boons to JUST those players to get JUST them to act will create the so called desired balance.

Certainly blanket deficits and blanket boons to get EVERYONE ELSE to act will do NOTHING to address the so called root imbalances.

So, do we "clan players" give a Salty Tear about five tons? No. Take your precious five tons. There is a bigger picture the rest of us are looking at.

And if the players just wont do as you want them to, as PGI, you should either:

1) give it up and stop antagonizing the players

2) make it happen yourself directly.


1) No way in hell are you going to have any game company manually move players from one faction to another. Not even WoW at its height of popularity (WotLK over 12m subs) even dared to manually force population moves. What they did do was offer free server transfer or faction changes on servers that had population or faction problems, and it was voluntary. And considering you arent locked in to a faction for faction play, forcing players out of a faction is not only a betrayal of trust in the highest magnitude, but it also shows that the players are the ones breaking the system. Most of the top tier players went clan partly because clans are superior in every way that doesnt involve AC weapons, and top players dont want competition they want Cbills. Its mostly the players fault for this utter imbalance, but its partially PGI's fault because some of the major weapon/combat systems that helped IS push back the clans arent in the game. There is no melee combat, there is no light fusion engines, there is no new weapon systems and there sure as hell are no IS omnimechs.

2) Also wont work because certain factions are larger in lore, there are more Davion or Wolf pilots than Steiner or Smoke Jaguar. And even if they wanted to introduce population caps on factions, who gets to be the deciding factor? A player can just go merc and then only take contracts/requests for support for the faction they want anyway. It wouldnt solve the problem either.

3) While this is the only realistic thing you have said, that just punishes players for being good and removes motivation for them to play or at the very least discourages them from ever playing FW again until 5.0 rolls around. And instead of solving the problem you just made more problems and potentially poisoned the game for those players.

Its a problem when a faction has absolutely everything superior to another faction, then ***** about getting nerfs because you are rofl-stomping every single planet thats up for grabs. And the problems with Clan vs IS is a problem thats inherent from the tabletop game and is exacerbated in a live environment instead of turn based combat.

If you want more balanced gamplay, there has to be several big changes made to the inherent game, and they are changes that are going to drastically reduce the overpowering mechs that clan has vs what IS has available to them

1) First and foremost, we need more urban and/or more "brawler" maps. We have had so many new maps and reworked maps that have massive open spaces that clan weapons are just better at. Nearly every single clan weapon not only has longer effective ranges, but they weigh less and take up less critical slots. So in order to reduce a lot of those advantages. we need more maps that allow mechs to close in and fight in tighter ranges that negate the range clan weapons have and where IS weapons excel. Pretty much the only brawling maps left in the game are Veridian Bog, HPG manifold, and to a lesser extent Mining Colony and Canyon Network. While its great that there are a lot more maps that allow long range fire to be effective (compared to the original forest colony and frozen city which had pretty limited firing lines), the problem with Clan range superiority isnt offset with lots of terrain, in fact a lot of maps are missing a lot of protection from it (like Polar Highland and Alpine).

2) Introduce new equipment in line with what the IS was working on in the current time period. With all the upsides that clan mechs have with none of the downsides that IS mechs do have leave you with massive performance disparities. Clan XL's keep chugging (at reduced effectiveness) when losing a torso, and can pack more weapons and heatsinks than what IS does. Without access to other technologies like light fusion engines or melee weapons, the few things that IS actually did better than clans are gone. We also need IS omnimechs to start rolling out of the facility lines and into our mech bays to help bridge some of the disparity.

3) Contracts are going to have to be managed on a much smaller level than players are probably going to be comfortable with. You would have to limit or even penalize too many players jumping into a faction or taking a contract. Thats something NOBODY would be happy with, but if you want more player balance between factions something needs to be done. The problem with targeting particular skill levels is that it would punish or discourage good players from actually playing the game mode. And thats just going to turn it back into a wasteland.

#85 Zeroster

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 5 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:34 PM

I think this patch is really stretching the hot fix definition. Reducing clan drop to 50 because clan supposedly has more higher tiered player is really shafting the lower tier players big time. If reduction to 50 ton is to disallow Stormcrow then by same logic can we have minimum ton to disallow locust use in IS side?

IS players should step up and just use faster mech to get the intels quickly as possible.

#86 Natred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Deadly
  • The Deadly
  • 716 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationWest Texas

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:36 PM

Hehehe, greater skill descrimpincy. Feels good having such a nice compliment :) thank you :) my unit helped and we are strong in the scouting ways. Does not hurt me, I don't even use the stormcrow :P #skillspaythebills

Edited by Natred, 20 December 2016 - 12:39 PM.


#87 Tul Duru

    Member

  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:03 PM

I do like the idea of having a brawl map.

One of the biggest things is that we have the sniper maps, and the maps with people run around with high damage laser for mid to long range. So most of what answers a lot of those high heat builds is pressure in a brawl area. But on maps like Boreal Vault or Alpine peaks or Polar Highlands, favor long range so much, that everyone has to play it or they'll never accomplish anything there.

#88 AureliusDean

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • 148 posts
  • LocationWiarton, Canada

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:04 PM

It's heartbreaking that I worked out in -18C wind chill, looking forward to the premium time Mechmas event, only to get home from work and see MAINTENANCE and then download a huge patch when the event ends at 7pm EST. I hope you extend the end of the event day to coincide with the maintenance and the download time, PGI. Not cool. I was going to skip a day's work over that premium time and game out... now, it looks like the forklift calls.

#89 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:06 PM

Does PGI realize that SRM Griffins and Kintaros are just as effective as Stormcrows in Scouting mode (with equally skilled pilots)? Again, the biggest issue is the skill level difference between players and the fact that four solo players can be matched up against organized four-man groups. Seriously though, if someone is bad at the game, then let them be bad, don't continually try to handicap good players to make it even.

View PostAureliusDean, on 20 December 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

It's heartbreaking that I worked out in -18C wind chill, looking forward to the premium time Mechmas event, only to get home from work and see MAINTENANCE and then download a huge patch when the event ends at 7pm EST. I hope you extend the end of the event day to coincide with the maintenance and the download time, PGI. Not cool. I was going to skip a day's work over that premium time and game out... now, it looks like the forklift calls.


Unfortunately they can't work around everyone's schedules.

Edited by IronClaws, 20 December 2016 - 03:05 PM.


#90 brove

    Member

  • Pip
  • The Star
  • The Star
  • 15 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:40 PM

totally agree with IronClaws.
PGI says they are monitoring the majority of good players - so does that mean if there are many good clan players, the "balancing" will make it even harder for clan noobs so that they all change to IS and then there are even more bad pilots? causing even harder tonnage "balancing" and so on...

#91 Blastinthepast

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:46 PM

For DAYS now many of us have been essentially locked out of the game due to crash issues or lag because of the patch. I don't even play FW's, and I don't think this whole game and patches should be about FW. It KILL me that you won't focus on game stability, won't reply with actual steps from tech to my emails so I can try to fix what the patch did so I can play again, but you will make more hot fixes about FW tonnage that are pissing off some of the hardcore players as is? How about you fix with a hotfix whatever you guys did that made the game unplayable, or crash more, or lag more for a lot of us, and stop spending time on FW players (who don't all even agree with what you are doing to tonnage) or an escort mode that wasn't asked for at the expense of stability and is full of issues itself? SO FRUSTRATED. When I aw hotfix again I thought there may be hope to play again, and all I get is escort stuff and FW tonnage again.

#92 Toxicresidue

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 80 posts
  • Locationcorpus christi texas

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:47 PM

the first line in these hot fixes should be Don't pucker up it will make it worse! thanks russ, I think :(

#93 Ithori

    Rookie

  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:55 PM

So as of today 20 December 2016 I had 70 ping before the patch and now its around 400 to 600. Yes I checked that I am using the right region I live in UT and picked north America. Please address this problem.

#94 Steve Ward

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 41 posts
  • LocationOxford

Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:20 PM

Quote

• Clan Scouting Drop Deck Tonnage reduced to 50 (from 55).


really???
some good players are the reason to punish ALL clan players?

Good Job, PGI !!!
That is a good way to kill FW completly.


i don't play FW anymore. It is senseless because you can't win against the OP IS-mechs when you are a casual gamer like me...

#95 Zeroster

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 5 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:53 PM

Well it was expected but after playing scouting after the patch. I really have to ask what kind of thought process went into before deciding to reduce tonnange by 5? Its really a ******** decision isnt it? So guys at PGI made an observation that there were some good players more in clan than IS so instead of trying to balance the game in upper tier or the scouting map in general. You could instead introduce turrets for defending side or something. Just drop the tonnage? Do you even check the lower tiers? Does PGI plan stop growing this game?

#96 Black Cat Watching

    Rookie

  • Knight Errant
  • 4 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:54 PM

All this mumble jumble is pure BS - call a spade a spade.

This so-called "adjustment" is nothing more than banning the Storm Crows from the mix - because they were kicking *** and the IS folks were whining about it.

#97 Zolaz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationHouston, Tx

Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:58 PM

Dont make mechs equal, give potatoes more tonnage. PGI does it!! Make CW Great Again!! Moar participation trophies for potatoes!! Reward failure, penalize success!!

#98 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 20 December 2016 - 05:25 PM

View PostZolaz, on 20 December 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

Dont make mechs equal, give potatoes more tonnage. PGI does it!! Make CW Great Again!! Moar participation trophies for potatoes!! Reward failure, penalize success!!


Mechs are not supposed to be and should never be equal, if you want that, go play some other game that is not "A BATTLETECH GAME". As I have said before it is just a matter of there being more, less-skilled IS players playing solo who have a greater chance of being matched up against a skilled Clan premade team. There are a number of IS Mechs that can boat SRMs and some that can boat lasers. Many IS Mechs are quirked to make them far more hear efficient than Clan Mechs. Again, players should not be punished because someone did not use a good build for the situation, or because someone just does not know how to play well. What really needs to happen is to find a way to separate skill levels in FP, but FP just does not have the population to do that because so many players got a bad first impression of FP.

Edited by IronClaws, 20 December 2016 - 05:26 PM.


#99 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,305 posts

Posted 20 December 2016 - 05:45 PM

View PostRebel Ace Fryslan, on 20 December 2016 - 04:18 AM, said:

Ps: What i am a bit pissed of is that matchscore/xp/c-bills for doing objective things is so low.
Scouting points, picking spots @ Escort, conquest bases.

Yeah, PGI has needed to fix that for an insanely long time. They're too stuck on brawling and damage like a warrior with swords and arrows. The Mission Objectives of a 'Game Mode' were where all the reward was meant to be in a game like this, and happened to be where reward was placed back in the older MechWarrior-series games. I guess we're both stuck with the question, "Why can't they get the point that they need to award better for 'Supporting Actions', 'Non-Damage-Based Actions', and/or 'Objective-Based Actions' that result in a Mission Objective actually getting done?", because it looks like PGI will never answer that any time soon. Heck, captured Scouting Data Nodes should be worth a minimum of 2 (or 3) Match Score each, just to keep it balanced between both the gathering invaders and the protecting defenders! :(


View PostMirenheart, on 20 December 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

Clan back to 55 tons. IS upped to 65 tons (because splat cats are funny)

Huh? I thought they meant 'ShadowCat' Chassis when they referred to "Splat Cat"?!?!? :blink:


~D. V. "Also feeling sad over PGI's inability to factor in performance in relation to doing Mission Objectives..." Devnull

#100 Psycho Cop

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 76 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:46 PM

Just implement a clan betting system, the lower tonnage you can "bet" and bring into a fight that will grant you a bonus payout.
So if you only bring 200 tons to invasion in your dropdeck, you'll get xx % bonus. (it doesn't count for unused mechs during a mech)
If you only bring 35 tons in your scouting dropdeck, up the CBill pay as well.

Let the players decide with their own best judgement, and you might be surprised of the balancing outcome.
Those cocky clanner will think they can still destroy you in a KitFox.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users