211 replies to this topic

[Cyrilis]

Please provide details about the 2017 WC qualification phase...

- will there be a schedule?
- minimum match number to be done?
- main days for qualification games to ensure enought team are on simultaneously?

[Navid A1]

MechaBattler, on 19 June 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Navid A1, on 19 June 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Can I have your heat and duration too?

And our range?

Yes.
Because 50 meters is practically nothing in a fast knife fight....lol

[NocturnalBeast]

Juodas Varnas, on 19 June 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

Yes, yes... But what about the quadrupeds?!

Please, no, let them get the physics right for bipedal mechs first.

Karl Marlow, on 19 June 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

When can we expect to see Melee combat? Punching, charging, DFA, melee weapons. I can understand Kicking might be problematic but what about the other forms?

I would like to see them put knockdowns and actual collision damage back in the game. Also we were able to do DFA back in closed beta.

Monkey Lover, on 19 June 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

Question for Chris, Are there any plans to improve lrms so they are competitive at higher tiers at the same time not not hurt the lower tiers?

You would have to teach low-tier pugs tactics, it is a player problem, not an LRM problem.

[Alistair Winter]

Some more information about Mechwarrior 5 would be nice.

[Duke Nedo]

I think I understand the idea behind the cSPL damage reduction, but didn't you forget to lower it's heat accordingly? It needs to maintain a good damage/heat ratio to be used in a knife fight.

Medium changes: fine

Large changes: que?

Quirks changes: stop bait-switching please. Iterative smaller nerfs (read GHR-5P and BLR-2C) please.

[CtrlAltWheee]

Would you please post models of mechs for sale during the early adopter period. They help me decide if I want to buy.

I appreciated the wip models that were shown for the civil war mechs a few weeks ago. Thanks.

Also, please consider formatting the mwo tournament series closer to mrbc. MRBC is fun. Always different maps, enforced mech variety, sometimes weapon/consumables restrictions. Competitive mwo is good to watch, but last year's mwo series got stale with the always canyon network. It would be good to have the official tourney be closer to MRBC in terms of variety.

Edited by CtrlAltWheee, 19 June 2017 - 11:41 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Alistair Winter, on 19 June 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

Some more information about Mechwarrior 5 would be nice.

No mw5 info coming.



Russ Bullock‏ @russ_bullock Jun 7
Replying to @AndiNagasia @Navid_A1

No on power draw for the time being it remains on hold indefinitely - as to MW5 no that will not get info released in MWO town halls

Russ Bullock‏ @russ_bullock May 5
Replying to @Outlaw9012

MW5 updates going to come through major media/trade shows - diff approach then MWO -although MWO was similar up til open beta

Edited by Monkey Lover, 19 June 2017 - 11:56 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Ed Steele, on 19 June 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

You would have to teach low-tier pugs tactics, it is a player problem, not an LRM problem.

This is not true you can improve lrms without hurting lower skilled people. Example would be buff lrms and remove shared locks.
Most pugs die because a shared lock system allows multiple mechs to rain on them. In a higher teir the more skilled players would be getting thier own locks and this wouldn't hurt them.

Another example would be to decrease spread when your target is not over the mech and increase speed/decrease spread when you have them in your target.

Lots of other ways to do this.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 19 June 2017 - 11:58 PM.

[Frisian Rebel Ace]

Why can't you finalize something and keep it constant, i think we are fed up with change of direction every time again.

[Marius Evander]

Hope they explain why the GHR-5P gets its tankiness removed while they simultaneously add a pay to play hero mech thats even tankier and identical 3 LPL 4 Medium mount placements loadout achievable And how that isn't pay to win.

Hope they explain why 8v8 is conquest only not a vote on 1 of 3 or 1 of 5 modes, like maps.

Hope they explain why a BlackKnight kept 15% range when every other mech lost range when skill tree launched, then a month later they dont lower it to say 10% like a LOT of other mechs are keeping..... they fully remove it's 15% ....... I am sure a lot of people like me bought one just for that 15% range.

Hope they address the multi drop bugs we have had in FP/CW since it was invented. (missdrops, missdrops breaking legs, mech select screen getting stuck open, getting stuck spectating your mech after death, not loading out to chose next mech, seeing other enemy mechs still target lockable after death, think thats the main ones.)

Btw, please add a note to faction play "If you get the mech select bug on your second or 3rd mech drop you can fix this error, only costing you a 30 second delay to deployment, instead of having to relog the game, by hitting RIGHT HAND SIDE "SHIFT" + "F11"
Thankyou, that will help a lot of people out.

Hope they discuss consumable costs, maybe reducing to 20k per consumable, spending 240,000 cbills in a game which usually awards about 180,000 cbills will hurt new people and drive them away when they are up against people who can afford to do it. Wish they had told us what the go is going to be for cbills/consumables in Competitive 8v8 mode when they announced it, guess we find out tomorrow.

[Aramuside]

Monkey Lover, on 19 June 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

This is not true you can improve lrms without hurting lower skilled people. Example would be buff lrms and remove shared locks.
Most pugs die because a shared lock system allows multiple mechs to rain on them. In a higher teir the more skilled players would be getting thier own locks and this wouldn't hurt them.

Another example would be to decrease spread when your target is not over the mech and increase speed/decrease spread when you have them in your target.

Lots of other ways to do this.

You know scouts are supposed to do that right? How far MWO has fallen when people don't even remember role warfare.

PS: The decreased spread when your reticle is not on the mech doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Aramuside]

Cadoazreal, on 20 June 2017 - 12:58 AM, said:

Hope they explain why the GHR-5P gets its tankiness removed while they simultaneously add a pay to play hero mech thats even tankier and identical 3 LPL 4 Medium mount placements loadout achievable And how that isn't pay to win.

Hope they explain why 8v8 is conquest only not a vote on 1 of 3 or 1 of 5 modes, like maps.

Hope they explain why a BlackKnight kept 15% range when every other mech lost range when skill tree launched, then a month later they dont lower it to say 10% like a LOT of other mechs are keeping..... they fully remove it's 15% ....... I am sure a lot of people like me bought one just for that 15% range.

Hope they address the multi drop bugs we have had in FP/CW since it was invented. (missdrops, missdrops breaking legs, mech select screen getting stuck open, getting stuck spectating your mech after death, not loading out to chose next mech, seeing other enemy mechs still target lockable after death, think thats the main ones.)

Btw, please add a note to faction play "If you get the mech select bug on your second or 3rd mech drop you can fix this error, only costing you a 30 second delay to deployment, instead of having to relog the game, by hitting RIGHT HAND SIDE "SHIFT" + "F11"
Thankyou, that will help a lot of people out.

Hope they discuss consumable costs, maybe reducing to 20k per consumable, spending 240,000 cbills in a game which usually awards about 180,000 cbills will hurt new people and drive them away when they are up against people who can afford to do it. Wish they had told us what the go is going to be for cbills/consumables in Competitive 8v8 mode when they announced it, guess we find out tomorrow.

No new player will be using SIX consumables particularly as the base for new players is ONE. As a user of consumables in most matches they boost my performance which brings in more c-bills to cover the cost - either I'm spotting a load of people or dropping damage on people or getting more volleys in to down a mech.

If there was a weakness to them I'd suggest the UAV rewards are quite weak so better to boost those than cut costs and just allow non stop artillery/airstrike usage.

[cougurt]

Monkey Lover, on 19 June 2017 - 11:52 PM, said:

This is not true you can improve lrms without hurting lower skilled people. Example would be buff lrms and remove shared locks.
Most pugs die because a shared lock system allows multiple mechs to rain on them. In a higher teir the more skilled players would be getting thier own locks and this wouldn't hurt them.

Another example would be to decrease spread when your target is not over the mech and increase speed/decrease spread when you have them in your target.

Lots of other ways to do this.

i think shared locks are good since they encourage a team-play dynamic (at least ideally). eliminating that mechanic would also remove much of the reason to take LRMs in the first place, which is that they don't require direct LOS from the person carrying them.

they're not good at a competitive level because they're too easily shut down by an organized team. it's also very important at higher levels of play to be able to deal damage quickly and efficiently, which is something LRMs are not capable of.

[ulrin]

We need the old visual effect for the famer !, Flamers do Flames !
Be hided behind a wall of fire add some tactical choice to the gamelay.

Heavy gaus, Heavy machinegun, what about heavy flamers ?
Flamers should englue targets with some burning fuel thats burn a few second, disturbing vision and heat management

[Tul Duru]

So, I get why the vast majority of the clan lasers got more duration. Skill Tree. The lasers never got fixed before all the duration skill nodes got factored in, so now clan lasers are working better than design. I get that.

Why the IS lasers aren't seeing a similar duration reduction is what is confusing me. So right now if I run IS LPLs and grab all 4 duration skill nodes, they have a burn time of 0.58 seconds. The fastest human reaction time, measured by over caffeinated fighter pilots, comes out around 0.5 seconds. This is before they can move the controls to start dodging, which then has input lag, server ping, and torso twist speed delay. So right now, IS LPLs can't be torso twisted against, not unless they shot a target already twisting. So when LPLs hit and do all their damage to the component of choice and there's nothing anyone can humanly do, why is this not one of the things that got fixed?

To make it better, clan SPL now can hit at 0.54 burn duration, so no one can dodge that either, but at least there the damage is much lower and at a point blank range.

Lastly, what does this mean for light mech pilots? Most of them rely on light weight laser systems, and get away with much of the heat through the heat sinks built into the engine and such. Hitting those weapons hits the light mechs hard, leaving small other options such as the Oxide, Jenner 2C, or the Javelin as SRM substitue mechs. Are we not just going to see those rise in strength and popularity if you hit the more common laser based lights?

But I digress. Hopefully civil war has some fun options show. Terrified of IS UACs. (Single shot UAC 20s would be the end of brawl.)

[Aramuside]

Tul Duru, on 20 June 2017 - 02:35 AM, said:

So, I get why the vast majority of the clan lasers got more duration. Skill Tree. The lasers never got fixed before all the duration skill nodes got factored in, so now clan lasers are working better than design. I get that.

Why the IS lasers aren't seeing a similar duration reduction is what is confusing me. So right now if I run IS LPLs and grab all 4 duration skill nodes, they have a burn time of 0.58 seconds. The fastest human reaction time, measured by over caffeinated fighter pilots, comes out around 0.5 seconds. This is before they can move the controls to start dodging, which then has input lag, server ping, and torso twist speed delay. So right now, IS LPLs can't be torso twisted against, not unless they shot a target already twisting. So when LPLs hit and do all their damage to the component of choice and there's nothing anyone can humanly do, why is this not one of the things that got fixed?

To make it better, clan SPL now can hit at 0.54 burn duration, so no one can dodge that either, but at least there the damage is much lower and at a point blank range.

Lastly, what does this mean for light mech pilots? Most of them rely on light weight laser systems, and get away with much of the heat through the heat sinks built into the engine and such. Hitting those weapons hits the light mechs hard, leaving small other options such as the Oxide, Jenner 2C, or the Javelin as SRM substitue mechs. Are we not just going to see those rise in strength and popularity if you hit the more common laser based lights?

But I digress. Hopefully civil war has some fun options show. Terrified of IS UACs. (Single shot UAC 20s would be the end of brawl.)

Strangely my IS lights are remarkably unaffected so far build wise but I guess you're not including them as "popular" (coy phrase there). My clan its a mixed bunch but then I didn't just use a limited weapon set.

[Bud Crue]

Chris,

Two Questions (for starters):

You recently posted that IS/Clan Balance is closer than it has ever been (I believe you stated that the numbers showed an 8% difference).

So, question one:
Would you give us some idea about how you internalize your data to come up with such a comparison?

Two:
I am wondering what mathematical basis you are using/relying on to suggest that this months energy rebalance (and other adjustments) will lead to a further reduction in the percentage difference in IS/Clan imbalance?

More specifically, can you give us some of the math, data, statistical principles, etc. that you are relying on, which suggests to you that, for example, the 2 point reduction to the CSPL damage reduction -within the confines of the other changes of course- is more appropriate than say a 1.5 points, or 1 point, or .75 points etc.? That's just an example. Same question could apply to any of the changes. I don't care about the CSPL in particular. Rather, I am simply trying to understand how you approach these changes, and why you choose the incremental/proportional changes that you end up with and why/how is it that you have confidence in their presumed result.

[Marius Evander]

Also hope they update us on the status of a IS vs IS Clan Vs Clan event.


If Smoke jags get removed what happens to peoples say rank 13 rep with smoke jag? they were intending to go back to to get to higher rank rewards on?

Hopefully it gets moved to one of the new factions and they get given the rewards for if they had got that far in rep with that new faction?

Otherwise it is an unfair disadvantage for people who have rep with Smoke Jag over say Falcon........

Edited by Cadoazreal, 20 June 2017 - 03:00 AM.

[Grinster]

Tul Duru, on 20 June 2017 - 02:35 AM, said:

So, I get why the vast majority of the clan lasers got more duration. Skill Tree. The lasers never got fixed before all the duration skill nodes got factored in, so now clan lasers are working better than design. I get that.

Why the IS lasers aren't seeing a similar duration reduction is what is confusing me. So right now if I run IS LPLs and grab all 4 duration skill nodes, they have a burn time of 0.58 seconds. The fastest human reaction time, measured by over caffeinated fighter pilots, comes out around 0.5 seconds. This is before they can move the controls to start dodging, which then has input lag, server ping, and torso twist speed delay. So right now, IS LPLs can't be torso twisted against, not unless they shot a target already twisting. So when LPLs hit and do all their damage to the component of choice and there's nothing anyone can humanly do, why is this not one of the things that got fixed?

To make it better, clan SPL now can hit at 0.54 burn duration, so no one can dodge that either, but at least there the damage is much lower and at a point blank range.

Lastly, what does this mean for light mech pilots? Most of them rely on light weight laser systems, and get away with much of the heat through the heat sinks built into the engine and such. Hitting those weapons hits the light mechs hard, leaving small other options such as the Oxide, Jenner 2C, or the Javelin as SRM substitue mechs. Are we not just going to see those rise in strength and popularity if you hit the more common laser based lights?

But I digress. Hopefully civil war has some fun options show. Terrified of IS UACs. (Single shot UAC 20s would be the end of brawl.)

0.5 secs is a very slow time. I would expect that of an inebriated or sleepy person. Back in high school myself and my friends did endless tests in reaction to sight and sound (sound was faster of course). The best we could get was 0.18 secs but the mean was around 0.22 secs. I am sure a quick search of the Internet would show your some real study results. I would expect your wired fighter pilots might push 0.15 secs.

[linux4eva]

Is faction play abandoned? Or PGI considers that it is ok in it current state?