675 replies to this topic

[Sky Hawk]

Lol.. RAC's still has it's "Missile Spread" line in the patch notes...

I can't understand, how it is possible, that nobody re-read this patch notes by PGI before posting... "Just copy it and done...!".... Right?...

[Bud Crue]

Sucy Manbavaran, on 15 July 2017 - 04:14 AM, said:

The problem is : HeaveLaz ( except maybe small ) are total garbage

Good. Cuz I aint buying anything under duress, and that's what this feels like. It's like if LFE wasn't a blatant improvement, that to encourage its purchase they decided to nerf the std engine to ensure that folks at least considered it. That's how I see these "balance" changes for a lot of the weapons. The new stuff might or might not be better, but here is a bunch of nerfs to the old stuff to make sure you at least give the new stuff a try. Screw em.

[Kaptain]

Peter Overheater, on 15 July 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

i cancelled all my preorders this morning.

Over .5 seconds? I've been chain firing AC20s for sometime now and never did it send me into such rage.

BAM! gauss
.5 seconds.
BAM! PPCs

But seeing as IS can't really do the whole 2xPPC+2xGR unless its in a mauler with an XL... perhaps I don't fully grasp the fun of it

Edited by Kaptain, 15 July 2017 - 04:51 AM.

[Draglock]

If you are going to drop an ammo type for the ATM's its the long range type not the short range, it just make them useless LRM's.

[slide]

I don't know if I missed this but-

With 2 new clan factions being introduced are all current contracts and allegiances going to be cancelled so people can choose these faction with out penalty. Seems a bit unfair to me to offer people a choice that is going to cost them 25% of their current LP and a week of their time before they can join the new faction.

Would also allow the faction contract bonus to update at the same time.

[Draconis Luthien]

Awesome.

to the clanners:

"STOP CRYING LOL"

^ That's what was clanners saying to IS players.

[Dee Eight]

Ok read the patch notes...

Just three particular equipment category sets of questions...

#1 Why are the Inner Sphere UAC/2, /10 and /20 ranges less than their TableTop values and why is the regular AC/5 still 80 meters more than the TT value ? You got the UAC/5 range correct to TT, why couldn't you get the others as well ? Was increased tonnage and crit spaces not enough of a penalty still for them compared to their clan cousins ? Does the jam chance node changed to a jam time reduction also extend to the enhancements (as quirks are now being called) of new and existing mechs being changed from jam chance to jam reduction ? Does my Dragon 5N for example with a 40% jam chance reduction now become a 40% jam time reduction instead ?

#2 Why are the new armor types given as weight reductions as a flat tonnage number instead of how its currently explained in the game that the different types increase the amount of armor points per ton ? Do all mechs get the same flat # you've put in the charts ? If so, doesn't that now reward light/medium mech owners and at the same time penalize anyone using the existing IS FF on their heavy and assault mechs ? Was it truly that difficult to have 6% more protection for light ferro, 12% for regular ferro and 20% for clan ferro ? What happens in the next timeline jump when heavy ferro shows up ?

#3 Will command console values be getting a revision in a future patch now that we have inner sphere targeting computers or will they remain as it presently are. Currently it is still ahead in zoom boosts, sensor range and targeting time for its 1 crit space / 3 tons value even with the requirement to locate it in the head. To match or exceed those #s you have to step up to the TC5 for the sensor range and targeting time, and the TC6 for the zoom values.

[shopsmart]

Some of the best ideas born from the PTS are deaded. Not happy. Scaled PPC damage minimum, reduction of 11 crit weapons to 10. Yeah, not happy about that.

[Dee Eight]

Arkhangel, on 15 July 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

Just because you're a good pilot doesn't give you the right to piss all over other pilots. Prove your skill with your mech, Not your mouth.

Some of the most frequently posting forum warriors are also some the least frequently playing matches pilots.

[Kaptain]

shopsmart, on 15 July 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

reduction of 11 crit weapons to 10.

Agreed. Pretty happy overall but this is a big miss in my opinion. Give us crit splitting and ammo changing if you refuse to reduce LBX slots.

[Dee Eight]

shopsmart, on 15 July 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

Some of the best ideas born from the PTS are deaded. Not happy. Scaled PPC damage minimum, reduction of 11 crit weapons to 10. Yeah, not happy about that.

I take it you didn't notice they otherwise improved those two 11 crit weapons ? The LB-20-X had its heat lowered. The heavy gauss had its maximum range increased, the minimum range eliminated, shots per ton increased.

[I cant want to]

but they can still only be torso mounted with standard engines

[Dee Eight]

Kaptain, on 15 July 2017 - 05:00 AM, said:

Agreed. Pretty happy overall but this is a big miss in my opinion. Give us crit splitting and ammo changing if you refuse to reduce LBX slots.

There's no capability in the source code of the base version of cryengine that the game started from to do different ammo types for a weapon system. None of the previous stand alone mechwarrior video games had the capability either. All the ones that had LB-X autocannons, they were cluster shots only.

[Reno Blade]

Sky Hawk, on 15 July 2017 - 04:25 AM, said:

Lol.. RAC's still has it's "Missile Spread" line in the patch notes...

I can't understand, how it is possible, that nobody re-read this patch notes by PGI before posting... "Just copy it and done...!".... Right?...

TBH, i did not see any spread when firing them. Not even at max range.

Draglock, on 15 July 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

If you are going to drop an ammo type for the ATM's its the long range type not the short range, it just make them useless LRM's.

ATMs are still doing 3 / 2 / 1 per bracket.
See PGI post here:
https://mwomercs.com...ll-off-weapons/

[The Unstoppable Puggernaut]

/rant

I was really looking forward to this patch until I saw they subtly tried to sneak in BS energy draw rubbish into this patch.

So Gauss a non heat inducing weapon will spiral out of control with ppc (or ppc's) added..........

Why didnt you just increase the cooldown of weapons fired in unison for damage going over your volley in 'x' time???????????
So to counter this stupid issue we'd have to load up with heatsinks for no reason. People who can/enjoy sniping get punished. I guess I'll have to strip out a load a builds. I am actually glad now I didn't buy certain clan heroes.

Now I've moved to clan ER small lasers and now they have been nerfed and now sml pulses are back in fashion.

So I'll have to mess about with the ST again to remove weapon cooldowns and put back range like it was before. What a waste of time, points/xp whatever the crap it's using now. Where my templates that I suggested during launch?!

This dicking around with all the values will have an impact on the community as if this "balance" passing keeps going round in circles I personally don't have time for adjusting all the mechs. I love this game but the decisions being made are not getting smarter or working out better.

I want to spend more time in the field rather than ST. Mech lab I can get used to but goddamn it, there's still NO access to test weapons designs/tree builds in a simulator still !!!!!!!!
Take a pointer from a 20 year old game guys, that might help you, it's called Mechwarrior 2. Look it up.

Stop ******** with people's builds. I really don't want to make time for bait and switcharoo's.

/rant

Yay new tech + new mechs

[Reno Blade]

meteorol, on 15 July 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:

We could snipe with the 2 GR, 2PPC mechs before, we just had to use split up between GR and PPC and learn how to handle the different velocities. Now we have to split aswell, but for other reasons than velocity. As tradeoff, the combo has a massive loss in midrange viability. Right now, it's brutal in mid-longrange and OK at sniper ranges, after the change it will be mediocre at midrange and a bit better than before at sniping ranges.

This is a tradeoff the majority of Gauss/PPC users will not accept. For QP, where the vast majority of this games players play, mid-longrange is the best thing to bring, because it's versatile and works on the vast majority of maps. Mid-longrange is were the majority of trades happen. Both brawling and sniping is subpar compared to mid-longrage for QP, because it's situational.

Even now, where Gauss/PPC is very strong in the midrange game, we easily have as many laservomit mechs as we have Gauss/PPC. With the upcoming change, you will see all those players who used Gauss/PPC as a mid-longrange combo simply switch to Laservomit/Gaussvomit.

The last time PGI tried to curbstomp the high FLPPD alphas it resulted in basically nothing bot laservomit for like two years. Be prepared for another iteration it.

So nothing changes for your 2Gauss 2PPC boat, as you said, you still have to split 2+2 at long range already.
If you have such a bad time with 0.5s then ask the LaserVomit guys... and ALL the ppl who are QQing because Heavy Lasers have more than 1 sec burn times...
AND their colourful volley are all spread over the target, if they manage to land the full beam at all.

Hell, some people are even qqing about cSPulse laser and cMPulse laser nerfs.
IMHO, energy weapons need some nerfs also, but when suggesting nerfs and rebalancing, all I've seen was QQ from every side (see signature).

And in my view, everyone canceling a preorder pack because of balance changes is a hypocrite.

[WarmasterRaptor]

Reno Blade, on 15 July 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

. and ALL the ppl who are QQing because Heavy Lasers have more than 1 sec burn times...
AND their colourful volley are all spread over the target, if they manage to land the full beam at all.
.

Hell, unless I'm drunk, heavy lasers are literally TWO IS standards with Clan weight. What more can you ask??? XD

[Dee Eight]

IK4MS, on 14 July 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

So you managed to "buff" C-MPLs by reducing their DPH, DPS, and alpha?

The TT values actually always had the C-ERML and C-MPL at the same 7 points of damage. All PGI has done is FINALLY returned both lasers to the same damage values as tabletop. Now if only they'd bring the heat values back to TT also (5 for the ER and 4 for the pulse).

Quote

I, huh, wow, I'm honestly amazed at how stupid that change is. Unless you intentionally nerfed an underperforming weapon for some reason?

I myself am not amazed how many do not know the source material at all when complaining about weapon values.

Quote

ML+MPL boating was nerfed because... The Top Dog and BJ-1X were overperforming, I guess?

Given that ALL the clan small and medium laser sizes and types are mixed together as ONE huge ghost heat group, and capped at 6... while IS mechs got an unfair advantage of medium laser types being seperated from each other, as are the small laser types, but the large lasers types were all grouped together... gee.... overdue they closed that loophole for the medium lasers. Now they just need to close it for the small lasers also.

Quote

Also, wow, congratulations, managed to completely kill off Gauss+PPC PPFLD altogether, which already was "average" at best. Reducing variety for no reason, now THAT is what we needed.

Perhaps average for your play style but clearly not average for many others, as PGI does get game log data on what weapons are being used in matches.

[Dee Eight]

Hawk819, on 14 July 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

I'd like to see ATMs not use Artemis. Reason is, Artemis is already built into the missile and doesn't need external Artemis Fire Control System to help it. Please, fix this!

Read the end of PTS posting, the ATMs, MRMs and Rocket Launchers will not be compatible with a seperate artemis system. They won't see spread reductions from having artemis guidance in your mech for your other launcher types.

W E N D I G O, on 14 July 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

So, first, let's nerf several 'Mechs which often use the PPC+Gauss loadout. Second, link Gauss+PPC ghost heat and don't roll back the nerf those 'mechs got. Third, pad your shoulder 'cause you did something right, right?.

Maybe now they'll un-nerf the mechs. I'd rather have my torso twist and turn rate restored on my kodiaks and night gyrs and marauder 2Cs.

[Tarl Cabot]

tee5, on 15 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

CW win conditions

Clans: conquer 3 IS Capitals
IS. conquer 1 Clan Capital

I play CW since the start. And only one time IS was able to push back the clans. And that was when all Mercs switched to IS side.
So in this aspect 3:1 sounds fair.

But on the other hand:

If this should be a sportsmanlike contest, why has the Clans to win threetimes as much Capitals as the IS?

So what PGI is saying, we acknowledge that Clans are three times stronger and better as IS. Because if Clans and IS would be even it would be 3:3

Clans are in hostile territories, even on the planets they have conquered. That sorta, without the actual setup, corresponds to the military/mercs using pirate points to get stuff in, reinforcement/supply lines to be cut, etc. imho, on how to view it that is details/storyline that PGI left out.

Previously for the IS, Rasalhague is selected to be attacked, no fanfare, no build up. Log into the game next time and it has been overrun by trashborns. Many have asked to make some planets more special than others, increasing the amount of battles to take it, etc. I guess this is PGI way of about it. And overall IS units are more likely to assist each other against the Clans than a CSJ would assist a CGB, unless they were part of the bid.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 July 2017 - 06:11 AM.