211 replies to this topic

[Bishop Six]

So did i read that right on the roadmap, that there is no single word about Faction Play?

So no single word about FP until August?!

I hope i missed something, because i remember a promise about overhauling FP after Solaris release.

[Daggett]

The ammo changes might have an interesting impact on the meta. Outside of comp play it's a huge weight reduction buff for ammo-heavy mechs.

I already got some nice ideas which have not been viable so far because of ammo limitation.

[mad kat]

PGI and timber wolf quirks is like watching a world champ level of ping pong....

Good, bad, Good, bad, Good, bad, Good, bad, Good, bad, Good, bad, Good, bad........

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

• Are you also still improving FPS performance of ALL the maps and especially Solaris.
  
• .
  
• And pls have a look at the search capability of the Forums/webpage.

[Slambot]

Increasing the amount of ammo per ton for any weapon is just silly... Ammo levels are nuts anyway...Ammo isn't a very strict limitation on mechs as they stand. IF you do manage to run your guns out of ammo, then you have probably had a very good game or you cant shoot worth a damn. Ammo explosions aren't really much of a threat. It just doesn't happen very much.

I just don't get why you would bother to increase something that wasn't a problem, and if anything, you were getting TOO much ammo per ton.
The current revision will encourage spray and pray style gaming even more and encourage more indirect lrm fire. Indirect lrm fire is a bit of a problem too, but worth a whole other thread.

[Antares102]

Daggett, on 14 June 2018 - 06:32 AM, said:

The ammo changes might have an interesting impact on the meta. Outside of comp play it's a huge weight reduction buff for ammo-heavy mechs.

I already got some nice ideas which have not been viable so far because of ammo limitation.

10-20% more ammo is not huge.
50-100% would be huge.

10-20% more ammo wont make any loadout significantly more viable.

Edited by Antares102, 14 June 2018 - 08:14 AM.

[Akillius]

PGI has since changed the C-AC 20 and C-Ultra AC 20 half ton Ammo quantities in patch notes so ignore the original inquiry below. Thanks



PGI was the C-AC 20 and C-Ultra AC 20 half ton Ammo quantities misquoted in news???

C-AC 20 and C-Ultra AC 20 Ammo 32/ton or 18/half ton... 18???
Divide 32 by 2 equals 16 so 16 is on par with full ton ammo.
For those 2 weapons if I only carry tons of ammo in 1/2 tons that'll give 2 extra shots per half ton, or 4 bonus shots per ton vs carrying the same ammo in 1 ton amounts!

It appears all other half ton ammos had been carefully rounded down to give 1 less shot -
or the half ton ammo stays on par with 1 ton giving 1:1 shot, for example:
* LBX10 = 35/ton or 17/half ton (23/2=17.5 round down 17)
* LBX10 = 23/ton or 11/half ton (23/2=11.5 round down 17)
* LBX20 = 8/ton or 4/half ton (8/2=4 on par 4)
* C-AC20 = 32/ton or 18/half ton (32/2=16 exceeds par 18.)

Edited by Max Rickson, 15 June 2018 - 07:16 AM.

[Pihoqahiak]

Antares102, on 14 June 2018 - 08:12 AM, said:

10-20% more ammo is not huge.
50-100% would be huge.

10-20% more ammo wont make any loadout significantly more viable.

With certain builds using weapons that carry 8 or more tons of ammo, this buff can save them at least 2 tons, that's pretty noticeable.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

I think it's really interesting the mech selection comp has to choose from.

You will know a team is good when they get this crap to perform at a high level.

[Eisenhorne]

Pihoqahiak, on 14 June 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

With certain builds using weapons that carry 8 or more tons of ammo, this buff can save them at least 2 tons, that's pretty noticeable.

Yea, but I think he meant that it won't be an appreciable difference in stock mechs. Like an extra 7-8 shots won't help a blackjack or jagermech be more viable, so it's dumb to do this because it WILL have a massive difference to actually optimized mechs. My Dakka mechs will be able to cut some ammo for more heatsinks, so this is a nice buff to dakka that I appreciate though.

[Daggett]

Antares102, on 14 June 2018 - 08:12 AM, said:

10-20% more ammo is not huge.
50-100% would be huge.

10-20% more ammo wont make any loadout significantly more viable.

I agree that 10% is not that much, but in case of LRMs it's a whopping 33%

Lets assume your favorite LRM boat carries 12t of ammo = 2160 missiles.
To maintain the same number of missiles you now only need 9 tons.

That's 3t which you can invest into cooling or better backup weapons.

Or let's look at SRMs.
Only 20% increase here. But if you field 5t of ammo that's still worth an additional ton of ammo.
Do any light or medium mechs come into mind with lots of missile hardpoints where 1t more ammo can make a significant difference in viability when trying to use the bigger launchers?

This will have some impact, can you remember the last buff which had the potential to save you several tons of pod-space on specific builds?

[Hammerhook]

If there is a Tonnage restriction of 480 Tons in Compplay, how will you fit in 12 mechs with the rule of 3/3/3/3 for each weightclass.

Or did i get something wrong?

[Tordin]

Dee Eight, on 13 June 2018 - 03:39 PM, said:

So machineguns and gauss are the only ballistics not seeing an increase in ammo shots per ton then ?

Baffles me a bit as well. Especially heavy gauss and heavy machine guns needs more ammo. Maybe they think the mgs are too situational to care adding more ammo, and extra gauss slugs just helps pinpoint galore even more?

[D V Devnull]

Hammerhook, on 14 June 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

If there is a Tonnage restriction of 480 Tons in Compplay, how will you fit in 12 mechs with the rule of 3/3/3/3 for each weightclass.

Or did i get something wrong?

From what I understand, only 8 Pilots per Team are on the field at any given time. So, 480 Tons, divided by 8 Pilots, equals 60 Tons average each. PGI is allowing a 3/3/3/3 Rule in order to allow some flexibility in the Team Mech Composition, but there will ONLY be 8 Mechs per Team on the field. So, there is hopefully no issue with Tonnage, at least when it comes time for those Teams to set out and pummel each other into the dirt.

~Mr. D. V. "I hope that I've cleared up the 'Comp. Tonnage' mess for you?" Devnull

[Y E O N N E]

I do not think HGauss needs more ammo, considering the current strength of the relevant builds.

[PraetorGix]

About effing time you took a look at the poor Timby. Does not seem like much in paper but at least it's not giving it the middle finger with those neg quirks anymore. Good to see that.

[D V Devnull]

PraetorGix, on 14 June 2018 - 09:43 AM, said:

About effing time you took a look at the poor Timby. Does not seem like much in paper but at least it's not giving it the middle finger with those neg quirks anymore. Good to see that.

Hi there... I'm guessing you didn't read that section thoroughly in the Patch Notes. Or perhaps you missed something about the details while you were reading it. Here's some insight, copied from my summary on 'Page 4' of this thread...

D V Devnull, on 14 June 2018 - 04:40 AM, said:

So it seems a lot of people didn't pay good attention to that section of the Patch Notes. There was indeed a Nerf, albeit hidden from view. I should point out that some TimberWolf OmniPods carried built-in Negative Quirks prior to this Patch. Even then, if you read PGI's wording carefully, you'll notice that they're rolling many of those Negative Quirks into the Baseline Stats. One can only hope that PGI's changes don't really end up leaving that Mech worse than it was before, as I get the impression that some of the Variants are going to end up badly hurt in their CTs, compared to others. Let's hope it doesn't result in some kind of "Meta OmniPod Monster" build.

This reminds me... Mechs that I've piloted with the "Reverse Speed" Quirk have indeed had it functioning since the New Skill Tree arrived. What is going on with PGI removing those Quirks, when they're part of the Mech's personality? It actually helped with build diversity, and removing it is only causing people to all go to "cookie cutter builds" for efficiency as the Mechs are being semi-homogenized in terms of mobility.

...as it's very likely we're going to be seeing some problems after the June Monthly Patch with the TimberWolf, and I'll be very surprised if it plays better. Yeah, I'm definitely waiting now for a PDF or Table with the Quirk Change Info...

~D. V. "I'm watching this situation with the TimberWolf very closely." Devnull

[Alan Hicks]

Overall sounds like a good patch, still I might rarely use my Timber Wolves. Engine d-sync made this game less appealing. Anyway, you don't really know it until you try the latest modifications.

Any plans for a matchmaker overhaul ?

[Kurbeks]

GweNTLeR, on 13 June 2018 - 11:19 PM, said:

BUFF AMS or decrease LRM health!
It is a joke how much you are buffing LRM without actually buffing *ANY* countermeasures.
20% velocity the previous patch and 33% ammo increase this patch ARE YOU SERIOUS??????
MWO is becoming a red square shooting simulator
It is disgusting.

+1 to that

[Brain Cancer]

Lt Blackthorn, on 13 June 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

We fixed the Timberwolf by making the negative quirks unavoidable but more difficult to notice. Nice.

While we are on the subject of questionable decisions: why did you give LRMs the highest ammo per ton buff without a commensurate or larger buff to AMS ammo? You already made AMS more than 20% less effective with the recent ill-considered LRM velocity buff.

LRMs are now in a fatal dance with ATMs. If you make them much more dangerous to LRMs, ATMs will pretty much evaporate.

Quote

Stop buffing LRMs. You will not make them viable in high tiers unless you make them completely broken, and every time you buff them you tank new player experience and ruin the lower tiers of matchmaking. Hell, Paul even admitted as much on an NGNG podcast earlier this year. At the higher levels you are only going to encourage people to play a trash weapon and tank QP match quality even harder: more LRM boats in QP means more passive/lock-leeching play, more Polar Highlands, and more randomly assigned dead weight for people to have to carry. FP also becomes even more stompy for groups as LRM use increases. We already see enough quad LRM Mad Dog decks on FP pugs as it is.

Also, I'll consider LRMs dangerous when I see more than one player per match regularly mounting the stuff. Heck, they'll be viable around the point where half the team thinks it's worth packing AMS and uses it.

Speaking of which, I'll say it again. AMS on all Trials. Babby's first robot should have training wheels, after all.