I can't track the event progress in-game. Never have been able to, actuallly, but it's especially irksome for this one since there is no event page here on this website for it.
7
Public Test Session Is Live With Rewards!
Started by InnerSphereNews, Jul 13 2018 09:48 AM
151 replies to this topic
#122
Posted 15 July 2018 - 11:22 AM
Tina Benoit, on 13 July 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:
Also another update to the news post, here's what the Warhorn looks like:
OK but how they sound? I don't care for the look but if I cannot stand the sound everytime I kill someone they I won't bother installing THOSE (but can still play the PTS for youR data).
I'm late so maybe I'll find out in the next pages...
#123
-
-
- 114 posts
Member
Posted 15 July 2018 - 12:11 PM
IllCaesar, on 15 July 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:
I can't track the event progress in-game. Never have been able to, actuallly, but it's especially irksome for this one since there is no event page here on this website for it.
Yep, same here, always had to go to the website event page here.
Edited by Coffeeghoul, 15 July 2018 - 12:12 PM.
#124
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 292 posts
Member
Posted 15 July 2018 - 12:19 PM
Alright, so I played dozens of matches in the PTS using a variety of mechs and builds. Tried to mix up playstyles as best as possible without screwing the match for others. It was hard to develop impressions on the performance of lights and mediums, because so many run larger mechs.
The gauss shake was all but irrelevant to me. First, I don't hardly run gauss, because I loathe the lame firing mechanic. Second, I tend to fire the gauss separate from lasers (so enemy doesn't know where it came from), or after the lasers have fired (when the enemy is now staring at me or running away, exposing CT to easy hit.). And when brawling, and you're just mashing buttons for max dps, the shake wasn't enough to really matter that your lasers fluttered.
Idk why this is a feature that would be considered. I find ALL of the techniques which are used to make weapons hard to fire or perform unpredictably (including jamming) to be super lame and inconsistent with where military hardware performance would be in such a technological era which can manufacture big stompy robots.
As far as the laser changes go, the ERLL felt strong in 3s. MPL was still decent. Erml felt weak and definitely lost trades with IS vomit. (I feel I personally did well against other Clan though.)
And the heavies just felt like trash. Like PPC levels of heat, but in light saber form. Unlike much of the player base, I have some HML builds I kick *** in. Especially 8x HML Hellbringer, but also an 6x HML Linebacker. I couldn't get either to perform well. Your risky flanking and staring is no longer rewarded with a devastating hit. 8dmg from an HML is the same as the old pre-nerf MPL delivered, but it did so with almost half the duration of the HML. And with a heat cap of 6, not 4.
And er small laser builds felt weaker than I had expected. 10 ersl on a Nova was garbage. (I've used that in brawly situations before with considerable effect.). Couldn't really get anything but MG builds to work on the once super fun ACH. Very sad.
_______________________________________
I think the means of balancing differential weapon performance between the two sides should be primarily balanced through quirks to durability and capping number of weapons that can be fired simultaneously, not widescale and repeated redefinitions of weapon performance.
I would tie more weapons together, especially across weapons platforms, to count towards the ghost heat cap of 6. Which I would then look at maybe Clan has a cap of 6, and IS gets a cap of 7, or at least could in some situations.
Why can we only fire 6 total lasers with a certain heat if we fire mediums, but if we add in a few large lasers, now we can also fire them and absorb their additional heat without penalty too? How is it a mech that can't handle more than 6 mediums, can magically handle the larges too?
Wouldn't that help the alpha issue considerably to tie many more weapons to the ghost heat cap of 6 without crippling individual weapons? What if the game was such that you could fire 6 mediums, or 2-3 larges and 3-4 mediums? Ergo, not more than 6 of any combination of medium and large lasers? And in the case of clan heavy lasers, extend cap of 4 to cover the larges paired with other weapons. So 2x hll plus 2x any medium laser would be the biggest vomit before ghost heat kicks in. With Clan lasers' current stats, max alpha that's free of ghost heat would be 2x HLL and 2x HML, at 56 dmg. (2x LPL and 4x ERML/MPL would be next at 52.)
Extend this rule to include ballistics and... Clan could fire 2 guass and 4 medium lasers. This would allow up to 70 alpha with HMLs, but really who wants to run that pairing? lol. The alpha would be 58 with 4 ERML... On the IS side, 2x heavy gauss and 4x meds would allow for 70pt alpha with limited range. Or 50pt alpha with regular gauss and ERML.
On small lasers and machine guns, I would make the heat penalty cap 8 weapons fired at once. Over that, ghost heat for the lasers, and the MGs begin to produce heat per second, like the flamers do. Except no cooldown bar needed. Simply any mech firing more than 8 machine guns at once, or firing 8 machine guns in conjunction with another weapon, will experience a heat penalty for doing so. If they run 8 or more MGs sustained and keep bursting in lasers as they cooldown, they will experience both the per second heat and the ghost heat.
Something else I would do to boost IS before nerfing Clan is adjust the massive slot consumption of some of their ballistic weapons. LB20x, LB5x, LB2x should all lose a slot. I also think the IS UACs and ACs should be adjusted to consume the same slots size for size. I'm thinking 2s at 2 slots, 5s at 4 slots, 10s at 6 slots and 20s at 10 slots.
And I would cut IS machine gun tonnage in half. Bigtime. Clan has several mechs which can boat machine guns in large numbers. IS largely does not. If there needs to be a differential between the two sides, maybe give Clan a bit of a ROF buff over IS. I really think MGs are weapon that should be like flamers or ams, where it's basically the same whoever is running it.
So overall, I'm not a fan of what is proposed in the PTS, and hope that you will keep looking into the validity of ideas the players come up with. Particularly the idea of including more weapons in the max cap of 6 weapons fired at once.
The gauss shake was all but irrelevant to me. First, I don't hardly run gauss, because I loathe the lame firing mechanic. Second, I tend to fire the gauss separate from lasers (so enemy doesn't know where it came from), or after the lasers have fired (when the enemy is now staring at me or running away, exposing CT to easy hit.). And when brawling, and you're just mashing buttons for max dps, the shake wasn't enough to really matter that your lasers fluttered.
Idk why this is a feature that would be considered. I find ALL of the techniques which are used to make weapons hard to fire or perform unpredictably (including jamming) to be super lame and inconsistent with where military hardware performance would be in such a technological era which can manufacture big stompy robots.
As far as the laser changes go, the ERLL felt strong in 3s. MPL was still decent. Erml felt weak and definitely lost trades with IS vomit. (I feel I personally did well against other Clan though.)
And the heavies just felt like trash. Like PPC levels of heat, but in light saber form. Unlike much of the player base, I have some HML builds I kick *** in. Especially 8x HML Hellbringer, but also an 6x HML Linebacker. I couldn't get either to perform well. Your risky flanking and staring is no longer rewarded with a devastating hit. 8dmg from an HML is the same as the old pre-nerf MPL delivered, but it did so with almost half the duration of the HML. And with a heat cap of 6, not 4.
And er small laser builds felt weaker than I had expected. 10 ersl on a Nova was garbage. (I've used that in brawly situations before with considerable effect.). Couldn't really get anything but MG builds to work on the once super fun ACH. Very sad.
_______________________________________
I think the means of balancing differential weapon performance between the two sides should be primarily balanced through quirks to durability and capping number of weapons that can be fired simultaneously, not widescale and repeated redefinitions of weapon performance.
I would tie more weapons together, especially across weapons platforms, to count towards the ghost heat cap of 6. Which I would then look at maybe Clan has a cap of 6, and IS gets a cap of 7, or at least could in some situations.
Why can we only fire 6 total lasers with a certain heat if we fire mediums, but if we add in a few large lasers, now we can also fire them and absorb their additional heat without penalty too? How is it a mech that can't handle more than 6 mediums, can magically handle the larges too?
Wouldn't that help the alpha issue considerably to tie many more weapons to the ghost heat cap of 6 without crippling individual weapons? What if the game was such that you could fire 6 mediums, or 2-3 larges and 3-4 mediums? Ergo, not more than 6 of any combination of medium and large lasers? And in the case of clan heavy lasers, extend cap of 4 to cover the larges paired with other weapons. So 2x hll plus 2x any medium laser would be the biggest vomit before ghost heat kicks in. With Clan lasers' current stats, max alpha that's free of ghost heat would be 2x HLL and 2x HML, at 56 dmg. (2x LPL and 4x ERML/MPL would be next at 52.)
Extend this rule to include ballistics and... Clan could fire 2 guass and 4 medium lasers. This would allow up to 70 alpha with HMLs, but really who wants to run that pairing? lol. The alpha would be 58 with 4 ERML... On the IS side, 2x heavy gauss and 4x meds would allow for 70pt alpha with limited range. Or 50pt alpha with regular gauss and ERML.
On small lasers and machine guns, I would make the heat penalty cap 8 weapons fired at once. Over that, ghost heat for the lasers, and the MGs begin to produce heat per second, like the flamers do. Except no cooldown bar needed. Simply any mech firing more than 8 machine guns at once, or firing 8 machine guns in conjunction with another weapon, will experience a heat penalty for doing so. If they run 8 or more MGs sustained and keep bursting in lasers as they cooldown, they will experience both the per second heat and the ghost heat.
Something else I would do to boost IS before nerfing Clan is adjust the massive slot consumption of some of their ballistic weapons. LB20x, LB5x, LB2x should all lose a slot. I also think the IS UACs and ACs should be adjusted to consume the same slots size for size. I'm thinking 2s at 2 slots, 5s at 4 slots, 10s at 6 slots and 20s at 10 slots.
And I would cut IS machine gun tonnage in half. Bigtime. Clan has several mechs which can boat machine guns in large numbers. IS largely does not. If there needs to be a differential between the two sides, maybe give Clan a bit of a ROF buff over IS. I really think MGs are weapon that should be like flamers or ams, where it's basically the same whoever is running it.
So overall, I'm not a fan of what is proposed in the PTS, and hope that you will keep looking into the validity of ideas the players come up with. Particularly the idea of including more weapons in the max cap of 6 weapons fired at once.
Edited by ShooteyMcShooterson, 15 July 2018 - 04:06 PM.
#125
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 481 posts
Member
Posted 15 July 2018 - 01:44 PM
all I did was mark in a scrap of paper. I mean its only ten 50 point matches and did 5 more for good measure
Edited by The Boneshaman, 15 July 2018 - 01:45 PM.
#126
-
-
- Shredder
- 3,685 posts
Member
- LocationDusting off my Mechs.
Posted 15 July 2018 - 02:17 PM
Rhialto, on 15 July 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:
OK but how they sound? I don't care for the look but if I cannot stand the sound everytime I kill someone they I won't bother installing THOSE (but can still play the PTS for youR data).
I'm late so maybe I'll find out in the next pages...
I'm late so maybe I'll find out in the next pages...
Probably like the annoying Cicadas where I live that come out during the spring/summer every few years.
#127
Posted 15 July 2018 - 02:53 PM
ShooteyMcShooterson, on 14 July 2018 - 08:54 PM, said:
Can you PLEASE remove conquest from the match selection rotation, so that trolls quit bringing lights and capping out without even fighting because he he it's so funny to troll PGI's test server that allows conquest?
Funny how they specifically wrote:
Skirmish, Conquest, and Assault are the only two Game Modes in rotation.
#128
-
-
- The People's Hero
- 141 posts
Member
- LocationAnchorage, AK
Posted 15 July 2018 - 03:49 PM
IllCaesar, on 15 July 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:
I can't track the event progress in-game. Never have been able to, actuallly, but it's especially irksome for this one since there is no event page here on this website for it.
Same here... I wonder if there is a button to push on this supposed 'events page' that opts us in?
#129
Posted 15 July 2018 - 06:50 PM
Rhialto, on 13 July 2018 - 09:58 AM, said:
If you want to save TIME and/or BANDWIDTH I suggest this:
Copy content of MechWarrior Online folder in MWO Public Test folder
Run the MWO Repair Tool and you should get this:
-bin64\cryrenderd3d11.dll
-bin64\cryrenderd3d9.dll
-bin64\mwoclient.exe
-build_info.xml
-game\gamedata.pak
-game\mechs\jenneriic.pak
-game_version.dll
-system.cfg
Any files downloaded for the FE will be cleaned.
The shader cache will be cleaned out.
Scan complete
Less than 2 minutes and you're good to go!
Copy content of MechWarrior Online folder in MWO Public Test folder
Run the MWO Repair Tool and you should get this:
The following files show mismatches or are missing and will be downloaded:
-bin64\cryrenderd3d11.dll
-bin64\cryrenderd3d9.dll
-bin64\mwoclient.exe
-build_info.xml
-game\gamedata.pak
-game\mechs\jenneriic.pak
-game_version.dll
-system.cfg
Any files downloaded for the FE will be cleaned.
The shader cache will be cleaned out.
Scan complete
Less than 2 minutes and you're good to go!
... Nice to finally realize that you run the "repair tool" from within the portal's top left drop down menu thing, not by trying to run the executable found in the MWO Portal folder... if only the process for running the repair tool were clarified and it wasn't just assumed that everyone would know the process of running it.
Edited by Leidulfr, 15 July 2018 - 07:23 PM.
#130
-
-
- Shredder
- 3,685 posts
Member
- LocationDusting off my Mechs.
Posted 15 July 2018 - 10:09 PM
Leidulfr, on 15 July 2018 - 06:50 PM, said:
... Nice to finally realize that you run the "repair tool" from within the portal's top left drop down menu thing, not by trying to run the executable found in the MWO Portal folder... if only the process for running the repair tool were clarified and it wasn't just assumed that everyone would know the process of running it.
Yeah, this does not work if you installed the live version through Steam though.
#131
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 261 posts
Member
- LocationIsle of Man
Posted 16 July 2018 - 04:53 AM
ShooteyMcShooterson, on 15 July 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:
[removed for length]
I would tie more weapons together, especially across weapons platforms, to count towards the ghost heat cap of 6. Which I would then look at maybe Clan has a cap of 6, and IS gets a cap of 7, or at least could in some situations.
[removed for length]
I would tie more weapons together, especially across weapons platforms, to count towards the ghost heat cap of 6. Which I would then look at maybe Clan has a cap of 6, and IS gets a cap of 7, or at least could in some situations.
[removed for length]
You nailed it, the problem isn't the individual weapons, its firing all the weapons at once that is the problem.
#132
-
-
- Field Marshal
- 3,831 posts
Member
- LocationGreen Acres
Posted 16 July 2018 - 06:17 AM
Sooooo some sort of simplified version of power draw?
Why not instead of ghost heat (which would be silly/useless with ballistic/machinegun boats) why not say that if you fire more than X weapons than some will *not* fire such that only X fire successfully and you can't pick (i.e. random weapons failure)...
If that were the case, I wouldn't over simplify it to just any X weapons. Sure 7 MG are annoying, but they are aren't as effective as 7 ER ML, for example. You'd kind of have to weigh the impact of firing different weapons and that's where the salt would flow since everyone would have a different opinion of how that would work...
Why not instead of ghost heat (which would be silly/useless with ballistic/machinegun boats) why not say that if you fire more than X weapons than some will *not* fire such that only X fire successfully and you can't pick (i.e. random weapons failure)...
If that were the case, I wouldn't over simplify it to just any X weapons. Sure 7 MG are annoying, but they are aren't as effective as 7 ER ML, for example. You'd kind of have to weigh the impact of firing different weapons and that's where the salt would flow since everyone would have a different opinion of how that would work...
Edited by MovinTarget, 16 July 2018 - 06:20 AM.
#133
-
-
- Bad Company
- 959 posts
Member
- LocationVienna
Posted 16 July 2018 - 06:59 AM
Seems to me that everyone is just trying the 4 vs. 4 match mode.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
#134
-
-
- 721 posts
Member
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:22 AM
el piromaniaco, on 16 July 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:
Seems to me that everyone is just trying the 4 vs. 4 match mode.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
They have to test how they work against everything, not just in the vacuum of 'X weapon (changed)' vs. 'X weapon (changed).' That you don't see 'X weapon (changed)' very often in the test is a very important data point.
#135
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 261 posts
Member
- LocationIsle of Man
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:34 AM
el piromaniaco, on 16 July 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:
Seems to me that everyone is just trying the 4 vs. 4 match mode.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
That is actually a good thing, you need a full spectrum data set, as the changes are not made in isolation.
#136
-
-
- Field Marshal
- 3,831 posts
Member
- LocationGreen Acres
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:38 AM
el piromaniaco, on 16 July 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:
Seems to me that everyone is just trying the 4 vs. 4 match mode.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
You see all kind of weapons, but very seldom those lasers with changed values.
I've run exclusively a kdk3 with quad gauss and the HBR with 2HLL and 4 ERML
#137
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 292 posts
Member
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:41 AM
Yeah. I played lots of PTS matches, and I played with a variety of mechs and builds.
At first I was thinking WTF, just test only what is being tested, but then you get data for adjusted weapons against adjusted weapons. Not exactly definitive data.
What bothered me, but I didn't realize it until Saturday evening, or I would have said something directly to someone with PGI... is that we're testing some Clan weapon nerfs in the PTS, but without the in-game weapon adjustments that are coming on Tuesday... So we just tested Clan weapons nerfs in a meta environment that will no longer exist the very next day after the PTS finishes up.
At first I was thinking WTF, just test only what is being tested, but then you get data for adjusted weapons against adjusted weapons. Not exactly definitive data.
What bothered me, but I didn't realize it until Saturday evening, or I would have said something directly to someone with PGI... is that we're testing some Clan weapon nerfs in the PTS, but without the in-game weapon adjustments that are coming on Tuesday... So we just tested Clan weapons nerfs in a meta environment that will no longer exist the very next day after the PTS finishes up.
#138
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 292 posts
Member
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:49 AM
MovinTarget, on 16 July 2018 - 07:38 AM, said:
I've run exclusively a kdk3 with quad gauss and the HBR with 2HLL and 4 ERML
HAHA...Yesterday I was running various potato builds, because most PTS matches are these like epic 320+ tons vs 320+ tons brawls.
Quad gauss KDK was so fun without having to worry about lights dumping MGs into your ***... One match on Solaris, I took overwatch on a ramp and just stood there popping enemies as they peeked until I was out of ammo and they were out of side torsos. lol
So PGI... Can we get like a 4v4 version of Solaris, just for funsies?
#139
-
-
- 721 posts
Member
Posted 16 July 2018 - 07:52 AM
Could we please get some dev clarification on how we should go about claiming the rewards properly? I saw an entry in the event tracker page in the PTS itself, but none on the live server. I don't want the rewards to show up on my PTS account, but I don't see anywhere to claim them on the live server. The C-Bills aren't critical for me (though they undoubtedly will be for others) but a new warhorn is a new warhorn, after all. We need this info sooner rather than later...access to the PTS will not last forever.
Also, for those of you who still have issues with the in-game tracker...the tracker does not show up on all screen resolutions and on all game screens. (Some were stating their problems with this earlier in the thread and setting up the PTS jogged my memory on this.) You will have to experiment with different combinations. For myself, I can only get the tracker to show events on the Faction tab (map screen) at 1280X768.
Also, for those of you who still have issues with the in-game tracker...the tracker does not show up on all screen resolutions and on all game screens. (Some were stating their problems with this earlier in the thread and setting up the PTS jogged my memory on this.) You will have to experiment with different combinations. For myself, I can only get the tracker to show events on the Faction tab (map screen) at 1280X768.
#140
-
-
- Littlest Helper
- 4,914 posts
Member
Posted 16 July 2018 - 08:57 AM
I played 14 or 15 games on the PTS with 50+ matchscore but it only counted the 3 games I played yesterday.
Edited by Jman5, 16 July 2018 - 08:58 AM.
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users
