Jump to content

Long Range Missile Pts 1.0 Results And Update


57 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 11:30 AM

I am here to announce the results of the recent Long Range Missile Updates PTS 1.0 and that we will be conducting a LRM Changes PTS 2.0 at some time in the future. While we typically wait for the conclusion of the entire PTS series, due to the added downtime between PTS sessions in order to address a number of feedback points, we wanted to inform everyone what the current status is regarding this behavior change.

PTS 1.0 Summary

What was tested:
  • Smoke test of the new LOS arc behavior.
  • Balance test focusing on the give and take between LOS and Indirect fire accounting for the new arc behavior.
When it came to smoke testing the new LOS arc behavior, while most remained positive about the overall changes to the behavior, there were a number of players who reported unintended, or strange behavior that would result in some volleys within direct LOS using an indirect arc, and volleys out of LOS using a direct LOS arc. Thanks to specific examples given through this feedback, we were able to identify a number of bugs and have taken steps to improve the backend for determining when a volley is within LOS or not. Testing these improvements and continuing to smoke test for any other potential issues will be a primary focal point of PTS 2.0 when it is released.

Balance testing saw a more mixed amount of reactions. While most were positive as to the overall direction taken, there were a number of comments that the tuning, and just the change of the trajectory itself was not sufficient enough to distinguish firing the weapon through LOS fire then through indirect fire.

After reviewing the feedback and results, we find that while globally (tested against all targets of all different shapes, sizes, and target speeds,) the per-volley missile accuracy is improved with direct LOS arc over the indirect arc, but often, the results from just the LOS arc trajectory alone is too subtle to really feel like it is a net positive. With some targets being better to target indirectly then directly. These results to us make the change too subtle and dependent on target type in order to effectively consider it a net positive on its own so we will be adding additional features within PTS 2.0 to make this point more definitive, and not so dependent on an opposing target.

Another core feedback point is that with a shallower trajectory and the reduction of being able to arc over some cover, the tested tuning does not put direct fire LRMs in a spot that allows them to compete with more contemporary direct fire weapons. While the utility of the Indirect fire needs to be taken into consideration in the final tuning, for the purposes of PTS 2.0, we will be testing more potent settings for direct fire LRMs to test and take in data and further player feedback on this particular point.

There are also a number of other feedback points that we will be testing with the incoming PTS. Full details to be provided with the PTS 2.0 kickoff announcement. Coming soon(ish.)

PTS 2.0 Preview

With the above in mind, PTS 2.0 will feature the following changes:
  • Improved behavior for what qualifies as a direct vs. indirect volley.
  • Will include changes that will see increased missile spread for indirect volleys.
  • Will see overall more potent tuning for direct fire volleys compared to what was tested on PTS 1.0
  • Will see changes to sensors and weapon lock behavior
  • + More to be announced at a later time.
We want to thank all that have participated and provided feedback on PTS 1.0, and look forward to continuing to refine this feature set with the incoming Long Range Missile Updates PTS 2.0.

#2 NUMBERZero1032

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 145 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 29 January 2019 - 02:15 PM

What about the fact that the missile velocity variable isn't the true velocity of the missile? Is that ever going to be changed?

#3 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 29 January 2019 - 02:20 PM

For PTS 2.0 can we actually get the baseline heat values altered please? That is the core/baseline issue with LRMs as I see it and many, many others. This is a direct result of 2018 heat & ammo buffs LRMs received, but did not really need.
  • IS LRMs need at least 5% base heat increase.
  • Clan LRMs need at least 10% base heat increase.
The heat penalty (ghost heat) were good values to change. Stick with them 100%!!! With added baseline heat that will curb the ability to drop a 60-80pt alpha @ 900m 5 times in a row without overheating even on hot maps. Or being able to spew out over 600dmg in a 30s period without overheating from avoiding heat penalty at any range out to 1000m.


I mean you guys tried to chase the 94pt DWF "boogey man" that wasn't really a problem (and is now 90pt, still very nasty) - a 80pt of damage at such a range without any heat issue, that is a real problem but seems to be largely ignored. Especially for more open maps like Caustic, Polar, Tourmaline, Frozen (Assault/Domination) & maps within Faction Play. There are other maps that are bad too, that's a longer debate.


Also side point - can you put some rewards up for PTS2.0 to get people playing? No one could get any consistent matches in Oceanic, many in North America phase struggled as well given there was a big QP event on @ same time Posted Image

Edited by justcallme A S H, 29 January 2019 - 03:11 PM.


#4 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,234 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 29 January 2019 - 02:58 PM

Love it.
As above, the 80 tube mech is an outlier and please don't punish more Lore Centric builds that may only bring one launcher.
Do punish outrageous tube counts.
Do continue to explore direct fire in LOS. WE LOVE IT!

#5 TheSteelRhino

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 592 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 29 January 2019 - 03:54 PM

As LRMs are dependent upon the launching mech to maintain a lock. (Ir passive homers or beam riders with artemis or tag) would it not be feasible to have the firecontrol sulystem of the launching mech to only support 40 missiles in the air at a time? Ie. Launch 40. Wait until they hit. U can either dumb fire, or fire again but missiles in air will lose lock if u exceed 40

#6 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 04:00 PM

Echoing Ash's statements about LRM base heat. The ghost heat spike increases were a step in the right direction, but the weapon base heat still makes their sustained DPS outrageous. Even more so if spread improvements with LoS are coming in a future PTS. Ghost heat threshold changes for the smaller launchers were also a positive move for build variety. I would also be keen to see a look at LRM impulse reductions. Why a LRM5 causes more cockpit shake than an AC20 is beyond me. No context in which that makes sense, and paired with other LRM mechanics, it's truly agonizing to play against. Very little is more frustrating than being unable to kill the UAV that's locking you as LRM5s smack your aim around every half-second.

All that said, I liked the changes directionally. Incentivizing risk from LRM boats is a good move.

#7 slide

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,744 posts
  • LocationKersbrook South Australia

Posted 29 January 2019 - 04:15 PM

@Chris Lowrey,

Technical Question: Is there any reason why LRM's can't use "bone targeting" like streaks do?

The way I see it would be to give Direct LOS fire streak characteristics (but with a higher chance of missing) and keep the current tracked blob for indirect fire.

With the bone targeting use locations 1-9 for each mech location plus additional locations 10,11,12 which will be clear misses. Roll for each missile in the volley. This gives a base miss chance of 25% for each missile. Perhaps reduce the miss chance for successive volleys if a constant lock is held in LOS.

Also what happened to the cool spiral pattern we had for when Artemis was active? That was great for knowing if you had a LOS lock.

#8 Kamikaze Viking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • LocationStay on Topic... STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted 29 January 2019 - 04:33 PM

Curious to see how they handle the situation of determining if the shot is LOS or Indirect.

It certainly felt odd to me if you lined up an indirect shot and then just as you fired got a tiny glimpse of the target and it switched to LOS arc. This would often cause missiles to hit the low cover I'd been planning to fire over (or friendly mechs). Something like a very short delay (0.2-0.5sec) on switching arc type may make this more manageable.

Alternately keep the launch angle the same for the first 50-100m and then implement the flatter arc for LOS (if technically possible).Posted Image

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 29 January 2019 - 04:34 PM.


#9 Wild Kadabra

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 43 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 04:58 PM

My suggestion for how to deal with mechs with absurd tube counts is simple, these mechs usually have little back up weapons, so give clan mechs horrible indirect fire spread but equal or close to equal LoS spread to IS. Thus making IS lrms more reliable overall, but clan clan mechs more rewarding when playing aggressive as the clan style should be.

In lore clan indirect fire is frowned upon, so this would reflect the clan preference for using LRMs
when having LoS. I don't mind a 100 tubes super nova assuming it's willing to expose itself to
some counter-fire.

Edited by Wild Kadabra, 29 January 2019 - 04:59 PM.


#10 East Indy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 934 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 05:27 PM

"Horrible indirect fire spread" is exactly what each side needs. It should always be the distant second option, and not the default mode for massive boats that can take advantage of a single lock and dogpile.

We're here because the previous round of need a didn't do the job. Another nudge isn't going to do it, either. You need a nice, big shove.

#11 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 2,572 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 06:10 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 29 January 2019 - 11:30 AM, said:

direct fire LRMs in a spot that allows them to compete with more contemporary direct fire weapons.



This is why these changes ultimately mean nothing. Auto-aim weapons should not compete with direct fire weapons that require you to track and lead targets.

#12 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,767 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 29 January 2019 - 06:56 PM

Wow... just wow... pardon me ranting a bit here, but you all disgust me with your "Games should be only for Competitive-Type Players" mentality that I'm seeing here all too blatantly. <_<

Frankly, I can understand -- and would encourage PGI on -- making MASSIVE boosts for anyone willing to step out and use Direct LOS to an Enemy Mech. That's perfectly fine. Go for it! :D

Heck, I'm sure the Heat-related Changes are probably going to be a positive overall. But, that's only provided a LRM user doesn't find themselves overheating when trying to compete in the short time that they're limited to against Ballistics that have been getting out of hand in terms of how cool they run while being able to allow their pilot to twist away damage. LRM users do NOT get to protect their CT, and that ABSOLUTELY MUST BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE BALANCING, otherwise there is a massive risk of alienating a big chunk of the Player Base. :mellow:

But where I get pissed off is how so many of you want to be toxic towards those who are either Medically Disabled in some way, or have to fight with a Slow Computer because they simply can NOT afford better! The current configuration of Indirect Fire is already past the limit of how nerfed that style of play should be. I'm even getting ranted at in Real Life over it by other humans, and I'm able to fully understand how they feel. There are those out there who sadly can NOT handle LRM'ing while they're under attack with their cockpit being slammed. Worse, they are also physically unable to manually stabilize in most cases for any form of Direct Fire Weaponry. Some are even unable to twitch about at the pace which you folks want to force them into, which makes them into dead weight on a Team, which is a problem that should NEVER happen. I've even had the chance to see their bad days in person, and they get so worn out from trying to play that there is no chance to get them to post their disgust here on the Forums. Quit victimizing these people to the point where they don't want to play anymore, and be willing to work with them, instead of rudely trying to force-feed them, so they can better develop their skills! That will allow them to eventually stick with the rest of the Team, help the Player Base grow larger, and make MWO less agonizing for all in general. Or are you trying to do what I have found that they do to old people in Rest Homes, by choking people into the equivalent of death that causes them to leave MWO as well?!?!? Have you all forgotten how you started out as something far less than you are now, a lot less brave and bold, and how you had to learn? You have to allow that same curve, however long it takes them, for them to get in gear. You can NOT expect others to just instantly get it, and behaving that way is worse than acting like a little child. :angry:

Frankly, the mere fact that there are people in this Community who can not accept there will always be players of a Non-Competitive Level Of Capability feels massively alienating to me. Being as that's the case, it's also saddening just the knowledge of how small the Competitive-Type Player Base is compared to how large the Non-Competitive Player Base happens to be, and how badly MWO would collapse if all the Non-Competitive Players just up and left. -_-

~Mr. D. V. "Take heed of my words about this LRM-linked mess, unless you really wish to kill off MWO." Devnull

#13 Daurock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 528 posts
  • LocationSouth Dakota

Posted 29 January 2019 - 07:31 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 29 January 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

This is why these changes ultimately mean nothing. Auto-aim weapons should not compete with direct fire weapons that require you to track and lead targets.


As of now, even in direct fire, and even if their opponent is standing in the open, they really don't though, assuming their opponent actually CAN aim. Couple in the fact that direct-fire weapons are far better at shooting at people moving in and around hard cover, and it gets a little on the ridiculous side honestly. Because of the spread inherent to the weapon, they probably NEED to have significantly higher DPS than most direct fire options if they are to reasonably compete without help from teammates.

That's one of the reasons I'm cautious about lowering the heat of the weapons, which not only lowers the power of the weapon while when assisted by other equipment like NARC or UAV, (A place where yes, it is too powerful right now IMO) but also potentially hamstrings a LRM mech in the (currently) rare time he can find someone to fight while having a consistent LOS.

The 2.0 changes may or may not change this, depending on what they do regarding the Direct-Fire behaviour, and accuracy levels when NOT in los. It sounds a lot like they're planning on bringing down the spread, and therefore the raw DPS when in indirect fire, which should help the "Narc rain" situation some. We'll have to wait and see to pass judgement, but it seems a lot like they're doubling down on the "Less powerful Indirect fire, more powerful Direct Fire," Which is probably a good thing.

#14 MrMadguy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,838 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 08:19 PM

Simple thing. Don't merge LRMs with ATMs. This would destroy niche role of both weapons in this game. I see it as another change just for the sake of a change. Something like power draw system, that was just an illusion of activity, but has never made it's way to live servers. Make real changes. Do real fixes. Fix MM for example. This is first thing, that should be made in this game.

#15 Lurm God

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 64 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 09:12 PM

View PostD V Devnull, on 29 January 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

Wow... just wow... pardon me ranting a bit here, but you all disgust me with your "Games should be only for Competitive-Type Players" mentality that I'm seeing here all too blatantly. Posted Image

~Mr. D. V. "Take heed of my words about this LRM-linked mess, unless you really wish to kill off MWO." Devnull


It appears you have had an altercation with someone and have taken it personally. I don't see anything above that has caused this reaction. LRMS are too easily boatable and require almost no additional heatsinks is the main issue people are saying here. Reducing spread on direct fire and increasing speed to hitting target also sounds like a buff to me. The only nerf will be a small indirect fire spread which is much of a muchness.
To address your issue with competitive people this game is much less toxic than most games that are competitively focused. For example League of Legends. I cannot imagine MWO has the population to isolate the spectrum from meeting. If you have the issue of being abused coming up regularly mute all chat and just interact with your friends. If you can take it maybe take some constructive stuff in and just ignore the toxic behaviors as it is just a game.
I can tell you now even as one of the top .1% on jarl I often struggle with not saying anything watching the skillgap to the guys that are top 5% gameplay wise and I am sure the tip top few pilots would think the same watching me. Ultimately this is a PTS forum though so probably not the best place to discuss this lol.

Edited by Lurm God, 29 January 2019 - 09:14 PM.


#16 dante245

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 577 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 29 January 2019 - 09:46 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 29 January 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:

For PTS 2.0 can we actually get the baseline heat values altered please? That is the core/baseline issue with LRMs as I see it and many, many others. This is a direct result of 2018 heat & ammo buffs LRMs received, but did not really need.
  • IS LRMs need at least 5% base heat increase.
  • Clan LRMs need at least 10% base heat increase.
The heat penalty (ghost heat) were good values to change. Stick with them 100%!!! With added baseline heat that will curb the ability to drop a 60-80pt alpha @ 900m 5 times in a row without overheating even on hot maps. Or being able to spew out over 600dmg in a 30s period without overheating from avoiding heat penalty at any range out to 1000m.





I mean you guys tried to chase the 94pt DWF "boogey man" that wasn't really a problem (and is now 90pt, still very nasty) - a 80pt of damage at such a range without any heat issue, that is a real problem but seems to be largely ignored. Especially for more open maps like Caustic, Polar, Tourmaline, Frozen (Assault/Domination) & maps within Faction Play. There are other maps that are bad too, that's a longer debate.


Also side point - can you put some rewards up for PTS2.0 to get people playing? No one could get any consistent matches in Oceanic, many in North America phase struggled as well given there was a big QP event on @ same time Posted Image

actually agree with most of this, accept some of the maps " personal preference" and the idea alphas did not take a heavy hit "personal experience is, IMO, and others ive talked too" that alpha metas changed in a variety of ways because of the changes from the PTS for alpha. maybe not as significant as was hoped, but still relevant. now its a case of firing reduced alphas more often "if we are talking long range energy and Gauss alphas" but increased danger from close range, some what cooler, alphas like SRM, heavy Gauss, etc. but CHANGES did happen. and people adjusted accordingly, as brawl became more dominant and effective in team settings. as for LRMS, i think your on the right track, but allot of your final results/numbers "as ash stated" are heavily construed and messed up cause of the limited amount of feedback and people playing cause of low population in the PTS. this means any and all results you got will be unreliable in comparison to if you had a decent amount of testers running about "there were even a few "special" people who ruined what little testing people could do by brining meta spam builds and such "nothing to do with LRMS" to an LRM PTS, killing people before they could test and record results. PLEASE FIX THIS PRONTO!! ash was 100% on that key issue, cause with any theory testing, you need a large enough sample base to get solid results.

Edited by dante245, 29 January 2019 - 09:48 PM.


#17 MegaBopper

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 64 posts

Posted 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM

No! Just No!

The usability of LRM's has already been all but totally destroyed. The nerfs to locking make it next to impossible to get enough of a lock to even fire locking weapon systems. In the meantime you are being pounded to death by "daka" weapons from a range farther than you can reach with what are supposed to be "long range" weapons. Once you have managed to lock and fire at a target it is unconscionable that a person can fire over 800 missiles in range at a locked target that is not under cover and only achieve 36 damage. Or that just about every time you push the fire button at a locked target the lock just simply disappears and your missiles just dump into the ground because we are heavily dependent on locking by tag, uav or direct sight and team members cannot maintain their locks in order to avoid damage. This design totally ignores reality in the way that missiles work. We don't have true active radar in the game. When a lock is lost by the firing mech all locking missiles should maintain their lock and continue to target the way that ssrm's currently do. In the event that the propellant runs out they should continue along their last ballistic path. In reality a warhead does just as much damage no matter what range it strikes at once it has been armed. Real propelled missile barrages can be used to hit targets that are literally miles away. 800 meter range limits would be laughable if they were not so tragically wrong. Put simply without having LRM's work the way they should this game simply becomes another six-shoot-em-up C.O.D. piece. That's not what "Mechwarrior" was ever intended to be and should never be forced to be. It is a team game not a team ignoring "hero" game. Further by destroying more easily playable weapon systems for lower level players to "limit their use by higher level players" it becomes apparent that the intent is to drive the lower level players away because that is surely what will happen. If you really want to keep higher level players from abusively exploiting use of good weapon systems then increase their difficulty for playing the game and lower it for the lower level players.

The strength of the Mechwarrior game lies in strategy, tactics, teamwork, cooperation, coordination, making use of cover and utilizing all the different roles that are part of full on battle scenarios not just brawling. It is not improved by constantly bad mouthing people who don't run up to the front and sacrifice themselves "to share their armor" so that the top level players can feel that they are better than everyone else.

Stop nerfing things that work for players who are not at competitive level. It is destroying the game. Please remember that the continued future of the game lies in building the player base not destroying it. A game that is not fun is not worth playing. It is not fun to constantly be nothing more than cannon fodder that is consistently destroyed in the first minute of play. The pandering to whiners who don't like LRM's or any other missiles for that matter has to stop. What has been done to the game in the name of "balance" has in reality only served to make the balance worse. And don't even start with the "git gud" meme. That is nothing more than an exercise in arrogance.

Edited by MegaBopper, 29 January 2019 - 10:37 PM.


#18 Lurm God

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 64 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 12:15 AM

View PostMegaBopper, on 29 January 2019 - 10:06 PM, said:


Stop nerfing things that work for players who are not at competitive level. It is destroying the game. Please remember that the continued future of the game lies in building the player base not destroying it. A game that is not fun is not worth playing. It is not fun to constantly be nothing more than cannon fodder that is consistently destroyed in the first minute of play. The pandering to whiners who don't like LRM's or any other missiles for that matter has to stop. What has been done to the game in the name of "balance" has in reality only served to make the balance worse. And don't even start with the "git gud" meme. That is nothing more than an exercise in arrogance.


Since you presented a wild cranky kneejerk comment with no actual substance other than please don't nerf LRMS, I am being ostracized and bullied because I can't aim well. Keep in mind this is a PVP experience so you will have to think from that focus standpoint on a game with spaghetti code and 2012 functionality. So how do you propose balancing it with the PTS listed to cater balance to both top and lower tier pilots in mind? Do you have any other idea in mind that may be not explored yet. I can tell you now if you have seen the blood asp or even nova cat B being used by a few of us getting 1k+ damage games is a breeze even on maps that are not LRM supportive. Heat changes would be an outstanding option as others have listed above as it doesn't detriment lower tier pilots as they are often not riding their heat up and it slows down higher end players boating 90-95 LRM tube setups that can shoot endlessly.

Edited by Lurm God, 30 January 2019 - 12:16 AM.


#19 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,767 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 30 January 2019 - 12:24 AM

View PostLurm God, on 29 January 2019 - 09:12 PM, said:

LRMS are too easily boatable and require almost no additional heatsinks is the main issue people are saying here. Reducing spread on direct fire and increasing speed to hitting target also sounds like a buff to me. The only nerf will be a small indirect fire spread which is much of a muchness.

Well, I can at least see where to stop any need for an Indirect Spread Nerf, and still want a Giant Direct-Fire LOS Buff. The reason the whole "Lurmageddon" started was the increase in LRM Ammo. Drop it back to 200, down from the 240 it is now, and that chokes the constant LRM spamming. It might even give cause to allowing a rather tiny Indirect Spread Buff, right along with that Giant Direct-Fire LOS Buff that would be well-appreciated. Some might think me crazy now, but this is possibly one of the least negative solutions that exist, and would be well worth high consideration of using. ^_^

~Mr. D. V. "seeing a possible solution where nerfs are made unwelcome" Devnull

#20 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 30 January 2019 - 12:42 AM

View PostD V Devnull, on 29 January 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

Wow... just wow... pardon me ranting a bit here, but you all disgust me with your "Games should be only for Competitive-Type Players" mentality that I'm seeing here all too blatantly. Posted Image

But where I get pissed off is how so many of you want to be toxic towards those who are either Medically Disabled in some way, or have to fight with a Slow Computer because they simply can NOT afford better! The current configuration of Indirect Fire is already past the limit of how nerfed that style of play should be.

Frankly, the mere fact that there are people in this Community who can not accept there will always be players of a Non-Competitive Level Of Capability feels massively alienating to me. Being as that's the case, it's also saddening just the knowledge of how small the Competitive-Type Player Base is compared to how large the Non-Competitive Player Base happens to be, and how badly MWO would collapse if all the Non-Competitive Players just up and left.


IDF took ammo, heat, velocity buffs all though 2018. Which has semi led us to this point and the constant outcries against them.

The fact is you never balance any game (especially not a Online FPS) for the bottom, you balance for the top while taking into account the bottom, as required.

If you actually watched the recent NGNG Podcast where Phil & I cover LRMs and my thoughts. You will actually see that I say the reticule nerf was not helpful for the low skill players and overall didn't have much affect against the top end because they could already hold their mouse steady to acquire/maintain locks.

Now that is not in any way, shape or form saying the game is for Comp only etc etc. It's actually the opposite. It is encompassing the issues the lower end of the playerbase first and foremost, which is what I do with any suggestion.

To then say Comp players should leave the game because of some wild misconception, when you have them on your side, is just poor form.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users