183 replies to this topic

[IronEleven]

MechNexus, on 28 February 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

I genuinely don't get why direct fire has been consistently nerfed while lockons constantly dodge the nerf bat and constant get babied by PGI with changes like this. The velocity buff was entirely unnessecary. The PTS was a step in the right direction but this throws it all out of the window.

It feels like PGI would rather balance around the reality of spuds and good players in the same tiers than fix PSR for some reason.

[flyboy179]

justcallme A S H, on 28 February 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

Mechanically demanding enough that you're not overly good at it?

Anyway I made myself ~$1500 playing MWO last year which mean a 2 week O/S trip through the US and Canada. Met some amazing people and had a killer life experience.

Worth it to me for something I do as a hobby.

I envy you actually have the schedule to. Some remind to stop checking forums when i have isomia. I get bitchy withough sleep.

[flyboy179]

Curccu, on 28 February 2019 - 03:50 AM, said:

Yeah that is not how it is but thanks for proving my point and you were talking about playing not watching, pretty much every e-sport is boring to watch IMO.
And sure 2018 has been bad year for competitive scene as whole game because PGI uses all of it's resources to make MW5 instead of developinh MWO so loads of players have lost interest in this game (and stock MWOWC 2018 didn't help)

and comparing game with (December 2018 stats both) with TOTAL population of <27k vs TF2 PEAK players 116k is kinda silly, specially when other game of those if developed from the beginning to be played competitively.

I compared the two since TF2, by virtue of of the comp scene forcing a completly different ruleset, is stuck with a compscene that at the high levels is comparable in numbers with this game. I started this triad while half dead to the world so I was being more bitchy than would allowed myself to be. I've honestly forgotten what i was complaining about

Edited by flyboy179, 28 February 2019 - 01:01 PM.

[flyboy179]

MechNexus, on 28 February 2019 - 10:43 AM, said:

Before today I was considering pre-ordering MW5, as the LRM PTS gave me a bit more confidence in PGI, and was I quite close to actually doing it.

Nothing about the above sentence is true anymore as a result of these patch notes.

considering MW5 is a PvE game all it shows is that PGI just likes doing their own thing. also to anyone that things canceling is possible, its not, you redeem anything of the codes that come with the preordeder the refund is not possible

[Cato Zilks]

Chris Lowrey, on 27 February 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

Missile Projectile Health vs. AMS:

During a number of testing sessions, the new functionality worked to make AMS more effective against larger missile volleys, without being as punishing against smaller volleys. But one important bit of feedback we received through testing was that certain ‘Mechs that combined skill tree assignments, Native ‘Mech quirks, and high number of AMS slots resulted in a massive performance swing that made them a bit too effective at completely shutting down missile play when accounting for these incoming changes. Considering that these changes aim to improve the baseline system, we have decided that it is time to scale down / phase out a number of AMS based quirks to ensure that the introduction of this system does not compound on existing quirks to shut down all missile play. We will be keeping or shifting a number of AMS based quirks on select ‘Mechs that do supply an AMS support niche within the overall line up. But their tuning will account for the increased performance in the baseline equipment. Details on this point will be provided with the March Patch Notes.

The final missile health settings will be identical to what was tested on PTS 2.1 for LRM’s and ATM’s, but the system has been expanded to now include all missile based systems for its final release. While AMS will still be primarily effective against indirect fired LRMs and ATMs, the new changes will see AMS performance against other missile type weapons greatly improve over its present tuning. There will also be a change to the baseline AMS systems that we will elaborate on in the Equipment Tuning section below.

Still a massively stupid and illogical balancing decision.

[IronEleven]

flyboy179, on 28 February 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

considering MW5 is a PvE game all it shows is that PGI just likes doing their own thing. also to anyone that things canceling is possible, its not, you redeem anything of the codes that come with the preordeder the refund is not possible

The incentive for preordering MW5 over doing the smart thing and waiting to see if it's actually good is the MC and MAD II though. That incentive might as well be gone as far as I'm concerned.

[Nathan White]

Good job, PGI. Now i have a reason not play this fucкing game.

[flyboy179]

IronEleven, on 28 February 2019 - 01:44 PM, said:

The incentive for preordering MW5 over doing the smart thing and waiting to see if it's actually good is the MC and MAD II though. That incentive might as well be gone as far as I'm concerned.

The wait and see mentality need people who actually know what their doing to play the game that and the direct line to the devs that say's i'm your customer base has its benefits. I will say personally that you will get my thoughts on it as soon as the beta goes up, credit most of my experience comes from MW4 mercs so thats the main comparision.

[Prototelis]

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

So, I see mostly LRM hating people crying over "mega uber buff" to LRMs in terms of velocity buff... but nobody is saying anything about the actual "stealth nerf" that is going to hit by my own estimate, a good 90% of LRM users - 10% spread nerf to indirect LRMs..

Oh no, you might have to actually engage the enemy for more effective damage!

Quote

Yes, this is a NERF for most of us.. because most Lurmers don't go much into DF.. it's not the way the weapon system is used in most situations.. and those that do.. play ATMs..

That is the point of these changes, to get auto aimers to engage the enemy and contribute to the health pool.

Quote

So, for the relative few people that already don't play LRMs like most people, this change is a buff.. and flack the rest of us that play IDF huh?

Insane velocity is a net buff across both fire modes. The problem is that "most people" = 2-3 of the highest tonnage most armored mechs on your team not contributing to health pool. The whole point of these changes is to address that, to make IDF noticeably weaker than DF because IDF auto aim severely disrupts the core gameplay loop. It's also extremely toxic and selfish play for a team game.

Quote

Again with the vocal LRM hater minority affecting those that just want to play their LRMs and have some fun.

Conjecture.

In my experience even people sub 50% understand the importance of health pooling.

Quote

Well.. lemme remind you of one thing.. one UNHOLY thing...

Higher LRM spread means... LIGHTS GET HIT IN THE LEGS.

Let me remind you of one thing. It doesn't matter. LRMS are almost a non-issue to most lights. You're thinking of streaks.

Edited by Prototelis, 28 February 2019 - 05:49 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

So, I see mostly LRM hating people crying over "mega uber buff" to LRMs in terms of velocity buff... but nobody is saying anything about the actual "stealth nerf" that is going to hit by my own estimate, a good 90% of LRM users - 10% spread nerf to indirect LRMs..

Probably because they don't exactly care enough.

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

Yes, this is a NERF for most of us.. because most Lurmers don't go much into DF.. it's not the way the weapon system is used in most situations.. and those that do.. play ATMs..

So, for the relative few people that already don't play LRMs like most people, this change is a buff.. and flack the rest of us that play IDF huh?

Then maybe play in DF? If you're using a tool the wrong way -- since LRMs are rebuilt to be used with LOS -- maybe it's your fault? You have the right to play in any play-style you want, but you aren't entitled in being effective with them.

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

Again with the vocal LRM hater minority affecting those that just want to play their LRMs and have some fun.

Okay, so lets buff Gauss damage to 50 from 15. Give the Gauss-Snipers their fun.

Seriously though, this is your fundamental problem, you're guilting people, strawmanning their concerns. The concerns about LRM velocity is about balance, not about letting IDF-Lurmers have their fun. You setting it up as "taking away your fun" is basically emotional blackmail, and is quite frankly pathetic.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 February 2019 - 06:37 PM.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

PGI test server methodolgy.


1. Set Up test server
2. Throw kitchen sink at test server. Make dozens of changes where it is impossible to determine which ones are beneficial and which aren't.
3. Over reach stated goals.- Usually involves some sort of hidden rebalance or global nerfs.
4. Run PTS in 4v4 mode that doesn't translate to 12v12 mode.
5. Ignore feedback- because PGI Knows Best.

Origianlly posted Oct, 2017
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5919233

[GweNTLeR]

Well, everything except for velocity buff looks ok to me. I guess even velocity could be somewhat justified considering missile health nerf and ams range buff. But still I WANT PGI TO REMOVE UNTESTED VELOCITY BUFF at least for march patch.

Edited by GweNTLeR, 28 February 2019 - 11:38 PM.

[Smutty]

Prototelis, on 28 February 2019 - 05:48 PM, said:

5-quote multikill

Damn dude, you came out swinging. Wholeheartedly agree with the points raised. Every other match or so we end up finding some jackass LRM boat sitting in Zimbabwe with fresh or near-fresh armour just lobbing stones at targets he's never even seen. Velocity changes notwithstanding I'm eager to see the indirect fire crowd be forced to grow some cajones and learn how to play the game

[Snowhawk]

Good.....

[MechTech Dragoon]

K. So....buffed velocity, personally....don't really have a problem with it, at least in a direct fire situation.
But IDF will still be too strong here. Lock on times really aren't the way to do it anyway.

People do have FUN (ikr) sitting there flinging missiles at ****. Increase lock on times, decreases their fun, decreases their usefulness. Longer lock times is just going to make the people who WANT to play the artillery role sit there spending their time attempting to get locks even more.
Without narc/tag, IDF missiles should have HUGE spreads. If the unit is acting as an artillery unit, make it deal damage like one.

I'm gna take a btech note here (Yea yea, t-top percents vs real time, bite me)
But....an lrm20, with a spotter, fired indirect with no narc or tag, has a 10% chance to hit...per missile.
So, you have converted that, into a 100% chance to hit, per missile, provided the target doesn't move into cover.

Allot of things in mwo have this problem, where the armor is doubled compared to TT, however weapons still have A. 100% chance to hit, because its an FPS. and B. they don't all have a set x CD. So your getting a situation where values are loosely based on on a TT...where mechs are missing shots consistently. Were going from a grasshopper hitting 3 out of 5 lasers with regular armor values, hitting 2 different locations on a mech, to a hopper hitting with all 5, on one location...with only double the armor, does this issue make sense yet? In an example of a 30(bt) 60(mwo) st, You've gone from dealing 16% total hp to two different spots, to dealing 91% to one spot, and hey we can account for possible laser spread, a competent pilot is still hitting majority one ST.
Obviously, we cant make things like autocannon shells sometimes randomly fly off where you werent aiming, and we cant have all weapons on a 4sec cd.

But, lrms are one of the VERY FEW things, at least in current design... that you can directly convert a small chance to hit into spread, and time to target.
IDF lrms should NOT be effective, without adequate support from friendlies.
"But spread wont do anything! Just makes it hit more stuff! its still damage!" If the spread is wide enough, and the missiles are slow enough, you will get an area spread around the mech, this happens with lighter mechs all the time. A full lrm20 is not hitting them.

[thievingmagpi]

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2019 - 05:49 AM, said:

Again with the vocal LRM hater minority affecting those that just want to play their LRMs and have some fun.

You're welcome to play the game however you want.

You're welcome to run a 1 mg Atlas if you wish.

[Saiphas Cain]

This sounds like a well tested thing and I appreciate the direct and frank analysis. It shows that it was tested and not simply fired from the hip and suggests to the player base that perhaps, the devs aren't the complete morons so many complain. Perhaps programming an entire game like this takes some skill afterall and there's a lot going on under the hood we never see. Anyone complaining more about LRM buffs needs to take radar derp more instead of completing their firepower tree perhaps? I'm nowhere near the best player on here and even I don't have any issues with LRM's. My only concern with this is unintentionally having problems firing over the heads of my allies like I do now at 300m when I'm second line increasing firepower without increasing frontage in my archer like a good artillery fire support platform. When I get into brawling range it I'm sure it'll be fine.

[Antares102]

Guys there is a reason why there is no clam assault mech with 6+ missile hardpoints.
After this change I bet they introduce one in April.
Imagine a LRM120 clam assault eating you alive with these changes

Edited by Antares102, 01 March 2019 - 07:52 AM.

[thievingmagpi]

My hypothesis is that PGI is doing all these terribad pts balance passes as a testing ground for MW5 because they've likely failed to create decent AI and engaging missions so they've had to resort to lrms as the only viable gameplay mechanic, because there's no way any kind of brawling, poking, ac slugging matches are going to be memorable.

[Smutty]

thievingmagpi, on 01 March 2019 - 10:01 AM, said:

My hypothesis is that PGI is doing all these terribad pts balance passes as a testing ground for MW5 because they've likely failed to create decent AI and engaging missions so they've had to resort to lrms as the only viable gameplay mechanic, because there's no way any kind of brawling, poking, ac slugging matches are going to be memorable.

Damn dawg, relax. I'm sure MWV will be fine. Besides, mods can fix what PGI either doesn't have the time or the skill for. A bit of a cop-out maybe but at least the players will be in near-full control of how the game functions.