189 replies to this topic

[IronEleven]

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..

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?

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

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

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

Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with coordinated LRM premades in group queue/faction play.

[Natural Predator]

Honest to god PGI I swear you are trolling us. It’s like we tell you exactly what the problem is and you do the exact ******* opposite.

[denAirwalkerrr]

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..

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?

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

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

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

Your single comment out of 61 really shows how many people "just want to play their LRMs and have some fun" in this game.

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 28 February 2019 - 07:40 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

just lol.

it's always the same; "we wanna change %something%, here's the PTS"
then there's the PTS, and an event on the live-servers.

the few of us STUPID ENOUGH to still give you feedback, do so, which results in "collective opinion A"
we get another PTS. rinse and repeat the same BS as above, with opinion A v2 as a result.

then public opinion goes to the waste-bin, we get implemented something entirely different, and guess what?
everybody is p1ssed. big surprise?



imagine a car-salesman doing that.

customer: I'm not happy with the engine and the tires. please up the engine and order broader tires. I actually dig the candy-apple-red finish though. consider it an order.

PGI-salesman: okay. I'll take that order. I'll keep the engine though, give you really ****** tires on top, and oh: that candy-apple-red you're so fond of? I'll repaint it in brown-sea-brown; for free ofc, since I like you.


......

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 28 February 2019 - 07:12 AM.

[Curccu]

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..

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?

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

ok I play LRMs.
Velocity buff is most likely too good, IDF specially shouldn't get it.

and IDF needs nerf because it is TOO GOOD compared to risks at the moment.
So without buffing DF LRMs even more stupid good that they might be after this velocity buff, it's reasonable to nerf IDF to make DF more appealing vs the risk of getting shot at.

[BARRY SHlTPEAS]

Time to start cancelling MechWarrior 5 pre-orders if you want this madness to stop.

[Curccu]

IronEleven, on 28 February 2019 - 06:48 AM, said:

Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with coordinated LRM premades in group queue/faction play.

And it doesn't even need huge premade, played one polar lrm game with two friends, 2x awesome 6Rs and stealth narc raven, our awesomes did ~3000 damage and 10 kmdds and 6-7 solo kills.
Yes the perfect map for that but still 3 man group wrecked totally who enemy team and most skill needed in this case was our narc raven to stay alive and hit every enemy once.

[K O Z A K]

Lmao, I can't even be bothered to care anymore. PGI wants us to coordinated lrm troll people out of the game even faster? Fk it, let the rage quitting begin. How about an lrm event to get the ball rolling?

[Metachanic]

If small-launcher LRM boating is going to get buffed, could we trouble you to take a look at impulse? A single LRM10 hit rocks your cockpit harder than an AC20, and no one's chain-firing half a dozen or more AC20s into you every half-second.

And, at the risk of shouting into the wind (or the inevitable incoming missiles, I suppose) could the velocity change at least be postponed until the rest of the system changes have gone live for proper testing? Even if you think it's wise to ignore this much negative feedback, why add a huge variable to your set of tested parameters? Especially the one most crucial to the weapon system's effectiveness, and which people have been arguing is too high already?

Edited by Metachanic, 28 February 2019 - 07:57 AM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Metachanic, on 28 February 2019 - 07:45 AM, said:

If LRM5 boating is going to get buffed, could we trouble you to take a look at impulse? A single LRM5 hit rocks your cockpit harder than an AC20, and no one's chain-firing half a dozen or more AC20s into you every half-second.

And, at the risk of shouting into the wind (or the inevitable incoming missiles, I suppose) could the velocity change at least be postponed until the rest of the system changes have gone live for proper testing? Even if you think it's wise to ignore this much negative feedback, why add a huge variable to your set of tested parameters? Especially the one most crucial to the weapon system's effectiveness, and which people have been arguing is too high already?

No because scary Boomjagers from 2014.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Meanwhile, ac20 ghostheat is still in place...

ADD: just noticed how many people commented on bs ac20 ghostheat lul

denAirwalkerrr, on 28 February 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

No because scary Boomjagers from 2014.

Nah, boomjagers and boomcats were all the rage in 2013

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 28 February 2019 - 08:25 AM.

[Pelmeshek]

HOLD LOCKS PLS AND ALL PRAISE #THXCHRIS

Edited by Pelmeshek, 28 February 2019 - 08:59 AM.

[Admiral Ackbar 86]

PGI in a nutshell

[thievingmagpi]

Verticorda, on 28 February 2019 - 07:16 AM, said:

Time to start cancelling MechWarrior 5 pre-orders if you want this madness to stop.

Solved this by not ordering in the first place

[Hellfire666]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 28 February 2019 - 08:11 AM, said:

Meanwhile, ac20 ghostheat is still in place...

ADD: just noticed how many people commented on bs ac20 ghostheat lul



Nah, boomjagers and boomcats were all the rage in 2013

Ghost heat on dual ac/20's yet dual heavy gauss slings more damage for zero heat. PGI logic at it's finest.

OH crap, we talked about direct fire weapons - gotta buff LRMs some MOAR!

[MechNexus]

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.

[Tranderas]

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.

People keep asking me why I'm so skeptical about MW5 and I point out that the guy who has final say on these "balance" decisions in MWO is the lead on MW5.

[R Valentine]

Aren't LRMs strong enough right now? Did they really need a velocity buff on top of a "direct fire" buff. There is nothing direct fire about LRMs, regardless of LOS. You do not control the point of impact, the trajectory, or the course corrections. PGI does. Weapons that don't require you to aim do not need a buff.

[IronEleven]

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.

I was in the same boat. Those MWO rewards were tempting, especially as a founder. I told myself I'd preorder if the LRM changes were enough to undo the damage caused by the cLRM heat buffs.

Can't wait to see what kind of Monkey's Paw BS the FP changes turn into.

[MechNexus]

Kiran Yagami, on 28 February 2019 - 11:49 AM, said:

Aren't LRMs strong enough right now? Did they really need a velocity buff on top of a "direct fire" buff. There is nothing direct fire about LRMs, regardless of LOS. You do not control the point of impact, the trajectory, or the course corrections. PGI does. Weapons that don't require you to aim do not need a buff.

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.