15 replies to this topic

[NightNight]

AMS is killing missiles if there behind a building/landscape AMS should have line of sight to kill missiles..

[Tesunie]

AMS has always been acting this way. It's nothing new with this patch, for the record.

[Dee Eight]

Thats not a bug. Its a PGI intended feature.

[Johny Rocket]

yup coming to report this as well. no point in the low arc LOS firing lrms if ams can fire thru terrain.

[Tesunie]

Johny Rocket, on 19 March 2019 - 01:18 PM, said:

yup coming to report this as well. no point in the low arc LOS firing lrms if ams can fire thru terrain.

The lower arc direct fired LRMs meet up with their targets sooner, meaning it is better to shoot LRMs directly vs AMS, rather than indirectly. AMS shooting through terrain doesn't have much impact on this, as it's always done it before.

[Johny Rocket]

Tesunie, on 19 March 2019 - 01:23 PM, said:

The lower arc direct fired LRMs meet up with their targets sooner, meaning it is better to shoot LRMs directly vs AMS, rather than indirectly. AMS shooting through terrain doesn't have much impact on this, as it's always done it before.

Just because it's always done it doesn't mean it's not broken af. I have noticed it before but with the lrm change everyone is bringing it and now a mech with 4 ams. watching your direct fire lrms get nuked thru a hill is just salt in the wound.

[Tesunie]

Johny Rocket, on 19 March 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

Just because it's always done it doesn't mean it's not broken af. I have noticed it before but with the lrm change everyone is bringing it and now a mech with 4 ams. watching your direct fire lrms get nuked thru a hill is just salt in the wound.

How about having your own missile explosion blind yourself as AMS shoots down your missiles before they even leave the tube?

I actually am thinking right now that AMS may have received too much of a buff in this patch. I've been noticing just two AMS able to shoot down 30+ LRMs... That doesn't seem quite right to me for a system that's suppose to reduce missile damage... not completely negate it.

It's able to shoot through terrain mostly because it's (almost) always on and often outside the player's control. It's be just as bad if it shot at terrain, wasting ammo on nothing, and then having the missiles it's suppose to be helping shooting down to still hit their target... I mean, ideally AMS should just not shoot at missiles if it's LoS is blocked, but I'm not overly bothered by it's amazing ability to shoot through stuff.

Mostly, I was here to add the fact that it's always done this. The thread's opening post kinda made it sound like this was a new feature.

[KursedVixen]

Tesunie, on 19 March 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:

AMS has always been acting this way. It's nothing new with this patch, for the record.

ever had your Ams go off while you were in the basment of HPG manifold? if it bugs you that much just manually turn it off '~' key.

[Whizbang AGNC]

Johny Rocket, on 19 March 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

Just because it's always done it doesn't mean it's not broken af. I have noticed it before but with the lrm change everyone is bringing it and now a mech with 4 ams. watching your direct fire lrms get nuked thru a hill is just salt in the wound.

You're right. I got 4 fixed missile slots so they have made half of my weapons useless. I've about had it with whatever in-crowd bunch of crybabies getting everyone else nerfed. PGI does this over and over and loses player base over it. In the old games the weapons were what the weapons were. And at least they were realistic. Now they got so many nerfs on them they don't even resemble anything that could ever be real. They need to stop this reactionary b******t and quit changing everything every time someone feels butthurt. I'm tired of having to change my whole garage every couple of months. If they eep it up they're gonna end up like all their predecessors with a game only 3 people are playing.

[Tesunie]

Whizbang AGNC, on 23 March 2019 - 12:14 AM, said:

You're right. I got 4 fixed missile slots so they have made half of my weapons useless. I've about had it with whatever in-crowd bunch of crybabies getting everyone else nerfed. PGI does this over and over and loses player base over it. In the old games the weapons were what the weapons were. And at least they were realistic. Now they got so many nerfs on them they don't even resemble anything that could ever be real. They need to stop this reactionary b******t and quit changing everything every time someone feels butthurt. I'm tired of having to change my whole garage every couple of months. If they eep it up they're gonna end up like all their predecessors with a game only 3 people are playing.

I would like to make the remark, missiles got changes. People know it. So, more people are running AMS in anticipation of those changes. A lot of us also got a new Dual AMS assault mech for free... And I don't know about others but if I have a mech with more than one AMS slot, I try to use them...

[Whizbang AGNC]

Tesunie, on 23 March 2019 - 07:39 AM, said:

I would like to make the remark, missiles got changes. People know it. So, more people are running AMS in anticipation of those changes. A lot of us also got a new Dual AMS assault mech for free... And I don't know about others but if I have a mech with more than one AMS slot, I try to use them...

Well, To make half of the firepower of certain mechs useless is unacceptable. It is just a very good reason not to spend money on anything in the game if they are just gonna nerf it to zero. If they think this is ok then they should be giving refunds.

[Tesunie]

Whizbang AGNC, on 24 March 2019 - 01:56 PM, said:

Well, To make half of the firepower of certain mechs useless is unacceptable. It is just a very good reason not to spend money on anything in the game if they are just gonna nerf it to zero. If they think this is ok then they should be giving refunds.

It just got changed. Give it a bit to settle and let PGI gather the data needed to possibly correct and adjust these new changes.

I think not spending money on this game due to these changes is your choice and right. However, I also think asking for a refund because of these changes would be foolhardy and rash. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Whizbang AGNC]

Tesunie, on 24 March 2019 - 03:13 PM, said:

It just got changed. Give it a bit to settle and let PGI gather the data needed to possibly correct and adjust these new changes.

I think not spending money on this game due to these changes is your choice and right. However, I also think asking for a refund because of these changes would be foolhardy and rash. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Asking for a refund is no different than say if you bought a cell phone for the speed and the next day the company that made it halved that speed with a software update. You'd want your money back. When I buy something with real money I don't expect the manufacturer to take away the goodies I just bought. If I pay $X for Y then I better still have the same Y tomorrow when I look again at it.

All that being said, If I buy MW5 and have to spend some additional money to get the mech I want so I don't have to work up to it in trials, so be it. But if I do, what I buy better not get made to be worthless because someone else made bad choices. I'm sorry, but I saw in another post where someone was complaining that his light could no longer go toe to toe with a heavy or assault. Well guess what, they were never meant to. You don't go toe to toe with an Abrams tank with a humvee, it would be stupid. And it is complaints like that that gots weapons and mechs to be made worthless. If they start taking someones money and then start nerfing the product they just sold they will be setting themselves up for refunds and even possibly lawsuits. Once you start selling a game for real money it better be for better or worse, static for the most part. And this is why I really question if I want to spend the money on the game itself. Because if it isn't relatively static we will all be sitting around waiting for the next franchise to start the next version of the game. Because people will just say screw it and stop playing.

Edited by Whizbang AGNC, 04 April 2019 - 08:08 PM.

[Tesunie]

Whizbang AGNC, on 04 April 2019 - 07:35 PM, said:

Asking for a refund is no different than say if you bought a cell phone for the speed and the next day the company that made it halved that speed with a software update. You'd want your money back. When I buy something with real money I don't expect the manufacturer to take away the goodies I just bought. If I pay $X for Y then I better still have the same Y tomorrow when I look again at it.

Except... read the fine print of the CoC and ToS for this game. They are permitted to create changes to the game, as they see fit, typically for overall better game play (as would be the goal at least).

The other question would be; Refunds for what exactly? On the c-bills on certain weapons because "I don't like these changes"? Mechs? Premium time? For who? Everyone?

I'd also mention, though the AMS change has been a little rough, missiles are still very viable in the game. If you don't like it, play with different weapons. Play with different mechs. At worst, stop playing the game.

The only refunds I could see for people is asking to refund mech packs that haven't been delivered yet, or for content "not really played much", each of which you can contact support for and get refunds for. "Lightly used" content (mechs) purchased with real money is more questionable on refunds, but say you bought the Dervish and thing these missile changes would be getting tweaked at all anymore (which considering things are always being tweaked, is a bit unlikely), you could ask for a refund for the Dervish you have not recieved by contacting support.

Now, if you wanted a refund on, say, that Founders Catapult because of these specific changes, after enjoying it for years of game play with hundreds of matchs... I'm gonna say "You've already gotten your enjoyment, no". And so would PGI on that. You want every cent you placed into the game refunded because of these changes... I'm just gonna say it's not gonna happen.

Thus, my comment. "I think not spending money on this game due to these changes is your choice and right. However, I also think asking for a refund because of these changes would be foolhardy and rash. Of course, that's just my opinion." I mean, we know they are going to make additional changes and tweaks to it over time. I think it's a little premature to ask for refunds from this change at this time is all.

[Whizbang AGNC]

Tesunie, on 04 April 2019 - 08:16 PM, said:

Except... read the fine print of the CoC and ToS for this game. They are permitted to create changes to the game, as they see fit, typically for overall better game play (as would be the goal at least).

The other question would be; Refunds for what exactly? On the c-bills on certain weapons because "I don't like these changes"? Mechs? Premium time? For who? Everyone?

I'd also mention, though the AMS change has been a little rough, missiles are still very viable in the game. If you don't like it, play with different weapons. Play with different mechs. At worst, stop playing the game.

The only refunds I could see for people is asking to refund mech packs that haven't been delivered yet, or for content "not really played much", each of which you can contact support for and get refunds for. "Lightly used" content (mechs) purchased with real money is more questionable on refunds, but say you bought the Dervish and thing these missile changes would be getting tweaked at all anymore (which considering things are always being tweaked, is a bit unlikely), you could ask for a refund for the Dervish you have not recieved by contacting support.

Now, if you wanted a refund on, say, that Founders Catapult because of these specific changes, after enjoying it for years of game play with hundreds of matchs... I'm gonna say "You've already gotten your enjoyment, no". And so would PGI on that. You want every cent you placed into the game refunded because of these changes... I'm just gonna say it's not gonna happen.

Thus, my comment. "I think not spending money on this game due to these changes is your choice and right. However, I also think asking for a refund because of these changes would be foolhardy and rash. Of course, that's just my opinion." I mean, we know they are going to make additional changes and tweaks to it over time. I think it's a little premature to ask for refunds from this change at this time is all.

Yeah well, Make any changes you want. But I got news. If you charge money for a product and then otherwise make that product worthless you are liable. So at the worst for PGI I could see some enterprising lawyer starting a class action suit, TOS or not. There is a reasonable expectation that changes wouldn't affect the end result in a purchased product. If Ford had a problem with the F150's getting in accidents, did a recall, and determined that the best fix was to remove the wheels because if it can't move it can't wreck. Then returned the Truck and said well, we hadd make a change, sorry about your truck, but we're keeping the money, Thaks for buying ford Would you be pissed? Another end result is what I have already seen. Almost all of the players I started with, and some very good ones too have left the game over this constant reactionary nerfing to satisfy the loudest ******** of the game at that particular time. The flavor of the day. And that in turn has reduced player base greatly. And you can't say it hasn't hut them because they even admitted the screwed up. The problem is, they learned nothing from it. I suspect this time it was mostly the guys that run ballistics since nerfing missiles out of existence means all they need is ams and they are invincible. And the light pilots were bitching cause streaks were becoming a problem with their dream of playing Jack the Giant killer instead of doing their jobs. As far as other weapons, well why should I have to change. Besides the point that the mech I usually run has no ballistic slots and has 4 fixed missile slots. And that basically means they took a mech (an investment for some) and removed the reasonable expectation of not having changes make that investment worthless. Missiles are barely viable as 90% of them are shot down. There are tiny windows of time that people arent running much ams, but they are getting fewer and farther between. Realism on the weapons instead of nerf fixes it. For just one system lets use AMS. The entire idea that it somehow become more effective against bigger launchers is totally unrealistic. Effectivity is a constant and should be a set percentage across the board. If it were realistic however, AMS would by default be less effective against more missles, not less. Why do you think massive amounts of missiles are used in reality to defeat AMS? And if we're gonna have weapons and systems not based on reality (physics and otherwise), and AMS is so accurate as to make missiles ineffective, Then it should be accurate enough to shoot thos ballistic shots down too. And the way this game got messed up was from straying from realism because somebody didn't feel they were getting their participation trophy.

Edited by Whizbang AGNC, 06 April 2019 - 12:52 AM.

[Tesunie]

Whizbang AGNC, on 06 April 2019 - 12:26 AM, said:

Yeah well, Make any changes you want. But I got news. If you charge money for a product and then otherwise make that product worthless you are liable. So at the worst for PGI I could see some enterprising lawyer starting a class action suit, TOS or not. There is a reasonable expectation that changes wouldn't affect the end result in a purchased product.

If Ford had a problem with the F150's getting in accidents, did a recall, and determined that the best fix was to remove the wheels because if it can't move it can't wreck. Then returned the Truck and said well, we hadd make a change, sorry about your truck, but we're keeping the money, Thaks for buying ford Would you be pissed?

Another end result is what I have already seen. Almost all of the players I started with, and some very good ones too have left the game over this constant reactionary nerfing to satisfy the loudest ******** of the game at that particular time. The flavor of the day. And that in turn has reduced player base greatly.

And you can't say it hasn't hut them because they even admitted the screwed up. The problem is, they learned nothing from it. I suspect this time it was mostly the guys that run ballistics since nerfing missiles out of existence means all they need is ams and they are invincible. And the light pilots were bitching cause streaks were becoming a problem with their dream of playing Jack the Giant killer instead of doing their jobs. As far as other weapons, well why should I have to change. Besides the point that the mech I usually run has no ballistic slots and has 4 fixed missile slots. And that basically means they took a mech (an investment for some) and removed the reasonable expectation of not having changes make that investment worthless.

Missiles are barely viable as 90% of them are shot down. There are tiny windows of time that people arent running much ams, but they are getting fewer and farther between. Realism on the weapons instead of nerf fixes it. For just one system lets use AMS. The entire idea that it somehow become more effective against bigger launchers is totally unrealistic. Effectivity is a constant and should be a set percentage across the board. If it were realistic however, AMS would by default be less effective against more missles, not less. Why do you think massive amounts of missiles are used in reality to defeat AMS? And if we're gonna have weapons and systems not based on reality (physics and otherwise), and AMS is so accurate as to make missiles ineffective, Then it should be accurate enough to shoot thos ballistic shots down too. And the way this game got messed up was from straying from realism because somebody didn't feel they were getting their participation trophy.

1. paragraphs. Please. Block o' text is incredibly hard to read and respond to.

2. This game is free to play. You do not pay real money for in game weapons and equipment. Thus, it's really hard to say you were charged real money for your LRMs and to some extent ATMs. Maybe you can claim you where charged for a pre-release ordered mech pack, but they are still not restricted to those weapons specifically. Also, those weapons are still viable. If you've only used LRM/ATMs so far, maybe it's a good time to experiment with other missiles? MRMs can be good, as well as SRMs. Would do people well to explore other weapons from time to time. (Right now, I'm exploring ballistics again.)

3. If you have preordered any packs, you can refund your purchase and have PGI remove your preordered mech pack. That is fully your choice. If it's content already delivered to your inventory, and you've already customized it and played with it, it's most likely to late. This is your choice. My opinion need not apply, as it's only my opinion.

4. What aspect are you saying would need to be refunded? What could be refunded?

5. Your example is a little... strange. The changes we've seen in this game (and this is not the first one with this level of game impact) have not been anywhere near like "removing the wheels of your car as a recall to prevent accidents". It would be far more like "Your airbag in your car may expose a metal plate, causing injury or even death. We have replaced said airbag in the recall for another airbag that wont do this". Missiles are still viable. The changes just got released. If anything, AMS has been tuned too much. PGI needs time to collect data on how these changes are performing, so they may adjust it later if it has been seen as a problem. Oh, and don't forget people knew this change was coming in advance, so a lot of people (myself included) started taking AMS mechs out into matches in prep for the 'swarms of sun blotting missile rain". We also got a Hero Corsair given to many of us that can take dual AMS, so also that. (AKA: Give it time.)

6. Need I mention how long many people have been asking for some difference between Indirect and direct LoS fired LRMs? All PGI did was finally implement it. I actually like the basis of these changes personally, and I do also like my LRMs. It's still a little buggy at times, and does seem to currently hinder my favorite way of using LRMs (because of said bug), but the function is reasonable and sound. AMS is the only system that I think was tuned to much to counter the direct fired LRMs increases and "discourage boating of larger launchers". If they corrected AMS, I think most of the problems would become corrected, and then it's just bug squishing time. (I don't recall what your actual issues where with these changes so far... Mind being a little more enlightening?)

7. To be fair, the ballistic crowd wasn't asking for these changes, it was the missile crowd who wanted to give LRMs a better direct fire effect, so that LRMs could better counter direct fired mechs. Before these changes, LRMs where "best" at being used indirectly and if used directly was "outclassed" by all other direct fired mechs (some truth to the "quoted" parts, but LRMs where still best when you could get your own locks). A velocity increase was the major request for years for direct fired missiles, we also got tighter spread and faster lock times. The cost was a lower trajectory, which I find acceptable personally (provided it shoots the proper trajectory in the proper conditions). Now, AMS got boosted to basically counter this velocity buff, and I think that is where things have gone a little off course.

9. Real physics =/= BT fiction =/= game physics. This is a game, and it's also a PvP game. Thus, things need a balance and a counter balance. On note of AMS, I agree it should be a percentage of missiles shot down from each volley max, probably with a decrease in advantage the more AMS joins into the defense (for fairness sake). This would create a situation where, instead of as current where AMS can become so strong no missile get through or so weak it's overwhelmed by swarms of missiles, every volley of missiles would be reduced a more equal amount of missiles. Ex: A single AMS might shoot down 50% of missiles, but 8+ AMS might cap at 90% of missiles being shot down (rough numbers). Thus, an LRM5 would always get at least a missile through, and so would LRM300 get a portion of their missiles though. (And, it wouldn't be garanteed for those missiles that got through to even hit, so that is also to be considered.) This would normalize AMS's effect across small, large and even "mega-boated-LRMs-of-DOOOOMMMM". Boated would still see more missile go through (naturally), but a mech with a single LRM5 on it could also contribute, rather than have no affect as soon as it touches a single AMS (AKA: a single LRM5/10/15 launcher right now is basically useless in the face of a single AMS).
(Real physics also would call out an effect (not that I can recall the name of it) where missile shrapnel from exploded missiles would destroy other missiles nearby, creating a potential chain reaction. This would actually indicate that AMS should be more effective vs large blobs of missiles than smaller or even solo missiles. More missiles in the air, more change AMS would hit one and detonate it, more change of the chain reaction affecting other missiles nearby. The actual counter to AMS is to make tougher missiles that are more resistant to the counter measures.)

10. Lets see if you noticed 8 went missing...


It seems like your issue is with AMS, not the actual changes to LRMs. AMS was counter buffed to the changes of LRMs. Many people are agreeing that it's probably been buffed too much. As all weapons have gone up and down as they are tweaked for better balance, I'm certain that AMS will eventually get reduced. When they do alter AMS, I do hope they either drastically change it to a percentage system of some kind with decreasing rewards as more AMS joins in (and never be able to reach 100% effectiveness), or if they remain with the current system that they take baby steps in reducing it, maybe a step a patch (once a month), until they hit it just right or need to back track a step to get that sweet spot. (Though, I believe as long as it remains on the system it is, it will never be able to achieve balance. I think it needs a complete revision before it will be able to achieve balance.)